INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis anddissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type ofcomputer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of thecopy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improperalignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if unauthorized

copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced bysectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuingfrom left to right in equal sections with small overiaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy.

Higher quality 6' x 9' black and whitephotographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Artx)r, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

A COGNITIVE APPROACH TO JAPANESE LOC ATIVEPOSTPOSITIONS NI AND DE
A CASE STUDY OF SPOKEN AND WRITTEN DISCOUSRE
byKyoko Masuda

Copyright © Kyoko Masuda 2002
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
GRDADUATE INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM IN
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND TEACHINGIn Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2002

UMI Number: 3050351

Copyright 2002 by
Masuda, Kyoko

All rights reserved.

®

UMI

UMI Microform 3050351
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. 00x1346
Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346

2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA ®
GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we haveread the dissertation prepared byentitled

Kyoko Masuda

A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Locative
Postpositions Ni and De: A Case Study of
Spoken and Written Discourse

and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation
requirement for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

7-

Doctor Rudolph C. Troike

Date

Doctor Carlson L. Arnett-

Date

^f

^

^

^

Doctor Tsuyoshi Ono
/

,

/

c

2

-

Date

/

C^octor Kjtmtjerly A. Jones

Date
Date

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon
the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the
Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under ny
direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation
requirement.

4]? i. C.
Dissertation Director
Doctor Rudolph C. Troike

Date

J

STATEMENT BY AUTHORThis dissertation has been submitted in partial fijlfillment of requirements for anadvanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library
to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided
that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended
quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by
the copyright holder.
SIGNED : //..
. /-. • . ^4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation could not have been written without the support from numerous
people. First, I would like to thank Prof Rudolph Troike who has provided me withacademic and moral support ever since i came to Tucson in the fall of 1997. 1 still
remember his deep insights into languages and I greatly benefited from discussions withhim. I appreciate his generous understanding of my intentions to accomplish thisdissertation. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to Prof Carlee Arnett who
encouraged me in my pursuit of Cognitive Grammar at the University of Arizona. I
appreciate her steadfast encouragement and eye-opening advice concerning my careerand my life. Her passion for Cognitive Grammar has been and will always influence mythoughts in linguistics and pedagogy. 1 am grateful to Prof Tsuyoshi Ono who taught me
the importance of looking at natural discourse data for linguistic inquiry. He was always
patient and helpful with my frequent visits to his office. 1 would like to thank Prof
Kimbery Jones who agreed to ser\e as a committee member in the summer of 2000 andprovided invaluable comments through the final stages of my work.
I have been inspired by cognitive linguists, especially Kabata Kaori and
Toshiyuki Kumashiro. From the time 1 met them in a conference in Stockholm in 1999
they generously shared their own work and provided me with relevant papers. 1 am
grateful to the members of the Cognitive Grammar reading group and the members ofJapanese linguistics reading group at the East Asian Studies Department. I am alsoindebted to Shelly Dorsey and Curt Brill who patiently proofread my draft.
Thanks to the Japanese language program at the East Asian Studies Department
where I worked as a teaching assistant from 1998-2000, and the Linguistic Department
where 1 worked as a teaching assistant from 2001-2002. My deepest thanks go to myclose friends, Linda Norrix, Rebecca Forgash, Sumru Akcan, Wendy Ashby, Akiko
Yoshioka, Noriko hvasaki, Hyeson Park, Mizuki Miyashita, Hisako Ikavva, Kuniyoshi
Kataoka. Kazutoshi Ohno, and Scott Morby who all knew what graduate student life waslike and ga\ e me the encouragements when 1 needed them.
My thanks also go to the professors who have been influenced to me from theearly stages of my academic life: Prof Sandra Chang at UC Santa Cruz and Prof
Kensaku Yoshida at Sophia University in Tokyo.
Finally, I owe my greatest debt to my family, especially, my mother, who has
always taisted and loved me from across the Pacific Ocean.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES

9LIST OF TABLES

11

ABBREVIATIONS

13

TRANSCRIPTION OF CONVERSATION

14

ABSTRACT

15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Japanese Locative Postpositions /// and ck
1.2. Previous Studies on /// and dc
1.2.1 Descriptive Studies of/// and de
1.2.2.Generative Approach to ni and de
1.2.3.Cognitive Approach to /// and de
1.3 The Topic Marker wa
1.4.The Non-occurrence of Postpositions
1.5.Summary

17
17
19
19
26
34
47
50
52

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Global Assumptions of Cognitive Grammar
2.1.1 Cognitive Grammar: Dynamic Usage-based Model
2.1.1.1 .Why Cognitive Grammar"^
2.1.1.2.What is Cognitive Grammar Usage-based Model'^2.2.Prototype Theory
2.3 . Basics of Cognitive Grammar
2.3 1 Schema
2 3 2.Base and Profile
2.3 .3.Landmark and Trajector
2.3.4.Things and Relations
2.3.5.Stative and Process
2.3.6.Composite Structure and Component Structure
2.3.7.Imperfective Process and Perfective Process
2.3.8.Automous Alignment and Dependent Alignment
2.4.Kumashiro {1994a, 1994b. 2000)
2.4.1. Prototypical Postposition c/c
2.4.2.Locative Setting and de
2.4.3."Hybrid' ni between Postpositions and Case
2.4.4.Semantic Network for///

54
54
55
55
57
61
65
65
67
68
69
72
76
78
81
84
85
86
90
94

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
2.5.Network Models
2.6.Kabata (2000)
2.6.1.M as a Stative Locative Marker
2.6.2.M as an Allative Marker
2.6.3.M as a Temporal Locative Marker
2.6.4.Network Model and Evaluations
2.7.Methodolog y2.7.1 .Spoken Data
2.7.2. Written Data
2.7.3.Present Analysis
2.8.Grammaticalizatio n
2.8.1 .Historical Studies of ni
2.8.2.Historical Studies of Je
2.9.Summary

lOi
109
109
112
114
116
118
121
121
123
124
124
126
130

CHAPTER 3. NI
3. introduction
3.2.Procedures for Analysis of Spoken Discourse
3.3. A Review of Stativity and a Preview of a Cognitive Model of ni
3.4.Analysis of Simple Stative ni and Spoken Discourse
3.4.1.Data Analysis
3.4.2.A/^/-marked Location and the Most Frequently Used Verbs
3.5.Anlaysis of Complex Stative ni in Spoken Discourse
3.5.1.Data Analysis
3.5.2.Meaning of Complex Stative ni
3.6. Analysis of Allative ni in Spoken Discourse
3.7. Analysis of Contact ni in Spoken Discourse
3.8.Non-occurrence of ni
3.8.1. Motion Verbs and Non-occurrence of ni
3.8.2. Cognitive Motivations for Non-occurrence of ni
3.8.3. Discourse Motivations for Non-occurrence of ni
3.9. Summary of Analysis of ni in Spoken Discourse
3.10.Procedure for Analysis of Written Discourse
3.11 .Analysis of Simple Stative ni and Complex Stative ni
in Written Discourse
3.12. Analysis of Allative ni and Contact ni in Written Discourse
3.13.Distributional Patterns of ni by Authors and Non-occurrencesin Written Discourse
3.14. Summary

165
167

CHAPTER 4. DE
4.1.Introduction

169
169

132
132
133
136
142
142
143
146
146
147
149
150
151
152
153
154
158
160
163
163

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Continued

4.2. A Cognitive Grammar Approach to Jc
4.2.1 A Review of Process
4 2.2.Transitivity by Jacobsen (1982a. 1990. 1992)
4.3 .Overview of Spoken Discourse
4.4. Analysis of de and Dynamic Predicates in Spoken Discourse
4.4.1 .Dynamic Predicates and Verbal Nouns
4.4 2.Data Analysis
4.5.Analysis of de and Less-dynamic Predicates in Spoken Discourse
4.5 1 Data Analysis
4.6.Analysis of dc and Nouns. Adjectives, and Adjectival Nouns
in Spoken Discourse
4.7.Overview of Written Discourse
4.7.1 ..Analysis of de in Written Discourse
4.7.2.Distributional Patterns of de by .Authors in Written Discourse
4.8.Locative Choice between /// and de
4.9 .A Cognitive Network Model for Japanese Locative Postpositions
ni and de
4.10.Semantic Network for c/t'
4.11 A Revised Network Model for the Japanese Locative Postpositions
ni and de
4 12. Summary

171
171
172
175
175
175
177
180
180
185
187
187
188
189
195
197
199
201

CHAPTER 5. WA
5.1 Introduction
5.2.Previous Studies of wa
5.2.1 Topic/Constrastive Marker \\ a and Locative Postpositions
ni and de
5.2.2.Discourse Studies of u a
5.3 .0ver\ iew of Spoken Discourse
5.3. i Data .Analysis in Spoken Discourse
5.3.2..Analysis of niwa in Spoken Discourse
5.3.3..Analysis oi'dewa in Spoken Discourse
5.3.4..Analysis of \ni in Spoken Discourse
5.4. Overv iew of Written Discourse
5 4 1 Data .Analysis
5.4.2..Analysis of/»ir« in Written Discourse
5.4.3..Analysis ofdemi in Written Discourse
5.5JVa and Schemata for c/c
5.6. Summary

203
203
204
204
209
211
211
2 Li
214
215
218
218
218
221
223
227

CH.APTER 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Cogntive Grammar and Discourse .Analysis

229
229

s
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ContinueJ

6.2.Summary of the Findings
6.2.1 Spoken Discourse
6 2.2.Written Discourse
6.3 . Limitations of the Study
6.4.Direction of Further Research

234
235
236
236
237

APPENDIX A: THE SEMANTIC EXTENTION OF .\7

240

APPENDIX B: THE REVISED MODEL FOR LEXICAL REPRESENTATION
OF A7

241

APPENDIX C: A LIST OF CONVERSATIONS

242

REFERENCES

244

9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.

Conceptual Structure for///by Ueno (1995)
Conceptual Structure for Jc by Ueno (1995)
Structure for Space Realization by Nakau (1995)
Provisional Model for the Semantic Structure of ///by Kabata (2000)
Figure 1.5. Action Chain. Energy Flow Hierarchy Schemaby Kabata and Rice (1997)
Figure 1 . 6 . Locative Entity by Kumashiro (2000)
Figure 1.7. Reference Establishment and Direct Object Marking
Figure 2.1. Schematization and Prototype
Figure 2.2. Image Schema for "hypotenuse"
Figure 2.3. Image Schema for "handle"
Figure 2.4. Image Schema for "rim"Figure 2.5. Image Schema for "above"
Figure 2.6. Image Schema for "below"
Figure 2.7 Thing-Relation
Figure 2.8. Image Schema for Entity
Figure 2.9. Image Schema for Thing
Figure 2.10. Image Schema for Relation
Figure 2.11. Image Schema for Simple Stative
Figure 2.12. Image Schema for Process
Figure 2.13. Image Schema for Simple Stative Relation
Figure 2.14. Image Schema for Complex Stative Relation
Figure 2.15. Image Schema for "gone"
Figure 2.16. Image Schema for "football-under-the-table"by Langacker (1987a)
Figure 2.17. Image Schema for coffee shop-de by Kumashiro (1994b)
Figure 2.18. Image Schema for Haiuiko-^'ci by Kumashiro (1994b)
Figure 2.19. Image Schema for Loctative Path by Langacker (1997)
Figure 2.20. Image Schema for External and Internal Setting
by Kumashiro (2000)
Figure 2.21. Image Schema for Setting-Event by Kumashiro (2000)
Figure 2.22. Image Schema for hon-o-isiikiie-no-tic-ni-oiia
by Kumashiro (1994b)
Figure 2.23. Adoposition and Case Marker Continuum by Kumashiro (1994b)
Figure 2.24. Semantic Network for /// by Kumashiro (1994a)
Figure 2.25. Image Schema for Goal Sense by Kumashiro (1994a)
Figure 2.26. Image Schema for Recipient Sense by Kumashiro (1994a)
Figure 2.27. Image Schema for Causee Sense by Kumashiro (1994a)
Figure 2.28. Image Schema for Causee and Agent Sense
by Kumashiro (1994a)
Figure 2.29. Image Schema for Agentive Sense by Kumashiro (1994a)

32
32
35
42
43
46
51
67
69
69
69
70
70
71
72
72
73
74
74
75
75
79
84
87
87
89
90
91
93
94
96
97
97
98
100
101

10

LIST OF FIGURES - ContifiiieJ
Figure 2.30. Complex Category Network: Growth Network
by Langacker (1999)
Figure 2.3 1. Netwrok Model for "mn" by Langacker (1990)
Figure 2.32. Constructional Network Model for English
Distransitive Construction by Langacker (1999)
Figure 2.33. A Lexical Space for 'at', "on", and "in" by Rice (1996)
Figure 2.34. Image Schema for Locative Sense of /// (1) by Kabata (2000)
Figure 2.35. Image Schema for Locative Sense of /// (2) by Kabata (2000)
Figure 2 36. Image Schema for Allative Sense of ni by Kabata (2000)
Figure 2.37. Image Schema for Contact Sense of ni by Kabata (2000)
Figure 2.38. Image Schema for Temporal Locative Sense of ni
by Kabata (2000)
Figure 3.1. A Provisional Model for Semantic Network Model for ni in the
Spatial and Temporal Domains
Figure 4.1. A Provisional Model for Semantic Network Model for c/c in the
Spatial and Temporal Domains
Figure 4.2. Schemata Choice between ni and c /c ( \ )Figure 4.3. Schemata Choice between ni and c/c (2)Figure 5.1. Thematic/Contrastive Hierarchy by McGloin (1987)
Figure 5 2. Degree in Topicalization Relative to dc and the Image Schemata
tor L L'

103
105
106
109
112
112
114
114
116

199
201
201
210
227

11

LIST OF TABLES
Table LI. Semantic Properties of /// and de Described by Martin (1975)
Table 1.2. Summar\' of Test for Case and Postposition Markers by
Sadakane and Koizumi (1994)
Table 2.1. Summary of Conceptual Nature of Locative and Case Marker
proposed by Kumasliiro (1994b)
Table 2.2. Summary oftlie Characteristics of/// and de in Spatial andTemporal Domains
Table 3.1. Frequency of Japanese Locative Postpositions in Spoken
Discourse
Table 3.2. Frequency of Predicate Types for Occurrence of Locative
Postposition /// in Spoken Discourse
Table 3.3. Frequency of ///-marked Locative Nouns in term with Five
Frequently Used Verbs in Spoken Discourse
Table 3.4. Frequency of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of Locative Postpositions
Table 3.5. Frequency of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of Locative Postposition ///Table 3. 6 . Frequency of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of /// by Verb Types
Table 3.7. Frequency of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of/// by Interrogative/
Indefinite Pronouns
Table 3.8. Frequency of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of /// by Repeated
Proper Locative Nouns
Table 3.9. Description of Texts Used in the Written Discourse Analysis
Table 3.10. Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions
in Written Discourse
Table 3 .11 Frequency of Sense Types for Occurrence of Locative
Postposition /// in Written Discourse
Table 3.12. Frequency of Posture Predicates in Written Discourse
Table 3.13. Frequency of Sense Types for Occurrence of Locative
Postposition /// by Author
Table 4.1. Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition dc inSpoken Discourse
Table 4.2. Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition de in
Written Discourse and Spoken Discourse
Table 4.3. Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition dc by Author
Table 5.1. Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions /// and Jc
and Thematic/Contrastive Marker mi in Spoken Discourse
Table 5 .2. Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions /// and de
and Thematic/Contrastive Marker mi in Written Discourse
Table 5.3. Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postposition /// Followed by
Thematic/Contrastive Marker wi? in Written Discourse

23
30
93
117
137
143
144
152
153
153
156
157
161
101
162
166
168
176
189
190
213
219
220

12

LIST OF TABLES - Continued
Table 5.4. Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postposition Jc Followed by
Thematic/Contrastive Marker wa in Written Discourse

223

ABBREVIATIONS
ACC
ALL
ASP
ATT
CAUSE
CONJ
COP
CONT
CL
EMPH
DAT
DIR
FP
GEN
INT
NML
NEG
PATH
PST
PSS
PRES
PROG
Q
QUE
LOC
TOP

accusative case [r-*]allative [///]
aspectual morpheme [-//•//. -am
attributive form
causative[ -t'-vf]
conjunctive form [ -tc]
copula [da. de. ant, desu]
continuative form
classifieremphatic
dati\ e case [///]
direction marker [ e ]final particles [nc. yo. uw]
genitive case [no]intensifier
nominalizer [no]negative
path marker [o]past affix-kaiiu]passive affix [-rare. -c//v]
present affix [ -ru ]progressive affix [ -iru ]question particle [ka]quotation particle [to. -iic]
locative marker [///,
topic marker [ur/]14TRANSCRIPTION OF CONVERSATION(Du Bois et al. 1993)
speaker identity/turn startspeech overlapping
word boundarv'
truncated intonation unit
truncated word
final counter
continuing contour
contour class, appeal

[ ]
space
—
-

long/'medium pause
short pause
lengthening=(

vocal noises
inhalation
exhalation
laughterglottal stop

)

(H)
(HX)
(Tv
°/0
<\
X

X>

uncertain hearing
indecipherable syllable
primary accent

15

ABSTRACTThis study proposes a cognitive net\vori< model of the Japanese locative postpositions
ni and dc (both are translated in English "in'/'on'/'at") by examining a spoken and written
corpusSpecifically, this study examines the implications of Langacker's (1987. 1988.

1999, 2000) dynamic usage-based model by investigating natural discourse data. Within
the framework of Cognitive Grammar, it is argued that ni in the spatial domain has twobasic usages: 1) stative location and 2) allative (Kabata 2000). The allative ni is a morecase marker-like postposition, while Jc is the prototypical postposition and it marks theconceptualization of a locative setting that references an event (Kumashiro 2000).
Previous studies do not discuss, however, the full range of locative usages oft/c. and do
not focus on the subtle semantic difference between these locative postpositions innatural discourse. This study aims to fill in that gap and provide a more completesemantic analysis of the fljll usage of the locative postpositions based upon natural
discourse. This study also addresses functional issues relevant to the actual usage ofJapanese locative postpositions in discourse: topic/contrastive marker wa and non­occurrence of postpositions.
Overall the results from spoken and written discourse provide supporting evidence
for the proposed network model for m and tk. 1) the most frequently appearing senses ofni in the corpus are the prototypical usages of///, simple stative and allative; 2) de marked
different kinds of space from concrete to abstract space, most frequently co-occurringwith prototypical dynamic verbs in spoken and written data; 3) some predicates weremarked with either /// or de which implies how the speaker construes space in the16situation; 4) the main tlinction of ira that follows the locatives in spoken discourse iscontrastive, while in written discourse it is a thematic marker; 5) non-occurrence oflocative postpositions in systematic and pragmatically as well as functionally predictable.
Spoken and written discourse exhibits a broad usage of locative postpositions and thus
this study provides a cognitive network model for Japanese locative postpositions.

17

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. I.The Japanese Locative Postpositions ni and deJapanese is a language in which grammatical relations are marked by postpositions
such as the nominative marker
genitive marker )t<)

the accusative marker o. the dative marker ///. and the

Example sentences are:

(1.1)

John
ga
John
NOM
•John came."

ki-ta.
come-PST

(1.2)

John
ga
burokkorii
John
NOM
broccoli•John ate broccoli."

(1.3)

John
John
•John

(1.4)

John
no
otootoJohnGENlittle brother•John"s little brother came "

o
ACC

ga
Mary
ni
hana
NOM
Marv'
DAT flowers
gave flowers to Mar\ ."gaNOMtabe-ta.
eat-PSTo
ACC

age-ta.
give-PST

ki-ta.
come-PST

Spatial expressions are also indicated by postpositions, ni or Uc or o or others,alone or combined with spatial nouns such as ue 'up'/'aboveV'on', shiui 'dovvn'/'below'. ornaka 'inside'/'in' (e.g. ue-ni dc o, shita-m tic o. and naka-ni dc o).

This is shown inexamples (1.5), (1.6), and (1.7) where in all sentences, the place/object heikindai "balancebeam" is used in combination with iic "on"
(1.5)

Heikindainouebalance beam
GENon
Mary was on the balance beam.'ni
LOC

Mary ga
Mary NOM

i-ta.
be-PST18(1.6)

Heikindainoue deMar\- gabalance beamGENon LOC Mary NOM'Mary exercised on the balance beam.'(1.7)

Heikindainoue obalance beamGENon PATH"Mary ran on the balance beam."taisoo o
shi-ta.
exercise ACC do-PSTMary gaMar\' NOM

arui-ta.
walk-PST

In (1.5), ni is used to indicate the existence of Mar\-, while in (1.6). dc is used to indicate
where Mary exercised. In (17). o is used to indicate where Mar\' walked

Notice that inEnglish the preposition "on" is used to indicate a place/path in all sentences.

This study

explores variable factors related to the usage of the Japanese locative postpositions ni andJe.'
I intend to provide an account of the different semantic characterizations of ni anddc by examining natural discourse data.

1 examine natural discourse data, rather than workon constructed sentences, since it gives us more clues as to how the objective scene isconceptualized by the speaker, especially in terms of the various semantic factors related tothe choice of ni and Je in a conte.xt.
beproperly

accounted

for

1 argue that the distinction between nt and Jc cannot

without

taking

into

consideration

how

speakers"

conceptualization is realized in language."' Although discussion of the path marker o is worth in\estigating. this study will focus on the two locali\ cpostpositions /;/ and r/c. It is important to look at path marker o which overlaps with (/(.' in the dy namic
sense, but this is beyond tlie scope of the present stud\.
" The distinction between ni and dc is also important in language acquisition studies. .As lias beenfrequentl> reported, this distinction is not easy to make, and children go through different stages inacquiring it (Takaliashi 1987. Matsuoka 1998. Kabata
For instance. Clancy (19X7). based upon
Takahashi's (I9S7) data, points out that the distinction betvvecn ni and dc is hard to make for Japanesechildren. Clancy (1987; .i92) suggests that Japanese children formulate a general semantic hypothesis on
Japanese postpositions in tiie process of acquiring thcin. It is significant to c.\aniinc the semantic
characteristics of ni and de. since children seem to pay attention to semantic characteristics in the process oflearning these locatives. In Cognitive Grammar. LI acquisition researchers (Tomasello 1992. Ricc 1999.

19

1.2. Previous Studies on ni and de
In this section, I will give a brief overview of the previous studies on /// and dc bv
classifying them into three groups: descriptive studies, generative approaches, and cognitive
approaches.
1.2.1. Descriptive Studies of ni and de
Kuno (1973: 96-101, 351-402) defines ni as follows: /// marks location in ane.xistential sentence, or it is used for the goal of the motion designated by the verb. 'In(1.5) repeated below, ni is used to indicate the location of Mary
(1.5)

Heikindainouebalance beam GENon"Mary was on a balance beam.'

ni
LOC

Mary
Mary

ga
NOM

i-ta.
be-PST

A7 in (1.8) marks the goal of the motion verb, iku "go".
(1.8)

Mary
\\ar\
"Mary

ga
Tokyo
NOM
went to Tokyo "niit-ta.
GO.AL go-PST

Kuno (1973: 96-101) provides the following description of dt'. c/e indicates alocation in which the action designated by the verb takes place or is used for a location inwhich the motion is not necessarily unidirectional.

His explanation of Jc contrasts withpath maker o. as shown in examples (1.9) and (1.10)

Kabala 2000. Israel cl al. 2000) c.xaininc \crbs. posl/prcpositions. and passives in spontaneous speech. Tlicy
concludc tliat children's knowledge of the Icxicon/constnictions emerges more or less dirccll> from thegradual claboraiion of rote-learned individual meanings/constnictions. Funhermore. factors including
frequencies in input, semantic complexities of the target Icxicon. and cxtra-linguisiic elements such as
cognitive basicncss and children's cgocentricity influence acquisition.
Kuno (197.") proposes that the goal marker in is a dative case marker.

20

(1.9)

Kavva
de
oyogu.
(Kuno 1973: 98)
river
LOC
swim
'swim in the river, probably not across the river but in a small area of the river"(1.10)

Kavva ooyogu.
(Kuno 1973:97)
river
PATH swim"swim across the river, up the stream, or down the stream for some distance "In both sentences, kawa "river", for the place, and a verb oyo^u "swim" are used: however.
the meanings are slightly different.

Namely, in (19) where dc is used, the location is not

unidirectional, while in (1.10) the same location implies unidirectionality because of o. in
the case of example (1.6), which is repeated below. Je indicates a location where a motion.
"exercising", took place.
(1.6)

This is a case where the motion is not directional.

Heikindainouedebalance beam GENon
LOC"Mary exercised on a balance beam."

Mar\'
Mary

ga
NOM

taisooshi-ta.
exercise do-PST

Martin (1975) provides us with a slightly different descriptive account.

.According

to him. /// is used to indicate goal or location, and a static interpretation for ni is at least
optionally present with some verbs such as siiiiiu "li\e", lomaru "stop, park", and taizaisurn"stay", etc.

He also mentions that the static sense is inherent to some adjectives such as ooi"mucii/many", snkiinai "little/few" and mczunishii "rare" and an adjectival noun such as marc
da "infrequent", as shown in (1.11) and (1.12).
(1.11)

Rosanzerusu ni.Ajiakei America jin
ga
Los Angeles LOC Asian Americans
NOM"There are many .Asian Americans in Los .Angeles."

ooi.
many

(1.12)

Joseinobengoshiwa
nihon
women GENlawyers
TOP Japan'Women lawyers are rare in Japan."mezurashi.
rare

ni
LOC

21

The stative sense of ni is also optionally present in the form of the resultative and therepetitive conversions. [\oun-c> V-ie-ni

Noun-o/j;,'^ V-/t' ini/cini].

The resultativerefers to the resultant state after a change of state takes place as shown (1.13) and (1 14).''
Repetitive means an regular activity like •selling" as shown in (1. 15).
(1.13)

John
ga
isu
ni
John
NOM
chair
LOC
•John is sitting on a chair."su\vat-te-iru.
sit-CONJ-ASP(1.14)

Honga tsukue nioi-te-aru.
Book NOM desk LOC put-CONJ-ASP"A book has been put on a desk."(1.15)

Sore wa miseni
ut-te-iru.
It TOP shop LOC sell-CONJ-ASP"They sell it at a shop."Since a stative interpretation is not always inherent to resultatives and repetitives. someresultative and repetitive sentences do not permit ni as a location marker.

Examples ofresultatives and repetitives from Vlartin (1975) are given in (1.16) and (1.17) respectively\(1.16)(1.17)

VVaikiki de (*waikiki ni)
VVaikiki LOC VVaikiki LOC"Skies are clear in Waikiki."hare-te-iru.
clear-CONJ-ASP(Martin 1975: 217fn)

Mainitisenjoo de (*senjoo ni) takusan heitai ga
sin-de-iai.
Everyday battlefield LOC
many soldiers NOM dying-CONJ-ASP'Ever>'day many soldiers die on the battlefield."(Martin 1975: 217fn)

Martin states that c/c is the location marker for any sentence.

Martin (1975: 220)

^ Japanese rcsullali% cs are often indicated by adjecti\ e-type phrases or a coniplc.x \crb. See Washio(1997) for a discussion of Japanese resuliati\ cs.
A slight inodincation is added to the glossing of (1.16) and (1.17).

22

states that de is a general or residual locative which marks "the scope of a sentence
regardless of the predicate and therefore is common in adjectival sentences as well as inthose verbal sentences lacking stasis "Martin {1975: 216) further provides a descriptive account of the contrast between///-marking places and t/c-marking places with a group of verbs such as seeing, locating,finding, buying and possessing.

For instance, in both (1.18) and (1.19), the same verb

micni, 'can be seen" and the same noun yama. "mountain" are used, followed by ditTerent
locative postpositions /// and c/c. which results in different meanings.

In (118). asoko c/c

indicates the place where one can see the mountain, while in (1.19) asoko m indicates theplace w here the scene of the mountain can be reflected on.
(1.18)(1.19)

Asoko
de
yama
ga
Over there LOC
mountain NOM"From there one can see the mountain."mieru.
can-be-seen

Asoko
ni
yama
ga
Over there
LOC
mountain
NOM"They can see the mountain over there."mieru.
can-be-seen(Martin 1975: 216)

(Martin 1975: 216)

The place marked with iii expresses a stative sense (in Martin"s words, /// is "immovable"),while the place marked by Jc has a dynamic sense (in his words, c/c is "movable").
the analysis ofMartin"s explanations of locatives is summarized in Table 1.1:

In sum,Table 1.1. Semantic Properties of ni and c/c Described by Marin (1975)
Function

Presence of Stative Sense

Examplesni Goalni Location

N/A
Optionally present

ni

Location

Obligatory present

Verbs such as ikii "go", knm "come"j 1) verbs such as sinnii live", toniani "stay"2) resultatives/repetitives
1 cf (1.13)-(1.15>
le im am
Adjective, Nominal adjective such asi ooi 'manv/much", snknnai "little/few"

Function

Presence of Dynamic Sense

Je Location
cle Location

Present
Not presentiExamplesI

Verbs such as okim "occur", an "meet"
Resultatives/repetitives
cf (1.16) (1.17) le im am

There are other descriptive and pedagogical accounts that mainly state that ni
indicates the location of a state, while Je indicates the location of an event or action.

For

instance, in Spoken .Japanese by Jorden and Noda (1987), one of the most widely-used
Japanese language textbooks at U.S. colleges and universities, "/place-nominal X ^ m arimasii/ = [something] is located (inactively) in X (140) ../place-nominal X -Jepredicate of activity Y/ = activity Y takes place in a place X (162) " In Diaionary of
Basic Japanese (Jrammar by Makino and Tsutsui (1986), "ni indicates the location where
someone or something e.xists...verbs such as irn (animated things) and am (inanimate
things) exist,... and snmii "live" typically occurs with the locaiional /// . The verb am
often takes the particle ni but when am is used for an event, ni cannot be used (300). . .!)eindicates location, except for location of existence (105).""

There are other similar

explanations for the locative postpositions ni and c/e (cf Alfonso 1974, Jacobsen 1977).
In contrast, Morita (1989), Ueno (1995), Tanaka (1997), Nakau (1998), andKumashiro (personal communication) point out that there are some cases in which Je

24indicates a location for stative verbs, and /// indicates a location tor non-stative verbs, as
examples (1.20) through (1.22) show
(1.20)

Nihon dewa
futtobooru wa
amari
ninki
ua
Japan
LOC
TOP
footballTOP ver>' much popularity NOM
Tn Japan football is not so popular."(Kumashiro)(1.21)

Fujisawa dekonomise gaichiban umai.
Fujisawa LOC this
shop
NOM
best
tasty
'This shop serves the best food in Fujisawa."(Tanaka 1997: 44)(1.22)

Mizuumi iii
kooriga
hat-ta.
lake
LOC
ice
NOM
make-PST
Tee formed on the surface of a lake."

nai.
NEG

(Kumashiro)

There is still a need to discuss, however, how we should treat these anomalous
cases for the following reasons.

First, in (1.20) a location Nihon "Japan" is marked by

c/t'u'a, which is a combination of the locative postposition dc and the topic/contrastive
marker ua/'

Notice that when followed by the topic maker wa, dcwa may not earn' thesame fijnction as Je alone, since Jewa functions as a topic/contrastive marker due to ua.

'' In Japanese.
denotes tiieme/contrast as shown in (i). (ii). and (iii).
(i) Kuzira ua lionyuu-doobutu desii.
Whaleniainmalis"Speaking of whales, they arc mammals. .A whale is a mammal."(Kuno lyT.'^; 44)(ii) John wa walakiishi no tomodati dcsii.
I"s friendis"Speaking of John, he is my friend."(Kimo 197,": 44)(iii) Watasiii wa tabako wa suimasu ga sake ua nomimasen.
1
cigarettc smoke but wine
drink-not"Speaking of myself. 1 do smoke, but I dont drink."(Kuno I97."v 4X)
E.xamples (i) and (ii) represent the thcinc UYJ. while in e.xaniplc (iii) UYJ in tahnko and sake is used as (hecontrasti\c marker. Kuroda (1968) and Kuno (197.'i) point out thatmarks cither generic NPs like as in(i) or anaphoric NPs as in (ii). As Kuroda (1965: 57) states, the predicational judgment denoted b\isnot limited to subjects or objects. Virtually all nominal constituents, i.e. noun phrases, may be the premiseof the judgment as shown in (iv).
(i\ ) Nihon niwa kankoo kyakii ga oo/ei kuni.
Japantouristmany come"To Japan many tourists come."(Kuroda 1965:57)

25

while ck alone does not have such a function at all.

In other words, sentence (1.20) is notenough to reject the dynamic sense of de due to the failure to examine what the topic
marker \\a does. Few studies have examined the issue of the Japanese topic maker u t/ in
actual discourse data.

It is clear that the Japanese topic marker wa must be examinedwithin the context of discourse, since the notion of topic can only be examined from a
discourse perspective (Maynard 1980. 1987)

Second, in sentence (1.21) l-'iiJiMiua. which

is marked by c/e. is used in conjunction with an adjective, iiniai "tasty".

This looks like acounter-example for the dynamic sense of Je. since c/c-marked location does not indicate
where a dynamic action takes place, but it indicates where a proposition, kono m/sc <^aichihan iiimii "this shop serves the best food", is held.

1 argue that the place marked by dc

in (1.21) is a more abstract sense in that it indicates in which world the proposition holds
true.^

Sentence (121) is not a good example on which to reject the dynamic sense of t/c

in a concrete space.

Third, in sentence (1.22) miziiiimi "lake" is marked by ni and thissentence contains the non-static verb. Iiani. to form".

1 argue. howe\er. that this \erb

implies that ice stays there in a static sense, or as Martin says, it is "immovable"Thismight not be a good example to rule out stativity—the main property of the Japanese
locative postposition ni. since a static sense is implied by the non-static verb.

Examples(1.20)- (1.22) show, in conjunction with the four points made above, that further researchon the use of/// and Je is warranted.^^ In this kind of scntcncc. the meaning of no naka dc in/among" is always implied. Kiino (197 .1:252)sii\ s uchi de naka dc consists of "compound paniclcs'.
Kamio (19X0) and Take/awa (lyy."?) point out that there is another type of sentence that descripti\cstudies do nol account for appropriately. That is. one predicate takes two locations ulierc dc alwavs marks

26

1.2.2. Generative Approach to ni and de
Past studies in the generative approach have pursued explaining the difference
between ni and de with the assumption that these postpositions were associated with themeaning represented by the syntactic staicture of the argument or adjunct . ' The underlying
assumption behind this approach is that case and postposition markers should be treateddiscretely, since they are different in terms of syntactic status.'" For instance. Miyagawa(1989; 34) proposes the following generalization:
ff a particle assigns a thematic role to the NP, the particle has a projection(postposition), if the NP-particle receives its thematic role from an external source,
the particle has no projection but instead cliticizes onto the NP (case-marking).
Shibatani (1978: 284-287) also takes the position that there is a distinction between
syntactic and semantic categories and the realization of case/postpositions is aile-governed at
the deep structure level.

Shibatani points out that among postposition markers. /// and dc

are generally used as location markers, and he proposes that the selection between ni and dc
is determined by ailes as shown in the following.

the wider space, while ni marks the more specific space as shown in (i) and (ii). 1 will come back this point
in section 2.4.2.
(i)Shikago deyuiijinnoicni
tomat-ta.
Cliicago-LOC
friend GEN
house
LOC
stay-PST"1 stayed at my friend s house in Chicago."
Kamio (I'JSO)(ii) Iriguchi nochikaku dc
John
wa
isu
ni
suwat-ia.
Entrance GEN nearb>
LOC
John
TOP
chair
LOC sit-PST"Near the entrance. John sat on a chair."Take/awa (199.")
Among the \arious usages of in. ni in the dati\c subject constnictioii has been the most frequenth
discusscd (cf Kuroda 1965. Kuiio 1972. Shibatani 1977. 1978; Saito 1982; Miyagawa 1989; Takczawa
1987. Dubinsky 1992).
Sells (1995) argues that the distinction between case and postposition markers is not completely dear.

27

Localive RulesI) If a locative noun phrase is used in conjunction with a dynamic verb, then attach a
postposition dc for a locative noun; and II) if a locative noun phrase is used inconjunction with a stative verb, then attach a postposition ni for the locative nounphrase.
Shibatani discusses the possibility that some verbs can be interpreted as either stative ordynamic as shown below.

(1.23)Hibari
SkylarkAGENT

soratonde itasky flying
LOC |DYNAMIC I

SUBJECT^
Locativc Rule I

Hibari ga sora de tonde ita.
"A skylark was flying in the sk\ .

Subject Rule

(Shibatani 1<-)X7: 285)
(1.24)Hibari
Skvlarksora
skv

tondeita.
flyingAGENT

LOC[STATIVE]

SUBJECT^
Locati\e Rule II

Hibari ga sora ni tonde ita.
A skylark was in tliglu in the sky

Subject Rule

(Shibatani h)S7; 2S5)
Both sentences (1 23) and (I 24) are derived from the same deep structure, but the surface
structures are ditTerent due to different rules being applied.

In (1.23) Locative Rule I isapplied since londe ita "was flying" is interpreted as a dynamic verb, while in (1.24)
Locative Rule II is applied since the same verb tonJe iia, is considered to be stative.
Another theoretical assumption is that case markers do not have semantic content,
but serve as representing syntactic relations only, while postpositions have thematic roles."
For instance, Sadakane and Koizumi (1995) choose to examine the 'dative" particle ///, since
it has characteristics of both case markers and postpositions.

They examine thirty-one" Unlike the Generatixc Approach, in Relational Grammar the notions of subject, object, dative, genitive.

28

different categories of /// and classify them into two distinct major syntactic categories byapplying syntactical operational tests: dative (arguments) and postpositions (adjuncts).
Their analysis is solely based upon syntactic operational tests: quantifier-float andcleft-sentences with/without a particle.

The former is a criterion for the dative, whichassigns one of the grammatical (abstract) cases, while the latter is a criterion for the
postposition, which is not governed by a verb.'"

Some test sentences taken from Sadakane

and Koizumi (1995) are presented in (I 25a) through (1.30b).
(A) Numeral Quantifier(1.25) Case Marker
a. [v.p san-ninnogakusee-ga]
three-CL GEN student-NOM'Three of the students ate pizza."b. [M> Gakusee-ga] san-nin
student-NOM
three-CL"Three students ate pizza."piza-otabe-ta.
pizza-ACC eat-PST

piza-otabe-ta.
pizza-ACC eat-PST(1.26) Postpositions
a. Mar>'-ga[ PI. [ M. ni-dai no
konpuutaa] de ]Mar\'-NOM two-CL GEN computer
with"Mary wrote a paper with two computers."b. *Mary-ga[pi> [xp konpuutaa] de]ni-daiMary-NOM
computer with
two-CL"Man,' wrote a paper with two computers."

ronbun-opaper-ACC

kai-ta.
write-PST

ronbun-opaper-ACC

kai-ta.
write-PST

and even topic arc established as syntactic primitives (Pcrlmuttcr 19S3).
Tlie rationale behind using a numeral quantifier to test for grammatical case is that the postpositional
node prevents tiic NP from c-commanding the numeral quantifier, as Miyagawa (1989) points out. Tiie
rationale behind using the cleft sentence to test for postpositions is that elements with a particle can be
moved to the focus position if they are PPs. not NPs.

29(B) Cleft with a particle{1.27) Case markera.
[ Mary-ga]
kinoo
piza-oMary-NOM
yesterday
pizza-ACC"Mary ate pizza yesterday."b.

*[ Kinoopiza-otabeta]no-wa
yesterday pizza-ACC eat-PST
NML-TOP"It's Mary that ate pizza yesterday."(1.28) Postpositions
a. [ John-ga]
kono naifu deJohn-NOM
this knife
vsith"John cut the cake with this knife."b.

keeki-ocake-.ACC[ M> Mary-ga]
Mary-NOMda
COP

kit-ta.
cut-PST[ John-ga
keeki-okit-ta]no-wa[ PP kono naifu de]John-NOM cake-ACC cut-PST NML-TOP
this knife with
•It"s with this knife that John cut the cake."(C) Cleft without a particle(1.29) Case marker
a. [ Mary-ga]
kinoo
piza-oMary-NOM
yesterday pizza-ACC"It's Mar\' that ate pizza yesterday "b.

tabe-ta.
eat-PSTtabe-ta.
eat-PST[ Kinoo piza-otabeta]no-wa
yesterday pizza-ACC eat-PST NML-TOP"It's Mary that ate pizza yesterday.'[\p Mary- <:> ]Mar\'(1.30) Postpositions
a. [ John-ga]
kono naifu dekeeki-oJohn-NOM
this knife withcake-ACC"John cut the cake with this knife.'

kit-tacut-PSTb. '^[ John-ga[ PP kono naifu-

keeki-okit-ta]

da.
COP

no-wa

John-NOM cake-ACC cut-PST NML-TOP"It's with this knife that John cut the cake.'

this

knife

da
COP

]

da.
COP

They found that only two categories behave like the dative case. These categories are the^oa/ of indirect object (e.g. nt in /// cif^cni "to give' and /// sirascru "to report") and chan^c

30of position with intransitive verbs (e.g. /// in ni norii "ride" and ni kacrn "change").
Eighteen categories including indirect subject verbs (e.g. ni am ni ini "to e.xist, to have")and the agent in a passive sentence behave as the postposition. The tbilowing three cases
are ambiguous since they pass all syntactic tests: I) pseudo-reciprocal use of the dative ofconfrontation (e.g. ni an "meet someone", /// hutsnkaru "bump"), 2) dative of direction
with an intransitive verb (e.g. ni iku "go", ni loJokn "arrive"), and 3) dative of direction
with a transitive verb (ni okiini "send" and ni watasu "pass").

The remaining cases areambiguous since they passed none of the syntactic tests (e.g. resultative. en o Joru ni
kuern "change yen into dollars", copula ni. kirci ni kaiazukcrn. "cleaned up beautifully")
The results for the distinction between the dative case and the postposition aresummarized in Table i .2 (Sadakane and Koizumi 1995:11).'"

Table 1.2.Summary' of Test for Case and Postposition Markers by Sadakane andKoizumi (1994)
Numeral Quantifier
Cleft with a particle
Cleft without a particle^
jnCase marker
OKOK
Postposition*

OK*/'^/0K

1 briefly point out two problems with Sadakane and Koizumi's (1995) analysis.
First, their arguments depend heavily on syntactic operational tests without considering
the semantic similarities between the two different categories, case and postpositions.

As

Kabata (2000: 56) argues, the two usages of ni (homonymous), which they consider as theFollowing Tcnny (1987). Sadakane and Koi/unii (1995) suggest that the distinction between the dati\ecase and the postposition is made by the •afTcctcdness" of tlie reference of the noun phrase w hich proceeds
ni. They thcori/.e that the structural heights of an argument arc linked to the degree of affectedness.
Namely, the dali\e is locatcd at a liiglicr position in tlic structure, uliere NPs arc less affecicd. while Ihedative case, are similar to each other semantically. historically, and cross-linguistically inmultiple typological studies (cf. V^an Bell & Van Langedonck 1996)
arguments

seem

to

be

ad

hoc since theydo

not allow

Second, theiranyoverlappingofcase/postpositions and since the distinction between these categories is not semanticallymotivated.

Given that they found several usages of /// which failed all three syntactic

operational tests in their analysis, the distinction between case and postpositions can beconsidered to be a matter of degree as Kumashiro (1994b) argues.
Another generative-oriented

study

JackendotFs (1983) Conceptual Semantics.

isUeno (1995)

whose

frameworkisUeno's approach is different from Sadakane

and Koizumi's study since Ueno attempts to focus on semantic elements.

Ueno statesthat the difference between /// and dc for location markers is due to two factors: 1) aconceptual constituent mapping such as [PLACE] or [PATH] and 2) its corresponding
postpositional (PP) head.

Ueno discusses two different conceptual structures for theJapanese locatives /// and dc.

Figure I.l. and Figure 12. illustrate the conceptual

structures and the syntactic structures for /// and de, respectively.

As shown in Figure 1.1,

the conceptual structure for /// contains [thing X] and a conceptual constituent [SPACE
Y] which corresponds to a PP headed by /// in the syntactic structure.

As shown in

Figure 1.2, the conceptual structure for dc consists of a conceptual constituent [SPACE
Z] which corresponds to a PP headed by dc in syntactic structure.
functions as a ivsiric/ivc modifier in the conceptual structure.

;iccusati\c is locatcd at a lower position in the structure w lierc NPs arc more afTecied.

This constituent

[Situation SITUATION-FUNCTION ([thing X], [spaceY ] )

[s

[pp

[NP

] ; Conceptual StnjctureY]/ii]. . ]:Syntactic Staicture

Figure 1.1. Conceptual Structure for /// bv Ueno (1995: 3)

Situation

SITUATION-FUNCTION ( .
[space[s ...

[pp:

Conceptual Structure[NP Z] d e ] \ .

Syntactic Staicture

Fiuure 1.2. Conceptual Staicture fort/c by Ueno (1995: 3)
In this framework, the structural distinction between arguments and modifiers in
the conceptual structure determines the distribution of locative /// and t/c-phrases.
Observe sentence (1.31) and (1.32) which are originally from Nakau(1.31)(1.32)

Kono heya [ni/*de] piano ga
This room
piano NOM
"There is a piano in this room."

aai.
be

Kono heya [*ni/de] kaigigaThis room
meeting NOM"There is a meeting in this room."(Ueno 1995: 4)
aru.
be(Ueno 1995: 4)

Ueno argues that the verb, am. "be" is polysemous as in sentences (1.31) and (1.32).

He

claims that the alternation of /// c/c is due to the two different functions of BE and theirstructures: BE (spatial) takes THING, and BE (temporal) takes EVENT in syntax, as
shown in (1.33) and (1.34) respectively.

'>

JJ

Lexical entr>' for am^Aai
V<PP1>—(1.33)!
(1.34)!
V

BE space ([THING]1, [place PLACE-FUNCTION space ([THING])] )!
BE temp ([EVENT]!, [place PLACE-FUNCTION temp [ TIME ])] )!
J
Ueno (1995: 6)

in (1.33) space stands tor "spatial location" which gives an account of sentence (1.31).

in(1.34) temp stands for "temporal location" which has a semantically closer relationship to
the verb, BE. than space.

In this case, the temporal location is realized syntactically as a

PP headed by ///. and gives an account of sentence (1.35) where a time phrase is realized
as Hi in a restrictive modifier such as sLinji ui "at three o'clock".
(1.35)Sanji nikaigiga
Three o'clock
meeting NOM"A meeting is at 3 o'clock."

aru.
be

This analysis still stipulates that semantic differences including the locative
particles ni and de must be mapped onto the syntactic structure, which exists
independently t"rom the semantic and phonological components (Jackendoff 1983)

The

linguistic knowledge in this framework assumes that linguistic structures exist in the formof separate and self-contained components.

Sadakane and Koizumi (1995) and Ueno

(1995) are similar in that what is crucial in the distinction between ni and c/c is thesyntactical status of argument/adjunct, and they are not concerned with how the meaning
difference between ni and de is explained.

Moreover, this approach is unlikely to explain

the variability and the distinction of ni and dc in actual usage which i will discuss later.
Thus, we need to seek a better semantic account for ni and de.

34

1.2.3. Cognitive Approach to ni and de
The cognitive approach is distinguished sharply from the generative approach inthat the former assumes that lexicon and grammar form a continuum.

Further, Cognitive

Grammar (CG) makes no appeal to autonomous syntactic structures and no derivations
are posited (Langacker 1982: 22-23, 1999: 1-18).
conceptualization in our mind,

In CG, language represents

CG is a usage-based model such that categorization ofnovel expressions results from the emergence of schemata that each speaker possesses
In this framework, it is natural that semantic structure is constructed difterently in eachlanguage'''.

There are three major studies on ni and Jc in the Cognitive Grammar

framework, those of Kumashiro (1994a), Kumashiro (1994b). and Kabata (2000).

1 willcome back to two of them in subsequent chapters, since they are essential to this study
in this section. I would like to point out that even these CG accounts are lacking in threepoints: I) a unified account covering all locative usages of both ni and de. 2) a careful
examination of the actual usage of ni and Jc in a wide spectrum of natural discourse, and
3) a proper discourse account of the topic marker u a. in nin a and Jeuci. Nakau (1994,
1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1998), who used to be more generative in his orientation but now ismore cognitive in his approach, theorizes that there are three different levels of space:inner space where a concrete entity is located, outer space where an abstract entity is
located, and a psychological space where the speaker's judgment on a proposition holds

Cognitive Grammar takes a position similar lo Constnictional Grammar (cf. Fillinore IVSS. Fillmore
and O'Connor lyss, Goldberg 1995) in that language-specific coiistmction is allowed. The fundamental
difference in these theories howev er, is that the former tlieor> "attempts the full reduction of grammar toassemblies of symbolic stnictures" u liile the latter theory docs not (Laiigackcr 1999. ."80).

35

taie.

Figure 1.3 illustrates his model (Nakau 1998: 53).'"Situation 4<Psychological space>

Situation 3
Time/Spaceni Jc

Situation 2<Outer space>
Situation 1
abstract entity\c/e<lnner space>
THING
concrete entity
niFiuure 1.3. Structure tor Space Realization bv Nakau (1995)

In this configurational approach, a verb requires a locative expression marked byni as an argument, while a locative expression marked by dc is more like an adjunct, which
is not required by a verb."'

He agues that inner space is marked by ni and outer space byde as repeated in (1.36) and (1.37).

(1.36)

Kono
heya[ni/*de] piano
This
room
LOC
piano
"There is a piano in this room."

ga
NOM

aru.
be

(1.37)

Kono heya[*ni/de]kaigi
gaThis room
LOC
meeting NOM"There is a meetinu in this room."

aru.
be

Nak;ui proposes tluii liis model is iinixcrsal. For instance, in English, the dilTcrenl lev els of space can bee.xpressed by word order. Nakau (1998: 23-29) c.xplains that in the following set of sentences i-a) - i-d). "inpubs", is considered inner space, while, "in London", is outer space, as the former has a closer relationshipwith tlic verb "drink". Onl> outer spacc can be lopicali/.cd. as tlic graniinalic;il scntciicc i-c) and llicungrammatical sentence i-d) show.
i-a) Many people drink in pubs in London.
i-c) In London, many people drink in pubs,i-b) *Many people drink in London in pubs.
i-d) *ln pubs, many people drink in London.
"" A similar \ iew is held b\ Kamio (1980) who claims that ni marks "inner location" which a \crb requires,w hile f/f marks "e.Mernal location" w hich marks a backuround for a sentence.

36

In both examples (1.36) and (1.37), the place noun, kono hcya "this room" and theexistential verb am are used; however in (1.36) the place is marked by nh while in (1.37)
it is marked by dc

In this approach, (1.36) and (1.37) are interpreted as tbllows: konohcya "this room" signifies a different level of space, although the same verb, ant "there
is/are", is used.

Namely, in (1.36) kono hcya 'this room" is marked by m and signifies

inner space, because piano "piano" is a concrete thing which exists in inner space. In(137), however, the same location noun is marked with Jc since kai^^i "meeting" is not a
concrete thing, but a situation which takes place in "outer space".''He also theorizes that a situation marked by Jc tends to take what he calls
kyokumcn Jooshi "phasal verbs".

This type of verbs consists of aspectual verbal phrases,

such as hassci "ingressive", shimcn "durative" and shinikcisii "terminative .Example(1.38) shows that this kind of verb requires "outer space" marked by c/c. not "inner space"marked by ///Namely, hajimam "start", iziiriikii "continue", and shizumaru "settle down"in (1.38) indicate aspectual points showing that one situation, ^akiisci-Llcnio "student
demonstration" happens somewhere and that it is in some aspectual phase

Nakau (1998: 42) gi\cs the following c .Naiiiplcs for psychological space marked b> dc.
(i)U\\asa
dc \va sensei \\asaikonsa-re-ta
sooda.
Rumor LOC TOP teachcr TOP re-inarr\ do-PSS-PST
I heard
1 heard the nimor that the teacher got married again."According to Nakau. e.sample (i) shows the (/(.'-marked noun uwasa "nimor" is a place where the speaker ofthis scntcnce recci\ es information, and makes a judgement about the proposition.
Nakau's term. kyi)ktinicii doosht pluisal verb" is similar to what Vcndler (1967) calls "acti\ ity \crbs' and"accomplishment \erbs" in that these \crbs lia\c progressive forms and can refer to cither the beginning, or
the middle, or the end of an e\ent b\ an aspect marker. Nakau's term, kyokumcn dooshi "phasal \erbs" isalso similar to the Aristotelian class because it has the aspcctual feature w hich is unique to \ erbs. cf Dowty

37(1.38) Ano hiroba-de/*ni gakuseidemo-ga
hajimat-te-iru.
That square-LOC
student demo-NOM start-CONJ-PROG
tuzui-te-iai
continue-CONJ-PROG
shizuma-tta.
settie dovvn-PST"A student demo has started/continued/settled down in that square."(Nakau 1995a: 21)' 'Nakau's model seems to give some account of (1.38); however, it still seems problematic
because it is contlgurationally-based as shown in Figure 1.3. and because the argument for•phasai verbs' appears to be ad hoc.

In this theor\'. as in other generati\ e approaches, it isnecessary' to construct a relationship with a verb in order to figure out an appropriate
locative postposition, since the distinction between an argument type of location marked
with /// and an adjunct type of location marked with dc is crucial. Because the relationshipbetween verb and location is important to determine the location, i.e. inner vs outer space,it follow s that the characteristics of verbs (phrasal verbs) are also important in his model.
It is not, however, necessary to argue that "phrasal verbs" are special in this regard, since
all adjunct types of location marked with de can occur with any verb, and since an adjunctcan logically occur with any verb.
Nakau also tries to shed light on meaning differences in which the same verb cantake both ni and c/c, by assuming that dilTerent syntactic structures are assigned.
Consider examples (1.39) and (1.40) in which a verb uniarcni "be born" is used.

(1979:52).
" Slight niodifications :irc made for the sake of clarit\ .

38(1.39)

Taroo
wadaigakubyooinde/*ni
Taro
TOP
University hospital
LOC"Taro was born in an university hospital."(1.40)Fukuzawa Yukichi vva
bushi no ie
ni/deFukusawa Yukichi TOP samurai family LOC"Fukuzawa Yukichi was born into samurai family(and belonged to the samurai class).'umare-ta.
be born-PST(Nakaii 1995b: 22)
umare-ta.
be born-PST(Nakau i995b: 22)

In (1.39), Jaifiuku hyooin 'university hospital" marked by Je. not by ///. means theconcrete place (building) where Taro was born. In (1.40), on the other hand, hushi no ic.
"samurai family", can be marked either by ///, or Je. and implies a slightly ditTerent
meaning: ni indicates the place into which Fukuzawa Yukichi was born and now belongs,
while ck indicates the concrete place (building) where Taro's birth happened. ""•According to Nakau. the difference between (1.39) and (1.40) lies in the question ofwhether a locative noun is required syntactically by a verb.

I argue that his approach still

has the same theory-internal problems that generative-oriented linguists have because inthis theor\' the syntactic hierarchy must guarantee the ditTerence between meanings;
namely, semantic properties completely depend on syntactic properties without valid
motivations.

Therefore, the semantic variables related to the choice of ni or c/e are hard

to explain in his framework, especially vvhen such semantic variables e.xist across different
categories such as nouns, verbs, and adverbs.
Nakau. however, points out that a shift from ilc to ni (not from /// to t/c) ispervasive in Japanese poems such as haiku and tanka.

He assumes that a metaphorical-i()Nakau's obscnalion on (1.39) and (1.40) contradict the spacc model in Figure 1.3. since the39extension of the verb motivates this shirt.

When an "external space' for the structure is

re-analyzed as "internal space" for the structure, an alternation from de to /// happens.''
This re-analysis creates a sense of "contact" between the location and relevant verb"^
Consider examples (1.41) and (1.42):(1.41)(142)

Koto
kamakura deHistorical town. Kamakura
LOC"Play in Kamakura. an old capital."asobu.
play(Nakau 19Q5b: 22)

Koto
kamakura n i
asobu.
Historical town. Kamakura LOC
play"Explore in Kamakura, an old capital."(Nakau 1995b: 22)

The verb asohu "play" normally takes de for location as shown in (1.41).
can be changed into ni as shown in (I 42).

However, dc

The meaning of (1 42) is different from (141).

since in (1.42) a speaker describes that Kamakura is not the place where one physicallyplays, but the place where one explores oneself within the historical and cultural aspects of
Kamakura.
Nakau acknowledges the importance of the cognitively motivated locative
postposition shirt from de to ni for certain verbs.

He provides some insightful examples,claiming that there is a syntactic-semantic continuum between case markers andpostpositions.

He, maintains, however, that the syntactic hierarchy is the key to theselection for locative postpositions, which makes his arguments contradictory.

Basedf/t'-inarkcd location in (l.T^y). Kcio hyauin Kcio hospital" is coiicrctc while the ///-marked location hushi
no ic "sanuirai family" in (1.40) is abstract.
Nakau considers e.xternal spacc as accidental and iniernal space as essential for the stnicturc of the
poem.
n
.
Kunishiro (1%7) claims that a sense of contact" for /// is a "sememe". /(,'/.«'. or the most sclieniatic\aliic subsuming all the concrete senses of ///. However. Kumashiro (I'/Ma) argues that the notion of

40

upon his obsenations. 1 would like to provide a more complete and consistent account in
the CG framework in order to explain the variation of /// and de in a unified semantic
system.
Kabata and Rice (1997). whose central interest is to establish a network model of///, claim that among the different types of usage. /// for spatial expressions is the mostbasic, since it is related to direct bodily experience in physical space.

They argue that ni

encodes roughly two different types of spatial relations; a purely stative locative relation
as shown in (1.43) and a dynamic allative relation as shown in (1.44), marking either the
direction and/or the final destination (landmark) that a figured entity (trajector) moves
towards.""(1.43)(1.44)

Mar\' ga
Tokyo niMary NOM' LOC
Mary was in Tokyo."i-ta.
be-PST

Mary ga
Tokyo niMarv' NOM
ALL
"Mary went to Tokyo."it-ta.
go-PST[Locative][.Allative]

They argue that sentences (1.45) and (1.46) show that the two basic meanings ot
ni. such as stative and allative usages, are not always clear-cut.
and (1.46), the same verb haru "to put" is used.

In both sentences (1.45)

In (1.45) where -tc am "be" follows theverb I KIIIC "put", III is used as a locative, while in (1.46) where -IC cini is not used, thesame locative postposition is used as an allative.

"coniacr is better inicrprctcd ;ts '111011151011".
Alhitivc is defined as motion "to" or townrds" a goal.
in Chapter 2.

I will define the terms trajector" and "landmark

41(1.45)(1.46)

Kabe niegawall LOC
picture NOM"A picture is put on the wall."hat-te-aru.
put-CONJ-be

Kabe nieohat-ta.
wall
ALLpicture ACC put-PST"[I] put the picture on the wall."[Locative](Kabataand Rice 1997: 112)

[Allative](Kabataand Rice 1997: 1 12)

However, they emphasize the importance of maintaining the distinction between thelocative and allative. since an extended usage of ni exhibits 'persistence' in both theseparticular spatial sentences.

Thev suggest that the distinct usages of /// may haveundergone different routes o^^rammaiiculizaiion.
Based upon Anderson's (1971) localist approach. Kabata and Rice (1997) and
Kabata (2000), propose an insightful account for a wide range of senses of ///They

propose that in six domains for the grammaticalization of ///. locative ni and allative ni
belong to one of the most concrete domains, the spatial domain.

Furthermore, they claimthat locative ni could be extended to the temporal domain, whereas allative ni could be
expanded to other domains such as the social and others shown in Figure 1.4. (Kabata
2000: 69).

42

More abstract

More concrete

Expressive Domain

Speaker's attitude toward the proposition

Logical Domain

Logical relationships between propositions•Pen^tual/Concepi
DomainPerceptual, cognitive, and emotional events

Social Domain

Human interaction/transaction events

Temporal Domain

Location and sequence of event in time

Spatial Domain

Location and motion of physical object inspace

Fiuure 1.4. Provisional Model for the Semantic Structure of /// bv Kabata (2000)
Kabata and Rice's claim is slightly different from a proposal by Hashimoto (1969)
who argues that it is more likely that the locative marking function is the basic usage.
Akiba-Reynolds (1984). based upon Old Japanese (approximately 8-10''' century), argues
that the locative verb nn was the source of the grammaticalization of ///, a locative
postposition.'^Kabata (2000) provides various empirical data (a frequency study, a childlanguage acquisition study, and a psycholinguistic study) in order to support the claim that
all of the senses of /// such as goal, source, purpose, reason, and dative case marker are thebyproduct of metaphoric extension across different semantic domains.

She hypothesizes

that the domains contrast with one another conceptually in terms of the content of an

1 will discuss the graniinaticnli/alions of ni and cic in scction 2 .8.

43expression, and there are degrees of the concreteness or abstractness of the event-related
expression which always exists in the underlying expressions.

Furthermore, she proposesthat there are different levels of the semantic domains in a conceptual (probably historical,
and developmental) hierarchy and each domain is related to other domains, and that
relationships between domains are explained by a domain shift."' Kabata also proposes a
network model of the semantic structure of m, based upon general tenets of cognitive
linguistic analyses of adpositions, and evaluates it by se\ eral empirical studies.

Kabataand Rice (1997) and Kabata (2000). however, limit their study to m and do not cover theusage of tk as a locative marker.

Instead, following Langacker (1991a. 1991b). they gi\ean account for c/c. not as locative marker, but as an instrumental marker, in their Action
Chain Model as shown in Figure 1.5.
Energy Sourcc

Encrg\ Sink

[Experiencer][Agent]Acti\cParticipant

Passi\cPanicipantGa[Patient][Instrument]
De

Fiuurc I

Action Chain: Encriz\ Flow Hierarchy Schema (Kabata and Ricc

Ill)

One sucii case is tlie TIME IS SPACE niclaplior in langnage. Tliis is accounlcd for by a Spatial to Tcniporal
domain shift in tlie case of lu (Kabata 2()()()).
"" Kabata (199X) argues tliat Japanese case alternations such as thc,i.'« ni alternation arc not s>ntaclic matters, butshould be e.xplaincd b\ the archetypal model. Based on Langackcr (199lb: 238-9). an arclict>pal agent is an entity
thai \olitionally initiates a physical acti\ ily. while an archetypal e.xperiencer is characleri/ed as a sentient cntit>
engaged in menial acli\ ii_\.

44

In the model, dc as an instalment plays a role as a passi\e participant with anenergy source, and Kabata and Rice do not discuss the usage of Jc as a locative marker
Accordingly, their analysis does not provide a complete picture of ni and de as locative
markers.
Two other CG analyses related to this study are those of Kumashiro (1994a.
1994b, 2000) and Sugai (1997). whose models are also based upon Langacker's,Both,but especially Kumashiro (1994b, 2000), emphasize the syntax-semantics continuum andthe meaningfulness of every linguistic expression. They consider the locative postposition,
de. as being the prototypical postposition.

Similarly, they characterize the goal marker ni

as a postposition, which is more case-marker-like than the prototypical postposition dc.
They propose that in terms of the CG notion of autonomous/dependent alignment, a
notion that 1 will briefly cover in section 2.3.8. a nominal followed by dc is a dependent
structure combining with an autonomous head.

Kumashiro (1994b: 242-243) views ni
For instance, de in(goal) as a "a dependent structure combining with dependent heads.""

kissaten-de "cotTee shop" in sentence (1.41) is a prototypical postposition, forming adependent structure that combines with the autonomous head. Hanako wa aisnkiirimii oiciheia. "Hanako ate ice cream."(1.41)

Kissaten de
Hanakoga
aisukurimuocoflee shop at
HanakoNOM
icecream
ACC"Hanako ate ice cream at the coffee shop."tabe-ta.
eat-PST

Kumashiro (2000: 175-179) proposes that a verb illustrating an action canschematically evoke a setting where the action takes place, weakly.
(1.42) which is originally cited from Nakajima and Sagawa (1984: 105).

Observe example

45(1.42)Suisu
dekokusai kaigi
gayoku
hirak-are-ai(koto).
Svvitzerland-in internationai-conference-NOM often
hold-PSS-PRES'that international conferences are often held in Switzerland"
Kumashiro (2000: 176)
in (1.42) Siii.sK "Switzerland" is followed by the postposition Jc and functions as modifierof the predicate by providing a setting for the main clause.

Obserx e sentence (1.43).

(1.43)Suisu ga
kokusai kaigi ga
yoku
hirak-are-ru(koto).
Switzerland-NOM international-conference-NOM often hold-PSS-PRES"that international conferences are often held in Switzerland"
Kumashiro (2000: 175)
Example (1.43) is the so-called double nominative construction where both the noun kcii}:i"conference" and the locative noun, Siiisii, "Switzerland" are marked by the nominative js'f
Example (1.43) shows that Sui.su has the characteristic of having international conferences
frequently."^

Kumashiro proposes that reference to events in (1.42) schematically evokes

the conceptualization of a locative setting w hich is physical space marked by c/c. whereas alocative in the double nominative construction in (1.43) is not physical space.

Figure 1 . 6 .

describes the semantic structure of a location entity. The conceptualization of the entity
evokes that of the location it resides in, which is illustrated in a dotted line rectangle below.
For instance, in (1.42) an entity described by Entity I Siiisii functions as a locative setting•>7

Kumashiro points out tliat not all locativcs can be marked by the nominati\e as show n in (1.4.^0. Ii isblockcd. according to him. when tiic iocaiion is interpreted as physical space. Sentence (i) is not
acceptable since tlic location nion no naka-iid "inside that wood" cannot be interpreted as abstract space,(ii) is acceptable since the location, ano mori-iia "that wood' can be interpreted as abstract space.
(i) ?''ano niori-no naka-ga koibitotaciii-ga yoku deeto-o sum.
(Kumasliiro 2000; 176)
that wood-of
inside-NOM"It is inside that wood (not around it) that is such that couples often date there."(ii) ano mori-ga koibitotachi-ga yoku deeto-o sum.
(Kumashiro 20(10: 176)
that wood-NOM"It is that wood that is such that couples often date there."46

for the event described by Entity 2 kokusai kaigi, 'international conference."

Entity 1 is

put into correspondence with the location as illustrated in a dotted curved line.

1 willcome back to the details of this semantic structure in section 2 .4.2.

Entitv 1

Entitv 2•>

Locative Relation^ Mental Path

Schematic Location• Predication Relation

Figure 1.6. Locative Entitv (Kumashiro 2000: 167)'''
Kumashiro s analysis, however, does not cover all usages of /// and Uc. especially///-marked

locationswithatypicalnouns/adjectives/adjectival nouns.

stative

verbs

and

Jf-marked

locationswith

Therefore, I will explore all of the properties of /// anddc in an effort to provide a more complete account within the framework of CG for theiruse.

In sum. all of these accounts are similar in that /// is deeply associated with thestative, while de is associated with an event/motion.

The distinction between /// and dc is

unclear, however, when it comes to atypical stative verbs, as Morita (1989), Ueno (1995).
Nakau (1995b. 1998), Tanaka (1997), and Kumashiro (personal communication) point out.
Furthermore, none of these accounts examine the natural usage of /// and dc. The present
study seeks to fill this gap by taking the distributional patterns of /// and dc in natural
language data seriously.

VVierzbicka (1988: 7) claims that a semantic approach to syntax

A sliglil inodifiaitioii is added.

47(not a syntax-autonomous approach) makes it possible to give reasonable accounts forboth difterences in meaning and difterences in distribution as well as similarities.

Given

that actual distributional facts are not independent of meaning, as Wierzbicka argues. 1
have chosen to attempt a semantic analysis of ni and dc in this study.

Before I discuss myapproach to /// and Ue. I will discuss the central role that the topic marker, ita, plays andthe non-occurrence of particles in discourse since these phenomena seem to appear often
in spoken Japanese
1.3. The Topic .\Iarker wa
The literature on the Japanese topic marker wa is quite extensive.

The topic

marker wa has been discussed most often by contrasting it with the so-called subject
marker ^a.

\ few major scholars who discussed this topic are briefly mentioned here.

First. Kuroda (1965. 1972, 1990. 1992) adopts the notions of categorical and thetic
judgments which were originally introduced by Brentano (1924).

Kuroda argues thatand Uii reflect ditTerent predicational judgments of subjects

reflects a categorical

judgment when it encodes two distinct "cognitive acts'

He/ goes beyond a simple

cognitive response to perceptual intake of information (1992: 81) (ic/ marks a thetic
judgment when it encodes a single "cognitive act". C/ci directly reflects as the perceptual
intake of the actual situation.

Second, Kuno (1973, 1976) makes the widely acceptedclaim, which is that \ni has two functions: theme and contrast.
the theme as "what the rest of the sentence is about"".

Kuno (1976: 120) defines

Kuno (1973: 40) states that "w hat

determines whether a specific noun phrase can become a topic or not depends on whether
the noun phrase is anaphoric and not whether it is definite.'" Kuno's account focuses on a

48

circumscribed set of conditions for thematic/contrastive NPs, since it does not go beyond
tile sentence/clause level

Third, Chafe (1970; 233) states that "in Japanese,

structure particle \ui renect[s] old information.""the surface

Old information, which is either definite

or generic according to Chafe, is marked by \iu. while new information, which is either
indefinite or non-generic, is marked by gu.
important.

Kuno's. Kuroda"s, and Chafe"s claims are all

While their claims appear intuitively to be true, their analyses have not yet

been tested on naturally occurring data.
Fourth. Maynard (1980). who looked at written narratives, argues that mi has a"thematic staging" effect which helps narrators be maximally explicit in creating andmaintaining topics ("theme-creation" and "theme-maintenance" respectively) in discourse.
She proposes that the use of wci is deeply related to thematicity progression, which is often
developed by a systematic sequence such as-wa. -(\\a) process in a paragraph.

Fifth.

Clancy & Downing (1987). who looked at three different spoken discourse corpora,propose a slightly different view.

They claim that the majority of ua occurrences inspoken narratives can be characterized as locally (contrastively) motivated, while globally(thematically) motivated \ni appears quite infrequently by comparison.

The gaps among

the above studies emphasize the importance of the investigation of ditlerent types ot
discourse, as well as consideration of the factors behind different claims such as
Maynard s (1980) regarding text organization.

Lastly, Kumashiro (2000), within theframework of CG, proposes that the topic marker ua has the topic construction where one
codes a "layered interrelation" at a higher level called "a sequential reterence-point
constaiction."

According to Kumashiro, in such a construction, a speaker mentally

49

accesses and processes two entities in two distinct steps (sequentially), rather than one
single step (simultaneously); therefore, the topic marker \ia requires more processing timethan the simultaneous reference-point construction such as the nominati\e-accusative
construction.
Topicality is usually related to subject status (Givon 1978) The Japanese topic
marker, however, differs in that both subject and object markers are obligatorily
suppressed whenever they are topicalized, i.e. *NP ^ci \ni but NP ua, and *NP o uu but
NP wci (Morikavva 1996).

However, the locative postpositions ni and dc are notobligatory suppressed when the topic marker follows, i.e NP ni wa. NP de ua.

Kuroda(1965; 57) points out that "virtually all nominal constituents, i e. noun phrases followed bya particle, may be the premise of the judgments [topicalized]"" as shown in (1 44) and(1.45).
(1.44) Nichiyoo-ni-wa
Sunday'On Sundays (1)New York

Times-oyom-u.
read
read the New York Times '(Kuroda 1965: 57)(1.45) Ohashi-de-wa
gohan-otabe-ru.
Chopsticks
meal
eat.
'With chopsticks (we) eat."(Kuroda 1965: 58)

Example (1.44) shows that the time phrase nichiyoo-ni 'Sunday" is topicalized. while
example (145) shows that the instrument phrase ohashi dc "with chopsticks" istopicalized.
As

Ueno

(1995),

Nakau(1995),

Morita(1989),

Kumashiro(personal

communication), and Tanaka (1997) point out, the locative marker dc followed by wci
somehow has a different meaning from the locative marker dc alone

Thus, it is50

worthwhile to investigate the semantic nature of mi when it follows both locative markers/// and d/c in natural data.
1.4. The Non-occurrence of Postpositions
In informal Japanese conversation, postpositions do not always appear.
phenomenon is what has traditionally been referred to as 'ellipsis'.

This

This is shown in(1.47), where the goal marker /// is not used, in contrast with (1.46). where it is used."'(1.46)(1.47)

Harajukuni
it-te
mitara'^HarajukuALL
go-CONJ try'Why don't you go to Harajuku'^"[Misato: 6]

Harajuku
it-temitara'^Harajuku
go-CONJ
try"Why don't you go to Harajuku'^'[Misato: 6]

There are several studies which have investigated the non-occurrence of Japanesepostpositions.

Previous studies, such as Kuno (1973), Hinds (1982). Tsutsui (1983), andSaito (1985), have emphasized that syntactic relations are an important factor in
determining which postpositions can and cannot be used.

Masunaga (1988), however,argues that synta.x alone inadequately accounts for non-occurrence.

Rather, functional

conditions are also a significant factor for determining the non-occurrence of Japanesepostpositions. Recent studies such as Matsuda (1996), Takano (1998), Ono, Thompson
and Suzuki (2000), and Fujii and Ono (2000). which are all based upon spoken discourse
data, have demonstrated that principles of sentence grammar alone cannot appropriately
account for non-occurrence.

For instance, Fujii and Ono have shown that a discourse

51

factor, the establishment of referentiality in discourse, is crucial for the non-occurrence of
the accusative marker o.

They point out that the accusative marker o does not occur

under two conditions: (i) when objects are non-referential, e.g. interrogative pronouns,and (ii) when objects are well-established in the discourse, e.g. demonstratives

The

following figure is a summarv' of observations in Fuji and Ono (2000).
Unmarked

MarkedUnmarked<^nothing to establish
not establishedalready established(lexicalized expressions (post-predicate noun phrases) (demonstratives)indefinite and interrogative
pronouns)
Figure 1.7.

Referent Establishment and Direct Object Markinu

Figure 1.7. indicates that the only case where the accusative marker o occurs iswhen the direct object noun phrase is not yet established in the discourse.

Fujii and Onostate that direct objects are often unmarked when they are lexicalized expressions, e.g. thedirect object noun has formed a lexicalized compound with the verb such as jiman snrii"brag about something" and hyooka sunt "e\aluate', or when they are non-referential or
non-specific such as indefinite and interrogative pronouns.

Consider examples (1.48) and(1.49) which are taken from Fujii and Ono.
(1.48)

Kane motte-nee-mon
ano hito
Money have notthat person"(She) does not have money, that person."(1.49) soo soo soo soo soo soo dakara
sorekangaete-teso so so so so so therefore it
was thinking about"Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes so (i) was thinking about it".

fC)
The bnickcls in (1.46) and (1.47) includc ihc lillc of conversalioiial iranscripi and ihc page number

52

Example (1.48) shows that kanc "money" is not marked by the accusative marker o. since'money" has no concrete referent in this context. Example (1.49) illustrates that sore, "it",is not marked by the accusative marker o because the pronoun sore refers to a surprisevisit that has already been discussed within the context of the discourse(1.50)

nanka
okutte ki-ta.
something sendcome-PST'(She) sent (me) something."(1.51)

daretsurete ki-ta
who
bring
come-PST'Who did he bring'^"

no.
NOM

Examples (1.50) and (1.51) demonstrate that an indefinite pronoun such as nanka'something" and an interrogative pronoun such as dare "who" can be marked by theaccusative marker o. respectively.

Fujii and Ono explain that it is not necessary- for thelistener to make much cognitive effort to identity the referent.

They conclude that theobject is marked by the accusative marker o when the information expressed by a nounphrase appears to demand more cognitive processing effort on the part of the addressee.
Like the discourse function of \ni preceded by locatives, it is worthwhile to clarifv' thecharacteristics of the nature of non-occurrence of Japanese locative postpositions inconversation.

Especially, il is very interesting to determine to what extent the claims

related to accusative non-occurrence proposed by Fujii and Ono are applicable to locative
postpositions in natural conversation.
1.5. Sunimar>'
This chapter provided an overview of three groups of previous studies on
Japanese locative postpositions ni and Je in three groups.

Descriptive studies mainly

53

state that /// indicates a location and a goal, while Je indicates the location of an event or
action; however, there are some examples (1.20)-( 1.22) which will
generalization about the properties of m and dc.

nottit this

The generative approaches agree thatthe semantic ditTerences between ni and Jc are determined by syntactic status (argument
or adjunct), and that these syntactic categories are always distinct.

In making such claims,

this approach is not able to explain the variability of ni and cle, and the various senses thatthe morpheme with ni has.

Cognitive linguistics, on the other hand, considers that thesemantic variables in natural language are hard to explain by syntactic mechanisms alone,
and takes a more delicate and dynamic view: the senses of grammatical categories
including the locative postpositions ni and dc are schematically defmed and prototypicalusages of ni and de (stative vs dynamic) are identified.

However, it was pointed out thatthese accounts are still lacking three points—1) a proper discourse account of the topic
marker wa in mwa and dew a. 2) careful examination of the actual use of spoken andwritten ni and dt\ and 3) a unified cognitive account covering all locative usages of/// andde.

1 would like to provide a better explanation of the semantic structures of ni and dc

than has thus far been proposed, and test my explanation with natural discourse data.

I

hope to demonstrate that both semantic factors and discourse factors play a role inaffecting the choice of ni and de in Japanese natural discourse. In Chapter 2, 1 outline thefundamental assumptions of CG and define the basic terms to be used in my analysis of thesemantic differences and similarities between /// and de discussed in this chapter.

54

CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND METHODOLOGY
2. (.Global Assumptions of Cognitive Granimnr
In Chapter 1. 1 discussed how previous analyses of the Japanese locative
postpositions /// and de do notprovide an adequate account for the semantic

characterizations "stative" vs. "dynamic".

In addition. 1 briefly introduced three major

works related to /// and de within the framework of Cognitive Grammar (CG). and argued
that a complete account of these postpositions has not been proposed yet.

This chapter

begins with an outline of the essential assumptions of Cognitive Grammar.

After adiscussion of the general framework of this theory and a brief overview of Prototype
Theory. I provide a short description of the terminology employed in Cognitive Grammar
This is followed by an evaluation of Kumashiro s (1994a. 1994b. 2000) CG analysis.

In

the next section 2.5. 1 introduce the Network Model in CG. and discuss the specifics ofKabata's (2000) analysis of the Japanese postposition /// with a focus on the locati\ e usagethat is relevant to this study.

Section 2.7 deals with the methodology used in the present

study, which is based on two distinctive kinds of corpora: informal conversations of native
speakers of Japanese (spoken data) and modern Japanese novels, short stories, andnovellas (written data).

1 discuss how and why these corpora have been selected andprovide a rationale for e.xamining such a wide spectrum of data.

The last section of thischapter includes a summary of historical issues related to the locative postpositions.

The

purpose of this section is to test one of the basic cognitive linguistics tenets, namely that

55

linguistic analysis naturally leads to an appreciation of diachronic semantics (Traugott andHeine 1991a, 1991b; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Geeraerts 1997).

It is interesting to

explore how variable factors underlying the use of these locative postpositions ha\echanged among Japanese speakers historically.
2.1.1.Cognitive Grammar: Dynamic Usage-Based Model
The analysis of the Japanese locative postpositions presented in this study wasdeveloped within the theoretical framework of Cognitive Grammar (CG).

In this section.

1 briefly discuss why 1 employ CG for my analysis of Japanese locative postpositions, andthen discuss some of the fundamental notions of CG.'
2.I.I.I.Why Cognitive Grammar?
Prepositions and postpositions (adpositions), some of which refer to space, aretraditionally described as forming closed lexical classes.

Accordingly, it is generally

assumed that the functions of adpositions are to mark concrete relationships such as
location, direction, or some sort of configurational relationships between entities.
Adpositions, however, also mark temporal and abstract relationships when relevant as well
as agency, patient/recipient status, instrument and conjunction, etc.

Thus, it is often thecase that adpositions show polysemy, e.g. multiple meanings related to each other, rather
than homonymy, e.g. multiple meanings not related to each other.
Adpositional polysemy has been discussed by a number of researchers such as' For a complclc description of tliis tiicorctical framework developed by Langacker. see Langacker (1982.
1986. 1987a. 1991. 1999. 2000). For a broad range of issues and \arict> of CG perspccti\cs. see Lakoff(1987). Swcclscr (1990). and Fauconnier (1985).

56

Fillmore (1968), Cook (1989), Anderson (1971). and McCrowiv (1990). and has been
intensively investigated by cognitive linguists whose theoretical assumption is that
language mirrors human conceptualization (LakotT and Johnson 1980, LakotY 1987).

A

number of studies regarding prepositions have been done within the CG framework (cfBrugman1981.

Lindner

1981. Hawkins

1984.

Rudzka-Ostyn 1988, Cuyckens 1995, Rice 1996).

Herskotvits 1986,

LakotT 1987.

Although this framework has been

mainly used for in-depth studies of Indo-European languages, it seems reasonable to use
CG for an analysis of a non-Indo-European language such as Japanese." In light of thesestudies, CG seems to be a promising approach to the study of the semantic differences
between /// and dc.
In CG, all prepositions are considered to be meaningful, as are other grammaticalelements such as "be", the auxiliary' "do", perfect "have", "-ing", the possessive morpheme,
expletive "it", and the case markers.

All prepositions, in this framework. ha\e thefunction of introducing the implicit arguments of nominalizations. For an example of how
prepositions are treated in CG, Langacker (1992, 1999) argues that the preposition "of
has a discernible meaning even in its periphrastic use, unlike many formal linguists who
traditionally treat 'of as a semantically empty element (Chomsky 1970: 201).

More

specifically, the conventional meaning of "of is something that profiles the intrinsic
relationship between events, which are described as conceptually dependent, and involving
a central participant.

As this applies to the study of ni and tie, Takezawa (1987) treats

Jcoiig-Hwa Lcc (19^9) looked ;U the Korcnn particlcs c and ko in ihc framework of CG.

57

the /// in dative subject constructions as a default marker by following Chomsky's accountof "of as a default marker. "Although his work is quite significant in this framework, it isdependent upon the idea that the dative marker ///, one of the polysemous postpositions, isa default marker, and therefore, meaningless.

As useful as this study is in the tradition ofgenerative grammar, the obvious polysemy of /// makes it hard to view ni as even a default
marker.

Also, in the generative framework it is hard to explain the semantic variations

which exist among speakers for the locative markers ni and de
2.1.1.2. What is Cognitive Grammar Usage-Based Model?
Cognitive Grammar as set forth by Langacker (1982, 1987a. 1990, 1991, 1999)
posits a fundamental assumption that grammar is the conventionalized symbolization ofsemantic and conceptual units paired with phonological units to form a symbolic unit
There are no autonomous structures posited.^That is, lexicon, morphology, and syntax

all form a "continuum" to some extent, rather than "modular systems", no matter what
degrees of conventionality each linguistic expression has.

The conventional patterns aredefined as schemas; speakers extract schemas from specific expressions and use them forconstructing novel expressions through exposure to actual expressions.

Speakers acquire

schemas and such schemas become entrenched through repeated activation.

Thus

Langacker (1987a, 1991, 1999, 2000) has called it a "(dynamic) usage-based model'.

^ Similar views on dati\e /// arc Saiio (19X5) and Dubinsky (1992) in the gencrati\c framework. For
instance. Saito proposes that the dati\e case marker is an ad\erbial element coinde.xed with PRO in tlie
subject position and that PRO will be interpreted as an arbitrary PRO iniless its contcnt is otherwise
spccincd.
Cognitiv e linguists take an encyclopedic \ iew of semantics, disallowing a diciiotonn between linguisticknowledge and extra-linguistic knowledge (Haiman 1980),

58

Specifically, Langacker (1987a; 494) states:
Substantial importance is given to the actual use of the linguistic system and a
speaker's knowledge of the full range of linguistic conventions, regardless ofwhether these conventions can be subsumed under a more general statement, [itis] a non-reductive approach to linguistic structure that employs fully articulated
schematic networks and emphases on the importance of low-level schema.
Langacker's dynamic usage-based model has the following three characteristics:(i) the 'maximalist" aspect, (ii) the "non-reductive" aspect, and (iii) the "bottom-up" aspect.
All these characteristics make a sharp contrast with the basic tenets of classic generative
theory proposed by Chomsky, such as 1) economy, 2) generativity, and 3) reductionism."
Langacker (1991: 261-288) challenges these tenets by stating that the generative traditionemphasizes the importance of "generality" in linguistic description too much, andapplications of this theor\' in fact yield inappropriate accounts of natural language.

That

is. the phenomena of particular languages have been distorted more or less in order toachieve the primar\' goal of Chomskyan theory, the search for Universal Grammar,in

Langacker's words, "descriptive adequacy" has been underestimated in order to achieve"explanatorv' adequacy" in the search for abstract linguistic knowledge that Chomskyan
theory assumes to exist underlying all human languages.

The fundamental research

program set by Chomsky seems to be reasonable and scientific; however, in reality
researchers often lose the balance between descriptive adequacy and explanatorv' adequacy.

^ Langackcr (1982: 261) summarized the three basic tenets of generativ e theor> as follows; a. Economy:
A grammar should account for the widest possible array of data with the fewest possible statements: b.
Generativ ity: A grammar is a set of statements specifying in full and e.xplicit detail how expressions areconstnicted; it gives a well-defined set of expressions as output; c. Reductionism: If the niles of agrammar ful!> describe the composition of a particular structure, that stnictiire is not itself indi\ iduall>
listed in the grammar.

59

and it is questionable whether whole generalizations in this framework are based uponadequate empirical studies.

An adequate linguistic theory should account for natural

language data which includes "anomalies' and 'inconsistencies", and linguistic theoryshould provide both explanatory depth and descriptive adequacy in looking at natural
language data (see Haiman 1985: 257-261).
The main interests of Chomskyan linguistics lie in discovering w hat linguisticknowledge ("competence") is, rather than how it is used ("performance").

In contrast,

Langacker's usage-based model does not allow a separation between a theory ofcompetence and one of performance.

The "ma.ximalist spirit' of CG views the linguistic

system as a massive, highly redundant inventor\' of conventional units, which contradicts
the economy principle in generative grammar.

Namely, CG recognizes that in order tobecome fluent, a speaker engages in a "prodigious amount of actual learning".''Speakers

do not start learning general rules, but learning specific structures as "units"; as a result oflearning these "units", speakers are able to learn the general patterns of language,"schemata".

CG, however, does not deny an innate knowledge of language, but tries tominimize the postulation of innate structures specific to language (1999; 91) or turns topositing inborn language-specific structures only as a last resort (2000. 2).
(1993:

3)suggests

that

the

basic

image-schematicabilities(e.g.

Langacker
scanning

source-path-goal) are innate; however, he maintains that it is everyday bodily e.xperiencethat makes it possible for each image schema to emerge in a language.

Langackcr considers the proccss of actual learning to be an empirical issue.

60

CG is non-reductive in that rules/patterns and individual knowledge of specificstructures are equally included in the grammar as 'units'

In other words, CG does not

rest on an assumption that rules and lists are mutually exclusive (the rule Iist fallacy).
unlike the generative approaches.

The CG approach allows speakers to capture any

valid generalization, while they learn specific expressions which aid in establishing andaccommodating a unit in the grammar.

Langacker (1987: 73) states that "the grammarof a language is thus a vast inventory of units structured in hierarchies that overlap andintersect on a massive scale."Langacker's CG is a "bottom-up" approach, in contrast to LakotTs "top-down"
approach, in that the pattern is abstracted from specific instances including wholly
idiosyncratic expressions and the lower-level lexicon.

Based upon the general patterns

abstracted from individual instances, a speaker establishes some schema.

Langacker(2000: 3) states that """rules" can only arise as schematization of overtly occurring
expressions.

However far this abstraction may proceed, the schemas that emerge springfrom the soil of actual usage."That is, a speaker learns specific expressions andstaictures. and he or she manages to e.xtract schemata fi'om these specific structures at alater stage.'

Langacker also acknowledges that speakers might difl"er in what degree ofschematization they achieve.

He agues that lower-level schemata should be much more

important, since highly-abstract schemata are a by-product of developing lower-level
schemata and only have secondai"y significance, serving more as an organizing rubric for

Similar views were proposed by Chafe (1970). JackcndolT (198.'i). and LakofT (i'^S7).

61

the functions of expressions.
I argue that the usage-based model in CG helps us to understand the semantic
differences between /// and de by taking the following steps: 1) by demonstrating theprototypical usage of ni and de in natural discourse: and 2) bv showing how these
prototypicalexistenceofusages might var\' among speakers and texts: and 3) by revealing how the
prototypicalusagescouldbeprevalent

beyondconventionalized

categorization, and 4) by demonstrating how conventionalized categorization is best
explained in the framework of CG. That is. CG allows us to give an integrated semantic
account for /// and dt\ positing a continuum—the continuum of symbolic structures uniting
lexicon, morphology and syntax (Langacker 1987b: 53-55).
In the next section. 1 provide an overview of Prototype Theory, one of the key
notions in the cognitive paradigm in semantics, particularly in lexical semantics
Understanding Prototype Theory is essential in this study, since I am searching for an
existence of a prototypical use of m and de which emerges between spoken and written
discourse.
2.2. Prototype TheorjOne of the objectives of this study is to search for the existence of prototypes forthe usage of Japanese postpositions and to see if their usages are semantically related.
The overview of Cognitive Grammar in the previous section was aimed at arguing for thevalidity of a CG model especially for the analysis of adpositions, whose meanings are often
semantically complex.

Prototype theory has played an important role in research on thesemantics and pragmatics of natural language.

Since the purpose of this study is to62provide a more complete semantic analysis of the Japanese postpositions /// and dc. it isessential to provide a brief o\er\ iew of prototype tlieor\' in order to establish a uniform
semantic account of these two postpositions.
Prototype Theor\-was originally proposed by Rosch (1973, 1975. 1977, 1978) and
Rosch and Mervis (1975) who published a sequence of experimental research papers in
psychology in an effort to demonstrate an important claim: a natural categor\' is definedwith reference to a prototype.''In the 1980"s a number of linguists pursued this idea andsynthesized it in their linguistic analysis (Coleman and Kay 1980, Lakoff 1987, Langacker
1987b, Rudzka-Ostyn 1988, Taylor 1989, Tshatzidis 1990)."'In linguistics. Prototype Theory' is a reaction to Katz and Fodor"s (1963) feature
analysis in the tradition of generative linguistics.

Katz and Fodor (1963) and Katz andPostal (1964) argue that the meaning of a lexical item can be defined in terms of bundlesof semantic

components (i.e.

features).

They support

the idea

thatlexicalconcepts/categories are criteria, and maintain that there exists a purely linguistic level ofconceptual structuring which is precisely distinguished from other "encyclopedic" forms ofconceptual information.
Theory.

All these notions contrast with the point of \ iew of Prototype

In an early defense of a prototypical approach. Fillmore (1975) calls the^ Berlin and Ka> s (1969) sliid> of color terms is also an important early work for Protot\ pc Theor\.
'More reccnt applications of Prototype Tlieor\ arc the following: Croft (1991). Ueliara (199.^)for "Japanese nominal adjectives." Shibatani (1985) for "Japanese passives." Sliibatani (1991)
for "Japanese subjectliood." Jacobsen (19S9) for "transitivity." Rice (19S7) for "English prepositions."
Arnetl (1995) for "German passives." and Kabata (2000) for "the Japanese particle m'.
For instance, the meaning of "bachelor" is represented by four features such as Ihunianj. [male], [adultj.
and |ne\er married). Kat/. and Fodor consider the features [hunian||niale||adult| to be semantic markers,
and llie feature |nc\cr married] as a distinguishcr.

63

generative approach the "checklist theory" of meaning, and he emphasizes the usefulnessof adopting "schema".

LakofF (1987: chapter 4) also points out the limitations of thefeature approach, and he argues that ""human categorization is essentially a matter of bothhuman experience and imagination-of perception, motor activity, and culture, on the one
hand, and of metaphor, metonomy, and mental imagery on the other.""Prototype theory, however, is not problem-free (LakotT 1987; Geeraerts 1988.
1989; Vandeloie 1990).

Geeraerts (1989: 592-593) points out, for instance, the definitionof prototype theory might not be clear.

He states that ""prototypicality is itself aprototypical concept,"" and lists four characteristics of prototypicality:(a) Prototypical categories cannot be defined bv means of a sinule set of criteria attributes.
(b) Prototypical categories exhibit a familv-resemblance structure,(c) Prototypical categories exhibit decrees of cateuorv memberships, and(d) Prototypical categories are blurred at the edges.
He points out that although we have had great success with the prototypical model ofconceptual structure in linguistics, there are a considerable number of issues that requireclarification "Geeraerts (1988) paper, "Where Does Prototypicality Come From']'", makes
insightfijl points related to approaches that the previous studies applying Prototype Theor>'
have been based on.

He summarizes four kinds of hypotheses to explain prototypicalphenomena:" Given four examples oflcxical concepts, bird." read." "odd number." and Ncrs" (a Dulcli adjective•frsh") lie claimed that these four different types oflcxical concepts shared none of the characteristics ofprototypicality mentioned abo\e For instance, "bird" has all the attributes except (d) blurred boundary.

64(e) Physiological hypothesis (limited to perceptual phenomena such as color),(f) Referential phenomena (e .g. the family resemblance model, which Geeraerts calls "aside-effect of the mutual attribute relations among the instances),(g) Statistical hypothesis (the most frequently experienced member of a category is the
prototype), and(h) Psychological hypothesis (the most information that can be provided with the least
cognitive effon through a form of prototype).
Geeraerts claims that the first three hypotheses tr\' to explain prototypicality on thebasis of materialistic data, either the material structure of the human perceptual apparatus,or the material characteristics (statistical or otherwise) of the referential range of theconcepts involved.

For instance, according to Geeraerts, the frequency of one linguistic

occurrence may be a heuristic tool to pinpoint prototypes, but is not the source of
prototypicality.

Geeraerts argues that his fourth hypothesis, which is psychologically

based and could be functional, is the best choice, since it is cogniti\ely advantageous dueto the economical effect of information density.
Although they did not discuss the issue of prototypicah'ty, Bybee and Thompson(1997: 378) proxide insightflil points about the issue of frequency etTects in linguistic
studies. They explain that distributions that appear to be arbitran.' need to be examinedfrom the perspective of two kinds of frequencies—the token frequency and the type
frequency.''

They also maintain that the effects yielded by these different types offrequencies have important implications for the notions of mental representation.

Twomajor etTects, for instance, are yielded by high token frequency such as the reduction

uliilc "\crs' iiiis all c.xccpi (a) single set of criteria.
Token frcquena means (lie count of the occiirrence in icxts of particular words, w hile l\ pc frequencemeans the count of how many different lexical items a certain pattern or grammatical constmction isapplicable to.

65

effect, e .g.. the loss of syllabicity in post-stress schwa - resonant sequences, and theconserving effect, e.g.. the subjunctive in Canadian French.

Bybee and Thompson (1997)

propose that the repetition of tokens is due to the increased le.xical strength (Bybee I9S5)
or entrenchment (Langacker 1987a) of certain words or phrases; therefore, this repetitionof tokens often e.xhibits the conser\ ing effect, i.e. high-frequency e.xpressions which ha\ emaintained their traditional form despite general changes.

Following Geeraens's

arguments on the approach to prototypicality and Bybee and Thompson's approach tofrequency effects in linguistic research. 1 explore not only the issue of the token frequencyof the Japanese locative postpositions in natural discourse, but also examine the type
frequency as well as the functions that these locatives have and the function of the topic
marker which often follows these locative postpositions.
2.3.Basics of Cognitive Graiiimar
In this section, i provide a short explanation of CG terminology which is vital tounderstanding the following chapters.'" The fundamental concepts relevant to this study
are the following: 1) schema, 2) base/profile, 3) trajector/landmark. 4) things/relations. 5)
stative/process. 6) composite/component structures. 7) perfective/imperfective processes,
and 8) automous/dependent alignment.
2.3.1. Schema
Semantic structure described in terms of schema is similar to the concepts of•frame" and 'construction" proposed by Fillmore (1982) and Goldberg (1995), respectively.

' " See for Langacker (19X7;i: 485-494) for complete explanations tor all CG terms.

66

in that frames or grammatical constructions have their own linguistic units of meaning
which could be interpreted as being schematically represented.

In Langacker's

usage-based model, the relationship between schema and prototype is represented as in
Figure 2.1 from Langacker (1999: 102).'''

SchemaE.xtension

PrototypeFigure 2.1: Schematization and Prototype
The members of a category are defined by "nodes" where several categorizing relationships
are linked to each other as shown above.

One such categorizing relationship is called"schema" indicated by a line from the schema to the prototype or the extension.

A

schema is an abstract template representing the commonality of the structures it
categorizes, and it is instantiated by a prototype or elaborates an extension as the lines
mentioned indicate.

A second kind of categorizing relationship is a "prototype" which isoften acquired first and is the one most likely to be activated in a neutral context, ct.
Slobin (1981) for transitivity, Taylor (1989. Chapter 13), since that is most salient inlinguistic use.

A third kind of categorizing relationship is called an "extension"

relationship, indicated by a dotted line from the prototype to the extension and fi'om theprototype to the schema.

An extension refers to an extended (innovated) sense which

speakers elaborate with their schema.

Based upon this idea, Langacker develops a

For ihc sake of clarii\. Figure 2.1 has been modincd.

67

Network Mode! and explains the semantic structure for the English verb ' r u n ' , which 1
return to in section 2.5.

In this study. 1 am testing if the e.xamination of the full range of

empirical data regarding Japanese locative postpositions requires the concept of prototype
or a network model.
2.3.2. Base and Profile
Understanding of the concepts of base and profile are essential in this framework,
because the meaning of an expression is the conceptual staicture which that expression
evokes or activates. The conception, however, when evoked by an expression, does not
get evoked symmetrically all through the structure of the conception.

Rather, some

substructure may become more salient than others by the expression, and an asymmetrical
relationship in the staicture is constaied as the expression designates

That is. the base is

the conceptual staicture which the expression evokes, while the profile is the particularpart of the conception that the expression designates and is. therefore, more salient andmore highly activated than the base (Langacker 1987a: 183-187).

See similar views suchas Talmy's (1983) schematization. tlgure and ground, and LakotFs (1987) image
schema."'In CG. the meaning of an expression resides in a combination of profile andbase, not in the base or the profile alone.

The meanings of expressions derive from thedesignation of a specific entity characterized by the relationship of profile/base within alarger configuration. (Langacker 1987 183).

In CG notation, bold lines indicate what is

1 will introduce the concept of a network model in a later section.
The conceptual perspective allows us to establish a particular relation by image, analogy and metaphor, relying
on mentally activ ated schemas. and connects to the origin of the target. For instance. Matsumoto (199."^) argues
that the Japanese numeral classifier, /ion, evokes a specific trajectorv image attached lo tiic object.

68

profiled.

For instance, the expression hypotenuse which is represented in a bold line in

Figure 2 2. profiles a specific subpart of the conception of a right-angle triangle, a base.
In other words, it is impossible to invoke the meaning of hypotenn.se without hav ing thewhole image of the triangle.

Fiuure 2.2. Imaue Schema for 'hypotenuse"
Another example is a subpart of the conception of a cup such as "handle" and "rim"represented in bold lines in Figure 2.3. and Figure 2.4. respectively. The expression of"handle" and "rim" invoke the same base of a cup as a base; however, these expressions
differ in terms of what part they profile.

Fiuure 2.3 Image Schema for "handle"

Figure 2.4. Imaue Schema for "rim'

2.3.3. Landmark and Trajector
Besides the notion of base and profile, it is necessary to understand anotherprominent asymmetry; landmark vs. trajector.

Langacker (1987a: 217-18) argues that

one of the entities in a given situation is prominent as a figure within one relational profile

59
and calls it the "trajector". while what is referred to as the point or points of reference forlocating the trajector within one relational profile is called the "landmark".

o6

trajector

landmark

I Q
O

landmark

Fiuure 2.5. Imaue Schema for "above"

trajector

Fimire 2 6. Imaue Schema for "below

For example, the prepositions "above" and "below ", following Langacker's convention, arerepresented in Figures 2.5. and 2.6. respectively.

Both "above " and "below" profile thesame (simple) relation (adapted from Langacker 1998: 11).

These expressions, however,

ditTer from each other in that they have contrasting semantic values, depending on which isevoked as the trajector.

A dotted line connecting two circles represents an (atemporal)

relation which 1 explain in the next section.

Given the basic notions of base/profile and of

trajector/landmark, in the following sections, I explain how grammatical categories arecaptured in the CG framework.
2.3.4. Things and Relations
Cognitive linguists take the view that grammatical categories should not be
specified by formal criteria only, but rather in terms of both semantic and formal criteria,
and that the role of semantic criteria should be examined in context (Langacker 1987a,

70

Croft 1991).

Langacker (1987a) claims that grammatical categories such as nouns, verbs,

and adjectives are distinguished by how they are semantically characterized.
ENTITYRELATIONS

THINGPROCESSATEMPORALRELATIONSCOMPLEXATEMPORALRELATIONSTATIVE
RELATION

Figure 2.7: Thinu-Relation

In the framework of CG, grammatical categories are classified into two major groups;
THINGs and RELATIONS

Figure 2 7. illustrates how THINGs and RELATION 'S are

related to each other (Langacker 1987a: 249).

The term ENTITY is used as an abstractcategory which neutralizes the distinction between THINGs and RELATION 'S.

ENTITY

is a cover terms which refer to analytical purposes: "things, relations, sensations,interconnections, points on a scale, locations, in the visual field etc" (Langacker 1987a:
63).

Nouns, which profiles THINGs, are defined as "regions in some domain", while

everything else, such as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pre/postposional phrases, infinitives
and participle constructions, are categorized as RELATIONS.

REL.ATlONs presuppose

more than one entity, and construe the "interconnections among other entities" (Langacker

71

1987a).

THINGS and RELATION 'S are, however, not necessarily ditTerent from eachother in the nature of their intrinsic content (e.g. "explode" and "explosion )Rather, anentity's categorization is determined by the way of construing its content.

Following

Langacker's convention, ENTITIES. THINGs. and RELATIONS are schematicallyillustrated in Figure 2.8., Figure 2.9., and Figure 2.10. respectivelv
in a small square, and a thing is illustrated in a small circle.

A entity is illustrated

A dotted line in Figure 2.10

indicates interconnections between two entities in a relation.

entitventitvthinu
r^nterconnection
entityFimirc 2.X. Inuiuc Sclicma for Eiitiiv
Fimirc 2.10. Iiiiauc Scliciiia for Rclaiioii
Fimirc 2.9. Imauc Sclicma for Tliiim

Relational expressions are further divided into two groups: PROCESS and
ATEMPOR.AL.

Verbs profile the former, which is characterized as ""a scene followed

sequentially in its evolution through conceived time", while atemporal relations arecharacterized as "scenes holistically" or ones that do not include a sequential passing oftime (Langacker 1991: 5).
The distinction between process and atemporal relations is caicial for thesemantic analysis of the Japanese locative postpositions /// and Je, since this notion aids in
explaining some peculiarities of ni and de.

Two of the peculiarities that I discuss infurther detail with respect to the issue are 1) the challenge of a unified account covering all

72

usages of the locative postpositions at issue, and 2) the unidirectionality of changing
postpositions from de to /// in certain cases.

Nakau's (1995b) "phasal verbs" and Martin's(1978) "resultatives" seem to play an important role in determining the choice between ni
and tk' as a location marker.

More specifically, there are three main reasons for using the

CG concepts of process and atemporal relations for the analysis of/// and dc
First, it is appropriate to use the CG concepts, since they are able to capture whatlooks like prototypical uses (stative vs. dynamic) of the Japanese locative postpositions
and their relatedtense/aspect).

associations beyond grammatical categories (nouns, verbs, andThat is, these notions help us understand the relationship between the

prototypical use of ///, with its attribute of atemporality, and the semantic concept "stative".
and the relationship between what looks like the prototypical use of de and "dynamic"
nature.'^ Second, these notions explain the unidirectionality of the alternation of/// andde. i.e. a shift from dynamic to stative perspectives.

Third, these notions help us grasp

the subtle ditTerences between a prototypical usage and less prototypical uses of these
postpositions.

In the next section, 1 give an o\ er\ iew of the relation between stative andprocess in CG, and 1 argue that the notion of stative relation and process in CG provides
solutions to the problems that I have discussed in Chapter 1.
2.3.5. Stative and Process
In the framework of CG, the stative relation is semantically defined as predicates'^M> rcscarcli on the poslposition de sians with two assumptions: 1) dc has a prototypical usage wliich
maps on the dynamic component iniicrcnt to prcdicatcs. 2) de has more \aguc schema, and what looks
like prototypical usage is the outconic of the combination of de and ccrtain types of predicates. [ w ill
make it clear w hicli position 1 will adopt at the beginning of Chapter 4.

that are non-temporal."* That is, stativity implies that the profiled situations do not have a
temporal dimension and the temporal dimension is not salient.

Langacker (1982. 48)

states "it [stative] represents a particular type of perspective on a scene, and it is notmatter of the actual duration of the situation, conceptually or in the "real world"".

Stativeis represented by a single state as shown in Figure 2.11. (Langacker 1987b: 75).

Process

relations stand in sharp contrast to stative relations.

A process occurs over time and thetemporal dimension is prominent, as the arrow in Figure 2.12. indicates (Langacker
1987b: 75).

A process is represented by a continuous sequence of profiled relations, eachof which is in isolation and constitutes a state, with a temporal extension.

The major

difference between stative and process relations is the temporal element, indicated by the
1163%^ arrow in the schematization of process.
relation the scene is construed sequentially.

Figure 2.12. illustrates that in a process

Figure 2.11. on the contrary, shows that astative scene consists of one simple state and it is captured holistically; therefore, the time
dimension is not profiled.

trajector

landmark

o

ooo

a

Figure 2.11. Imaue Schema for Simple Stative

Figure 2.12. Image Schema for Processsimilar point was made by Veiidlcr (l%7:ill) saying that "states involve time instances in an
indefinite and non-uniqiic sense". Similarly. Smith (198.'i. 1997) states that stales arc situations that arestable and homogenous in nature. Conirie (1976) claims that states do not liave any dy namics.

74

According to Langakcer (1982, 1987a, 1987b), there are two kinds of stative relations:simple and complex.

The distinction between simple stative and complex stative is vitalfor explanations of both prototypical and less prototypical usages of ni

That is. simple

stative relations can be compared to the prototypical usage of ni. and complex stative
relations find their equivalent comparison with less prototypical usage.

Simple andcomplex statives are similar in that neither one profiles the time dimension, although timeplays an important role in the distinction between simple and complex stative relations.

A

complex relation is different from a simple relation in that the former presupposes a seriesof component states, profiling the final component, whereas the latter only profiles one
single state.

In the stative relation, the temporal dimension does not have as much as

saliency as in a process relation.

Schematically, simple stative and complex stative

relations are illustrated in Figure 2.13. and Figure 2.14. respectively

P

••P

b•

••

Fimirc 2.13. Inumc Schema for Simple Slalivc Rclalionb•

Fimire 2.14. Imauc Schema for Complex
Slaiivc Relation (past paniciplc)"

Figure 2.13. shows that a single state designates one simple stative relation, while Figure
2.14. shows that one kind of complex stative relation, the past participle, designates only

' ' Complex stative relations could be represented by a past participlc. adjectival, or passive construction.

75

the final state in the overall process.

Although it is not profiled. Fiyure 2 13 and Figure

2.14. show that time is an important parameter for distinguishing between simple andcomplex relations.

Although the difference between simple and complex stative relations

is not discrete, there are some distinct characteristics which do distinguish the two stative
relations.

Since a simple stative relation only involves a single component, it cannot

imply any action.

In contrast, a complex stative relation involves multiple components

which are associated with some actions.
final state.

A complex stative relation also emphasizes theConsider the following two examples (2.1a) and (2. lb) which have the samegrammatical construction (be-stative) but represent simple stative and complex stati\erelations respectively(2, la) The glass is fragile.
(2. lb) The glass is broken.
The example (2.1a) describes a characteristic of the glass.
stative state, and no process is implied.
(2.1a).

Figure 2.13 is the abstract schema for example

Example (2.1b), on the other hand, expresses one state of a broken glass on the

fioor. although process is implied.
the process of "break"profiled.

This example represents one

The emphasis is on the final stati\e state, and not on

As shown in Figure 2.14, only the final state of 'broken" isConsider another pair of examples from Langacker (1987) below(2.2a) There is a bridge across the river.
(2.2b) The hiker waded across the river.

(Langacker 1987b. 71)

The word 'across" in (2.2a) 'a bridge" serves as a trajector and profiles a simple stative

See chapter 6 in L;ingackcr (1982) for more detailed discussion on the comple.x stati\c relation.

76

relation, while 'the hiker" in (2.2b) serves as a trajector and the same word, "across"profiles a complex stative relation.

Both sentences show that trajectors can be a pathleading from one side of a landmark to the other

However, in (2 2a) the trajector. 'abridge", is construed as a man-made constructed object which occupies the entire path,and is, thus, profiled as a single configuration.

In contrast, the trajector, "hiker", referred

to example (2.2b) is construed as a small object on the path, and occupies the points along
it sequentially.

This type of sequentially profiled scene consists of a continuous sequenceof distinctive configurations, which defines the trajector as a single object moving along alinear path.

The relations are complex because these distinctive configurations are

profiled sequentially.
2.3.6, Composite Structure and Component Structure
In the last section, I discussed the notions of stative and process defined in CG as
they pertain to the analysis of ni and de.

In order to appropriately discuss how theseabstract schematic structures are coded linguistically, I will briefly introduce an additional
CG concept: component structure and composite structure.
Langacker (1982: 38) argues that a speaker has "the ability to combine andintegrate two or more conceptualizations to form a more complex, composite conceptual
structureThe speaker, however, needs to disaggregate such integrated and complex
concepts into separate parts. These separated parts are the components of compositional
patterns which then become accessible for linguistic encoding (Langacker 1987a: 278).
In CG, smaller symbolic elements are combined into a symbolically-complex expression ora construction which consists of two or more component structures. Langacker (1987a:

77

277;

1981: 3) defines component structure as the structure thatcombines thesubstructures as profiled, while composite structure is defined as the integrated entity thatisthe outcome of compositionality.

The component structures are linkedby"correspondences", and best described as categorizing, rather than as constituting, since
they serve as the form-meaning pairing to a certain extent.
For instance, Langaker (1982) calls the perfect participle "[PERF]". and argues
that there are three types of [PERF] which can occur with "be".

[PERF] serves to turn aprocess into a state, and it combines syntagmatically with a verb stem and imposing its
schematic base process on the verb stem.

Using the sentence "They will be gone" as an

example. 1 provide the compositional and composite structure for [PERFl], "gone",
below.
Figure 2.15. illustrates that a verb "go" elaborates on the schematic base of[PERFl], imposing its content and making PERF the profile determinant for the particle
construction, "gone".

The final state of the participle construction is formed by combining

the process "go" with [PERFl]; that is, it is formed by combining the lower left-hand box"go" as the base and the profile determinant is illustrated in the box in the lower right-handcorner.

The composite structure, as a result, designates the final state of the process"go" illustrated in the upper center box. This final stage of the participle, "gone", could bea simple or complex relation which can be combined with BE

78

GONE

PERFl

GO
tr: trajectory Im: landmark

Fimire 2.15: Imaue Schema tor '^one' (Lantzacker 1987a: 283)

2.3.7. Imperfective Process and Perfective Processes
Processes divide into imperfective and perfective processes (cf Delancy's (1981)
notion of "terminal viewpoint').

Like the stative and process contrasts that I introduced in

the previous section, a contrast between imperfect and perfect is important for the semantic

79

analysis of ni and de. This contrast is fundamental for the distinction between ni and dc interms of the number of their grammatical ramifications (nouns, verbs and aspect) with aview of its primar\' character (stative vs dynamic).

In Chapter 3. I propose that thecharacterization of imperfective and perfective processes accounts for the prototypicalusage of the Japanese locative postpositions ni and dt\ and that the abstract schemata for ///and dc elucidate their subtle semantic similarities that were problematic in linguistic theories
other than CG.
Langacker (1982; 1987a, Chapter 7; 1987b), basing his analysis upon English
tense/aspect, proposes that the imperfective process describes an extension of a stablesituation through time (e.g. rescmhie, haw, and knou), while the perfective processdescribes a situation as changing through time {e.y.. Jump, kick, explore, arrive, and cook).
Imperfective and perfective process are related to each other in that both include multiple
instances through the conceived time, and that such instances are scanned sequentially ""The difference between imperfective and perfective processes, however, lies in a change inthe process.

An imperfective process, by definition, does not include any change, which

implies that all component states are identical and perpetuated through time through astate configuration.

.A perfective process, on the other hand, by definition, includes achange, which implies that "endpoints are included within the scope of predication"(Langacker 1987b: 81)."'Another difference, which Langacker (1987b: 79) claims as"" Liingackcr (1987b) suggests tluit the pcrfecti\c/iniperrccii\e contrast for \ crbs is parallel to a
count/mass distinction for noinis.
Langackcr's inipcrfcclivc is cqui\alcnl to what Vcndlcr (1%7) called "states" while pcrfecti\c isequivalent to other categories such as •achievement", 'activities", and "acconiplishnicnl". Langacker

80"symptomatic", is that a perfective process, which includes a change in the process, can beused in progressive form, but in the simple present form, it always has the meanings of"habitual" or "historical present", e .g. "Tom is building a canoe" is acceptable while "Tombuilds a canoe" is less acceptable as "standard" English.

Imperfective. a process which

does not involve any change, can be used in the simple present tense, but cannot be usedin the progressive form. e .g. "Tom resembles his father" is acceptable without any conte.\t.
while "Tom is resembling his father" is not acceptable in standard American English
without further contexualization.
There are two important points regarding the imperfective and perfective contrast
for the semantic analysis of/// and Jc

First, there is no rigid dichotomy partitioning theverbs into two groups, imperfective and perfective.

Instead, verbs that normally belong

to one are often shifted to the other by a complement or an adverb or a choice of
subject/object. Consider the following examples (Langacker 1987a: 258).
(2.3a) 1 see the mountains(2.3b) *1 see a tlash.
In both examples (2.3a) and (2.3b). the verb "see" is used.

In (2.3a) the verb isimperfective, but in (2.3b) it is perfective. Example (2.3a) is well-formed in the simple
present without any special interpretation.

Langacker explains that the reason for this isthat "mountain" in (2.3a) is able to endure through time, and supports a perceptual
relationship profiled in a temporal domain, while "flash" in (2.3b) instantaneously exists,
and is unlikely to be profiled in the temporal domain.

Consider the following pair of(1987b:7y fn) notes tiiat tlie contrast between perfectixe and linperfectiN e in Sla\ ic studies is notSI

examples.
(2.4a) I'm liking this theory better and better.
(2.4b) *rm liking this theory
In both examples (2.4a) and (2.4b). the verb phrase "am liking" is used.

In (2.4a) the verb

phrase is imperfective, due to the adverbial phrases 'better and better", and example (2.4b)
is not well-formed since the verb "like" cannot be interpreted as imperfective without anadverbial phrase.

In saying that perfective and imperfective inherently have an attributewhich could be shifted in context, semantic alternation from Je to ni serves to convert
perfective into imperfective.

Furthermore, 1 argue that there is no rigid dichotomy

between ///-marked location verbs and i/f-marked location verbs.

Normally, a verb which

belongs to ^/c-marking groups can be shifted to the other by the choice of subject or the
choice of adverbs, which I explore in the following chapters.
2.3.8. Autonomous Alignment and Dependent Alignment
Anothernotion

in

CG

that

I

would

like

to

introduce

is

that

of

autonomous/dependent (.A/D) alignment. The distinction between autonomous anddependent alignments is crucial for grammatical structures and applicable to phonologicaland conceptual structures (Langacker 1987a: 298-310)."

Understanding the notion ofautonomous/dependent alignment is necessary, since one of the CG studies that 1 will
discuss proposes an analysis of ni and c/c using the notion of A/D alignment.

Langacker

cqiii\alcnt.
For instance. Langackcr claims lliat \o\\cls arc autonomous wiiilc consonants arc dcpcncicni. since theformer can stand alone as a syllabic or a word with some exceptions, while the latter cannot. According
to Langackcr. the fundamental property of\owels is stable sonority w hich is the basis for an asy iiimetrical
relationship between autonomous/dependent segments of phonology.

82(1987: 300) defines a conception as autonomous (A) when it is not elaborated by anotherconception, while a conception is dependent (D) when it is "dependent on the other, (A),to the extent that (A) constitutes an elaboration of a salient substructure within (D) 'Theterm "dependency" has been widely acknowledged in linguistics (cf. Anderson 197!) and
Langacker's notion of dependency is similar to these conceptions.

The distinction

between autonomous and dependent alignment is also used in generative grammar (cfChomsky's (1965) analysis of adverbs which are internal and external to verbal phrases).
The following points show how Langacker's application is divergent from others: the ideathat the distinction between autonomous and dependent elements is inherently a matter ofdegree, not discreteness, and the notion of dependency involves deeper levels such as anunderlying conceptual level as well as phonological levels.""" Observe the example from
Langacker (1987a) in Figure 2.22 which diagrams the relation between [UNDER] and[THE-TABLE]

He claims that [UNDER] is dependent on [THE-TABLE] because theprimary landmark of [UNDER] is quite salient and schematic and, more cmcially that it iselaborated by the specifications of [THE-TABLE].

On the other hand, [THE-TABLE] is

Chomsky and Halle's (196S) 'The Sowul I'aitcrn of English' shows that gcnerntnc lheor> docs iiol
fa\or the idea of a matter of degree in tlie field of phonology. In generative phonology, binary features,
e.g. +\ocalic. c.\ist independently and pla\ a central role in phonological explanation. For instance.
Chomsky and Halle argue that suprasegmental levels arc independent from the segmcni. This idea,
however, failed when Goldsmith (1976). who was concerned with tonal languages in .Africa, proposed
autosegmcntal phonology He claims that a one-to-one relationship between segments and features is notnecessary and proposes that the "tier" approach is a better solution to the problems in tonal languages.
My interpretation is that Goldsmith s inno\ati\e approach is similar to Langacker's conceptual- based
approach in that both of them made the most significant departures from the theoretical framework
proposed by Chomsky. Both are concerned with languages which do not fit the generati\c framework,sucii as African languages for Goldsmith, and Uto-A/tecan and Cora for Langacker. The development of
two different theories implies that those who encounter problems which do not fit the given theoreticalframework are motivated to pursue another theory wiiich gives a better account for the problems at hand.

83

not conceptually dependent on [UNDER] because the schematic locative relationship is
not obligatorily accessed when a table is conceptualized.

HORfZONAL

FOOTBALLUNDER-THE-TABLE

Fiuure 2.16: Imaue Schema for "football-under-the-table' (Lanuacker lQS7a. 289)

1 have noted that there is a critical difFerence between autonomous and dependent
elements in CG.

Dependent elements presuppose that there are at least two structures tofulfill their interpretation, where autonomous elements can stand alone without the needfor additional structures.

Even though there are clear and distinct differences between theautonomous and dependent elements, both conceptually and structurally it is inherently amatter of degree, which makes the distinction more difficult to delineate.
basic concepts in CG.

These ideas are

In the next section, 1 am going to evaluate one analysis of ni andde proposed by Kumashiro within CG.

A discussion of Kumashiro (1994a, 1994b, 2000)

84

might seem to be a detour from the central topic of locative postpositions, /// and tie. since
his main interests lie in the conceptual explanation of Japanese clausal structures.
However, since he uses the distinction between /// and dc as part of the explanation ofJapanese clausal structures, it fits within my thesis.

The fact that he attributes inherent

meaning to what have otherwise been thought of as mere grammatical markers in his
analysis of Japanese clausal structures lends support to my view that the choice ofJapanese locative postpositions is semantically motivated based upon the speaker's
viewpoint.
2.4. Kuniashiro (1994a, 1994b, 2000)
Kuniashiro (1904a, 1994b, 2000) undertakes a comprehensive review of Japaneseclausal structure within the framework of cognitive grammar

He (1994b, 2000)

proposes that the senses of grammatical categories such as Japanese case markers andadpositions lie within the same continuum that gives meaning to words that h a \ etraditionally been considered to do nothing more than assign syntactic roles to other words.
Specifically, Kuniashiro (1994b) proposes that the continuum is defined semantically by
three distinct characteristics of grammatical morphemes: 1) the grammatical morpheme
profiles a relation or a complement participant, 2) the grammatical morpheme marks amodifier or complement, and 3) the phrase that the grammatical morpheme follows isdependent or autonomous (A/D). One of the challenges at hand is to elucidate the varied"*4

In his dissertation, Kuniashiro (2()()()) makes the follow ing three claims; 1) the noniinati\ c-accusali\epattern, the dati^e-no^linati^•c/double nominaii\e patterns, and the topic constniction code different
conceptual interrelations; 2) there arc two different notions of subject (the clausc-le\el subject andpredicate-le\el subject) in Japanese; and fi) the conceptual-bascd notion of case-ntarking is against the

85

usages of Japanese locatives ni and tic in natural language.

He takes the usage approachby using the .VD asymmetry to explain Japanese clausal structures.
2.4.1.Prototypical Postposition de
Kumashiro considers the locative postposition de as being the prototypical
postposition, whereas the goal marker /// is a postposition that is more case-marker-iikethan the prototypical postposition de.

Consider example (2.5).

(2.5) Kissaten de
Hanako ga
aisukuriimu
cortee shop at
Hanako NOM ice cream"Hanako ate ice cream at the cotTee shop."otabe-ta.
ACC
eat-PST(Kumashiro 1994b: 236)

According to Kumashiro. the t/c-marked phrase, kissaten de. 'at the coffee shop" in (2.5) isdefined by three parameters: 1) profiling a spatial relation, 2) forming a modifier tor anautonomous structure, and 3) serving as being dependent.

De in this phrase is dependent

since kissaien de, "at the cotTee shop", presupposes another phrase for its RJII interpretation.
That is, to conceive of the relation coded by de, one must also conceive of theparticipant/event in which it exists/happens. This participant/event has to be autonomous
One such participant/event is Hanako-ga ice cream o raheia. "Hanako ate ice cream' as
shown in (2.5).

Figure 2.17. illustrates a schema for kissaten de, "at the coffee shop"(Kumashiro 1994b: 248).

k'issaten de is dependent in that the staicture of a ^/c-phrase

needs to be elaborated by another staicture, for instance Hanako-^a. to realize its fullinterpretation. This is the prototypical postposition, de.

commonly held position tluit ease markers arc scmanlically empty grammatical morphemes.

86

Energy Transmission'>

Fiiiiirc 2.17. Imaiic Schcma for coffce-shop-dc

Fimirc 2. IX. Imauc Schcma for Hannh)-!>a

The prototypical subject case marker

on the other hand, is defined completely

differently with the following three parameters: 1) it profiles a participant, not a spatial
relation, 2) it forms a complement, not a modifier, and 3) it serves as an autonomous
structure, not as a dependent structure.

The subject nominal, Hatiako-i^a. in sentence(2.5) represents one such case, and the image schema for Hanako-ga is presented in
Figure 2.18 (Kumashiro 1994b: 248)

Hanako-ga is autonomous, since it does notpresuppose any structure for full conceptual interpretation.

Rather, Hanako-^a is part ofa clause, playing the role of the profile determinant of this clause.

Hanako-^'a is notnecessarily connected to icc cream o taheia, "ate ice cream" for full interpretation
According to Kumashiro, the clause Hanako-ga ice cream o taheta,

Hanako ate ice

cream" is also autonomous, since this clause can be conceptualized without accessing thelocative relationship kissaien de "at the coffee shop".
2.4.2. Locative Setting and de
In section 1 2.3, I briefly pointed out that Kumashiro considers de as functioning
as a locative setting. I refer to his example sentence (1.42) from Chapter 1 below.

87(1.42) Suisu dekokusai kaigi
gayoku
hirak-are-m(koto).
Switzerland-in
internaticnal-conference-NOM often hoId-PASS-PRES"that international conferences are often held in Switzerland'(Kumashiro 2000: 176)
The locative setting Siii.sii "Switzerland" in (1.42) is a modifier of the predicate andthis setting is out of the clausal profile

Kumashiro (2000) uses a syntactic test, cleftingwith a particle as Sadakane and Koizumi (1995) did to test whether or not the locative
setting is outside the clause profile"\

By establishing that sentence (2.6), a cleft versionof (1.42), is grammatical, he shows that the phrase, Sui.sii c/c da 'it is in Switzerland" is a
postpositional phrase; therefore, the phrase Siiisii 'Switzerland' is out of the clausal
profile.
(2.6) Kokusai kaigi
gayoku hirak-are-ru-no-wa
Suisu-de-da.
International conference NOM often hold-PSS-PRES-NML-TOP Switzerland-in-be"It is in Switzerland that international conferences are often held."

Kumashiro (2000) introduces Langacker's (1997, 2000) notion of ^Locational
Path' and he claims that the t/c-marked location, Snisii - i /e 'in Switzerland' serves as areference point of the event.

In 'Locational Path' a spatial landmark functions as areference point, and the object is designated as target.

More specifically. Langacker(1997) states that a conceptualizer traces a mental path from one spatial landmark to thenext until a target is reached."''He gives the following example.

See footnote 10 in chapter 1 for the rationale behind using cleft sentences to test for postpositions.
Langacker (1997: 251) discusses "natural path' and defines it as "auN cogniti\ely natural ordering of
the elements of a coniple.x structure ". The notion of natural path" lends itself to description in terms ofreference-point chains. Locational Path is one of the natural paths which includes: (1) the transmissionof energy from participant to participant along an action chain. (2) the temporal sequence of ev ents orevent components. (3) the temporal order of words in the expression, and (4)access to clausal participants

88(2,7) Your camera is in the study, in the closet, on the top shelf, beside the pillows.
(Lanuacker 1997:257)
Langacker calls the structure shown in (2.7) as a "nested locative" construction since there
are series of locative expressions which successively narrow down the location of thesubject. When one hears this sentence, one's attention first goes to "the study", then onto
"the closet", then onto "the top shelf, and then onto 'the pillows." We locate objects withreference to larger or more salient objects, or those whose position is already known orestablished.

This successive mental contact is illustrated in Figure 2.19

72
Conceptualizer

T1/RP2/D2

T : Target

RPI/D

RP: rcfcrcncc point
D: Domain

DO

Fiuure 2.19. Imaue Schema for Locative Path (Lanuacker 1997: 257)'^
As shown in Figure 2.19. the conceptualizer makes mental contact with the domain 0 (DO),i.e. 'the study" in sentence (2.7), and through a series of sequential qualifiers to the final
target (T2), i.e. camera'.
Kumashiro claims that the Japanese dative marker /// marks an internal setting in

on tlic basis of their relatix c prominence.

-17

A slight change is added to Figure l . V ) .

89that the setting is more closely integrated with the event structure evoked by a predicate.
Given example (2,8), Kumashiro argues that the external setting which is marked by dc.
genjiisii-dc-CMa), "in reality', is located closer to the beginning of the locational path than
the internal path."'* The schema for sentence (2.8) is illustrated in Figure 2.20.
(2.8)

Genjitus-de-vva Taroo-ni kono hon-ga muzukashi.
Reality-in-TOP'In reality, this book is absolutely difficult for Taro." (Kumashiro 2000: 197)

External Setting (de)OInternal Setting (///)

Conceptualizer

Fiizure 2.20.1maue Schema for External and Internal Settings (Kumashiro 2000. 197)
Kumashiro (2000: 193) proposes that the locative setting, Si(isii "Switzerland" in (2.6) cansimilarly be viewed a reference point for an event that takes place.

Figure 2.21.

represents a broader schema for the setting of an event as proposed by Kumashiro.

A

circle to the left in Figure 2.21. indicates a conceptualizer and a circle in the middle andone to the left indicates the subject and the patient respectively, in a traditional sense.

As

a dotted arrow indicates, the conceptualizer first makes mental contact with the reference
point, and then reaches the event.

Kumashiro (2000) docs not sccin to treat a t/c-inarkcd location and a (/tnirt-markcd location separately.

90

SETTING

FVFNT

o

CM®
TaruetConceptual izcr

Reference Point

Energy Transmission
Mental Path,^^

Change of state \ / ^Fiuure 2.21: Imaue Schema for Settinu-Event (Kumashiro 2000: 193)

2.4.3.'Hybrid' ni between Postposition and Case
Kumashiro (1994b) stresses that the goal marker ni is a postposition that is morecase-marker-like than the prototypical postposition Jc. The case-marker-like postpositionni is defined by the following parameters: 1) it profiles a spatial relation, rather than aparticipant, hence, it is more adposition-like in terms of profiling, 2) it forms a modifier fora dependent structure, rather than an autonomous structure, and 3) it serves as adependent like the prototypical adposition Jc.

Like the prototypical adposition c/c, ni isdependent since it presupposes another structure for its fijll interpretation.

That is, ni

needs to be elaborated by another structure in which some entity/participant exists.
Consider the example sentence (1.6) which describes Taro's putting a book on a desk.

This miglit caiisc a problem.

91

(1.6)

Tarogahonotukue no ue
Taro-NOM book ACC desuku of top'Taro put the book on the desk."

ni
oita.
DAT put PST(Kumashiro 1994b: 242)

Goal /// is similar to the locative Ue. in that both profile a spatial relation. They are alsosimilar since both of them serve as dependent structures, rather than autonomous
stnjctures.

To conceive of the relation coded by ///, one needs to conceive of theparticipant on which it is located.

Kumashiro claims that both isuknc no ue ni 'on thedesk" and oiici "put" in sentence (1.6) are dependent, and not autonomous.

This

conceptual structure for mkue no iie ni "on the desk" includes a schematic characterizationof a movement that needs to be elaborated by a corresponding staicture which designates
the specific goal of the movement of 'put" which makes them mutually dependent. ""Likewise, the conceptual structure for okii, 'put" needs to be elaborated by the location atwhich hon. 'book" gets placed.

Goal ni is a dependent structure combining with anotherdependent structure, whereas locative de is a dependent structure combining with anautonomous staicture, such as Hanako

aisiikiiriiinii o laheta in (2.5). The conceptual" ' For clarirication I added a slight modification.
My intcrprcialion of his argument on okii put' is tliat liis approach looks similar to the notion on
subcategori/ation w hich specifies tlie number of arguments that a \ crb takes and thematic role tliat cachverb assigns. This miglit generate potential criticism and confusion regarding liis argument. Tliis caseis similar to Fillmore (1%8). who received criticism from Kat/ (1972) who said that Fillmore did not
distinguish between grammatical functions and the scmanlic functions that Fillmore refers to as cases.
Fillmore's soltiiion to these problems was his < 1977) proposal lliat the meanings are rclalix ized to scenes,
and the selection of \crbs depends on the speaker's perspectixe. He justifies the notion of "scene" b\putting it into a larger "cognitiv e sccne". and claims that "the study of semantics is that studv of cognitiv escenes that arc created or activated by utterances (1977: 73). The notion of "scene" is quite similar toLangacker's view on semantics. What makes Langacker different from Fillmore is that the former
eniphasi/es the conceptual basis, is stronglv against the autonoins of s>nla.\. and does not allow
one-to-one mapping between synta.x and semantics. Langackcr s model is similar to Talmy s (19X5.
2()()()) crosslinguistic cognitive model which focuses on more gcneric categories such as "path" and"causal-chain".

92

staictures for this sentence are given in Figure 2.22.
Desk-of top-DAT put

desk topc^ojO

aoDesk-of top-DAT
Dependent
Schematic Participant
Energy Transmission
Correspondence

put
Dependent Head(0i=>

Location
Movement•

Fiaure 2.22: Imaue Schema (or hoii-o-isukiiL'-no-iiL'-ni-oila (Kumashiro 1994b: 243)

Table 2.1: Summary of Conceptual Natures of Locatives and Case Marking
Proposed by
Kumashiro (1994b)
E.\ainplc of Japanese ease/ 1 ) Profiling relationship 2) Scr\ ing as a complement or ?i) Sen ing as autonomous
adposiliii
Spacc or a Participantf/t'-plirascs
Space
Proloiypical adposilioii(noniinati\c) phrases Panicipant
Prototypical case marking
ni (Goal) phrasesSpace•h\brid"or modifier
Modifier combining w ith
Aiilonomous stnicture/hcad

or dependent structure

Complement

Autonomous

Modifier combining with
Dependent stnicture

Dependent

Dependent

J

93

Table 2.2 summarizes the conceptual natures of locatives /// and dc in comparison
with the conceptual nature of the prototypical case marker

As shown in this table,

the only difterence between ni and de, when combined with the locative phrases, is that ni
is associated with an autonomous structure and de is associated with a dependent
structure.

This distinction implies that ni is related to verbs, while dc is related tosubject nouns, since verbs always represent a dependent staicture. whereas nouns
represent an autonomous structure. ""adpositions to case markers.

Figure 2.23. summarizes the continuum from

This figure shows that ni is a "hybrid" between an

adpositional phrase and a case-marked nominal.

Postposition De

GO.TI .W

Recipient AV

Causee ;V/Nominative (ia<•Adposition

Case marker

Fiuure 2.23: Adposition and Case Marker Continuum (Kumashiro 1994b:248)"'' In a personal conmiunication. Kumashiro stated that the dilTerencc between the locati\e postpositions
III and (Ic is scmantically defined with tlie following cliaractcristics; 1) dc is never a part of a clausal
profile, while /;/ can be: 2) tie is never stronglv activated b> a predicate, whereas ni is strongh actixated b\a predicate.
Sugai (1997) claims that i/c indicates a location for the subject. He points out that the passive is agood e.xample to show this point, (i) is an activc sentence and (ii) is a passive sentence, (i) shows that
7'aroo marked by tlic nominativeis in the locker room which is marked by ilc. while (ii) shows that
Ilanakd marked by the nominative iia. not Tamo marked by the accusative o. is in the lockcr room. His
claim is against olliers such as Kaniio (1980) and Sliirota (199 .1) who state that dc as a locativc
postposition modifies the location for a sentence.
(i)Kooihitsu deTaroo ga
Hanako o
no/.oi-ta rashii.
lockcr room LOC
Taroo NOM
Hanako ACC
pcek-PST seems"It seemed that in the locker room Taroo peeked at Hanako."(Sugai 1997:28)(ii) Kooisliitu-dc
Hanako ga
Taroo ninozok-arc-ta rashii.
locker room LOC
Hanako NOM
Taroo DAT
have a pcek-PASS-PST seems"It seemed that Hanako was peeked at by Taroo in the lockcr room."(Sugai 1997:28)

94

One of the weakness of Kumashiro's (1994b) analysis is that he omitted any
discussion of the locative usage of ni.

I assume that he would consider the locative

stative ni as the same as Goal ni on the proposed continuum since it has the following
characteristics: 1) it profiles a spatial relationship, 2) it is a modifier combining with adependent structure, and 3) it serves as a dependent structure.

His analysis reduces thedifference between ni and de to the nature of the structure which these postpositions
modify, i.e. whether it is autonomous or dependent.

Using this .VD asymmetrN' tocharacterize ni and Jc provides little semantic description of the characteristics of these
postpositions such as stativity and their dynamic senses.

It is further unclear why what

seems to be the prototypical usage of Je (dynamic sense) modifies autonomous structures(nouns) and why the prototypical usage of ni (stative sense) modifiers dependent
structures (verbs).
2.4.4. Semantic Network form
Kumashiro (1994a) argues that various meanings of ///, such as GOAL.
RECIPIENT, and CAUSEE, can be defined by the middle ground between the
prototypical case marker and the prototypical adposition on the continuum.

Although hedoes propose a specific network model, it does not include specific evidence from corpus
studies, LI acquisition, and diachronic studies like Kabata (2000).

Kumashiro (1994a)

claims that the continuum of ni is best captured in the Network-based approach (LakotY
1987, Langacker 1987, 1988, 1991).

Kumashiro agues that the semantic similarities of

For tlic sake of clarin. a slight niodificalion is added to Figure 2 23.

95///, at least between neighboring senses, are expressed by schemas and extensions as in
Figure 2.24. ""'Goal—^ Recipient^•Causee
Possessor•.Auent>•Auentive Source• Experiencer

Fiuure 2.24: Semantic Network For/// (Kumashiro 1994a: 414)
Kumashiro explains that Goal and Recipient are similar in that both describe
movement into some sort of space.

Consider examples (2.9) and (2.10).

Example (2.9)

expresses Tokyo/) followed by ni is the Goal, while example (2.10) expresses Hanako
followed by /// as a recipient of tlowers.
(2.9)(2.10)

Taroo-gasengetsu
Tokyoo -iii
Taroo-NO.M
last monthTokyo-LOC"Taro went to Tokyo last month."it-ta.
go-PST

Taroo-ga
Hanako -iii
hana-oage-ta.
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-DAT tlower-.ACC give-PST"Taro uave tlowers to Hanako."[GO.AL](Kumashiro 1994a:40l[RECIPIENT](Kumashiro 1994a:401

The Goal sense of ni in (2.9) and the Recipient sense of /// in (2.10) are illustrated•""* The e.xamples for Goal. Recipient. Causee. Agent, and Agcmive Source arc sentences (2.9). (2.10).
(2.11). (2.1.^). and (2.14). respectively. The e.xamples for Possessor and E.xperiencer are gi\cn in (i) and(ii) rcspccti\cly.
(i) Taroo -ni
snnninini.
kodonio-ga
three-person exist
Taroo-DAT child- NOM(Kumashiro l'J94a: 410)
Taro has three children."hoshi-gamier-ni.
(ii) Taroo -ni
hinniia-de-mo
Taroo-DAT daytimc-at-even star-NOM
see-PERF(Kumashiro 1994a: 410)
"Taro can sec the starts even during the daytime."

96

schematically in Figure 2.25, and Figure 2.26. respectively (Kumashiro 1994a: 404).
Bold lines indicate which parts are profiled and arrows indicate movement

A rectangle in

Figure 2.25, stands for a space and a dotted line circle in Figure 2.26. stands fordominion."'RecipientO
D

O
Fimirc 2.25.lmai2c Schema for Goal (Concrete)

Physical space
Dominion

Fimire 2.26. hnaiie Schema for Receipient (Abstract)

Movement
Correspondence
E.xtension

As Figure 2.25. and Figure 2.26. illustrate, both the Goal sense of ni and the Recipient
sense of ni indicate movement into some space

The difference between the two sensesof ni is that the Goal sense ni encodes a physical and concrete space as the bold rectangle
in Figure 2.25. shows, while the Recipient sense ni encodes a more abstract space,
prototypically a human being, called Joniinion, indicated with a dotted line circle in Figure
2.26.

The Goal sense of ni is associated with concrete space while the Recipient sense ofni is associated with more abstract space.

Based upon these observations, Kumashiro' Domiiiion is tlic CG terminology used in tiie Rcfcrcnce-Poinl Model. Dominion basically refers to areference point which anchors a region lluit contains the target, i.e. the object thai the \ic\vcr (speaker)
seeks to locate. See Chapter 4 in Langacker (1991) for a more detailed e.xplanation.

97

concludes that the Recipient sense is an extension from the Goal sense.
Another extension, which Kumashiro refers to as the "missing link", is the one fromthe Recipient sense to the Agent sense. He proposes that Causee plays a role as a "missinglink" since the Recipient sense and the Causee sense are similar to each other in terms of"atTectedness". and since the Causee sense is similar to the Agent sense in terms ofAgentivity(2.11)

Consider example (2.1 1)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-iii
hana-oHanako-NOM
Taroo-DAT flovver-ACC'Hanako made Taro buy the flower "kavv-ase-ta.
buy-CAUS-PST[CAUSATIVE]
Kumashiro (1994a.404)

Sentence (2.11) describes Hanako's making Taro buy the flower.

Three participants are

involved: 1) the Causer, Hanako. marked by the nominative2) the Causee, Taroo.

marked by the dative ni, and 3) the Patient hana "flower" marked by the accusative oFigure 2.27. illustrates the schema for these participants in sentence (2.11).

The arrows

in Figure 2.27. indicate two different "energy flows" which are involved this sentence, i.e.,
one from the Causer to the Causee. and the other one from the Causee to the Patient (cfLangacker 1991: chapter 7).

Causer

CauseeEnergy Transmission

Patient'>

Fiuure 2.27: Imaue Schema for Causee Sense (Kumashiro 1994a:405)

98

Notice that the Causee is affected from the flow of energy, since it receives the energy
emitted by the Causer.

Likewise, the Recipient illustrated in Figure 2.26. is also atTected

since the Mover moves to the Recipient and since the Recipient undergoes a change interms of possession of the Mover . "''Another semantic link is that the connection between the Causee and the Agentsense is their agentivity, in contrast with the o-marked Causee, which does not haveagentivity.

Consider sentences (2.12) and (2.13).

(2.12)

Taro-gawaruguti-oitte Hanako-oTaro-NOM
slander-ACC say Hanako-ACC"Taro made Hanako cry by calling her names."

nak-ase-ta.
cry-CAUSE-PST(Kumashiro 1994a:408)(2.13)

Kantoku-ga
kuraimakkusu-de Zyoyuu-ni
nak-ase-ta,
Director-NOM climax-at
the actress-DAT cry-CAUSE-PST"The director made the actress cry at the climax."(Kumashiro I994a:409)
Both sentences are causative sentences; however, they are difTerent in terms of

the agentivity of the Causee.

In (2.12), Hanako, marked by the accusative o. does nothave any agentivity, while in (2.13) the Causee, Zyoyuu, marked by the dative ///, hasagentivity.

Figure 2.28. illustrates the connection between the Causee marked by /// andthe Agent sense of ///.

Figure 2.28a illustrates the Agent schema, which indicatessimilarity between agentivity in Figure 2.28c and the Causee in Figure 2.28b.

''' For a crosslinguic anal\ sis of semantic structure of tlic causativ e conslmction in relation to theditransit\e construction, see K.eninier and Verliagen (1994).
' The small circle on the rigiii in Figure 2.28c indicates that the Patient has designation. Trajcctor (TR).
Within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. Trajector is cqui\ alcnt of the Subjcct. Designation of TR
is given, according to Kuniasiiiro. to give an account for that the patient is the subjcct of tiie overall clauseNotice that Figure 2.28a docs not include Trajector since in the Causee Sense, the Patient does not play a

99

Figure 2.28a
Auent

O
Fmure 2.28b

Fmure 2.28c

Causer

Causee•\<'ent

Patient

trajector

O
Extension
Correspondence

Schematicity
Energy Transmission

Figure 2.28. Image Schema for Causee and Auent Sense (Kumashiro 1994a. 409)

The agent and the agent source is another link which shows the agentive aspectof ni

Consider example (2.14) where /// marks the agent.

(2.14) Tarooga
Hanako ni
Taro
NOM Hanako DAT'Taro was hit bv Hanako.'nagur-are-ta.
hit-PASS-PST(Kumashiro 1994a:403)

Example (2.14) illustrates Taro was hit by Hanako where the patient "Taro" is marked by anominative marker
auentive sense of ni.

role as the Subjcct.

and agent 'Hanako" by the dative ni

Figure 2.29 illustrates the

100

Agentive Source
Agent

LESS DETAILD
MORE DETAILEDEnergy Transmission
Domain^Mover
Extension'•

Fiuure 2.29: Imaue Schema For Agentive Sense (Kumashiro IQ94a: 403)

The semantic extension of ni which Kumashio (1994a) proposes is summarized inAppendix A.
Kumashiro's claims regarding the Network Model seem to be cognitively
motivated.

He points out that the series of semantic extensions from one sense of/// toanother sense of /// has to be interpreted in a non-reductionist fashion.

Namely, theopposite ends of the semantic chain, such as GOAL and SOURCE are hard to subsume
under one single abstract value, since the GOAL and SOURCE senses are semanticallydistinct from each other.

Kumashiro briefly introduced Kunihiro's (1968) account—i.e.,

the idea that most schematic values subsuming all the concrete senses of /// are identified
as CONTACT.
problem.

Kumashiro argues that Kunihiro's approach overgeneralizes the

For instance, the schema of/// predicts something that is not included in ///, e.g.,the Locative-Source sense expressed by kara 'from' is encoded by the INCLUSION
schema of ///.

101

Noticeone-dimensional.

that

Kumashiro's

analysisofthecase/adposition

continuumisI argue that this one-dimensional model hardly explains the possible

semantic connections between case and other adpositional usages, e .g. locative usage of mand locative usage of Je.

I will take insights from Kumashiro's analysis to provide amore complete semantic analysis of ni and de.
There is another important work, Kabata (2000), which specifically discusses theJapanese postposition /// in a multi-dimensional model.

Before 1 discuss Kabata (2000) in

detail, I will discuss the one of the fundamental notions of CG, the network model, w hichshe adapts in her dissertation for an analysis of ///.
2.5. Network Models
Network models, by incorporating aspects of prototype theory and categorization,
have played an important role in Cognitive Linguistics.

There are two central assumptions

that guide studies on network models: linguistic expressions tend to be polysemous, neither
monosemous or homosemous, and meanings are assumed to be organized with respect to a
prototype.

Previous studies such as Brugman (1981), Lindner (1981), and LakofF(1987)

present models that define English prepositions as fine-grained staictures consisting of a
distinct central structure and peripheral structures that var\' among usages as a function of
distance and interconnectedness. Lakotfs network is uniquely defined as a "radial model,"because it is characterized as a single core sense, e.g. senses of'above and across" for an

Doiiiinick (1998) slates thai the tendency for cogniti\e linguistics to make a highly polysemous
analysis of sy nchronic meaning can be attributed to what she calls the •polysemy fallacy" like the "nile/list
fallacy • for generative linguistics, and suggests that there are limitations for addressing issues of mental
representation itself.

102

English preposition •over", that serves as the prototype and links the entire inventor\' ofadditional senses. " 'Langacker's lexical network model (1987, 1991, 1999). on the other hand, isconceptually based, allowing for the possibility of network growth and decay of variables
among speakers by providing a small taxonomy of node types.

Figure 2.30. shows thetaxonomy of nodes allowed for multiple prototype nodes, extensions, and schemata.

A1

A2

A3

Figure 2.30: Complex Cateuorv Network: Growth Network (Lanuacker 1999:103)
The solid nodes in the center in Figure 2.30. indicate prototypes, and dotted lines indicates
extensions.

Extension and schema,

however, do not

occur

randomly.

The

categorization (B) is an extension from the prototype [A], which implies that an abstractcommonality, schema [A'], exists between the categorization (B) and the prototype [A].
Since both [A] and the extension (B) emerge at once, schema [A'] comes to be realized asa single cognitive unit.

In other words, schema [A"] has instantiations of both theprototype [A] and the categorization (B).

It is warranted that a schema [A ] is also an

See Doininick and Ricc (199.^) and Ricc (1996) for c\alualion of network models including LakofTs

103

extension from the prototype [A], as the dotted line indicates.""'According to Langacker.

this network mode! is usetljl to illustrate the alternate senses of a polysemous lexical item,since polysemy is conceived as a case in which two senses are closely related either
directly or indirectly through a chain of relationships among nodes.

In this model,

semantic relatedness is a matter of degree, and is characterized by the distance between
two nodes.

Langacker presents a fragment of the network for the English verb "am" asshown in Figure 2.31.

and Laiigackcr s.
One c.xanipic of a network model is English past-iensc fonnation (Langackcr 1999. 115). He posits adeeply cntrcnchcd. easily elicited past-tcnsc sclienia such as HV/... ||PAST/-D|| with phonological pole
spccificalion in order lo subsume bolli prodiicti\c. dcfaull-case pallerns with conditioned variants -| dj.
-lt|. and -|dl and a variety of non-productive patterns.

104

RAPID
MOTIONRAPID
n-LEGGED
LOCOMOTIONRAPID 2-LEGGED
LOCOMOTION(person)COMPETITIVEPOLICAL(candidate)RAPID
MECHANICAL „MOTION (engine)

RAPID
FLUID
MOTION ( waici)

RAPID 4-LEGGED
LOCOMOTION(animal)RAPID 4-LEGGEn
LOCOMOTION
(dou)

<>

RAID 4-LEGGED
LOCOMOTION(horse)COMPETITIVE
LOCOMOTION'rririM
Fiuure 2.31: Lanuacker's Network Model for 'run' (1990: 267)
The solid node in the center of Figure 2.31. describes the prototypical sense of'run".
•rapid-2-legged locomotion (person)", while separate nodes radiating out from theprototypical sense represent related senses of "run".

Figure 2.31. graphically illustrates

that the "rapid 4-legged locomotion" sense of "run" is much closer to the prototypical•rapid-2-legged locomotion" sense of'am' than that of the sense of "rapid fluid motion".
In this model, speakers might differ on the following two points.

First, they differ interms of the extent to which speakers extend the network through the process of

105

schematization, instantiation, and extension.

Second, they differ in terms of how many

nodes they establish among multiple prototypes.

Since conceptual and lexical categories

change over time, within an individual and in the history of a language, this model seems
to accommodate lexical changes through the process of ^rLimmaficalizarion (Rice 1996;
142).

Langacker and Rice admit a potential lack of specific configuration of theidealized network; however, both of them argue that this model gives a reasonableaccount for the proposition in that the meanings of a frequently used lexical item are not
reducible to a single structure/node and to defme a complex category.""
The network model is not just limited to lexical items but it is also applicable togrammatical and phonological patterns. The English distransitive constaiction is one
example of the application of the network model.

"" See Rice (1996) for a suininar> of qucslions raised but left unanswered by network models.

106

NP

TRANSFER

Give

NP

NP

NP

NP

send

NP
Send I

NP

NP
for

Give

me

NP

NP
Scnd2

NP

NP

Fiuure 2.32: Constructional Network for Enulish distransitive constaiction
Langacker(1999: 123)

Figure 2.32. shows the relationship between the English distransitive constaiction
and the verb "send."
describes

thegeneralAs shown in Figure 2.32, the higher-level schema [V][NP][NP]pattern of the

Englishditransitive,

while

generalization such as [[SEND/send][NP][NP]] represents a verb "send."

thelower-level

The verb "send"

belongs to a network of constructional schemas of the English distransitive construction
because of similarity in the grammatical aspect of the English ditransitive patterns.

LikeConstruction Grammar (Goldberg 1995), Cognitive Grammar posits that a lexical item
includes a set of 'structural frames' in which it conventionally occurs.

A lexical item

107

arises through a "progressive decontexualization process," where recurring usage events
reinforce constructing schemas, while non-recurring usage events are filtered out by lackof reinforcement.

Namely, schemas are constructed in the relevant contexts, and part ofsuch contexts is considered as occurrence in larger symbolic assemblies."*"Rice (1996), along the lines described in Langacker (1990, 1999), examines whether
the prototypes of the English prepositions "at", 'on", and "in" are spatial or not.

Havingthe orientation of psycholinguistics. Rice employs three different kinds of experimental
tasks such as a sentence-similarity task, a sentence-generation task, and a sentence-sortingtask for an examination of the prepositional prototypes.

The three tasks were conductedbased upon the assumption that the prototypical usages of these prepositions make tor
difTerent response patterns against non-prototypical usages of the prepositions in each task.
For instance, a prototypical usage is likely to create the greatest frequency, while anon-prototypical usage occurs less frequently in a sentence generation task.

Rice'sfindings stand in contrast to the commonly-taken position that the most basic metaphoricale.xtension is from the spatial sense.

Her overall findings suggest that temporal senses are

as salient as spatial ones, and that metaphorical mappings are perceived between thespatial and non-spatial senses.

Based upon her findings. Rice presents Figure 2.33. toillustrate her working hypothesis.

See Langackcr (1999: 117-121) on Luiscno. a Ulo-A/tccan language of southern Cnlifornia. as anotherexample of a network model.

108

abstract
temporal

Fiuure2.33: A Lexical 'Space" tor'at', 'on" and 'in' Rice (1996: 161)
Figure 2.33. shows that a prepositional network consists of five parts: two regions (spatial
and temporal), with a core sense for each region, and a more ditTuse but coreless abstract
region surrounding the two regions.

Unlike Lakoff (1987), Rice avoids proposing

detailed information about the clustering of the prepositions' abstract senses.

Rather,Rice wisely points out that there is still a need to explore perceived similarities ordifferences among the prepositions.

She emphasizes the importance of converging

evidence from multiple sources such as on-line/otT-line experiments, acquisition studies,and diachronic research.

Kabata (2000) adopts text count studies in addition to these

multiple sources for an analysis of the Japanese particle ni.

In this study, I will explore

different kinds of multiple sources such as natural spoken discourse and written discourse,
and to give a complete analysis of the Japanese locatives /// and Je

Following Rice's

view on prototype theory, I would like to examine whether or not core senses of theJapanese locative postpositions ni and de exist, and what overlap there may be in relation

109

to their usage of as time markers/ '2.6. Kabatn (2000)
In the framework of Cognitive Grammar, Kabata (2000) presents an extensive
analysis of the semantic structure of /;/, the Japanese postposition which exhibits
semantically and functionally diverse behaviors (polysemy).

She argues that semantic

relationships among the 21 senses which she finds for ni are accounted for in terms of
metaphorical extensions, a conceptual hierarchy of semantic domains, and Langacker's
action chain model.

She provides 19 image schemata for various senses of ni.

dissertation, however, does not provide a complete account of de.

Her

My research diverges

from Kabata (2000) in that it explores the semantic prototypes of both ni and de. whilehers focuses exclusively on the various senses of ni.

Further, 1 will explore in depth theoverlap of ni and dc in difllerent sets of natural discourse

1 will briefly describe theschemata for spatial and temporal usages of ni in the next section, since 1 would like togive a complete analysis of these Japanese locatives by providing a schema for dc andrevising the schema for ni
2.6.1 Ni as a stative Locative Marker
As noted previously, Kabata (2000) and Kabata and Rice (1996) claim that there
are two different types of spatial relations that the particle /// indicates: 1) a stative
LOCATIVE relation which marks the existence of an entity or event, and 2) a more
dynamic ALLATIVE relation which marks the direction as well as the final destination.

AUhougli it is tempting to propose a network model for dc such as Kabata (2()()()) proposed for //;. this110This is demonstrated in examples in (2.15) and (16 a-d).
(2.15)

Kono heya ni
piano gaThis
room LOC piano NOM"There is a piano in this room."(2.16)(a) Kare wa
Tookyoo
He
TOP
Tokyo
"He lives in Tokyo."ni/*deLOC(b) Kare vva Tookyoo *iii/de
He TOP TokyoLOC"He lives in Tokyo."aru.
there is(Kabata and Rice 1996: 1 12)
sun-de-iru.
live-CONJ-PROG(Kabata 2000: 83)

kurashi-te-iru.
live-CONJ-PROG(Kabata 2000: 83)(c)*Kare vva shiawaseni sun-de-iru.
he TOP happily
live-CONJ-PROG"He lives (is living) happily."(Kabata 2000: 83)(d) Kare vva shiawaseni kurashi-te-iru.
He TOP happily
live-CONJ-PROG"He lives (is living) happily."(Kabata 2000: 83)

In sentence (2.15), ni marks location or existence, whereas in sentence (2.16a) itmarks where a complex relation exists.

The verb sumu "live" used in (2.16a) and (2.16c)

has a synonym, the verb knrasii used in (2.16b) and (2.16d).

Siimii is difterent fromkurasu in that for the former verb, a location plays a central role to the event, and the verb
subcategorizes for the locative phrase.

(2.16c) is not acceptable, since the essential

locative phrase for the verb, sunm. is missing.
not require a location.

The verb, kurasu, on the other hand, does

(2.16d) is acceptable, since kurasu does not need a locative phrase

while (2.16c) is not, since sumu does.
Kabata argues that, as shown in (2.16 a-d), /// marks locations which are contingent

is beyond tlic scopc of tlic present study

on predicates, i.e. they serve as arguments, while de marks locations which are not
Figure 2.34. illustrates the ni

contingent on predicate verbs i.e., they serve as modifiers.

image schema for locations or existence, while Figure 2.35. illustrates locations of an eventor complex relation (Kabata 2000; 82-83).

Landmark
Trajcctor

TrajcctorniJT

Tilings

SPATIAL DOMAIN
Fimirc 2.34. Iniaac Schcma for Locativc
sense of Ni (1)(Kabata 2000: 83)

or

SPATIAL DOMAIN
Fimirc 2.35. Imaizc Schcma for Locativc
sense of Ni (2)(Kabata 2000: 83)

Her model of/// as a stative marker gives an account for both sentences (2.15) and(2.16a-d).

However, it presupposes that the locative postpositions /// and de are still

warranted by the relation to predicates, i.e. arguments vs. modifiers, which is not fully
motivated by the semantic structure.

Furthermore, the reason why Kabata proposes two

different schemata for stative locations, simple location vs. complex relation, is not clear.

1

will be focusing in this study on the factors and fijnctions related to the choice of /// and de indiscourse, as well as discussing these senses with regards to conceptual domains in space
and time.

112

2.6.2. A7 as an Allative Marker
The Japanese particle /// marks either direction, e.g. English "toward", ordestination/goal e.g. English "to", when it is used with dynamic motion verbs.

This isrepresented by sentences (2.17) and (2.18).
(2.17)(2.18)

Kare wa kuukoonimukat-te-iru.
He TOP airportALL
head-CONJ-PROG"He is heading toward the airport."
Kare wa kyonen Tookyoo ni hikkoshi-ta.
He TOP last year Tokyo ALL move-PAST"He moved to Tokyo last year."[DIRECTION](Kabata 2000: 84)[DIRECTION/GOAL](Kabata 2000: 84)

Kabata states that the ///-marked locations in (2.17) and (2.18) are interpretable asdirection and destination, and she calls them the allative sense of ///.

As she points out,

there is another particle in Japanese, c, which exclusively marks direction^"'.

She argues

that /// and e are equally acceptable in sentence (2.17), although these particles are notcompletely interchangeable.
(2.18).

However, /// and c are not equally acceptable in sentence

She argues that /// is acceptable in (2.19), since the verb tadoriisuku "(finally)

arrive" has to have a goal marker, while e is not completely acceptable, since the sameverb cannot take a direction marker.'^'An interesting fact was reported by Konoshima (1973). Tiiere was a confusion between ni and c in old
Japanese translations such as The Tale ofGcnji. and Kokin uakashii. The fact that in classical Japanese achoice between ni and e as a direction marker is not stable implies how speakers subjccti\ cly perceixe
direction in conte.xt.
" Konoshima (197.") points out that both e and ni indicate DIRECTION, but there arc some slight
difTcrcnccs between the meaning of these particlcs. That is. e slrongl\ cniphasi/cs the process of arri\ ing
at the goal, while ni implies a close contact with the goal and a long distance between the goal and the1 13(2.19)

Yatoo Takyoo ni/e?
tadoritsui-ta.
finally Tokyo ALL/DIR
arrive-PAST'We finally arrived at/toward Tokyo."(Kabata 2000: 85)

Figure 2.36. illustrates the image schema for the allative sense of ///.

Like Kumashiro(1994), Kabata proposes another schema, called 'contact," a similar schema to that of theallative.

According to Kabata, the two schemata are useful in explaining the subtle

semantic difference between sentences (2.20) and (2.21) repeated here from (1.46) and(1.45) in Chapter 1.

(2.20) Kabe ni
chizu
ga
wall
LOC
map
NOM
"A map is (put) on the wall."hat-te-aru.
put-CONJ-be[LOCATIVE](Kabata 2000; 87)(2.21) Kabe ni
chizu ohat-ta.
wall LOC/ALL map
ACC put-PAST'[I] put the picture on(to) the wail."[ALLATIVE](Kabata 2000: 87)

Ni in (2.20) describes a simple stative location of a map, which is a wall, as show n in
Figure 2.34, while ni in (2.21) shows the "contact" sense of/// as shown in Figure 2.37.

Trajector

Landmark

Trajector

Trajector

Landmark

oCv
MOVER

GOAL

Figure 2.36, Imago Schcma for Allati\csense of M (Kabata 2000:85)

starting point.

MOVER

GOAL

Figure 2.37. Imago Schema for Contactsense of Ni (Kabata 2000: 86)

1 14These two schemata are similar to each other in that both schemata illustrate a trajector(TR) that is moving toward a landmark (LM). The difterence is that in the contact schema,a moving TR is attached to LM, with strong focus on the contact, which implies that thepath results from motion.

Kabata fijrther argues that the difference between the locative

sense of ni and its sense of contact is "verv' subtle", like the similarity between theschemata of Allative and Contact.

She argues that the difference between these twosenses depends on the property of the accompanying verb as well as on the surrounding
context.^'' Following her point of view on ni's schemata and the related senses of///, 1
argue that the semantic closeness, and/or shift between /// and Je, stativitv and dynamics,
should be explained in the same way as Kabata accounted for the "ver\' subtle" differences
between the allative and contact senses of///. That is, the overlapping senses of/// and dc
should have similar schemata.

In the next section, 1 will summarize the semantic

similarities and differences of /// and de in a temporal and spatial domains, and introduce
the schema for /// as a temporal marker to examine how close it is to the schema of thelocative ///.
2.6.3. Ni as a Temporal Marker
Japanese /// is used as a temporal marker.

This follows the CG proposition thatthe extension from spatial to temporal usages can be explained by a metaphoric process
such as 'TIME IS SPACE". (Lakoff and Johnson 1980).

Sentence (2.22) shows that ///marks the time when a meeting starts.

Kabnta (2()()()) points out that there arc many fi.xcd and idiomatic e .Nprcssions rchitcd to tlic contact

115(2.22)

Sanji
ni
kaigi
ga
hajimaai.
three
TIME meeting NOM start'A meeting starts at three o'clock."
Kabata points out that in certain cases, ni can be replaced by ck without changing

much of the meaning.

However, c/e is used only when the sentence describes thetermination of an activity or event, while ni can mark both a starting point as well as an
endpoint. as is shown in sentences (2.23) and (2.24).
(2.23)

Gakko wa
sanji
ni/de
ovvaru.
school TOP three o'clock TIME finish"School finishes at three o'clock."(2.24) GakkowakujischoolTOP nine o"clock"School starts at nine o'clock."T rajecto
EVENTiii/*deTIME(Kabata 2000: 90)

hajimaru.
start.
(Kabata 2000: 90)

V
TIME
ni
1

TEMPORAL DOMAIN
Figure 2.38.

Imaue Schema for Temporal Locative Sense of .VV (Kabata 2000: 91)

Figure 2.38. represents an image schema for the temporal locative sense of///.

Noticethat this schema captures one similar point of ni in the locative domain; the time is notprofiled.

sense of I I I .

It is also important to notice that we have semantic asymmetry between ni and1 16

de in the spatial and temporal domains.

That is, Je in the time domain marks an endpoint,

while ni marks an endpoint in the spatial domain (goal).
but in different domains.
Table 2.2.

nideBoth /// and de mark an endpoint,

This is summarized in the Table 2.2.

Summary of the Characteristics of ni and de in Spatial Domain and Temporal
domains
Temporal Domain
Spatial Domain
Landmark is Endpoint
allative
Landmark is Location
Stative location/contact
More general marker

More general marker
can mark starting/end point

Landmark is Endpointmarks an end point only

2.6.4. The Network Model and Evaluations
Kabata proposes a network model for the Japanese particle ///, and evaluates the
network model by various empirical and experimental data, a te.xt count study, a childacquisition study, and a series of off-line psycliolinguistics experiments.

Her network is

illustrated in Appendix B.
First, in a grammaticalization study. Kabata examines how ni might have acquired
its diverse senses through the process of historical development.

Because of the paucity

of direct historical evidence, she draws inferences from cross-linguistic sources.

She

concludes that senses of ni became extended into new content domains such as spatial,
temporal, conceptual, and logical domains. Second, in a text count study, she looks at
the frequency of sense types in six texts.

She aims to determine if the frequency

distribution of the senses of ni is correlated to the domains in the network model.

Shefound that some of the high frequency groups mainly belong to spatial and temporal

117

domains, as well as conceptual and logical domains, while the senses of lowest frequency
were never identified in spatial and temporal domains.

Third, in a child language

acquisition study, she examined the Aki Corpus obtained from the CHILDES database,and tried to determine if the various senses of ni in the model are reflected in children's
acquisition patterns.

The findings overall support the network model.

Both locative andallative senses are found to be among the earliest and most frequently used senses of///."'^
Fourth, in a psycholinguistic study, she employed three off-line tasks such as a sentence
generation task, a categorization task, and a similarity judgment task.

She examined

whether speakers of Japanese perceive similarities or differences between individual sensesof ni in these tasks.

The findings from the psycholinguistic study support the main

characteristics of a network model for four reasons: 1) there are basic senses of thecategories that speakers of Japanese perceive—allative and locative, 2) there are multiple
prototypes in the category, 3) there are varying degrees of similarities between senses, and4) there are two senses which speakers of Japanese diflerentiate--uoal-type andsource-type.
Kabata's evaluations of her

network

model

of ni

supportLangacker's

conceptually based network model which allows for the possibility of network growth anddecay, and variability among speakers.

There is no need to propose a single sense to be

the prototype, because the model allows for multiple nodes to serve as local prototypes in

Matsiioka (1998) also reported liial /;/ as goal marker appeared in her data, and I found lluit the samelypc of ni appeared in Noji's data (1974-1977). Also. Morikawa (1997). citing Clancy (1985). Yokoyama
and Schaefer (1986). Yoshida (1976) point out that the particle ni appears almost as early as nominative
ga as a locative marker with a slight delay in the case of ni as tlie dati\ e marker.

118

cases of linguistic innovation (Kabata 2000: 21).
2.7. Methodology
This section addresses the methodological issues relevant to the collection of
discourse data for this study.

The use of natural language data is something that many

Cognitive Grammar (CG) linguists have not seriously considered, except Brugman (1981),
Arnett (1995), and Van Hoek (1995), who look at written language, and Kabata (2000)
who looks at spoken (interview data) as well as written language.

Milroy and Milroy(1985: 50) remark that there are tremendous differences between spoken and written
language.

For instance, spoken discourse has more variation than written. Because ofgeographical, social, educational, and situational factors, spoken discourse is less subject
to the effects of standardization.

Clancy (1982) points out that written and spoken

Japanese are stylistically distinct.

For instance, short verbalization and simple syntactic

constituents in spoken Japanese limits the flow of information to the listener and reduces
the cognitive burden upon the speaker. Spoken Japanese also includes social functions
such as mutual support and cooperation.

Chafe (1994) also argues that it is in spoken

discourse that the intricate connection between linguistic forms and cognitive factors is
manifested
Therefore, the current study examines both spoken (informal conversation) andwritten language to present a CG analysis of the Japanese postpositions that takes
discourse into account.

This study aims to go beyond the mere frequency issue or theconceptual issue, by connecting CG accounts and actual data in both spoken and written

1 19

discourse.
Examination of representative types of corpora is necessary for a usage-based
approach, not only to capture the widest possible spectrum of the spoken and written
language of Modern Japanese, but also to see how the prototypicality of the postpositions
emerges across these different kinds of corpora.

It is also important to be aware that, as

Biber (2000) warns, there is the pitfall that a corpus containing a mixture of text-types
could neutralize genre-specific patterns.

In order to analyze linguistic association patterns

appropriately, it is essential to understand that linguistic association patterns interact with
non-linguistic associations such as registers and historical changes.
For example, one of the corpora used in this study is spoken Modern Japanese. 1
consider 'standard language" to be an abstract notion, following Milroy and Milroy's (1985;22) claim that a standard language is an idea in the mind.

They point out that the standard

language is a set of abstract norms to which actual usage may conform to a greater or lesser
extent, and that spoken language is never standardized, while writing systems are relatively
easily standardized.
Shibatani (1990; Chapter 9) and Miller (1967; Chapter 4) describe a brief historyof the notion of a standard language or variety in Japan.Besides the notion of standard

Shibatani c.\phiins tliat tlic notion of a standard Japanese language was not accepted in tlie Nara period(A.D. 710-93). The Kvoto \ariation. lio\vc\cr. seemed to pla\ a role as the prestige variety until thecultural and economic center mo\ ed to Edo (Tokyo) in the late 19th ccntur.'. The transition from official
capita! to the efrecti\c cultural and economic centcr actually look two iuindred years. After the Meiji
Restoration (1887). the governnient attempted to authorize the v ariety of the new capital of Tokyo as thestandard language. One such example is employing the TokTO variety in Japanese language te.xtbooks forthe initiation of compulsorv education. However, standard Japanese has never been formally established.
Rather, the Tokyo v ariety has been considered as the standard language.

120

language or variety in Japan, another notion called kyooisnu-go. "common language" wasintroduced after World War M.

Kyooisini-^^o is a form of Japanese used by speakers fromdifferent regions to communicate with each other, but is not quite the same as the Tokyo
dialect or standard language (Shibatani 1990).

More specifically, kyootsu-go is heavily

influenced by the standard language but still retains regional characteristics, such as
accentual features.

While the idea of a standard Japanese language still lives in the mindsof language policy makers, kyootsiiiu-go is widely accepted by the niajoritv' of people and it
has a wider range of variations (Shibatani 1990: 187).

Not all speakers in the spoken

corpus of this study came from the Tokyo area; however, they all used kyoostnu-go, and 1
observed no regional characteristics except accentual features.

It is quite important to beaware of the issue of standard Japanese, since this study deals with informal conversation
which is least affected by the ideologically constructed notion of standard language incomparison to written Japanese.

Considering the important ideological notion that these

non-linguistic associations are related, this study takes the following three steps; 1) it
examines the phenomena of prototypicality of /// and de in informal spoken kyoo/siiii-go
discourse and written discourse, 2) it compares the patterns in informal spoken and written
language, and 3) it provides a brief sketch of historical studies related to the Japanese
locative postpositions /// and dc.'*''The next section explains the overall nature of thecorpora that I will e.xamine.

Aliliougli a coinplctc suinman of gramiiuiticali/ation studies of Japanese locali\ e postpositions isbeyond ilie scope of tliis study. I acknowledge thai graninKiticalization researcli is one of the iniportantveins in CG (Sweetser 19(10. Traugolt and Hine 1991. Hopper and Traugoti I99.'i.and B>beeetal. 1994).
I consider it is impossible to make a conlribuiion (o the field of grammalicali/aiion research without

121

2.7.1. Spoken Data
The analysis of spoken discourse was based upon a database from Japanese Data
(Aoki et al. to appear).

A database of twenty-seven sets of informal conversations wasused, consisting of thirteen male-female conversations, three male-male conversations, andeleven female-female conversations.A list of the conversations is included in Appendix
C
The total number of conversation participants was 59.
participants" ages varied, ranging from 19 to 48.

The conversation

The conversations varied from 2 to 19

minutes in length, for a total of 158 minutes. This conversation data is 5-10 years old. Alltranscription conventions follow Du Bois et al. (1988).

The current study examined all

occurrences of locative phrases marked with either /// or Jf, as well as locative phrases notmarked by /// or de. There are locative phrases followed only by the topic marker wa or
the particle mo (too) and others combination followed by a topic marker wa or mo withthe locative postpositions tmva, dcwa. uimo and demo. These cases were also analyzed.
2.7.2. Written Data
The sample of written discourse was drawn from the Corpus of Japanese Modern
Novels, Shincho Bunko no Hyakusastu, "100 novels of Shinsho Series" and otherpublished books.
36.

The authors" ages when their books were published range from 24 to

Both the novels from the corpus and the other published books are 10 to 20 years old.

looking at the original historical tc.xts.
1 ;iticniptcd to carcfully sclecl the corpus data, because regional variation might be rclc\ ant in the
spoken data. For instance, in some areas Japanese nati\ c speakers use dilTcrcnt locati\ e markers, e.g. sa
for the goal marker in the Yamagata area, which is spoken in the Northern pan of Japan.

122

I examined the following seven contemporary- writers, four male and three female:
Akagawa Jiroo, Murakami Haruki, Shiina Makoto. Sawaki Kootaroo, Vlure Yooko,
Yoshimoto Banana, and Ekumi Kaori.
pages from each written text.

I examined 875 pages of text in total, i.e., 125

1 used the first 125 pages from four authors" works, andthe last 125 pages from the other three authors" works.

A list of description of the works

examined in this study is included in section 3.10.
As with the spoken data analysis, this study examines all occurrences of locative
phrases marked with either /// or de or ua or nto or some combinations with /// de. as well
as locative phrases not marked by ni or Jc.
Selecting texts from a variety of different genres is important since each genre
may exhibit certain stylistic characteristics, and investigating only particular te.xt types
might lead to false generalizations.

For example, newspaper articles are prone to containde dc'wa, which the descriptive studies claim to be location markers for event nouns, since
they include news stories in which editors and reporters usually introduce the highlights ofnews stories.
According to Noda (1999), who compares the frequency of locative particles inthree different written texts, including novels, newspapers, movie scripts, de dcua appears
in newspaper articles most frequently.

He also reports that de dewa were often used tomark abstract spaces, (e.g. Konkai no shinjiu no naka dewa "In the group of the
newcomers this time") while ni niwa appears in conversation data more often and was often
used to mark spatial nouns such as mae (front), naka (inside) etc. (e.g. Kurnnia no naka ni
ima.sii '[1] will be in a car").

123

2.7.3.The Present Analysis
I observe the following three aspects of lu and Je in each type of discourse data
to examine if Kumashiro's (1994a, 1994b) claim regarding the autonomous/dependent
relationship holds true and to investigate if Kumashiro's (2000) proposal of c/e as setting
event is supported.

I here provide my own CG account for ni and de.

First, I looked at the various types of predicates occurring with ni and Jc. to test
the prediction that if speakers/writers are sensitive to the semantic value associated with aprofiling relationship, then certain patterns would emerge.

Namely, if locative Jc

co-occurs with an autonomous clause, and is not activated by a predicate, then a wide
range of variation in predicate types would be observed. On the other hand, if locative ni
co-occurs with a dependent clause, and is strongly activated by a clause, then lessvariation in predicates would be seen.
Second, assuming as Rice (1996) claims that postpositional prototypes exist. 1
predicted that it would be prototypical for ni to occur with stative verbs.

We might predictthat de would frequently occur with dynamic verbs. As Kabata and Kumashiro point out,
there is an important basic sense for ni in the spatial domain, i.e. allative ni.
type of ni as another prototypical sense of ni.

I treat thisIn the next chapter, I argue that the notionof Langacker's PERF, which "serves as changing a process into a state"" (see Section 2.3.6)
has value in the analysis of less prototypical ///, which co-occurs with less-stative verbs.
Third, I make a quantitative and extensive qualitative analysis of dewa and mwxi
and the alternatives in discourse which no previous study has looked at.

Namely, from a124

discourse grammar perspective, I examine the occurrence of Jewa and niwa in comparison
with /// and c/e, and the alternatives to dewa and niwa, if they exist.

I compare different

discourse types to see if text organization makes a difference in terms of locative particle
usage.

Comparison between spoken and written discourse includes the non-occurrence ofparticles, which has been traditionally referred to as 'ellipsis', and the most frequently used
construction in discourse.
2.8. Grammaticniizntion Studies of Japanese Locative Postpositions ni and deThis section provides a brief sketch of historical studies on the use of theJapanese postpositions, ni and de.

based on the work of three major Japanesegrammarians, Hashimoto (1969), Matsumura (1971), and Konoshima (1973), and that ofsome recent scholars such as Akiba-Reyolds (1984), Takeuchi (1999), Kabata (2000), andMabuchi (2000).
2.8.1. Historical Studies of ni
Hashimoto (1969; 127) proposes that the primitive meaning of/// is the locati\eand that the various usages of ni have been generalized from this."'Based upon Old

Japanese (approximately 8-10th century), Akiba-Reynolds (1984) argues that a locative
verb //// (be-at) was the source of the grammaticalization of ni.

Consider the following

examples taken from Akiba-Reynolds (1984: 1)"";' ' Hasliimolo (1%9: 121-122) points out that in old Japanese ni could be used to mark a location wheresome action takes place, for which de is used in Modern Japanese, e.g. kano oka ni naisumasu ko "adaughter who picks up leaves on this hill".

(2.25-a) okina
togutin-i
old mandoor
be at-CONJ'the old man who is at the door"(2.25-b) okina
togutini
old mandoor
LOC'the old man who is at the door."

wor-i.
be-FINvvor-i.
be-FlNIn (2.25-a) ///, a conjugated form (the adverbial form) of the locative verb of //// and thefinal form of the au.xiliary wori (be-at) are used.

In (2.25-b), which is a re-analysis fromof (2.25-a), m is used as a postposition which follows a locative phrase to^mi "door".
Kabata (2000: 155) states that Akiba-Reynold's claim is not "air-tight," although Kabata
admits that the development of verbs into case markers and beyond is a natural processfrom the perspective of grammaticalization theory.'"

Matsumura (1971), however,based upon Sakakura (1951). proposes that the usage of /// as a sutTix in an adverbial
modifier such as shizuka ni "quietly" is probably the origin of ///.

Konoshima (1973),

citing Yamada (1936), claims that that basic sense of ni was used to mention a static
object (as opposed to dynamic) while the action is expressed by the verb, and attributes
are expressed by the adjective.

The use of ni was, in fact, recorded in the earliest

historical records such as in Manyoosfum. in the late S"' century.
examined

14

major

historicalJapanese texts

for

the

Kabata (2000), who

purpose of

pursuingthegrammaticalization of ///, reports that the use of ni expressing locative existence as well as

STA sliglii modification is added for the sake of simplification.

The traditional approach to grammaticalization study is defined by Meillct (194S) as "the e\olution ofgrammatical forms such as function words, affixes out of earlier le.xical forms " The recent approach togrammaticalization study is defined as the c\oIution of s\ ntactic and morphological simctures throughdiscourse strategies. Sec Gi\ 6n (1979). Bybec (1985). Traugott and Heine (1991a/b). and Hopper andTraugott (199.1).

126

its allative use were found in the oldest written records, as shown in (2.26) and (2.27).
(2.26)

ham
goro
Kuramani
komor-i-tari.
spring around Kurama
LOC
hide-CONJ-PST(He) hid (himself) in Kurama around the spring."{Manyooshuu. cited in Morizui et al. 1975)(2.27)

aniototo
tomotati
hikii-teNanihanokatani.
brothers
friends
lead-CONJ Naniha GEN towards ALL"(my) brothers led towards Naniha by leading their friends.'{Isemonogcuari. cited in Matsumura 1971)

Kabata, however, argues that because of a lack of any direct historical evidence, it is
impossible to determine which of the two senses of ni. locative existence or allative, ismore basic although it is widely accepted that the sense of ni in the spatial domain was thefirst use recorded in historical texts."'
2.8.2. Historical Studies

deCompared to the use of ni in historical texts, de is a relatively new postposition.
For instance, Hashimoto (1969: 163) remarks that de did not appear until the 12'"' centur\'.
All three grammarians —Hashimoto, Mastumura, and Konoshima— basically assume thatde as a locative marker is an abbreviated form of ni and te where ni is a postposition andte is a conjunctive postposition, i.e. the conjunctive form of some type of Old Japanese

Manyooshu. a pri\ atc collcclion of more than four tliousand Japanese poems, was w ritten some lime
after 760 A.D.. while Isenumagaton. a w ork of unknow n authorsliip including many poems by Ariw ara
Narihira. w as dated from the beginning of the tenth ccnlur\ (Miller 1967).
Kabata also reports that historical records indicate that ni as a stale locati\e marker was used to mark arespected person, like the emperor or the empress. See Kabata (2000: chapter 4) for more details.
Sugizaki (1979:278). on the other hand, says a state locati\e marker ni was used to indicate not only arespected person but also speakers themselves.

127

verb as shown in (2.28)'''.
(2.28)

ie
nite
house LOC
omo
think:CONTmoalso/evenmotayutafu
inochi nami
to shake/hesitate-ATT life
wave

no
GEN

ue
top

ni
LOC

shi
wore ba
oku
ka
shira
zu
mu.
EMP to be CONJ far way EMP know NEG FP(Hashimoto 1969: 163)

"Even at home life's filled with dangers, and far more here upon the ocean."(translated by Honda (1967))
Hashimoto also reports that nite is an abbreviated form of nishiic and that nishitc wasused more frequently than nite in the early 12"' centur>-. Consider example (2.29).
(2.29)

koreya kono Yamato nishite ka
wa ga
Look!
Yamoto LOC
EMP I GEN
kiro
ni
ari
tefli
Kii Province LOC exist-CONT is called

kofuruyearn/longer for-ATT

imooto to seno.
Mt. Imo and Vlr. Se'This is Mt. Imo and Mr. Se in Kii Province, that 1 have been yearning so to view in Yamato."(translated by Honda (1967) with a slight revision)

It is late in the 12''' century that Jc as a locative marker started to be used as shown in(2.30), and later the usage ofc/c became more varied.
(2.30)

Nakamonno maemidddle gate GEN front
sake
sake

de
sanjaku no
koi o
kiri
te
LOC 90-cm GEN carp ACC cut-CONT CONJonomi yau o
ACC drink way ACC

mai
dance

toka
and suchya.
INT"People do things like dancing to show the way they cut up a 90-cm-carp,
and drink sake in front of the middle gate."(Heikemonogatari)''' Takciichi (1999:166) stales that it is common in Old Japanese (OJ) and Classical Japanese (CJ) that -reis attached to a case particle and becomes \arious circumstantial cases in Modern Japanese. For instance,
attached to non-locati\e nouns. CJ ntie is considered to be an instnunenttmanner), e.g. takakt knue nite
fanasu speak in a loud voice".

128

Suzuki, cited in Matsumura et al. (1969), points out the "Arte da lingoa delapam", NihonJaihimten, witnesses an interesting gap between spoken and written
Japanese in the 17''' century related to the locative postpositions /// and ck

He reportsthat nite was often used in the written language while de. with the same meaning as niie.
was often used in the spoken language.'^

This finding implies that the use of de arose in

the spoken language before being adopted in the typically more conservative written
language.
Takeuchi (1999: 167) provides a similar view of the history of de by saying:•"the general circumstantial locative case relation dc in Modern Japanese (MJ) is likely to
be a production of a post-CJ (Classical Japanese) shift, whereby the dynamic-final NP iiiie
de came to be interpreted statively in a unified manner as a locative case particle, i.e. "Vhaving come to (be at) X" was interpreted as " V (being) at X""".
Takeuchi points out that the construction expressed in (2.31) has no equivalent in MJ.
since nite ari has been generalized in the MJ copula, de am. or da.

In MJ a locative

resultative state denotation needs a telic motion verb in the perfect form to combine withni. e.g. koko ni kite ini "be here (now).
(2.31) okina
koko
nite
old man here
LOC-TE'the old man has come/is here."ari.
be-FIN

Mabuchi (2000) compares several historical texts from three different periods:
Period I, 1529-1676; Period 11, 1670-1843; and Period III, 1909-1916.

She provides

statistical data which show some changes in distribution patterns in different usages of de.

The .Irtc da Itiifioa clc lapcvii is tlic grciit pioneering work on Japanese grammar in a foreign language
compiled by Joao Rodrigues (1558-16ri3). a niissionar]! from Portugal.

129such as location, limitation, instalment, cause, manner, and agent."'*major findings.

I point out fourFirst, Mabuchi found that throughout the three periods, cle as a location

marker was the most frequently used sense. This implies that the sense of de in the spatial
domain is the primitive sense of de as a postposition.

Secondly, Mabuchi found that,compared to other senses of de, the use of the locative sense decreased from Period I to
Period II, while the use of instrumental de increased.

Thirdly and most importantly,

Mabuchi argues that historical changes in the uses of de show that there is a
uni-directicnal shift from adjunctive use (location, instrument, and manner) to argumentuse (agent and causee). especially in Period III.

For instance, location phrases marked byde express some institutions or agencies which carrv' out some action.

I consider her

observations interesting; however, her research has a few minor problems.

First, as any

historical analyst has to face, the historical texts are circumstantial, and do not pros ide
direct evidence for all of the uses of de.

Further, Mabuchi does not provide any

theoretical explanation for the historical change from adjunctive usage to argument usages,
although her findings are very insightful.
This brief sketch of studies on historical changes in ni and de implies that the
spatial sense of ni and de was primary among other senses.

Furthermore, these historicalstudies have suggested that the original prototype senses of ni were either allative or

Mabuciii's classification of de is based upon "prototype llieon" and slie found some c.viniplcs of dewiiicli overlap between two usages, e.g. location and causce. It is insightful for her lo ha\e a categor>
callcd geniei "liniitaiion" whicli includes both location and time. She points out that limitation de isdifferent from locative de in that the former marks abstract space while the latter marks concrete spacc. I
will e.Mcnd this point in Chapter 4.

130existential/stativity, and the original prototype sense of de is dynamic." '2.9. Summary
The first section of this chapter discussed the global assumptions of Cognitive
Grammar and Prototype Theor\'.

The basic notions of CG outlined in the second sectionof this chapter provide the devices necessary to understand the data analysis and the
network model of the Japanese locatives /// and de which I will intensively discuss in
Chapters 3 and 4.

The stative and process relations discussed in this chapter are the mostimportant notions. 1 also discussed the most relevant CG studies by Kumashiro (1994b,
2000) and Kabata (2000),

The former claims that locative dc profiles an autonomousalignment and /// profiles a dependent alignment, and that de can be used as a reference
point by way of which the event happens and is mentally accessed. The latter claims thatthe difference between /// and de is partially based upon the contingency of verbs.
last section of this chapter discussed historical studies on the use of /// and dc

The

The use of/// was first recorded in the late 8''' century, and the one ofc/c was in the 12"' century. The
basic senses of ni are considered to be as a stative locative marker as weii as an aliative
marker.

51)

Locative de is assumed to be an abbreviated form of ni and de where ni is a

Like liistorical studies, regional studies provide another inieresting field to e.splore to sec how the
loailixe senses \ar\ and whcllicr the \ariatioii is cogniii\cl.\ motivated. For instance, according to Tojo
(1954: 64). citcd by Martin (1975). the ablative maker kam is used to mark the d> namic locati\ c insteadof ilc in is Tajima in Tottori prefecture (soutliw estern part of Japan), e.g. ham i<ora ( ilei asn/ni "plays ina field". i:akk()o kara / do iiiulookai ga am "there is a sports incel happening at school". Martin (221)
maintains lliai this is " rcininisccnt of the Korean use of |-cy| sc for both ablative "from" and residual
locative "at""". Another ease is that of the Hacliinolie dialect (Aomori prefecture, northeastern part ofJapan), in which (he goal and e.Nistential locative, as well as the indirect object and causee are all marked
by so. instead of ni. Case particle "sa" in the Hacliinohc dialect (from Hirayama 1982: 25()ff) is
considered to be a derived form of '.swuo-in' (toward-///). The analvsis of regional differences from thecognitive perspcctiv e is beyond the scope of this studv. how ev cr.

postposition and le is a conjunctive form of some type of Old Japanese verb.
in Chapters 3 and 4, I examine whether or not the Japanese locative postpositions
ni and de in Modern Japanese exhibit prototypical usages. To further demonstrate thatthe dirterent types of senses form a network with other related senses. I show how the
choice of/// and tie can be explained semantically by looking at natural discourse data. In
addition, the use of /// in connection with the topic marker wa. the non-occurrence of the
postpositions, and the stage-setting construction, are examined in next three chapters.

CHAPTER 3
Nl
3.l.liiti'oduction
In Chapter 2.1 discussed the general assumptions of Counitix e Grammar (CG)and ga\ e a brief o\ ervie\v of Prototype Theor\' and the Cognitive Network Model thatprovide the base for this study of the Japanese locative postpositions ni aiid Je. I also
introduced the three major pre\ ious works regarding ni and c/c in the frame\\ork ofCG.
and pointed out the need to consider the use of natural language data as a piece of
supporting evidence, 'Within the context of natural language mcluding written

discourse. I focus on 'ordinan conversation" in which the nature of mental phenomena is
manifested (Chafe 1970. 1994).In the first part of this chapter. I focus on the distributional pattems of thediflerent uses of/?/ in spoken discourse, discussing each of the four main categories of///:1) smiple statne ///. 2) complex stati\e ///. 3) allative ///. and 4) contact ni. Then. I
discuss two phenomena which are associated with the most frequently used predicates,"stage-setting construction' and "non-occurrence of the locati\ e postpositions', sincethese phenomena shed light on the functional and cogniti\ e aspect of Japanese locati\ epostpositions in discourse."
In the second part of this chapter. 1 discuss the distributional patterns of the' Kabata (2(K)()) kxikcJ at spoken data, a speeeli by the .lapanese lanpress and an inien.ieu uitli one
I'eniale TV pcr.sonalily Both the speceli and the inteniew are dilVerent I'roni spontaneous eon\ersation" Chafe( 199-4)states that there are various genres in written language that vary in terms of the speaker's
eonseioiLsness le\e! which is fundamental to spoken language. I-'or instance, personal letters arc muchcloser to spoken language than expository writing. 1 consider the written discour.se cNamined in thisstudy relatively closer to spoken discotir.se Ix-cause of inl'orniality and some elements found in shortstorie.s I exafiiined.
" l.angacker (19S7: 97-9S) provides a specil'ic definition for predicates. He defines it as "the semanticpole of a morpheme" which has complex internal structures representing cognitive processing. In thisstudy, however. 1 use the term predicate in a more general sense

IJ J
difTerent uses oCni in written discourse. Follow ing a short description of my analysis of
the written data. I examine the distributional patterns of ni b\ using the same four
categories as 1 used in examining spoken discourse.
3.2. Procedui'es for Analysis of Spoken Discoui-se
I briefly discuss how 1 selected the cases examined in the present stud>. First,
all occurrences of ni- and c/e-marked locati\e phrases and non-marked locati\e phrases
w ithin m>' slud>- u ere examined. Second. I conducted a separate and independent sun e>
using 10 Japanese informants to determme which particles would ha\ e appeared in the
non-marked locative phrases In the surve\. I asked the informants to choose particle(s)in non-marked locative phrases as illustrated in (3.1).
(3.1)

T:[n=|.
... moo.
nihon | | kaecha-lta ra
gyaku karuchaashokku de. sugoi to omou.
1. zero 2. ni 3. de 4.eWhen we go back to Japan,
we will go through a terrible"reserve-culture-shock".

5.wa 6. o 7.niwa S.dewa

The informants w ere asked to choose one or more appropriate answers from choices 1
through S. The> were also instructed to choose at least two answers if one of theiranswers includes zero.'* Based upon the majority of the answers (60% or more). I
determined which postpositions were most likely to used in the non-marked locative
phrases. In the 50 examples presented to the informants, there were 47 cases w here ni
was considered to be the missing postposition. The three exceptions were found in cases' I hc direction marker e ua.s included in the choice in the .suney since it is a potential choice uhen theclause examined includes motion predicates (e.g. Tok>'o e iku "jio toward Tok>o"). 1 lowever, this study
does not examine ("actors which determine non-occurrence of a goal marker ni or direction marker e. See
Numata (2000) lor the discu-ssion on non-ivcurrences of»; and c from the perspective of diachronicalstudies134(3.2). (3.3). and (3.4).'(3.2) ...soko [ I ikimashoo loka
lieyuue=.
ihere
lei's go something like OL'E said"(She) said somelhing like lefs go ihere. and...
(3.3) demo, sooyuu hilo lachi
wellsuch people

ga
NOM|Misalo: 4]

yarilailinguistics lie
hoka niwant to do linguistics QUE else

doko I I ilia n
daroo
where
has done I w onder"I wonder where they want to go lo do their kinds of linguistics."[Super student: 7|(3.4) ...soo. ...soshiiara 00- asoko [ | ika-na-kalta n da tie.
well
then
over there go-NEG-PST I heard"well, (she) did not go there. I heard."[Ryokoo: 11* I round luo unihiguou.s eases. I'hcse eases are shown in (i) and (li) where a paruele is missing tvl'ore
llie \erbs hashini 'run' and amku "walk", respeetneh.
(i I de inaa
iciiinendake. solo| | hashit-le koi
loka.
iw-are-ru wake lanwell. 1 Near suidenls oni\
outsiderun-CONJ comesomelhing hke sa\-PASS
souknow'Weil. onl\ liie lirst \ear siudents are lold "(io ouiside and do some logging'"' [Hukalsu k'|(inkinjo
dedokka | | arui-ie
Ue=neigliborhood LOC somewhere ualk-CONJ be'we are walking somewhere in our neighborluxid...'[Misaio l.'?]The \ erb. Imshini run', m (ii and the \ erb. aniku 'walk', in (in often take o. a path marker, as in soino Ihishini 'rim outside', and dokka o uniku walk soinewhere' when a speaker means that there isdireetionahtN I'or running and walking. IIowe\er, it is possible to sa\ soU) dc ha.shini and Jokkci Jcaniku in other contexts Since there is no clue to help decide ifa postposition would ha\e appeared andif so. which postposition would ha\ e appeared in these contexis. these tmclear eases did not enter thepresent anal\sis. I'here are a few other cases that I ha\e chosen not to include in the present analysis(observe the following (iii)IT.
gesluiku < a shiteta no a >r Did \oii live a rooming hou.se 'omae'':c
C ^'cs. 1 did.
iin.
.Vf:
doko'.'
f Where'-1:C;
C: 1 lull''. tin''
5;T:
T: Wliose house''
darcnchi'.'
6:C
C; It is in Mishima.
• Mishima.
7;T:
T: W'as It in a private rooming house'shiranai Into no ie 'ICieshuku: 11
Doko "where" in line three, darcnchi whose house' in line five, and shlniiiai hilo no if 'prnate rooming
hou.se' in line.se\'en are all livaliwnoLin phra.ses which could bel'ollowed b\ in ycsliiikii shiicia no Did\ou h\e in a nximing hou.se'"' Mishmui in line six is a locative phrase that could be followed by ni};eshuku shiteta "I lived m a rooming hou.se' I did not include these cases and one similar ease on the
grounds that sjieakers T and C were prokibly jiLst listing what came up in their minds, and thus I
consider that there is not enough inl'ormation to decide which postposition speakers T and C might ha\eintended to use in this context.

135(3.2) and (3.3) are the cases where the direction marker c was chosen by a majority ofsur\e\ informants, while in (3.4) the contrastive marker ua was the majority choice.
! also examined locati\e phrases followed b\' the topic marker wa and theemphatic marker mo. and the combination of the topic/emphatic markers with locati\epostpositions niwa. dcwa. nimo. and demo. Obser\ e the follow ing example (3 5) whereuw appears after kookoo "high school" in line 2.

(3.5)

1: U:...chuugakkoo uatomokaku.
2: ... kookoo | | wa.
3: ... sugoi_(/suggee/) supootsu.
4: ... dekitan dayo.

U: I was realK good at sports
when 1 was in high school
not mention it. that's true injunior high school. >ou know.
[Bukatsu: I6|

This kind of case is w hat 1 refer to as a na-marked locati\ e phrase, and I discuss this casein section 5.3.4. 1 did not. howe\er. include the case with toka Jaio. which seems tohave a similar function as the thematic marker in conversation as shown in (3/5).

(3.6)

Tookyoo toka dato honto ni=. > uudansha
demo.
Tok>o
reallythose who got a title e\en/en/en \ ow ai no ooin dakedo.
\er>' weakman\- COP but"In Tok> 0. even those who got a title are weak in man\ cases, but..."[Bukatsu: S|
Table 3.1 shows the frequency of occurrence/non-occurrence of/?/ and Jc as

well as wa mo when these locatixe postpositions follow (e.g. niwi and dcwa). and wa mowhen these locative postposition do not follow but follow locative phrases (e.g. Tokyo
via and Tokyo mo). The majoril>' of locative postpositions are /?/ (54%). the second mostcommon locativ e postposition is de (35.2%). while the frequencies of/7/Ma. dcwa. nimo.
demo, or MA or mo alone are ver\' low (3%. 1.9%. 0.7%. 2.6%. 1.9%. and 0.7%).

136
respectively.

Table 3.1 also iilusiraies that the non-occurrence of the locatne

postposition based upon 10 informants" judgments is unique to ni. and not to c/e. which
I discuss in section 3.8.
Table 3.1: Frequenc>' of Japanese Locative Postpositions in Spoken Discourse.w(Occurrence
Nonoccurrence1253: 1 10(1)

'

(O.S)
n

:

t'

! /iniij

1 cicmininio

iicnif)

i S

i 2

-)

7

5

T

! (3 1)i (O S)(O.S)(2.-')

t 2)

0

0

1
(2)

T

7

(1

N4

SI

-)

(56.S 1

(315)

47

0

(O.S)
T

(94)

total

dc

! 1)

(41

Total
! s
SI
191
*lhc nLiiiilvr in parcnllicsos i.s a pcrccntage

! t

ll'a

mo

5o
1

i 303

3.3. A Review ofStativity and a Preview of a Cognitive Model of ni
In section 2.3.5. I maintained that the stative relation is defined as
non-temporality.

I introduced two kinds of stativ e relations, simple and comple.x. as

proposed by Langacker( 1982. 1987a. 1987b).' These two kinds of stative relations are
similar in that neither one of them profiles the time dimension.

A simple relation isdifferent from a complex relation in that the former profiles one single slate, while thelatter presupposes a series of component stales, profiling the final stage only. 1 re\ ised
Langacker's model b> adding one dimension lo the comple.x statis e relation. That is.
when a repetitixe process which refers to a habitual situation is profiled as one single
slate, and this state is conceived of as a complex stative relation.' I argued that the" Sniilh (19S3: 490) made a similar observation regarding stali\es. Statues indicate imdiflerentiatedmoments ol'a state, or a series of moments that constitute an interval. States are homogeneous, stablesitiuitions that do not include an internal structure. States contrast with progressi\es because the latterha\e an internal structure.
Smith (I9S.1) propo.sed a general lheor\' ol'aspeelual phenomeiia that mainh relies on Ihe interaction
between a \ieupoinl aspect and a situation type aspect. The distinction between simple and complex
stative that 1 have discussed in this stud\ resembles Smith's distinction between a situation t\pe and a
viewpoint type in aspeetuxi! meaning. A situation t\pe is comesed by the \ erh. its argument, and \ erb
constellation, while \ ieupoint type is morphologicalh'marked (e.g. perfective and impert'ectne). Later.
Smith (1997)developed a uni\ ersal .semantic theorv called Discourse Representation Theorv to formalh
accoimt for the interaction between aspectual meaning and .syntactic structure and attempted to test her
formal universal model with dillerent languages.
" Smith (1997: 33) points out that habitual sentences are another type of derived stath e. since habitujili137
prototypical usage of/?/ can be compared to the simple stative. and the less-protot> picalusage of ni. to the complex stati\e. respecti\eK'.

There are Japanese aspectual

morphemes, -ic ini. which are used in conjunction with complex statue/?/ as well as withd\ namic Jc. As the basis for discussion of the schemata for /// and dc. below I pro\ ide abrief account for the morpheme markers tc int from the pre\ ious studies.
The Japanese language has aspectual markers ic ini which can refer to either
progressiv e or perfect depending on the semantics of the \ erbs and the context. Obser\ ethe follow ing e.xamples (3.7) and (3.8).
(3.7)

John
ga
hashit-te ini.
John
NOM run-CONJ PROG
•John is running."(3.X)

Purintaa ga
koware-tePrinter NOM break-CONJ"The printer is broken."

ini.
ASP

Examples (3 7) and (3.8) show that -fc iru expresses progressne and perfect,
specifically a resultatix e meaning. The fact that the Japanese aspectual markers -ic ini
can express both progressi\ e and resultati\ e meanings has been wideK studied b\ bothtraditional Japanese grammarians (Matsushita 1928. Kindaichi 1950. Takaliashi 1979.
Yoshikawa 1979) and Westem linguists (Jacobsen 1982a. 1982b. 1992. Talmy 19X5.
2(K)())'. These scholars basicalK maintain that the inherent value of the verb to whichrcprcdiciilcs present a pattern of events, ratlier than a specilk sitiuition. Ilabitiul iiredieatcs holdeonsistently o\ er an internal ol'linie.
" Jacdbsen ( 19S2b: .i75). coinparmg Vendler's elassifieation with Kindaichi's (19501 elassilkation iif
aspect, states that there are some cross-relationships as described below
Kindaichi's classirication
Vender's classillcation
Stati\eStateType 4
Activity•
Continuati\eAccomplishment
Instantaneous
Achiewnient
However, as Jacobsen points out. it is crucial to be aware that all lexical items in one language arc notirn is attached determines the meaning of /c iru. That is. w hen d> namic durati\ e \ erbs.
(Kindaichi's continuative \erbs. and Vendler (1967)"s activity and accomplishment\ erbs). are used, le iru denotes a progressiv e meaning. When punctuaJ change-o(-stateverbs. (Kindaichi's instantaneous verbs, and Vendler's achievement and accomphshment
v erbs) are used,

le ini denotes a resultative state. The verb hashiru "run" in example(3.7) is an activity verb. This allows us to interpret -te int as e.\pressing a progressive
meaning. The verb kowarcni "break" in example (3.8). however, is an achievement verb
that allows us to interpret the same morpheme as denoting a resultative state, not a
progressiv e meaning. Except for a few cases it is not difllcult to pin down the meaningthat

ic iru denotes in a context.'' In this stiidv. \'-te iru V.CONJ - iru vv hich denots a

resultative meaning serves as an indicator for complex stative ni. while V+
denoting a progressive meaning serves as an indicator for dvnamic c /c.
important aspect of
meaning(3.9)

le iniAnother

tc iru which I focus on in this studv' is the habitual/repetitive

Observ e the following (3.9).
Sore vvaIt

mise ni

TOP shop

LOC

ut-te

iru.

sell-CONJ ASP"They sell it at a shop."(Martin 1975: 216)('lie iru in example (3.9) show s the repetitive acliv it> of selling something at ashop. According to Yoshikawa (1976). the habitual meaning expressed b>'

le iru is anextended meaning b\' focusing on the progressiv e meaning and that progressiv e meaning
exists as a phase between an initial and a final stage. ';il\\a\s tran.slalcd into a le.xical iiem ofan cijuivalcnt calcgory in ihc oilier.
I will talk about the eases for which it was dilHeult to determine the meaning ol' -ic iru in context in
scction .V 11.
" Shirai(1998:665)sujzgcsts that in Japanese tw o notions of the progressive and resultative conllaie intomorphemes tc ifnij- whose abstract meaning can be defined as a "durative situation persisting at
reference time " cited from iiybeeet al (1994)

139

There are 144 examples of the locative postposition ni in the spoken data.
These examples were classified into four groups, according to the following semantic
categories of///;(I) the simple stalive location marker is determined by predicates such as ini am there
is/are" and sitinii ii\ e". The stati\ e sense for these predicates is inherent in the \erbs
or nouns at the lexical level. This kind of ni profiles one single state.'"(II) the complex stali\e location marker is usually determined by predicates which
include aspectual morphemes re irii. Following Kindaichi (1950) and Jacobsen(19X2a 1982b). -tc ini are morphemes that change a non-stali\ e \ erb to a stativ eone.'" I also add that te ant is other morphemes that change a non-stati\ e \ erb to a
Kabata (ZUOi) SO) arguc.s that scntcnces wilh ///-niarkcJ li)catt\c phrases for simple and complex
statue would be anomalous without the.se /;j-marked loeatne phra.ses. Kabata lists the following
examples.
(il
Kare
no
ka/oku wa
nihonni
sim-de-irii
ile
(iliN
famiK TOP Japanl.OC
live-C()NJ-!'R(Xi
His lamiK' is li\ing in Japan.'
iii)
K.are
no
ka/okuwa
siin-de-iru.
He
CiliN
I'ainiKTOP
li\e-CON'J-PR< Hi(nil
Masako wa
llirutonhdtcruni
tomal-ta.
Masako Tf)!' Hilton
liotell.OC
staN-PST
Masako sta\ed at Hilton hotel."(iv)'Masako wa
tomat-ta.
Ma.sakolOP
stav-PST'' Kabata (20i)(): 79-S4 ) has proposed the same two image schema lor the locati\ e sense ol'/;; 11 statne
locations or existence as in (\ ) and (\ i) and 21 locations oiTin event or complex relation as m (\ ii i and(Vlll),(\ )kono le
ni
ua
inu
ga
san-biki
iru
this house l.OC TOP dog
N(i\1thrce-CL
exist animate
There are three dogs in this hou.se "(\"i)
Ree/'(X)ko
no
naka
ni
suika
ga
al-Ia
Refrigerator CiliN inside l.OC watermelon
NO.M exist inaniniate-PST
There was watermelon inside the refrigerator '(v'ii)
kaare noka/oku wa
nihonni
sun-de-iru.
he;|;laiiiil\ TOP Japanl.OC
li\e-CONJ-PR(X)'His famiK li\es in Japan '(\iii)
Ma.sako Ua
ginkoo ni
tsutome-te-iru.
Ma.sukoTOP bankl.OC work-CONJ-PROO•Ma,sakt> \vorks at tlie bank.'
Kabata claims that in both simple and complex stati\ e. the ///-marked locations are contingent on thepredicate \ erbs Therel'ore. the sentence with ///-marked loeatne phrases for simple and complex stali\ewould be anomalous without ///-marked location. She makes a distinction between two categories ofsimple and complex b\ I'ocusing on j^rollle status; namely, simple stati\ e profiles a thing, while complex
stati\ e prollles an event. The distinction between a simple and a complex stati\ e relation that I propose
in this study is slightly dilVerenl from Kabata's. M\ detinition of a simple stative relation is brixider.
including both K.abata"s simple relations and almost all ea.ses of complex relations
The crucial
distinction that I propo.se between simple and complex stative in this study is that a simple stative
profiles a single state, whereasa complex stative profiles the final state in some series of sequential slates

C N

140
stali\e one (Takaliashi 1969. Yoshikawa 1973. Jacobsen 1982a). The complex
slative often profiles the final stage, or profiles a repeliti\ e process as a single stale'"
The complex stalixe ni makes it possible to ha\e a coherent link between thepredicates simple stali\ e locative and complex slative locative. I briefly discuss theimportance of having a coherent link in the cognitive netw ork of Japanese locativ e
postpositions n i and c / c in section 4.4.
(III) the allative marker is accompanied by motion verbs such as ikii "go", kttru "come".
(IV) the contact marker is accompanied by attachment \erbs such as ham "put on".
iiiani "hit on", kakarn "hang". A contact marker is dilTerent from an allati\e in thatthe former"s primary focus is on the endpoint of the mo\ ement.
Ha\ mg focused on the spatial and temporal domains. 1 propose a provisionalmodel for the stativity of/?/ as shown in Figure 3.1. I rev ise Kabala"s (2()()(): 210) model
for lexical representation of/?/ by adding a finer distinction between simple and complex
Slativ e relations which I deriv e from Langacker (1987). Furthermore. 1 rev ise this modelin section 4.4 by providing a complete semantic representation for de which allows us tohave a network model for both Japanese locative postpositions.

Following Kabata(2()()()). the two most distinct senses of/?/ are indicated bv boldiv outlined rectajigles CD).
Dotted-line ovals () indicate the schematic senses which might exist within aspeaker. Solid ovals ()indicate actual usages. Under the tw o dilTerent senses,
spatial and spatial goal, four dilTerent schemata, simple stativc. complex siunvc. allanve.
and contact, are illustrated.

A boldly dotted arrow f"">-) illustrates metaphoricalextensions which exist among semantic domains. Notice that these schemata implv aor rc-prolilcs a rqietilive process as a single stale.
" Siniili (19S.V 1997) states that the habitual situation is a l\pe ot' situation aspect uliich does notinclude an\' specific event or state
Habitual meaning is ot'len marked by a special morpheme.
Crosslinguistically. habitual meaning ol'ten has correlation uith stative. and is expres.sed
morphologically (Comrie 1976). e.g. there is a paradigm for actives and stati\ es in Quichcan. a special
conjugation tor stati\ es in Na\ ajo. B\ bee et al (199-4)suggest that in the process of language change, ageneral imperfecti\e marker (stative) is often derived from a progressive marker by acquiring habitual
meaning I'his indicates that cross-linguistically and historicalh'. states and habitual situations aresemantically related to each other141
sense of stain il> to a certain extent, which suggests that the semantic closeness between
two pairs of schemata (simple and complex. allati\e and contact) account for the \er>subtle differences between these schemata.

Landmark is located entity

Landmark is endpoint

Landmark is location

Endpoint iS'
spatialLocation is
spatialComplex stati\cSimple stativc^~--_Locaiion—"^---LocaiiQu^

Endpoint isexperiencer
p to SOCIAI. DOMAIN,

Comae.

SPA TIAL DOM.AUl

Landmark is
temporal>(_

temporal

TliMPOIUL DOMAIN

Fitzure 3.1: A Provisional Semantic Network Modelfor nt in the Spatial and Temporal Domains

142

3.4. Analysis of Simple Stative iii in Spoken Discoui'se
3.4.1. Data Analysis
In this section. I first pro\ ide an o\ er\ iew of the fi'equencies of ni in spoken
discourse, and then I discuss the prototypical usaue of ni. a simple statix e relation. Table
3 .2 describes the frequencies ofthe types of predicates co-occurring w ith m.
Table 3.2: Frequenc> of Predicate Types for Occurrence of Locative Postposition nt
in Spoken Discourse
Senses' Simple' Complex
I Allati\eContact| TotalFrequencies '41
i 20
\ 75
8
j 144
i 29'?.)
h4'!o
! 52%
5"..
| lOO".)
Table 3.2 shows that the majority of/7/-marked phrases in spoken discourse aresimple stati\e location markers (29%) or allative markers (52*!o). Ni appears as a simple
stati\e location marker and co-occurs with predicates such as the existential \ erbs ini(9"o) and am (12"o) "there is/are" The remaining occurrences of'?/ as a simple slati\emarker join with predicates where the stati\e sense is inherent in the \ erb (8".)).'
Notice that motion verbs co-occur with ni (allatne sense) \er\- frequently in
spoken discourse (52"o). The nwst frequentK used \erbs include ikii "go" (17"()). kiini"come" (7%). and haini "enter" {(•>%). Other more specific motion \ erbs (22')'()) make up
the remainder.'" Ni appears as a contact marker and co-occurs with predicates such as
aiant "hit on", noscni "put on", noni "ride on". Jcktni "build on", ryuushusti sum "Howout" (5%). 0\erall the findings as shown in Table 3.2. seem to support the claim that the
prototypical usages of/?/ in the spatial domain are simple stative and aJlati\ e (Kabata andThese predicates inclLide the rollowmg: roniani 'sla\ a niylif. tsuumtcru 'work for', irihiicirini nam'hany around', kcikoii iKue someone stay .
stini 'liw in a |)n\ate lnHise". irxhrnuini 'remain',and niicni "can be scon'riie remaining predicates in the corpus are: kacni "go Ixick'. nuicloni return . lazinieru '\ isit .
hikkoshisum "move", niukau 'go toward . tsurele kum bring iyiiu};iikii sum 'stud>'ahroiid . shuushoku
sum find a job", htppam pull", iiic kuru go and come', nutim go to tlie temple', utsum 'mo\ e'. molickaem bring something home", dem "come out", aaam go on'. nii;cU' kuni "run aua\ from".

143
Rice. 1994; Kabala. 2()(M)). since the majority of occurrences of ni are related to thesimple stative location marker and the allative marker.

3.4.2. M'-marked Location and the IVlost Frequently used Verbs
Several distribution patterns were obser\ed with respect to the locati\epostposition ni in the spoken con\ ersation corpus. That is. existential \ erbs and motion\erbs are the most frequent cases uhere m marks a location.

Like the prepositional

prototypes/central reference points discussed in Rice (1996:

137). postpositional

prototypes for /7/ appear in the spoken corpus; namely, both simple stative and allatixe
are fundamental senses of m in this corpus.

In this section 1 examine how the simple

stative ni and allatixe m are used b> focusing on Ihe frequentK used predicates, as
shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Frequency of///-marked Locatixe Nouns in term with Fi\e Frequently used
Verbs in Spoken Discourse
Verbs

iiru 'he 'irii 'he 'tkii '^o'kuni 'conic 'Ikiini 'ciilcr'

TotalLP-/// NP-ijcv

3(23",.)(3.\3 "«)

1
(4"«)

1

NP-tja LP-/?/3(37.5"„)(IS.9%)

NP-via LP-/?/

1 (7.7"„)0

1 (9"..)

02(2.7",.)

NP2(2.7%)(9%)

14

I (7.7";,)1 (.\9^,)

0

0

('

LP-/?/

X(6l.6'!«)

10(58.8%)

24
(96%)

9
(82",'.)

5{62.5'!o)5f>(75.7"/,)

Total

13
(100%)

17(100%)

25(100%.)

11(100%)

8(100"^.)

74(100'!,.)

LP-/?/

The first row lists fi\e frequentK' used predicates. The first column categorizes the four
possible ///-marked locative phrase constructions.

Table 3.3 shows the number ofoccurrences of ///-marked locative phrases accompanied bv the five predicates, am "be".
//•// "be", ihi "go", htm "come", and haini "enter" which appeared 13. 17. 25. 11. and S
limes respectiv el\-. LP-/// in the second row stands for location phrase marked b\- ///. andnuwasarcm be sent", dchain siirti go in and oul'. and Isiikn arrive al"

:

1
i

144

NP-i,'(7 stands for a noun phrase followed b\' the nominali\e marker

NP-vra in thethird row stands for a noun phrase followed by the topic/contrast marker, wa. NP in the
fourth row means a bare noun phrase. LP-/?/ includes a relati\ e clause w here a Iocati\ ephrase is used in a relatix e clause, e.^. jiiiiJoohu m haini ki. "an intention to join the Judoclub"
When considering the total number of occurrences, it can be noted that///-marked locative phrases most frequently appear in the LP-/// construction (75.7"()).
The second most frequently used construction, which I refer to as the "stage-setting
construction", includes both the LP-/?/ NP-tja pattern as w ell as the NP-t,'^/ LP-/?/ pattern(1 X.y'o).'

These tw o constructions share an important characteristic in discourse. Thatis. in this type of construction, the ,<,'t7-marked noun phrase is presented as the primarv
focus in a discourse domain marked b>' /?/. .According to One et al. (2()()(): 41), thesetypes of ,t,'t7 -marked participants are best defined "in the state-of-alTairs" associated withthe situation uhen it is a pragmaticalh highh- marked situation. That is. in con\ ersationis onl\ used when there is something unpredictable about the relationship between the,<,'a-marked noun phrase and the predicate, and these l>pes of relationships need an
explicit intent on the speakers part to conve\- to the listener on the interactional andcogniti\ e basis.
Although the frequenc>' of such a construction is not the highest in spoken data,
this function is consistentk obserxed in the corpus. 1 discuss two examples (3.10) and' 'Constructions'has iJraun atlciuion from inan\ linguists( B\bool-'ilhiiorc I'.'S'i. Cioldhcrg l'i95.
[.akolV 19.S7. [.angackcr 199'/.'l ax lor 199.S, and Thoinspon 2(i()0, among others) [n this studs [ use tlicterm, 'construction'. I'ollouing Thoinspon (2iJl)l). in the sense that "constructions are not broad
sNntactic templates, but are l\pically local, language-specific, and lexically bound schemas andI'ormulas". Con\•ers^ltional data would provide the grounded dellnition of construction', sinceconversations represent conventionalized recurring sequences of morphemes or words with open slots.

145(3.11) of the "stage-setting construction" from spoken data. Consider example (3.10)
where a»/-marked place co-occurs with ini "be" for animate things.
(3.10)

K:
T

K:
T;

hen na hito.
... Kauatte (ru no ne||un un|. ..de nanka.
kanojo ga iru tte.
e-.'... a a Karihorunia.
. . .ja nai ya.
Nebada ni.

K: He is kind ofa strange person, isn't he 'T; \ es. and he has a girl friend, vou know .

K; RealK 'T: She is in California, no. in Nevada.
IRvuugaku; 4|

In example (3.10). speaker K mentioned a strange man whom speaker K andspeaker T pre\ iousK' met. In line 5 speaker T introduces a new reference o^kanojo "girlfriend of the strange man" in the discourse, by providing information on the place where
the girl friend is. A nominali\ e marker ,s,'(7 in kanojo ga "girl frind" is used to mark an NP
as a participant in the state-of-alTairs named b> an existential predicate, ini "be"Ni isNchada ni "in Nevada" is used to locale the .tja-marked newly introduced participant in
discourse domain. Speaker T has a problem w ith a location of the girl friend in lines 7
and 8. This example illustrates the "stage-construction" where.tjc/ is used to mark an NP
as a participant in the state-of-afTairs named bs' the predicate in contexts, and ni is used tomark a location where the participant is located.

Observe example (3.11) where a/7/-marked place co-occurs with the verb lazuncie kiia "v isited"(3.11)

K.:
E.
K:

Y:
K:

K.: you know.
E. v eah.
K; OnK' one time, a man who looks
like a homeless person.
... sore ni oboshiki hito ga ne.
un.
Y:yes.
. . . bokunchi ni.
K: He \ isited mv- place for his business.
. . . t a z u n e t e k i t e ne.

...anone.
...nh|.
(ikkail dake ne.

i.e.. some positions ihul allow choices among classes of items of varN inf; si/e

146
8:
9:

1():E:
11 :K;
12:
13:
14:

shoyoo=de.
... kilan da kedo mo.
n |=|
E: n.
[shoyool de
K: He came out to the counlr>
konna.
for his business, but I don't understandinaka ni kite sa=
uhy he came here.
...nani shi ni kita no ka wakannai.
(Homeless: 6J

Speaker K. is telling about a homeless looking man w ho paid a \ isit to speaker K's house.
In line 4 speaker K. introduces a new participant, soreni ohoshiki liito "the person who islike the homeless" in his con\ ersation. In lines 6 and 7 speaker K gives information on
the place that the person uiio is like the homeless came. Cut in sorcni ohoshiki hit(j-<^a isused to mark an NP as a participant in the state-of-affairs named by the motion predicate.
lazunatekiini "pay a visit". Ni is hokunchi-ni "my place" is used to locate the,!,v/-marked

new K- introduced participant in discourse domain. As e.xamples (3.10) and (3.1 I) show ,a /7/-marked locaii\e noun phrase appears in the "stage-setting construction" in a
discourse where the ,t,'cv -marked noun phrase is presented as the primary focus w hile the/7/-marked locati\e phrase is presented as the domain for the priman entity.

Thiscon\entional recurring pattem provides a better understanding of function of simple
stative ni in conversation.
3.5. Analysis of Complex Stative ni in Spoken Discoui-se
3.5.1. Data Analysis

In section 3.4.1 I reported that 20 cases were identified as complex stati\ e ni inthe spoken data. In this section. I examine each case to show how the stati\ e sense of »/is not determined b>' \ erbs onK'. but it instead is related to some other factors such as theauxiliar\' morphemes, -te int.

I also argue that this t> pe of nl can be compared to thecomplex stative proposed by Langacker (1987). since it often profiles the final stage ofthe process related to temporality. To provide an account for the fact that the repetitive

147

conslruction in Japanese sometimes takes the ;7/-marked locati\e (Martin 1975.
Jacobson 1982a. 1982b). I would modify the "complex statue' such that a repetitixe
process is conceived as one single state because of its semantically consistent nature.
In section 3.5.2.1 examine two examples of complex stative (3.12) and (3.13) from the
spoken language database. '^3.5.2. IVIeaning of Complex Stative ni
Consider example (3.12):
1: P:
2:
3;
4: M:
5: P;
6:
7:
S:
9;
10
11
12 M:

.. Fujisaw a toka.
Hiratsuka no.
Hanian toka ni sa=.
... un../u=lo.
Nanka
Nanka.
. . .nante iu no.
ano=. .. moku/oo no.
terasu o tsukutte=.
..un/

P On the beach of Fujisaw aor Hiratsuka or somewhere nearby.
VI >esP The\ build something like.
w hat do you call it. a wooden terrace

M \esISaikin no ko: 4]

Example (3.12) was found at the beginning of the speaker's own narrati\ e about a newgeneration, saikin no ko. Speaker P tries to share his experience of being called ojisan"uncle" b>' a female teenager whom he passed b\ on the beach in the Hiratsuka Fujisaw aarea. This example contains tsubittc. a gerund/conjuncti\ e form of a process \ erb.
tsiibini "make" in line 11 and a ^/-marked location hama toko ni "on the beach or
somew here" in line 3.'' The process \ erb tsukiiru in line 11 is different from existential\ erbs in that this \ erb does not indicate a sense of stati\ ity; therefore, the choice of ni in

No example for the complex slati\e m wilhin a repetili\ e proces.s was found in the .spoken Jala, but it
was found in the written data. See section .ill. t'or a discussion for the complex stati\euliiehrepetitive sense.
'' Takii means "something/soniewherc/someone like that'.

14X

example (3.12) is not lexically determined. Notice that what is profiled by ni m theexample is not a single stage, but the final stage in the process isukiini (ha\ ing made).
The function of the stativity of m here is to introduce an 'o accusative-marked"
entity/participant in a domain of conversation by focusing on the endpoint of eachprocess. 1 observed a similar pattem in example (3.13) where speakers E and M aretalking about Buddhist monks in Japan.
(3.13) 1:E:
2:

3:
4:M:
5:

...n=.
E:\vell.\veshouldnotgi\emonev to them, riuht...arewa.
okane o agecha ikenain desu vo ne=.
M:...aEmichan.
^ Emichan. it is vvntten on<.X fuda X> ni kaite atta ne
the tag they hav e.
[Hoomuresu: 5|

Speaker E made a comment on how to treat Buddhist monks on the street. In
response, speaker M repUed fut/a-ni kaite atta "it was written on the tag". This example
contains a/j/-marked location, ///c/tv ni in line 5 and kaiic. a gerund/conjunctiv e form ofkakn "write" followed b\ atta. a past form of auxiliarv \ erbcini in the same line. Noticethat the verb kahi "write" usually does not imply an\ stati\e sense. However, as can beseen, thenz-marked location represents w hat speaker K. said, okane o a<j,ccha tkcnai do
not giv e money to them" is on the tag. Namely, the /7/-marked location profiles the final
stage of writing, not the process of writing. This example stands in sharp contrast to a
counterexample (3.14) where the same predicate kahi "write" is used but without being
followed b\- -te am. In this e.xample Je was used to mark a locativ e.

149(3.14)

T: ... ie de kaite milari nanka.
isuuyaku loka.
K: ...[un|.
... ima ne=.
dakara_(/daka/) rajio to=.
ano=.
nihongo oshie ni.
daitzaku ni illeru.

T; Al home he does something likeu riling and interpreting 'K.. \es. now on a radio show and atcollege, he is leaching Japanese.

[Ryuugaku: 12|

Speaker T tried to imagine what speaker K"s ra\ onte person is doing to make ali\ing. Notice that in the first line, ac/e-marked location. ic-Jc. "at home" is used alongwith the \erb. kaitc. "write". What is profiled in this context is the whole process ofw riting that I discuss in more detail in the next chapter, not the final stage in the series ofihe process. This contrasting case shows that the predicate kahi "write" does not require
a/7/-marked stative location." '3.6. Analysis of Allative/</iii Spoken Discoui-se
As we ha\e seen in section 3.2. ni was frequenlK used with either existential\ erbs or motion verbs in the spoken corpus. Based upon this observation. I argue that ni
has two main central senses: simple siaiix e and allati\ e. Furthermore. I propose that thestative sense can have two difierent schemata: stative and complex stative. Complex
stativ e w as not the most frequently used in the data, but ni appeared as a complex staliv ewhen the morphemes -tc ini follows an action v erb, profiling the final stage of somesequential process or profiling the sequential process as one single unit. In this section
and the following section. 1 focus on the allalive and contact markers.

I argue that

Another ease is luiuiraku "work" wliich goes uitli (/I'-nuirkod loealivcs as sluiwii in (i) below in a
nioJtlying phrase Normally, the predieale luiuinikii is I'ollowed by a Jt'-loealum noun, eg IBM-dc
haiarciku "work for IIBM". However. 1 found one case in the spoken data where the same predicate isfollowed by a H/-marked location in a relative clause.
(ilR: s<x>=, Ciansentaa
ni hatxirai-te-ru
oi.shas;m w-a heckinnenree dono giirai
desu ka-'
I .see Canccr cenicr LCX
wurk-CONJ-ASP divtor TOP average age how nuich alxiut is COP Q
R: 1 see About the doctors who are working for the Cancer Center.

J150
similarities between dilTerent schemata w ill help with an understanding of the subtle
differences between pairs of relationships, such as allative and contact markers, andsimple and complex stative markers.
Cr\ stal (1991) defines allatix e as a goal and a direction marker. Svorou (1993)
states that if the trajector is mo\ ing in the direction of the landmark, then the destination
is called allative. Following these definitions. I identity ni as an allati\ e marker when it isused to mark a goal or direction.

I found that non-occurrence is one of the unique

phenomena of allalixe markers in spoken discourse.

I discuss this characteristic

extensively in section 3.8. In the following section. I focus on the contact marker,
another important schema for the locati\ e domain.
3.7. Analysis of Contact m in Spoken Discoui'se
According to Kabata (2()()(): 85). ni appears to be a contact marker or attachment
w hen its primar\ focus is on the endpoint of a movement. She lists the predicates w hichneed to have a contact marker: ham "put", mini "paint", aiani 'ha. fiireni "touch", andnam "ride". She also suggests that the interpretation of a contact marker is sometimes
vague, especially when a dsnaniic motion \erb is followed byle ini. changing a

dynamic \ erb to a stati\ e verb. She points out another important characteristic of acontact marker; nameK. the contact sense of ni is often used in idiomatic/fixed
expressions for perceptual/conceptual situations. From the spoken data. I will pro\ ide
one clear-cut example of a contact marker."'I \\;is wondering whiil tliL-ir a\ er;ig(.'ago is |Politics: 11
I found an ambiguous ease in the spoken data, uiiich lixiks like a contact marker. I lo\\ e\ er. I classified
it as a eomple.x slatixe iiKirker becau.se of tlie niorplieine. -le ni. a CDlloijuial Ibnii of ic im as in (i).
e.g. (i)saradanoueni
pan nottc ru jan
salad GliN upon LOC bread put-PRI:S you know
There is some bread on the .salad, you know." [Ryuugaku; 2()|

151
(3.15) M: sooshitara=
VI: then. look.
... ano hora,
w hen \ ou go straight from Hachiko... hachikoo kara sa= first
you will hit the building... gaa tto iku to sa.
called "ichimarukyuu". right'.'... ano ma/u
ichimaruk>uu [no asoko ni |butsukani| ja nai]
|Vtisato: 5|
In (3.15) speaker M is tr\ ing to provide some detailed inlbrniation about Tokyo.
Iichimanikynii no asoko. "the building called lchimaruk> uu" is the place you would
come to if\ou were to walk straight from Hachiko. In this example, hutsukaru "hit"focuses on the endpoint of mo\ement. and is used in an abstract sense, since themo\ement described b\ hutsukaru "hit" is metaphoricalK used, rather than the literalmeaning as shown in (3.16).
(3.16)

booru
gaatama niball
NOM headLOC"A ball hit me on the head."butsukat-ta.
hit-PST

3.8. Non-occuiTciice of ni
In this section. 1 focus on a phenomenon related to the most frequenth used motion
verb, iku "go" in the corpus: the non-occurrence of postpositions. First. I pro\ide anover\ ieu of the frequencv of occurrence/non-occurrence of the locali\ e postpositions.
ni and Jc. in the spoken corpus.
Table 3.4: Frequence of Occurrence.^on-occurrence of Locative Postpositions
dc
Total
ni
SI (100%)
225 (82.7"„)
Occurrence
144(75.4%)
0 (O'M))
47(17.3"o)Non-occurrence
47 (24.6%)
81 (100%)
272(100%)
Total
191 (100%)
Table 3.4 shows that the total number of locative phrases was 272.
times, while t/c occurred 81 times.

Ni appeared 144

As Table 3.4 illustrates, all of locative

A traditional Japanese grammarian, fCunihiro (1967). point.s out that the notion ol" coniuct could hebroad enough to subsiune all senses of iii i see section 2.4 ).

;

152

non-occurrences in informal con\ersation were in cases where ni would be expected.
Out of 191 possible occurrences of ni. there were 47 non-occurrences (24.6"o);however, dc was used 100% of the time out of 81 possible occurrences. Table 3.4 bears
w itness to the fact that locatix e non-occurrence happens w ith ni. and not with dc.
3.8.1.Motion Verbs and Non-occuriience of ni
There are two main conditions related to the phenomenon of locative
non-occurrence in the corpus: verb types and discourse factors. First. I discuss verbt\pes and then the details of the non-occurrence of/?/ with respect to various verb t\pes.
Table 3.5 provides the figures for occurrence/non-occurrence of/// with respect to thethree major///-marking verb types: motion verbs, existential verbs, and other verbs. In
this studx. motion v erbs are defined as v erbs or v erbal phrases describing the motion ofsome entity, w hile existential verbs are defined as v erbs expressing an entity's existence.
Table 3.5 shows that the non-occurrence of//; is a phenomenon unique to motion verbs.
Note that existential and other v erbs are always marked by /// except for two cases.
Table 3.5: Frequenc>' of Qccurrence/TMon-occurrence of Locative Postposition ;//Motion Verbs
Existential
Total
OthersVerbs
77 (63.6%)30(93.8%)
144(75.4%)
Occurrence
1 37 (97.4"o)2 (6.2';'.,)
1 (2.6%)47(24.6%)
Non-occurrence 44 (36.4%)
Total
32(100%)191(100%)
121 (100%)
38 (100%)
Table 3.6 lays out the frequenc> of occurrence/non-occurrence of ni for motion
V erbs and existential v erbs which appeared in the data.

i
i

1

153

Table 3.6: Frequenc>' of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of ni by Verb Types

Occurrence

ikii

kacm

kiini

hciini

clem

mi

am

1 "uo"
1 ^"return"conic""enter"

'come
out'

be"

"be"

6
(46)

10
(71)

8
(67)

3
(75)

20
(95)

11
(92)

I (j4 )

7
(34)

4
(29)

4
(33)

1
(25)

1
(5)

!

13

14

12

4

21

i -I (46)29

Non-occurrence
Total

Total

;
!

1
(S)

83
(63)
47
(37)

12

130

j

*The numbers in parenthesis indicate percentages.
Verbs such as iku "go", kacni "relum". h{nt "come", hairu "enter", and Jem "come out"
are motion \ erbs. w hile the remaining two verbs, ini "be" (for anmiates) and am "be" (forinanimates), are existential verbs.

Notice that ihi

go" is the most frequently usedmotion \ erb. and that out of 54 possibilities, there were 29 non-occurrences of/?/ for this\erb. It is also noteworth\that out of 13 possible occurrences, there were 7

non-occurrences for the \erb kaeni "return". Notice that the existential \erb ini "be" isalso a frequentl> used \erb. In contrast to ikn "go" and kacrii "return", there uas onl\
one obser\ ed case of the non-occurrence of ni in conjunction w ith the existential \ erb//7/

Thus, ue see that non-occurrence most frequenlK' happens w ith the most frequentmotion verb, ikii "go".

In the next section. I would like to discuss why /?/ did not occur

as a goal marker frequentK in these conversations.

3.8.2. Cognitive Motivations for Non-occuiTcnce of«/
There are two potential motivations for the non-occurrence of«/; the frequenc>of the v erbs and the characteristics of goal.

First I propose that the non-occurrence

pattems for the goal marker ni impl\- that non-occurrence is motiv ated b\ the frequenc>of the \ erb. That is. the more often a speaker uses a motion \ erb. the more strongK s/1:etends to associate the goaJ

marker with the \erb. a situation that

results in

non-occurrence, cf the "reduction effect" discussed by Bybee and Thompson (1997).

i

154

How ev er. I suggest thai the frequenc>' issue alone will not explain the obser\ ed patternsof non-occurrence since other frequently used verbs, such as die locative complement of
the existential \ erbs am irn "be", are marked almost all the time in the data. In order toexplain the observation that the locative goal of the \ erb tku "go" is frequentk unmarked
b\- ni. there is a need for further inquir\-.
Second. I discuss a proposal by Ikegami (19X7: 135) who argues that the goal,
the ending point", is more salient than the source, "the starting point", to humancognition, cf the "goal-over-source principle" in his terminology. Following Ikegami. I
propose that the motivation for the non-occurrence of a goal inarker is that motion \ erbs
are strongly associated w ith the concept of "goal" to the extent that the speaker does not
feel a strong need to mark the goal in conversation. It was shown above (Table 3.4) thatthe non-occurrence of locati\ e postpositions in conversation was unique to ni. not dc.
and (Table 3.5) that the motion \ erb often occurred with the absence of/?/. It was shown(Table 3.6) that the most frequently used verb ikn. "go", often co-occurred with theabsence oUv. In the following section. I discuss how certain discourse factors such as
non-referentiality and demonstratives discussed by Fujii and Ono (2000) are applicableto this stud\'.
3.8.3. Discoui-se Motivations for Noii-occun^iice of/i/
Fujii and Ono (2000) point out that when objects are non-referential. the\ arepredominantly unmarked. If this is the case for locative postpositions as well, then thefollowing prediction should hold: when locations are interrogatives or indefinite
pronouns that ha\e no referent, they will predominantN be unmarked.

Table 3.7

summarizes the frequency of occurrence/non-occurrence of ni w ith interrogativ es orindefinite pronouns occurring with motion verbs.
Table 3.7; Frequenc> of Occurrence/non-occurrence of /2; in Interrogative/Indefinite
Pronouns
Other Locative
Interrogati\e/
Total
Nouns
indefinite
74 (67.3%)
3 (42.9%)77(100%)Occurrence
4 (57.1%)
36 (32.7"i,)40(100"<.)Non-occurrence
1 17 (100'>o)
7 (100%)110(100%)
Total
It shows that out of 7 possible occurrences of locative interrogatives or indefinite
pronouns, there were 4 cases that were not marked by ni (57.1'!()).

In contrast tointerrogatives or indefinite pronoims. there was a lower preference {32.7%) for
non-occurrence when other locative nouns were used. Next consider examples (3.17)
through (3.20).
(3.17)(3.18)(3.19)(3.20)

doko it-ta-n
daroo
kanojoOregon'Oregon''where go-PST-NML 1 wondershe"(1 was) wondering where she went'.'" (Did she go to) Oregon '"[Super student: 7|
doko it-tano'where go-PST FP|0\ ama: 2|•\Vliere (did you) go (skiing) '"doko ikya
ii-n daroo
neare.
where gogood 1 wonderFPthat•(!) wonder where (I) should go (about that)."[Misato: 14|

Nanka
dokka
itchat-ta shi ne.
somethingsomewhere
go-PST
FP"(He) has gone somewhere, you know."|Fujikawa: 11

In examples (3.17). (3.18). and (3.19). the interrogative pronoun t/oto "where" was notmarked b\ ni. Example (3.20) illustrates that the indefinite pronoun Jokka (a contracted
form of Jokoka "somewhere"), which refers to a non-specific place, is also unmarked.
All these examples from spoken discourse data suggest that non-referentialit> isassociated w ith non-occurrences of the goal marker nt. Next, I suggest one w a\' to look

i
1

156
at well-established elements in discourse in order to examine more full> the discourse
factors that Fujii and Ono discuss.
I obser\ed man\- cases where proper nouns referring to locations were usedwith and without >7/-marking.

Examples of proper locative nouns in the data are

Amenka 'America'. Nihon "Japan", and. Yooroppa Europe". It seems that these proper
locative nouns were not randomK' marked. I found that when proper locative nouns
were previousK used in discourse, the tendency to be unmarked mcreased.

M\

observations are summarized in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8. Frequenc\- of Occurrence/Non-occurrence of/?/ in Repeated Proper Locative
Nouns
Total
Nev\l\- introduced Prev iouslv mentionedj24(51''«)
Occurrencei 11 (42%)
i 14(66.7%)
Non-occurrence i 7 (33.3%)
i 23 (49"'o)i 15(58%)! 47 (10()".,)
Total
i 26 (100%)
21 (100%)
Table 3 8 shows that 15 out of 26 cases (58"o) are repeated references tounmarked proper locative nouns. The fact that these 15 cases are of repealed tokens
identifies them as well-established elements in the discourse.

Following Chafe(1986:25). I consider these cases to be what he calls "activated" since they are currentK
salient in the discourse. Notice that the ratio of non-occurrence increased to 5S"o from
33.3"() in the case of locative proper nouns that were previously mentioned in the
conv ersation. In e.xample (3.21). speakers K and T are talking about w hat happens after
spending a long time outside of Japan.
(3.21)
1: K: ... dakedo.
2;kono kankaku de,
3;
4; T:
5;

K: But. w ith this sense of feeling
we are nervous about goingback to Japan. aren"t we'.', . , Nihon ni kaeru no vva. kovvai> o |ne|. <|ne|.
T: Yes. because we got used to... kono kankaku de.
the vvavs things are here with

157

6:
7:
8: K:
9:
10
1 1 T:
12 K:
13 T:
14
15
16 K:
17 T:

nareteru kara sa.
[moo|.
|soo|.
... dakara=.
... sa(=|.
[n=|.
... monotarinai nante o|mounja|n.
|n=|.
... moo. nihon ( ) kaetta ra. ^... gyaku karuchaashokku |de|.
|un|.
sugoi to omou.

this sense of feeling.
K.: So.

T: > eali
K: We w ill feel something is
missing.
T; The re\ erse culture shock w
be terrible. I think.
K.; Yes.
IRyuugaku: 231

Notice that in the line 3. Nihon "Japan" is marked by ni and folloued by kacru "return".
However, in line 14. the same proper locative noun and the same verb are used, but thisUme Nihon "Japan" was not /7/-marked. Thus, both cases ol'Nihon are referential, but the
one in line 14 is dilTerenl from the one in line 3 in that it is previously established in the
discourse. In the following example speaker R is talking to speaker H about her friend"strip.
(3.22)
1: R:
2
3
4; H:
5; R;
(•>
7; H:
8: R:
9:

... Burajiru wa.
R: She went to Brazil and cameitte kita tte.
back. Bra/.il. > ou know.
Bura|jiru| hora.
|eel'.'
H; what'.'.. ittajanai
R: She went there, you know .
..Akichan.
Akichan.
...shiranai.
H: Idon"tknow.
...X
R; She went to Brazil, you know.
Burajiiii i I itta no y o . [ R y o k o o : 6]
In line 1. speaker R mentioned Burajini "Bra/ii" marked b> the topic/contrast

marker, m o , and follow ed b>' itte kifa "went and came back". In line 9. howe\er. the same
speaker repealed the same proper name. Bra/il". this time without being marked b>either ni or wa. Both occurrences of the proper name. "Brazil", are referential, w ith the
difTerence being that the latter case has been more established in the speaker s mind.

158

3.9. Summaiy of Analysis of HI in Spoken Discoui'se
In the first
postpositionni

half of this chapter. I examined how the Japanese locati\e
is

used

in

informalconversationb\

presentingthesimple/complexy'allative/contact usage of«/. and the "stage-setting construction" as w ellas the non-occurrence of the locati\ e postposition.

I argued that simple stati\ e andailative are central senses and that stative senses can have dilTerent schemata: simple andcomplex. I obser\ ed that ni appeared as a complex stati\e when the morphemes

le irii

follow an action \ erb. profiling the final stage of a sequential process or profiling thesequential process as a single unit. In the "stage-setting construction". I observed that«/-marked locatix e phrases were often used along w ith ^5,'a-marked noun phrases {18.9%).
In this construction. I argue that ;7/-niarked phrases are best characterized as discourse
domains when used together with the ,t,'f;-marked participants which has primarv focus indiscourse.
In discussing the non-occurrence of locati\e postpositions. I reported that themost frequentK used motion \erb in the data, ikii "go", was often unmarked b\ a goal
marker. I proposed that this is because this frequently used \erb entails the meaning of
the goal and because the meaning of a goal marker is so salient that the speaker does not
feel the need to use ni. \Vlien the location is non-referential, such as interrogatives andindefinite pronouns, the goal marker is also ver> likeK not to be used. M> obser\ ations
seem to partially support the findings of Fujii and Ono (2000) who argue that discourse
factors motivate the non-occurrence of the accusative marker o. I have demonstrated
that repeatedly used proper locati\e nouns, which are also well-established in discourse,
are likeK not to be /5/-marked. In sum. I ha\ e found that the con\ersational data I ha\ e159anaKzed show there are obser\able patterns of the occurrence of the "stage-setting
construction" and the non-occurrence of the locativ e postposition /?/.

Furthermore. I

have argued that these patterns are predictable if we examine cognitiv e and discourse
factors central to conversation.
3.10. Pi'ocedui'e for Analysis ofYVntten Discoui'se
1 collected locativ e phrases marked either b\ m or c /e or b>' hw. nlwci. or Jcwa
from seven dilTerent modem books. Table 3.9 provides a brief description of each bookused in this stud\. I selected four male (A. B. C and E) and three female (D. F. and G)
authors.

I w ill not touch upon the emphatic marker mo or the combined forms, nutw

and ilcmo. since the numbers of locativ e phrases followed b>' mo were not significant andsince an anahsis of the emphatic marker is be\ ond the scope of m>' stud>. From four out
ofthe seven books chosen (A. B. C and D). I examined the first 125 pages of each andout ofthe remaining three authors" books (E. F. and G) I examined the last 125 pages ofeach.

The ages of authors of the se\ en dilTerent books at the time these works were

w ritten range from the mid-tu enties to the mid-thirties. Their ages are roughK similar
to the ages of the participants in the conv ersational data i hav e e.xamined.

160
Table 3.9: Description of Texts Used in the Written Discourse Analysis
A

Title & Autluir

Year

Content

Sckai no ouun tohaadoboirudo
WaniJaarando hy

19S5

A story about a man who is trying to find out sonic .sccrcts in anunderground nia/e and a story about one man who is li\ing in amysterious town with golden beasts.

197(JA story about male compan> employ ees in central Tok\o19S1

A storv alxHit a bo\er who is struggling in ins hie

1990

A story about a I'cniale who is out of work and tr>ing to lind an•easy-lile' and three other stones about females in their latetwenties and earh thirties who try to maintain a positi\e attitude
toward their life.
A story alxiut workers at a conipan\ that almost goes hinkrupt

Haniki Muntkiimi
B

Shinba.slii
karasunonioriguchi
scisliunhcn In

Mitkoto Slitiiui
C

Isluiun no nat.su b\

Ktxikinx) Sinniki
D

IJmboogiisa bv

Ydoko Mure
(4 short stones)

E

Onnashashoo ni
kanpai b\

1979

J iron .lkiii;ti\iiiF

Kitclicn by

19SS

Bciiuiiki VoslnnioloG

Koobashii iiibi bv

Kiion likiinii

1 >)<)()

A story about a girl who is facing a death in the fatniU and h\ ing aloneh life
A stor\ about a Japanese family who is li\ ing in the llmlcd States
because of the father s job. and a storv about a fcniale teenager m a
big famih in Japan.

Table 3.10 shows the frequency of occurrence ofni and dc. and of wi

follow ing these postpositions, niwa and dcwa. The frequence of occurrence of these
postpositions in spoken discourse is included for comparison.

Like spoken discourse

data, the most frequent postposition in written discourse is ni (7().i"i)). folloued by Jc(19.4%). The frequencies of^/uw (8.2%) and c/cur; (2.3%) in written discourse arehigher than their occurrences in the spoken discourse, while the frequenc> of utv alone
with a locati\e expression (0.5%) is lower than its occurrence in the spoken discourse.
Table 3.10: Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions in Written Discourse
Total
cic
niua
\m
ni
JCMO
WrittenSpoken

1122
(70%)
144
(59.2%)

311(19.3%)
81(33.3»/o)131(8.1%)
8(3.3%)

36(2.2%)
5(2.1%)

9(0.5%)
5(2.1%)

1609(100%)
243(100%))

3.11.Analysis of Simple Stative ni and Complex Stative ni in Written Discoiii'se
In section 3.4 it was observed that two senses of/;/, simple stative and allative.

161
appear most frequently in the con\ ersational corpus anaK/ed in this stud\.

In the llrst

part of this section. I provide an overview of the frequencies of »/ in w ritten discourse interms of its diflerent senses, and then examine simple stative and allati\ e u hich appear
most frequently in the u ritten discourse.
Table 3.1! Frequenc\ of Sense T> pes for Occurrence of Locative Postposition ni
in Written Discourse
SensesComplex
Contact
i Simplei Allatixe
Total
164
Written
256
! 147
; 555
1 122
(1()()"„)(14.6",,)! (13 1"«)I (49.5"o);(22.X"o)Spoken
8
! 20
: 75
: 144
1 41
i(l()()"o)(5"o)
1 (14%)
1 (29%)
1 (52".,)As Table 3.11 shows, the majority of»/-marked phrases in written discourse are simple
statix e locatives (22.X"o) or allatives (49.5"o). As examined in the spoken data ni as asimple stative locati\ e marker co-occurs most of the existential \erbs(7.7"())"be"and uru

The remaining co-occurring predicates show greater \ariet> than the

spoken discourse.'"Theallati\e marker/?/ is. as in spoken discourse. \ er> frequently used in written
discourse (49.5%). The most frequently used verbs are ikn "go" (6.2'!o). haint "enter"(4 .6%). and"come" (1 .S%). Again there is a w ide range of \ ariation m the kinds ofmotion \erbs co-occurrinu with the allati\e marker ni (33 5"i))."""• riicsc prcdicaios incUidc hiinisafjcini 'liang'. chinichim sum 'see soniclhing on and oil , luhikii
resonate", hikiini shine on", kikaem 'ean he heard", niicm 'can be seen', nanthu "line up", nokoru"remain", sumtt
smmm 'sit on', shozoku sum 'belong to", uitsu stand' Uichiisitknsu "stand still'.
tomam "stay a night", and vokotiiwam "la\- down", among others. There are 46 other predicatesco-occLiring uith a simple stative marker ni in the uritten di.scourse data.
Some ot'the examples are the l"ollo\\ing: cif;am go up", chintharu 'scatter about', dasu "let out".
ilcickiini come out', clem 'go out", luiiirckiim "comc into'. h<xir komu "throw .something into . Iiiro^jtim'spread out', ireni 'put something in', kui'ni 'return'. k<iy<wiiknrii!i "crunch down . kosln r> orosu "siton', miikiiu "head iov'. niiikcm "ha\e.something facing', nuuloru "go hdck'.nuxlosii return something'.
niofiurtktmiu 'di\e in', iiohiisii 'streatch out", oku 'put . onru 'come down , osliiknmii push .something
into', lohikonni 'jump in", tstikkaniii "thrust something into", shinukoku "sixik in . and iiisiisii 'mo\esomething". There are 100 other different motion \erhs co-occunng \^ilh an allatiw marker ni that
apiK-arcd in the untten discourse data.

162
Nt as a contact marker (14.6%) in wrillen data co-occurs with the predicatesnuseru "load", isukti "attach", nam "ride on", tsiikcni "attach", hutsukaru "bump", ataru"hit on", kakcni "hang", hehanisukii "stick to", and tsnkii "arrive" as well as other lesscommonly occurring predicates,in contrast to the spoken data, a wide range ofpredicates appears w ith a contact marker in the written data.'"
In section 3.3. I argued that the complex stative ni presupposes a series ofcomponent states, profiling a repetitive process as one single state. 1 point out thatJapanese aspectual morphemes

le iru are often used in conjunction

with a complex

stale, and 1 discussed three complex stale cases of repetitive processes from the spoken
discourse. Below. 1 would like to show an example from the w rilten discourse where acomplex stalive ni is used in the repetitive sense. Consider example (3.23).
(3.23)
Naisumalsurinohi.
Summer festix al GEN da>\ ukata no
obi o> ukala GEN bell ACC

k\ utlo shimele moratta. Ano yuu/oranilightly lie upthat evening sk\noiro.
GEN coloreriko san ni
Eriko
DAT

maikuruu akalonbo
LOC llulter
red dragonlly|Yoshimolo: 153|

"On summer festival da>. I had Eriko tie up m\ >ukala belt (informal summer
kimono). The color of a red dragonfly fiutlered about in that evening sky."in example (3.23). the main character describes her good memor> ofa summer
festival day. The yerhmalkiiniii "flutter about" used in this paragraph is acompound verb
which consists of a verb man "dance" and a verb kiiniu "be cra/> (to do something sobadly)",

kiirun means thai an action has been

repetiti\el>' done. The example above"' Some of the examples are kuttsuku "stiek lo/cling to', tmiioru. wear on", mokircm "lean on", nohoru"claim on", tarasu hang on", tnochaku sum arrive at", isukeni "put on", siiuani "sit on', and hiisii

163

contains a /7 /-marked location, ano yiiuzora ni "in that e\ening sk\' where the action•fluttering about" takes place. Notice that what is profiled by ni here is the repetiti\eprocess as a single stage. Although this is a case where the aspectual marker rc tnt is
not used, this represents a ^/-marked locaiixe phrase that is used as a comple.x state
within a repetitive process.
3.12.Annlysis of Allative and Contact ni in Wiitten Discoui'se0\ erall. the findings from Table 3.11 support the claim that the protot\ picalusages of ni in the discourse data are simple and aJlati\e because the majority ofoccurrences of m are related to simple and allati\e markers. These findings support
Kabata and Rice (1994) and Kabata (2000). who propose that simple stati\ e and allatix e
are the protot> pical usages o f i n the spatial domain. Kabata (2000) suggests that
idiomatic expressions tend to contain the contact marker ni. This suggestion is
supported in my data as shown in (3.24). (3.25). and (3.26).
(3.24) Chanpion
no za
ni
tsuki
Championship GEN seat
LOC seated"winning a championship"(Sawaki:81|(3.25) Wakkusu nonioigahaiia nitsui-ta [Ekumi: il2|
Wax
GEN smell NOM nose LOC stick-PST"The smell of wax made me sick."(3.26) Me ni
tsuka-nai yooni
E\ e LOC stick-NEG so that"...so thai I won"t attract people's attention easily"|Akagawa: 2()0|iV/-marked locations co-occurring with posture predicates such as suwani "siton" and laisu "stajid" appear in written discourse (3%). while no /7/-marked locations•stand".

164
co-occurring with posture predicates are in the spoken discourse."" Some of the cases
are quite ambiguous since the> appear to co-occur with either a contact marker or asimple stative marker depending on the context. In the pursuit ofconciseness. I used anad\ erbiai phrase test to determine if the predicates at issue co-occur w ith a contact
marker or a stati\e marker."' Posture predicates are also marked by a complex marker
when these predicates are followed b> the aspectual marker -tc ini with the resultatise
sense.

The posture predicates can also occur with c /c-marked locations in special

contexts. The peculiant\ of the posture predicates has been pointed out by Japanesegrammarians who stud> the Japanese aspectual system, such as Takaliashi (1969) andYoshikawa( 1973). as well as Western linguists such as Jacobson (l9(S2a).Smith (1997)
and Talm\- (2()()();78-86).

Smith (1997: 33) maintains, for instance, that ""\erbs of

posture and location can often appear in both stati\e and e\ ent sentences. As statives
the> present a position or posture, the result of a change of state; as non-slati\es thefocus is earlier on the causal chain, the change of state".
Table 3.12 summari/.es the frequena of senses of/?/ co-occurring w ith tw oposture predicates, siiwani "sit on" and latsn "stand" in the w ritten discourse.
Table 3.12: Frequency of Posture Predicates in Written Discourse
PostureContact| Simple Stati\e Complex stati\ePredicatessiiwant "sit on
15
12
15
tatsu "stand"
i 5
|6
11
Total
20(31.3%)
18(28.1?^))26 (40.6%)| Total42 (65.6%)
22 (34.4%)
64 (100%)-J'i'hcrc arc iwo tokens ulicrc a Ji'-nuirkcd location occiirrcd in conjunction uitli posture prcdicatcs inthe spoken discourse.
That is. I dctcrniined if adverbial phrases such as sliilhirnkii "I'or a while" and ziiiio "t'or a long tunc",
which show some duration, can co-occur witii a prcdiaite in tiie gixen coiite.xt. If that was (he ca.sc,!
identified the((/-marked phra.se as a simple stati\ e. In contrast, il'tlic manner adv erbial phrases such as
yiikkiiri 'slowly' and siihcivciku 'quickh" can civivcur with a predicate in a given context, then 1
ideiitil'ied a »i/-marked phra.se as a contact marker.

As Table 3.12 shows. 26 out of 64 cases (40,6%) are marked b\ complex
stati\e«/. 20 cases (31.3%) and IS cases (28.1%) are marked by the contact marker ni
and simple stati\ e marker ni. respectively. This table shows that the postural predicates.
suwani "sit on" and taisii "stand" can be marked by diflerent types of/?/. 1 found one casewhere dc marks the location in conjunction with the predicate, tatic ini. "be standing".
3.13. Distiibutional Patterns of ni by Author and Non-occiin'eiice in Wiitten
Discoui'se
Table 3.13 illustrates the frequency of dilTerent senses for the occurrence oflocati\e postposition ni. by author. All of these texts show that simple stati\e andallatixe were the most frequent among usages.

A chi square test showed that thedifference in frequenc>' distribution between the seven texts is significant (•/'= 67.5.
p < .001). suggestingthat the patterns of frequencv distribution were dilTerent acrossdifferent texts."^ Next. 1 would like to briefly mention the non-occurrence of locative
postpositions in w ritten discourse."' Unlike spoken data, no instance of non-occurrenceof the locative postpositions w as obser\ ed in the main text. There are 95 quotations inseven texts where non-occurrence of locative postpositions would be most likely to" l-A cn lliougli a chi sqiuirc lest is applied here, this siui.l\ taccs a Hniiiation That i.s ihal the cundiiuin
in tliis stud\ docs not satislv all the conditions a chi square needs to fill since the );/-inarked locations tiiat
1 ha\e examined in written data are still dependent on the texts chosen. One possihilit> for iiiipro\ ing
the procedure is to be examined or to examine coinpleteK randomi/ed pages iii the text
[ also ohser%ed some inciaphonc usages of locatn'e postpositions as SIUUMI in N) and lui m wriiien
discourse( i ) raiiiashii n o k i o k uniki/amar-eta
tooi
akogare no yoo ni itooshii
Soul
CiliN incinory I.(X' engra\L'-PSr distant dream
like longing"(kitchen represents) some distant longing engra\ed on my soul [ Yoshimoto: S7|(ii) Shigoto
nihuiru.
work
I.OC
enter
'start working'
As shown in (i) and (ii). predicates kizamu "engrave" and haint 'enter' take )i/-nuirked locations.
icimcishii "soul" and shi^oio "work", respectively In these examples, /(/-marked locations are iLsed in an
abstract sense in that these predicates metaphorically show w here kioku memory' is engrav ed in (i). andthe speaker comes to the stage where s;Tic resumes working in (ii).

166

happen, i.e. dialogue. Out of the 95 cases, there were only two cases of non-occurrenceof locative postpositions. Such quotations seem to be dilTerent from the remaining 93
quotations since the speaker attempts to quote something in her speech b>- using aquotative marker, -lie. as shown in (3.27) and (3.28)."'(3.27) ..nanoni kekkou shitsukoku iuno yo. Dokkabut\erypersistentK sa> FP somewhere"he persistently said that we should go somewhere"| | ikoo nc..
let's go QUO
jYoshimoto: I28|

(3.28) Soukaa. Jaa hitoride dokoka | j itte koyoo ric shonbori lu no...
1 see. Then alone somewhere go come QUO sadk sa>"he sadly said that he would go somewhere alone then." |Yoshimoto: 129|
Notice that these two cases represent the typical non-occurrence of locati\ epostpositions in the spoken discourse which I discussed in section 3.8.. since both Jokku"somewhere" (a contracted form of dokoka) in (3.27) and dokoka in (3.28) are
non-referential.

Although the number of non-occurrences of Japanese locati\epostpositions in the written discourse is extremely small, the functional and cognitise
factors related to non-occurrence are salient in the w ritten discourse, since the only tw o
examples are found in quotations attempting to represent actual speech.
Table 3.13: Frequency of Sense T\ pes for Occurrence of Locati\e Postposition/?/ b>
Authors
SimpleComplexAllati\eContact
Total
26(19.2%)
142 ( 100".,)A
19(13.4%)
26 (18.3%) 1 23 (16.2%)
32(21.9%)
146 ( 100".,)B
84 (57.5%) i 19 (13%)
11 (7.5%)82(IOO"o)C
14 (17.1%)
39 (47.6'^o) ! 10 (12.2%)
19 (23.2%)
53 (18.7%) 41 (14.5%) 141 (49.8"/o) 48 (17%)
283 ( 100"/^))
D
56( 100"i.)19 (33.9%)
E
20 (35.7'!^,)
11(19.6%)
6 (10.7%)
95 (40.6%) 39 (16.7%)
234 (100%)F
84 (35.9%)16(6.8%)27 (17.5%)
179 ( 100%)G
30 (15.9%) 103 (54.8%)
19 (11.9%)
256 (22.8%) 147 (13.1%) 555 (49.5%)147(13.1%) i 1122(10()"o)
Total" ' -tte IS onl\' used in spoken language anJ the inarkini: ol quotalions is one ot'llie major liinelion o\ -nc
See Suzuki (1996)for more details ol"anal\sis ol'the discourse fimction of tiie Japanese quotation marker

-iu\

167

3.14. Summaiy
In this chapter I have proposed a provisional model for a semantic network of
the use of ni in the spatial and temporal domain. Then I discussed the distributional
patterns of/?/ in spoken and written discourse data. Overall the findings seem to support
the claim that the prototypical usages of/?/ in the spatial domain are simple and allati\ e as
Kabata & Rice (1994) and Kabata (2()()()) propose. Both spoken and w ritten discourse
data contain all four senses for /?/ which I proposed in the network model, and showedthat the majorit\ of the occurrences of/?/ are associated with either the simple locatne
marker or the allative marker in both spoken and written discourse. I also discussed two
phenomena, the "stage-setting construction" and the non-occurrence of locati\epostpositions in spoken discourse.

I argued that this construction has the importantfunction of establishing an entit>/panicipant in the discourse domain. I also reported that
non-occurrenceoflocative

postpositionsisuniquetospokendiscourse.

Non-occurrence appeared when /?/ is used as an allati\e marker. I ha\e showii thatcognitive factors proposed by Ikegami (1987) as well as discourse factors such as
non-referentiaiity and demonstratives found b>' Fujii and Ono (2()()()) are useful toexplain the observable pattems of locativ e postposition non-occurrence in discourse
In Chapter 4.1 propose a provisional model for the semantic network of the useof de in the spatial and temporal domain.

I propose that the dxnamic element of c/e issNmptomatic of an underKing d> namic/non-d\namic continuum within a network model.
I examine whether or not dc cov ers a w ider range of locations in Japanese than /?/.

1argue that the protot> pical usage of de seems to strongK' correlate w ith the element of
dvnamic, because de is frequentlv used in conjunction with dvnamic predicates/ev ent

168
nouns. Furthermore. I argue that the semantic network for/?/ and dc helps us understandthe subtle semantic difference in the shift from ni to de.

169

CHAPTER4DE
4. introduction
In Chapter 3, I proposed a provisional model for the semantic network tor /// inthe spatial and temporal domains, and argued that the distributional patterns of thecharacteristics of /// in spoken and written discourse seem to support the claim that the
prototypical usages of ni are simple stative and allative. In this chapter, 1 focus on thelocative postposition, de.

De has not been systematically studied compared to ///.

although many previous studies point out that Jc correlates with the elements ofdynamic/events.' Rather than assuming that c/c maps on the dynamic component inherent
to predicates, 1 assume that the dynamic element of Je is merely symptomatic of anunderlying dynamic/non-dynamic continuum within a network model.

In other words,

the central issue 1 address in this chapter is that de covers a wide range of locations inJapanese, and can ha\e several schemata; in Martin's words, "a general or residual
locative [is] marked by de."'In this chapter, I first

briefly discuss the notion of transitivity proposed by

Jacobson (1982a, 1982b, 1990, 1992). A short review of transitivity in Japanese isessential in examining the nature of predicate types co-occurring with Je-marked
locations in the data. Then I report the distributional patterns of the characteristics of de-' Tlic only c.xccplions arc Yamanaslii (1994). Sugai (1997). Mabuclii (2000). and Kuinashiro (2000).
Yamanashi proposed that tlic Japanese postposition c/e. among other postpositions, e.xhibits an ambiguity
and \ agucncss that needs to be studied under tJie cogniti\ e linguistic approach. Sugai. in the same line ofresearcli. attempts to give a unified semantic account of d e . More rcccnily. Mabuclii c.xamincd tiie
liistorical development of clc. whicli I discussed in section 2.8.2. Kumasiiiro (2000) proposes that de scnes
as referent point for events, which 1 discussed in section 2.4.2. No study. iio\vc\cr. has e.\amincd thenature of d e by looking at spoken discourse in Modern Japanese170

marked locations based upon the spoken and written discourse data.

The purpose oflooking at spoken and written discourse data is to examine whether or not Jc appears inconjunction with a wide range of predicates.

In the data analysis, 1 classify t/c-marked

locations into three groups according to adjoined predicate types: dynamic dc. lessdynamic Je. and non-dynamic Je (which occurs with nouns, adjectives, and adjectivalnouns). These three discrete groups of transitivity are probably not enough to represent
all possible relationships between predicate types and c/f-marked locations. However. 1
believe that this methodology is a point of departure for establishing a network model for
Je because the notion of transitivity plays an important role in understanding event
structure in Japanese.
In section 4.8. 1 focus on the notion that the choice between /// and c/c ismotivated by cognitive processes. 1 propose that the choice between /// and tk reflects
the way speakers and writers construe an event. I suggest that this choice is similar to
aspectual choice and is not unique to Japanese.' As a basis for a discussion of the choiceof locative postpositions in Japanese, I briefly introduce an account of aspectual choice as
developed in aspectual studies (e.g.. Smith 1983, 1997).
network model for de.

In section 4.10, I propose a

I seek to provide a unified network model for the Japanese

locative postpositions ni and de and then evaluate the network model using natural
discourse data.

" Similarly. Kabala (2()()()) suggests tluit tk lias less contingency with predicates, compared lo ni.

1714.2. A Cognitive Grammar Approach to ile
4.2.1. A Review of Process
Like ///, de has a highly polysemous nature (i e.. one form corresponds to multiple
meanings). Unlike ///, however, de does not seem to be highly heterosemous (i.e., oneform has multiple meanings as well as multiple grammatical functions)."* Yamanashi(1994) points out that dc. among other postpositions, exhibits an ambiguous and vague
nature that reflects a relativistic view on lexical items in CG.""^ I take a similar view thatlocative de has broad schemata in the spatial and temporal domains.
In section 2.3.6, 1 stated that proccss relations contrast sharply with atemporal
stative relations in the framework of CO. Process relations have dynamic characteristics
since successive transformations evolve through time (Langacker 1982, 1987a, 1987b).
The characteristics of dynamic predicates are strongly associated w ith time; therefore, thetime dimension is profiled in the schemata of predicates under the analysis of CO.

1

argue that this semantic approach provides an account for one subtle meaning difference
between a ///-marked location and a ^/c-marked location.

Furthermore, I expand on

Langacker's model of stative and process in order to account for the divergent senses ofde underlying a continuum between the dynamic and non-dynamic dimension.

' Jacobson (1^77) suggests tliat ihc clioicc between ni and de niiglil be related to scope in English e.g. word
order.
' Martin (iy7.S;42) lists roughly nine dilTerent kinds of meanings for the Japanese postposition clc. 1)
general location marker. 2) instrument marker. 3) material marker. 4) impersonal agent marker. 5) time
marker. 6) causc/rcason marker. 7) unit marker. S) manner marker, and e.\clusi\c subject marker.
KokiiriiMiKokiifioKenkyiitijo. "Tlic National Language Research Institute" (1951) states that de can mark thefollowing: 1) concrete location for action, 2) abstract location for action. 3) agent (not an indi%idual. butsonic organi/ation) doing some acli\it\. 4) time for acli\il\. 5) measurement. 6) manner of acti\ il\. 7)
instmmcnts. X) cause. In addition. Shirota (1993) also points out that de lias the function of marking animpersonal agent.

172

4.2.2. Transitivity by Jjicobseii (1982a, 1990, 1992)
As the basis for a discussion of transitivity in Japanese event structure, thissection starts with a brief summary of Jacobsen's (1982a, 1990, 1992) work ontransitivity." Based upon Searle's (1983) account of human action as an intentional
phenomenon by nature, Jacobsen takes a position against the view for predicate logic ontransitivity as shown in (a).
(a) A predicate is transitive if at least two noun phrase arguments are necessar\'for its meaning to be understood. Otherwise, it is intransitive (Jacobsen
1992:2).
In his book. The iransiiiw structure of events in Japanese. Jacobsen (1992; 8tT)
maintains that "the concept of a transitive event is not therefore one which imposes astrict dichotomy on event types, but it rather one which can be viewed as being greater or^ See Tugg\ (I'jy.'i) for a discussion on anibiguil> and \ agucncss in llie framework of Cogniti\e Graninuir.
" For a more global \ iew of iransiti\ ity. see Hopper and Thompson (1980) wlio claim that transiti\ it>depends on various properties of clauses in discourse, and is not being a binar> piicnomenoii. The
transitiv ity parameters tliat Hopper and Tiionipson 11980) propose arc the following:a) participants such as an agent and an objectb) kinesis, denoting an action or eventc) telic aspcct. i.e. sense ofa complete goald) punctuality, denoting a sudden actione) volitionality. denoting a sudden actionf) afTirniation. an affirmative clauseg) mode, the clause in tlie reaiis modeh) agency, the huniaii agent or an othenvise autonomous agenti)
alTcctcdricss of object, the changed object in some w ayj)
individuation of object, definiteness-refercntiality
According to Hopper and Thompson (1980: 252). the ten parameters listed above for transitu ity " invoke adifferent facet of the effectiveness of intensity with which the action is transferred from one participant toanother". "Cardinal transitivity' is represented by a prototypicaliy transitive clause that contains hightransitivity elements in 10 coinponcnts. Rice (1987) goes the nc.xt step bv arguing for the conceptual
underpinnings of transitiv ity. Her Cognitiv e Grammar assumption is that " categories arc organized aroundprototy pes in the human conceptual system, and that grammatical categories also reflect prototype effects,
and that transitivity is as much a function of the content of tlic event being described as it is of thedescriber's interpretation of that event" (.•^8).

173

lesser extent in events of various types". Specifically, Jacobson proposes that transitivity
is best defined by four principal ingredients (b)-(e).'(b) There are two entities involved in the event.
(c) One of the entities (called the "agent") acts intentionally.
(d) The other entity (called the "object") undergoes a change.
(e) The change occurs in real time.
(Jacobsen 1992: 8)

The properties of transitivity (b) - (e) are not interdependent in a logical sense.'' Jacobsen(1982a: 32) calls verbs Jyiuwiic verbs in Japanese if ""...verbs have subjects that are seen
as being capable of self-propulsion, including [as] "agent" in the usually understood sense
as well as natural phenomena"". Dynamic events/predicates are linguistically viewed as
being self-initiated or self-sustained by the -}ici (-ua) marked entity. His cover term for"dynamic verbs" in Japanese is /DO/. In contrast to dynamic events. Jacobsen refers toevents that occur spontaneously as non-dynamic events.''

His cover term for "non­dynamic verbs" is /H.A.PPEN/ because no agency is involved and because they happen
spontaneously.
Similarly. Ikegami (1981) classifies the two different languages, English andJapanese, into two groups: agent-oriented "do-type" and object-oriented "become-type".
The former is concerned with who is the initiator of an event, while the latter isconcerned with what the results of an event are.

English represents the "do-type"See Hopper and Thompson (1980) for a global \ iew for lnmsiti\ ity at clausal le\cis in discourse, and sec
Croft (1991) for the syntactic categories and causal chain model for e\ent structures.
^ Tiicse four properties, according to Jacobsen. allow us to gi\c an account for two different levels oftransiiiv itv without hav ing am tlicory internal problems. Thai is. Jacobscn's approach allows a unified
account for both syntactical transitivity and le.xical transitivity based upon the prototype of transitive
meanings, cf detailed discussion in Jacobsen (1992: Chapters 1 and 2). In the Cognitive Granuiiar
approach hav ing a unified account for two levels is not at issue, since transitiv ity is captured in tiie humanconceptual system, vvhicit does not presuppose two distinct levels of synta.x and Ic.xicon.
'' Mikami (1972) also points out tluit tlie main characteristics of low transitiv ity predicates appear on

174language and Japanese the become-type" language. Ikegami claims that there are many
/HAPPEN/ types of predicates in "become-type" languages. Similarly, Croft (1991: 268271) states that English and Japanese reveal typologically different patterns of structural
markedness underlying the relationship between event classes and event views. The basisof my analysis of the Japanese locative postposition Jc lies in the notion of transitivity
defined by Jacobson as well as the notion of process proposed by Langacker.
There are 80 examples of the locative postposition Je in the spoken data. These
examples are classified into three groups according to the following predicate types;(1) /DO/ verbs in Japanese as defined by Jacobsen. These \erbs are roughly
equivalent to Vendler's activity verbs, accomplishment verbs, and achievement
verbs. .Activity verbs take a progressive reading with ic ini, e.g. hashi tie int"running". .Achievement verbs show events that are happening at a given point in
time, e.g. niiisiikeru "find". Accomplishment verbs refer to the process that leads
to the endpoint when the action is completed, e.g. ic^aini o kctkii. "write a letter"."'
The existential verb am "be" which denotes the existence of an event is includedin this group, e.g. konsaalo ga am "there is a concert".
(II) /H.APPENV verbs in Japanese as detlned by Jacobson (non-agent predicates).
These verbs are the equivalent of Vendler's category for some achievement andaccomplishment verbs. These types of verbs take only perfective meanings when
they are used with the nominative marker and with the aspectual marker te Im.
e.g. mikafte im "come to understand". Prototypical passives are also included inthis group, e.g. eriiio ife iwarcm "said to be elite".
(III) Noun phrases (with a copula) and adjective/adjectival nouns phrases fall into thisgroup. .Adjectives (with /-ending descriptive words, e.g. ookii"big") andadjectival nouns (with /w-ending descriptive words, e.g. maioiuona "normal") inJapanese are equivalent to adjectives in English. It is possible to put nouns andadjectives and adjectival nouns into one group, because the time dimension is notprofiled."
adversity passive, imperative, and potential constructions.
Following Vendler (1967). Sniiili (198."'. 1997) slates tliat activities, accomplisliments. and acliieveinenis
all involve a change of stale, and he refers to them collectively as cvuiiis. What differentiates cveiiis.
according to Smith, is the type of internal structure inherent to the verb.
'' Adjectival nouns are traditionally referred to as keiyooctooshi "adjectival verbs" and they are v ariously
referred to as adjectival verbs, nominal adjectives, adjectival nouns or ;;«-adjectives.
.'Adjectival nouns.

175

4.3. Overview of Spoken Discourse
In this section, I first give an overview of the frequency of c/f-marked locations in
spoken discourse, and then I discuss the usage of dynamic deTable 4.1 illustrates thetypes of predicates co-occurring with c/c'-marked locations and their frequencies.

As

Table 4.1 shows, de marks dynamic predicates (77.5%), less-dynamic predicates (IG.j^o),and nouns/adjectives/adjectival noun phrases (6.2%).

This distribution suggests that,

although the majority of Jc-marked locations in spoken discourse occur with the dynamic
location marker Jc, de is used to mark a wide range of locations from dynamic to stative
nouns/adjectives/adjectival noun phrases.

In the next section, I examine Jc-marked

locations co-occurring with dynamic predicates.
Table 4.1: Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition de in Spoken
Discourse
Less-dvnamic
Total
Dynamic
Nouns,
predicatespredicatesadjectives, andadjectival nounphrases81(100%)Frequencies 63 (77.8%)
13 (16%)5 (6.2%)4.4. Analysis de and Dynamic Predicates in Spoken Discourse
4.4.1.Dynamic Predicates and Verbal Nouns
1 observe that dynamic predicates appear most frequently when dc marked alocation (78.8%). The dynamic usageof ni

de contrasts sharply with the prototypical usage

The most frequently used verbs co-occurring with de were verbal nouns with thelight verbs sum yarn. There are eleven cases of siini verbal nouns (13 .8%) and sevenwhicii ha\c characteristics of adjccti\ cs as well as nouns, originated from a conibinaiion of an ad\crbial
ending with -ni and the e.vistcntial ^erb ah. Tlic fact tluil tliere arc two categories for adjectives inJapanese is related lo the historical dc\ elopnient of Japanese.

1

176

cases oiyarn verbal nouns (8.8%) in the spoken data.

Below 1 focus on these two mostfrequently used verbs in spoken discourse: sum and yarn "do".'"Sum yam are verbs and can be used as various types of Verbal Nouns (VNs).
Snru yam are similar to what is referred to as a li^tu verb, "do" (Shibatani 1978,
Grimshaw and Mester 1988) in that they fulfill a unique fijnction. which is that they canbe used to transform nouns into verbs as shown in (4.1) through (4.3).'^ Some VNs areverbs consisting of two morphemes such as kan-kyuu "research" as in (4.1) and some VNs
are verbs consisting of one morpheme such as ai "love" as in {4.2).'"' E.\ample (4.3) is aborrowing word from another language in this case English.
(4.1) kenkyuu-suru
research do"research"(4.2) ai-suru
love do"love"(4.3) tenisu-suai
tennis-do"play tennis"

Jacobsen (1992) made an important claim. Simply stated, he claims that there arecorrelations between the usage of the accusative marker o and high transitivity, andomission of the accusative marker o in verbal nouns low transitivity. Some VNs can takean accusative marker o between a noun phrase and sum (e.g. kenkyuu o sum, "doresearch"), which implies that the predicate of kenkyuu "research" is high transitivity'^
However, other VNs cannot take an accusative marker o in the same position (*a/ o suru
"do love"), which implies the predicate of "love", emotional expression, is naturally

vani is mainly used ;is a colloquial form of sum in spoken data
Ucliara (1995: 147) points out that tiic main dilTcrcncc between English light \erbs and Japanese \crbal
nouns are 1) the number of the Japanese verbal nouns is nuicli larger than English dunuuy \erbs. and 2)
English has more \ aricly and collocational restrictions w ith nouns which dummy \erbs follow (e.g. "do" indo research". "ha\e" in "lui\c the discussion". "nKike" in "make a copy", "take" in "take a walk."" Jacobsen (1992) made the interesting observation that Chinese origin morphemes like (4.1) reflect tiie
word-internal synta.x". e.g. the SVO word order of Chinese, as opposed to SOV order of Japanese.
According to Jacobson. in the case of Sino Japanese v erbs. man\ high transitiv ity v erbs e.\prcss v iolence,creation involv ing intricate phinning. involvement of lumian activity, while many low intransitive verbs are177interpreted as low transitivity in Japanese. Uehara (1995), from a CG point of view, goesto the next step by claiming a relationship between transitivity and conceptual stnjctiires.
In the current study I adopt Uehara's (1995: 178) analysis of VNs which says '"In forming a compound verb of the form N-siini. sum "do" requires an activity
structure of some form in the base of the semantic structure of the noun it iscombined with.
Uehara argues that the fact that some VNs can take the accusative marker o andsiirii. e .g. kenkyuu o suru "do research' and tenisu o sum 'play tennis", while other VNs
cannot, e.g. *ai o suru "love' is due to the difference between the conceptual staicturesthat these VNs have.

According to Uehara, VNs have their own conceptual structuresthat represent some activities. These activities exhibit a prototype etTect associated withagentivity.

Namely, the closer to the core is the verbal noun, i.e. the more agentive an

action is that is described by a VN, the more likely it is to take the accusative marker o.
e.g. sooc/an o sum "discuss", and kopii o suru 'xerox".
4.4,2. Data Analysis
Eleven cases

sum VNs and six cases o't yam VNs found in the spoken data

represent the prototype of the VN sum (yam) construction.

The methodology used todetermine whether or not VNs in the spoken data are the prototype of VNs is the

typically spontaneous or sclf-iiicurrcd forms of change, e.g. "growth" and "evaporation".
The Verbal Noun has drawn special attention from generative linguists (Kagcyama 1982: Mi>aga\\a1987. 1989; Tujinuira 1990). Chomsky (1970) proposes thai in English and other languages, the Icxicalfeature system |+/- V. +/- N| minimally distinguishes the four major le.xical categories. Noun. Verb.
Adjecti\e. Preposition. However, the Japanese le.xical categori/iition. (e.g. Verbal Nouns) does not fit thelexical feature s>stem and casts a doubt on the le\icon/s> ntax distinction in modular theories. Uehara(I99.S) e.xamines the gnidicnt nalurc of nati\e spcaker"s acceptability of Verbal Nouns + o sum sequences
and individual \ ariations. Uehara found that the acceptability of the accusative marker in Verbal Nouns is
not binar>. and pointed out flaws in Miyagawa s analysis. Sec Uehara (1995. Chapter 4) for his alteniati\esemantic analysis of Verbal Nouns based upon conceptual schemata.

178

following: if V'Ns take the accusative marker o or could possibly take it. then 1 considered
this case as a prototypical VN, i.e. highly transitive. If V'Ns cannot take the accusative
marker o, then I considered it to be a non-prototypical VN.'^
These prototypical examples of VN include ocha o sum 'talk over tea/coffee'.
nanpa o sum 'ask someone for a date on the street', haito ( ) sum 'work as a part-timer'.
Jiman ( ) sum 'brag about", happyoo ( j sum "give a presentation", nsaachi ( ) yam 'do
research', sutadii a yaru, henkyoo ( ) sum "study", chiryoo o yam "give medical
treatment', ulenshi o yaru "do research on genes".

The nature of VNs implies that in

spoken discourse the c/f-marked location tends to be used in conjunction with dynamic
predicates such as the prototype of VN ^ sum yam

The dynamic predicates which

occurred with ^/e-marked locations in the spoken data other than sum yaru include thefollowing: sluis/u/i o toru "take a picture", ha/araileiru "be workinji for", lahcrn "eat".
kaku "write", isukuru "make", pan a kittcru "slicing bread", ochiau "meet someone", nondc
ita "was drinking", lachifsiikiisu "stand", talle iru "was standing", naosu "fix up",yasundt'ita 'rest", norikacru "changes airplanes", ncleru "sleep", hanasu 'chat", hachcraa
toru "get a B..A. degree", narandciru 'standing in a queue", shahciiciru "was chatting",
shikia^eru

have a ceremony", andkiiiiem "decide", ichii loka lone "won the title'

Observe example (4.4) in which a dynamic predicate co-occurs with a Jt'-marked' For tlic eases uiicrc the accusati\e marker o did not appear between suni/yani and \erbal nouns in tlie
data. I asked 10 nati\ e speakers of Japanese about the acceptability of the accusati\c marker o. In one ease
7 speakers replied that the accusati\ e marker could not be used betw een sum yam and a v erbal noun. e.g.
hcvihan 30 dm yam "liv e a full life in one's thirties', I consider this case as non-prototypical VN. but still
as a dynamic predicate, since it is a lexicali/.ed item with high agenti\ ity. 1 assume tlie reason why thisd> namic predicate does not t;ike o is related to the nature of a noun phrase which i wi/ follow s. That is. iO
cUii. "one's tliirtics' refers to time when one lives a full life, not an object, an entity which undergoes achange.

179
location.
(4.4)

I U: ... handobooru,
2uchi no gakkoo,
3
tsuyokattan da yo.
4shikamo.
5 M: ... un.
6 U: ... ken de,
7. . ichii toka tottete.

U: Our school had a very strong handball club.

M: hum.
U: They won the title in the tournament of the(Kagoshima ) prefecture.
[Bukastu: 2]

In example (4.4), speaker U is talking about the sports club in his high school.
Speaker U is explaining to speaker M that his high school had an excellent handball team.
In line 6, speaker U uses a c/c-marked location, ken de "in his (Kagoshima) prefecture"modifying ichii toka loiieie "won the title", which locates where the tournament was held.
Observe example (4.5) in which an existential verb cini denotes an event co-occurringwith a c/c'-marked location.
(4.5)

1 :R:
2
3
4 H:
5 R:
6

un.
R: yes, in Los Angeles, about 6 hours']*..[de Rosu de,..rokujikan]..gurai tsutteta ka na.
.. machijikan'^
H: you mean, waiting time''.. un.
R: yes, 1 have a 6 hour waiting time in L.A.
..gaarukara.
[Ryokoo ;8]

In example (4.5). speaker R talks about the trip she is going to make to speaker H.
In line 2, speaker R uses a t/c-marked location, Rosii de, "in Los Angeles' to specify
where speaker R has 6 hour long waiting time. In line 4, speaker H asks if speaker R is
talking about machijikan 'waiting time", and in lines 5 and 6 speaker R responds tospeaker H"s question by using a nominative marker"there is (for inanimate things)' in line 6.

which precedes a predicate, avu

This shows a Jf-marked location indicateswhere the event of waiting for 6 hours will take place.

180

4.5. Analysis of tie and Less-Dynamic Predicates in Spoken Discourse
4.5.1. Data Analysis
There are 13 occurrences (16.3%) of c/e co-occurring with either the prototypicalpassive or less-dynamic predicates. /HAPPEN/-type verbs.These 13 cases consist of
five passive constructions and eight /HAPPENV-type predicates.'''In section 4.2.2, 1

pointed out that Japanese is a "become-type" language and has a variety of less-dynamic
predicates.

The spoken data shows that these less-dynamic predicates, like dynamic

predicates, co-occur in conjunction with a c/t'-marked location. Before moving on to thediscussion of the passive construction co-occurring with c/c in the spoken data, I brietly
present the CG view of the passive prototype and explain what the non-agent passive
construction is.""In the framework of CG, the passive is viewed as an independent syntactic
construction, not a derivation from an active sentence.

The CG approach provides

adequate accounts for various types of passi\ e clauses without assuming that autonomous
syntactic theory is the primary factor for generating the passive sentences.

Also CGposits that all passive components, including passive morphemes, have their own inherent
semantic values (Langacker 1982; Rice, 1987; Arnett 1995). Cross-linguistically, there

In llic spoken data, there arc 4 ambiguous cases tiiat might fit into the non-d> nainic dc caicgor> . Shirota(199.>:78) points out tluit some c/t'-marked locative phrases set up a scopc domain in which one's judgnicnt
has \alidit> . E.xamining (/c-inarked phrases including non-locati\e phrases is beyond the scope of tliis
currcnt stud\.
' ' The /HAPPEN/ type predicates includc oiosii 'drop', sdclasm "grou up", nantoc o inic/asii "start seeing hisname", pakku ni iiairc irii "has become a package tour", niadujikan
am "there is a waiting time", imkuin
ni nam "bccomc a member of a sports club", initcinai "has not seen", and wakaiie im "understand".
"" Passive has been w idely discussed in fornuii approaches as well as in Cognitiv e Grammar, hi Chomsky's
gcnerati\e approach, passive moveinciit is motivated bv several principles such as llic tliela criierion andthe projection principle. In Relational Grammar, which emphasizes the grainnialical relations as a prime
notion in synta.x. passive is understood as a demotion phcnoiiieiia. However, both approaches fail to

181

are prototypical passive clauses and less prototypical passive clauses. The prototypicalpassive clauses are non-agent passives where an external argument (agent) is not
expressed. The prototypical passive clauses have some link to less prototypical passive
clauses.
Shibatani (1985) focuses on passive-like constructions (spontaneous, potential,
honorific, and plural formations) in Japanese.

He compares them to other passive-likeconstructions in Indo-European and American Indian languages, and he proposes that all
passive-like constructions in Japanese are semantically related.

He claims that the

primary pragmatic function for the passive-like constructions is 'agent-defocusing".
rather than topicalization as proposed by Givon (1979).
Sugai (1997) makes an insightful point when he discusses how the locative
postposition de in Japanese passive sentences may be approached. Sugai suggests that ck'
provides the background location for agentive participants in active sentences or patientparticipants in passive sentences, not an entire sentence/clause including both agentive andpatient participants as Kamio (1980) proposes."' 1 return to this point in section 4.10. in
which I propose several schemata for Je.

Based upon my prior established concept ofprototypical passives, I examine how a t/c-marked location is used in the passive clauses inaccount for a wide range of passiv e constructions (Kcenan 1976). See Hoslii (1999) for the recent accountsof the Japanese passiv e in generative approach.
Sugai (1997) uses the following set of sentences to make his point regarding (/t'-inarked locations inpassiv e clauses.
(i) Taroo gakooishitsu
deHanako ono/oi-ta
Taroo NOM lockcr room LOC Hanako ACC peek-PST"Taroo look a peck at Hanako in the locker room."(Sugai 1997: 28)(ii) Hanako ga
kooishitsu
deTaroo nino/.ok-are-ta.
Hanako NOM lockcr room LOC Taroo DAT pcek-PASS-PST"Hanako was peeked at by Taroo in the locker room." (Sugai 1997: 28)

182

the spoken data. There are five passive clauses where de marks a location in the spoken data.
Three cases (4.6) and (4,7) and (4.8) out of five are non-agent passives and remaining twocases (4.9) and (4.10) are agent passives.

Observe example (4.6) where an agentive

participant is unexpressed and unknown.

(4.6)

1 T:...ma i- igan ... tte no ga,
T: Speaking about stomach cancer, especially2hijoo ni sookigan <X tte no wa X>, ver>' early stages of cancer,
nihon de tokushu na byooki da tte
J4omowarechatta n desu [ne].
They have been considered to be very rarein Japan, you know.
[Politics; 13]
In example (4.6) speaker T, a doctor at a cancer center, explains how in the very

early stages of cancer Japanese people viewed stomach cancer. In line 3, speaker T uses a
i/f-marked location, nihon-tk, "in Japan' to indicate the place where stomach cancer was
thought of as a very rare disease. In this passive clause, oiuofu)-. a stem of a verb (finoii"think", is followed by a passi\e morpheme, -ctre.

This passive clause represents the

prototypical passive, since it has no active sentence as a counterpart and it is a non-agent
passive."

Observe example (4.7).

(4.7)

1: K: datte nee,2:yappari,3:
Nihon de eriito,
4:
tte iwareru ni wa,
5:
Toodai shika nai kara=.

K: well,just as I had thought
to be said to be the elite in Japan,
Only those who graduate from Tokyo
University are qualified.
[Ojoosama: 3]

In bolli (i) and (ii) f/c-niarkcd location is used; howcNcr, it marks dilTcrcnt locations. In (i) Tnroo was in a
lockcr room, while in (ii) Ifanako. not Taroo. was in the locker room.
" Shibatani (1^85: 8.11). citing Yamamoto (1984). reports that when considering the sum total of passi\cclauses in w ritten Japanese, the number of non-agent passi\ es outnumbers the sum of the agcnt-passi\ e. In
journalistic texts that Yamamoto examined. 70-80% of passives were non-agent passiv es and for novels
approximately 60-70% were non-agent passiv es.

183

In example (4.7) speaker K is reporting the tact that most of her close friends got
married to so-called elites in Japan.

Speaker K uses a t/c-marked location nihon ck\ "inJapan" to indicate the place where speaker K"s friends" husbands are said to be elite. In thispassive clause, ifn j- a stem of a verb / "say", is followed by a passive morpheme, -iirc.
This passive clause also represents the prototypical passive, since the agent is not expressed.
Observe example (4.8).
(4.8)

1: U: kookoo de2:momareru to,3:
honto ni, chuugakusei to,4:
kunda tokini
5;koitsura yowai tte omotta no ne.

U:.After having surv ived Jr. high school,and now being in a high school, 1 feltthat it would be ver>' easy to defeat
Jr. high students in Judo.
[Bukatsu: 12]

In example (4.8) speaker U explains his experience of competing in a judo
tournament for his first time in high school.

As shown in line 1, a d/c-marked location.

kookoo de "at high school" was used in conjunction with a passive-like phrase, mom-aiv-ni.
'having diftlcult times/survive" where mom- is a stem form of a verb, momii "rub", and -aiv
is a passive morpheme. This represents another good example of non-agent passives inJapanese, since we do not find any explicit agentive participants who cause the motion ot
momii "rub"."^

The meaning of momaivrii is lexicalized in the form of the passive

construction.""^ Namely, momareru is always used in a passive form in the meaning of"having a difficult time'. Consider example (4.9)'v

From ihc contc.xt an agcmixc panicipaiil can be associated with tlie Jc-niarkcd location, e.g. kookoo nosenpai tachi. "seniors in high school ".
"Daijirin" (1988: 2410). one of the major Japanese dictioiiancs lisls both inoniu and monuvcru as Ic.xical
entries. It says that momonru is derived from a passive of inoniii. and acquires a meaning such as
stmggling in many people."
In Japanese, the demonstrative am "that" in line 5 in (4.9) is used to introduce new/unfamiliar

184
(4.9)

1. A. iya nihon de konomae kaetta kara sa=,
A. well in Japan when 1 went back,2: H: unH; yes,3: A: . . .anta nijuu ijo-hatachi ijoo desuka
A: I was asked "Are you over 20
nante iwareta n da yo ne.
years old'j*"
4: H: Rin.
5: A: aru hito ni sa.
H: yeah,A. by a certain person, you know.
[Misato; 2]

Speaker A talks about his experience of being asked his age in Japan.

In line I.

speaker A uses a c/c-marked location, nihon Jc. "in Japan". In line 3, he vvas asked if he
was over 20 years old in conjunction with a passive hiarc, a stem tbrm of in "say", towhich the passive marker -Lire is attached.

In line 5, he indicates who asked thisquestion by saying ant hito "certain person" without identifying who s/he was. Speaker
A probably felt no need to specify who s/he was because it is not important in this
episode.

This is a case where an agentive participant is expressed without being

identified in the discourse. Observe example (4.10).
(4.10) l;i\1: atashi sa,
koo[koosee ni sa],
2:H:[koosee ni nanpa sareta].
3:M: shibuya no sa,
4:[ichimaru k>aiu [Ino mae de sal]],5:H: [un]6:[Ino mae de nanpa sarechatta 1]
7:M: nanpa sarechatta.

VI: well, I...
by high school students,
H: you were asked to go out
M: in front of Building lOQ,
vou know.
H: yes, you were asked to go out.
M: 1 was asked to go out.
[Misato: 10]

In example (4.10), speaker M is sharing her experience with Speaker H of being
asked to go out on a date. One day Speaker M went to a concert with her colleague, andon the way to the concert, they ran across four high school students on the street in frontof the building called 109 in Shibuya,

information to the speaker

These four students asked speaker M and her

185

colleague to go out for a date.

In line 1. speaker M mentions agentive participants,

kookoosee "high school students".

In line 4, speaker M uses a t/c-marked location,

ichimam kyiiii no mac de, "in front of Building 109' to clarify the location where speaker
M was asked for a date. In lines 2 and 6 speaker H tries to say what speaker M would say
in her episode.

This case contrasts with e.xamples (4.6) and (4.7) and (4.8). since inexample (4.10) the agentive participants, kookoosci "high school students" as well as thed/t'-marked locative phrase, 109 no mae Jc, "in front of the building 109" were both
expressed.

Although the data in this study is too limited to generalize the types ofpassives and Jc-marked locations, these four cases suggest that the Japanese locative
postposition Jc marks an event place in non-agentive as well as agentive passive clauses.
4.6, Analysis ofr/c and Nouns, Adjective, and Adjectival Noun phrases in
Spoken Discourse
There are 5 instances (10%) ofc/f co-occurring with non-dynamic predicates inthe spoken data. .As previous literature has pointed out (cf Morita 1987, 756-764; Nakau
1995c,

23-54;

Tanaka1997,

44-51;

1998,

95-98,

andKiiniashiro,

personal

communication), Jc was in fact able to mark a wide range of locations including dynamic
predicates and non-dynamic locations in the spoken discourse.

Spoken conversation,

however, still suggests that the most frequent usage of Je is, at least in informal
conversation, related to event/dynamic predicates. In this section I discuss non-dynamic
predicates appearing with Je that can be classified into three groups: 1) nouns, 2)adjectives, and 3) adjectival noun phrases. Observe example (4.11) where a noun phrase
co-occurs with a Jc-marked location.

186(4.11) 1: K: kekkon toka natta ra=
2
yappari,3. . .Toodai no naka de.
4
matomo na hito tte yuu ka.

K: when it comes marriage.
(1 would like to see) a normal man in the
University of Tokyo.
[Ojoosama: 3]

In example (4.11) speaker K talks about her expectations of her future husband.
Prior to this piece of conversation, speaker K was told that many Tokyo University
graduates whom speaker K believes that her future husband should be, are not normal.
Line 1 through 4 was speaker K"s response, "I will pick a normal man who graduatesfrom the University of Tokyo."

Notice that in line 3 speaker K uses the t/t'-marked

location, Toodai no naka de. "in the University of Tokyo", which specifies a domain
where an noun phrase, "a normal man", is applicable. Observe example (4.12) where an
adjectival clause co-occurs with a Jc-marked location.

(4.12)I T: [kanachan] ni okkii tte ivvarete d[[oo sun no]]. T: What should 1 do:*2: K:[[so, atashi yori]] takai mon.
Kanako told me 'Tm big."3:
datte.
K: She"s taller than me.
4: M: [kanachan yori takai] n da.
M: You are taller than Kanako.
5:T: [honto]']'
T: Really''
6: K; uchi de ichiban okkii.
K: I'm the biggest in my family.
[Sibilants: 6]
In example (4.12) speakers T, K, and M are talking about the appearance andphysical characteristics of K"s family members.

In line 6, speaker K uses a superlative

construction, icliihan okkii, 'the biggest" and ade- marked location uchi dc 'in the family"that modifies the domain where the speaker K is the biggest. The function of de here isto set up the domain where the stated proposition, "being the taller', holds true.

Thisshows that de sets a domain where an adjectival phrase, in this case a superlative

187

constnjction. being the tallest, holds true.

Observe example (4.13) where an adjectival

nominal clause co-occurs with a ^/c-marked location.
(4.13)
1: K [ 1 kawai soo da ne, otokotte ne 1 ],2: C [1 (%)(HHx) 1]
3: K [2 nihon de 2] .
4: C [2 <X honto X> kawai soo 2] da yo
5: K (HH) harawanakya ikenai men ne.

K it's unfortunate to be a man in Japan.

C: It is indeed unfortunate, you know.
K: because men need to pay on dates.
[Girl Friend; 6]

In example (4.13) speaker K (a woman) and speaker C (a man) compare theposition of being a man in two cultures, the U.S. and Japan, when a man goes out on
dates with his girlfriend.

In line 3, speaker K uses a c/t'-marked location, nihon dc.

expressing her opinion that being a man is unfortunate, kLiwciisoocia yo. Kawaisootkt yo
consists of a plain form of an adjectival nominal, kuwaisoo. "be unfortunate", a copula Ja
and the final particle yo. This example shows that a Jc-marked location can co-occur
with an adjectival nominal clause, limiting the scope that the stated adjectival nominal
clause describes.

Namely, the participant (a woman) has an atemporal relationship ofbeing unfortunate in the domain that is t/f-marked (in Japan).
4.7. Overview of Written Discourse
4.7.1. Analysis of de in Written Discourse
In section 4.3, I discussed the distributional patterns of the Japanese locative
postposition de in the spoken discourse data.

I reported that the most frequently usedpredicates co-occurring with the locative de were Verbal Noun + sum yarn.

I alsoreported that although the /DO/-type dynamic predicates seem to most frequently appear
with de, de could also co-occur in conjunction with a wide range of predicates including

188

less-dynamic predicates, nouns, adjectives, and adjectival nouns. In this section, 1 would
like to examine whether or not this is also the case in written discourse.

Table 4.2: Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition Je in Written andSpoken Discourse
Less-dynamic
Total
Nouns,
Dynamic
Adjectives/Adjectival
Nouns
Written58 (18.6%)
13 (4.2%)
311 (100%)240 (77.2%)
Discourse
Spoken81 (100%)
13(16%)
5 (6.2%)63 (77.8%)
Discourse
Table 4.2 shows the frequency of occurrence of the Japanese locative postposition
c/t' in relation to different types of predicates in written discourse. Similar to spoken data,
c/f appears in conjunction with dynamic predicates most frequently (77.2%).

/A '-marked

locations also co-occur with less-dynamic predicates (18.6%) and with nouns, adjectives,and adjectival nouns (4.2%).

Overall the findings

from Table 4.2 provide further

evidence to support the hypothesis that the locative postposition de is most likely to cooccur with dynamic predicates.
4.7.2. Distributional Patterns ofr/c by Authors in Written Discourse
Table 4.3 shows the frequency of the types of predicate co-occurring with Jemarked locations by authors.

As shown in Table 4.3, all of these novels show thatdynamic predicates most frequently occur with c/e-marked locations.

This suggests thatthe patterns of frequency distribution are similar across seven texts. In the next section, I
discuss the choice between Je and /// as observed in spoken and written discourse.

189

Table 4.3: Frequency of Predicate Types of Locative Postposition Je by Authors•Authors Dynamic
Nouns,
Less-dynamic
Total
Predicates•Adjective/Adjectival
Predicates
Nouns
A
7
0
5
12
B
39
31
5
J
C
0
27
4
31
D
69
55
12
2
E
7
21
1
i 29
F
4
64
46
14
67
G
3
53
11
13 (4.2%)
311 (100%)Total
240 (77.2%) 58 (18.6%)
4.8. Locative Choice between ni and deThis section focuses on the speaker/writer's choices between ni and Jc to further
clarify a particular speaker/writers" perception of an event. The cognitive network modelthat I introduce in section 4.9. will help with understanding the choices made between
these two postpositions. First I provide a short account of aspectual choices in discourse,
since the argument for the locative choice is quite similar to the one for aspectual choiceproposed by Smith (1983. 1997)
Smith (1993: 493) refers to the following sentences as non-standard aspectual
choices since they fall outside the model of standard cases, cf section 2.3.7 forexplanation of similar cases in the framew ork of CG as discussed by Langacker.
(4.14) Peter is believing in ghosts these days.
(4.15) She is thinking that she wants to go home.
(4.16) I'm not doubting your word, but ..
These examples describe stative situations at the lexical level; however, they are also
capable of accepting progressive forms that imply that these cases are non-typical event
sentences.''" Smith (1997: 145) states;

Englisli aspccl. ;iccordiiig to Smith, focuscs on the cndpoint properties of situations.

190"speakers choose aspectual meanings in order to present situations froma certain point of view: the choices inherent in aspectual systems allow
speakers to talk about situations in various ways. Events may be presented
as states, and states as events. The speaker may telescope or extend theduration of a situation. Yet certain properties, such as telic, are not available
to this type of marked aspectual choice."
I propose that speakers/writers who choose the locative postposition ni for an
event are viewing an event as a state. The locative ni pertains to states; thus using thelocative ni for an event is marked. 1 also propose that speakers/writers who choose thelocative postposition de for a state are viewing a state as an event.

The locative t/c islikely to be associated with events; thus using the locative de for state is also marked. 1
discuss possible factors that are involved in speakers" and writers" choice between ni anddc by e.xamining one case from written discourse data and two cases from spoken
discourse.
First, the following dialogue is taken from Ekumi"s short story about the life of aJapanese family living in the United States.

The main character, Dai, an elementary

school age boy, was born and raised in the United States.

Dai had some trouble

identifying himself as Japanese, because he cannot recall his time spent (on his visits) inJapan, nor can he speak Japanese fluently. One day Dai had a big fight with a classmate
who insulted him by calling Dai "a sexy Jap". After the fight, he had a conversation witha black woman, who noticed that Dai was struggling with his Japanese identity. She thenrelated her own personal experience with coming to grips with her identity. The author,
Ekumi, is writing this dialogue as if she were the black woman.

191(4,17) "...Watashi wa amerika ni umarete amerika ni sodatta amerikajin yo. 28
nenkan ichidomo Amerika no soto e denakattawa. Soredemo kokujin ni kodomo
o kyooiku shite hoshikiinaitte souiu hitowa nanninmo iruno yo. ..
I'm an American who was born and raised in America. For 28 years, 1 have neverbeen out of the country, you know. Even so, many people do not want me toteach their kids because I'm black.
[Ekumi; 96]

In the first line, a ///-marked location, Amerika /// "in America' is used twice inconjunction with two predicates, iimureie "vvas born" and sodatic "was raised"Thewriter is writing from the perspective of a black woman and the writer, as a native
speaker of Japanese, intentionally makes the choice of ni. These two predicates can takea ^/f-marked location, since these two predicates describe events.

However, the black

woman uses the ///-marked location, America ni, in this context. First, the black woman
is not just talking about the physical location where she was born and raised. Rather, she
is relating her personal experience as a black woman when she is talking about her
upbringing. She is viewing the location, America, in a stative sense so that the fact that
her birthplace and upbringing are related to America would not undergo any change overtime.
This case is similar to Smith's (1983) proposal on "idealized situation types"
which speakers/writers call on in talking about actual situations. More specifically. Smith
proposes that people intend to represent situations on the basis of their perceptual andcognitive processes.

For instance, the speakers/writers temporarily present a state as if itwere an event by endowing a state with the characteristics of an event. Speakers/writers

192

also present an event as if it were a state by endowing the event with the characteristics ofa state.
Nakau (1998) makes an intriguing point for aspectual choice.

He argues thatwhen predicates are process verbs co-occurring with a locative ///, a "metaphorical shitt'occurs.

He claims that because of the metaphorical shift, a semantic difference arises

which reflects the speakers/writers" view. Nakau (1989: 34) also suggests that cognitive
processes motivate a metaphorical shift, and points out that it is hard to draw a line
between syntactical categories and semantic categories.

According to Nakau. a shift

between /// and dc occurs between and across arguments and adjuncts.

Although hisargument seems to be quite compelling, there is a divergence between his approach and
my CG approach.

His argument presupposes that the Iocati\ e postpositions /// and dehave to be mapped onto corresponding syntactical structures.

That is in his model, we

need to construct a syntactic relationship with a verb in order to determine an appropriate
locative postposition for an event, since the distinction between argument types oflocation and adjunct types of location is primary. However, if a shirt between /// and tk
is cognitively and semantically motivated, rather than structurally, there is no need tomaintain an arbitrary shift from adjunct to argument.

Another possible problem with

Nakau's theory is that if we are able to reduce syntactic structure to assemblies ofsemantics as Langacker (1997) suggests, then there is no need to propose a one-to-one
mapping between syntax and semantic interfaces.

" Tlic latter ease migiit be related to a riictorical issue, as Visscr (197.^) cited by Sniitii (198.1) points out. cf.
"The ship was in motion" instead of sa\ing "The ship was moving."

193

Below 1 examine two examples from spoken discourse in which the choice of Jcmarked locations is cognitively motivated by the speakers" control over temporality or
the action. Observe example (4.18).
(4.18)
1: K: .. Hokkaidoo,
K: She went back to Hokkaido,
2:
kaettan desu yo.
3: M: un.
VI: yes.
4: K: ..XXX mukoo no hoo ga,
K: since things are less expensive
5:bukka yasui shigoto suru tte yuun de=.
6:
. .. Sapporo de ite=.
K: and there is a job to do over there.
7:... nde.
She was there, and just found a8:..kareshi ga,
boyfriend after a while.
9;choodo,10:
koohan ni,
11:dekitan desu yo.
[Ojoosama: 5]
Speaker K explains what happened to her friend after her friend's parents wentbankrupt.

Her explanation goes like this.

Her friend went back to her hometown,

Sapporo, after her parents" unfortunate bankruptcy, which atTects her life goal of getting
a license as a lawyer in Tokyo. She went back to Sapporo, and stayed there for a while.
As line 6 shows, speaker K uses a c/c-marked location and a gerund form of an
existential verb im "be". Hokkaido dc iic "She was in Hokkaido and. .". In Japanese, anexistential verb ini 'be" for animate things takes a ///-marked location when it shows
stative existence, such as Hokkaido ni ite '(I) was in Hokkaido and..." Throughout theconversation speaker K consistently used a ///-marked location in conjunction with thepredicate, //•// 'be", except for line 6 of this conversation. Therefore, we can assume that
this case represents a deviant usage of de

Speaker K is probably viewing her friend"sbeing in Sapporo as a temporal activity, the temporal activity where her friend found a194
boyfriend, rather than stative. I found that there were 4 other similar cases in the spoken
data where speakers used a Jc-marked location for an existential predicate, iru "be" or apredicate, sumu "live in". This probably implies that speakers sometimes view theexistence of a human in a place as a temporal activity, rather than stative.

Observeexample (4.19).

(4.19)
1: Y: .. ima wa,
Y: 1 assume that nowadays, a Buddhist monk2
. .shi- —standing around Shibuya is just doing his
3..Shibuya atari do,"takuhatsu" because he wants to get money.
4
tatteru no wa,
5okane desho.
6: E: ... n=.
E: well.
7: Y; [datte],
Y; because...
8: M: [datte],
M: because...
9: Y:
minna.
Y: because no one on the street has food to give him.
10:tabemono mot[ 1 te l]ru
11:
wake ja [2 nai shi 2].
[Hoomuresu: 12]

Speaker Y is talking about a Buddhist monk standing on the street around
Shibuya. one of the busiest districts in Tokyo.

In line 3. speaker Y uses a t/t'-marked

location. Shibuya t/c. "in Shihnyci' to indicate where a Buddhist monk is standing. Thislocative phrase is followed by a gerund form of a posture predicate tatsu 'stand", lattc
attached to an aspectual morpheme -iru. to form laiit'-irii "is standing".

In fact, out ot

content taiic iru could take either a ///-marked location or a Jt'-marked location (cfsections 3.10.2. and 4.6.). Speaker Y probably uses a t/c-marked location to express thevolitionality of the Buddhist monk who choses to stand in the busiest district where hecould probably receive money from people on the street.

This exhibits the dynamic

195

usage of the Japanese postpositions in real life, a usage that is motivated by the cognitive
process of speakers.
1 would like to highlight one characteristic of the locative choice.

That is. that

only some of the less-dynamic predicates allow for a choice between the locative
postpositions. /// and dc. This is problematic if we assume that de has a single schemathat is independent from ///.

The network approach I will propose in the next section

provides a more comprehensive solution to this problem.

Firstly, the conceptual andsemantic domains for ///- and Jt'-marked locations do not exist with an absolute and total
distinction. Rather there is some overlap between the semantic domains of the locatives/// and dc

1 claim that some /HAPPEN/ predicates can take a ///-marked location when

the speaker/writer's view is that the locations and predicates will not change with thepassage of time.

Secondly, in the network model, the speaker maintains greater

autonomy for freedom of choice of locative postpositions for the purpose of fulfillingsome psychological and emotional impact.

The flexibility provided by the networkmodel is not without its owii definitive guidelines for the use of postpositions It does notallow for the open-ended choice of locative postpositions for all predicates, only the lessdynamic ones.
4.9. A Cognitive Network Model for the Japanese Locative Postpositions ;i; and tie
Based upon the data analysis, 1 propose that there are three potential schemata for
the use of locative postposition dc: dynamic dc, less-dynamic dc. and non-dynamic dc.'^

Note tliat Kuinasliiro (2000) calls dc a locali\ c setting and states that it lias a function of setting an ev ent(cf. sections 1.2.3 and 2.4.2). He proposes sclicniata for locaii\c cle. Locativc dc. among other things,
shares the semantic structure that allows for the double nominative constmction. Sec Kuinashiro (2000:
Chapter 5) for more detailed discussion.

196

First, dynamic de marks locations in conjunction with /DO/-type predicates as defined by
Jacobsen (1982b).

In the case of dynamic L I L\ time plays an important role, making aconnection between a Jf-marked location and the dynamic characteristics as pointed out
in the previous studies.

Second, less-dynamic Je marks the locations for /HAPPEN/-

type predicates, including the prototypical passive and intransitive constructions.

In less-

dynamic t/t', time still plays an important role, but de is not associated with the dynamic
characteristics defined by Jacobsen. That is, there is no agentive participant that causes achange in the patient participant.

Lastly, in non-dynamic dc, time does not play a crucialrole. Rather, dc marks a domain where either the properties of a referent are establishedor the stated proposition holds true.

Given that the function of adjectival phrases,

adjectival noun phrases, and nominal phrases is to describe a relation or a property of areferent, it follows that the mental space for these phrases should be included in the non­dynamic category
The distinction among these schemata seems arbitrary since the surrounding
environment of the t/c-marked location determines the types of schemata of dc. Dc is
likely to be conceived as dynamic because of the dynamic verbal elements or event nouns
that are profiled in the schemata.

Equally dc is likely to be conceived as less dynamic

when the less dynamic verbal elements are used. Dc is also likely to be conceived as
non-dynamic when it is used in conjunction with adjectival, adjectival noun, and nominal
phrases.

However, I have provided a justification for the separation between these threeschemata in section 4.8. where I have discussed the speaker/writer's choice for^/c and ///.

197

I will provide another justification of the separation between the three schemata in
Chapter 5."'^4.10. Semantic Network for dc
Figure 4.1 shows a provisional semantic network model for cie in the spatial andtemporal domains. Like the network model for ni which 1 proposed in Chapter 3, there
are two distinct senses of dc indicated by boldly outlined rectangles ( |~~|). The dotted•* *•line ovals () illustrate the schematic senses. Solid ovals () refer to actual

usages which I have discussed in this chapter: locative settings (dynamic and lessdynamic) and location for nouns/adjectives/adjectival nouns. A solid line arrow (indicates metaphorical extensions within the same domain.

•)

Notice that the schemata

imply that the sense of dynamic space and less dynamic space (cf Kumashiro's term
'locative setting") are similar, suggesting that there is semantic closeness between theseusages within the continuum.

' ' As is dear from the nature of tlie CG framework, an intennediale lc\el between the two prototypicalusages of d e docs not need to be limited to one ic\el. It can be any multiple numbers, sincc in ihc
framework of CG. the semantic and conceptual structure is fundamentally gradient.

198

Landmark is located entity

Landmark is endpoint

Landmark is location"Location is'
spatialEndpoint
is spatial

Endpoin'r
is temporal

Locative SettingLess Dynamic y
Locative Setting]\Dynamic J

Nouns, AdjectiveX
Adjectival Nounsj
Temporal

OO

intransitivetransitive

TFMPORAI.
DOMAIN!-:
passive
TIAL DOMAINi:

Fitzure 4.1: A Provisional Model for a Semantic Network
for c/f in the Spatial and Temporal Domains^"
Both ni and cle can be used as a tiine-niarkcr. Tliese postpositions arc difTcreiit in tltat c/c specificallyrequires an endpoint. whereas ni does not. Obscr\ e tiie following.
i) Sliikcn

wa

getsuyoobi

ni/*dchajiniani.

199

4.11. A Revised Network Model for the Japanese Locative Postpositions ni and tie
In section 4.9., I have shown that only certain less dynamic predicates can takeeither ni or J L\ depending on how the speakers/writers construe an event. Namely, when
the speakers/writers construe an event as static, m is more likely to be selected to mark alocation. In these cases, the predicate that the speakers/writers use matches the schemafor ni (complex stative).

In contrast, when speakers/writers construe the same event as

dynamic, Jc is more likely to be selected to refer to the location.

In this case, thepredicate that the speakers/writers use fits the schema for the less dynamic dc.
three different schemata for c/c. including the less dynamic

Havingis important in giving anadequate account for the speaker/writer's choice between ni and cie.

In the networkmodel, the speaker chooses the appropriate schema to represent his or her perception ofan event. Figure 4 2 shows the schema choice between ni and c/c. As this figure shows,both a schema for complex stati\e as in Figure 4.2-b and the one for less dynamic
predicates as in Figure 4.2-c are similar in that only one participant is involved, rather
than two participants. There is some semantic similarity between these schemata whichindicates that there is some overlap.

This overlap becomes the arena for thec.xain TOP Monday TIME/TIME scirt"Tlic c.xain starts on Monday,"(Nakau l'J98: 20)ii) Sliikcn\\akiinoobi
ni/dc
owani.
E.\ainTOP
FridayTIME/TIME
end
The exam ends on Friday."(Nakau 1W8: 20)
De also indicates a w hole process, depending on tlic characteristics of time adv crbials.
iii) 20 ncn (HO senso)
dc('ivai chitsu
dejinkooson bun no ichi ni
20 years (GEN war) TIME (TOP) German LOG population NOM one third
DAT
hctta
to
iw-are-ru
decreased QUO say-PSS-PRES
It is said tiiat the population of Germany has decreased one third for 20 years of wars."

200

speakers'/writers" personal choice of either /// oTt/e. However, in the case of the dynamic
predicate, there is no overlap between the schema as shown in Figure 4.3-a and Figure
4.3-b; therefore, the speaker/writer is not provided with the opportunity to choose
between /// and dc.
Fiuure 4 2.aLess dynamic
Fiuure 4.2 c

Fiuure 4.2.b

O

>
ni

dc

Fimirc 4.2: Scliciiiaia Clioicc between m and dc (I)Fiuure 4.3-ao—o>dvnamic
Figure 4.j-b

Fiuure 4.3-cHidc

Fiuure 4.3; Sclienial;) Clioicc beiween in and dc ( 2 )Another interpretation of iii) is tliat de functions as a causee marker, rather tlian lime marker. Tlicsc
e.xainples are the main moii\ ations for liaving a temporal scheinc for de as an endpoint. rather than as
location.

201

Another issue that I would like to address here is the relationship between Jc andthe passive construction. In section 4,5.1. I mentioned that Sugai (1997) made the pointthat de in the passive clause does not refer to the location for the whole clause.

More

specifically, Sugai proposes that locative postposition dc is a location marker for agentive
participants in active sentences or for patient participants in passive sentences,

if wehave two schemata for two different types of predicates, /HAPPENV-type including theprototypical passive and /DO/-type, we can avoid gross overgeneralizations. The schemafor de in /DO/ types profiles the location for the agentive participant as the schema for
dynamic de, while the schema for de in /HAPPEN/ types profiles the location for thepatient participant.
I also point out that there is a very subtle yet important semantic difference
between the less-dynamic marker de and the complex stative ///. and 1 propose thatspeakers/writers can make a choice, depending on how they perceive an event.

In thissection, 1 claimed that the revised network model for Japanese locative postpositions will
result in a much deeper understanding of the speaker's choice of /// or de.
4.12. Summary'
In Chapter 4, I first discussed the notion of transitivity in the Japanese verbal
systems proposed by Jacobson, since this notion is instrumental in e.xamining the natureof predicate types co-occurring with c/t'-marked locations in the data. I have shown thatde covers a wide range of locations and I have proposed that there are three different
schemata in the spatial domain, dynamic de, less dynamic de, and non-dynamic de.

1have also proposed that the prototypical usage of de seems to correlate with dynamic

202

elements.

The distributional patterns in both spoken and written Japanese seem tosupport the prototypical usage of de as dynamic Je. I reported that the most frequently
used predicates co-occurring with Je were suruyam "do", which are classified as
dynamic predicates, i also argued that the idea that the speakers/writers" choice between
ni and Je is motivated by cognitive processes.

The choice is related to how

speakers/writers construe an event, and I suggest that this is very similar to aspectual
choice as discussed by Smith. I argue that de in the prototypical passive is less dynamic
dt\ and found that the three out of five passives found in spoken discourse were agentlesspassives.

I proposed a network model for dc by adapting Langacker's model ofstative/process. This network model for /// and de does not establish the usage of/// andde as being distinct from one another, but instead allows for some gray areas of overlap.
For instance, I have shown that there is some overlap between less-dynamic dc andcomplex stative ///, and that the overlap is comprehensively explained by the similarities
between schemata.

Both less dynamic de and complex stative /// profile only one

participant. The schema for less dynamic dc and the schema for complex stative /// aredifferent in that the former profiles the time dimension while the latter does not.

In

Chapter 5, I examine the issue of the topic/contrast marker ira, since the semantic natureof the locative postposition /// and dc appear to be different when they are followed by ti c/.

203

CHAPTER 5

5.1. Introduction
In Chapters 3 and 4, I proposed a network model for the Japanese locative
postpositions /// and c/e in the spatial and locative domain, and examined the networkmodel with natural discourse data.

I argued that there are several schemata for cA' andthat the prototypical usage of c/e is merely symptomatic, underlying a dynamic/non­dynamic continuum that incorporates the full range of higher to lower transitivity
predicates.

I proposed that the choice between /// and c/e is motivated by cognitive

processes, and 1 considered this choice impetus for investigating the possibilities that may
exist for the schemata for
Chapter 5 addresses the issue of the dual purpose topic/contrast marker wa. The
semantic natures of the locative postpositions appear to be different when they arefollowed by it a, especially in the case of the locative postposition de (L'eno 1995. Nakau
1995, Morita 1989, Tanaka 1997, Kumashiro personal communication).' The studies ofMartin (1975), Noda (1996), and McGloin (1987) pay attention to the nature of wci inconjunction with the locative postpositions. No study, however, has examined the actual
usage of ua in combination with the locative postpositions ni and c/c in real discourse.
A more comprehensive account of the relation between the topic/contrast marker and thelocative postpositions lies in discourse studies, since the intricate association between' Matsuinura (1971) treats i i i w a and ck'Ma as separate le.xical entries in "Nihongo Bunpoo Daijiten' [ADictionar> of Japanese Graininarj.

204

linguistic forms and discourse factors, such as the topic/contrast relationship, ismanifested in discourse.
The organization of Chapter 5 is the following

First. 1 provide a short summaryof Martin (1975), Noda (1996), and McGIoin (1987) that discusses the relationshipbetween the topic/contrast marker ita and the locative postpositions ni and Je. Second, 1
provide a short summary of discourse studies on the topic/contrastive marker ua.

Then,

I report the distributional patterns of the combination of n o and ni dc as well as thelocative phrase followed by wa in the same spoken and written discourse data

1 arguethat the distributional patterns of wa in conjunction with cle provide supporting evidence
for the different schemata for c/c which 1 proposed in Chapter 4 and the function of t/c as
an event setting which 1 discussed in 2.4.2.
5.2. Previous Studies of
5.2. I. Topic/Contrastive .Marker mi and Locative Postpositions ni and deMartin (1975), Noda (1996), and McGloin (1987) provide a useful point of
departure for the discussion of the relationship between the topic/contrast marker u c/ andthe locative postpositions ni and de. First, Martin (1975: 227) explains that locative/time
markers can be omitted when locative/time noun phrases are thematized as shown in (5.1)
and (5.2):(5.1) Hokkaidoo |del wa
moo yukiga
hut-ta.
Hokkaidoo LOC TOP yet
snow NOM fall-PST'Hokkaido must have had snow by now.'(5.2) Katappoo (ni| wa wataoiremasi-ta yo.
one side LOC TOP cotton ACC
stuft-PST FP'On one side we stuffed it with regular cotton.'(Martin 1975: 227, with some modification)

205

Martin suggests that the position of the locative/time markers is important for theomission of the postposUions. He maintains that "any adjunct—except, perhaps, certain
adverbs—can be extruded from the simplex, placed at the beginning of the sentence, andset oft'by major juncture to form a theme" (227).
Second, Noda (1996) makes a similar observation. Observe examples (5.3) and (5.4).
(5.3)

(5.4)

Nihon wa
onsen
ga
ooi.
Japan TOP
hot spring
N'OM many'Japan has many hot springs"(Noda 1996: 26)

Nihon ni
wa
onsen
ga
ooi.
Japan LOC TOP
hot spring
NOM many"There are many hot springs in Japan."(Noda 1996: 26)
hi (5.3) wa follows a locative phrase Nihon "Japan", while in (5.4) niwa follows

the same locative phrase. According to Noda, sentence (5.3) describes the characteristics
of Nihon, "Japan" (in this case, having many hot springs), while sentence (5 4) does notillustrate the characteristics of Japan, but instead describes that there are many hot springsin the location of Japan.

Noda, among others, points out that the locative noun followedby na as in (5.3) seems to have a similar function to the one followed by the nominative
markerThis is because Nihon. "Japan", appears at the beginning of the sentence

where the ^iLfa-marked noun phrase, the so-called subject, usually appears.
makes several insightful points.

Noda alsoFirst, he states that there are ditTerent degrees of

topicalization within a noun phrase followed by a postposition.

For instance, theJapanese postposition ni can be more easily topicalized when it is used as the so-called

206

dative subject marker as shown in (5.5), while the same postposition is harder totopicalize when it is used as a resuitative as shown in (5.6)."(5.5)

i<ono apaatonii<oshitekita koro watashi
this apartment LOC move
time
I

ni
wa
LOC TOPmada tsuma ga i-ta.
still wife
NOM is-PST
i still had a wife when I moved to this apanment."(Sckaino owari to HaadohoiniJo wanJaarandhy Murakami, p 520,
cited by Noda 1996: 22)(5.6) *chuushajooni
wa yasaiotsukutteita hatake ga
nat-ta.
Parking lot LOC TOP vegetable ACC growfield
NOM turn-PST'The field where they grew vegetables was turned into a parking lot."(N'oda 1996:22)
In (5.5) watashi 'V marked by the dative /// is topicalized and nina follows watashi. In(5.6) which is an ill-formed sentence, according to Noda, chimshajoo "parking lot" ismarked by the resuitative ni followed by u a. Noda generalizes that the accessibility of the
topic is related to the basic Japanese word order, Subject-Object-Verb (SOV).' That is,the closer the element is to a predicate, the harder it is to topicalize. He hypothesizes that
this is probably related to how we individualize a phrase in a clause.

For instance, thedative subject in (5.5) is easier to individualize than the resuitative in (5.6)."' He also
observes that a location is likely to be marked by ua when the location refers to a
relatively large domain like NUnm "Japan", as shown in sentence (5.3).
Third, McGIoin (1987) proposes a "contrastive hierarchy" which I will examine the~ Noda (1996: 23) points out that among scscral usages of ni. the locati\e marker can be most easily
topicalized.
' K.uno (1973: 30-31) also points the relationship between word order and the accessibility to the
topic/ccntrastive has been repeatedly discussed in prc\ ious literature, as Noda (1996: 210-212) mentions.
Noda and McGloin arc similar in that both consider word order to be the key condition for degree of
topicali/.alion/constrasti\ enss. since word order tells us the information flow in discourse.

207

validity of in relation to ni and de. McGloin (1987: 174) proposes that there is a negative
linear relationship that exists between the contrastive and thematic interpretation of wa.^
That is, the more difficult it is to interpret a constituent as thematic, the easier it is tointerpret it as contrastive. Observe the following examples (5.7) through (5.13) which arefrom McGloin (1987; 174-75).

(5.7)Osaifu \va dokonimo mie-na-katta.
wallet TOP nowhere seen-NEG-PST"The wallet could not be seen anywhere."[subject](5.8) Sono hoii wa yonde-i-nai.
That book TOP read-NEG"I have not read that book."[object](5.9) Yooko-saii ni
wa purezento o age-na-katta.
Yoko
DAT TOP present ACCgive-NEG-PST"I did not give a present to Yoko."[indirect object](5.10) Majison iii
wa mise ga
amari
nai.
Madison LOC TOP store NOM not-too-many be NEG
i n Madison, there are not too many stores."[locative](5.11) Shikago e wa ika-na-katta.
Chicago to TOP go-NEG-PST
T did not go to Chicago."[goal](5.12) Toshokan dewa benkyoo-shi-na-katta,
library
LOC TOP study-do-NEG-PST
i didn"t study in the library."[locative]' See Ciiaplcr 3 of Noda (1996) for more detailed discussions.
' Tliis Contrastive Hierarchy is in direct opposition to tlie Kcenan/Comrie's Accessibility Hicrarch\ .
McGloin adopts K.uno (iy76)"s proposal of the accessibility hicrarch\ for thematic interpretation of nounphrases. Although McGloin notices that it is hard to make a distinction between interpretations between
thematic and contrastive usage of wa. she states that wa functions as a theme marker w hen it occurs in theposition of OLD in an OLD-NEW infonnation structure, while wa functions as a contrastive marker when
it occurs in the position of NEW in a sentence. Furthennorc. she argues the thematic wci. which is
associated with old inrormation. is outside the domain of negation, while the contrastivc uvj. which isrelated to new information, indicates the target of negation. She also acknowledges that there arc somee.vceptions to this claim, (see McGloin 1987: 172-179).

208(5.13) Imootosan
vva oneesnn hodo wa deki-nai.
younger sister TOP older sister as
TOP can-NEG"The younger sister does not do as well s the older sister."[comparative]

Sentences (5.7) and (5.8) contain a topicalized subject NP osaifu 'the wallet" and a
topicalized direct object NP sono lion "that book" respectively. McGloin argues that >ra inosaifu wa and sono lion \nt are most likely to be interpreted as the thematic mi (unmarked
reading) if heard outside of any spoken discourse context, since the un-marked reading is
one where the NP-ira is outside the scope of negation''. Sentence (5 .9) and (5.10) containa topicalized indirect object NPs Yooko-san, "Yoko san" and Majison niwa 'in Majison",respectively.

According to McGloin, wa in Yooko-san niwa and Majison niwa are still

likely to be interpreted as the thematic wa outside of any spoken discourse context, sincethese ii a-marked NPs are outside the domain of negation.
Sentence (5.11) and(5 12) contain a topicalized NP Shikai^o "Chicago" andToshokan "library" followed by e and Jc, respectively.

Ha in Sliika^o e wa and ioshokan

dewa are likely to be interpreted as either thematic or contrastive as they fall in the middleof the contrastive hierarchy.

McGloin explains that the predominant reading is the one

where NPs-u « in these sentences is inside the domain of negation, but the other readingwhere NPs-iia are outside the domain of negation is not impossible. On the contrary, wa
in oncesan lioJo wa "as well as older sister" in (5.13) is most likely to be interpreted ascontrastive out of a spoken discourse context, since the NP-ua is inside the domain ofnegation. When examining wa-marked negated NPs, there is a direct correlation between
the continuum of [Subject] to [Object of Comparative Particle] and the likelihood of"See fooinotc 5 on tlic prc\ ions page for tlic discussion regarding the inierprclalion of uv? and liie domain of

209

thematic to be contrastive in Figure 5.1 below.

fSuhjectj > /Direct Ohjj. >[Indirect Ohj]. >H)hj. of Prep/ >/Posses.sNPl >/()bj. of Comparative Prt. /
(->7)
(5.8)
(5.9) (5.10)(5.1I)(5.12)(5 13)
Vlore likely to be
Thematic

More likely to be^ Contrastive

Fiuure 5 1: Themantic/Contrastive Hierarchy bv McGloin (1987: 174)'

McGIoin has not yet tested this hypothesis with real discourse data; theretbre, it becomes
worthwhile for the purpose of my study to examine the semantic nature of iic; as it exists
in combination with /// and dc.

Before reporting the distributional patterns of ua alone

and the combinations of wa with /// de from the spoken data, 1 would like to highlight thesignificant points of two important discourse studies on wa which I mentioned briefly insection 1.2.4.
5.2.2. Discourse Studies of wa
One of the primary aspects of discourse studies lies in an investigation of thereferential structure, e.g. the progression of how discourse participants are introduced,
maintained, and discontinued.

The Japanese topic/contrast marker wa plays a significant

role in the domain of discourse. In this section, 1 will briefly discuss two main discourse
studies of ii«, Maynard (1980) and Clancy and Downing (1987).
First, Maynard emphasizes the importance of examining the so-called Japanesethematic marker \va from a discourse perspective. Maynard argues that the issue of thencgaiion.

210function of \\a is quite ditTicult to examine in isolated sentences, since a traditional
approach to w a at the sentence level tails to yield an adequate account of the overall text.
Maynard (1980; 69) states that "NP-ui/ in Japanese must be investigated from theperspective of intersentential text because -wa has important functions that can only beappreciated from this [discourse] perspective."^ I take the same position as Maynard does
for the investigation of niwa and demi in the current study.
Maynard examined narratives written for school children, and found that the useof wa was strongly associated with the thematicity progression in written discourse. Morespecifically, her finding

was that thematicity is developed by a sequence such as -}ia, -wa,f-wa), which she refers to as "the thematic stage". The majority of use of wa are thematic,
rather than contrastive in written narrative. As the thematic marker, tia is not as simple as
it would appear at first glance,

h is a complex marker that varies in strength with itsthematic usage within its contextual relations.

Maynard points out that the thematic

phrase at the intersentential level aids in delineating a conceptual stage on which the main
characters are introduced.
Second, Clancy and Downing (1987: 46) suggest that the primary function of wa
in spoken discourse is "to serve as a local cohesive device, linking textual elements ofvarying degrees of contrasting." Clancy and Downing examined spoken discourse dataconsisting of three oral narratives (narratives based upon the 'Pear Film", the popular TV

A slight modification is added to Figure 5.1.
Maynard made further critiques on tiie traditional approach. Slie states tliat "analyzing linguistic data on
the sentential lc\ el migiit first appear adequate. But e.xtracting a sentence from its conte.xt ine% itably erases
important conic.\tu:il infonnation. In reality. evcr> sentence implicitly in\ohes text relations. Often
sentential anal\ sis results in an incorrcct conclusion bccause it fails to reflect intersentential information "(70).

program 'Sazae san', and several cartoon strips). They compared their results with theresults from Maynard's (1980) study of written narrative, and found that ua functioned
differently in spoken discourse as opposed to written discourse. Their finding was thatthe majority of the uses of ua in spoken narratives is defined as locally (contrastively)
motivated, while globally motivated thematic use of \ni appears infrequently. Clancy andDowning also found that within their three sets of spoken narratives, there was adifference in the use of ua. Cartoon narration in which participants had time to plan theirstory prior to telling it is more similar to written discourse than other oral narratives inwhich the participants did not have time to plan prior to their oral narratives. Clancy andDowning discovered that the difference between their findings and Maynard's findings
can be explained by the availability of planning time which allows for the speakers toorganize their texts,

in written text/cartoon narratives, writers/speakers have moreplanning time to organize their texts which increases the usage of the thematic ua andutilization of discourse boundaries which improves explicitness in discourse structuresand control over reference establishment. Taking into account the complex nature of irt/
revealed in spoken and written narratives, in the following two sections I report on the
distributional patterns of wci, niua, and Jcu a in spoken/written discourse.
5.3. Overview of Spoken Discourse
5.3.1. Data Analysis in Spoken Discourse
Table 5.1 shows the distribution of the topic marker u a when used as a locative
marker, and the Japanese locative markers /// and Je followed by ua with respect to thefrequencies of the contrastive/thematic ur/. The first row indicates the distribution of mi,
niwa,

and

dewa,

the second

and

third

rows

indicatethefrequency

of

the

212

thematic/contrastive use of na respectively, and the last row indicates the totalfrequencies of na, niwa, andFollowing Maynard, I use the term thematic" torefer to a linguistic device; NP-ur/ has the power to operate beyond the clause/sentencelevel (the intersentential relations) rather than just on the intrasentential level/* I consider
u a in nhm Jewa in discourse to operate on the intersentential level.
Table 5.1: Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions /// and de and Thematic/
Contrastive Marker wa in Spoken Discourse
niua
Total
\UI
dewa
Thematic1
i 5 (33.3%)
2
2
10 (66.7%)
Contrastive
5J
2
15(100%)
Total
7
5
J
frequencies

'
i

->

As shown in Table 5.1, locative phrases marked by ///tie/ occur 7 times, andlocative phrases marked by ua alone occurs 5 times. Locative phrases marked by c/euci
appears only three times in the spoken data, which I will come back to this in section
5.3.3.

Notice that 10 cases (66.7%) of ua in the spoken discourse were used incontrastive function, rather than thematic.

Although the total numbers of ua. niua. andckwa are small, this study is still consistent with Clancy and Downing's (1987) study' Ma> nard"s definitions of theme/contrasti\c arc dilTcrcnt from ones proposed b\ Kuno (1972. 1976) w hooriginally made a distinction between theme and conirasti\e. Kuno s definition of comrasti\cincludestwo possibilities. positi\cly and negatively e.xpressed contrasti\es.
Maynard includes the so-called'contrasti\e »•«' in the category for "thematic waand called it "contrastiNe thematic ir«'. What she
e.\cludes from Ihematic "o are negatives followed by u a and uvj in idiomatic e.\pressions. Clancy andDowning's definition of themalic/contrasti\c also diverges from Ma>nard"s. Clancv and Downingemphasize a broader range of conie.sts for contrastive un which e.xtends beyond the interclaiisal level. It is
important to be aware of how researchers define "thematic" and "contiastiv e" in their studies. However, thisissue is beyond the scope of the current study.
Unlike giJ irn which mark discourse participants in narratives, niua c/ewa marks locative noun phrases
vvltich luirdly find a placc on the theiiuUic progression.
R;ither.
in niua dcmi signals tolisteners/readers wiiich locativc set should be focused on in given narrativ es.

i^ithat points out that in spoken discourse the contrastive ut/ is dominant, rather than thethematic ua.''
5.3.2. Analysis of nimi in Spoken Discourse
I observed that the results from spoken discourse confirm Clancy andDovvning's results. They state that the majority of uxi occurrences in spoken narrative is•characterized as locally (contrastively) motivated, rather than globally (thematically).

i^

In the spoken data of this study, contrastive u ci occurs more frequently than thematic >rt/
both in ni de marked locative phrases and in tt tz-marked locative phrases. Five out of theseven niwa phrases were contrastive with negation.

Some examples of contrastive wa

with negation are presented in (5.14), (5.15), and (5.16).
(5.14) maharaja ni wa
haire-nai.
Maharaja LOC TOP
can enter-NEG'(one) cannot get in Maharaja, a dancing hall."[Misato: 15](5.15) inakaniwa (kojiki wa)
ima-sen yo.
Countr\'side LOC
TOP
is-NEG FP'there are no homeless in the country side."[Homeless: 3](5.16) souiu sekainiwaashi ofumiire-taku-nai wa.
such a world LOC TOP
foot ACC step in-NEG
FP'I don't want to step into such a world."[Zeitaku; 6]

The remaining two cases of ni^ra were thematic. Observe e.xample (5.17) where wa isused as a thematic marker to globally organize the following story from speaker K of her" The pcrcciuage of conirasii\c wa would increase if 1 adopted Clanc>' and Downing s definiiion ofconlnisiivc. which is a broader. Clancy and Downing s definition of contrastive includes afTirnialixc
contrast, which Maynard refers to as "contrastive tiieniatic'.
Fujii-Ueno (1987). who e.Naniines two stories. Takeiori numo^iotari "A Talc of a Man Named Taketori(A.D. 900) and Gcnji monogaiari "Tale of Gcnji" (A.D. 1008). suggests that the historical developmentfrom the lo"' centur>' reflects the functions of im: contrastivc. theme creation, and theme maintenance.

214

friends'"^:(5.17) 1 K . . Hokkaidoo ni wa,
K: In Hokkaido,
fijtari tomodachi ga irun da yo=
2'
1 have two friends, you know.
J:toka.
Didn't I tell you. elder sister'^4:
oneechan ni.
5:yutta desho.
6;hitori ga.
7: M: hitori ga.
M : The one who has come to Oregon'^
Oregon ni kiteru ko da [tta de]sho''
9; K.
[un]
K. Yes.
10 M: to moo hitori wa.
M The other one has been a good11
moo.
friend since 1 was in Japan.
12
nihon toki kara.
13
naka ii ko de.
[Ojoosama. 1]
In example (5.17) speaker K tries to remind speaker M that in this conversation she
had told her that she has two friends in Hokkaido

Hokkaido niwa "in Hokkaido" in line

one serves as a list which makes a contrast between one triend in Oregon mentioned inline eight and the other one in line twelve. Example (5.17) can be considered to beanother example of "the stage-setting construction" discussed in the section 3.5. since the///ua-marked location, Hokkaido iiiua, indicates the location where the ^'a-marked
participants, new discourse participants,////c//7 tomadachi ga, "two friends" are introduced.
5.3.3. Analysis of dewa in Spoken Discourse
I observed that there were only three cases where dewa followed a locative phrase
in the spoken data.

Since t/t'ua-marked locations hardly occur in spoken discourse, itwould appear that t/cuw-marked locations are used to confer some special status
associated with certain speech style.

For instance, Martin (1975; 66) states that thesequence of dewa in any of its uses optionally contracts to zya la]. This implies that

" Example (5.17) would be classified as contrasiive in Clancy and Downing s definition of contrasii%c.

215

spoken discourse, especially informal conversation, might reveal a wide range of
expressions similar to clew such as zyaa and other expressions such as nanka, "something
like that", and -He "a contracted form of a quotative foam".'"* Observe example (5.18),
one of three rare cases where dcwa was used to mark the location.
(5.18)
1 :T:
2:
3:
4:

.. sono... gyookai de wa toppu na no. T: The company ranks as top in that...anone=,industry I heard that they...maaketto no ne,dominate more than 60° o of the... rokuvvari= ijoo shimete ru mitai ne.
market.
[Hamada: 7]

In (5.18) speaker T talks about a company"s reputation with his colleague at a bar. In line
one, speaker T uses the c/ciia-marked location, sono ^^yookai Jewa 'in that industry" tospecify where the company, previously mentioned, ranks as top. Notice that speaker T
could possibly use /aa instead O'LL I CWCI. without changing the speaker"s intended meaning.

5.3.4. Analysis of mi in Spoken Discourse
In section 5.3,1,, 1 reported that there were five cases where ua alone marks
locative phrases: two instances of the thematic wa and three instances of the contrastiveMil.

In this section, I discuss these cases in more detail.

There are three utz-marked

locations in which /// could have occurred, and there are two in which Jc could haveoccurred. Observe example (5.19)

Furtiicr rcscnrch needs to be carried out to find the various c.\pressions wliicli rcprcscnl equivalentfunctions of \ui in spoken discourse.

216(5.19)
1:R:.. un.
... ika[nakatta].
2:H:[koara ni.
Jaejnakattan da ne.
4
ja.
5:R:
.. soo soo.
6 H.
. kangaruu toka ni.
7:R:.. soo soo soo.
8... soo nan da [yo].
9:H:[so]kka.
10 R. ... Burajini wa.
11
itte kita tte
12
Bura[jiru] hora.
13;H: [ee]^R: So she did not go.
H: Then, she could not see the koala, could she'^
R: No, no, no
H: She could not see kangaroos, either
R: No, she could not.
H: I see.
R. She went to Brazil, instead, you know
H: Pardon''[Ryokoo: 6]

In example (5.19) speaker R is reporting to speaker H that her friend did not go toAustralia as she had planned.

In line ten, speaker R mentioned Hiirajirii wa. Brazil

followed by \m. contrasting with Australia where she did not go.

This ua-marked

location does not appear in a negative sentence, but 1 classified it as the contrasitve
marker ua.

This is a case where the allative marker /// could have occurred between

Hiirajini and the contrastive marker u a. Observe example (5.20).
(5.20)
1: M: kon=^na hikukute2:
ko=nan de.
3:
ushiro wa
4.
norenai.

M: The seat of the car is so low like this.
You cannot sit on the back seat.
[Zeitaku: 2]

In example (5.20) speaker M is commenting on a new car which her brotherrecently bought. In line 3, speaker M mentions the u A-marked location, ushiro ua 'on
the back seat'. This is a case where the contact marker /// is not used between ushiro andMil.

Observe example (5.21).

217(5.21)
1: H:ja
H: Then who is working
2:
Shibata san no shita wa ima dare ga yatte n no'^as an assistant for
3: T; dare mo yatte nai n ja nai''
Mr. Shibaia'^
T: I assume that he does not haveany assistant.
[Hamada: 12]
In example (5.21) speaker H is talking about the work place Speaker H asks who
is working under Mr. Shibata. In line two speaker H uses a locative noun shita under"
followed by irc/, Shihata san no shita wa "under Mr. Shibata". This is a case where thelocative postposition ik' could have occurred between shita and the thematic marker wa.
Notice that in examples (5.19) through (5.21) all iftz-marked locative phrases are
positioned at the beginning of clauses. These results support Martin"s observation thatany adjunct can be placed at the beginning of the sentence and set otTby major juncture
to form a theme.
In sum, the data 1 have examined seem to support Clancy and Downing"s (1987)
study, as the primary function wa. contrastiveness, appears to be salient, at least in
informal spoken conversation, when wa is used alone following a locative expression orin combination with locative particle, ///. Demi appeared infrequently in informal
conversation. I have also observed that when na follows a locative expression, it comesat the beginning of the clause. In the next section, I discuss the distribution of wa, niwa,
and Jcwa in written discourse.

218

5.4. Overview of Written Discourse
5.4.1. Data Analysis of Written Discourse

Table 5.2 shows the distribution of the topic marker \ni when used as a locative
marker, and the ni and c/e followed bywith respect to the frequencies of thecontrastive/thematic u a in written discourse.
Table 5.2: Frequency of Occurrence of Locative Postpositions ni and tk' and Thematic/
Contrastive Marker n a in Written Discourse
Jewa
wa
Total
niwa
9 (100%)
Thematic
32 (88.9%)
153 (86.9%)112(85.5%)
0 (0%)
23(13.1%)
Contrastive
4(11.1%)19(14.5%)
176(100%)
Total
9 (100%)36(100%)131 (100%)
Frequencies

As Table 5.2 shows, the locative phrase marked by nhni occurs most frequently(131 times), and the locative phrase marked by c/eua occurs at the second highest
frequency (36 times). Notice that the thematic ua appears (86.9%) more frequently thanthe contrastive wa (13.1%). The result of high frequency of the thematic wa in my data is
consistent with Maynard (1980) who claims that the thematic wa appears dominantly in
written discourse.

Note that the current study diverges from Maynard (1980) in that 1

examine how writers introduce locative settings while Maynard examines how writers
introduce the main characters in discourse.

Despite these ditTerences, the two studies

support the claim that the major role of the thematic w o is globally motivated in written
discourse.
5.4.2. Analysis of niwa in Written Discourse
Table 5.4 illustrates the distributional patterns of/// followed by wa with respect
to the ditTerent senses of /// which 1 introduced in Chapter 3. The first row represents

;
I
!
!

219

four different schemata for ///: simple stative, complex stative, allative, and contact. I
repeat the definition of each category below.
(I) the simple stative location marker is often accompanied by predicates such as im am"there is/are' and simtti "live". The stative sense for these predicates is inherent to theverbs or nouns at the lexical level. A simple stative profiles one single state.
(II) the complext stative location marker is accompanied by predicates which include an
aspectual morpheme ic im -te am which are morphemes that change non-stative
verbs to stative verbs. A complex stative often profiles the final stage or profiles arepetitive process as a single state.
(III) the allative marker is accompanied by motion verbs such as ikii "go" and kiini"come".
(IV) the contact marker /// is accompanied by attachment verbs such as horn "put on".
atari/' hit on", and kakam "hang". A contact marker is difterent from an allative inthat the former's primary focus is on the endpoint of the movement.

The second and third rows represent the occurrence of the thematic na and thecontrastive »ra, respectively.

As a comparison, the distributional patterns of /// alone

from the same written discourse which I discussed in 3.10 are included in the fourth row

Table 5.3: Frequencies of Occurrence of Locative Postposition /// Followed by Thematic/
Contrast Marker ua in Written Discourse
SimpleTotal
Allative
Contact
Complexstativestative
112 (85.5%)
Thematic
12
1 6
42
52
j
19 (14.5%)
Contrast
10
4
i 2
Total
16
131
52
55
8
(100%)(12.2%)
Frequencies (39.7%)(6.1%)
(42%)
niwa
Total
256
555
1122
147
164
(100%)(49.5%)
Frequencies (22.8%)(14.6%)(13.1%)///

220

As shown in Table 5.3, the majority of ///ua-marked phrases in written discourse consistsof the complex location marker (42%) or the simple stative marker {39J°o).

Nina

appears as an allative marker (12.2%) and as a contact marker (6.1°o) respectively
Compared to the distributional patterns of niwa illustrated in the fourth row. it is clearthat there are significant difterences between the distributional patterns of iii\ni and thoseof /// alone.

For instance, the frequency of the complex stative marker /// is highest for

niwa (42%). whereas the frequency of the complex stative marker is not so high for ni(13.1%).

Moreover, the allative marker did not appear frequently for niwa (12.2%),

while it frequently appears for n/ (49.5%). Some of the e.xamples for the comple.x stative
for nimi from written discourse are described in (5.24), (5.25), and (5.26).

The functionof the complex stative ni followed by wt/ is to provide detailed descriptions about thesettings, which cohesively signals for readers to focus on the scene.
(5.24) madoni
wa taoru to
unndoogi ga
window
LOC TOP towel andshirtsNOM"above the window towel and shirts are hanging."hoshi-te-aru.
dry-CONJ-.-\SP[Sawaki: 42](5.25) yuka no ueniwabiniiruga
hii-te-aru.
floor GEN on
LOC TOP
plastic sheet NOM spread-CONJ-ASP"there is a plastic sheet spread out on a floor."[Mure: 107]
(5.26) poketto
no
naka
ni
pocketGEN inside LOC"(he) has cheese inside his pocket."waTOPchiizucheesega
hait-te-ite.
NOM put in-CONJ-ASP[Shiina: 19]

The results shown in Table 5.4 show that it is hard to topicalize the allative(l2.2?/o). This result could be explained by Noda's generalization that the closer a nounphrase is to predicates, the more diftlcult it is to topicalize the noun phrase. The allative

221

case from the our data provides supporting evidence for Noda's observation, since theallative is closer to the predicate compared to other noun phrases.
5.4.3. Analysis of dewa in Written Discourse
Table 5.5

illustrates the distributional

patterns of

the Japanese locative

postposition de followed by the topic/contrastive marker \\a with respect to the ditTerent
predicate types co-occurring with de. The first row represents three ditTerent schemata
for de which I discussed in Chapter 4: dynamic, less-dynamic, and non-dynamic(adjectives, adjectival nouns, and nouns). I repeat the definitions of each categor>'.
(I) /DO/ verb in Japanese as defined by Jacobsen. These verbs are roughly equivalent to
Vendler's activity verbs, accomplishment verbs, and achievement verbs. Activity
verbs take a progressive reading with te ini. Achievement verbs show events thatare happening at a give point in time. Accomplishment verbs refer to the process that
leads to the endpoint when the action is completed. The existential verb which
denotes the existence of an event is included in this group.
(II) /HAPPEN/ verbs in Japanese as defined by Jacobson (non-agent predicates). Theseverbs are the equivalent of Vendler's category for some achievement andaccomplishment verbs. These types of verbs take only perfective meanings when
they are used with the nominative marker and with the aspectual marker le ini.
Prototypical passives are also included in this group.
(III) Noun phrases (with a copula) and adjective/adjectival nouns phrases fall into thisgroup. Adjectives and adjectival nouns in Japanese are equivalent to adjectives inEnglish. It is possible to put nouns and adjectives and adjectival nouns into one
group, because the time dimension is not profiled.
The second and third rows represent the occurrence of the thematic wa and thecontrastive wa, respectively. As a comparison, the distributional patterns of de from thesame written discourse discussed in 4.7.1. are included in the fifth row.

Table 5 4: Frequencies of Occurrences of Locative Postposition Jc Followed by
Thematic/Contrast Mar ver wa in Written Discourse
Nouns, adjectives, Total
Dynamic
Less-dynamic
andadjectival
predicatespredicatesnoun phrases
9
Thematic
11
32
12
Contrast
400
49(16.7%)
15
(50%)
36
(100%)Total
12 (33.3%)
Frequencies of

dewci
Total
Frequencies ofde

56 (73.3%)

14(16.3°b)8(10%)

SO (100%)

As described in Table 5.5, the majority of c/t'Ui/-marked locations in written
discourse occurs with less-dynamic predicates (50%). Some examples for Jc 'iia-marked
locations are presented in (5.27), (5.28), and (5.29).

(5.27)

gakkaidewa aiteni mo sarenai.
conference LOC TOP nobody has anything to do with you'In a conference I am ignored."[Murakami: 43](5.28) tengoku
dewa
iifuuRj ni
nar-eru.
heavenLOC TOP good couple become-can
Tn heaven they will be a good couple."(5.29) korekara no nihon
Future GEN JapandeLOC[Ekumi: 134]wa
bunkeinokatami wa
TOP humanity GEN position TOP

semakunaru
ippoo da yo.
become narrow only COP FL
in future Japan, the humanities position will become few." [Shiina: 22]

Dewa occurs with dynamic predicates (33.3%) and dewa occurs with nouns, adjectives,and adjectival noun phrases (16.7%). 1 would like to make two points from Table 5.5.
First, compared to the distributional patterns of de indicated in the fifth row, there is adifference in distributional patterns in de when used alone and when followed by waThat is, tiiere is a tendency for Jewa to occur with less dynamic predicates, a point towhich I return in section 5.5.

Second, ciewa co-occurring with dynamic predicates did

not mark a location contrastively at all in the data, which does not support McGloin'scontrastive hierarchy.
thematic continuum forin niwa

According to McGloin, there is a likelihood of a contrastive to

Wa in dcwa is more likely to be used as contrastive than wu

However, written discourse data do not provide any supporting evidence for

McGloin's hypothesis, since ur/ used with a locative ni (in my category, simple stative)
appeared contrastively and since wa used with a locative de (in my classification,
dynamic Je) was not used as a contrastive marker at all.

This counter-evidence for

McGloin's contrastive hierarchy may be due to the limited amount of data.
5.5. fVa and Schemata for de
In section 5.4. 1 reported that the data shows that de and dewa are ditTerent interms of the distribution patterns of predicates.

That is, in written discourse dcmi is

likely to co-occur with less dynamic predicates (48.6°o) rather than with dynamic
predicates {11%). I also found that dewa hardly occurs in the data of spoken discourse.
Based upon these findings, 1 stress the following three points:

1) the importance ofinvestigating natural discourse, 2) the motivation for exploring different schemata for^/c,and 3) the motivation for event setting schema of de.
First, I will review sentences from section 1.2. which suggest that the prototypicalsense of de might not be a dynamic sense (Morita 1987; Nakau 1995; Tanaka 1998;
Kumashiro, personal communication). Observe the following sentences (5.30) and (5.31),
which are both constructed sentences.

224(5.30)

Nihon dewa futtobooai wa
amari
ninki
ga
nai.
Nihon LOC TOP football
TOP very much polarity NOM
NEG"Football does not have much popularity in Japan."(Kumashiro, personal communication)(5.31)

Fujisawa dekono mise ga
ichiban umai.
Fujisavva LOC thisshop NOM best
tasty"This shop serves the best food in Fujisawa."(Tanaka 1998: 44)

In sentence (5.30), the non-dynamic predicate, amari ninki ^a nai, "not popular"
is used in conjunction with the c/f-marked location, Nihon de. Tn Japan".

In (5.31) the

adjectival phrase ichihan umai is used in conjunction with the c/c-marked location,
I 'ujisana de "In Fujisawa".

In Chapter 1, I suggested that sentence (5.30) might not be agood example to reject the dynamic sense of de because of the failure to examine what
the topic marker ua does in natural discourse.

Discourse analysis shows that de anddeua are ditVerent in terms of the distribution patterns in the co-occurring predicates.
This suggests that it is too simple to conclude that de and deua have the same functions.
Similarly, I pointed out that (5 31) might not be a good example to reject the dynamic
sense of de, since (5.31) is part of a specific construction, the superlative. The natural
discourse data has shown that this type of de did appear and it appeared only to a limited
degree. This suggests that there is a need for exploring the network model for de.
Notice that 1 have shown that there are three important characteristics of de anddewa distributions existing within the natural discourse data. That is, 1) de is capable ofmarking a wide range of predicates, 2) de frequently co-occurs with prototypicallydynamic predicates in both spoken and written discourse, and 3) dc^m and de are
ditTerent in terms of predicate types which co-occur in written discourse. Namely, dewa
is strongly associated with less-dynamic verbs, e.g. /HAPPEN/ types in Jacobsen"sterminology, whereas Jc as a locative postposition when not in combination with wa.
tends to co-occur with dynamic predicates in both spoken and written discourse.

These

findings suggest that it is an oversimplitlcation to position both de and dewa into one
category. This is a case that supports the semantic theory that the whole can be greaterthan the sum of the parts. Dewa is a construction of the postposition dc and the topic
marker ua. but it is much more than merely the combining of dc and wa. It creates its
own conventionalized unit of linguistic expression.
In Chapter 4, 1 proposed that de. has three different schemata: dynamic de, lessdynamic de, and non-dynamic de.

These different schemata allow us to give anappropriate account for different distributional patterns ofand dc.

Discourse

analysis reveals that there are different degrees in the locative phrases in topicalization.
One possible interpretation for this finding is that different schemata for de correspond todifferent degrees in topicalization.

Figure 5 2 illustrates the degree in topicalization

relative to the different schemata of de.

226

Ahstract space

Physical cihsiraci space

Physical space

Noun, Adjective
Nominal, Adjective

Less-dynamic
PredicateMore Dynamic
Predicate

•

Q -

p O-^

•
C= conceptualizer
Q -Less likely to
be topicalized<•More likely to
be topicalized^^

Less likely to
be topicalized

Fiuure 5.2: Deuree in Topicalization Relative to de and Imaue Schemata fort/c^

Although the model for the semantic network for cie and wa is a working
hypothesis, discourse analysis has shed light on the important aspect of the interaction
between the locative de and the topic marker wa. The semantic nature ofc/c and the topic
marker wa in the data are also consistent

with some observations on Ue from previous

studies. For instance. Nakau (1995) points out that Je marks very abstract space which
he refers to as psychological space. My network model for de accommodates his viewsince de has several schemata and these schemata vary in terms of degree of
topicalization and abstractness. Second, Kumashiro (2000) points out that the Jc-marked
location can refer to an abstract space (see sections 1.2.3 and 2.4 e.g. (1.42) Suisu de227

kokuscii kaigi ga yokii hirakarent.
Switzerland").

that international conferences are often held in

My network model for de is also compatible with his view on c/c.

I

adopted Kumashiro's locative setting schema by adding one more schema for de. fornouns, adjective nouns, and adjectives, by connecting them within the framework of the
network model for dc. Third, Tanaka points out that de used with adjectives is part of thesuperlative construction (cf (5.3) above), and suggests that it might not fit the dynamic
schema for tie. However, my network model accommodates the conditions of de as not
only dynamic but also inclusive of the less dynamic case.'"5.6. Sumniar\'
Although the number of occurrences of wci and the combination of the locative
postpositions ni de with wa are relatively small, discourse analysis shows several
insightful points on the relationship between the locative ni de and the topic marker wa.
First, the results from spoken discourse have shown that the frequent patterns

fn de-

marked locative phrases followed by the topic marker wa confirm Clancy and Downing's(1987) study that claim that the majority of ua occurrences in spoken discourse ischaracterized as locally (contrastively) motivated.

In this study, the primary function ofii«, constrastiveness, appears when used along vvith a locative expression and incombination with the locative postpositions, ni. This suggests that the function of na inspoken discourse is salient, regardless of the postpositions that may precede it.

Second,c/t'ira-marked locations rarely occur in the informal spoken discourse data. This implies" Anotlicr possibiIit\ for llic network model for cle is that de andI will lca\e tliis possibility for future research.

togetl\er miglit creaic another schema.

228

that Jewel might have a special status associated with a certain speech style which can be
accounted for by realizing that in spoken discourse a wider range of expressions may bepossible.
Third, my results confirm Maynard's (1980) claim that thematic

appears

frequently in written discourse: I found that thematic iic/, following the locative markers
ni and dc appeared frequently in written data in contrast to spoken data. Fourth, the mostinteresting fmding is that the distributional patterns oini dc followed by the topic marker
wa are different from those of ni de without following wa in terms of the predicate types
which are used with these postpositions.

The most frequent occurrence of niwa iscomplex stative marker (42%) as opposed to ni as complex stative marker (13.1°o)
When examining dc and dcmi, 1 found that dc when used alone occurs as a dynamic
marker 73° o of the time, whereas dcu a appears as a dynamic marker only 27% of thetime.

This raises an important issue of the investigation of the locative postpositions

within discourse, since it reveals complexities for analysis of the topic marker ii t/ and thefunctions which are carried out by the locative postpositions ni and dc.

in section 5.5, 1

argue that the results from the written discourse data clearly show that dc plays a role
which has a much greater range than can be relegated to one schema for dc.

229

CHAPTER 6
S UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1. Cognitive Grammar and Discourse Analysis
The major part of this study has focused on a cognitive analysis of the Japanese
locative postpositions /// and tie The question I asked at the beginning of this study is thefollowing: how do speakers of Japanese construe and express space by using the two
distinct postpositions ni and de'^ My tentative answer is that speakers of Japanese make achoice between ///-marked and t/c-marked locations in discourse, and that making thesemantic choice involves complex cognitive processes which are accounted for by myproposed network model for /// and Je

The conceptual domains reflecting a speaker's

choice between ni and de do not have a clear-cut distinction.

Rather, there is someoverlap between the semantic domains of these postpositions.

Based upon previous

Cognitive Grammar (CG) studies, 1 revised and proposed several schemata for /// and dewithin the Cognitive Network model: simple stative ///, complex stative ///. allati\e ///.
contact ///, dynamic de, less-dynamic de, andnon-dynamic de.

By evaluating the

Cognitive Network model with the natural discourse data, I argue that the CG approachprovides the most adequate account for the variability between ///-marked and d/f-marked
locations. By examining spoken and written discourse intensively, 1 suggested that there
are many ways to express locations other than ni de. This includes the usage of topic
marker ua, non-occurrence of the locative postposition, and alternative expressions
which represent the equivalent fijnctions to /// de in spoken discourse '' Altcrn;Ui\c c.xprcssions found in this study arc iic and iniiika.

230

In Chapter

1,ipresented an overview of descriptive studies/generative

approaches to these postpositions and pointed out that descriptive studies/generati\eapproaches are unlikely to provide a unified account for the variability and subtle
semantic distinction between ni and Jc in actual usage. 1 argued that CG theor\-. whose
theoretical assumption is that language mirrors human conception, provides an adequate
semantic account for the Japanese locative postpositions /// and dc.

I discussed five

major works related to this present study in the framework of CG: Kumashiro (IWa.
1994b, 2000), Kabata and Rice (1997), and Kabata (2000).

However, these studies do

not discuss the full range of locative usages of Jc. and these studies do not focus on thesubtle semantic difference between iii and c/e which appears in natural discourse. This
study aims to fill in the gap in CG studies and to provide a more complete semantic
analysis of the full usage of in and Je within the framework of CG by examining thenatural discourse data
In this study, I attempted to test Langacker's usage-based model that emphasizes
the actual use of linguistic e.xpressions and a speaker's knowledge of linguistic
conventions.

Throughout this study 1 have stressed the importance of using natural

language data, which few CG linguists have seriously employed at this point (cfBrugman 1981, Arnett 1995, Van Hoek 1995, Kabata 2000.) To test Langacker's usagebased model. 1 chose two different tvpes of discourse: informal spoken discourse andwritten discourse from novellas. Milroy and Milroy (1985) argue that spoken language
drastically diverges from novels, short stories, and written language, and Chafe (1994)
claims that spoken discourse reveals the more intricate connection between cognitive

processes and linguistic expressions. Based upon these two claims, I used two ditTerent
types of discourse to examine Langacker's usage-based model. An examination ot" twodifferent types of discourse might not be enough to make completely clear all of thesemantic structures of /// and de existing in a speaker's mind.

However. 1 strongly

believe that my approach to natural discourse has already yielded fruitful results
regarding the semantic and discourse natures of /// and c/c which could not been examined
in depth in other approaches.
In Chapter 2, I provided an overview of prototype theory and network models
which play a vital role in this study.

The basic assumption of Prototype Theory is thatcomplex linguistic expressions are likely to be polysemous, and the meanings should beorganized with respect to a prototype.

Following Geeraets's (1988, 1989) and Rice's(1996) approaches to prototype theory, among others. I examined both the type frequency
and the functions that the Japanese postpositions /// and Jc carry out in discourse with anemphasis on natural discourse, and proposed a network model for ni and c/c in the spatial
and temporal domains.
In the framework of CG. Kuniashiro (1994b) makes an important claim: inprofiles the dependent relationship, while c/c profiles the autonomous relationship.
Kabata (2000) claims that the diff'erence between ni and cic lies in the contingency ofverbs. That is, ni has more contingency with verbs, while Jc has less contingency withverbs. Both Kumashiro and Kabata propose a network model for the lexically complex
postposition ni: the former proposes a one-dimensional model and the latter proposes amulti-dimensional model.

Both claim that the prototypical meanings of the Japanesepostposition ni lie in the spatial domain, e.g. allative/goal and stative. Along the lines of
CG research, 1 stress that the notions of stative and process proposed by Langacker are
essential to the analysis of /// and ik. Particularly, 1 focus on Langacker's PERF. which"serves as changing a process into a state" an instrument for the analysis of the lessprototypical ni which co-occurs with less-stative verbs (in my categor%', "complex
stative"). Following Kabata (2000), I refined the network model for /// by adding a few
revisions to Kabata's model. For instance, my definitions of simple and comple.x stativeslightly diverge from Kabata's. To accommodate the less stative ni e g. some repetitiveand resultative constructions which co-occur with ///-marked locations. I employed abroader but more explicit schema for the complex stative niThis complex stative ni co-occurs with the aspectual markers -le irii and -ic am, and profiles the final stage of someseries of sequential states or re-profiles a repetitive process.
Previous studies (Morita 1987; \akau 1995. 1998; Tanaka 1997. Kumashiro.
personal communication) point out that the prototypical usage of iie might not be
dynamic, although the descriptive/pedagogical grammar (Kuno 1973, Jorden and Noda
1987, Makino and Tsutsui 1983) stress that the basic semantic characteristic of thelocation marker de is associated w ith dynamic predicates, action verbs, and event nouns
My solution to this problem in this study is to examine the usages in real discourse and to
propose schema for de broad and comprehensive enough to accommodate all locative
usages of de. The basis of my network model is Kumashiro (2000) who provides the deschema for the setting for the event."for dc.

I ) one1 refined his model by adding two more schemata

for "non-dynamic de'. which co-occurs with nouns, adjectives, andadjectival noun phrases, and 2) one for "dynamic de . which co-occurs with dynamic
predicates

Having two difterent schemata for dynamic and less-dynamic predicates, it

is possible to explain related phenomena such as the degree of topicalization andspeakers" choice between /// and de. 1 adopted Jacobsen's (1982) notion of transitivity
for classifying Japanese predicates co-occurring with t/f-marked locations.
This study addresses pragmatic and functional issues relevant to the natural
discourse data.

I discussed the topic/contrastive marker

e.x'pressions. both alone and following iii and dc.

MCI

used with locational

The interaction between the topic

marker/contrasive wa and other postpositions including locative postpositions has been
largely unexplored in previous research.

It is difficult to generalize some aspects ofinquiry in this study particularly with the lack of previous studies and with the small
number of relevant tokens found in this study. However. 1 argue that the different degreeof topicalization can be considered to be supporting evidence for ditTerent schemata fordc.

1 also examined the validity of McGloin's contrastive hierarchy in relation to the ///-

dc- marked locative nouns. The data did not support McGloin's hypothesis since thelocative nimi appeared

constrastively,

while thelocative dcua

was

not

used

contrastively at all. This is counter to her prediction that dcwa is used more contrastively
than niu a.

Since the number of occurrences is small, the results from this study are notconclusive.

" Kuniasiiiro's broader sclicma for setting c\ enis is basically eqiii\ alcnt to a schema for lcss-d\ nainic dc in6.2. Sunimnry of the Findings
6.2.1. Spoken Discourse

In the tbllowing sections. I provide summaries of tiie findings in terms of
discourse types.

Overall the results from spoken discourse ha\e provided supporting

evidence for the proposed network model for ni and Je and have revealed the complex
nature of spoken discourse data. That is, the most frequently appearing senses of/// inspoken discourse were prototypical usages of ///, simple (29%) and allative (52° o), as
Kabata and Rice (1994) and Kabata (2000) suggest.
I discussed two phenomena observed in the spoken corpus: the non-occurrence of
postpositions and the stage-setting construction. The former shows that the locative non­occurrences in informal conversation are unique to ni.

1 pointed out that two main

conditions related to non-occurrence are verb type (motion verbs) and discourse factors(reference establishment). 1 suggested that Ikegami's (1987) proposal which claims thatthe goal is more salient than the source is useful for explaining the non-occurrence of theallative marker in spoken conversation.

Although the number of relevant cases(indefinite/interrogative) is small, my findings also confirm Fujii and Ono's (2000)
research which demonstrated that a discourse factor, the establishment of referentiality indiscourse, is crucial for the non-occurrence of the accusative marker o.
Moreover, spoken discourse presents important aspects of the relationshipbetween the topic/contrastive marker u ci and the locative postpositions, ni and c/e. in spiteof the small numbers of occurrences of the topic marker \tc/ and the one used ininv siud\.

235

conjunction with /// and Je. The pattern of occurrences of ur/ in this study is consistent
with Clancy and Downing's (1987) study which claims that the majority of ua
occurrences used for discourse participants is characterized as locally (contrastively)
motivated in spoken discourse.
6.2,2. Written Discourse
Similar to spoken discourse, written discourse data provides supportive evidence
for the claim that the prototypical usages of /// in written discourse are the simple stative
marker (23%) and the allative marker (50%). These fmdings provide a strong basis forthe proposed Cognitive Network model. The results also show that Jc could co-occur inconjunction with a wide range of predicate types, including less-dynamic predicates,
nouns, adjectives, adjectival nouns, and the passive. My fmdings show that the locative
postposition Jc is most likely to co-occur with dynamic predicates (77%). I argued thatthe dynamic element of Je is merely symptomatic, underlying a dynamic/non-dynamic
continuum within a network model.
Particularly, there are many postural predicates such as suwaru "sit on" and laisu'stand' which are followed by the aspectual marker

tc irii in written discourse.

However, some of these cases are quite ambiguous, since they appear to co-occur witheither the simple stative or the contact markers depending on the context. The peculiarityof posture predicates has been pointed out by those linguists vvho have studied aspectual
systems such as Jacobson (1992), Smith (1983), and Talmy (2000).

Unlike spoken

discourse, postpositions were never omitted in the main text in the novellas and shortstories examined in this study.

Two cases of non-occurrence found in the written

236

discourse are of indefinite pronouns, which represent the typical case in spoken discourse.
Another interesting finding from written discourse is an example describing a writers"
choice between /// and de. I argued that the semantic choice between /// and dc is possible
only when the less dynamic predicate is used.

Furthermore. 1 pointed out that my

account of the choice between /// and dc is similar to Smith's (1983 ) argument regarding
non-standard aspectual choice in English. Smith proposes that speakers choose aspectual
meanings since they present situations from a certain point of view and events may bepresented as states and states as events. The results from written discourse are consonantwith Maynard's (1980) claims that the main function of ur/ in written discourse is as athematic marker. Comparing to the distributional patterns of nnva as opposed to ///. thehigh frequency of the complex stative ni was observed when it is used in conjunction
with \va. The function of niwa in written discourse is to provide detailed information on
the setting. Likewise, comparing to the distributional patterns

de\m as opposed to dc,

high frequency of less-dynamic of dc was found when it is followed by it c/. The mainfunction ofc/ciia is to provide detailed description about the setting which readers should
telescope into as the scene of ston,-.
6.3. Limitations of the Study
I briefly mention two limitations of this study. First, as stated in Chapter 5,
the numbers of occurrences of u'«, niwa and dcwa in the spoken discourse database andthe numbers of occurrences of mi and dcwa are small; therefore, it is ditTicuIt to make ageneralization about the nature of the topic/contrastive marker iiw in relation to thelocative postpositions, ni and dc. Future research based upon a larger database of natural

discourse will allow for a more thorough analysis of the topic marker wa used alone
following locative expressions and in combination with the locative postpositions ni anddc.

Second, the number of speakers in the spoken discourse database and the number ofauthors in the written discourse database might not be suftlcient enough to baseirrefutable claims on; therefore the variability appearing within individuals is a weaknessof this study. Despite these limitations, this study demonstrates the value of qualitative
analysis of the functions of the locative postpositions from a cognitive grammar approach.
6.4. Directions for Further Research
1 make three points regarding directions of further research.

First, the current

study has examined the usage of Japanese postpositions /// and dc as locative markers
since my focus is the investigation of the relationship between language and spatial
expressions in the framework of Cognitive Grammar. As stated in sections 4.1.2 and 4.2..
the usage of the Japanese postposition dc is not limited to locatixe marking.
severalsemantic

fijnctions: theinstrumental

marker, thecause/reason marker, the impersonal agent marker, etc.

material

De hasmarker,theSimilarly to the lexicallycomplex ni. which has been discussed widely, some usages ofc/c have a semantic overlap
with other postpositions (e.g. postposition kani "from" and postposition dc can be bothused as a material marker.).

Clearly, it will be worthwhile to explore a complete

cognitive network model for dc, not just in the spatial and temporal domains, but in all
semantic domains."^' Siigai's (1997) rcscarcli on ihc scniamic analysis of de is notcuorthy; howev er, it docs not pro\ idc a
network model and it docs not look at natural discourse data, either.

Second, 1 provided brief accounts for historical studies of ni and Je in section 2.8.
One of the accounts argues that ck is derived from a combination of the postposition ni
and a conjunctive form of an Old Japanese verb. This historical account of t/c could beconsidered as another justification for the dc schema co-occurrinu with dynamic
predicates in the proposed network model. That is. dc has a strong association withdynamic verbs examined in the data.

Furthermore, Mabuchi's (2000) study presentsinteresting aspects of diachronic changes of dc. e.g., changes from adjunctive use toargument use. A further direction of the application of CG will be to establish a networkmodel for de and test the network model with empirical evidence including historicaltexts and regional variations.
Last, but not least, I briefly make a mark on an application of the CG view to thefield of second language acquisition/language pedagogy.

In a paper titled"Somepedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics", Taylor (1993) advocates that many
aspects of cognitive linguistics can be of use to pedagogical grammar.

He states•"learning a foreign language will involve not only learning the forms of the language but
simultaneously learning the conceptual structures associated with these forms" (212). In
recent paper entitled "Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present
tense', Langacker (2001) suggests that a usage-based model has certain implications forlanguage pedagogy. Langacker (2001: 5) specifically states;"cognitive grammar is contextually grounded because all linguistic units are abstracted
from usage events, comprising the full contextual understanding of socially engaged
interlocutors with specific communicative objectives in connected discourse. ..Hence,
the usage-based perspective provides a theoretical underpinning for what we all know inpractical terms, namely the essential role of context and culture in language
understanding and language learning".

As Taylor and Langacker state, one of the strengths of applying the CG view to second
language acquisition and language pedagogy is the nature of explanation for linguistic
patterns emerging in learners in natural discourse data.

L2 learners" patterns vary andcould be drastically different from the LI patterns, but L2 patterns represent learners"
schemata which can be best accounted for in the framework of CG.

It is vital to apply

the CG approach for L2 acquisition research by examining L2 natural discourse datawhen researchers examine how L2 learners build up their schemata in the course oflearning language.

I will end this final chapter with a remark on the data from Rice

(1987: 2):". . .by widening the database beyond the traditionally examined sentences, the data gain alouder voice; they begin to speak for themselves rather than strictly through a theoreticaladvocate""

APPENDIX A: THE SEMANTIC EXTENSION OF .V/(Kumashiro 1994b: 432)oo =Atfoctcc

Xvti'f•<Attccfi'c-Actcr

O

h\p-KtfJ

O
-••o
I>

'

O

AcctK-Kcc

O
^
--•o

>

"

A

y

Aucn-

?nsNv*s,.ir[i\p«;ricnc>:r

•

o

'a

241

APPENDIX B; THE REVISED MODEL FOR LEXICAL REPRESENTATION OF NI(Kabata 2000:210)

1-3

Vj

at*

242

APPENDIX: C
LIST OF CONVERSATIONAL TRANSCRIPTS
1 Titlei TimeContent
1 .Hamada
7 min
Two male colleagues in a bar comment and complain
about their work and bosses.
2. Siblings| 3 min.
| A temale speaker visiting her friends in the U.S. talks
ii about her brother's pretty girlfriend.
3. Girl Friend
j 5 min.
{ A female speaker and a male speaker talk about the maleI
I speaker's girlfriend whom he left in Japan.
4. Misato
10 min. j A female speaker talks to two male friends about two
j high-school students whom she met in Shibuya during a! holiday week.
5. Politicsmm.
A male speaker and a female speaker in a car talk about
politics in medical school and graduate school.
6. Partv
4 min.
! Two female speakers talk about the party one of the
speakers attended that evening.
7. Raamen• 2 min.
A family (father, mother, and two daughters) and a maleguest talk about a Chinese-style noodle restaurant in
Tokvo.
->
8. VVakai
A family (father, mother, and two daughters) and malemm.
guest talk about photos of one of the daughters.
9. Fujikawa
2.5 min.
A male and a female friend in a coffee shop talk about the
male speaker's visit to the female speaker's house the10. Surprise

6 min.

11. Super
students
12. Oyania

3 min.

13 Tateyama

2 min.

14. Age
15. Bukatsu

3 min.
1 12 min.
56 sec.
2 min.
30 sec.
2 min.

16. Geshuku
17. Graduate
school18. Homeless
19 Creativity
20. Ojoosam

5 min.

7 min.
45 sec.
4 min.
9 min.
45 sec.

Two female speakers studying in the United States plan asurprise partv for their mutual Japanese friend.
A female and two male graduate students talk about astudent who was accepted by their program.
Two male colleagues talk about a ski trip that one of the
speakers took a few weeks before.
Four female speakers are at the beach. Two female
1 speakers talk about their children and husbands.
2 housewives and 3 single females talk about aging.
A male and female college students talk about the clubs! they joined in high school.
Two male students talk about the private rooming house inwhich one of the speakers lived.
Two female students talk about a graduate program towhich one of the female students applied.
A young couple and two females talk about homelesspeople in Japan.
A married couple talk about jobs and their house.
Three female students talk about a friend of the speakers
who was facing a problem with her parents.

243

21. Friends
22. Ryuugaku
23. Saikin no ko
24. Yoyaku
25. Yuinoouaeshi
26. Zeitaku
27. Ryokoo

3 min.
58 sec.
18 min.
3 sec.
7 min.

Five female speakers talk about school and their families.
Two female students who came to Tucson to study
English talk about their lives.
! Two males and one female talk about their experience
with the new ueneration.
Two females talk about a meeting place on the phone.

9 min.
30 sec.
2 min. 6 Two females and one male comment on an engagement
sec.
uift.
9 min.
^ Three females talk about luxurious life.
58 sec. !
6 min.
^ A married couple talk about the trips that one of the
speaker's friends made.

244

REFERENCES
Akiba-Reyolds, Katsue. 1984. Internal reconstruction in pre-Japanese syntax, 'trends in/ingiiisiic.s: historical syntax, ed. by Jacek Fisiak and Werner Winter, 1-23. Poznan,
Poland: Mouton Publishers.
Alfonso, Anthony 1974. Japanese lan^^iiagepatterns. Tokyo: Sophia University L. L.
Center of Applied Linguistics.
Anderson, John M 1971. The grammar of case: towards a loca/istic theory
Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge:

Arnett, Carlson L. 1995. The passive in German: the view from c(\i^nitive }^ramniar. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Michigan.
Berlin, Bent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Biber, Douglas 2000. Investigating language use through corpus-based analyses ofassociation patterns. I isa};e-ha.sed models of language, ed. by Suzanne Kemnier andMichael Barlow. 261-3 14. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bowerman, Melissa. 1994. Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive
predispositions play"^ Tattgttai^e acquisition, ed. by Paul Bloom, 329-363. Cambridge:
MIT Press
Brugman. Claudia. 1981. Stoty of over. Master thesis. University of California, Berkeley.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Bybee, Joan L. Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evohnion of }irammar:
Tense, a.spect. and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University ot
Chicago Press.
Bybee, Joan L. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects. BTS 23:378-88.
Bybee, Joan L. and Paul Hopper. 2001. J-reqiiency and the emer^^ence of lin^^iii.stic structure.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cafe, Wallace. \91Q. Meaning and the .striicture of kin^^uage. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
.1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chomsky, Norm. 1965. Aspect of the theoiy of .syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

245

1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English tmnsfonmuional grammar.
ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184-221. VValtham. MA:
Blaisdell.
Chomsky, Norm and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pallern of English. New York: Harperand Row.
Clancy, Patricia M. 1982. Written and spoken style in Japanese narratives. Spoken andwritten language: exploring orahty and literacy, ed. by Deborath Tannen. 55-76.
New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
1987 The acquisition of Japanese. The crossUnguistic study of language
accfiii.sition ed. by Slobin D. Isaac. 373-524. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Clancy, Patricia M. and Pamela Downing. 1987. The use o f a s a cohesion marker inJapanese oral narratives. Perspectives on lopicaiizaiion: The case of .Japanese 'wa'.
ed. by John Hinds, Senko Maynard. and Shoichi Iwasaki, 3-56. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Coleman. Linda and Paul Kav. 1981. Prototype semantics: the English word lie. Language
57: 26-44.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, Walter .A. 1989. Case grammar theoty. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories attdgrammatical relations. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Crystal. David. 1991. .4 Dictionaty of linguistics and phonettc.s. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1995. Family resemblance in the Dutch spatial prepositions door andlattgs. Cognitive Linguistics
183-207.
Delancy, Scott. 1981. .An Interpretation of split ergativity and related phenomena. Language
57: 626-57.
Dominiek, Sandra. 1998. What linguists can and can't tell you about the human mind: .A
reply to Croft. ( \>gnitive Linguistics 9' 361 -78.
Dominiek, Sandra and Sally Rice. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning:
mirroring whose mind—tlie linguist s or the language user's']' C\)gnitive Linguistics
6:89-130.

246

Dovvty, David. 1979 Word meaning and montagne grcmmiar Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1992. Case assignment to VP-adjoined positions: nominative objects inJapanese. I.i/igiiisiics 30. 873-910.
Du Bois, John VV'.. Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino 1993.
Outline of discourse transcription. Talking data Transcription and cording methods
for kingnage research, ed. by Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45-89
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural
language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case respond. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. byEmmond Back and Robert T. Harms, 1-81. New York: Holt, Rinehard. and Winston.
1975. .An .Alternative to checklist theories of meaning Bl.S\ : 123-31.
1977 jj-je case for case responded. Syntax and seimuitics S: Grammatical relations.
59-81, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock. New York: .'\cademic Press.

1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm. ed. by Linguistic Societyof Korea, 111-38. Seoul: Hanshin.
1988. The Mechanisms of constRiction grammar.

14: 35-55.

Fillmore, Charles J.. Paul Kay, and Catherine O'Konnor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity
in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501-38.
Fujii, Noriko and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2000. The occurrence and non-occurrence of the Japanese
direct object marker o in conversation. Studies in Language 24: 1-39.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1988. Where does prototypicality come from'!' Topics m co^/iitive
linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 207-29. .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1989. Introduction: prospects and problems of prototype theor>' Linguistics 27:
587-612.
1997 Diachronic prototype .semafitics: A contribution to historical lexicology.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Givon, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press
Goldburg, Adele, E. 1995. A Construction grcmmar approach to ctrgument structure
Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

247

Grimshaw, James and Armin Mester 1988. Light verbs and theta-marking. I.in^^iiistic
huiuiry 19: 205-32.
Haiman, John. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. Lin^^iia 50: 329-57.
Hashimoto, Shinkichi. 1969. Hcishimolo shinkichi hakase chosakushu: Jyo.s/ii jyodoshi nokcnkyn. jA study of panidcs and auxiliariesj. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Hawkins, Bruce. 1984. The semantics of T'.nghsh spatial prepositions Doctoral dissertation.
University of California, San Diego.
Herskovits, Annett. 1986. Langiia^^e and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hinds, John. 1981. Ellipsis in Japanese. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Ixut^ua^ie 56: 251-99.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. (iramimiticalizution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1999. Passives. An introduction to Japanese lin^^idstics, ed. by Natsuko
Tsujimura, 191-235. Maiden: Blackwell.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1987. "Source" vs. "goal": A case of linguistic dissymmetr\'. Conceptsof case. ed. bv Rene Dir\en and Gunter Radden, 122-46. Tubingen: Gunter Narr
V'erlag.
Israel, Michael, Christopher Johnson, and Patricia Brooks. 2000. From states to events: theacquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive [jnguistics 11: 103-29
Jacobsen, Wesley. 1977. Locatives and case marking in Japanese. The Chicago linguistic.society hooks of squihs with cumulative index
52-53. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
1981. Transitivity in the Japcutese verbal .system. Doctoral dissertation. Universityof Chicago. (Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1982).
1982a. The Multifaceted character of stativity in Japanese. On Japanese and how loteach it: In honor ofSeiichi Makino, ed. by Osamu Kamada and Wesley Jacobsen,
76-99. Tokyo: Japan Times.

248

1982b. Vendler's verb classes and the aspectual character of J a p a n e s e BI.S
8: 373-83.
1992. The transilivc structure of events m Japanese. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Jakendoff, Ray. 1983. Setnantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jorden, Eleanor H. and Mari Noda. 1987. Japanese: the spoken lan^iua^e. New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press.
Kabata. Karoi. 2000. Japanese ni: A eo^^nitive analysis of a lexically complex particle.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta.
Kabata. Kaori and Sally Rice. 1997 Japanese ni. The particulars of a somewhat contradictory'
particle. I.exical and syntactical constructio/is and the construction of meaning, ed.
by Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Lee. and Eve Sweetser, 109-27, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins
Kageyama, Taro. 1982. Word formation in Japanese. I.iiigna51.2\5-S^.
Kamio. Akira. 1980. Ni to de: nihongo ni okeru kuukan ichi no hyoogen. [Ni and de: spatial
expressions in Japanese]. Cjekkan Cjengo 9:55-63.
Katz, Jerrold J and Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. The staicture of a semantic theory I.anguage 39:
170-210.
Katz, Jerrold J. and Paul M. Postal. 1964. An Ititegrated theoty of linginstic descriptions.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Some universals of passives in universal grammar. Cf.S 11: 340-52.
Kemmer, Suzanne and Arie Verhagen. 1994. The grammar of causati\es and the conceptual
structure of events. (\)i^ntiive Lin^iinstics 5: 115-56.
Kindaichi, Haruhiko. 1950. [1976]. Kokugo dooshi no ichibunrui. [A classification ot
Japanese verbs]. Reprinted in Nihongo dooshi no asupekuto. [Aspect of Japaneseverbsj, ed. by Haruhiko Kindaichi, 5-26. Tokyo: Mugi shobokan.
Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo. [National Language Research institue]. 1951. Gendaigo no
joshi jodooshi [Particles and auxiliary verbs in Modern Japanese]. Tokyo.
Konoshima, Masatoshi. 1973. Kokugo Joshi no ketikyint /.4 study of Japanese partidesj.
Tokyo: Oohuusha.

249

Kumashiro, Toshiyuki. 1994a. How the goal can be the source: the semantics of theJapanese dative marker ni. The ni eniieth LAC7IS fonini 401 -17. Lake Bluff:
Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States.
1994b. On the conceptual definitions of adpositions and case markers: A case for theconceptual basis of syntax. CIS 1: 236-50.
2000. The concL-ptnal basis of ^ranvnar: .4 Coi^niiivc approach lo Japanese clausal
structure. Doctoral dissertation. University of California. San Diego.
Kunihiro, Testuya. 1967. Koozooteki imiron [ Structural SemanticsJ. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuno. Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese andEnglish. Linguistic IiK/uiry 2: 269-320.
1973. The structure of Japanese. Cambridge: MIT Press.
1976. Subject, theme and the speaker's empathy—A reexamination ofrelativization phenomena. Suhjecl and topic: A new typolo'^y of language, ed. byCharles N. Li and Sandra A. Thompson, 417-44. New York: Academic Press.
—

1983. Shin nihon hunpo kenkyn [A new study of Japanese graiiinuirf. Tokyo:
Taishukan.

Kuroda, Shigeyuki. 1965. (Jeneratire grammatical studies in the .Japanese language.
Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1972. The categorical and the thetic judgments: evidence from Japanese syntax.
T'oundation of Language 9: 153-85.
1990. The categorical and the thetic judgments reconsidered. Mind, meaning andmetaphysics: The Philosophy and theory of language of .Anton Marty, ed. by Kevin
Mulligan, 77-88. Dordrecht: Nihoff.
1992. .Japanese syntax and semantics, collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluvver.
Lakoff, George. 1987 Woman, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live hy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1982. Space grammar, analyzability, and the English passive.
[.anguage 58: 22-80.

250

1987a. I 'oii/icIcHion.s of co^nilive grammar. V'ol.l. Stanford: Stanford University
Press
1987b. Nouns and verbs. Ixtnguage 63: 53-94.
1990. Conccpl. ima<^L'. and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar
de Gruvter.

Berlin: Mouton

1991. l-'oiiiiJalions of cognitive grammar. Vol.2. Stanford: Stanford L'ni\ersity Press.
1992. Prepositions as urammatical(izing) elements I.euvense Bi/Jrageii 81: 287309.
1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Ijngmstics A. 1-38.
1997. A Dynamic account of grammatical function. Ilssays on language fiinciionand language type. ed. by Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, and Sandra A. Thompson.
249-73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1998. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. The New psychology oflanguage: cognitive andfunctional approaches to language structure, ed. b\'
Michael Tomasello. 1-39. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
1999. (Jrammar andconceptu/aization. Berlin: Mouton de Gaiyter.
—2000. A Dynamic usage-based model. Usage-based models of language, ed. by
Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer, 1-64. Stanford : CSLI Publications.

—2001. Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense.
Ap/)lied cognitive linguistics /: Theoiy and language acquisition. ed. by Martin
Piitz, Susanne Niemeier, and Rene Dirven, 3-39. Berlin: Mouton De Gniyter.

Lee, Jeong-Hwa. 1999. .4 (\)gnitive .semantic analysis of manipulative motion verbs inKorean with reference to English. Doctoral dissertation. Rice University.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1974. Historical change and word order: A casestudy in Chinese and its implications. Historical linguistics I: Syntax morphology,internal and comparative reconstruction, ed. by John M. Anderson and Charles
Jones, 199-218. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lindner, Susan. 198 I. .4 I.exico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions
with out and up. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.
Mabuchi, Yoko. 2000. Kakujoshi de no imikakuchoo ni kansuru ichikoosatsu. [A Case studyof semantic extension of particle de]. Kokugogaku 51:15-30.

251

Makino, Seiichi and Micho Tsutsui. 1986. A Dicfionaiy of basic Japanese grammar
Tokyo: Japan Times.
Masuda, Kyoko. 1999, Japanese postpositions ni and Je: Cognitive linguistic approach.
Poster presented at the 7'*' International Cognitive Linguistic Conference. Universityof Stockholm.
2000. The occurrence and non-occurrence of Japanese locative particles "ni" and"de" in conversation. Proceedings of the Third Anniial High Desert I.inguisttc Society
Conference. 85-92, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
2001. Ihe evidence from conversationfor a cognitive network model of Japanese
locative postpositions ni and de. Poster presented at the S"' International Cognitive
Linguistic Conference University of California, Santa Barbara.
Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988 Case deletion and discourse context, Papers from the Second
International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. Stanford: CSLl Publications
Matsuda, Kenjiroo 1996. I'ariahle zero-marking of (o) in Tokyo Japanese. Doctoral
dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1992. Japanese numeral classifiers: A study of semantic categories andlexical organization. Linguistics 3 1: 667-713.
Matsumura, Akira. 1971. Sihon humpoo daijiten. (A dictionaty oj Japanese grammarf
Tokyo: Meiji shoin.1989 Daijirin. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Matsuoka, Kazumi. 1998. The acquisition of Japanese case particles and the theory of casechecking. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A Reference grammar of Japanese. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle
Company. Inc.
Maynard, Senko K. 1980, Di.scourse functions of the Japanese theme marker u a. Doctoral
dissertation. Northwestern University.
,1987, Thematization as a staging device in the Japanese narrative, Per.spectives on
topicahzation: The case of Japanese '\va \ ed. by John Hinds, Senko Maynard, andShoichi Iwasaki. 57-82. .Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

252

McCavviey, James. D. 1990. In, into, and enter. JJcvclopme/it amidiwr.siiy
variation across time and space, ed. by Jerold A. Edmondson, Crawford Feagin,and Peter Miihlhausler. Texas; A Publication of the Summer Institute of Linguistics
and the University of Texas at Arlington.
iVIcGloin, Hanaoka. N. 1987. The role of tia in negation. Perspectives on topicalization: Thecase of Japanese '\\aed. by John Hinds, Senko Maynard, and Shoichi Iwasaki,
165-84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Miller, Roy A. 1969. I'he Japanese km^ua^e. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc.
Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in lan}^iui}^e. London: Routledue.
Miyagavva, Shigeru. 1987. Lexical categories in Japanese. /.///^'/«/ 73: 29-51.
1989 Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking in Japanese. New
York: Academic Press.
Morikawa, Hiromi. 1996. Acquisition of case inarkiii}^ and argument structures in Japanese.
Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Morita, Yoshiyuki. 1989. Ki.so nihon^o jBasic Japanesej. Tokyo: Kadokawa shoten.
Nakajima, Naoki and Masayoshi Sagawa. 1984. On subjectivization—A drastic
modification of Kuno's analysis. Descriptive and Applied I.ut^^uistics 17:103-15.
Nakau, Minoru 1994. Ninchi imiron no ^enri. [I'miciples of co^nnive semantics j. Tokyo:
Taishuukan.
1995a. Ni to de no sumiwake: nichiei no kuukan ninshiki no kata (1). [Distinction
between /// and de. Cognitive process for space in Japanese and English]. Ei^o .seinen
10: 20-22.

1995b. Ni e no ninchi tenkan: nichibei no kuukan ninshiki no kata (2). [Cognitive
shift toward ni Cognitive process for space in Japanese and English], hi^o seitten
11: 22-24.
1995c. Basho no ni to de: nichiei no kuukan ninshiki no kata (3) [Locative
postpositions ni and de. cognitive process for space in Japanese and English]. IJgo
seinen 14: 22-24.
1998. Kuukan to sonzai no koozoo [Constructions for space and existential].
Koohim toJishoo koozoo (Constructions and structures j, ed. by Minoru Nakau andSigeki Nishimura, 8-106. Tokyo: Kenkyuusha.
Noda, Hisashi. 1996. Wa to ^a. fWa and f^aj. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Numata, Yoshiko. 2000. E kaku oyobi ni kaku sootoo no mukakujoshi no hassei to tenkai
I The origin and ck'vclopmeiit of non-occurrcnce of.kipanesc postpositions e and nil.
Ktnikan/iyoo^rcn to hiinpoo I Spate and Cj tarnmar j. ed. by Saburo Aoki and Koichi
Takezavva, 51-75. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Sandra A. Thompson, and Ryoko Suzuki. 2000. The pragmatic nature of theso-called subject marker
in Japanese: evidence from conversation. Discourse
Studies 2: 35-64.
Perlmutter, David M. 1983. Studies in relational grammar I
Chicago Press.

Chicago: University ofRice, Sally. 1987 Towards a cogtufive model of transitivity. Doctoral dissertation.
University of California, San Diego.
1996 Prepositional prototypes. The Construal of space in language and thought.
ed. by Martin Piitz and Rene Dirven, 135-65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
1999. Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: the case o f a n d /w
in English. Brain and Language 68: 268-76.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal staicture of perceptual and semantic categories.
Cognitive developmenl and the acquisition of language, ed. by Moore E. Thimothy,111-44. New York: Academic Press.
- 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. .Journal of Experimental
Psychology 104: 192-233.
1977. Human categorization. Studies in cross-cultural psychology, ed. by Warren
Neil, 1-49. New York: Academic Press.
1978. Principles of categorization. Cognitive and categorizatiotr ed . by Eleanor
Rosch and Barabara B. Loyd, 27-47. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum Associates Associates
Publishers.
Rosch, Eleanor and Carolyn B. Merris. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal
structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573-605.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. 1988. Semantic e.xtensions into the domain of verbal
communication. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 50753. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sadakane, Kumi and Masatoshi Koizumi. 1995. On the nature of "dative" particle inJapanese. Linguistics 32. 5-33.

254

Saito, Mamonj. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese ami their theoretical imphcations.
Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sells. Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from lexical perspective, /.iiif^nistie
Inquiry 26: 277-25.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Lansiua^ie 53: 789809.
1978. Nihongo no hiinseki. [An analysis of Japanese lan^ua^ej. Tokyo:
Taishuukan.
1985. Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis. I.an^iia^^e 61: 82148.
1990. Ihe Lan^^ua^e of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1991. Grammaticization of topic into subject. Approach to (jrammatica/izalion,
Vol.2, ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, 92-133. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Taro Kageyama. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory ofgrammar: Postsyntactic compounds in Japanese, l.angua^e 64: 451-84.
Shirai, Yoshihiro. 1998. Where the progressive and the resultative meet: a typology ofimperfective morphology in Japanese. Korean. Chinese, and English. Studies in
I.an^iuti^e 22: 661-92.
Shirota, Shun. 1993, Bunpoo kaku to fukushi kaku. [Grammarical case and adverbial case].
Niho/i^o no kaku o megutte [On Japanese casej, ed. by Yoshio Nitta, 67-94 Tokyo:
Kuroshio.
Slobin, Issac. D. 1982. The origins of grammatical encoding of events. Syntax andsemantics 15: 409-22. New York: .'\cadeniic Press.
Smith, Carlota S. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. I.an^iua^^e 59: 479-501.
.1997. The parameter of aspect. 2'"* edition. Dordrecht: Kluvver.
Sugai, Kazumi. 1997. Kakujoshi de no imitokusei ni kansuai oboegaki. [Remarks on theJapanese instrumental case de]. The Journal of the / 'acuity of Letters 43: 23-40.
Nagoya, Japan: Nagoya University.

2000, Kakujoshi ni no imitokusei ni kansuai oboegaki. [Remarks on the Japanese
dative case ni], Hyogo I hiiversily of Teacher EJiiccition .Journal 20: 13-24. Hyogo.
Japan: Hyogo University of Teacher Education.
Svorou, Soteria. 1993. The grammar of space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Svveetser, Eve E. 1990. T'rom etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Takano. Shoji. 1998. A quantitative study of gender differences in the ellipsis of Japanesepostpositional particles -\ui and -ga: Gender composition as a constraint onvariability. Language I 'ariation and Change 10: 289-323.
Takeuchi, Lone. 1999. The structure and history of Japanese: from Yamatokoioha to
Nihongo. London: Longman.
Takezavva. Koichi. 1987. A Configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Washington.
1993. Secondar\'predication and locative/goal phrases. Japanese .sytua.v incomparative grammar. 45-77. ed. by Nobuko Hasegawa. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
-. 2000. Kuukanhyoogen no toogoron [Syntax of space], Kuukanhyoogett to hunpoof Space and Grammarf. ed, by Saburo Aoki and Koichi Takezawa, 163-214, Tokyo:
Kuroshio,
Talmy, Leonard, 1978, Figure and ground in complex sentence, Vniversais of humanlanguage, ed, by Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsick. 625-49,
Stanford: Stanford University Press,, 1985, Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms, (irammaticalcategories and the lexicon, ed, by Tim Shopen. 57-149 London: Cambridge
University Press,, 2000, Tomtrda cognitive .semantics. Vol,2,Cambridge: MIT Press,

Tanaka, Shigenori, 1997, Kuukan hyoopen no imi to kinoo, [Meanings and functions ofspatial words], Kuukcin to idoo no hyoogen f Words for space and motionj. ed. by
Nakau Minoaj, 1-62. Tokyo; Kenkyuusha,
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic calegorizalion: prototypes in linguistic iheoty. Oxford:
Clarendon Press
1993. Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. Conceptualizations
and meiualprocessing in language, ed. by Geiger A. Richard and Brygida RudzkaOstyn, 201-23. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

256

Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no shinuikkii.su to imi. [Syntax und semantics of Japanese j.
Vol.1. Tokyo: Kuroshio
Tomasell, Michael. 1992. I-'irst verbs:.-} Case study of early grammatical development
London: Cambridge University Press.
Tsohatzidis, Savas L. 1990 Meanings and prototypes: studies on li/igiusttc cate^iorization.
London: Routledge.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990. Ergativitv of nouns and case assignment. Linguistic hujutrv 21:
277-87.
Tsutusi, Michio. 1983. Ellipsis ofPapers m Japanese linguistics 9. 199-244.

Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 273-90.
Traugott, Elizabeth and Bernd Heine. 1991a. Approach togrammaticalization. Vol. 1.
Amsterdam: Benjamin.
1991b. Approach to grammaticalization, Vol.2. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Uehara, Satoshi. 1995. Syntactic categories in Japanese: A typological and cognitive
introduction. Doctoral dissertation. University of Vlichigan.
Ueno, Seiji. 1995. Locative/goal phrases in Japanese and conceptual structure. Proceedingsof the Nineteenth .Annual Meeting of Kansai Linguistic Society 15: 1-10
Van Hoek, Karen. 1995 Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account ofpronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71: 310-40.
1997. .Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vandeloie, Claude. 1990. Representation, prototypes, and centrality. Meanings andprototvpes: studies on linguistic categorization, ed. by Savas Tshohatzidis. London:
Routledge.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
VVashio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of
East Asian IJnguistics 6: 1-49
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The .semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

257

1990. "Prototypes save": on the uses and abuses of the notion of "prototype" inlinguistics and related fields. Meanings andprototypc.s: studies on lin}^iiisiic
cate^orizcuion, ed. by Savas Tashohatzidis, 347-67. London: Routledge.
Yamanashi, Masaaki. 1994. Nichijo gengo no ninchikaku moderu. [A cognitive model of
everyday language]. Gcn^^o] , 100-11.
2000. Ninchi }ien}fo};akit ^cnri. f '/'/ic principles of coffiiilivc lin^iiisiicsl. Tok\o:Kuroshio.

258[Data]
Aoki, Hiromi et. al. (to appear). Corpus of Convcrsattonal .kipancsc. Department of East
Asian Studies. University of Arizona.
S/iinchoo bunko no 100 satsu CD-ROM, 1995 Tokyo; NEC International
Ekunii, Kaori. 1990. Koahashii hihi. Tokyo; Sliinchoo bunko.
Shima, Yoko. 1990. Buibooi;usa. Tokyo; Shinchoo bunko.
Yoshimoto. Banana. 1988. Kitchcn. Tokyo; Fukutake shoten.