Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 38:4 (2014) ► pp.752–791

Investigating the transitive and intransitive constructions in English and Japanese

A quantitative study

| Hong Kong Institute of Education
Previous research has suggested that languages differ in terms of how much prominence is given to the agent. Namely, English prefers to give prominence to a human agent, whereas Japanese prefers to suppress the human agent and express events as if they happen spontaneously (e.g., Ikegami 1981). By using a Japanese novel and its English translation as a parallel corpus, this paper shows quantitatively that Japanese uses more intransitive constructions than English. Using Hopper & Thompson’s (1980) parameters to measure semantic transitivity, this paper also shows that the difference in intransitive constructions was only observed in low semantic transitivity events, whereas both languages exhibit similar trends for high semantic transitivity events. An analysis under the framework of Construction Grammar suggests that the Japanese intransitive construction covers a space in a semantic map which would be occupied by the transitive and adjectival constructions in English.
Keywords: transitive, intransitive, Japanese, English, frequency, Construction Grammar
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.04luk
References (36)
Alfonso, Anthony. 1966. Japanese language patterns. Tokyo: Sophia University L. L. Center of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Savas L. Tsohatsidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Scott. 2011. Semantics of case. Morphology 21(3-4). 515–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–119. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyaci. 2014. Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics, 50(3), 587–625. DOI logo
Higashinaka, Ryuichiro, Marilyn A. Walker & Rashmi Prasad. 2007. An unsupervised method for learning generation dictionaries from spoken dialogue systems by mining user reviews. ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing 4(4). No. 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinds, John. 1986. Situation vs. person focus. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku [The Linguistics of “Do” and “Become”]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
. 1991. ‘DO-language’ and ‘BECOME-language’: Two contrasting types of linguistic representation. In Yoshihiko Ikegami (ed.), The empire of signs: Semiotic essays on Japanese culture, 285–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, Wesley. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Noriko. 1996. Sōtaijidōshi ni yoru kekka/jōtai no hyōgen – nihongo gakushūsha no shūtoku jōkyō [The expression of resultative state with paired intransitive verbs in Japanese]. Bungen Gengo Kenkyū/gengo Hen 291. 41–59.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Dōshi imiron: Gengo to ninchi no setten. [The semantics of verbs: the intersection of language and cognition]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Evidence for Subject Raising in Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 1(1). 24–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Mengistu Amberer & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for cases, 73–118. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayes, Patricia. 2003. Language, social structure, and culture: A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela. 1982. On the transitivity of ‘say’ verbs. Syntax and Semantics 151. 301–318.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, David A. Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8(2). 149–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pardeshi, Prashant. 2008. No smoke without fire: Invisible agent constructions in South Asian languages. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Annual review of South Asian languages and linguistics, 63–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 41. 157–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shirai, Yasuhiro, & Yumiko Nishi. 2002. Lexicalisation of aspectual structures in English and Japanese. In A. Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 267–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–220. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón, 437–467. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Relating narratives events in translation. In Dorit D. Ravid & Hava B. Shyldkrot (eds.), Perspectives on language and language development: Essays in honor of Ruth. A. Berman, 115–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Liesbeth Degand. 2010. Coding coherence relations: Reliability and validity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 241–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19(5-6). 389–438.Google Scholar
. 1985. Remarks on Transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21(2). 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ueno, Mieko & Maria Polinsky. 2009. Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45(3). 675–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valin, Robert D. van Jr. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66(2). 221–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshimoto, Banana. 1988. Kitchin [Kitchen]. Tokyo: Fukutake Shoten.Google Scholar
. 1993. Kitchen. Translated by Megan Backus. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Hahn, Michael & Yang Xu
2022. Crosslinguistic word order variation reflects evolutionary pressures of dependency and information locality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119:24 DOI logo
Luk, Zoe Pei-sui
2022. The relationship between verb meaning and argument realization: What we learn from the processing of agent-implying intransitive verbs in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Park, Hae In
2022. The Role of Language in Expressing Agentivity in Caused Motion Events: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.