2019
Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese
MATELA, JiříZákladní údaje
Originální název
Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese
Název česky
K empirickému výzkumu "ontologické" povahy moderní japonštiny
Název anglicky
Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese
Autoři
Vydání
Iaponica Brunensia 2019, 2019
Další údaje
Jazyk
japonština
Typ výsledku
Prezentace na konferencích
Obor
60202 Specific languages
Stát vydavatele
Česká republika
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Organizační jednotka
Filozofická fakulta
Klíčová slova česky
japonština; čeština; gramatika; typologie; kontrastivní lingvistika
Klíčová slova anglicky
Japanese; Czech; grammar; typology; contrastive linguistics
Změněno: 22. 9. 2019 10:53, Mgr. Jiří Matela, M.A., Ph.D.
V originále
The so called “individualizing” linguistic typology – classified as “cognitive typology” by Pardeshi & Horie 2009 – has been characterizing the Japanese language as a BECOME-type of language, in contrast to a DO-type of languages (such as English). Although the idea has been present within the Japanese linguistics since at least Teramura (1976), it was mainly due to Yoshihiko Ikegami’s seminal work (1981) that the “ontological” character of Japanese gained attention throughout the various linguistic or philological frameworks (see e.g. Haga 2004 for kokugogaku, Kanaya 2003 for nihongogaku and others). Despite its popularity, the typological classification of Japanese as a BECOME-language is far from being uncontroversial, as it has been criticized (although on different grounds) by Takebayashi (2008), Noda (2015) and others. The present paper sees the sources of the aforementioned controversy in the lack of unified, systematic and empirically verifiable criteria for classifying a language as displaying either “ontological” (BECOME) or “processual” (DO) orientation. It presents perspective of a functional “text-based” typology with the use of Czech and Japanese corpus data, suggesting that the “cognitive type” of a language is to be identified in a concrete text, rather than in a speaker’s general linguistic knowledge.
Česky
Tzv. "individualizující" jazyková typologie (klasifikována jako "kognitivní typologie" Pardeshim a Horiem 2009) klasifikuje japonštinu jako jazyk typu NASTANE (ontologický) v kontrastu k jazykům typu DĚLÁ (procesní, např. angličtina). Ačkoliv tato idea je v japonské lingvistice přítomná přinejmenším počínaje Teramurou (1976), jejím hlavním propagátorem je Ikegami (1981). Navzdory popularitě, kterou si zmíněná teorie získala, existují také kritické názory (např. Takebajaši 2008, Noda 2015 aj.). Tento příspěvek si klade za cíl představit problémy ontologické vs. procesní typologie, především jako problém v nedostatečném vymezení konkrétních konstrukčních typů, a současně má za cíl představit empiricky (především na korpusových datech) založený přístup ke kognitivní typologii.
Anglicky
The so called “individualizing” linguistic typology – classified as “cognitive typology” by Pardeshi & Horie 2009 – has been characterizing the Japanese language as a BECOME-type of language, in contrast to a DO-type of languages (such as English). Although the idea has been present within the Japanese linguistics since at least Teramura (1976), it was mainly due to Yoshihiko Ikegami’s seminal work (1981) that the “ontological” character of Japanese gained attention throughout the various linguistic or philological frameworks (see e.g. Haga 2004 for kokugogaku, Kanaya 2003 for nihongogaku and others). Despite its popularity, the typological classification of Japanese as a BECOME-language is far from being uncontroversial, as it has been criticized (although on different grounds) by Takebayashi (2008), Noda (2015) and others. The present paper sees the sources of the aforementioned controversy in the lack of unified, systematic and empirically verifiable criteria for classifying a language as displaying either “ontological” (BECOME) or “processual” (DO) orientation. It presents perspective of a functional “text-based” typology with the use of Czech and Japanese corpus data, suggesting that the “cognitive type” of a language is to be identified in a concrete text, rather than in a speaker’s general linguistic knowledge.