Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese

MATELA, Jiří. Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese. In Iaponica Brunensia 2019. 2019.

Basic information

• Original name: Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese
• Name in Czech: K empirickému výzkumu "ontologické" povahy moderní japonštiny
• Name (in English): Toward empirical study of the “ontological” character of modern Japanese
• Authors: MATELA, Jiří.
• Edition: Iaponica Brunensia 2019, 2019.

Other information

• Original language: Japanese
• Type of outcome: Presentations at conferences
• Field of Study: 60202 Specific languages
• Country of publisher: Czech Republic
• Confidentiality degree: is not subject to a state or trade secret
• Organization unit: Faculty of Arts
• Keywords (in Czech): japonština; čeština; gramatika; typologie; kontrastivní lingvistika
• Keywords in English: Japanese; Czech; grammar; typology; contrastive linguistics

Abstract

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.

Abstract (in Czech)

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.

Abstract (in English)

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.