Journal of Universal Language

Sejong University Language Research Institue

J. Univers. Lang. 2005; 6(2):117-153

pISSN: 1598-6381

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2005.6.2.117

Article

Desideratives and Person: Constructing a Semantic Map

Toshihiro Sugawara¹

¹University of Manitoba

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

>This paper examines the implications of grammatical person for desiderative constructions from a cross-linguistic perspective. It is widely known that some grammatical systems in a language, such as pronoun systems, number distinction, and case marking systems, are sensitive to person differences. In this study, in addition to such grammatical systems, it was found that grammatical person also affects the form of desiderative constructions in several languages. In languages such as Japanese, Korean, Hua, and Cocopa, the form of desiderative construction with third person subject is somewhat differently constructed from that with first/second person subject. Also, in Samoan, the first and second person singular clitics are treated differently from the other person/ number clitics in desiderative constructions. In addition, it was found in Tagalog that the third person pronoun shows a different pattern regarding the use of enclitic sana from lexical nouns and other person pronouns. In order to capture the phenomena found in these languages, then, a semantic map model is adopted in this study, and a conceptual space is proposed for desideratives within which the distinctions found in this study are represented.

Keywords: desiderative; person; animacy hierarchy; semantic map; conceptual space

References

Anderson, L. 1982. The 'Perfect' as a Universal and as a Language- Particular Category. In P. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics 227-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Aoki, H. 1986. Evidentials in Japanese. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology 223-38. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Chung, S. 1978. Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian. Austin, TX & London: University of Texas Press.

Comrie, B. 1983. Switch-Reference in Huichol: A Typological Study. In J. Haiman & P. Munro (eds.), Switch-reference and Universal Grammar 17-37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd Edition). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Corbett, G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crawford, M. 1989. Cocopa Dictionary. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croft, W. 2003. Typology and Universals (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, R. 1979. Ergativity. Language. 55, 59-138.

10.

Duranti, A. 1981. The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

11.

Givón, T. (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

12.

Givón, T. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction 1 (Revised Edition). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

13.

Gorbet, L. 1998. Subjectivity and Variation in Desiderative Constructions of Diegueño and Cocopa. In L. Hinton & P. Munro (eds.), Studies in American Indian Languages: Description and Theory 10-15. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

14.

Haiman, J. 1980. Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

15.

Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Haspelmath, M. 2003. The Geometry of Grammatical Meaning: Semantic Maps and Cross-Linguistic Comparison. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language 2, 211-42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

17.

Im, H., G. Hong, & S. Jang. 1989. Gaikokujin no Tame no Kankokugo Bunpou [A Korean Grammar for Foreigners]. Seoul: Yeonse Daehakgyo Chulpanbu.

18.

Iwasaki, S. 2002. Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

19.

Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

20.

Martin, E. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.

21.

Martin, E. 1992. A Reference Grammar of Korean. Rutland, VT & Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

22.

Matras, Y. 1997. Clause Combining, Ergativity, and Coreferent Deletion in Kurmanji. Studies in Language 21, 613-53.

23.

Mithun, M. 1994. The Implications of Ergativity for a Philippine Voice System. In B. Fox & P. Hopper (eds.), Voice, Form, and Function 247-277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

24.

Mosel, U. & E. Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

25.

Nihongokyoikugakkai (ed.). 1982. Nihongokyoikujiten [A Dictionary of Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language]. Tokyo: Taishukan.

26.

Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description II: Complex Constructions 42-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Schachter, P. & F. Otanes. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

28.

Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity. In R. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.