Remarks on realisational differences of cognitive experiences between English and Japanese : the Kyoto grammar analysis
著者（英） Toru Fujita
journal or
publication title
Core
number 38
page range 47‑69
year 2009‑03‑13
URL http://doi.org/10.14988/pa.2017.0000015152
Core
Vo .l38 March 2009
R e r n a r k s on R e a l i s a t i o n a l D i f f e r e n c e s o f C o g n i t i v e E x p e r i e n c e s between E n g l i s h and
J a p a n e s e : The Kyoto Grarnmar A n a l y s i s
ToruF 吋 i
句1. Introduction
It has been a controversial problem in Iinguistics whether there i8 som巴
universaiIty in aII the languages of the world. Some linguists suggest the universality of languages， whil巴othersmaintain that languages are mor巴diversifiedconstructs， 80 that the evidence oftheir similarity is scarce.
In this regardヨthispaper is aimed at noting the different natures of mental experiences in English and Japanese， especially focusing on their relationships to aspectual meanings. It will be shown
仕
mteven a pair of the experiences that se巴mto share the sam巴meaningsin both languages should not be treated identically， but it is necessary to treat仕
letwo similar but different experiences in different languages within the system specific to the language in question. In order to approach this point， the linguistic framework called Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) appears on巴ofthemost appropriate theories to incorporate different languages.It is almost unarguable that human languag巴shave undergone many linguistic analyses through equally many different approaches to the language. Thes巴different approaches are often referred to as the frameworks for linguistic analyses， within which various analyses can be conducted to explain the nature of language. Each of
47
4s Core
社
le企ameworksis meant to reflect the differ巴ntideas of each advocator， which may be considerably di島 問
ntfrom a linguist to another.One of these frameworks， advocated by M. A. K. Halliday， is SFL， which is a comprehensive theory of linguistics designed for analysing the functions of languages within their societies. The works in the whole fram巴workof SFL， as Fawcett (2000) suggests， can be classified into two distinct strands of theory and description. Th巴th巴or巴ticalpart of SFL is called grammatics， which is the theory for constructing a grammar for a particular language. The grammatics includes several essential concepts in SFL， such as metafunction， stratification， realisations， syst巴m， and so forth， which wi11 be cov巴redbriefly in the fol1owing sections.
Utilising these conc
叩
tsof grammatics， the analyses of each language can be described， which leads to the functional grammar巴special1yfor a particular language. The grammar for each language is considered to be distinctive from that ofanoth巴r，since they are regarded as the r・ealisationsof different cultures. This can be demonstrat巴dby that th巴Japaneselanguage may have a different grammar from English， as the飢 10languages have be巴ncultivated in different societies from each other. This is why it is natural that different languages exhibit diffl巴rentdescriptions according to their cultures.Thus， SFL attempts to provide the analyses of language through th巴two distinctive but related means: theory and description. The theory of SFL stipulates the fundam巴ntalnatur巴sof language， while the descriptive part gives each language themor巴concretegrammar to analyse realistic texts.
Accordingly， this paper wi11 maintain that there should be significant differences
Remarks on RIωlisational DifferencωofCogniti刊Experiencesbetween English and Japanese: The Kyoto Gr加1lllarAnalysis 49
between English and Japanese in consideration of the functions they can realis巴.
The discussion will mainly focus on the analyses of the meaning called ideational metafunction， especially on the strategies by which the psychological states 紅 白
conveyed through language. The realisations of mental actions in Japanese can be achieved through a distinct approach from that in English， so that the difference should be clarified. From the depiction of the difference， it can be claimed that the two languages are rooted in different syst巴ms，where the whole potentials of the languag巴isillustrated.
In order to argue the above point， the n巴xtsection will provide a brief overview of various concepts in SFL， fol1owed by the analys巴sof English mental claus巴s suggested by Hal1iday and Matthiess巴n(2004). This wil1 allow further discussion of the similar meanings in Japaneseラsothat the differences in the realisations of a m巴aningwill b巴clarified.The existence of some difference strongly supports the need for the grammar particular to the language in question， which in the case of Japanese is the Kyoto Grammar. Finally， the paper will point out that although there may seem little distinction between languages， the closer look at the differences wiIl raise the need for th巴significantlydifferent grammar for a particular language.
2. EnglishAnalysωinSFL
As mentioned above， it is necessary to pr己:sentseveral concepts of SFL in ord巴rto precis巴lydiscuss th巴 伽lctionaldistinctions between languages. For this purpose， this section will give two materials: theoretical bases of SFL and the descriptive grammar for English. As the theoretical basesラtheconcepts required for the discussion in this
50 Core
paper will be explained. This will be fol1owed by the current analyses of English， a particular language， with a special focus on the ideational metafunction.
2.1. An overview ofSFL
As Halliday (l994a) maintains， it is quit巴adifficult task to give a concise reference to SFL， since the concepts ar巴stronglytied to one another. Although they form an inseparable whole， explanation of each concept must be taken on巴byone，
80 that each of the essential parts wi11 be surveyed belowヲsuchas stratification， realisation， metafunction， and system.
Stratification in the framework of SFL states not only the stratified organisation of language but also the position of language within the society where it is utilised. As HalIiday (l994a， etc.) claims， language is always utilised within its context， which may be both the culture of the socie句ror the immediate siωations. The context， that is， various situations where language is us巴d，can be transformed into more concret巴
forms， in order to contribute to the human communication. The relationship of som巴
abstract situation (e.g.， context) being expressed by more embodied form (e.g.， clauses) is referred to as r巴alisation.
The realisation in human communication can be illustrated by th巴stratifiedna旬.re of language， which contains thr白 蛇ataof semantics， lexicogrammar， and phonology or graphology. Before a text is actually utt巴red，there should be the context where the text is taking plac巴.This context can be convey巴dbyth巴speakerto the listener in the form of semantics， which is the result of context through the process of rea1isation.
The semantics or the meaning of language can be realised more concretely by vocabulary and grammarヲwhichare simu1taneously referred to as the lexicogrammar.
Remarks on Realisational Differences of Cognitive Experiences between English and Japanese百eKyoωGramm町Analysis 51
As Halliday and Matthi巴ssen(2004) suggest， 1巴xiconand grammar cannot b巴
considered to be separate components， but their border is thought to be indefinite， forming a continuum. In this continuum， lexicon is regarded as those representing more concr巴temeanings， while grammar or syntax plays the rol巴ofexpressing more general meaning. In this way， semantics of language can be embodied by lexicogrammar through realisation.
Lexicogrammar of language can be a180 realised by what is considered to be the most concrete form of languageラthatis， phonology or graphology. Only in these physical forms， language can be utilised to be able to successfully convey the meaning (i.e吋 semantics)occurring in th巴context.
Furthermore， SFL considers the semantics to be separated into three different meanings simultaneously realised in turn by th巴correspondingstructures. Th巴se three meanings ar巴calI巴dthe metafunctions of language， which are ideational， interpersonal， and textual metafunctions. Ideational metafunction construes the rea1ity or experienc巴ofthe speakers， which can be illustrated by what is done by who or what happened. Interpersonal metafunction states the expectation or巴motion of speakers， such as th巴speechfunction or modalities. Lastly， textual metafunction is meant to reflect the m巴aningth巴organisationas a text， such as cohesiv巴
relations， emphases in a text， and so on. The8e metafunctions are consid巴redto be simultaneously functioning at any use in any language.
It is important to remember that the meta
伽
lctionsof language are in the昨atum of semantics， 80 that they can be realised in the level of lexicogrammar. Th巴lexicogrammatical structures corresponding to ideational， interpersonal， and textual
52 Core
m巴tafunctionsare call巴dtransitivity， moo ，dand theme， respectively.
Note that although， as mentioned above， these metafunctions and structures of language are simultan巴ouslyrealised in each stratum， the analyses of them has to be taken one by one. This is due to th巴humanability， which only allows the analysis of one thing at the same time. Moreover， the following discussion will have to be constrained to the ideational metafunction and transitivity struc旬re，as th巴aimof this paper is to show the differences in the realisation of ideational metafunction betw閃nthe two languages
Another significant concept of SFL is regarded as system of language， as the name ofth巴 企ameworkimplies. SFL considers language to be able to provide the sp巴aker with the options for what to mean with the language. These options， called meaning potentialsラcanb巴describedby th巴formof the system， which shows the entry condition such as佐ansitivityand the choices availabl巴atthe situation. Through th巴
description ofth巴possiblemeanings， a language can be investigated as to what it can mean and what it cannot mean.
Utilising thes巴conceptsthat are considered to be available in any language， such as stratification， realisation， metafunction， and systems， the grannnar for a particular language can be constructed. The particular grammar can be characterised by th巴
systems for each of the three metafunctions， with th巴specificationsof how the meanings in the systems can be realis巴din the lexicogrammar.
2.2. Process砂'Pesand their realisations in English
The above discussion has briefly shown the theoretical part of SFLラwhichare the bases for the descriptions of particular languages. One of the most developed
Remarks on Realisational Di能町lceSof Cognitive Experiences between English and Japanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 53
grammars within the SFL framework is regarded as that of English present巴din HalIiday and Matthiessen (2004). This grammar， calIed by Fawcett (2000) the Sydney Grammar for the place it has b巴encultivate ，dcomprehensively describes the functions in the English clauses. It se巴msnecessary to note that the unit of the analysis is not sentences but clauses， as the sentence is a unit in writing， being inappropriate for the analyses of both writing and speech. The analyses of English clauses， especially of ideational metafunction， will be considered below
The ideational metafunction of English is considered to be realised in the transitivity structure within th巴levelof clause. The transitivity of English is thought to be constituted of sev巴ralfunctioning elem巴ntsas Processesヲparticipantsタand Circumstances.1
Process of a clause is usually realised by th巴verb，which indicates the most part of what is told to be happening in the clause. As the Process is thought to be the element in a clause， it is regarded as realising particular ideational meaning. The meaning realised by the Proc巴ssis referred to as the process2 of the clause， which
巴ncodeswhat is happening or what is done. The Sydney Grammar propos巴sthat th巴processin English has six choices， which are considered to be the six proc巴S8
types. These process types are material， behavioural， mental， verbal， relational， and existential processes. The six process types are described as the primary choice of proc巴ss勿pes，as illustrated below:
54
PROCESS TYPE
Core
material behavioural mental verbal relational existential
Figure 1: Process砂peSystem in English (Halliday and Mαtthiessen， 2004) The syst巴m in Figure 1 shows that the proc巴sstype of English has six distinctive choices， one of which must be chosen for any Process in an Eng1ish clause. Although ther巴appearto be six choices in the English process types， only two of these (i.巴.， material and mental) that exhibit a clear contrast will be covered belmらえas the other types do not contribute to the following discussion of this short paper，巴venthough they should b巴consideredequally significant as a whole.
Material process in English is treated as expressing the physical concrete actions， which include， for example， reading， running， exploding， to name a few. The clauses， such as He is reading a boo ，kMyfather is runnin ，gor The bomb isιτ:ploding， are int巴rpretedas realising material proc巴sses，by the function of Process巴s，is reading， is running， and isω:ploding， respectively. These clauses typically demonstrat芯the meaning of material processes， which entail the concr巴teactlOns.
One of the important characteristics of material process d巴scribedby Hal1iday andMa地iessen(200
の
isits unmarked use of present in present3 form to represe凶Remarks on Realisational Diffl紅 白 閃Sof Cognitive Experiences between Engl日h剖ldJapanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 55
the present actions. It is inappropriate to use the simple present form (i.e.， The bomb explodes)， when someone sees a loud explosion in front. For this reason， the present in present form is regarded as the unmarked choice for material process.
In contrast with material process， mental process is used to expr巴ssthe psychological actions of human beings， such as knowing， liking， and hearing. Mental process， following Eggins' (2004) analysis， has furth巴rchoices of cognition， affection， and perception. The cognitive mental process is represented by the cognitive actions in a clause， such as 1 know the person well. Affection can be expressed by the clause as 1 like the person， while an example of perceptive mental clauses may be 1 hear the voice
0 /
the person.The contrastive characteristic of mental process with regard to material one is that the present mental actions can be encoded by the use of simple present formラas exemplified above. This leads to the analyses in which 1 am knowing the person is inappropriate for someone to declare that he at th巴timehas good information on the person in question. Instea ，dthis clause may be interpreted as he is starting to obtain the information about the person little by little， which is considerably different from the original clause.
Thus， the contrast between material and menta1 processes becomes considerably obvious， in that they employ different tense forms to state the current actions， as well as the句rpesof processes. This clear contrast can be thought of as the characteristic fea旬reof English， when it is analysed in terms of id巴ationalmetafunction.
One thing
仕
latrequires sp巴cialnote is that although the above discussion focused on the tense forms that accompany the process types， it is not the form but the56 Core
白
nctionor meaning that plays a significant role in SFL. Because SFL attempts to construct the syst巴mof meaning potentials， ther巴isnot good evidence that the choice of process typ巳(i.e.，meaning) is direct1y related to the choice of th巴tenseforms. For this reason， it may be insufficient to state that material process巴sare strongly tied with the pr巴sentin present forms， and mental processes simple present forms. It is， however， important to have in mind that it is the meaning represented by the present in present form that has some relationship with mat巴rialprocesses. M巴ntalprocesses， on the other handラcanbe regarded as related in the unmarked situation with not the form but the tense meaning of simple present. Accordinglyラ，whatis analysed in the grammar within the f切
meworkof SFL is regarded as the meaning that the clause expresses in terms of three simu1taneous metafunctions.It has been explained in this section that SFL provides dif:fi巴rentconcepts， for the investigation of a particular language to be able to b巴conductedproperly. Th巴se concepts include stratification， realisation， metafunction， syst巴ms，and so forth， which can be employed in the study of the Sydney Grammar. In this grammar， especia1ly for the ideational metafunction， process types have six choic巴s，two of which have been described to exhibit clear con仕astwith each other， that is， both in theproc巴ssesand the choices oftense.
3. JapaneseAnaly附 Contrastedwith English
The above section has given a very brief overview of SFL follow巴dby the analys巴S
ofproc巴sstypes in English by the Sydney Grammar. This s巴ction，on the other han ，d will give the analyses of the Japanese language with reference to th巴KyotoGrammar
Remarks on Realisational Differences of C口gnitiveExperiences between English and Japanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 57
approach. The Kyoto Grammar， along with the Sydn巴yGrammar， attempts to construct a grammar for the particular language， that is， Japanese. This grammar has been advocated by Professor M. Tatsuki and developed to explain the texts produced in Japanese. An overview for the analyses of ideational metafunction in Japanese will be :first provide ，dand th巴analysesofmental counterpart in Japanese with regard to th巴tensechoices will ensue.
3.1. The身otoGrammar
As the Kyoto Grammar is aimed at explaining the whole natur巴ofJapan巴se within the framework of SFL， it has provided several analyses for each of the three metafunctions. The grammar has insisted that the grammar for Japanese should be necessarily dissimilar from English， as the two languages have been cultivated in considerably different societies. This is most characteristically refl巴ct巴din its analysis of t巴xtualmeaning， where a Communicative Unit， presumably larger than a clause， is treated as the unitfor text analyses (Tatsuki， 2000， 2004a).
Along with the analysis of textual metaおnction，those of ideational metafunction r巴c巴ntlyhave been conducted. These include the analysis of Japanese verbs and adjectives (Tatsuki， 2004b; Fujita 2007， 2008b， 2008d)， a consideration on the potential meanings and system of process types in Japanese (Tatsuki 2004b， 2008a， 2008b， 2008c， 2008d). In these studies， the process type system of Japanese has been propos巴d.This system shows a considerable diversion from that of Englishラas illustrated below:
58 Core
.‑‑ammate
「一‑active‑一一一一一一ー!
'‑‑mam百late
トー‑emotlOnal
「一‑overt一一一一一.‑1 一一comnlete l ド‑verbal .‑1
̲
，
~ L‑‑incomplete f y H a m ‑ 」 II111tam;
一
.‑‑vol!t1Ve~c∞0\附、
」 一ob以)珂i呼lecはti討ve¥
V ¥ ¥ ¥・，‑‑‑‑cogm
t I
ve一‑ammate オ
空竺竺宝塑
Is匂捌t問 一布吋吋叶叶ぺL
べ吐一一一一一今一一一千一一一ム一一一一一i削n附 脚aa釘狛n山
削1討由加i註
I宜ma‑ T廿yp陀E
! i
附PO凶S陥 s問I附VV刊C ( m鵬en捌匂凶1r叩 ロes00鵬n田S町
i巾vee 一‑neutral1 1 A1J::JZ;;e→ Larbi
町 + 「 : : ; : ; ; ;
」
staω一 州協同「ト
pe側 J al￨ 卜 ‑judgemental
L ‑con蹴 tive .‑‑emotional Lmanner
→ト戸
opensltyL‑‑pseudo‑metaphorical
Figure 2: Process Type System in Japanese (Tatsuki， 2008b)
On巴ofthe most characteristic features of the system in Figure
2
can be its inclusion of the first binary choice: dynamic or static. By this choice， every process type can be analysed to be dynamic or static， that is， whether the process includes some紅lOtlOn.
Within the dynamic process type， overt process is considered to constru巴the actions that are immediately observable by others. Such process can be exemplified by the Processes， or Japanese verbs， such as tsukurumake'， kowasubreak'，ルku blow'， kawarutransform' ，βleruincrease'， and so on. Some of these processes have similar meanings as th巴materialprocesses in English， but note that these two proc巴ss types ar巴not巴xact1ythe same， since they realise different cultures in different soclet1es.
Remarks on Realisational Differences of Cognitive Experiences between English組dJapanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 59
In contrast with the overt process， covert process is tr巴atedas the process that encodes the actions that are not directly observable by others. For example， the actions r巴alisedby such Processes as shinjirubeliev巴"omou 'think'， ut，α:gaudoub ，'t shiru 'know'， oboeruremember' cannot be seen from others， as these processes happen only in the mind. As overt process does， the covert process also might seem to share some similarity with mental process in the Sydney Grammar. Although these do share similar words expressing similar巴xperiences，it is inappropriate to analyse these processes under the title of the very same process type. This is because th巴sedifferent process types ar巴rootedin different basesラthatis， soci巴ties，80 that it is not easy to conclude that they do express the same process type.
Although， as Figure 2 shows， the Kyoto Grammar presents much more process types of Japanese， which might require further notes， other process types do not seem to have direct relation to the further discussion of this paper and will be left unexplained. See Tatsuki (2008d) for more detailed analyses of Japanese process types.
Thus， the Kyoto Grammar has contributed to the analys巴sof Japan巴sewithin the framework of SFL. The analyses of particular languages in SFL have mainly developed with that of EngIish， that is， with the Sydney Grammar， so that another grammar has to be modelled to analyse quite a different language， such as Japanese.
3.2. Tense choices for psychological actions初Japanese
It was mentioned abov巴thatJapanese is equipped with some process types similar to those in EngIish: overt process to material and covert to menta .lAlthough these
同opairs of process types are considered to exhibit similar experiencesラthepositions
60 Core
in the systems 'Ofpr'Ocess勿pesin each language sh'Ould be difti巴rent.
As these pairs are n'Ot treated as th巴samepr'Ocess types， it is natural t'O think that th巴reis s'Ome dissimilarity betwe阻 th'Ose'Of English and Japanese. If there is s'Ome dissimilarity as t'O the functi'Ons， it str'Ongly supp'Orts the Japanese pr'Ocess types being unable t'O be treated in the same way as th'Ose 'Of English. F'Or this， it appears preti巴rablet'O p'Oint 'Out s'Ome dissimilarities， in 'Order t'O dem'Onstrate the different natures 'Of the pr'Oc巴ssesin the tw'O languages.
One 'Of the dissimilarities f'Ound between the pr'Ocess types 'Of b'Oth languages is c'Onc巴rnedwith the tense ch'Oices 'Of certain process types. As stated earlier， material pr'Ocess in English can be characterised by its ch'Oice 'Of present in present t巴nseas unrnarked pr巴sent，while mental pr'Ocess is usually realised by simple present. These c'Orresp'Ondences s巴emt'O refl巴ctthe natural relati'Onship 'Of material process and present in presentラaswell as
仕
lat'Of mental pr'Ocess and simpl巴present.S'Ome 'Of th巴c'Ounterpartsin Japanes巴， h'Owever， seem t'O have different c'Orresp'Ondence仕'Om the unrnarked ch'Oices 'Of English. On th巴'Onehan ，df'Or 'Overt pr'Ocess巴s，‑teiru f'Orm seems t'O be 'Often empl'Oyed t'O express unmarked pr巴sent，
which d'O n'Ot seem deviate丘omthe c'Ounterpart 'Of English. N'Ote that ‑teiru f'Orm，
which may accompany a verb， adds the meaning 'Of the acti'On being underway'， that is， cl'Ose meaning t'O the present in present in English.
Some 'Of the c'Overt pr'Ocesses， 'On the other han ，dpresent a different pictu間 企 ' Om the c'Ounterpart 'Of English. For example， it is natural f'Or a verb shirukn'Ow' t'O
be acc'Ompanied byイeirut'O f'Orm shitteirube kn'Owing'. C'Onsider the f'Oll'Owing examples:
Remarks on Realisational Di
町
erencesof Cognitive Experiences between English and Japanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 61(1) a. Watashi wa sono hi
ω
o shi‑ru the person know '1 know the person'.b. Watashi wa sono hito 0
1 the person '1 know the person'.
shit‑teiru be knowing
Although English counterpart of shiru 'know' exhibits considerably different ideational meaning in progressive form (i.e.，be knowing')， (lb) in ‑teiru fonn does not present much different meaning， especially in the ideational metafunction， from (la). The reality common in (la四b)is that 'I hav巴goodinformation on that p巴rsonm question'.
Furthermor久 ofthe two forms (la明b)，the latter seems to be more appropriate for various contextsラwhilethe use of the former， the simple present， seems to be restricted to narration or solernn situations. Moreoverラitis possible that (la) can be interpreted otherwise as 'I intend to know the person'， which may exhibit the readings of intention or future tense. In this wa:弘theus巴sof shiru and know have to be distinguished
仕
omeach other， allowing the diffl巴rentanalyses of English and JapaneseIn addition， oboeru 'rem巴mber'also巴xhibitsa similar distinction， with the accompaniment ofthe ‑teiru， as below:
(2) a. Watashi wa ano hito 0 oboe‑ru 1 that person rem巴mber
1 will remember that person'.
b. Watashi wa ano hito 0 oboe‑teiru 1 that person be remembering '1 remember that person'.
In (2a) the intention of th巴speakerseems to be rea ，dwhile (2b) with ‑teiru can be
62 Core
interpreted as the declaration that the person referred to as T have in mind th巴one r巴ferredto asthat person¥In this example， it is also shown that the form ‑teiru， which is looked upon as the signifier of present in present meaning， appears to be con仕ibutingto expressing the same meaning as the simple present in English. This may lead to the interpretation that for some Processes in Japaneseラthe accompaniment of ‑teiru， the progressive， makes the meaning of unmarked pr巴sent tense.
Thes巴verbsin Japanese are regarded as the process of cognition， while other types of covert proc巴ss巴se
対
ubitdifferent pictures. This can be illus仕atedby the following examples， which employ perceptive processes:(3) a. Ongaku ga kikoe‑ru music hear
1 hear the music¥
b. Ongaku ga kikoe‑teiru music be hearing '
1
hear the music¥ (4) a. Keshikigα， mie‑ru
scenery se巴
1 see the sc巴nery'. b. Keshiki ga mie‑teiru
scenery be se巴ing 1 see the scenery'.
In these instances (3‑4)， the addition of圃teirudoes not seem to make a significant differenc巴onthe interpretations of ideational metafunction in the utterances.
For these Processes， it can be said that th巴functionsof ‑teiru is blurred to mean almost nothing. This， how巴ver，do巴snot cause a serious problem， b巴causethere are also some Processes in English that do not present additional meaning in their
RemarlG on Realisational Di能rencesof Cognitive Experiences betv羽田1English and Japanese: TheゆtoGrammar Analysis 63
present in present forrns. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) name behavioural process as the example of this phenomenon， maintaining that'The usual unmarked present tense for behavioural process is present in prωent， […] we also find a simple present in its unmarked sense (i.e.， not meaning habitual)， for example why do you laugh?， alongside why are you laughing? (with scarcely any difference b巴tweenthem)" (p. 250). As this analysis shows， it is not unnatural to find Processes that exhibit no change in the m田ningwith the ‑teiru form.
The difference in the alteration of meanings with or without ‑teiru can b巴
attributed to the difference in the process types. The Processes analysed above are regarded as expressing different types of processes. The Processes in (1‑2)， that is， shiru and oboeru， can be thought of as realising cognitive processesラwhilethose in (3‑
の
，kikoeru and mieru， perceptive processes. For (1‑2)， it can be said that the addition of the progr巴ssiveforrn may cause the change of meaning， while (3‑4) do not undergo the change of meaning under the same situation. It can be claim巴d， therefore， that these two proc巴sstypes have different relationships to the progressiv巴meanings， while mental proc巴ssesin English are not usually utilised in the present in present forms.
1n relation to the process types in English， more can be said about the covert processes of Japanese. At a glance， these two process types seem to express the very same realities of mental actions. The closer look at the behaviours or at the relationship to the addition of progressiv，巴meaningcan provide a different picture， wh巴rethe two process types， as th巴yare analysed in the systemヲhavedifferent natures from mental processes in English.
64 Core
4. Conclωion
This paper has shown that there should be different grammars for specific languages of the worl ，despecially when th巴functionsof language are investigated within the f
均
meworkof SFL. The integrated theory of SFL is considered to be designed for th巴analysisor cons仕uctionof the particular grammar for a sp巴citic language.τne description of each language， however， should be treated as different from on巴another，which means that each language is equipped with its own syst巴ms By thes巴systems，meaning potentialsラthatis， what can be meant in the language， is described to exhibit th巴differenc巴sb巴tweenlanguages.The paper first showed that th巴SydneyGrammar， which contains the systems for English， has been dev巴lopedto offer the system for process types in English. These process types contained the six typ巴sof material， behavioural， mental， verbalラrelational，and existential processes. Of these six types， material and mental processes were explainedラasthey exhibit a clear contrast in terms of the m巴anmgs and the forms of unmarked pres巴nttense. Material process can be conveyed through present in pres巴nttense， wh巴reasthe unmarked present for mental process is regarded as simple present.
Along with the process type system of English， that of Japanese proposed within the Kyoto Grammar was also pr巴sented.This system (i.e.， Figure 2)， as th巴realisation of Japanese soci巴ty，exhibited rather different process types from English. It was ar
忽
ledthat this was natural， because they were the realisations of different languages in distinctive societies.If these systems present some evidence that they are definitely differ巴ntfrom
Rem抗日on
丑
ealisationalDi俄rencesof Cognitive Experiences between English and Japanese: The Kyoto Grammar Analysis 65each other， it can be argued more strongly that th巴 同olanguages are the realisation of the different societies. In order to
白
ldsome evidence for the difference， a little distinction about the behaviours of certain Process巴sw巴red巴monstrated.These examples illustrated th巴differentb巴havioursbetween ‑teiru and the English present mpr巴sentform. Although the English present in present rendered the interpretation of mental process mark巴d，the addition of the count巴rpartin J apan巴se(iゑラ‑teiru)，on the other handラleftth巴proc巴ssunmark巴d.Moreov巴r，it was stated that the addition ofthe form made the covert process in Japanes巴soundmore natural. This difference can be attributed to the unrelat巴dnatures of th巴twolanguages， which are the parts of diffiぽ 巴ntculωres.The descriptions of two different languages suggest that th巴reshould be different analyses for each language. As maintained earli巴r，SFL provides the grammatics， that isラthetheory for grammar， for us to be able to construct the grammars for particular languages. According to this th巴ory，th巴analys巳sand descriptions of the particular languages can be conducted to be fit for the language. As has be巴ndemonstrated in this pap民 eventhough some process巴smay巴xhibitsome similarities in different languag巴s，th巳closeranalyses can reveal the slight difference between th巴m.The d巴scriptionsof p丘rticularlanguages， therefore， have to be advanced to include any minute differenc巴s，as the Kyoto Grammar has attempted.
Thus， this topic has to be accompani巴dby furth巴ranalysesラwhere巴achof the Japanese proc巴sstypes in Figure 2 mak巴sa clear distinction from the similar one in English. As noted in this studyラcov巴rtproc巴ssin th巴KyotoGrammar can b巴
distinguished from mental process in the Sydney Grammar by their relations to th巴
66 Core
present in present meaning8. This kind of examination in the contrast of the processes in different languages has to be explored more int巴nsively，80 that the charact巴ristics of the different 1
拍 伊
agesmay be clarified to巴xplainthe whole system of process types.Notes
1 Although participants and Circumstances are regarded as the elements in the transitivity structure of English clauses， they do not have immediate relationship to the curr巴nt discussion. See Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) or Eggins (2004) for more details.
2 Not巴thatthe capitalised words， such as Process"， are used to display elements in transitivity， while the process" refers to the meanings expressed by transitivity， i.e.， different types of process.
3 Note that present in present" is the narne for present progressive meaning in the Sydney Grammar. See Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) for details
References
Asher， R. E. (Ed.) (1994) Encyclopedia of Language仰IdLinguistics， Vol. 8. Oxford Pergamon.
Eggins， Suzanne (2004) An lntroduction ω Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd ed.) London: Continuum.
Fawce仕，Robin (2000) A Theory of Syntax戸r秒'stemicFunctional Lin伊istics.Amsterdarn: JohnBe珂a紅 山1S
Fawcett， Robin (2008) lnvitation to Systemic Functional Linguistics through the CardifJ Grammar (3rd巳d.).London: Equinox.
F吋ita，Toru (2007， October) The砂'otoGrammar no wakugumi ni yoru hinshitsu 0 arawasu keiyoshi no bunseki [An analysis of Adjectivals of Quality in仕1eframework ofthe Kyoto
Remarks on Realisational Differences of
C
口伊itiveExperiences between English and Japanese: The Kyoto Grannnar Analysis 67Grammar]. Paper presented at the meeting of Japan Association of Systemic Functional Linguistics， Ritsumeikan University， Shiga， Japan.
Fujita， Toru (2008a) An analysis of English transitivity system: From a contrastive study between English and Japanese processザpes.Core， 36，37， 15‑42.
Fujita， Toru (2008b) The Kyoto Grammar no wakugumi ni yoru hinshitsu 0 arawasu keiyoshi no bunseki [An analysis of Adjectivals ofQuality in the framework ofthe Kyoto Grammar]. Proceedings of JASFL， 2， 1‑9.
F吋1t耳，Toru (2008c， October) Nihongo no keかoshito doshi ga gugensuru kateigata: The 勾JotoGrammar no sentaku tαikeimou 0 mochiitαbunseki. [Realizations of Process Types by the Japanese Verbs and Adjectives: An Analysis Using the System N巴tworkin the Kyoto Grammar]. Paper presented at the meeting of Japan Association of Systemic Functional Linguistics， Ochanomizu University， Tokyo， Japan.
Fujita， Toru (2008 ，dNovember) Keiyoshi no seiteki imiω douteki imi ni okeru tα，'gisei [On the polysemy of Japanese adjective: With special reference to static and dynamic semantic interpretation]. Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan， Kanazawa University， Ishikawa， Japan.
Halliday， M. A. K. (1984) On the ineffability of grammatical categories. In Manning， Martin，
& McCalla (1984)， pp.
み
18.(Reprinted in Halliday， 2002， pp. 291‑322). Halliday， M. A. K. (1985) An lntroduction to Functional Gramma .rLondon: Arnold Halliday， M. A. K. (1994a) An lntroductionω Functional Grammar (2nd edふLondonAmold.
Hallida:弘M.A. K. (1994b) Sys旬mictheory. InAsher (Ed.) (1994)， pp. 4505‑4508. (Reprinted in Halliday， 2003， pp. 433‑441).
Halliday， M. A. K. (1996) On grammar and grammatics. In Hasan， Cloran，
&
Butt (1996)， pp. 1‑38. (Reprinted in Halliday， 2002， pp. 384‑417).Halliday， M. A. K. (2002) The Collected Works 01 M. A. K. Halliday: Vo 1.l. On Grammar σonathan
