奈良教育大学学術リポジトリNEAR
日中英語の現場指示における認知的対照研究
著者 劉 驫
year 2009‑03‑25
その他のタイトル A Cognitive Study on the Deictic Usage of Japanese, Chinese and English Demonstratives ‑ Focus on Ko/So/A, Zhe/Na and This/That
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10105/974
奈良教育大学大学院 教育学研究科 教科教育専攻 英語教育専修 劉晶
「日中英語の現場指示における認知的対照研究」
1、はじめに
日本語の指示詞に「コ・ソ・ア」という二項対立がある。これに対し、中国語の指示詞 は「送、那」という二項であり、英語の指示詞も「This‑That」の二項である。もちろん、
日本語の「コ」が「送、 This」に、 「ソ」あるいは「ア」が「邪、 That」に対応する場合が ある。しかし、必ずしもそうではない。日本語の「コ」が中国語や英語では「邪、 That」
で表現されたり、 「ソ」が「返、 This」になったりする場合もある。日本語では話し手と聞 き手はなわぼり意識のもとに、それぞれの指示詞を使い分けているのに対し、ほかの言語 では違う傾向が見られる。たとえば、中国語では、話し手は聞き手の飯域への意識が少な いが、自分から対象までの空間・時間・心理的な遠近判断によって指示詞を使い分けてい る。英語では、自らの感情や気持ちで身近なものを疎外する傾向もある。
2、研究目的
本研究では、認知言語学の枠組みで、口中英三ケ国語の指示詞の使い分けを対照し、例 文を採集して分析することにより、それぞれの指示詞システムにおける特徴や傾向を明ら かにすることを目的とする。それに、研究結果を言語教育の現場に提供したい。
3、研究内容
本稿では、日本語の「コ・ソ・ア」、中国語の「送・那」、英語の「This・That」を研究 対象とする。従来、指示詞に関する研究において、主に記述的な対照研究がなされている。
いわゆる、異なる言語におけるありのままの言語形式を比較することにより、それぞれの 異同を明らかにする。本研究では従来の記述研究に反して、異なる言語の「形式」に比べ、
「認知方式」に焦点を当てて研究したい。具体的には、日中英語において、 「主観性」をめ ぐって指示に対する人間の認知方式を解明したい。つまり、異なる国や文化を持つ人間が 如何に周りの物事を認知し、それを如何に位置付けているのかを研究する。
先行研究をもとに、映画、小説、ドラマなどから会話文における指示詞の使用例を採集 し、それを分析して目中英の指示詞の特徴を見つけたい。
奈良教育大学大学院 教育学研究科 教科教育専攻 英語教育専修 劉晶
4、研究結果
データ分析の結果により、三言語の現場指示における様々な特徴が見られた。
. 日本語の現場指示において、 「コ」、 「ア」が有標であり、 「ソ」が無標であることを明 らかにした。それに、ある特定の焦点に相手を注目させるときに、 「ソ」が遠近にもか かわらず、 「コ」と「ア」に拡張する傾向が見られた。それにより、本稿は日本語指示 詞の「中立的主観性」を特徴づけている。
. 指示詞において、中国人の主観性が強く、話し手が聞き手縄張り以内のものや、かな り遠いところにあるものを指し示すときに言圧称の「送」を用いる傾向が見られた。
中国語の現場指示において、自分が中心となり、距離と関係なく何もかも自分の縄張 りに取り入れてしまう傾向がある。本稿では、それを「融合的主観性」だと特徴づけ る。
. 英語では、感情的ダイクシスのほか、感情的な影響を受けず、身近なもの、あるいは 身体的接触しているものを「That」で指し示す例文を見つけた。本稿は、認知言語学 におけるプロファイル・ベース構成を用いて、ベースに対してプロファイルされた部 分を「That」で指示すると論じた。それに、現場指示における英語の主観性を「排斥 的主観性」だと特徴づける。
5、おわりに
外国人学習者のための教科書においては、初めの段階から指示詞が導入されている。し かし、学習者が指示詞を学ぶ際に「こころの働き」を無視して単なる言語形式に集中して しまう。異なる国の文化背景や認知方式に影響され、暖味な使い方や印象が残され、初心 者から上級学習者に至っても、指示詞の使い分けに大変難しい問題点が残されている。
木研究では、三つの指示詞システムを比較することによって様々な面白い特徴が見られ た。今後、指示詞教育の課題は、指示詞を簡単に初期段階に入れるのではなく、 「形式」を 教えることより、人間が如何に「近・中・遠」を認知して指示詞を使い分けているのか、
いわば「こころの動き」を教えなければならないと思っている。それに、本稿は日本語だ けではなく、中国語や英語の指示詞教育にも役立てば幸いである。
A Cognitive Study on the Deictic Usage of Japanese, Chinese and English Demonstratives
‑ Focus on Ko/So/A, Zhe/Na and This/That
A Thesis Submitted to the
Faculty of the Department of English Language Education The Graduate School of
Nara University of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Education
by Biao Liu
January 2009
Chapter I: Introduction 1.1 Background
1.2 Framework
1.3 DataAnalysis and Hypothesis
Chapter II: Literature Review
2.1 Demonstrative Research in Japanese, Chinese and English…‥‥‥…4
2.1.1 Japanese Deictic Demonstratives Ko̲, S旦 and A 2.1.2 Chinese Deictic Demonstratives乙圭迫and坦旦
2.1.3 English Deictic Demonstratives王立土旦and王立如2.2 Demonstratives and Subjectivity
2.2‑1 The Connection between Demonstratives and Subjectivity‑‑‑12 2.2.2 The Research of Subjectivity
2.3 Aims of Data Analysis
Chapter III: Data Analysis‥.
3.1 The Result of Data Analysis 3.2 Six Patterns of the Comparison 3.2.1 KO/Zhe/This
3.2.2 KO/Zhe/That
3.2.3 SO/Zhe/That
3.2.4 SO/Na/That
3.2.5 A/Na/That
3.2.6 A/Zhe/That
Chapter IV: Conclusion
Example Sources
References
Chapter I: Introduction
1.1 Background
This research mainly concentrates on the contrastive study of demonstrative systems in the Japanese, English and Chinese language, especially on the analysis of the correspondences and discorrespondences of the demonstratives which are based on deictic usages from a cognitive view.
Generally speaking, when the grammatical structure of languages is the same, interference may result in correct language production.
However, negative transfer occurs if the counterparts between languages are similar but different, such as the similarities and dissimilarities of demonstratives among the Japanese, English and Chinese language.
The Japanese language has a demonstrative system of three‑series:
KO̲, M).and A. Each of the demonstrative series also contains a variety ofderivatives. By contrast, Chinese and English demonstratives have a two‑series system, named the Zhe/Na series and the This/That series.
Therefore, Japanese language learners from a country which only
has two demonstrative series, find it difficult acquire Japanese
three‑series demonstratives. For example, they may become confused
when distinguishing So̲and A series, because there is only one relevant
series in their own language‑ Moreover, each language has its specific
type ofdeictic usage, such as the territorytheory of堅旦and旦旦. For this
reason, distinguishing the Japanese demonstratives Ko and S旦is also an
important and difficult problem that needs to be solved, especially for Chinese learners.
1.2 Framework
At the beginning of this paper, a brief review of the traditional literature research will be given, mainly focusing on the trend and
development of modern Japanese demonstratives監旦 So and A. Afterthat, an analysis on the asymmetry of the Chinese demonstratives独
and 坦旦series will be given. Finally, the basic differences between English proximal and non‑proximal demonstratives on This and王立吐
series will be given.
The demonstrative system is being researched in all three countries with the descriptive and acquisition research being the main trends. However, cognitive approach is not regarded important enough.
By contrasting the correspondences and discorrespondences in a cognitive view, some difficult problems could be found. For this reason, this paper will not only describe the differences between languages but also analyze why such differences happen. The framework is different from the ones up to the present; it is based on the cognitive linguistics, basically on the notion of ̀Subjectivity'.
1.3 DataAnalysis and Hypothesis
The data, which are examples including Chinese demonstratives
Zhe/Na, Japanese demonstratives Ko/SO/A and English demonstratives
This/That, was collected from the discourse of different literature
works, such as movies, dramas and novels. Concretely, the media are:
Movie: Kung Fu Hustle (2005), If You Are the One (2009), New Police Story (2005), WaiLE (2009), War of the Worlds (2005)
Novel: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2000)
Drama: 1 Litre of Tears (2006) Crying Out Love, In the Center of the World (2005) Heroes (2008)
According to the demonstrative examples, taken from three different language versions of the same work, it is possible to make a contrastive study in the deictic usages of the three languages, and to find the correspondences and discorrespondences. In accordance with the analysis it is possible to find the general features of the demonstrative usages. Therefore, the hypotheses are:
The correspondences and discorrespondences exist among the three languages.
The reasons of discorrespondences can be revealed based on the cognitive view.
The subjective features among the three demonstrative systems will be discovered.
3
Chapter II: Literature Review
2.1 Demonstrative Research in Japanese, Chinese and English
2.1.1 Japanese Deictic Demonstratives生も弘and A
In this part, the literature review of Japanese demonstratives will be given. The system of Japanese demonstratives has three series of Ko/So/A, which is based on the spatial or mental distance.
Sakuma (1951)
Sakuma is an advocate of territory theory, called 'Nawabari' in Japanese. ̀Nawaban'is also the most traditional and basic concept in the history of demonstrative research.
Sakuma suggested that the speaker and hearer have their own specific territory. In the speaker's territory, the referent is denoted by Ko. In the hearer's territory, the referent is denoted by So̲. And neither
of them can be denoted by A The speaker is standing in opposite
positionto the hearer, and it canbe illustratedbythe model (figure F.I)
below.
Sakuma s theory is meaningful and easy to understand. With his
theory, many problems of Japanese learners towards the demonstrative
system can be successfully solved.
However, under some circumstances, Sakuma's territory theory is insufficient. For example:
When the referent is within the territory of the speaker, and the
hearer is physically contacting with the referent; the speaker can denote it by So.
When the speaker and hearer are in the same territory based on the 'Wareware'consciousness, they will use堅旦to denote the referent
near them, use A to denote the referent far away from them, use S旦 to denote the referent in other situation.
Sakata (1971)
In order to solve the problems given for Sakuma's theory, Sakata
(1971) added the consciousness of̀Wareware'territory to the original theory. She showed that the speaker uses墜旦to denote other's territory,
and Sj^to denote his own territory under certain occasions. For example:
(2.1)
(Touching the clothes of another)
S: Anata no kono youfuku, itsu kosiraetano?
(by Sakata)
5
(2.2)
(He washed his son's face by hands roughly)
S: ̀tyan, itaiyo.つ
H: ̀埋旦ni ga itain da.' S: '旦!建旦itain da yo.
(Ikitoshi Ikerumono)
In the cases above, the speaker refers to the hearer's clothes and uses堤旦because of physical contact, and refers to his own body by Soko not Koko‑ Sakata explains that when the hearer touches the part of bodyofthe speaker, the referent is shifted to the domain of the hearer.
Therefore, the speaker should use S旦but not堅旦to denote the domain that is touched by the hearer.
Moreover, Sakata (1971) gave the following example to explain a situation where both speaker and hearer use the S旦series to denote.
This situation can be based on the territorywhich is shared by both the speaker and the hearer.
(2.3)
(The passenger is talking to the taxi driver) S: 'S旦k旦wo hidari e magatte'.
to, Kimiko ga untensyu ni itta.
(Sinjitsu itiro)
As Sakata claimed, the referent in the territory of ̀Wareware'can
be denoted by Ko. However, in the case above, when it is out of 'Wareware'but in a relative nearness, the referent can be denoted by So, while the one at a relatively far distance is denoted by A.
Shoho (1981)
Regarding the position of speaker and hearer, Shoho gave a model (figure F. 2) for the purpose of filling up the deficiencies of Sakata's
theory. In System of Japanese Demonstratives Ko/SO/A, Shoho (1981)
gave two different models:
//二「、‑ち
1. 2
Shoho (1981) Oppositional Model and Fusional Model
According to Shoho (1981), there are two models in regard to different situations. When the speaker and the hearer are in opposition to each other, their position can be illustrated by the Oppositional Model. On the other hand, when they are close to eachother, they can make a territory that depends on the consciousness of ̀Wareware' (we‑group). As a result, theyare inthe Fusional Model. Inthis case, KO.
is used to denote some place or something that is near boththe speaker
and the hearer; Sj^ is used to denote some place or something in a
relative medium distance from them; 基is used to denote some place or
something far from them.
Building on the research above, this paper will analyze the Japanese deictic demonstratives data which are collected from movies, novels and television dramas, and use a cognitive view in order to add logical completions to the research so far.
2.1.2 Chinese Deictic Demo皿stratives Zhe and Na
Although some Chinese dialects may contain a medium distal demonstrative, like So̲, generally speaking, in Mandarin Chinese, Zhe is the proximal and些旦is the distal demonstrative.
Lu (1985)
Lu Shuxiang is an advocate in many aspects of Chinese language.
In Lu (1980, 1985), he gave particular explanations to Zhe/Na.
Normally, Zhe is adopted to denote a referent relatively near the speaker;吐旦is used to denote a referent relatively far away from the speaker.
After discussing the general usage of Z旦旦/Na, an asymmetry of Chinese demonstratives was mentioned. According to Lu (1985), the
frequency of 独is higher than R旦 and the scope is larger too. Here is
an example from Lu (1985):
(2.4) (The speaker is watching two referents in front of him)
S: Wo qiche lihaiyou hao xie tan zi, hao xie kao dian. Zhe Hang tiao
tan zi,血yige kao dian, wo shi yong bu zhao de.
Lu also claimed that Chinese tend to use Z圭坦nOt R旦in order to denote something right in front of them. Disregarding the referent is in the territory of others.
Cui (1997)
According to Cui (1997), in the same deictic situation, in order to
refer to many aspects of the referent, Zhe and R旦can both be used.
However, they have their specific roles. In detail, Zhe is usually to denote the entity, and R旦is always used to denote a part of the entity.
On such occasion,些̲巨is concluded in Zhe:
(2.5) (The speaker is talking about the hearer's clothes)
S:Ni星互旦shenxifu henbu cuo a, bu guo wo buxihuan yi fu shang n̲a ge kou zi.
In this sentence, Zhe refers to the nice clothes, and埋旦usually
refers to the buttononthe clothes. So the clothes are the entity, and the button is a part of it.
Okuda (1998)
According to Okuda (1998) Zhe is a special demonstrative. It can be used to express one's subjective feeling, especially the feeling of dissatisfaction or complaint. For example:
9
(2.6) (The speaker is giving a scolding to the hearer)
Nizh旦ge tong zhi, nizen me geiwo kou mao zi? Wo shi you bing fa shao, bu shi zai星旦旦er dang lan han!
In the sentence above, the speaker uses星章担to blame a man who misunderstands him. It would be strange to use R旦in this situation. As
a result,馳 somehow contains subtle feelings like solidarity,
distancing, sympathy, anger, dissatisfaction, in the deictic usages of Chinese demonstratives.
Shen (1999)
Because of the Chinese self‑centered recognition towards the world and Zhe can denotes the things and people around the center, Shen (1999) claimedthat Zl提is unmarkedwhile些旦is marked. It is also a special feature of Chinese demonstratives.
Chinese demonstratives are being researched for a long time.
However, most of the papers are from a descriptive view. Although Shen (1999) focused on the notions of'Marked'and 'Unmarked', more specific cognitive analysis is required.
2.1.3 English Deictic Demonstratives This and That
In English, T̲如旦 and 王立吐is a contrast of proximal and non‑proximal distance.工出旦denotes proximal space while王立吐denotes
non‑proximal space signaling a relation ofnon‑proximity.
Generally speaking, when denoting an object from the speaker, This is used to denote an object relatively close while工垣吐for objects
relatively far from the speaker or relatively close to the hearer. (Lakoff
1974; Halhday and Hasan 1976; Fillmore 1997).
Lakoff (1974)
Lakoff (1974) claimed that demonstratives often have some emotional effects. According to Lakoff(1974), emotional deixis can be used to denote something that the speaker is unfamiliar with or dislike.
王立k has an indefinite specific use in oral narrative speech.王立如
contains feelings like solidarity, distancing, sympathy, anger, dissatisfaction, etc.
Lyons (1977)
Lyons (1977) points out that '王立皇旦is marked and T垣吐is unmarked'. According to Lyons (1975), 'The English demonstratives
建立/血and埴吐/地can be interpreted as instructing or inviting the
addressee to direct his attention to a particular region of the deictic space in order to find the referent.'
Langacker (1991, 2008)
According to Langacker (1991),工吐kwas stated as: ̀Consider this,
which we can analyze as being roughly equivalent semantically to the
conjunction of near S and {uniquely) apparent to SandH¥ Besides, the
two binary oppositions of demonstrative system are defined as 'The
ll
first pertains to the nature of the nominal referent. Whereas these and
those specificallyportray it as a plural mass {thesepens, thosepencils), this and that function as defaults, used with both count nouns {thispen.
that pencil) and non‑plural mass nouns {this ink, that graphite).
Crossing‑cutting this opposition is the proximal/distal distinction, where this and these contrast with that and those.. The contrast can thus be described more generally as dividing the field of concern into a proximal region (PROX) centered on the speaker and distal region (DIST) complementary to it, with respect to various dimensions of awareness.
Langacker (2008) gives a four‑ way distinction among工kk,辿,
These, and Those based on two binary oppositions. Even though the cognitive research towards demonstratives is mentioned in many English literature reviews, more concrete explanation and analysis is required. This paper will discuss the demonstrative problems among the
three languages from the notion of ̀SubjectivityつIn the next section,
the relation between demonstratives and subjectivity will be given.
2.2 Demonstratives and Subjectivity
2.2.1 The Connection between Demonstratives and Subjectivity Because language is spoken by human, it is tightly connected with speaker's emotion and subjectivity. Benveniste (1973) suggested:
'Language is marked so deeply by the expression of subjectivity that
one might ask if it could still function and be called language if it were
constructed otherwise' 'a language without the expression of person
cannot be imagined'. Therefore, when the speaker is using deictic demonstratives, there are always subjective affects that may influence
the objective situation. Moreover, people from different countries havetheir specific backgrounds, cultures and subjectivities; these factors may have an influence on the demonstrative usage among the three languages.
2.2.2 The Research of Subjectivity Lyons (1982)
In Lyons (1982)∴deixis and subjectivity'is stated. Lyons'opinion
is that 'subjectivity refers to the way in which natural languages, in their structure and their normal manner of operation, provide for the locutionary agent's expression of himself and of his own attitudes and
beliefs'. More specifically, Lyons emphasizes two points:
The self is not to be understood as being logically and psychologically distinguishable from the beliefs, attitudes and
emotions of which it is the seat or location.
The self which the locutionary agent expresses is the product of the social and interpersonal roles that he has played in the past and it manifests itself in a socially identifiable way in the role that he is playing in the context of utterance.
Langacker (1987, 1991)
In Langacker (1987, 1991), the notion of subjectivity was suggested as 'subjectivity pertains to the inherent asymmetry between
13
the two roles that constitute the constmal relationship: the role of the conceptualizer (C) and that of the conceptualization he entertains. This asymmetry is maximized when C is totally absorbed in his conception, so that he loses awareness of himself and even of the fact that he is
engaging in conceptualization.ラ
Langacker also compared the subject and object conception, and claimed that when the relationship is lllaximally asymmetrical, the role ofC is said to be subjective, and the role ofO can be fullyobjective.
Ikegami (2003, 2004)
With the focus being laid on the speaker's cognitive stance (rather
than on the resulting linguistic features), Ikegami (2003, 2004) characterizes the subjective construal as ̀the maximally subjectively oriented speaker will prefer to conceptualize the situation to be encoded as if he were on the scene and were experiencing it himself, irrespective of whether he is actually involved in the situation or not'.
After reading the Chinese research about the notion of subjectivity which was stated in Shen (2001), I discovered that it was almost an introduction to the research of subjectivity in western countries.
Besides, the connection of subjectivity and other phenomena of
language in Chinese was not mentioned, especially the relationship
between subjectivity and demonstratives.
2.3 Aims ofDataAnalysis
After discussing the literature review and its limitations among the demonstrative systems, the aims are:
Finding the similarities and dissimilarities among the three demonstrative systems based on the notion of subjectivity.
Giving a graphic representation that can easily explain the subjective feature of each demonstrative system.
The usage of demonstratives concerns expression and the representation of a speaker's perspective in discourse. In the next chapter, the data of demonstratives among the three languages in discourse will be collected, and the analysis will be based on a view of subjectivity, from people from three different countries.
15
Chapter 111: Data Analysis
3.1 The Result ofDataAnalysis
The examples from the data were collected from the discourse of movies, dramas and novels. Concretely, they were:
Movie: Kung Fu Hustle (2005), If You Are the One (2009), New Police Story (2005), Wall‑E (2009), War of the Worlds (2005)
Novel: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2000)
Drama: 1 Litre of Tears (2006) Crying Out Love, In the Center of the
World (2005) Heroes (2008)
The correspondence and discorrespondence among the Japanese, Chinese and English demonstratives are:
Ko
D em onstratives This series T hat series
Zhe series 118 12
N a series 0 0
D em onstratives T his series That series
Zhe series 0 9
N a series 0 21
A
D e m o n stra tiv es T h is serie s T h a t serie s
Z h e serie s 0 3
N a se rie s 0 2 1
By comparing the differences among the three languages from the data, some features were discovered:
In Japanese:
Ko is 100% translated into 乙圭坦in Chinese while it is the correspondence of both This/That.
' S旦is 100% translated into T,』吐in English while it is the correspondence of both Zhe/Na in Chinese.
A is 100% translated into 王立旦t in English while it is the correspondence of both Zhe/Na in Chinese.
In Chinese:
Zhe is the correspondence of KO/SO/A in Japanese and This/That in English.
' さJa is translated into So/A and王立旦上.
In English:
This is translated into堤旦in Japanese and独in Chinese.
● 王立吐is the correspondence of Ko/SO/A in Japanese and Zhe/Na in Chinese.
17
It is difficult to tell the differences only by the features above. In
the next part of the paper, a concrete analysis of the deictic usage in
Japanese, Chinese and English demonstratives will be given.
3.2 Six Patterns of the Comparison 3.2.1 KO/Zhe/This
Most of the examples of臣旦are translated into Chinese Zhe and English This (frequency‑118). Under these circumstances, the usages of the demonstratives in the three languages are on common ground.
(3.1) (The speaker is talking to the hearer with some food in his hands)
a) S: De mo, koェ旦pasa pasa de oishikunai yo.
b) S:Nibu huixihuan chi血ge de,taiga.
c) S: You don't want this, it's all dry.
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
(3.2) (The speaker is talking to the hearer with a book in his hand)
19
a) S: Kore ha nedan ga tsukerarenai hodo taihen na otakara da, nyorai shinsyou.
b) S:迦ben 'ru lai shen zhang miji'shiwujia zhibao.
C) S: This is the scrollofthe Buddhist Palm. It's priceless.
{Kung Fu Hustle)
In the cases above, the speaker is holding something in his own hands and talking to the hearer, and the speaker and the hearer are talking in the opposite position, which is also called the Oppositional Model in Shoho (1981).
In the Oppositional Model, when the referent is in the territory of the speaker, in the three languages, the speakers always use proximal demonstratives‑ KO/Zhe/This to denote it.
In the sentences below, the speaker and hearer are in the Fusional
Model.
(3.3) (The speakerandthe hearerare facing a manwho lentthema boat)
a) S: Kono go shinsetu na kata ga, fune wo kasite kudasaru koto ni
natta.
b) S: Er血weixian sheng hao xin ditong yiba chuanjie geiwo men.
C) S: And建止gentleman's kindly agreed to lend us his boat!
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
(3.4) (The speaker and the hearer are watching a video)
a) S: Sasa,蜘wa ajia gmkou urano roji wo utsushita bideo desu.
b) S: Shasha,裏担shi ya zhou yin hang hou xiang de bi lu dian shi pai
dao de.
c) S: Sasa, This is the alleybehind the BankofAsia.
(New Police Story)
21
(3.5) (The speaker and the hearer are watching the X‑ray image in front of them)
a) S:蜘ga ojyousan no nou no gazou desu.
b) S:馳ge shinin nv ernao bu de X guangpian.
C) S: This is the image of your daughter's brain.
(7 Litre of Tears)
In (3.3) (3.4) (3.5), the speaker andthe hearerare facing something or somebody in front of them, and they are having a conversation about it. Inthis case, if the target is not far fromthem, in otherwords, keeps a proximal distance from them, in the three languages, proximal
demonstratives Ko/Zhe/This can be used.
3.2.2 KO/Zhe/That
Ko is lOO% translated into Z旦坦in Chinese while it is the correspondence of both This/That. Although most of the examples show that the proximal demonstratives should be translated in This in English,
some of the examples are translated into麹吐It is also the special
feature of English demonstratives that can be distinguished among the
three demonstrative systems. KO/Zhe/That type of the examples (frequency‑12) are:
(3.6) (The speaker is pointing the food in his mouth)
a) S: Nam k旦工旦?
H: Hammosu.
S: Hammosu?
b) S:Zhe shishen me ya?
H: Hanmosi.
S: Hanmosi?
c) S:Whatis埴並?
H: Hummus.
S: Hummus?
(War of the Worlds)
In the example above, when the speaker eats something that he
does not like, such as hummus, besides辿 he can also use王立吐to
denote it. However, Zhe and Ko are the only options in Chinese and Japanese. As Lakoff(1974) has suggested, emotional deixis can be used
T.i
to denote something that the speaker is unfamiliar with or dislikes. This paper also proved that emotional deixis exists in English. Therefore, it does not exist in Chinese or Japanese.
(3.7) (The speaker is holding a book in his hands)
a) S: Shouce,bo fang shuo ming! Shou ce?Waho,nikan kan星垣ge!
b) S: Manyuaru, setumei siro! Manyuaru? Ua, ko土星wo mite!
c) S: Manual, relay instructions! Manual? Wow! Will you look at埴吐!
(Wall‑E)
In the example from (3.7), books have been replaced by electronic databases or files so the speaker does not know how to read a book. He uses王立吐to denote the book in his hands because of the unfamiliarity.
However, in Japanese or Chinese, we can onlychoose Ko/Zhe to denote
the referent in our hands or mouth under such circumstances.
(3.8) (The speaker is touching a lightning scar on the hearer's forehead, with his long, white finger)
a) S: Sorede,麺追ga reino…
b) S: Ou,星旦旦jiu shi‥
C) S:And埴吐's where...
{Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
(3.9) (The speaker is pointing at a paragraphofa book in her hands)
a) S: Hora, koko.‥yondemite.
b) S: Du du星旦旦yiduan.
C) S: Read埴旦上, there.
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
25
(3.10) (The speaker is holding a photograph in his hands and looking at i=
a) S: Kono hito ha, ore no otousan da.
b) S:Zhe ren shiwo fu qin.
C) S: ‡旦吐s my father.
{Heroes)
As Lyons (1977) has claimed,王垣is marked while T.』吐is
unmarked. I also agree with the emotional deixis mentioned by Lakoff (1974). Therefore, in this research, there are some examples showing that王立旦t can be used not only under emotional circumstances, but also in circumstances of the three cases above.
This paper will explain the cases above from another cognitive notion. According to the aspect of Profile‑Base organization (Langacker 1987, 1991), Langacker definesprofile as a substructure within the base that is designated and achieves a special degree of prominence while base as the cognitive structure against which the designatum of a
semantic structure is profiled. When denoting a profile within a base,
for example, in the cases above: a scar (profile) on the forehead (base),
a paragraph (profile) in a book (base), a man (profile) in a photo (base),
besides辿,王立吐can also be used to denote the profile. Therefore, the analysis of this paper reveals that馳吐can make extension to This not
only because of the emotional influence, but also the perception of people.
In (3.8), the speaker is touching the scar on the forehead of the hearer; the speaker used王立旦tto denote the scar while we can only select Ko/Zhe in Japanese and Chinese. Moreover, in (3.9) (3.10), when the speaker is holding a book or a photo, and pointing at something in the
bookorphoto,王立吐can be used to refer to the target.
In the English speaker's mind,馳吐 can be used to denote
something under their territory even if the speaker has physical contact with the referent. As a result, the English demonstratives system contains a perspective of subjectivity, a subjectivity of exclusion. In this paper, it is called ̀Exclusive Subjectivity'.
3.2.3 SO/Zhe/That
So/Zhe/That type of correspondence (frequency‑9) is given in this section. Chinese demonstrative Z起旦's extension is the focus. Although Z圭坦is a proximal demonstrative, in Chinese, it can also be used as a non‑proximal demonstrative‑ As one of the correspondences to Japanese demonstrative S旦, plays an important role in Chinese demonstratives. It can also be used bythe speaker to denote the territory of the hearer.
27
(3.ll) (The speaker is talking about something in the hearer's hands)
○ ○
担/ノ 耳耳]
a) S: Nam封迂旦?
H: Kawan daro?
b) S:Zhe shen me ya?
H:Ke ai ba?
c) S:What the heckis吐吐?
H: Cute, isn't it?
(/ Litre of Tears)
(3.12) (The speaker is talking about hearer's suits)
a) S: Doushitano? SOnna kakko site?
b) S:Zen me huishi,ni血shen da ban?
C) S: What are you doing in吐旦n?uit? (/ Litre of Tears)
(3.13) (The speaker is asking the hearer to give him the book)
a) S:旦⊆坦旦hon wo kasite.
b) S: Ba ni星旦旦ben shujie wo.
C) S: Give me吐吐book.
(Crying Out Love, In the Center of the World)
In the Oppositional Model (1981) of Japanese demonstratives, the referent is denoted by S旦within the hearer's territory. As a result, in the given examples, each of the referent is in the hearer's territory and they
are denoted by So̲. According to the data, in English,王立吐is the correspondence of旦旦JA‑ It means in the hearer's territory,王立吐is theright choice to denote the referent.
On the other hand, in Chinese demonstratives, it is normal to use 狸旦to refer to the target. However, because the word Zhe's subjectivity is so strongthat everythingnearorfar fromthe speaker, even it is apart of the hearer can also be denoted by Z旦旦ー
3.2.4 SO/Na/That
In the cases below, So/Na/That
29
type of the examples
(frequency‑21) are given. Sk>̲ is important and difficult Japanese deictic demonstrative, it can be used bythe speakerto denote the referent in the
territory of the hearer in Oppositional Model.
(3.14) (The speaker is pointing someplace behind him and talking to the hearer in front of him)
a) S: Sonohen niaru.
H: Sonohentte donohen yo?
b) S:You de you de,zai坦旦li.
H:坦旦h shinalia?
C) S:Yes, yes. Right over there.
H: And where is over there?
(7 Litre of Tears)
(3.15) (The speaker is talking about the place he wouldn t go to and shouting at the hearer)
a) S: Watashiwo soko ni susume naide!
b) S: Bu yao ba wo paidaO型且̲̲吐!
C) S:Don t send me地!
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
Under these situations, the speaker is denoting the referent near him, even if the distance between the speaker and hearer is further, he can also use SO.
In (3.14), the speaker is telling the hearer that the thing is on the shelf behind him (the speaker). In (3.15), the speaker is asking the hearer not to send him to the place he will not like to go. These examples prove that there are many special situations that cannot be easily defined, especially the problems concerning the Sk>̲ series.
This research shows that in Japanese, if the speaker is focusing on a specific location or paying attention to a particular referent, he tends to use the S̲g̲ series to denote it regardless the distance. As a result, So s extension can be seen in Japanese demonstratives. In the cases
31
above, it is an extension to the臣旦series in the Oppositional Model.
Under such circumstances, this paper reveals that堅旦is marked and So is unmarked. The next part will be the S旦series in the Fusional Mode.
(3.16) (The two are standing on the top floor ofa building, looking for
the target that is coming into the building. When they find the target…)
a) S: Ita, sokoda!
H: Un.
b) S:Ta zai坦旦!
H: En.
c) S: There heis!
H: Yeah.
{New Police Story)
(3.17) (The speaker and hearer are facing many objects above them)
a) S: Are da! Ano ooki na yatu da! Soko, tigauyo,道連旦dayo!
b) S:Jiu shita!Na ba da yao shi,zai旦旦er,bu,bushi,zai担er!
C) S: That one! That big one! There, no埴旦旦呈.
{Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
In the Fusional Model (Shohol981), the speaker and the hearer
become an entity when they are close to each other, so they are making their own territory of ̀Wareware'.
Normally, according to Shoho (1981) and Kinsui, Takubo (1990), So is used to denote some places or something in a relative medium distance from 'Wareware'. However, in the examples above, we can see that the speaker and hearer are in the Fusional Model. When the referent is far away fromboth of them, it is normal to use A. However, from the examples, it is not strange to use So̲instead ofA, despite the distance between the two and the referent.
In (3‑16), the speaker is warning the hearer when they find the target, even though they are on the top floor while the target is on the first floor, the speaker used Soko. In (3.17), when many objects are
:W
flying above the speaker and hearer, the speaker says: ̀Are da! Ano ooki na yatu da!'Inthis sentence, he uses A and Ano to denotethe referent.
However, the next sentence is '墨旦k旦 For this reason, A.星旦 Ano and S旦k旦are on common ground although there is a spatially long distance between the two and the referent. Under such circumstances, this research reveals that A is marked and 旦旦is unmarked, and Sk>̲ also extends tO A.
In Japanese demonstratives, !SO̲ is vague and unmarked, and showing the vagueness and neutrality of the Japanese mind. For foreign Japanese learners, it is difficult to learn the deictic usage ofS且.
3.2.5 A/Na/That
In this section, the usages ofA/Na/That series (frequency‑21) will be compared. The traditional function of the A/Na/That series is to refer to an object that is spatially far away from the speaker and the hearer:
(3.18) (The two are watching the referent (red‑haired) from a long distance)
a) S: Oi, hetakuso na!由旦akage da!
b) S:Taixunle ba,hontou fa坦旦ge!
c) S: How stupid,埴吐one, red‑haired!
(New Police Story)
(3.19) (The two are watching the referent (goblin) from a long distance)
a) S: Sayo,旦星旦ga koonida.
b) S: bu cuo,旦旦jiu shiyige yaojing.
C) S: Yeah,地吐's a goblin.
(Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)
In the sentences above, all of the three languages tend to use A/Na/That to denote the referent spatially far away from the speaker (F.
4). Under such circumstances, the usages of the demonstratives in the three languages are on common ground.
3.2.6 A/Zhe/That
A/Zhe/That type (frequency‑3) is given in this part. In Chinese, 星直旦s extension is interesting. Shen (1999) claimed that Zhe is
unmarked while R旦is marked. Zhe can be used not only to denote the
35
medium distant referent (like S旦does), but also to denote the referent that is spatially far away fromthe speaker. It is a special phenomenon of Chinese demonstratives that we cannot see in Japanese or English. It is because of the Chinese self‑centered mind. This paper believes that when Chinese people began to recognize the world, it starts from the inside to the outside, from here to there.
(3.20) (The two are watching the referent from a long distance)
a) S:由迫zako demo ituka ha yaku nitatu.
b) S: Zhe zhongjue se, zong you yitian yong de zhao de.
c) S: We can always find ause for吐吐type.
(Kung Fu Hustle)
(3.21) (The two are watching the referent (beggars) from a long distance)
a) S: Aa̲na ttara owarida.
b) S: Qianwanbie xiang zhe xie chou yao fande.
C) S: Don't be like血追beggars.
(Kung Fu Hustle)
(3.22) (The two are watching the referent (the invention) from a long distance)
肝/輔胴サMH
a) S: Å工旦ga omae no hatumeijanaika?
b)S:Z垣bu shinide fa ming ma?
C) S: Isn t埴吐your invention?
(IfYouAre the One)
37
From the examples above, we can see that since the ̀that type', 'those beggars'and ̀that invention'are far from the speaker at a long distance, it is normal to use A/That in the other two languages. However, in Chinese,星圭坦and N̲a will both be correct. Moreover, Z互旦draws a mental and proximal distance despite the distance between the speaker and the referent while坦旦does not.
In brief, from the cognitive view of Chinese people, every
referent is around them. In the Chinese mind, there is a philosophical
saying of ̀Tian Ren He YT, which means the world and the people are
always together as one. As a result, in the mind of Chinese people, they
can use Zhe to denote something far beyond their territory. Chinese
demonstratives system contains a subjectivity of inclusion. It is called
'Inclusive Subjectivity' in this paper. It is also a feature of Chinese
demonstratives that we cannot see in Japanese or English.
Chapter IV: Conclusion
By reviewing the literature and analyzing the examples from the three languages, the demonstrative features of the three languages are concluded as follows:
In Japanese, S旦can be used in many situations within proximal or non‑proximal distance while Ko and A are always under the restriction. For this reason, S̲o is unmarked while 堅旦and A are marked. The examples shows that S旦contains 'Neutral Subjectivity' and extends to星旦and A.
In Chinese, this paper discovered that Z旦旦can be used between the speaker and the referent despite the distance while 埋旦cannot.
Moreover,迦contains 'Inclusive Subjectivity' from a cognitive
vision.
In English, this paper reveals that工垣吐has a feature of 'Exclusive
Subjectivity'. Besides, the Profile‑Base organization can be adopted
to give an explanation to why王立吐can be used even if the speakerhas physical contact with the referent, despite the emotional influence.
Besides, the features among the three demonstrative systems can be illustrated together as follows (F. 3, F. 4):
39
(M)‑Marked (U)‑Unmarked
F. 3 the Direction of Extension
Subjectiv ity
Inclu sive N eutral E xclu sive
Z he So T hat
F.4 Different Types of Subjectivity of the Unmarked Demonstratives
However, this research still has many limitations that need to be solved. More data and examples should be found and analyzed, and
more detailed and specific research towards each demonstrative system should be performed. These limitations will be complemented by further research.
By studying the deictic usage among the three demonstrative
systems from a cognitive view, many new features and distinctions were
found. I hope this research can not only be helpful to the Japanese
demonstrative education, but also to the Chinese and English
demonstrative education in the future.
Example Sources
Movie
Chan, Benny, dir. New Police Story. Perf. Jackie Chan, Nicholas Tse.
2004. DVD. Universal Pictures Japan. 2005
Chow, Stephen, dir. Kung Fu Hustle. Perf. Stephen Chow, Xiaogang Feng. 2005. DVD. Sony Pictures. 2005
Spielberg, Steven, dir. War of the Worlds. Perf. Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins. 2005. DVD. Dreamworks Video. 2005
Feng, Xiaogang, dir. If You Are the One. Perf. You Ge, Qi Shu. 2008.
DVD. Huayi Brothers Media Group. 2009
Stanton, Andrew, dir. Wall‑E. Perf. Ben Burtt, JeffGarlin. 2008. DVD.
Buena Vista. 2009
Novel
Rowling, J. K. HarryPotter and the Sorcerer's Stone. 1997. Bloomsbury Pub Ltd; Children's ed. 2000
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer‑s Stone. Trans. Yuko Matsuoka. 1999. Sayzansha.1999
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Trans. Nong Su.
2000. People's Literature Publishing House.2000
Drama
Katayama, Kyoichi. Ishimaru, Akihiko, pro. Crying Out Love, In the Center of the World. Perf. Takayuki Yamada, Haruka Ayase. 2005.
41
DVD. Universal Pictures Japan. 2005.
Kito, Aya. Kashikawa, Satoko, pro. 1 Litre of Tears. Perf. Erika SawaJin, Ryo Nishikido. 2006. DVD. Ponycanyon. 2006.
Kring, Tim, pro. Heroes. Peri. Milo Ventimigha, Jack Coleman. 2008.
DVD. Universal Pictures Japan. 2008
References
Benveniste, Emile. Problems in General Linguistics. University of Miami Press. 1973
Cui, Ymgxian. uZhe BiNa Da." Chinese language 2 (1997): 126‑128.
Fillmore, J. Charles. Lectures on Deixis. Stan ford Univ Center for the Study. 1997
Halliday, Hasan. Cohesion in English‑ Longman Group Ltd. 1976
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. "Subjectivity in Language and Linguistic Index of Subjectivity (1), (2)." Yamanashi Masaaki, etc. Studies of Cognitive
Linだuistics No. 3; No. 4. Hitsuji Shobo. (2003; 2004): 1‑49; 1‑60
Kinsui,S, Kimura,H. and Y.Takubo. Demonstratives: Japanese Grammar Self‑master Series 4. Kuroshio. 1989
Kinsui, Takubo. Demonstratives:Collected Papers on Japanese Studies.
Hitsuji Shobo. 1992
Lu, Shuxiang. XianDaiHanYu Ba BaiCi. The Commercial Press. 1980 Lu, Shuxiang. Jin DaiHanYu Zhi Dai Ci. Xue Lin Press. 1985
Lakoff, R. HRemarks on This and That." Papers from the loth Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics. (1974): 345‑356
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stan ford University Press. 1987
Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II, Descriptive Application. Stan ford University Press. 1991
Langacker, Ronald W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New
43
York: Oxford University Press. 2008
Lyons, J. Semantics 2. Cambridge University Press. 1977
Lyons, J. "Deixis and Subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?" R. J. Jarvella and Wolfgan Klein. Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Gesture. John Wiley& Sons Inc. (1982): 183‑226
