In the field of Japanese linguistics, a sentence is conceived to have a two-tier structure viz. “proposition” and “modality.” At the level of proposition are the grammatical categories such as voice, aspect, negation and tense while those at the level of modality include markers of deontic and epistemic modality. In this research paradigm, it is tacitly assumed that at the level of proposition, ipso facto, there is no room for cross-linguistic variation since it is the “objective” description?modality being the forte of “subjective” description allowing variation across languages. This view accords with the findings of typological studies such as as Bybee (1985) and Bybee et.a.l. (1994).

In this paper we will argue that languages do vary even at the so-called level of proposition through a typological study of events involving first person as a patient/recipient/goal. Our analysis is couched in the Speech Act Participant (SAP) based framework proposed in Shibatani (2003) which offers a principled and unified account of passive, inverse (transmission events), verbs of ‘giving’ (transaction events) and benefactive event involving first person as a goal of action, motion, transaction and benefit respectively (see data from Japanese on page 2).

Keeping the semantic denominator constant?speaker (or those in his in-group) being the patient/recipient/goal of an action, motion, transaction or benefit?the cross-linguistic study of the events under discussion nicely unravel subtle differences across languages. Our claim that languages do exhibit variation at the level of proposition is based on the primary data from languages from East Asia (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Mongolian), South East Asia (Thai. Vietnamese, Cambodian), South Asia (Marathi, Hindi, Nepali) and Europe (English, German).

We claim that the cross-linguistic variation under investigation is not random but rather well motivated and is dictated by the notion of interpersonal characteristic of a language or the notion of “subjectivity” that a language entertains. The higher the degree of subjectivity the greater are the chances of using the marked expressions like passive, inverse, lexical inverse and benefactive. We argue further that the variation in question is not an isolated fact but has an overall repercussion on the grammar of the language as a whole?the higher the degree of interpersonal characteristic of a language, the wider and profound are the ramifications of such SAP related phenomenon pointing at the necessity of non-linguistic (cultural) facts to bear upon the linguistic description?a methodology akin to cognitive-functional linguistic approaches. Our findings nicely complement and echo with Uehara (manuscript) who nicely demonstrates through a cross-linguistic study that languages differ in respect of degree of “subjectivity” that they impose upon their speakers.

DATA FROM JAPANESE

(1)	Watasi-wa sensoo-ni hantai sita node minna-ni hihan s-are-ta.
	I-TOP war-to oppose did hence all-by criticize-PASS-PAST
	‘Since I opposed the war everyone criticized me.’
(2)	boku-wa ame-ni fur-are-ta.
	I-TOP rain-by fall-PASS-PAST
	‘I was adversely affected by the rain.’
(3)	boku-wa Taro-ni nikki-o yom-are-ta.
	I-TOP Taro-by diary-ACC read-PASS-PAST
	‘I was adversely affected by Taro reading my diary.’
(4)	Ken-ga boku-ni denwa-o shi-te kita.
	Ken-NOM I-DAT phone-ACC do-CONJ came
	‘Ken called me.’
(5)	Ken-ga boku-ni hon-o kure-ta.
	Ken-NOM I-DAT book-ACC give-PAST
	‘Ken gave me a book.’
(6)	Ken-wa boku-o tasuke-te kure-ta.
	Ken-TOP I-ACC help-CONJ give-PAST
	‘Ken helped me.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SELECTED REFERENCES

DeLancey, S. 1981. “An Interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns”. Language 57: 626-657.
Shibatani, M. 2003. “Directional Verbs in Japanese”. In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages, Shay, S. (ed.), 259-286, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, C. 1994. “Passive and Inverse Constructions” In Voice and Inversion, T. Givon (ed), 47-63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Uehara, S. (manuscript). “Typologizing linguistic subjectivity: A cognitive and cross-linguistic approach to grammaticalized deixis.” Tohoku University.