+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Japanese language (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: volitionality and transitivity (/thread-7372.html)
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-24
This thread is for nadiatims to tell Tzadeck and yudantaiteki about their concepts of が or something like that.
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-24
This is from A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar:
“F. Non-volitional verbs:
A non-volitional verb usually does not take the volitional form, the imperative form and the potential form. Non-volitional verbs are classified into emotive verbs and non-emotive verbs.
F-1. Non-volitional-emotive verbs:
Most of the non-volitional-emotive verbs can take an NP-を. (を4, ‘a particle that indicates the cause of some human emotion’ ...; since they ‘... are all inwardly-oriented psychological verbs they cannot be considered transitive verbs in Japanese. Therefore, the particle を4 preceding these verbs cannot be the ordinary direct object marker を which normally marks an outwardly-oriented event. Rather it indicates the cause for human emotion expressed by the main verb.’
よろこぶ (be pleased); 悲しむ (be sad); 怒る (be angry); きらう (hate); 好む (like); 困る (get into trouble); 苦しむ (suffer)
(Komaru and kurushimu do not take an NP-を. They take either an NP-で
or an NP-に.)
F-2. Non-volitional-non-emotive verbs:
できる (can do); いる (need); 知る (get to know); 見える (be visible); 聞こえる (be audible); 分かる (understand); 違う (differ); 似合う (become, be suitable); 疲れる (get tired).”
Talk of volitionality is often used throughout the DOJG series to clarify descriptions of grammatical patterns. It adds a very useful descriptive layer for conceptualizing these ideas, in my mind.
Iwasaki and Shibatani and others seem to equate non-volitional/volitional with unaccusative and unergative, both of which are considered intransitive, when discussing these distinctions.
According to some linguists, in double subject constructions (of which dative subject constructions might be considered a part), the (stative) predicate has a lower level (or none?) of volitionality for the large subject/clause-level (Kumashiro's term?) subject. Shibatani seems to indicate that these double/dative subject constructions should be classified as intransitive predications. Prashant seems to call for some sort of spectrum of transitivity rather than transitive/intransitive?
At any rate, rather than subject/object in those double/dative subject cases I think the less transitive and less volitional idea of a small subject or predicate-level subject or ‘objective’ (Tokieda?) idea seems better.
References: Umm, Misumi Sadler on something something across time and space, Shibatani on non-canonical constructions with explanations of stative properties, DOJG series, a book called Japanese, Tsujimura's book on Japanese linguistics, Masuda Kyoko on the discourse function something something.
volitionality and transitivity - yudantaiteki - 2011-02-24
nadiatims wrote:
" How was I derailing the thread? I just pointing out a that Tzadeck's answer to someone's question was wrong and then gave the right explanation (which was totally on topic). Then my explanation was challenged using the usual examples (sentences with 2 がs etc) and I answered those challenges. The discussion then fizzled out (as people are unable to find actual faults with my arguments except to make appeals to higher authorities) as has happened every time this topic has come up."
I mentioned JSL, and there's also Tsujimura's "Introduction to Japanese Linguistics", both of which are resources that explain my position. It's the method I've used to teach for 6 years now, and it works. Perhaps "stative verb" is a better label than "transitive verb" (what Tsujimura uses); JSL avoids the issue by not using the terms "subject" and "object" at all.
"The verbs in these examples, such as 'wakaru' and 'hanaseru' are unusual in that both subject and direct object are marked with the Nominative Case particle 'ga'. These verbs are called 'stative verbs', which also include 'iru' and 'aru'..." (253)
There is no way you can say "ga always marks the subject" and not have a circular definition. The problem with your analysis of the XがYがZ structure is covered on Tsujimura 270, which discusses why "ga always marks the subject" does not work for Japanese.
The notion of isolating the second YがZ as a separate sentence does not work for more complicated examples, particularly ones involving 自分, which can only refer to X and not Y (as covered on Tsujimura 271-272). The problem with trying to make simple explanations is that they often work for simple sentences but not for more complicated ones.
Moreover, the idea of there being two separate わかる words, one meaning "to understand" and the other meaning "to be clear" strikes me as a needlessly complicated way to explain the issue. It's an ad-hoc explanation that doesn't do anything to explain *why* some words take が and others を. The volitional/non-volitional explanation does this, and it also explains the variation you sometimes see in certain words by native speakers.
彼が英語が分かる is described by JSL as an "affective verb" that takes a "primary affect" and a "secondary affect". Tsujimura (and most other japanese linguistic texts) call it a "stative verb" where the subject and object are both marked by が.
You say: "A sentence such as 彼が日本語がわかる。is really 彼が(subject) 日本語がわかる(predicate), just the predicate can be broken down again to 日本語が(subject)わかる(predicate)." I have never seen this explanation anywhere else. You then say "A literal translation which preserves the grammar and word definitions would be something like "He(,) Japanese is clear".", but this "translation" makes no sense because the "Japanese is clear" is not a predicate, it's a whole sentence. You can't just say "He [sentence]". It's possible with は because は is a topic marker, but が doesn't work like that -- what comes after が is far more limited in scope than what comes after は.
I think you are right that 分かる is not transitive. But "having a grammatical object" is not necessarily the definition of a transitive verb, although other terms are commonly used in linguistics.
This is about as far as I can go. I'm not going to rely on an explanation that has no authority behind it, especially when I have other explanations that *do* have authority.
volitionality and transitivity - yudantaiteki - 2011-02-24
Also, a note on linguistic labels: They have to (a) correctly describe the language, and (b) serve a useful function. The problem with a lot of casual explanations is that they're circular.
People will say "を marks the direct object", which is OK, but it immediately calls up things that look like exceptions (when viewed from English) like 道を行く or 離婚を悲しむ. Some people are then tempted to say "Well, those can be direct objects in Japanese", but now you've created a situation where "direct object" has no meaning except "something marked by を", and the result is a term that serves no purpose because the definition is completely circular. Notice that the DBJ explanation above does *not* try to explain those as direct objects, but explains this as a different meaning of を. JSL goes an alternate round and creates a term "operand" that includes things not normally considered direct objects in English (like the 道を行く example above).
(Unfortunately DBJ does try to consider 日本語が分かる a subject, but they don't deal with the double-が phrases so I don't know how they would explain those.)
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-24
I think the following refers back to what Tzadeck had summarized, from p. 372 of DOBJG:
“In general, the choice between が and を seems to depend on the degree of volition expressed in the action the experiencer takes. That is, if his volition is high, を is preferable...
... できる ‘can do’, however, always requires the object of an action to be marked by が.”
@yudantaiteki
From DOBJG on p. 120: “In some expressions, elements which are considered to be direct objects are presented as subjects and are marked by が...
... When predicates are transitive adjectives or stative transitive verbs, the elements which correspond to the direct object in English are marked by が.”
It also has that は/が entry where it's Topic or Subject(1)/Predicate(1) [w/ Predicate (1) divided into Subject(2) and Predicate(2)]. I still think Shibatani/Kumashiro/Prashant/etc. have good explanations of these constructions (folding them into the double subject/dative subject thing). Connecting them to dependency, volitionality, physical/mental states, etc.
Edit:
Also from p. 530:
“Wakaru normally takes が to indicate the object of comprehension, but must take を when ‘non-spontaneous comprehension’ is involved, as in causative sentences or sentences in which the experiencer makes a conscious effort to understand something.”
Personally I never used terms like direct object in English, and didn't start in Japanese. I kept things on a conceptual/case-by-case basis. So I don't really understand any of these issues as pedagogical concerns or learner problems, but it's interesting so I'm participating at random. ;p
Shibatani also mentions Tokieda's ‘objective’ rather than object/subject, I wonder if that's similar to JSL's ‘operand’.
Tzadeck mentioned Rubin, who from what I read doesn't differ from JSL on this stuff you are all talking about, and references them in a positive way when speaking of 分かる.
Edit: I like this, guess Prashant wasn't nearly the first: “In functional grammar, transitivity is considered to be a continuum rather than a binary category. The "continuum" view takes a more semantic approach, e.g. by taking into account the degree to which an action affects its object (so that the verb see is described as having "lower transitivity" than the verb kill).”
Ahha! I traced these ideas back to Hopper & Thompson (1980), should've looked sooner since they kept popping up: https://www.ceng.metu.edu.tr/~bozsahin/ccg/hopper-thompson-transitivity.pdf (wherein high transitivity and volitionality are related)
Another classic I found, on the syntax of topic-prominent languages, from Li and Thompson (1976): http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel03/
volitionality and transitivity - nadiatims - 2011-02-25
this will be long. Thanks in advance to all those that take the time to read it carefully.
I'll respond in chronological order and make a summary and conclusion at the end.
let's get started.
nestor Wrote:“This is from A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar: “F. Non-volitional verbs:except when you say something like 死ね (imperative) or 一緒に死にましょう (volitional form). I'm not quite sure why you brought up this point as it doesn't appear to dictate grammar in anyway. Rather it would appear that it's okay if the word's definition and context allow for it make sense in context.
F. Non-volitional verbs:
A non-volitional verb usually does not take the volitional form, the imperative form and the potential form. Non-volitional verbs are classified into emotive verbs and non-emotive verbs
nestor Wrote:Most of the non-volitional-emotive verbs can take an NP-を. (を4, ‘a particle that indicates the cause of some human emotion’ ...; since they ‘... are all inwardly-oriented psychological verbs they cannot be considered transitive verbs in Japanese. Therefore, the particle を4 preceding these verbs cannot be the ordinary direct object marker を which normally marks an outwardly-oriented event. Rather it indicates the cause for human emotion expressed by the main verb.’I'm not quite sure why you bring this up, as it doesn't really conflict with anything I was saying about が marking subject. It may indicate volitionality plays some part in determining whether an を marked word (be it subject or not) can be used, but it seems more likely that this needs to be judged on a case by case basis depending on the definition of the words in question and convention. It would seem that 困る and 苦しむ are used as intransitive verbs and きらう and 好む are definitely used like transitive verbs. The others listed seem to be kind of grey area and can act as both, and I don't think the concept of volitionality is helpful in producing correct Japanese when using these words. Having heard them thousands of times will. I think it's also worth noting a significant difference with the English though:
よろこぶ (be pleased); 悲しむ (be sad); 怒る (be angry); きらう (hate); 好む (like); 困る (get into trouble); 苦しむ (suffer) (Komaru and kurushimu do not take an NP-を. They take either an NP-で or an NP-に.)
be pleased, be sad, be angry: verb(be) + adjective.
よろこぶ、悲しむ、怒る: verb only
The object slot (if you call it that) of the verb 'be' is already filled, so we can't add an object. We don't necessarily think of the english copula as being transitive, but it does have a slot which can be filled indicating what it is the subject is being. So while you may think of say よろこぶ as meaning 'be pleased', they can't necessary be used the same way, because the same meaning is being conveyed using different parts of speech. So just because 'be pleased' as a set can be thought of as intransitive verb (taking no additional arguments) that doesn't mean the same is true for よろこぶ. よろこぶ's slot is left empty so perhaps it can take an object. We need to learn these words on a case by case basis and be sure of their meanings. Which words can take which arguments? can they be transitive? Perhaps it can be either transitive or intransitive? English example:
I suffered.
I suffered a financial loss.
Note though, whether transitive or not, word order defines subject and object in English sentences, and this is done by inflexion(particles) in japanese. Transitivity doesn't effect that, rather it just show whether a verb can or cannot take an object.
yudantaiteki Wrote:"The verbs in these examples, such as 'wakaru' and 'hanaseru' are unusual in that both subject and direct object are marked with the Nominative Case particle 'ga'. These verbs are called 'stative verbs', which also include 'iru' and 'aru'..." (253) There is no way you can say "ga always marks the subject" and not have a circular definition. The problem with your analysis of the XがYがZ structure is covered on Tsujimura 270, which discusses why "ga always marks the subject" does not work for Japanese. The notion of isolating the second YがZ as a separate sentence does not work for more complicated examples, particularly ones involving 自分, which can only refer to X and not Y (as covered on Tsujimura 271-272). The problem with trying to make simple explanations is that they often work for simple sentences but not for more complicated one'wakaru' and potential verbs such as 'hanaseru' don't have a direct object, just as "iru" and "aru" don't. It doesn't make sense to "exist something" and it doesn't make sense to "be clear something" or to "can be spoken something", we put these things in the subject slot in English(other side of the verb) and we use the subject marker が in japanese. Go look up the meaning of 'wakaru' in a Japanese dictionary. Actually let me do it for you:
１ 意味や区別などがはっきりする。理解する。了解する。「物のよしあしが―・る」「言わんとすることはよく―・る」「訳が―・らない」
２ 事実などがはっきりする。判明する。「身元が―・る」「答えが―・る」「持ち主の―・らない荷物」
３ 物わかりがよく、人情・世情に通じる。「話の―・る人」
Just as with English, words sometimes have multiple definitions and ways of being used. In a sentence such as 彼は（が）日本語が分かる, the meaning applied isn't 理解する, the transitive definition which can take an を marked object. Don't believe me, then go check with some natives. I posted a couple of links in the other thread of native speakers' opinions on this. So this example doesn't cut it as showing が as anything other than a subject marker. But if you're stuck on 'wakaru' meaning transitive 'understand' in that sentence, then there will be no convincing you I think.
Regarding 自分, I remember that coming up a long time ago and I explained it. Let me dig it up for you. Here it is (edited slightly):
yudataiteki Wrote:太郎が花子が自分のグループで一番好きだ。 In this sentence, 自分 can only refer to 太郎 and not 花子, showing that there is a grammatical property that 太郎 holds in this sentence that 花子 does not, despite the fact that they are both marked by が.太郎 is being modified by the phrase 花子が自分のグループで一番好きだ. Because what Taro likes is a matter or his choice, it makes sense to use 自分の to describe "his own group". "Taro likes Hanako most in her own group." doesn't make sense because Hanako is just the passive object of Taro's liking. We would just say "Taro likes Hanako most in her group." (note the distinction between 'her own' and 'her')
yudantaiteki Wrote:Tsujimura shows also how 自分 can refer to は or に marked nouns, and can even refer to multiple nouns in cases where there are multiple subjects due to embedded sentences (i.e. 太郎が花子に次郎が自分を批判したと言った; here 自分 can be either 太郎 or 次郎.)自分を (自分 plus object marker を) can mean herself/himself/myself/itself. Note 自分 is filling the object(を) slot. Therefore in this case 自分 can't refer to 花子, because 花子 is the target of a verb rather than the subject. We wouldn't say "Taro said to Hanako that jiro criticised herself." we would use the word "her" instead of "herself" because Hanako is not performing the action. So who 自分 refers in any given sentence is either obvious from a logical standpoint within context or it is just inherently ambiguous. I guess you could make a point of finding the 自分 target and then call it the 'subject', but I don't really see the point. If the only way to find the 'subject' is through this 自分 test, then finding the 'subject' doesn't help us find the 自分 target and so it's not really useful for anything.
yudantaiteki Wrote:Moreover, the idea of there being two separate わかる words, one meaning "to understand" and the other meaning "to be clear" strikes me as a needlessly complicated way to explain the issue. It's an ad-hoc explanation that doesn't do anything to explain *why* some words take が and others を. The volitional/non-volitional explanation does this, and it also explains the variation you sometimes see in certain words by native speakers.The reason I suggest there are two separate words, is because there appear to be different ways it can be used (syntacticly) . It's not ad-hoc or overly complicated. It's just an observation of reality, check the dictionary definition I pasted above. If you consider them distinct words or two definitions of one word is unimportant. Are gather (gather your belongings) and gather(gather at the meeting place) two separate words? Is this an ad hoc explanation too? Note both are volitional but that has no effect on which word we interpret as subject or object, that is dictated by word order in English. And it's dictated by inflection (particles) in japanese.
yudantaiteki Wrote:You say: "A sentence such as 彼が日本語がわかる。is really 彼が(subject) 日本語がわかる(predicate), just the predicate can be broken down again to 日本語が(subject)わかる(predicate)." I have never seen this explanation anywhere else. You then say "A literal translation which preserves the grammar and word definitions would be something like "He(,) Japanese is clear".", but this "translation" makes no sense because the "Japanese is clear" is not a predicate, it's a whole sentence. You can't just say "He [sentence]". It's possible with は because は is a topic marker, but が doesn't work like that -- what comes after が is far more limited in scope than what comes after は."He (is japanese is clear)."="He is japanese is clear" is incorrect grammatically because 'japanese' is acting as the 'object' of 'he is' and the subject of 'is clear'. Note: to make the english "japanese is clear", a predicate we need to add a verb 'is' on the front, with the owner of the verb automatically then becoming the preceding word. Ambiguity is introduced and the space-time-continuum explodes.
This ambiguity does not exist in the japanese sentence because the fragment 日本語がわかる can act either as a complete sentence, or like an adjective (as in 日本語がわかる人). So just as you can say 林檎が赤い with a verb implicit in the adjective red, you can say 彼が日本語がわかる。 which may seem to be a bit of a mind f*ck to you but this syntactical quality, having the verb on the end of the sentence makes it possible.
There's still a few things to address in your other post and also nestor's. But I'll address those in the next instalment. Also the summary and conclusion will come next time.
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-25
@nadiatims - Actually you will notice that I have not directly responded to your points, I think in any thread? (My memory is terrible.) The reason being that I find your posts mostly incoherent and disagreeable. ;p If it softens the blow, most people likely find my posts incoherent also. It's just that I was able to pick up the general topic through various comments from those debating, and used it to inspire myself to learn about these things in more detail. Thanks to this diversion I've learned about how surprisingly deep the utility of volitionality as a descriptive tool goes, thinking of transitivity as existing on a continuum (of which volitionality is an essential part), and read more about Japanese linguistics that helps me understand the nuances of what magamo was saying about the ‘subject’ in Japanese.
Edit: And I see also that magamo has written on unergative (非能格動詞)/unaccusative (非対格動詞) also, interesting.
volitionality and transitivity - yudantaiteki - 2011-02-25
I just don't see the point in further responses -- I'm quoting sources from four people, three native speakers, all specialists in Japanese linguistics with decades of experience, and you just respond "no, you're wrong". Even if your explanation is valid (which I'm still not convinced it is), it's much more useful for learners to stick to explanations that have backing in books where they can look it up and read more about it.
One thing, though:
Quote:１ 意味や区別などがはっきりする。理解する。了解する。「物のよしあしが―・る」「言わんとすることはよく―・る」「訳が―・らない」Of course these are three different definitions; I never said words don't have multiple meanings. But notice that these definitions do not divide along the lines you're trying to propose (i.e. one that takes を and one that takes が). Also note that the first 2 are defined in terms of transitive verbs (理解する and 判明する).
２ 事実などがはっきりする。判明する。「身元が―・る」「答えが―・る」「持ち主の―・らない荷物」
３ 物わかりがよく、人情・世情に通じる。「話の―・る人」
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-25
Just to give a partial explanation of why I haven't bothered with point-by-point responses, and to reply on this occasion, keeping in mind I can't even tell what your overall points are much less disagree or agree...
nadiatims Wrote:except when you say something like 死ね (imperative) or 一緒に死にましょう (volitional form). I'm not quite sure why you brought up this point as it doesn't appear to dictate grammar in anyway. Rather it would appear that it's okay if the word's definition and context allow for it make sense in context.What do you mean by dictate? When did we start talking about dictating grammar? I'm not even sure what dictating grammar even means. What would be doing the dictating? The grammar? So you're saying the grammar doesn't dictate the grammar in any way? Or rather that it doesn't appear to dictate itself? So you're not saying it doesn't, but that it doesn't appear to? What's that in response to? And what's okay, in ‘it's okay’ if the ‘definition and context’ allow for it to make sense in... context? That's an example of me trying to understand what you're saying after starting off with a dismissal of the relevance of the thing I posted and which you quoted. You essentially dismissed it then explained why but I still have no idea why, thus I have no idea how to explain it to you. To top it off, without any idea whether you even have a reason to dismiss it at all, I'm not sure I even want to explain because it seems you're just dismissing things without good reason.
The point I quoted and which you responded to already has ‘usually’ in the definition. On Wikipedia it talks of ‘generally’. That's setting aside whether 死ぬ is non-volitional (according to magamo and other stuff I read, it's considered unergative rather than unaccusative as ‘die’ is in English). That's the great thing about describing language in terms of grammar. You need only point out consistent patterns insofar as they are widely applicable and add a powerful conceptual layer to conceive of actions and agents in situations, to help learners and others parse the language and understand its dynamics on its own terms. Volitionality is a logical aspect of definition and context, of transitivity when talking of these dynamics and how they shape the language as it's used.
nadiatims Wrote:I'm not quite sure why you bring this up, as it doesn't really conflict with anything I was saying about が marking subject. It may indicate volitionality plays some part in determining whether an を marked word (be it subject or not) can be used, but it seems more likely that this needs to be judged on a case by case basis depending on the definition of the words in question and convention.So I'm only supposed to bring things up that conflict with what you said about が marking the subject? I don't even remember what you said about that. Not sure I read it.
I brought it up because it describes A) a type of non-volitional verb and B) its interactions with を in terms of the operative dynamics. In other words, it's describing volitionality in Japanese verbs, its logic and mechanism, and presenting it consistently in the book to aid in understanding the language. Non-volitional verbs generally don't take volitional forms, imperative forms, or potential forms. I believe Iwasaki and Shibatani also mention progressive forms when used in particular, common constructions.
When certain types of non-volitional verbs, emotive, take を, it doesn't operate in the same way someone who has been learning and using the language with を might normally expect, hence the entry/description. They've just outlined some consistent patterns and explained the role of volitionality. Seems more useful to me than dismissing that and saying that ‘it seems more likely’ you can just explain it on a case-by-case basis without recognizing and chunking these concepts in terms of their mechanisms of action.
nadiatims Wrote:It would seem that 困る and 苦しむ are used as intransitive verbs and きらう and 好む are definitely used like transitive verbs. The others listed seem to be kind of grey area and can act as both, and I don't think the concept of volitionality is helpful in producing correct Japanese when using these words. Having heard them thousands of times will.You're saying that because the transitivity differs but the volitionality does not, volitionality is the one that isn't helpful? So when you find consistent patterns (do you think they just randomly picked those words, or mistakenly found that they fit the profile of volitionality/non-volitionality retroactively, and you're just now able to point out where all these linguists went wrong, but sadly only after publication?) you disregard their consistency in favour of general inconsistent concepts and rote learning over thousands of instances of exposure?
From what these scholars explain, knowing the volitionality explains why certain constructions and particle usage is considered awkward/ungrammatical or more natural. That seems pretty useful to me for recognizing and producing correct Japanese when using non-volitional verbs. I think transitivity, especially in light of what functional grammar analyses have indicated and the way Japanese works with regards to double subject and dative subject constructions, should be kept on that contextualized sliding scale that is parsed in terms of things like volitionality, it seems to work well for Japanese in explaining the structures and usage.
nadiatims Wrote:I think it's also worth noting a significant difference with the English though:You're using English translations to explain Japanese grammar, apparently, so I'm not sure what's going on there.
be pleased, be sad, be angry: verb(be) + adjective.
よろこぶ、悲しむ、怒る: verb only
The object slot (if you call it that) of the verb 'be' is already filled, so we can't add an object. We don't necessarily think of the english copula as being transitive, but it does have a slot which can be filled indicating what it is the subject is being. So while you may think of say よろこぶ as meaning 'be pleased', they can't necessary be used the same way, because the same meaning is being conveyed using different parts of speech. So just because 'be pleased' as a set can be thought of as intransitive verb (taking no additional arguments) that doesn't mean the same is true for よろこぶ. よろこぶ's slot is left empty so perhaps it can take an object. We need to learn these words on a case by case basis and be sure of their meanings. Which words can take which arguments? can they be transitive? Perhaps it can be either transitive or intransitive? English example:
I suffered.
I suffered a financial loss.
nadiatims Wrote:Note though, whether transitive or not, word order defines subject and object in English sentences, and this is done by inflexion(particles) in japanese. Transitivity doesn't effect that, rather it just show whether a verb can or cannot take an object.The way you're using ‘defines’ (and later ‘dictates’) as well as ‘subject and object’ sounds oversimplified and prescriptive to me. Also, a less transitive, less volitional verb, for instance, will affect particle use as well as conceptualization of what constitutes a subject or object or whether those should be treated as rigid categories dictated by singular syntactic elements. I don't think a simple top-down hierarchical pattern is appropriate for the system.
As for 分かる and ‘gather’, you might want to look into concepts such as lexemes in case you're unfamiliar. Being intransitive/transitive doesn't create a different word as I define ‘word’ and as I think lexicographers discuss it. And as far as I know, 分かる doesn't even change as much as ‘gather’ does in terms of being placed into distinct intrinsic transitive/intransitive binaries. The transitive thing in definitions seems to be a possible way of translating into English. I don't think the average learner gets all that confused by it as long as they don't think of Japanese and English the same and try to explain the grammar of Japanese with English translations as you seem to have done. I always thought of 分かる as stative/non-volitional at the intransitive end of the scale, but conceptually rather than using these terms. Rubin and Makino talk about ‘non-spontaneous comprehension,’ with regards to を, the increased amount of volition which affects particle usage.
For the 彼が日本語が分かる type construction, Shibatani, Sadler, Watanabe, Kumashiro, Makino, etc. already have good explanations for this in terms of presence/absence of control in these constructions that tend to occur with words lower in transitivity. Simply calling both a subject in the way English understands it and leaving it at that doesn't work because the construction operates under more constrained parameters. There are nuances involved that can be classified into a set of easily recognized concepts and clusters functioning across the continuum of transitivity.
And something like 日本語が分かる is understood contextually through the way the language is shaped as a topic-prominent type, not because it can inherently stand alone complete as it is.
At any rate, I still have no idea where we agree/disagree, I'm just riffing for my own self-elucidation.
volitionality and transitivity - Thora - 2011-02-25
Nadia, not sure why you're so fascinated/bothered by this particular issue. In any case, I figured I'd spell ydtt off for a bit... ;-)
Think about 形容動詞. They're semantically adjectives and grammatically nouns. Also, think about when you stopped called subjects "agents" b/c "Agent" relates to semantic roles and "subject" to grammar structure roles and their referents aren't always the same. Well, a similar semantics vs syntax thing is going on here I think.
In your sentence: the person doing the understanding is 私 and the thing that is understandable is 日本語, regardless of the grammar forms. You've already acknowledged as much in saying、 "Hanako is just the passive object of Taro's liking" (in connection with sentence太郎が花子が自分のグループで一番好きだ.)
が can mark the semantic object of stative verbs (and certain other things). That's what it says in my super vast library of dictionaries and textbooks. That's what was taught in the schools I'm familiar with. Call it what you like: objective が, subjective object, nominative object, minor subject, whatever. It is what it is. (It's not just some Yale JSL oddity.) :-)
Even Japanese folks are talking about it: : この文例にみられるような「が」は，一般的な辞書（広辞苑の「が」の項目）や文法書（山口・秋本，2001）にしたがうと，希望，好悪，能力などの対象を表していると考える。 (from a paper on が/を)
が plays a few different roles. So does を. Learners can handle that. Yup. I share ydtt's view that oversimplification is what necessitates complicated exceptions. (You had that a bit backwards, imo). (ie ～を歩く "～" is not a direct object. ～に勝つ "～" can be an object. ) Sure, it's important to present this material well, but I also don't think that learners find it particularly troublesome. (I suppose I don't know how self-studiers are doing, though.)
[You've probably read the various theories on double がs, but I thought looking at it this way might allow for the two concepts to coexist. You know, .... to each their own....no one is wrong....sorta' thing... ;-)]
Quote:In a sentence such as 彼は（が）日本語が分かる, the meaning applied isn't 理解する, the transitive definition which can take an を marked object.Like ydtt, I'm not very persuaded by your take on わかる. I believe the meaning is closer to can understand/understandable:
Daijirin: (1)物事の意味･価値などが理解できる｡｢意味が―･る｣｢英語の―･る人｣
Kenkyusha: (2)〔使いこなせる〕 have (a good) command (of language)
This idea of ability (which implies an able person) is important. The "be clear" meaning can apply when st becomes known, revealed, realized, found out. I think both are stative.
Niwasaburo refers to わかる as belonging to the class of "ability" verbs (which mark their object with が). Someone in Nadiatim's link describes ロシア語 as the object of subject 先生's ability to understand (能力）. Another person in the link describes it as 理解可能. My books include this description too. This use of わかる is different than ordinary SがV(Intr) in the sense that regular intransitives don't have an 'understandor' subject like わかる does. (Think of the difference between intransitive and passive where the existence of the agent is felt.) Also, as mentioned, the stative わかる sometimes takes を, just like potential verbs often do now. [They're conceived of as SOV sentences.]
Quote:In fact objects only appear to take が when word meanings are altered in translation.nope.... not a fact
Quote:The only reason people ever say that sometimes が marks an object is in failing to reconcile the fact that sometimes the same concept is expressed in an entirely different way (using different vocabulary) in the two languages.nope...not the only reason ever
I wonder where you are getting your 'facts' from ...
Quote:I posted a couple of links in the other thread of native speakers' opinions on this. So this example doesn't cut it as showing が as anything other than a subject marker. But if you're stuck on 'wakaru' meaning transitive 'understand' in that sentence, then there will be no convincing you I think.
Quote:If you can find one Japanese native willing to say that わかる is acting as a transitive verb in that sentence I'll eat my hat.You want some catsup with that hat... :-) In link 1, someone says that the subject is 先生 and the object is ロシア語. He reminds us that even though it's an intransitive verb which traditionally takes が、young people are now using を. Another says that the sentence 「田中先生の説明は分からない」 has a transitive feel [when] the subject is 私, but that in a contrastive は sentence 「他の先生の説明は分かるが、田中先生の説明は、（私以外の人にも）分からない」, you'd lose the hidden 私 subject meaning and 説明 would be the subject.
That pretty fairly describes it's hybrid nature. わかる may be intransitive, but 日本語がわかる is felt to be transitive-ish. Like all the others words of desire or ability in that category, there needs to be a subject person who has the ability or desire. An ordinary S+V(intr) would feel complete ...because it is. 日本語がわかる doesn't stand alone*, the subject is understood to be 私 if not stated. (It can only be 私 with certain words obviously.) Although marked が、日本語 can still be perceived as the semantic object. It is what it is.
[*edit: I realize that わかる can form standalone predicates. Based on something I read (nisawaburo, I think), I'm making a distinction between that standalone わかる (maybe the it's be clear sense?) and ability sense which has an implicit 私. The same distinction was described for 見える and 聞こえる which have both senses. It didn't actual specify わかる in this type of sentence, however (and I'm too lazy to confirm it), so I could be mistaken. Anyone?]
Someone in your link equated the わかる sentence with 象は鼻が長い. But it's not exactly the same, is it.
I'm afraid I can't follow some of your 2 grammar explanations. That implied copula in が stuff still sounds wacky to me. I imagine you must be devising some brilliant new theory though: the Faux Adjectival Clause Theory, perhaps. ;p It's not exactly the same, but you might want to look at dropped inflections in the ghastly linguistics syntax stuff. The final inflection gets dropped to the level of the predicate clause basically. I think. (5 different diagrams to pick from for the わかる sentence! fun fun) :-)
oh, that got rather long
[edits][and→when]
volitionality and transitivity - nadiatims - 2011-02-26
For the time being, consider this post a kind of conclusion or summary some of my ideas. I don't have time to respond to specific points just now, but I'll try to get to them later.
Allow me to borrow some terms from programming. I get the feeling none of the other participants in this thread have any experience in programming but allow me to look at grammar from a programming perspective anyway (you've perhaps noticed me using the term syntax occasionally).
In a typical programming language, you can define 'functions' which can then be invoked. And these functions perform actions so they are like verbs in that sense. For a function to do it's job, it may need to be given some arguments. These arguments can be thought of as the required data needed by the function to do what it's designed to do. Some functions don't require any arguments. Which arguments are required/optional, what kind(s) of data they can be, and what the function will do with this information is dependant on the function's design. How the functions are invoked, and how the arguments are passed to the function depends on the syntax of that programming language. If code doesn't stick to proper syntax, it causes unpredictable behaviour or crashes the program.
Look at this imaginary code invoking some imaginary function:
subtract(10, 2); *note: the semicolon tells the computer to execute this command.
We can guess that in this language, the syntax requires a function to be written by writing it's name first, followed by its required arguments in brackets separated by commas. We can guess that this function performs a subtract operation on the two numbers. If either of the arguments is missing, there will be an error or unpredictable behaviour. The computer is not smart enough for guess work, so we need to get it right. In order to use the function correctly (if it were someone else's code for example), we need to know what arguments it takes and how it processes them.
Now look at some more imaginary code:
send(Tom, a letter, Mary)
Assuming the same syntax as above, you'd assume that this code represents either Tom or Mary sending the other a letter, but there's no way of knowing for sure except by testing it or to look at the function's code. Now lets express the same thing using different syntax:
Tom sends Mary a letter.
Now as English speakers, you're probably going to assume that what's written above is English. Let's run with that assumption.
Why is it English speakers can process this message but non-english speakers can't?
Well, English speakers are all using (more or less) the same syntax, and we all have (more or less) the same functions and vocabulary installed in our brains. So when native speaker A says something to native speaker B (such as the event described above), native speaker B will be able to process it using the same syntax and reenact the message in his own head. Native speaker B hears the function 'send' presented as it here with 3 arguments.
Now luckily there is a standardisation in the english language that means functions can take 0-3 arguments. There is also a standardisation in how these 3 arguments are passed to the function for processing, 0-1 arguments before the function, and 0-2 arguments after the function (disregarding questions for sake of simplification). And there is also some convenient standardisation in how functions process these arguments in the brains of native speakers.
(argument1) function(argument3)(argument2)
argument1 is always the thing 'doing' the function, so we can give it a unique name and call it the subject.
argument2 is always the thing 'receiving' the effect of the function and we typically call it the direct object or sometimes the complement if argument3 is also present. What exactly this 'receiving' entails is dependant on the function and so should not be thought of too literally.
argument3 (if present) represents the 'target' of the function and is typically referred to as indirect object.
In English, arguments are passed with a function for processing by sending them together as a connected string (what we think of as a clause). Because of this (more or less) standardisation in how native speakers speak, all we need to know is the meaning of vocabulary and then process it as above to understand the meaning. Learners need not consider the transitivity, volitionality, ergativity, accusitivity and so on even though these words are perhaps useful for linguistic analysis. Obviously, theres also some additional rules for making questions and using variables(interrogatives) and a system of prepositions for adding additional information(time/place etc) and conditionals and so on for connecting clauses in different ways. There's also the whole system of verb conjugation(which can be thought of as either additional arguments passed with the function or as separate functions all together). Combine this with the brains ability to intuit omitted information, and perform guess work and we have a powerful system for communication which seems extremely complex when explained from the top down, but actually seems to emerge from quite simple rules.
So you may be wondering what the relevance of all this is to Japanese and this discussion. It's relevant because while (obviously) the syntax of Japanese is completely different to English it achieves much the same thing. In japanese, we don't pass any arguments (subject,object etc) with the function as one string. Rather we can supply this information using a system of postpositions.
I think it is enough for students to just understand:
(argument1)verb(argument3)(argument2)
A clause always ends in a verb or adjective. Verbs and adjective behave the same in Japanese and can both be placed in front of nouns to describe them. In fact, entire clauses can be placed in front of nouns (what we think of as subordinate clauses in English)
HA marks the proceeding thing as a TOPIC for the following comment.
The GA marked word generally corresponds to the argument1 placed in front of a verb in English (whether you choose to call it subject or not). GA really just means 'hey I'm DOing or BEing something". In this way, the GA marked word gains 'ownership' of the next verb, adjective or entire clause.
words marked WO generally correspond to argument2, (whatever you choose to call it) indicating 'hey, I'm BEING VERBed or I'm BEING EFFECTED".
GA and WO are the hardest to understand because words in English do not take postpositions or prepositions or inflect to define this functionality. The exception would be pronouns, but use caution when equating them in this way
eg:
I = watashi GA
me = watashi WO
NI often indicates argument3 (indirect object or complement or whatever you choose to call it), but can also correspond to the english preposition BY when used in clause with a passive verb. Can also indicate time/place like english AT/IN
DE can approximate to a variety of different prepositions in English.
This post isn't really finished, but I have to go now. I'll try to respond more to specific criticisms in the next post. I have read everything everyone's written and I'll get to it eventually.
volitionality and transitivity - caivano - 2011-02-26
what thread did this debate come from??
volitionality and transitivity - vinniram - 2011-02-26
what's this word/phrase thread. I asked a question, got a response, and then this issue popped up totally tangentially from that question and response.
volitionality and transitivity - caivano - 2011-02-26
thanks, looks like a pretty interesting read but figured I should start from the beginning..!
volitionality and transitivity - nest0r - 2011-02-26
caivano Wrote:thanks, looks like a pretty interesting read but figured I should start from the beginning..!Anything can be interesting in Imaginationland! Although I get the feeling that one of the other participants in this thread doesn't have any experience in the things they're writing about.
volitionality and transitivity - pm215 - 2011-02-26
nadiatims Wrote:In a typical programming language, you can define 'functions' which can then be invoked. And these functions perform actions so they are like verbs in that sense. For a function to do it's job, it may need to be given some arguments. These arguments can be thought of as the required data needed by the function to do what it's designed to do. Some functions don't require any arguments. Which arguments are required/optional, what kind(s) of data they can be, and what the function will do with this information is dependant on the function's design. How the functions are invoked, and how the arguments are passed to the function depends on the syntax of that programming language. If code doesn't stick to proper syntax, it causes unpredictable behaviour or crashes the program.I'm not sure this analogy gets us any further forward. Are particles like 'ga' and 'wo' like C++'s "this", where their meaning/use is hardwired and the same for every function (verb)? Is it like Python's use of 'self', which is just a common convention but there might be special case exceptions? Maybe there are several different classes of function (verb) where usage/syntax varies between them?
More generally, programming language designers often value consistency and simplicity very highly (Larry Wall is the exception :-)) so special cases and different classes of verb working in different ways are I think less common than with natural languages. It's rare that a programming language would have an underlying semantic (meaning) category that didn't neatly line up with a syntactic category. Natural languages are messier...
volitionality and transitivity - yudantaiteki - 2011-02-26
nadiatims Wrote:Allow me to borrow some terms from programming. I get the feeling none of the other participants in this thread have any experience in programming but allow me to look at grammar from a programming perspective anyway (you've perhaps noticed me using the term syntax occasionally).Guess again; my undergraduate degree was in Computer Science. ("syntax" is a standard term in linguistics, though; it tends to refers to grammatical issues that are below the semantic level -- that is, that do not depend on context, meaning of words, etc.)
volitionality and transitivity - nadiatims - 2011-03-01
Chronological order:
(I can't reply to every single point though, or this would be 3 times as long and I want as little repetitiveness as possible).
yudantaiteki Wrote:One thing, though:Yeah, in the first two entries there are both transitive and intransitive definitions, meaning that when it takes を, it uses the transitive definition. That's my point…
１ 意味や区別などがはっきりする。理解する。了解する。「物のよしあしが―・る」「言わんとすることはよく―・る」「訳が―・らない」 ２ 事実などがはっきりする。判明する。「身元が―・る」「答えが―・る」「持ち主の―・らない荷物」 ３ 物わかりがよく、人情・世情に通じる。「話の―・る人」
Of course these are three different definitions; I never said words don't have multiple meanings. But notice that these definitions do not divide along the lines you're trying to propose (i.e. one that takes を and one that takes が). Also note that the first 2 are defined in terms of transitive verbs (理解する and 判明する).
nestor Wrote:You're saying that because the transitivity differs but the volitionality does not, volitionality is the one that isn't helpful? So when you find consistent patterns (do you think they just randomly picked those words, or mistakenly found that they fit the profile of volitionality/non-volitionality retroactively, and you're just now able to point out where all these linguists went wrong, but sadly only after publication?) you disregard their consistency in favour of general inconsistent concepts and rote learning over thousands of instances of exposure?What I'm saying is that volitionality is not a property of a word that is worth learning or knowing. This whole debate basically sprung up because Tzadeck (I believe) said something like that verb takes が instead of を because it's non-volitional or some such but the real reason was simply that it wasn't an object. What I'm saying is something takes を if it's an object, (after the verb in English) and が if it's a subject (in front of the verb in English). There are non-volitional verbs that take objects. There are volitional verbs that don't take objects. There are words that could be either volitional or non-volitional. If you try to make a decision about whether to use を or が based on volitionality, you will inevitably make mistakes because it is of no consequence. Objects alway take を, and subjects always take が. No-one answered me before when I gave the example of a person accidentally drinking poison. Should it be suddenly become 毒が飲んだ? or a person walking through a park under hypnosis. Would you have to say 公園が歩く?
What matters is what does that verb mean? can it take a grammatical object? would it make sense if it did? yes/no?
nestor Wrote:You're using English translations to explain Japanese grammar, apparently, so I'm not sure what's going on there.I was using English to explain the differences between the two languages and why it's not at all weird that a verb like よろこぶ would take an object even though it's English 'equivalent' doesn't.
thora Wrote:In your sentence: the person doing the understanding is 私 and the thing that is understandable is 日本語, regardless of the grammar forms. You've already acknowledged as much in saying、 "Hanako is just the passive object of Taro's liking" (in connection with sentence太郎が花子が自分のグループで一番好きだ.)When I say 'subject' or 'object' I'm talking about it a grammatical or syntactic level completely divorced from implied meaning. That's why I tried explaining everything in terms of programming languages in a later post. A sentence like "Tom ate an apple" semantically implies that "an apple was eaten by Tom", but no one is going to argue that 'an apple' is the subject of the first sentence (I hope), because if you start doing that then we really will start going in circles. When talking about that Hanako&Taro sentence, the reason why 自分 couldn't refer to Hanako was because semantically it wouldn't make sense. But make no mistake, she is a grammatical subject, that was just loose translation on my part.
thora Wrote:が can mark the semantic object of stative verbs (and certain other things).Semantically "Japanese is understandable to me" implies "I understand Japanese", so maybe you can say Japanese is the semantic object, but why is this a useful observation?
thora Wrote:Even Japanese folks are talking about it: : この文例にみられるような「が」は，一般的な辞書（広辞苑の「が」の項目）や文法書（山口・秋本，2001）にしたがうと，希望，好悪，能力などの対象を表していると考える。 (from a paper on が/を)Yeah I'm familiar with the dictionary definition of (格助)が:
(http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/34931/m0u/が/)
1. １ 動作・存在・状況の主体を表す。「山―ある」「水―きれいだ」「風―吹く」
2. 「兼行(かねゆき)―書ける扉」〈徒然・二五〉 ２ 希望・好悪・能力などの対象を示す。「水―飲みたい」「紅茶―好きだ」「中国語―話せる」
3. 「さかづき―たべたいと申して参られてござる」〈虎明狂・老武者〉 ３ （下の名詞を修飾し）所有・所属・分量・同格・類似などの関係を示す。
Definition 1 is inline with what I've always been saying. Definition 2 is stating that it is semantically marking a target of desire/like/dislike or ability. This is not stating that it marks a grammatical object though.
thora Wrote:が plays a few different roles. So does を. Learners can handle that. Yup. I share ydtt's view that oversimplification is what necessitates complicated exceptions. (You had that a bit backwards, imo). (ie ～を歩く "～" is not a direct object. ～に勝つ "～" can be an object. ) Sure, it's important to present this material well, but I also don't think that learners find it particularly troublesome. (I suppose I don't know how self-studiers are doing, though.)（格助）が may imply different things semantically, but I'm still yet to see a case where it grammatically it is anything other than a subject (which I'll define as the owner of a predicate). Likewise I'm yet to see an example of を marking anything other than a grammatical object. Perhaps you're getting hung up on the connotations of the word 'object'. Object can imply all sorts of relationships with a verb, but they are still grammatically objects. Maybe you don't think of 'sad' as an object in "I feel sad" because you don't think of 'sad' as being effected by the verb. But when I think of the word object, I just think of it as corresponding one of the arguments that come after the verb in English (see my post before about programming) or read this wikipedia article about valency(linguistic). Likewise subject (whatever it means semantically) just refers to the argument that comes before the verb. I'm yet to see one example where this is flipped, and I don't think this leads to any exceptions. Things like 好き、ほしい、わかる and so on are not exceptions at all, they are just differences in the languages. Which leads to the next point…
Back to わかる again:
thora Wrote:Like ydtt, I'm not very persuaded by your take on わかる. I believe the meaning is closer to can understand/understandable: Daijirin: (1)物事の意味･価値などが理解できる｡｢意味が―･る｣｢英語の―･る人｣ Kenkyusha: (2)〔使いこなせる〕 have (a good) command (of language) This idea of ability (which implies an able person) is important. The "be clear" meaning can apply when st becomes known, revealed, realized, found out. I think both are stative.Well わかる is a Japanese word, there isn't necessarily an equivalent meaning in English. Whether you define it as 'be clear' or 'be understandable' either way, it is a grammatical subject that is clear or is understandable. If you google が理解できる vs を理解出来る, が使いこなせる vs を使いこなせる, がわかる vs をわかる etc you'll get a substantial number of hits. A google fight like this won't give us definitive answers. But I think the simplest conclusion to draw is simply that a lot of these words (わかる etc) can be used both transitively and intransitively and their dictionary definitions allow for this, but this doesn't mean a subject is ever becoming an object. This happens a lot in English too. My trusty English example:
1. gather your belongings. (gather is transitive)
2. We gathered in the town square.
In the second example, is 'we' suddenly the object of the sentence because a transitive example can be made using 'gather'. No, of course not. It's just using a different definition of the word. The argument coming before the verb in English is always the grammatical subject. The word marked by が in Japanese is always the grammatical subject.
thora Wrote:You want some catsup with that hat... :-) In link 1, someone says that the subject is 先生 and the object is ロシア語. He reminds us that even though it's an intransitive verb which traditionally takes が、young people are now using を. Another says that the sentence 「田中先生の説明は分からない」 has a transitive feel and the subject is 私, but that in a contrastive は sentence 「他の先生の説明は分かるが、田中先生の説明は、（私以外の人にも）分からない」, you'd lose the hidden 私 subject meaning and 説明 would be the subject.Here is link1. Firstly, no one is saying 先生 is the subject. Go read it again. As for young people now using 分かる transitively with を that doesn't mean it is transitive when used with が. Thirdly you're misunderstanding the writer's next point. He's saying that the 「田中先生の説明は分からない」can be interpreted in two ways and in one interpretation, it appears 私 is the subject but in the other interpretation it is clear that indeed 田中先生の説明 is the subject.
thora Wrote:An ordinary S+V(intr) would feel complete ...because it is. 日本語がわかる doesn't stand alone*, the subject is understood to be 私 if not stated. (It can only be 私 with certain words obviously.) Although marked が、日本語 can still be perceived as the semantic object. It is what it is.Isn't it much simpler to just accept a literal translation of "Japanese is understandable"? Everyone understands that semantically this sentence might mean "(someone) understands Japanese", but there's no need to distort Japanese syntax (create exceptions where there are none) and then think up all sorts rules to equate the two grammatically.
pm215 Wrote:I'm not sure this analogy gets us any further forward. Are particles like 'ga' and 'wo' like C++'s "this", where their meaning/use is hardwired and the same for every function (verb)? Is it like Python's use of 'self', which is just a common convention but there might be special case exceptions? Maybe there are several different classes of function (verb) where usage/syntax varies between them? More generally, programming language designers often value consistency and simplicity very highly (Larry Wall is the exception :-)) so special cases and different classes of verb working in different ways are I think less common than with natural languages. It's rare that a programming language would have an underlying semantic (meaning) category that didn't neatly line up with a syntactic category. Natural languages are messier...I would argue that nothing is hardwired in natural languages. But the need to communicate does cause something resembling a group consensus to emerge. One thing to note though, when different groups or generations of native speakers grow up learning the language, they recreate their own consensus which means what is grammatically standard for one generation or region might not be for others. It's okay though, because unlike computers, people are much better at guesswork. I would say though that If you want your grammar intuition to match up as closely as possible with people from Japan, then you should try to figure it out from their data they generate, not solely from the analysis of other non-native learners.
yudantaiteki Wrote:Guess again; my undergraduate degree was in Computer Science.My apologies
. Do you disagree with what I wrote in that post though?
volitionality and transitivity - pm215 - 2011-03-01
nadiatims Wrote:What I'm saying is that volitionality is not a property of a word that is worth learning or knowing.So this whole thing blew up because I said:
Quote:Volitional verb + んじゃなかった == "I shouldn't have done V", expressing regretI assert that volitionality is useful as a property of a verb, because it is what lets you know that you can use it in constructions like this one, or with the imperative form, and so on. (Or conversely, you can say "it seems that verbs fit neatly into 'can be used in these constructions' and 'can't be used in these constructions', and it would be nice to have a label for that, let us use 'volitionality').
nadiatims Wrote:I would argue that nothing is hardwired in natural languages.My point there was that the position you are taking is that it is hardwired that が always and invariably marks the subject... The "some classes of verb behave differently" theory is the one you're arguing against.
volitionality and transitivity - nadiatims - 2011-03-01
”死ぬんじゃなかった” gets a million hits on google...
”怒ったんじゃなかった” gets about 3 million...
I guess these must all be exceptions?
pm215 Wrote:My point there was that the position you are taking is that it is hardwired that が always and invariably marks the subject... The "some classes of verb behave differently" theory is the one you're arguing against.I'm not saying it's hardwired, because language isn't hardwired. Just it's the consensus in modern Japanese.
volitionality and transitivity - yudantaiteki - 2011-03-01
Like I said, I don't know what else to say. I respect that people have different ways of explaining grammar, but you simply refuse to accept that the volitional/non-volitional explanation has merit. According to you, Eleanor Harz Jorden spent 60 years of her life on Japanese and on Japanese structural linguistics, but she was a failure because she thought volition was a good way to explain certain aspects of Japanese. Scores of native speakers who have written articles and book chapters mentioning volition are wrong. Everyone's wrong except you.
Why don't you write a linguistic journal article? You clearly have figured something out that even experts haven't.
volitionality and transitivity - Tzadeck - 2011-03-01
I mean, he's just defining the object as 'what's marked by を' and the subject as 'what's marked by が'. It's as simple as that, and it's still circular.
I don't really care how he thinks about it, as long as other learners realize that the concept of voitionality can be a useful one when learning Japanese.
volitionality and transitivity - iSoron - 2011-03-01
nadiatims Wrote:”死ぬんじゃなかった” gets a million hits on google...Not exactly the best examples (they have less than 300 actual hits); but I get the point: ↓
”怒ったんじゃなかった” gets about 3 million...
pm215 Wrote:I assert that volitionality is useful as a property of a verb, because it is what lets you know that you can use it in constructions like this one, or with the imperative form, and so on.I haven't read the whole discussion; but aren't you saying that 「死ね」「ただじゃ死ねない」「俺を理解しろ」「素直に喜べよ」are ungramatical, as the verbs 死ぬ・理解する・喜ぶ are non-volitional? I can't think of a single verb which can't be used with the imperative form, to tell the truth. Even いる・ある are fine depending on the context → 「ここにいろ」「幸せであれ」
volitionality and transitivity - Tzadeck - 2011-03-01
iSoron Wrote:I can't think of a single verb which can't be used with the imperative form, to tell the truth. Even いる・ある are fine depending on the context → 「ここにいろ」「幸せであれ」There's certainly at least one that can never be used that way--できる.
volitionality and transitivity - nadiatims - 2011-03-01
@yudantaiteki
I'm yet to see one example where it is either necessary or simpler for students (or anyone else) to ever consider the volitionality of a verb. But even if you do find one, it will have no effect on which particle objects and subjects take as I've tried to show in this discussion. I've raised examples (which no-one has addressed) where looking at things in terms of volitionality will actually trip you up. It's a total red-herring.
You keep mentioning this Eleanor Jorden person, so I researched her a bit. "Japanese The Spoken Language" is (according to wikipedia) "controversial both among students of the language and among pedagogical researchers."
It gets pretty harshly criticized in a lot of Amazon.com reviews too. I wish you'd stop saying I'm wrong because linguist X says so, and just show me where I'm wrong. You seem to be reading all these linguistic papers on the subject so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain your point of view.
yudantaiteki Wrote:Why don't you write a linguistic journal article? You clearly have figured something out that even experts haven't.Because I cannot be bothered doing that. If you know some linguists (I don't) then please feel free to point them to this or any of the other threads discussing the same things and I would be happy to hear their opinions.