A contribution to a theory of transitivity in Japanese (A tentative draft)

Main Article Content

Jerzy Bańczerowski

Abstrakt

A contribution to a theory of transitivity in Japanese (A tentative draft)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Bańczerowski, J. (2018). A contribution to a theory of transitivity in Japanese (A tentative draft). Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia, (8), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.14746/snp.2006.08.01
Dział
Językoznawstwo
Biogram autora

Jerzy Bańczerowski, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

profesor zwyczajny, językoznawca ogólny, Dyrektor Instytutu Językoznawstwa UAM

Bibliografia

  1. Akatsuka, Noriko M. and Susan Strauss (eds.). 2002. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  2. Bach, E.W. 1980. In defence of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 397- 441.
  3. Bańczerowski, Jerzy. 1993. Some theoretical aspects of (eds.). 17-23.
  4. –. 2000. Is linguistic semantics axiomatically tangible. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia II: 3-26.
  5. –. 2001. Some aspects of the category of diathesis in Korean. In: Cheong, B-K. and Ch.-Wu. Pak (eds.). 31-53.
  6. Barber, E.J.W. 1980. Voice: Beyond the passive. Berkeley Linguistic Society 1: 16-24.
  7. Batóg, Tadeusz. 1996. Dwa paradygmaty matematyki. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
  8. Beedham, C. 1981. The passive in English, German and Russian. Journal of Linguistics 17: 319-326.
  9. Chappel, H. 1980. Is the get-passive adversative? Papers in Linguistics 13: 411-452.
  10. –. 1986. The passive of bodily effect in Chinese. Studies in Language 10: 271-296.
  11. Cheong, Byung-Kwon and Cheong-Wu Pak (eds.). 2001. Je 8 hwe jeonggi haksul daehwe. Haksul Daehwe Nonmunjip. Seoul: Hanguk Dong Yureop Balkan Hakhwe, Hanguk Wegugeo Daehakkyo, Dong Yureop Balkan Yeonguso.
  12. Clair, R. St. and W. von. Raffler-Engle (eds.). 1982. Language and cognitive styles. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
  13. Cole, Peter and Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.). 1977. Grammatical relations. Syntax and semantics 8. New York: Academic Press.
  14. Comrie, Bernard. 1977. In defence of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. In: Cole, P. and J.M. Sadock (eds.). 47-58.
  15. –. 1978. Ergativity. In: Lehmann, W.P. (ed.). 329-394.
  16. –. 1981. Aspect and voice: some reflections on perfect and passive. In: Tedesci, Philip J. and Annie Zaenen (eds.). 65-78.
  17. Darski, Józef and Zygmunt Vetulani (eds.). 1993. Sprache – Kommunikation – Informatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  18. Davison, A. 1980. Peculiar pasives. Language 56: 47-66.
  19. Dubinsky, S. 1985. Oblique to direct object advancement in Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 15: 57-75.
  20. Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63.4: 805-855.
  21. Fillmore, Charles. 1977. The case for case reopened. In: Cole, P. and J.M. Sadock (eds.). 59-82.
  22. Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A functional typological introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  23. Halliday, M.A.K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics 4: 179-215.
  24. Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14.1: 25-72.
  25. Heger, Klaus. 1982. Nominative – Subjekt – Thema. In: Heinz, Sieglinde and Ulrich Wandruszka (eds.). 87-93.
  26. Heinz, Sieglinde and Ulrich Wandruszka (eds.). 1982. Fakten und Theorien. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr.
  27. Hoekstra, T. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.
  28. Holda, Martin. 1997. Some remarks on Japanese passive constructions. Chiba University International Student Center Bulletin. Chiba: Chiba University.
  29. –. 1999. Some remarks on transitivity in Japanese and Polish. In: Kozyra A., R. Huszcza and Sh. Kukimoto (eds.). 381-393.
  30. Holvoet, Axel. 2001. Studies in the Latvian verb. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
  31. Hopper, Paul and Sandra A. Thompson. 1989. Transitivity in grammar and discoure. Language 56.2: 251-299.
  32. Hopper, Paul and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1982. Studies in transitivity. Syntax and Semantics 15. New York: Academic Press.
  33. Howard, Irwin and Agnes M. Niyekawa-Howard. 1976. Possivization. In: Shibatani M. (ed.). 201-237.
  34. Ikegami, Y. 1982a. Source vs. Goal: A case of linguistic dissymetry. In: Clair, R.St. and W. von. Raffler-Engle (eds.). 1-24.
  35. –. 1982b. Indirect causation and de-agentivization: The semantics of involvement in English and Japanese. Tokyo Daigaku Kyooyoo Gakubu Kenkyuu Kiyoo 29: 95-112.
  36. Izui, H. 1970. Ditopical expressions in Japanese and other languages. Gengo-no sekai: 427-430.
  37. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tookyoo: Kuroshio Publishers.
  38. Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Passive in the world’s languages. In: Shopen, T. (ed.). 243-281.
  39. Klaiman, M.H. 1982a. Toward a universal semantics of indirect subject constructions. Berkeley Linguistic Society 17: 123-135.
  40. –. 1982b. Affectedness and the voice system of Japanese. Berkeley Linguistic Society 18: 398-413.
  41. –. 1987. Aktionsart, semantics, and function in the Japanese ‘passive’. Studies in Language 11: 401-434.
  42. A contribution to a theory of transitivity in Japanese 23
  43. Klimov, Georgij A. 1974. On the character of active typology. Linguistics 131: 11-25.
  44. Kozyra, A., R. Huszcza and Sh. Kukimoto (eds.). 1999. Proceedings of Warsaw Symposium on Japanese Studies. 23-26. November 1994. Warsaw: Department of Japanese and Korean Studies, Oriental Institute, Warsaw University, Academic Publishing House DIALOG.
  45. Langacker, R.W. 1982. Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language 58: 22-80.
  46. Larson, R.K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
  47. Lazard, G. 1983. Antiimpersonal verbs, transitivity continuum and the notion of transitivity. In: Seiler, Hansjakob and Günter Brettschneider (eds.). 115-123.
  48. Lehman, Winfred P. (ed.). 1978. Syntactic typology studies in the phenomenology of language. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  49. Moravcsik, E. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233-279.
  50. Mathew, S.D. 1982. In defence of a universal passive. Linguistic Analysis 10: 53-61.
  51. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1984. Blocking and Japanese causatives. Lingua 64: 177-207.
  52. Nishio, H. 1983. Passive and causative in Japanese and elsewhere. Papers in East Asian Languages 1: 91-99.
  53. Ono, Yoshiko. 1988. The function of the Japanese passive. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien Projekts 75: 1-97.
  54. Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 4: 157-189.
  55. Perlmutter, David and Paul Postal. 1977. Toward a universal characterization of passivization. Berkeley Linguistic Society 3: 394-417.
  56. Plank, Frans (ed.). 1979. Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. London: Academic Press.
  57. –. 1985. Relational typology. Berlin: Mouton.
  58. Ranson, E.N. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double object constructions in English. Glossa 13: 215-240.
  59. Rugalewa, A. 1977. Nominalizations of possessive sentences. Language Sciences 47: 1-6.
  60. Saad, George Nehmeh. 1982. Transitivity, causation and passivization. A semantic-syntactic study of the verb in classical Arabic. London: Kegan Paul International. (Library of Arabic Linguistics).
  61. Sato, C. 1982. Some properties of inanimate subject passives. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 8: 177-190.
  62. Saxokija, M.M. 1985. Possessivnost’, perexodnost’ i ergativnost’. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
  63. Seiler, Hansjakob and Günter Brettschneider (eds.). 1983. Language invariants and mental operations. Language universals series, Bd. 5. – Tübingen: Narr.
  64. Shaumjan, S. 1985. Ergativity and universal grammar. In: Plank, Frans (ed.). 311-339.
  65. Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 1976. Japanese generative grammar. Syntax and Semantics 5. New York: Academic Press.
  66. –. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions. Syntax and Semantics 6. New York: Academic Press.
  67. –. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61: 821-848.
  68. Shimomiya, Tadao 1978. Zur Typologie des Georgischen (Verglichen mit dem Indogermanischen). Tokyo: Gakushuin.
  69. Shopen, T. (ed.). 1985. Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  70. Siewierska, A. 1984. The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
  71. Stefański, Witold 1990. The diathesis in Indo-European. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
  72. Tarski, Alfred. 1984. Prawda i dowód. Studia Filozoficzne 2 (219): 9-30.
  73. –. 1994. Introduction to logic and to the methodology of the deductive sciences. (4th ed.) NewYork/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  74. Tedesci, Philip J. and Annie Zaenen (eds.). 1981. Tense and aspect. Syntax and Semantics 14. New York: Academic Press.
  75. Tsunoda, T. 1981. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics 19: 389-438.
  76. Uhlenbeck, H. 1901. Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 170-171.
  77. Valin, van R.D. jr. 1980. On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50: 303-327.
  78. –. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5: 361-394.
  79. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1979. Are grammatical categories vague or polysemous? (The Japanese “adversative” passive in a typological context). Papers in Linguistics 12: 111-164.
  80. Xolodovic, Aleksandr A. (ed.). 1974. Tipologija passivnych konstrukcij. Leningrad: Nauka.
  81. –. 1975-1976. Diathesis and voice in modern Japanese. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 4: 55-83.