Teaching Language Categories and Learning About Language Categories from Teaching

Teaching Language Categories and Learning AboutLanguage Categories from Teaching

Sachiko Yamahashi*Sapporo University

Abstract

Familiar category terms, such as ‘noun’, ‘verb’, and ‘adjective’, are usually used in language classes.However, the application of these labels in the target language is not necessarily intuitive. Englishlearners of Japanese often have problems with: (i) ‘deverbal nouns’, problems that stem from the‘noun–verb’ distinction, and (ii) ‘adjectives’, which are divided into two types unlike English‘adjectives’. This article builds on these examples toward an analysis of Japanese involving fourcategories defined by the intersection of the nominative case and tense markers. The moral is thata language could be learned more accurately and readily if categories were based on such salientdistinctions in the target language.

1. Introduction

In teaching language, instructors usually use familiar category terms such as ‘noun’, ‘verb’,and ‘adjective’, and learners usually classify words into those categories on an intuitivebasis; ‘noun’ refers to objects; ‘verb’, to events; and ‘adjective’, to states or properties.This article is concerned with the pedagogical consequences of the fact that this proce-dure does not always yield satisfactory results. It focuses on the difficulties posed by Japa-nese ‘deverbal nouns’ and ‘adjectives’ for native speakers of English, given an uncriticalapplication of standard category terms. As a replacement, it suggests that Japanese is betterdescribed as having four classes of lexically meaningful elements, neutrally termed ‘bases’(the cores of words). These base classes, each of which has a clear semantic characteriza-tion, are described by the interaction of the nominative case and the tense markers. Noneof these classes can be replaced with ‘noun’ or ‘verb’, but because they are well-defined,they resolve the difficulty of applying these labels.

2. Difficulties with Common Language Category Terms

2.1. DEVERBAL NOUNS

The categories Noun and Verb are not uncommonly assumed to be universally instanti-ated. Dixon (1977: 20), for example, says all languages ‘have Noun and Verb’. These twobasic categories are usually distinguished in Japanese, accordingly: ‘nouns’ serve as subjectwith the nominative case marker -ga, and ‘verbs’ serve as predicate with the tense mark-ers -ru ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -ta ‘PAST’. However, there exist lexical elements such as sabi ‘rust’which are combinable both with the nominative case and the tense markers:

(1) Nabe-ga sabi-tapan-NOM rust-PAST

‘Pans got rusted’

Language and Linguistics Compass 4/3 (2010): 153–165, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00180.x

ª 2010 The AuthorJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

(2) Nabe-ni sabi-ga tui-tapan-on rust-NOM gain-PAST

‘Rust has been formed on pans’

Sabi serves in (1) as predicate with the tense marker -ta ‘PAST’ and in (2) as subject withthe nominative case marker -ga. Given the basis of the distinction between ‘nouns’and ‘verbs’ in Japanese, forms like sabi ‘rust’ have been generally treated as a case of‘conversion’. A ‘verb’ in the infinitive form1 converts to a ‘noun’ (e.g., Miyajima 1957;Nishio 1961).

To understand, ‘conversion’ requires a little background regarding Japanese ‘verbs’.Aside from two irregular ‘verbs’, su-ru ‘do-NONPAST’ and ku-ru ‘come-NONPAST’, ‘verbs’are of two types. One type has a base ending with a vowel (e.g. sabi- ‘rust’); the otherhas a base ending with a consonant (e.g. tur- ‘fish’) (Bloch 1946; Shibatani 1990). SinceJapanese syllables generally end with a vowel, the latter undergo various phonologi-cal ⁄morphological processes to give them the appropriate form. Most importantly for ourpurposes, their infinitive is formed by adding the semantically empty morpheme -i totheir base (e.g. tur-i ‘to fish’) (Ueyama 1991: 49–50). For ‘verbs’ ending in a vowel, thebase and the infinitive are identical. ‘Conversion’, then, takes the infinitive form of a‘verb’ and converts it to a ‘noun’ (Sakakura 1997: 20).

A pedagogical problem with this account is that a number of ‘verbs’ do not convert to‘nouns’. For example, the ‘verbs’ ki- ‘to wear’ and kake- ‘to hang’ cannot be converted to‘nouns’ – *ki-ga ‘wear-NOM’ and *kake-ga ‘hang-NOM’. No account of this fact has beenoffered. In fact, ‘it is not clear at all if it is possible to determine the regulations’ (Kunihi-ro 2002: 77 [my translation]). Imai (1991: 1–2 [my translation]) has commented on thedifficulties this situation presents to the learner. ‘It is not taught which verbs can or can-not be used as noun although it is taught in grammar classes that verb infinitives are usedas noun, raising a pedagogical problem’. The following are typical mistakes:

(3) *Nihongo-no manab-i-wa muzukasi-i-desuJapanese-GEN study-TOP difficult-NONPAST-POLITE

‘Studying Japanese is difficult’ (from Imai 1990: 4)

(4) *Jinrui-ni taisu-ru odokas-i-no hitotu-ni gan-ga ari-masuHuman for threat-GEN one-as cancer-NOM exist-POLITE

‘One threat for human is cancer’ (Imai 1991: 2)

(3) and (4) are unacceptable because of the unacceptable ‘deverbal nouns’ manab-i andodokas-i, respectively. This type of error is common and is made even by relativelyadvanced learners – especially those whose native language is Chinese, which offers agreat number of words used both as ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. One of my graduate students fromChina says that she always wonders whether the ‘verb’ at hand can be used as a ‘noun’.

2.2. ADJECTIVES

There are two types of ‘adjectives’ in Japanese. One is often called ‘i-adjectives’ (or keiyoosi‘adjectives’). This type occurs with the tense markers -i ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -katta ‘PAST’, whetherserving as predicate, as atu-katta in (5), or as pre-nominal modifier, as taka-i in (6).

(5) Nabe-wa atu-kattapan-TOP hot-PAST

‘(The) pan was hot’

154 Sachiko Yamahashi

ª 2010 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 4/3 (2010): 153–165, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00180.xJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

(6) Taka-i honexpensive-NONPAST book‘Expensive books’

The other type is called ‘na-adjectives’ (‘adjectival nouns’ or ‘nominal adjectives’). Thistype never occurs with the tense markers -i ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -katta ‘PAST’. But it does occurwith the element -na when serving as pre-nominal modifier, as majime-na in (7), and withthe copulative suffix -da ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -datta ‘PAST’2 when serving as predicate, as majime-dain (8). (‘Nouns’ serving as predicate also take the copulative suffix.)

(7) Majime-na gakuseiserious student‘A serious student’

(8) Ken-wa majime-daKen -TOP serious-COP

‘Ken is serious’

Various treatments have been proposed for the second type ‘adjective’. It has beenidentified as: (i) a subclass of ‘verbs’ together with ‘i-adjectives’ (Matsushita 1928); (ii)a subclass of ‘nouns’ (e.g., Tokieda 1950; Martin 1975); (iii) a subclass of ‘(i-)adjec-tives’, distinct from ‘nouns’ or ‘verbs’ (e.g., Backhouse 1984); and (iv) a distinctinflecting class labeled keiyoo-doosi ‘adjectival verbs’ (traditional analysis). In languageclasses, the third of these options is generally adopted. Both -i and -na ‘adjectives’ areusually considered to belong in the same class on semantic grounds (Koyano 2005:83–4). That is, they constitute a distinct class ‘adjective’ like other languages, but aredivided into two according to conjugation patterns, unlike other languages. Not sur-prisingly, it is very common for beginners (and even advanced learners) to use thewrong conjugation pattern. For example, a student produces kirei-katta ‘pretty-PAST’,rather than kirei-datta.

3. Categories for Japanese

3.1. BACKGROUND

Given that a language’s lexical elements can be classified into different types, different cat-egories, Steele (1988: 27) proposes that the basis for this division could turn ‘on a subsetof the language’s closed-class elements… In this view, the categories of one language dif-fer from one another, but the basis on which these categories are determined does not’.The application of this idea to Japanese divides bases into four types relative to their com-binability with the nominative case and the tense markers. Bases (‘roots’ in Shibatani1990) are the smallest morphs with semantic content which are identical in their alloccurrences at the level of phonemes (e.g., Bloch 1946). We focus on ‘single bases ofJapanese origin, which are fundamental to Japanese grammar’ (Morioka 1994: 156–57[my translation]), under the assumption that the regularity of categorization becomes clearonly when we focus on these elements.

The nominative case and the tense markers are bound morphs, suffixed to their respec-tive bases (e.g., Matsushita 1928; Nitta et al. 2000). The nominative case marker is -ga.The tense markers are of two types. One involves the contrast -ru ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -ta ‘PAST’and occurs with ‘verbs’, and the other involves the contrast -i ‘NONPAST’ ⁄ -katta ‘PAST’ andoccurs with ‘i-adjectives’. These are pure tense markers, signifying time only.

Language Categories 155


It has been proposed that the copulative -da ⁄ -datta also include tense markers. Twotakes on this are Teramura (1982) and McClain (1981). As shown in (9), Teramura takesthe d- as the base, -a as the NONPAST tense, and -atta, PAST. McClain argues that da is theNONPAST base and dat- is the PAST base. The NONPAST base is accompanied by NONPAST

zero morpheme; the PAST base is accompanied by the PAST -ta.

(9) Base (‘stem’) SuffixTeramura (1982:54) d- -a (NONPAST)

d- -atta (PAST)McClain (1981:15) da —(NONPAST)

dat -ta (PAST)

I treat -da and -datta as unanalyzable elements with an inherent tense value, NONPAST andPAST, respectively, similar to the contrast between English ‘shall’ and ‘should’ (Yamahashi1988: 142). Therefore, the copulative elements are not included in tense markers. They playa role as assertive marker. Accordingly, they are unacceptable in interrogative sentences.

(10) Ken-wa otoko-ka ⁄*otoko-da-kaKen-TOP male-Q ⁄male-COP-Q‘Is Ken a male?’

3.2. FOUR FORMAL MAJOR CLASSES

The combination of the nominative case and tense divide Japanese bases into four majorclasses: (i) those which are combinable with nominative case -ga, but not with tense -ru ⁄ ta or -i ⁄katta (<+case; )tense>); (ii) those which are combinable with tense, but notwith case (<)case; +tense>); (iii) those which are combinable with both (<+case;+tense>); (iv) those which are combinable with neither (<)case; )tense>).

(11) (i) <+case; -tense>:hon ‘book’ (hon-ga;*hon-ru ⁄ ta ⁄ i ⁄katta), turi ‘fishing’ (turi-ga; *turi-ru ⁄ ta ⁄ i ⁄katta),…

(ii) <-case; +tense>:<tense-ru ⁄ ta>

tabe- ‘eat’(*tabe-ga; tabe-ru ⁄ ta), tur- ‘fish’(*tur-ga; tur-u ⁄ ta), …<tense-i ⁄ katta>

ita-‘sore’ (*ita-ga; ita-i ⁄katta), atu-’hot’ (*atu-ga; atu-i ⁄ katta),…(iii) <+case; +tense>:

<tense-ru ⁄ ta>sabi ‘rust’(sabi-ga; sabi-ru ⁄ ta), kabi ‘mold’(kabi-ga; kabi-ru ⁄ ta), …

<tense-i ⁄ katta>maru ‘circle’ (maru-ga; maru-i ⁄ katta)3

(iv) <-case; -tense>:utiki ‘shy’ (*utiki-ga;*utiki-ru ⁄ ta ⁄ i ⁄katta), …sukosi ‘a little’(*sukosi-ga; *sukosi-ru ⁄ ta ⁄ i ⁄ katta), …

Importantly, for our purposes, this classification is relevant to the treatment of the prob-lematic forms discussed in Section 2 and, hence, to the pedagogical issues they raise. First,‘i-adjectives’ and ‘na-adjectives’ differ in that the former inflect for tense and the latter donot. Thus, the former are <)case; +tense> and the latter are <)case; )tense>. They are



not two different types of ‘adjectives’; they are two distinct categories. Second, ‘deverbalnouns’ also distribute across two distinct categories. Consonant final bases, like tur- ‘fish’,are <)case, +tense>, while their corresponding infinitives, like turi ‘fishing’, are <+case,)tense>. But vowel final bases, like sabi ‘rust’, are <+case, +tense>.

Neither <+case; )tense> nor <-case; +tense> will raise any eyebrows. These two cate-gories conform reasonably well to ‘noun’ and ‘verb’ in the sense that the members of theformer serve as subjects and the members of the latter serve as predicates. Furthermore,<)case; )tense> captures the properties of Japanese adverbs, examples of which are in (12).

(12) ‘‘Adverbs’’A. Manner:

sugu ‘soon’, yukkuri ‘slowly’, ukkari ‘carelessly’, hakkiri ‘clearly’, …B. Degree:

totemo ‘very’, tyotto ‘a little’, kanari ‘quite’, wazuka ‘only’ …An adverb is available to neither nominative case nor tense markers. Rather, they func-tion as the modifiers of a predicate as yukkuri ‘slowly’ in (13a) or of a pre-nominal modi-fier as totemo ‘very’ in (13b).

(13) a. Yukkuri arui-taslowly walk-PAST

‘(I) walked slowly’

(13) b. Totemo taka-i kaban-desuvery expensive-NONPAST bag-COP(POLITE)

‘(They) are very expensive bags’

The proposed system simply extends this category to ‘na-adjectives’. The most controver-sial aspect of this proposal, then, is the category <+case, +tense> and its application to asubset of ‘deverbal nouns’.

This division of ‘deverbal nouns’ into two category types is supported by the evidenceof accent patterns. Accent can distinguish among words. For example, ha|si means ‘chop-sticks’ and hasi means ‘edge’. (The line � placed above a mora indicates high pitch, andthe line | following it represents an abrupt drop to a low-pitched mora.4) According toKindaichi (2006, appendix p. 12 [my translation]), ‘[b]asically, the accent pattern of adeverbal noun is the same as that of the source verb, in that if the verb is unaccented,the deverbal noun is also unaccented’. This is true with vowel ‘verbs’:

(14) a. sabi|-ga vs sabi|-ru (14) b. kabi-ga vs kabi-rurust-NOM rust-NONPAST mold-NOM mold-NONPAST

The accent patterns of sabi-ga and sabi-ru in (14a) are exactly the same, and so are thoseof kabi-ga and kabi-ru in (14b). However, this is not always true with consonant ‘verbs’(-r in NONPAST -ru is dropped when attaching to consonant ‘verbs’):

(15) a. ta|nomi-ga vs tano m�urequest-NOM request-NONPAST

(15) b. ugoki-ga vs ugojk-umovement-NOM move-NONPAST

(15a) shows that ta|nomi-ga, which has high pitch on the mora ta, is accented, while tano m�u,which has high pitch on the moras nom-u, is not. This difference can also be seen in (15b).



In sum, I am proposing that the formal properties of Japanese bases relative to nomina-tive case and tense allows for their classification into four distinct sets. I might note thatthe basis of this classification requires that <+case; +tense> bases share one property with<+case; )tense> bases and another property with <)case; +tense> bases. They are, how-ever, distinct from either. Thus, this analysis does not rely on what some refer to as ‘fuzzycategories’. There is nothing ‘fuzzy’ about any of the four categories of bases.

4. Semantic Correlates

We have considered the formal basis of the four categories of Japanese bases. Each ofthese categories is also semantically coherent. This is a critical fact. A student of Japanesecan rely on the semantic properties of a base to determine its formal properties. The cate-gory <)case; +tense> includes bases that refer to properties, as does the category <)case;)tense>, but the properties at issue are different. Members of the category <+case;)tense> and members of the category <+case; +tense> both refer to entities, but entitiesof distinctly different types.

4.1. <+CASE; )TENSE> AND <)CASE; +TENSE>

We begin by offering a larger inventory of example of the two non-controversial catego-ries. The examples provided below elaborate most expansively on the subsets of proper-ties in <)case; +tense> and on concrete objects in the subset of <+case; )tense> as abasis for the discussion of the semantic properties of the members of <)case; )tense>and <+case; +tense> to follow.

(16) (i) <-case; +tense> = EventsA. Activities (both physical and mental)

<tense-ru ⁄ ta>tabe- ‘eat’, ik- ‘go’, manab- ‘learn’, …

<tense-i ⁄ katta>None

B. Processes<tense-ru ⁄ ta>

hur- ‘fall’, ware- ‘break’, kawak- ‘dry’, …<tense-i ⁄ katta>

NoneC. States (both properties and non-properties):

<tense-ru ⁄ ta>ar- ‘exist’, tigaw- ‘differ’, ni- ‘resemble’, …

<tense-i ⁄ katta>zuru- ‘sly’, samu-‘cold’, haya- ‘fast’, tadasi- ‘correct’, oisi- ‘delicious’,muzukasi- ‘difficult’, ita- ‘sore’, waka- ‘young’, aka- ‘red’, mijikai ‘short’,…

(ii) <+case; -tense> = EntitiesA. Concrete (things we can experience with our five senses):

Natural objects: animals (hito ‘man’), plants (bara ‘rose’), liquid (mizu ‘water’),minerals (isi ‘stone’), dust (tiri ‘dust’), heavenly body (tuki ‘moon’),nioi ‘smell’, …

Artifacts: food (pan ‘bread’), clothing, furniture ⁄ instrument



(tukue ‘desk’, nabe ‘pan’), books (hon ‘book’),vehicles(kuruma ‘car’), …

B. Abstract (things that exist beyond the five senses):maturi ‘festival’, ugoki ‘movement’, turi ‘fishing’,yume ‘dream’, kita ‘north’, natu ‘summer’, ...

4.2. <)CASE; )TENSE>

The set of ‘na-adjectives’ includes a number of borrowings, like kirei ‘pretty’, as well ascomplex native bases, like the reduplicated iroiro ‘various’ and the derivative sizu-ka‘quiet’ (Uehara 2002: 95).5 In fact, ‘[t]here are only a few na-adjectives which are singlebases of Japanese origin’ (Morioka 176). This contrast with ‘i-adjectives’, all of which arenative forms and which is a closed class, is clear. The two classes can also be semanticallydistinguished, if we focus on the simple ‘na-adjectives’ of Japanese origin in use today,drawing on the inventory in Nishio and Miyajima (1972: 267). This discussion alsoexcludes ‘degree’ elements like wazuka ‘only’ which are used as pre-nominal modifierswith –na.

‘Na-adjectives’ are generally viewed as sharing semantic properties with ‘i-adjectives’.However, there exists a clear contrast between them in terms of Dixon’s (1977) seven‘universal’ semantic types: DIMENSION, PHYSICAL PROPERTY, SPEED, AGE,COLOUR, VALUE, and HUMAN PROPENSITY. (HUMAN PROPENSITYincludes both feeling and character. Character is a stable property of a person, existingfrom birth and extending through a lifetime.) All these semantic types, except for humancharacter, are expressed by ‘i-adjectives’: DIMENSION (e.g., naga-i ‘long’), PHYSICALPROPERTY (e.g., omo-i ‘heavy’), SPEED (e.g., haya-i ‘fast’), AGE (e.g., waka-i ‘young’),COLOUR (e.g., kuro-i ‘black’), VALUE (e.g., i-i ‘good’) and feeling (e.g., ita-i ‘sore’).‘Na-adjectives’ can refer to VALUE, but most refer to character, the single type excludedfrom ‘i-adjectives’.

(17) ‘‘Na-adjectives’’A. Human character:

utiki ‘shy’, katakuna ‘stubborn’, majime ‘serious’, yantya ‘wild’, hogaraka ‘cheerful’,sekkati ‘hasty’, keti ‘stingy’, sunao ‘obedient’,6 …

B. VALUE:migoto ‘superb’, matomo ‘decent’, tyati ‘cheap’, detarame ‘irresponsible’, tontinkan‘inconsistent’, …

Some ‘i-adjectives’, like kasiko-i ‘wise’ and zuru-i ‘sly’, refer to character. But, theyare not limited to describing human character exclusively. Consider kasiko-i inu ‘wisedog’ and zuru-i kitune ‘sly fox’. The VALUE types of the two sets also differ. Thestability over time associated with character is also a property of ‘na-adjectives’ refer-ring to VALUE, but not of ‘i-adjectives’ referring to VALUE. Compare migoto‘superb’ in kono sakuhin-wa migoto-da ‘this work is superb’ with oisi-i ‘delicious’ inkono keeki-wa oisi-i ‘this cake is delicious’.

In short, in light of the formal and semantic differences between ‘i-adjectives’ and ‘na-adjectives’, it would appear that their assignment to a single category ‘adjective’ is areflection of their English translation, rather than of their properties in Japanese. The lear-ner would be better served by an analysis dependent on their differences rather than onethat assumes their identity.7,8



4.3. <+CASE; +TENSE>

Many of the members assigned to the category <+case; +tense> are vowel ‘verbs’, butnot all. Based on the criteria of meaning and accent patterns, about 80 bases are assignedto this category (cf. Nishio and Miyajima 1972: 238–41).9 They can be divided into twosets, those referring to concrete entities (specifically, visible things) and those referring toabstract entities. (Bases such as moture ‘tangle, entanglement’ referring to both are listedunder concrete entities for simple convenience.)

(18) Members of class <+case; +tense>A. Concrete

kabi ‘mold’, kabure ‘rash’, koge ‘burn’, kasure ‘skip’, kusare ‘rot’, kubire ‘constric-tion’, sasakure ‘hangnail, a fine split’, sabi ‘rust’, nejire ‘twist, torsion’, tijire‘pucker’, moture ‘tangle’, tadare ‘fester’, hage ‘bald spot’, hokorobi ‘split’, hoture‘split’, midare ‘disorder’, zure ‘shear’, yogore ‘dirt’, yojire ‘kink’, nagare ‘flow’, simi‘stain’, nadare ‘avalanche’, furue ‘shaking’, hare ‘swelling’, yature ‘haggardness’, yure‘shaking’, bure ‘movement of a camera or the hands (in taking a picture)’

B. Abstractaki ‘boredom’, akirame ‘abandonment’, akogare ‘longing’, amae ‘dependence’, ijime‘bullying’, imasime ‘lesson’, uttae ‘complaint’, okure ‘delay’, osae ‘pressing’, ojike‘fear’, osie ‘lesson’, obie ‘fright’, oboe ‘recollection’, oti ‘omission’, otoroe ‘decline’,kamae ‘readiness’, kari ‘debt’, kangae ‘idea’, kui ‘regret’, kegare ‘impurity’, kojire‘complication’, kotae ‘answer’, kokoroe ‘knowledge’, sasae ‘support’, sadame ‘regula-tion’, sibire ‘numbness’, simetuke ‘pressure’, situke ‘discipline’, sirabe ‘investigation’,sonae ‘preparations’, takuwae ‘storing, saving’, tasuke ‘help’, tatoe ‘simile’, togame‘punishment’, tukare ‘tiredness’, tuke ‘charge’, tutome ‘duties’, tere ‘bashfulness’, nare‘habitation’, dare ‘listlessness’, nuke ‘omission’, nobi ‘spread’, nobose ‘woozy’, hazure‘blank’, boke ‘senility’, hikae ‘copy’, make ‘loss’, matome ‘summary’, mooke ‘profit’,mane ‘mimicry’, more ‘omission’, wakare ‘separation’, hajime ‘beginning’

Notice that none of the members of this class refer to artifacts or animals like those in(16ii) and are, thus, distinct from the members of the class <+case; )tense>, althoughboth sets are combinable with nominative -ga. Further, none of the members of this classrefer to physical activities and are, thus, distinct from the members of the class <)case;+tense>, although both sets are combinable with tense -ru ⁄ -ta. Their semantic propertiesare also distinct.

We focus on sabi ‘rust’ as representative of this class. Concrete entities in (16ii-A) aredivided into natural objects and artifacts. None of the forms in (18A) refers to artifacts,but sabi ‘rust’ is reasonably identified as a natural object (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo212). It differs from natural objects included in <+case; )tense> bases, like tekkooseki‘iron stones’ or tiri ‘dust’. These exist independently in the world. Sabi ‘rust’ exists onartifacts such as nabe ‘pan’, included in <+case; )tense> bases. The existence of sabi ‘rust’on the artifact is unusual, not the normal state of affairs. Rust exists only when iron, thematerial of artifacts serving as a place for rusting, goes through the change referred tosabi-ru ‘rusting’. This kind of change differs from a change like ware-ru ‘break’ in that itpresupposes the entity sabi ‘rust’. In fact, sabi-ru ‘rusting’ takes place only when the entitysabi ‘rust’ emerges as the final result of the chemical change (Inoue 1994: 27). Therefore,sabi-ru ‘rusting’ and sabi ‘rust’ cannot be viewed as distinct entities.

Kabi ‘mold’ and other forms in (18A) are similar to sabi ‘rust’ except that they exist notonly on artifacts, but also on natural objects. The glosses in (19) identify the hosts.



(19) kabi ‘mold on bread’, kusare ‘rot in radish’, kubire ‘constriction on wrist’, moture‘tangle in string’, yogore ‘dirt on paper’, hokorobi ‘split in the coat’, yojire ‘kink inthe cord’, tadare ‘fester on earlobe’, midare ‘disorder on handwriting’, tijire‘pucker on cloth’, hoture ‘split in the sleeve’, zure ‘shear in printing’, kasure ‘skipin printing’, kabure ‘rash on skin’, nagare ‘flow of water’, simi ‘stain on wall’,furue ‘hands shaking’, yature ‘haggardness on eyes’, hare ‘swelling in the ankle’,nejire ‘twist in the phone cord’, nadare ‘avalanche on mountainside’, yure ‘treeshaking’, koge ‘burn on bread (or other foods)’, hage ‘bald spot on head or baldpatch in paint’, bure ‘(unintentional) movement of the hands (in taking a picture)’,sasakure ‘hangnail at the root of a fingernail or a fine split on a straw-mat’

In sum, leaving aside for the moment those referring to abstract entities, bases in the class<+case; +tense> can be characterized as in (20):

(20) (i) Their existence is unusual ⁄unnatural, and they do not normally exist.(ii) They come into existence, without human will, as the necessary result of con-

ditional changes occurring to artifacts ⁄natural objects included in the class of<+case; )tense> bases.

This characterization excludes various elements from membership. Condition (i) excludessuch things as pimples and illnesses since they are natural and an expected part of life.Bases referring to them are not in the class <+case; +tense>. Condition (ii) excludesforms like kizu ‘scratch’. A scratch can be the result of human activities such as kir-u ‘cut-ting’ and hikkak-u ‘scratching’ (Shibata and Yamada 2002: 1079).

There are bases outside of the class <+case; +tense> that have characteristics similar tothe properties in (20). Consider, for example, the synonyms for moture in (21) and for mo-ture-ru in (22) (Shibata and Yamada 2002: 1017).

(21) Synonyms of moture ‘tangle, entanglement’:karami ‘entanglement’, karami-ai ‘tangling together’, kojire ‘complication’, ranma‘chaos’, hankan ‘comprehensive yet compact’

(22) Synonyms of moture-ru ‘get tangled’karamar-u ‘get entangled’, karam-u ‘tangle’, karami-a-u ‘tangle together’, koosa-suru‘cross’, kojire-ru ‘get complicated’, komi-ir-u ‘be complicated’, kongaragar-u ‘gettangled up’, tenmen-suru ‘get entangled’, funkyuu-suru ‘get complicated’,moture-kom-u ‘be carried over’

With the exception of kojire ‘complication’ in (21) and kojire-ru ‘get complicated’ in (22),both of which refer to the abstract entity also identified by moture and moturer-ru (seebelow), there are important differences between the forms under consideration and theirsynonyms. First, they are single native bases; some of the synonyms are either complex ornon-native. Karami-ai in (21) and karami-a-u, komi-ir-u, and moture-kom-u in (22) are com-plex; ranma and hankan in (21), and koosa-suru, tenmen-suru, and funkyuu-suru in (22) areof Chinese origin. Second, the change they identify can involve an interaction of twoobjects, rather than a single object (Shibata et al. 1979: 204).

(23) Takoito-ga densen-ni karamat-takite string electric line get entangled-PAST

‘A kite string got entangled around the electric line’



Karami ‘entanglement’ and kongaragar-u ‘get tangled up’ are similar to karamar-u and ka-ram-u.

In short, the idea is that bases with semantic properties conforming to (20) are not‘deverbal nouns’ at all. Rather, they are members of a distinct category, one whose for-mal properties allow their combination with both the nominative –ga and tense markers.

Bases referring to abstract entities in (18B) require only minimal modification of theproperties in (20). They can be divided into two sets, those referring to the entitiesresulting from conditional changes or from mental activities and those referring toconcepts of mental activities:

(24) Abstract (<+case; +tense>)(i) Entities

A. Resulting from conditional changeskojire ‘complication’, sibire ‘numbness’, boke ‘senility’, kegare ‘impurity’, tuk-are ‘tiredness’, dare ‘listlessness’, okure ‘delay’, more ‘omissions’, nuke ‘omis-sions’, oti ‘omissions’, tere ‘bashfulness’, ojike ‘fear’, obie ‘fright’, otoroe‘decline’, aki ‘boredom’, nare ‘habitation’, make ‘loss’, nobose ‘woozy’,hazure ‘blank’

B. Resulting from mental activitieskari ‘debt’, hikae ‘copy’, tuke ‘charge’, takuwae ‘storing, saving’, mooke ‘profit’,sonae ‘preparations’, kokoroe ‘knowledge’, kangae ‘idea’, kamae ‘readiness’, ko-tae ‘answer’, matome ‘summary’, oboe ‘recollection’, osie ‘lesson’, situke ‘disci-pline, sadame ‘regulation’, imasime ‘lesson’, tatoe ‘simile’, togame ‘punishment’,uttae ‘complaint, akirame ‘abandonment,’ kui ‘regret,’ mane ‘mimicry’

(ii) Concepts of mental activitiesijime ‘bullying’, simetuke ‘pressure’, osae ‘pressing’, sasae ‘support’, sirabe‘investigation’, tutome ‘duties’, tasuke ‘help’, amae ‘dependence’

The bases referring to the entities resulting from conditional changes in (24i-A) reason-ably have the properties in (20). Recall that moture ‘tangle, entanglement’ discussed aboverefers also to an abstract entity as in kanjoo-no moture ‘emotional entanglement’ towhich kojire ‘complication’ also refers. Other forms are characterized in the expected fash-ion, e.g., sibire ‘numbness’ as in asi-no sibire ‘numbness in the legs’ does not normallyexist, but it comes into existence as the result of sibire-ru ‘get numbed’ under a certaincondition. The bases referring to the entities resulting from mental activities in (24i-B)are distinct in that they are associated with human will. For example, kari ‘debt’ is consid-ered not to exist usually but comes into existence as the result of the activity kari-ru ‘bor-row’. There are synonyms for kari and kari-ru (Shibata and Yamada 652–3) which areoutside of the class <+case; +tense>. But they are either complex or non-native. Thebases in (24ii) referring to concepts of mental activities are associated with unusualnessand stability over time. For example, ijime ‘bullying’ refers to an activity which is consid-ered not to exist normally in a society like school and lasts repeatedly ⁄ continuously overtime when it comes into existence. Compare this characterization to its synonym ibir-u‘tease’ <)case; +tense> referring to an activity that is expected to occur commonly inhuman life.10

In sum, bases assigned to the category <+case: +tense> can refer to concrete entities,abstract entities, or mental activities. All such bases refer to entities whose existence isunusual or unexpected but stable once realized. Those referring to concrete or abstractentities also carry the implication that their existence is a result of natural changesunaffected by human will.



5. Conclusion

This article has been concerned with the role of language categories in language teaching. Itbegan with the observation of two problems faced by learners of Japanese and it has arguedthat these problems dissolve under an analysis of Japanese that requires four distinct catego-ries based on the behavior of bases relative to nominative case and the tense markers. The‘universal’ categories ‘noun’ or ‘verb’ do not translate to any single one of these four, butthe categories account for fundamental Japanese distinctions. Furthermore, since each ofthese categories has semantic correlates, the learner can predict the formal properties of abase from its semantic properties. As suggested in Jorden (1987: xvii), given an understand-ing of the system of a language, learners are afforded a shortcut to learning.

Acknowledgement

This article benefited tremendously from Susan Steele, who invited me to publish in Lan-guage and Linguistics Compass and gave me many helpful comments and suggestions forshaping it into final form. I would like to also thank the two anonymous reviewers forhelpful information and ⁄or criticisms that have significantly improved this article. My spe-cial thanks also go to all the faculties of the Department of Linguistics at the Universityof California, Santa Cruz who let me study during a period of sabbatical leave, especiallyDonka Forkas for the discussion. I also thank my family for their support, especially mydaughter, Yukie Yamahashi, who listened to my idea and helped me with my English onthe earliest version of this article. I alone am fully responsible for any shortcomings. Thisarticle was supported by a grant from Sapporo University in 2006. This is dedicated tothe memory of my father, Masao Tsugihara, who passed away in February 2007.

Short Biography

Sachiko Yamahashi is Professor in the Faculty of Cultural Studies at Sapporo Universityin Japan, where she has been teaching Japanese grammar and linguistics and Japanese as aforeign language for over 12 years. She holds an MA and PhD in linguistics from theUniversity of Arizona. Her primary research interest has been morphology in Japaneseand various aspects of Japanese linguistics. Her publication includes ‘The meaning of (-te)kureru ‘give’: in comparison with (-te)ageru ‘give’’ (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching)and ‘Reconsideration of ga ⁄no conversion in Japanese: from the view point of a sentencelevel’ (The Sapporo University Journal). Currently she has been devoted to the study of lexi-cal categories, the basic idea of which is rooted from her dissertation titled Resolving theProblem of Japanese no: An analysis of Words.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Dr Sachiko Yamahashi, Faculty of Cultural Studies, Sapporo University, 3-7-3-1,Nishioka, Toyohira-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 062-8520, Japan. E-mail: [email protected]

1 The infinitive forms are viewed as ‘verb’ stems, which may occur alone (Shibatani 1990: 224–25).2 -Da ⁄ -datta are bound morphemes unlike the English copula (e.g., Suzuki 1996: 23).3 Maru ‘circle’ is commonly considered a ‘‘noun’’ converted from maru-i ‘circle-NONPAST’ (e.g., Morioka). How-ever, based on the accent pattern and meaning, it is identified as one element combinable with both markers. Maruis the only element in the subset of class <+case; +tense>.4 Mora is the term used to refer to the syllable-like unit of Japanese. Each mora represents one beat and occupiesroughly the same unit of time (Jorden 1987: 1).



5 Wazuka ‘only’ is described as both a ‘na-adjective’ and an ‘adverb’ in Shinmura (1998: 2871) and Suzuki (1996:83). We consider it as ‘adverb’ on semantic grounds.6 In defense of the position that category distinctions are gradient rather than absolute, Uehara (1998:128) analyzessunao ‘obedient’ as a base that can be both a ‘noun’ and a ‘na-adjective’(‘nominal adjective’ in his term). As a‘noun’, it occurs with -no; as a ‘na-adjective, it occurs with –na. Leaving aside the fact that the examples are some-what problematic – e.g. sunao-na ⁄ no zissen ‘obedient action ⁄ practice of obedience’ is minimally acceptable – hisargument does not counter the position taken here, because he hasn’t provided a basis for the initial category assign-ment. Furthermore, -no does not necessarily define the category ‘noun’ nor does -na define ‘na-adjective’. Theformer in pre-nominal modification occurs virtually with anything (e.g., the adverb tyotto ‘a little’, as tyotto-no koto‘small matter’, the interjection sayonara ‘good-by’, as sayonara-no koe ‘saying good-by’, and even ‘prototypical[na-adjectives] like kirei ‘pretty’ (ibid. p.121)’ followed by -na, as kirei-na-dake-no joyuu ‘an actress who is merelypretty’ (Yamahashi 1988: 222–25). The affix –na is equally non-discriminating, as Henderson (1948: 179) notes,‘[w]hen -na is added to foreign words and to certain Japanese nouns, adverbs, and adjective roots, it forms[na]-adjectives’.7 A few ‘na-adjectives’ refer to semantic types different from the typical ones. A very few ‘na-adjectives’, assuki ‘like’ and kirai ‘dislike’, refer to human feeling existing in a long period of time. Two (taira ‘flat’ and ibitu‘distorted’) refer to PHYSICAL PROPERTY. The former are distinct from ‘i-adjectives’ in the expected fash-ion – e.g. hazukasi-i ‘ashamed’ refers to a momentary human feeling. The latter two are also distinct fromi-adjectives; they refer to a stable PHYSICAL PROPERTY while omo-i ‘heavy’, for example, refers to amomentary one.8 It has been commonly considered that some i-adjectives, like ooki-i ‘big’, alternate with na-adjectives, like ookina‘big’ (e.g., Backhouse 1984: 178). But this phenomenon does not counter our position. The latter are used as pre-nominal modifier, but never as predicate with the copulative da ⁄ data. I consider them, not na-adjective, but rentaisi‘pre-nominal adjectival or determiner’ (Shinmura; Nishio et al. 2000). Also, they are semantically distinct; thus,ookina in ookina osewa ‘mind your business’ cannot alternate with ooki-i (*ooki-i osewa).9 The elements in (18) have the same accent patterns whether they have -ga or -ru, except for the following five(Kindaichi 2006 handling only words used daily). The accent patterns of kasure ‘skip’, kabure ‘rush’, yojire ‘kink’, andkusare-ru ‘rot’ are not listed. But, they are the same as those listed. Regarding sasakure ‘hangnail or fine split’, bothaccent patterns are the same, setting aside whether or not the fourth mora -re is accented:

sasakureð�gaÞ vs sasakurejð�ruÞBut the -re of sasakure(-ga) could be accented, and that of sasakure(-ru) could be unaccented, since this kind of varia-tions occurs frequently when bases consist four or more moras (Kindaichi 56).10 Three bases nobi ‘spread’, hajime ‘beginning’, wakare ‘separation’ also refer to abstract entities. Nobi refers to theconcept of attributes lasting long as in nobi-no aru kuriimu ‘(beauty) cream which spread well’ and, thus, can beseen like those in (24ii). The last two may need to be memorized.

Works Cited

Backhouse, A. E. 1984. Have all the adjectives gone? Lingua 62. 169–86.Bloch, Bernard. 1946. Bloch ronkoo [A study on Japanese by Bloch], ed. by R. Miller, translated by Eiichi Hayashi

(1975). Tokyo: Kenkyuu-sha.Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1. 19–80Henderson, Harold G. 1948. Handbook of Japanese grammar. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Imai, Yoshiaki. 1990. Waga nihongo kyooiku nooto [My notes on Japanese teaching]. Nihongo-no gakushuu-to kenkyuu

no. 6, 1–8. Beijing: Nihongo-no gakushuu-to kenkyuu zasshi-sha.——. 1991. Meisi ni tensei suru doosi oyobi sahendoosi-o keisei-suru meesi-o meguru kaku mondai-ni tuite [Problems on

verbs which convert to nouns and verbal nouns]. Nihongo-no gakushuu-to kenkyuu no. 4, 1–4. Beijing: Nihongo-no gakushuu-to kenkyuu zasshi-sha.

Inoue, Katsuya. 1994. Sabi-o meguru wadai [Topics on rust]. Tokyo: Shookaboo.Jorden, E. H. 1987. Japanese: the spoken language. New haven: Yale University Press.Kindaichi, Haruhiko. (ed.) 2006. Sinmeikai akusento jiten [Accent dictionary]. Tokyo: Sanseidoo.Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuujo [Institute of National Language]. 2004. Bunrui goihyoo [Classification of words].

Tokyo: Dai Nihon tosho.Koyano, Tetsuo. 2005. ‘‘Keiyoosi’’ [Adjectives]. Shin-pan Nihongokyouiku-jiten [New Japanese teaching dictionary],

ed. by Osamu Mizutani and others, 83–4. Tokyo: Taishuukan shoten.Kunihiro, Tetsuya. 2002. Renyookei tennsei meisi-no sinyoohoo-wa ijoo-ka [Is a new approach to verbal nouns

starange?], Gekkan Gengo vol. 31, no. 9, 74–7. Tokyo: Taishuu-kan shoten.Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven ⁄ CT: Yale University Press.



Matsushita, Daizaburoo. 1928. Kaisen hyoojun nihon bumpoo [Standard Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Yuubunkanshoten.

McClain, M. Yoko. 1981. Handbook of Modern Japanese Grammar, Tokyo: Hokuseidoo.Miyajima, Tatsuo. 1957. Tango kyooiku: Gendai-no yooji yoogo kyooiku 2 [Teaching vocabularies: Teaching modern

writings and vocabularies]. Tokyo: Shunzyuu-sha.Morioka, Kenji. 1994. Nihon bumpoo taikei-ron [A system of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Meiji shoin.Nishio, Toraya. 1961. Doosi renyookei-no meisika-ni kansuru itikoosatu [One thought about converted nouns from the

infinitive forms of verbs]. Kokugogaku, Vol. 43 60–81. Kokugogakkai.Nishio, Minoru, Eitaroo Iwabuchi, and Shizuo Mizutani. 2000. Iwanami Kokugo Jiten, 6th edn. [Iwanami Japanese

dictionary 6th edn.]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Nishio, Toraya, and T. Miyajima. 1972. Kokuritu Kokugo Kenkyuujo siryoo syuu7 Doosi keiyoosi mondaigo yooreishuu

[A collection of examples of verbs and adjectives]. Tokyo: Shuuei shuppan.Nitta, Yoshio, Shinjiroo Muraki, Masayosshi Shibatani, and Masato Yazawa. 2000. Nihongo-no bumpoo – Bun-no kok-

kaku [Japanese grammar – structure of sentence]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Sakakura, Tokuyoshi. 1997. Gokoosei josetsu [Introduction to word formation]. Go Koosei [Word formation], ed. by

Michiaki Saitoo and Masahiko Ishii, 7–23. Tokyo: Hitsuji shoboo.Shibata, Takeshi, and S. Yamada (eds.). 2002. Ruigo daijiten [Dictionary of synonyms]. Tokyo: Koodan-sha.——, T. Kunihiro, Y. Nagashima, S. Yamada, and Y. Asano. 1979. Kotoba-no imi2: Jisho-ni kaitenai koto [Meaning

of words: things not in dictionaries]. Tokyo: Heibon-sha.Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The language of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Shinmura, Izuru (ed.) 1998. Kooji-en, 5th edn. [Japanese dictionary 5th edn]. Tokyo: Iwanami-shotenSteele, Susan. 1988. Lexical categories and the Luiseno absolutive: another perspective on the universality of

‘‘noun’’ and ‘‘verb’’. International Journal of American Linguistics Vol. 54 no. 1 1–27.Suzuki, Shigeyuki. 1996. Keitaron josetu [An introduction to morphology]. Tokyo: Mugisho-boo.Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo-no shintakkusu-to imi Vol. 1 [Japanese syntax and meaning]. Tokyo: Kurosio shup-

pan.Tokieda, Motoki. 1950. Nihon bumpoo koogo-hen [Colloquial Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.Uehara, Satoshi. 1998. Syntactic categories in Japanese: a cognitive and typological introduction. Tokyo: Kuroshio

Shuppan.——. 2002. Nihongo niokeru goi no kategoriika nituite:keiyoosi-to keiyoodoosi-no sa-nituite [Categorization of Japanese

words: On the differences between adjectives and nominal adjectives]. Ninchi Gengogaku II: kategoriika [CognitiveGrammar II: categorization], ed. by Toshio Oohori, 81–103. Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppan-kai.

Ueyama, Ayumi. 1991. Hajimete no hito no gengogaku [Linguistics for beginners]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Yamahashi, Sachiko. 1988. Resolving the problem of Japanese no: an analysis of words. University of Arizona,

PhD dissertation.



Documents

Teaching Language Categories and Learning About Language Categories from Teaching