Japanese Spatial Categorizations of Simple Action Sequences

Japanese Spatial Categorizations 1 Running head: JAPANESE SPATIAL CATEGORIZATIONS Japanese Spatial Categorizations of Simple Action Sequences Sara D. Kazemi San Diego State University Japanese Spatial Categorizations 2 Abstract Different languages classify spatial relations by different criteria, picking out distinctive features that other languages might otherwise ignore. These different categorizations are reflected by a language’s lexicon. Japanese is an interesting language to investigate particularly because: 1) new verbs aren’t readily admitted into its pre‐existing class of verbs and 2) there are no true words one could refer to as an adposition in isolation. In order to elicit lexical representations of Japanese spatial categories, native speakers of Japanese were instructed to describe simple action sequences. Several spatial categorizations emerged; some variances surfaced too, particularly with respect to specificity of verb use and how participants understood the action sequences. Japanese Spatial Categorizations 3 Japanese Spatial Categorizations of Simple Action Sequences As sensory beings, space is a fundamental aspect of everyday life. Even before we learn language, we begin to categorize the world with respect to spatial relations. Are these mental concepts of spatial relations universal? If they are, it is not reflected through language—different languages express spatial relations differently, attending to specific spatial distinctions another language may ignore or generalize with another. Another important question to consider is whether or not our language affects or changes how we perceive the world—perhaps, since different languages mark certain spatial distinctions, only certain spatial differences are perceived while other differences that other languages mark go unnoticed. These questions, though considered, are not formally addressed by this study. Our focus here is basic—what spatial categorizations do Japanese speakers realize and how are such categorizations reflected by the language? Before we investigate how Japanese conveys spatial relations, we must understand some fundamentals about the language’s locative particles and spatial verbs. Japanese has three different types of locative particles: stative ni (location of an entity’s state), active de (location of an entity’s action) and direction of movement e1 (location towards which an entity is moving) (Chino, 2005). Though Japanese does not have explicit words that can be identified as adpositions in isolation, the language does have a spatial nominative + locative particle construction that functions as a postpositional phrase (Kita, 2006). For example, ‘on top’ can be expressed as: 1 Ni can also be used as a direction of movement particle, but e cannot replace ni as a stative locative particle. Japanese Spatial Categorizations 4 ue‐NOUN ni‐STATIVE LOCATION PARTICLE. Though ni functions as a postposition, it is a stative location particle that has no meaning by itself like ‘on’ in English does. It is ue (‘top’) that provides the nature of the locative relation here. To illustrate this, here is another example: shita‐NOUN ni‐STATIVE LOCATION PARTICLE. The above example corresponds to the English gloss ‘under.’ While under is a preposition in English, in Japanese, shita (‘under’) is a noun. When shita is marked by a location particle such as ni, the phrase acts as a postpositional phrase. In the Japanese language, verbs are a closed class—the verb class does not readily gain new members. Rather, Japanese incorporates borrowed words, which are then conjugated periphrastically (Uehara, 1998) as a verbal nominative + suru (e.g. setto suru: ‘do setting’ or ‘set’). Suru, meaning ‘to do,’ is a very general verb that can be combined with another word to express virtually any action. There are more basic‐level verbs, which, as we will see, are used to express fairly clear spatial boundaries, though such boundaries may overlap (Hatch & Brown, 1995). Finally, there are more specific verbs that seem only to occur with specific actions. Method Participants For the purpose of this study, a convenience sample of six students from the researchers’ university was selected. All six students are native speakers of Japanese and also speak English. Materials Japanese Spatial Categorizations 5 A video compilation featuring common action sequences (e.g. closing a tape player or putting a pen cap on a pen) was provided by the researchers’ professor and served as the stimulus for this study. The compilation begins with two practice scenes and continues with 43 test scenes; each scene lasts approximately 5 seconds and is followed by a blank screen, during which the participant should perform the task (explained in Procedure). Of the 43 test scenes, 33 are target video stimuli intended to fit one of 11 spatial relationships (Figure 1)—tight IN complete, tight IN partial, encircle, close and cover, cover, close with hinge, close without hinge, attach, between/among, loose IN, or loose ON. Filler scenes occur once after every three target scenes to prevent participants from realizing a pattern in vocabulary use. Procedure Before being shown the video, participants were told that the purpose of the study was to observe how speakers of different languages typically express events of various kinds. Participants were instructed, in English, to watch each scene and, during the blank screen, to describe the scene they had just seen as briefly and as naturally as possible. Participants were allowed to re‐watch any scenes and they were allowed additional time if the blank screen was not long enough for them to provide a full answer. Two practice scenes were shown first in order to ensure that the participant understood the task. After any questions the participant may have had about the task were successfully answered, the participant proceeded to watch the 40 test scenes. All responses were audio recorded. Immediately following the completion of the video, the participant transcribed his or her descriptions in rōmaji Japanese Spatial Categorizations 6 (the Romanization of the Japanese language). During debriefing, the participant was thanked and given more specific information regarding the purpose of the study. Results The results reveal 8 spatial verb categories—IN, tight OVER, attached (object approaches another entity and attaches to it), connected (two entities approach each other and become connected), close, ON –ordered, ON +ordered, and normative. For select stimuli, participants varied with respect to how a stimulus was perceived. Close tape player was sometimes (f = 4, N = 12) perceived as [to put] tape in tape player. Some participants (f = 4, N = 12) understood pillowcase on pillow as pillow in pillowcase. We have added these extra categories to accommodate these alternative perceptions. The first four verbs that will be spatially contrasted—ireru, hameru, tsukeru and tsunageru—all have relatively the same English gloss ‘to put.’ Inness: ireru Ireru is used to express inness; it is used when an object is contained but not physically joined with its container. Ireru was the dominant verb for record in jacket (f = 7, N = 12), drawer in (f = 7, N = 12), pillow in pillow case (f = 4, n = 4), pencil among pencils (f = 9, N =12), food in pans (f = 7, N = 12), close tape player (f = 4, n = 4), and book between books (f = 5, N = 12). Tight fitting: hameru Hameru is used when an object is placed around or on something with which the object has a tight‐fitting relationship. Hameru was the most agreed upon verb for the stimuli letter in mold (f = 6, N = 12), wristband on (f = 7, N = 12), gloves on (f = Japanese Spatial Categorizations 7 7, N = 12), thimble on finger (f = 7, N = 12), stove knob on (f = 5, N = 12), cup holder on coffee cup (f = 4 N = 12), and ring on post (f = 4 N = 12). The use of hameru for cap on bottle (f = 5, N = 12) competed with the use of shimeru, ‘to close’ (f = 5, N =12). Attachedness and Connection: tsukeru and tsunageru Attached to. Although tsukeru wasn’t used dominantly for any stimulus, it was used about as frequently as hameru for stove knob on (f = 2, N = 12) and cup holder on coffee cup (f = 3 N = 12). Tsukeru was also used sparingly for wristband on, pillowcase on, gloves on and pop beads on. Tsukeru is provided here as a basis on which to contrast tsunageru. Connect together. Like tsukeru, tsunageru expresses a physical connection between two objects. The only stimulus for which tsunageru was used was pop beads on (f = 5 N = 12). Pop beads on was also represented by hameru (f = 3 N = 12), and, as reported above, by tsukeru (f = 2 N = 12). The competition between these verbs will be addressed in the Discussion. Horizontal support: oku and naraberu. The next two verbs—oku and naraberu—express that an object is supported horizontally. The two contrast in whether or not the objects are purposefully ordered or not. Arbitrary order. Oku is used when an object is supported but has superficial contact with the reference point or surface. Oku was only dominantly used for the stimulus teacups on (f = 11, N = 12). Japanese Spatial Categorizations 8 Purposely ordered. Naraberu expresses a purposeful order to the placement of objects on a horizontal surface; naraberu was the most agreed upon verb for wooden pegs on (f = 8, N = 12), and clamps on (f = 10, N = 12). Closedness: shimeru If an action scene was perceived as a closing action, shimeru was used. There is no distinction between hinged or unhinged closing, however, hingedness did help in determining whether the action was perceived as closing or putting a lid or cap on something. Shimeru was used in agreement with close [hinged] box (f = 10, N = 12), close cocktail shaker (f = 7, N = 12), close [hinged] ketchup bottle (f = 10, N = 12), close matchbox (f = 9, N = 12), close [hinged] tape player (f = 6, n = 8), and close lotion bottle (f = 5, N = 12). Normative: shimau Shimau suggests that something has been done completely and that an object, having served its function, is being put away or being returned to its normative state. It was the most used verb for credit card in (f = 7, N = 12), and knife in block (f = 6, N = 12). Shimau was second to ireru for book between books (f = 3, N = 12). Other verbs Specific: tomeru. Tomeru only occurred in response to hairclip in (f = 7, N = 12). Tomeru, meaning ‘to stop,’ is used in conjunction with hair to relate the notion that the hairclip ‘stops’ the hair or holds it in place. In other words, the focus here was on the hair being put in place, rather than the hairpin going into the hair. Japanese Spatial Categorizations 9 Specific: otosu. Otosu only appeared for drop keys in and it was used almost unanimously (f = 11, N = 12). Otosu, meaning to drop or to let fall was only appropriate for this stimulus, being that it was the only stimulus involving an object being dropped from a distance, rather than being placed or put on or into something. General: suru. As noted in the introduction, suru is a general verb, meaning ‘to do’, that can be used to express virtually any action. Suru was used indeed used across many of the 33 target stimuli (f = 15, N = 33), though the use of suru never approached the most common strategy for expressing any of the action stimuli. Discussion In Japanese, the selection of spatial verbs is not restricted to some objective notion of spatial relationship between an object and a reference point. Japanese seems to give some leeway in verb selection, depending on a speaker’s individual perception. The choices are perhaps best reflected by the decisions between hameru (‘to put [on/around]) and shimeru (‘to close’). It seems that if a speaker perceives the two parts as one entity, he or she will use shimeru: supurei‐SPRAY BOTTLE ni‐LOC. PART. kappu‐CAP wo‐OBJ. PART. shimeru‐CLOSE ‘to close the spray bottle cap.’ This is evidenced by the strong use of shimeru for hinged items, those that are easier to perceive as one entity since both parts are already attached. By contrast, if the speaker perceives the two parts as two functionally different entities, he or she will use hameru to express the contrasting functions. supurei‐SPRAY BOTTLE ni‐LOC. PART. kappu‐CAP wo‐OBJ. PART. hameru‐PUT Japanese Spatial Categories 10 ‘to put the cap on the spray bottle’ The cap’s function is to be put into tight fitting relationship with the bottle in order to seal the bottle’s contents. The bottle has its own function—to contain. Variations in verb use also surfaced when action sequences were perceived differently. As mentioned in the results, close tape player was often perceived as tape in tape player even though in the video the tape had already been in the tape player. The participants never observed the tape actually being put into the player. This could be attributed to the fact that the tape deck is attached to the door of the tape player, which is pushed towards the innermost section—the tape is vicariously pushed into the core of the tape player when the door is pushed closed. Another potential explanation is that ‘put the tape in’ may a more frequent phrase than ‘close the tape player.’ Alternatively, participants may have simply perceived the functional relationship between a tape and a tape player—a tape goes into a tape player—regardless of what actually occurred in the video. Participants also varied in terms of the specificity of verbs they chose. Some favored the use of suru, the general ‘to do’ verb throughout many of the stimuli. For instance, in Japanese, it is possible to simply say: Ristobando‐WRISTBAND wo‐OBJECT PARTICLE suru‐DO. This corresponds to the English gloss, ‘to do wristbanding’ or ‘to wristband.’ On the other end of the spectrum, some chose verbs that seem to be more specific than what may be identified as basic‐level verbs. Referring back to the use of tsunageru (‘to attach’), we saw that it only occurred for pop beads on. However, it was also possible to use the more generally applied verbs tsukeru (‘to attach’) and Japanese Spatial Categories 11 hameru (‘to put’ around or on with a tight‐fit relationship) for this stimulus. Tsunageru, tsukeru, and hameru all suggest some sort of attachment or tight‐fit relationship, but tsunageru seems to convey something extra that tsukeru and hameru do not. We speculated in our spatial categorizations above that tsunageru is used to express the connection between objects, perhaps like objects (e.g. Lego block to Lego block or pop bead to pop bead). This differs from our concept of tsukeru, which only requires an object to approach a stationary entity to form an attachment. Tsunageru more specifically requires two entities to approach one another and form a connection. It is unclear, in this case, which object is initiating the spatial relationship—connection—since both entities moves towards the one another. So, with an observance like pop beads on, tsunageru is added to the lexical options (all with various levels of specificity) available to a Japanese speaker who wishes to convey his or her perception of the action sequence. The choice of specificity, however, is up to the individual speaker. There were also some stimuli, such as people in truck and cup holder on cup, for which verb use agreement was never reached. People in truck resulted in a three‐ way tie between oku (horizontal support without purposeful placement), naraberu (horizontal support with purposeful placement) and noseru2, a verb that only occurred for this stimulus. Cup­holder on cup was equally communicated with verbs hameru (put over or around in a tight fitting relationship), ireru (put in, but not attached) and tsukeru (attached). What do these cases suggest for spatial 2 Noseru also means ‘to put on,’ but it has a connotation of loading luggage or people for transport. So, like tsunageru is to pop beads on, noseru may be a more specific verb that is added to the possible lexical choices a Japanese speaker may select for people in truck. Japanese Spatial Categories 12 relationships in Japanese? Perhaps some lexical representations of spatial relationships are classically defined—long established—in Japanese (e.g. glove on), allowing the speaker to represent more modern spatial relationships (e.g. between a coffee cup and a cup holder) by generalizing from the classical examples. This is a hypothesis that a future study could investigate. Japanese Spatial Categories 13 References Chino, N. (2005). Particles that indicate the place where0ygs n action takes place or the place where something exists. How to tell the difference between Japanese particles (pp. 46‐48). Tokyo: Kodansha International. Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Word classification. Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education (pp. 218‐260). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kita, S. (2006) A grammar of space in Japanese. In Levinson, S. & Wilkins, D. (Eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Uehara, S. (1998). Japanese: a cognitive and typological introduction. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Studies in Japanese Linguistics, 9. Tokyo: Kurosio. Japanese Spatial Categories 14 Figure Captions Figure 1. Action sequence stimuli by category. Japanese Spatial Categories 15