The Icelandic preposition hjá 'at': its role in canonical intransitive sentences
List of Authors
  • Yamaguchi, Toshiko

Keyword
  • hjá, Icelandic, intransitive sentence, perception, semantics, pragmatics

Abstract
  • This paper seeks to explain the roles that the preposition hjá plays in canonical intransitive sentences in Icelandic. According to Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) transitivity hypothesis, this type of intransitive sentence is characterised by the expression of an event that contains a participant affected by that event. The Icelandic intransitive sentence designates a change of state, agentivity, and a resultant state. The third meaning is particularly important as it expresses a situation that is not necessarily part of the meaning of the predicate but rather evoked by the speaker’s real-world knowledge. The addition of hjá makes the intransitive sentence more transitive because it gives rise to an additional participant. The key to understanding the unique behaviour of hjá is to decode its semantic and pragmatic, or conceptual, properties. The entire issue ultimately comes down to two fundamental questions: how do we perceive the world and how is it coded in a language?

Reference
  • Fillmore, C. (2003) [1970]. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Form and meaning in language, vol. I: Papers on semantic roles. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Goldberg, A. E. (1995). A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Gorlach, M. (2004). Phrasal constructions and resultativeness in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causative and transitivity (pp. 87-120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251-299.
    Jacobsen, W. (2007). The semantics of spontaneity revisited. In S. Kuno, M. Seiichi, & S.
    G. Strauss (Eds.), Aspects of linguistics: In honor of Noriko Akatsuka (pp. 19-41). Tokyo: Kuroshio.
    Johnstone, B. (2010). Language and geographical space. In P. Auer & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, vol. 1: Theories and methods (pp. 1-18). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Kittilä, S. (2002). Remarks on the basic transitive sentence. Language Sciences, 24, 107-130.
    Langacker, R. W. (1991). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Levin, B., & Rappaport H. M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Levin, B., & Rappaport H. M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Magnússon, Á. B. (1989). Íslensk orðsifjabók [Icelandic Etymological Dictionary]. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans.
    Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Næs, Å. (2007). Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Nedjalkov, V. P., & Jaxontov, S. J. (1988). The typology of resultative constructions. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (pp. 3-62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Schlesinger, I. M. (1995). Cognitive space and linguistic case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.