of mimetics can be accommodated by theoretical frames. Here, our discussion focuses on the way in which various aspects of Construction Grammar may effectively provide theoretical tools to account for both productive and creative properties.
We will further discuss crosslinguistic observations pertinent to mimetic expressions from which an interesting set of typological generalizations might be drawn.
The reduplicative mimetics in (17a) and (17b) have durative aspect. The“suffixal” mimetics, such as ones with -Q, -N, or -ri in (17c), denote a punctual event. As Hamano (1998: 106) notes, the geminate consonant-Q“indicates that the movement is carried out forcefully or vigorously in a single direction”; moraic nasal-N“indi- cates that the action involves elastic objects or is accompanied by a reverberation”; and -ri “indicates quiet ending of the movement”. The mimetic boQkiri in (17d) illustrates what is sometimes called an“emphatic/intensified adverb”(Kuroda 1979), which takes a form consisting of a moraic consonant {C} after thefirst mora and the“suffix”-ri.
These form-meaning pairsfit the basic tenet of Construction Morphology (Booij 2010). Each morphophonological form in (17), which can be represented as a tem- plate, is iconically associated with one or more schematic, primarily aspectual, meanings. First, the durative aspect of the reduplicative forms (i.e. C1(´)V1C2V2- C1V1C2V2) is motivated by morphological iconicity of repetition.3The durativity is fur- ther specified by each mimetic item as repetition, e.g.bókiboki‘crunching repeatedly (of stick-like objects)’in (17a), and continuation, e.g.bokiboki‘in pieces (of a stick- like object)’in (17b). Accentuation of reduplicative mimetics is linked with their dy- namicity. Accented reduplicatives (C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2) are dynamic, realized as part of an adverb or verb, whereas unaccented reduplicatives (C1V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2) are static, realized as (part of) an adjective or noun (Kageyama 2007). Second, the forms that comprise the three suffixal elements (i.e.-Q,-N, and -ri), schematized as C1V1C2´V2-Q, C1V1C2(´)V2-N(´), and C1V1C2´V2-ri, can be abstracted into the general suffixal construction, C1V1C2(´)V2-Aff(´), which is linked with punctual aspect (non- reduplicated forms for short events). Each of the three subtypes, represented as sub- constructions subsumed under the general suffixal construction, is paired with a set of minor semantic features cited above. Third, the semantic properties of emphatic- adverbial mimetics, schematically represented as C1V1CC2´V2-ri, are somewhat diffi- cult to generalize, compared to those of the other two mentioned above. One impor- tant semantic feature of emphatic mimetics, however, is their ambivalence between manner and result interpretations. For example, unlike the adverbsbokibokiin (17a) and bokiQ/bokiN/bokiri in (17c), which seem to have a strong preference for the manner interpretation, the emphatic mimeticboQkiriin (17d) can refer to the com- pletely broken state of a branch, but we can also interpret it to describe the forceful manner (and sound) of breaking. In fact, unlike its relatives,boQkirican be used in a result description (which also suggests the precedence of a forceful breaking event), as in (18).
3We adopt the standard notation ´ for an accent nucleus, which is realized as a pitch fall. The absence of the symbol in a constructional representation means unaccented (i.e.“flat”) prosody. In our discussion, accentuation will not be indicated for individual mimetic items unless relevant.
Mimetics 143
(18) Taroo ga {boQkiri/*bokiboki/*bokiQ/*bokiN/*bokiri} to oreta
Taro NOM MIM QUOT broke
eda o mituketa.
branch ACC found
‘Taro found a (completely) broken branch.’
The constructional status of emphatic mimetics receives additional support from their greater productivity compared to their“non-emphatic”counterparts (i.e.
C1V1C2´V2-ri) (Akita 2009). It is also noteworthy that about half of the emphatic mimetics do not have non-emphatic counterparts (e.g.koQteri‘rich (of a dish)’vs.
*koteri) (Moriyama 2002). These distributional facts are captured by the templatic construction, rather than emphatic derivation, and confirm the independent status of emphatic mimetics. The form-meaning correspondence in the representative C1V1C2V2-based mimetic constructions is summarized in (19).
(19) a. C1(´)V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2: –punctual (repetitive, continuative) C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2: +dynamic
C1V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2: –dynamic (i.e. state) b. C1V1C2(´)V2-Aff(´): +punctual
C1V1C2´V2-Q: quick, intense C1V1C2(´)V2-N(´): reverberant C1V1C2´V2-ri: quiet
c. C1V1CC2´V2-ri: manner-result ambivalence
Many of the previous studies analyze -Q, -N, and -ri, for instance, as deriva- tionally added to mimetic roots (Waida 1984; Kadooka 2007). The constructional view has distinct advantages over such a derivational view. The constructions account for the fact that two mimetics with the same root may have greatly different meanings. For instance, the ‘exact’ meaning is available for poQkiri, but not for pokipoki,pokiQ, andpokiri‘crunching’. Similarly,batabatacan refer to the event of many people dying one after another, butbataN‘thudding’and baQtari‘thudding, running across’cannot. Furthermore, the existence of these constructional templates guarantees the remarkable creativity of Japanese mimetics. In fact, relatively new mimetics in recent years, such as kosikosi ‘rubbing one’s head against someone’ (C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2), merumeru ‘texting’ (C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2), mohumohu ‘downy andfluffy’(C1(´)V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2), andpoyoN‘bouncing lightly’(C1V1C2V2-N´), instan- tiate some of the constructions in (19). In this connection, it has been observed that Tanka and Haiku poetry not only makes frequent use of existing mimetics, often with new meaning assignments, but actively creates innovative mimetic words. It is interesting to note that poets’ creation of new mimetic words also follow the construction patterns in (19), as is illustrated by hoyari ‘smiling gently’ (Hiroshi
Ishida) (C1V1C2´V2-ri), kokiri ‘snapping’ (Kyoko Kuriki) (C1V1C2´V2-ri), mowamowa
‘dizzy’ (Kozue Uzawa) (C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2), munyoQ ‘mumbling’ (Kiyohiro Tamai) (C1V1C2´V2-Q), andsakisaki ‘crunch-crunch’(Yukitsuna Sasaki) (C1´V1C2V2-C1V1C2V2) (cf. Iizuka Shoten editorial department (ed.) 1999; Tamori 2002).
A second example we wish to discuss, this time at the morphosyntactic level, illustrates how the creative aspect of meaning that is often unpredictable from a mimetic word in isolation is dealt with in the construction approach. In addition to burabura-suru in (8)–(11), we discuss a wide range of argument structure patterns and their associated meanings using huwahuwa-suru as an example. The mimetic base,huwahuwa, generally describes the state of being soft, light, orfluffy. Its verbal use with the verbsuru‘do’(huwahuwa(-to)-suru/-si-te-iru) appears in Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup (1996), the largest mimetic dictionary written in English, with two definitions: (i) to be light and soft; and (ii) to beflighty, nonchalant, frivolous, etc.
These definitions are given in (20) and (21), respectively, with slightly modified ex- amples from Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup (1996: 340, 342).
(20) Masyumaro wa huwahuwa-si-te i-te yawarakai. . . marshmallow TOP MIM-do-GER be-GER soft
‘Marshmallows are soft and squashy. . .’
(21) Kimi, sonna huwahuwa(-to)-si-ta kimoti de wa you such MIM-QUOT-do-PST attitude INS TOP gakumon wa yar-e-nai.
scholarly.work TOP do-can-NEG
‘You’ll never be a scholar with such a nonchalant attitude.’
The two definitions ofhuwahuwa-surureflected in these examples are conventional ones and commonly appear in other mimetic dictionaries. To the extent that a definite set of conventionalized meanings are assigned, lexical representations of mimetic verbs may be treated on par with those of non-mimetic lexical verbs like taberu ‘eat’ and aruku ‘walk’. In fact, this is the approach that is adopted by Kageyama (2007), discussed in the previous section. One of the semantic character- istics of mimetic verbs, however, is the ease with which their meanings and argu- ment structure patterns can be extended beyond the range that non-mimetic lexical verbs generally allow. Because of this characteristic, non-conventional and“creative” meanings can be added to an existing mimetic verb as long as the inherent image that the mimetic base has is extended to and sustained in what is being described (cf. Tsujimura 2009).
Argument structures and meanings that are non-conventional or novel to vary- ing degrees are amply attested especially in casual communication outlets such as informal daily dialogue and internet sites, as exemplified by (22)–(26), taken from Tsujimura (2009).
Mimetics 145
(22) Hantosi-hodo mae kara atama ga huwahuwa-suru-yoona kanzi half.year-about before from head NOM MIM-do-like feeling
‘[I have had] the feeling since a half-year ago that my head is <huwahuwa>’
(23) X-san no akatyan totemo kawaii-desu yo. Huwahuwa-site.
X-Ms. GEN baby very cute-COP SFP MIM-do Ms. X’s baby is very cute; he is <huwahuwa>.’
(24) Mausupaddo o tukatte mo kaasoru ga huwahuwa-suru.
mouse.pad ACC use even cursor NOM MIM-do
‘The cursor does <huwahuwa> even though I use a mouse pad.’ (25) Desukutoppu o huwahuwa-suru kerotyan mo tuitemasu.
desktop ACC MIM-do Kero-chan also come.with
‘It comes with Kero-chan, which does <huwahuwa> around the desktop.’ (26) Huwahuwa na nyanko ga . . . huwahuwa na omotya o
MIM COP cat NOM MIM COP toy ACC
huwahuwa-suru.
MIM-do
‘A light cat does <huwahuwa> with a light toy.’
The examples from (22) to (25) take the intransitive argument structure frame:
the subject ofhuwahuwa-suru in (22)–(24) is theme, and so is the subject of (25), although it could possibly be interpreted as agent. These intransitive sentences, however, are not uniform in event type and associated meaning.
The mimetic verb in (22) describes dizziness and the condition resulting from high fever. While dizziness is more commonly depicted by hurahura-suruor kura- kura-suru, andhuwahuwa-surumay not seem to be an accepted descriptive term by every native speaker,huwahuwa-suruappears more frequently than expected on the Internet. The mimetic verb in (23), although it is used intransitively as in (22), refers to the chubbiness of a baby. Wefind an example in Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup (1996) in which the softness of a new-born baby’s hand is described withhuwahuwa- suru, but the use of the mimetic verb to refer to the general physical feature of a baby (presumably based on his/her round face) may be considered an extended way of linking the mimetic word to the round image. Contrastive with the stative description in (22) and (23), (24) and (25), still in the intransitive frame, denote dynamic move- ments: the stationary movement described in (24) mayfit one of the definitions of the mimetic basehuwahuwain Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup (1996) that“the manner of floating or drifting lightly on water or in the air”, but (25), accompanied by an adjunct of the path expression,desukutoppu o‘all over the desktop’, highlights a more exten- sive movement than in (24).
Finally, the last example in (26) takes the transitive argument structure with the agentive subjectnyanko‘cat’in the nominative and the objectomotya‘a toy’in the accusative, and describes a causative event of a cat moving a toy in a light and soft (gentle) manner connected to the mimetic basehuwahuwa. Apparently, none of the specific events depicted by the mimetic verb huwahuwa-suru in (22)–(26) strictly matches the dictionary listing of argument structure and semantic definitions that reflect the most widely accepted and conventionalized “meanings.” Two points should be stressed here: (i) the varying departure from conventional dictionary defi- nitions is made possible by thefluid interpretation through the connection between the rudimentary image that a given mimetic base symbolizes and the depicted scenes in specific contexts, and (ii) the range of event types in sentences involving mimetic words can be narrowed down by the argument structure pattern of a given sentence coupled with the availability of appropriate adjuncts.4Put differently, the creative aspect of mimetic verbs results from the combination of the imagery (in the sense of Kita (1997)) that mimetic roots induce and the argument structure types in which a given mimetic verb appears. In Construction Grammar, argument structure itself constitutes a construction (Goldberg 1995). In Japanese the information con- cerning argument structure properties is provided in terms of the number of NPs and the case particles that accompany them. Additionally, some adjuncts, such as path expressions in (25), can further narrow the range of potential interpretations that mimetic verbs can lead to. Thus, this approach is consistent with the construc- tion view of verb meaning (Tsujimura 2005a, 2009) in that sentences predicated by mimetic verbs receive their semantic interpretation through global information including argument structure and adjunct distribution, each of which is often accompanied by a specific case particle or postposition, as well as verbal morphology.
It should be noted that the semantic interpretation of innovative mimetics likehoyari and sakisaki mentioned earlier is given in a similar manner (i.e. by global infor- mation) complemented by the semantic property that the morpho(phono)logical templates allude to.
Construction Grammar considers morpheme, word, phrase, and sentence each to potentially represent construction (Fillmore and Kay 1995; Goldberg 1995; Fried and Östman 2004). The general approach to various phenomena regarding mimetics illustrated above is consistent with the basic tenet of Construction Grammar. Thus, Construction Grammar appears to provide a useful theoretical apparatus that accom- modates both the regularity and the creativity of mimetic morphemes particularly with respect to the relationship of form and meaning.
4It has been demonstrated that theflexible range of argument structure and adjunct distribution is one of the important properties that distinguish mimetics from non mimetic words. See Tsujimura (2005a, 2009, 2014) for more details.
Mimetics 147