Semantic schism and interpretive integration in Japanese sentences with a mimetic: reply to Tsujimura

要旨

Tsujimura's critique raises questions regarding two major issues raised by Kita (1997). One is the claim that semantic representation of mimetics involves the affecto-imagistic dimension. The affecto-imagistic dimension is distinct from the analytic dimension, where the semantics of the rest of the sentence is represented. I point out some problems with Tsujimura's criticism in this regard. I also provide further details on the data reported in Kita (1997), concerning iconic gesture and mimetics. Though the iconic-gesture data provide supporting evidence in Kita (1997) into account, I still maintain that the semantics of mimetics and that of ordinary words should be represented in different dimensions, though they are integrated in the interpretation process. The second issue raised by Tsujimura concerns how a mimetic contributes to the meaning of the whole sentence. I agree with Tsujimura that it is not fruitful to equate the compatibility requirements imposed by mimetics and selectional restrictions in the classic sense. However, contrary to Tsujimura, I still maintain that the meaning of a mimetic can be attributed to the mimetic itself. Furthermore, the meaning of mimetics is in general constrained in the way outlined in Kita (1997)

主題