INFORMA nON TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text diraclly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type c:A computer printer.

The quality of this ntproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality iHustI.tions and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, begiMing at the upper 1eft-ha1d comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overtaps.

Photographs induded in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6- x 9'" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contad UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Leaming

300 Nor1h Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 4810&-1346 USA 800-521-0600

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO

The Conceptual Basis of Grammar:

A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Clausal Structure

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in

Linguistics

by

Toshiyuki Kumashiro

Committee in charge:

Professor Ronald W. Langacker, Chair Professor Gilles Fauconnier

Professor John C. Moore

Professor Maria Polinsky

Professor Yasu-Hiko Tohsaku

2000

UMI Number: 9975039

Copyright 2000 by Kumashiro, Toshiyuki

All rights reserved.

UMr

UMI Microform9975039

Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company.

All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Copyright Toshiyuki Kumashiro, 2000 All rights reserved.

The dissertation of Toshiyuki Kumashiro is approved. and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm:

(;/ rckiAk;~ l~er-

Chair

University of California. San Diego 2000

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Figures x

List ofTables xv

List of Abbreviations xvi

Acknowledgments xvii

Vita, Publications. and Fields of Study xix

Abstract xxi

I. Introduction 1

I . I . Goals of the Dissertation I

1.1.1. Conceptualization of Double-Entity Events 2

1.1.2. Different Levels of Subjects 6

1.1.3. The Conceptual Basis of Case Marking 7

1.2. Organization of the Dissertation 8

1.3. Introduction to Cognitive Grammar 10

1.3. 1 . Basic Concepts 10

1.3.2. Lexical Semantics 13

1.3.3. Classes and Constructions 16

1.3.3. I. Lexical Classes 16

1.3.3.2. Constructions 18

1.3.4. Clausal Structure 21

1.3.4.1. Conceptual Archetypes 21

1.3.4.2. Grammatical Relations .22

1.3.5. Marked Coding 24

1.3.5.1. Setting-Participant Constructions 24

1.3.5.2. Reference-Point Constructions 25

I .4. Overview of the Dissertation 28

1.4.1. Chapter II: Subjecthood Tests 28

1.4.2. Chapter ill: the Nominative-Accusative Construction 30

1.4.3. Chapter IV: the Dative-Nominative Construction 31

1.4.4. Chapter V: the Bi-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction .39

1.4.5. Chapter VI: the Mono-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction 43

1.4.6. Chapter VII: the Topic Construction 49

1.4.7. Appendix A: the Nominative Case-Marker Ga .55

II. Subjecthood Tests 58

2.1. Introduction 58

2.2. Shibatani 58

2.3. Subject Honorification 58

2.4. Reflexive Binding 59

2.5. Sentence Coordination 60

iv

2.6. PRO and PROarb •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••• 62

2.7. Quantifier F1oat 63

2.8. More on Reflexive Binding 66

2.8.1. Iida 67

2.8.2. A Cognitive-Grammar Analysis 68

III. The Semantic Structure of the Nominative-Accusative Construction 71

3.1. Introduction 71

3.2. The Agent-Theme Schema 72

3.3. The Experiencer-Therne Schema 75

3.4. The Mover-Space Schema 78

3.5. Conclusion 8I

IV. The Semantic Structure of the Dative-Nominative Construction 83

4.1 . Introduction 83

4.2. The Participant-Subject Construction 86

4.2.1. The Existential Construction 86

4.2.2. The Application Construction 87

4.2.3. Grammatical Relations 90

4.2.4. The Participant-Subject Schema 91

4.3. The Setting-Subject Construction 94

4.3.1. The Possessive Construction 94

4.3.2. The Evaluative Construction 98

4.3.3. The Potential Construction 100

4.3.3.1. The Potential Verb 100

4.3.3.2. The Potential Suffix 103

4.3.3.3. The Potential Suffix and Nominative-Accusative Marking 105

4.3.3.4. Implicitly Potential Verbs 108

4.3.4. The Setting-Subject Schema 109

4.4. The Split-Subject Construction 112

4.4.1. The Subjective-Judgment Construction 112

4.4.1.1. The Semantic Structure 112

4.4.1.2. Grammatical Relations 115

4.4.2. The lru Possessive Construction 120

4.4.2.1. E I Functioning as Clause-Level Subject 122

4.4.2.2. E2 Functioning as Predicate-Level Subject 123

4.4.2.3. Historical Motivation 124

4.4.3. Motivations for Split Subjecthood 125

4.4.4. The Split-Subject Schema 128

4.5. More on Grammatical Relations 129

4.5.1. On the Subjecthood of El in the Subjective-Judgment Construction 129

4.5.1.1. Clefting Without Particle 130

4.5. I .2. Clefting With Particle 132

4.5.1.3. NilGa Alternation 133

4.5.1.4. Ascension 135

4.5.2. On the Grammatical Status of ~ in the Setting-Subject Construction 137

4.6. Compositional Structures 139

4.6.1. The Participant-Subject Construction 139

4.6.2. The Setting-Subject Construction 144

4.6.3. The Split-Subject Construction 147

4.7. Overview of Previous Analyses 151

4.7.1. Kuno (1973) 151

v

4.7.2. Tonoike (1975-76) and Shibatani & Cotton (1977) 153

4.7.3. Perlmutter (1984) 153

4.7.4. Takezawa (1987) 153

4.7.5. Comparison with Proposed Analysis 154

4.8. Conclusion 154

V. The Semantic Structure of the Bi-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction 156

5.1. Introduction 156

5.2. Basic Characterization 158

5.2.1. The Clausal Structure 158

5.2.2. The Semantic Structure 162

5.2.3. The Compositional Structure 163

5.3. E( Corresponding to the Reference Point of Ej 165

5.3 .1. Acceptable Relations 165

5.3.2. Unacceptable Relations 168

5.3.3. The Clausal Structure 171

5.3.4. The E., Reference-Point Schema 172

5.4. E( Corresponding to the Reference Point of a Predicate Nominal.. 173

5.4.1. The Semantic Structure 173

5.4.2. The Clausal Structure 174

5.5. E( Corresponding to a Setting for the Embedded Event.. 175

5.5.1. The Semantic Structure 175

5.5.2. The Clausal Structure 179

5.5.3. The Embedded Setting Schema 181

5.6. E( Corresponding to a Prominent Element of the Embedded Event.. 182

5.6.1. Acceptable Relations 183

5.6.2. Unacceptable Relation 187

5.6.3. More on the Accessibility Condition 191

5.6.4. The Clausal Structure 198

5.6.5. The Embedded Element Schema 199

5.7. The Predication Schema 200

5.8. Conclusion 201

VI. The Semantic Structure of the Mono-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction 202

6.1. Introduction 202

6.2. Basic Characterization 204

6.2.1. The Clausal Structure 204

6.2.2. The Semantic Structure 207

6.2.3. The Compositional Structure 21 I

6.2.4. Scalar Interpretation 214

6.3. The Productive Complex-Predicate Construction 218

6.3.1. The Semantic Structure 218

6.3.2. The Inalienable Possessive Relation 219

6.3.3. The Agent-Action Relation 221

6.3.4. The Productive Complex-Predicate Schema 223

6.4. The Lexical Complex-Predicate Construction 224

6.4.1. E( Associated with E2 224

6.4.2. E( Associated with a Predicate Nominal (Tokuii 231

6.4.3. E( Associated with a Predicate Nominal (Suki) 235

6.4.4. The Lexical Complex-Predicate Schema 240

6.5. The Adjectival-Experiencer Construction 241

6.5.1. Basic Data 242

vi

6.5.1.1. Sensations 242

6.5.1.2. Emotions 243

6.5.1.3. Desires 244

6.5.2. The Clausal Structure 245

6.5.3. The Semantic Structure 246

6.5.3.1. Experience as an Internal State 247

6.5.3.2. The Compositional Structure 253

6.5.3.3. Internal vs. Externalized Experience 255

6.5.4. The Desiderative Construction 257

6.5.4.1. Suffixes -tai and -tagaru 257

6.5.4.2. Nominative-Accusative Marking 258

6.5.5. Comparison with the Dative-Nominative Construction 260

6.5.6. The Adjectival-Experiencer Schema 268

6.6. On the Grammatical Status of E" 269

6.7. Conclusion ~ 273

6.8. Previous Analyses of the Double-Nominative Construction 273

6.8.1. Case Marking 274

6.8.1.1. Issues 274

6.8. 1.2. Kuno (1973 ) 276

6.8.1.3. Tonoike (1975-76) and Shibatani & Cotton (1977) 280

6.8.1.4. Nakajima & Sagawa (1984) .280

6.8.2. Grammatical Relations and Clausal Complexity 281

6.8.2.1. Shibatani (1977) and Shibatani &Cotton (1977) 282

6.8.2.2. Kuno (1978) 284

6.8.2.3. Shibatani (1990) 286

6.8.2.4. Tateishi (1994) 287

VII. The Semantic Structure of the Topic Construction 290

7.1. Introduction 290

7.2. Overview of the Proposed and Previous Analyses 291

7.3. Reference-Point Constructions 293

7.4. Simultaneous vs. Sequential Reference-Point Constructions 295

7.5. Layering of Reference-Point Constructions 300

7.6. Topic vs. Predication .307

7.7. Topicalized vs. Scrambled Sentences .309

7.8. Conclusion 311

Appendix A: The Semantic Structure of the Nominative Case-Marker Ga 313

A.I. Introduction 313

A.2. Preview of the Proposed Analysis 314

A.3. Overview of Previous Analyses .316

A.3. I. Kuno 3 I 7

A.3.2. Kuroda 318

A.3.3. Saito 318

A.3.4. Onoe 320

AA. Outline of the Proposed Analysis .321

A.5. The Active-Participant Schema .322

A.5.1. The Schema 322

A.5.2. The Representation 325

A.5.3. The Composition 327

A.6. The Interaction-Chain-Head Schema .329

A.7. The Event-Chain-Head Schema .331

vii

A.7.1. The Imperfective Intransitive Construction 331

A.7.2. The Passive Construction 333

A.7.3. The Dative-Nominative Construction 337

A.7.4. The Double-Nominative Construction 338

A.8. On Nominative Marking and Subjecthood 341

A.9. Conclusion 343

Appendix B: Summaries of Constructions from Chapters IV, V, and VI 345

B .1. Introduction 345

B .2. Summary of Constructions from Chapter IV 345

B.2.1. Overview 345

B.2.1.1. Subtypes 345

B.2.1.2. The Semantic Structures 346

B.2.2. The Participant-Subject Construction 347

B.2.2.1. Subtypes 347

B.2.2.2. The Semantic Structure 347

B.2.2.3. Grammatical Relations 348

B.2.3. The Setting-Subject Construction 349

B.2.3.1. Subtypes 349

B.2.3.2. The Semantic Structure 349

B.2.3.3. Grammatical Relations 350

B.2.4. The Split-Subject Construction 351

B.2.4.1. Subtypes 351

B.2.4.2. The Semantic Structure 351

B.2.4.3. Grammatical Relations 352

B.3. Summary of Constructions from Chapter V 353

B.3.1. Overview 353

B.3.I.l. The Semantic Structure 353

B.3.1.2. Subtypes 354

B.3.1.3. Grammatical Relations 355

B.3.2. EI Corresponding to the Reference Point of E2 356

B.3.2.1. Subtypes 356

B.3.2.2. The Semantic Structure 357

B.3.3. EI Corresponding to the Reference Point of a Predicate Nominal.. 357

B.3.3.1. Data 357

B.3.3.2. The Semantic Structure 358

B.3.4. EI Corresponding to a Setting for the Embedded Event 358

B.3.4.1. Subtypes 358

B.3.4.2. The Semantic Structure 359

B.3.5. EI Corresponding to a Prominent Element of the Embedded Event .. 360

B.3.5.1. Subtypes 360

B.3.5.2. The Semantic Structure 361

B.4. Summary of Constructions from Chapter VL 36I

B.4.1. Overview 362

B.4.1.1. The Semantic Structure .362

B.4.1.2. Subtypes 362

B.4.1.3. The Clausal Structure 363

B.4.2. The Productive Complex Predicate Construction 364

B.4.2.1. Subtypes 364

B.4.2.2. The Semantic Structure 364

B.4.3. The Lexical Complex Predicate Construction 365

B.4.3.1. Subtypes 365

viii

8.4.3.2. The Semantic Structure 366

8.4.4. The Adjectival-Experiencer Construction 366

8.4.4.1. Subtypes 366

8.4.4.2. The Semantic Structure 367

References 368

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter [

Fig. 1.1: Direct Interrelation 3

Fig. 1.2: Layered Interrelation 3

Fig. 1.3: Categorizing Relationships 13

Fig. 1.4: Elbow 15

Fig. 1.5: Hypotenuse 15

Fig. 1.6: Husband and Wife 15

Fig. 1.7: Things and Relationships 16

Fig. 1.8: Yellow 17

Fig. 1.9: Above and Below 18

Fig. 1.10: Near the Door 19

Fig. 1.1 I: Constructional Schema 21

Fig. 1.12: Canonical Event Model 22

Fig. 1.13: Subject and Object. 23

Fig. 1.14: Participant Subject. 25

Fig. 1.15: Setting Subject.. 25

Fig. 1.16: Reference Point 26

Fig. 1.17: Topic 28

Fig. 1.18: Direct Interrelation 30

Fig. 1.19: Double-Participant Direct Interrelation 30

Fig. 1.20: Layered Interrelation 32

Fig. 1.21: Setting-Participant Layered Interrelation 32

Fig. 1.22: Double-Participant Layered Interrelation 39

Fig. 1.23: Highly-Autonomous Double-Participant Layered Interrelation .40

Fig. 1.24: Bi-Clausal Double Nominative 44

Fig. 1.25: Mono-Clausal Double Nominative 45

Fig. 1.26: Simultaneous Mental Contact 51

Fig. 1.27: Sequential Mental Contact 51

Chapter [II

Fig. 3.1: Direct Interrelation 71

Fig. 3.2: Layered Interrelation 71

Fig. 3.3: Double-Participant Direct Interrelation 71

Fig. 3.4: Agent-Patient Schema 73

Fig. 3.5: Agent-Effectum Schema 74

Fig. 3.6: Agent-Mover Schema 74

Fig. 3.7: Agent-Theme Schema 75

Fig. 3.8: Experiencer-Zero Schema 76

Fig. 3.9: Recipient-Mover Schema 77

Fig. 3.10: Source-Mover Schema 78

Fig. 3.11: Experiencer-Theme Schema 78

Fig. 3.12: Mover-Source Schema 79

Fig. 3.13: Mover-Goal Schema 80

Fig. 3.14: Mover-Path Schema 80

Fig. 3.15: Mover-Space Schema 81

Chapter IV

Fig. 4.1: Layered Interrelation 84

Fig. 4.2: Setting-Participant Layered Interrelation 84

x

Fig. 4.3: Canonical Event Model ...........................................................•........................... 84 Fig. 4.4: Existential ................................................................................•........................... 87

Fig. 4.5: Application 89

Fig. 4.6: Application (Expanded) 89

Fig. 4.7: Participant Subject 94

Fig. 4.8: Possessive 96

Fig. 4.9: Existential 96

Fig. 4.10: Evaluative 100

Fig. 4.11: Application 100

Fig. 4.12: Dekiru 102

Fig. 4.13: V-rare 105

Fig. 4.14: Dekiru 105

Fig. 4.15: Ga-O 107

Fig. 4.16: Ni-Ga 107

Fig. 4.17: Implicitly Potential 109

Fig. 4.18: Setting Subject. 110

Fig. 4.19: Subjective Judgment.. 115

Fig. 4.20: Application 1 15

Fig. 4.21: Participant Subject. 120

Fig. 4.22: Setting Subject 120

Fig. 4.23: Split Subject 120

Fig. 4.24: Aru Possessive 121

Fig. 4.25: Iru Possessive 121

Fig. 4.26: Subject Honorification 127

Fig. 4.27: Reflexive 128

Fig. 4.28: Split Subject 129

Fig. 4.29: Composition of Nominal-ni 141

Fig. 4.30: Composition of Nominal-ga 142

Fig. 4.31: Composition of Participant Subject.. 144

Fig. 4.32: Composition of Setting Subject.. 146

Fig. 4.33: Composition of Split Subject 148

Fig. 4.34: Constructional Schema for Split Subject.. 150

Chapter V

Fig. 5.1: Double-Participant Layered Interrelation 156

Fig. 5.2: Highly-Autonomous Double-Participant Layered Interrelation 157

Fig. 5.3: Predication 162

Fig. 5.4: Composition of Predication 164

Fig. 5.5: Ego-Kin 166

Fig. 5.6: Possessor-Possessee 166

Fig. 5.7: Location-Entity 167

Fig. 5.8: Time-Event 168

Fig. 5.9: E2 Reference-Point Schema 173

Fig. 5.10: Predicate Reference-Point Schema 174

Fig. 5.11: Locative Setting 177

Fig. 5.12: Temporal Setting .....................................................................•........................ 178

Fig. 5.13: Setting in Setting Participant 179

Fig. 5.14: Embedded Setting Schema .....................................................•........................ 182

Fig. 5.15: Patient .....................................................................................•........................ 183 Fig. 5.16: Path .........................................................................................•........................ 184

Fig. 5.17: Goal 185

Fig. 5.18: Instrumental 186

xi

Fig. 5.19: Affectee 186

Fig. 5.20: Strongly Evoked 190

Fig. 5.21: Weakly Evoked 190

Fig. 5.22: Locative Path 192

Fig. 5.23: Setting-Event 193

Fig. 5.24: Event Path 194

Fig. 5.25: External and Internal Settings 197

Fig. 5.26: Embedded Element Schema 200

Fig. 5.27: Predication Schema 200

Chapter VI

Fig. 6.1: Bi-Clausal Double Nominative 203

Fig. 6.2: Mono-Clausal Double Nominative 203

Fig. 6.3: Bi-Clausal 208

Fig. 6.4: Mono-Clausal 208

Fig. 6.5: Dative-Nominative 210

Fig. 6.6: Composition of Predication 212

Fig. 6.7: Composition of Inalienable Possession 214

Fig. 6.8: Complex-Predicate Creation 219

Fig. 6.9: Inalienable Possession (Lexicalized) 221

Fig. 6.10: Agent-Action 223

Fig. 6.11: Productive Complex-Predicate Schema 224

Fig. 6.12: E, Associated with E2 227

Fig. 6.13: Diachronic Changes 229

Fig. 6.14: Composition of Productive Complex Predicate 230

Fig. 6.15: Composition of Lexical Complex Predicate 231

Fig. 6.16: E, Associated with Predicate Nominal (Tokuiy 235

Fig. 6.17: Diachronic Change (Expanded) 238

Fig. 6.18: E, Associated with Predicate Nominal tSuki) 240

Fig. 6.19: Lexical Complex-Predicate Schema 241

Fig. 6.20: Lexical Complex Predicate 249

Fig. 6.21: Adjectival Experiencer 249

Fig. 6.22: Universal Base for Experience 250

Fig. 6.23: Bi-Clausal 251

Fig. 6.24: Mono-Clausal 251

Fig. 6.25: Autonomy of E3 252

Fig. 6.26: Adjectival Experiencer (Revised) 253

Fig. 6.27: Composition of Adjectival Experiencer 254

Fig. 6.28: Internal 256

Fig. 6.29: Externalized 256

Fig. 6.30: V-rai 258

Fig. 6.31: V-ragaru 258

Fig. 6.32: N-ga V-rai 260

Fig. 6.33: N-o V-rai 260

Fig. 6.34: Adjectives of Emotion 263

Fig. 6.35: Application 268

Fig. 6.36: Subjective Judgment 268

Fig. 6.37: Adjectival Experiencer 269

Chapter VII

Fig. 7.1: Setting-Participant 293

Fig. 7.2: Grammatical Relations 294

xii

Fig. 7.3: Topic (Basic) 295

Fig. 7.4: Simultaneous RPC 296

Fig. 7.5: Sequential RPC 297

Fig. 7.6: Topic (Sequential) 298

Fig. 7.7: Topic (Compacted) 298

Fig. 7.8: Topic vs. GRs 299

Fig. 7.9: Setting Subject 302

Fig. 7.10: Simple Topic 303

Fig. 7.1 I : Complex Topic 304

Fig. 7.12: Predication 304

Fig. 7.13: Predication with Topic 305

Fig. 7.14: Topic 307

Fig. 7.15: Exhaustive Listing 307

Fig. 7.16: Topic vs. GRs 310

Fig. 7.17: Scrambling 310

Appendix A

Fig. A.I : Agent-Theme 323

Fig. A.2: Experiencer-Theme 323

Fig. A.3: Mover-Space 323

Fig. A.4: Thing 326

Fig. A.5: Relation 326

Fig. A.6: Active-Participant Schema 326

Fig. A.7: Composition of Transitive Sentence 329

Fig. A.8: Action Chain 330

Fig. A.9: Interaction Chain .330

Fig. A.I 0: Interaction-Chain-Head Schema .331

Fig. A.II: Event-Chain-Head Schema .332

Fig. A.12: Passive 334

Fig. A.13: Transitive 335

Fig. A.14: Intransitive 335

Fig. A.15: Setting Subject 338

Fig. A.16: Predication 339

Fig. A.17: Productive Complex Predicate 341

Fig. A.18: Lexical Complex Predicate 341

Fig. A.19: Adjectival Experiencer 341

Fig. A.20: Stage Model 342

Fig. A.21 : Proposed Senses of Ga 343

Appendix 8

Fig. B.I: Participant Subject .347

Fig. B.2: Setting Subject 347

Fig. B.3: Split Subject 347

Fig. B.4: Existential 348

Fig. B.5: Application 348

Fig. B.6: Aru Possessive 350

Fig. B.7: Evaluative 350

Fig. B.8: Potential 350

Fig. B.9: Subjective Judgment 352

Fig. B.I 0: lru Possessive 352

Fig. B.II: Predication Schema 354

Fig. B. 12: E2 Reference-Point Schema .357

xiii

Fig. B .13: Predicate Reference-Point Schema 358

Fig. B.14: Embedded Setting Schema 359

Fig. B .15: Embedded Element Schema 361

Fig. B .16: Mono-Clausal Double Nominative 362

Fig. B.17: Productive Complex-Predicate Schema .365

Fig. B.18: Lexical Complex-Predicate Schema 366

Fig. B.19: Adjectival Experiencer .367

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter I

Tab. 1.1: Summary of Constructions 6

Tab. 1.2: Summary of Constructions (Detailed) .49

Chapter IV

Tab. 4.1: Triggers of Subject Honorification and Reflexive Binding 117

Tab. 4.2: Triggers of Subject Honorification and Reflexive Binding (Hypothetical) 117

Tab. 4.3: Distribution of Subjecthood 120

xv

LIST OF ABBREVIA nONS

ACC •••••••. accusative AGT •••••••• agentive ANIM ....•. animate CONT •••••• contrastive DAT .••••••• dative

EXT ..•••••. extemalized experience HON ••..•••• nominative

INANIM •. .inanimate

INST •••••• .instrumental

NEG •••••••• negative

NML ••.•••• nominalizer

NOM .••••• nominative PASS .•.• passlve

PAST .•• past

PL .•••••. plural

POT ••••• potential

PRES ••• present

PROG ••• progressive

Q .•...•• .interrogative RES .••.• resultative

SFP ••••• sentence-final particle TOP ••••• topic

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have followed a long and treacherous path on my way to finishing this dissertation. It is with a great relief and excitement at the same time that [ am giving it the final touch in the new millennium.

First and foremost. [ would like to thank Kazuko Inoue and Masatake Muraki, my teachers at [CU who introduced me to the fascinating field of linguistics. If I had not met them there when [ was an undergraduate student, [ would not be a linguist today.

Yuki Kuroda was one of the two reasons [ decided to pursue my graduate study at UCSD.I am greatly indebted to his support, both personal and academic, in the early stages of my graduate career. [ cannot admire enough his unparalleled insights into language: it is very unfortunate that [ decided to pursue a separate theoretical path to linguistic study, but this dissertation reflects his much appreciated influence on me in many apparent and not so apparent ways.

Ron Langacker was the other reason [ chose UCSD. I had the privilege of getting to know him and his theory in 1985, when [ was still an undergraduate student. lowe him thanks for his patience in waiting rather a while at times for me to produce something coherent and for his generosity in finding time in his extremely demanding schedule to meet me or read my work more thoroughly than [ could hope for. Each meeting with him gave me an opportunity to observe a great mind at work with my own eyes, and each comment he gave helped me greatly clarify my ideas and offered the encouragement that my research was worth his reading. I am also grateful to him that he showed me by example the rewarding value of pursuing what you believe in amidst foreseeable obstacles and that he developed, and trained me in, a theory which [can follow for the rest of my life.

The members of my dissertation committee deserve of mention here: Ron Langacker, John Moore, Masha Polinsky, Gilles Fauconnier, and Yashy Tohsaku. [ was very fortunate

xvii

to have an all-linguist committee and I thank them for their patience and invaluable comments from their unique perspectives.

I am also grateful to the Japanese-language supervisors at UCSD I worked as a teaching assistant for. Of those, I am especially indebted to Yashy Tohsaku and Emiko Kiyochi for introducing me to the communicative and natural approaches to language teaching, respectively. My Japanese colleagues at UCI was very supportive in the later stages of completing this dissertation. My thanks go to Steve Carter, Akemi Morioka, Suzuko Hamasaki, Toshiko Yokota, Judy Kimura, and Kyoko Hammond, whose friendship and understanding during the difficult times are greatly appreciated.

My thanks should also go to my linguist friends in Japan. Yoshiki Nishimura and Shungo Shinohara introduced me to cognitive linguists in Japan and provided friendship and support when they were needed most. Yukio Tsuji and Itsuki Koya, my colleagues at Keio. provided much appreciated support at the final stages of writing this dissertation.

I should not forget to thank my parents, Tadashi and Kiku Kumashiro, without whose tireless support and belief in me this dissertation would not have been possible. Lastly, but not least, I thank my wife, Furniko, who has supported me in innumerous ways and on countless occasions throughout the difficult years.

xviii

VITA

1987 B.A., International Christian University

1987-88 Research Assistant, Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego

1988-92 Teaching Assistant, Japanese Studies Program, University of California, San Diego

1991 M.A., University of California, San Diego

1993 Research Assistant, Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego

1993-99 Lecturer, Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of California, Irvine

1999- Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law. Keio University

2000 Ph.D., University of California, San Diego

PUBLICATIONS

How the Goal Can Be the Source: The Semantics of the Japanese Dative Marker Ni. Twentieth LACUS Forum 1993,401-17. Lake Bluff: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. 1994.

On the Conceptual Definitions of Adpositions and Case Markers: A Case for the Conceptual Basis of Syntax. Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Volume I. The Main Session, 236-50. 1994.

xix

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Linguistics Studies in Syntax.

Professors Farrel Ackerman, Gene Gibson, and S.- Y. Kuroda

Studies in Cognitive Linguistics.

Professors Suzanne Kemmer and Ronald W. Langacker

Studies in Computational Linguistics. Professor Jeffrey LEiman

Studies in Psycho-Linguistics. Professor Edward Klima

Studies in Historical Linguistics. Professor Suzanne Kemmer

Studies in Linguistic Philosophy. Professor S.- Y. Kuroda

Studies in Phonology.

Professors Matthew Y. Chen, Barbara Levergood, and Sanford A. Schane

Fieldwork in Dieguefio. Professor Margaret Langdon

xx

ABSTRACT OF TIlE DISSERTATION

The Conceptual Basis of Grammar:

A Cognitive Approach to Japanese Clausal Structure

by

Toshiyuki Kumashiro

Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics

University of California. San Diego, 2000

Professor Ronald W. Langacker, Chair

This dissertation examines the clausal structure of Japanese within the framework of cognitive grammar and aims to accomplish three goals. One is to elucidate the varied ways the Japanese language conceptualizes an event involving two entities. While the nominative-accusative pattern codes a direct interrelation between two entities, the dativenominative and double-nominative patterns code a layered interrelation, where one entity is construed as standing in a relation, forming a higher-order entity, and another entity as standing in another relation with this higher-order entity. The topic construction codes a layered interrelation at a much higher level of processing, called a sequential referencepoint construction, in which two entities are mentally accessed and processed in two distinct steps.

Another goal is to propose that the notion of subject be defined at two different levels.

A certain type of dative-nominative sentences is shown to exhibit split subjecthood: the dative nominal functions exclusively as clause-level subject, and the nominative nominal solely as predicate-level subject.

xxi

The last goal is to argue for the conceptual basis of case marking. Against the commonly-held position that case markers are semantically-empty grammatical morphemes employed only to indicate different syntactic structures, constructions with distinct case marking patterns are proven to be associated with unique schematic semantic contents, and case markers themselves as well with semantic contents, albeit highly schematic ones. Therefore, the conceptual basis of syntax is argued for, against the autonomy thesis.

The organization of this dissertation is as follows. Chapter I presents a brief introduction to cognitive grammar and an overview of the dissertation. Chapter II examines subjecthood tests. Chapter III analyzes the nominative-accusative construction, and Chapter [V the dative-nominative construction. Chapters V and VI examine the doublenominative construction. with the former focusing on bi-clausal double-nominative sentences and the latter on mono-clausal ones. Lastly, Chapter VII analyzes the topic construction. Appendix A presents an analysis of the semantic content of the nominative marker ga itself, and Appendix B summaries of all major constructions examined in Chapters [V, V. and VI.

xxii

CHAPTER I Introduction

1.1. Goals oftbe Dissertation

This dissertation has three goals, which we will attempt to accomplish within the framework of cognitive grammar (Langacker 1987a. 1990a, 1991, I 999d). One is to elucidate the varied ways the Japanese language conceptualizes an event with two entities. Unlike in languages like English, transitive sentences. i.e. those sentences with the accusative-nominative marking pattern, are less prototypical in Japanese and such alternate marking patterns as dative-nominative, double-nominative, and topic-nominative patterns are prevalent in the language. We will claim that these alternate patterns represent other possible ways to conceptualize events involving two entities. Specifically, we will argue that while the crosslinguistically common nominative-accusative pattern codes a DIRECT INTERRELATION between two entities, the dative-nominative and double-nominative patterns code a LAYERED INTER· RELATION, where one entity is construed as standing in a relation, forming a higher-order entity. and another entity as standing in another relation with this higher-order entity. We will also propose a hypothesis that a topicalized sentence codes a SEQUENTIAL REFERENCE-POINT CONSTRUCTION-in which two entities are mentally accessed and processed in two distinct steps-whereas a non-topicalized sentence codes a SIMULTANEOUS REFERENCE-POINT CON· STRUCTION-in which the two entities are processed in one step.

Another goal is to propose the notions of PREDICATE-LEVEL and CLAUSE-LEVEL SUBJECTS.

We will propose that the notion of subject be level-specific and be defined at two different levels. We will argue that there are some grammatical tests in Japanese that are conditioned exclusively by either. not both, of these two different levels of subjects. We will then observe that certain types of dative-nominative sentences exhibit split subjecthood: the dative

2

nominal functions exclusively as clause-level subject. while the nominative nominal functions solely as predicate-level subject.

The last goal is to argue that case marking has a conceptual basis. To be more specific,

we will argue against the commonly-held position that case markers are semantically-empty grammatical morphemes that are utilized only to indicate different syntactic structures.

Specifically, we will demonstrate that constructions with distinct case-marking patterns are

associated with unique schematic semantic contents and further that case markers them-

selves can be associated with semantic contents. albeit highly schematic ones. Therefore, we will argue for the conceptual basis of syntax against the autonomy thesis.

1.1.1. Conceptualization or Double-Entity Events

Let us discuss the first goal of this dissertation in more detail. Ikegami (1981) proposes the categorization of languages into what he calls "do" and "become" languages: while a

"do" language such as English prefers to express a causal relation using a transitive verb, a

"become" language such as Japanese prefers to use an intransitive verb to express the same

idea. Observe the following pairs of sentences:

( I ) "Do" LANGUAGE

a. The earthquake killed hundreds of people.

b. Hundreds of people died in the earthquake.

(2) "BECOME" LANGUAGE

a. * Jishin-ga nambyaku-nin-mo-no hito-o koroshita.

earthquake-NOM hundreds-person-even-of person-Ace killed 'The earthquake killed hundreds of people:

b. Jishin-de nambyaku-nin-mo-no hito-ga shinda.

earthquake-in person-NOM died

'Hundreds of people died in the earthquake:

3

In English. the transitive sentence in (l)a is as felicitous as (I )b. and is even preferred in certain contexts. The Japanese transitive counterpart in (2)a. however. is unacceptable. unless the inanimate subject is figuratively interpreted as an animate being. and the intransitive counterpart in (2)b must be used instead.'

Let us characterize the difference between the "do" and "become" languages in a more

formal fashion. I propose that when a semantic structure involves two entities standing in

some relation to each other. "do" languages prefer to code a DIRECf INTERRELATION between

the two. as schematically represented in Fig. 1.1. Entity El• drawn as a small box. is con-

strued as standing in relation Rl. sketched as an arrow. with entity E2. This DIRECT INTERRE·

LATION is to be contrasted with the LAYERED INTERRELATION preferred by "become'l Ianguages, represented in Fig. 1.2. In this coding. entity E2 is construed as standing in relation R2 by itself and these E2 and R2 constitute a higher-order entity E3• drawn as a dashed-line large rectangle. which stands in relation Rl with entity El.2

Fig. 1.1: Direct Interrelation

Fig. 1.2: Layered Interrelation

E3

---------1

1cI_ __ R( 'r.;-'L__ R~ , ~ ... ~ ~ ... -___. ,

1- I

E = Entity

R = Relation -~ Relation

1-'

LJ

Entity

Higher-Order Entity

It is the case. however. that Japanese employs the direct interrelation as well to describe certain types of double-entity relations:3

1 In Japanese. inanimate agents are generally not allowed as subjects in transitive sentences. and intransitive sentences must be used where the patient functions as subject.

2These interrelations are considered most schematic characterization of classes of basic sentence structures in Japanese.

4

(3) DIRECf [NTERRELA TION

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. Taro-sora vase-ace broke 'Taro broke the vase.'

I propose that the nominative-accusative marking pattern code a direct interrelation between the subject and object. What distinguishes Japanese from a "do" language such as English is the proliferation of other basic constructions coding a layered interrelation, as illustrated by the following sentences.+

(4) LA YEREO [NTERRELA TION

a. Ken-ni Furansugo-ga dekiru (koto)

Ken-OAT French-xov be.possible

'(that) Ken is fluent in French', lit., '(that) French is possible to Ken'

b. Taroo-ga aisukuriimu-ga suki-na (koto) Taro-xost ice.crearn-sov liking-be

'(that) Taro likes ice cream'

We will argue that a dative-nominative sentence such as (4)a codes a layered interrelation

where the dative nominal is construed as a SETTING and the nominative nominal as a

3[t is a matter of contention which type of coding is prototypical in a "become" language such as Japanese. Onoe (personal communication), for example, expresses reservations for treating the direct coding as prototypical and suggests the layered interrelation as the default coding at least for Japanese.

+When the predicate is imperfective, E. must be marked with the topic marker wa or interpreted with the "exhaustive listing" (cf, Kuno 1973) in a main clause. Throughout the dissertation, the complementizer koto 'fact' will be added at the end of the sentence to create an embedded context, where no such special effect is needed. For an explanation from a cognitive perspective of the obligatoriness of such special effects in main contexts and their unavailability in subordinate contexts, see T. Kumashiro (1996a). The impossibility of having a topic in a subordinate context will be explained late in Section 7.4.

Furthermore, note that the verb in (4)a, dekiru, contains the present-tense marker ru, attached to the verb stem deki. Throughout this dissertation, the marker (or its allomorph u appearing after a verb ending in a consonant), for the sake of simplicity, will not be separated from the verb stem or glossed explicitly, when it is directly attached to the verb without another suffix in between.

5

PARTICIPANT, whereas a double-nominative sentence such as (4)b codes an interrelation where the two entities are both participants. This setting-participant distinction lies in the

ways in which we view a CANONICAL EVENT. where certain entities are construed as moving

around and impacting other objects in a certain space. The role of the moving and affected entities. i.e. participants, is clearly distinguished from that of the space, i.e. setting, which merely serves to specify the location where an event takes place.

Another alternate way in Japanese of conceptualizing events with two entities involves

a much higher level of processing. We will propose a hypothesis that a topicalized sentence

such as (5) below involves a SEQUENTIAL REFERENCE-POINT CONSTRUCTION. while a non-topical-

ized sentence such as (3) above only involves a SIMULTANEOUS REFERENCE-POINT CONSTRUC·

TlON:

(5) SEQUENTIAL REFERENCE-POINT CONSTRUCTION

Taroo-wa kabin-o ko wash ita. Taro-TOP vase-Ace broke 'Taro, he broke the vase:

We have the basic cognitive ability to invoke the conception of one entity for purposes of establishing MENTAL CONTACT with another, and numerous basic phenomena involve such a REFERENCE-POINT relationship (Langacker 1993c). In both direct and layered interrelations,

the speaker makes mental contact with the clausal semantic structure in two steps along a NATURAL PATH. In the direct interrelation, the speaker would follow the natural path based on grammatical relations: he first makes mental contact with EJ, the subject, and then with E2. the object. In a layered interrelation, the natural path is based on the layering itself: the speaker first mentally accesses EJ and subsequently E3, the higher-order entity. We will propose a hypothesis that in non-topicalized sentences, the processing of such a dual mental contact takes place simultaneously in a single step, requiring very little processing time, while in topicalized sentences, the two mental contacts are accessed sequentially in two dis-

6

tinct steps, requiring substantially more processing time than in the simultaneous reference-

point construction.

Tab. 1.1 summarizes the properties of the constructions examined in this dissertation in terms of their case-marking patterns, clausal schematic values, types of interrelations involved, types of entities, and types of mental contact.

Tab. 1.1: Summary of Constructions

Case- Schematic Inter- Entity Mental
Marking Values relation Type Contact
Nom.-Acc. Double-Participant Direct Double Participant
Direct Interrelation
Dat.-Nom. Setting-Participant Setting-Participant Simultaneous
Layered Interrelation
Double-Participant Layered
Double-Nom. Layered Interrelation Double Participant
Topic Sequential Reference- Sequential
Point Construction 1.1.2. Different Levels of Subjects

The second goal of this dissertation is to demonstrate the need to define subject at two different levels of organization. We will argue that there exists a subject at the PREDICATE

LEVEL as well as at the CLAUSE LEVEL. We will demonstrate that certain dative-nominative

sentences exhibit SPLIT SUBJECfHOOD: subjecthood is split over two nominals rather than con-

centrated on a single one. Observe the following example:

(6) SPLIT SUBJECf

Ken-ni kono kompyuutaa-ga ichiban ii rashii (koto)

Ken-OAT this computer-sea most good seem

'(that) Ken seems to find this computer best'

In this split-subject construction, the dative setting functions exclusively as clause-level subject, and the nominative participant solely as predicate-level subject. We will also argue

7

that SUBJECf HONORIFICATION and REFLEXIVE BINDING, i.e. the two most widely accepted sub-

jecthood tests in Japanese, can be used to verify the subjecthood at different levels. Specifically, we will observe that subject honorification is exclusively controlled by a predicatelevel subject. while reflexive binding is solely controlled by a clause-level subject.

Furthermore, in a PREDICATION double-nominative sentence as well, this distinction be-

tween subjects at different levels will be shown to be relevant:

(7) PREDICATION

Taroo-ga chichioya-ga isha-da.

Taro-sow father-NOM doctor-be

'It is Taro who is such that his father is a doctor:

In a predication sentence such as (7), while the second nominative nominal functions as

both predicate- and clause-level subject, the initial nominative nominal only functions as clause-level subject, controlling only reflexive binding.

1.1.3. The Conceptual Basis of Case Marking

The third goal of this dissertation is to provide support for the claim that syntax has a conceptual basis. Case markers have been considered grammatical morphemes that are semantically void and are merely inserted under certain syntactic conditions (Kuroda 1965, Kuno 1973, Saito 1982, Miyagawa 1989, among others).5 The common conception that

case markers are semantically empty is ascribed to the fact that they do not contribute any

concrete semantic contents describable by an objectivist approach to semantics based on

5The claim that case makers are semantically empty is often not made explicitly, and is only implicit in the fact that they are inserted by syntactic rules, which are not allowed to affect "meaning". However, Miyagawa (1989:34) explicitly claims that "the nominative ga and the accusative 0 do not have semantic content, so the thematic role that the NP with these particles has is provided by a source external to the NP-particle phrase".

8

truth conditions (cf. Lakoff 1987). However, a SUBJECfIVIST or CONCEPTUALIST view of seman-

tics makes more subjective and schematic semantic characterizations possible, in terms of

which the semantic contents of case markers can be described.

Within the framework of cognitive grammar (Langacker 1987a, 1990a, 1991, 1 999d),

we wi II argue against this AUTONOMY THESIS by demonstrating that constructions with spe-

cific case-marking patterns are associated with unique semantic contents, albeit schematic ones.v Specifically, we will observe that the nominative-accusative construction codes a

double-participant direct interrelation; the dative-nominative construction, a setting-

participant layered interrelation; the double-nominative construction, a double-participant

layered interrelation; and the topic construction, a sequential reference-point construction.

We will further observe that case markers themselves are associated with semantic contents

as well. Specifically, we will propose to define the schematic semantic content of the nominative marker ga as the marker for the head of a profiled event chain. Therefore, to the ex-

tent that these semantic contents claimed for the constructions and the case marker are val-

id, the conceptual basis of syntax proposed in this dissertation is supported.

1.2. Organization of the Dissertation

The organization of this dissertation is as follows. The next section of this chapter, Section 1.3, provides a brief introduction to cognitive grammar focusing on discussions of clause structure. Section 1.4 provides an overview of the dissertation, succinctly summariz-

ing all the major construction types and case-marking patterns examined in this disserta-

tion.

6See Newmeyer (1983, 1998) for concise summaries of the autonomy thesis from the generative perspective. Langacker (1991, 1995c) and Croft (1995) offer criticisms against the thesis from the cognitive/functional viewpoint.

9

Chapter II discusses the subjecthood tests in Japanese. which will be utilized throughout the rest of the dissertation. Chapter III examines the nominative-accusative construction and demonstrates that all sentences with the nominative-accusative marking pattern codes

a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT DIRECT INTERRELATION.?

Chapter IV examines the dative-nominative construction. It will be established that (i)

all sentences with the dative-nominative pattern code a SElTING-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTER-

RELATION. where the two entities play the roles of setting and participant and relate to each other in a layered fashion. rather than directly; and that (ii) a certain type of dative-nominative sentences exhibits split subjecthood, with the dative nominal functioning only as clause-level subject. and the nominative nominal only as predicate-level subject.

Chapters V and VI examine the double-nominative construction. It will be demonstrated that all double-nominative sentences code a type of layered interrelation in which both

entities are construed as a participant. i.e. a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTERRELATION.

Chapter V focuses on those double-nominative sentences that have bi-clausal structure and establishes that (i) the bi-clausal double-nominative construction codes a HIGHLY-AUTONO-

MOUS layered interrelation and that (ii) E, only functions clause-level subject. whereas E2 functions as both clause- and predicate-level subject. Chapter VI focuses on those double-

nominative sentences that have mono-clausal structure. It will be demonstrated that the

construction codes a PARTIALLY-AUTONOMOUS DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTERRELATION.

Chapter VII examines the topic construction and shows that the construction codes yet another alternate way in Japanese of conceptualizing events with two entities. which in-

7Given the diversity of the range of constructions examined in this dissertation. the discussion of previous analyses. most of which are based on conflicting theoretical frameworks. will be distributed over the major chapters rather than concentrated in a single chapter toward the beginning. Furthermore. such discussion may be presented toward the end of each chapter (cf. Chapters IV. V. and VI). rather than at the beginning. when it is necessary to do so to prevent the disruption of the organization of the chapter.

10

volves a much higher level of processing. To be more specific, all topic sentences code a

SEQUENTIAL REFERENCE-POINT CONSTRUcrION.

Appendix A examines the semantic content of the nominative marker ga itself. It will be established that the marker does contribute some semantic content, albeit schematic, to

the overall clausal semantic content and that the most schematic sense it codes is the HEAD

OF A PROFILED EVENT CHAIN.

Lastly, Appendix B provides summaries of all major constructions examined in Chapters IV. V, and VI, which focused on the dative-nominative, bi-c1ausal double-nominative,

and mono-clausal double-nominative constructions, respectively.

1.3. Introduction to Cognitive Grammar

In this section, we will provide a brief introduction to the theory of cognitive grammar, within the framework of which this dissertation is presenred.f Section 1.3.1 presents the basic theoretical claims of the theory; Section 1.3.2 examines lexical semantics; Section 1.3.3 deals with grammatical classes and constructions; and Section 1.3.4 discusses clausal struc-

ture.

1.3.1. Basic Concepts

Cognitive grammar focuses on the SEMIOLOGICAL FUNCTION of language, i.e. the symbolization of meanings by means of sounds. It only posits what is absolutely necessary to serve

that function: SEMANTIC STRUcrURES, PHONOLOGICAL STRUCTURES, and SYMBOLIC STRUCTURES.

8Those readers who wish to acquaint themselves with the framework in its entirety are referred to work by Langacker (Langacker 1987a, 1990a, 1991, 1999d) and his students (Lindner 1981; Casad 1982; Hawkins 1984; Rice 1987; Smith 1987; Cook 1988; Vandeloise 1991; Maldonado 1992; Rubba 1993; Doiz-Bienzobas 1995; van Hoek 1995, 1997; Achard 1998; Israel 1998; Manney 2000; F. Kumashiro 2000; Nomura 2000).

II

The semantic structure of a given expression is referred to as its SEMANTIC POLE, and the phonological structure its PHONOLOGICAL POLE. The theory reduces grammar to ASSEMBLIES OF SYMBOLIC STRUCTURES, i.e. form-meaning pairings. Lexicon, morphology, and syntax thus form a "continuum", rather than their own "modules". In other words, regardless of their degrees of conventionality (i.e. fixed vs, novel) and symbolic complexity (morpheme vs.

word vs. phrase vs. sentence), all linguistic expressions have identical descriptive mecha-

nisms available.

Note that reduction of grammar to symbolic relationships requires "all" grammatical elements to be attributed some kind of meaning. Therefore, even such grammatical elements as be, the auxiliary do, the perfect have, -ing, by, of. the possessive morpheme, and case markers are claimed to have some rneaning.? An OBJECTIVIST view of meaning based on truth

conditions and classical categories (cf. Lakoff 1987) cannot describe the type of meanings discernible in such grammatical elements. Instead, the theory adopts a SUBJECTIVIST or CON·

CEPTUALIST view of meaning that incorporates construal, which allows one to characterize

semantic differences attributable to alternate ways of "viewing" the same conceptual content as described by truth conditions.

It is not the case at all, however, that just any descriptive construct is allowed in cognitive grammar. On the contrary, the theory adopts the CONTENT REQUIREMENT, which rigorous-

ly restricts the descriptive constructs that are allowed in the theory (Langacker

1987a:53-54):

9For descriptions of the "meanings" of the grammatical elements listed above, see Langacker (1982, 1987a, 198830 1990a, 1991), among others.

12

(8) CONTeiT REQUIREMENT

[T]he only structures permitted in the grammar of a language (or among the substantive specifications of universal grammar) are (1) phonological. semantic. or symbolic structures that actually occur in linguistic expressions; (2) schemas for such structures; (3) categorizing relationships involving the elements in (I) and (2).

Among the things precluded by this requirement is any construct that lacks both phonological and semantic content, e.g. "empty categories". Also prevented are "filters" or other

forms of "negative" constraints that specifically state what is "impossible".

Another important characteristic of cognitive grammar is that the theory is USAGE-BASED

(cf. Langacker 1988b, 1999c). To be more specific, the grammar lists all actually-occurring

expressions which recur sufficiently often to be learned and conventionalized, as well as rules or generalizations extracted from them. Therefore, the theory is completely divorced

from the RULE/LIST FALLACY (Langacker 1987a:29):

(9) RULEILIST FALLACY

[P]articular statements (i.e. lists) must be excised from the grammar of a language if general statements (i.e. rules) that subsume them can be established.

For example. the rule governing English plural formation is extracted from such specific plural forms as cows, bottles, chairs, pens, cars, fans, and fingers. The rule is considered a schema extracted from such actually-occurring expressions. It is not likely that speakers forget the forms they already have complete mastery of once they extract the rules.

Then, it is not gratuitous to claim that actually-occurring expressions and the rules extracted from them coexist in the mental grammar of a speaker. Such a grammar contains an enormous inventory of specific conventional expressions that have been learned by speakers and whatever generalizations they have been able to detect in the sea of specific expres-

sions.

13

Therefore, cognitive grammar is appropriately characterized as a MAXLALIST, NONRE· DUCfIVE, and BOTIOM-UP approach. The theory is maximalist because it views the linguistic system as a massively redundant inventory of conventional expressions; it is non reductive because both generalizations and actually-occurring expressions are recognized; and it is bottom-up because it gives substantial weight to the actual-occurring expressions and works its way "up" to arrive at generalizations.

1.3.2. Lexical Semantics

In this subsection, important cognitive-grammar concepts that pertain to lexical semantics are introduced. A lexical item typically has multiple senses that form a NETWORK centered on a PROTOTYPE. These multiple senses are connected by CATEGORIZING RELATIONSHIPS. One such relationship is ELABORATION or INSTANTIATION, where a SCHEMA is elaborated by its instantiation that is characterized with finer detail. The other is EXTENSION, which contains some conflicting specifications between the two structures. Fig. 1.3 (adapted from Langacker I 990a:27 I ) describes a simple network comprising only three senses. The prototypical sense at bottom left is enclosed in a box with heavy lines. An extended sense on its right is connected by a dashed-line arrow indicating the extension relationship. A schematic sense is sketched above the two senses and connected to them by solid-line arrows symbolizing the instantiation relationship.

Fig. 1.3: Categorizing Relationships

14

Cognitive linguistics in general takes an encyclopedic view of semantics. denying any sharp boundary between "linguistic" and "extralinguistic" knowledge (cf. Haiman 1980). Instead. an expression is semantically characterized on the basis of potentially open-ended knowledge systems that are evoked by the expression. In cognitive grammar. such systems are called COGNITIVE DOMAINS. For example. the meaning of a hidden-ball play presupposes substantial knowledge of the rules and strategies of the game of baseball.

The meaning of an expression is a function of both the CONCEPTUAL CONTENT and partie-

ular ways of CONSTRUING that content. Different manners of construing the same conceptual

content yield different semantic values. The notion of construal is multifaceted and includes

the level of SPECmCITY at which a situation is characterized. conceiving one situation against the BACKGROUND provided by another. and the PERSPECTIVE selected for viewing a scene. In

what follows. two more aspects of construal are presented in more detail: SCOPE and PROMI· NENCE.IO

The SCOPE of an expression is the array of conceptual content it invokes. The OVERALL SCOPE of an expression is the "entire" array of evoked content. An expression often has an

IMMEDIATE SCOPE. within that overall scope. that represents the specific array of content that is directly relevant. For example. the word elbow evokes the conception of an arm as its immediate scope and that of the entire body as its overall scope. as sketched in Fig. 1.4 (adapted from Langacker 1995b: 10).

IOFor a more detailed description of these different aspects of construal. see Langacker ( 1995b). among others.

15

Fig. 1.4: Elbow

overall scope

r--------------,

1[~::c~

PROMINENCE is similar to focus of attention and PRORLING is one example. An expression

evokes its BASE, i.e. a set of conceptual content. Within this base. it "designates", or concep-

tually "refers to", its PROALE, i.e. some substructure. Expressions that evoke the same con-

ceptual content may have contrasting meanings if different profiles are imposed on the

common base. Some examples are illustrated in Fig. 1.5 (Langacker I 995d: 160). The word

HYPOTENUSE evokes the conception of a right triangle as its base and within that base it designates the line opposite the right angle. Observe that the profile is indicated by a heavy

line. The expressions husband and wife, sketched in Fig. 1.6 (Langacker 1999b:87). both

evoke the conception of a male and a female in a marriage relationship. However, they have different meanings, because they profile different individuals within the common base.

Fig. 1.5: Hypotenuse

Fig. 1.6: Husband and Wife

husband

a·I0-0 1

- Profiled

16

1.3.3. Classes and Constructions

1.3.3.1. Lexical Classes

Let us next discuss how basic lexical classes are represented in cognitive grammar. The theory claims that they can be semantically characterized. An expression can profile either a THING, defined abstractly as a region in some domain, or a RELATIONSHIP, defined broadly

as a set of interconnections among conceived entities. The term ENTITY is a schematic ex-

pression referring to both things and relationships. Relationships are categorized into processes and atemporal relations. Processes are "temporal" in the sense of being followed sequentially in their evolution through time, whereas in atemporal relationships, their possible temporal extension is only viewed holistically, as a single gestalt. Notational

abbreviations are sketched in Fig. 1.7 (adapted from Langacker 1987a:230). An entity is

sketched as a small square and a thing as a small circle. An atemporal relationship is represented by a dashed line connecting two entities. A process includes an arrow which repre-

sents its sequentially-scanned temporal evolution.

Fig. 1.7: Things and Relationships

Atemporal
Entity Thing Relation Process
0 0 0 0
• •
• •
0 0
• An expression's lexical class is determined by the nature of its profile, not its conceptual content. Nouns profile things; verbs profile processes; adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions

profile atemporal relations. Fig. 1.8 (Langacker 1993a:474) illustrates an example. Fig. 1.8a sketches the meaning of the noun yellow, which profiles a thing, i.e. a region in

17

color space. The adjectival sense of yellow (as in The paper is yellow) sketched in Fig. I.Sb profiles the relationship holding between the color sensation associated with the subject nominal and the color space specified by the nominal sense. indicating the fact that the sensation falls within the range specified by the color space. Note the discrepancy between what the subject nominal designates and what participates in the relationship in question: while the paper designates a physical object (represented as a heavy-line circle). what par-

ticipates in the relationship specified by yellow is only the color sensation associated with

it (the shaded area within the circle). The facet of the nominal referent that is directly involved in the relationship. e.g. the color sensation. is called its ACTIVE ZONE with respect to the relationship. e.g. yellow. The verbal sense of the word. on the other hand. profiles a process in which the object's color gradually changes and enters the region specified by the nominal sense. as diagramed in Fig. I.Sc. Observe that the heavy-line arrow indicates the change through time in the color sensation induced by the object.

yellow (N)

a.

o

color space

Fig. 1.8: Yellow

yellow (A)

b.

©

• •

CD

color space

color space

o Color Sensation

Atemporal Relation ____. Movement

Point in Color Space

Expressions that profile relationships grant different degrees of prominence to their participants. There is usually some entity that stands out in the sense that the speaker and the hearer are most concerned with characterizing it in relation to others. This PRIMARY FIGURE

within a profiled relationship is called a TRAJECfOR (abbreviated as "tr"). There often is an-

18

other salient entity with respect to which the trajector is evaluated. This SECONDARY RGURE is called a LANDMARK (abbreviated as "lm"). For example, the prepositions above and below evoke the same conceptual content and profile the same relationship within that content, as

sketched in Fig. 1.9 (adapted from Langacker I 998a: I I). The expressions, however, have

contrasting semantic values, depending on which participant is evoked as the landmark in order to locate the trajector.

Fig. 1.9: Above and Below

above below
a. 1 o- b.1 Qlm
tr = Trajector
• • 1m = Landmark
• •
• • - - -- Atemporal Relation
• •
! Olm O: 1.3.3.2. Constructions

Smaller symbolic elements are combined into a SYMBOLICALLY-COMPLEX expression or a CONSTRUCfION. In a typical construction, two COMPONENT STRUCfURES are integrated into a COMPOSITE STRUCfURE. A pattern of such combination is called a CONSTRUCfIONAL SCHEMA.

Fig. 1.10 (Langacker I 995b: 15) illustrates a simple construction near the door. The composite structure of the prepositional phrase is sketched in Fig. I. lOa at the top. The two

component structures, the preposition near and the nominal the door, are sketched in

Figs. I. lOb and 1.IOc at the bottom, respectively. Near profiles a relationship of spatial proximity holding between two schematically characterized things. In the figure, the SEARCH DOMAIN for the preposition, i.e. the region to which a locative expression restricts its trajector, is drawn as an ellipse. The door profiles a specific thing known to both the speaker and the hearer. Furthermore, near is characterized as a DEPENDENT structure, because it presup-

19

poses another structure for its full manifestation: to conceive of the relation coded by near, one must also conceive of the entities spatial proximity of which it expresses. The door, on the other hand, is an AUTONOMOUS structure, since it does not presuppose any structure for

its full conceptual manifestation.

Fig. 1.10: Near the Door

near the door

.... " .

..... -'.

.......

....

........

-, "

Correspondence -+ Instantiation

- - ~ Extension

CJ Profile Determinant tr = Trajector

1m = Landmark

the door

near

The integration of the two component structures is based on a CORRESPONDENCE found

among their substructures. More specifically, there is a correspondence relation, indicated

by a dotted line, established between the schematic landmark of near in Fig. I. lOb and the profi led speci fie thing, the door, in Fig. I. IOc. These corresponding structures are superimposed and their specifications are merged to yield the composite structure. Note that the schematic landmark of near is shaded, indicating that it serves as ELABORATION SITE (or ESITE), i.e. a schematic entity that the other component structure specifies in finer detail. The solid arrow connecting the two symbolizes this elaborative relationship. There also exist

vertical correspondences, represented by dotted lines, which indicate that the schematic tra-

jector of near is identical to that of the composite structure near the door and that their landmarks correspond to each other as well and to the profile of the door.

20

The resultant composite structure near the door is similar to the component structure near in that it also profiles a relationship expressing spatial proximity. However, the two differ in that while near only schematically characterizes its landmark, the landmark of near the door is specific, incorporating the semantic specifications of the other component structure, the door. Observe that the profile of the composite structure is inherited from near, not from the door. For near the door profiles a relation, not a thing. Thus, near is regarded as the PROALE DETERMINANT, i.e. the component structure which imposes its profile on the composite structure. In a diagram, a profile determinant is indicated by being enclosed in a heavy-line box. Note that the traditional notion of head is defined in cognitive grammar as the profile determinant in a given construction. Thus, near is the head with respect to near the door. There also exist categorizing relationships linking component and composite structures. The profile determinant near in Fig. 1. lOb is schematic with respect to the composite structure, which is more specific in regard to the characterization of the landmark (note the solid arrow connecting Figs. 1.1 Ob and 1.1 Oa). By contrast, the relationship holding between the other component structure in Fig. Ll Oc, i.e. the door, and the composite structure is one of extension-represented by a dashed-line arrow in the figuresince there is a conflict in their specifications, namely in their choice of profile: the former profiles a thing while the latter profiles a relation.

The constructional schema for near the door is illustrated in Fig. 1.11 (Langacker 1995b: 15). The component structure in Fig. 1.11 b labeled Y is a schema representing the class of prepositions and that in Fig. 1.11 c labeled Z is a schema for the category of nominals. Observe that the relationships among the component and composite structures exactly parallel those in the specific expression near the door. To be more specific, the nominal in Fig. 1.1 I c whose semantic content is labeled as X elaborates the schematic landmark of the preposition in Fig. 1.11 b, and the relational profile of the composite structure labeled as yz is inherited from the preposition. Note that this compositional schema serves as broad tem-

21

plate and innumerous other prepositional phrases elaborate the schema or are assembled on

the basis of it.

Fig. 1.11: Constructional Schema

yz

a.

o-

/.

" . /·/0Im

Correspondence Instantiation

"-'.:,

- .•.. ' "

...... "

- - -. Extension Atemporal Relation Cl Profile Determinant tr = Trajector

1m = Landmark

y

z

1.3.4. Clausal Structure

In this subsection, important cognitive-grammar concepts that pertain to clausal struc-

ture are introduced.

1.3.4.1. Conceptual Archetypes

The category of a noun is a complex one centered on a physical object, which is considered an experientially-grounded CONCEPTUAL ARCHETYPE. The category of a clause is also viewed as forming a complex category. The prototypical value of a clause is a conceptual archetype called the CANONICAL EVENT MODEL, sketched in Fig. 1.12 (adapted from Langacker 1991 :285). The model consists of simpler conceptual archetypes, one of which is the STAGE

MODEL. In our normal perceptual activities, we direct our attention to an external "on stage" region, within which we focus our attention on specific entities. The onstage region serves

22

as inclusive. stable SElTING. in which smaller. mobile PARTICIPANTS interact with each other

(cf. Langacker 1987b). Also included in the canonical event model is an ACTION CHAIN. i.e. the conception of participants moving around in space and impacting other participants. The canonical model further includes two ROLE ARCHETYPES: agent and patient. An agent volitionally transmits energy to a patient. which undergoes a change of state because of the

energy it receives.

Fig. 1.12: Canonical Event Model

O===-'8J8

Agent Patient

i : Setting

1.--- ) Participant

Energy Transmission ..J\,. Change of State

- - - -. Mental Path

C = Conceptualizer

Setting

@

1.3.4.2. Grammatical Relations

We have seen that the participants of relational expressions (like the prepositions above and below illustrated in Fig. 1.9 above) are accorded different degrees of prominence and are selected as primary and secondary figures. Relational participants with accorded prominence are found not only at the lexical level. but at all levels of organization. The characterization of grammatical relations is crucially dependent on such globally-viewed promi-

nence: the notions SUBJECT and OBJECT are characterized as nominal elements that corre-

spond to the trajector and landmark of a profiled relationship at a given level of organization. Observe Fig. 1.13 (adapted from Langacker 1998a:27). which sketches the semantic structure of the sentence Alice admires Bill. I I The verb admires. diagramed in Fig. 1.13d. profiles a relationship expressing mental experience. indicated by a dashed-line

23

arrow. Alice and Bill. illustrated in Figs. 1.13b and 1.13e. respectively. are nominals whose

semantic properties are abbreviated as ··An and ··B". respectively. Admires and Bill combine to form the composite structure admires Bill (Fig. 1.13c), which further combines with Alice to yield the overall structure Alice admires Bill (Fig. 1.13a). Following all correspondence lines in Fig. 1.13, one can observe that Alice and Bill correspond to the trajector and the landmark, respectively, of the verb admire, the verb phrase admires Bill. and the clause Alice admires Bill. Thus, Alice is identified as the subject. and Bill the object, at all three

levels.

Fig. 1.13: Subject and Object

Alice admires Bill

a tr 1m

. ~---~

....

.... / / .

:""

,. r ~ ••••

b.~. c.r"""!- ..... ~lr---~·· .. I"""'m ......

~ s:>---~

Alice admires Bill .....

I' Participant

- - - .. Mental Path

Correspondence ~ Instantiation

- -.. Extension

CJ Profile Determinant tr = Trajector

1m = Landmark

d.

...... " ..

'~

tr/ m:· -rx

O---<>······················~·~

admires Bill

II The semantic structure related to tense is omitted in the figure for the sake of simplicity.

24

1.3.5. Marked Coding

1.3.5.1. Setting-Partidpant Constructions

Participants of relational expressions are not the only clausal elements that are accorded prominence. Recall that the canonical event model sketched in Fig. 1.12 above distinguishes between the inclusive setting and the smaller participants that interact with each other within it. This distinction has extensive linguistic ramifications (cf. Langacker 1987b). The sentence in (10) (Langacker 1993a:500) illustrates a prototypical arrangement of settings and participants, where the former are coded by clause-level adverbs and the latter by nominals that are arguments of the verb:

(10) SElTING PARTICIPANT

Last night at the stadium, I paid $30 to the vendors for hot dogs and beer.

This arrangement, however, is only prototypical, and there are many other constructions where the subject status is conferred on a setting, instead of a participant. Observe the following examples (ibid.:50 I):

( I I) SETTING SUBJECT

a. November witnessed a series of surprising events.

b. * A series of surprising events was witnessed by November.

In (II )a, November is not a participant in the interaction of mental experience, but merely serves as setting for the interaction. As a result, the sentence is not transitive-as evidenced by the unacceptability of the corresponding passive in (11 )b-although it has the setting and the participant nominal in the pre-verbal subject position and the post-verbal object position, respectively.

25

Sketched in Fig. 1.14, adapted from Langacker (to appear: 18), is the semantic structure

of a sentence with the usual sense of the verb witness as in John witnessed the car accident,

which illustrates the prototypical PARTICIPANT-SUBJECT arrangement. What is foregrounded and profiled here is the interaction of the participants, with the conceptualization of a setting backgrounded and not profiled. In the figure, the dashed-line arrow indicating the mental experience and the two circles representing the two participants are drawn with heavy lines to signify their profiled status. The surrounding rectangle representing the setting is drawn with light lines because it is only in the background. Fig. 1.15. also adapted from Langacker (to appear: 18). sketches the semantic structure of the SETfING-SUBJECT CONSTRUC-

TION, instantiated by (II )a. In this construction. the profiled relationship is shifted to the "container-content" relation-represented by a heavy dashed-line arrow-holding between the setting and the experienced entity. As the result of the focus shift. the setting is brought to the foreground and functions as clausal subject. Note the heavy-line rectangle standing for the setting.

Fig. 1.14: Participant Subject

Fig. 1.15: Setting Subject

0---.(2)

: s

0---+(2)

Selling

Setting

- Profiled

Not Profiled

o Participant

S = Subject o = Object

- - - - Container-Content Relation

1.3.5.2. Reference-Point Constructions

In building up the semantic structure of a given expression. we need to mentally access various entities. It can often be difficult to directly access certain entities that are not cognitively salient. In cases like this, we can employ our REFERENCE-POINT ability to access those

26

"hard-to-reach" entities (cf. Langacker 1993c). We have the basic cognitive ability to in-

voke the conception of one entity in order to make MENTAL CONTACT with another, as

sketched in Fig. 1.16 (adapted from Langacker 1 993c:6). The readily accessible entity the

conceptualizer makes initial contact with is called a REFERENCE POINT, and the less accessible

one contacted via the reference point a TARGET. The set of entities a particular reference point gives access to is called its DOMINION. For example, consider a possessive expression

such as Bill's knife. In creating its semantic structure, the conceptualizer first mentally accesses Bill, which activates entities associated with him that comprise his dominion. Then the conceptualizer selects knife among other potential targets in his dominion and establish-

es mental contact with it.

Fig. 1.16: Reference Point

T = Target

RP = Reference Point D = Dominion

- - - -.- Mental Path

C = Conceptualizcr

This reference-point ability has numerous linguistic manifestations. One manifestation

is in the possessive constructions (such as Bill's knife just observed above), in which the possessor corresponds to a reference point, and the possessed to its target (cf. Langacker 1995a). This characterization is abstract enough to account for the entire range of examples,

which are quite diverse, as illustrated in (l2)a (Langacker 1997b:252):

( 12)

POSSESSIVE

a.

the doctor's wallet; the dog's tail; Bill's uncle; the eat's fleas: her anxiety; the teacher's predicament; our bus; your candidate; Lincoln's assassination

27

b. *the wallet's doctor; *the tail's dog; *the predicament's teacher; *the assassination's Lincoln

Note further that this reference point-based characterization nicely accounts for the fact that the possessive relations are unidirectional and irreversible, as observed in (12)b. This is be-

cause a reference-point relationship is inherently asymmetrical: a reference point is more

cognitively salient and thus more readily accessible than its target.

Another manifestation of the reference-point ability is found with topic constructions.

Recall that a possessive expression such as Bill's knife establishes a reference-point relation between two things. This is not the case, however, with a topic sentence like (13)

(Langacker 1998b:9):

(13) TOPIC

My car, the motor is just about shot.

In this sentence, the reference-point relationship holds between a thing and a proposition, as sketched in Fig. 1.17. The topic activates a certain domain of knowledge associated with it, i.e. its dominion. In (13), the topic my car evokes the conception of its make, year, size, price, color, the smell of the interior, the particular noises the engine makes, etc. The proposition expressed by the rest of the sentence is then incorporated into the particular domain of knowledge and is interpreted as applicable only in that domain. In other words, a topic provides a "mental address" to which a proposition is "delivered". In the example, the

clause the motor is just about shot is interpreted with respect to my car. As a result, the en-

gine is interpreted as referring to the car's motor, not the motor of a neighbor's car, or of a

garage door opener, or of a motorcycle parked across the street.

28

Fig. 1.17: Topic

"

C = Conceptualizer RP = Reference Point D = Dominion

T = Target

i i Proposition

©

o

Yet another manifestation involves PRONOMINAL ANAPHORA. A pronoun has to occur with-

in the structural dominion of its referent, which has already been established in the discourse (van Hoek 1995, 1997). Observe the examples given in (14):

( 14) PRONOMINAL ANAPHORA

a. Microsoft, it's always giving me trouble. b. *It, Microsoft's always giving me trouble.

In these topic sentences, the topic functions as reference point for the following clause. In (14)a, the pronoun it can refer to its intended antecedent Microsoft, because it falls within

the dominion of the topic, which subsumes the entire clause containing the pronoun in its

dominion. On the other hand, (14)b is ill-formed because the pronoun is outside the dominion of its intended antecedent, which is rather within the pronoun's dominion instead.

1.4. Overview of the Dissertation

In this section, we will present a chapter-by-chapter overview of the dissertation.

1.4.1. Chapter II: Subjecthood Tests

Chapter II examines the subjecthood tests that have been proposed for Japanese in the literature. We will focus on Shibatani (1990) and examine each of the tests he proposes:

29

subject honorification, reflexive binding, sentence coordination, PRO and PRoarb, and quantifier float. On the basis of their viability as a subject test and/or applicability in the constructions to be examined in this dissertation, we will adopt only reflexive binding and subject honorification, and not the other three tests.

The phenomenon called SUBJECf HONORIFICATION is widely recognized as a valid test for

subjecthood in Japanese (cf. Harada 1976, Shibatani 1977, among others):

(15) SUBJECT HONORIFICATION

a. Sensei-ga Hanako-ni Taroo-o go-shookai-ninat-ta. teacher-nov Hanako-DAT Taro-Ace nox-introduction-aox-ecsr 'The teacher respectfully introduced Taro to Hanako.'

b. "Taroo-ga Hanako-ni sensei-o go-shookai-ninat-ta.

Taro-sou Hanako-exr teacher-sec

'Taro respectfully introduced the teacher to Hanako.'

c. *Taroo-ga sensei-ni Hanako-o go-shookai-ninat-ta.

Taro-xoss teacher-OAT Hanako-xcc

'Taro respectfully introduced Hanako to the teacher.'

The complex verb in these sentences, goshookaininatta 'introduced respectfully', is the honorific and past-tense counterpart of shookai-suru 'to introduce' and expresses the speaker's deference to the referent of the subject nominal. Note that these sentences contain three participants: sensei 'teacher' and two students, Taroo and Hanako. As the relative social status of a teacher is higher than that of students, the teacher must be paid deference to, not the students. In (l5)a, the teacher is the subject, and the honorific verb correctly expresses deference to him. In (15)b and (l5)c, however, the teacher is the direct or the indirect object, and the honorific verb can only be interpreted as expressing deference to the subject, Taroo, resulting in ungrammaticality.

Another widely-accepted test for subjecthood in Japanese is reflexive binding. The reflexive pronounjibun can only be interpreted as coreferential with the subject nominal. Ob-

serve (16), from Shibatani (1977:791):

30

(16) REFLEXIVE BINDING

Tarooi-ga Hana/coro jibuni/*rno heya-de shikatta.

Taro-sou Hanako-xcc self-of room-in scolded

"Taro, scolded Hanak0j in selfi/*j's room.'

In the example, the event of scolding can only be interpreted as taking place in Taro's (subject) room. and not in Hanako's (direct object) room.

1.4.2. Chapter 10: the Nominative-Accusative Construction

Chapter [II examines the nominative-accusative construction and demonstrates that all

sentences with the nominative-accusative marking pattern code a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT DIRECT

INTERRELATION. The nominative-accusative construction codes a DIRECT INTERRELATION, one of

the two different ways to conceptualize an interrelation between two entities. In this type of interrelation, entity EI is construed as standing directly in relation RI with entity E2, as sketched in Fig. 1.18. We will further observe that the type of direct interrelation coded by

the nominative-accusative construction is a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT DIRECT INTERRELATION, which

involves two participants directly relating to each other, as sketched in Fig. 1.19.

Fig. 1.18: Direct Interrelation

Fig. 1.19: Double-Participant Direct Interrelation

[g-~"~

E = Entity

R = Relation

Relation Participant

LJ Entity

We will further observe that the construction codes three concrete schemas: the agenttheme, experiencer-therne, and mover-space schemas. Observe the following examples:

31

( 17)a.

AGENT-THEME

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. TarO-NOM vase-Ace broke 'Taro broke the vase:

b. EXPERlENCER- THEME

Taroo-ga kinoo satsujin-jiken-o mokugekishita.

Taro-sea yesterday murder-incident-xcc witnessed Taro witnessed a murder yesterday:

c. MOVER-SPACE

Taroo-ga kinoo Nihon-o latta.

TarO-NOM yesterday Japan-sec left 'Taro left Japan yesterday:

An agent-theme sentence such as (17)a codes an energetic interaction between two participants; an experiencer-theme sentence such as (17)b represents mental contact made by the subject with the object; and a mover-space sentence such as (17)c codes a change in spatial relation between two participants. Note that all these types of sentences code a direct inter-

relation between two participants in one way or another.

1.4.3. Chapter IV: the Dative-Nominative Construction

Chapter rv examines the dative-nominative construction. It will be demonstrated that

(i) all sentences with the dative-nominative marking pattern code a SETrING-PARTlCIPANT LAY·

ERED INTERRELATION. where the two entities play the roles of setting and participant and relate

to each other in a layered fashion. rather than directly; and that (ii) a certain type of dativenominative sentences exhibits split subjecthood, with the dative nominal functioning exclusively as clause-level subject. and the nominative nominal as predicate-level subject only.

The dative-nominative construction codes a layered interrelation. sketched in Fig. 1.20.

where entity E2 is construed as standing in relation R2 by itself. with E2 and R2 constituting

32

a higher-order entity E3, represented by a dashed-line rectangle, which stands in relation R I with entity EI. We will further observe that the type of layered interrelation coded by the

construction is a "SETIING-PARTICIPANT" LAYERED INTERRELATION, sketched in Fig. 1.21, where

EI is construed as a SETTING and E2 as a PARTICIPANT. This setting-participant distinction lies in the way in which we view a CANONICAL EVENT (cf. Section 1.3.4.1), where certain entities are construed as moving around and impacting other objects in a certain space. The role of the moving and affected entities, i.e. the participants, is clearly distinguished from that of the space, i.e. the setting, which merely serves to specify the location where an event takes place.

Fig. 1.20: Layered Interrelation Fig. 1.21: Setting-Participant Layered Interrelation

E3

---------,

!r;"l R. 1 ~L_ R~ 1

~···~&-···-_.I

'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f

E3

---------1

1 ~R~ 1 1 &-- ... -_. 1

1- - - - t. - - - - 1

:R.

E. i

Entity

Higher-Order Entity E = Entity

R = Relation

- ... -. Relation

i _) Participant

!! Setting

The dative-nominative construction will be divided into three SUbtypes according to the

grammatical relations borne by the two nominals: the PARTICLPANT-SUBJECT, SETTING-SUBJECT, and SPLIT-SUBJECT constructions. Observe the following examples that illustrate them: 12

121n the remainder of the current subsection, the subject nominal, whether at the clause or predicate level, will be given in boldface for easier identification.

33

( 18)a.

PARTICIPANT SUBJECT

kenkyuushitsu-no mae-ni sensei-go iru (koto)

office-of front-in teacher-sou exist.ANIM

'(that) the teacher is in front of his office'

b. SETTING SUBJECT

Ken-ni Furansugo-ga dekiru (koto)

Ken-DAT French-xost be.possible

'(that) Ken is fluent in French', lit., '(that) French is possible to Ken'

C. SPLIT SUBJECT

Ken-ni kono kompyuutaa-ga ichiban ii rashii (koto)

Ken-DAT this computer-xosa most good seem

'(that) Ken seems to find this computer best'

In a participant-subject sentence such as (18)a, the nominative participant functions as both c1ause- and predicate-level subject, and the dative setting is only an oblique, while in a setting-subject sentence such as (18)b, the dative setting functions as both clause- and predicate-level subject, and the nominative participant as non-subject. In a split-subject sentence such as (18)c, however, the subjecthood is split over two nominals, with the dative setting functioning as clause-level subject, and the nominative participant as predicate-level subject.

The participant-subject construction is further divided into two SUbtypes: the EXISTEN· TIAL and APPLICATION constructions. Observe the following pair of examples:

(19)a.

EXISTENTIAL

kenkyuushitsu-no mae-ni sensei-go tru (koto)

office-of front-in teacher-NOM exist.ANIM

'(that) the teacher is in front of his office'

34

b. ApPLICATION

Ken-ni kono Icompyuutaa-ga ichiban ii to omou (koto)

Ken-to this computer-NOM most good that think

'(that I) think this computer is best for Ken'

In these sentences, the subject is the nominative participant and the dative nominal only functions as oblique, as demonstrated by subject honorification and reflexive binding:

(20)a.

SUBJECT HONORlFICATION

toshokan-no mae-ni sensei-ga oideninaru (koto)

library-of front-in teacher-NOM exist.ANIM.HON

'(that) the teacher is respectfully in front of the library'

b. REFLEXIVE BINDING

jibunj-no kenkyuushitsu-no mae-ni senseii-ga iru (koto)

self-of office-of front-in teacher-sea exist.ANIM

'(that) the teacher, is respectfully in front of selfi's office'

In (20)a, the honorific predicate oideninaru expresses deference to the nominative participant sensei 'teacher'; in (20)b, the reflexive pronoun jibun is coreferential with the

nominative participant.

An existential sentence such as (19)a above simply describes the existence of some entity, which functions as subject, at some location specified by the dative nominal. In an ap-

plication sentence, E3, i.e. the combination of the nominative nominal and the predicate, expresses a proposition construed as "applicable" to the referent of the dative nominal, which specifies a DOMAIN OF APPLICATION. In (19)b above, E3, kono kompyuutaa-ga ichiban ii 'this computer is best', represents a proposition that is applicable to E" Ken. Note that these two constructions code a setting-participant layered interrelation: in the existential construction, the participant is construed as participating in the relation of existence within the setting specified by the locative nominal attached with ni; and in the application con-

35

struction, the participant partakes in a certain relation, representing a proposition, within a setting, construed as a domain within which the proposition applies.

A second type of the dative-nominative construction, i.e. the setting-subject construction, is divided into three SUbtypes: the POSSESSIVE, EVALUATlVE, and POTENTIAL constructions. Observe the following examples:

(21 )a.

POSSESSIVE

Taroo-ni kodomo-ga aru (koto)

Taro-OAT child-NOM exist.(NAN(M

'(that) Taro has a child', lit., '(that) there is a child to Taro'

b. EVALUATIVE

Taroo-ni Hanako-no tasuke-ga hitsuyoo-na (koto) Taro-OAT Hanako-of help-sea necessary-be

'(that) Taro needs Hanako's help', lit., '(that) Hanako's help is necessary to Taro'

c. POTENTIAL

Ken-ni Furansugo-ga dekiru (koto)

Ken-ner French-NOM be.possible

'(that) Ken is fluent in French', lit., '(that) French is possible to Ken'

In all these sentences, the dative nominal functions as subject and the nominative nominal

as non-subject, as confirmed by subject honorification and reflexive binding:

(22)a.

SUBJECf HONORIACATION

sensei-ni Hanako-no tasuke-ga go-hitsuyoo-na (koto)

teacher-ncr Hanako-of help-NOM HON-necessary-be

'(that) the teacher respectfully needs Hanako's help'

b. REFLEXIVE BINOING

Tarooi-ni jibunj-no tomodachi-no nakade Hanako-no tasuke-ga ichiban

Taro-OAT self-of friend-of among Hanako-of help-sou most

hitsuyoo-na (koto)

necessary-be

'(that) Taro, needs Hanako's help most among self.'s friends'

36

In (22)a. the honorific predicate go-hitsuyoo expresses deference to the dative setting sensei 'teacher'; in (22)b. the reflexive jibun is coreferential with the dative setting Taroo.

The objective conceptual content of a possessive sentence such as (21)a is identical to that of an existential sentence such as (19)a above: the nominal participant is construed as participating in the existential relation within the dative setting. What distinguishes the two sentences is the profiling: in the possessive construction. Rl is profiled which holds between EI and E3 (cf. Fig. 1.21 above). and this shift in profiling is responsible for the subjecthood of the dative setting. Likewise. the objective conceptual content of an evaluative sentence such as (21)b is identical to that of an application sentence such as (19)b above:

E3 represents a proposition that is applicable in the domain of application specified by the dative nominal. In the evaluative construction. however. RI• i.e. the outer relation. is profiled and the dative nominal functions as subject as a result.

Note that the possessive and evaluative constructions code a setting-participant layered interrelation in a straightforward manner: in the former, the dative possessor specifies a dominion in which the existential relation resides whose trajector is the nominative possessee: in the latter. the dative nominal specifies a domain of application within which the proposition expressed by E3 applies. It will be demonstrated that a potential sentence such as (21)c also codes a setting-participant construction: the dative nominal specifies a domain within which an intransitively construed potential relation holds true. In (21 )c. for example. the potential verb dekiru is construed as an intransitive relation whose trajector is the nominative nominal Furansugo 'French' and E3 yields a proposition Furansugo-ga dekiru 'French is possible'. which is construed as applicable to the dative setting Taroo.

The split-subject construction. the third type of the dative-nominative construction. is divided into two SUbtypes: the SUBJECfIVE-1UDGMENT and IRU POSSESSIVE constructions. Examine the following pair of examples:

37

(23)a.

SUBJECfIVE JUDGMENT

Ken-ni kono IcompyuutlUl-ga ichiban ii rashii (koto)

Ken-OAT this computer-sow most good seem

'(that) Ken seems to find this computer best'

b. I RU POSSESSIVE

Taroo-ni kodomo-ga iru (koto)

Taro-OAT child-NOM exist.ANIM

'(that) Taro has a child'

In these sentences. the dative setting functions only as clause-level subject, and the nominative participant only as predicate-level subject. As a result, reflexive binding and subject honorification yield conflicting results:

(24)a.

REFLEXIVE BINDING

Tarooi-ni jibunj-no chi-o waketa kodomo-ga i~ (koto)

Taro-OAT self-of blood-Ace shared child-NOM eXlst.ANIM

'(that) Taro has a child who shares selfi's blood (i.e. a biological child)'

b. SUBJECf HONORIFICATION

Kimi-ni-wa rippana go-ryooshin-ga o-ide-ninaru-dewanai-ka.

YOU-OAT-TOP fine aos-parent-soa HON-exist.ANIM-HON-NEG-Q

'Don't fine parents respectfully exist for you?'

The reflexive jibun in (24)a is coreferential with the dative setting Taroo, but the honorific predicate oideninaru in (24)b is controlled by the nominative participant. It will be demonstrated that reflexive binding is exclusively controlled by the CLAUSE-LEVEL SUBJECf, whereas subject honorification is only triggered by the PREDICATE-LEVEL SUBJECf.

The objective conceptual content of a subjective-judgment sentence such as (23)a is essentially identical to that of an application sentence such as (19)b above: a proposition is construed as applicable in the domain of application specified by the dative setting. What distinguishes the former from the latter is the additional role of the setting in the former: in a subjective-judgment sentence, the dative setting is the one that makes judgment on the

38

truthfulness of the proposition; in an application sentence, on the other hand, the judgment is made by the speaker and the dative setting functions as domain of application only. This added role of the dative setting as SURROGATE CONCEPTUALIZER of the proposition has the effect of profiling RI, which holds between the setting and the proposition, with the former functioning as trajector of the relation. Note, however, that in the sentence, the dative setting does not function as full subject but only as clause-level subject, with the role of predicate-level subject still borne by the nominative participant.

The semantic structure of an iru possessive sentence such as (23)b is in minimal contrast with an aru possessive sentence such as (21)a above: the dative nominal specifies a dominion in which the existential relation resides whose trajector is the nominative participant, and the profiled relation is the one holding between the setting and the existential relation, not the existential relation itself. The only difference lies in the grammatical relations borne by the two nominals: in the iru possessive construction, the dative nominal functions only as clause-level subject, while the nominative participant functions only as predicate-level subject. In other words, whereas the aru possessive construction is a "genuine" possessive sentence with a full dative subject. the iru possessive construction is a cross between the aru possessive construction and the existential construction, which has a full nominative subject.

Note that both the subjective-judgment and iru possessive constructions code a settingparticipant layered interrelation: in the former, the dative nominal specifies a domain of application within which the proposition expressed by the nominative nominal and the predicate applies; and in the latter, the dative nominal specifies a dominion in which the existential relation resides.

In sum, it will be demonstrated in Chapter IV that all dative-nominative sentences code a setting-participant construction and that the notion of subject defined at clause and predicate levels is crucial to appropriately characterize these sentences.

39

1.4.4. Chapter V: the Hi-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction

Chapters V and VI examine the double-nominative construction and demonstrate that

all sentences with the double-nominative pattern code a OOUBLE-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTER-

RELATION, i.e. a type of layered interrelation sketched in Fig. 1.22. where both EI and E2 are

construed as participants, in contradistinction with the dative-nominative construction

where the entities serve as setting and participant.

Fig. 1.22: Double-Participant Layered Interrelation

E3

---------1

fc'\___ R I I fc:\_ R? I ~ .. -'---+r ~.----+,

1- I

c) Participant Higher-Order Entity E = Entity

R = Relation - .. ~ Relation

Chapter V focuses on those double-nominative sentences which have bi-c1ausal struc-

ture, and Chapter VI those with mono-clausal structure. It will be further established that

the bi-c1ausal double-nominative construction codes a HIGHLY-AUTONOMOUS layered interre-

lation, and the mono-clausal one a PARTIALLY-AUTONOMOUS layered interrelation.

Chapter V concentrates on the bi-c1ausal double-nominative construction and demon-

strates that the construction codes a HIGHLY-AUTONOMOUS OOUBLE-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTER-

RELATION. The conceptualization involves a layered interrelation sketched in Fig. 1.23, where E3 is construed as highly autonomous, as opposed to E3 in the mono-clausal doublenominative construction that is only partially autonomous. It will be further shown that EI only functions as clause-level subject, whereas E2 functions as both c1ause- and predicatelevel subject.

40

Fig. 1.23: Highly-Autonomous Double-Participant Layered Interrelation

I I Highly-Autonomous Structure

CS = Clause-Level Subject

ClPS = Clause- and Predicate-Level Subject

The bi-clausality of the type of double-nominative construction in question is to be ascribed to the high degree of AUTONOMY of the semantic structure evoked by E3. In a sentence such as (25) below, the semantic structure evoked by the combination of E2 and the predicate is highly AUTONOMOUS. in the sense that the structure can be conceptualized by itself in

a highly self-contained manner:

(25) SI-CLAUSAL DOUBLE NOMINATIVE

Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da.

Taro-xosr tutor-NOM foreigner-be

'It is Taro who is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

Contrastively, the semantic structure evoked by such a combination in a nominative-ac-

cusative sentence like (26) below is completely DEPENDENT in that one cannot conceptualize it by itself without necessarily and strongly evoking an additional structure, i.e. Ej:

(26) NOMINATIVE-AcCUSATIVE

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. Taro-NOM vase-sec broke 'Taro broke the vase:

In (26), the second nominal and the predicate, kabin-o kowasu 'to break a vase', is conceptually dependent on Ej , Taroo, without which its semantic structure cannot be fully interpreted. In contrast, E3 in (25), kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da 'the tutor is a foreigner', can be easily conceptualized without evoking Ej , Taroo.

In other words, a nominative-accusative sentence constitutes only a single clause be-

cause the entire structure, i.e. both E} and E3' is needed to produce an autonomous semantic

41

structure. In a bi-clausal double-nominative sentence, on the other hand, E3 by itself is highly autonomous and is allowed to form its own clause. leaving E, outside this clause.

However. this forces E, to be incorporated into the overall sentential structure in some unusual fashion: because E( cannot be construed as an argument of the predicate in E3• another relation not coded by any single lexical item in the sentence must be introduced. functioning as R,. To be more specific. the PREDICATION relation is construed as holding between E, and E3• with the latter interpreted as expressing a characteristic predicated of the former. In (25) above. for example. kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da 'the tutor is a foreigner' is construed as a characteristic predicated of E,. Taroo.

The special and limited status of E, and the predication relation it participates in is illustrated by the fact that a bi-clausal double-nominative sentence cannot be felicitously

used in subordinate contexts:

(27) EMBEDDING

??Moshi Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-nara odoroki-da.

if TarO-NOM tutor-NOM foreigner-if surprise-be

'It will be a surprise if Taro is such that his tutor is a foreigner.'

The sentence in (27). whose subordinate sentence contains the predication relation. is awk-

ward at best. This fact indicates that E, is an extra element that can only be incorporated into the sentential structure by the special mechanism of predication.

The limited status of E, is further illustrated by its inability to function as full subject unlike E2• which does function as both clause- and predicate-level subject. In other words. although both can function as clause-level subject. only E2 can function as predicate-level subject as well. This is because E2 is an argument of a "lexical" predicate. while E3 is only an argument of the limited predication relation. The subjecthood tests confirm this:

42

(28) REFLEXIVE BINDING

a. Yamada-sensei-ga musukosanj-ga jibunj-no gakkoo-de ichiban-da.

Yamada-teacher-NOM son-NOM self-of school-at number.one-be

'It is Professor Yamada who is such that his son, ranks first at self.'s school.'

b. Yamada-senseij-ga jibunj-no oshiego-ga Ejiputo-ni sun-deiru.

Yamada-teacher-soss self-of student-xosr Egypt-in Iive-PROG

'It is Professor Yamada, who is such that self 's student is living in Egypt:

(29) SUBJECf HONORIFICATION

a. Taroo-ga Yamada-sensei-ga ojisan-deirassharu.

Taro-xosi Yamada-teacher-NOM uncle-be.aox

'It is Taro who is such that Professor Yamada is respectfully his uncle:

b. +Yamada-sensei-ga Taroo-ga oigosan-deirassharu,

Yamada-teacher-NOM Taro-sora nephew-be.aox

'It is Professor Yamada who is such that Taro is respectfully his nephew:

The sentences in (28) contain the reflexive pronoun jihun. In (28)a. it is coreferential with E2• musukosan 'son', and in (28)b, with E(, Yamada-sensei 'Professor Yamada'. Those in (29) contain an honorific predicate. Such a predicate can express deference to E2• as shown

by (29)a, but not to E(, as shown by (29)b.

Note further that the requirement imposed by the predication relation that E3 be construed as a characteristic predicated of E( results in E( corresponding to some schematic element evoked in E3:

(30)a.

E I CORRESPONDING TO REFERENCE POINT OF E2 Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da.

Taro-NOM tutor-NOM foreigner-be

'It is Taro who is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

b. E( CORRESPONDING TO REFERENCE POINT OF PREDICATE NOMINAL Nihonjin-ga kome-ga shushoku-da.

Japanese-NOM rice-sea staple. food-be

'It is the Japanese people who are such that rice is their staple food:

43

c. El CORRESPONDING TO PROMINENT ELEMENT OF EMBEDDED EVENT

Kono setchakuzai-ga kawa-ga yoku tsuku.

this adhesive-sora leather-xou well get.attached

'It is this adhesive that is such that leather gets glued well with it:

d. E 1 CORRESPONDING TO SETTING FOR EMBEDDED EVENT Rokugatsu-ga ame-ga yoku furu.

June-NOM rain-xov often fall

'It is June that is such that it rains often (in that month):

The prototypical case would be one in which E 1 corresponds to the reference point of ~i.e. an element that allows one to mentally access ~-as is the case with (30)a: Taroo corresponds to the student of E2, kateikyooshi 'tutor'. It is also possible for El to correspond to the reference point of a predicate nominal. as shown in (30)b. In the sentence, E1, Nihonjin 'Japanese', is identified with the reference point of the predicate nominal, shushoku 'staple food'. El can also correspond to a prominent element of the embedded event. In (30)c, E1, setchakuzai 'adhesive', corresponds to the instrumental argument of the predicate, tsuku 'to get attached'. It is further possible for El to correspond to a setting for the embedded event: in (30)d. E 1, Rokugatsu 'June', is a temporal expression that corresponds to a setting for the event described in E3, ame-ga yokufuru 'it rains often'.

Note that all these bi-clausal double-nominative sentences code a layered interrelation where both El and E2 are participants: E2 and the predicate form their own clause, which functions as E3; moreover, both El and E2 function as trajector of a relation, with E2 serving as trajector of the relation expressed by the lexical predicate and E 1 as trajector of the pred-

ication relation.

1.4.5. Chapter VI: the Mono-Clausal Double-Nominative Construction

Chapter V[ examines the mono-clausal double-nominative construction and shows that

(i) all double-nominative sentences code a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT LAYERED INTERRELATION, i.e. a

44

type of layered interrelation in which both EI and E2 are construed as participants; that (ii) the mono-clausal double-nominative construction specifically codes a PARTIALLY-AUTONOMOUS layered interrelation, where E3 is construed as partially autonomous, as opposed to E3 in the bi-clausal double-nominative construction that is highly autonomous; and that (iii) in

terms of grammatical relations. EI functions as both c1ause- and predicate-level subject with E2 functioning only as non-subject.

Whether a sentence coding a layered interrelation has mono- or bi-c1ausal structure is determined by the degree of autonomy of the semantic structure evoked by E3. Recall that the semantic structure of E3 in a bi-c1ausal double-nominative sentence such as (31) is highly autonomous (cf. Fig. 1.24), whereas that of the equivalent in a nominative-accusative sentence such as (32), i.e. the second nominal and the predicate, is completely dependent:

(31) BI-CLAUSAL DOUBLE NOMINATIVE

Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da

Taro-NOM tutor-NOM foreigner-be

'It is Taro who is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

(32) NOMINATIVE-ACCUSATIVE

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. Taro-NOM vase-sec broke 'Taro broke the vase:

Fig. 1.24: Hi-Clausal Double Nominative

D Highly-Autonomous Structure E = Entity

R = Relation _ .. _.. Relation

CS = Clause-Level Subject

ClPS = Clause- and Predicate-Level Subject

In (31), E3' i.e. the structure evoked by kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da 'the tutor is a for-

eigner', is highly autonomous in that the structure can be adequately manifested without

45

presupposing the structure contributed by E}, Taroo, In (32), contrastively, the structure evoked by kabin-o kowashita 'broke the vase' is dependent in that the structure requires the conceptualization of EI• TaTOO, for its full manifestation. The high degree of autonomy of E3 in the bi-clausal double-nominative construction forces it to form a clause by itself, excluding EI, while the high degree of dependence of E3 in the nominative-accusative construction forces E I to be included in the same clause.

The status of a mono-clausal double-nominative sentence such as (33) below is "inter-

mediate" between those of the nominative-accusative and bi-clausal double-nominative

constructions: E3 of the mono-clausal double-nominative construction is PARTlALL Y AUTONOMOUS. It is far more autonomous than that of the nominative-accusative construction, but

not as autonomous as that of the bi-clausal construction (cf. Fig. 1.25).

(33) PRODUCTIVE COMPLEX PREDICATE

Zoo-ga hana-ga nagai.

elephant-sow trunk-NOM long

'It is the elephant that has its trunk long.'

Fig. 1.25: Mono-Clausal Double Nominative

E3

---------,

:-~~-~-:

_/.q.'

~

CIPS

Partially-Autonomous Structure NS = Non-Subject

E3 in the mono-clausal double-nominative construction is autonomous enough to war-

rant a layered interrelation. In (33) above, for example, the structure contributed by hanaga nagai 'the trunk is long' can be construed in a sufficiently self-contained manner to effect a layered interrelation in the sentence. However, E3 is not considered highly autonomous because E2 is conceptually dependent on EI and the degree of this dependence is sig-

46

nificantly greater than that observed in a predication sentence such as (31): the conceptual connection between E. and E2 in the mono-clausal sentence in (33), i.e. between zoo 'elephant' and hana 'trunk', is much closer than that between the two in the bi-c1ausal sentence in (31), i.e. Taroo and kateikyooshi 'tutor', leading to the stronger evocation of the schematic structure corresponding to E. within E3 and thus the stronger degree of dependence of E3 in the former sentence. This partial autonomy of E3 allows a layered interrelation between E. and E2, but is not sufficient to warrant the clausal status of Ej. Therefore, E. needs to be incorporated into the same clause as E3, requiring the latter to merely function as COM·

PLEX PREDICATE.

Recall further that in the bi-c1ausal double-nominative construction, E3 forms a clause by itself producing overall bi-c1ausal structure, with E. only functioning as clause-level subject, and E2 as both c1ause- and predicate-level subject (cf. Fig. 1.24 above). In the

mono-clausal construction, on the other hand, E3 forms a complex predicate instead of a clause: as a result, only a single clause obtains and E. functions as both c1ause- and predicate-level subject, with ~ functioning as non-subject (cf, Fig. 1.25), as confirmed by the

following tests:

(34)a.

REFLEXIVE BINDING

Tarooi-ga jibunj-no tomodachi-no nakade ashi-ga ichiban nagai (koto)

TarO-NOM self-of friend-of among leg-NOM most long

'(that) Taro, has his legs longest among self.'s friends'

b. SUBJECT HONORlFICATION

Yamada-sensei-ga kata-ga zuibun kot-teoideninaru (koto)

Yamada-teacher-sou shoulder-NOM fairly get.stiff-RES.HON

'(that) Professor Yamada respectfully has his shoulders fairly stiff'

In (34)a, the reftexivejibun is coreferential with E., Taroo; in (34)b, the honorific verb okoriniatteiru expresses deference to E., Yamada-sensei 'Professor Yamada'.

47

In this chapter, three SUbtypes of the mono-clausal double-nominative construction are

examined: the PRODUCfIVE COMPLEX-PREDICATE, LEXICAL COMPLEX-PREDICATE, and ADJECfIVAL-

EXPERIENCER constructions. Observe the following representative examples:

(35)a.

PRODUCfIVE COMPLEX PREDICATE

Zoo-ga hana-ga nagai.

elephant-xosi trunk-xosr long

"It is the elephant that has its trunk long:

b. LEXICAL COMPLEX PREDICATE

Taroo-ga aisukuriimu-ga suki-na (koto) TarO-NOM ice.cream-sov liking-be

'(that) Taro likes ice cream'

c. ADJECflVAL EXPERIENCER

Taroo-ga mizu-ga hoshii rashii (koto) TarO-NOM water-NOM want seem

'(that) Taro seems to want water'

A productive complex-predicate sentence such as (35)a requires the closest type of conceptual connection between E) and E2 such as the inalienable possessive relation observed in the example. Furthermore, this construction is "productive", as the name suggests, in that any type of predicate that is compatible with ~ can appear and that the predicate only needs to be listed as a one-place predicate in the lexicon. Therefore, the fact that the complex predicate takes E) as the predicate-level subject is coded by an appropriate constructional schema and does not need to be included in the lexical structure of the predicate. For exampie, the adjective nagai 'long' is only listed in grammar as a one-place predicate and there

does not exist an extra entry for it as a two-place predicate taking the whole expression as E) and the part expression as E2.

In a lexical complex-predicate sentence such as (35)b, however, only a limited number of predicates can appear. Their use as one-place predicates is either obsolete or archaic and

48

their own semantic structures already include specifications as two-place predicates, thus not needing an appropriate constructional schema to be combined with E2. For example, suki 'like' (presumably) used to function as one-place predicate profiling an entity that is liked and participate only in the predication construction, producing the interpretation of (35)b as "It is Taro who is such that ice cream is his favorite". In the synchronic grammar, however, it is listed as a two-place predicate adding EI as an argument in its semantic structure.

An adjectival-experiencer sentence such as (35)c takes as its predicate an adjective expressing mental experience such as hoshii 'want', which evokes the conceptualization of two relations: the existence of an object expressed by ~ in a certain domain of mental experience such as desire within an individual expressed by E1, and the individual's mental contact with the existence. These experiencer adjectives are listed as two-place predicates in grammar as well.

Note further that in all these sentences, E3 is partially autonomous, allowing its separate conceptualization and the evocation of EI simultaneously. In (35)b, E3, aisukuriimu-ga suki-da, can still be interpreted to mean "ice cream is one's favorite" and thus construed as partially autonomous, but it also evokes the conceptualization of an individual who enters the liking relation. In (35)c, E3, mizu-ga hoshii 'want water' , is conceptualized as expressing water's existence in the domain of desire, thus allowing its partially autonomous conceptualization, but it still evokes the individual who makes mental contact with the existence. That is to say, all the mono-clausal double-nominative sentences code a layered interrelation that involves a partially autonomous E3. Note also that the type of layered interrelation in question involves two participants, as opposed to a setting and a participant observed in the dative-nominative construction.

49

Tab. 1.2 below provides a detailed summary of constructions examined in Chapters Ill-VI in terms of their clausal complexity, the autonomy of E3, the grammatical relations borne by El and E2.l3

Tab. 1.2: Summary of Constructions (Detailed)

Case Clause Autonomy Subjecthood Constructions
Marking Type ofE3
Nom.-Acc. Mono- Dependent Nom. Subject Transitive
Clausal (E1 = CIPS, E2 = NS)
Participant Subject Existential
(E1 = NS. E2 = CIPS) Application
Mono- Partially Setting Subject Possessive
Dat.-Nom. Evaluative
Clausal Autonomous (E1 = CIPS, E2 = NS) Potential
Split Subject Subjective Judgment
(E1 = CS, E2 = PS) lru Possessive
Bi- Highly Double Subject Predication
Clausal Autonomous (E1 = CS, E2 = CIPS)
Double Nom. Mono- Partially Single Subject Productive Complex Pred.
Clausal Autonomous (E1 = CIPS, E2 = NS) Lexical Complex Pred.
Adjectival Experiencer E, = Initial Nominal E2 = Second Nominal

E3 = Second Nominal + Predicate NS = Non-Subject

CIPS = Clause- and Predicate-Level Subject CS = Clause-Level Subject

PS = Predicate-Level Subject

1.4.6. Chapter VII: the Topic Construction

Chapter VII examines the topic construction. It will be demonstrated that the construe-

tion codes another alternate way in Japanese of conceptualizing events with two entities, which involves a much higher level of processing. To be more specific, the topic construction as exemplified by (36) below schematically codes a SEQUENTIAL REFERENCE-POINT CON-

STRUCTION:

13 Appendix B provides summaries of all major constructions examined in Chapters IV, V, and VI, with representative data and diagrams.

50

(36) TOPIC

Taroo-wa kabin-o kowashita. Taro-roe vase-Ace broke "Taro, he broke the vase.'

We have the basic cognitive ability to invoke the conception of one entity for purposes

of establishing MENTAL CONTACT with another, and numerous basic phenomena involve such

a REFERENCE-POll'Io'T relationship (cf. Langacker I 993c). In most sentences, the speaker makes

mental contact with the sentential semantic structure in two steps along a NATURAL PATH. In

a sentence with a direct interrelation, the speaker would follow the natural path based on grammatical relations: he first makes mental contact with E), the subject, and then with E2, the object. In a sentence with a layered interrelation, the natural path is based on the layering itself: the speaker first mentally accesses E) and subsequently E3.

With respect to the processing of this two-step mental contact, I propose the following hypothesis: in non-topicalized sentences, the processing of such a dual mental contact takes place SIMULTANEOUSLY in a single processing cycle, requiring very little processing time (cf.

Fig. 1.26), while in topicalized sentences, the two mental contacts are accessed SEQUENTIAL-

L Y in two distinct cycles, requiring substantially more processing time than in the simultaneous reference-point construction (cf. Fig. 1.27).

51

Fig. 1.26: Simultaneous Mental Contact

T = Target

RP = Reference Point D = Dominion

- - - -. Mental Path

C = Conceptualizer

I

@

Processing Time

Fig. 1.27: Sequential Mental Contact

@

PC

PC = Processing Cycle

o

©

pc.,

Processing Time

There is one fact that correlates with this hypothesis. A pause can be placed felicitously

after a topic nominal, but not after a nominative one:

(37)a.

TOPIC

Kono kabin-wa, Taroo-ga kowashita. this vase-roe Taro-xoea broke 'This vase, Taro broke it.'

52

b. TRANSITIVE

'l'Haroo-ga, kabin-o kowashita.

TarO-NOM vase-sec broke 'Taro, broke the vase.'

(37)a is a topic sentence, where the comma inserted after the topic nominal kabin 'vase' is intended to represent a pause, and the sentence is perfectly felicitous without some special

contextual need to place a pause. (37)b is a nominative-accusative sentence, where a pause is inserted after the nominative nominal. and the sentence is not felicitous. unless there ex-

ists a special context that requires a break after the subject nominal.

There is one important fact about the sequential reference-point construction that needs to be noted: the construction is not available in subordinate contexts. In other words, the

topic construction is generally disallowed in a subordinate clause:

(38) SUBORDINATED TOPIC

Moshi kono kabin-wa Taroo-ga kowashita-nara odoroki-da. if broke-if surprise-be . *It is a surprise if this vase, Taro broke it.'

'It is a surprise if Taro broke this vase, if not the others.'

(38) is not felicitous if the topic nominal is interpreted as thematic. as opposed to contrastive (cf. Kuno 1973). and as an element of the conditional clause. This unavailability of the sequential reference-point construction can be explained by the above-mentioned hypothesis. if we assume that only a limited amount of processing is permitted in subordinate con-

texts: the construction requires a substantial more amount of processing time than a subor-

dinate context is capable of handling.

Emonds (1976) shows that only a subset of "transformations" that are allowed in main

contexts are also available in subordinate contexts, and he lists "topicalization" as one not available in subordinate contexts.

Recall that the predication relation is not available in subordinate contexts either:

53

(39) EMBEDDED PREDICATION

??Moshi Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-nara odoroki-ba.

if Taro-sou tutor-sow foreigner-if surprise-be

"It will be a surprise if Taro is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

Given this striking similarity with the topic construction, I claim that the predication rela-

tion requires the sequential reference-point construction. This correlation between the topic

relation and the predication relation is best explained when one views the latter as a grammaticized version of the former. Compare the predication sentence in (40)a below with its

topicalized counterpart in (40)b:

(40)a.

PREDICATION

Taroo-ga kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da.

TarO-NOM tutor-NOM foreigner-be

"It is Taro who is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

b. TOPICALIZED PREDICATION

Taroo-wa kateikyooshi-ga gaikokujin-da. TarO-TOP

"Taro, he is such that his tutor is a foreigner:

However, there are significant differences between the topic and predication relations as a result of the grammaticization of the former into the latter. First and foremost, the predication relation affects clausal structure and grammatical relations, while the topic relation does not. We have already noted that the predication relation introduces an extra layer of clausal organization and that E( functions as subject of the predication relation, albeit only as clause-level subject. The topic relation, however, does not alter the clausal structure or the grammatical relations in any fashion:

54

(41) TOPIc AND GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS

Hanako.-wa Tanakai-sensei-ga jibun*i/o-no heya-de shikatta.

Hanako~ToP Tanaka!teacher-NOM self-ofJ room-in scolded

'Hanako., Professor Tanakaj scolded her in self*i/j's room.'

(41) is a topicalized sentence, where the direct object is preposed with the topic marker. The reflexive jibun can only be coreferential with the nominative E2' and not with the topic Ej. That is to say, this sentence is mono-clausal and El does not function as either clause-level or predicate-level subject.

In terms of distribution, the topic relation has a wider distribution than the predication

relation: there are cases where only the topic relation is possible in comparable sentences. Compare the following topic-nominative sentence cited in Mikami (1960:84) with its un-

acceptable predication counterpart:

(42)a.

TOPIC

Kare-wa michi-o machigaeta-ka-na? thiS-TOP road-sec erred-o-sr=

'(Based on) this, I wonder if I took a wrong way?'

b. PREDICATION

*Kore-ga michi-o machigaeta-ka-na? thiS-NOM

'I wonder if it is this that is such that I took a wrong way?'

In the topic relation, the topic need only be interpreted as a reference point on the basis of which the proposition expressed by the rest of the sentence is interpreted. In the grammaticized predication relation, however, there is a more stringent requirement: E3 must be construed as expressing a characteristic that is predicated of El. In (42), El kore only refers to the current situation the speaker is placed in and E3 describes the reason why the speaker is in the situation. El can function as reference point for E3' but it can hardly be construed as having the characteristic expressed by E3.

55

1.4.7. Appendix A: the Nominative Case-Marker Ga

Appendix A examines the semantic content of the nominative marker itself. It will be demonstrated that the marker does contribute some semantic content, albeit schematic, to

the overall clausal semantic content.

The simplest account of the nominative marker ga that one can propose is to identify it with the subject marker. This account can straightforwardly explain the appearance of ga

in the following types of sentences:

(43)a.

PREDICATE NOMINAL

Taroo-ga gakusei-na (koto) TarO-NOM student-be

'(the fact that) Taro is a student'

b. INTRANSITIVE VERB

Taroo-ga kinoo toshokan-e ilia.

TarO-NOM yesterday library-to went 'Taro went to the library yesterday.'

c. TRANSITIVE VERB

Hanako-ga Taroo-o nagutta. Hanako-xoxt Taro-Ace hit 'Hanako hit Taro.'

In (43)a. the nominative nominal Taroo is the subject with respect to the predicate nominal gakusei 'student'; in (43)b, Taroo is the subject of the intransitive verb iku 'to go'; and in (43)c, the nominative nominal Hanako is the subject of the transitive verb naguru 'to hit'.

However, this simplified characterization of ga fails when one is faced with a sentence such as the one in (44) below, where the nominal marked with the dative ni functions as

subject instead:

56

(44) DATIVE SUBJECT

Taroo-ni kodomo-ga aru (koto)

TarO-OAT child-NOM exist.INANIM

"(that) Taro has a child'. lit., '(that) there is a child to Taro'

In a setting-subject sentence such as the possessive sentence above, the setting. not the participant, functions as subject. i.e. as both c1ause- and predicate-level subject.

The simple analysis also fails to explain the appearance of ga on nominals that do not

function as subject:

(45) NON-SUBJECT GA

Taroo-ga Hanako-ga suki-na (koto) Taro-NOM Hanako-xosr liking-be

'(the fact that) Taro likes Hanako'

E2 in a setting-subject sentence such as (44) above and in a mono-clausal double-nominative sentence such as (45) here functions as non-subject.

It should be evident that one cannot simply identify the function of ga marking with subject marking. if one wishes to be successful at all with the task of finding a proper char-

acterization of the nominative marker, instead of simply treating it as homonyms with un-

related functions. A proper characterization of ga must be based on a notion that is both

more inclusive and more restrictive than the notion of subject: more inclusive because the

marker can appear on a non-subject. and more restrictive because there are subjects marked

by the dative ni.

In fact, we will claim that the characterization of the nominative marker should be di-

vorced from the notion of subject and be instead made primarily in terms of semantic roles.

More specifically, we will demonstrate that the notion of "head of a profiled event chain"

offers a unified characterization of the nominative maker as the most schematic semantic

content of the marker. Simply put. all types of clauses evoke some type of chain-whether

energetic or static-where entities asymmetrically interact with each other, and one of these

57

entities is designated as head of the chain by virtue of its being located at the starting point. Therefore. the relation between nominative marking and subjecthood is only such that a nominative nominal functions as head of a profiled event chain and as such is most likely accorded primary focal prominence and selected as the subject, unless there are other factors that would override this default subject selection.

In sum, the proposed analysis will claim three points with respect to the characterization of the nominative marker: (i) the marker does contribute semantic content to the overall clausal structure, not being a semantically-void grammatical formative; (ii) its characterization is divorced from the notion of subject and made primarily in terms of semantic roles; and (iii) the nominative marker can be uniformly and schematically characterized as the marker for the head of a profiled event chain, not as homonyms with unrelated meanings or functions. Notice that any theory that regards case markers as semantically-void grammatical forrnatives is incapable of achieving all of the above. To the extent that this analysis is valid. therefore, the conceptual basis of syntax claimed by it is supported.

CHAPTER 0

Subjedhood Tests

2.1. Introduction

This chapter examines the subjecthood tests that have been proposed for Japanese in the literature. Shibatani (1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1990) has long advocated a list of subjecthood

tests for Japanese. In the following discussion, we will focus on his analysis in Shibatani (1990) and examine each test he proposes for its viability as a subject test and/or its appli-

cability in the constructions to be examined in this dissertation.

2.2. Shibatani

Shibatani (1990) proposes the following set of subjecthood tests for Japanese:

(I) SUBJECTHOOD TESTS

(i) Subject honorification (ii) Reflexive binding

(iii) Sentence coordination (iv) PRO and PRoarb

(v) Quantifier float

We will examine each of these five tests and adopt only reflexive binding and subject hon-

orification, and not sentence coordination, PRO and PRoarb, or quantifier float.

2.3. Subject Honorification

The phenomenon called SUBJECr HONORIACATION is widely recognized as a valid test for

subjecthood in Japanese (cf. Harada 1976, Shibatani 1977, among others):

58

59

(2) SUBJECf HONORIACATION

a. Sensei-ga Hanako-ni Taroo-o go-shookai-ninat-ta. teacher-sou Hanako-exr TarO-ACC aos-introduction-nox-wsr 'The teacher respectfully introduced Taro to Hanako.'

b. *Taroo-ga Hanako-ni sensei-a go-shookai-ninat-ta.

TarO-NOM Hanako-oxr teacher-Ace

'Taro respectfully introduced the teacher to Hanako.'

c. *Taroo-ga sensei-ni Hanako-o go-shookai-ninat-ta.

Taro-sea teacher-OAT Hanako-xcc

'Taro respectfully introduced Hanako to the teacher.'

The complex verb in these sentences, goshookaininatta 'introduced respectfully', is the honorific and past-tense counterpart of shookai-suru 'to introduce' and expresses the speaker's deference to the referent of the subject nominal.' Note that these sentences contain three participants: sensei 'teacher' and two students, Taroo and Hanako, As the relative social status of a teacher is higher than that of students, the teacher must be paid deference to, not the students. In (2)a, the teacher is the subject, and the honorific verb correctly expresses deference to him. In (2)b and (2)c, however, the teacher is the direct or the indirect object, and the honorific verb can only be interpreted as expressing deference to the subject, Taroo, resulting in ungramrnaticality.J

2.4. Reflexive Binding

Another widely-accepted test for subjecthood in Japanese is reflexive binding.I The reflexive pronounjibun can only be interpreted as coreferential with the subject nominal. Ob-

serve (3), from Shibatani (1977:791):

'The internal structure of goshookaininatta is as follows: go is an honorific prefix for nominals, which modifies shookai, a Sino-Japanese noun meaning "introduction"; ni is the familiar dative case marker; nat is an allomorph of the verb nar, which means "to become"; and ta is the past-tense marker. Thus the entire complex verb literally means something akin to "became an honorable introduction".

60

(3) REFLEXIVE BINDING

Tarooj-ga Hanalcoro jibunjJ*rno heya-de shikatta.

TarO-NOM Hanako-xcc self-of room-in scolded

'Taroj scolded Hanak0j in selfjJ*j's room:

In the example, the event of scolding can only be interpreted as taking place in Taro's (subject) room, and not in Hanako's (direct object) room.

2.5. Sentence Coordination

In the sentence coordination test, "[b [oth the controller and the gap must occur in subject position" (Shibatani 1990:282):

2It is to be noted here that there is another type of honorification referred to as OBJECTHONORIFICATION or NON-SUBJECT HONORIACATION, which is distinct from subject honorification under discussion:

(i) NON-SUBJECT HONORIFlCATlON

a. Taroo-ga Hanako-ni sensei-o go-shookai-shi-ta.

TarO-NOM Hanako-oxr teacher-sec HON-introduction-do-PAST 'Taro humbly introduced the teacher to Hanako.'

b. Taroo-ga sensei-ni Hanako-o go-shookai-shi-ta.

TarO-NOM teacher-OAT Hanako-xcc

'Taro humbly introduced Hanako to the teacher:

(i)a and (i)b are the grammatical, non-subject honorification counterparts of the ungrammatical (2)b and (2)c above, respectively. The two sentences express deference to sensei, marked with the accusative 0 in (i)a and the dative ni in (i)b, by humbling the action taken by the subject Taroo. The term "honorification" and the symbol "HON" will refer to "subject" honorification, unless otherwise noted, throughout the dissertation. For a detailed discussion of the honori fication phenomena, see Harada (1976).

3There are some sentences where the reflexive pronoun is apparently controlled by a non-subject. A detailed examination of these cases will be offered later in Section 2.8. It will be established, despite some ostensible counterexamples, that reflexive binding is a valid test for subjecthood in Japanese. For a detailed discussion of the phenomenon in general, readers are referred to Inoue (1976), McCawley (1976), Sells (1987), and lida (1996), among others.

61

(4)a. SENTENCE CooRDlNATION

Hahaoya-ga kodomo-o shikat-te "naita. mother-sow child-Ace scold-and cried 'The mother scolded the child, and 0 cried.'

b. Kodomo-ga sowatsui-te hahaoya-ga e shikatta.

child-NOM fidgeted-and mother-sou scolded

'*The child fidgeted. and the mother scolded.'

In (4 ja, the gap in the second clause is construed as coreferential only with the subject of the first clause. In (4)b. the object gap is not allowed in the same way as the subject gap is in (4)a.4

Shibatani, however. does not establish that all and only subjects control the gap. I claim

that certain non-subjects can control the gap and that certain subjects cannot:

(5) GAPS NOT CONTROLLED BY SUBJECT

a. Kodomo-wa hahaoya-ga shikat-te e ruuta.

child-TOP mother-sou scold-and cried

'The child. the mother scolded him. and 0 cried.'

b. *Hahaoya-ni-wa kodomo-ga shikar-are-te "naita.

mother-by-roe child-NOM scold-PAss-and cried

'By the mother. the child was scolded, and cried.'

In (5)a. the gap can only be controlled by the topicalized direct object kodomo 'child'; in (5)b, the gap cannot be controlled by any nominal in the sentence. i.e. not by the topic hahaoya 'mother' or the subject kodomo 'child'. Thus. this test seems to have more to do

4The asterisk given to the translation. and not to the Japanese sentence. is intended to indicate that the sentence is not acceptable with the intended meaning expressed by the translation. The sentence is perfectly grammatical if it is interpreted to mean "Because the child fidgeted. the mother scolded" with the connective -te interpreted to express cause. Shibatani, however, does not make it clear how one should distinguish the two usages of -te. i.e. the serial and causal senses. in a consistent manner, and the difficulty of the differentiation task greatly reduces the reliability of the phenomenon as a test for subjecthood.

62

with topicality than with subjecthood; and it will not be adopted as a subjecthood test for

Japanese in this dissertation.

2.6. PRO and PRoarb

Let us next examine a test involving PRO and PRoarb. Shibatani (1990:284) defines them as follows. "PRO is typically controlled by a noun phrase of a higher clause. And arbitrary

PRO, PRoarb, occurs only in a semantically tenseless clause, and its reference is arbitrary as

is one of the uses of the English pronoun one." Examine the examples below:

(6) PRO

a. Bokui-wa [PROj iku] tsumori-da.

I-TOP go intend-be

'Ij intend to (PROj) go.'

b. Bokui-wa Taroo-ni [PROj iku] yooni itta.

I-TOP Taro-DAT go as told

'Ij told Taro to (PROj) go.'

(7) PRoarb

a. [PRoarb hito-o tasukertt] koto-wa yoi koto-da

person-Ace help that-TOP good thing-be

To (PRoarb) help people is a good thing.'

b. [PROj kono michi-o iku] to, PRoarbj eki-ni tsukimasu.

this street-Ace go if railroad.station-to arrive

'If PROj takes this street, PRoarbj will reach the railroad station.'

In (6). PRO appears as the subject of the embedded clause and is coreferential with the subject of the main clause. In (7), PRoarb is found instead of PRO and it refers to any applicable individual, not to any specific one.

Shibatani claims that PRO and PRoarb only occur in subject position. In other words, unlike (6) and (7), the following are not possible with the PRO reading:

63

(8) PRO AND PRoarb IN SUBJECf POSmON ONLY

a. "Bokus-wa [sensei-ga PROj homeru] yooni shikunda.

I-TOP teacher-NOM praise as schemed

'Ij schemed in such a way that the teacher will praise PROj.'

b. *[Kimi-ga PRoarb tasukerui-no-wa yoi koto-da.

YOU-NOM help-NML-TOP good thing-be

'For you to help PRoarb is a good thing.'

Although PRO and PROarb are useful to determine the grammatical status of a nominal in intransitive and transitive sentences as illustrated here, their applicability in the construe-

tions to be examined in this dissertation, i.e. the dative-nominative and double-nominative

constructions (cf. Chapters IV-VI), is limited: it is not possible to construct sentences with these items in any of these constructions.f For this reason, PRO and PRoarb will not be adopted as a subjecthood test in this dissertation.

2.7. Quantifier Float

Let us next discuss quantifier float, the last of Shibatani's subjecthood tests. He states that "[i]n Japanese, not only subject noun phrases but also direct object noun phrases float quantifiers, but the indirect object and the obliques do not" (Shibatani 1990:286). This is

5For example, PRO cannot be used in the dative-nominative construction (cf. Chapter IV), because the predicates that allow PRO require a perfective verb in the embedded clause, which cannot occur in the construction:

(i) PRO IN DATIVE-NoMINATIVE CONSTRUCTION

"Boku-wa Hanako-ni [PROj kodomo-ga aru] yooni ilia.

I-TOP Hanako-DAT child-NOM exist.INANIM as told

'Ij told Hanako to (PROj) have a child.'

In this sentence, the embedded verb aru can only express a state (i.e. the state of being in possession of a child) and not an action (i.e. the action of giving birth to a child). Thus its intended subject Hanako cannot be construed as capable of bringing out the event described in the embedded clause, although the main-clause predicate ilia 'told' requires such capability.

64

observed in the following data, where a quantifier (san-nin 'three people' or san-satsu 'three bound volumes'), floats away from the subject and the direct object as shown in (9) and (10), respectively, but not from the indirect object or the oblique as shown in (II) and (12), respectively:

(9) FROM SUBJECf

a. San-nin-no kodomotachi-ga ima hon-o yon-deiru.

3-person-of children-NOM now book-sec read-PROG

'Three children are reading books now.'

b. kodomotachi-ga ima son-nin hon-o yondeiru.

children-xosr now 3-person

( 10) FROM OBJECf

a. kodomotachi-ga san-satsu-no hon-o asokode von-deiru.

children-NOM 3-bound. volume-of book-sec over. there read-saoo

'The children are reading three books over there.'

b. kodomotachi-ga hon-o asoko-de son-sotsu yon-deiru.

book-sec over. there 3-bound. volume

( I I ) FROM [NOIRECf OBJECf

a. Boku-wa san-nin-no kodomotachi-ni hon-o yatta.

[-TOP 3-person-of children-ncr book-Ace gave

'I gave books to three children.'

b. *Boku-wa kodomotachi-ni san-nin hon-o yatta.

children-ncr 3-person

( 12) FROM OBLIQUE

a. Boku-wa san-nin-no kodomotachi-kara hon-o moratta.

[-TOP 3-person-of children-from book-sec got

'I got books from three children.'

b. * Boku-wa kodomotachi-kara son-nin hon-o moratta.

children-from 3-person

65

However, the facts are not as clear-cut as Shibatani makes them out to be. First, certain

subjects do not allow quantifier float, as he himself notes in his earlier work (Shibatani

1977):6

(13) SUBJECf NOT ALLowING FLOAT

*Gakusei-ni fUlIlri Furansugo-ga dekiru. (koto)

student-ncr 2.people French-NOM be.possible

'(that) two students are fluent in French', lit., '(that) French is possible to two students'

The quantifier futari 'two people' cannot float from the sentence-initial nominal gakusei 'student' in (13), although subject honorification and reflexive binding indicate that this

nominal is the subject:

(14)a.

SUBJECT HONORIFICATION

sensei-ni Furansugo-ga o-deki-ninaru (koto)

teacher-OAT French-NOM aosr-be.possible-nox

'(that) the teacher is respectfully fluent in French'

b. REFLEXIVE BINDING

Kenj-ni Furansugo-ga jibunj-no shitteiru gaikokugo-no nakade Ken-OAT French-xoxt self-of know foreign.language-of among

ichiban dekiru (koto)

most be.possible

'(that) Ken, is most fluent in French among the foreign languages self knows'

6Shibatani (1977:799-802) claimed that certain phenomena are not controlled by grammatical relations, but by surface morphological cases and that quantifier float in Japanese is triggered by nominals marked by the nominative ga or the accusative 0, but not by the dative ni, irrespective of their grammatical status. In his later work (Shibatani 1990), he apparently changed his positions and attempted to explicate the phenomenon solely in terms of grammatical relations. He proposes a hierarchy of major grammatical relations ("SU > DO > 10 > OBL"), akin to Keenan & Comrie's (1977) accessibility hierarchy, and states that "the phenomenon of 'quantifier float' (or adverbialization of quantifiers) draws the line of applicability between the direct object and the indirect object". He does not offer any explanation of apparent counterexamples such as (13), which were the very basis of his earlier claim for morphological control.

66

In (14)a, the dative nominal sensei controls subject honorification and in (l4)b, the dative nominal Ken can be interpreted as coreferential with the reflexive pronoun.

It is not the case, however, that all dative nominals do not permit quantifier float, for

some do (cf. Inoue 1978a:172-73):

(15) DATlVE ALLOWING FLOAT

a. Kinoo yuuenchi-de uma-ni ni-too notta.

yesterday amusement.park-in horse-ncr 2-animal rode 'I rode two horses in an amusement park yesterday:

b. Kinoo hon 'ya-de shiriai-ni futari alta.

yesterday bookstore-in acquaintance-DAT two.people met' 'I met two acquaintances in a bookstore yesterday:

In (15)a and (15)b, where the verb describes a change of position or reciprocal confronta-

tion, respectively. a quantifier can float from the dative nominal.

Therefore. it is unfortunately the case that some subjects do not permit quantifier float

(cf. 14) and that direct objects (cf, 10) and even certain indirect objects (cf. 15) permit the

float. For this reason, quantifier float is not adopted as a subjecthood test in this dissertation.

2.S. More on Reflexive Binding

In Section 2.4, it was mentioned that reflexive binding is a valid test for subjecthood in Japanese. However, it has been demonstrated that purely syntactic analyses based only on

the subjecthood condition are inadequate to account for the whole range of data concerning

reflexive binding (Kuno 1972, 1976, 1978; Kuroda 1973a; McCawley 1976; Kuno &

Kaburaki 1977; Kameyama 1984; Momoi 1985); i.e .• the simple statement that reflexive binding is controlled by the subject both over- and under-generalizes. To offer an example of overgeneralization. a sentence with the identical "grammatical" structure as an accept-

able sentence can be unacceptable for "pragmatic" reasons. Observe the following pair of

examples from Kuroda (1973a: 141):

67

( 16) OVERGENERALIZA nON

a. }onj-wa juu-nen-mae-ni Mearii-ga jibunj-o tazune-te leila ie-de John-roe ten-year-ago-in Mary-NOM self-ace visit-and came house-in ima-wa koofukuni kurashi-teimasu.

still-corer happily live.PROG

'John, now lives happily in the house where Mary came to visit self ten years ago.'

b. * }onj-wa juu-nen-mae-ni Mearii-ga jibunj-o tazune-te iIttl ie-de

went ima-wa koofukuni kurashi-teimasu.

'John, now lives happily in the house where Mary went to visit self ten years ago.'

The two sentences above are identical except the choice of the verb made in the embedded clauses: kita 'came' in (l6)a and itta 'went' in (l6)b. However, only the former is grammatical.

Examples of undergeneralization are offered by those sentences where reflexive bind-

ing is controlled by a non-subject. Observe the following examples from McCawley

(1976:97, 115):

(17) UNDERGENERALIZATION

a. Mearii-ga jibunj-o hihanshita koto-ga }onj-o uchinomesita.

Mary-xosa self-Ace criticized that-NOM John-Ace devastated 'The fact that Mary criticized self devastated John..'

b. }ibunj-ga gan-denakatta koto-ga Hiroshii-o yorokobaseta.

self-NOM cancer-be.NEG.PAST that-sov Hiroshi-Ace pleased

'the fact that self did not have cancer pleased Hiroshi].'

In these sentences, the reflexive jibun, placed in the embedded clause, is felicitously controlled by the direct object in the main clause.

2.S.1. lida

The previous analyses of reflexive binding that have recognized the significance of pragmatic binding have generally assumed the syntactic subjecthood condition as well that

68

operates independently of the pragmatic binding. lida (1996) is an attempt to integrate the two separate types of conditions with a single pragmatic condition utilizing the notion of

"perspecti ve":

(18) PRAGMATIC CONDITION

Each clause can only have one consistent perspective and the reflexive jibun can only be coreferential with it.

She claims that each sentence has a perspective, and a default perspective is offered by the subject of the clause. Such expressions as logophoric and deictic expressions can produce additional perspectives.

Given this, overgeneralization cases can be ruled out by perspective clashes: in the case of (l6)b above, the nominal Jon 'John' serves as perspective, being the subject of the main clause, but the deictic verb iku requires Mearii 'Mary', the subject of the embedded clause, to be the overall perspective instead, resulting in a clash. The undergeneralization cases in (17) above are grammatical, because emotional predicates such as uchinomesita 'devastated' and yorokobaseta 'pleased' can introduce their direct object playing the role of experiencer as a perspective independently of its grammatical status, and because there is no other perspective that conflicts with it: the subjects in (17) above do not create a perspective, be-

ing a nominalized clause.

Therefore, in the absence of an expression that can create a non-default perspective, reflexive binding can reliably be used as a test for subjecthood in Japanese.

2.8.2. A Cognitive-Grammar Analysis

Although her perspective-based analysis is a revealing one, Iida still needs to maintain

two distinct conditions: the pragmatic condition of perspective and the syntactic condition

of O-Binding:

69

(19) SYNTACfIC CONDITION

Jibun may not o-command its antecedent.

(19) is needed to explain the ungrammaticality of backward anaphora, illustrated below:

(20) BACKWARD ANAPHORA

* Jibunj-ga Hanakoj-ni Jiroo-no mujitsu-o satoshita.

self-NOM HanakO-DAT Jiro-of InnOCenCe-ACC convinced 'Self convinced Hanako, of Jiro's innocence:

Cognitive grammar, contrastively, offers an alternative analysis in which all the conditions can be stated in semantic/pragmatic terms by offering a semantic explanation for the ungrammaticality of the backward anaphora. The over- and under-generalization cases in ( 16) and (17) above can be accommodated by assuming that a perspective is a type of unique clause-level REFERENCE POINT (cf, Section 1.3.5.2) dictating the vantage point from

which the conceptualizer empathically views the clausal event.

To explain the ungrammaticality of Japanese backward anaphora as exemplified by (20), we only need to adopt van Hoek's (1995, (997) analysis of English anaphora (cf. Sec-

tion 1.3.5.2), wherein a pronoun's meaning requires it to be in the dominion of a currently active reference point, while use of a full noun phrase implies the need to (re)establish its referent in the discourse. She observes that, for purposes of pronominal anaphora, a subject acts as reference point with respect to other clausal complements, including an object and its modifiers. Likewise, an object acts as reference point with respect to other non-subject complements and their modifiers. This results in the judgments in (21), assuming corefer-

ence:

(21) ENGLISH ANAPHORA

a. The boy ate his dessert.

b. *He ate the boy's dessert.

70

c. I wrapped the baby in its blanket. d. *! wrapped it in the baby's blanket.

Sentences (21)b and (21)d are anomalous because the pronoun, which needs to be in the

dominion of a reference point, is instead specified by the grammar to be a reference point in relation to its supposed antecedent.

With respect to the Japanese reflexivejibun, we only need to state that the reflexive must be within the dominion of the perspective, with which it is coreferential. The ungrammaticality of (20) above is then straightforwardly explained by the fact that the reflexive is in

subject position and acts as reference point whose dominion contains the antecedent, instead of being within the dominion of its intended antecedent.?

7With respect to non-default perspectives introduced by logophoric and deictic expressions, we can state that these perspectives have a dominion that subsumes the entire clause. Thus the antecedents in (17) above have a clause-wide dominion subsuming the subject that contains the reflexive, although they function as direct object themselves.

CHAPTERm

The Semantic Structure of the Nominative-Accusative Construction

3.1. Introduction

This chapter examines the nominative-accusative construction and demonstrates that all

sentences with the nominative-accusative marking pattern code a DOUBLE-PARTICIPANT DIRECT

INTERRELATION. There exist two different ways to conceptualize an interrelation between two

entities: DIRECT and LA YERED INTERRELATIONS (cf. Section 1.1.1). In the direct interrelation. sketched in Fig. 3.1. entity El is construed as standing in relation Rl with entity ~; in the layered interrelation. sketched in Fig. 3.2. entity E2 is construed as standing in relation R2 by itself. with E2 and R2 constituting a higher-order entity E3• which stands in relation Rl with entity El. We will observe that the nominative-accusative construction schematically codes the former. i.e. the direct interrelation.

Fig. 3.1: Direct Interrelation

Fig. 3.2: Layered Interrelation

E3

---------,

rc-L__ R. I r.;-] __ R, I ~ ... __.. er- ... -_' I

1- I

Entity Higher-Order Entity - . _. Relation

o

E = Entity

R = Relation

We will specifically claim that the type of direct interrelation coded by the construction is a "double-participant" direct interrelation. which involves two participants directly relating to each other, as sketched in Fig. 3.3.

Fig. 3.3: Double-Participant Direct Interrelation

o Participant

71

72

At a lower level, we will demonstrate that the nominative-accusative construction codes

three more concrete schemas, all of which are INSTANTIATIONS of the higher-level SCHEMA in

Fig. 3.3 (cf, Section 1.3.2): agent-theme, experiencer-theme, and mover-space schemas. Observe the following examples:

(I )a. AGENT-THEME

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. TarO-NOM vase-Ace broke 'Taro broke the vase.'

b. EXPERIENCER- THEME

Taroo-ga kinoo satsujin-jiken-o mokugekishita.

Taro-NOM yesterday murder-incident-Ace witnessed 'Taro witness a murder yesterday.'

c. MOVER-SPACE

Taroo-ga kinoo Nihon-o tatta.

TarO-NOM yesterday Japan-Ace left 'Taro left Japan yesterday.'

An agent-theme sentence such as (I)a codes an energetic interaction between two participants; an experiencer-theme sentence such as (I)b expresses mental contact made by the subject with the object; and a mover-space sentence such as (I)c codes a change in spatial relation between two participants. We will claim that all these types of sentences code a di-

rect interrelation between two participants in one way or another.

3.2. The Agent-Theme Schema

When a nominative-accusative sentence describes an energetic interaction between two

participants, the energy recipient is affected as a result of this energy transmission, often resulting in a change of its internal state:

73

(2) AGENT-PATIENT

Taroo-ga kabin-o kowashita. Taro-xose vase-sec broke "Taro broke the vase:

In (2) above, the subject Taroo is the agent, and the object kabin 'vase' the patient. The sub-

ject exerts energy onto the patient and, as a result, the patient undergoes a change, e.g. breaks into pieces. Fig. 3.4 graphically represents this energy transfer. Participants are represented by small circles and the energy transfer between them by a double-line arrow. The resulting internal change of the patient is symbolized by a wavy-line arrow.

Fig. 3.4: Agent-Patient S<:bema

Q===-'4H8

Agent Patient

o Participant

===> Energy Transmission J\/\~ Change of State

A change described by the nominative-accusative construction can be more abstract and

may describe a psychological change, rather than a physical one:

(3) PSYCHOLOGICAL CHANGE

Hanako-ga Taroo-o semeta. Hanako-xost Taro-sec accused 'Hanako accused Taro:

(3) contains a verb semeru 'to accuse' and describes an event in which the accused individ-

ual undergoes a psychological change, e.g. getting depressed, as a result of the accusation. No physical change needs to be involved.

The energy recipient can also transform itself into another entity as a result of energy transmission. Observe (4), which contains the verb tsukuru 'to make':

74

(4) AGENT-CREATION

Hanako-ga sushi-o tsukutta. Hanako-xost sushi-sec made 'Hanako made sushi.'

The accusative participant sushi is not a recipient of the energy transmission. It is the ingredients, e.g. rice, vinegar, fish, and horseradish, that are actually manipulated by Hanako. However, the sentence focuses not on the transformation of the ingredients, but on the creation of a new entity that is brought into existence, i.e. an EFFECTUM (cf. Fillmore 1968:4). Fig. 3.5 represents this agent-effectum interaction.

Fig. 3.5: Agent-Effectum Schema

Effectum

Correspondence --\j,_" Change of State

Agent

The energy recipient can also be a mover rather than a patient, changing its location in

space. Observe (5):

(5) AGENT-MOVER

Taroo-ga hitoride piano-o ugokashita.

TarO-NOM alone piano-sec moved

'Taro moved the piano alone.'

In this example, the direct object piano only changes its spatial location and does not undergo any kind of internal change. Fig. 3.6 represents this agent-mover interaction.

Fig. 3.6: Agent-Mover Schema

o

Agent

;-o .... - ..... ~

Mover

-. Movement

Let us at this juncture reexamine the sentences with an agentive subject that we have

observed so far and see what similarity we can detect among them. We can state that all

75

these sentences code a direct interrelation between two participants. more specifically an

energetic interaction. whether the accusative nominal functions as patient. effectum, or

mover. Observe the AGENT-THEME schema sketched in Fig. 3.7. which represents this direct energetic interaction between two participants. In the figure. the semantic property of the accusative participant on the receiving end is only described schematically as a THEME. because it can assume any of the three roles.

Fig. 3.7: Agent-Theme Schema

O=;~O~

Agent Theme

====:> Energy Transmission - ... _. Schematic Relation

3.3. The Experiencer- Theme Schema

It is not the case. however. that nominative-accusative sentences always describe trans-

fer of energy initiated by an agent. In those sentences involving mental experience. such energy transfer is conspicuously missing:

(6) EXPERIENCER-ZERO (PERCEPTION)

a. Taroo-ga kinoo satsujin-jiken-o mokugekishita (koto) TarO-NOM yesterday murder-incident-sec witnessed

'(that) Taro witnessed a murder yesterday'

b. Hanako-ga kinoo ichinichijuu mukashi-no rekoodo-o kiita (koto)

Hanako-xosr yesterday all.day old.time-of record-Ace listened

'(that) Hanako listened to old records all day yesterday'

(7) EXPERIENCER-ZERO (IDEATION)

a. Taroo-ga sakki ashita-no shukudai-o omoidashita (koto) TarO-NOM a.while.back tomorrow-of homework-sec remembered

'(that) Taro remembered tomorrow's homework a while back'

b. Taroo-ga kinoo Hanako-no koto-o kangae-tei-ta (koto) TarO-NOM yesterday Hanako-of thing-Ace think-PROG-PAST

'(that) Taro was thinking of (things about) Hanako yesterday'