Advertisement

Evidentiality, Experiencers, and the Syntax of sentience in Japanese

  • Carol L. TennyEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper examines some phenomena in Japanese related to predicates of direct experience, which seem to require an integration of speech act, first and second person, evidentiality, and long distance binding. These predicates restrict their experiencer subjects to first person in the declarative and second person in the interrogative; the restriction is lifted by clausal or lexical evidential markers; and the binding domain for the long-distance anaphor jibun is the same as the evidential domains that lift the person constraint. Most of these facts are not new in the literature, but this proposal to integrate these facts under one general account at the syntax/semantics/discourse interface is new. The paper proposes an integrated account of these facts in the context of a framework for a Syntax of Sentience, which includes sentience roles, functional projections relating to sentience, and morphosyntactic features encoding sentience properties. Each of these separate parts of the proposal arises independently out of a different thread of research. The fact that the syntax of sentience outlined here integrates such a range of facts and literatures is seen as a strength of the approach.

Keywords

Relative Clause Embed Clause Functional Projection Person Projection Discourse Participant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Akatsuka, Noriko. 1971“Psych Movement in Japanese and Some Crucially Related Syntactic Phenomena”Working Papers in Linguistics10834Google Scholar
  2. Ambar, Manuela (1999) “Aspects of Focus in Portuguese,” in Laurice Tuller and Georges Rebuschi (eds.), The Grammar of Focus, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 23–53.Google Scholar
  3. Ambar, Manuela (2003) “WH Asymmetries,” in Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 209–249.Google Scholar
  4. Aoki, Haruo. 1986“Evidentials in Japanese”Wallace, ChafeJohanna, Nichols. eds. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of EpistemologyAblex PublishingNorwood, NJ159167Google Scholar
  5. Asher, Nicolas and Eric McReady (2004) Modals, Emotives and Modal Subordination, ms., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing RulesUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Banfield, Ann. 1982Unspeakable SentencesRoutledge and Kegan PaulLondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellert, Irena. 1977“On Semantic and Distributional Properties of Sentential Adverbs”Linguistic Inquiry8337351Google Scholar
  9. Belletti, Adriana, Luigi, Rizzi. 1988“Psych Verbs and Theta Theory”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6291352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benveniste, Emile (1956) La Nature des Pronoms, in Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, Hugh MacLean and Cornelius H. van Schoonveld (eds.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 34–37 (1971). Translated as “The Nature of Pronouns,” Problems in General Linguistics, University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.Google Scholar
  11. Blain, Eleanor and Rose-Marie Dechaine (2005) “Evidential Marking Across the Cree Dialect Continuum,” ms., Brandon University and University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  12. Bloomfield Leonard. 1938 Language, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Reprinted (1984) by University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, Richard and Jack B. Martin (1989) “Sensation Predicates and the Syntax of Stativity,” Proceedings of the Eighth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 44–55.Google Scholar
  14. Cantrall, William. 1974View Point, Reflexives and the Nature of Noun PhrasesMoutonThe HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989Anaphora and Attitudes De SeRenate, BartschJohan, BenthemPeter, Emde Boas eds. Semantics and Contextual ExpressionForisDordrecht131Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1995The Minimalist ProgramMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic PerspectiveOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Clements, George. 1975“The Logophoric Pronoun in Ewe: Its Role in Discourse”Journal of West African Languages2141177Google Scholar
  19. Culy, Christopher. 1994“Aspects of Logophoric Marking”Linguistics3210551094Google Scholar
  20. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1994Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural LanguageCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Fillmore Charles, J. 1975Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, 1971Indiana University Linguistics ClubBloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Forchheimer, Paul. 1953The Category of Person in LanguageWalter de GruyterBerlinGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrett, Edward (2001) Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan, PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  24. Gartner, Hans-Martin and Markus Steinbach (2005) “A Skeptical Note on the Sntax of Speech Acts and Point of View,” ZAS Berlin and University of Mainz.Google Scholar
  25. Giorgi, A. 1984“Toward a Theory of Long Distance Anaphora: A GB Approach”Linguistic Review4307362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gunlogson, Christine. 2003True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in EnglishRoutledgeNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Hagège, Claude. 1974“Les Pronoms Logophoriques [Logophoric Pronouns]”Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris69287310Google Scholar
  28. Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser (1999) “Bound Features, Merge and Transitivity Alternations,” in Liina Pylkkanen, Angeliek van Hout and Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon,MITWPL35, 49–72.Google Scholar
  29. Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser (1998) “The Basic Elements of Argument Structure,” in Heidi Harley (ed.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect,MITWPL32, 73–118.Google Scholar
  30. Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser (1993) On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Halle, Morris (1997) “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission,” in Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis (eds.), PF: Papers at the Interface, MITWPL30, 425–449.Google Scholar
  32. Hanson, Rebecca (2003) Why Can’t We All Just Agree? Animacy and the Person Case Constraint, MA thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  33. Hara, Yurie (2004) “Implicature Computation and Attitude Predicates,” talk given at 16th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Nancy, France.Google Scholar
  34. Harley, Heidi, Elizabeth, Ritter. 2002“Person and Number in Pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis”Language8482526Google Scholar
  35. Hollebrandse, Bart and Thomas Roeper (1999) “Point of View Operators, Features and a Theory of Barriers,” Boston University Language Development Conference, Boston.Google Scholar
  36. Hopper, Joan B., Thompson, Sandra A. 1973“On the Applicability of Root Transformations”Linguistic Inquiry4465497Google Scholar
  37. Horie, Kaoru. 1997“Three Types of Nominalization in Modern Japanese: no, koto, and zero,”Linguistics35879894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. James, Huang C.-T., Luther, Liu. 2001“Logophoricity, Attitudes and ziji at the Interface”Peter, ColeJames Huang, C.-T.Gabriella, Hermon eds. Long Distance Reflexives Syntax and Semantics 33Academic PressNew York141195Google Scholar
  39. Iida, Masayo. 1996Context and Binding in JapaneseCSLI PublicationsStanfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Iida, Masayo, Peter, Sells. 1988“Discourse Factors in the Binding of zibun”Poser, W. J. eds. Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese SyntaxCSLIStanford2346Google Scholar
  41. Kameyama, Megumi. 1984“Subjective/Logophoric Bound Anaphor zibun”Drogo, J.Mishra, V.Testen, D. eds. Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics SocietyChicago Linguisics SocietyChicago228238Google Scholar
  42. Kamio, Akio. 1997Territory of InformationBenjaminsAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  43. Kamio, Akio 1991“Cleft Sentences and the Territory of Information”Carol, Georgopoulos eds. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.Y-KurodaKluwer Academic PublishersDordrecht353371Google Scholar
  44. Kamp, J. A.W. 1984“A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation”Groenendijk, J.Janssen, T.Stockhof, M. eds. Truth, Interpretation and InformationForisDordrecht141Google Scholar
  45. Katada, Fusa. 1988“What can Long-Distance Anaphora Say about Operator Systems of Syntax?”Carter, J.Dechaine, R. eds. Proceedings of NELS 19AmerstGLSA249263Google Scholar
  46. Koopman, Hilda, Dominique, Sportiche. 1989“Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe,”Linguistic Inquiry20555588Google Scholar
  47. Koster, JanReuland, Eric. eds. 1991Long-Distance AnaphoraCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuno, Susumu. 1973The Structure of the Japanese LanguageMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. Kuno, Susumu. 1972“Pronominalization, Reflexiviation, and Direct Discourse,”Linguistic Inquiry3161195Google Scholar
  50. Kuno, Susumu, Etsuko, Kaburaki. 1977“Empathy and Syntax”Linguistic Inquiry8627672Google Scholar
  51. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1973“Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammar Meet: A Case Study from JapaneseStephen, AndersonPaul, Kiparsky. eds. A Festschrift for Morris HalleHolt Rinehart and WinstonNew York377391Google Scholar
  52. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  53. Larson Richard. (2004). “Sentence-Final Adverbs and ‘Scope’,”. In: Matthew Wolf, Keir Moulton. (eds). Proceedings of NELS 34. pp, 23–43Google Scholar
  54. Larson, Richard. 1988“On the Double Object Construction”Linguistic Inquiry19335391Google Scholar
  55. Maling, Joan. 1984“Non-Clause-Bounded Reflexives in Icelandic”Linguistics and Philosophy7211241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maynard Senko, K. 1999“Grammar, with Attitude: On the Expressivity of Certain da Sentences in Japanese”Linguistics37215250Google Scholar
  57. McGloin Naomi, Hanaoka. 1980“Some Observations Concerning no desu Expressions”Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese15117149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Minkoff, Seth (1994) How Some So-Called “Thematic Roles” That Select Animate Arguments are Generated, and How These Roles Inform Binding and Control, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  59. Mitchell, Jonathan (1986)The Formal Semantics of Point of View, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  60. Miyagawa Shigeru, Mari Nakamura. (1991). “The Logic of Kara and Node in Japanese”. In: Carol Georgopoulos, Ishihara R. (eds). Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 435–448Google Scholar
  61. Noyer, Robert Rolf (1992) Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  62. Partee, Barbara H. (1989) “Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts,” Papers from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part One, The General Session, 342–365.Google Scholar
  63. Perlmutter David, M., Paul, Postal M. 1984“The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law”Perlmutter, David M.Rosen, Carol G. eds. Studies in Relational Grammar 2University of Chicago PressChicago81125Google Scholar
  64. Pesetsky, David. 1995Zero Syntax: Experiencers and CascadesMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  65. Pesetsky, David. 1987“Binding Problems with Experiencer Verbs”Linguistic Inquiry18126140Google Scholar
  66. Postal, Paul. 1970“On the Surface Verb Remind ”Linguistic Inquiry137120Google Scholar
  67. Postal, Paul. 1971Cross-Over PhenomenaHolt Reinhart and WinstonNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Potts, Christopher. 2005The Logic of Conventional ImplicaturesOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Reinhart, Tanya, Eric, Reuland. 1993“Reflexivity”Linguistic Inquiry24657720Google Scholar
  70. Ritter Elizabeth Heidi Harley. (1998). “Sorting Out You, Me, and the Rest of the World: A Feature-Geometric Analysis of Person and Number,” paper presented at GLOW, University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
  71. Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994“Clause Structure and V-movement in the Languages of the BalkansNatural Language and Linguistic Theory1263120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997“The Fine Structure of the Left-Periphery”Liliane, Haegeman. eds. Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative SyntaxKluwerDordrecht281337Google Scholar
  73. Ross, John R. 1970“On Declarative Sentences”Jacobs, Roderick A.Rosenbaum, Peter S. eds. Readings in English Transformational GrammarGinnWaltham, MA12Google Scholar
  74. Saito, Mamoru, Hajime, Hoji. 1983“Weak Crossover and Move a in Japanese”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory1245259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sawada, Miyuki and Richard K. Larson (2004) Presuppositions and Root Transforms in Adjunct Clauses, ms., Ming Chuan University and Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  76. Sells, Peter. 1987“Aspects of Logophoricity”Linguistic Inquiry18445479Google Scholar
  77. Simpson, Andrew (1998) “Empty Determiners and Nominalization in East Asia,” paper presented at the Symposium on Diachronic and Synchronic Studies of Syntax of East Asian Languages, University of Southern California, November 6–8, 1998.Google Scholar
  78. Speas, Margaret (to appear), “Evidentiality, Logophoricity and the Syntactic Representation of Pragmatic Features,” presented at University College London Workshop on the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface, forthcoming in Lingua.Google Scholar
  79. Speas, Peggy, Carol, Tenny. 2003“Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles”Anna Maria, DiSciullo eds. Asymmetry in GrammarJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam315344Google Scholar
  80. Stowell Tim. (1986). “Psych-Movement in the Mapping from D-Structure to Logical Form” GLOW abstract.Google Scholar
  81. Takubo Yukinori, Satoshi Kinsui. (1997). “Discourse Management in Terms of Mental Spaces” Journal of Pragmatics 28, 741–758.Google Scholar
  82. Tenny, Carol (2004) Short Distance Pronouns in Representational Noun Phrases and the Grammar of Sentience, ms., Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  83. Tsoulas, George and Murat Kural (1998) “Indexical Pronouns as Bound Variables,” in Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen and Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 545–557.Google Scholar
  84. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995“An F Position in Western Romance”Kiss, Katelin E. eds. Discourse Configurational LanguagesOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  85. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989“Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse”Language65695727CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carol L. TennyPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations