Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 37–59

Mood and Case: with special reference to genitive Case conversion in Kansai Japanese

Article

Abstract

This paper shows that, contrary to preceding studies, a dialect spoken in a western region of Japan (Kansai dialect) allows not only nominative Case, as is widely known in literature, but also accusative Case, to convert into genitive Case in a prenominal clause. We will call this phenomenon Accusative-Genitive conversion. This phenomenon has been little known in theoretical literature because of its limited occurrence. As our detailed survey reveals, this less-known Case conversion is possible only if some conditions on the clause in which the conversion appears are satisfied. We also demonstrate that those necessary conditions for Accusative-Genitive conversion are, indeed, deduced by some independently supported hypotheses under the Agree/Phase theory. Thus, Accusative-Genitive conversion is within the realm of the Agree/Phase theory, and the characteristic conditions on its occurrence, in turn, lend support to the recent syntactic theory. Our theory of this phenomenon further predicts that, if our mechanism serves as an independent mechanism for genitive-Case valuation, it will also function as converting nominative Case into genitive Case. It will be shown that this is indeed the Case, which strongly supports the validity of our mechanism in Kansai Japanese.

Keywords

Accusative-Genitive conversion Agree Phase Irrealis mood 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher, Nicholas, and Eric McCready. 2005. Modals and a compositional account of counter-factuals. Ms., University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  2. Asher Nicholas, McCready Eric (2007) Were, would, might and a compositional account of counterfactuals. Journal of Semantics 24: 93–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null subjects. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Barbosa Pilar (2009) Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63: 2–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1998. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie Bernard (1985) Tense. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Felser Claudia (1999) Verbal complement clauses: A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 2001. Feature sharing. Ms., Northeastern University.Google Scholar
  12. Fukui Naoki, Nishigauchi Taisuke (1992) Head-movement and Case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14: 1–36Google Scholar
  13. Haegeman, Liliane. 2009. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Ms., University of Ghent.Google Scholar
  14. Han Chung-Hye (2000) The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in Universal Grammar. Routledge, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Harada Shin-Ichi (1971) Ga-No conversion and idiolectal variation in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60: 25–38Google Scholar
  16. Hasegawa Nobuko (1985) On the so-called “zero pronouns” in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4: 289–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39, ed. Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky, 65–123. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  18. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpou to nihongo (Joo) [Transformational grammar and Japanese I]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
  20. Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. In Syntax and semantics 5, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. McCloskey James (2007) The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 825–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF Case-checking and minimal link condition. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, ed. Colin Phillips, 213–254. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  23. Ochi Masao (2001) Move-F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10: 247–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palmer Frank R. (2001) Mood and modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Semantic typology of indefinites. Ms., Moscow State University.Google Scholar
  26. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. PhD diss., MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Safir Kenneth J. (1985) Syntactic chains. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Shibatani Masayoshi (1990) The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanaka Hidekazu (2002) Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 637–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1993. L-relatedness and its parametric variation. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, ed. Colin Phillips, 377–399. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  31. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare-phrase structure theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics #7. MITWPL.Google Scholar
  32. Ura, Hiroyuki, and Shin’ya Asano 2007. Nihongo-no “taikaku-zokukaku koutai” to Agree/Phase riron-ni yoru Wh-itti bunseki [Accusative-Genitive conversion in Japanese and Wh-agreement analysis under the Agree/Phase theory]. Paper presented at the 134th meeting of the Linguistics Society of Japan, June 16–17, Reitaku University, Chiba, Japan.Google Scholar
  33. Watanabe Akira (1996a) Case absorption and Wh-agreement. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  34. Watanabe Akira (1996b) Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 373–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of HumanitiesKwansei Gakuin UniversityNishinomiyaJapan

Personalised recommendations