Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 965–1026 | Cite as

Aspectual verbs as functional heads: evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs

Article

Abstract

A novel analysis of aspectual verbs is proposed according to which aspectual verbs are heads of functional projections rather than main verbs taking clausal complements. As a case study, four Japanese aspectual verbs are analyzed: those that express inception (hajime- ‘begin’), continuation (tsuzuke- ‘continue’), and termination (oe- ‘finish’, and owar- ‘end’). Employing data from previous studies, Japanese aspectual verbs are shown to exhibit the following two characteristic behaviors: (i) they occasionally exhibit mono-clausal properties, and (ii) they impose different selectional restrictions on their verbal complements. These behaviors are characteristic of aspectual verbs cross-linguistically. This paper argues that these behaviors of Japanese aspectual verbs are accounted for if they are analyzed as heads of aspect phrases, the functional heads that encode aspectual information about events. In particular, it is proposed that (a) aspect heads occur in two positions in a clause, where they select for syntactic realizations of different event types, and (b) individual aspectual verbs are distributed differently between these two head positions based on the event types they select. The proposed analysis is shown to account for previously unaccounted for correlations between passivizability of the aspectual verbs and the event types of the verbal complements, as well as interactions between the Japanese aspectual verbs, subject honorification, and the focus particle -dake ‘only’. Finally, cross-linguistic data from previous studies on aspectual verbs in German, Italian and other Romance languages, and Basque are discussed and shown to provide further support for the proposed analysis.

Keywords

Aspectual verbs Aspect phrases Restructuring Long passive Verbal aspect Japanese 

References

  1. Agbayani, Brian, and Chandra Shekar. 2008. Restructuring and clausal architecture in Kannada. In Clever and right: Linguistic studies in honor of Joseph Emonds, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy Wilkins, 8–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  2. Aissen, Judith, and David M. Perlmutter. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Proceedings of the 2nd annual meeting of the Berkley linguistics society, 1–30. Berkeley: BLS. Google Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith, and David M. Perlmutter. 1983. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Studies in relational grammar, Vol. 1, ed. David M. Perlmutter, 360–403. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  4. Arregi, Karlos, and Gainko Molina-Azaola. 2004. Restructuring in Basque and the theory of agreement. In The proceedings of WCCFL, Vol. 23, eds. Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser, 101–114. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  5. Bader, Markus, and Tanja Schmid. 2009. Minimality in verb-cluster formation. Lingua 199: 1458–1481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415. Google Scholar
  7. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson, and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251. Google Scholar
  8. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susie Wurmbrand. 2007. Complex predicates, aspect, and antireconstruction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16: 27–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Kazuko Yatsushiro. 2006. Problem with honorification-as-agreement in Japanese: A reply to Boeckx and Niinuma. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 355–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boeckx, Cedric, and Fumikazu Niinuma. 2004. Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 453–480. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Functional projections: University of Massachusetts occasional papers 17, eds. Elena Benedicto and Jeffry Runner, 19–48. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  13. Borer, Hagit. 1998. Deriving passive without theta roles. In Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, eds. Steven Lapointe, Dian Brentari, and Patrick Farrell, 60–99. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  14. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brinton, Laurel L. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giuliana Guisti. 2001. Semi-lexical motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. In Semi-lexical categories, eds. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 371–414. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phase. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freiden, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 113–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  23. Chung, Sandra. 2004. Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro. Syntax 7: 199–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2003. The interaction of passive, causative, and ‘restructuring’ in Romance. In The syntax of Italian dialects, ed. Christina Tortora, 50–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2004. Restructuring” and functional structure. In Structures and beyond; The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 3, ed. Adriana Belletti, 132–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Csirmaz, Aniko. 2009. Scales, verbs and verbal modifiers. Ms., University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Google Scholar
  28. de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen. Google Scholar
  29. den Dikken, Marcel, Yang Gu, and Jie Guo. 2010. Positively comparative. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center, New York City. Google Scholar
  30. Diesing, Molly. 1998. Light verbs and the syntax of aspect in Yiddish. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 119–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer, Susan, and Byron A. Marshall. 1968. The examination and abandonment of the theory of begin by D.M. Perlmutter as …. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Circle. Google Scholar
  33. Freed, Alice F. 1979. The semantics of English aspectual complementation. London: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fukuda, Shin. 2006. An experimental look at interactions between passives and Japanese aspectual verbs. In Proceedings of the second annual international conference on East Asian linguistics, eds. David Potter and Dennis Ryan Storoshenko. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  35. Givón, Talmy. 1973. The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49: 890–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Semantic structure and semantic content: A preliminary note. In Early cognition and the transition to language, ed. C. Smith, 1–11. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar
  37. Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  38. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: A festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and Jay Keyser, 53–108. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  39. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Harada, Shinichi I. 1976. Honorifics. In Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani, 499–561. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  41. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  42. Hay, Jennifer. 1998. The non-uniformity of degree achievements. Ms., Northwestern University, Evanston. Google Scholar
  43. Hay, Jennifer, Chris Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In SALT, Vol. 9, eds. Tanya Matthews and Devon L. Strolovitch, 199–223. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  44. Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  45. Horn, Laurence. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In The proceedings from the fifth annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, eds. Robert Binnik et al., 98–107. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  46. Inoue, Kazuko. 2005. Case (with special reference to Japanese). In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. doi:10.1002/9780470996591.ch11. Google Scholar
  47. Ippolito, Michela. 2007. On the meaning of only. Journal of Semantics 25: 45–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacobson, Wesley M. 1982. Vendler’s verb classes and the aspectual character of Japanese te-iru. In Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, eds. Monica Macauly and Orin Gensler, 373–383. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  49. Jacobson, Wesley M. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Google Scholar
  50. Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bumpo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hitsuji shoboo. Google Scholar
  51. Kageyama, Taro. 1999. Word formation. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Natsuko Tsujimura, 297–325. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  52. Kayne, Richard S. 1989. Null subjects and clitic climbing. In The null subject parameter, eds. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir, 239–262. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kindaichi, Kyosuke. 1976. Nihongo dooshi no asupekuto [Aspect of Japanese verbs]. Tokyo: Mugi shoboo. Google Scholar
  54. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2007. Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua 117: 247–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Nominative objects: The role of TP in Japanese. In Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics, Vol. 1, eds. Masatoshi Koizumi and Hiroyuki Ura, 211–230. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  56. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  57. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1998. Invisible agree in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 15: 1–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. On external arguments. In Functional projections: University of Massachusetts occasional papers 17, eds. Elena Benedicto and Jeffry Runner, 103–130. Amherst: GSLA. Google Scholar
  59. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johnn Rooryck and Laurie Zariing, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  60. Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Honorific marking in Japanese and the word formation hypothesis of causatives and passives. Studies in Language 11(1): 99–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport-Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  62. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2000. “Postverbal” subjects and the mapping hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 691–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2006. The syntax of inner aspect. PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook. Google Scholar
  64. MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2008. Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 128–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘word’. Tokyo and Stanford: Kuroshio and CSLI. Google Scholar
  66. McClure, William T. 1995. Syntactic projections of the semantics of aspect. Tokyo: Hitsuji shoboo. Google Scholar
  67. McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 42: 523–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  69. Moore, John. 1996. Reduced constructions in Spanish. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  70. Moore, John. 1998. Object control restructuring in Spanish. Ms., University of California, San Diego. Google Scholar
  71. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1981. Semantic interpretation vs. lexical governance: Clitic climbing in Italian. Language 57: 841–887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nelson, Diane. 2003. Case and event structure in Finnish psych predicates. In New perspectives in Case theory, eds. Ellen Brandner and Heike Zinsmeister, 191–221. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  73. Newmeyer, Frederic J. 1975. English aspectual verbs. Paris: Mouton. Google Scholar
  74. Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1993. Long distance passive. In Japanese syntax in comparative grammar, ed. Nobuko Hasegawa, 79–114. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Google Scholar
  75. Nishiyama, Kunio, and Yoshiki Ogawa. 2009. Atransitivity and auxiliation in Japanese V-V compounds: Implications for thematic structures and restructuring. Ms., Ibaraki University and Tohoku University, Mito and Sendai. Google Scholar
  76. Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Remarks on the scope of nominative objects in Japanese. In Proceedings of the sixth Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 269–292. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo. Google Scholar
  77. Perlmutter, David M. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  78. Perlmutter, David M. 1970. The two verbs begin. In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 107–119. Waltham: Blaisdell. Google Scholar
  79. Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th annual meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, 157–189. Berkeley: BLS. Google Scholar
  80. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  81. Ramchand, Gillian C. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  82. Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Reis, Marga, and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 2004. Review article of “Suzanne Wurmbrand, Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure”. Linguistics 42(2): 469–508. Google Scholar
  84. Roberts, Ian. 1987. The representation of implicit and dethematized subjects. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head–complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267–310. Google Scholar
  86. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Rosen. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, eds. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  87. Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Samuel J. Keyser, 113–158. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  88. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  89. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  90. Roberts, Ian. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–460. Google Scholar
  91. Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rochette, Anne. 1999. The selection properties of aspectual verbs. In Beyond principles and parameters: Essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli, eds. Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts, 145–165. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  93. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1990. Argument structure and complex predicates. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  94. Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  95. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Where morphology and syntax clash: A case in Japanese aspectual verbs. Gengo Kenkyu 64: 65–96. Google Scholar
  96. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Google Scholar
  97. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  98. Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  99. Strozer, Judith R. 1976. Clitics in Spanish. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  100. Suzuki, Tatsuya. 1989. A syntactic analysis of an honorific construction o-ni naru under the DP hypothesis: Towards a unified theory of honorification. In Proceedings from WCCFL, Vol. 8, eds. Jane Fee and Kathryn Hunt, 384–398. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  101. Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Takita, Kenichi. 2006. Japanese honorifics: Its syntax and morphology. Mita: Keio University, MA Thesis. Google Scholar
  103. Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Teramura, Hiedo. 1984. Nihongo no sintakusu toiImi II [Japanese syntax and meaning II]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Google Scholar
  105. Thompson, Ellen. 2005. Time in natural language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  106. Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 1990. Specifier-head agreement in Japanese. In Proceedings from WCCFL, Vol. 9, ed. Aaron Halpern, 535–548. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  107. Travis, Lisa M. 1991. Derived object, inner aspect, and structure of VP. Paper presented at NELS 22, October 1991. Google Scholar
  108. Travis, Lisa M. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, eds. Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, 145–185. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  109. Travis, Lisa M. 2005. Inner aspect. Ms., McGill University, Montreal. Google Scholar
  110. Van Hout, Angeliek. 2000. Projection based on event structure. In Lexical specification and insertion, eds. Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 403–427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  111. Van Valin, Robert D., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Verkuyl, Henk. J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  113. Verkuyl, Henk. J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Verkuyl, Henk. J. 1999. Aspectual issues: Studies on time and quantity. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  115. Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO in NP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 277–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wurmbrand, Suzanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  117. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. Two types of restructuring-lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114(8): 991–1014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zagona, Karen. 1982. Government and proper government of verbal projections. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of East Asian Languages and LiteraturesUniversity of Hawai‘i at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations