Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 167–211 | Cite as

Syntactic predication in Japanese

  • Caroline Heycock
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that Japanese provides evidence for an independent syntactic relation of predication. Predication is shown to be an independent syntactic relation in two respects. First, evidence from the multiple nominative construction in Japanese and two constructions in English demonstrates that predication is independent of the thematic structure of heads: a phrase may be the subject of a syntactic predicate in the absence of θ-role assignment.

Second, it is argued that the subject—predicate relation is defined in configurational terms: a syntactic predicate is a maximal projection, and must have a subject in an external position. Consequently, complements of the verb cannot be syntactic subjects. This prediction is borne out by theDat-Nom constructions in Japanese, where the nominative argument is not a syntactic subject. These constructions are contrasted with apparently parallel constructions in German, the different behavior of which is argued to follow from the existence of a null expletive in this language.

Finally, on the basis of the data presented in the paper, a revision to the θ-Criterion is proposed.

Keywords

Thematic Structure Maximal Projection External Position Parallel Construction Theoretical Language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akmajian, Adrian and Chisato Kitagawa (1976) “Deep-Structure Binding of Pronouns and Anaphoric Bleeding,”Language 52, 61–77.Google Scholar
  2. Belletti, Adriana (1988) “The Case of Unaccusatives,”Linguistic Inquiry 19, 1–34.Google Scholar
  3. Belletti, Adriana (1990) “Generalized Verb-movement,” ms., Université de Genève—Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
  4. den Besten, Hans (1985) “The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German,” In Jindřich Toman (ed.),Studies in German Grammar, Studies in Generative Grammar 21, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 23–64.Google Scholar
  5. den Besten, Hans and Gert Webelhuth (1990) “Stranding,” in G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld (eds.),Scrambling and Barriers. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
  6. Browning, Marguerite (1987)Null Operator Constructions, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, Gregory (1977) “A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural,”Linguistics and Philosophy 3.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam (1977) “OnWh-Movement,” in Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian (eds.),Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam (1981)Lectures in Government and Binding, Studies in Generative Grammar 9, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam (1982)Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam (1986a)Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam (1986b)Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam (1991) “Economy of Derivation and Representation,” in Robert Freidin (ed.)Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 417–454.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam (1992) “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  15. Diesing, Molly (1988) “Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Constrast,” in M. Krifka (ed.),Genericity in Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen Conference.Google Scholar
  16. Diesing, Molly (1989) “Bare Plural Subjects, Inflection, and the Mapping to LF,” in Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee (eds.),Papers on Quantification. NSF Report, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Dubinsky, Stanley (1992) “Case Assignment to VP-adjoined Positions: Nominative Objects in Japanese,”Linguistics 30, 873–910.Google Scholar
  18. Farrell, Patrick (1992) “Null Noun Complements in English,”Linguistic Inquiry 23, 147–156.Google Scholar
  19. Fukui, Naoki (1986)A Theory of Category Projection and its Applications, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Haig, John (1980) “Some Observations on Quantifier Floating in Japanese,”Linguistics 18.Google Scholar
  21. Heycock, Caroline (1991) “Topics and Subjects in Germanic,” inProceedings of CLS 27, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  22. Heycock, Caroline and Beatrice Santorini (1992) “Head Movement and the Licensing of Nonthematic Positions,” inProceedings of WCCFL 11.Google Scholar
  23. Hoji, Hajime (1985)Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  24. Holmberg, Anders (1986)Word Order and Syntactic Features, PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
  25. Horn, Laurence (1981) “A Pragmatic Approach to Certain Ambiguities,”Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 321–358.Google Scholar
  26. Kameshima, Nanako (1989)The Syntax of Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  27. Kameyama, Megumi (1984) “Subjective/Logophoric Bound AnaphorZibun,” in J. Drogo et al. (eds.),Proceedings of CLS 20, Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, pp. 228–238.Google Scholar
  28. Kameyama, Megumi (1985)Zero Anaphora: The Case of Japanese, PhD disseration, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  29. Katada, Fusa (1991) “The LF Representation of Anaphors,”Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–313.Google Scholar
  30. Kayne, Richard (1984)Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Kitagawa, Chisato (1977) “A Review ofSyntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar,”Language 53, 452–457.Google Scholar
  32. Kratzer, Angelika (1989) “Stage-level and Individual-Level Predicates,” ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Kuno, Susumu (1972) “Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse,”Linguistic Inquiry 3, 161–195.Google Scholar
  34. Kuno, Susumu (1973a)The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Kuno, Susumu (1973b)Nihon Bunpoo Kenkyuu, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  36. Kuno, Susumu (1978) “Theoretical Perspectives on Japanese Linguistics,” in J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.),Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics Kaitakusha, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  37. Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki (1977) “Empathy and Syntax,”Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627–672.Google Scholar
  38. Kurata, Kiyoshi (1986) “Asymmetries in Japanese,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  39. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965)Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, PhD dissertation, MiT.Google Scholar
  40. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1970) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words LikeAlso, Even, or Only,” Annual Bulletin, Logopedics and Phoniatrics Research Institute, Tokyo University 4.Google Scholar
  41. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) “Case-marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns, and Counter Equi in Japanese,” in John Hinds et al. (eds.),Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha, Tokyo, pp. 30–51.Google Scholar
  42. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983) “What Can Japanese Say About Goverment and Binding? inProceedings of WCCFL 2. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  43. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1986a) “Movement of Noun Phrases in Japanese,” in Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito (eds.),Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 229–272.Google Scholar
  44. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1986b) “What Happened After the Movement of Noun Phrases in La Jolla,” in S.-Y. Kuroda (ed.),Working Papers from the First SDF Workshop in Japanese Syntax, UCSD: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  45. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese,”Linguisticae Investigationes 12 1–47.Google Scholar
  46. Lappin, Shalom (1984) “Predication and Raising,“ inProceedings of NELS 14, 236–252.Google Scholar
  47. Lasnik, Howard (1992) “Case and Expletives: Notes Toward a Parametric Account,”Linguistic Inquiry 23, 381–405.Google Scholar
  48. Mahajan, Anoop (1990)The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  49. Maling, Joan (1983) “Transitive Adjectives: A Case of Categorial Reanalysis,” in F. Heny and B. Richards (eds.),Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 253–389.Google Scholar
  50. Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989)Structure and Case Marking in Japanese, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Nakayama, Mineharu and Masatoshi Koizumi (1991) “Remarks on Japanese Subjects,”Lingua 85, 303–319.Google Scholar
  52. Perlmutter, David (1972) “Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French,” in P. M. Peranteau et al. (eds.),The Chicago Which Hunt, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  53. Platzack, Christer and Anders Holmberg (1989) “The Role of AGR and Finiteness in Some European VO Languages,” paper presented at the 1989 GLOW Colloquium, Utrecht. ms., University of Lund.Google Scholar
  54. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989) Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP,”Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  55. Postal, Paul (1974)On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  56. Rizzi, Luigi (1990) “Speculations on Verb-Second,” in Marina Nespor et al. (eds.),Grammar in Progress: a Festschrift for Henk van Riemsdijk, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 375–385.Google Scholar
  57. Rogers, Andy (1971) “Three Kinds of Physical Perception Verbs,” inProceedings of CLS 7, 206–222.Google Scholar
  58. Rogers, Andy (1974)Physical Perception Verbs in English, PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  59. Rothstein, Susan (1983)The Syntactic Forms of Predication, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  60. Rothstein, Susan (1989) “Syntactic Predication: A Syntactic Primitive or a Thematic Relation?” ms., Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
  61. Rothstein, Susan (1990) “Subjects, Predicates, and Saturation,” ms., Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
  62. Safir, Kenneth (1985) “Missing Subjects in German,” in Jindřich Toman (ed.),Studies in German Grammar, Studie in Generative Grammar 21, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 193–229.Google Scholar
  63. Saito, Mamoru (1982) “Case Markin in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  64. Saito, Mamoru (1983) “Comments on the Paper on Generative Syntax,” in Y. Otsu et al. (eds.),Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, ICU, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  65. Stito, Mamoru (1985)Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  66. Santorini, Beatrice (1989)The Generalization of the Verb-Second Constraint in the History of Yiddish, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  67. Santorini, Beatrice (1992a) “Two Types of Verb-Second Phenomenon in the History of Yiddish,” to appear in Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds.),Diachronic Aspects of the Verb-Second Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Santorini, Beatrice (1992b “Some Differences between Icelandic and Yiddish,” to appear in Norbert Hornstein (ed.),Proceedings of the University of Maryland Verb Movement Conference.Google Scholar
  69. Sells, Peter (1987) “Aspects of Logophoricity,”Linguistic Inquiry 18.Google Scholar
  70. Sells, Peter (1991) “Raising from Nominal Complements in Japanese,” Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the LSA, Chicago.Google Scholar
  71. Shibatani, Masayoshi (1977) “Grammatical Relations and Surface Case,”Language 53, 789–809.Google Scholar
  72. Shirai, K.-I. (1986) “Japanese Noun-Phrases and Particleswa andga” in J. Groenendijk et al. (eds.),Foundations of Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  73. Takezawa, Koichi (1987)A Configurational Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  74. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald (1986) “On Verb Second and the Functional Content of Syntactic Categories,” in Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn (eds.),Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
  75. Tateishi, Koichi (1988) “On the Universality of X-bar Theory: the Case of Japanese,” in Hagit Borer (ed.),Proceedings of WCCFL 7.Google Scholar
  76. Tateishi, Koichi (1989) “Subject, SPEC, and DP in Japanese” inProceedings of NELS 19.Google Scholar
  77. Teramura, H. (1982)Nihongo-no imi-to shintakusu, Vol. 2. Kuroshio Shuppan, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  78. Williams, Edwin (1980) “Predication,”Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.Google Scholar
  79. Williams, Edwin (1983) “Against Small Clauses,”Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287–308.Google Scholar
  80. Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff (1987) “Case in Tiers,”Language 63, 217–250.Google Scholar
  81. Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Höskuldur Thráinsson (1985) “Case and Grammatical Functions: the Icelandic Passive,”Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3, 441–483.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Heycock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations