• Takao Gunji
  • Kôiti Hasida
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 68)


In our framework, adequate grammatical descriptions are expected to be ultimately achieved only by stating relationships among the three constituents in a local (minimum branching) phrase structure consisting of the mother (M), the head daughter (H), and the dependent daughter (D) as exhibited in (1.1): The structure shown in (1.1) virtually exhausts all the possible local configurations in Japanese. Apparent variety in phrase structure can be reduced to two fundamental structures: one in which the dependent daughter is a complement and the other where it is an adjunct. Thus, local phrase structures in Japanese are essentially of two types: complementation structure and adjunction structure.


Phrase Structure Subordinate Clause Generative Grammar Phrase Structure Grammar Head Feature 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    If transformations in some versions of generative grammar are interpreted as destructive (irreversible) operations on phrase structures, as is usually the case, these grammatical frameworks are, in our view, process-based.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    This is an extension of the adjunct feature in Gunji (1987) and the MOD feature in HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994). Unlike these features, we assume that both complements and adjuncts can have the dep feature. See the examples shown below.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Note that we assume set-valued valence features here. Alternatively, if the values of the valence features are ordered-list, the value of arg-st is the appended list of the respective lists (see Manning & Sag 1995).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    In the following, the features local, nonlocal, and valence are abbreviated as loc, nonloc, and val, respectively.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    This is a more general version of the complement extraction lexical rule in Pollard and Sag (1994, Ch. 9). Note that Japanese allows any element of subcat, including the subject, to be extracted.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    In the following, in order to save space, only the relevant portions of the feature structure will be shown, so that the feature hierarchy is not precisely represented.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    If the form of the structural principle is slightly different depending on the construction type, we will state it separately, allowing some redundancy in the statements. Alternatively, we could arrange the construction types in a hierarchical organization and let them inherit the common portion from the higher construction type, as in Sag (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The morphon feature principle is actually more complicated since Japanese allows scrambling among complements. We have adopted a linearization approach based on the idea of Dowty (1996) and Reape (1996), among others. See Gunji (forthcoming) for the precise formalization using sequence union instead of append.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takao Gunji
  • Kôiti Hasida

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations