Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:08:47.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The scope interpretation of complex predicates in Japanese: A unified lexicalist analysis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2007

YUSUKE KUBOTA
YUSUKE KUBOTA*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, 225 Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1298, U.S.A. E-mail: kubota@ling.osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes a unified analysis of adverb scope and quantifier scope phenomena in a lexicalist approach to complex predicates. I first observe that the availability of scope ambiguity for adverbs and for quantifiers always coincides for a given type of complex predicate, drawing on data from different kinds of compound verb constructions, the verbal noun-taking predicates and the nominative object construction. The challenge for a unified treatment in lexicalist frameworks comes from the fact that syntactic structures cannot be taken as the locus for representing the scope of adverbs and quantifiers, unlike in derivational frameworks where such an analysis is the most natural. Thus, a previous lexicalist analysis by Manning, Sag & Iida (1999) makes use of completely different mechanisms to account for adverb scope and quantifier scope, failing to capture the close parallel between them. I remedy this problem of Manning et al.'s analysis by proposing a unified account of adverb scope and quantifier scope that crucially makes use of a slightly enriched semantic representation explicitly encoding the property of mono-/biclausality with respect to scopal phenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , November 2007 , pp. 489 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cipollone, Domenic. 2001. Morphologically complex predicates in Japanese and what they tell us about grammar architecture. In Michael, W. Daniels, David, Dowty, Anna, Feldman & Vanessa, Metcalf (eds.), Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 56, 1–52. [Available at http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/publications/osu_wpl/osuwpl-56/]Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory, vol. 21 of Synthese Language Library – Text and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht, Boston & London: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 4, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 205–232.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian & Ronald, M. Kaplan. 1995. Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Mary, Dalrymple, Ronald, Kaplan, John, T. MaxwellIII & Annie, Zaenen (eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 279–292. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W. & Tsuneko, Nakazawa. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, et al. (eds.), 11–38.Google Scholar
Iida, Masayo. 1987. Case-assignment by nominals in Japanese. In Masayo, Iida, Stephen, Wechsler & Draga, Zec (eds.), Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure (CSLI Lecture Notes 11), 93–138. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Akira. 1985. Complex predicates and lexical operations in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to go-keisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald & Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Mark, Baltin & Anthony, Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 17–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1994. Subjects in Japanese and English (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York & London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Nominative objects: The role of TP in Japanese. In Masatoshi, Koizumi & Hiroyuki, Ura (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24), 211–230. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke. 2005. Toward a unified analysis of the scope interpretation of complex predicates in Japanese: Evidence from the light verb construction. In Stefan, Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 232–252. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Available at http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/6/]Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Shin Nihon bunpoo kenkyuu [New studies in Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1965. Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 1, 20–40.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations (Dissertations in Linguistics). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., Ivan, A. Sag & Masayo, Iida. 1999. The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In Robert, D. Levine & Georgia, Green (eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, 39–79. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996a. Complex predicates in Japanese. Stanford & Tokyo: CSLI Publications & Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996b. A syntactic account of light verb phenomena in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 107–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1980. Complex verbs and the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Klaus, Netter & Carl, J. Pollard (eds.). 1994. German in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 46). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag., Ivan A. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Yoo, Eun Jung. 1998. A unified theory of scope for quantifiers and wh-phrases. Journal of Linguistics 34, 415–445.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. 1994. Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, et al. (eds.), 151–197.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank. 2000. A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with an application in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Version of 28 April, 2000.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank & Manfred, Sailer. 1999. A lexicalist collocation analysis of sentential negation and negative concord in French. In Valia, Kordoni (ed.), Tübingen studies in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340/132), 231–300. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank & Manfred, Sailer (eds.). 2005. Proceedings of the ESSLLI '05 Workshop on Empirical Challenges and Analytical Alternatives to Strict Compositionality. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. [Available at http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~fr/esslli/05/proceedings/rs-esslli05.pdf]Google Scholar
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77.Google Scholar
Ryu, Byong-Rae. 1993. Structure sharing and argument transfer: An HPSG approach to verbal noun constructions (SfS-Report 04-93). Tübingen: Department of Linguistics, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. 2nd edn.Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativization. In Masayoshi, Shibatani (ed.), Japanese generative grammar (Syntax and Semantics 5), 239–294. New York & Tokyo: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki [Analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Tada, Hiroaki. 1992. Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2003. Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 779–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Noord, Gertjan & Gosse, Bouma. 1994. The scope of adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedings of COLING 94, 250–256.Google Scholar
Yokota, Kenji. 1999. Light verb constructions in Japanese and functional uncertainty. In Miriam, Butt & Tracy, King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Available at http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications/LFG/lfg4.html]Google Scholar
Yumoto, Yoko. 2002. Goi-gainen koozoo no kumikae o tomonau toogo-teki fukugoo-go [Syntactic compounds involving restructuring of lexical conceptual structures]. In Takane, Ito (ed.), Bunpoo-riron: Rekishikon to toogo [Grammatical theory: Lexicon and syntax] (Gengo-Kagaku [Language Sciences] 1), 61–90. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Yumoto, Yoko. 2005. Fukugoo-dooshi, hasei-dooshi no imi to toogo [Semantics and syntax of compound verbs and derived verbs]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar