Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Use and functions of optional [To iu] in Japanese clausal noun modification Takahashi, Shino 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-0603.pdf [ 6.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087765.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087765-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087765-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087765-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087765-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087765-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087765-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087765-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087765.ris

Full Text

USE A N D FUNCTIONS OF OPTIONAL [TO IU] IN JAPANESE C L A U S A L NOUN MODIFICATION by SHINO TAKAHASHI B.A., Tsuda College, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of Asian Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1997 © Shino Takahashi, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not . be allowed without my written permission. Department' of /y<T/#,/n f^u^£*Ccl^3 The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) 11 ABSTRACT This thesis focuses on the use and functions of the complementizer b^b [to iu] as it pertains to Japanese clausal noun modification (CNM). b^b [To iu] appears between a modifying clause and its head noun. Depending on the circumstances, bv^b [to iu]'s inclusion can be obligatory, optional, or even unacceptable. Following Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970), Bolinger (1972, 1977), and Tomura (1985), the present study hypothesizes that b b [to iu], a function word, can have semantic characteristics and that its presence/absence influences the meaning of the sentence. This study also follows Maynard (1992, 1993), who claims that the presence of b^b [to iu] functions to make the information given in the modifying clause foregrounded by one or more of its following three characteristics: (1) new information, (2) dramatic effect, or (3) a direct quote. The main goal of this thesis is to identify and to explain the semantic difference between C N M where the addressor deliberately includes optional b^ b [to iu] and C N M where i V 1 * b [to iu] is not included. Analysis of the context where the C N M occurs proves indispensable in order to identify which feature(s) permits optional b V"1b [to iu] to be present. Chapter One reviews previous studies which mainly investigate the structure within C N M . These researches analyze the distributional constraints according to the semantic characteristics of the head noun and the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause. Presenting a few examples of problematic C N M , however, clarifies that clausal/sentence level analysis cannot thoroughly predict b b [to iu]'s presence/absence in C N M . When classifying Japanese C N M , this thesis employs Matsumoto's (1988a, b) trichotomy based on a semantic and a pragmatic framework: CH-, NH-, and CNH-type C N M . Following Maynard, I hypothesize in Chapter Two that the presence of b b [to iu] is optional in all NH-type C N M and shows analysis of the context is indispensable. By analyzing written data, Chapter Three re-examines the following two conditions in NH-/CNH-type C N M : the conditions which require b^b [to I l l iu] obligatorily in NH-type C N M and the conditions which do not accept it in CNH-type C N M . Most examples where NH-/CNH-type C N M require t 9 [to iu] obligatorily can be explained by Maynard's third distributional constraint, a direct quote. However, in the cases of C N M when the modality level of the modifying clause is two or below, b^y [to iu]'s absence in NH-type C N M cannot always be explained by clausal/sentence level analysis. This thesis will particularly concentrate on contextual analysis of level one NH-type C N M . In Chapter Four, I will point out NH-type C N M which were formerly considered exceptions to the general rule can be explained by one or more of the three features proposed by Maynard. Chapter Five, the Conclusion, summarizes the issues investigated in this thesis and raises possible topics for further study. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii List of Abbreviations ix List of Symbols x Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 Chapter One: Background of This Thesis 9 1.0 Introduction 9 1.1 Japanese C N M 9 1.1.1 Teramura's Framework: Inner- and Outer-Relationship 11 ' 1.1.2 Matsumoto's Framework: Three Types of C N M 14 1.1.3 The Problems of Classifying Japanese C N M 18 1.2 b ^ b [To iu] and Japanese C N M 20 1.2.1 Basic Use of b V"1b [to iu] in the Japanese Language 20 1.2.2 b ^ b [To iu] and the Modality of the Modifying Clause 24 1.2.3 b ^ b [ To iu] and Outer-Relationship C N M 28 1.2.4. b ^ b [To iu] and NH/CNH type C N M 32 1.3 The Semantic Characteristics of Optional b ^ b [to iu] 33 1.3.1 Function Words and b b I to iu] 34 1.3.2 The functions of Optional b^b [to iu] Based on Hypothetical C N M 35 1.3.3 b b [To iu]as "Discourse Modality Indicator" 37 V Chapter Two Terms and Framework of This Thesis 39 2.0 Introduction 39 2.1 Comparison between Teramura's and Matsumoto's Framework 39 2.2 Terms Employed in This Thesis 41 2.3 Framework of This Thesis 44 Chapter Three b^b [To iu]: Direct-Quote and Unacceptable Uses 49 3.0 Introduction 49 3.1 Direct-Quote b^ b [to iu] 49 3.1.1 Conditions of Modifying Clauses Requiring Direct-Quote b V N b [to iu] 50 3.1.2 Speech Act Nouns 57 3.1.3 Exceptions to the Rule in NH-Type C N M 60 3.2 Unacceptable b^b [to iu] 62 3.2.1 Relational Nouns 62 3.2.2 Quasi-Relational Nouns 68 3.2.3 Nouns of Perception 70 3.2.4 Exceptions to the Rule in CNH-Type C N M 73 3.3 Summary 80 Chapter Four Optional b b [to iu] 81 4.0 Introduction 81 4.1 NH-Type C N M where Nouns of Thoughts and Feelings and Proposition-Taking Nouns Serve as the Head Nouns 82 4.1.1 Proposition-Taking Nouns 82 4.1.2 Nouns of Thoughts and Feelings 87 4.2 NH-Type C N M Where Speech Act Nouns Serve as the Head Nouns 93 4.2.1 IS [Hanashi] ('story') 93 vi 4.2.2 Speech Act Nouns 101 4.3 Summary 106 Chapter Five Conclusion 107 5.1 Summary..... 107 5.2 Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Study 108 Data Sources I l l References 113 vii List of Tables 1. Types of Dichotomy of Japanese C N M 10 2. Types of Japanese C N M by Matsumoto 16 3. Degree of Modality Shown in the Predicate Part of the Japanese Language 26 4. List of Head Nouns and Their C N M in Outer-Relationship 29 5. The Relationship between Teramura's Framework and the Use of b b [to iu] 31 6. The Relationship between Matsumoto's Framework and the Use of b b [to iu] 32 7. A Comparison between Teramura's and Matsumoto's Japanese C N M Classification ...39 8. A Comparison between Outer-Relationship and NH-/CNH-Type C N M 40 9. The Relationship between Head Noun Type and its Modifying Clause's Degree of Modality in NH-/CNH-Type C N M 42 10. The Use of b V N b [to iu]: Obligatory, Optional, and Unacceptable b^b [to iu] in NH-/CNH-type CNM: Tentative Framework of This Thesis 44 11. The Use of b V N b [to iu]: Alternative Framework of This Thesis 46 12. The Use of b ^ b [to iu]: The Area Discussed in This Thesis 47 13. Speech Act Nouns and Their Corresponding Verbs 58 14. Subclassification of Relational Nouns 63 15. The Use of b ^ b [to iu]: An Exception in CNH-type C N M 74 16. The Use of b V N b [to iu]: Issues not Discussed in This Thesis 109 viii List of Figures 1. Teramura's Framework of Japanese C N M 14 2. Matsumoto's Framework of Japanese C N M 17 3. The Order of Verbal Expression in a Japanese Sentence-Final Structure 25 4. The Relationship between the Modifying Clause and the Matrix Clause in Example (18) 64 List of Abbreviation ix C N M - Clausal Noun Modification CH-type - Clause Host Type NH-type - Noun Host Type CNH-type - Clause and Noun Host Type A C C accusative case marker C O M comitative marker COMP complementizer CON conditional marker CPL copula DAT dative marker EMO emotional marker GEN genitive marker INST instrumental marker NMR nominalizer NOM nominative case marker LOG locative marker PASV passive form PAST past tense form QUE question particle QUO quotative marker SF sentence final particle TOP topic marker List of Symbols x 0 = (1) Clauses that modify the head nouns and/or that precede the complementizer t 5 [to iu] are square-bracketed. (2) Non-English words are itlicalized and square-bracketed when they appear within English texts. * = Ungrammatical/unacceptable. 0 = Zero (in other words, nothing should be used at a place where 0 occurs). ? = Questionable. The increased number of the symbol indicates the increased amount of unacceptability. a, T, u, o = long vowels Acknowledgments xi I am greatly indebted to the members of my M . A. thesis committee: Drs. Yoko Collier-Sanuki, Ross King, Rose-Marie Dechaine, and Tineke Hellwig. Without their help, this work could not have been completed. Particularly, my deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Yoko Collier-Sanuki, who has been my advisor in my graduate work. Her constant encouragement and valuable comments always helped me to continue with this study. I am and will always be grateful for what she has done for me. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Ross King who read the early drafts and make many suggestions for their improvement. I also would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Rose-Marie Dechaine for her insightful advice, which was given when most needed. Her enthusiasm and clear-minded input gave me a fuller understanding of the discipline of linguistics. I would also like to thank Dr. Tineke Hellwig, who chaired and organized my oral defense. Throughout my graduate study, I was fortunate to have both academic and moral support from many friends. In particular, I would like to thank Chris Graham for proofreading the thesis as well as giving me constant encouragement. Deborah Kerr patiently edited my text. Brooke Anderson helped me a great deal by transporting my thesis between Japan and Canada. I am also immensely indebted to the Department of Asian Studies at U B C for employing me as a teaching assistant. I received not only the financial support but also very valuable teaching experience. Last but not least, I should like to thank my mother and brother in Japan. Without their help, I would not have had the opportunity even to have started this study. 1 Introduction This thesis analyzes the Japanese complementizer b^b [to iu] as it functions in clausal noun modification (CNM). 1 Morphologically, b^b [to iu] consists of the verb f 5 [iu] ('to speak' or 'to say') and the quotative particle b [to]. Sometimes its use is obligatory; sometimes it is optional, and sometimes it is unacceptable to include b V N b [to iu] in Japanese clausal noun modification. Although Teramura (1977b), Song (1979, 1982), Terakura (1980, 1984), Tomura (1985, 1990, 1991), Matsumoto (1988a, b, 1996a, b), Kim, (1989), Tokuda (1989), Oshima (1991), and Watanabe (1996) have examined the use and functions of b b [to iu] in Japanese C N M , predicting its distributional constraints in C N M proves difficult, particularly for b^b [to iu]'s optional use. This thesis proposes that knowing the context, or situational information, is crucial in understanding the use and functions as well as the distributional constraints of b^b [to iu]. Further, examining the context where C N M is used clarifies how the presence/absence of optional b V N b [to iu] influences the way statements are interpreted. When Japanese C N M includes b b [to iu], two possible uses emerge: one use retains its basic quality as a quotation marker while the other functions as a complementizer. Compare the following examples: 'Tomura (1985, 1990) classifies b^b [to iu] as a complementizer, which is generally accepted in Japanese linguistics. For a detailed examination of syntactic treatments of b V"1 5 [to iu], see Nakau (1973), Josephs (1976) and Tomura (1985). Chapter One, Background of the Study, defines Japanese CNM. There are two ways of writing b^b [to iu] in romanization: "to iu" and "to yuu." Teramura (1972), Martin (1975), and Matsumoto (1988a, b) use "to iu," while "to yuu" is used by Terakura (1980, 1984), Maynard (1992, 1993), Matsumoto (1996a, b) and others. This study uses b 5 [to iu] in order to be consistent. 2 (1) & fi as [t-c*. * 5 % L ^ . V ^ t 1 5 ] * £ watashi wa [mori-sanga [totemo omoshiroi] to iu] Hon o I TOP [Mr. Mori NOM[very interesting] QUO speak] book ACC yonda. read [PAST]. I read the book which Mr. Mori says is very interesting. (2) % \± im^ru *s jr>?rj ^ ffoft] bv^?] mm * watashi wa [[mori-san ga otawa e itta] to iu ] jijitsu o I TOP [[Mr. Mori N O M Ottawa LOC went] COMP] fact A C C shitteita. knew. I learned the fact that Mr. Mori went to Ottawa. In example (1), b^b [to iu] maintains its basic quality as a quotation marker. Its approximate English translation means "that (person) say(s)." Hence, b^b [to iu] in example (1) indicates an indirect quote. In example (2), however, b^b [to iu] corresponds to the English complementizer "that." This study is concerned only with the latter example, or b b [to iu] used as a complementizer, and excludes quotative b V N b [to iu] as illustrated in example (1). A review of basic Japanese grammar and C N M will help to clarify b^b [to iu]'s overall role as it relates to C N M . 3 Typologically, Japanese is classified as an SOV (Subject + Object + Verb) language. According to Greenberg (1966), Japanese is strictly a verb-final language. The word order within a clause, however, remains relatively free because of the presence of particles, or case markers. Therefore, in order to interpret the exact meaning of a clause or phrase, one must consider what kind of particle a noun takes within the clause. Even when Japanese native speakers sometimes delete some nouns along with the particles that follow them, their listeners can reconstruct them according to the context. Furthermore, the 2When b V'15 [to iu] retains its original meaning, it may be written bU 5 or b V"15 • On the other hand, if b V"1 5 [to iu] is used as a complementizer, it is seldom written <tH" 5 • There is room for further investigation what ratio b^b [to iu] bears to b^b [to iu] in written works when used as a complementizer as well as a combination of the quotative particle and the verb 'to speak.' 3For more information regarding the Japanese language and its grammar, see Kuno (1973) and Shibatani (1990). As a further source, Martin (1975) contains a detailed description of Japanese grammar. 3 deletion of understood elements occurs not only in matrix clauses but also in C N M modifying clauses. Because of this phenomenon, the present study assumes that analysis of the function of b 5 [to iu] must address and consider the context or information regarding the situation. Another significant characteristic of the Japanese language concerns the fixed word order between the noun modified and the modifying word(s), phrase or clause: the modifying constituent always precedes the noun modified. As shown in examples (1) and (2), Japanese C N M also observes this rule; modifying clauses always precede their head nouns. Before analyzing how the complementizer b^o [to iu] functions in Japanese C N M , a brief review of former studies will provide background information necessary to illuminate how C N M functions within the Japanese language. Muraki (1970), Okutsu (1974) and Inoue (1976) categorize Japanese C N M into two types: relative-clause types such as example (1) and appositive-clause types such as example (2).4 These linguists derive their classification from the syntactic differences between the two types of C N M , and follow a linguistic framework developed by Indo-European languages such as generative grammar. Teramura (1975, 1977a, 1977b and 1978) also divides C N M into two categories: inner-relationship and outer-relationship. Example (1) corresponds to inner-relationship C N M while example (2) demonstrates outer-relationship C N M . His analysis examines both the semantic and the syntactic relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause. Matsumoto (1988a, b), however, claims that these analyses do not take into account the underlying and significant differences between Japanese and Indo-European languages such as English, German, and French. In order to comprehend Japanese C N M , Matsumoto introduces a semantic and pragmatic framework. She categorizes Japanese C N M into three sub-types: Clause Host (CH) type, Noun Host (NH) 4Okutsu (1974) calls the former |s] ill Wl? lift [doitsu meishi rental shushoku ] ('same noun modification') and the latter WiB^if^Sfrf^lft [fuka meishi rental shushoku] ('appositive noun modification'). Inoue (1976) names the former a 'relative clause' and the latter an 'appositive clause.' The terms used by other researchers will be introduced in detail in Section 1.1. 4 type, and Clause and Noun Host (CNH) type.5 In order to understand all three constructions properly, she proposes that the addressee must share cultural and social knowledge with the addressor. She calls this shared knowledge "world-view." Chapter One discusses Teramura's and Matsumoto's frameworks in detail. The researchers who examine Japanese C N M also discuss the use and functions of the complementizer b^ b [to iu]. By adapting structuralist theories in the broad sense, Muraki (1970), Okutsu (1974) and Inoue (1976) define b^b [to iu] as a complementizer which functions similarly to the English complementizer "that."6 Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b, 1996a, b), however, point out that b b [to iu] in Japanese C N M is not equivalent to the English complementizer "that." Teramura (1977b) indicates that the complementizer b b [to iu] in Japanese C N M cannot always be translated into the English complementizer "that." In addition, when subclassifying one of his dichotomies, outer-relationship C N M , he examines the influence which specific head nouns have regarding whether or not the speaker includes bi^b [to iu] in the statement. On the other hand, Matsumoto (1988a, b) bases her C N M classification system on the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause. Although she does not focus on it, the presence/absence of b ^ b [to iu] still influences her classification. Researchers who study how noun complementations function in general also examine the use and functions of the complementizer b^b [to iu]. When Josephs (1976) analyzes the Japanese nominalizers <D [no] and Cb [koto], he claims that b^b [to iu] has an "inherent 5Matsumoto's CH-type CNM corresponds to Teramura's inner-relationship. However, she divides Teramura's outer-relationship into NH-type and CNH-type according to the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause. 6Linguists such as Hasegawa (1981), Saito (1985), Kuroda (1986), and Hagiwara (1994) hypothesize that Japanese "relativization" can be explained by a movement rule within the framework of the Government and Binding theory. 5 meaning" which designates "non-factiveness."7 Terakura (1980) examines bv^b [to iu] which exists before the nominalizers <D [no] and b [koto] and concludes that b^b [to iu] represents "a proposition."8 Terakura (1984) specifically investigates the relationship between b b [to iu] and C N M head nouns in the case of both nominalizers and lexical nouns. She divides the use of b V-* b [to iu] into three categories: obligatory, optional, and unacceptable b [to iu]. She concludes that determining the presence/absence of b^^b [to iu] from syntactic evidence alone proves difficult because the speaker's attitude, knowledge and judgement influence the (non-)occurrence of b b [to iu]. She proposes that the addressor indicates by including or excluding b b [to iu] whether or not a certain situation is depicted as a proposition. Following Terakura's (1984) (non-)use of b V-* b [to iu], this thesis proposes that knowing the context in which the C N M appears is indispensable in understanding the use and functions of b^b [to iu], especially in optional situations. In order to clarify the conditions governing b^b [to iu]'s optional use, Chapter One reviews former studies of the relationship between Japanese C N M and the complementizer b^b [to iu]. Chapter Two introduces the terms and framework of this thesis. Both Chapter Three and Chapter Four examine the use and functions of the complementizer b V> b [to iu] in Japanese C N M by analyzing examples found in novels and essays. Using the data from novels and essays helps to demonstrate which situations require or do not require b b [to iu]. Chapter Three focuses on the constraints of obligatory and unacceptable bv^b [to iu]. Chapter Four examines the conditions where optional b^b [to iu] is or is not included. It analyzes the context where C N M is included. It also discusses how the presence/absence of optional b^b [to iu] functions to influence the meaning of the 7Makino and Tsutsui (1986) define a nominalizer as a category which turns not "just a verb or adjective but an entire sentence into a noun phrase" (195). terakura (1980, 1984) defines propositions as "conceptual entities like facts." She states that propositions show subjectivity while facts include objectivity. Other researchers define a proposition in terms of its antonym, "modality." The "proposition" is defined as that part of the sentence which conveys the objective fact and/or state of mind. Section 1.2.2 introduces the definition of proposition by other researchers. Note that Terakura's definition of "propositions" is different from other researchers.' sentence. The following demonstrate examples of each type of b b [to iu]: (3) obligatory b^ b [to iu]: as Rflft £ £ 5 5 ] f * 0 1 1 IS [[mori-san ga shiken o ukeru daro] f * 0 \ ] hanashi 1 to iu i I COMP) [Mr. Mori N O M exam A C C take probably will]/ * 0 .] story the story that Mr. Mori will probably take the exam (4) optional bv^ b [to iu]: [m/o *s mm * {0 1 m [mori-san ga shiken o uketa] ("0 1 \to iu > 10 {COMP hanashi [Mr. Mori NOM exam A C C took] j0 j story the story that Mr. Mori took the exam (5) unacceptable b^b [to iu]: it mm £ gttfci f 0 ines, T ^ J * ^  ffofc mori-san wa [shiken o uketa] ( 0 1 kekka, amerika e itta. f  I l*to iu ) Mr. Mori TOP [exam A C C took] ( 0 \ result, America LOC went. t*COMP) As a result of [having taken] the exam, Mr. Mori went to America. Even though examples (3) and (4) employ the same head noun M [hanashi] ('story'), example (3) requires b^b [to iu] obligatorily while example (4) takes b^b [to iu] optionally. C N M in example (5), on the other hand, would be grammatically unacceptable if b^b [to iu] were to be included. Chapter Three examines why C N M like example (3) requires b^^b [to iu] obligatorily and why C N M such as example (5) must not include b^b [toiu]. C N M exemplified in example (4), however, may or may not take bv^b [to iu]. Chapter Four investigates what constraints influence the presence/absence of b^b [to iu] in an optional situation. It also discusses the semantic differences that exist between C N M with and without optional b^b [to iu]. 7 Tomura (1985, 1990) defines the complementizer b^b [to iu] in Japanese C N M as a function word.9 According to Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970), and Bolinger (1972, 1977), function words can have semantic properties and their presence/absence can change the meaning of a sentence. Researchers such as Tomura (1985, 1991), Kim (1989), Tokuda (1989), and Oshima (1991) also follow their hypotheses. They investigate the semantic differences between C N M where b b [to iu] is used and not used in an optional situation.10 They all agree that the presence/absence of optional b b [to iu] can reveal the speaker's attitude, opinion, and/or reaction towards the content of the modifying clause. Their comparisons between C N M with and without b b [to iu], however, do not clearly explain the conditions governing iv> b [to iu]'s optional use and functions. I believe that this lack of clarity results from the fact that their studies mainly employ hypothetical examples of C N M . Furthermore, even when they do use actual data, the semantic differences they claim are not persuasive because their data do not include the surrounding context. This further supports my proposal that the optional use of b V1* 5 [to iu] must be analyzed in context. Maynard (1992, 1993) examines Japanese C N M in discourse and analyzes the use and functions of optional b^b [to iu]. She hypothesizes that b b [to iu] can be employed as a Discourse Modality Indicator.11 Maynard (1993) also claims that the complementizer b^b [to iu] "connects two modes of interaction, 'saying' and 'describing'" (252). She speculates that the speaker focuses attention on the modifying clause by including bv^b [to iu] in an optional situation. Conversely, a speaker who excludes b^b [to iu] in an optional situation focuses attention on the head noun. In other words, optional b^b [to iu] appears in Japanese C N M ^rask (1993) defines a function word as a "word with little or no intrinsic semantic content which primarily serves some grammatical purpose" such as of and the (123). 10Section 1.3.2 discusses their analyses. "Section 1.3.3 defines "Discourse Modality" and "Discourse Modality Indicator." 8 when information contained in the modifying clause is foregrounded.12 The information is foregrounded because it is new or unexpected, or because its content is relatively important in the discourse. The speaker uses b 9 [to iu] in order to add more dramatic emphasis as well. By analyzing C N M within the context of novels and essays, Maynard clarifies the function of optional b 5 [toiu]. It should be noted that my data are mostly taken from Japanese novels and essays. Except for the data cited in the work of other researchers, all were selected from contemporary works written in the 1980s and 1990s. The target audience of all the works is the adult reader. The number of writers is sixteen: eight are male, seven are female, and one is anonymous. I chose to use written data only in order to avoid o[tte iu], the colloquial form of b 5 [to iu], which overwhelmingly dominates spoken data. This thesis does not investigate variants of b^b [to iu] such as o T V ^ b [tte iu], bV^o7c [to itta], and oX [tte].13 I assume that there is a semantic difference between b b [to iu] and its variants. 1 2Hopper and Thompson (1980) mention that foregrounded information supplies "main points of discourse" while backgrounded information "assists, amplifies, comments on the part of discourse" (280). For example, in the sentence "When I went to school, I met John," "when I went to school" is backgrounded information whereas "I met John" shows foregrounded information. 1 3 On the difference between b V"1 5 [to iu] and b V^o 7i [to itta], see Fujita (1987). 9 C h a p t e r O n e B a c k g r o u n d o f T h i s Thesis 1. 0 I n t r o d u c t i o n This chapter reviews previous studies of Japanese C N M and considers other background information necessary to help in the understanding of the different use and functions that <b 9 [to iu] shows in Japanese C N M . Section 1.1 examines the basic characteristics of Japanese C N M . Section 1.1.1 presents Teramura's (1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1978) classification of Japanese C N M , and Section 1.1.2 introduces an alternative framework proposed by Matsumoto (1988a, b). Section 1.1.3 discusses the intrinsic characteristics of Japanese C N M which are often neglected under the language framework based on Indo-European languages such as English, German, French and so oh. Section 1.2 focuses on the general relationship between C N M and iV^>5 [to iu]. Section 1.2.1 introduces the use of £ l A 5 [to iu] in the Japanese language. Section 1.2.2 discusses the relationship between the complementizer b^o [to iu] and the modality of the modifying clause in C N M . Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 review Teramura's (1977b) and Matsumoto's (1988a, b) analyses of the relationship between the complementizer b 5 [to iu] and Japanese C N M . Section 1.3 proposes that b^b [to iu] which functions as a complementizer has semantic meaning. Section 1.3.1 introduces theories which claim function words do influence the meaning of the sentence. Section 1.3.2 reviews previous studies on the use(s) and functions of optional b 5 [to iu]. Section 1.3.3 introduces Maynard (1992, 1993) and shows that examining the context in which C N M appears is indispensable in order to provide a clear understanding of the use(s) and functions of optional b V> 5 [to iu] in Japanese CNM. 1.1 Japanese C N M Based on the English categorization of noun-modifying construction, Japanese C N M is usually classified into two subtypes: relative-like and appositive-like clauses. However, 10 researchers use different terms. The following table demonstrates examples of various researchers' terms: Table 1 A Dichotomy of Types in Japanese CNM Researcher relative-like clause appositive-like clause Okutsu(1974) [doitsu meishi rental shushoku] ('same noun modification') \fuka meishi rental shushoku] ('appositive noun modification') Martin (1975) extruded epithemes intruded epithemes Inoue(1976) relative clause appositive clause Teramura (1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1978 F*3 <D [ uchi no kankei] ('inner-relationship CNM') 9\><DM&h [soto no kankei] ('outer-relationship CNM') Maynard (1992,1993) relative like construction explanatory construction This study hereafter employs Teramura's terms inner-relationship and outer-relationship when referring to these two classifications. Teramura's (1977) classification differs from Okutsu (1974), Martin (1975), and Inoue (1976).1 He considers the semantic as well as the syntactic relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause. Inner-relationship is classified according to the syntactic relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause, while outer-relationship is interpreted according to the semantic relationship between them. Refuting Teramura's two different perspectives in classifying Japanese C N M , Matsumoto (1988a, b) introduces the concept of frame semantics (Fillmore 1978). She proposes that if we expect to comprehend Japanese C N M , it is essential to rely on both a semantic and a pragmatic understanding of the head noun and its modifying clause. In so doing, she classifies semantic relationships between the modifying clause and its head noun into three categories: Clause Host (CH), Noun Host (NH), and Clause and Noun Host (CNH) types. In order to construe these three constructions properly, she claims that the interlocutor must hold a shared 'While accepting Teramura's dichotomy, Maynard (1992, 1993) yet uses the different terms as shown in Table 1. 11 cultural/social knowledge of the language, or "world-view." 1.1.1 Teramura's Framework: Inner- and Outer-Relationship Teramura (1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1978) classifies Japanese C N M into two categories: one is [*i<DM& [uchi no kankei] ('inner-relationship'); the other is W~<DM@k [soto no kankei] ('outer-relationship'). The following is an example of inner-relationship CNM: (1) % [¥± *S RFB Ho7t] * £ m/otlo  2 watashi wa [gakusei ga kino katta] hon o yonda. I TOP [student NOM yesterday bought] book A C C read [PAST]. I read the book which the student[s] bought yesterday. Inner-relationship Japanese C N M has the same syntactic structure as the English relative clause. There are, however, two remarkable differences between Japanese and English. First, in Japanese a head noun always follows its modifying clause while in English it always precedes its relative clause. Second, in English a relative pronoun is present between the head noun and its relative clause. Relative pronouns such as 'who,' 'which,' and 'whom' serve as overt markers of the relative position of the head noun to its modifying clause. The Japanese language does not have any relative pronoun either semantically or morphologically. In spite of these syntactic differences, there is an apparent similarity between the two languages. In both English and Japanese, any noun can be the head noun of the C N M . More importantly, a case relationship exists between the head noun ;£ [hon] ('book') and its modifying clause ^£as WBM-otc [gakusei ga kind katta] ('which the student[s] bought yesterday'). The following sentence demonstrates this relationship: (1)' ¥k ^ WB_ * «r Motto gakusei ga kino hon o katta. student N O M yesterday book A C C bought. The studentfs] bought a book yesterday. The modifying clause can be reconstructed to form an independent sentence that incorporates 2As mentioned in Introduction, one difference between inner-relationship CNM and outer-relationship CNM is that t V> 5 [to iu] as a complementizer cannot be present in inner-relationship CNM. Therefore, there is no t V> 5 [to iu] in example (1). 12 the head noun. Example (1)' shows that in both English and Japanese well-formed sentences can be made by combining the head noun with its modifying clause. In Japanese as well as in English, the head noun ^ [hon] ('book') is the grammatical object of the verb wiAstc [yonda] ('read [past]') in the main clause of example (1). The head noun ^ [hon] ('book') in example (1) can also be construed as an object of the verb H-o7c [katta] ('bought [PAST]') in the modifying clause. Therefore, the head noun modified by the modifying clause has a case relationship with the verb in its modifying clause. This characteristic of inner-relationship C N M serves to distinguish it from outer-relationship C N M . Teramura (1977b) classifies C N M other than those of inner-relationship as outer-relationship. He derives this term from his findings that the head noun is positioned outside, or out of the modifying clause. The following shows an example of outer-relationship CNM: (2) % ti [mZAs as HrZV ^ f r o f c ] M £ KWco watashiwa [mori-san ga otawa e itta] hanashi o kiita. I TOP [Mr. Mori N O M Ottawa LOC went] story A C C heard. I heard the story that Mr. Mori went to Ottawa. Example (2) shows the crucial difference between inner-relationship C N M and outer -relationship C N M : the head noun in example (1) can have a case relationship with its subordinate clause, but that of example (2) can be inserted into the embedded clause neither in English nor in Japanese. As shown in example (2)', the head noun cannot have a case relationship with its modifying clause. (2y m i s a s ^ m * / & /as IK I.Motto * mori-san ga otawa e hanashi * o ga jni le I ...itta. *Mr.Mori NOM Ottawa LOC story * / A C C / N O M / D A T / L O C / ... went. Example (2)' is ill-formed no matter what particle may follow the noun [hanashi] ('story'). Head nouns in outer-relationship C N M do not have a case relationship with the verb in their modifying clause. The modifying clause in example (2) M^/vft^Z y ^ f x o f c [mori-san ga otawa e itta] ('Mr. Mori went to Ottawa') describes what kind of fg [hanashi] ('story') it is. 13 Accordingly, the modifying clause complements the meaning designated by the head noun.3 Hence, Okutsu (1974) and Inoue (1976) claim that outer-relationship Japanese C N M is comparable to an English appositive clause. Another reason why they consider outer-relationship C N M to be similar to an appositive clause is because outer-relationship C N M requires the complementizer 5 [to iu] just as an English appositive clause requires a complementizer such as "that."4 However, not all outer-relationship C N M cannot be translated into an English appositive clause. Teramura (1977b) also asserts the necessity of considering the semantic relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause in outer-relationship Japanese C N M . He examines this relationship and subclassifies outer-relationship C N M into two subtypes: rt^ffi 35<£>jlilfc{^ fifc [naiyo hoju no rental shushoku] ('content-complement outer relationship CNM') and ffj&ffit^ (D^W-i^ M [sotai hoju no rental shushoku] ('relational-complement outer-relationship CNM'). In content-complement outer-relationship C N M , the modifying clause complements the content of its head noun. On the other hand, in relational-complement outer-relationship C N M , the modifying clause expresses the content of the antonym of the head noun. This issue will be discussed in detail in Section 1.2.3 along with the presence/absence of the complementizer t^b[toiu]. Figure 1 represents Teramura's framework: Masuoka (1994) states that the main element of outer-relationship CNM is not the head noun but the modifying clause. He claims that the head noun just supplements the information on what kind of category the modifying clause belongs to. This study, however, follows Teramura's inner-/outer-relationship dichotomy because it is necessary to compare Teramura's theory with Matsumoto's (1988) in order to analyze the function of the complementizer £v>5 [toiu]. 4Section 1.2 discusses the relationship between the complementizer t V"15 [to iu] and outer-relationship CNM. 14 Figure 1 Teramura's Framework of Japanese CNM Japanese C N M inner-relationship C N M outer-relationship C N M content-complement outer-relationship C N M relational-complement outer-relationship C N M The next section introduces Matsumoto's (1988) analysis which asserts the importance of a pragmatic analysis of Japanese C N M . 1.1.2 Matsumoto's Framework: Three Types of CNM Teramura's dichotomy (inner- and outer-relationship CNM) leaves some issues unresolved although it is widely accepted among the linguists in Japan. Observe the following example: (3) [al as * [atama ga yokunaru] hon [head NOM good-become] book The book [by reading] which [one's] head becomes good (= If a person reads the book, he/she will become brighter.) (Teramura 1977a: 7) Teramura defines example (3) as C N M which does not follow the general principles of inner-relationship Japanese C N M . He calls this type of inner-relationship C N M M$& [tanraku] ('truncate'), because no direct syntactic relationship exists between the head noun ~Jf [hon] ('book') and its modifying clause gla^J; < ft-5 [atama ga yokunaru] ('[one's] head becomes good'). Though he does not fully analyze this type of exception, Teramura (1977b) mentions that this kind of C N M is "formed by the deletion of not only a case marker but also by other linguistic elements when a noun in a sentence 'moves out' to be a head noun" and further analysis is in order (34-35). He also claims that a semantic and pragmatic analysis is essential 15 to interpret some Japanese C N M such as example (3). Matsumoto (1988a, b) points out a discrepancy in Teramura's framework. He construes inner-relationship syntactically but interprets outer-relationship semantically. She claims that a semantic and pragmatic understanding of the relationship between a head noun and its modifying clause is essential in comprehending Japanese C N M . In order to accomplish this goal, Matsumoto employs the concept of frame semantics (Fillmore 1978) in creating her trichotomy of Japanese C N M . She classifies the semantic relationships between the modifying clause and its head noun into three types: Clause Host (CH), Noun Host (NH), and Clause and Noun Host (CNH) types. Table 2 below is adapted from Collier-Sanuki (1993): 16 Table 2 Types of Japanese CNM by Matsumoto [= summary of Matsumoto (1988a, b)] I. Clause Host (CH) type: Constructions in which the modifying clause hosts the head noun; i.e., constructions in which a member of the category denoted by the head noun participates in a frame evoked by the main predicate of the modifying clause. [tabeta] mise [ate] shop the shop [at which] [ej ate [e2] The possible relationships between the modifying clauses and head nouns include (a) condition and consequence, (b) purpose and requisite, (c) simultaneous actions, events and states, (d) actions or events in simple temporal sequence, (e) topic and comment, and (f) part and whole. II. Noun Host (NH) type: Constructions in which the head noun hosts the modifying clause. [tabeta] hanashi [ate] story the story [that] [e,] ate [e2] The types of head nouns that qualify for this type include (a) speech act nouns, (b) nouns of thoughts and feelings, and (c) proposition-taking nouns. III. Clause and Noun Host (CNH) type: Constructions in which both the modifying clause and the head noun host reciprocally; i.e., in which the head noun can evoke a frame containing a slot for what is expressed by the modifying clause, while the frame evoked by the modifying clause in turn contains a possible participant role to be filled by the denotation of the head noun. m*> [tabeta] kaeri [ate] return the way back [from] eating The types of head nouns qualify for this type include (a) relational nouns, (b) quasi-relational nouns, and (c) nouns of perception. (Collier-Sanuki 1993: 16-17) Matsumoto mentions that most CH-type C N M have the same characteristics of Teramura's inner-relationship C N M . In CH-type C N M , the modifying clause has a case relationship with its head noun. This construal is a straightforward interpretation. CH-type C N M also includes 17 cases of £a$r [tanraku] ('truncate') such as example (3). Matsumoto (1988b) states that the head noun in M$i [tanraku] ('truncate') "cannot be linked to an argument or even, in the usual sense, an adjunct of the predicate of the modifying clause" (7). She also claims that the "construer's social/cultural knowledge about a situation [knowledge which the addressor depends on] can sometimes provide" a plausible interpretation for Mfflr [tanraku] ('truncate') (74). Hence, shared knowledge of a situation remains a necessary element in comprehending Japanese C N M in general. Matsumoto's NH-/CNH-type C N M generally correspond to Teramura's outer-relationship. In NH-type C N M the modifying clause typically complements the content of the head noun by designating a speech act, a fact, or an event. The head noun functions to summarize what is expressed by its modifying clause. CNH-type C N M is what Teramura classifies as a subtype of outer-relationship, relational-complement outer-relationship. In this construction, both the head noun and its modifying clause host each other reciprocally. The addressee depends on the "world-view" in order to precisely interpret the C N M . Figure 2 represents Matsumoto's framework: F i g u r e 2 M a t s u m o t o ' s F r a m e w o r k o f Japanese C N M Japanese C N M Matsumoto's (1988a, b) classification differs from Teramura's (1975, 1977a, b, 1978) in that she demonstrates C N M which cannot be adequately explained without using her semantic 18 framework.5 I will discuss this further in Chapter Two, but I will now examine a few issues concerning problematic Japanese CNM, which Matsumoto reveals in her study. 1.1.3 The Problems of Classifying Japanese CNM In Japanese, elements of a sentence such as subjects and objects may be freely omitted when they are expected to be understood by the addressee. In addition, since Japanese is a verb-final language, post-positional particles, or case markers following nouns, are omitted together with nouns when their corresponding nouns are omitted. Therefore, unlike in English, the cases and functions of head nouns in Japanese are not clearly marked at the surface level. Examine the following examples from Matsumoto (1988b):6 (4) [ # £ Mofe] [hon o katta] gakusei [book A C C bought] student[s] (4a) the student[s] who bought the book (4b) the studentjs] for whom [e] bought a book (4c) the studentjs] [from whom] [e] bought a book (=Matsumoto 1988b: 7) Example (4) points out that the possible absence of certain words in the example can lead to many possible interpretations such as examples (4a, b, c). As Matsumoto (1988b) explains, "in Japanese, unlike in English, the connection is not determined by the structure, but, rather, relies on a semantic and pragmatic understanding of the noun and clause" (7). She concludes that interpretation of Japanese C N M depends a good deal on understanding the context in which the statement occurs. The traditional way of discussing C N M construction is in comparison to English relative and appositive clauses. These comparisons, however, do not adequately explain the construction of Japanese C N M . The most common interpretation of example (4) is (4a), "the student who bought the book." However, the construal in (4c) is most appropriate in the 5Matsumoto (1988a, b), however, does not analyze CNM in context. This distinguishes her analysis from those of Maynard (1992, 1993). Section 1.3.3 discusses Maynard's framework in detail. 6What Matsumoto (1988a, b) claims here is that Japanese CNM is "discourse-based" while English relative or appositive clauses are "structurally-based." Dechaine (personal communication) comments that the phenomenon allowing such ambiguous interpretations is not a characteristic which differentiates Japanese from English. She points out that English examples such as "flyingplanes can be dangerous," and "I saw the man on the roof are structurally ambiguous, too. 19 following situation: (4) ' [* £ Molt] ¥ t frt, ;<y=i> % Motcc [hon o katta] gakusei kara pasokon mo katta. book A C C bought] student from personal computer also bought. [I] also bought a personal computer from the student[s] from whom [I] bought a book. (Matsumoto 1993: 103) As demonstrated above, a Japanese C N M can have multiple interpretations depending on the context. Therefore, the addressee of the Japanese language must depend on the shared knowledge, or "world-view" to construe the interpretation intended by the addressor. An English relative clause, on the other hand, allows for only one construal because the syntactic and semantic relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause is clear from the syntactic structure. Example (5) shows inner-relationship or CH-type C N M . This example of Japanese C N M is complicated and requires an analysis based on the context: (5) WL \c frfrfc<fcS] m [yoru toire ni ikenaku-naru] hanashi [night bathroom LOC go-cannot-become] story (5a) CH-type interpretation the story [because of hearing] which [one] becomes unable to go to the bathroom at night (5b) NH-type interpretation the story that [somebody] becomes unable to go to the bathroom at night (Matsumoto 1988b: 94) Matsumoto notes that example (5) is ambiguous because it conveys two possible messages. She comments that example (5) can be interpreted as CH-type C N M when its meaning is example (5a). This CH-type C N M is called [tanraku] ('truncate') and requires a shared "world-view" between the addressor and the addressee in order to be comprehended properly. She explains that Japanese native speakers share a general knowledge that bathrooms in Japan were traditionally isolated and very dark at night. This made people "not want to go there alone after hearing a scary story" (Matsumoto 1988b: 93). She also points out that example (5) is classified as NH-type C N M if it is construed as in example (5b). In NH-type C N M , there is 20 no case relationship between the modifying clause and its head noun. In these situations, the modifying clause complements the content of the head noun. Only the context will determine which interpretation is appropriate. The addressee must determine the meaning of a statement by considering the context in which it appears. Chapter Four analyzes the C N M such as example (5) in detail and shows how the presence/absence of b^b [to iu] influences its meaning.7 The following sections will review the relationship between the complementizer b b [to iu] and Teramura's and Matsumoto's framework respectively. 1.2 t v ^ ? [ T o w ] a n d Japanese C N M This section reviews the distribution of the complementizer bv^b [to iu] in Japanese C N M . It also shows how the complementizer b^b [to iu]'s presence/absence plays a significant role in classifying Japanese C N M . Section 1.2.1 introduces the various ways bv^b [to iu] is used in the Japanese language. Section 1.2.2 discusses the relationship between b^b [to iu] and the modality of the modifying clause in C N M . Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 discuss the relationship between the complementizer b V> b [to iu] and outer-relationship and NH/CNH-type C N M respectively. 1.2.1 Basic Use of b ^ b [to iu] i n the Japanese L a n g u a g e As mentioned in the Introduction, morphologically b^b [to iu] is a combination of the verb m b [iu] ('to speak' or 'to say') preceded by the quotative particle b [to], b [To] mirrors either the English complementizer "that" or quotation markers.8 The following examples show this basic use of b b [to iu]: 7In example (5), irV>5 [to iu] can be present between the modifying clause and its head noun when it is NH-type CNM. The presence of b V^  5 [to iu] is optional in this CNM. If b VN 5 [to iu] is inserted, however, the CNM can only be interpreted as "the story that [somebody] becomes unable to go to the bathroom at night." 8English quotation markers ("") correspond to l"j in Japanese language. 21 (6a) Indirect Quote: ii C<D * ii fcfcLSv^ t 1 5 . mori-san wa kono hon wa omoshiroi to iu. Mr. Mori TOP this book TOP interesting QUO say. Mr. Mori says that this book is interesting. (6b) Direct Quote: M^L ii r-© ^ f£ =j3fcL3v\| t H 5 o mori-san wa vkono hon wa omoshiroi" to iu. Mr. Mori TOP "this book TOP interesting" QUO say. Mr. Mori says, "This book is interesting." When followed by a verb of speech and/or thought, the particle t [to] can indicate either direct or indirect quotation.9 This basic use of 5 [to iu] almost always appears at the end of a clause. However, b^b [to iu] can also be used to connect two nouns as shown in the following examples: (7a) Noun, t ^ b [to/M] Noun2 M£A; t ^ b A mori-san to iu hito Mr. Mori called person the person called Mr. Mori (7b) Noun! t V N b [to iu] Noun! ft t ^ b ft hana to iu harm flower called flower all the flowers In example (7a), b^b [to iu] connects two different nouns. As shown in example (7a), the phrase means "Noun2 called (or named) Noun,."10 Therefore, Noun, is usually a proper noun such as the name of a person, a city, a country and so on. Noun2 describes the category in which Noun, belongs. In example (7b), tv^b [to iu] connects two identical nouns, and the phrase means "all the Noun." This usage is not common in speech and sounds archaic. Since this thesis deals with the use and functions of optional t b [to iu] in Japanese C N M , I will 9For more characteristics of Japanese quotation, see Kuno (1988). l 0On the use and function of i:V>5 [to iu] which connects two different nouns, see Kinsui (1988), Takubo (1989), Nakahata (1990), and Tomura (1992). 22 not examine noun-combining b b [to iu] as illustrated in examples (7a) and (7b). In order to introduce the basic use of b b [to iu] which functions to connect a noun with its modifying clause, I repeat below examples (3), (4), and (5) from the Introduction as examples (8a), (8b), and (8c) for the sake of convenience: (8a) obligatory b\/^ b [to iu]: [[m/o as mt £ S f r S tcZb] | * 0 7 ] IS \b^b ) [[mori-san ga shiken o ukeru daro] ( * 0 1 ] hanashi ]_ to iu ' [Mr. Mori N O M exam A C C take probably will]/ * 0 "I ] story t COMPJ the story that Mr. Mori will probably take the test (8b) optional bv^ 5 [to iu]: [mz/v as um % g f t& ] (0 1 i 1 b^b J [mori-san ga shiken o uketa] f 0 1 hanashi [to iu ) [Mr. Mori NOM exam A C C took] (0 1 story 1 COMP J the story that Mr. Mori took the exam (8c) unacceptable b\^b [toiu]: mA, n mm * gftfci r 0 T/V* ^ f f o & . {*b^b J mori-san wa [shiken o uketa] c 0 ? kekka, amerika e itta ]_*to iu J Mr. Mori TOP [exam A C C took] [ 0 1 result, America LOC went t * C O M P / As a result of [having taken] the exam, Mr. Mori went to America. Examples (8a), (8b) and (8c) show b^b [to iu] connecting nouns with their modifying clauses. Al l of the examples above are classified as outer-relationship or NH/CNH-type Japanese C N M . b^b [To iu] can also exist in inner-relationship/CH-type construction. The syntactic function of b V"1 b [to iu], however, shows the difference in the meaning of b b [to iu] between them. In inner-relationship/CH-type C N M , if the speaker includes b^b [toiu] in the statement, the original meaning of the verb H b [iu] ('to speak' or 'to say') is preserved, b 23 V'* b [To iu] in outer-relationship or NH-type C N M functions much like the English complementizer "that." The following examples show the distinction between inner-relationship/CH-type C N M and outer-relationship/NH-type C N M . Here I repeat examples (1) and (2) from the Introduction for convenience: (9) inner-relationship or CH-type C N M . % ti as [bX% * 3 % L 3 ( A | t f 9 ] * £ watashi wa [mori-san ga [totemo omoshiroi] to iu] hon o I TOP [Mr. Mori NOM[very interesting] QUO speak] book A C C yonda. read [PAST]. I read the book which Mr. Mori says is very interesting. (10) outer-relationship or NH-type C N M % \i [[M^/v ^ -xzv ^ f f o f c ] b^b] ^% •& • watashi wa [[mori-san ga otawa e itta] to iu ] jijitsu o I TOP [[Mr. Mori N O M Ottawa LOC went] COMP] fact A C C shitteita. knew. I learned the fact that Mr. Mori went to Ottawa. b b [To iu] in example (9) is interpreted as a combination of a quotation case marker b [to] and a verb Hb [iu], which means "to speak" or "to say." Hence, b^b [to iu] in example (9) means "that [someone] say(s)" in English. The quotation marker b [to] basically functions to connect the embedded clause, which shows the utterances that people make, with its matrix clause. Therefore, the particle b [to] is interpreted as indicating direct quotation markers or as being similar to the complementizer "that." In English the complementizer "that" joins the verb of the matrix clause to its subordinate clause. Accordingly, the way b b [to iu] is used in Japanese C N M becomes the key to classifying Japanese C N M . b^b [To iu] in inner-relationship or CH-type construction functions to denote hearsay. i V \ 5 [To iu] in example (10), however, shows bv^ b [to iu] used as a complementizer. It connects the head noun with 24 its modifying clause." This study is concerned only with b^b [to iu] which is used as a complementizer and it excludes an analysis of b^b [to iu] as it pertains to Teramura's inner-relationship or Matsumoto's CH-type C N M . The next section discusses the relationship between the presence/absence of b^b [to iu] and the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause. 1.2.2 b ^ b [Toiu ] and the Modality of the Modifying Clause This section discusses "modality" in the Japanese language. Teramura (1977b) asserts that in C N M , the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause influence whether or not the addressor includes bv^b [to iu] in a statement. Lyons (1977) defines modality as "the grammaticalization of speakers' subjective attitudes and opinions" (254). Palmer (1986) discusses the distinction between modality and mood: mood is a grammatical category which is restricted to verbal morphology; modality encompasses circumstances beyond verbal morphology. Nitta (1989a) claims that the Japanese language consists of syntactic-semantic structures, H ^ ^ f f i [genhyo-jitai] ('the situation of verbal expression') and WJHISf j l : [genhyo-taido] ('the attitude toward verbal expression'). Nitta (1989a) defines the constituents of verbal expression as the core of the proposition.12 This core includes voice, aspect, tense and so on. He hypothesizes that tense distinguishes the situation of verbal expression from the attitude toward verbal expression. On the other hand, the attitude toward the verbal expression contained in the C N M determines modality. Noda (1989) defines the order of a sentence-final structure in Japanese as follows: "However, iV^p [to iu] is not obligatory in outer-relationship/NH-type CNM. This issue is discussed in Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4. l 2On the notion of proposition, modality and other related concepts in the Japanese language, see Hayashi (1983), Onoe (1973), Nakau (1979), Nitta (1989a) and Masuoka (1991). 25 Figure 3 The Order of Verbal Expression in a Japanese Sentence-Final Structure the situation of verbal expression [the stem] [voice] [aspect] [affirmative/negative] [tense] —the attitude toward verbal expression-[mood to the situation] [mood to the addressee] (=Noda 1989:45) The following example represents the structure shown in Figure 3: ( I D the situation of verbal expression the attitude toward verbal expression =modality [stem] [voice] [aspect] [negative] [tense] [mood to the situation] [mood to the addressee [ 1 M [t,ti\ [ T H [fcfro] [tc] [tabe] [rare] [tei] [nakai] [ta] [stem of [/afcera]][passive][aspect] [negative] [past] [/ot£] [n-da] [EMO-CPL] Dfe] [ne] [particle] [It] was not eaten [by anybody], was it? If the clause requires "the attitude toward verbal expression" in NH/CNH-type C N M , the utterance requires b^b[to iu] to make it grammatically correct. Nitta (1995) divides Figure 3's distinct categories into two main sections. Those from [the stem] to [tense] belong to "the situation of verbal expression." The last two segments, "mood to the situation" and "mood to the addressee," belong in the modality category which Nitta defines as the "attitude toward verbal expression." He also states that the latter part of this structure, mood to the addressee, expresses one of the characteristics of a main clause and Cannot exist in a subordinate clause. When analyzing the (non-)use of b^b [to iu], Teramura (1977b) defines "degree of modality" from a syntactic and morphological point of view. His definition is summarized below:13 13The degree of modality increases as the numbers go up. That is, level 5 has the highest degree of modality whereas level 1 has the lowest degree of modality. 26 Table 3 1 4 Degree of Modality Shown in the Predicate Part of the Japanese Language degree of modality Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 syntactic features plain form1 5 epistemic volitional modality form copula imperative form polite form sentence-final particle Nina's classification mood to the situation mood to the addressee (=Teramura 1977b: 9) As shown in Table 3, the area including the imperative form of level 3 to the level 5 degree of modality corresponds to Nitta's mood to the addressee while level 2 and copula of level 3 applies to Nitta's mood to the situation.16 The modifying clauses in the examples below demonstrate each level of modality. They also include b^b [to iu] between the modifying clause and its head noun. The underlined parts indicate the words which determine the degree of modality: Level 5: (12) sentence-final particle [[tt^ftt^ i2] b^b ] [[shikatanai wa] to iu ] kanji [[there is no way SF] COMP] feeling the feeling that shows there is no way (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 47) (13) sentence-final particle (question particle) mm _ -e it ti £ i ] b^b]MWh [[nogyo de kueru michi wa nai ka] to iu ] kimochi [[agriculture INST support oneself way TOP not exist QUE] COMP] feeling the feeling whether or not there is a way to support themselves by agriculture {Shokuryo: 156) 14This thesis employs Teramura's classification when explaining the subtypes of modality in the Japanese language. The modifying clause with level three modality or above always requires iV^ 5 [to iu] in Japanese NH-/CNH-type CNM. This issue will be discussed later in this section. King (personal communication) points out that degrees of modality are not sharply distinct, but that in fact the transition from level to level is a gradual one. lsBasically, there are two verbal forms in Japanese: plain and polite. For example, the plain and polite forms of "to speak" or "to say" are V"> 5 [iu] and V^V*£i~ [iimasu] respectively. 16The plain form of copula tc [da] shows the characteristics of a strong assertion, particularly in a subordinate clause. 27 Level 4: (14) polite form [[watas/w wa zeztaz ugokimasen ] to z'w ] /s/zz [[I TOP absolutely polite form of ugokanai [not to move]] COMP] will the will that I would absolutely not move here (Tora-chan: 63) Level 3: (15) imperative form [[s/zmpaz suruna I to zzi ] /w [[worry imperative form of s/zz'naz [not to do]] COMP] atmosphere the atmosphere that tells [him] not to worry (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 169) (16) copula [[fushigina torio da] to iu ] kao [[weird trio CPL] COMP] face the face [or facial expression] which shows they are a weird trio. (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 50) Level 2: (17) volitional form [\Jukyu o chosei shiyo ] to iu ] nerai [[supply and demand A C C adjustment volitional form of suru [do]] COMP] goal the goal that [they] will adjust the supply and demand (Shokuryo: 87) (18) epistemic modality [[* <D ® * M £ t r jLT<3 frft bj i frv^l b^b] [[tsugi no km wa honki o dashite-kuru kamoshirenai] to iu] [[next GEN inning TOP earnestness A C C produce-come may be] COMP] kanji feeling the feeling that [he would] probably pitch with intensity in the next inning (Shin nejime no baka: 135) 28 Level 1: (19) plain form as gg< taoitb i - < * K i l ^ l [[•sw&os/z/ demo &/fom ga waruku nat-tara sugu ni kaeru] [[a little even feeling NOM bad become-CON right away DAT return] £ ^ 5 ] to iu] yakusoku COMP] promise the promise that [she will] return [to the hospital] as soon as [she] starts to feel ill (Kodomo no tonari: 39) Analyzing his examples, Teramura (1977b) theorizes that in NH/CNH-type C N M , the higher degree of modality of the modifying clause, the more necessary t ^ b {to iu] becomes. He claims that the clauses with level 3 modality or above appear only as independent clauses, t V» b [To iu] generally follows the modifying clause which shows the characteristics of an independent clause. Based on the modifying clause's modality and on the semantic characteristics of the head noun, he classifies outer relationship C N M into two subcategories: content-complement and relational-complement outer-relationship. The next section discusses the relationship between the complementizer t b [to iu] and Teramura's classification of outer-relationship C N M . 1.2.3 t V^  p [To iu] and Outer-Relationship Teramura (1977b) claims that it is necessary to consider the semantic characteristics between the head noun and its modifying clause in outer-relationship Japanese C N M . He categorizes the head nouns which appear in outer-relationship C N M according to their semantic properties and assigns each head noun to one of four categories. The table below lists his classification of Japanese C N M head nouns along with representative examples: 29 Table 4 List of Head Nouns and Their C N M in Outer-Relationship [=summary of Teramura (1977b)] I. , © # < £ > £ i 8 5 j [hatsuwa, shiko no meishi] ('nouns of speech and thought') HlH [kotoba] ('word') [meirei] ('order') #|ft [tegami] (letter1) #;t [kangae] ('idea or opinion') J§.l^  [omoi ] ('thought') [kesshin] ('decision') (20) [[Z(D £*L ft I^EfiP _ # #v>fc] £1^5] it [[A»no tatefuda wa mutsugoro ga kaita] toiu] uwasa [[this bulletin board TOP Mutsugoro NOM wrote] COMP] rumor the rumor that Mutsugoro wrote [the message on] the bulletin board (Teramura 1977b: 12) II. 3 M4<£>45§ff! [koto-sei no meishi] ('nouns of fact') * H [jijitsu] ('fact') mft \jiken] ('incident') [kioku] ('memory') [kanosei] ('possibility') M£ [kako] ('past') [seikaku] ('personality') (2i) [frmm t mm*m t. # m^t^mm [shonagon to kanojo [murasaki shikibu] to ga atta] jijitsu [Shonagon C O M she [Murasaki Shikibu] C O M NOM met] fact the fact that Shonagon and she [Murasaki Shikibu] met [each other] (Teramura 1972: 67) III. ^'ML'D&gsi [kankaku no meishi] ('nouns of perception') ^JV^ [nioi] ('smell') l&M [kanshoku] ('sense') ft [a/7] ('taste') [shashin] ('picture or photograph') ^ [sugata] ('appearance') jj£ [<?] ('picture') (22) [ i f W £ $ ^ T V ^ ] [sanma o yai-teiru] nioi [mackerel A C C grill-ing] smell the smell of grilling mackerel (Teramura 1972:68) IV. W$fe<b%xM [sotai-sei no meishi] ('nouns of relation') _h [ue] ('top') T [shita] ('underneath') |tj [moe] ('front') & 5 [ushiro] ('back') JKH [gen'in] ('cause;) [kekka] ('result or effect') (23) m nztitc] agm, s * _ -e S S J # g ; o f c . [&are ga korosareta] kekka, kuniju de bodo ga okotta. [he NOM was killed] result, all over the country LOC riot N O M occurred. As a result of his [having] been killed, riots occurred all over the country. (Teramura 1972: 68) 30 Analyzing his examples, Teramura (1977b) recognizes that the head nouns such as examples (20), (21), and (22) show a different relationship with the modifying clause from that such as example (23). Subclassifying outer-relationship C N M into two subtypes, he claims that C N M such as in examples (20), (21) and (22) is content-complement outer-relationship C N M and that C N M such as in example (23) is relational-complement outer-relationship C N M . The structure of C N M in examples (20) and (21) resembles English appositive clauses, but that of (22) and (23) does not. Even though its modifying clause complements the content of its head noun, example (22) cannot be translated as an English appositive clause. The modifying clause in (23) does not represent the content of the head noun [kekka] ('result'). It shows the reason of the result, an antonym of the result. This type of noun modification does not exist in English. Teramura also points out that the presence/absence of tv^b [to iu] is a secondary factor in distinguishing content-complement outer-relationship C N M from relational-complement outer-relationship C N M . The presence of the complementizer t ^ b [to iu] is always unacceptable in relational-complement outer-relationship C N M . However, the non-use of t b [to iu] does not determine whether outer-relationship C N M is content-complement or relational-complement outer-relationship CNM: the presence of t V» b [to iu] can be obligatory, optional or unacceptable in content-complement outer-relationship C N M . When considering the presence/absence of t b [to iu] in content-complement outer-relationship C N M , Teramura (1977b) focuses on the following two characteristics within CNM: the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause and the semantic characteristics of the head noun. The following table shows the relationship between outer-relationship C N M and the use of the complementizer t b [to iu]: 31 Table 5 The Relationship between Teramura's Framework and the Use of k^b [to iu] subclassification of outer-relationship content-complement outer-relationship relati onal-com pl ement outer-relationship Type of Head Noun T Y P E 1 T Y P E II T Y P E III T Y P E IV mm. &%<D&m [hatsuwa shiko no meishi] ('nouns of speech and thought') [koto sei no meishi] ('nouns of fact') [kankaku no meishi] ('nouns of perception') [sotai-sei no meishi] ('nouns of relation') [to iu]'s presence modality of the modifying clause level three and up obligatory obligatory obligatory unacceptable level two and below obligatory optional unacceptable When analyzing the relationship between the complementizer k^b [to iu] and the modifying clause comprehensively, Teramura examines the degree of modality of the modifying clause. If the modifying clause shows a high degree of modality, that is, level three and above, all content-complement outer-relationship C N M require kv^b [to iu] obligatorily regardless of the type of the head noun as shown in Table 5. However, when the modifying clause shows level 2 and below, C N M with a type I head noun requires k^b [to iu] obligatorily, while type II and III head nouns do not. The presence of k^b [to iu] is optional in C N M with a type II head noun, whereas its presence is unacceptable in C N M where the head noun is type III. Chapter 3 analyzes the conditions where the presence/absence of k^b [to iu] is contingent upon the modifying clause's modality and on the head noun's semantic characteristics respectively and reciprocally. As discussed above, Teramura's outer-relationship classification is not relevant in analyzing the function of k b [to iu] as a complementizer. As an alternative classification, the next section discusses how Matsumoto considers the relationship between the complementizer k^b [to iu] and Japanese C N M . 32 1.2.4 t 5 [To iu] and NH-type and CNH-Type CNM As mentioned in Section 1.1.2, Matsumoto (1988a, b) classifies Japanese C N M into three subcategories; CH- , NH-, and CNH-type C N M . One factor considered in her classification is the presence/absence of the complementizer t ^ b [to iu] in Japanese C N M . The complementizer 1V* b [to iu] must or may be present in NH-type C N M , but it cannot occur in CNH-type C N M . The following table demonstrates the relationship between t^b[to iu] and her NH- and CNH-type CNM: Table 6 The Relationship between Matsumoto's Framework and the Use of h V1* b [to iu] type of CNM NH-type C N M CNH-type CNM Type speech act nouns of proposition- nouns of relational quasi-of nouns thoughts taking perception nouns relational Head and nouns nouns Noun feelings t^b[to iu] optional17 unacceptable As shown in Table 6, Matsumoto (1988a, b) lists NH-type head nouns as speech act nouns, nouns of thoughts and feelings, and proposition-taking nouns. Teramura's nouns of speech and thought are divided into two categories in her framework: speech act nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings.18 These NH-type head nouns function to label what is designated by the modifying clause. Example (2) in Section 1.1.1, an example of outer-relationship Japanese C N M , is also NH-type C N M . I repeat example (2) below: Matsumoto (1988a, b) does not use the word "optional" when explaining the use of t 5 [to iu] in NH-type CNM. Nevertheless, Matsumoto (1988b) claims that "the presence of t ^ b [to iu] is neither necessary or sufficient to make an NH-type" CNM (137). I8Based on the definition and the examples they employ in their respective analyses, Teramura's nouns of speech and thought are equivalent to Matsumoto's speech act nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings. His nouns of fact correspond to Matsumoto's proposition-taking nouns. 33 (24) & ii [m$A, & ^ f f o f c ] j t ^ 5 j l S * watashi wa [mori-san ga otawa e itta] (to iu ] hanashi o I 0 J I TOP [Mr. Mori N O M Ottawa L O C went] | COMP j story A C C kiita. heard. I heard the story that Mr. Mori went to Ottawa. As Section 1.2.3 discussed, the head noun in example (24), M [hanashi] ('story'), functions to identify the content designated by its modifying clause, M^tvl)^? U-^Vi-oTc [mori-san ga otawa e itta] ('Mr. Mori went to Ottawa'). Also, as shown in example (24), some NH-type C N M takes b^b [to iu] optionally. Matsumoto (1988a, b) defines CNH-type C N M as the C N M where both the modifying clause and its head noun complement each other. As shown in Table 6, CNH-type head nouns are classified into relational nouns, quasi-relational nouns, and nouns of perception.19 She classifies Teramura's nouns of relation into two subtypes: relational nouns and quasi-relational nouns. The unacceptability of the complementizer b^b [to iu] is another characteristic common to all CNH-type C N M . Matsumoto's C N M classification is consistent with the presence/absence of the complementizer b b [to iu]: C N M is of the NH-type if it can take b \^b [to iu]; and of the CNH-type C N M if it cannot. However, she does not focus on the presence/absence of b^b [to iu] when analyzing NH-type C N M . The next section discusses previous studies on the use and functions of the complementizer b^b [to iu], particularly in an optional situation. 1.3 The Semantic Characteristics of Optional b V> b [to iu] Tomura (1985,1990, 1991) defines b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M as a complementizer, that is, a function word. Before discussing the use and functions of optional b^b [to iu], 19Based on the semantic characteristics of the head noun, Section 3.2 discusses the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause in CNH-type CNM. 34 Section 1.3.1 examines theories which claim that even function words do influence the meaning of sentences. Section 1.3.2 reviews the functions of optional t^b [to iu] proposed by Tomura (1985, 1991), Kim (1989), Tokuda (1989), and Oshima (1991). Although their hypotheses based on made-up examples sound persuasive, we do not know for certain if they actually do function in that way in discourse. Furthermore, even in the cases where examples are taken from actual written or oral data, it is impossible to determine the validity of the hypotheses without examining their context. Section 1.3.3 introduces Maynard's (1992, 1993) framework, which analyzes the optional functions of t b [to iu] in context. 1.3.1 Function Words and t^b [toiu] Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) and Bolinger (1972, 1977) postulate that a function word can have semantic properties: that is, function words can change the meaning of a sentence. Bolinger (1977) claims that including the English complementizer "that" could influence the meaning of the sentence. Compare the following examples from Bolinger (1977): (25a) The forecast says it is going to rain. (Bolinger 1977: 11) (25b) The forecast says that it is going to rain. (Bolinger 1977: 11) Bolinger (1977) points out that if the speaker "step[s] into a room and want[s] to drop a casual remark about the weather," example (25a) is appropriate whereas example (25b) is not (11). He also adds that example (25b) sounds natural if used as an answer for a question such as "what's the weather tomorrow?" His explanation regarding the English complementizer "that" also supports the theory that analysis based on context is necessary to comprehend why some function words are (not) deliberately used in certain situations. Following Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) and Bolinger (1972, 1977), Tomura (1985, 1991) assumes that the complementizer t b [to iu] is a function word, which has semantic characteristics. Its presence or absence influences the interpretation and the meaning of the 35 sentence where C N M is inc luded. Researchers such as N a k a u (1973) and Josephs (1976) c l a i m that sentences inc lud ing t^b [to iu] are non- fact ive. Josephs (1976) explains that a m o d i f y i n g clause w i t h t^b [to iu] represents hearsay and that i n c l u d i n g t^b [to iu] introduces "a degree o f doubt or a weakening o f the speaker's conv ic t ion" when i t occurs w i t h a fact ive predicate (359). Refu t ing Joseph's c la im that fac t iv i ty cannot thoroughly explain t b [to iu]'s use, Terakura (1980, 1984) shows an alternative func t ion o f t b [to iu]: i t occurs w i t h a "proposi t ion." She defines a proposi t ion as a "conceptual ent i ty l i ke fact" : a proposi t ion is subjective whereas a fact is object ive. She points out that j udg ing tv^b [to iu]'s acceptabil i ty in C N M proves d i f f i cu l t because its (non-)use is not always the result o f syntactic and semantic condi t ions w i t h i n C N M . O n l y the speaker can decide whether or not a certain si tuat ion should be depicted as a proposi t ion. 1.3.2. The functions of Optional t^b [to iu] Based on Hypothetical CNM I n analyzing the semantic di f ference between N H - t y p e C N M w i t h and w i thou t opt ional t^b [to iu], researchers such as T o m u r a (1985, 1991), K i m (1989) , T o k u d a (1989) , and Osh ima (1991) f o l l o w Terakura (1980, 1984). They a l l agree that the presence/absence o f opt ional t^b [to iu] inf luences the meaning o f the C N M . These f o u r also agree that b\^b [to iu] keeps its basic meaning and st i l l inheri ts the "quotat ive" func t ion . However , Tokuda's analysis d i f fers f r o m the other three researchers above i n that she somet imes examines the context w h e n exp la in ing w h y actual w r i t t en data exclude b^b [to iu] in certain N H - t y p e C N M . Section 4.2.2 discusses her example and shows that contextual analysis is necessary i n order to comprehend opt ional t b [to iu]. T o k u d a (1989) l ists various condi t ions where t b [to iu] is present i n Japanese C N M . She hypothesizes that the addressor adds opt ional b [to iu] i n Japanese C N M i f he/she assumes that the addressee does not k n o w the in fo rmat ion expressed i n the m o d i f y i n g c lause. 2 0 O n the other hand, bv^b [to iu] is not inc luded When the 2 0On the function of b 5 [to iu] which connects two different nouns, Kinsui (1988) clarifies that this b b [to iu] is used to designate information which the listener/reader does not know. 36 addressor believes that the information is already known to the addressee. Tomura (1985, 1990) defines the syntactic function of b^b [to iu] as a complementizer and names its semantic function JftfcHI&tB [chushutsu kind] ('encapsulating function'). Encapsulating function means that b b [to iu] functions to extract the content of the modifying clause from the real world. She hypothesizes that the presence of b^b [to iu] causes the anti-synchronic and indirect relationship between the modifying clause and its head noun. When the addressor introduces the C N M , he/she senses a mental process, which extracts one specific part from the whole phenomenon. Therefore, only the addressor can determine the presence/absence of optional b^b [to iu] because it is the addressor who can decide some certain event or state as a whole. Kim (1989) claims that b^b [to iu] is present when the addressor classifies the content of the modifying clause into one of three types: an abstract concept, indirectness, and a representative of a pattern. She mentions that b\^b [to iu]'s optional use is related to indirectness. Oshima (1991) claims that optional b^b [to iu] functions to indicate an addressor's subjective impressions such as intention, guess, and doubt. He hypothesizes that when the addressor employs C N M with optional b^b [to iu], he/she tries to express the situation described in the modifying clause as his/her own comment. The hypotheses discussed above are mainly derived from made-up examples. Therefore, although they appear convincing, we do not know whether they actually function in that way in actual discourse. Even if the researchers had examined actual written or spoken data, we cannot determine the validity of their hypotheses without the context in which the C N M appears. The use and functions of optional b V1* b [to iu] must be examined fully in context in order to verify any hypothesis. The next section will introduce Maynard (1992, 1993), who supplies the context of written data when analyzing the function of optional b V"1 b [toiu]. 37 1.3.3 t b [To i«] as "Discourse Modality Indicator" Maynard's (1992, 1993) analysis differs from those discussed in Section 1.3.2 in that all of her examples come from actual written data. In addition, when analyzing the use and functions of optional t ^ b [to iu], Maynard provides the contextual information where C N M is used. Therefore, her hypothesis is more persuasive than the others discussed above. Maynard (1993) claims that determining whether or not optional tv^b [to iu] is used necessitates "not syntactic but fundamentally a discourse pragmatic" analysis (232). She hypothesizes that t V N b [to iu] is one of the Discourse Modality Indicators and that the complementizer t ^ b [to iu] "connects between two modes of interaction, 'saying' and 'describing'" (252). 2 1 Maynard (1993) claims that Discourse Modality is the function of conveying "the speaker's subjective emotional, mental or psychological attitude toward the message content, the speech act itself or toward his or her interlocutor in discourse" (38). According to Maynard (1993), Discourse Modality Indicators are defined as "non-referential linguistic signs whose primary functions are to directly express personal attitude and feelings as characterized by the concept of Discourse Modality" (47). Maynard (1992, 1993) states that the (non-)use of optional t ^ b [to iu] relates to the difference between foregrounded and backgrounded information in C N M . According to Hopper (1979), "foreground" means "the language of the actual story line" or "the parts of the narrative which relate events belonging to the skeletal structure of the discourse" (213). Hopper (1979) claims that "background" refers to "the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main events" (213). Based on Hopper (1979), Maynard (1992, 1993) claims that in optional situations, the addressor focuses attention on its modifying clause by including b b [to iu]. Conversely, the addressor who excludes tv^b [to iu] in an optional situation focuses 21Maynard (1993) discusses the following Discourse Modality Indicators: connectives tcfrh [dakara] and tc-o X [datte], modal adverbs [yahari] and -^o!i>9 [yappari], interactional particles i. [yo] and iz [we];and styles tc [da] and "T?i~/£"t" [desulmasu]. 38 attention on the head noun. In other words, optional b^ b [to iu] is present in the Japanese C N M when the modifying clause is foregrounded because (1) its information is new or unexpected; (2) its content is relatively important in discourse and the addressor uses b^b [to iu] in order to add a dramatic emphasis; and (3) the addressor recognizes that someone tries to express the information in the modifying clause as his/her own comment.22 In the third constraint, what is designated by the modifying clause is interpreted as an utterance within quotations. On the other hand, Japanese C N M without b b [to iu] in an optional situation indicates that information contained in the modifying clause does not normally reflect somebody's actual utterance. This Chapter has reviewed previous research into Japanese C N M and other background information essential to help us comprehend the presence/absence of the complementizer b^ b [to iu] in Japanese C N M . It has also introduced the Japanese C N M classification proposed by Teramura (1975, 1977a, b, 1978) and Matsumoto (1988a, b). Also, it has discussed their analyses of the relationship between the C N M and b b [to iu]. The findings here show that neither Teramura's nor Matsumoto's analyses sufficiently explain the distributional constraints of b^b [to iu] in content-complement outer-relationship or NH-type C N M . Also, it has reviewed previous studies on the use and functions of optional b^b [toiu]. May nard's (1992, 1993) analysis points out that examining the context where the C N M is included is indispensable in order to comprehend the (non-)use of the complementizer b\^b [to iu] in an optional situation. The next chapter will determine which terms of Japanese C N M classification will be used in this thesis. It will also introduce a framework for b b [to iu] based on Teramura (1977b), Matsumoto (1988a, b) and Maynard (1992, 1993). Her analysis points out that the third reason also applies to the syntactic constraints where the presence of b V"1 5 [to iu] is obligatory in some Japanese CNM. Section 3.1.1 will discuss this issue in detail. 39 Chapter Two Terms and Framework of This Thesis 2.0 Introduction This chapter discusses the terms and framework followed in this study. Section 2.1 compares Teramura's (1975, 1977a, b, 1978) classification to Matsumoto's (1978) as they relate to the complementizer t^b [to iu]. Section 2.2 explains why this thesis employs Matsumoto's terms. Although this study employs Matsumoto's (1988a, b) terms, the concept of "degree of modality" is unique to Teramura's (1977b) analysis. Based on their examinations, Section 2.2 also introduces a tentative framework of this thesis. By combining Matsumoto's Japanese C N M classification and Maynard's concept of Discourse Modality Indicators, Section 2.3 introduces an alternative framework original to this thesis and for the area under discussion. 2.1 Comparison between Teramura's and Matsumoto's Framework In order to show the difference between Teramura's (19775, 1977a, b, 1978) and Matsumoto's (1988a, b) C N M classification, this section briefly compares the two.1 The following table shows the difference between their C N M framework: Table 7 A Comparison between Teramura's and Matsumoto's Japanese C N M Classification Japanese C N M Teramura (1975,77a, b, 1978) inner-relationship outer-relationship Matsumoto (1988a, b) CH-type C N M NH-type C N M CNH-type C N M As shown in Table 7, the most significant difference between their respective frameworks is that Teramura's (1977) dichotomy breaks Japanese C N M into inner-relationship and outer-relationship. Also, he subclassifies outer-relationship into two subcategories: content-'This thesis does not discuss which CNM framework is more thorough because such discussion is not its focus. 40 complement and relational-complement outer-relationship. On the other hand, Matsumoto (1988a, b) separates Japanese C N M into three, CH-type, NH-type and CNH-type construction. Her classification differs from Teramura's (1975, 1977a, b, 1978) in that she examines C N M which cannot be adequately explained without using her semantic framework.2 The following table compares Teramura's outer relationship with Matsumoto's NH-/CNH-type C N M as they relate to the complementizer tv^b [to iu]: Table 8 A Comparison between Outer-Relationship and NH-/CNH-Type CNM Teramura Type of Outer-Relationship conte nouns of nt-complement nouns of ::-nouns o f : : relational-complement Head Noun Matsumoto speech an N d thought H-type Cl fact NM perception • ffl-type CN M Type of Head Noun speech act nouns nouns of thoughts and feelings proposition-taking nouns •ridunsof •••perception.-. •relational • • • •• nouns. ••. .;.; quasi-• relational • ••••nouns---'--. CMM where::kvy.b. [to.iuyis."unaseepteble: As shown in Table 8, one contradiction which this thesis endeavors to resolve is the different ways in which Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b) interpret C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. Teramura regards nouns of perception as head nouns included in content-complement outer-relationship C N M . 3 Matsumoto, however, considers nouns of perception as head nouns included in CNH-type C N M . To avoid confusing their frameworks 2Matsumoto (1988a, b), however, does not analyze CNM in context. This distinguishes her analysis from those of Maynard (1992,1993). teramura (1977b) comments that i 5 [to iu]'s use can be obligatory, optional, and unacceptable in content-complement outer-relationship CNM, while h^b [to iu] must not be present in relational-complement outer-relationship CNM. He points out that the presence of t V-* 5 [to iu] is generally unacceptable when a noun of perception is the head noun of content-complement outer-relationship CNM. 41 and terms, I will determine which framework is more effective in explaining the relationship between C N M and the (non-)use of the complementizer tv^b [to iu] in an optional situation. The next section will introduce the terms and a tentative framework this thesis follows. 2.2 Terms Employed in This Thesis This thesis employs Matsumoto's (1988a, b) Japanese C N M classification. As shown in Table 8, Matsumoto's NH- and CNH-type C N M correspond to the presence and absence of the complementizer b^b [to iu]. When classifying types of head nouns, this thesis also employs Matsumoto's terms: speech act nouns, nouns of thoughts and feelings, proposition-taking nouns, nouns of perception, relational nouns, and quasi-relational nouns. Her classification is more detailed than Teramura's because Matsumoto (1988a, b) divides Teramura's (1977b) nouns of relation category into two subtypes: relational nouns and quasi-relational nouns. When examining Japanese C N M , Matsumoto (1988a, b) does not analyze the relationship between b^b [to iu] and the subclassification of Japanese C N M . Conversely, Teramura (1977b) examines their relationship according to the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause. Specifically, he examines the relationship between b^b [to iu] and the modifying clause according to the modifying clause's degree of modality. As discussed in Section 1.2.2, Teramura claims that in NH-/CNH-type C N M , the higher the modifying clause's degree of modality, the more necessary b^b [to iu] becomes. Using his examples, Teramura concludes that if the degree of modality is level three and above, the presence of irV^ b [to iu] becomes indispensable. This rule applies no matter what kind of head noun precedes its modifying clause. The following table summarizes the relationship between head noun type and its modifying clause's degree of modality in NH-/CNH-type C N M based on Teramura and Matsumoto: 42 Table 9 The Relationship between Head Noun Type and its Modifying Clause's Degree of Modality in NH-/CNH-Type CNM Type of C N M NH-type C N M CNH-type CNM Type of Head Noun speech act noun nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational noun quasi-relational noun degree of level 5 obligatory obligatory obligatory obligatory N / A 4 N/A modality level 4 obligatory obligatory obligatory obligatory N/A N/A and the level 3 obligatory obligatory obligatory obligatory N/A N/A use of t level 2 obligatory obligatory optional N/A N/A N/A V"> 5 [to iu] level 1 optional? obligatory? optional optional unacceptable unacceptable unacceptable Table 9 reveals contradictions in the following two areas: (1) b b [to iu]'s presence in NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level two and below, and (2) CNH-type C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. The first problem closely relates to the main issue of this thesis. In NH-type C N M , the presence of b^b [to iu] is always obligatory when the degree of modality of its modifying clause is level three and up. When its modality is level two and below, some CNH require b b [to iu] obligatorily while others take it optionally. For example, nouns of thoughts and feelings take b^b [to iu] optionally when the degree of the modality of their modifying clause is level one. Moreover, Tokuda (1989) claims that, in actual written data, some speech act nouns do not always necessitate bv^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level one, although Teramura claims that they require b^b [to iu] obligatorily. Because 4"N/A" means that no modifying clause shows the corresponding degree of modality in CNM as far as my data is concerned, while "unacceptable" means that the modifying clause shows the corresponding degree of modality, but does not occur with b^b [to iu]. 43 Teramura and Tokuda do not agree regarding whether t b [to iu] is obligatory or optional here, I have noted this in Table 9 and have inserted question marks to highlight their lack of consensus. Chapter Four discusses this issue in detail. In order to compensate for the discrepancy discussed above, this thesis introduces the hypothesis that all NH-type C N M take b [to iu] optionally when the degree of modality of its modifying clause is level two and below. The second problematic area to be examined is in CNH-type C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. Table 9 shows that CNH-type C N M requires b^b [to iu] obligatorily where the head noun is a noun of perception and where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level three and above. On the other hand, the other head nouns in CNH-type C N M , relational nouns and quasi-relational nouns, do not occur with the modifying clause where the degree of modality is level two and above. Although the present study focuses on NH-type C N M , I will examine CNH-type C N M where nouns of perception must take i ^ ^ 5 [to iu] in order to compare these two uses of t b [to iu]. The following table demonstrates a tentative framework of the current study, that is, how this thesis defines obligatory, optional, and unacceptable £v>5 [to iu] in NH-/CNH-type CNM: 44 Table 10 The use of t b [to iu]: Obligatory, Optional, and Unacceptable t b [to"*] in NH-/CNH-type CNM: Tentative Framework of This Thesis Type of C N M NH type CNM CNH type CNM Type of Head Nouns speech act nouns nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational nouns quasi-relational nouns degree of modality and the use of t V"> 5 [to iu] level 5 level 4 level 3 level 2 level 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t s f f s s s s sKjrksM l £ < < I V t > ssssssss •.•.•.•.•.•.-.•.•.•Optional \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ * N . V . S N . i k N . ' k . ' V . ' S . ' k . i N/A III N/A •MHx-eplablc As shown in Table 10, the complementizer £v^5 [to IM] appears in NH-/CNH-type C N M . Speech act nouns, nouns of thoughts and feelings, and proposition-taking nouns serve as NH-type head nouns. Nouns of perception, relational nouns, and quasi-relational nouns function as CNH-type head nouns. When the modifying clause's degree of modality is level three and above, t^b [to iu] is obligatory in either NH-type C N M or in CNH-type C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. The presence of t V1* b [to iu] is optional in NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level two and below. Its presence is grammatically unacceptable in CNH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level one. Chapter Three examines the use and functions of obligatory and unacceptable t b [to iu] while Chapter Four examines optional t^b [to iu]. 2.3 Framework of This Thesis As discussed in Section 1.3.3, Maynard (1992, 1993) proposes that the presence of optional t b [to iu] in NH-type C N M depends on whether the information described in the modifying clause is foregrounded. The following three constraints foreground what is described 45 by the modifying clause: (1) its information is new or unexpected by the addressee; (2) the addressor wants to give a dramatic effect to the information expressed by the modifying clause because it is much more pragmatically significant than the information in the head noun; and (3) the modifying clause shows one or more of the characteristics of a direct quote because the addressor recognizes that someone is trying to express the modifying clause's information as his/her own comment. In order to make the discussion more concise here, I will label the three constraints when analyzing the context where NH-type is included as follows: (1) new information, (2) dramatic effect, and (3) direct-quote. Maynard's (1992, 1993) third constraint, direct-quote, requires an alternative framework of this thesis. By examining written data, Tokuda (1989) claims that the presence of t 5 [to iu] is obligatory in C N M when the modifying clause retains the characteristics of a direct quote. As discussed in Section 1.2.2, a high degree of modality of the modifying clause indicates the condition which requires t ^ b [to iu] obligatorily. Therefore, the modifying clause which shows level three modality or above points to the inherent characteristics of a direct quote. Based on the findings above, this thesis should modify the framework set out in Section 2.2 as follows: 46 Table 11 The use of b V N b [to iu]: Alternative Framework of This Thesis Type of C N M NH-type CNM CNH -type CN] M Type of Head Noun speech act noun nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational noun quasi-relational noun degree of modality and the use of b 5 [to iu] level 5 level 4 level 3 level 2 level 1 v^Optional (Direct-Quote) • N/A N/A m ^ U n a c c e p t a b . e % ^ As shown in Table 11, this study proposes an alternative hypothesis that all NH-type C N M take b^b [to iu] optionally. However, when analyzing written data, it is better to divide NH-type C N M into two subcategories: NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level three and above, and NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level two and below. When the degree of modality of the modifying clause is level three and above, the presence of optional b V> b [to iu] results from only one constraint: direct-quote. However, when the degree of modality of the modifying clause is level two or below, one or more of the three constraints which make the modifying clause foregrounded should be considered. Therefore, this thesis calls the first type of optional b b [to iu] "direct-quote" b V> b [to iu] in order to avoid confusion. Chapter Three analyzes the conditions of direct-quote and unacceptable b b [to iu]. When comprehending the constraints of direct-quote b^b [to iu], it is necessary to examine both the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause and the semantic properties of the head noun of C N M . Also, when analyzing the conditions of unacceptable b^b [to iu], it is essential to examine the semantic characteristics of the head noun within C N M . However, when examining the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause, we must 47 remember that some CNH-type C N M require shared cultural/social knowledge while others necessitate an analysis based on the context. Chapter Four discusses the constraints of optional t 5 [to iu] in NH-type C N M . The following table demonstrates the area this thesis will discuss: Table 12 The use of b 5 [to iu]: The Area Discussed in This Thesis Type of C N M NH-type C N M CNH -type CNM Type of Head Noun speech act noun nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational noun quasi-relational noun degree of modality and the level 5 1 level 4 j level 3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J \ i k N \ \ S \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ . \ V i | . \ i | . > . \ \ . > . \ \ , S . \ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J S \ \ \ N N > . > . N , S . \ . ' i | . , S . \ , < i . \ ' S , S \ \ S \ \ \ , S . > . > . X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J \ \ S \ N N X ' i k > i > . \ . > . , S . \ S \ \ \ \ \ \ S \ . ' N 1 \ > . > 1 x x x x x x x x x x x_x x x_x x x x„ s _x_ x .x x x x X_J X X X X X X X X X X X s V s s X X x X^X X X X X X X T x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x . * \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ > . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X J x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X „ X X X X X X x x x x'x x x x x x \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - > x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x N/A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . use of t V> 5 [to iu] level 2 level 1 Optional ;;::;;:;;;;;;;;;Dj^ Qrial;;;:;::;::;::;;:;;;;;;s N/A X X X X X X X f J * \ ^ \ \ \ \ \ sTsT' x x x x x x x x * IX, Discussed in Chapter Three ! » > » ! Discussed in Chapter Four In the following I explain the reason for excluding NH-type C N M where the degree of modality of the modifying clause is level two. First, Teramura (1977b) claims that if the modifying clause's modality shows level three and above, it retains the characteristics of a direct quote. He, however, never discusses whether level two degree of modality of the modifying clause shows the characteristics of a direct quote or not. Second, all researchers accept that CH-type C N M must not take a modifying clause which shows the characteristics of a direct quote. When a modifying clause shows level 2 modality, however, some CH-type C N M occur with the modifying clause which demonstrates epistemic modality.5 These two findings suggest ^There are three forms of epistemic modality proposed by Teramura (1977b): L-tlfeV^ [kamoshirenai] ('it may be so, but I am not certain'), 6> LV> [rashii] ('it appears that'), and tth 5 [daro] ('it probably will be'). Mihara (1995) points out that the acceptability of these three in CH-type C N M is different. The presence of fri> Ltt-TfeV* [kamoshirenai] ('it probably will be') is acceptable in CH-type C N M , while that of tth 5 [daro] ('it probably will be') is marginal or grammatically unacceptable. The acceptability of the presence of h LV^ [rashii] ('it appears that') lies between them. 48 that we cannot determine whether or not epistemic modality shows the characteristics of a direct quote. Therefore, the present study excludes the data of NH-type C N M where the degree of modality of the modifying clause is level two. 49 Chapter Three b V N b [To iu]: Direct-Quote and Unacceptable Uses 3.0 Introduction This chapter focuses on the direct-quote and unacceptable use of b^b [to iu]. As discussed in Chapters One and Two, the complementizer b^b [to iu] cannot always exist in all NH-type C N M situations. In fact, some NH-type C N M situations do not require the inclusion of b b [to iu] in order to make the C N M well-formed. Furthermore, some CNH-type C N M occur with b^b [to iu] although most of them would be considered grammatically incorrect if b^b [to iu] were included in the statement. Researchers such as Teramura (1977b), Terakura (1980, 1984), Tomura (1985, 1991), Kim (1989), Tokuda (1989), Oshima (1991) and Matsumoto (1996a, b) examine the conditions where NH-/CNH-type C N M obligates the use of b b [to iu]. They also investigate the conditions where b v» b [to iu] is grammatically unacceptable in NH-/CNH-type C N M . Section 3.1 focuses on the distributional constraints which determine the direct-quote use of b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . Section 3.2 examines CNH-type C N M where the presence of b^b [to iu] is grammatically unacceptable. The data in Section 3.1 can be analyzed according to the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause and the semantic properties of the head noun. However, some examples in Section 2.2 cannot be adequately explained by syntactic and semantic characteristics within the C N M alone. In order to comprehend the relationship between a head noun and its modifying clause, the examples require an examination of the context and/or the shared knowledge between the addressor and the addressee. 3.1 Direct-Quote b V» b [to iu] This section examines CNM's conditions where b^b [to iu] is direct-quote. An understanding of b b [to iu]'s direct-quote use requires analyses both of the syntactic conditions within the modifying clause and of the semantic characteristics of certain head nouns. Both 50 features can be analyzed within the C N M alone. Section 3.1.1 focuses on the syntactic properties of modifying clauses which show the characteristics of an actual utterance. Section 3.1.2 discusses the semantic characteristics of certain head nouns that generally make b^b [to iu] obligatory. For example, speech act nouns by their nature generally require the presence of k^b [to iu]. The semantic characteristics of such head nouns dictate the presence of a high degree of modality within the modifying clause. This syntactic condition obligates the presence of h b [to iu]. However, there are some speech act nouns in NH-type C N M that do not always occur with b^sb [to iu]. Section 3.1.3 provides an example of these situations discussed above. 3.1.1 Conditions of Modifying Clauses Requiring Direct-Quote t V% b [to iu] This section examines the syntactic aspects of modifying clauses which make t b [to iu] direct-quote. Teramura (1977b, 1981) proposes that if the modifying clause maintains the characteristics of an independent clause, the statement requires t\^b [to iu]. Also, Terakura (1980, 1984) examines the characteristics of modifying clauses which require tV^b[to iu] obligatorily in NH-type C N M . The following examples demonstrate the syntactic conditions identified by Teramura (1977b) and Terakura (1980, 1984).1 In written works, there are two features to show that the modifying clause is a quote outside of the modifying clause. One is quotation marks r j (" 11) which encompass the modifying clause; and the other is a comma between the modifying clause and t b [to iu]. Examples (1) and (2) demonstrate each element respectively: 'This classification is adapted from Tokuda (1989). 51 (l) [[ r t r - n * , ^ F I , R V N ^ ygj j [["piko-chan wa, kashikoi tori da"] [[Tiko-diminutive form of son [Mr./Ms] TOP, intelligent bird CPL"] bv^b] to IM] hyoban COMP] rumor the rumor [saying that] PTko-chan is an intelligent bird (Tora-chan: 50) In example (1), the quotation markers make the modifying clause a direct quotation. Whenever b^b [to iu] follows a direct quotation, it retains its inherent meaning, "[someone] say[s] that." Therefore, in C N M such as example (1), it is difficult to determine whether b b [to iu] functions as a complementizer or as a combination of the particle b [to] and the verb V^b [IM] ('to speak' or 'to say'). The presence of a comma in NH-type C N M also obligates the inclusion of b b [to iu]. Terakura (1980) speculates that an intonation break, or a pause in speech precedes b b [to iu] when people read/hear the corresponding C N M . The comma which divides the modifying clause from the complementizer b b [to IM] corresponds to that pause. Observe the following example: (2) g # as ^ ' T ? [[jibunga naka de tattatta [[self N O M inside LOC onomatopoeia [to walk forward quickly and with vigor] b fetiti ttvttv b to hashire-ba kurukuru to QUO run-CON onomatopoeia (the actual rotating movement) QUO m as mfei-s], b^b] M a kuruma ga kaitensuru], to iu] genri wheel NOM rotate], COMP] principle the principle that the wheel will rotate quickly and smoothly if [the mouse] runs inside the wheel (Tora-chan : 190) The comma between the modifying clause •••[II$K"t"<5 [•••kaitensuru] ('to rotate') and b^b [to iu] obligates b b [to iu]'s presence in example (2). A comma must not be included when b^b [to iu] follows quotation markers in 52 NH-type C N M . Compare the following with example (2): (2)' * [[ as 4 , T? * * * * * [["jibun ga naka de tattatta [["self NOM inside LOC onomatopoeia [to walk forward quickly and with vigor] t fetit£ t>v?;v t to hashire-ba kurukuru to QUO run-CON onomatopoeia [the actual rotating movement] QUO * as |H!fc-f3j l b^b] MM. kuruma ga kaitensuru"], to iu] genri wheel NOM rotate"], COMP] principle * the principle, that the wheel will rotate quickly and smoothly if [the mouse] runs inside the wheel As shown in example (2)', if the writer puts a comma after direct quotation marks, the corresponding NH-type C N M includes redundant information. In order to make example (2)' well-formed, either quotation marks or a comma should precede t b [to iu]. Without quotation marks or a comma, the characteristics inside the modifying clause obligate the inclusion of bv^b [to iu]. If the modifying clause comprises an incomplete sentence, it presents one of the syntactic conditions which make b b [to iu] direct-quote in NH-type C N M . Observe the following example: (3) ti • H&TC **t> ft k^?]M& noda junko wa [[oyamoto kara da kara] to iu] riyu Junko Noda TOP [[one's parental home from CPL because] COMP] reason -Cf, ...5ffi¥ K ti Q o t V > V \ de, ... gojihan ni wa kae-tte ii. CPL ... a half past five DAT TOP retura-ing good. Junko Noda can return home at 5:30 because [she commutes] from her parents' home.... (Di-shi satsujinjiken: 1 9 4 ) The modifying part in example (3), MfcA* hti.fr t> [oyamoto kara da kara] ('because [she commutes] from her parents' home') is a subordinate clause. In order to make the modifying part in example (3) grammatically appropriate, the addressor has to add another clause such as j§^&V^,fc$iaSji>lEi~<5 [hayaku kaeranaito oya ga shinpai suru] <^er parents are worried about her when she does not return home early') as a main clause. Terak4«a-Xi980) proposes 53 that an incomplete statement that comprises a m o d i f y i n g clause requires the presence o f i V ^ [to iu]. However , she merely states this fact and does not consider w h y b^b [to iu] is always direct-quote after the m o d i f y i n g clause w h i c h is an incomplete sentence. Ma tsumoto (1988b) , on the other hand, c la ims that b^b [to iu] func t ions as a complement marker s im i la r to quota t ion marks or quas i -quota t ion marks . She analyzes that b^b [to iu] f o l l o w i n g an incomplete sentence retains its basic func t ion as mark ing quotat ion and possesses its inherent meaning by comb in ing the quotat ive part ic le b [to] and the verb b [iu] ('to speak' or 'to say'). Therefore, when the m o d i f y i n g clause comprises an incomplete sentence, b^b [to iu] is required to ident i fy the C N M as a quote. The f o l l o w i n g m o d i f y i n g clause shows another constraint where the use o f b^b [to iu] is di rect-quote i n N H - t y p e C N M . Teramura (1981) c la ims that the m o d i f y i n g clause i n N H - t y p e C N M occurs w i t h b^b [to iu] when i t includes the topic part icle ft [wa]. Consider the f o l l o w i n g example: (4) [ [ ^ S ] i ^ i o i Mb] b^b]U [[kondo wa chotto chigau] to iu] M [ [ this t ime T O P a l i t t le di f ferent] C O M P ] fee l ing the feel ing that i t w i l l be a l i t t le di f ferent this t ime (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 10) I n Japanese C N M , a subordinate clause must not inc lude the topic case marker ft [wa].2 Therefore, i f the addressor includes the part icle ft [wa] in the mod i f y ing clause, the corresponding m o d i f y i n g clause should be classif ied as a independent clause. A s discussed i n Sect ion 1.2.2, w h e n the m o d i f y i n g clauses show a level 3 degree o f moda l i t y or above, they retain the characterist ics o f a direct quotat ion. I repeat examples (12) to (16) f r o m Chapter One as examples (5) to (9) : 2For further details of the relationship between the topic case marker f i [wa] and the Japanese clause, see Kuroda (1972), Kuno (1973, 1976), and Oshima (1991). 54 Level 5 (5) sentence-final particle [[shikatanai wa} to iu ] kanji [[there is no way SF] COMP] feeling the feeling that shows there is no way (6) sentence-final particle (question particle) (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 47) \LSm_ "C ^ 3 i t ii fr] £v>5]5C#t> [[nogyo de kueru michi wa nai ka} to iu ] kimochi [[agriculture INST support oneself way TOP not exist QUE] COMP] feeling the feeling whether or not there is a way to support themselves by agriculture (Shokuryo: 156) Level 4 (7) polite form [[% ii flfifcf m%%±M t^b] 'MM [[watashi wa zettai usokimasen ] to iu ] ishi [[I TOP absolutely polite form of ugokanai ('not to move')] COMP] will the will that I would absolutely not move here (Tora-chan: 63) Level 3 (8) imperative form [VbM i ~5 & l t^o] m [[shinpai suruna 1 to /w ] [[worry imperative form of shinai ('not to do')] COMP] atmosphere the atmosphere that tells [him] not to worry (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 169) (9) copula [[jushigina torio da} to iu ] kao [[weird trio CPL] COMP] face the face [or facial expression] which shows they are a weird trio. (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 50) The modifying clause in NH-type C N M sometimes shows two or more syntactic constraints which make tv^o [to iu] direct-quote. Observe the following examples: (10) [[§m_ a %m_ <D mm] _ t v ^ i mft [[nogyo wa retto no shokugyo] to iu ] kankaku [[agriculture TOP inferior G E N occupation] COMP] sense the sense that agricultural work [is] an inferior occupation (Shokuryo : 198) 55 (ioy [ [ « _ ft %m_ <r> mm tc] t^b] [[nogyo wa retto no shokugyo da] to iu ] kankaku [[agriculture TOP inferior G E N occupation CPL] COMP] sense the sense that agricultural work is an inferior occupation The modifying part in example (10), MMb^b$*% [shokugyo to iu kankaku] looks like a "Noun! b^b [to iu] Noun2" structure. However, Japanese native speakers regard the modifying part in example (10) as the clause where the writer deletes the copula tc [da] at the end of the modifying constituent as in example (10)'. The presence of b b [to iu] in example (10) can be explained by the fact that the modifying clause shows the following two characteristics of a direct quote: (1) an incomplete sentence and (2) a high degree of modality. The following provides another condition within a modifying clause which requires b b [to iu] obligatorily. Tokuda (1989) claims that b^b [to iu] is included in NH-type when the addressor wants to emphasize the C N M as not C H - but NH-type C N M . The following are originally in Tokuda (1989): (11) [[im <D m^mm K s i o ] b^b [[tozai no kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu] toiu] kangae [[East and West G E N tension relaxation DAT useful] COMP] opinion the opinion that [something is] useful in order to ease the tensions between the East and the West (Asahi shinbun August 1, 1987: 5) (cited in Tokuda 1989: 48) (12) rjes • <D mm.mm K a i o ] [tozai no kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu] kangae [East and West G E N tension relaxation DAT useful] opinion (12a) CH-type C N M the idea which is useful to ease the tensions between East and West (12b) NH-type C N M (=11) the opinion that [something is] useful in order to ease the tensions between the East and the West (cited in Tokuda 1989: 48) As shown in examples (11) and (12), Tokuda (1989) claims that example (11) can be classified only as NH-type C N M , whereas example (12) has two interpretations: NH- and CH-type C N M . 3 In spite of Tomura's (1989) claim, seven Japanese native speakers out of fifteen stated that only CH-type interpretation is acceptable when asked for their interpretation of example (12). However, thirteen out of fifteen accept the two interpretations of example (5) as discussed in Chapter One: 56 I n example (11) , the m o d i f y i n g clause ^M<D%^MM\z.^t\L-o [tdzai no kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu] ( ' [someth ing is] useful i n order to ease the tensions between East and West ' ) complements the content o f the head noun ^ T L [kangae] ( 'opinion') . Matsumoto (1988b) states that the head noun =%x. [kangae] ( 'opinion/ idea') i n N H - t y p e C N M is a " f rame-evok ing" noun. I n other words, the word elicits a f rame where " i t labels or encapsulates a proposi t ion" (Matsumoto 1988b: 52) . Because o f their specif ic semantic characteristics, certain head nouns require some f o r m o f complement . T h e m o d i f y i n g clause supplies the required complement . Hence, some C N M head nouns necessitate a m o d i f y i n g clause that maintains a h igh degree o f modal i ty . I n turn , these condit ions obl igate the use o f b^b [to iu]. W h i l e example (11) is N H - t y p e C N M , example (12) can be interpreted as C H - t y p e C N M (12a) or N H - t y p e C N M (12b) . The head noun [kangae] ( 'opinion/ idea') can have a case relat ionship w i t h its m o d i f y i n g clause because o f its semantic propert ies. Example (12a) can be paraphrased as fo l lows : (12)- (Z<D) as j fc® <D m^mn K * § : i £ o 0 (sono) kangae ga tdzai no kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu. (the) idea N O M East and West G E N tension relaxat ion D A T useful . The idea is useful i n order to ease the tensions between East and West. A s shown in example (12) ' , the head noun [kangae] ( 'opinion/ idea') f r o m example (12) can be the subject o f the predicate o f the m o d i f y i n g clause, f g i i O [yakudatsu] ('be useful ' ) . I n (i) [* K IS \yoru toire ni ikenaku-naru] hanashi [night bathroom LOC go-cannot-become] story (ia) CH-type interpretation the story [because of hearing] which [one] becomes unable to go to the bathroom at night (ib) NH-type interpretation the story that [somebody] becomes unable to go to the bathroom at night (=example (5) in Section 1.1.3) (Matsumoto 1988b: 94) Collier-Sanuki (personal communication) explains that the different interpretations between examples (12) and (i) occur because of the verbs in the modifying clause: both S i o [yakudatsu] ('be useful') and f?ft&< [ikenakunaru] ('become unable to go') require an agent in these clauses. The head noun in example (12) #x. [kangae] ('opinion/idea') can be regarded as the straightforward agent of rSAo [yakudatsu] ('be useful'). On the other hand, US [hanashi] ('story') cannot be the subject of fflfffe [ikenakunaru] ('become unable to go'). 57 this situation, b b [to iu] must not be present because such a case relationship comprises a typical characteristic of CH-type C N M . Therefore, if the addresser wants to emphasize the CNM's relationship as NH-type C N M , the presence of b^ b [to iu] is preferable. The writer, therefore, includes b b [to iu] because he or she does not want the reader to misinterpret the information. In summary, this section analyzed how the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause influence the presence of the complementizer b^b [to iu]. This study reconfirms that Maynard's (1992, 1993) hypothesis on optional b\^b [to iu] can clarify why the presence of b b [to iu] is direct-quote in NH-type C N M . All syntactic elements discussed in this section can be explained by her third condition, that is, direct-quote. Therefore, optional b^b [to iu] is present when the modifying clause retains the characteristics of direct-quote. As mentioned in Chapter One, this relates to the presence of the particle b [to] which indicates both direct quotation and indirect quotation. In addition, b b [to iu] is inserted when the addressor does not want the addressee to misinterpret some NH-type C N M as CH-type C N M . The next section will show how the semantic characteristics of certain head nouns obligate b b [to iu] within NH type CNM. 3.1.2 Speech Act Nouns The semantic characteristics of head nouns also influence the presence/absence of b b [to iu]. As discussed in Chapter Two, this thesis classifies head nouns used in NH-type Japanese C N M into three subtypes: (1) speech act nouns; (2) nouns of thoughts and feelings; and (3) proposition-taking nouns. This section focuses on speech act nouns because Teramura (1977b) claims that speech act nouns almost always follow b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . He states that most speech act nouns are derived from verbs of speaking or can be used as verbs by adding the verb [suru] ('to do').4 Consider the following table adapted from teramura (1977b) claims that the verbs derived from nouns of thoughts and feelings show the same characteristics 58 Teramura (1977b): Table 13 Speech Act Nouns and Their Corresponding Verbs Noun Verb [hanasu] ('to speak' or 'to say') [iu] ('to tell') [hokoku suru] ('to report') [chukoku suru] ('to advise') [uwasa suru] ('to rumor') (adapted from Teramura 1977b: 7) All of the verbs in Table 13 take the quotative particle b [to] when a clause precedes them. If one nominalizes the verb, the verb b [iii] ('to speak' or 'to say') follows the particle b [to] and it is regarded as the complementizer b^b [to iu]. The following examples from Teramura show these two conditions: (13a) [3^>* 1i_ # 44] Y fc&X/v [yoshita ho ga ii] to chukoku suru [don't do direction N O M good] QUO advise [I] advise [somebody that it is] better not to do [so]. (Teramura 1977b: 7) (13b) [ 3 ^ * # il 44] Y4P [yoshita ho ga ii] to iu chukoku [don't do direction N O M good] COMP advice the advice that [teaches somebody that it is] better not to do [so] (Teramura 1977b: 7) Examples (13a and 13b) suggest that b^b [to iu] serves the same function as the quotative particle b [to], b [To] functions in a statement to mark a recitation or a quote or a quasi-quotation of another's remark. Therefore, as discussed in Section 3.1.1, b^b [to iu] maintains b [to]'s inherent function to some extent.6 as speech act nouns. teramura, however, also classifies some nouns of speech such as fj§ [hanashi] ('speech' or 'story') as nouns of fact because they do not always require b V"* b [to iu] in Japanese CNM. Chapter Four discusses this issue in detail. 6Collier-Sanuki, Dechaine, and King (personal communication) point out that some direct-quote t V11 b [to iu] function to show the characteristics between a combination of a quotative b [to] and the verb V> b [hi] ('to speak'] and the complementizer b VN b [to iu]. The question of how the complementizer b V"> 5 [to iu] is different from b V1" 5 [to iu] used as hearsay is outside the scope of the present study. ffi [hanashi] ('speech or story') : ISM [kotoba] ('word or language'): nb [hokoku] ('report') : $g^-f-5 J £ £ r [chukoku] ('advice') : nf [uwasa] ('rumor') : ugi"£ 59 Teramura (1977b) also indicates that some speech act nouns usually occur with the modifying clauses which show a high degree of modality. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, a high degree of modality of the modifying clause emerges as one of the three constraints of optional b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . Note the following examples where the head nouns are speech act nouns in NH-type C N M . The underlined words show the high degree of modality of the modifying clause: (14) [[ifzfr ms K fr< ft & v J£ ^ 5 ] [[dokoka kenbutsu ni iku basho wa nai ka} to iu] imai-san [[anywhere sight-seeing DAT go place TOP not exist QUE] COMP] Mr. Imai no shitsumon GEN question Mr. Imai's question that asks if there is any place for sight-seeing (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 162) (15) [mm * mm t h x mjL] [[eigo o koritsu -yoku gijutsu toshite oshieyo] [[English A C C efficiently skill as imperative form of oshieru ('to teach')] t ^ b ] m z _ to iu] yokyu COMP] requirement the requirement that [teachers] should teach English efficiently as a skill (Usagi no sakadachi: 162) (16) K M # i t *x j f t ^ l , £ ^ 5 ] [[mujoken ni M-banchi e tobe], to iu] [[unconditionally DAT M-address LOC imperative form of tobu ('to jump')] COMP] meirei command the command which orders 'Jump to M-address unconditionally' (Konpyuta nyumon: 139) All the head nouns above are speech act nouns. In example (14), the meaning of the head noun ftPoj [shitsumon] ('question') demands an interrogative clause. An interrogative clause necessitates the interrogative sentence-final particle [ka], and therefore maintains a level five degree of modality. The head nouns such as those in examples (15) and (16), [yokyu] ('requirement') and [meirei] ('command'), almost always require the imperative form of modifying clause 60 such as WLTLX. [oshieyo] ('Teach!') and $k<< [tobe] ('Jump!'). In NH-type C N M , imperative forms occupy a level three degree of modality. They require b^b [to iu] obligatorily regardless of the semantic qualities of the head nouns. If the modifying clause's predicate indicates a level one degree of modality, the grammatical acceptability becomes marginal regardless of b 5 [to iu]'s presence. Compare the following examples with examples (15) and (16): (i5y ??[[3tfg £ w z < mm tLT gc*.^] b^b] _ [[eigo o koritsu-yoku gijutsu toshite oshieru] to iu] yokyu [[English A C C efficiently skill as teach] COMP] requirement the requirement that (teachers) teach English efficiently as a skill (16)' ??[[fe&# K urnm ^ sts], t^o] ^ [[mujoken ni M-banchi e tobu], to iu] meirei [[unconditionally DAT M-address L O C jump], COMP] command the command that (something) jumps to M-address unconditionally In examples (15)' and (16)', the modifying clause's degree of modality is at level one, plain form. The modality of these modifying clauses does not follow the general rules regarding their head nouns' semantic characteristics. Therefore, as Matsumoto (1988a, b) claims, a thorough understanding of Japanese C N M requires a semantic and a pragmatic analysis as well as a syntactic analysis of the head noun and its modifying clause. This section examined the semantic characteristics of speech act nouns which require the presence of b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . Teramura (1977b) claims that b b [to iu] is present because speech act nouns somehow retain the characteristics of their corresponding verbs. These verbs follow the quotative particle b [to]. Moreover, because of their inherent meaning, speech act nouns occur with modifying clauses which show a high degree of modality. I believe, however, that this observation oversimplifies the distributional constraints where b b [to iu] is present. As Tomura (1989) points out, speech act nouns do not always occur with b b [to iu] in actual written data. This exception will be presented in the next section. 3.1.3 Exceptions to the Rule in NH-Type CNM According to Teramura (1977b), the presence/absence of b^b [to iu] depends on both 61 the semantic characteristics of the head noun and the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause. As discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, he concludes that speech act nouns generally require b^b [to iu] obligatorily regardless of the modifying clauses's degree of modality. Actual written data, however, reveal exceptions. For example, Teramura (1977b), Song (1979, 1982), and Terakura (1984) regard the word # [uwasa] ('rumor') as a head noun which always occurs with b^b [to iu]. Tokuda (1989), however, cites Takahashi's (1979) data and points out an example where the head noun [uwasa] ('rumor') exists without b^b[to iu] in NH-type CNM: (17) [Zb^b © <D % X [soiu zensei no kan'in-san no ie de [like that the zenith of prosperity G E N government clerk GEN house LOC ojosan doyoni kawaigararete eyo shi-teiru] uwasa mademoiselle similarly love-PASV-ing luxury do-ing] rumor stories [rumor in the literal translation] that showed [Suga] cherished as a daughter in the home of this government official now at the height of his influence (Onnazaka: 36. Translation by John Bester 1984: 63) (cited in Takahashi 1979: 68) The modifying clause in example (17) Zo^5&&0l£%£A,0&^&i&£Aj[%1&fcfrt>\/^&t>ti [soiu zensei no kan'in-san no ie de ojosan ddyo ni kawaigararete eyo shiteiru] ('[Suga] cherished as a daughter in the home of this government official now at the height of his influence') complements the content of the head noun [uwasa] ('rumor'). As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the complementizer b^b [to iu] is present in NH-type C N M where the head noun is a speech act noun such as nf [uwasa] ('rumor') and [meirei] ('command'). In example (17), however, the head noun of [uwasa] ('rumor') does not follow b^ b [to iu] and yet the C N M is grammatically acceptable for Japanese native speakers. The main issue of this thesis is closely related to this problem. Chapter Four examines why Japanese native speakers regard this non-use of b^b [to iu] as grammatically correct in NH-type C N M such as example (17). Before this matter is discussed, the next section focuses on another distributional constraint of b^b [to iu]. It examines the semantic characteristics of the head nouns in 62 CNH-type C N M and investigates how these head nouns relate to their modifying clauses. 3.2 Unacceptable t b [to iu] This section examines Japanese C N M where the inclusion of t ^ b [to iu] would be grammatically unacceptable. Matsumoto (1988a, b) labels such C N M as CNH-type. CNH-type C N M exhibits the following characteristics: (1) no case relationship exists between the head noun and its modifying clause; (2) the head noun and the modifying clause evoke a frame reciprocally and host each other mutually; and (3) the presence of t V> b [to iu] is not acceptable. Based on Matsumoto (1988a, b), this thesis classifies CNH-type head nouns into three subtypes: (1) relational nouns; (2) quasi-relational nouns; and (3) nouns of perception. The following three sections, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3, focus on the semantic characteristics of each CNH-type head noun respectively. These sections also investigate the reciprocal relationship between head nouns and their modifying clauses. Section 3.2.4. discusses some exceptions of CNH-type C N M where t b [to iu] is present between the modifying clause and its head noun. 3.2.1 Relational Nouns Matsumoto (1988a, b) defines relational nouns as those "whose meaning is understood relative to some event or state." This thesis proposes that when a relational noun functions as the head noun in CNH-type C N M , the addressee must receive or perceive the information immediately following the C N M in order to comprehend it. In order to give a clearer understanding of CNH-type C N M where relational nouns serve as the head nouns, this thesis subclassifies the nouns into two categories: nouns of spatial-temporal relation and those of cause-effect relation. Both categories are further divided into nouns with and without antonyms. Note the table below which summarizes these four divisions.7 7Teramura (1977,1980) also proposes a list of relational nouns,' but does not label them. 63 Table 14 Subclassification of Relational Nouns nouns of relation spatial-temporal relation cause-effect relation with antonyms _h [ue] ('top') T [shita] ('down') gtj [mae] ('precedence') [ushiro] ('subsequence') M H [gen'in] ('cause') l i ft [riyu] ('reason') S H [ydin] ('factor') !£JH [kekka] ('result') without antonyms %krp [tochu] ('in the middle') ')§ V) [kaeri] ('return') # [yoru] ('night') P [tonari] ('adjacency') [kanashimi] ('loneliness') PUJfS [zaiakukan] ('guilt') $kft [foken] ('condition') -fife [hoho] ('way') The examples below demonstrate CNH-type C N M where a relational noun functions as the head noun. Each example represents one of the four subclassifications of relational nouns. Examining them respectively clarifies why people must receive the information which follows the corresponding C N M in order to comprehend the meaning of the sentence. The underlined words in the examples below belong to the four subtypes mentioned above. The following CNH-type C N M includes a head noun which shows spatial-temporal relation: (18) [ft K mtt] 3£ fc, -e xxmu _ t [saki ni susumu] mae ni, koko de nyuryoku-sochi to [the sequel DAT advance] precession DAT, this LOC input-equipment and mfjmm _ K ov>r mmhxbo shutsuryoku-sochi ni tsuite setsumei-shiyo. output-equipment DAT about volitional form of setsumei-suru ('to explain'). Before advancing to the sequel, [I] will explain about input-equipment and output-equipment here. (Konpyuta nyumon.: 16) The modifying clause in example (18) ft\zM& [saki ni susumu] ('[I] advance to the sequel'), for example, does not express the content of the head noun ffj [mae] ('precedence'), m [Mae] ('precedence') is a temporal relational word which has an antonym, $t<5> [ushiro] ('subsequence'). It functions as the English preposition or conjunction, "before." The matrix sentence, r. i ^ A 64 ;fr^S.bfcH;ft^iRto^T!tftBilL<£ b [kokode nyuryoku-sochi to shutsuryoku-sochi ni tsuite setsumei-shiyd] ('I will explain about input-equipment and output-equipment here') complements the content of the head noun. Example (18) occurs at the beginning of a computer book where the writer first tries to explain the equipment. The semantic characteristics of the head noun in example (18) demand information on an event which occurs before a given point in time. The following figure summarizes the situation in example (18): Figure 4 The Relationship between the Modifying Clause and the Matrix Clause in Example (18) 1 . a given point explain about the equipment > k advance to the sequel > The head noun in example (18) infers that some action will occur in the main clause after what is expressed in the modifying clause. In addition, the modifying clause requires the information supplied by the head noun. Therefore, relational nouns show characteristics peculiar to CNH-type head nouns: (1) no case relationship exists between the head noun and its modifying clause; (2) the head noun and the modifying clause evoke a frame reciprocally and host each other mutually; and (3) the presence of t^b [to iu] is not acceptable before the head noun. Although the noun does not have an antonym, the following example also takes a noun of spatial-temporal relation as its head noun: (19) m £ £ v \ f c ] bte*) <D ±*£/v (D [sonna hanashi o kiita] yoru, tonari no tachiki-san no [like that story A C C listened] night, next door GEN Mr. Tachiki GEN frh A (Dp # mcTtxztc* heya kara hito no koe ga kikoete-kita. room from person GEN voice N O M hear-came. (19a) I heard a story like that [in the afternoon]. At night on the same day, I heard someone's voice in the adjacent room, Mr. Tachiki's room. (19b) At the night when I heard a story like that, I listened to someone's voice, in the adjacent, Mr. Tachiki's room. (Kodomo no tonari: 29) Even though it does not have a clearly defined antonym, the head noun j£ [yoru] ('night') in 65 example (19) is also a relational noun. ^ [Forw] ('night') does not demand information regarding the event or source which happens before the night because it does not have such a semantic feature. Without knowing the context, readers may interpret example (19) as (19b) not (19a). Example (19b)'s interpretation results from classifying example (19) as CH-type C N M . That is, the head noun $L \yoru] ('night') has a case relationship with the modifying clause, -?^&!f££:Bv>,7£ [sonna hanashi o kiita] ('[I] heard a story like that'). It can be paraphrased as follows: (19) ' # fz: Zrute m £ m^tc, yoru ni sonna hanashi o kiita. night DAT such story A C C listened. [I] heard a story like that at night. No native speaker/reader, however, would confuse example (19a)'s meaning with (19b)'s. The sentence in example (19) comes from the story of a girl suffering from a serious heart disease. A middle aged man, A L T ^ C ^ [tachiki-san] ('Mr. Tachiki'), is another patient next door. They talk about Mr. Tachiki's wife in the afternoon and at night the girl listens to a voice coming from Mr. Tachiki's room. The head noun, ^  [yoru] ('night'), comes after the action described by the modifying clause and before the action expressed by the main clause. The action expressed by the modifying clause occurs before night comes. Hence, in example (19) the information expressed earlier in the story is inferred or understood better than the information contained in the C N M . Another subtype of relational nouns is cause-effect relation. Observe the following two examples which use nouns of cause-effect relation as their head nouns: (20) [MH £ ULtc] MS,* K &m <D [satooya o sagashita] kekka, wagaya ni shiraha no [a foster parent A C C searched for] result, my home DAT a white feather GEN & as i o f c c D T & - 5 „ ya ga tatta-no-dearu. arrow N O M mark-EMO-CPL. As a result of [her] search for a foster parent [for her mouse], my home was chosen. (Tora-chan:\ll) 6 6 (21) M V ^ © ft &t£tc 1 ^ & V > o t H ^ L ^ ^ o f c ] [tadahxiru ni, warui-no wa anata ja-nai tte i-e-na-katta] [Tadaharu DAT, bad-NMR TOP you CPL-not QUO tell-can-not-PAST] i i i ft & < & 3 t ft S x . f t ^ o / b , zaiakukan wa nakunaru to wa omo-e-na-katta. guilt TOP vanish QUO TOP think-can-not-PAST. [She=the narrator of the story] could not believe that some day the guilt, [which occurred because] she could not tell Tadaharu that it was not his fault, would vanish. (Oshimai no hi: 315) Although both examples employ cause-effect relation nouns, example (20)'s head noun has an antonym, while example (21)'s does not. In example (20) the phrase following the head noun, not the modifying clause, complements the content of the head noun, p^JH [kekka] ('result'). The modifying clause L 7 c [satooya o sagashita] ('[she] searched for a foster parent') does not describe the head noun, [kekka] ('result'). Instead, the matrix clause S ^ K S S © $zfcyL otc<DT:$>Z) [wagaya ni shiraha no ya ga tatta-no-dearu] ('my home was chosen') describes the result. Therefore, we may assume that the head noun fgS [kekka] ('result') requires two clauses: one clause that expresses its cause and the other that expresses its result. Teramura (1977b) observes that CNH-type C N M such as example (20) is very common in Japanese while it does not occur in English. Some head nouns in this CNH-type C N M express emotion or one of the senses.8 The head noun in example (21) WM^ [zaiakukan] ('guilt') also expresses emotion. The modifying clause H V ^ c D f t f c f t f c t ^ f t V ^ o T H x . f t ^ o 7 t [tadaharu ni warui-no wa anata janai tte ienakatta] ('[she=the narrator of the story] could not tell Tadaharu that it was not his fault') explains the reason why the subject of example (21)'s sentence feels guilt(y), which is the content expressed in the head noun. The matrix clause ft < ft 3 [nakunaru] ('vanish'), on the other hand, reveals the effect of the emotion expressed by the head noun. The head noun [zaiakukan] ('guilt') requires a concrete event or state which causes the emotion. Before moving on to the next section, I should clarify the difference between spatial-(1989) classifies this type of head noun as MH j^RI [gen'in meishi] ('nouns of reason'). 67 temporal and cause-effect relational nouns. Spatial-temporal relational nouns appear only in CNH-type construction. However, some cause-effect relational nouns such as ffigk [kekka] ('result') and J H & [riyu] ('reason') function as NH-type and CNH-type head nouns. Example i (20) is repeated below as example (22). Compare the following two examples because example (22) is CNH-type C N M while example (23) is NH-type CNM: (22) [Mil £ Uhtc] $?HL ®M K <D [satooya o sagashita] kekka, wagaya ni shiraha no [a foster parent A C C searched for] result, my home DAT a white feather GEN ^ as A to fc< o T & § o ya ga tatta-no-dearu. arrow N O M mark-EMO-CPL. As a result of [her] search for a foster parent [for her mouse], my home was chosen. (Tora-chan: 177) (23) mmmm x\ -LE « [AF2 _• <D whfe dobutsujikken de kondo wa [eefutsu no hatsugansei animal experiment LOC, this time TOP [AF2 GEN cancer-causing £ » o f r 3 ] j&S t r J T L ^ o f c o o urazukeru] kekka ga dete-shimatta. A C C support] result NOM come out-finished. Through animal experimentation, this time [they] have discovered the consequence, which supports the cancer-causing effect of AF2. (Shokuryo: 112) The main clause in example (22), &%iZ.&M<D&.ti$iLotc<DX*&>Z> [wagaya ni shiraha no ya ga tatta-no-dearu] ('my house was chosen') expresses the result. The head noun in example (22) belongs in the category of CNH-type head nouns. In such cases, the result is not expressed in the modifying clause. Conversely, the modifying clause in example (23) AF^OD^as/^^rJgo if -5 \e efu tsuno hatsugansei o urazukeru] ('[it] supports the cancer-causing effect of AF2') expresses the content of the head noun, [kekka] ('result'). The head noun in example (23) functions to label the event activated by the modifying clause. Even though the head noun in both examples is the same, it functions differently. Thus, it should be classified in different categories: fgH [kekka] ('result') in example (22) is regarded as a relational noun; but that in example (23) as a proposition-taking noun. Another difference between examples (22) and 68 (23) is that example (22) cannot take b^b [to iu] between the modifying clause and its head noun whereas example (23) takes it between them optionally. Chapter Four will discuss the semantic characteristics of head nouns such as the one found in example (23). It also examines how the presence/absence of t^b [to iu] in example (23) influences the meaning of the C N M . As discussed in this section, some relational nouns are used as the head noun only in CNH-type C N M , whereas others are present in NH-type also. According to the classification in Table 14, if the head noun expresses a spatial-temporal relation and has an antonym, it is always present in CNH-type C N M . The other three categories of relational nouns may be either NH-type or CNH-type C N M . Therefore the addressee must analyze both the internal structure of C N M and/or the context in which the C N M appears in order to properly comprehend the meaning of the sentence. In addition, shared knowledge between the addressor and the addressee is necessary for the addressee to comprehend thoroughly the relationship between the modifying clause and its head noun in CNH-type C N M . Also, the presence/absence of b [to iu] gives the addressee a secondary clue in understanding which type of C N M is being used. The next section examines another CNH-type C N M where the head noun is a quasi-relational noun, which requires the addressee to share with the Writer/speaker cultural knowledge or "world-view" in Matsumoto's (1988a, b) term. 3.2.2 Quasi-Relational Nouns Matsumoto (1988b) defines quasi-relational nouns as nouns which seem "very much like regular non-relational nouns" (164). However, the relationship between quasi-relational nouns and their modifying clause requires "world-view," the shared knowledge of a language or a culture among people. Although quasi-relational nouns do not have relational words or concepts inherent in their meaning, they exhibit the same relationship with their modifying 69 clauses as do some relat ional nouns such as £§11 [kekka] ( 'result ')- 9 The m o d i f y i n g clause expresses the cause o f the state expressed by the head noun. The presence o f t V1* 5 [to iu] is unacceptable between the head noun and its m o d i f y i n g clause. The f o l l o w i n g is an example o f C N H - t y p e C N M where the head noun is a quasi- re lat ional head noun. I t demonstrates w h y semantic and pragmatic understanding is essential in comprehending Japanese C N M : (24) £ g o f t ] [tabako o katta] otsuri [cigarette A C C bought ] change the change [ f rom] buy ing cigarettes (Teramura 1977b: 32) (repeated i n Matsumoto 1988b: 10) Examp le (24) is wha t Te ramura (1977b) mere ly raised as a type o f prob lemat ic example w h i c h should be analyzed by fur ther study. Matsumoto (1988a, b) analyzes example (24) i n terms o f a semantic and pragmatic f r a m e w o r k the relat ionship between the head noun and its m o d i f y i n g clause. T h e head noun #5t<j 9 [otsuri] ( 'change') imp l ies that someone bought something, paid a larger amount o f money than the pr ice o f the goods, and received change. The action o f the mod i f y ing clause, 9 =» £rM O tc [tabako o katta] ( 'having bought cigarettes') a l lows the addressee to expect the "change" since this commerc ia l transaction is a source or a reason o f gett ing the change. B o t h the head noun and the m o d i f y i n g clause i n example (24) evoke a f rame rec iprocal ly and host each other mutua l l y . Therefore, the C N M i n example (24) shows a C N H - t y p e construct ion. A s shown i n example (24) , C N H - t y p e C N M does not take h 5 [to iu] between the head noun and its m o d i f y i n g clause. T h e f o l l o w i n g is another example o f C N H - t y p e C N M where the head noun is a quasi-relational noun: (25) Zfi ft, [KVf £ m-f^tc] m t #;tf>tbft< 1>ftV\ kore wa [shitai o hikizutta] ato to kangae-rare-naku-mo-nai. this T O P [dead body A C C dragged] trace Q U O think-can-not-also-not. W e may regard this as the trace lef t by dragging the body. (Akai kumo densetsu satsujin jiken: 27) Matsumoto (1988b) also states that the CNM where the head noun is a quasi-relational noun "lies at intermediate points on a continuum between CH-type and more prototypical CNH-type" CNM (166). 70 When construing the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause the semantic characteristic of the head noun in example (25), W [ato] ('trace') indicates some action causing a mark. The modifying clause explains that someone had dragged a body, that is, leaving the trace. Therefore, the pieces of information expressed in both elements supplement each other. As shown in examples (24) and (25), the relationship between a quasi-relational noun and its modifying clause varies because its relationship is interpreted not only by the structure within the C N M but also by the shared knowledge, or "world-view." To pursue the relationship between quasi-relational nouns and their modifying clauses would involve us in discussions other than the use and functions of k^b [to iu]. The important point to note in this section is that quasi-relational nouns create CNH-type C N M which functions relatively similar to C N M where the head noun is a relational noun: a quasi-relational noun does not include k b [to iu] in CNH-type C N M . The next section examines the last category of CNH-type head nouns: nouns of perception, and its relationship with the modifying clause. 3.2.3 Nouns of Perception As discussed in Chapter One, Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b) propose different explanations when analyzing C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. First, this section introduces both researchers' assumptions in chronological order. Both Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b) define nouns of perception as nouns associated with physical perception such as |? [sugata] ('appearance, figure'), M- [katachi] ('shape'), -fe [iro] ('color'), ^ [oto] ('sound'), [nioi] ('smell'), j£M [kanshoku] ('touch'), J&fc [kanji] ('feeling') and so on. They also includes words such as [e] ('picture'), [shashin] ('photograph') and %M [kokei] ('scene') because these nouns describe what the addressor actually perceives. The following examples demonstrate CNH-type C N M where nouns of perception function as head nouns. Observe the absence of the complementizer k^b [to 71 iu]: (26) [ F T as f!£3] ^  as -rs, [doa ga shimaru] oto ga suru. [door NOM close] sound NOM do. I hear the sound of the door closing. (Mikeneko homuzu no kyofu-kan.: 6) (27) [Jj$yj'--Z m £ tU,T^3] 55 frb i>, &<D 3 £ L £ [kaunta de sake o non-deiru] sugata kara mo, ano sabishisa [counter LOC alcohol ACC drink-ing] appearance from also, that loneliness as m^x^tco ga todoite-kita. NOM reach-came. His appearance of drinking at a counter also revealed his loneliness. (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 32) Teramura (1977b) classifies nouns of perception as head nouns which function similarly to speech act nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings. He regards the CNM, where a noun of perception is the head noun, as content-complement outer-relationship CNM. In his theory, content-complement outer-relationship generally includes t 5 [to iu]. Nouns of perception, however, do not occur with b 5 [to iu] when the degree of modality of the modifying clause is at its lowest, level one. He tries to explain this contradiction by comparing the Japanese and English languages. He points out that, in English, nouns which show the same semantic characteristics as nouns of perception do not become head nouns of appositive clauses while speech act nouns, nouns of thoughts and feelings, and proposition-taking nouns do. Outer-relationship (=CNH-type) CNM where a noun of perception is the head noun must be translated into English as a prepositional phrase. For example, the modifying part in example (26), F T as'Url^ <5 [doa ga shimaru] ('[the] door closes') is a clause in both Japanese and English. When translating CNM, however, the modifying clause should be changed into a prepositional phrase such as "of the closing door" or "of the door closing." This also applies to example (27). The modifying part in Japanese CNM, ir^jy^— XM%ifcA,X^Z> [kaunta de sake o nondeiru] is a clause, "[someone] is drinking alcohol at a counter," while its English translation is a phrase, "drinking at a counter." Thus, Teramura (1977b) states that the content-complement outer-72 relationship CNM, where the head noun is a noun of perception, indicates the different relationship between the modifying clause and its head noun from the other content-complement outer-relationship C N M . Matsumoto (1988a, b), however, explains C N M where a noun of perception serves as the head noun from alternate perspectives: semantic and pragmatic points of view. She defines the C N M as CNH-type C N M because the relationship between the modifying clause and its head noun is more complicated than NH-type C N M . In example (26), even though the head noun a" [oto] ('sound') has no clear case relationship with its modifying clause K T d*Hr1£ 3 [doa ga shimaru] ('the door closes'), the head noun encompasses the action described in the modifying clause. That is, a sound usually follows or accompanies the closing of a door. Unlike NH-type C N M head nouns which label the content of the modifying clause, the head noun in example (26), ^ [oto] ('sound') marks the result of the action described by the modifying clause. As discussed in the preceding two sections, it is a significant characteristic of the CNH-type modifying clause that the modifying clause expresses the reason while the modifying clause describes its result. Example (27) also presents the same characteristics as example (26). The head noun/modifying clause relationship in CNH-type C N M explained here is not as simple as the relationship shown in CH-type and NH-type construction. The modifying clause in example (27) jj^y^— X"M$:$kAs~t:'^Z> [kaunta de sake o nondeiru] ("drinking alcohol at a counter) demands the agent, a person, who performs the action. The head noun $ [sugata] ('appearance') metaphorically supplies the person who is drinking at a counter. On the other hand, the head noun also requires clarification regarding what appearance it is. This is similar to head nouns in NH-type C N M . What is expressed by the modifying clause provides enough information to the head noun, too. In addition, what is described in the modifying clause is the motive of the part following the C N M . The appearance of drinking at a counter causes the reader (the 73 narrator) to feel that loneliness. Between the modifying clause and the matrix clause, the reader notices a cause-effect relationship. Therefore, example (27) also exhibits the same semantic function that relational nouns and quasi-relational nouns exhibit. This section has examined C N M where the head noun is a noun of perception. Although Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b) construe the C N M differently, both agree that the complementizer h\/^b [to iu] must not be present with nouns of perception. As mentioned in Section 2.1.1, this thesis does not attempt to determine which theory is more persuasive because that issue would go beyond the scope of this study. However, I emphasize the point that wherever a noun of perception functions as the head noun, C N M may be different from other CNH-type C N M where the head noun is either a relational or a quasi-relational noun. The next section discusses exceptions to the general rule that the presence of t ^ b [to iu] is unacceptable in CNH-type C N M . 3.2.4 Exceptions to the Rule in CNH-Type C N M Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 concern head nouns which do not employ t ^ b [to iu] in Japanese CNM: relational nouns, quasi-relational nouns, and nouns of perception respectively. This section discusses two kinds of exceptions to the rule that the presence of t ^ b [to iu] is unacceptable in CNH-type C N M . First, I will analyze the syntactic conditions within the modifying clause. Second, I will discuss those CNH-type head nouns which function as NH-type head nouns. Before I discuss these two issues, it should be noted that the modifying clause in CNH-type C N M , where a relational or a quasi-relational noun serves as the head noun, does not show the characteristics of the direct-quote constraint. I repeat Table 12 from Chapter Two here as Table 15 in order to clarify the area this section will discuss: 74 Table 15 The Use of t ^ b [to iu]: An Exception in CNH-type CNM Type of CNM NH type CNM CNFi [ type CNM Name of Head Noun speech act noun nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational noun quasi-relational noun degree of level 5 modality level 4 and the level 3 Direct-Quote (Optio N/A use of t level 2 v^p [toiu] level 1 Optional N/A lacceptable Discussed in Section 3.3.4 | As far as former research and my data have shown, CNH-type CNM where the head noun is either a relational noun or a quasi-relational noun never occurs with the modifying clause where the degree of modality is level two and above. Therefore, N/A is placed in the corresponding area. Because of their inherent semantic characteristics, relational nouns and quasi-relational nouns cannot follow the modifying clause where the addressor presents his/her subjectivity. This finding also supports that nouns of perception in CNH-type CNM function differently from relational nouns or quasi-relational nouns: the presence of t^b [to iu] is sometimes acceptable in CNH-type CNM where nouns of perception serve as the head nouns. Let us start with the syntactic conditions related to the modifying clause. Note the following examples: 75 (28) %B & &J* Lm-fT, 3Hf ft*> mainichi sore o kokai shi-tuzuke-te, [[kono choshi nara taiheiyo every day it A C C regret do-continue-ing, [[this manner CON, the Pacific mo odanshiyo ka\ to iu] yosu da-tta. also volitional form of odan-suru ('to cross') QUE] COMP] appearance CPL-PAST. [Because he] continues regretting it every day, he appears as if he could cross the Pacific if he continues regretting it in this way. (Mikeneko homuzu no kyofu-kan.: 8) (29) [ [ * I T F T £ £ I T 6 ^ *s [[mossaona sora o w kyodaina hakuryu ga [[pure blue sky A C C background LOC gigantic white dragon NOM < D f c 5 o L _ £ ^ 5 ] ftm tlotco notautsu]^ to iu] kokei da-tta. writhe], COMP scene CPL-PAST. [It was like] a scene [in which] a gigantic white dragon writhed on a background of blue sky. (Matsumoto 1996b:4) The head nouns in both examples, W.-f [yosu] ('look, appearance') and %m [kokei] ('scene'), are classified as nouns of perception. Generally, nouns of perception exclude the complementizer b V» 5 [to iu] in CNH-type C N M . However, the conditions in examples (28) and (29) make b V> 5 [to iu] direct-quote; b 5 [to iu] is present in C N M where the modifying clause includes the characteristics of a direct quote. Example (28) adequately demonstrates the highest degree of modality within the modifying clause, that is, a question particle fr [ka]. The presence of a comma following the modifying clause obligates b\/^b [to iu] in example (29). Terakura (1984) presents another example of CNH-type C N M where b^o [to iu] precedes a noun of perception even though the modifying clause does not show the characteristics of a direct quote. She hypothesizes that b^o [to iu] can occur with nouns of perception in CNH-type C N M if the modifying clause comprises a subjective opinion. I cite Terakura's examples to clarify her hypothesis: (30) [& £ & W C V ^ ] 6 ^ [sakana o yai-teiru] nioi [fish A C C grill-ing] smell the smell of grilling fish (Terakura 1984: 43) 76 (31) [mm xi> mifx^z] i L k i 2 _ ] fc*5v^ # -r^o [ [ g o / r a n demo koge-teiru] to iu] nioi ga sum. [[rice or something burn-ing] COMP] smell NOM do. It smells like rice or something is burning. (Terakura 1984: 44) Terakura (1984) claims that a difference both in semantic characteristics and in the usage of the head noun 'Sv^  [nioi] ('smell') exists between examples (30) and (31). In example (30), the incident which is expressed by the modifying clause, [sakana o yaku] ('[someone] grill[s] fish'), and the incident the head noun expresses [nioi] ('smell') occur simultaneously. In example (31), on the other hand, the incident contained in the modifying clause ^tRXiiMif [gohan demo kogeteiru] ('rice or something is burning') does not always equal the smell the speaker perceives. The speaker perceives the smell, tries to guess what it is, and decides what the smell might be. Accordingly, the modifying clause does not show the speaker's actual perception but rather his/her belief, idea, opinion, Or judgement.10 My search for an appropriate example from actual written work, however, did not find an example corresponding to example (31)." Rather, CNM where a noun of perception serves as a head noun and the modifying clause expresses the speaker's subjective opinion or judgement does not take t ? [to iu] but occurs with the phrase X 5 ft [yona] ('to look like') or -?: 5 ft [sona] ('to appear').12 Observe the following examples: (32) ^ L<ft§ JL2&.] & -<? ft ft^ofco [miteite tanoshiku-naru yona] susata de wa na-katta. [looking enjoyable-become seem] figure CPL TOP not-past. [This] was not an appearance which seemed to make [her] enjoyable. (Mikeneko homuzu no kydju-kan.: 195) 1 0 K i m (1989) also indicates that predicate phrases, which Terakura mentions, form C N M where a noun of perception requires t^b [to iu]. They always end with •••£)\r^irZ)[ -nioi ga suru] ('to smell'). She suggests that these predicate phrases influence the optional nature of i 5 [to iu] in Japanese noun modification. "The reason may be explained by the fact that predicates listed as the level two degree of modality are classified as written words, formal form. l2Nihongo Yomikaki 201 (n.d.) adds i. 5 ft [yona] ('to looks like') in parentheses between the modifying clause and its head noun. (30). 77 (33) 1*# as £ o - c w r , * > ± 5 £ DtiU IgLa^tTt ^ 5 ft! gaikotsu ga tatteite, chodo [katayama ni hanashikakete-ki sona] skeleton N O M standing, exactly [Katayama DAT speaking-come seem] t± tcotz yosu da-tta appearance CPL-PAST The skeleton [was] standing there and it looked as if it came and spoke to [Mr.] Katayama specifically. (Mikeneko homuzu no kyofu-kan.: 117) As discussed in Section 2.2.4, the type of C N M such as in examples (32) and (33) is defined as an adjectival clause because of its ending. There are two kinds of adjectives in Japanese: one is called an /-adjective or an adjective; the other is a na-adjective or an adjectival noun.13 The structure of the modifying clause ending with the phrase <£ 5 ft \ydna] ('to look like') or 5 ft [sona] ('to appear') is equivalent to that of an adjectival noun ending with an adjectival phrase. When the phrase X b ft [yona] ('to look like') or -€r b ft [sona] ('to appear') exists between the modifying clause and its head noun, no C N M requires t b [to iu] to express the subjective belief, opinion, or judgement of the addressor. Although this issue needs further study to determine whether or not the complementizer k^b [to iu] can follow the modifying clause in order to express the writer's /speaker's subjective opinion, this problem is beyond the scope of the present study. Terakura (1984) also points out why another noun of perception [kanji] ('feeling') can appear with t^b [to iu] in CNH-type C N M . The following examples present C N M where JfiD [kanji] ('feeling') is a head noun: (34) [[ft* as tfJitS] f 0 "I ] jfcfc as -rs. *t^b-> [[senaka ga hieru] f 0 \] kanji ga suru. \ *to iu J [[ spine N O M get chilly] | 0 ? ] sense N O M do. t*COMP$ [I] feel a chill down my spine. (Terakura 1984: 42) 13The term, an adjectival noun, is from Martin (1975). 78 (35) [[fecoA *s % <D Zb % S o T V ^ S ] ( b^b j ] SSU [[ano-hito ga watashi no koto o okotteiru] | to /w j. ] foan// [[thatperson N O M I GEN thing A C C angry-being][^COMP j ] feeling as i ~ £ o ga swrw. NOM do. [I] have the impression [or feeling] that that person is angry at me. (Terakura 1984:43) The head noun in examples (34) and (35) is the same: [kanji] ('feeling'), a noun of perception. Nouns of perception generally do not take b b [to iu] between the modifying clause and its head noun. Terakura (1984) analyzes the semantic characteristics and the usage of the head noun in both examples. The event described by the modifying clause and the incident the head noun expresses in example (34) occur at the same time. In example (35), the event described by the modifying clause does not always happen at the same time as the event expressed by the head noun. The addressor notices that person's behavior and then gets the impression that that person is angry at the addressor. Kim (1989), however, indicates that the word [kanji] ('feeling') has two meanings: one describes sensory feeling; and the other describes emotional feeling. The meaning influences the presence/absence of b^b [to iu]. It also differentiates NH-type C N M from CNH-type C N M . As made clear from Terakura's translation, il&C [kanji] ('feeling') in example (34) expresses sensory feeling. This physical form expresses perception. [Kanji] ('feeling') in example (35) can be translated into "impression," the mental feeling. Therefore, the head noun in example (35) should be defined as a noun of thoughts and feelings. NH-type C N M takes b V"> b [to iu] while the presence of b b [to iu] is unacceptable in CNH-type C N M . The same situation occurs when the C N M takes a head noun such as fg^ [kekka] ('result') or BUS [riyu] ('reason'). As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, such nouns are classified either as proposition-taking nouns or as relational nouns according to the C N M where they appear. 79 Let us analyze the following actual data in order to confirm Kim's (1989) hypothesis above: (36) [nm <D # u <D m< &ofc] I S D [kubisuji no ushiro ga ita no yoni kataku natta] kanji [nape G E M back N O M board G E N look like hard became] sense the feeling that nape of [her] neck became as stiff as a board (Sunuku gari: 124) (37) £ fc&X mmte ^ % tLX i 5 i o t v > 5 ] b^b] ^nanika o juse-te hyokinna juryo toshite jurumatteiru] to iu] [[something A C C hide-ing facetious delinquent as behave-ing] COMP] kanji feeling the feeling that [he] was hiding something and that [he was also] behaving like a facetious and mischievous boy. (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 196) The head noun in examples (36) and (37) is the same, S&D [kanji] ('feeling'). i&D [Kanji] ('feeling') in example (36) expresses sensory feeling, while in example (37) it expresses the mental feeling. Therefore, the head noun of example (36) is a noun of perception, which appears in CNH-type C N M . Example (37)'s head noun, however, is a noun of thoughts and feelings, which exists in NH-type C N M . However, how does the addressee recognize that C- [kanji] (feeling') in examples (36) and (37) describes different feelings? The information expressed by the modifying clause determines whether the head noun l&D [kanji] ('feeling') functions as a noun of perception or as a noun of thoughts and feelings. People can physically perceive the information expressed by the modifying clause in example (36) If SScD^ a^MgcD J; 5 }£$g< ft oft. [kubisuji no ushiro ga ita no yoni kataku natta] ('nape of [her] neck became as stiff as a board'). On the other hand, people cannot sense but can mentally recognize the content described by example (37)'s modifying clause, itffr&iklkXWl K f t ^ j ^ i LT.S»££o"CV<5 [nanika o fusete hyokinna juryo toshite jurumatteiru] ('[he] was hiding something and [he was also] behaving like a facetious and mischievous boy'). When distinguishing NH- from CNH-type C N M , it should be noted that analyzing the relationship between the head noun and its modifying clause within C N M is the most significant element. 80 However, the presence/absence of t ^ b [to iu] gives the construer a secondary clue in comprehending which type of C N M is used. 3.3 Summary Chapter Three discussed conditions within C N M where the presence of the complementizer t V"» b [to iu] is direct-quote and where it is unacceptable. Researchers such as Teramura (1977b), Tomura (1985, 1991), and Tokuda (1989) find that the presence/absence of t ^ b [to iu] depends both on the degree of modality in the modifying clause and on the semantic characteristics of the head noun. Speech act nouns generally require £V V 5 [to iu] obligatorily while relational nouns, quasi-relational noUns, and nouns of perception cannot occur with t V* b [to iu].' When the modifying clause in NH-type C N M retains one or more of the characteristics of an independent clause, the C N M always occurs with t b [to iu]. This phenomenon can be explained by Maynard's (1992, 1993) third constraint, direct-quote. Actual written data, however, have revealed exceptions to the general rules above. Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.4 discussed some examples where these general rules do not work. Particularly, Section 2.1.3. highlighted an example where a speech act noun does not take tv^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M , which will be analyzed in detail in Chapter Four. Section 2.2.4 presented two exceptions to the general rule regarding the use of h V"1 b [to iu] in CNH-type C N M . One is derived from the syntactic conditions Of the modifying clauses, and this exception was discussed in Section 3.1.1. The other exception relates to another function of t b [toiu]: t ^ b [to iu] is present in order to differentiate NH-type C N M from CH-/CNH-type C N M . Although the difference between NH- and CNH-type C N M can be explained by the constituents within the C N M , a sentence-level examination cannot always distinguish CH-type from NH-type C N M . In addition, it cannot clarify why some NH-type C N M take t ^ b [to iu] while others do not. Chapter Four examines these issues in detail. 81 Chapter Four Optional t 5 [To iu] 4.0 Introduction To support the hypothesis that all NH-type C N M take 11/^5 [to iu] optionally, this chapter discusses NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is at level one. Examples of NH-type C N M discussed in Chapter Three could be explained solely by analyzing the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause and the semantic characteristics of the head noun. However, sentence-level examination cannot always explain the presence/absence of optional t V N 5 [to iu] discussed in this chapter. Accordingly, this chapter examines the context where the C N M is used. Maynard (1992, 1993) proposes that the presence of optional t 5 [to iu] depends on whether the information described in the modifying clause is foregrounded. The following three constraints foreground what is designated by the modifying clause: (1) new information, (2) dramatic effect, or (3) direct-quote.1 As discussed in Section 3.1.1, most of the characteristics showing direct-quote constraint were found within and/or outside the modifying clause. Therefore, the examples discussed in this chapter generally relate to the first and the second constraints given above. Section 4.1 replicates Maynard (1992, 1993) and examines NH-type C N M where the head noun is either a proposition-taking noun or a noun of thoughts and feelings. Section 4.2 analyzes NH-type C N M where a speech act noun occurs without t\^b [to iu]. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, this kind of NH-type C N M was defined as an exception to the general rule that all speech act nouns are present with bv^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . This section, 'Collier-Sanuki (personal communication) comments that the modifying clause showing dramatic effect must end with an exclamation mark (!). As Maynard hypothesizes, dramatic effect occurs when the speaker regards the information expressed by the modifying clause as being relatively more important in the discourse than the information designated by its head noun. Therefore, this condition specifically relates to the addressor's attitude, opinion, and/or reaction toward the content of the modifying clause. Analysis of the context where CNM occurs proves indispensable when analyzing how CNM shows dramatic effect. The context also indicates that the modifying clause follows the same theme as the text when showing dramatic effect. 82 however, uses the contextual analysis based on Maynard's work (1992, 1993), to reveal that it is not an exception and explains why such NH-type C N M occurs. 4.1 NH-Type CNM Where Nouns of Thoughts and Feelings and Proposition-Taking Nouns Serve as the Head Nouns Following Maynard (1992, 1993), this section investigates NH-type C N M where the head noun is either a proposition-taking noun or a noun of thoughts and feelings. Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.2 examine NH-type C N M where proposition-taking nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings serve as the head noun respectively. The nouns examined in both sections were not analyzed by Maynard (1992, 1993). By analyzing the context where the C N M appears, this section addresses the following questions: (1) why does the same head noun generally occur with £v>5 [to iu] in some situations but not in others?; and (2) how does the presence/absence of t 5 [to iu] influence the meaning of a sentence where C N M appears? 4.1.1 Proposition-Taking Nouns This section examines NH-type C N M where a proposition-taking noun serves as the head noun. Teramura (1972, 1977b, 1981) and Maynard (1992, 1993) define proposition-taking nouns as nouns associated with facts and events.2 According to Teramura (1977b), proposition-taking nouns are nouns such as | f ^ [jijitsu] ('fact'), [kekka] ('result'), < -If [kuse] ('personal habit'), fife [hoho] ('way') MStl [rekishi] ('history'), S t i [osore] ('awe'), nTfltt [kanosei] ('possibility') and so on. I will start with the following three C N M cited from a detective story. In the story the following three incidents occur: (1) the brand-new clothes at a designer's shop called "Pierre de Blain" are not properly stitched; (2) a fashion model named Shiori Okano is killed; and (3) the Comparing them with speech act nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings, Teramura (1977b) concludes that proposition-taking nouns occur with the modifying clause which does not show the speaker's subjective attitude. 83 fashion designer at "Pierre de Blain" is killed. The following example is uttered soon after the second incident takes place: (i) [ [ ^ > <D mwmmtA, as, ^ %><D, mmz. sono, [[modem no okano shiori-san ga, e, ano, totsuzenni kyushi well, [[model GEN Ms Shiori Okano NOM, uh, er-r, suddenly sudden death ttiit] £ v ^ 9 ] # j t as r £ v * L - c . . . sareta] toiu] jijo ga gozaimashite... did] COMP] situation N O M CPL-ing... Well, [because of] the situation that Ms Shiori Okano, a model, uh, er-r, died suddenly... (Di-shi satsujin jiken: 179) This statement regarding Shiori's whereabouts is uttered by the coordinator of the competition which Shiori was expected to attend. He has to explain to the judges why she is not present. Because her murder has just been discovered, he expects that none of the judges have yet received the news. In other words, the information expressed by the modifying clause is assumed to be new to or unexpected by the judges. Therefore, the first constraint, new information applies in this case. Hence, optional tv^ 5 [to iu] is deliberately included in the statement. Optional b^o [to iu] is absent when the modifying clause provides supplemental information for the head noun. The addressor expects that the information contained in the modifying clause is already known or accepted by the addressee. Observe the following example: 84 (2) [[-n mmm K H X . T C ; K b^b] <D « w « [[ikken mukankei ni mieta], to iu] no wa [okano shiori [[at a glance no connection DAT looked], COMP] NMR TOP [Shiori Okano # & £ t i f c ] * f t <D tc ft„ 3 ga koros-areta] jiken no koto da na. NOM kill-PASV-PAST] incident GEN fact CPL SF. [You are saying that] what appeared - at first glance - to have no connection with [the incidents that occurred at the designer's company] is, [in fact], the incident of [Ms] Shiori Okano's murder, aren't you? (Di-shi satsujin jiken: 179) The C N M structure in example (2) would also be grammatically acceptable if b^b [to iu] preceded the head noun, ^# [jiken] ('incident'). The statement is uttered during a conversation between two amateur detectives. The detectives, Tahei and Shusuke, attempt to untangle these three mysteries. Prior to uttering example (2), Shusuke says, "The incidents are significantly related although it looks like there is no relation at first."4 Tahei asks him what his statement means because it does not make sense to him. Shusuke restates that the murder is deeply related to the designer's shop called "Pierre de Blain." Then Tahei utters example (2). Both already know about the three incidents and they recognize that the first and the third incident were connected to "Pierre de Blain." Therefore, Tahei regards the information contained in the modifying clause as shared and old information. Since what is designated in the modifying clause is backgrounded information, optional b^b [to iu] is omissible before the head noun mfir [jiken] ('incident') in example (2). The next example shows that the addressor includes optional b b [to iu] when he/she wants to dramatize the information designated by the modifying clause. In order to examine why the addressor intuitively includes bv^b [to iu], the following example requires more context than example (2): ^he first CNM in example (2) — JUSM^fClL&fc, b^b<7) [ikken mukankei ni mieta, to iu no] (what appeared - at first glance - to have no connection) contains a comma before b V» 5 [to iu]. Thus, it is the direct-quote constraint, and b^b [to iu] is obligatory. ''The translation is mine. 85 (3a) A ¥ it A t ^ p T * f o f c . ta/zez wa ofa'/ A»e de z'tfa. Tahei TOP loud voice INST said. Tahei said [it] in a loud voice. (3b) r ^ b t , m t © , [ [ B A *s M # K ft 3 ] ^ V ^ l # f t "soshite, saigo no, [[hannin ga higaisha ni nam] to iu] myona "then, last GEN, [[criminal NOM victim DAT become] COMP] weird as e # t u 5 frtt fto J jiken ga okiteshimau wake da." incident NOM occur-finish fact CPL." "Then, finally, the weird incident that the criminal became a victim happened." (3c) r p E A as mmm t v ^ i © it ti 5 "[[hannin ga higaisha] to iu] no wa hen da yo. "[[criminal NOM victim] QUO say] NMR TOP weird CPL SF. "It is weird to say that the criminal [has become] the victim, isn't it? (3d) &ti it P E A as MVM-h are wa [[hannin ga kaeriuchi that TOP [[criminal NOM being killed by a person on whom one has tried to kill iz feofcl £ ^ 5 1 tc, J ni atta] to iu] jiken da." DAT met] COMP] incident CPL." That is the incident that the criminal was killed by the person whom [she] had tried to kill." (Di-shi satsujinjiken: 271) Examples (3a, b, c, d) occur at the end of the story where Shusuke and Tahei review all three mysteries. They have already discovered that the victim in the third incident tried to kill another person but instead she accidentally died. Although both have already shared this information, they insert b 5 [to iu] in examples (3b) and (3c). Note that the description in example (3b)'s modifying clause is much more significant than that described by the head noun because Tahei wants to describe the third incident with a witty remark. Because of the phrase "in a loud voice" in example (3a), the reader senses that the narrator, Tahei, is trying to emphasize example (3b)'s utterance. In addition, the presence of two commas, which precede the C N M in example (3b), indicates that Tahei expresses his utterance, example (3b), in a dramatic way. Accordingly, the presence of optional b^o [to iu] in example (3b) applies to 5In example (3c), b 5 [to iu] functions as hearsay. 86 the second constraint regarding the inclusion of b^b [to iu], dramatic effect. In example (3c), Shusuke does not agree with Tahei because the information contained in the modifying clause of Tahei's sentence is not precise. In example (3d), Shusuke rephrases his thoughts and states that the criminal cannot be the victim, but that the criminal was killed by the person whom she herself had tried to kill. He contrasts his description of the modifying clause in example (3d) with Tahei's. Therefore, the inclusion of optional b^b [to iu] by the narrator, Shusuke, in example (3d) also lends a dramatic element. Furthermore, in both examples (3b) and (3d), Tahei and Shusuke try to express the third incident as their own comments. This may also fulfill the third constraint regarding the inclusion of b ^ b [to iu], direct-quote. Some proposition-taking nouns such as $gJi [kekka] ('result') can be present as the head noun not only in NH-type but also in CNH-type C N M . 6 The presence of b^b [to iu] is unacceptable in the CNH-type C N M while the inclusion of bv^b [to iu] is optional in the NH-type CNM. I will prove that bv^b [to iu] can function to distinguish the CNM's type, and that the presence/absence of b b [to iu] in such NH-type can be explained by one or more of the conditions Maynard proposes. Example (23) in Section 3.2.1 is repeated here as example (4). Note the non-use of b ^ b [to iu] in the following example: (4) mrnmrn ^&b « [AF2 _ <D dobutsujikken de kondo wa [e-efu-tsu no animal experiment LOC, this time TOP [AF2 GEN SSa^tt £ liofj-S] ,$£JH # t B T U o f e . hatsugansei o urazukeru] kekka ga dete-shimatta. cancer-causing A C C support] result NOM come out-finish. Through animal experimentation, this time [they] have discovered the consequence, which supports the cancer-causing effect of AF2. (Shokuryo: 112) When not provided with any context, Japanese people accept the presence of b^b [to iu] after the modifying clause in example (4). They also sense a subtle difference between such 6As discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4, proposition-taking nouns function as relational nouns in CNH- type CNM. 87 NH-type C N M with and without b b [to iu] but few can explain the reason why.7 Examining the context where the C N M is included supplies a more conclusive explanation as to why such a difference occurs and why the author chooses to include b^b [to iu] in example (4). Example (4) comes from an article discussing the risk of using a food additive. Although some researchers pointed out that the medicine called AF2 causes genetic damage, the Japanese Ministry of Public Welfare still continued to accept it as an aseptic food additive for two years afterward. The company producing AF2 tried to sue the researchers for libel only to find that their own research yielded the same results. Before reading example (4), the reader has already received the information designated by the modifying clause, AF2<OH#^143>jg'fTl'^"5 [e-eju-tsu no hatsugan sei o urazukeru] ('support cancer-causing effect of AF2'). When the information within the modifying clause is assumed to be shared and old information to the reader, it violates the first constraint, new information. Therefore, non-use of b VN b [to iu] is appropriate in example (4). By examining the context where the NH-type C N M is included, this section confirmed that Maynard's (1992, 1993) hypothesis applies to NH-type C N M where the head nouns are different proposition-taking nouns from those she examines. The (non-)use of bv^b [to iu] discussed in this section can be interpreted by one or more of the three constraints that Maynard (1992, 1993) proposes. The next section examines the relationship between optional b b [to iu] and NH-type C N M where the head noun is a noun of thoughts and feelings. 4.1.2 Nouns of Thoughts and Feelings The following are a few examples of nouns of thoughts and feelings: [omoi] ('thought'), ^x. [kangae] ('opinion/idea'), WM [sozo] ('imagination'), and [kesshin] 7I asked fifteen Japanese native speakers whether they recognize the semantic difference between the corresponding CNM with and without b b [to iu]. Three explain the reason: the addressor really regrets the consequence when he/she utters the CNM with b V"> 5 [to iu]. 88 ('decision'). Since Maynard (1992, 1993) examines the relationship between optional b^b [to iu] and -^M [ketsui] ('decision'), M [M] ('feeling'), and [kanji] ('feeling'), this section specifically analyzes a different noun of thoughts and feelings, ^7L [kangae] ('opinion/idea'). The following two C N M come from the same serial in a newspaper. Observe the use and non-use of bv^b [toiu]: (5) [mm. * ftmsitx / j ^ <D ±m * [[kangai o jujitsus-ase-te komugi no seisan o [[irrigation A C C make something complete-ing wheat G E N production A C C b^b ] 3$7L anteis-aseru] to iu ] kangae make it stable] COMP] opinion the opinion that [they will] make wheat's production stable by adequate irrigation (Shokuryd: 222) (6) [ge® x @ (D m <D frb * mtefj>] [yasune de me no mae no hofuna wara o kyokyu-suru] [cheap price INST eye GEN front GEN abundant straw A C C supply] kangae opinion the opinion that [they could] supply straw cheaply and abundantly right under their very noses (Shokuryd: 59) Examples (5) and (6) show the same syntactic features in their respective modifying clauses and employ the same head noun, [kangae] ('opinion'). Syntactic- and semantic-based analyses are insufficient when we consider why the writer of example (5) includes b b [to iu] with the C N M and why it does not appear in example (6). In order to answer the question above, I will repeat examples (5) and (6) as examples (7) and (8) by providing the context where both C N M appear respectively. Let us start with example (7): (7) K%>frfri>t>-f. [[mm £ jEnintx ^ © nimokakawarazu, [[kangai o jujitsus-ase-te komugi no however, [[irrigation A C C make something complete-ing wheat GEN &m z b^b]^7L ft m& * v \ seisan o anteis-aseru] to iu ] kangae wa nomin nimo amari nai. production A C C make it stable] COMP] opinion TOP farmer even much not exist. However, few farmers have the opinion that [they will] make wheat's production stable by adequate irrigation. (Shokuryd: 222) 89 Example (7) comes from an article which discusses an agricultural situation in Australia. The article examines the problem of frequent drought and poor irrigation. If the writer continues the article on the same topic, the reader may deduce what is expressed in the modifying clause, Mfflk%:fc^&ftX'h:M:<D/£.M:fe!£M£ft:& [kangai o jujitsu sasete komugi no seisan o antei saseru] ('that [they will] make wheat production stable by adequate irrigation'). The first word in example (7), lz.i>frfrfr £>•#* [nimokakawarazu] ('however'), is a conjunction functioning as a paradox and drawing the attention of the reader. The writer tries to bring attention to the modifying clause, and this situation results in the second constraint, dramatic effect, to the addressee. Hence, example (7) includes optional t^b [to iu] because the content of the modifying clause has dramatic effect and is foregrounded information. As mentioned above, I will repeat example (6) here as example (8) in a full sentence. Observe the absence of t V1* b [to iu]: (8) [£m X g <D m <D M f c iph £ ®&?J>] [yasune de me no mae no hofuna war a o kyokyu-suru] [cheap price INST eye GEN front GEN abundant straw A C C supply] #x. a* ftv> tcub tc\ kangae ga nai tame da. opinion N O M not exist reason CPL. [It is] because they do not have the opinion that [they could] supply straw cheaply and abundantly right under their very noses. (Shokuryo: 59) Example (8) is from an article where the writer remarks that the Japanese government's agricultural policy has ignored the power of self-supportiveness. As an example of the government's behavior, the writer introduces the fact that the Japanese government has discouraged farmers from growing and buying feed-crops. The government believes that purchasing imported feed-crops is much cheaper than growing and buying domestic ones. The addressor indicates that the Japanese government neglects to consider the beneficial by-products that would be extracted. Also, the writer lists the benefits the farmers would receive if they grow feed-crops again. The information in example (8)'s modifying clause recognizes one benefit of growing 90 feed-crops. Since example (8) is narrated as the summary at the end of this article, the author expects the reader to have already absorbed the information expressed in the modifying clause. Therefore, the presence of t b [to iu] is inappropriate because of the violation of the first constraint, new information. The C N M of the following example was already discussed as example (12) in Section 3.1.1. I will repeat it here as example (9) by providing the context, b^b [To iu]'s presence is preferable in example (9) because the addressor does not want the addressee to misinterpret NH-type as CH-type C N M . Examining the context where the C N M appears explains another reason why the following C N M occurs with optional t b [to iu]: (9) smm® art-* n-* t m w m jikoku-keizai ni taisuru keisan dake dewanaku, [[keizai one's country economics DAT toward counting only CPL-not, [[economics no sogo-izon o fukameru koto wa, tozai no G E N mutual dependence A C C deepen thing TOP, East and West GEN K36iKfn \c ftio] b^b] K S o < b kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu] toiu] kangae ni motoduku mono to tension relaxation DAT useful] COMP] idea DAT base thing QUO mir-areru. see-PASV. [The flexible interpretation toward C O C O M in European countries] is based not only on economic self-interest but also on the opinion that deepening mutual economic dependence is useful in order to ease the tensions between East and West. (Asahi shinbun August 1,1987: 5) (cited in Tokuda 1989: 48) Observing the whole sentence where example (9) appears, we understand why the addressor includes optional b V> b [to iu]. The topic case marker fi [wa] in the modifying clause applies to the third constraint: direct-quote. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, such syntactic characteristics within the modifying clause obligate the inclusion of optional b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . However, analyzing the context which includes the example shows another reason why t b 91 [to iu] occurs in example (9). Example (9) comes from an editorial which discusses the Japanese government's attitude toward a violation of C O C O M by a private Japanese company. Although the writer admits that Japan must regulate C O C O M just as other Western countries do, he/she claims that each country can be independent when it conducts trade with Eastern countries. The writer introduces the situation in European countries and wonders why they conduct trade as they do. The information expressed in the modifying clause in example (9), ^^FcO|gSfe#$:^J6-5 £ t ft^ ® co^ 5SMfT4 K'$L\L~o [keizai no sdgo-izon o.fukameru koto wa tozai no kincho kanwa ni yakudatsu] ('deepening mutual economic dependence is useful in order to ease the tensions between East and West') is new information to the readers. Optional t ^ o [to iu] should be present in example (9) because of the first constraint, new information. Therefore, the addressor includes t 5 [to iu] in example (9) because it functions to foreground the information in the modifying clause as well as to differentiate NH-type C N M from CNH-type C N M . The following C N M was already discussed in Section 3.2.4 as the example where t 5 [to iu]'s presence distinguishes NH-type C N M from CNH-type C N M . The t ^ b [to iu]'s presence, however, should be explained by one or more of the three constraints postulated by Maynard (1992, 1993). Providing the context where the example is stated, I will discuss how the information of the modifying clause is foregrounded. (10) U J / J N M T* <D &*)&bfrb, Kftfr £ ikikX giJiSft yamagoya de no ariyo kara, [[nanika o Juset-e hyokinna Yamagoya LOC GEN state because, [[something A C C hide-ing facetious tLX . f e a ^ o T V ^ ] £ £ ^ 5 J] J&fc ft feofco Juryo toshite furumatt-eiru] (toiu 1] kanji wa atta. { 0 j delinquent as behave-ing] (COMP]] feeling TOP existed. 1 0 J As a result of his behavior at the Yamagoya [coffee shop], [she] felt that he not only was hiding something, but that he also behaved like a facetious and mischievous boy. (Jidaiya no nyobo kaidan hen: 196) 92 When examining the overall structure of the sentence, example (10) is grammatically correct regardless of b^b [to iu]'s presence.8 The sentence comes from a story where the heroine encounters several mysterious situations during a journey. One of the strangest events occurs when she meets a middle-aged man at a coffee shop called Yamagoya. Before narrating example (10), she continues wondering what he does for a living and why he appears whenever she needs him. Owing to former parts of the story, not only the heroine but also the reader knows how the man behaves at the coffee shop. When the reader encounters example (10), he/she feels that the description of the modifying clause, W^t^- frTlg iJI l&^Ji i t t ^ S J o TV>5 [nanika o fusete hyokinna furyo toshite fiirumatteiru] ('[he] was hiding something and [he also] behaved like a facetious and mischievous boy') is not a common expression referring to the man's personality. This is especially true because of the combination of the adjective Wi l i ft [hyokinna] ('facetious') and the noun [furyo] ('delinquent'). This fulfills the second constraint, dramatic effect. In addition, the reader also feels that the heroine herself is trying to express her own opinion regarding how the man behaves. This applies to the third constraint, direct-quote. The presence of b b [to iu] is more appropriate in example (10) for the two reasons above. This section explained how the addressor determined whether or not to include optional b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M when a noun of thoughts and feelings serves as the head noun. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, optional b^b [to iu]'s presence depends on whether the addressor regards certain information expressed in the modifying clause as foregrounded or backgrounded. Determining whether or not to include b b [to iu] in an optional situation requires an investigation regarding the context in which the C N M occurs. The next section examines the relationship between optional b^b [to iu] and C N M where the head noun is a speech act noun. Speech act nouns generally occur with b^b [to iu]. By analyzing the 8Eleven out of fifteen Japanese native speakers prefer the inclusion of b V~> b [to iu] in example (10). 93 context in which the C N M appears, this study refutes the argument that speech act nouns always require b^b [to iu] obligatorily. 4.2 NH-Type CNM where Speech Act Nouns Serve as Head Nouns This section verifies that Maynard's (1992, 1993) three constraints on the presence of optional b^b [to iu] apply to NH-type C N M where a speech act noun serves as the head noun. Maynard (1992, 1993), however, does not examine NH-type C N M where a speech act noun occurs with optional b b [to iu] as the head noun. She claims that the presence of b b [to iu] is obligatory when the head noun is a speech act noun. I divide this section into halves in order to prove that a speech act noun can occur with optional bv^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M as do nouns of thoughts and feelings and proposition-taking nouns. Section 4.2.1 analyzes NH-type C N M where the head noun is fg [hanashi] ('story'). Section 4.2.2 focuses on NH-type C N M where nf [uwasa] ('rumor') and [yakusoku] ('promise') serve as the head nouns. fg [Hanashi] ('story') often occurs without b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M , while ngt [uwasa] ('rumor') and [yakusoku] ('promise') are usually regarded as head nouns which require b^b [toiu] obligatorily. Contextual analysis is indispensable to a comprehension of NH-type C N M where a speech act noun serves as the head noun and occurs without b^b [to iu]. 4.2.1 fg [Hanashi] ('story') This section examines the head noun Ig [hanashi] ('story') and optional b\^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . It is widely accepted that some speech act nouns such as fg [hanashi] ('story') do not occur with b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . 9 This thesis proposes that every speech act *The following are some examples of hypotheses proposed by some researchers in order to explain the findings above. Teramura (1977b) classifies some speech act nouns such as §S [hanashi] ('story') as proposition-taking nouns because he theorizes that all speech act nouns require b V"» b [to iu] obligatorily regardless of the degree of modality of the modifying clause. Tomura (1985, 1991) claims that b^b [to iu] is not present when the addressor uses IS [hanasfu] ('story') to introduce a story: it focuses the flow on the whole story and does not need encapsulating. When IS [hanashi] ('story') "encapsulates," b V"> b [to iu] is present and it functions to dramatize 94 noun can occur without t V N b [to iu] i f the information expressed in the modifying clause is not foregrounded. Let us start with the NH-type C N M without t ^ b [to iu]. Consider the following example: ( i i ) [g&± % m~o A as m^x-[jukensei o motsu hito ga kaiinu [a student studying for an entrance examination A C C have people N O M house dog no nodo o shujutsu-shite, hoe-nu inu o tsukutta] hanashi mo G E N throat A C C operate-ing, bark-not dog A C C made] story also kiita koto ga aru. heard thing N O M exist. [I] have heard the story that people whose child is a student preparing for an entrance examination had the throat of their dog operated on to make it unable to bark. (Usagi no sakadachi: 207) Example (11) comes from an essay commenting on humanity's selfish attitude toward animals. Beginning with Japanese people's fanaticism regarding whether or not Pandas in the zoo can have offspring every year, the author doubts that they wi l l mate because they are tired of being watched. The author states that human beings are "inhuman" to animals and lists other examples which show how humans treat animals in selfish and cruel ways. Example (11) appears as the fourth example in her essay. Even though this information, ^ I t ^ ^ J t o A a s M V ' 1 r ^ # U L t , t 5 ^ . i & A $ r o < o f c [jukensei o motsu hito ga kaiinu no nodo o shujutsu shite, hoenu inu o tsukutta] ('people whose child is a student preparing for an entrance examination had the throat of their dog operated on to make it unable to bark') is new to the reader, the information follows the essay's main theme so that it is not totally new information. Since it the content of the modifying clause. Kim (1989) follows Teramura's classification of these speech act nouns. She points out that the inclusion or exclusion of t 5 [to iu] is influenced by the addressor's psychological distance from what is expressed by the modifying clause. Tokuda (1989) speculates that speech act nouns do not always occur with £V>5 [to iu] in NH-type CNM. She subcategorizes speech act nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings according to how easily t V> b [to iu] is omitted in NH-type. Oshima (1991) claims that t b [to iu] is obligatory when the head noun 15 [hanashi] ('story') is used to express hearsay. However, irV>5 [to iu] is optional when the modifying clause expresses a summary of the story. 95 violates the first constraint, new information, b V1* 5 [to iu] is not included in example (11). The next example shows the presence of b 5 [to iu]: (12) [ [ v \ b ^ 3 %Atftr co £ 5 ft K fto/c r > £ [[/waywrw rojin-boke no yona byoki ni natta hito [[what is called Alzheimer's disease G E N look like disease DAT became people o, musuko ya musume ga terezuni dakishimetari-shite itawaru A C C , son and daughter NOM without hesitation hug closely-ing console 9*> K teofc] b^b] IS AS £--A> © $ f p g ft wc/n ni naotta] toiu] hanashi ga dokoka no shinbun ni while DAT recovered] COMP] story N O M someplace G E N newspaper DAT deteita. appeared. There was a story in some newspaper that people who had suffered from illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease got well when their sons and daughters and so on hugged them closely without hesitation. (Usagi no sakadachi: 34) The presence of optional b 5 [to iu] in this example can be explained by Maynard's first constraint, new information. Prior to this example sentence, nothing was mentioned about Alzheimer's disease. The only matter discussed was the fact that women prefer fur coats. Although these two pieces of information are related by the topic of physical contact. There is still a jump of logic from the women's preference to the cure of Alzheimer's disease. Therefore, the information contained in this C N M is still considered new and unexpected to the reader. Thus optional b 5 [toiu] must be used in example (12). b p [To iu]'s inclusion in example (13) demonstrates the second constraint, dramatic effect: 96 (13) M A T% X>t<9 X M f ^ V^< t K [[aru tokyo-jin de, hitori de kyoto e iku to hoteru ni [[certain Tokyoite CPL, oneself DAT Kyoto L O C go CON hotel LOC tomari, hoteru no shokudo de shika shokujishi-nai hito ga iru] lodge, hotel GEN dining room LOC only dine-not person N O M exist] t^b] m £ M^tc Ct as toiu] hanashi o kiita koto ga aru. COMP] story A C C heard thing N O M exist. I have heard the story that there is a person, a certain Tokyoite, who, when he/she goes to Kyoto, stays in a hotel and dines nowhere except in the hotel dining room. (Usagi no sakadachi: 71) The author writes about the relationship between the people of Kyoto and its sightseers. She has already mentioned that many Japanese people love to visit Kyoto, but that the people in Kyoto remain somewhat cool and aloof toward these transients. The content expressed in the modifying clause, &<5J|CM XX\ - A " C M I ^ < i ^ f ; K ' S t ^ ^ f / K O t f " C ? U ^ i f L & V^Aasv -^5 [aru tokyo-jin de, hitori de kyoto e iku to hoteru ni tomari, hoteru no shokudo de shika shokujishi-nai hito ga iru] ('there is a person, a certain Tokyoite, who, when he/she goes to Kyoto, stays in a hotel and dines nowhere except in the hotel dining room') is an extreme case which shows how apprehensive tourists can be in Kyoto. Accordingly, the addressor permits the use of optional t b [to iu] to create a dramatic effect.10 There is another reason for t v>5 [to iu]'s presence in example (13). Because of the main clause's predicate, (iflv^fc^l tas&3 [kiita koto ga aru] ('[I] have heard'), the reader can recognize that somebody has . actually uttered the information given in the modifying clause to the author, and that the author is recalling it while expressing example (13) . Therefore, as shown in example (13) , an analysis based on the context is sometimes essential to reveal the direct-quote constraint although features identifying the constraint are found within the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause. 10King (personal communication) points out that the presence of t 5 [to iu] in example (13) is because of new information as well as of dramatic effect. Also, as mentioned in footnote One in Chapter Four, Collier-Sanuki comments that the modifying clause in example (13) must end with an exclamation mark (!) when uttered. 97 The following two examples come from a short story where a writer talks about the activities of his literary circle during his high school days. He and his friends regularly wrote novels, mimeographed them, and sold them to their friends at a low price. Six examples of NH-type C N M use the head noun fg [hanashi] ('story') in the novel. One requires h^b [to iu] obligatorily because of the comma between the modifying clause and its head noun. This study analyzes the other five examples. Since h V1* b [to iu] remains optional in these situations, one example appears with and the other four appear without t^b [to iu]. Observe the first example where the head noun M [hanashi] ('story') follows t b [to iu]: (14) r>RTtg t^b <D it. [[7.4 y^-^: AtiZ t. Z<D "jukano mashin" to iu no wa, [[suitchi o ireru to, sono "impossible machine" called NMR TOP, [[switch A C C switch on COND, that AM as %<D m XV 'J>L a i i f ^ = r r o T L £ 5 Z4J*-?*yy £ jinbutsu ga sono toki yori sukoshi izen e itte-shimau taimumashin o person NOM that time than a little before LOC go-finish time machine A C C mmhtc m± as\ 74y^Z Ati-5 t -h^otm ^ hatsumeishita hakase ga, suitchi o ireru to chotto mae e invented doctor NOM, switch A C C switch on CON a little before LOC M o T L * 5 (DX ifbLX^ 2§0J1 £ 5^1"-5 Zt ft modotte-shimau node doshitemo hatsumei o kanseisuru koto ga go back-finish because at all cost invention A C C complete thing NOM - e ^ & H t ^ b l Mo 1 1 dekinai] toiu] hanashi. cannot] COMP] story. [The story] titled "Impossible Machine" is the story about a doctor who invented a time machine. The machine enables a person to go back to the time just before switching on the machine. Therefore, whenever he switches on the machine, he goes back to the time when he is about to do the same action. As a result, he cannot complete his invention no matter what he does. (Iesutadei:25) The syntactic structure of the modifying clause provides one potential reason for t^b [to iujs presence in example (14). Terakura (1984) and Tokuda (1989) postulate that if the modifying clause comprises a complex sentence, it tends to take t^b [to iu]. Similarly, although she does not discuss this in detail, Tokuda (1989) observes a tendency that the more UI do not analyze the first t b [to iu] in example (14) because it connects two nouns. 98 complex and the longer the modifying clause is, the more often optional b^b [to iu] is used between the modifying clause and its head noun. Terakura's and Tokuda's postulation can be equivalent to the third constraint, direct-quote. It is worth noting, however, that the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause discussed here, the complex sentence, do not always occur with optional b^b [to iu] as do the other syntactic features such as the presence of a comma. It is the narrator of the sentence where the corresponding C N M is included who determines whether or not the complex sentence shows the characteristics of a direct quote. When the addressor includes optional b b [to iu] before the modifying clause which comprises the complex sentence, the presence of b^b [to iu] gives the modifying clause a more "vivid image" than that without b^b [to iu]. The second example is NH-type C N M where the head noun IS [hanashi] ('story') does not occur with b b [to iu]: ( i s ) m» * mz-r b^b <D ft, [b^te p c "kiseki o okosu otoko" toiu no wa, [donna koto demo kuchi ni "miracle A C C cause man" called NMR TOP, [any thing even mouth DAT ttiLT lifrWltf >t<D b&Vfc ft 5 m X » « dashi-te meijire-ha sono tori ni nam otoko ga, koji-genba put out-ing order-CON that way DAT become man NOM, a site of construction T? K & V \ ftCk T?£ft<ft3] m XfoZo de jiko ni ai, nanimo deki-naku-naru] hanashi dearu. LOC accident DAT meet, anything can do-not-become] story CPL. The story titled "The Man Who Causes Miracles" is the story that the man who could make anything possible simply by ordering it had an accident at a construction site and became unable to do anything. (IesutaderAS) Compared to example (14), example (15)'s syntactic structure is less complex. The absence of optional b b [to iu] is preferable in example (15) because the modifying clause does not show the characteristics of a direct quote. It briefly summarizes the content of the story. In addition, the violation of the first constraint, new information, also explains why example (15) does not include b V N b [to iu]. The author repeatedly introduces the stories he and his friends wrote in their literary magazine. Therefore, the addressee can regard the 99 modifying clause's information as old information even though he/she encounters a summary of each story for the first time. They can expect the information of the modifying clause because of the story's context. Optional t b [to iu] is excluded in example (15) because the content of the modifying clause is backgrounded by the two constraints above. To confirm that the findings discussed in this section hold true for other examples, this section also analyzes examples other researchers cited from written data. The following is from Kim (1989): (16) ft 1326 ft, [Wt t £ fe&fr-frS] fg i> &^tc hajime wa, [musume to kyojiro o meawaseru] hanashi mo atta at first TOP, [daughter C O M Kyojiro A C C marry] story also existed (D tc ... no da ga,... E M O CPL but,. . . At first [people talked about] the story [and speculated] that [Shizu would] marry her daughter to Kyojiro, but... (Juni ka getsu: 137) (cited in Kim 1989: 24) Example (16) does not include optional t b [to iu] because it violates the first constraint, new information. The author in example (16) continually narrates the story from a dance critic's point of view. She uses a critic's monologue in the descriptive part. The heroine of the story, Shizu, used to be the head of a traditional Japanese dance school. The critic reviews Shizu's personal history and recalls the episode between her daughter and Kyojiro. Although the content in the modifying clause in example (16), [musume to kyojiro o meawaseru] ('[Shizu would] marry her daughter to Kyojiro') is new to the reader, it is old information to the narrator, the critic. Therefore, the addressor includes t b [to iu]. Oshima (1991) hypothesizes that the semantic characteristics of the word fg [hanashi] ('story') determine the presence/absence of optional b^b [to iu]. He claims that the C N M requires t b [to iu] obligatorily when the head noun fg [hanashi] ('story') expresses hearsay. However, b^b [to iu] is optional when the content of the modifying clause describes a 100 summary of the story. The following example is in Oshima (1991): (17) ])/<]) <D *r-*VTy—?> *S, [baribari no kyariauman ga, [onomatopoeia to express 'working very hard' GEN career woman NOM, jibun yori mo sukoshi yuno de rikutsuppoi otoko kara, "kimi tte oneself than a little bit talented L OC argumentative man from, " you COMP a^bVM^fcU t — H v^t>tlfc tctf T? a n y t kawaii ne" to hitokoto iwa-re-ta dake de korori to cute SF" QUO one phrase tell-PASV-PAST only LOC easily QUO maitte-shimau] hanashi ga redisu-komikku ni yoku be captivized-finish] story NOM women's comic magazine DAT often an'/nasw. exist. [We can] find that stories [featuring] hard-working career women romantically enamoured with logical, persuasive men, slightly more successful than [they are, and which contain] the simple little phrase "You're cute, you know?" are exceedingly common in women's comic magazines. (Ren-airon:65) (cited in Oshima 1991: 56) As discussed in examples (14) and (15), however, the actual written data refute Oshima's assumption that only the semantic characteristics of the head noun determine optional t b [to iu]'s use. The absence of t^b [to iu] in example (17) shows the violation of the first constraint, new information. Example (17) comes from an essay written by a very popular female comic book writer. In the essay, she counsels a woman who loves a man six years younger than she is. Example (17) follows the author's interpretation of why the woman considers her situation troubling. The author points out that the woman subconsciously believes that men should always be superior to women and states that a woman generally looks for this in a prospective partner. In addition, the author claims that this happens because of this woman's gender stereotyping. The modifying clause in example (17) expresses a typical narrative in a Japanese women's comic. The heroine of the story is influenced by social convention. The author expects her advisee, as 101 well as other readers, to be familiar with this scenario. She regards the information described by the modifying clause as shared and expected information to both of them. Therefore, the presence of optional b b [to iu] is not appropriate in example (17) because the information expressed in the modifying clause is not foregrounded. This section confirmed that NH-type C N M without optional b^b [to iu] where the head noun is f g [hanashi] ('story') can be explained by the three constraints proposed by Maynard (1992, 1993) as do proposition-taking nouns and nouns of thoughts and feelings. A s examined above, comprehending optional b^b [to iu] strongly depends on contextual information. In turn, whether or not the addressor includes optional b^b [to iu] influences the message contained in NH-type C N M . If optional b"V> b [to iu] is present, the information contained in the modifying clause is foregrounded. The head noun is foregrounded i f optional b b [to iu] is absent. The next section examines the absence of optional b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M where other speech act nouns, [uwasa] ('rumor') and $J5fC [yakusoku] ('promise') serve as the head nouns. 4.2.2 Speech A c t N o u n s This section examines NH-type C N M which was introduced as an exception to the general rule in Section 3.1.3. I repeat example (17) from Section 3.1.3 here as example (18). Note b VN b [to iu]'s absence in the example: (is) \_^b^b <D o m x [soiu zensei no kan'in-san no ie de [like that the zenith of prosperity G E N government clerk G E N house L O C ojosan doyoni kawaigararete eyo shi-teiru] uwasa mademoiselle similarly love-PASV-ing luxury do-ing] rumor stories [rumor in the literal translation] that showed [Suga was] cherished as a daughter in the home of this government official now at the height of his influence (Onnazaka: 36. Translation by John Bester 1984) (cited in Takahashi 1979: 68) A s discussed in Section 2.1.3, analysis within the C N M cannot explain why the absence of b 102 b [to iu] is most appropriate in example (18). In order to answer the question above, Tokuda (1989) compares example (18) to an example of C N M which precedes example it: (i9) m% <D ft [[kenrei no kawashima ga [[governor GEN Kawashima NOM keishisokan ni eitenshita Superintendent-General of the Metropolitan Police Academy DAT promoted no ni shitaga-tte jokyoshit-e kara mo shirakawa wa hikitsuzuki NMR DAT follow-ing move to Tokyo-ing after also Shirakawa TOP continuously «m/t _ <D mm- x\ keishicho no kikemono de, yoshiwara the Metropolitan Police Academy G E N a man of influence CPL, Yoshiwara <D assp ftb ±.ft%> ft* <D & tm Ahtc mx*) no yukaku kara agaru uchiuchi no zei dake demo, taishita miiri GEN gay quarters from come private GEN taxes only even, highly profits ti] t^b] m T f c S o da] to iu] uwasa dearu. CPL] COMP] rumor CPL. After [they] moved to the capital in the wake of Governor Kawashima, newly promoted to Superintendent-General of the Metropolitan Police, Shirakawa had become an important official at the Metropolitan Police Academy and was rumored to be living in high style on the taxes privately collected from the Yoshiwara gay quarters. (Onnazaka: 36. Translation by John Bester 1984) (cited in Tokuda 1989: 52) Tokuda (1989) claims that the presence of t 5 [to iu] is obligatory in example (19) because the modifying clause is a complex sentence. Also, she states that the absence of b^b [to iu] in example (18) results from the fact that the modifying clause does not include the characteristics of a direct quote. It briefly summarizes the content of the rumor. However, I suggest another reason for the non-use of optional t ^ b [to iu] in example (18) as well as its use in example (19). In example (19), the modifying clause shows the following three characteristics of a direct quote: the topic particle H [wa], a high degree of modality shown by the copula ti. [da], 103 and a complex sentence. Particularly, the presence of the topic particle and the copula necessitates the inclusion of optional £ V> 5 [toiu] in NH-type C N M . In order to explain why example (18) does not take b^b [to iu], I will add the following part of example (18) as follows and provide the context where the sentence is used: (20) vtj>\^o (D <D m x [soiu zensei no kan'in-san no ie de [like that the zenith of prosperity G E N government clerk G E N house LOC mmx. frt>\t^&htix %n L T V ^ I m & ojosan doyoni kawaigararete eyo shi-teiru] uwasa o mademoiselle similarly love-PASV-ing luxury do-ing] rumor A C C trrttf i> izfrizfr fc©Lv^ M K t£Z><r>x%>% kike-ba hahaoyamo hokahoka tanoshii ki ni naru-no-dearu listen-CON mother also warmly enjoyable feeling DAT become-EMO-CPL ft... ga... but. . . [Suga's] mother would flush with gratification at stories [rumor in the literal translation] that showed [Suga was] cherished as a daughter in the home of this government official now at the height of his influence, but... (Onnazaka: 36. Translation by John Bester 1984) (cited in Takahashi 1979: 68) As discussed by Tokuda (1989), the violation of the third constraint, direct-quote, determines b^b [to iu]'s absence. However, b\^b [to iu]'s absence in example (20) can be explained by another violation of Maynard's constraints. The information expressed by example (20) is not new. This example comes from a story where Suga became a government official's concubine because of the poverty of her family. The author repeatedly narrates that since Suga became his concubine, she bought anything she liked regardless of the cost. Therefore, what is expressed in the modifying clause ^:b^b^M<Otlk£ Ay(D%X&M£ A;[^Ulzfrt>^ft btiX%i [soiu zensei no kan'in san no ie de ojosan doyoni kawaigararete eyo shiteiru] ('[Suga was] cherished as a daughter in the home of this government official now at the height of his influence') is old and expected information to the reader as well as to Suga's mother. As expected, her mother constantly worries about her. Optional b 5 [to iu] is absent in example 104 (20) because it violates the new information constraint and direct-quote. In order to confirm Maynard's (1992, 1993) theory from a different perspective, I will examine C N M where the head noun is a different speech act noun. Section 3.1.1 introduced NH-type C N M where the speech act noun [yakusoku] ('promise') occurs with b b [to iu] when its modifying clause's degree of modality is lowest, at level one. Example (19) in Section 1.2.2 is repeated here as example (21). I will add the following part of the C N M and analyze the context where the example is included in order to comprehend why optional b b [to iu] is present in the example: (21) [ [4>L M # #J I K feotcb -f<* [[sukoshi demo kibun ga waruku nat-tara sugu ni kaeru] [[a little even feeling NOM bad become-CON right away DAT return] b^b] iftSfc £ L T b f r l t H o f c to iu] yakusoku o shite yatto yurushite-moratta. COMP] promise A C C doing at last allow-received. By making the promise that [she will] return [to the hospital] as soon as [she] starts to feel ill, she was barely allowed [by her mother to go to a violin concert]. (Kodomo no tonari: 39) The two constraints, new information and direct-quote, explain b^b [to iu]'s presence in example (21). In the story that includes example (21), a patient in another room invites a girl in the hospital to a violin concert. Her mother hesitates to let her go because of the child's physical condition. What the modifying clause expresses, ^ L~t?i>^/j}fcM<\ feotc £>i~<*f£jl§ •5 [sukoshi demo kibun ga waruku nattara sugu ni kaeru] ('[she will] come back [to the hospital] as soon as [she] starts to feel ill') is new information to the reader as well as to the heroine of the story, the sick girl. In addition, the entire story is narrated from the sick girl's point of view. When reading the story, the reader instinctively feels the effect ofa small girl talking directly to him or to her. Because of these two constraints, the information contained in the modifying clause is foregrounded and the presence of bv^b [to iu] is appropriate in this situation. 105 The following C N M is another NH-type C N M where the head noun is a speech act noun [yakusoku] ('promise'). Note the absence of optional b b [to iu]: (22) [ 4 - 0 ft, &*± ft WfX ftb, m^-hh^x [kyo wa, kaisha ga hike-te kara, machiawase-te shokuji [today TOP, company NOM close-ing after, meet by appointment-ing dinner K #<] iftJfc ft (T> * S V ^ t B L f c . ni yuku] yakusoku na no o omoidashita. DAT go] promise CPL NMR A C C remembered. [Kuno] remembered the promise that today he would meet [Reiko] again and dine out after work. (Juni ka getsu: 193) b^b [To iu]'s in example (22) applies to the violation of the first constraint, new information. In example (22), a young company employee, Kuno, has a streak of forgetfulness. He has just been scolded by his boss since he had forgotten a promise made to his client. Reiko, who is a co-worker and his girlfriend, shows her sympathy and encouragement by exchanging glances with him. At that time, he finds himself recalling his promised date with her that night. Although the information expressed in example (22)'s modifying clause is new and unexpected to the reader, it is old information to Kuno himself. Since the author keeps narrating the story from Kuno's point of view, determining whether the information is new or old should be consistent with how Kuno defines the corresponding information. Accordingly, optional b ^ b [to iu] is absent in example (22). This section examined examples of NH-type C N M where the head noun is a speech act noun. The presence/absence of b^b [to iu] in all examples could be explained by the three constraints proposed by Maynard (1992, 1993). Contextual analysis is always indispensable in order to see which constraint determines the use of optional b\^b [to iu]. Although most features demonstrating direct-quote constraint are found within the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause, this section showed some examples of NH-type C N M where only an analysis based on the context reveals the direct-quote constraint. These findings proved the hypothesis of this thesis that all NH-type C N M take b^b [to iu] optionally. In addition, 106 because of the semantic characteristics of speech act nouns, some modifying clauses discussed here showed one or more of the characteristics of a direct quote. 4.3 Summary This chapter discussed NH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is at level one. When analyzing actual written data, this thesis adopts Maynard's (1992, 1993) hypothesis that optional bv^b [to iu] is included when the information described in the modifying clause shows one or more of the following three constraints: (1) new information, (2) dramatic effect, and (3) direct-quote. By employing her three constraints, this chapter confirmed my proposal that all NH-type C N M take <tVv5 [to iu] optionally. The data analysis in Section 4.1 reconfirmed the previous researchers' claims that b^b [to iu]'s presence is optional in NH-type C N M when nouns of thoughts and feelings and proposition-taking nouns serve as the head nouns. On the other hand, Section 4.2 clarified the hypothesis of this thesis that speech act nouns can function similarly to nouns of thoughts and feelings and proposition-taking nouns in NH-type C N M . By examining the actual written data, both sections revealed that Maynard's first and second constraints, new information and dramatic effect, cannot be explained without knowing the context in which the C N M occurs. Although the third constraint, direct-quote, can often be explained within the syntactic structures of the modifying clause, contextual analysis is indispensable in order to comprehend the presence of b^b [to iu] in some NH-type C N M . 107 Chapter Five Conclusion 5.1 Summary This thesis examined the optional use and functions of the Japanese complementizer b [to iu) in Japanese C N M . The presence of b [to iu] between the modifying clause and its head noun can be obligatory, optional, or even unacceptable. The goal of this thesis was to examine and clarify the semantic differences between C N M with and without optional b V^> b [to iu]. This study also proposed that comprehending the use and functions of optional b b [to iu] requires knowledge of the context in which the particular C N M occurs. In order to achieve the goal of this thesis, Chapter One: Background of the Study, reviewed previous studies on the relationship between Japanese C N M and bv^b [to iu]. These researches generally focused on structures within the C N M such as the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause and the semantic characteristics of the head nouns. This thesis reconfirmed Mayriard's (1992, 1993) claim that analysis within the C N M alone and sentence level analysis cannot always explain the presence/absence of b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . Employing Matsumoto's (1988a, b) C N M classification (CH-/NH-/CNH-type CNM) and Maynard's Discourse Modality Indicator, Chapter Two hypothesized that all NH-type C N M take b^b [to iu] optionally. Following Maynard, Chapter Three and Chapter Four examined actual written data and analyzed the context in which the C N M was stated. Chapter Three re-examined the conditions which do or do not necessitate the complementizer b b [to iu] in NH/CNH-type C N M . By analyzing the data, I concluded that the syntactic characteristics identified by other researchers as requiring b b [to iu] obligatorily belong to Maynard's third distributional constraint, direct-quote. As evidence to support the hypothesis that all NH-type C N M take b^b [to iu] optionally, Chapter Four examined NH-type C N M where the degree of modality of the modifying clause is at its lowest, level one. Explaining which distributional 108 constraints) permits optional b^^b [to iu] to be present in NH-type C N M requires analysis of the context in which the C N M occurs. 5.2 Suggestions for Further Study My findings present optional b^b [to iu]'s distributional constraints and conclude that all NH-type C N M occur with b^b [to iu] optionally. Whether or not the addressor includes optional b^b [to iu] in NH-type C N M depends on his/her perception of the information. The addressor includes b^s b [to iu] when he/she wants to focus attention on the modifying clause and excludes it when focusing attention on the head noun. The following three distributional constraints, (1) new information, (2) dramatic effect, (3) direct-quote, determine the inclusion of optional b b [to iu] in NH-type C N M . Identifying the first and second constraints, new information and dramatic effect, requires an examination of the context in which the C N M occurs. Although some features regarded as the third constraint, direct-quote, are found within the syntactic characteristics of the modifying clause, others require an analysis based on the context as discussed in Chapter Four. Some issues regarding b^b [to IM] remain unresolved and deserve further study. See the following Table: 109 T a b l e 16 T h e use o f t V1* b [to iu]: Issues n o t Discussed i n T h i s Thesis Type of C N M NH-type CNM CNH -type CN] M Type of H ead Noun speech act noun nouns of thoughts and feelings proposi-tion-taking noun nouns of perception relational noun quasi-relational noun U C g l C C v Jl modality and the use of t V> 5 [to iu] I t - V t>l ' level 4 level 3 Optional -(Direct-Quote ) ::;:;;;;;;;;;:N/A:::;::::::;;;: level 1 Optional ;;;N/A;:;;;;;:;;:;:;;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;; Unacceptable the part not discussed in this thesis E As shown in Table 16, this study does not analyze data concerning NH-type C N M where the degree of modality of the modifying clause is at level two. It is ambiguous whether or not one of level two modality, epistemic modality, exhibits the characteristics of a direct quote. Before verifying my hypothesis that all NH-type head nouns take t b [to iu] optionally, this study should determine whether or not, in C N M , Japanese native speakers regard a modifying clause which shows epistemic modality as a direct quote. Another highlighted section in Table 16 concerns CNH-type C N M . I did not find any CNH-type C N M where the head noun is either a relational or a quasi-relational noun and where the modifying clause shows a level two degree of modality or above. This finding suggests that in CNH-type C N M , the information expressed in the modifying clause loses the characteristics of a direct quote. Nouns of perception, however, function differently from the other CNH-type head nouns when the modifying clause's degree of modality shows level two and above. They always occur with t^b [to iu] in CNH-type C N M where the modifying clause's degree of modality is level three or above. On the other hand, as discussed in Section 3.2.4, although they do not generally occur with t^b [to iu], nouns of perception follow <fc b 110 ft [yona] ('to look like') and b ft [sona] ('to appear') when the modifying clause'.s degree of modality is at level two . As discussed in Section 2.1, Teramura (1977b) and Matsumoto (1988a, b) categorize C N M differently. The presence and/or absence of the complementizer b ^ b [to iu] in C N M is one of the important factors to categorize Japanese C N M , although this thesis does not discuss which C N M framework is more thorough. Employs Matsumoto's framework would require why nouns of perception function differently from the other CNH-type head nouns when the degree of modality of the modifying clause is at level two and above. Even had we employed Teramura's proposal, which regards the C N M as NH-type C N M , we would be left with the problem of why nouns of perception must not occur with b^b [to iu] in C N M where the degree of modality of the modifying clause is at level one. Further analyses based on more data are necessary to explain C N M where a noun of perception serves as the head noun. Although the data examined in this pilot study was limited in scope to written data, in future I plan to analyze data concerning both written and spoken practices in order to confirm the hypothesis advanced in this thesis. In order to examine spoken data, it is necessary to determine whether or not the variants of b b [to iu] such as o T V ^ b [tte iu], b^-otc [tto itta], and o t [tte] function similarly to b^b [to iu] in NH-/CNH-type C N M . Also, in order to provide a clear understanding of the complementizer b b [to iu], examining other uses of b V* b [to iu] will prove beneficial: b V> b [to iu] Which functions to quote an utterance directly or indirectly, and b b [to iu] which combines two nouns. These questions are as challenging as they are profound, but the research on these issues will inevitably lead to a fuller understanding of the Japanese language. Data Sources 1 1 1 7fc)\\?K§$ [Akagawa, Jiro]. 1986. H ^ S S * —AXcO^Wtt [Mikeneko hdmuzu no kydfu-kan.] Tokyo: WtWftkXW- [Kadokawa bunko]. fr#f!tT- [Arai, Motoko]. 1995. *5L£v><£>0 [Oshimai no hi]. Tokyo: $??$:£J¥ [Shincho bunko]. t J 0 i ? H I $ ^ [Asahi shinbun keizai-bu]. 1986. ^ [Shokuryd]. Tokyo: mBMmQ [Asahi shinbun-sha]. [Enchi, Fumiko]. 1986. [Onnazaka]. R J f t £ - l ^ $ J B ; £ £ # 3 7 [Enchi jumiko shu shincho nihon bungaku 37], 5-116. Tokyo: 0fSit± [Shinchd-sha]. . 1980. cl971. Onnazaka (The Waiting Years). Trans, by John Bester. Tokyo: Kodansha International. E£r#&£|5 [Haitani, Kenjiro]. 1988. T-E^^m^O [Kodomo no tonari]. Tokyo: §r7$;£J¥ [Shincho bunko]. ^^M[Kurimoto, Kaoru]. 1983. -r-HfrE [Juni ka getsu]. Tokyo: §r?$l:&J¥ [Shincho bunko]. [Miyabe, Miyuki]. 1993. V) [Sunuku gari]. Tokyo: [Kobun-sha]. tffa-fcM [Muramatsu, Tomonori]. 1987. R#ftM©:£Mfll&Si} [Jidai-ya no nyobo kaidan-hen]. Tokyo: [Kadokawa bunko]. MX 5 ' [Mure, Yoko]. 1989. h yib^/o [Tora-chan]. Tokyo: %&&$M [Shuei-sha bunko]. *al>&>IE— [Nejime, Shoichi]. 1991. f r f t D & c D ^ [Shin nejime no baka]. Tokyo: ^ M b f c )% [Shuei-sha bunko]. m?*\&fr [Sainton, Fumi]. 1990. &gf j | [Ren-ai ron]. Tokyo: P H P fiJF^u^r [PHPkenkyu-jo]. mit(.^,%[Shimizu,Yoshinori]. 1989. D C S A W - [Di-shi satsujin jiken]. Tokyo: ^ £ T ± £ J $ [Kobun-sha bunko]. . 1992. / f j x x ^ x V [lesutadei]. Tokyo: fgfll&J* [Tokuma bunko]. tm^MT- [Tomioka, Taeko]. 1982. ftotfrttt [Usagi no sakadachi]. Tokyo: [Chukd bunko]. ftUIJ^JB [Uchida, Yasuo]. 1986. ^V^St fe i f t^ tyMW^ [A£ai tao densetsu satsujin jiken]. Tokyo: fa)\\'JcM [Kadokawa bunko]. ?REEl3f J§ [Wada, Hideo]. 1987. -A?^ [Konpyuia nyumon]. Tokyo: ^ t f / S 113 References Agency for Cultural Affairs. 1971. ^MA<Dtclb<DM&Mffi$l1$!$: [Gaikoku-jin no tame no kihon-go yorei jiten] ('Dictionary of basic Japanese usage for foreigners'). Tokyo: Ministry of Finance Akatsuka, Noriko. 1990. On the meaning of daroo. On Japanese and how to teach it: in honor of Seiichi Makino, eds. by Osamu Kamada and W. Jacobsen, 67-75. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Alfonso, Anthony. 1966. Japanese language patterns, vol. 2. Tokyo: Sophia University. Bierwisch, Manfred, and Karl Erich Heidolph. (eds.) 1970. Progress in linguistics: a collection of papers. The Hague: Mouton. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. That's that. The Hague: Mouton. . 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman. Collier-Sanuki, Yoko. 1993. Word order and discourse strategies: a contrastive analysis of Japanese and English relative clauses in written narratives. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, dissertation. Fillmore, Charles J. 1978. The organization of semantic information in the lexicon. Papers from the parasession on the lexicon, eds. by Donka Farkas, Wesley M . Jacobson, and Karol W. Todrys, 148-73. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Fujita, Yasuyuki. 1987. r£v>5J t rtv^fcj ['To iu'to'to itta'] ("To iu" and "to itta"'). i ^ i f ^ g M r t i l ^ [Bungei kenkyu: kawachi kokubun). 8-14. Givon, Talmy. 1976. Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1966. Universals of language. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hagiwara, Hiroko. 1994. The breakdown of functional categories and the economy of derivation. Metropolitan Linguistics. 14.51-85. Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1981. A lexical interpretive theory with emphasis on the role of subject. Seattle: University of Washington, dissertation. 114 Hasegawa, Yoko. 1988. Question pull: a diagnostic test for the complement/adjunct distinction in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 4.66-87. Hayashi, Shiro. 1983. I S H ^ < t f r S ! J [Hanashi-kotoba to kodo] ('Spoken language and act'). 'Z. tH^V — X 1 2: I S W ^ [Kotoba' shirizu 12: Hanashi-kotoba] ('Series "Language" 12: spoken language'). Tokyo: Bunka-cho ('Cultural Bureau'). Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse syntax and semantics vol. 12, ed. by Talmy Givon, 213-341. New York: Academic Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A . Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language. 56.1.251-299. Imai, Shingo. 1992. V y-j — B^cD-^E-** U — & [modaritl keishiki no modariti do] ('Degree of modality of modals in Japanese and its person of the subject'). B ^ f g i c W [Nihongo kyoiku] ('Journal of Japanese Language Teaching'). 77.62-75. Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. '^^SrM. t B ^ 11 [Henkei bunpo to nihongo] (Transformational grammar and Japanese'). 2 vols. Tokyo: Taishukan. Josephs, Lewis. 1976. Complementation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 5. Japanese generative grammar, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 307-69. New York: Academic Press. Kamada, Osamu, and W. Jacobsen. (eds.) 1990. On Japanese and how to teach it: In honor of Seiichi Makino. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Kamio, Akio. 1990. If >9 MWs [Johd no nawabari riron] ('Territory of information'). Tokyo: Taishukan. Kansai gaikokugo daigaku ryuugaku-sei bekka [Asian Studies Program at Kansai Gaidai Uni-versity], n.d. B^f§<t^-a i #201 [Nihongoyomi-kaki201] ('Japanese reading and writing 201'). Osaka: Kansai Gaidai University. Kim,Eunsook. 1989. ^ £ f i f a B B g f £ : j 8 f t 5 r ^ v ^ J (DWkW&[Rentai-shushoku-kdzdni okeru 'to yuu' no imi kind] ('Semantic functions of "to yuu" in adnominal structures'). lUfg^ [Kokugogaku kenkyu] ('Japanese Language Review'). 29. 21-34. King, Ross. 1994. History of reported speech in Korean. Korean Linguistics Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics. 8.1-38. Kinsui, Satoshi. 1988. 0 * f g f £ * 5 f t t £ t^U<£>Ji^fCo^T [Nihongoniokerushinteki kukan to meishiku no shiji ni tsuite] ('On relationship between the mental space and the denotation of noun phrases in Japanese language'). A R S ^ c ^ A ^ S i ^ I S S [Osaka Joshi Daigaku Kokubungakuka Kiyd], 39.1-24. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. Progress in linguistics: a collection of papers, eds. by Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph, 143-73. The Hague: Mouton. Kunihiro, Tetsuya. 1980. Jem [Bunpd] ('Grammar'). Vol. 2 of B3S!git8iS& [Nichi-eigo hikaku kdza\ ('Comparison between Japanese and English'). 5 vols. Tokyo: Taishukan. Kuno, Susumu. 1976. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy -a reexamination of relativization phenomena. Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. L i , 419-44. New York: Academic Press. r . 1986. Blended quasi-direct discourse in Japanese. Papers from the second international workshop on Japanese syntax, ed. by William J. Poser, 75-102. Menlo Park, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Kuroda, S-Y. 1973. The categorical and the thetic judgement. Foundations of language. 9. 153-85. . 1986. What happened after the movement of NPs in Japanese in La Jolla? Working papers from the first SDF workshop in Japanese syntax. 71-96. Lee, Nagiko. 1995. B^fmi<OWXW^. [Nihongo no hobun kdzd -lexicase bunpd riron ni yoru bunseki-] ('Japanese complement structure -an analysis based on lexicase-'). Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Li , Charles N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makino, Seiichi, and Michio Tsutsui. 1986. 0 ;fcfg|£;fcjtj&tf H [Nihongo kihon bunpd jiten] ('A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar'). Tokyo: The Japan Times. Martin, Samuel E . 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press. Masuoka, Takashi 1991. —<D3Cfe [Modariti no bunpd] (The grammar on modality'). Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. . 1994. %M\$ffi%<DWffi&&— fat&W^'bfc [Meishi shushoku-setsu no setsuzoku keishiki -naiyd-setsu o chushin ni-] (The connecting system of the noun-modifying clause -focus on a content complement clause-'). B^1fe<D&MWffi>0M [Nihongo no meishi shushoku hydgen] ('Noun modifying expression of Japanese'), ed. by Yukinori Takubo, 5-28. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988a. Semantics and pragmatics of noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society 14. 166-75. . 1988b. Grammar and semantics of adnominal clauses in Japanese. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, dissertation. . 1993. 0 ^ f f ^ I ^ ^ ] ^ j s ( D | g f i f | 6 ^ # ^ [Nihongo meishi-ku kdzd no goyooron teki koosatsu] ('A pragmatic examination on Japanese noun modification'). B^-fn¥[Nihon-gogaku]. 12.101-114. . 1996a. The complementizer toiu in Japanese: Factivity or Evidentiality? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. San Diego. . 1996b. The complementizer toyuu in Japanese. Paper presented at the Seventh Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. Los Angels. . 1996c Interaction of factors in construral: Japanese relative clauses. Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, eds. by Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A . Thompson, 103-24. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maynard, Senko K. 1990. An introduction to Japanese grammar and communication strategy. Tokyo: The Japan Times. . 1992. Where textual voices proliferate: The to yuu use clause-noun combination in Japanese. Poetics. 21.169-90. . 1993. Discourse modality subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. McGloin, Naomi H. 1989. A students' guide to Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Taishukan. Mihara, Ken'ichi. 1995. $HfcDA— Y^lb&fofeWffl [Gaigen no mudo hydgen to rentai-shushoku setsu] ('Modal expressions of proposition and noun-modifying clauses'). (OWi^t [Fukubun no kenkyuj ('An analysis on a complex sentence'), ed. by Yoshio Nitta, 285-326. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Muraki, Masatake. 1970. Presupposition, Psuedo-clefting and Thematization. Austin, Texas: U. of Texas, Austin, dissertation. Nakahata, Takayuki. 1990. r b 5 J C M i f g ^ o ^ T ['to iu' no kind ni tsuite] ('On the function of" to iu"'). fifcfc 0 im% [Handai nihon kenkyu]. 2. 43-55. Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential Complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. . 1979. D f ' f — b&M [Modarifi to meidai] ('Modality and proposition'), ^ f g b B^-fab [Eigo to nihongo to] ('English and Japanese'), ed. by Hayashi Eiichi kyqju kanreki kinen ronbunshu kanko iinkai, 223-50. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Nitta, Yoshio. 1989a. MftB^-MJtO^? V x - r — bfo&<Dffl&[Gendai nihongo bun no modarifi no taikei to kdzd] ('A System and structure of modality of modern Japanese'). B^fgco D f - f - [Nihongo no modarifi] ('Modality of Japanese'), eds. by Yoshio Nitta and Takashi Masuoka, 1-56. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. ., and Takashi Masuoka. (eds.) 1989b. B^fWi'D^t? ! ) f ^ - [Nihongo no modarifi] ('Modality of Japanese'). Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. . 1992. WBffrhftM • —feUS • m^A(D^M^'b'K-[Handan kara hattatsu • dentatsu e —denbun • enkyoku no hydgen o chushin ni—\ ('From epistemic to com-municative —focusing on reported and euphemistic expressions—'). 0 ^ f f t ^ {Nihongo kydiku] ('Journal of Japanese Language Teaching'). 77.1-13. . (ed.) 1995. HL^CDfiff^ E {Fukubun no kenkyu] ('An analysis of a complex sentence'). 2 vols. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Noda, Hisashi. 1989. 'Mfe^F V — £:j#;/tftvv#: {Shinsei-modarifi o motanai bun] ('A sentence without modality'). B ^ f g © ^ * * V y~4 — [Nihongo no modaritT] ('Modality of Japanese'), eds. by Yoshio Nitta and Takashi Masuoka, 131-57. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. . 1995. RJfcM'DJCM • WMbStW- {Nihongo no bunshd- danwa to buntai] ('Japanese sentences • discourse and style'), ms. Winter Session at Ehime University. Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1974. 'AnftB&li&JZ&Wi : (DWTOL [Seisei nihongo bunpd ron: meishi-ku no kdzd] ('On generative Japanese grammar: the structure of noun phrases'). Tokyo: Taishukan. Onoe, Keisuke. 1973. JC$%kffiJ:<D&— £ r#j <Dm:fc%:ib<:oX—[Bunkakutoketsubun no waku -'wa' to 'ga' no ydho o megutte] ('Sentence kernel and sentence frame -with special reference to the usage of particle "wa" and "ga"'). Hfo0^2 {Gengo kenkyu] ('Journal of Linguistic Society of Japan). 63.1-26. . 1986. Wa: its grammatical properties and discourse role. Working papers from the first SDF workshop in Japanese syntax, ed. by S.-Y. Kuroda, 117-40. La Jolla, CA: Department of Linguistics University of California, San Diego. Oshima, Motoo. 1991. &fc&&fiffl&\zMt>tiZ> r ^ v ^ j © I S i & f c o v ^ {Rental shushoku kdzd ni arawareru 'to iu' no kind ni tsuite] ('On the function of 'TO IU' in noun modification construction'). ^ M f t f A A ^ A A ^ R f l A l f c ^ ^ B [Tokyo toritsu daigaku jin'bun gakubu jin-bun gakuho] ('Journal of Social Science and Humanities of Tokyo Metropolitan Univer-sity'). 225.27-58. Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. London: Cambridge University Press. Poser, William J. (ed.) 1986. Papers from the second international workshop on Japanese Syntax. Menlo Park, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Shibatani, Masayoshi. (ed.) 1976. Syntax and semantics vol. 5. Japanese generative grammar. „ New York: Academic Press. . 1990. The languages of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press. ., and Sandra A. Thompson, (eds.) 1996. Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning. Oxford: Claredon Press. Shirakawa, Hiroyuki. 1986. &foi£tftW<DfcUl&n<ffl$& [Rentai-shushoku-setsu no jokyo-teizi kind] ('Noun-modifying clauses for circumstance presentation'). rfc^iifgfijf^ [Bungei gengo kenkyu] ('Studies in Language and Literature'). 12.1-18. Song, Zino. 1975. Function of 'to yuu' in Japanese. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 2.17-34. . 1982. Complex noun phrases in Japanese and Korean: a linguistic analysis for language education. San Francisco: U of San Francisco, dissertation. Takahashi, Taro. 1979. 3i#8&f3'fU t %,M<Dmt> D &VM£o^T<£>;? t f t [Rentai-ddshi ku to meishi no kakawariai ni tsuite no josetsu] ('Preliminaries on the relationship between adnominal verb phrases and noun phrases'). HfgGDfiJr^ [Gengo no kenkyu] ('Study of languages'), ed. by H M ^ $ f $ ^ [Gengo-gaku kenkyukai], 75-172. Tokyo: Mugi shobo. 120 Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. ^WM¥kbXM<£>^$i [Toogo kdzd to Bunmyaku no jdhd] ('Syntactic structure and contextual information'). B^fg^ [Nihongo-gaku]. 6.5.37-48. . 1989. faM^tD^t? U f ' f - [Meishi-ku no modariti] ('Modality in a noun phrase'). B^fgtf)^** U f - f - [Nihongo no modariti] ('Modality of Japanese language'), eds. by Yoshio Nitta and Takashi Masuoka, 43-58. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. . (ed.) 1994. R^W$<D&Mi&1iftMM [Nihongo no meishi shushoku hydgen] ('Noun modifying expression of Japanese'). Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. Terakura, Hiroko. 1980. Some aspects of complementation in Japanese: A study of to yuu. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Madison dissertation. . 1984. Noun modification and the use of to yuu. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese. 18.1.23-55. Teramura, Hideo. 1972. Syntax of noun modification in Japanese. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese. 6.1.64-74. . 1975, 77a, 77b, 78. S ^ f f © i s > ? 7 7bMvfc [Rentai-shushoku no shintakusu to imi] ('Syntax and semantics of noun modification'). B ^ ff • B f^e&Mt [Nihongo Nihon-bunka] ('Japanese Language and Culture') 4.71-105; 5.29-78; 6.1-35; 7.1-24. Reprinted in Teramura Hideo, 1992. ^ffi^JzffeJcM 1 — B ^ MJt&M— [Teramura hideo ronbunshu 1 - nihongo bunpd hen-] (A collection of papers by Hideo Teramura vol.1 -Japanese Grammar-'), 157-320. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan. . 1980. &M\&1fo%(D\kM [Meishi shushoku-bu no hikaku] ('A comparison of noun modification'). ~Xfe [Bunpd] ('Grammar'), ed. by Tetsuya Kunihiro, 221-66. Tokyo: Taishukan. . 1981. B <Djcfe—T [Nihongo no bunpd—ge] (The grammar of Japanese language: the latter volume'). Vol. 5 of B ^ i g t f c W J a [ N i h o n g o kydiku shidd sankdsho] (A guidance of teaching Japanese'). Tokyo: Kokuritsy kokugo kenky u-jo. 121 . , et al., (eds.) 1988. >r — 7»7*%*r4 B^fSCfk [Kesu sutadinihon bunpd] ('Case study on Japanese grammar'). Tokyo: DTu-sha. Tokieda, Motoki. 1976. ut^Jf^EJ^tft [Bunshoo kenkyu josetsu] ('An introduction of examining the sentences'). Tokyo: Meiji shoin. Tokuda, Yumiko. 1989. r t^ b J <D$.t>faJ5'<TM% ['To iu' no tsukawarekata no kenkyu] ('A study of usage of "toyuu"'). JfCJ^SfgA^B^M^^^S [Tokyo gaikokugo daigaku nihongo gakka nenpd] (Department of Japanese Studies Annual Report). 11.47-58. Tomura, Kayo. 1985. B^M<D&foi&fflbk rt^bJ <DW$& [Nihongo no rentai-shushoku to 'toiu' no kind] ('Japanese noun modification and the function of "to iu'"). Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba, unpublished M.A. thesis. . 1990. %m&m\c$itfZ> r ^ 5 J (DWm ( l ) ---mmmtW^tf---[Meishishushoku ni okeru 'to iu' no kind (J) —tdgo teki ichizuke—] (The function of "to iu" in noun modification (1) — Its syntactic status—'). ^M^X^WtMWaM [Meiji daigaku kyooyoo ronshuu]. 232.443-52. . 1991. %mfcmz.&VZ> r t v ^ J <DWM (2) — l"£v>5J (DMm^mm— [Meishi shushoku ni okeru 'to iu' no kind (2) —'to iu' no imiteki kind—] (The function of "to iu" in noun modification (2) —the semantic function of "to iu"—'). HjT&A t^fcstim^S [Meiji daigaku kyooyoo ronshu]. 242.215-31. . 1992. r t ^ b J W% [To iu' saikd] ('A reexamination of "to iu'"). Bj^A^gfcM M [Meiji Daigaku kyooyoo ronshu]. 25.189-99. Trask, R. L . 1993. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge. Watanabe, Yasukado. 1996. Mfc&tft'PKl8Jbti%>%i&f$ h4 *7<DWM [Rentai-shushoku-chuu ni arawareru fukugooji to iu no kind] (The function of the complementizer to iu in clausal noun modification'). B*f§Wfg'^£i£ 1 1 2 [ U A ^ i ^ ^ [Nihongo gengo-gaku gakkai dai-hyaku-ju-ni-kai taikai yokooshu]. 179-188. J 122 Yamada, Toshihiro. 1995. V\fc>#S r^cDgj^j K$$tirZ>1R<Dtii%.ffl$}fcMir[Iwayuru 'soto no kankei' ni okeru Ho no shutsugen seiyaku ni kansuru ichi kdsatsu] ('On the argument constraints in Japanese relative clauses'). MftU&Mffi^Z [Gendai nihongo kenkyu]. 2. 121-35. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087765/manifest

Comment

Related Items