UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Study of Japanese relativization Ogawa, Toshimitsu Augustine 1974

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 O39_3.pdf [ 6.4MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093228.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093228-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093228-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093228-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093228-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093228-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093228-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093228-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093228.ris

Full Text

A STUDY OF JAPANESE  RELATIVIZATION  by  TOSHIMITSU AUGUSTINE OGAWA B.A., Nanzan U n i v e r s i t y , Japan, 1955  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e Department of LINGUISTICS  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming required  to the  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 197*4-  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t  freely available  for  I agree  for  that  reference and study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t permission for e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  thesis  for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It  of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l written  i s understood t h a t copying or  g a i n s h a l l not be allowed w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  Date  publication  Columbia  i ABSTRACT  A Japanese r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t i n some r e s p e c t s from t h a t o f E n g l i s h .  T h i s t h e s i s i s an  attempt t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e n a t u r e o f Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n contrast to that of English r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . d e a l s with some hypotheses concerning t i o n . and  i t s r e l a t e d problems.  It  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a -  Through t h e examination o f  those hypotheses, i t i s hoped t h a t the n a t u r e o f Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n w i l l be c l a r i f i e d . The  a n a l y s i s i n t h i s t h e s i s i s w i t h i n the framework  of a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l g e n e r a t i v e considered  grammar, which can be  as a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f the theory proposed i n  Aspects o f the Theory o f Syntax, b u t which i s n o t w i t h i n the framework o f s o - c a l l e d generateve semantics. i n t h i s t h e s i s t h a t every a c c e p t a b l e  I t i s assumed  sentence has i t s deep  s t r u c t u r e and i t s s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e , which are r e l a t e d by some a p p r o p r i a t e  transformations.  There a r e seven chapters presents  i n this thesis.  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Japanese  Chapter I  thematization  ii  d i s c u s s i n g the hypotheses of a thematized  about the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e  sentence.  The reason f o r t h i s  chapter  i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to thematization. Chapter  I I p r e s e n t s a c o n t r a s t i v e study of r e l a t i v -  i z a t i o n between E n g l i s h and Japanese.  I t attempts  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n t o  t o put relief.  In t h i s chapter, a c l a i m i s a l s o examined t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  F u r t h e r , Ross's  Complex NP C o n s t r a i n t and Coordinate S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t are i n v e s t i g a t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . Chapter  I I I i s concerned w i t h a copying  t i o n hypothesis.  relativiza-  The u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of a r e l a t i v e  c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a l s o examined. Chapter noun phrase behind.  IV examines the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a r e l a t i v i z e d  i n Japanese l e a v e s i t s ( r e f l e x i v e ) pronoun  In t h i s chapter v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s of Japanese  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n proposed  so f a r are o u t l i n e d i n o r d e r t o  g i v e an e x p l a n a t i o n t o the source of the r e f l e x i v e pronoun of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  Chapter V i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a noun phrase i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e i s r e l a t i v i z a b l e . In Chapter VI, a h y p o t h e s i s i s examined t h a t a r e l a t i v i z a b l e noun phrase i s a thematic noun phrase immed i a t e l y f o l l o w e d by t h e p a r t i c l e wa.  In t h i s chapter,  t h r e e types o f examples are p r e s e n t e d , which show t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n a p p l i e s t o a non-thematized noun phrase as w e l l as a thematized noun phrase. Chapter V I I i s t h e summary and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s thesis.  I t a l s o p r e s e n t s unsolved problems. The Japanese  phonemic  examples are r e p r e s e n t e d by u s i n g  transcription.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS  Chapter I.  Page THEMATIZATION Notes  II.  III.  AND ROSS'S CLAIMS  3^  Notes  80  JAPANESE RELATIVIZATION AND  Notes  Notes  VI.  VII.  83 109  KUNO'S HYPOTHESES AND JAPANESE REFLEXIVIZATION  V.  31  JAPANESE RELATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS  MURAKI'S HYPOTHESES  IV.  1  110 139  RELATIVIZATION OF NOUN PHRASES IN ADVERBIAL CLAUSES  HH  Notes  1^9  RELATIVIZABLE NOUN PHRASES AND THEMATIC NOUN PHRASES  150  Notes  170  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  171  Notes BIBLIOGRAPHY  177 178  CHAPTER I  THEMATIZATION  1.1  INTRODUCTION  In t h i s chapter, we w i l l d e a l with the themecomment s t r u c t u r e i n Japanese "because t h e m a t i z a t i o n i s claimed t o be r e l a t e d t o Japanese  relativization.  We  will  present some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e m a t i z a t i o n and a l s o d i s c u s s some hypotheses about the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of  athematized sentence.  1.1,1  The theme-comment s t r u c t u r e , which i s t h e t y p i c a l  sentence structure, o f Japanese, the  i s l i n e a r l y arranged i n  f o l l o w i n g way»  (1)  NP-wa '—v  '  (theme) r-  +  sentence ' — - v  '  (comment-part) v  ^T—  NP=noun phrase where :  w a = r  thematic p a r t i cle  (theme-comment s t r u c t u r e )  However, t h e r e sometimes occurs an i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e  2 between the thematic NP and wa, such as kara'from', de •with' e t c . .  In t h i s case, the word-order  of the s t r u c t u r e  i s as follows»  (2)  NP — - i k a r a i — ,  wa  +  '  v  '  (theme) v  or  s,  '  (comment-part) v—  (theme-comment  1.1.2  sentence  ' structure)  The theme i s u s u a l l y t r a n s l a t e d i n t o  'as f o r NP'  .  'speaking o f NP'  When an i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e l i k e kara  ^from* o r de'with' o c c u r s , the l i t e r a l meaning o f the theme i s something l i k e  'as f o r from NP' o r 'as f o r with NP'.  T h e r e f o r e , as these l i t e r a l  t r a n s l a t i o n s show, the theme  f u n c t i o n s as a k i n d of"frame o f r e f e r e n c e " w i t h i n which some statement i s made about t h a t theme.''" the  scope o f t h e s u c c e e d i n g statement.  Or the theme r e s t r i c t s In o t h e r words, the  comment-part o f a sentence i s some a p p r o p r i a t e statement about the p r e c e d i n g theme. 1.1.3  A t h e m a t i c NP i s an anaphoric NP which r e f e r s t o an  NP i n the p r e c e d i n g sentences. f o l l o w i n g sentencest  F o r example, observe the  (3)  Hanako-ga eigo-o d a r e - n i o s i e t a S.P. "  - ka? Q.P.  E n g l i s h who-to teach-past S.P.=subject p a r t i c l e Q.P.=question p a r t i c l e ( L i t . ) ' Whom d i d Hanako t e a c h E n g l i s h ? ' (k)  Hanako-wa eigo-o  Taroo-ni o s i e t a . (focus)  Please note i n t e r r o g a t i v e sentence ( 3 ) . swer to ( 3 )  i s sentence ( 4 ) .  The n a t u r a l an-  In sentence ( * 0 ,  the theme  Hanako-wa presupposes Hanako-ga of sentence ( 3 ) « the thematic sentences.  NP  i n NP + wa must be mentioned i n ^preceding  I t must be anaphoric,  o l d i n f o r m a t i o n presented. New  Thus,  t h a t i s , p a r t of the  I t must not be new  information.  i n f o r m a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d i n a sentence i s u s u a l l y  c a l l e d a f o c u s . In sentence (^), T a r o o - n i , which i s i n f o r m a t i o n , f u n c t i o n s as a f o c u s . accent.  A focus receives  new strong  On the o t h e r hand, the r e s t of the sentence which  i s a l r e a d y understood between a speaker and a h e a r e r i s usually unstressed.  Therefore,  a  of the o l d i n f o r m a t i o n , i s u n s t r e s s e d when an NP  + wa has  NP,  which i s p a r t  i n a l l cases,  some c o n t r a s t i v e c o n n o t a t i o n  except  as i n ( 5 ) .  (5)  Taroo-wa o o k i i ga Hanako-wa ookiku n a i . big-is  not  ( L i t . ) * Taro i s b i g , but Hanako i s not b i g . '  Here, we f o l l o w Schachter's d e f i n i t i o n of a f o c u s as "the f o c u s e d c o n s t i t u e n t o f a sentence  i s the one  that  expressed the non-presupposed p a r t of the p r o p o s i t i o n a l 2 meaning of the 1.1.4  sentence."  A thematic NP may  not o n l y be a p a r t of a p r e v i o u s  sentence but i n some cases may  be a whole sentence.  Suppose we have the f o l l o w i n g a s s e r t i o n (7) i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a presupposed (6)  sentence  (6).  Hanako taught somebody E n g l i s h .  (7) [JHanako-ga eigo-o o s i e t a  no-wa] one  NP  Taroo (  f o e u s  datta.  ^was  ( L i t . ) ' The one t o whom Hanako taught E n g l i s h Taro.•  In t h i s p s e u d o - c l e f t  sentence  (7)"\  the whole p a r t of the presupposed  1.1.5  As we have a l r e a d y  and has a f e a t u r e  the thematic NP  sentence  was  constitutes  (6).  seen, a thematic NP i s anaphoric  (+ d e f i n i t e J  .  I f i t i s not anaphoric, i t  must be g e n e r i c . P l e a s e  (8)  n o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g example ( 8 ) .  Zoo-wa h a n a - g a elephant  (Lit.)  trunk  nagai. long-is  'As f o r e l e p h a n t s ,  t h e i r trunks  A g e n e r i c NP i s a n NP w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s , tecedent* as  "the whole c l a s s o f a n e n t i t y  'human b e i n g s  1.2  i n general'  are long.'  without  any  i n question,  ansuch  'dogs i n g e n e r a l ' e t c . .  THEMATIZATION HYPOTHESES  1.2.1  Now,  l e t us examine some h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t  themat-  ization. According  t o Ross  (1967),^  English  topicalization  is  a c h o p p i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w h i c h moves a t o p i c a l i z e d  to  the leftmost p o s i t i o n  be  formulated  (9)  t o ask B i l l  up t h e s e  points  These p o i n t s old  I t can  as (10).  I'm g o i n g take  o f a sentence as i n (9),  NP  geezer  take  t o make t h e o l d g e e z e r  later.  I'm g o i n g up  later.  t o ask B i l l  t o make t h e  (10)  X —  NP —  1 2  o p t . 2 # [ l 0 3]  Y  3  where: # i s Chomsky-ad j unct i o n ^  As f o r a thematic NP i n Japanese, we have two opinions.  Claim  1  A theme-comment sentence  i s d e r i v e d from a  corresponding non-thematized sentence by a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  Claim  2  A thematic NP e x i s t s o r i g i n a l l y i n the deep structure of a  sentence.^  Claim 1 has the f o l l o w i n g two sub-arguments.  Claim  1.a  Thematization  i s a k i n d o f chopping  trans-  7 formation.' atization ClaimT h e m1.b  i s a k i n d o f copying t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n and i s f o l l o w e d by equi-NP d e l e t i o n or pronominalization.^  7 Let us examine here the nature o f a chopping r u l e , a copying r u l e , and a f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g Ross.  Ross g i v e s us the f o l l o w i n g  r u l e as-proposed by  definition i n his dis-  sertation:^  I f the s t r u c t u r a l index o f a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n has n-terms, a,, a , ... a^, i t i s a r e o r d e r i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i f ms s t r u c t u r a l change has any a- as i t s t h term, o r i f a. i s a d j o i n e d t o i t s tn term, where i / k. I f a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n r e o r d e r s a., and i t s s t r u c t u r a l change s u b s t i t u t e s the i d e n t i t y element o f some a , i / k, f o r the . t h term o f the s t r u c t u r a l index, the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s a chopping transformation. Other r e o r d e r i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s are c a l l e d copying t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . 2  k  fc  k  Chopping r u l e S.D.  a-^ — a  1 2  2  — a ^ — a ^  3  S.C. (a. (b. (c. (d.  4  1 3 2 1 2+3 0 1 0 3 4# [ 1 0  4) 4) 4+2) 3#2 0]) etc.  Copying r u l e S.D. t h e same as above  =^  S.C. ( a . 2+1 2 (b. 1+2 2 (c. 1 2  Feature-changing  3  4)  3 4) 3 4+2) etc.  rule  By 'feature-changing r u l e ' I mean any r u l e whose s t r u c t u r a l index i s o f the form (5.78a) and whose s t r u c t u r a l change i s o f the form, o f e i t h e r (5. 78b)  o r (5.78c).  8 (5.78) a. ^'A^  ••• 2 A  With the enumeration of Ross's t h r e e r u l e s ,  l e t us  examine claims l . a and l . b s t a t e d above.  1.2.2  Claim l . a  have thematic  NP a t the l e f t m o s t p o s i t i o n  we must a p p l y two (i) (ii)  A c c o r d i n g t o Makino, i n o r d e r t o of a  sentence,  steps of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n !  wa-insertion thematization  rule rule^  Rule ( i ) i s the process o f i n s e r t i n g wa a f t e r an NP a l r e a d y has another p a r t i c l e .  This rule  which  i n c l u d e s the  p r o c e s s of t r a n s f o r m i n g the sequence o f the phrase from NP + p a r t i c l e + wa t o NP 4- wa by the f o l l o w i n g r u l e i (11)  C —>  0 /  wa  Here, ga i s a s u b j e c t p a r t i c l e .  where« C = ga, _o, n i . The rule i s optional with n i but o b l i g a t o r y with ga/o.  0 i s a d i r e c t object p a r t i c l e ,  and n i i s an i n d i r e c t o b j e c t p a r t i c l e .  Rule  ( i i ) i s an o p t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n which s h i f t s the  NP w i t h wa to the i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n of a sentence.  Thus,  Makino g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g r u l e f o r ( i i ) .  (12)  (T  o p  )  ## X 1  N + wa 2  —>  0  + 2, T  0 +  1  ## = sentence "boundary s= o p t i o n a l t r a n s formational rule p  I w i l l g i v e my of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  example of Makino*s above two  Sentence (14) w i l l be generated  the c o r r e s p o n d i n g non-thematized  sentence  (13)  Hanako-ga T a r o o - n i eigo-o o s i e t a . (S.P.) (I.O.P.) (D.O.P.) English teach-past  ( L i t . ) * Hanako taught E n g l i s h t o Taro.' Hanako-ga T a r o o - n i eigo-o-wa o s i e t a . Hanako-ga T a r o o - n i eigo-wa o s i e t a . 1 2 3 4 (14)  from  i n the  f o l l o w i n g way*  (13)  steps  Eigo-wa Hanako-ga T a r o o - n i o s i e t a .  S.P. = s u b j e c t p a r t i c l e I.O.P. = i n d i r e c t o b j e c t p a r t i c l e D.O.P. SB d i r e c t o b j e c t p a r t i c l e  10 1.2.3  Claim  l.b  Now,  I will  analysis  of t h e m a t i z a t i o n .  Taroo as  a focus.  sentence  (1*0  where  i s presupposed f o r S  introduce  Suppose s e n t e n c e  Muraki's u n d e r l y i n g  w o u l d be  roughly  (15)  Muraki's (1*0  structure  representable  as  has of (15)>  11  .  2  s  Hanako Dum  The  eigo  osieta  Hanako T a r o o e i g o  necessary transformation  process  would be  osieta  as  follows J (i)  stress-specification S.D. S.C.  (ii) (iii)  12  (15)  r  1.  «.  Mark a l l t h e S, c o n s t i t u e n t s as £ - s t s j . . Obligatory. 2. I f any Sp c o n s t i t u e n t i s i d e n t i c a l t o i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g S, c o n s t i t u e n t , s p e c i f y i t as [.-sts} . Obligatory. 3. S p e c i f y any unmarked c o n s t i t u e n t as C+sts] . Obligatory.  particle  insertion^^  presupposition  deletion  Ik  I f S £ has no s i s t e r , d e l e t e verb-Prsp. Obligatory.  i t , and  delete  the  11 (iv)  Now,  thematization 1.  Chomsky-adjoin a n o n - s t r e s s e d nonv e r b a l c o n s t i t u e n t t o the l e f t o f the topmost sentence as the theme. I f i t a p p l i e s t o a c o n s t i t u e n t w i t h i n an embedded sentence, l e a v e a pronoun behind. O b l i g a t o r y i f there i s no theme i n the sentence.  2,  Chomsky-adjoin t h e t h e m a t i z e r wa t o the r i g h t o f the theme. Obligatory.  i f we f o l l o w Muraki's a n a l y s i s , sentence (14)  would be d e r i v e d from i t s u n d e r l y i n g i s roughly  s t r u c t u r e (15)» as  i l l u s t r a t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s i m p l i f i e d t r e e -  diagrams 8  stress  specification S  Hanako Taroo eigo [+sts]  osieta  particle insertion  3  j+sts]  12 presupposition deletion S  ga/o  deletion  eigo  I f we formulate Muraki's t h e m a t i z a t i o n ,  i t will  as f o l l o w s :  (16)  X — 1  2  NP —  Y —  Z  3  4  =^  2# £ 1  2  3  4]  be  13 A c c o r d i n g t o Muraki, a f t e r copying t h e m a t i z a t i o n we have a k i n d o f equi-NP d e l e t i o n , as i s shown above.  1.2.4  Let us examine Makino's C l a i m l . a and  Claim l . b and decide which i s c o r r e c t .  Muraki*s  Observe the  f o l l o w i n g sentences c i t e d from Mifcami."^  (17) (a) £[Senzitu k a t t a ] s a k e - g a J s  N  p  the other day bought  nokotte i r u . left-over-is  ( L i t . ) • The sake which ( I ) bought the o t h e r day is left-over.' (b)  Sake-wa. f f s e n z i t u k a t t a j o Jsaket-ga 1 .jp (theme) I no J one nokotte i r u .  ( L i t . ) * Speaking of sake, thejsake/which ( I ) t one bought the o t h e r day i s l e f t - o v e r . '  When we p o s t u l a t e t h e m a t i z a t i o n as r e o r d e r i n g , ( l ? . b ) i s supposed  t o be d e r i v e d from  (a).  If thematization i s  a chopping r u l e , the f o l l o w i n g sentence  (c) and  be generated from (a) by i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , but d e r i v e d from (a).  (d) w i l l  (b) i s not  14  (17) (a)=> ^ (c) =^  [^Senzitu k a t t a ^ g  sake-ga-wa)  [(Senzitu k a t t a }  sake-0-wa]  s  [pSenzitu k a t t a ^ g  sake-wa]  Np  nokotte i r u . nokotte i r u .  Np  nokotte i r u .  Np  ( L i t . ) * As f o r the sake which I bought the o t h e r day, i t i s l e f t - o v e r . '  (a) ^  [CSenzitu k a t t a ^ g  =^ [CSenzitu k a t t a } (d) =^ *Sake-wa,  s  sake-ga-waj sake-j2f-wa]  N  [(senzitu k a t t a )  s  p  Np  nokotte i r u . nokotte i r u .  - J ^ O f l p nokotte  iru.  Sentence (17.c) i s grammatical (17.b).  but i t i s not synonymous w i t h  Sentence (17»d) i s a b s o l u t e l y ungrammatical.  o t h e r words, (17.b) can not be d e r i v e d by chopping  In  themat-  ization. Rather, the above examples show t h a t t h e m a t i z a t i o n i s a copying r u l e .  I f we f o l l o w Muraki's  copying themat-  i z a t i o n , the d e r i v a t i o n a l process of (17.h) from  (17.a)  w i l l be r o u g h l y as f o l l o w s :  (17)  (a) ( [ S e n z i t u k a t t a j g s a k e - g a ) ^ nokotte i r u . Sake-ga-wa, [^senzitu k a t t a j g nokotte i r u .  sake-gaJ  N p  15 (b)=^Sake-#-wa, [ [ s e n z i t u k a t t a ^  s  sake-ga]  N  p  nokotte i r u . Or from the above ( b ) , by p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , Sake-wa, [f s e n z i t u k a t t a j  g  no-gal  N p  nokotte  iru.  The f o l l o w i n g sentences a r e from  (18)  Mikami. "^ 3  Nittyoku^-wa, z y o s i - s y o k u i n - g a k o r e ^ - n i a t a r u . day-duty  female-staff  this  undertake  ( L i t . ) • As f o r day-duty, the female s t a f f s (should) take charge o f it> '  (19)  Nihon-no gendai bungaku^-wa, sore^-ga  hazimmatte  Japan's  begin  modern l i t e r a t u r e  it  k a r a sono^ dentoo-ga d e k i t a t o i e r u hodo-no s i n c e i t s t r a d i t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t say-can degree's zikan-mo t a t t e time  inai.  elapse i s - n o t  ( L i t . ) ' As f o r Japanese modern l i t e r a t u r e . , s i n c e i t . s t a r t e d , the time has not e l a p s e d t o such an e x t e n t t h a t we can say i t . has established i t s ^ tradition.'  A c c o r d i n g t o Mikami, sono ' i t s j  we l e a v e pronouns l i k e sore  t h e ' i n a f o r m a l s t y l e and we have a l s o kore  'it',  16 • t h i s ' o r kono ' t h i s ' a t l e a s t i n an e d i t o r i a l tone of the 18 p r e s s o r i n l e g a l usage.  I f so, Makino's chopping t h e m a t i -  z a t i o n can not e x p l a i n sentences l i k e  (18) and  (19)»  which  leave pronouns behind a f t e r t h e m a t i z a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r us to c o n s i d e r t h e m a t i z a t i o n as c o p y i n g r a t h e r than chopping.  A f t e r copying  t h e m a t i z a t i o n we have some c o n d i t i o n s of equi-NP d e l e t i o n or p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n .  1.2.5  Now,  l e t us proceed t o the examination of Kuno*s  and Muraki*s hypotheses with r e g a r d t o the source o f a thematic NP,  and decide which has a b e t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r Japanese  thematized sentences. In 1970,  t h e r e was  a c o n t r o v e r s y between Kuno and 19  Muraki c o n c e r n i n g the f o l l o w i n g sentence. (20)  7  Sakana-wa t a i - g a J L i . fish  (Lit.)  red-snapper  • Speaking of f i s h , red-snapper i s the b e s t . '  Muraki says t h a t the thematized sentence from a c o r r e s p o n d i n g non-thematized following  way:  sentence  (20) comes  (21) i n the  17 (21)  T a i - g a sakana-no-naka-de among  (Lit.)  itiban i i . the best  ' R e d - s n a p p e r s a r e t h e b e s t among t h e f i s h e s . '  thematization = = =  ^  Sak ana-no- naka- de-wa t a i - g a ( i t i b a n ) i i . . , 0  (optional)  d e l e t i o n o f no-naka-de Sakana-0-wa t a i - g a i i .  Muraki's hypothesis  argument  f o rh i s copying thematization  i s summed up i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way:  I f t h e m a t i z e d s e n t e n c e s d i d n o t have any corresponding non-thematized s e n t e n c e s , t h e theme NP-wa w o u l d have t o b e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e b a s e r u l e s independently of t h e f o l l o w i n g sentence. In other words, t h e r e w o u l d n o t be a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e theme be i d e n t i c a l t o some c o n s t i t u e n t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g sentence i n the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e . Then, we c o u l d n o t e x p l a i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e thematized sentence t y p i c a l l y has a s l o t i n which t h e theme c a n f i t , n o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i c l e w h i c h c a n o c c u r a t t h e end o f t h e theme depends on t h e v e r b o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e . 2 0  Thus, he g i v e s u s t h e f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s t o s u p p o r t h i s  21 argument.  (22) (a)  J o h n - k a r a - w a Mary-ga k a n e - o  (Lit.)  karita.;,  from money borrowed ' From J o h n , Mary b o r r o w e d some money.'  18 (b)  * John-kara-wa Mary-ga kane-o k a s i - * - t a . lent  ( L i t . ) * From John, Mary l e n t some money.' J u d g i n g f r o m h i s above argument and h i s examples, t h e accepta b i l i t y o f (22.a) and t h e u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f (22.b) c o r r e spond t o t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o r u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d n o n - t h e m a t i z e d s e n t e n c e s (23.a) and (23.b).  (23) (a)  Mary-ga J o h n - k a r a kane-o k a r i - t a .  (b)  Mary-ga J o h n - k a r a kane-o kas?i - t a .  F u r t h e r , t h e theme John-kara-wa i n ( 2 2 . a ) , e s p e c i a l l y t h e p a r t i c l e k a r a , does n o t o r i g i n a l l y e x i s t i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e b u t i s c o p i e d from t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g non-themati z e d sentence.  He seems t o t h i n k t h a t t h e r e a r e t h e same  s e l e c t i o n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s between t h e m a t i c s e n t e n c e s and t h e corresponding non-thematized sentences. On t h e o t h e r hand, Kuno says t h a t a t h e m a t i z e d sentence (20) does n o t have a c o r r e s p o n d i n g non-themati z e d s e n t e n c e , as i s shown i n h i s f o l l o w i n g sentence ( 2 4 ) , (24)  ga no }tai-ga *Sakana^ de  ii. (non-thematized s e n t e n c e )  Thus, he says t h a t i n sentence ( 2 0 ) , t h e theme sakana-wa e x i s t s o r i g i n a l l y as t h e theme i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e ,  19  Further,  Kuno a r g u e s a g a i n s t  process of (20), saying  Muraki's d e r i v a t i o n a l  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g ways  T h e r e i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l y d e l e t i n g no u t i / n a k a de, w h i c h c o n t a i n s u t i and n a k a (both meaning ' i n s i d e ' ). Jftjdeed, no u t i / n a k a de i s n o t o r d i n a r i l y d e l e t a b l e .  He  gives  argument  t h e f o l l o w i n g example against  t o support h i s counter-  Muraki.  (26) (a)  John t o B i l l  t o Marv-no u t i / n a k a  and dekiru.  most  does-well  (Lit.)  ' Among J o h n , B i l l , the best.'  (b) ?? J o h n t o B i l l yoku  dekiru.  Mary-ga  among  i t i b a n yoku well  de  and Mary,  Mary  t o Mary-0-wa, M a r y - g a  does  itiban  20 In  h i s new  book, Kuno c i t e s  the f o l l o w i n g  from Mikami t o support h i s c l a i m t h a t does n o t  always  have  a thematic  i t s corresponding  examples sentence  non-thematized  24 sentence. " (27)  Sinbun-o  yomi t a i h i t o - w a .  newspaper read-want p e o p l e (Lit.)  (28)  koko-ni  arimasu.  here  exist  ' S p e a k i n g o f t h o s e who want t o r e a d newspapers ,they(=newspapers)are here.'  Basyo-wa, o k u n a i - s e t u - g a a t t o o t e k i places  (Lit.)  indoor-theory  datta.  predominant  was  • Speaking of the p l a c e (of the murder), t h e " i n d o o r " t h e o r y was predominant.*  Kuno's argument f o r h i s s o - c a l l e d theme h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d be  summed up  as  deep  structure  follows:  There are t h e m a t i c sentences f o r which t h e r e a r e no c o r r e s p o n d i n g t h e m e l e s s s e n t e n c e s . ••• T h u s , we a r e f o r c e d t o assume t h a t themes e x i s t a s themes i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e o f t h e m a t i c sentences.  C o n c e r n i n g t h e above two Kuno and  reject  First, will  be  Muraki's  i f we  hypotheses,  h y p o t h e s i s f o r two  I agree  with  reasons.  do n o t f o l l o w Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s , t h e r e  c a s e s w h i c h c a n n o t be  accounted  for.  For  example,  21 Kuno's examples (2?) and i n g non-thematized  sentences.  to support Kuno's view. Notice that  (28) do not have t h e i r  correspond-  I w i l l g i v e two more examples  Observe the f o l l o w i n g sentences.  (b) sentences are not a c c e p t a b l e .  (29) (a)  Kore-wa s i m a t t a . this  (Lit.) (b)  made a mistake * Oh,  ga o *Korede f ni  I screwed  up.'  simatta.  (non-thematized  sentence)  ( 3 0 )  (a)  Kuwasii koto-wa hon-no go p e e z i - o detailed  book's 5 page  thing  mite look-at  kudasai. please (Lit.)  ' As f o r the d e t a i l s , p l e a s e look a t page f i v e o f the book.'  (b) *Kuwasii  koto-lnil  hon-no go p e e z i - o mite  (gaJ kudasai.  e  t  c  #  (non-thematized The above thematized sentences ( 2 9 . a )  and ( 3 0 . a )  be e x p l a i n e d by Muraki*s h y p o t h e s i s because  sentence) can not  they do not  22 have any corresponding non-thematized sentences,  as i s  shown i n (29.b) and (30.b). Second, with the o r d e r i n g o f a s e t of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , we  could r e p l y t o Muraki's argument quoted on P. 17 i n t h i s  chapter.  My  formations  s o l u t i o n t o the o r d e r i n g of a s e t of t r a n s -  i s as f o l l o w s .  (i)  We like  (ii)  should have an u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e something (25),  f o r any thematic  sentence,  p a r t iglej-copying  (a)  I f the thematic  NP happens t o be i d e n t i c a l to  an NP i n the comment-part, the p a r t i c l e ( a t t a c h ed to the i d e n t i c a l NP  i n the  comment-part)  must be c o p i e d t o the thematic (b)  I f t h e r e i s no i d e n t i c a l NP p a r t , t h i s r u l e does not  (iii)  NP. i n the comment-  apply.  particle-deletion I f the n e w l y - i n s e r t e d p a r t i c l e i s ga. or o, i t must be d e l e t e d .  The f o r m u l a t i o n of t h i s  r u l e would be something l i k e Makino's r u l e (11) quoted on P.  8.  (iv)  equi-NP d e l e t i o n o r p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n  (a)  I f the thematic the  comment-part,  deleted (b)  If there part,  With t h i s example  or  NP h a s an i d e n t i c a l the i d e n t i c a l  NP i n  NP must  be  pronominalized. i s no  identical  NP  i n t h e comment-  t h e r u l e does n o t a p p l y .  s e t o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , Muraki's  counter-  (22.a) and M i k a m i ' s s e n t e n c e (17.b) w i l l b e a n a l y z e d  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way.  (i)  the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of  N  NP-ga  P  (22.a)  NP-o  NP-kara  I John (ii)  (iii)  Mary  okane  John-kara-wa Mary-ga  okane-o  i karita  particle-copying John-kara  particle-deletion This rule  (iv)  John  V  equi-NP  does n o t a p p l y  here.  deletion  John-kara-wa Mary-ga  okane-o $  karita.  karita:  (i)  the u n d e r l y i n g  NP senzitu  s t r u c t u r e of (17.a)  NP-o sake  V katta  In t h i s case, we have d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n by which we d e r i v e the f o l l o w i n g Sake-wa [ s e n z i t u  0  string. katta,] sake-ga  nokotte i r u . (ii)  particle-copying Sake-ga-wa [ s e n z i t u k a t t a ]  sake-ga  nokotte i r u . (iii)  particle-deletion Sake-jtf-wa [ s e n z i t u k a t t a ) sake-ga ...  (iv)  pronominalization  (optional)  Sake-wa £ s e n z i t u k a t t a ) no-ga  ...  first,  25 Now,  we  can e x p l a i n the d e r i v a t i o n s o f three  t h e m a t i c NP's  (i)  i n the f o l l o w i n g  In case t h e r e  i s no  types of  way.  identical  NP i n t h e  i s an i d e n t i c a l  NP i n t h e  comment-part. NP + wa (ii)  In case t h e r e  comment-part and a n i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e i s ga  o r o. ( I n t h i s  cle  i s deleted  case, the i n t e r v e n i n g  by p a r t i c l e  *  NP + p a r t i c l e  +  parti-  deletion.) wa  0  (iii)  In case there  i s a n i d e n t i c a l NP i n t h e  comment-part and a n i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e ga  or o.(In this  case p a r t i c l e  i s not  d e l e t i o n i s not  applicable.) NP + p a r t i c l e  T h u s , we a r e i n c l i n e d structure  theme h y p o t h e s i s .  ate  transformations  and  t h a t Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s  +  wa  t o go a l o n g We  w i t h Kuno's deep  think that  can deal w i t h Muraki's i s the best  a set of  appropri-  counter-argument,  representation  of  26 of a theme-comment s t r u c t u r e because  i t represents  the semantic f u n c t i o n of the theme t o r e s t r i c t the  best scope  of the comment-part.  1.3  THE  P-MARKER OF A THEMATIZED SENTENCE  Let us examine the P-marker o f a thematized Notice t h a t both Kuno and Muraki c l a i m  sentence.  t h a t a thematic  NP  i s Chomsky-adjoined t o the l e f t o f a f o l l o w i n g commentsentence.  T h i s P-marker i s q u i t e n a t u r a l as the semantic  representation  of a theme-comment s t r u c t u r e and a l s o f o r  the p h o n o l o g i c a l  reason that we  seem t o have a l o n g e r pause  a f t e r the thematic NP than at any o t h e r p l a c e i n a simplex sentence.  T h i s i s t r u e a l s o f o r s y n t a c t i c reasons.  A t y p i c a l example f o r t h i s P-marker w i l l be  found-  i n the sentence which f o l l o w s , where the comment sentence i s a k i n d o f p r e d i c a t i o n of the theme. (31)  The s t r u c t u r e of  i s one which equates one t h i n g with another, such as  'A i s B', sentence.  where A i s the theme and B i s the whole comment-  2? (31)  Z i t uzyoo-wa,  muda-ga o o i .  actual situation fruitlessness (Lit.)  We our  ' As t h i n g s s t a n d , i s t o no a v a i l . '  have c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c  there's  subject  sentence, but  construction  the  much  Park claims  i n Korean i s not  a complex s e n t e n c e  s e n t e n c e s f u n c t i o n as  too  that  e v i d e n c e w h i c h may  P-marker u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n h e r e .  multiple  much-is  predicate  that  a  construction,  support the  simple  where  phrases of each  embedded higher  26 sentence.  Lewkowicz a l s o has  a topic-comment w h i c h NP an  i s a theme and  a structure  S i s a predicate  27 embedded comment c l a u s e . The f a c t t h a t a t h e m a t i c  t o the the  s e n t e n c e has  a hypothesis that  NP  — that  relates  e n t i r e sentence a l s o s u b s t a n t i a t e s  P-marker o f a t h e m a t i c s e n t e n c e .  NP  in  + S,  Arabic in  consists  of  semantically our  claim  Observe the  for  following  28 sentences,  which are  from  Muraki.  (32) [ kara i e - n i  kaet-ta.  b e c a u s e home-to (Lit.)  ' Since that home.'  p e r s o n was  sick,  returned.  ( I ) went  28 (b)  (sono h i t o - w a  (Lit.)  (c)  * As f o r t h a t p e r s o n . , h e ^ went home.'  jsono h i t o ^ - w a kara  Normally  each  sentence  p e r s o n went home b e c a u s e  l e a d us t o s a y t h a t  (32.a)*the  sentence,  sick.'.  a t h e m a t i c NP  relates  w h e r e a s t h e NP w i t h  o n l y as f a r as t h e v e r b o f  c l a u s e i n which i t o c c u r s . T h i s f a c t  supports our claim  a t h e m a t i c NP must be C h o m s k y - a d j o i n e d t o t h e l e f t o f  the f o l l o w i n g  1.4  because  a n d went home.*, a n d (32.c)  somebody e l s e was  i n (32,a) a n d (32,c) r e l a t e s  that  sick  a n d t h e p e r s o n who went home a r e d i f f e r -  semantically t o the entire  the  comment-sentence.  SUMMARY  To  s  hito.pga byooki da)g  g i v e n a b o v e means*  (32,b)'The p e r s o n was s i c k  These sentences  ga  s i n c e he.^ was  * As f o r t h a t p e r s o n . , h e ^ went home t h e p e r s o n , was s i c Z . ' J  p e r s o n who was s i c k  'The  [sono  kaet-ta)  i e - n i kaet-ta} g  (Lit.)  ent.'  [byooki dajg k a r a i e - n i  summarize t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h i s  c h a p t e r , we  have d i s c u s s e d the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e  a.  Some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  topics:  o f Japanese  thematized  sentences b.  Hypotheses about  c.  The  With  P-marker o f t h e m a t i c  respect to  characteristics  (i)  The as  t h e m a t i c noun  ( a ) , we  i n Japanese  word-order  sentences  have seen the  thematized  of a thematized  sentence  is  follows:  The of the  succeeding statement, as  *as f o r NP*.  A t h e m a t i c NP NP.  (comment-part)  theme f u n c t i o n s t o r e s t r i c t  translated  (iii)  following  sentences.  (theme)  (ii)  phrases  and  the  scope  i s usually  •  i s an a n a p h o r i c NP  or a generic  30 (iv)  An a n a p h o r i c t h e m a t i c  NP r e f e r s  t o a n NP i n a p r e c e d i n g s e n t e n c e whole p r e c e d i n g  Concerning hypotheses, Muraki's  that  sentence.  ( b ) , we h a v e e x a m i n e d  c o p y i n g t h e m a t i z a t i o n , a n d Kuno's  that  f o r thematized  or to the  three  i s , Makino's chopping t h e m a t i z a t i o n ,  theme h y p o t h e s i s . concluded  topic  either  deep  structure  A f t e r t h e v a r i o u s e x a m p l e s we have  Kuno's  h y p o t h e s i s has the b e s t e x p l a n a t i o n  sentences.  A l s o , we h a v e s e e n t h a t t h e  o r d e r i n g o f some t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s i s n e e d e d t o a c c o u n t f o r an  intervening particle Finally,  between a t h e m a t i c  we h a v e o b s e r v e d  Chomsky-adjoined t o t h e l e f t sentence, lying  because t h i s  structure  syntactically.  t h a t t h e theme must b e  of the following  P-marker  of a thematic  NP and wa.  comment-  r e p r e s e n t s best the under-  sentence,  s e m a n t i c a l l y and  31 CHAPTER I NOTES 1. Minora. Nakau, "Some Constraints on T o p i c a l i z a t i o n , " Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 1 No. 1 (June, 1972), p. 79. 2. Paul Schachter, "Focus and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " Language, Vol. 4 9 . No. k (March 1973). p. kZ — 3. In English, a c l e f t sentence and a pseudo-cleft 'sentence are respectively i l l u s t r a t e d i n the following sentences i ( i ) Tom broke the window, ( i i ) It was the window that Tom broke, ( c l e f t sentence) ( i i i ) What Tom broke was the window, (pseudo-cleft sentence) The above pseudo-cleft sentence ( i i i ) i s translated into Japanese as followsi (iv) (Tom-ga  kowasitajg no-wal^. mado datta. where« no. means 'the onej the thing*. datta *was' i s a copula verb.  4. John R. Ross, "Constraints on Variables i n Syntax," unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ( 1 9 6 7 ) p. 115. 5. The term Chomsky-adjunction i s defined i n the following way t When an element B i s adjoined to node A. i t i s possible to make another node A over the o r i g i n a l node A and have the new node A dominate both node B and the o r i g i n a l node A. The following tree diagrams are a depiction of the Chomskyadjunction. (i)  A  (ii)  T  B In t h i s case, B i s said to be Chomsky-adjoined to the l e f t of the o r i g i n a l node A. B and the o r i g i n a l node A are said to be i n s i s t e r r e l a t i o n i n ( i i ) .  32 6. Susumu Kuno, Notes on Japanese Grammar, (Harvard Computation L a b o r a t o r y , NSF-27, 1 9 7 0 ; , Chap. 1 9 , p. 1 1 . 7. S e i i c h i Makino, Some Aspects o f Japanese Nominalizat i o n s , ( T o k y o J T o k a i U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 6 8 ) , p . 116. He d i d not say t h a t t h e m a t i z a t i o n i s a chopping r u l e , but j u d g i n g from a r e a d i n g o f h i s r u l e , h i s t h e m a t i z a t i o n c o n t a i n s an i m p l i c i t chopping r u l e . 8. Masatake Muraki, " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , P s e u d o - c l e f t i n g and T h e m a t i z a t i o n , " (unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas At A u s t i n , 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 48 & 1 9 0 . 9.  Ross, o_p. c i t . , pp. 172 & 235.  10.  Makino, op. c i t . , p. 1 1 6 ,  11.  Muraki, op. c i t . , p. 116.  12.  I b i d . , pp. 165 f .  13.  I b i d . , p. 154.  14.  I b i d . , p. 1 6 8 .  15.  I b i d . , pp. 168 f .  16. A k i r a Mikami, Zoo wa Hana ga Nagai, 4 t h ed., (Tokyo t K u r o s i o Pub. Co., 19597, p . 72. The o r i g i n a l orthography used by each a u t h o r was kept except f o r some n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s , such as u n d e r l i n i n g , l a b e l e d b r a c k e t i n g e t c . , f o r the purpose o f d i r e c t quotes. 17.  I b i d . , pp. 1 4 0 - 1 4 4 .  18.  Ibid.  19. See Muraki, op_. c i t . , pp. 231- 234 and Kuno, op. c i t . , Chap. 1 9 , pp. 9 - l > T 20.  Muraki, I b i d . , pp. 233 f .  21.  I b i d . , p. 234.  22.  Kuno, jjp_. c i t . , Chap. 19, p . 11.  23.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, pp. 10 f .  24. Susumu Kuno, The S t r u c t u r e o f the Japanese (Cambridge 1 The MIT Press, 1973), P. 253. 25.  See Kuno, op. c i t . , Chap., 1 9 , pp. 9 f .  Language.  33 26. Byung-soo Park, "On the M u l t i p l e Subject C o n s t r u c t i o n i n Korean," L i n g u i s t i c s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review, V o l . 100 (March, 1973)t PP. 72—76. 27. Nancy K. Lewkowicz, "Topic-comment and R e l a t i v e Clause i n A r a b i c , " Language, V o l . 47, No. 4 (December,  1971), pp. 813-816.  28. Sentences (32 a.b.c) a r e from Muraki. He argues t h a t (32.a) and (32.b) a r e ambiguous even though one of the r e a d i n g s may be more common than the o t h e r . See Muraki, op. c i t . ,  pp. I90-I92.  —  CHAPTER I I  JAPANESE RELATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS AND ROSS'S CLAIMS  2.1  INTRODUCTION There a r e some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i s t i n g u i s h a  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Japanese from t h a t i n English.  In the f o l l o w i n g , we w i l l enumerate the c h a r a c t e r -  i s t i c s o f Japanese r e l a t i v e (i)  constructions.  A r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i n Japanese precedes i t s head NP, as i n ( 1 ) , w h i l e i n E n g l i s h i t f o l l o w s the NP. (1) [boku-ga suwatte i t a ] i s u I  sitting-was  ( r e l a t i v e clause)  chair (head NP)  ( L i t . ) ' t h e c h a i r which I was s i t t i n g on ' (ii)  There i s no s p e c i a l r e l a t i v e morpheme, except f o r tokoro-no which corresponds t o E n g l i s h 'who', 'which','that' e t c . , as i s shown i n example ( 1 ) . Tokoro-no, whose l i t e r a l meaning i s 'of the p l a c e ' ,  35 i s o n l y used i n d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n from f o r e i g n languages, and or writing. present (iii)  i s not used i n o r d i n a r y  Therefore,  conversation  tokoro-no i s out of  our  study,  R e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese i s assumed t o be d e l e t i o n process  (or we  could c a l l i t 0-pronominaliza-  t i o n ) , which d e l e t e s the r e l a t i v i z e d NP  i n an embedded  c l a u s e , t o g e t h e r w i t h the f o l l o w i n g p a r t i c l e position). be  1  Sentence (1)  where n i 'on*  and  t o the r e l a t i v i z e d NP  i s not  i s d e r i v e d from sentence  (2),  undergoes d e l e t i o n by  relativization.  [boku-ga sono i s u - n i suwatte i t a ] i s u I [boku-ga  the c h a i r - o n s i t t i n g - w a s c h a i r 0  suwatte i t a j i s u  ( L i t . ) ' the c h a i r which I was (iv)  may  t o i n v o l v e a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  the p r e p o s i t i o n a t t a c h e d  (2)  (or p o s t -  In E n g l i s h , however, r e l a t i v i z a t i o n  considered  deleted.  a  s i t t i n g on '  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s s a i d t o be  subject  to a r e s t r i c t e d v e r s i o n of Ross's Complex NP I t i s a l s o s a i d t h a t an NP relativizable.  only  Constraint.  i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e i s  These t o p i c s w i l l be d e t a i l e d l a t e r .  36  (v)  I t has a l s o been claimed phonological, morphological  t h a t "Japanese has no and s y n t a c t i c d i s t i n c -  t i o n s between r e s t r i c t i v e o r n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e 2 clauses."  They a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d o n l y  semantically  as i n the f o l l o w i n g examples. (3) [ S t a n l e y P a r k - n i in  i r u ] zoo is  ( L i t . ) >' the elephant  (restrictive)  elephant  which i s i n S t a n l e y Park •  (4) [rikuzyoo s a i d a i - n o doobutu d e a r u ] zoo land-on b i g g e s t animals a r e (non-restrictive) ( L i t . ) • elephants, on l a n d '  2.2  which a r e t h e b i g g e s t  animals  THE RELATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE  In t h i s chapter,  we w i l l d i s c u s s some o f t h e problemat-.  i e p o i n t s with r e s p e c t t o t h e Japanese r e l a t i v e  constructions.  Let us enumerate them f i r s t , (i)  E n g l i s h r e s t r i c t i v e and n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and t h e i r c o u n t e r - p a r t s  (ii)  Whether o r n o t Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a movement  (iii)  o f Japanese,  transformation,  Whether o r n o t an element i n a complex NP i s relativizable.  37  (iv)  The  examination of the  Structure Now,  Coordinate  Constraint.  l e t us examine these p o i n t s one by  (i)  one.  E n g l i s h r e s t r i c t i v e and n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s and  their  counter-parts  of Japanese. In o r d e r to p r o v i d e r e l a t i v e clauses  a c o n t r a s t between the use  i n E n g l i s h and  Japanese, we w i l l  of  discuss  the f o l l o w i n g i (a) i d e n t i t y  condition  (b) the problem of a r e l a t i v e marker (c) the semantic r o l e s o f r e s t r i c t i v e  and  n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e clauses .  In E n g l i s h , a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s d i v i d e d i n t o two  typest  r e s t r i c t i v e r e l a t i v e constructions —  abbreviated —  as RR-constructions and n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e ; ones ,  NRR-constructions.  centric construction. i t s modified as an NP.  hereafter  head NP,  An R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n  i s a k i n d o f endo-  I t c o n s i s t s of a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e and  the whole c o n s t r u c t i o n  In an RR-construction,  a clause  and  functions  i s u s u a l l y s a i d to  38  be an embedded sentence i n the head NP o f a m a t r i x sentence. be met  To generate a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , a c o n d i t i o n must  t h a t some NP w i t h i n the embedded sentence be  t i c a l with the head NP.  This condition i s c a l l e d  iden-  hereafter  identity condition. From a semantic viewpoint, we  can say with Schachter  t h a t the f u n c t i o n of an R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n  is«  to p r o v i d e names f o r or ways of d e s i g n a t i n g the m u l t i t u d e of i d e n t i t i e s t h a t people wish to t a l k about, but f o r which t h e r e i s no e s t a b l i s h e d s i n g l e - n o u n designation.-'  The  above two  structions —  f u n c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of RR-con-  t h a t i s , the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the head NP  naming the e n t i t i e s i n q u e s t i o n Nevertheless,  —  are common to Japanese.  t h e r e are some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  are not shared between E n g l i s h and i n E n g l i s h we  and  Japanese.  For  have r e l a t i v e pronouns to designate  s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n between a c l a u s e and  example, the  i t s head NP.  A  Japanese r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , does not have these k i n d s  o f s u b s t a n t i a l markers which e x p l i c i t l y  i n d i c a t e the e x i s t e n c e  of r e l a t i v e e l a u s e s .  observe the f o l l o w i n g sentences*  For.  example,  39  (5) (a)  the book £ 1 bought the booS y e s t e r d a y ] = ^ t h e book[which I bought y e s t e r d a y ]  (b)  [sono hon-wa boku-ga kinoo k a t t a ] hon the book 0 v  I  y e s t e r d a y bought  boku-ga kinoo k a t t a ] hon 1  v  ( r e l a t i v e clause)  (head  NP)  In (5.a), r e l a t i v e c l a u s e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n adds the f e a t u r e s [+pronoun] and [+WHJ t o the embedded NP'the book' and moves i t t o the f r o n t o f the embedded sentence.  On the  o t h e r hand, the o n l y s t r u c t u r a l change i n (5»b) i s the d e l e t i o n of the embedded i d e n t i c a l NP.  That i s , no s p e c i a l  r e l a t i v e markers are i n v o l v e d i n Japanese. A l s o , i n E n g l i s h NRR-constructions a r e d i v i d e d two sub-types.  into  Type 1 sentences, whose r e l a t i v e pronouns  match the head NP's, are e x e m p l i f i e d by ( 6 ) ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) , w h i l e type 2 sentences, by ( 9 ) .  A type 2 sentence i s a  sentence whose r e l a t i v e pronoun matches the whole p r e c e d i n g c l a u s e , o r p a r t o f t h e - p r e c e d i n g VP as i n the f o l l o w i n g sentences 1 Tom i s t a l l ,  which I w i l l never be.  I saw t h a t Tom was easy t o p l e a s e , which I should be, t o o .  40  (6)  My f a t h e r , who i s now 80 y e a r s o l d , i s s t i l l  working. (7)  Elephants,  (which l i v e ) i n I n d i a and A f r i c a ,  have l o n g t r u n k s . (8)  I went t o Osaka, where I happened t o see Mr. Sato.  (9)  Tom remained s i l e n t , which made h i s w i f e  still The  more  angry.  above sentences  can be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o Japanese  as f o l l o w s J (10) (a)  Boku-no t i t i - w a ima h a t i z y u u desu ga my  father  now  80  is  mada h a t a r a i t e i r u . still (Lit.)  (b)  working-is ' My f a t h e r — he i s now 80 y e a r s o l d — i s s t i l l working.*  H a t i z y u u - n i naru 80  become  boku-no t i t i - w a mada my  father  still  hataraite i r u . working-is ( L i t . ) • As f o r my f a t h e r , who i s 80 y e a r s o l d , (he) i s s t i l l working.*  41  (11) (a)  Zoo-wa I n d i a t o A f r i c a - n i sunde i r u ga elephants  and  in  living-are  hana-ga n a g a i . trunks (Lit.)  (b)  long-are  ' Elephants — they l i v e i n I n d i a and A f r i c a — t h e i r t r u n k s are l o n g . *  I n d i a t o A f r i c a - n i sunde i r u and  zoo-wa  i nliving-are  elephants  hana-ga n a g a i . trunks  long-are  ( L i t . ) • As f o r elephants, which l i v e i n I n d i a and A f r i c a , ( t h e i r ) trunks a r e long.* (12)  Boku-wa Oosaka-ni i t t a , I guuzen  Osaka-to  ( s o s i t e ) sokode  went  and  there  Satoo-san n i a t t a .  by chance  met  ( L i t . ) • I went t o Osaka, and t h e r e I happened t o see Mr. Sato.* (13)  Tom-wa damatte i t a , ( s u r u t o ) sono silent-was okusan-o naosara wife  still  koto-ga  and then the t h i n g  okoraseta. angry-cause-past  ( L i t . ) ' Tom remained s i l e n t , and i t made h i s w i f e s t i l l more angry,'  42 (13)  As s e n t e n c e sentences. sentences  i n t h e form o f c o n j o i n e d sentences s e n t e n c e s a s i n (13).  does n o t have r e l a t i v e  Similarly, (12),  does n o t have t y p e 2  I n s t e a d , we e x p r e s s t h e meanings o f t h e s e  independent Japanese  shows, J a p a n e s e  because  o r two  T h i s may be  because  pronouns.  of the lack  of a relative  pronoun,  w h i c h e x p r e s s e s two e v e n t s a t one p l a c e i n a s e -  q u e n t i a l order, i s represented only by juxtaposing the two  sentences.  NRR-construction of  That like  i s , some k i n d o f s e n t e n c e (8) h a s no r e l a t i v e  i n type  counter-part  Japanese. As f o r a n i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l N R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n  and  ( 7.), we h a v e two k i n d s o f J a p a n e s e  one  i s i n terms o f c o n j o i n e d sentences  t e r m s o f embedding. that tic  1-  like  (6)  translations, and t h e o t h e r i s i n  However, we must n o t e t h a t  i t i s said  t h e r e a r e no p h o n o l o g i c a l , m o r p h o l o g i c a l , o r s y n t a c d i s t i n c t i o n s between an o r d i n a r y R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n ( f o r  example  ( 5 . b ) ) and sentence  (lO.b).  That  i s , i n English  we  can d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n s and N R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n s b y means o f d i s t i n c t i v e  intonation  contours, the existence  43  o r non-existence restrictions jective  o f commas when w r i t t e n , and by some  such as, *in case of NRR-sentences, the ob-  r e l a t i v e pronouns must n o t be d e l e t e d * e t c . . Since Japanese has no NRR-RR d i s t i n c t i o n s , t h e r e  i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i f , f o r example, (11.b) i s spoken t o a person who does n o t know where elephants l i v e and what elephants look l i k e , he t h i n k s t h a t t h e r e are some o t h e r k i n d s o f elephants whose t r u n k s are n o t l o n g . (11.a) i s , more o f t e n used  Thus,  i n o r d i n a r y speech when a  speaker suspects t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n may be new t o h i s hearer.  Rather i t may be t h a t we should say (10.a) and  (11.a) are more n a t u r a l i n Japanese. Here we must examine the semantic p r o p e r t y of i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l NRR-construction-r-for example (6) (7);— compared with t h a t o f the NRR-construction a t t a c h e d s e n t e n c e - f i n a l l y as i n (8). says t h a t i n a n ( 8 ) - t y p e  sentence,  which;as  A. L o e t s c h e r  (1973)^  the p r e c e d i n g conjunct  and the s e n t e n c e - f i n a l NRR-conjunct are c o n s i d e r e d t o be e q u i v a l e n t from the p o i n t of i n f o r m a t i o n v a l u e . example (14) shows t h a t S  1  and S  p  His  are i n t e r p r e t e d as the  44  same-level  i n f o r m a t i o n and  (14)  c o n s t i t u t e an answer as a whole.  Qt Did you get a n y t h i n g to eat As Oh, y e s .  Paul i n v i t e d us t o *  y S  yesterday? him, *  l  where he o f f e r e d us a s p l e n d i d d i n n e r . Y  '  So  On the o t h e r hand, i n (6) i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l NRR-constructions,  and  (7).  which i n v o l v e  the intended messages  are c o n t a i n e d r e s p e c t i v e l y i n each main c l a u s e , t h a t i s , the p a r t of the sentence  which excludes the NRR-elause.  L o e t s c h e r g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g examples  (15)  Q«  What are the p a r t i c u l a r  characteristics  of a l a r k ? Atf(a)  The l a r k has a v e r y sweet song.  It  b u i l d s i t s nest on the ground. (b)  The  l a r k , which b u i l d s i t s n e s t  on  the ground, has a v e r y sweet song.  Both of the two  independent sentences  i n (a) e q u a l l y express  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l a r k , but i n (b) the NRR-clause does not g i v e any i n f o r m a t i o n t o the p r e c e d i n g q u e s t i o n  45 and  o n l y the main c l a u s e i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be r e l e v a n t t o  the  question. The reasons why  we  i n s e r t an NRR-clause i n t o a  main clause a r e , a c c o r d i n g t o L o e t s c h e r  (1973)» t h a t  (i)  One can a v o i d t r e a t i n g a h e a r e r as b e i n g un-informed by embedding such a sentence as a NRR-construction, thereby i n d i c a t i n g t h a t one t e l l s t h i s sentence o n l y as a supplementary i n f o r m a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o r e c a l l an o l d f a c t , but i t i s not the a c t u a l l y intended message.  (ii)  The message one wants to convey i s c o n t a i n e d i n the main c l a u s e , but i t needs an e x p l a n a t i o n which i s g i v e n i n the NRRconstruction.7 -  In other words,an NRR-construction i s used i n a s i t u a t i o n where one wants to d i s t i n g u i s h between hot jiews and  less  hot news. As a c o n c l u s i o n , he says t h a t o n l y an  intrasentential  NRR-eonstruction i s e x c l u s i v e l y low-ranked i n f o r m a t i o n ,  due  t o the p o s i t i o n i n a sentence c a l l e d the p a r e n t h e s i s p o s i t i o n . He a l s o says i t i s o f t e n the case t h a t these  NRR-construc-  t i o n s can be paraphrased i n t o simple n o n - r e l a t i v i z e d p a r e n t h e t i c a l sentences without p sense, as i n (16).  changing the  discourse  46  (16) (a)  Sam, who Jack had g i v e n a blow on t h e head, went down and s t a r t e d  (b)  squeaking.  Sam — - Jack had g i v e n him a blow on the head  went down and s t a r t e d  Then, how about i n Japanese?  Q  squeaking.  (12), which i s the  t r a n s l a t i o n o f (8), c o n s i s t s o f two juxtaposed and  each conjunct  value.  7  i s e q u i v a l e n t concerning  That i s , t h e c o n j u n c t i o n s o s i t e  sentences,  information  'and then'  c o n j o i n s two conjuncts as equal i n f o r m a t i o n v a l u e .  The  only d i f f e r e n c e between (8) and (12) i s t h a t t h e former uses a s e n t e n c e - f i n a l NRR-construction a coordinate  and the l a t t e r uses  conjunction.  On the o t h e r hand, i n (10.a) and ( l l . a ) , j u n c t i o n ga seemingly c o n j o i n s the two conjuncts same way as i n (12). speakers,  But i t i s n o t t r u e .  i n the  To most n a t i v e  ga has mostly two meanings and f u n c t i o n s . One mean-  i n g i s p u r e l y 'but'.  In t h i s case, ga i s s t r o n g l y s t r e s s e d  and f u n c t i o n s as a c o o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n which two  a con-  conjuncts.  juxtaposes  The other ga i s u n s t r e s s e d and does not mean  k? •but*.  In t h i s l a t t e r case, the f i r s t  conjunct + ga  p a r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n t h e r e i s o n l y mentary and low-ranked.  supple-  The main message which a speaker  wants t o convey i s contained i n the second c o n j u n c t . example, take  (11)  (a)  For  (11.a) a g a i n .  Zoo-wa  India to A f r i c a - n i  sunde i r u (gi  hana-ga n a g a i . ( L i t . ) * Elephants — they l i v e i n I n d i a and A f r i c a — t h e i r t r u n k s are long.* The main i n f o r m a t i o n i s contained i n the u n d e r l i n e d p a r t and the frame-part  i s subsidiary.  not f u n c t i o n as  Ga, i n t h i s case, does  a c o o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n which conveys  the two c o n t r a r y messages, b u t f u n c t i o n s o n l y as a marker indicating  t h a t the supplementary i n f o r m a t i o n i s expressed  w i t h i n the frame.  The f o l l o w i n g example a l s o p o i n t s t o  the same phenomenon.  (17)  (a)  Sono gakusei-wa the  student  tetugaku  philosophy majoring-in-is  ima tosyokan-de m a i n i t i now  senkoo da ( p  sanzikan  l i b r a r y a t every day 3-hours-for  48  h a t a r a i t e imasu. working-is (Lit.)  (b)  • The student •— (he) i s majoring i n p h i l o s o p h y — now works a t the l i b r a r y f o r t h r e e hours e v e r y day. / T h e student, who i s majoring i n p h i l o s o p h y works a t the l i b r a r y f o r t h r e e hours every day.*  Sono gakusei-wa [tetugaku senkoo nan desu(yoj, ; i s ( I t e l l you) s o s i t e ima tosyokan-de m a i n i t i and hataraite  sanzikan  imasu(yoi  ( L i t . ) • ( I t e l l you) the student i s majoring i n p h i l o s o p h y and ( I t e l l you i n a d d i t i o n ) he works a t the l i b r a r y f o r t h r e e hours every day.'  The two p i e c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n i n the frames of (17.b) are e q u i v a l e n t , while i n (17.a) the i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n the frame i s o f secondary  information value.  Thus the above  o b s e r v a t i o n shows t h a t an i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l supplementary NRR-construction the frame I — —  i n Japanese i n the form of  (gai as i n (18).  l a c k of r e l a t i v e (18)  i s expressed  T h i s may  pronouns.  NP -  wa -  Mb i stress contrastivej  be due t o the  49  To summarize the above  observationsi  ( E n g l i s h )  I  ( J a p a n e s e )  I  RR-construction (embedding)  (e.g.  (5.a))  RR-construction (embedding) (e.g. (5.h))  I I NRR-construction Type 1 (i)  intrasentential NRR-construction  ( i ) (a) R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n (embedding) (e.g. (10.b) (11.b)) (b) i n terms o f I.. frame (e.g. \ix.a))  (ii)  sentence-final NRR-construction (e.g. ( 8 ) )  (ii)  coordinate construction (e.g. (12))  Type 2 sentence-final NRR-construction (e.g. (9))  coordinate construction (e.g. (13))  N o t i c e t h a t we a r e n o t d i s c u s s i n g here whether the deepest u n d e r l y i n g  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a r e l a t i v e con-  s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v e s a sentence embedded i n t o an NP, o r conjoined  sentences proposed by S.A. Thompson.  10  What I want to say i s t h a t a t l e a s t at some stage of d e r i v a t i o n , the above mentioned embedding o r ing  i s observed.  I t must a l s o be  conjoin-  s a i d t h a t our  present  study i s m a i n l y concerned with a s o - c a l l e d embedded relative  clause,  2.3  Ross's C o n s t r a i n t s and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n  2,3,1  The  CNCP and  Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n  Let us t u r n to the claims  of Japanese  relativiza-  t i o n proposed by Ross i n h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Ross argues i n h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n t h a t Japanese r e l a t i v e clause formation not  must i n v o l v e r e o r d e r i n g ,  simple d e l e t i o n because i t i s s u b j e c t t o  following constraints s  the  1 1  (a)  the Complex NP  (b)  the Coordinate S t r u c t u r e  Constraint  (c)  the Cross-over C o n d i t i o n  proposed  by P.M.  Postal .  Constraint  and  51 He g i v e s us the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f the above constraintsi  (19)  The Complex NP C o n s t r a i n t (CNPC) No element contained i n a sentence dominated by a NP with a l e x i c a l head noun may be moved out o f t h a t NP by a transformation. 1 2  The  above c o n s t r a i n t i s e x p l a i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g diagram. (20) NP NP  (21)  The Coordinate  S  S t r u c t u r e C o n s t r a i n t (GSC)  In a c o o r d i n a t e s t r u c t u r e , no conjunct ^ may be moved, n o r may any element i n a conjunct be moved out of the conjunct. -? 1  (22)  The C r o s s - o v e r  Condition  No NP mentioned i n t h e s t r u c t u r e index o f a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n may be r e o r d e r e d by t h a t r u l e i n such a y way as t o c r o s s over a c o r e f e r e n t i a l NP. In CNPC, he t h i n k s i t n e c e s s a r y  f o r the t h e o r y o f  grammar t o d i s t i n g u i s h between l e x i c a l items l i k e  •claim*  52 and an a b s t r a c t pronoun * i t ' because  this  distinction  accounts f o r the g r a m m a t i c a l i t y and ungrammaticality of the f o l l o w i n g sentences and t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n a l s o h o l d s even i n Japanese.  (23)  and  (24) are from  Ross. ^ 1  (23) (a)  I b e l i e v e d the c l a i m t h a t Otto  was  wearing t h i s h a t . (b)  I believed  t h a t Otto  was  wearing t h i s h a t . (24) (a)  *The hat which I b e l i e v e d the  t h a t Otto was (b)  claim  wearing i s r e d .  The hat which I b e l i e v e d t h a t Otto was  wearing i s r e d .  His Japanese t r a n s l a t i o n t o (23)  and  (24) i s (25)  and (26).  (25) (a)  Otto-ga kono b o o s i - o this  hat  kabutte : i t a wearing-was  t o i u syutvoo-o watakusi-wa  sinzita.  t h a t say c l a i m  believed  I  33  (b)  Otto-ga kono b©osi-o kabutte i t a  koto-o watakusi-wa  sinzita.  thing ( 2 6 )  (a)  *Otto-ga kabutte i t a t o i u syutyoo-o watakusi-ga s i n z i t a boosi-wa  akai. red  (b)  Otto-ga kabutte i t a koto-o watakusi-ga s i n z i t a boosi-wa  akai.^  As a c o n c l u s i o n , he argues t h a t t h e Japanese nouns koto, mono, and no, which mean r o u g h l y 'thing* a r e nonl e x i c a l w h i l e nouns l i k e syutyoo ' c l a i m ' are l e x i c a l because the CNPC o n l y p r e v e n t s t h e elements w i t h a l e x 17 i c a l head NP from r e o r d e r i n g . ' Let the  CNPC;  us observe t h e c r u c i a l p o i n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o ( i ) the n e c e s s i t y of the existence o f a f e a -  t u r e ^ LexJ and  ( i i ) t h e s u b j e c t i o n of Japanese  rela-  t i v i z a t i o n t o t h e GNPG. F i r s t o f a l l , we must note t h a t Ross's example i s p e r f e c t t o n a t i v e speakers. another example a g a i n s t  Ross.  We can e a s i l y p r e s e n t  (26.a)  54 (27) (a)  ^[Bacon-ga 'Hamlet'-o k a i t a ] wrote  s  syooko-o]  N p  evidence Lex 3  1+  boku-wa s i t t e i r u . I know ( L i t . ) • I know t h e evidence t h a t Bacon wrote 'Hamlet*.• (b)  [[Bacon-ga *Hamlet*-o k a i t a ]  boku-wa s i t t e  iru.  s  koto-o] thing  N p  ^" Lex}  ( L i t . ) ' I know t h a t Bacon wrote 'Hamlet*.' (28) (a)  |[Bacon-ga sitte  i r u JL  s  (Lit.)*'  kaita^fg syooko-o]  N  p  boku-ga  *Hamlet* * Hamlet*]  'Hamlet*, which I know the evidence t h a t Bacon wrote '  (b) |{]]Bacon-fga sitte  0  iruj  s  0  kaita]  'Hamlet*]  s  k o t o - o ] ^ boku-ga  N p  ( L i t . ) ' 'Hamlet*, which I know t h a t Bacon wrote ' I t would be h e l p f u l f o r us t o add Kuno's f o l l o w i n g counter-examples t o Ross's p r o p o s a l s a y i n g t h a t the element i n a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e can n o t be moved out of  5-5  the  complex  (29) (a)  jjsono s i n s i - w a k i t e  iruj yoohuku-gaj  the gentleman w e a r i n g - i s  suit  i : yogorete  iru.  £+ Lex]  dirty-is (Lit.)  ' The s u i t which the gentleman i s wearing i s d i r t y . *  |j)2f kite i r u ] yoohuku-ga] wearing-is suit  (b)  s  yogorete i r u ] dirty-is  s  sinsiJ  Np  N p  gentleman  ( L i t . ) .*• A gentleman who the suit that (he)  is wearing i s dirty.'  (30) (a)  jjsono s e n s e i - w a o s i e t e the  teacher  i ta]  s  teaching-was  ^eito-g^ student  rakudaisita.  [+ Lex]  flunked (Lit.)  (b)  • The student who the t e a c h e r teaching flunked.' [[p  osiete  ita]  s  seito-ga]  teaching-was student  N p  was  N p  56  rakudai  sita J  s  flunked  senseiJ p N  teacher  ( L i t . ) * * t h e t e a c h e r who the student (he) was t e a c h i n g f l u n k e d . '  that  I f we assume Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n t o be a movement f r a n s f o r m a t i o n , we are tempted t o doubt t h a t t h e CNPC a p p l i e s t o Japanese. (26)  N o t i c e t h a t we have seen i n  (28) t h a t a t l e a s t i n Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n ,  the d i s t i n c t i o n between [+ L e x i c a l ] and I- L e x i c a l J does not seem t o work a t a l l , though Ross c l a i m s t h a t a s t r o n g evidence  there i s  f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i n  Japanese.  Let us now observe Ross's c l a i m t h a t Japanese  19 r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a l s o s u b j e c t t o the Cross-over First,  Condition .  he argues t h a t t h e Japanese v e r s i o n o f  p a s s i v i z a t i o n can n o t apply t o a r e f l e x i v e sentence as 20 i n (31). Sentence (31) i s h i s example f o r h i s c l a i m .  (3D (a)  Sono hito-^wa zibun^-o a r a t t a . t h a t man  self  washed  f  57 ( L i t . ) • That man (b)  i  washed  himself .  t  i  Zibun--wa sono h i t o ^ - n i a r a w a r e t a . wash-passive-past  ( L i t . ) • That man. was washed by h i m s e l f . . *  We argue a g a i n s t  Ross i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way«  F i r s t , example (31.a) i t s e l f n a t i v e speakers.  i s unacceptable t o most  N.A. McCawley's Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t ex-  p l a i n s t h e u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y o f t h e sentence i n such a way that i  Japanese has a s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t , the L i k e NP C o n s t r a i n t , which d i s c a r d s t h e sentences as ungrammatical i f t h e r e f l e x i v e and i t s antecedent are i n peer r e l a t i o n s h i p . 2 1  I f we f o l l o w her, the P-marker o f (31.a) would be  represent-  ed as (32).  (32)  S  V sono h i t o  N o t i c e NP  1  and NP  2  sono h i t o  aratta  a r e i n peer r e l a t i o n s h i p , so NP,  can n o t be r e f l e x i v i z e d n o r can i t be l e f t  untouched.  58  Because i f i t i s l e f t untouched,  we have a r e a d i n g  'the person washed somebody e l s e . '  that  When we want t o express  Ross's E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n i n i d i o m a t i c Japanese, we w i l l have t h e f o l l o w i n g sentence,  (33)  L  Sono hito^-wa zibun^-no karada-o a r a t t a . that  man  self's  body  washed  ( L i t . ) ' That man washed h i s body.'  Second, note t h a t the p a s s i v e n e i t h e r (34) n o r Ross's  (34)  *Zibun^-no self's  sentence of (32) i s  (31.b).  karada-wa sono h i t o ^ - n i body  t h a t man-by  arawareta* wash-passive-past ( L i t . ) ** S e l f ' s body was washed by t h a t man.'  As Muraki  (1970) i n d i c a t e s , i t i s not y e t proven t h a t  p a s s i v i z a t i o n should be a r e o r d e r i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n  22 Japanese.  Rather many s c h o l a r s c l a i m t h a t  p a s s i v i z a t i o n i s not a reordering ground t h a t some p a s s i v e  Japanese  transformation  on the  sentences have no c o r r e s p o n d i n g  a c t i v e sentences as i n (35).  59 (35) (a)  Taroo-wa tuma-ni s i n a r e t a . ( p a s s i v e ) (his)wife die-passive-past  ( L i t . ) • Taro had  ( h i s ) wife d i e on him.*  (b) *Tuma-wa Taroo-o s i n d a . ( a c t i v e ) died (Lit.)*'  The  ( H i s ) wife d i e d  Taro.'  u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (35.a) would l o o k l i k e  (36).  (36)  NP-ga  V  I  i  tuma  sinu  A f t e r the v e r b - r a i s i n g and the s u b j e c t - r a i s i n g o f S the m a t r i x ture.  sentence, we  Therefore,  c o u l d get  (35*a) as a s u r f a c e s t r u c -  i f the Japanese p a s s i v i z a t i o n i s not  reordering transformation, become e n t i r e l y  into  2  the Cross-over  Condition  will  irrelevant.  Ross g i v e s another example as evidence  a  f o r the  60  a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the  Cross-over Condition.  T h i s time,  uses Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n f o r evidence.  he  Observe h i s  23 following are  example . -^The  mine f o r the  u n d e r l i n e d l e x i c a l items i n  purpose of  (37)  correction.  (37) (a)  fol/e'-ga  fifa&i  to  it-ta h i t o ^  zibun^ ookii he (Lit.) (b)  ' the  t a l l that said man  * hito^-ga  who  s a i d he  *i/^eV£ to  itta  man was  tall'  hito^  ookii man ( L i t . ) * the  tall man^  that said who  he^  man  s a i d was  tall  ' 2k  He  g i v e s the  following  underlying structure  (38)  hito.  ookii  of  (37).  61  He says, "the boxed NP can be r e l a t i v i z e d , although the 25 c i r c l e d NP can not.""  This i s not e x a c t l y c l e a r .  As  Muraki says, i f Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n v o l v e s r e o r d e r i n g o f a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i n t h e r i g h t w a r d d i r e c t i o n , the boxed NP can n o t be r e l a t i v i z a b l e .  I t must c r o s s over  the c i r c l e d NP i n i t s movement t o the r i g h t .  Rather the  c i r c l e d NP should be r e l a t i v i z a b l e . Nevertheless, i n f a c t  i f the c i r c l e d NP were t o  undergo r e l a t i v i z a t i o n , i t would generate r e c t l y , which i s ungrammatical.  On the o t h e r hand,  (37.a) i s a c c e p t a b l e when we c o r r e c t ka-re zibun  (37.b) i n c o r -  ' he ' i n t o  - ' s e l f ' , as i n (39).  (39) That  NP  i s , o n l y the boxed NP can be r e l a t i v i z a b l e  i n spite of  the Cross-over C o n d i t i o n . In o r d e r t o d e r i v e (39) c o r r e c t l y ,  we must p o s t u l a t e  i t s p r o c e s s i n the f o l l o w i n g wayt  (i?)  The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n of the c i r c l e d NP under i d e n t i t y w i t h t h e boxed NP which  62  meets the Subject-antecedent Subject-antecedent  Condition*  The  Condition requires that J  The r e f l e x i v e r e f e r s back t o the s u b j e c t i n the same simplex sentence or the s u b j e c t i n any h i g h e r sentence,  (ii)  The  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of the boxed NP as a  deletion  I f we  process.  conclude t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a d e l e t i o n  transformation,  the Cross-over  do with r e l a t i v i z a t i o n .  I f we  C o n d i t i o n has n o t h i n g  assume r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s  r e o r d e r i n g even i n Japanese, and b e l i e v e i n the a b i l i t y of the Cross-over  to  applic-  C o n d i t i o n t o Japanese (whose  examination i s beyond the scope o f our p r e s e n t we b l o c k a grammatical sentence (39)  study),  incorrectly. 27  Thus, we must r e j e c t  Ross and o t h e r s  'with  respect  t o t h e i r r e l a t i v i z a t i o n as a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . I f Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s o n l y a d e l e t i o n p r o c e s s , the CNPC i t s e l f has n o t h i n g to do with i t . the d e l e t i o n o f the r e l a t i v i z e d i n g t h a t the c i r c l e d NP  c i r c l e d NP  i s d e l e t e d as  We  can e x p l a i n  i n (40) by  relativization  say-  63  under i d e n t i t y with the boxed  NP.  (40) S NP  V  kabutte i t a  2.3.2  THE  CSC AND  We w i l l now  JAPANESE RELATIVIZATION  examine Ross's CSC  Structure Constraint).  (the Coordinate  A c c o r d i n g t o him,  a coordinate  s t r u c t u r e i s d e f i n e d "as any s t r u c t u r e conforming t o t h e schematic diagram  i n (41)", although a c o n j u n c t i o n i s a  64  more a b s t r a c t , language-independent r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of and o r o r , and t h i s a b s t r a c t c o n j u n c t i o n "should be understood as e i t h e r p r e c e d i n g  a l l i t s conjuncts,  as i n  E n g l i s h , French, e t c . , o r as f o l l o w i n g them, as i n Japanese"* ® 2  (41) A  A f t e r the a p p l i c a t i o n s o f c o n j u n c t i o n  copying,  where a c o n j u n c t i o n i s Chomsky-adjoined t o each and the d e l e t i o n o f the f i r s t  c o n j u n c t i o n t o (41), we  c o u l d g e t an o r d i n a r y c o o r d i n a t e  (42)  conjunct,  c o n s t r u c t i o n , as i n (42).  I went t o the s t o r e and Mike bought some whisky.  Now,  i f 'some whisky' i n (42) i s moved out o f the  second conjunct by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n , sentence (43). (43)  i t generates an ungrammatical  (42) and (43) a r e from R o s s . ^ 2  *Here's the whisky which I went t o the s t o r e and Mike bought  0 .  65  S i m i l a r l y , the u n d e r l i n e d elements i n (44.a) can n o t be moved out o f each conjunct by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o r q u e s t i o n formation.  (44) (a)  The nurse p o l i s h e d h e r trombone and t h e plumber computed my t a x .  (b)  *The plumber who t h e nurse p o l i s h e d h e r trombone and  0  computed my t a x .  A l s o , an NP which i s a conjunct i n a c o o r d i n a t e NP s t r u c t u r e can not be r e l a t i v i z e d n o r be reordered by WHquestion formation.  (a) [ (b)  (44) and (45) are from R o s s . ^  0  He w i l l put the c h a i r between N p  [  N p  some t a b l e ] ^ a n d [  N p  some  sofa]  N p  ]  N p  »What s o f a w i l l he put t h e c h a i r between some t a b l e and  0 ?  •Thus, he proposed h i s s o - c a l l e d u n i v e r s a l (CSC) c i t e d on page 51  i n this  chapter.  constraint  66  Would t h i s CSC be a p p l i c a b l e t o Japanese? i t must be noted t h a t Japanese WH-question i s i r r e l e v a n t concerning  First,  formation  the CSC because a WH-question  word r e p l a c e s the NP i n q u e s t i o n without i n v o l v i n g a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,  as i n (46), whioh i s the  t r a n s l a t i o n o f (45).  (46) (a)  Kare-wa teeburu t o sohaa-no a i d a - n i he  table  and s o f a  between  sono i s u - o oku. the  c h a i r put dono sohaa what s o f a kal Q.P. Q.P, = q u e s t i o n  particle  We w i l l now examine t h e r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f an NP i n a coordinate and  NP c o n s t r u c t i o n .  F o r example, take (46,a)  r e l a t i v i z e , r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e conjunct  NP's.  (47) (a)  *[fcare-ga f t e e b u r u t o 0 - n o ] a i d a - n i sono i s u - o oku} sphaa  67 ( L i t . ) *• the s o f a which he w i l l p u t t h e c h a i r between some t a b l e and jS ' (b)  *[kare-ga £ 0 t o s o h a a — n o ] a i d a - n i  isu-o  oku] teeburu ( L i t . ) *' t h a t a b l e which he w i l l put the c h a i r between 0 and some s o f a *  S i m i l a r l y , observe the f o l l o w i n g sentences:  (48) (a  [Taroo t o Hanako-waj nihongo-o hanasu. and Lit.)  (b  Japanese speak  * Taro and Hanako speak Japanese.'  * j^Taroo t o 0 -ga ] nihongo-o hanasuJ Hanako L i t . ) *' Hanako, who Taro and 0 speak Japanese*  (c  t o Hanako-ga ] nihongo-o hanasu J Taroo L i t . ) * ' Taro, who 0 and Hanako speak Japanese '  ( W  (a  j"Taroo ka Hanako-ga] soko-e or Lit.)  (b  there  itta. went  ' E i t h e r Taro o r Hanako went t h e r e . '  * [ f T a r o o ka 0 - g a ] soko-e i t t a ] Hanako L i t . ) *' Hanako, who e i t h e r Taro o r 0 went t h e r e '  (c) *  ka Hanako-gaj soko-e i t t a ] T a r o o  ( L i t . ) *' Taro, who  0 o r Hanako went t h e r e '  The above examples show t h a t the CSC  does a p p l y t o the  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of the conjunct NP i n a c o o r d i n a t e NP construction. Next, observe the f o l l o w i n g  sentencest  (50) (a)  Taroo-wa piano-o h i k i play uta-o song  ( s o s i t e ) Hanako-wa and  utatta. sang  ( L i t . ) • Taro p l a y e d the piano and Hanako (b) * fTaroo-ga piano-o h i k i  (sosite)  0  sang.'  uta-o  u t a t t a j Hanako ( L i t . ) * * Hanako, who 0 sang.* (c) * \0  piano-o h i k i  Taro p l a y e d the piano  and  ( s o s i t e ) Hanako-ga uta-o  u t a t t a JTaroo ( L i t . ) * ' Taro, who sang.*  p l a y e d the piano and Hanako  69  (5D  (a)  Taroo-wa kuruma-de dekaketa ga boku-wa car-by  went-out but I  uti-ni i t a . home-at was ( L i t . ) ' Taro went out by c a r , but I stayed at home.' (b) *£raroo-wa  0  dekaketa ga boku-wa u t i - n i  i t a j kuruma (Lit.)*'  the c a r by which Taro went out and I s t a y e d a t home '  As i s shown above, t h e NP i n a c o o r d i n a t e sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n i s a l s o s u b j e c t t o t h e CSC,  T h i s i s due t o  the f a c t t h a t t h e head NP i s s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t e d  only t o  the conjunct i n which t h e i d e n t i c a l NP i s contained, and not t o t h e o t h e r c o n j u n c t .  F o r example, i n (51.b), t h e  head NP kuruma 'car' has n o t h i n g t o do with t h e second conjunct boku-wa u t i - n i i t a ' I stayed a t home'. Similarly,  i n (48.b) t h e head NP Hanako has the r e l a t i o n  with o n l y p a r t o f the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e —  t h a t i s , nihongo  -o hanasu 'speak Japanese', but Taroo i n the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e any r e l e v a n t p a r t o f t h e  70  d e s c r i p t i o n o f the head NP Hanako. We must conclude t h a t the f a c t t h a t the above examples show the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the CSC t o Japanese i s not evidence f o r Ross's c l a i m t h a t Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  Indeed, the r e l a t i v -  i z a t i o n o f o n l y one NP i n a c o o r d i n a t e  structure  does  not generate a meaningful r e l a t i v e c l a u s e f o r the head I f the r e l a t i v i z e d NP o c c u r s both i n the two j u n c t s and i f these two NP's  NP.  con-  are i d e n t i c a l c o n c e r n i n g gram-  m a t i c a l f u n c t i o n s , t h e n the d e r i v e d sentence i s grammatical, and the r e l a t i v e  clause c o n s t i t u t e s an a p p r o p r i a t e  t i o n o f the head NP as Makino s t a t e s ?  1  descrip-  F o r example,  observe the f o l l o w i n g sentences!  (52) (a)  Taroo-ga sono sake-o k a t t a ka the  bought  sono. sake-o Hanako-kara from  Ziroo-ga  or  moratta. received  ( L i t . ) ' Taro bought the sake o r Z i r o r e c e i v e d i t from Hanako.' (b)  Kore-wai[Taroo-ga  0  k a t t a ka  Ziroo-ga  71  ( L i t . ) * T h i s i s the sake which Taro bought 0 or Z i r o r e c e i v e d 0 from Hanako.'  (53) (a)  Taroo-wa  sono hon-o k a t t a ga Hanako-wa the  book bought but  sono hon-o kawanakatta. the  book buy-not-past  ( L i t . ) ' Taro bought the book, but Hanako d i d not (buy i t ) . ' (b)  Kore-wa[Taroo-wa this  0  k a t t a ga Hanako-wa  0  ~~  kawanakatta] hpn desu. book i s ( L i t . ) ' T h i s i s the book which Taro bought but Hanako d i d not.•  T h i s f a c t i s e x p l a i n e d by Ross i n such a way t h a t a r e l a t i v e clause i s not s u b j e c t t o the CSC when i t works 'across the 32 board*.  A c c o r d i n g t o Ross, an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d - r u l e  i s the one which a p p l i e s t o a l l the conjuncts s i m u l t a n e o u s l y when some element i s contained i n a l l the c o n j u n c t s . T h e r e f o r e , as i s shown i n the f o l l o w i n g examples, r e l a t i v i z a t i o n a p p l i e s t o the NP's  i n both conjuncts 'across the  board', r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r grammatical f u n c t i o n s .  (54) (a)  S a i s y o - n i Taroo-ga Z i r o o - o n a g u t t a ka first hit or  72  soretomo Z i r o o - g a s a i s y o - n i Taroo-o k e t t a . (or)  first  kicked  ( L i t . ) * F i r s t Taro h i t Z i r o , o r Z i r o k i c k e d Taro f i r s t . • (b) ^ S a i s y o - n i Taroo-ga 0 n a g u t t a k a soretomo 0 Taroo-o s a i s y o - n i k e t t a j Ziroo-wa kanzen-ni completely yopparatte i t a . drunk-was ( L i t . ) ' Z i r o , whom Taro f i r s t h i t o r who k i c k e d Taro f i r s t , was completely drunk.'  (55)  (a)  Taroo-wa t i i s a i ga boku-wa sumoo-de s h o r t but I kare-ni him  i n Sumo  katenai. defeat-can-not  ( L i t . ) ' Taro i s s h o r t , b u t I can n o t defeat him i n Sumo w r e s t l i n g . ' (b)  t i i s a i ga boku-ga sumoo-de  0  katenaiJ  Taroo ( L i t . ) * Taro, who i s s h o r t b u t whom I can n o t defeat i n Sumo w r e s t l i n g '  Finally*  observe t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s i  73 (56) (a)  (Boku t o Taroo)) and -ga sakaya-ni i t t e Taroo-ga (Bokutati) "we ^ " l i q u o r - s t o r e t o went and sake-o k a t t a . bought  ( L i t . ) • ( l a n d Taro)  w  e  n  t  t  Q  t  h  e  l  i  q  u  Q  r  g  t  o  r  e  and Taro bought some sake.•  Taroo-ga k a t t a ] s a k e <  L i t  '  )  desu.  * T h i s i s the sake which  \  Z  ^ T a r o )  went t o the s t o r e and Taro bought.*  One may  say t h a t  (56) i s a k i n d o f o s t e n s i b l y con-  j o i n e d s t r u c t u r e from which items can be moved out. J.D. McCawley says»  O s t e n s i b l y conjoined s t r u c t u r e s i n E n g l i s h have p a r a l l e l s i n Japanese, o r r a t h e r these - o s t r u c t u r e s are more f r e e l y allowed i n Japanese.  Ostensibly  conjoined  s t r u c t u r e s are not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d i n  Ross's d i s s e r t a t i o n , but judging examples,  from h i s and McCawley's  the s t r u c t u r e s i n q u e s t i o n  are e x e m p l i f i e d  (57) and (58), which are r e s p e c t i v e l y from Ross and McCawley.-'  in  74  (57) (a)  I went t o the s t o r e and bought some whisky.  (= I went t o t h e s t o r e t o buy some whisky.) (b)  Here's the whisky which I went t o the s t o r e (and bought). ( t o buy ).  (58) (a)  Taroo-wa daigaku-e i t t e , boodoo-o o k o s i t a . u n i v e r s i t y - t o go  riot  caused  ( L i t . ) ' Taro went t o the u n i v e r s i t y and s t a r t e d a riot.'  (b)  Taroo-ga daigaku-e i t t e , o k o s i t a boodoo  ( L i t . ) * the r i o t which Taro went t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y and s t a r t e d '  In these  cases, t h e s u b j e c t NP's a r e i d e n t i c a l i n  a l l the c o n j u n c t s . F u r t h e r , a c c o r d i n g t o Ross, t h e s y n t a c t i c i n d i c a t i o n s of o s t e n s i b l y conjoined s t r u c t u r e s are as f o l l o w s x  a,  b.  J J  I t i s o n l y w i t h a n o n - s t a t i v e verbs as t h e main verb o f the second conjunct t h a t sentences ( 4 . 1 0 1 . a ) can be c o n s t r u c t e d . The second conjunct  can not be n e g a t i v e .  75  c.  There are r e s t r i c t i o n s on the tenses t h a t may appear i n such sentences as ( 4 . 1 0 1 . a ) .  In the above q u o t a t i o n , the sentence ( 4 . 1 0 1 . a ) i s the sentence ( 5 7 . b ) here. These s y n t a c t i c i n d i c a t i o n s do not h o l d i n Japanese. For  example, we can say i n the f o l l o w i n g wayi  (59) (a)  Taroo-ga s a k a y a - n i i t t a ga sono sake-o l i q u o r - s t o r e - t o went but the  kaenakatta. buy can-not-past (Lit.)  (b)  ' Taro went t o the s t o r e , but c o u l d not buy the sake.*  (he)  Kore-wa ^Taroo-ga sakaya-ni i t t a ga  0  this k a e n a ka t t a ! sake desu. is ( L i t . ) * T h i s i s the sake which Taro went t o the s t o r e but could not buy 0  (60) (a)  Taroo-wa London-ni ryuugaku  site i t a  i n study-abroad doing ( ga ) ( s i k a s i ) kare-wa sono kan hotondo but  he  the  t i m e - f o r almost  was  76 noirooze datta. C+ stative J neurosis  was  ( L i t . ) ' Taro s t u d i e d i n London, b u t he was ,. almost a n e u r o t i c d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d . ' (b)  |jzf London-ni ryuugaku s i t e i t a ga 0  sono kan  hotondo n o i r o o z e d a t t a 1 Taroo-ga tootoo i + stative 3 finally kaette k i t a . returned ( L i t . ) ' Taro, who s t u d i e d i n London, but was nearly neurotic during that period, f i n a l l y came back ( t o Japan).'  Furthermore, take (56) a g a i n . i n each conjunct  In (56.b) the s u b j e c t s  are n o t p e r f e c t l y i d e n t i c a l .  I doubt (56) i s an o s t e n s i b l y c o n j o i n e d t h i n k t h i s example  Therefore,  s t r u c t u r e , and I  c o n s t i t u t e s a counter-example t o Ross's  CSC. Nevertheless,  we must admit t h a t the CSC does  t o Japanese i n most cases,  apply  and a t the same time the  c o n s t r a i n t must be re-examined and r e v i s e d i n order t o h o l d t o a l l t h e examples I t must be p o i n t e d  i n Japanese. out t h a t the f a c t t h a t Japanese  77  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s , i n most cases,  s u b j e c t t o the CSC  not the evidence f o r the c l a i m t h a t Japanese t i o n i s not a d e l e t i o n p r o c e s s but formation.  Whether o r not we  transformation,  assume i t to be a movement  comes from the  of the d e r i v e d r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . reason nor any  sentences  semantic anomaly  Further,  there  i s no  s y n t a c t i c evidence f o r us to conclude  t h a t because the CSC ization,  relativiza—  a movement t r a n s -  the ungrammaticality o f the  which v i o l a t e the CSC  is  i s a p p l i c a b l e t o Japanese r e l a t i v -  i t must not be a d e l e t i o n  transformation.  Rather, i t i s q u i t e n a t u r a l f o r us t o b e l i e v e on  the  b a s i s o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the CNPC t h a t i t i s a d e l e tion  2.4  process.  CONCLUSION  What we a.  have d i s c u s s e d  i n t h i s chapter are as f o l l o w s i  some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Japanese r e l a t i v e constructions  b.  the  c o n t r a s t i v e study o f E n g l i s h and  relativization  Japanese  78  c.  Ross's h y p o t h e s i s about Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n connection CSC  . We meet the  and  w i t h h i s CNPC and  Postal's Cross-over  Condition,  have shown t h a t i n Japanese, r e l a t i v i z a t i o n must i d e n t i t y c o n d i t i o n , e x a c t l y as i n E n g l i s h .  However,  because o f the l a c k of r e l a t i v e markers, Japanese has s e n t e n c e - f i n a l NRR-construction. s t r u c t i o n , we  use  Instead  a juxtaposed c o o r d i n a t e  no  o f t h a t conconstruction i n  Japanese. Concerning an i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l NRR-construction, Japanese has no  such c o n s t r u c t i o n , e i t h e r , f o r the same  reason mentioned above, namely, t h a t there marker.  Instead,  coordinate  we use  The  c o n s t r u c t i o n seems t o be  relative  e i t h e r an R R - c o n s t r u c t i o n o r a  c o n s t r u c t i o n which c o n t a i n s the  intrasententially.  i s no  frame  semantic r o l e of t h i s  ga  coordinate  s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f the E n g l i s h  i n t r a s e n t e n t i a l NRR-construction. In s e c t i o n  (i)  (2.3),  we have s a i d the  following.  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s not a movement transformation  but a d e l e t i o n  process.  (ii)  As  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n does n o t i n v o l v e  a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , the Cross-over Condition (iii)  i s irrelevant to i t .  CNPC i s a l s o i r r e l e v a n t t o i t f o r the same reason.  (iv)  Japanese examples do n o t support Ross's d i s t i n c t i o n between l e x i c a l head nouns and nonl e x i c a l head nouns i n h i s CNPC.  (v)  In most (but n o t a l l ) cases, Ross's CSC i s a p p l i c a b l e t o Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . But t h a t f a c t  i s not evidence f o r a r e o r d e r i n g  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n hypothesis.  80  CHAPTER I I NOTES 1. Every p a r t i c l e i s not deletable i n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . Some p a r t i c l e s l i k e k a r a 'from' are d e l e t a b l e i n some cases, but n o t i n o t h e r s . Observe the f o l l o w i n g sentences. (i) (a)  Sono mado-kara-wa yama-ga mieru. the window from mountain v i s i b l e ( L i t . ) '(As f o r ) from t h a t window, the mountain is visible.' (b) uama-ga mieru] mado ( L i t . ) • t h e window from which t h e mountain i s visible.'  (ii) (a)  Vancouver-kara-wa  (Lit.)  Hanako-ga k i t a . came ' As f o r from Vancouver, Hanako came.'  (b) *JHanako-ga k i t a ] (Lit.)  Vancouver  ' Vancouver from which Hanako came.'  2.  Kuno, Notes on Japanese Grammar, Chap. 18, p. 2.  3.  Schaehter, "Focus and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " p. 43.  4. Sandra A. Thompson, "The Deep S t r u c t u r e o f R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s , " S t u d i e s i n L i n g u i s t i c Semantics, ed. C h a r l e s J . F i l l m o r e and D. Terence Langendoen (New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 197D» p. 84. 5. Andreas L o e t s c h e r , "On the Role of N o n r e s t r i c t i v e R e l a t i v e Clause i n D i s c o u r s e , " Papers from the N i n t h R e g i o n a l Meeting. (Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y ,  1973), P. 366. 6.  I b i d . , p. 363.  7.  I b i d . , pp. 365 f .  8.  I b i d . , p. 366.  9. Sentences (l6,a) and (l6.b) a r e from L o e t s c h e r . pp. 361 & 366.  April,  Ibid.,  81  10. Sandra Annear, " R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s and C o n j u n c t i o n s , " Working Papers i n L i n g u i s t i c s , (Columbus: Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , December, 1967)» pp. 8 0 ^ 9 0 .  11.  Ross, " C o n s t r a i n t s on V a r i a b l e s i n Syntax," p.  12.  Ibid.,» P. 70.  13.  I b i d . ,r p. 89.  14.  I b i d . , P. 73.  15.  I b i d . ,, P. 70.  16.  I b i d . ,, P. 75.  17.  I b i d . ,, p. 76.  72.  18. Kuno, Notes on Japanese Grammar. Chap. 18. p. 8 & Chap. 19. P.,7.  19.  Ross, op. c i t . , p. 73.  20.  Ross, I b i d . , p.  74.  21. Noriko A. McCawley, "A Study of Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . " (unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1972), p.30. The n o t i o n of 'peer* i s due t o P o s t a l . He d e f i n e s the NP's which are peers i n the f o l l o w i n g way: "Two NP, NP, and NP , n e i t h e r o f which dominates the o t h e r nor i s c o - o r d i n a t e with the o t h e r i n a phrase marker P are peers w i t h r e s p e c t t o a node S., j u s t i n case the paths between each o f these NP and S. are such t h a t t h e y c o n t a i n no NP-nodes not seperated from the s t a r t i n g p o i n t NP, NP, o r NP , by a node S." 2  1  2  See P a u l M. P o s t a l , C r o s s - o v e r Phenomena. (New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc., 1971), p. 179. 22. Muraki, " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , T h e m a t i z a t i o n , " pp. 34 f ; 23.  Ross, _op. c i t . , p. 74.  24.  Ibid.,  25.  Ibid.  Pseudo-clefting-and  82  26.  N.A. MeCawley, op. c i t . , p. 4.  27. F o r example, Makino assumes t h a t Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . H i s r e l a t i v i z a t i o n r u l e i s as f o l l o w s !  1 2  3  where:  4  5  6  2=5  sentential feature {+ d e c l a r a t i v e 3 T b= o b l i g a t o r y transformation See Makino, Some Aspects o f Japanese N o m i n a l i z a t i o n s , pp.157 f . C+DCLJF 0  28.  Ross, op. c i t . , p. 89.  29.  I b i d . , p. 93.  30.  I b i d . , pp. 14 & 89.  31.  Makino, op. c i t . , p. 1 5 7 .  32.  Ross, I b i d . , pp.96~98.  33. James D . MeCawley, "Japanese R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s , " The Chicago Which Hunt, (Chicago: Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 19727, pT"207. 34. 35.  See Ross, op. c i t . , p. 93 & MeCawley, I b i d . , p. 207. Ross, I b i d . , p. 93.  CHAPTER I I I  JAPANESE RELATIVIZATION AND MURAKI'S HYPOTHESES  3.1  POINTS OF DISCUSSION In t h i s chapter we w i l l d i s c u s s Muraki*s claims  (1970) which a r e shown below.  a.  1  The u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f a Japanese r e l a t i v e clause i s Chomsky-adjoined t o the  r i g h t o f the head NP, e x a c t l y as i n E n g l i s h .  b.  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a copying  c.  A f t e r copying,  t h e Nearest  rule.  NP C o n s t r a i n t  a p p l i e s t o the r e l a t i v i z e d NP i n the c l a u s e .  3.2  UNDERLYING RELATIVE CLAUSES AND THE NEAREST NP CONSTRAINT  Muraki r e j e c t s the u s u a l P-marker of an under-  84  l y i n g r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Japanese which i s r e p r e sented as  (1).  Instead, he claims t h a t (2) i s the c o r -  rect underlying structure.  ^TP One  NP  ±  of the main reasons  i  f o r his underlying struc-  t u r e i s connected with Ross's claims  (1967) t h a t Japanese  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and the over C o n d i t i o n  Cross-  a p p l i e s to Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n .  Please r e f e r to Ross's example again on p. 60 i n chapter of  this  thesis.  (3)  JZ^zibun-ga self  (Lit.)  t a k a i to i t t a  hito^  t a l l that s a i d  ' the person^ who  NP«-ga  s a i d he^ i s t a l l '  V  II  85  Suppose we accept Ross's h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d above. As we have a l r e a d y seen i n the p r e v i o u s chapter, i n o r der t o generate the r i g h t .  sentence  2  i n ( 4 ) must move t o  But t h i s i s a v i o l a t i o n o f the Cross-over  C o n d i t i o n because the NP i n i t s movement. generate  ( 3 ) , the NP  2  c r o s s e s over the i d e n t i c a l NP^  In o r d e r t o a v o i d t h i s v i o l a t i o n and  (3)» the only a l t e r n a t i v e way i s t o p o s t u l a t e  t h a t the NP  2  i n S^ moves not t o the r i g h t but t o the l e f t ,  away from the matrix head NP.  The r e l a t i v i z a t i o n p r o c e s s  would be: (i)  The leftward.' movement o f NP ,  (which i s  2  vacuous h e r e ) • (ii)  The d e l e t i o n o f the NP  2  under i d e n t i t y  with the head NP-^.  T h i s p r o c e s s , a c c o r d i n g t o Muraki, unnatural steps;  i n v o l v e s two  (a) the movement o f the NP  2  i d e n t i c a l head NP^, and (b) the unnaturalness  away from the o f " the  i d e n t i t y d e l e t i o n which operates l e f t w a r d ( t h a t i s , backward) a c r o s s the c o n s t i t u e n t sentence."  These two  u n n a t u r a l steps are h i s main reasons why he r e j e c t s the  86  underlying  structure (1).  He  says t h a t i n o r d e r t o  avoid  the unnaturalness of the above steps we must p o s t u l a t e as the u n d e r l y i n g tion. (5)  The  i f we  s t r u c t u r e of a Japanese r e l a t i v e  remote s t r u c t u r e of (3)  construc-  w i l l be represented  as  f o l l o w Muraki.3  (5)  NP NP  S  1  hito  The  (2)  NP.-ga  d e r i v a t i o n a l p r o c e s s of  (i)  The  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n of  (ii)  The  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of  (a)  The  takai  (3) from (5) would bet NP NP  3  2  l e f t w a r d movement of NP  0  a v i o l a t i o n of the Cross-over  without Condition,  here, vacuous (b)  The  d e l e t i o n of NP  Constraint  2  by the Nearest  NP  (iii)  An o b l i g a t o r y r e l a t i v e w h i c h makes t h e r e l a t i v e head  were t o assume t h a t R o s s ' s c l a i m s (3) w i t h o u t  Condition. the  clause precede the  example,  are right,  any v i o l a t i o n s  of the  e v e n i f we we  could  Cross-over  H e r e , M u r a k i p r o p o s e s a c o n s t r a i n t known a s  N e a r e s t NP C o n s t r a i n t .  This  d e l e t i o n o f a n NP i n a r e l a t i v e t o and c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h should  preposing  NP.  As y o u c a n s e e f r o m t h e above  generate  clause  be " t h e n e a r e s t  constraint allows the clause  t h e h e a d NP.  not only  which  i s nearest  This nearest  i n the l i n e a r  NP  arrange-  ment, b u t a l s o i n t e r m s o f t h e number o f i n t e r v e n i n g nodes." Now, First,  l e t u s examine  h i s argument  h i s so-called unnatural  t h a t t h e r e l a t i v i z e d NP must move  l e f t w a r d away f r o m t h e h e a d NP i s b y no means b e c a u s e he h i m s e l f ization  steps.  admits the claim.that  persuasive  " since  i s n o t a movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,  this  relative argument  does n o t h o l d . " ^ R e l a t i v i z a t i o n a s a d e l e t i o n p r o c e s s nothing  t o do w i t h  the Cross-over  has  C o n d i t i o n b e c a u s e we do  88  not have t o move a r e l a t i v i z e d  NP.  As f o r h i s second argument, he says t h a t "the o t h e r argument t h a t t h e backward d e l e t i o n a c r o s s t h e sentence i s u n n a t u r a l s t i l l h o l d s " even i f r e l a t i v i z a t i o n movement t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . ^  i s not a  The reason why t h i s backward  d e l e t i o n i s u n n a t u r a l i s n o t c l e a r t o us.  The o n l y example  he g i v e s us i s the f o l l o w i n g  (6) (a)  *musume-ga zibun^-o k o r o s i - t a otoko^ daughter  (Lit.) (b)  self  * [zibun^-no] musume-ga  (Lit.)  daughter  0  k o r o s i - t a otoko^  0  killed  man  t h e person^ whose., daughter k i l l e d him^  He says t h e reason why sentences  Constraint.  man  * t h e person^ whose^ daughter k i l l e d him^'  self's  grammatical  killed  1  (6.a) and (6.b) a r e un-  i s t h a t these sentences v i o l a t e t h e .Nearest NP Note h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e (7) o f (6. a , b8) ;  (7)  otoko^ otoko^ k o r o s i - t a  otoko.  89  N e i t h e r NP^ n o r NP^ can be d e l e t e d .  T h i s i s because they  do not meet the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t . i s not n e a r e s t i s not n e a r e s t , vening  nodes.  t o NP  S p e c i f i c a l l y NP^  i n the l i n e a r arrangement, and NP^  2  either,  i n terms o f t h e number o f i n t e r -  But i n s p i t e  of this f a i l u r e to f u l f i l l  the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t , NP^ i s d e l e t e d i n ( 6 . a ) , and NPj^ i s d e l e t e d i n ( 6 . b ) . are unacceptable.  Therefore,  According  the derived  sentences  t o Muraki, i n s t e a d o f ( 6 ) ,  n a t i v e speakers use ( 8 ) i n t h e i r speech, where the cor e f e r e n t i a l NP^ which meets t h i s c o n s t r a i n t i s r e l a t i v i z e d and d e l e t e d ^ of  Figure  ( 9 ) i s h i s underlying  structure  phrase ( 8 ) . (8)  [  s  [ g Z i b u n ^ - n o ] musume-ni k o r o s - a r e - t a ] l  daughter-by k i l l e d - b e - p a s t man  self's ( L i t . ) ' the man  otoko^  i  who.^ was k i l l e d by h i s  i  own  daughter ' (9)  NP,  otoko^ koros-are  otoko NP/--no I  6  otoko^  musume  90  The above i s h i s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the n e c e s s i t y o f the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t . As a c o n c l u s i o n , he  says,  I f the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e d i d not follow the head noun, the c o n s t r a i n t would have to be more complicated. I t would have to b l o c k the r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of any noun unless i t i s l i n e a r l y most d i s t a n t from but h i e r a r c h i c a l l y ( t h a t i s , i n terms of nodes) n e a r e s t to the c o r e f e r e n t i a l head noun phrase. Since the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t i s much simpler, i t supports the argument t h a t the r e l a t i v e clause should f o l l o w the head noun i n the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e . 1 0  Let us examine h i s argument. To b e g i n with, be unacceptable  (i)  i t can not be denied t h a t (6) might  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  When one  reasons.  speaks about a person, e s p e c i a l l y a  s u f f e r e r , i t i s n a t u r a l t o t a l k about the person from the p o i n t of view o f the v i c t i m , t h a t i s , t o speak of him Therefore, of 'the man'  as the s u b j e c t of a sentence.  i n t h i s case when we want to speak i n the form of a r e l a t i v e  con-  s t r u c t i o n , the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e w i l l be n a t u r a l l y i n the p a s s i v e form with ject.  'the man'  as the sub-  91 (ii)  P l e a s e r e f e r back t o sentences (6.a) and  (6.b)  and Muraki's t r e e diagram (7).  Whether  or n o t we f o l l o w h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e , r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n (7) i s blocked anyway because i t does n o t s a t i s f y the S u b j e c t antecedent  Condition.  1 1  Now, we c o u l d e x p l a i n the grammatical nature without  the h e l p o f the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t . We  o f (8) consider  t h a t sentence (8) can be d e r i v e d from (10) f o l l o w i n g the steps s p e c i f i e d below.  (10)  otoko  NP,  V  S  rareta  •2  I  korosu  V  NP -ga 8  musume  otoko  aru  The  necessary  steps  (i)  The  deletion relativization  (ii)  The  genitive  formation  verts  zibun-ni  aru  (iii)  The  reflexivization  identity cedent (iv)  The tity  (v)  w i t h NP^,  with  The  the  under  the  Subject-ante-  NP^  under  iden-  NP^  v e r b - r a i s i n g of korosu, which  combines  rareta  tree-pruning  of  Sg.  w h i c h makes a  constituent  h i g h e r sentence  S^  The we  of the  backward d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n doubt the  Does t h e  underlying following  o f NP^  z i b u n - n o musume  Secondly,  my  con-  complement s u b j e c t  (vii)  his  which  Condition  k o r o s u and  Constraint.  by  NPg  zibun-no  equi-NP d e l e t i o n o f  The  (vi)  into  in  of  adequacy of the  constraint  structure  sentences:  of  constitute a  a relative  clause?  the  of  NP  Nearest  NP  support  for  Observe  93 (11)  jjj&ibun^-ga self  undaj  kodomo-dake-ga  gave-birth-to  child  0  only  kawaii} dear-is  Hanako^ (Lit.)  * Hanako., t o whom o n l y t h e c h i l d s h e . b o r e i s d e a r . / Hanako., who l i k e s o n l y t h e c h i l d s h e ^ gave b i r t h t o . '  (12) [Qjcaze-de n e t u - g a a cold-with h a i r u j koto-ga take (Lit.)  a t t e ] -mo 0  fever 0  is  sukinaj  that  even  huro-ni bath  Taroo  likable  ' T a r o . , t o whom t a k i n g a b a t h i s l i k a b l e even I f he. has a f e v e r w i t h a c o l d . , / T a r o ^ , wno l i k e s t a k i n g a b a t h ...  These sentences Take  0  (11)  seem t o b e p e r f e c t t o n a t i v e a s a n example.  w o u l d be r e p r e s e n t e d a s (13)  speakers.  The u n d e r l y i n g  i f we f o l l o w  structure  Muraki.  (13)  Hanako.  kodomo  unda  94  In f i g u r e  (13),  NP^ does n o t s a t i s f y the  Nearest NP  C o n s t r a i n t l i n e a r l y and NP^ does n o t s a t i s f y i t h i e r a r c h i c a l ly.  Therefore,; they can not be d e l e t e d by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n  i f the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t i s c o r r e c t . must be d e l e t e d t o generate Similarly,  observe  l y i n g structure of  phrase  But i n f a c t , NPj^  (11).  (14). T h i s r e p r e s e n t s t h e under-  phrase,  (12) when we f o l l o w Muraki's  argument. (14)  NP -ga. NPi.-ni A3 I 4  S-mo  Q  Taroo^ NP -de  l 5 c  kaze  NPr-ga  |6  netu  NP„-ni  i 7  i  ° R  Taroo.  are  V  i  Taroo. a r u  NP -ga  In  NP -ni i 9 Q  huro  (14), none o f the p r e f e r e n t i a l  d e l e t a b l e because  s u k i da  V  i  hairu  NP^, NP^, and NP  of t h e f a i l u r e t o s a t i s f y h i s con-  g  95 straint.  In o t h e r words, the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t b l o c k s  grammatical phrases  (11) and  (12)  incorrectly.  I t must be noted t h a t i n f i g u r e s  (13)  and  (14), we  do not p o s t u l a t e t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s cont a i n the thematic NP's.  T h i s i s because  Muraki  argues  a g a i n s t Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP must be thematic, and he h i m s e l f does not use the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e s t r u c t u r e with a thematic Now, (11)  NP.  i f we admit t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of  c o n t a i n s a thematic NP,  we  can generate phrase  without Muraki's s t r u c t u r e and h i s c o n s t r a i n t . (15)  Figure  i s the u s u a l u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of phrase  and i t c o n t a i n s thematic NP's, To generate  (11)  NP^  and  from f i g u r e  (ii) (iii)  The d e l e t i o n of NP  g  (11)  NPg.  (15),  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s would be as f o l l o w s : (i)  the n e c e s s a r y '  under i d e n t i t y w i t h  The d e l e t i o n of NPg by  (11)  NPg.  relativization.  The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n of NP  ?  under i d e n t i t y  w i t h a thematic NP^ by the Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n proposed by M. Ohso, who  says t h a t  the theme o f a sentence can be the antecedent o f a r e f l e x i v e pronoun.  12  96 (iv)  The d e l e t i o n o f NP^ by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n .  (15)  Hanako Hanako NP^-dake-ga kawaii  (sono)kodomo  r  NP -ga 7  Hanako  NPo-o  i  kodomo  V I  und a  Thus, we a r r i v e a t phrase (11). I t i s t r u e t h a t the thematic NP^ i s l i n e a r l y most d i s t a n t from, b u t h i e r a r c h i c a l l y n e a r e s t  t o the head NP , 2  as Muraki i n d i c a t e s , and t h a t t o d e l e t e t h i s NP^, the d e l e t i o n o p e r a t i o n a p p l i e s backward a c r o s s S  2  and S^.  why i s t h i s k i n d o f backward d e l e t i o n u n n a t u r a l ?  But  We a r e  97  not g i v e n s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s k i n d o f unnaturalness.  Observe the f o l l o w i n g example where back-  ward d e l e t i o n a c r o s s the sentence o c c u r s .  (16) (a)  k e n s o n s i t e [ z i b u n ^ - g a binboo da] t o humbly  Hanako-ni  self  poor  is  that  ittaj  koto-ga kekkateki-ni-wa  said  that  resultingly  Taroo^-no s i t u r e n - n i t u n a g a t t e i r u . disappointed-love-with connected-is ( L i t . ) • That Taro humbly s a i d t o Hanako ( t h a t ) he was poor i s as the r e s u l t r e l a t e d t o h i s s i s a p p o i n t e d l o v e . * / "That Taro s a i d humbly t o Hanako t h a t he was poor r e s u l t e d i n h i s f a i l u r e t o win her.' (b) [ r a r o o ^ - g a k e n s o n s i t e [zibun^-ga binboo d a j to Hanako-ni i t t a ] koto-ga kekkateki-ni-wa kare^-no s i t u r e n - n i t u n a g a t t e i r u . F i g u r e (17) on the next page r e p r e s e n t s the underl y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f sentences (16.a) and  (l6.b).  The  n e c e s s a r y o p e r a t i o n s f o r d e r i v i n g (l6.a) from (17) would be» (i)  The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n o f N P  1 Q  under i d e n t i t y w i t h  NP,- by the Subject-antecedent C o n d i t i o n .  98  (ii) (iii) (iv)  The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f The g e n i t i v e f o r m a t i o n i n  NP . g  ( n i a r u —* n o ) ,  The d e l e t i o n o f NP^ under i d e n t i t y w i t h NP  rt  Taroo-no.  zibun^  Here, the backward d e l e t i o n across sentence; supposed t o o c c u r i n ( i v ) . existence  I f we do not p o s t u l a t e  o f t h i s backward d e l e t i o n , we d e r i v e o n l y  is the (16.b)  and  not  (16.a).  Sentence  ( l 6 . b ) w o u l d be  d e r i v e d by  the  following transformations t  ( i ) i—* (iv)  ( i i i ) The The  with  In the  same a s  p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n o f NP^  under  identity  NP^.  above s t e p  (iv), reflexivization  a p p l y t o NP<j b e c a u s e t h e the  (l6.a).  antecedent  NP^  does  does n o t  Command C o n d i t i o n o f r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  not  safisfy  which i s propos-  13 ed b y  N.A.  antecedent  McCawley.  This  of a r e f l e x i v e  sentence but  condition requires that  not  o n l y be  must a l s o command t h e  the  subject of  reflexive.  example shows t h a t b a c k w a r d d e l e t i o n a c r o s s t h e i s used  the  The  a  above  sentence  i n Japanese. Finally,  another  besides  nominalizing  a relative  c o n s t r u c t i o n , we  c o n s t r u c t i o n , where a  have  sentence  precedes a s e t o f n o n - a b s t r a c t n o m i n a l i z e r s (Makino's t e r m i n o l o g y ) s u c h as h a z u ' i n e v i t a b i l i t y ; e x p e c t a t i o n ' , keikoo'  tendency*,  saityuu  'the m i d s t  o f  etc., or  l i k e no,  koto  * thing  a  Ik set  of abstract nominalizers  *.  100  Observe the f o l l o w i n g sentence:  (18)  [[Taroo-ga soko-e there  iku ]  s  go  hazu-ga J reason  not-is  ( L i t . ) • There i s no r e a s o n t h a t Taro goes t h e r e . /Taro i s not expected to go t h e r e . '  As Makino says ,  x:>  t h i s k i n d of c o n s t r u c t i o n i s not  supposed t o be a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n because a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n must meet the i d e n t i t y c o n d i t i o n i n the underl y i n g s t r u c t u r e , but i n (18) t h i s i s not the case.  That i s ,  the embedded sentence i n (18) does not have the i d e n t i c a l NP  hazu. However, i n s p i t e of t h i s s y n t a c t i c d i f f e r e n c e ,  t h i s construction i s s i m i l a r to a r e l a t i v e i n t h a t both c o n s t r u c t i o n s s t r u c t i o n s as a whole.  constitute nominalizing  s t r u c t u r e s of both  are s i m i l a r i n some r e s p e c t s , as i n (a) NP  con-  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n a t u r a l t o pos-  t u l a t e t h a t the u n d e r l y i n g  (19)  construction  constructions  (19). (b) NP  101 However, Muraki*s u n d e r l y i n g two  constructions  (20)  seem t o be  Observe  that i s , a r e l a t i v e - c l a u s e  As a c o n c l u s i o n , we underlying  (20).  (b)  h i s d e r i v a t i o n of r e l a t i v i z a t i o n r e q u i r e s  e x t r a step — —  are  i n c l i n e d to r e j e c t h i s  C o n s t r a i n t vacuous.  t o the s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t e d  correct underlying  an  preposing.  structure f o r r e l a t i v e constructions  s i d e r h i s Nearest NP subscribe  quite d i f f e r e n t .  (a)  Therefore,  s t r u c t u r e s f o r these  in  and  con-  We would r a t h e r  (19.b) as the  s t r u c t u r e f o r Japanese r e l a t i v e  con-  structions.  3.3  COPYING RELATIVIZATION  In t h i s s e c t i o n , we w i l l examine Muraki's c l a i m t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a copying He  transformation.  says i n h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , "Thematization  and  102  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n are both copying r u l e s . " ^ . 1  Observe the  f o l l o w i n g sentences which he uses t o support h i s hypothesis ?^ (21)  hito  i  £  T  s  s  person  the person's  hito-^ [  s  h i t o ^ tg ^[g  sono h i t o ^ - n o ] hon-ga yoku u r e r u ]  Cg  book  zibun^-nojhon-ga  well  sell  yoku u r e r u ]  hon-ga yoku u r e r u ]  hon-ga yoku u r e r u ] h i t o ^  ( L i t . ) ' t h e p e r s o n ^ whose^ books s e l l w e l l * (22)  hito- [  s  [g  person  the person's  h i t o ^ tg ^[g  [g  sono h i t o ^ - n o ] hon-ga yoku u r e r u ]  Ts  book  well  sell  zibun^-no] hon-ga yoku u r e r u ]  zibun^-no] hon-ga yoku u r e r u ] h i t o ^  ( L i t . ) ' the p e r s o n ^ whose^ books s e l l w e l l ' Now,  do the above d e r i v a t i o n s show t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n  i s a copying r u l e ? ative.  I t seems t h a t the answer i s i n the neg-  N o t i c e t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n operates o n l y when an  embedded NP i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l hito  w i t h a m a t r i x NP.  The  first  'person' i n (21) o r (22) i s the NP which o r i g i n a l l y  exists  i n each m a t r i x sentence, and never the NP c o p i e d  from the embedded sentence.  F o r example, suppose (21) o r  103  (22)  i s contained i n a m a t r i x sentence as i n (23.c).  N o t i c e t h a t the word-order of (23.c) i s based on h i s argur ment.  (23) (a)  Hito^-wa u r e s i i , person  (matrix  sentence)  happy-is  ( L i t . ) ' (The) person i s happy.* (b) £sono hito.-noJ hon-ga yoku u r e r u . ( c o n s t i t u e n t sentence) (c)  H i t o ^ [[sono h i t o ^ - n o ] hon-ga yoku u r e r u ] person  the person's  book  -wa  well s e l l  ures i i . happy-is ( L i t . ) 'The  person whose books s e l l w e l l i s happy.'  The u n d e r l i n e d head NP h i t o e x i s t s o r i g i n a l l y i n . t h e m a t r i x sentence and i s not d e r i v e d by copying.  I f we  con-  s i d e r e d r e l a t i v i z a t i o n t o be copying, we would have the  fol-  lowing s t r u c t u r e l change (23»d).from (£3.c):  (23) (d) frHito^ h i t o . ureru]-wa (Lit.)  [[sono h i t o - n o ] hon-ga yoku  uresii.  i  0  'The person^ the person^ whose^ books w e l l i s happy.'  sell  104  However, h i s d e r i v a t i o n s do not have such a d e r i v a t i o n a l s t r i n g as i s shown i n (23,d). I t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t he would propose the same under18 l y i n g s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s claimed by Schachter. low Schachter,  I f we  fol-  the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of (23.c) would be  roughly r e p r e s e n t e d as (24). (24)  1  sono h i t o  hon  According t o Schachter's a n a l y s i s , the NP sono h i t o  kaita  2  i n S^  'the person' must "promote" t o the p l a c e o f the  head NP by copying r e l a t i v i z a t i o n and r e p l a c e a dummy  105 symbol.  Then the o r i g i n a l NP  in  2  i s d e l e t e d o r pro-  nominal i zed. However, M u r a k i s u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e 1  construc-  t i o n s show t h a t he does not argue t h a t the head NP i s a dummy symbol.  He a l s o does not say anything about the  r e l a t e d problems which w i l l n a t u r a l l y a r i s e from the  19 above S c h a c h t e r i a n  Promotion A n a l y s i s .  Therefore,  h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of (23.c) must be (25), which meets the i d e n t i t y c o n d i t i o n .  (25)  sono h i t o  i  hon  kaita,  I f (25) r e p r e s e n t s h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e , how h i s copying r e l a t i v i z a t i o n apply t o the NP^  i n S- and t o  does  which node does i t copy the embedded NP^?  There are no  t r a c e s o f copying i n h i s d e r i v a t i o n s (21) and (22). Thus, we can say t h a t h i s r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s not a copying t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n Ross's sense o f the term. Rather, judging from h i s d e r i v a t i o n s , h i s r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a kind of feature-changing  r u l e because the head  changes the i d e n t i c a l embedded NP i n t o a r e f l e x i v e .  NP But  t h i s r e f l e x i v e i n (21) and (22) i s supposed t o be d e r i v e d by a d i f f e r e n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and i t s antecedent i s not the head NP.  T h i s problem w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the next  chapter.  3.4  CONCLUSION  To summarize the o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h i s chapter,  we  have d i s c u s s e d the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s .  a.  Muraki's u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e of a r e l a t i v e clause.  b.  H i s argument t h a t Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a copying  c.  transformation.  The n e c e s s i t y of the Nearest NP C o n s t r a i n t  107  With r e s p e c t t o p o i n t ( a ) , we have d e t a i l e d t h a t h i s two arguments f o r h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e s do not hold.  H i s f i r s t argument i s n o t c o n v i n c i n g because as he  h i m s e l f a d m i t s , Japanese  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s n o t a movement  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , and t h e d e l e t i o n o f the r e l a t i v i z e d NP  has  n o t h i n g t o do w i t h the C r o s s - o v e r C o n d i t i o n . H i s second argument t h a t t h e backward d e l e t i o n a c r o s s the sentence i s u n n a t u r a l and t h a t t h e Nearest  NP  C o n s t r a i n t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e b l o c k of u n a c c e p t a b l e sentences i s not persuasive,  either.  the u n a c c e p t a b i l i t y of (6.a)  and (6.b)  We have shown t h a t does n o t a r i s e from  t h e v i o l a t i o n o f the N e a r e s t NP C o n s t r a i n t b u t i t i s unacceptable  f o r other reasons.  We have a l s o o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e N e a r e s t NP  Constraint  i s u n t e n a b l e s i n c e i t b l o c k s g r a m m a t i c a l sentences i n c o r r e c t l y and t h a t Japanese has the backward d e l e t i o n a c r o s s t h e s e n t e n c e , i n s p i t e of M u r a k i ' s argument. We have seen t h a t i n c o n n e c t i o n  with a non-relative  but n o m i n a l i z i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , h i s u n d e r l y i n g structure i s unnatural.  relative  We a s s e r t i n t h i s chapter t h a t the r e l a t i v i z e d i s the n e a r e s t t o the head NP o n l y i n terras of  NP  structural  hierarchy. Finally,  we have d i s c u s s e d h i s copying r e l a t i v i z a -  t i o n and have found t h a t h i s r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s not a copyi n g r u l e , but seems more l i k e a f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g  rule.  We w i l l demonstrate i n the next chapter t h a t i t i s not a f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g r u l e , d i s c u s s Kuno's hypotheses  either.  about Japanese  A l s o , we  shall  relativization.  109 CHAPTER I I I NOTES 1.  Muraki, " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , P s e u d o - c l e f t i n g and  T h e m a t i z a t i o n , " pp. 37~5k  2.  I b i d . , p. 42.  3.  I b i d . , p. 43.  4.  I b i d . , p. 51.  5.  I b i d . , p. 5^.  6.  Ibid.  7.  I b i d . , p. 51.  8.  Ibid.  9.  I b i d . , pp. 51 f .  &  190.  10.  I b i d . , p. 54.  11.  See p.62 i n Chapter I I o f t h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s .  12. Mieko Ohso, "A Remark on Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n As a Process o f D e l e t i o n , " (unpublished paper, 1972), p. 7» 13. N.A. MeCawley, "A Study of Japanese p. 12. 14.  Reflexivization,"  Makino, Some Aspects o f Japanese N o m i n a l i z a t i o n s , pp.  112-115.  ~~  15.  I b i d . , p. 106.  16.  Muraki, op. c i t . , p. 190.  17.  I b i d . , pp. 50 f .  18.  Schachter, "Focus and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " p .  35.  19. Schachter terms h i s own a n a l y s i s Promotion A n a l y s i s , while he c a l l s t h e u s u a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f r e l a t i v i z a t i o n Matching A n a l y s i s . Concerning t h e problems which w i l l n a t u r a l l y a r i s e from h i s Promotion A n a l y s i s , see Schachter, "Focus and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " pp. 3 8 ^ 4 0 .  CHAPTER IV  KUNO'S HYPOTHESES AND JAPANESE REFLEX IVIZ AT ION  4.1  AN EXAMINATION OF KUNO'S HYPOTHESES  In t h i s chapter, we w i l l d i s c u s s whether r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a feature-changing r u l e .  Kuno claims t h a t a r e l a -  t i v i z a b l e NP sometimes l e a v e s a ( r e f l e x i v e ) pronoun b e h i n d . We w i l l examine h i s examples and r e j e c t h i s c l a i m , based on h i s another h y p o t h e s i s about r e l a t i v i z a t i o n and some knowledge o f Japanese p e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .  We w i l l i n t r o d u c e a few  c o n d i t i o n s o f Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . Kuno mentions the f o l l o w i n g i n h i s p a p e r .  1  a.  Both themes and r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s can, under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , r e t a i n pronouns i n the p o s i t i o n f o r m e r l y occupied by t h e o r i g i n a l noun phrase t h a t has been thematized o r r e l a tivized.  b.  I t i s n o t t h e case t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l noun phrase can remain as a ( r e f l e x i v e T pronoun unconditionally. I t i s n o t c l e a r under what c o n d i t i o n s o r i g i n a l noun phrases can remain i n the form o f ( r e f l e x i v e ) pronouns a f t e r thematization.  Ill  c.  One t h i n g t h a t i s c l e a r i s t h a t such noun phrases must be l e f t - b r a n c h i n g noun phrases.  Kuno's statement above l e a d s us to suspect Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a k i n d o f rule, as we  have d i s c u s s e d  feature-changing  i n the p r e c e d i n g  Let us examine whether o r not he  chapter.  i s r i g h t and  whether  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n a f f e c t s the r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n o r the nominalization  o f the o r i g i n a l  that  pro-  NP.  Before our i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t must be noted t h a t the above mentioned l e f t - b r a n c h i n g NP's  are d e f i n e d  by  Kuno a s :  d.  For example; John's i n John's b r o t h e r , John's b r o t h e r ' s w i f e . John's b r o t h e r s w i f e ' s s i s t e r , e t c . , i s a l e f t - b r a n c h i n g noun phrase. S i m i l a r l y , John i n John no o t t o t o no okusan no imooto "John's b r o t h e r ' s wife's s i s t e r " i s l e f t branching. 2  A l s o , we They are as  must have Kuno's o t h e r hypotheses i n mind.  follows:  e.  Themes e x i s t i n the deep s t r u c t u r e of thematic sentences.3  f.  R e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese a p p l i e s , not t o an o r d i n a r y noun phrase^ but t o the theme NP-wa o f the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  112  F i r s t , observe h i s f o l l o w i n g examples  (1) (a)  Sono kodomo-ga Mary-o b u t t a . the  (Lit.)  child  struck  ' The c h i l d s t r u c k Mary.*  *Sono kodomo-wa ( zibun 1 -ga Mary-o b u t t a . ) self \ kare \ ^ he J * ( Zibun I -ga Mary-o b u t t a kodomo \ Kare J ~ ~  (b)  (c)  (Lit.)  ' the c h i l d who h i m s e l f s t r u c k Mary '  (2) (a)  Sono kodomo-no s e n s e i - g a the  child's  teacher  kootuuziko-de t r a f f i c accident-in  sinda. died ( L i t . ) ' The c h i l d ' s t e a c h e r was k i l l e d i n a t r a f f i c accident. ' (b)  Sono kodomo-wa zibun-no s e n s e i - g a kootuuziko-de sinda.  ( L i t . ) ' Speaking of the c h i l d , h i s t e a c h e r k i l l e d i n a t r a f f i c accident.' (c)  zibun-no s e n s e i - g a kootuuziko4desinda  (Lit.)  was  kodomo  ' the c h i l d whose ( h i s own) t e a c h e r k i l l e d i n a t r a f f i c accident '  was  113  (3) (a)  Zoo-no  hana-ga  elephant's trunk (Lit.) (b)  long-is  ' An elephant's t r u n k i s l o n g . '  Zoo-wa (sono ( i t s i t h e ) ) hana-ga n a g a i . (•sore-no ( t h a t ' s ) ) (»zibun-no ( s e l f ' s ) )  (Lit.) (c)  nagai.  * Speaking  (sono ) (*sore-no ) (»zibun-no)  o f an elephant, i t s trunk i s l o n g . '  hana-ga nagai zoo  ( L i t . ) * an elephant whose ( i t s ) trunk i s l o n g '  (4) (a)  Sono kodomo-ga kawaigatte the  child  i t a inu-ga  petting-was  dog  sinde simatta. died (Lit.)  (b)  ' The dog t h a t the c h i l d was p e t t i n g d i e d . '  Sono kodomo-wa zibun-ga kawaigatte i t a self inu-ga s i n d e s i m a t t a .  ( L i t . ) ' As f o r the c h i l d , the dog t h a t (he) h i m s e l f was p e t t i n g d i e d . *  114  (c)  zibun-ga kawaigatte i t a inu-ga sinde s i m a t t a kodomo  ( L i t . ) ' the c h i l d who the dog t h a t h i m s e l f was p e t t i n g d i e d '  (5)  Watakusi-ga T  (sono h i t o ( t h a t person))-no (kare (he) ) , (sp_ (that) )  1  8  namae-o wasurete name  (he)  s i m a t t a okyaku-san  have-forgotten  guest  ( L i t . ) * a guest whose name I have f o r g o t t e n *  Now,  Kuno's hypotheses  (e) and  ( f ) are c r u c i a l f o r  our examination o f h i s o t h e r hypotheses are  concerned here.  then each sentence  (a) ^ - ( c ) ,  which  I f h i s h y p o t h e s i s (e) i s c o r r e c t , (b) i n h i s examples (1) ~ ( 4 )  be d e r i v e d from i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g sentence ( a ) .  can not I f hy-  p o t h e s i s ( f ) i s c o r r e c t , t h e n an u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e  clause  must c o n t a i n a thematic sentence. Take (2,b) and of  (2.c).  The u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e  (2,b) would be r e p r e s e n t e d as (6)t  sensei,  kodomo.  aru  As i s shown i n (6), the thematic NP.^ has an i d e n t i c a l NP,p i n the comment-part. NPg.  As the h y p o t h e s i s  Similarly,  NP^ has an i d e n t i c a l  (e) shows, these thematic  NP's  s h o u l d e x i s t o r i g i n a l l y i n the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (2,b). And t h i s u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e (6) must be the u n d e r l y i n g relative  c l a u s e of (2.c) by v i r t u e  Thus, (2.c) would look l i k e  (7).  of h y p o t h e s i s ( f ) .  116 (7)  NPg-ga sensei.  NP -ni  V  kodomo.  aru  9  NP^^ i s a r e l a t i v e  c o n s t r u c t i o n , where NP  head NP and S-^ i s the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . theme and S  2  i s the comment-part.  2  i s the  In S-^, NP^ i s the  In S , t h e r e 2  i s another  r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , where NPg i s the head NP and the r e l a t i v e the  clause which contains  comment sentence S^.  (2.c)  the t h e m a t i c NPr, and  Thus, from (7), we can get  i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way.  is  117  ( i ) The d e l e t i o n of NPg under i d e n t i t y with  NP^  ( i i ) The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f NPr,. ( i i i ) The g e n i t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , n i a r u ' e x i s t ' to_no' (iv)  which converts  's'.  The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n o f NP^ under i d e n t i t y with  NP . 3  We now have the f o l l o w i n g  structure.  (8)  The f i n a l process w i l l be the f o l l o w i n g ! (v) The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f The d e r i v e d  sentence i s ( 2 . c ) .  NP^.  N b t i c e i n (8) t h a t i n S  cycle,  NPg  has a l r e a d y changed i n t o  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of the thematic NP^ t i v i z a t i o n of NP^  z i b u n b e f o r e the and t h a t the  o n l y r e q u i r e s i t s d e l e t i o n , and has  t h i n g t o do w i t h the r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n step ( i v ) generates a r e f l e x i v e  reflexive In s p i t e  o f NPg.  final  i t does not leave  behind.  of h i s f i r s t  h i s o t h e r hypotheses (e) and that h i s hypothesis  statements,  i f we f o l l o w  ( f ) c o n s i s t e n t l y , we  find  (a) t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n l e a v e s the  r e l a t i v i z e d NP as a ( r e f l e x i v e )  pronoun i s  incorrect.  Rather, we would say t h a t b e f o r e r e l a t i v i z a t i o n underlying r e l a t i v e  no  That i s ,  z i b u n and the  r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s o n l y a d e l e t i o n and i t s own  rela-  the  c l a u s e has a l r e a d y undergone the  a p p l i c a t i o n of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ,  and t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n  i s n e i t h e r copying nor f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g . ^ In the p r e c e d i n g chapter, we have observed t h a t Muraki's r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s not a copying r u l e but i t seems more l i k e a f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g r u l e .  But here  we  must re-examine the example i n q u e s t i o n t o see whether Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a r e a l f e a t u r e - c h a n g i n g  rule.  Based on Kuno's two hypothses  (e) and  ( f ) , we  could  p o s t u l a t e t h a t the f o l l o w i n g example (9) has i t s underl y i n g s t r u c t u r e (10).  (9)  Zibun.-no self's  hon-ga u r e r u bqok  hito-wa  uresii.  person  happy-is  sell  ( L i t . ) * The person whose book s e l l s ( w e l l ) i s happy.'  (10)  (sono)hito  (sono)hon  kaita  120 The p r o c e s s o f d e r i v a i o n would be as f o l l o w s .  ( i ) The d e l e t i o n of NPg under i d e n t i t y with  NPg.  ( i i ) The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f NPg. ( i i i ) The g e n i t i v e f o r m a t i o n i n S^.  NP hon  hon NP  ?  NPg I hon  5  NP -(ia  N  ?  (sono; h i t o \ k a i t a  V hon  no  0 ( i v ) The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n of NP^ under i d e n t i t y with  NP,,-no  •J  zibun^  NP  J  hon  ureru e  NP^.  121 (v) The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f  NP  V  We n o t i c e from the above t h a t we a l r e a d y have a reflexive  pronoun by step  ( i v ) and a f t e r t h a t we have a  deletion relativization.  Therefore,  t h a t the head NP  the r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  2  affects  Thus, we may say t h a t Japanese never a feature-changing  rule.  i t i s not the case  relativization i s  I t seems t h a t r e l a t i v i z a -  t i o n operates t o d e l e t e the thematic NP i n the relative  c l a u s e , which i s h i e r a r c h i c a l l y  to the head  of NP.-,.  underlying  the n e a r e s t  NP  NP.  Let us r e t u r n t o Kuno's examples.  F i r s t , observe  the remote s t r u c t u r e of ( 4 . c ) . (12)  We have the f o l l o w i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  to derive  (4.c) from (12). (i) (ii) (iii)  The d e l e t i o n 6f  NPg under i d e n t i t y with  NPg.  The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of NPg. The r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n o f NP  ?  under i d e n t i t y  of NP^  T h i s r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n would be o p t i o n a l because we can d e l e t e NPr, i n s t e a d o f a r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n formation.  trans-  123 (iv)  The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f NP^.  In t h i s case, t o o , r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e d e e p l y embedded NP^ under i d e n t i t y w i t h the thematic NP^ b e f o r e the d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f N P y Here, we must note t h a t Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s ( c ) i s not  c l e a r t o us t h a t t h e r e t a i n e d pronoun a f t e r r e l a t i v i z a -  t i o n i s a l e f t - b r a n c h i n g NP l i k e John's i n John's o r John-no i n John-no o t o o t o .  brother  I f he means by i t t h a t a  l e f t - b r a n c h i n g NP i s r e s t r i c t e d t o a g e n i t i v e NP, h i s h y p o t h e s i s does n o t f u l f i l l ed t o have.  the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i t i s c l a i m -  Because as zibun-ga t h e s u b j e c t  r e l a t i v e clause  NP i n the  i n (4„c) shows, t h i s o s t e n s i b l y  pronoun does n o t always have a g e n i t i v e form.  retained Rather, we  should say t h a t a t some stage o f d e r i v a t i o n , some d e e p l y embedded NP g e t s r e f l e x i v i z e d o r p r o n o m i n a l i z e d under certain conditions.  The reason why a l e f t - b r a n c h i n g  g e n i t i v e NP undergoes r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s t h a t the g e n i t i v e NP i t s e l f i s o r i g i n a l l y an embedded sentence. Then, what a r e the c o n d i t i o n s  of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ?  In t h e next s e c t i o n , we w i l l examine some c o n d i t i o n s o f  124 reflexivization.  4.2  SOME CONSTRAINTS OF JAPANESE REFLEXIVIZATION  In t h i s s e c t i o n , we w i l l have only the i n t r o d u c t o r y and b r i e f e x p o s i t i o n o f Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n which i s necessary  f o r our f u r t h e r examination o f Kuno's examples.  We w i l l d i s c u s s some s a l i e n t p o i n t s o f Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a tion. The  Subject-antecedent  Condition  The r e f l e x i v e r e f e r s back t o the s u b j e c t i n the same simplex sentence o r the s u b j e c t i n any h i g h e r sentence.°  In E n g l i s h , the antecedent NP can be e i t h e r the s u b j e c t o r some o t h e r element i n t h e same simplex  sentence, but  N.A. McCawley claims t h a t i n Japanese the antecedent NP must be the s u b j e c t .  (13)  (a)  B i l l t a l k e d t o Mary^ about h e r s e l f ^ .  .(b) * B i l l - w a Mary-ni zibun-no k o t o - n i to s e l f hanasita. talked  's  thing  tuite about  125 (Lit.) ' B i l l  t a l k e d t o Mary^ about h e r s e l f ^ '  By v i r t u e of the Subject-antecedent C o n d i t i o n , the o n l y a c c e p t a b l e r e a d i n g of (13.b) i s i B i l l ^ t a l k e d t o Mary about h i m s e l f ^ . In  Japanese,  the antecedent NP and i t s r e f l e x i v e  do not have t o be i n the same simplex sentence.  (14)  Taroo-wa  zibun^-ga self  kaita  s  wrote  tegami-o letter  yomi k a e s i t a ; <. read again ( L i t . ) ' Taro^ r e - r e a d the l e t t e r which s e l f ^  wrote.'  Q  As N.A.  McCawley puts i t ' , Japanese 7  seems t o operate i n the same way  reflexivization  as E n g l i s h pronominal i z a-?  t i o n i n t h a t i t can e n t e r i n t o an embedded sentence, though i n r e a l i t y they do not operate e x a c t l y i n the same manner.  T h i s w i l l soon be d i s c u s s e d . As we  ive  can see i n (13)  and  (14), the Japanese  reflex-  takes one form z i b u n ' s e l f * , r e g a r d l e s s of person,  gender,and number. The Humanness C o n d i t i o n The antecedent must be human. 1  0  126  The Command Condition' The antecedent o f the r e f l e x i v e n o t o n l y must be the s u b j e c t b u t must a l s o command t h e r e f l e x i v e . To e x p l a i n t h e above c o n d i t i o n , N.A. MeCawley*s  12 f o l l o w i n g example may be c o n s i d e r e d . (15) (a)  H i r o s i ^ - g a ima gesyuku s i t e i r u i e - n i now board house-in H i r o s i ^ - w a moo go-nen-mo sunde i r u . already 5 years  (Lit.)  live  ' In t h e house where H i r o s i . boards now H i r o s i * has been l i v i n g as l o n g as f i v e years. 1  (b)  Zibun^-ga ima gesyuku s i t e i r u i e - n i self  now  board  house-in  H i r o s i ^ - w a moo go-nen-mo sunde i r u . already f i v e years (Lit.)  (c)  live  * In t h e house where s e l f , boards now H i r o s i * . has been l i v i n g as l o n g as f i v e years.*  * H i r o s i ^ - g a ima gesyuku s i t e i r u i e - n i now board  house-in  zibunj-wa moo go-nen-mo sunde i r u . self (Lit.)  already f i v e years  live  * In the house where H i r o s i , boards now s e l f , has been l i v i n g as l o n g as f i v e years.'  1 2 7  The n o t i o n o f  command  was proposed "by R.W.  Langacker i n h i s "on P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and the Chain o f 13 Command" i n such a way that» a node A "commands" another node B i f ( 1 ) n e i t h e r A n o r B dominates the o t h e r ; and ( 2 ) t h e S-node t h a t mostly immediately dominates A a l s o dominates B.  I f we f o l l o w N.A. McCawley, the remote s t r u c t u r e of the  above sentence would be  r o u g h l y r e p r e s e n t e d as ( 1 6 )  ( 1 6 )  gesyuku  Now, NP  2  site iru  commands NP^, but n o t v i c e v e r s a .  f o r e , NP^ can n o t be t h e antecedent o f NP tion.  (15.c)  i s ungrammatical  because  2  There-  i n reflexiviza-  i t violates  this  condition. We have seen t h a t E n g l i s h p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and  t  128  Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n operate i n the same way  i n the  sense t h a t both can e n t e r i n t o embedded sentences* However, as sentence  (15.c) shows, t h e i r b e h a v i o r i s not  e x a c t l y the same i n t h a t i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , n o t i o n of precede  r e l a t i o n does not p l a y so much an import-  ant r o l e as i n E n g l i s h p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n . was  the  a l s o proposed by R.W.  Precede^  relation  Langacker i n h i s above c i t e d  paper.  T h i s means t h a t the antecedent NP precedes the pronominal14 i z e d NP i n terms of l i n e a r o r d e r i n g o f c o n s t i t u e n t s . The l i k e - N P c o n s t r a i n t ^ 1  From the p r e c e d i n g f a c t s , I would l i k e t o propose t h a t Japanese has a s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t , the Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t , which d i s c a r d s the sentences as ungrammatical i f the r e f l e x i v e and i t s antecedent are i n peer r e l a t i o n s h i p . The n o t i o n o f 'peer* i s due t o P o s t a l (1970). P o s t a l d e f i n e s the NP's  which are peers i n the  f o l l o w i n g way. ^ 1  Two NP, NP, and NP » n e i t h e r o f which dominates the o t h e r n o r i s c o - o r d i n a t e with the o t h e r i n a phrase marker P are p e e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a node S., j u s t i n case the paths between each o f these NP and S. are such t h a t they c o n t a i n no NP-nodes not separated from the s t a r t i n g p o i n t NP, NP-, o r NP f by a node S. 2  2  The f o l l o w i n g two examples e x p l a i n the l i k e - N P constraint >  129 (17) (a)  *Taroo»wa zibun^-o self  (Lit.) ' Taro  (b)  tataita. hit  h i t himself .'  i  i  Taroo^-wa zibun^-no atama-o t a t a i t a , self's  head  ( L i t . ) ' Tare- h i t h i s  J L  hit  head.'  Sentences (17.a) and (17.h) would be r e p r e s e n t e d as (18.a) and (18.b) i f we f o l l o w N.A. McCawley's  analysis,  (18) (b)  Taroo  Taroo^  tataita  Taroo^  In are n o t .  (18.a), N P  1  and NP  T h e r e f o r e , NP  g  2  a r e peers, while NP  X  and NP^of (l&^b)  i n (18.a) can n o t be r e f l e x i v i z e d  but NP^ i n (18.b) can be a  reflexive.  The Highest NP C o n d i t i o n The antecedent  of the r e f l e x i v e  f o r Backward  130 R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n must be the h i g h e s t NP which s a t i s f i e s the humanness c o n d i t i o n . ••• We have to add a r e s t r i c t i o n f o r Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n w i t h i n s e n t e n t i a l l y - c o m p l e x NP s u b j e c t s t h a t i f the head NP i s human, Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s blocked. ' 1  •The h i g h e s t NP which s a t i s f i e s the humanness condition*  means here the h i g h e s t human noun i n the  hierarchy i n a given structure.  'A  structural  sententially-complex  NP s u b j e c t ' i s a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n which f u n c t i o n s 18 as a s u b j e c t i n a sentence.  The f o l l o w i n g sentence i s  19 T. Oyakawa's example. (19)  Hosyuseitoo-no ooboosa to zibun^-no conservative party's self's unreasonableness s i z i s i - t e k i - t a seitoo-no  huhai-ga  supported-had  c o r r u p t i o n the  gakusei-no student's  party's  otooto-no  sinyuu^-no  sono  sisoo-o  b r o t h e r ' s best f r i e n d ' s thought  muse'ihusyugi-e anarchism-to  katamuk-ase-ta. lean-cause-past  ( L i t . ) 'The unreasonableness of the Conservative P a r t y and the c o r r u p t i o n of the P a r t y t h a t s e l f , had supported made the thought o f the student's younger b r o t h e r ' s b e s t f r i e n d , l e a n towards anarchism.* 1  He  says the r e l e v a n t NP's  i n (19)  have the f o l l o w i n g s u r f a c e  131 structure i  (20) NP  NP  NP  sono gakusei  NP = antecedent  NP  a.  In  ( 2 0 ) , the h i g h e s t NP i s NP  sinyuu 'best f r i e n d *  which *  3.  can be the antecedent o f backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .  The Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n  This c o n d i t i o n seems t o be a k i n d o f the S u b j e c t antecedent C o n d i t i o n because M. Ohso h e r s e l f says t h a t the Subject-rantecedent C o n d i t i o n might have t o be changed  20 to the Theme-antecedent Conditon.  This condition requires  t h a t the antecedent o f a r e f l e x i v e be the theme o f a sentence. example  She e x p l a i n s the u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y  ( l . c ) c i t e d above i n the f o l l o w i n g  o f Kuno's  way.  21  132 (1) (c)  *Zibun.-ga Mary-o b u t t a kodomo^ self  struck  ( L i t . ) ' the c h i l d j who  child  h i m s e l f ^ s t r u c k Mary •  (21)  NPy-wa  kodomo^  NPj.-ga  kodomo^  NP.-o  Mary  V  butta  In the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f ( l . c ) , are i n a p e e r r e l a t i o n s h i p and so NP^ ized.  However* i n ( l . c ) , NP^  NP^ and  can not be  reflexiv-  i s r e f l e x i v i z e d w i t h the  r e s u l t t h a t the d e r i v e d sentence i s ungrammatical. stead o f  NP^  In-  r e " f r e x i " v i z a t i o n / r P ^ must undergo;the o b l i g a t o r y  deletion. The above s i x c o n d i t i o n s are used f o r our examinat i o n s o f Kuno's remaining examples i n the f o l l o w i n g section.  133 4.3  THE SUBJECT-ANTECEDENT CONDITION AND THE THEMEANTECEDENT CONDITION  In s e c t i o n 4.1, we observed t h a t Kuno's r e t a i n e d ( r e f l e x i v e ) pronoun i s not the one which i s r e l a t i v i z e d but the one which has a l r e a d y been r e f l e x i v i z e d  o r prono-  m i n a l i z e d b e f o r e the d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f the n e a r e s t thematic NP. Let us r e t u r n t o h i s two remaining examples, where r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n does not a p p l y . example  Take Kuno's  (3.c) f i r s t . (sono  ) hana-ga n a g a i j trunk  zoo  l o n g - i s elephant  ( L i t . ) ' an elephant w h o s e ( i t s ) t r u n k i s l o n g '  (22)  NP-  The s i m p l i f i e d u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e (22) r e p r e s e n t s (3.c).  NP^ and NP^, which are i d e n t i c a l , a r e n o t p e e r s .  The antecedent NP^ i s the theme o f S^, but i t does n o t meet t h e Humanness C o n d i t i o n .  T h e r e f o r e , NP^ can not be  r e f l e x i v i z e d and i s p r o n o m i n a l i z e d . Sentence  (5) which  i s Kuno's l a s t example has t h e  f o l l o w i n g remote structure» w a t a k u s i -ga (sono h i t o ( kare ( so (*zibun  namae-o wasurete name  simatta  f o r g o t t e n have  ( t h a t person)) n o (he) ) (that) ) (self) ) r  s  okyaku-san guest  ( L i t . ) ' a guest whose name I have f o r g o t t e n '  (23)  wasurete  (sono) okyaku-san^ namae  simatta  135 F i g u r e (23) shows t h a t NP^ and NPg are i d e n t i c a l and n o t p e e r s .  NP^ meets the Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n  and the Humanness C o n d i t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , NPg should be reflexivized,  but i n f a c t ,  i t can n o t be.  be p r o n o m i n a l i z e d o r d e l e t e d . i s t h a t i f NPg i s r e f l e x i v i z e d , r e a d i n g t o the e f f e c t t h a t  I t can only  The p o s s i b l e answer t o i t the r e f l e x i v e  causes a  ' I have f o r g o t t e n my name'  because NP^ occurs e x a c t l y i n the p o s i t i o n the Sub.ject-antecedent C o n d i t i o n .  which s a t i s f i e s  I t i s the same case w i t h  my f o l l o w i n g example . (24) [boku-ga (sono. ( t h e ) ) (kare--no ( h i s ) ) I (*zibOn.-no ( s e l f ' s ) )  ( ~T~  —  nazukeoya-ni godfather  )  natt'a ~\ kodomo^ became ( L i t . ) ' the c h i l d ^ whose^ g o d f a t h e r I became '  (25)  (sono) kodomo.  nazukeoya  136 In  (25). NP^ meets both the Humanness C o n d i t i o n  and the Theme-antecedent reflexivized.  C o n d i t i o n but NPg can not be  However, observe the two o t h e r  examples  below» (26)  y a - g a (zibun.-no) u d e - n i a t a t t a (kare.-no ) arrow ( 0 ) arm-at shot (sono. )  samurai warrior  ( L i t . ) * the samurai^ a t whose^ arm an arrow shot ' (27)  Kodomotati-no booru-ga (zibun.-no) children's atatta  ball  (  T  (?kare»no  ~) )  atama-ni head  otoko-wa okotte s i m a t t a .  hit  man  got  angry  ( L i t . ) ' The man whose head the c h i l d r e n ' s b a l l h i t got very angry.' (28)  kodomotati  booru (sonoVotoko^  atama  137 Figure  (28) i s the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (27).  NPg are i d e n t i c a l . reflexivization,  NP^ and  NP^ can he t h e antecedent of NPg i n  though there i s an i n t e r v e n i n g s u b j e c t  NP^ between them. The above o b s e r v a t i o n suggests t h a t : ( i ) The Subject-antecedent  Condition  takes  precedence over t h e Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n . ( i i ) The Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n i s suspended, by v i r t u e o f the Subject-antecedent  Condition,  when the s u b j e c t which i n t e r v e n e s between a thematic (iii)  NP and i t s i d e n t i c a l NP i s human,  I f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g s u b j e c t i s n o t human, reflexivization  Kuno's example (5) and mine  applies.  (24) f a l l under the above case  ( i i ) , w h i l e sentences (26) and (27) under the case  4.4  (iii).  SUMMARY  In t h i s chapter, we have i n t r o d u c e d v a r i o u s of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n summarized below.  conditions  and d i s c u s s e d Kuno's hypotheses  138 a. A r e l a t i v i z e d NP l e a v e s  a (reflexive)  pronoun b e h i n d ,  c. Such an NP must be a l e f t - b r a n c h i n g NP. f . A r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s a thematic NP.  When we a n a l y z e h i s examples based on h i s hypothesis  ( f ) , we f i n d t h a t h i s h y p o t h e s i s  (a) i s f a l s e  ——  t h a t i s , an o s t e n s i b l y r e t a i n e d pronoun i s n o t d e r i v e d by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n but p r i o r t o d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i t has  been r e f l e x i v i z e ' d ,  o r p r o n o m i n a l i z e d by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  with some c o r e f e r e n t i a l  NP i n the u n d e r l y i n g  relative  clause. Concerning h i s h y p o t h e s i s ( e ) , we should  restate  h i s h y p o t h e s i s t o the e f f e c t t h a t such an NP i s n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o a l e f t - b r a n c h i n g g e n i t i v e NP.  I t involves a  deeply embedded NP and t h e r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n o f such an NP i s determined by v a r i o u s The  conditions  condition?  of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n are n e c e s s a r y  t o account f o r whether o r n o t r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e to a g i v e n  structure.  However, we have seen t h a t the  Theme-antecedent C o n d i t i o n  i s suspended i n c e r t a i n  cases.  This f a c t leads us t o suspect t h a t i t may be the case t h a t there  a r e some exceptions t o the c o n d i t i o n .  139 CHAPTER IV NOTES 1.  Kuno, Notes on Japanese Grammar, Chap. 19,  2.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, p. 5.  3.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, p.  11.  4.  I b i d . , Chap. 19,  p.  14.  5.  I b i d . , Chap. 18,  p. 4 & Chap. 19,  pp.  3~5.  p. 4 f .  6. I am indebted t o Ohso f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s . See Ohso, "A Remark on Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n As a Process o f D e l e t i o n , " pp. 1~7. 7.  See example (23) on pJ.03of t h e p r e s e n t  8. N.A. McCawley, "A Study o f Japanese p. 4. 9.  thesis.  Reflexivization,"  I b i d . , p. 5.  10. See Takatsugu Oyakawa, "Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n I , " Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 2 No. 1 (Summer, 1973), p. 95, and Susumu "Pronominalization, R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , and D i r e c t D i s c o u r s e , " L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y , V o l . 3, No. 2  Kuno7  (1972), pp. 177 f .  11.  N.A. McCawley, op. c i t . , p. 12.  12.  I b i d . , pp. 10 f .  13. Ronald W. Langacker, "On P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and the Chain o f Command," Modern S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h , ed. David A. R e i b e l and Sanford A. Schane (New J e r s e y 1 PrenticeH a l l , Inc., 1969), p. 167.  14.  I b i d . , pp. I65-I69.  15.  N.A. McCawley, op. c i t . , p. 30.  16.  Postal,  17.  Oyakawa, op. c i t . , pp. 115 &  18.  I b i d . , pp. 109 &  19.  I b i d . , p.  Cross-over Phenomena,  112.  113.  p. 121.  179.  20. Ohso, "A Remark on Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n a Process of D e l e t i o n , " p. 7. 21.  Ibid., p  3.  As  CHAPTER  V  RELATIVIZATION OF NOUN PHRASES IN ADVERBIAL CLAUSES  5.1  INTRODUCTION  In t h i s chapter, we w i l l examine another h y p o t h e s i s of Kuno's, e s p e c i a l l y with r e s p e c t an NP i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e conditions.  can be r e l a t i v i z e d under some  We w i l l analyze t h i s h y p o t h e s i s based on h i s  claim that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e followed  t o the p o s s i b i l i t y that  by wa.  NP i s a thematic NP immediately  We w i l l r e j e c t  h i s h y p o t h e s i s and conclude  t h a t a r e l a t i v i z e d NP i s t h e thematic NP which i s s t r u c t u r a l l y highest  5.2  i n the r e l a t i v e  clause.  KUNO'S HYPOTHESES  L e t us examine Kuno's c l a i m which f o l l o w s i  5.2.1  a.  An element o f an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e relativized. 1  can be  142  b.  I t i s not c l e a r , however, t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s f r e e l y a p p l i c a b l e t o elements i n a d v e r b i a l ..clauses, complex noun phrases and s e n t e n t i a l subjects. Although i t i s not c l e a r under what c o n d i t i o n s i t i s p o s s i b l e o r under what c o n d i t i o n i t i s not, i t i s c l e a r t h a t when t h e m a t i z a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , then r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a l s o p o s s i b l e .  2  Since Ross h i m s e l f admits t h a t Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s not  s u b j e c t t o h i s S e n t e n t i a l Subject  C o n s t r a i n t ? we  will  d i s c u s s here the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e l a t i v i z a t i o n of the NP an a d v e r b i a l  in  clause.  Before our examination o f Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s  cited  above, we must r e c a l l Kuno's important h y p o t h e s i s which we  used f o r our a n a l y s i s i n Chapter IV.  a g a i n and  c.  We  w i l l cite i t  c a l l i t hypothesis ( c ) .  R e l a t i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese a p p l i e s , not t o an o r d i n a r y noun phrase, but t o the theme NP - wa of the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e . 4  Now, as  observe Kuno's example below which he gave us  evidence f o r h i s h y p o t h e s i s ( a ) . ^  (1) (a)  Sono hito-wa, s i n d a the  person  died  node, minna-ga kanasinda, because  all  were-saddened  ( L i t . ) * Speaking o f t h a t person, everyone saddened because he d i e d , '  was  143 (b)  Sinda  node minna-ga k a n a s i n d a , h i t o  I f Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s (c) i s c o r r e c t , c o n s t r u c t i o n ( l . b ) c o n t a i n s sentence c l a u s e because  relative  ( l . a ) as the r e l a t i v e  ( l . a ) i s a thematized sentence.  The  under-  l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f ( l . b ) would be r o u g h l y r e p r e s e n t e d as  (2). (2)  sono h i t o ,  s inda ,  N o t i c e t h a t i n (2), S^, which r e p r e s e n t s the thematized sentence phrase NPg,  i s a relative  (l.a).  clause,  The head noun  the thematic noun phrase NP^ and t h e NP i n  the a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e , t h a t i s , NP^ generate ( l . b ) from f i g u r e derivational processt  are a l l i d e n t i c a l .  To  (2), we would have the f o l l o w i n g  144 (i)  The equi-NP d e l e t i o n o f NP^ under i d e n t i t y with  (ii)  NP^  The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f NP.,  J • The above example shows t h a t a t step  ( i ) , the NP i n  an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e i s d e l e t e d not by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n but by equi-NP d e l e t i o n . relative  At s t e p  ( i i ) , the thematic NP o f a  clause undergoes d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n .  In o t h e r  words, when we analyse Kuno's example, based on h i s hypothesis  (c) t h a t a r e l a t i v e  clause  contains  a thematic  NP, we w i l l have t o say t h a t an NP i n an a d v e r b i a l i s not r e l a t i v i z e d .  What i s r e l a t i v i z e d  clause  i s a thematic  NP.  We w i l l examine one more example o f Kuno's. Observe the f o l l o w i n g . ^  (3)  h a r a - i p p a i tabetara: ^> g e r i - o s i t e  simatta  b e l l y - f u l l when-I-ate d i a r r h e a doing  ended-up  okasi cookies-with •  ( L i t . ) ' cookies which, when we had g l u t t e d ours e l v e s w i t h (them), we ended up w i t h diarrhea * According  t o Kuno, i n (3)  o k a s i i n the a d v e r b i a l  145 c l a u s e h a r a - i p p a i t a b e - t a - r a i s d e l e t e d by r e l a t i v i z a t i o n . H i s c l a i m seems i n c o r r e c t .  I f we f o l l o w h i s hypothesis ( c ) ,  the remote s t r u c t u r e o f (3) would l o o k l i k e  (4), which  c o n t a i n s a thematized sentence S T as the r e l a t i v e  watakusi  h a r a - i p p a i sono o k a s i *  The r e l e v a n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s  (i)  clause.  tabe ta^  here are *  The equi-NP d e l e t i o n o f NPg under i d e n t i t y with the thematic noun phrase N P y transformation  (This  d e l e t e s the i d e n t i c a l  NP  i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e , (ii)  The d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f NP^, is  thematic.  which  146 T h i s example a l s o shows t h a t a r e l a t i v i z e d NP i s never an element  i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e , but a thematic NP  which i s s t r u c t u r a l l y h i g h e s t i n a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  Notice  t h a t when the r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f the theme o c c u r s , the i d e n t i c a l NP i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e has a l r e a d y been d e l e t e d .  5.2.2  Now, First,  l e t us examine Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s ( b ) . observe h i s example below.^  (5) (a)  Sono h i t o - g a dekinakereba, watakusi-ga y a r u . the person  if-cannot-do  I  do  ( L i t . ) * I f t h a t man can not do i t , I w i l l do i t . '  (b)  Sono hito-wa, dekinakereba, watakusi-ga y a r u .  ( L i t . ) * Speaking o f t h a t man, I w i l l do i t . '  (c)  dekinakereba, watakusi-ga y a r u h i t o  ( L i t . ) ' the person who, I w i l l do i t •  Why i s ( 5 . c ) ungrammatical? t h i s q u e s t i o n , because is,  i f he can not do i t ,  i f (he) con n o t do i t ,  I t i s easy t o answer  the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , t h a t  the thematized sentence ( 5 •*>')' i s unacceptable.  In o r d e r  147 t o v e r i f y t h i s , we w i l l g i v e the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (5«b), which i s r e p r e s e n t e d as f i g u r e  (6).  (6)  sono h i t o .  As Kuno p o i n t s out? ———  dekinai  i n (6),  dekinakereba wakakusi-ga  I w i l l do i t . '  — —  the comment-sentence Sg  y a r u ' i f (he) can not do i t ,  does n o t c o n s t i t u t e an a p p r o p r i a t e  statement about the thematic noun phrase NP^ •the person*.  sono h i t o  Rather, i t i s a statement about  something  t h a t the speaker says he w i l l do i f sono h i t o can not do i t . When the thematized sentence (5«c), which c o n t a i n s (5.b) also unacceptable.  (5»b) i s anomalous,  as the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e , i s  Thus, Kuno's c l a i m i s c o r r e c t t h a t i f  thematization i s possible^theii r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s also possible. N o t i c e t h a t t h i s means t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o  the h i g h e s t t h e m a t i c NP i n t h e r e l a t i v e  c l a u s e , o n l y when  the thematized r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i s a c c e p t a b l e .  Notice  a g a i n t h a t r e l a t i v i z a t i o n never a p p l i e s t o an NP i n an adverbial  5.3  clause.  SUMMARY  In t h i s chapter,  a.  we have observed the f o l l o w i n g t  When we c o n s i s t e n t l y assume t h a t a r e l a t i v e clause  contains  a thematized sentence, we must  r e j e c t Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s verbial •~ ;  clause  t h a t an NP i n an ad-  i s relativizable.  The NP i n  an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e undergoes equi-NP d e l e t i o n before  the d e l e t i o n r e l a t i v i z a t i o n o f the h i g h e s t  thematic NP i n t h e r e l a t i v e  b.  clause.  The d i f f e r e n c e o f r e l a t i v i z a b i l i t y  between  Kuno's examples, t h a t i s , between ( l . b ) and (5.c)  can be accounted f o r by r e f e r r i n g t o  whether o r not t h e i r embedded thematic sentences are  anomalous.  149  CHAPTER V NOTES 1.  Kuno,  Notes on Japanese Grammar,  2.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, pp. 6 f .  Chap. 18,  p. 5.  3.  See Ross, " C o n s t r a i n t s on V a r i a b l e s i n Syntax," p. 134. He d e f i n e s the S e n t e n t i a l Subject C o n s t r a i n t i n the f o l l o w i n g ways "No element dominated by a S may be moved out o f t h a t S i f t h a t node S i s dominated by an NP which i t s e l f i s immediately dominated by S." He says on p. 134, "the c o n s t r a i n t , though o p e r a t i v e i n the grammars of many languages o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h , can n o t be s t a t e d as a u n i v e r s a l , because t h e r e are languages whose r u l e s are not s u b j e c t t o i t . " He g i v e s a Japanese sentence t o support h i s view t h a t the S e n t e n t i a l Subject C o n s t r a i n t i s not a p p l i c a b l e t o some languages. 4.  Kuno, op. c i t . , Chap. 19, p. 14.  5.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, p. 6.  6.  I b i d . , Chap. 18, p. 5.  ?•  I b i d . , Chap. 19, p. 8.  8.  I b i d . . Chap. 19, p. 5.  CHAPTER  VI  RELATIVIZABLE NOUN PHRASES AND THEMATIC NOUN PHRASES  6.1  INTRODUCTION  In t h i s chapter* is right  we w i l l d i s c u s s whether o r n o t Kuno  i n s a y i n g t h a t a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s an NP immedi-  a t e l y f o l l o w e d by the thematic p a r t i c l e wa. In t h e second s e c t i o n , we w i l l i n t r o d u c e counter-examples t o Kuno's c l a i m .  Muraki*s  We w i l l demonstrate i n  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t we must r e v i s e Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s thematic, r e g a r d l e s s o f the e x i s t e n c e and  o f an i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e between t h e NP  the thematic p a r t i c l e wa. In t h e t h i r d s e c t i o n , we w i l l examine whether o r  not  a non-thematic NP i s r e l a t i v i z a b l e .  In connection  w i t h t h i s problem, we w i l l b r i e f l y d i s c u s s Kuno's c a t i o n o f g a and wa.  classifi-  We w i l l conclude t h a t there a r e some  151 cases where a non-thematic NP i s r e l a t i v i z a b l e , fore,  and t h e r e -  we can not but d i s c a r d both Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s and  our r e v i s i o n  6.2  of h i s hypothesis.  THE REVISION OF KUNO'S HYPOTHESIS  Kuno's c l a i m about a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s as f o l l o w s i  What i s r e l a t i v i z e d i n a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e is, n o t an o r d i c a r y noun phrase, but a noun phraseTimmedia t e l y f o l l o w e d by the thematic p a r t i c l e wa.  What he g i v e s as evidence f o r t h i s c l a i m i s the  2 f o l l o w i n g type o f sentences: (1)  syuusyoku-ga t a i h e n na b u t u r i g a k u employment  difficult  i s physics  ( L i t . ) ' p h y s i c s , where f i n d i n g  a job i s d i f f i c u l t /  (2) (a)  Wio-naka-de} buturigaku  buturigaku Phrase (1)  i s a relative  c o n s t r u c t i o n which i s a c c e p t a b l e .  152 In o r d e r t o generate (1), we must assume t h a t d e r i v e d from the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e (2.a), because  (1) i s  (2.b) and not from  (2.a) i s ungrammatical.  (2.b)  contains  a thematic NP immediately f o l l o w e d by wa, while does n o t .  (2.a)  Thus, he concludes t h a t a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e must  i n v o l v e a thematized sentence, where a thematic NP i s immediately f o l l o w e d by  wa.  N e v e r t h e l e s s , there i s a counter-argument t h i s claim,  against  Muraki g i v e s us a s e t o f counter-examples t o  Kuno's above g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .  A c c o r d i n g t o Muraki? we must  assume t h a t i n some cases t h e r e i s an i n t e r v e n i n g  particle  between a thematic NP and w§, f o r d e r i v i n g a grammatical relative  clause construction.  There i s a r e l a t i v e  clause  c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r which a c o r r e s p o n d i n g NP + wa - sentence does not e x i s t , w h i l e o n l y an NP + p a r t i c l e + wa -sentence exists,  Muraki's counter-examples i n v o l v e the p a r t i c l e  i n i t s v a r i o u s usages and the d a t i v e n i .  The  following  sentences are o n l y p a r t of Muraki's counter-examples.  (3)  _de(as an i n s t r u m e n t a l  particle)  (a) *Sono ink-wa kono tegami-o that ink  this  letter  kai-ta. wrote  ( L i t . ) ' ( I ) wrote t h i s l e t t e r i n t h a t i n k . '  de  153 (b)  Sono ink-de-wa kono tegami-o  (c)  kono tegami-o Lit.)  (4)  de  k a i - t a ink  'the ink i n which (I) wrote t h i s  letter.'  (as a reason p a r t i c l e ) ^ *Sono riyuu-wa John-ga kesseke s i - t a . the reason absent-was  (a  Lit.)  ' F o r that reason John was  ?Sono riyuu-de-wa  (b  absent.'  John-ga k e s s e k i s i - t a .  John-ga k e s s e k i : s i - t a r i y u u  (c  Lit.)  (5) de (a  kai-ta.  * the reason why  John was  absent *  (as an i n d i r e c t o b j e c t p a r t i c l e / * •Sono isya-wa  John-ga Mary-o syookai s i - t a .  the m e d i c a l d o c t o r Lit.)  introduced  ' To t h a t d o c t o r , John i n t r o d u c e d Mary.'  (b  Sono i s y a - n i - w a John-ga Mary-o s y o o k a i s i - t a .  (c  John-ga Mary-o s y o o k a i s i - t a Lit.)  isya  ' the d o c t o r t o whom John i n t r o d u c e d Mary '  In the above examples ( 3 ) — ( 5 ) . each (a) sentence i s a thematic sentence with a thematic NP f o l l o w e d by wa.  Each  immediately  (b) i s a l s o a thematic sentence,  154 but i t has an intervening p a r t i c l e de or n i between the thematic  NP and wa.  acceptable.  (a) i s unacceptable, while (b) i s  Thus, i n order to generate each r e l a t i v e  construction (c), the grammatical sentence (b) must be included i n the underlying r e l a t i v e clause. The existence of these counter-examples c a l l s f o r the r e v i s i o n of Kuno's hypothesis that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s a thematic NP immediately  followed by wa.  In my  opinion the most important point of Kuno's hypothesis i s that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s thematic.  Whether or not there  i s an intervening p a r t i c l e l i k e de or n i , the NP preceding wa i s a thematic NP.  Therefore, we w i l l revise Kuno's  hypothesis temporarily to the effect that what i s r e l a t i v izable i n a r e l a t i v e clause i s an NP + wa, regardless of an intervining  particle.  This r e v i s i o n of Kuno's hypothesis does not seem to change h i s o r i g i n a l claim completely because h i s claim that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s thematic i s s t i l l v a l i d .  How-  ever, i f there i s a case i n which thematization i s impossible and yet r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s possible, i t w i l l constitute a stronger counter-example both to Kuno's o r i g i n a l hypothesis  155 and t o o u r r e v i s i o n m e n t i o n e d counter-examples  6.3  above.  We w i l l  o f t h i s type i n the next  section.  COUNTER-EXAMPLES TO KUNO'S HYPOTHESIS AND  In sis.  the preceding section,  In t h i s  relativizable  s e c t i o n , we w i l l  p r e s e n t some  I T S REVISION  we r e v i s e d Kuno's  examine w h e t h e r  hypothe-  o r not a  NP must be t h e m a t i c .  6.3.1 B e f o r e t h e e x a m i n a t i o n , however, we must h a v e i n m i n d Kuno's o t h e r h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t t h e u s e o f t h e s u b j e c t g a and t h e t h e m a t i c p a r t i c l e  particle  wa. The f o l l o w i n g a r e h i s  h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t g a a n d wai  (6)  Kuno's h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t g a a n d wa  a.  b.  Wa marks e i t h e r t h e theme o r t h e c o n t r a s t e d e l e m e n t o f t h e s e n t e n c e . T h e theme must b e e i t h e r anaphoric o r generic, while there i s no s u c h c o n s t r a i n t f o r t h e c o n t r a s t e d e l e m e n t .  Ga a s s u b j e c t .case marker, i s e i t h e r f o r ... n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n ( a s i n Oya, ame-gai h u t t e -iru 'Oh, l o o k ! It i s raining.') or f o r  156 a s t a t e (but not e x i s t e n c e ) o r a h a b i t u a l g e n e r i c a c t i o n , o n l y the e x h a u s t i v e - l i s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s obtained. c.  The most n a t u r a l way t o i n t r o d u c e an e n t i r e l y new event i n c o n v e r s a t i o n seems t o be t o t a l k about the e x i s t e n c e , o r coming i n t o e x i s t e n c e toward the p l a c e of the speaker, o f something.  Since we have a l r e a d y observed the use p a r t i e l e wa  of the  thematic  i n Chapter I, we w i l l i n t r o d u c e the use o f ga  for neutral description. i n a room.  Then one  f i n d s i t i s snowing.  Suppose t h a t two  men  are working  o f them happens to look o u t s i d e He  and  says*  (7)  ( L i t . ) • Oh,  The  i t i s snowing.*  whole sentence above conveys e n t i r e l y  information.  new  To e x p l a i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , Kuno s a y s i  The e n t i r e event i s presented out o f the b l u e , so t o speak, by the speaker. These sentences are not sentences about something. They are themeless sentences,"  T h i s k i n d o f sentence i s named n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n and i t s s u b j e c t NP  i s f o l l o w e d by ga.  I t i s used t o i n t r o d u c e  new  15? information into a discourse.  Once introduced into the dis-  course, i t i s "recorded in the registry of the discourse," 9 and can become the theme of the following sentences i n conversation. Ga used for exhaustive l i s t i n g i s explainable by the following interrogative sentence and i t s answer. (8)  (a)  Kimitati-no naka-de dare-ga itiban wakai you(pi.) among who the youngest desu ka? is  (Lit.) 'Who i s the youngest among you?'  (b  ^Taroo - ^ | | i t i b a n wakai a  1  desu.  (Lit.) ' Taro (and only Taro) i s the youngest.' In (B.b), Taroo i s new information, which can be the focus of the sentence, while itiban wakaiV desu,'is the youngest' i s old information.  Kuno says this NP, which can  be translated to the effect that 'Taro (and only Taro)* in (8,b), i s used for exhaustive l i s t i n g .  1 0  Exhaustive  as list-  ing means l i s t i n g exhaustively a l l the names of the entities  158  which are concerned to convey new information.  The sub-  ject NP i n t h i s use i s also followed by ga and not by wa. T h i s subject NP + ga i s often used as the r e a l answerpart to an interrogative sentence.  6.3.2  With the above knowledge of ga and wa, l e t us  return to the fundamental topic of t h i s section.  I will  present three types of counter-examples to the hypothesis that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s thematic and i s followed by wa. My f i r s t (9)  counter-examples are sentences (10) and (11).  Taihenda! John4ga( z i s a t u s i t a . , good heavens kine(j-seif  ( L i t . ) 'Oh, my goodness! suicide.* (10)  Taihenda'  John has committed  tiisai  kodomo-J g a l yane-no  little  child  fa^l  roof-on  ue-ni i r u . is ( L i t . ) *0h, goshi (11)  AJ oh  A l i t t l e c h i l d i s on the roof.*  mekura-no hito-4 ga) kuruma-ni hanergreta V blind persoSi—* car-by hit-was  ( L i t . ) *0h, a b l i n d man was h i t by a car *J*  159 Sentence g i v e n by Kuno. for  11  (9)  i s an example of n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n  Our examples (10)  neutral description.  and (11)  Here we have the same s i t u a t i o n  as we have i n sentence (7).  In o t h e r words, l o o k i n g out  of the window, one o f the two men  sees something and u t t e r s  something about i t which i s e n t i r e l y new form o f (10)  o r (11).  a l s o have ga  information  i n the  Here, wa i s not allowed t o be used.  The noun phrases kodomo ' c h i l d ' and h i t o 'person* are m o d i f i e d  r e s p e c t i v e l y by t i i s a i  ' l i t t l e ' and mekura-no  • b l i n d ' , which i s the a t t r i b u t i v e a d j e c t i v e and the g e n i t i v e form o f mekura.  The u s u a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l  account i n  Japanese o f t h e s e a t t r i b u t i v e s i s t h a t they are d e r i v e d  from  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s by the a p p l i c a t i o n o f r e l a t i v e clause reduction.  T h i s account g i v e s us the f o l l o w i n g  s t r u c t u r e f o r t i i s a i kodomo * a l i t t l e c h i l d '  (12)  kodomo.  tiisai  .  underlying  160  As i s shown i n the above t r e e diagram, NP^ kodomo must be f o l l o w e d by ga and not by wa, because the e n t i r e sentence i t s e l f i s brand-new i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , NP^ kodomo i s non-generic and non-anaphoric. the r e l a t i v i z a b l e noun phrase i n ( 1 2 ) ,  In o t h e r words,  t h a t i s , NP^ i s  never t h e m a t i c . S i m i l a r l y , the a t t r i b u t i v e mekura-no i n (11) reduced r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  is a  Mekura-no i n mekura-no h i t o has  hito^-jga ^ mekura desu *A man i s b l i n d ' i n the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e clause.  The r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i n t h i s u n d e r l y i n g  s t r u c t u r e i s a non-thematic noun phrase h i t o - g a . The above sentences f o r n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n one k i n d o f counter-example  constitute  both t o Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s and  our r e v i s i o n i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , because  these  sentences c o n t a i n reduced r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s i n which t h e r e are no thematic NP's. be r e p r e s e n t a b l e as t  (13)  T h i s type o f counter-example  would  161 Another type of counter-example i s shown i n the  6.3.3  f o l l o w i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n between A and  (14)  At  Dare-ga gakkoo-ni h i - o t u k e t a who  (Lit.) Bi  Who  s c h o o l to  ka?  set-fire  set f i r e t o the s c h o o l - b u i l d i n g . '  Gakkoo-ni urami-o idaku grudge  (Lit.)  B.  darekaMga ) y a t t a .  bear  Somebody d i d i t who the s c h o o l . '  somebody J wa  did  bears a grudge a g a i n s t  In (14), i t i s supposed t h a t between the two  persons  (A and B) t h e r e i s a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n , something l i k e 'Somebody seems t o have s e t f i r e t o the s c h o o l b u i l d i n g . ' . Speaker A wants t o get i n f o r m a t i o n about the c r i m i n a l but speaker B does not know d e f i n i t e l y  who  he i s .  a c o n j e c t u r a l answer, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t was  He  only gives  probably  an  i n c e n d i a r y b e a r i n g a grudge a g a i n s t the s c h o o l who  started  the f i r e .  idaku  The phrase at i s s u e i s gakkoo-ni urami-o  dareka 'somebody who  bears a grudge a g a i n s t the  school'.  The head NP dareka 'somebody' must be non-generic and anaphoric. listing.  I t w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as an NP f o r T h i s judgement i s supported  non-  exhaustive  by the f a c t  that  162 dareka does not a l l o w wa t o f o l l o w i t i n (14.B). Moreover, the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e i n (14.B) c o n t a i n s i d e n t i c a l i n d e f i n i t e pronoun dareka* be non-anaphoric and non-generic,  an  T h i s dareka a l s o must  because even i f the  u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e clause i s used as an independent sentence, o n l y ga f o l l o w s t h i s dareka. F o r ease o f e x p l a n a t i o n , we w i l l g i v e the rough underl y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f the phrase i n questions  (15)  I - generic I (- anaphoric]  Notice t h a t both NP^^ and NP^ words, they are never The similar  a r e f o l l o w e d by ga.  thematic.  f o l l o w i n g conversations  way.  In o t h e r  can be e x p l a i n e d i n a  163 (16)  At  Ano soto-no sawagi-wa nan da? that outside  noise  what i s  ( L i t . ) ' What i s t h a t n o i s e o u t s i d e ? ' Bt  Yopparatta gakusei-) g a l sawaide i r u n drunk-are students making a n o i s e - a r e J  daroo. perhaps (Lit.)  (17)  At  ' Maybe some drunken students a r e making a noise.'  Ano k i - n o ue-no mono-wa nan da? t h a t t r e e ' s on  (Lit.) Bt  t h i n g what i s  ' What i s t h e t h i n g on t h e t r e e over t h e r e ? ' K i - n i k a k a t t a tako  rashii.  t r e e - i n caught-is k i t e (Lit.)  look  ' I t l o o k s l i k e a k i t e caught i n the t r e e . '  In (16), the n o i s e was heard  i n the room.  As an  answer t o speaker A's q u e s t i o n , speaker B imagines t h a t some students a r e drunk and they a r e b e i n g b o i s t e r o u s .  In  the room n e i t h e r A n o r B knows a n y t h i n g about the r e a l s t a t e of a f f a i r s .  T h e r e f o r e , the students  g e n e r i c n o r anaphoric.  i n q u e s t i o n a r e never  I t may be t h a t speaker B h i m s e l f  has no i d e a who i s making the n o i s e , though he g i v e s a  164 conjectural answer.  Therefore, the underlying r e l a t i v e  clause also contains an i n d e f i n i t e and non-thematic NP l i k e 'some students* followed by ga.  This non-thematic  NP i s r e l a t i v i z e d i n (16.B). The s i t u a t i o n of (17) i s s i m i l a r .  A k i t e , which i s  caught i n the tree, i s brought into existence as new i n f o r mation i n the discourse.  The r e l a t i v i z a b l e i d e n t i c a l NP  tako 'kite' i n the underlying r e l a t i v e clause i s also nonthematic. As i s shown i n the above examples (14) ~- (17), we have a type of sentence containing a r e l a t i v e construction, whose head NP i s c l a s s i f i e d as an NP f o r exhaustive l i s t i n g and whose embedded coreferential  NP i s non-thematic.  These  examples constitute the second type of counter-example to the hypothesis that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s thematic.  It w i l l  be formulated a s i  exhaustive l i s t i n g  6.3.4  The t h i r d type of counter-example i s shown i n the  following conversations!  165 (19)  Ai  [Mado-o k o w a s i t a ] no-Jwa1 dare desu ka? window broke  ( L i t . ) 'Who Bi  was  person  who  is  i t t h a t broke the window?'  fKowasital no-J wa> watakusi desu. frgal one I U  J  ( L i t . ) ' The one who broke ( i t ) was I . '  (20)  Gakkoo-de n a n i - g a a t t a ka? school-at  what  £Atta] koto-wa  happened  happened t h i n g  kakusazu-ni h a n a s i n a s a i . openly  speak  ( L i t . ) ' What happened a t s c h o o l ? what happened there.*  T e l l me  exactly  Sentences (19.A ) and (20) show t h a t the q u e s t i o n e r infers that  'Somebody broke the window'»  happened a t s c h o o l ' .  'Something  But he does not know who  window o r what happened a t s c h o o l . Mado-o kowasita  or  broke the  More s p e c i f i c a l l y  no 'the one who broke the window' i n (19.A)  i s t o be regarded as r e l a t e d t o something l i k e  'Somebody. l  broke the window —  t h a t somebody^'.  first*somebody' i s i n d e f i n i t e •somebody' i s r e l a t i v i z e d  In t h i s case, the  and non-thematic.  This  i n the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e  clause.  166 I t i s f o l l o w e d by ga and n o t by wa.  I t i s t h e same case  w i t h (20). On t h e o t h e r hand, the head noun phrases i n (19) and  (20) a r e thematic based on t h e presupposed sentences.  The b a s i c meaning o f (19.A) i n v o l v e s a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n and the  o v e r t meaning c a r r i e d by the s u r f a c e form.  The p r e -  s u p p o s i t i o n may be c o n s i d e r e d 'Somebody broke t h e window'. The o v e r t meaning o f (19.A) i s 'As f o r the one who broke the 'the the  window, who i s i t ? '  In t h i s case, ' i t ' presupposes  one who broke the window*.  T h e r e f o r e , no 'the one* i n  s u r f a c e form i s f o l l o w e d by wa. The o b s e r v a t i o n mentioned above i s supported by two  l i n g u i s t s , though t h e i r a n a l y s e s o f p s e u d o - c l e f t sentences are  d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r . 12 A c c o r d i n g t o Muraki,  the underlying structure of  (19.B) would be p o s t u l a t e d , something l i k e ( 2 1 ) . (21)  [  g  [Dum  mado k o w a s i t a ]  window kowas i t a j  s  broke  Prsp]  1  g  [watakusi mado I  g  where: Dum = dummy C i S s  0 2  Prsp ] means t h a t S-, i s . presupposed f o r S.  167 In (21),  Dum r e p r e s e n t s 'somebody*.  I t i s non-  anaphoric and non-thematic. A l s o a c c o r d i n g t o Nakada^? sentence (19.B) would have the f o l l o w i n g l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e (22). (22)  I Assume t h a t you Want t o Request us t o T e l l you S-^(who broke the window) and I T e l l you t h a t S (who broke t h e window) was * I * . 2  In (22),'who' i n (19«B).  r e p r e s e n t s no,(the one who) i n  T h i s WH-word i s non-anaphoric and non-thematic. Our concern i s n o t t o argue f o r o r a g a i n s t Nakada's  or Muraki's a n a l y s i s , n o r t o observe t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n a l processes of pseudo-elefting.  What I want t o i n d i c a t e here  i s t h a t Muraki's dummy symbol i n  and Nakada's WH-word i n  are b o t h i n d e f i n i t e , non-generic, non-anaphoric and nonthematic. The above o b s e r v a t i o n o f sentences (18) and (19) t e l l s us t h a t t h e r e i s a type o f sentence which c o n t a i n s a r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n whose head NP can be thematic but whose embedded  c o r e f e r e n t i a l NP must be non-thematic.  I  w i l l f o r m u l a t e t h i s type o f r e l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n the  168  f o l l o w i n g way:  (23) [ [ N P -ga  X (-thematic]  Yj NP -wa ) [+thematic J  Now, based on t h e above t h r e e t y p e s o f counterexamples (I3)t  (18)  and (23), we can not but d i s c a r d both  Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s and our r e v i s i o n . our counter-examples  incorrectly  Those hypotheses b l o c k  because  they r e q u i r e t h a t  r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s c o n t a i n thematic NP's f o l l o w e d by wa. We conclude t h a t t h e r e are some cases where r e l a t i v i z a t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a non-thematic  6.k  NP i n t h e r e l a t i v e c l a u s e .  SUMMARY  The f o l l o w i n g i s the r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f the s i g n i f i c a n t points discussed i n t h i s chapter.  a.  There a r e some counter-examples  t o Kuno's  h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s an NP immediately f o l l o w e d by wa.  T h e r e f o r e , we  r e v i s e d Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s t o the e f f e c t a r e l a t i v i z a b l e NP i s t h e m a t i c .  that  b.  However, i n s e c t i o n 3 i we presented  some  c r u c i a l counter-examples t o o u r r e v i s i o n of Kuno's h y p o t h e s i s .  There are t h r e e types o f  counter-examples which do n o t c a n t a i n the themes i n the u n d e r l y i n g r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s . T h e r e f o r e , we can not but r e j e c t both Kuno's hypothesis  and our r e v i s i o n .  170 CHAPTER  VI  NOTES 1.  Kuno, Notes on Japanese Grammar,  Chap. 19, p. 17.  2.  I b i d . , Chap. 19, p. 18.  3.  Muraki, " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , P s e u d o - c l e f t i n g and  4.  I b i d . , p. 204.  5.  I b i d . , p. 208.  6.  I b i d . , p. 213.  Thematization," pp. 203—216.  7. Susumu Kuno, " F u n c t i o n a l Sentence P e r s p e c t i v e Case Study from Japanese and E n g l i s h , " L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry, V o l . 3, No. 3 (summer, 1972), pp. 296 f . 8.  I b i d . , p. 284.  9.  Kuno, op. c i t . , Chap. 1, p. 4.  10.  Kuno, op. c i t . , pp. 272—276.  11.  I b i d . , p. 282.  12.  Muraki, op. c i t . , pp. 152 f . & 166 f .  :A  13. S e i i c h i Nakada, " P s e u d o - c l e f t s » What Are They?" Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting. (Chicago» Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 1973), p. 432.  CHAPTER  SUMMARY AND  The  main p o i n t s  VII  CONCLUSIONS  of  our  d i s c u s s i o n may  be  restated  follows*  a.  Ross's c l a i m t h a t dition,  the  CSC  i s not  that  R o s s ' s CNPC and mostly  CNPC, t h e  apply  tion  are  b.  and  the  always t r u e .  rule nor  t o Japanese R a t h e r , we  Postal's  should  a  say  Condition  relativization.  i s neither a  a copying rule nor  Con-  relativiza-  Cross-over  i r r e l e v a n t to Japanese  Japanese r e l a t i v i z a t i o n  Cross-over  chopping  feature-changing  rule.  c.  It i s a deletion transformation identical  embedded NP  i s deleted  by  which  without  an  any  movement.  d.  Because h i s Nearest matical  sentences  NP  Constraint  i n some c a s e s and  blocks also  gram-  because  Japanese has the backward d e l e t i o n a c r o s s s e n t e n c e , M u r a k i ' s argument structure  e.  of a r e l a t i v e  We h a v e d i s c u s s e d  (i)  The r e l a t i v i z e d  f o r h i s underlying  c o n s t r u c t i o n does n o t h o l d .  Kuno's  following  NP l e a v e s  noun i n t h e o r i g i n a l  the  a  claims.  (reflexive)  position  under a  pro-  certain  condition. (ii)  An NP  i n an a d v e r b i a l c l a u s e  i s relativizable  u n d e r some c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h a r e q u i t e unknown.  If  we  must b a s e o u r r e a s o n i n g  pothesis  that a r e l a t i v i z a b l e  on h i s o t h e r  NP  i s a n NP  hy-  imme-  d i a t e l y , f o l l o w e d by a t h e m a t i c  particle  wa,  will  (e.ii).  Here,  is  f.  have t o r e j e c t  relativized  In the f i r s t Kuno's  ic  should  half  be t h e t h e m a t i c  o f C h a p t e r V I , we  above h y p o t h e s i s  relativizable there  ( e . i ) and  NP  to the effect  i s thematic  wa.  what  NP.  have r e v i s e d that  a  whether o r n o t  i s an i n t e r v e n i n g p a r t i c l e  NP and  we  between t h e themat-  g.  However, i n t h e l a t t e r h a l f c h a p t e r , we  have o b s e r v e d  Thus, we  same  t h a t t h e r e a r e some  c a s e s where n o n - t h e m a t i z e d ized.  of the  NP's  can not but  are  discard  relativthe  above  hypothesis ( f ) .  h.  As  a natural  clusions,  Kuno's two  would a r i s e If  consequence o f the above hypotheses  a g a i n and  (g) i s c o r r e c t ,  we  r e j e c t i o n o f t h e s e two  claim lose  our  con-  ( e . i ) and  (e.ii)  re-examination.  t h e ground  hypotheses  f o r the  ( e . i ) and  (e.ii).  i.  However, i f we can n o t is  e x p l a i n why  relativizable  others.  abandon h y p o t h e s i s  We  an NP  can n o t account  c o n t r a d i c t o r y phenomena. be  found  clause  i t i s not  in  f o r the c o n d i t i o n s  of a r e l a t i v i z e d  I do n o t know a t p r e s e n t how  may  i n an a d v e r b i a l  i n some c a s e s and  of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  ( f ) , we  NP,  to reconcile  However, one  possible  i n Lewkowicz's o b s e r v a t i o n .  either.  these solution  Lewkowicz  says  that i n Arabic only s u b j e c t - i n i t i a l ( i n c l u d i n g t o p i c i n i t i a l ) sentences can be used as r e l a t i v e  clauses.  T h i s means t h a t there are two types o f u n d e r l y i n g tures f o r r e l a t i v e  struc-  c l a u s e s , t h a t i s , non-thematized sub-  j e c t i n i t i a l sentences and t h e m e - i n i t i a l s e n t e n c e s .  1  T h i s may be u s e f u l f o r our a n a l y s i s o f Japanese relative  clauses.  In o t h e r words, though Japanese and  A r a b i c are d i f f e r e n t ,  t h i s leads me t o s p e c u l a t e  on the  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t there may a l s o be two types o f underl y i n g s t r u c t u r e s f o r Japanese r e l a t i v e  constructions.  One o f these i n v o l v e s a thematic NP and the o t h e r would not. In f a c t , ing  each o f t h e examples g i v e n by Kuno concern-  ( e . i ) and ( e . i i ) i s supposed t o c o n t a i n a thematic NP  i n i t s underlying structure. an embedded r e l a t i v e contains  c l a u s e be a complex sentence which  i n i t a deeply  i n t h i s deeply  Each sentence r e q u i r e s t h a t  embedded sentence and t h a t an NP  embedded c o n s t i t u e n t sentence be i d e n t i c a l  to t h e head NP i n a matrix  sentence.  On the o t h e r hand, our counter-examples do not i n -  v o l v e the deeply embedded c o n s t i t u e n t sentences. counter-examples c o n t a i n exhaustive d e s c r i p t i o n . The exhaustive  Our  l i s t i n g or neutral  l i s t i n g and n e u t r a l d e s c r i p -  t i o n i n v o l v e new i n f o r m a t i o n - p a r t i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . new i n f o r m a t i o n - p a r t must, be simple must be expressed  A  and a l s o c l e a r .  i n the form o f a simplex  It  sentence o r  i n t h e form of a complex sentence which has one embedded sentence.  I t must n o t be t o o complex and complicated.  When one has much new i n f o r m a t i o n t o convey, one can d i v i d e the i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o a s e t o f simplex or a sequence o f c o n j o i n e d sentences. it  sentences  One w i l l n o t change  i n t o one complex sentence which c o n t a i n s a  structural hierarchy.  complicated  Thus, I c o n j e c t u r e t h a t there may  be two types o f r e l a t i v e c l a u s e s ; one i n v o l v e s a thematic NP and the o t h e r does n o t . The  above extremely  t e n t a t i v e s o l u t i o n has not y e t  been f u l l y examined, and the q u e s t i o n o f how many deeply embedded sentences  are p o s s i b l e i n each sentence i s q u i t e  unknown i n Japanese. to  That seems t o be c l o s e l y  the problem o f s t y l e .  related-  I t may a l s o r e q u i r e some r e l a t e d  r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d of psychology which l i e s beyond .the scope o f our p r e s e n t study.  We w i l l have t o l e a v e the  s o l u t i o n of t h i s problem f o r the f u t u r e .  CHAPTER V I I NOTES 1. Lewkowicz, "Topic-comment and R e l a t i v e Clause i n A r a b i c , " pp. 8 1 3 — 8 1 6 .  178 BIBLIOGRAPHY  Annear, Sandra.  " R e l a t i v e Clauses and C o n j u n c t i o n s , " Working Papers i n L i n g u i s t i c s * (December, 1967). Columbusi Ohio S t a t e >  U n i v e r s i t y , pp. 8 0 ~ 9 9 , Kuno, Susumu.  Notes on Japanese Grammar, Mathematical L i n g u i s t i c s and Automatic T r a n s l a t i o n , Report NO. NSF - 2 7 . Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s i Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. f  " P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n , R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , and D i r e c t Discourse," L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry.  V o l , 3. No.2 (1972), pp. 161 - 195.  " F u n c t i o n a l Sentence P e r s p e c t i v e ! a Case Study from Japanese and E n g l i s h , " L i n g u i s t i c  Inquiry, V o l . 3. No. 3 (1972), pp. 269 - 320.  m  The S t r u c t u r e o f the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Massachussetsi The MIT Press, 1973.  Langacker, Ronald  W.  Lewkowicz, Nancy K.  "On P r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and t h e Chain o f Command," Modern S t u d i e s i n E n g l i s h , E d i t e d by David A. R e i b e l ana Sanford A. Schane. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y ! P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1969.  "Topic-comment and R e l a t i v e Clause i n A r a b i c , " Language, V o l . 47, No. 4 (197Di  L o e t s c h e r , Andreas.  Makino, S e i i c h i .  pp. 816 - 825.  "On t h e Role o f N o n r e s t r i c t i v e R e l a t i v e Clauses i n D i s c o u r s e , " Papers from t h e Ninth R e g i o n a l Meeting, E d i t e d by C l a u d i a Corum.T. C e d r i c Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser. Chicago! Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 1973.  Some Aspects o f Japanese N o m i n a l i z a t i o n s . Tokyot T o k a i U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1908,  McCawley, James D. "Japanese R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s , " The Chicago Which Hunt, Papers from t h e R e l a t i v e Clause F e s t i v a l , E d i t e d by"Paul M. Peranteau, Judth N. L e v i and G l o r i a C. Phares, Chicago! Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 1972.  179 MeCawley, Noriko A.  Mikami, A k i r a .  "A Study o f Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.  Zoo wa Hana ga Nagai. "So". , 1 9 5 9 7  Muraki, Masatake.  Nakada, S e i i c h i .  Nakau, Minoru.  Tokyoi K u r o s i o Pub.  ~~  " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , P s e u d o - c l e f t i n g and T h e m a t i z a t i o n . " Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas at A u s t i n , 1971. " P s e u d o - c l e f t s 1 What Are They?" Papers from t h e N i n t h R e g i o n a l Meeting. E d i t e d by C l a u d i a Corum, T. C e d r i c Smith-Stark and Ann Weiser. Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , A p r i l , 1973.  "Some C o n s t r a i n t s on T o p i c a l i z a t i o n , " Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 1,  No. 1 (1972)i pp. 74 - 88. Ohso, Mieko.  "A Remark on Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n as a Process o f D e l e t i o n . " Unpublished paper. Columbus: Ohio U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.  Oyakawa, Takatsugu.  "Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n I , " Papers X A «. i4 ~n- Japanese L-T i• n g u i• s ti_i• c s , V o 1l . 2 ,** No. 1  (1972), pp.94 - 135.  Park, Byung-soo.  "On t h e M u l t i p l e S u b j e c t C o n s t r u c t i o n i n Korean," L i n g u i s t i c s i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review, V o l . 100 (March, 1973), PP. 72 - 76.  P o s t a l , P a u l M.  C r o s s - o v e r Phenomena. New York t H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc., 1971.  Ross, Robert J .  " C o n s t r a i n t s on V a r i a b l e s i n Syntax." Unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f Technology, 1967.  Schachter, P a u l .  "Focus and R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " Language, V o l . 49, No. 4 (March, 1973), PP. 19~45. ,  S h i b a t a n i , Masayoshi.  (Ed.) Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s ,  V o l . 1, No. 1"T1972^. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y : The Japanese L i n g u i s t i c Workshop.  180 Shibatani,  Masayoshi.  Thompson, Sandra A.  (Ed.) Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s , V o l . 2, N o . l T 1 9 7 3 ) . University of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y : The Japanese L i n g u i s t i c Workshop.  "The Deep S t r u c t u r e o f R e l a t i v e C l a u s e s , " Studies i n L i n g u i s t i c Semantics, E d i t e d by Charles J . F i l l m o r e and D. Terence Langendoen. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc., 1971.  

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.831.1-0093228/manifest

Comment

Related Items