UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A transformational study of Japanese reflexivization Matsuda, Hiroshi 1975

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 M38_7.pdf [ 5.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093433.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093433-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093433-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093433-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093433-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093433-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093433-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093433-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093433.ris

Full Text

A TRANSFORMATIONAL STUDY OF JAPANESE REFLEXIVTZATION by HIROSHI MATSUDA B.A., Kwanseigakuin University, Japan, 1970 B.A., Kwanseigakuin University, Japan, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of LINGUISTICS We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i ABSTRACT Japanese reflexivization has only recently come to l i n -guists' attention in the framework of Chomsky's lin g u i s t i c model, the transformational generative grammar. The present thesis, also being based on this newly de-veloped model, i s aimed at investigating the nature of the Japanese reflexive system. In effect, the investigation i s to become a procedure whereby inconsistencies of the current hypothetical treatments of Japanese reflexivization can be excluded so that a revised proposal can be presented. The discussion toward a revised proposal i s designed to pass through the two phases. F i r s t , i n Chapter I, by examining Oyakawa's hypothesis, the discussion w i l l focus on the structural positions of the antecedent and i t s re-flexive, which w i l l outline the basic property of Japanese reflexivization. It is also claimed that Langacker's two notionst 'command' and 'precede', are crucial in account-ing for the question of the directionality, Forward and Backward reflexivization. The result of the examination w i l l be presented as the revised proposal (I) to conclude 11 the chapter. Next, i n Chapter II, the second phase of the r e v i s i o n w i l l r e s u l t from the examination of Akatuka's treatment of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . The examination w i l l eventually suggest that the ill-formedness treated by Akatuka stems rather from the inadequacy of what has been allegedly t r e a t -ed as a Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun than from a syntactic reason. Consequently, the alt e r n a t i v e to replace the alleged r e f l e x i v e form w i l l be presented with syntactic evidence i n which the existence of the non-human r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s to be pointed out as well. The conclusion to the chapter w i l l be presented as the revised proposal (II) showing that the c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y between the antecedent and the genuine re-f l e x i v e i s r e a l l y a phenomenon observable only i n a simplex sentence. In Chapter III, some problems l e f t unsolved w i l l be d i s -cussed. Having shown that the possible solutions to the prob-lems are not f a r from being ad hoc so long as we adhere to the standard transformational approach, the alt e r n a t i v e so-l u t i o n s w i l l be looked into i n the framework of Jackendoff's Interpretive Theory i n which, unlike the standard transforms-* • • 111 tional theory, the antecedent-reflexive relation i s to be accounted for in the semantic component rather than the syntactic component. This chapter w i l l be concluded by showing that the interpretive approach i s equipped with more explanatory power than the standard transformational approach. A l l the information obtained through the revision in the preceding chapters w i l l play a crucial role in formu-lating Japanese reflexivization by the interpretive approach. In Chapter IV, the conclusions to the preceding three chapters are to be recapitulated so that a schematic represen-tation of Japanese reflexivization i s presented as both the conclusion to the present thesis and a tentative conclusion to the issue of Japanese reflexivization. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (I) 1 1.1 Oyakawa's Hypothesis 2 1.2 An Examination Of Oyakawa's Hypothesis 18 NOTES FOR CHAPTER I 49 II. AKATUKA'S LIKE-NP CONSTRAINT AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (II) 5* 2.1 Akatuka's Like-NP constraint 55 2.2 The Genuine Reflexive And The Revised Proposal (II) 76 NOTES FOR CHAPTER II 105 III. SOME RESIDUAL PROBLEMS AND THE INTERPRETIVE THEORY 107 3.1 The Interpretive Theory By Jackendoff 108 3.2 Non-preferential Zibun ' s e l f And Zibunzisin 'oneself* 117 NOTES FOR CHAPTER III 130 IV. CONCLUSION 132 BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 CHAPTER I OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (I) 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter i s mainly concerned with the coreferen-t i a l i t y of the two noun phrases, namely, the antecedent-T r e f l e x i v e r e l a t i o n observable i n such sentences as followst (1) a. KuniOjga Kenta^o z i b u n ^ j n o u t i de kor o s i t a . s e l f *s house at k i l l e d " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ k i l l e d Kenta at s e l f ^ ' s house." b. Kenta-ga Kunio^ni zibun^^^no u t i de koros-by s e l f *s house at k i l l r are-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kenta* was k i l l e d by Kunio at s e l f . ' s house." To account f o r the above-mentioned r e l a t i o n , the d i s -cussion i s to be mainly based on Oyakawa's two elaborated conditions t the subject-antecedent condition and the high-2 est human NP condition, A close examination of the two con-di t i o n s eventually suggests that we revise Oyakawa's hypoth-esi s i t s e l f to avoid i t s inconsistency. The r e s u l t of the following discussion w i l l be presented as the revised pro-posal to conclude the chapter. 1.1 OYAKAWA•S HYPOTHESIS We s h a l l observe Oyakawa's two conditions which are the most c r u c i a l constituents of his hypothesis. In 1.1.1, the  subject-antecedent condition i s to be observed and i n 1.1.2, the highest human NP condition. 1.1.1 The sub.iect-antecedent condition It i s claimed by Oyakawa (1973) that the antecedent of a Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun must be the subject of the sen-tence. This condition i s c a l l e d the sub.iect-antecedent con- d i t i o n . 2 In order to c l a r i f y the nature of the above condition, l e t us observe the underlying structure of (1) f i r s t i n terms of diagrams. (2.a) and (2,b) correspond to (l.a) and (l.b) respectively. 3 ( 2 ) a . Kenta. •Kunio* In the above, (l.b) i s the passive version of (l.a). In both sentences, the reflexive zibun *self* only refers back to the subject. Hence, the reading indicated by the index j. i s ungrammatical. The following ( 3 ) i s a schematized re-presentation of the sub.iect-antecedent condition where NPa is the subject noun phrase of Si and NPr is to be re f l e x i v i z -ed under the referential identity with NPa. (3) Thus, t h e above c o n d i t i o n p l a y s a c r u c i a l r o l e i n d e t e r -m i n i n g t h e a n t e c e d e n t o f Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun, whereas t h i s c o n d i t i o n does n o t work i n E n g l i s h as i l l u s t r a t e d b e l o w i (4) a. Tom^ showed J i m ^ a p i c t u r e o f h i m s e l f ^ ... b. Iomega J i m ^ n i z i b u n ^ j no s y a s i n o m i s e t a . t o s e l f *s p i c t u r e showed " ( L i t . ) Tom. showed J i m s e l f . ' s p i c t u r e . " c. B e t t y ^ showed Jim., a p i c t u r e o f h i m s e l f d. B e t t y . g a J i m . n i z i b u n i # . n o s y a s i n o m i s e t a . t o s e l f *s p i c t u r e showed " ( L i t . ) B e t t y ^ showed J i m s e l f ^ ' s p i c t u r e . " A l t h o u g h t h e r e f l e x i v e ' h i m s e l f c o u l d be c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h e i t h e r 'Tom' o r ' J i m ' i n (4,a)i i t s Japanese t r a n s l a t i o n ( i . e. 4.b) o n l y has one r e a d i n g as shown by t h e i n d e x i . A l s o , (4.c) i n d i c a t e s t h a t E n g l i s h r e f l e x i v e pronouns can be co-r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t o f t h e v e r b r a t h e r t h a n 5 the subject. This i s not the case with i t s Japanese counter-part ( i . e . 4.d) since i t i s impossible f o r the r e f l e x i v e zibun ' s e l f * to be c o r e f e r e n t i a l with 'Jim'. Hence, the aste r i s k f o r the index j.. Oyakawa also discusses the command condition which i s inter-dependent with the sub.iect-antecedent condition. F i r s t , consider the following. (5) a. Kunio^wa Kunio^ga yonda hon o Kenta n i yatta. read book to gave "Kunio gave the book he read to Kenta." b. Kunio.wa zibun^ga yonda hon o Kenta n i yatta. s e l f read book to gave " ( L i t . ) Kunio. gave the book s e l f , read to Kenta." c. *Zibun^wa Kunio.ga yonda hon o Kenta n i yatta. s e l f read book to gave " ( L i t . ) * S e l f . gave the book Kunio. read to Kenti." 1 Oyakawa at t r i b u t e s the ungrammaticality of (5»c) to the v i o l a t i o n of the command condition which, as:..-#irs:to pro-posed by Langacker (1969»l67);, i s .defined r as follows: 6 (6) The command condition [ l ] Neither A nor B dominates the other £ 2 3 The S-node that most immediately dom-inates A also dominates B i f £ 13 and [ 2 J above meet, we say A •commands' B. Now, l e t us examine whether i t i s valid or not for the command condition to block such ungrammatical sentences as (5.c). The schematical underlying structure of (5»c) follows as ( 7 ) . (7) In the above, NPa and NPr meet the command condition. In other words, NPa 'commands' NPr, but not vice versa because the S-node immediately dominating NPr (i.e. S2) does not dom-inate NPa. Since there are two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases, NPa and NPr i n (7), r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n may seem to apply e i t h e r forward ( i . e . 5.b) or backward ( i . e . 5.c). However, r e f l e x i v -i z a t i o n does not operate backward. Obviously, i t i s the com- mand condition that" blocks the backward ap p l i c a t i o n of re-f l e x i v i z a t i o n . From the foregoing, Oyakawa (1973 * 118) gives the def-i n i t i o n of the sub.iect-antecedent condition along with the  command condition i n the following wayi (8) The sub.iect-antecedent condition The antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e must be the subject of a sentence and commands the c o r e f e r e n t i a l NP to be r e f l e x i v i z e d . The above condition, according to Oyakawa, not only blocks the ungrammatical (5«c)i but also t e l l s us predict-ably that the following sentences are ambiguous. (9) a. Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibun. .no kuruma o untensuru to s e l f ' s car drive koto o tanonda. that asked " ( L i t . ) Kunio. asked Kenta. to drive s e l f . .*s c a r . " 1 J 1 J 8 (9) b. Kunio.wa Kenta.ga zibun..no koto o yuu no o x j 1 j s e l f 's thing say that k i r a t t a . hated " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ hated Kenta^to t a l k about s e l f ^ . " c. Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibun^^.no syukudai o yar-by s e l f *s homework do sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta- do s e l f ^ - ' s homework." d. Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibun. .no mono o araw-by s e l f 's s t u f f wash sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. wash s e l f . ^ * s s t u f f . " Notice that Kenta above i s underlyingly the subject of the embedded sentence, which would be shown more c l e a r l y i n the following s i m p l i f i e d underlying structure of (9.a). 9 (10) NPjEj, above can be r e f l e x i v i z e d , being c o r e f e r e n t i a l with e i t h e r NPi or NP2f f o r NP^ and NP 2 are respectively the subject of S i and S 2 and command NPjj. at the same time. Therefore, nothing prevents NPij, from being r e f l e x i v i z e d under the r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y with either NP X or NP2. The above (10) i s , i n f a c t , ambiguous and so are the other sentences i n (9). (9.c) and (9.d) are only d i f f e r e n t from the other sen-tences i n that a causative sase 'make (someone) do (some-thing)* i s involved i n them. But the account of t h e i r am-b i g u i t y i s not out of l i n e with that f o r (9.a). We would assume the underlying structure of (9»c), f o r example, i n the following two ways* (11) In the above, NPzj. i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NP2 that i s the sub-ject of the embedded S2. Therefore, i n the S2 cycle, r e f l e x -i v i z a t i o n applies and res u l t s i n the reading indicated by J[. i n (9.c), while the resultant second reading i s possible when NP^ i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NP^, the subject of the matrix sen-tence as shown i n (11). Thus, according to Oyakawa, the subject-antecedent con- d i t i o n along with the command condition determines the ante-11 cedent of the r e f l e x i v e i n a c r u c i a l manner i n Japanese re-f l e x i v i z a t i o n . 1 . 1 . 2 The Highest Human NP Condition Another of Oyakawa's s i g n i f i c a n t conditions i s the high- est human NP condition. F i r s t , l e t us consider the following which i s to provide us with the preliminary access to our main concern i n the sec-t i o n . ( 1 2 ) a. History^ repeats i t s e l f ^ . b.*Rekisi.ga zibun.o kurikaesu. h i s t o r y s e l f repeat " ( L i t . )*Historj^ repeats s e l f j . . " Unlike English, the Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun has only one form^ zibun ' s e l f regardless of gender, number and per-son. Furthermore, the Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun carries J~+ human feature with i t ^ implying that non-human noun phrases are unable to be the antecedent of zibun ' s e l f . Hence, i n the above example, r e k i s i 'history' i s never e l i -g i b l e f o r the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e i n ( 1 2.b). We would neednaieondition, therefore, to block ungrammatical 12 sentences such as (12.b). The condition which follows is due to Oyakawa (1973«95). (13) The humanness condition The antecedent of the reflexive must be human. Next, observe the following of Oyakawa's sentencesi (14) a. Zibun^no gakusee no kageki na koodoo ga self 's student *s radical behaviors Yamada-sensee^o kyoosyoku kara sirizok-sase-ta. Prof. teaching from retire (Caus) "(Lit.) The radical behaviors of s e l f ' s students made Prof. Yamada. retire from teaching." b. Syatyoo no kettei to zibun^no iken no kuitigai ga president's decision and self's opinion discrepancy Tanaka-butyoo^ni aimai na taido o tor-sase-ta. Director by unclear attitude maintain (Caus) "(Lit.) The discrepancy between the president's decision and self^'s opinion caused Director Tanaka. maintain an unclear attitude." 1 (15) a. Zibun^no gakusee no totta kageki na koodoo ga self 's student adopted radical behaviors Yamada-sensee o kyoosyoku kara sirizok-sase-ta. Prof. teaching from retire (Caus) 13 " ( L i t . ) The r a d i c a l behaviors that s e l f , * s students adopted made Prof. Yamada, r e t i r e from teaching." (15) b. Zibun.no yarakasita tumaranai hema ga s e l f 's made s i l l y mistake Suzuki-si o meir-sase-ta. Kir. be depressed (Caus) " ( L i t . ) The s i l l y mistake that s e l f , made depressed Mr. Suzuki." (16) a. Zibun.no gakusee ga kageki na koodoo o s e l f ' s student r a d i c a l behaviors t o t t a koto ga Yamada-sensee^o kyoosyoku Kara adopted that Prof, teaching from siri z o k - s a s e - t a . r e t i r e (Caus) "(Lit,)' That s e l f . ' s students adopted r a d i c a l behaviors caused Prof. Yamada. r e t i r e from teaching." b. Syatyoo ga zibun.ni dake kaisya no kimitu o president s e l f to only company's secret morasita koto ga kaikeigakari^o tomadow-sase-ta. t o l d that accountant be puzzled (Caus) " ( L i t . ) That the president t o l d the company's secret only to s e l f , puzzled the accountant^." Notice that the above sentences manifest one pe c u l i a r syn-14 tactic feature; that i s , the subject of the sentence is non-human. According to Oyakawa, the sentences in (14), (15) and (16) have a. "nominally complex NP subject", a "sen-t e n t i a l l y complex NP subject",andJa "sentential NP subject" respectively. Whatever the structure of the subject may be, what is note-worthy here i s that a l l sentences are perfectly grammatical despite the absence of a human subject. In other words, the subject-antecedent condition does not hold in the above examples, which would suggest that an other condition is needed in accounting for the reflexive-antecedent relation in these sentences. In order to give a reasonable explanation to the subject matter here, Oyakawa assumes the highest human NP condition in terms of the hierarchical relation of the two ^referen-t i a l noun phrases. Oyakawa (1973«112) defines the condition as follows: (17) The highest human NP condition "(When a sentence does not satisfy the sub- ject-antecedent condition.) only the high-est human noun in the structural hierarchy i s allowed to be coreferential with the re-flexive." 15 To see how the condition works, consider the follow-ing (18.a), (I8.b) and (I8.c) which represent the underly-ing structure of (l*.a), (15.a) and (l6.a) respectively. (18) a. NP no kageki na koodoo ^ radical behavior; APr no gakusee -*a student Yamada-sensee. Prof." 4 zibun self Yamada-sensee* Prof. sirizok-sase-ta retire (Caus) kyoosyoku teaching b. V£__(Same as NP^ , r no gakusee •s student Yamada-sensee 4k zibun self kageki na koodoo totta radical behaviors adopted 16 (18) c. zibun s e l f In the above schematization, NP l t the subject of S i , i s non-human regardless of i t s structure. Therefore, as shown i n (16), the highest human NP condition takes place, allowing only the h i e r a r c h i c a l l y highest human noun phrase ( i . e . NPa) to be c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPr. Thus, i n Oyakawa's hypothesis, the sub.iect-antecedent  condition and the highest human NP condition are applying i n a mutually exclusive way. In addition, according to Oyakawa, both conditions d i c t a t e the d i r e c t i o n i n which r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n operates ; that i s , the former condition ac-counts f o r Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , whereas the l a t t e r , f o r 17 Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . Since the two conditions are mutu-a l l y exclusive, and do not apply to the same c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases at the same time, the ungrammaticality of the following (19)» i n which Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n has been applied to the sentences i n (14.a), ( 1 5 .a) and ( l 6.a) re-spectively, i s self-explanatory. (19) a. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee no kageki na koodoo ga Prof. *s student r a d i c a l behaviors zibun^o kyoosyoku kara s i r i z o k - s a s e - t a . s e l f teaching from r e t i r e (Caus) " ( L i t . ) *The r a d i c a l behaviors of Prof. Yajaada.'s students made s e l f , r e t i r e from teaching." b. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee no to t t a kageki na Prof, 's student adopted r a d i c a l koodoo ga zibun^o kyoosyoku kara s i r i z o k -behaviors s e l f teaching from r e t i r e sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) *The r a d i c a l behaviors that Prof. Yamada^'s students adopted made s e l f ^ r e t i r e from teaching." c. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee ga kageki na koodoo o Prof, 's student r a d i c a l behaviors 18 t o t t a koto ga zibun^o kyoosyoku kara s i r i z o k -adopted that s e l f teaching from r e t i r e sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) *That Prof. Yamada^s students adopted the r a d i c a l behaviors caused s e l f , r e t i r e from teaching." With the information obtained through the foregoing observation, we s h a l l examine Oyakawa's sub.iect-antecedent  condition and highest human NP condition i n section-1.2 and, as a r e s u l t of t h i s examination, i t w i l l be suggested that Oyakawa's hypothesis as based on the two conditions be revised. 1.2 AN EXAMINATION OF OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS The examination of the sub.iect-antecedent condition and the highest human NP condition i s i n effect an examination of the hypothesis. In 1.2.1, we s h a l l present the counter-argument to Oyakawa's treatment of Forward and Backward re-f l e x i v i z a t i o n . In 1.2.2, some counter-examples to the two conditions are to be treated, whereby the inconsistencies i n Oyakawa*s hypothesis become obvious. As both a conclusion to the chapter and a r e s u l t of the 19 preceding examination, a revised proposal w i l l be presented. 1 . 2 . 1 Forward and Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n As to the d i r e c t i o n i n which Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes place, Oyakawa (1973«123-124) saysj ( 2 0 ) "....the choice between Forward and Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s uniquely predetermined by the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure of a given sentence i n terms of functions, such as subject, and a r e l a t i o n , i . e . command, of two c o r e f e r e n t i a l NPs i n the sentence. In t h i s sense, thereC"is no need to use l i n e a r order to account f o r Jap-anese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . That i s , the 'd i r e c t i o n -a l i t y * expressed by terms forward and backward does not count i n the syntactic operation of re-flexiviza'tion, f o r a l l the neccessary informa-t i o n i s provided outside of the notion." What i s highly implausible i n the above quotation i s that Oyakawa mentions the syntactic r e l a t i o n — " s u b j e c t " — and "a r e l a t i o n " of c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases — "command" — as the elements to predetermine the " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " . In f a c t , contrary to Oyakawa's expectation, the two elements never ^predetermine" Forward and Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n "uniquely". In order to show that Oyakawa's treatment of the ques-t i o n of " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " i s implausible, we can present the f o l -lowing two types of sentences 20 F i r s t , Oyakawa himself cites (21) from Kuno (1972). The structure underlying (21) follows as the diagram (22), (21) Sono keiken ga Hanako^ni zibun^ga baka dearu that experience to self fool i s koto o osieta. that taught (22) In this underlying structure, the subject NPi of S± cannot be the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun, for the huiaanness  condition disqualifies, the non-human subject sono keiken 'that 21 experience' as a candidate for the antecedent of the reflexive. In other words, the humanness condition predicts that Si does not meet the sub.iect-antecedent condition. Hence, as the high-* est human NP condition dictates, only the hierarchically high-est human noun phrase (i.e. NP2J i s eligible for b?ing the antecedent of the reflexive. Consequently, reflexivization , takes place forward between NP2 and NP;, changing the latt e r noun phrase into the reflexive pronoun zibun 'self'. There-fore, the following account of Backward reflexivization by Oyakawa (1973*119) i s implausible. (23) "One way to explain why Backward Reflexivization* insteadc' of Forward Reflexivization, takes place in them would be to say that the subject-ante-cedent condition cannot be,met for: an obvious rea-sons the position of subject.is occupied by some-thing else which does not naturally qualify for the antecedent, of the reflexive. The fact; that the condition i s not satisfied calls for Backward Reflexivization*" Example (21) aboveodoes not meet the sub.iect-antecedent con- dition, yet, rather than calling for Backward Reflexivization as Oyakawa expects, i t "calls for" Forward Reflexivization. Likewise, the forward manifestation of Japanese reflex-ivization observable in the causative sentences below cannot 22 be accounted for i f we adhere to (23) above,. (2*0 a. Senkyo no kekka ga Kunio^ni sibun^no election result by self *s mizyukusa o sator-sase-ta. immaturity realize (Caus) "(Lit.) The result of election made Kunio* realize s e l f i m m a t u r i t y . " b. Kenta no zyogen ga Kunio*ni zibun*no •s advice by self 's ayamati o nattokus-sase-ta. mistake understand (Caus) "(Lit.) Kenta's advice made Kunio, under-stand self£$s mistake." c. Issatu no han ga Kunio^ni zibun*, no taido o one book by self *s attitude ketteis-sase-ta. decide (Caus) "(Lit.) One book made Kunio. decide self.'s attitude." 1 1 Recall that causativization precedes reflexivization to make Oyakawa*s highest human NP condition valid as we have observed in (14) through ( 1 6 ) . * In (24.a) above* for example, only the forward application of reflexivization is possible since the highest human noun phrase is the one which precedes 23 i t s coreferent after causativization has applied. The f o l -lowing schematization represents this point more clearly. (25) senkyo no kekka election T s result W.. no mlzyukusa ""s" immaturity satorf sase-ta realize (CausT" Kunio 'J The second type of sentences which also show that Oyakawa's treatment of Backward reflexivization is implausible are the thematized sentences,-* (26) a. Kunio^wa zibun^no tomodati ga sinda. self •s friend died "(Lit.) As for Kunio^ s e l f ' s friend died." b. Kunio^wa zibun^ga katta takarakuzi ga attata. self bought lo t f e l l on "(Lit.) As for Kunio*, the l o t which self. bought won tne prize." It Is clear that the sub.iect-antecedent condition i s not accountable for the above sentences since i n (26) the subject i t s e l f contains the reflexive pronoun and the ante-cedent i s not the subject but the theme. The diagrams (27.a) and (27.b) represent the schematized underlying structures of (26.a) and (26.b) respectively. (27) a. So b. So 25 Notice that NPr above, which i s one constituent of a nominally complex NP subject ( i . e . 2 6 .a) or a s e n t e n t i a l l y complex NP subject ( i . e * 26.b), i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPa, the theme of So. Thus, i t i s impossible f o r S A to meet the subject-ante- cedent condition since i t does not have c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases i n the S A cycle. Then, the highest human noun phrase NPa i s to be i d e n t i f i e d as the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e . ^ Although Oyakawa seems to f a i l to notice i t , the highest  human NP condition plays a c r u c i a l r o l e i n determining the antecedent-reflexive r e l a t i o n even i n the thematized sen-tences. Hence, the sentences i n ( 2 6 ) above are counter-examples to Oyakawa*s hypothesist that i s , the highest human  NP condition applies forward. Therefore, Oyakawa's explana-t i o n of the " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n as quoted i n (20) and (23) i s highly implausible. In order to account p l a u s i b l y f o r t h i s subject matter, i t i s necessary to develop an a l t e r n a t i v e explanation. Now, r e c a l l that Oyakawa i n ( 2 0 ) discards the l i n e a r information of two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases as i r r e l e v a n t i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , saying^that "there i s no need to use linear order to account for Japanese reflexivization." Nevertheless, we are able to give a very plausible account for the "directionality" of reflexivization by talcing into consideration the very thing Oyakawa rejects as irrelevant, namely, the linear order of coreferential noun phrases. The "directionality" of Japanese reflexivization is simply pre-determined by whether or not the noun phrase precedes the coreferential noun phrase to be reflexivized. What follows represents this relationship clearlyi (28) NPa precedes commands NPr. Forward reflexivization follows commands Backward reflexivization where: NPa and NPr are coreferential human noun phrases To sum up the foregoing, we may say that the very thing Oyakawa discards as irrelevant (i.e. linearity) plays a sig-nificant role in predetermining which direction Japanese re-flexivization takes, along with the information of the hier-archical order of noun phrases concerned (i.e. command). In addition, we do not have to rely on the two different elements 27 to account for the "directionality" as Oyakawa does t the syntactic relation 'subject*, on the one hand, and the hier-archical order 'command', on the other* Instead* the linear and hierarchical positions of coreferential noun phrases cor-rectly predict which direction Japanese reflexivization op-arates in. 1.2,2 More Counter-examples To Oyakawa's Hypothesis Now, l e t us proceed to the further examination of Oyakawa's hypothesis, dealing with some more counter-examples. F i r s t , observe the following sentences in (29) which are cited from Oyakawa » (29) a. Zibuiij,4^no kenzyuu o, nakuslta keikan^ ga self 's service lost policeman revolver butyoo^ni nakituita. chief to implored "(Lit.) The policeman, who lost s e l f ' s service revolver implored the chief. b. Hensyuutyoo*wa zibun* *no denki o kaita editor self J's biography wrote syoosetukajni mannenhitu o okutta. novelist to fountain pen presented "(Lit.) The editor* presented a fountain pen to the novelist* who wrote self.**s biography." 3 1 J 28 The above (29.a) should f a l l under Backward reflexivization. Butt Oyakawa attributes this to an example of Forward reflex-ivization, giving the following deep structure. (30) In the S2 cycle of (30), keikan 'policeman' can be reflexiv-ized under the referential identity with NP2, the subject of S2* before reiativization takes place. Oyakawa, however, does not mention why butyoo 'c h i e f must be discarded as an i l l e g a l candidate for the reflexive. In other words, he does not men-tion how the application of reflexivization between NP3 and NPi+ i s blocked. Comparing (30) with (31), the underlying structure of (29,b), we can see this point clearly. 29 Notice that (3D i s the underlying structure of the ambiguous sentence* NP^ of this structure may be coreferential with either NP^ or NP3. Then, why i s i t that butyoo 'chief* in (30) has no chance Of being reflexivized under the referential identity with NPl*, the highest human noun phrase of Si? To explain this inconsistency, one might say that Si does not meet the highest human NP condition because i t has the human subject zibun no kengyuu o nakusita keikan 'the policeman who 30 l o s t his service revolver* i n the cycle. Then, consider the sentence (32) which i s followed by i t s s i m p l i f i e d under-l y i n g structure ( 3 3 ) . (32) Zibun^ #*no kao-zyasin ga insatus-rare-ta koohosya^no s e l f *s face-picture printed (Pass) candidate's posutaa ga yuukensya ..ni kubar-rare-ta. poster v o t e r t o h a n d - t o ( P a s s ) " ( L i t . ) The candidate's posters i n which s e l f ' s p o r t r a i t was printed was handed to the voters." (33) NP? no posutaa ^ *s poster NHt- no kao-zvasin / \ ^ s p o r t r a i t f koohosya. koohosya, candidate y u u k e n s y a , k u b a r - r a r e - t a v o t e r J h a n d - t o ( P a s i T 1 :T''~i NP< v t c a n d i d a t e ^ > — ^ - - ^ ^ ^ [•yuukensya . (^ame a s NP?) i n s a t u s - r a r e ^ c a * v o t e r p r i n t (Hss")~~" The sub.iect-antecedent condition i s not met i n the S 2 cycle above because S 2 has the non-human subject NP3, koohosya no  kaozyasin 'candidate's p o r t r a i t * . Hence, the highest human 31 noun phrase N P 2 koohosya •candidate' i s to be identified as the antecedent of NP/+. Then, in the Sj cycle, Si does not have the human subject i n the same sense as i n (29*a). Therefore, the same argument that discards the unacceptable reading of (29.a) can no longer hold to block the ungrammati-cal sentence as indicated by £ in (32). This i s a serious counter-example to Oyakawa's hypothesis. To avoid this inconsistency, we must revise Oyakawa's hypothesis i n some way* Notice that, in a l l the examples above, the antecedent of the reflexive has a common property in that the antecedent i s the left-most human noun phrase. More precicely, in both (29.a) and (30), N P 2 i s the leftTmost human noun phrase in the S 2 cycle and reflexivization applies forward i n the same manner as Oyakawa's. Next, in the Si cycle, NPi, which i s now a constituent of Sj, i s the l e f t -most human noun phrase after N P 2 was deleted in virtue of reflexivization* Notice, also, that N P 2 and NP^ here are identical noun phrases. Hence, a non-ambiguous sentence or the ungraramatical reading indicated by index j in (29.a). The ungrammatical reading or non#ambiguity of (32) can be 3 2 accounted for along exactly the same lin e . The left-most noun phrase in the S 2 cycle and the S A cycle i s identical i n ( 3 2 ) , too. The ambiguity of ( 2 9 . b ) i s also predictable} that i s , i n (31) NP3 i s the left-most human noun phrase in terms of S 2 , and the left-most position i s occupied by the human noun phrase NPX i n the S A cycle. N P 3 and NPA are not identi-cal noun phrases this time. Hence, the ambiguous sentence ( 2 9 . b ) . Second, the following sentences are another type of counter-examples to Oyakawa's hypothesis, and support the notion 'left-most' in Japanese reflexivization as well. ( 3 4 ) a. Zibun^ *^ga tootoo maketakoto ga Kunio^ n i self at last defeated that by KentajO mihaos-sase-ta. think-better-of (Caus) "(Lit.) That self* was defeated at last made Kunio^ think better of Kenta." b. Zibun#jga gosinsur-rare-ta koto ga Kunio^ni self diagnosed(Pass) that by erroneously isya o koros-sase-ta. doctor k i l l (Caus) "(Lit.) That self, was diagnosed erroneously made KentS*^ k i l l the doctor." 33 These sentences have the sentential NP subject with a non-human noun koto 'that* as i t s head noun and, at the same time, there are two human noun phrases in the hierarchically highest position, (35) below represents the structure under-: lying (3^,a), for example. (35) at last defeated The/above S x does not satisfy the subject-antecedent condition because of i t s non-human subject NPX, so that the highest hu- man NP condition applies, producing the confusing situation. In other words, there are two human noun phrases, NP3 arid NPif, in the same hierarchical level. As the index j[ in (34.a) shows, NP4 is not eligible for the antecedent of NP2. Oyakawa would account for this saying that reflexivization must precede the 3* application of causativization^ since NP3 Kunio used to be the subject of an embedded sentence, while NP24. Kenta used to be the direct object as shown i n the following sehematical underlying structure (36), However, this treatment only makes the situation worse. (36) Although NP3 Kunio i s the highest Human noun phrase, i t does not command NP2, the coreferent noun phrase, anymore since S3 immediately dominating NP3 does not dominate S 2 in (36). Hence, nothing prevents reflexivization from applying forward to produce the ungrammatical sentence. (That Si does not meet the subject-antecedent condition never Implies reflexivization takes place backward, ( c f . 21, 24, and 26)) In neither case, does the highest human NP condition hold to account for the 35 grammatical sentence ( 3 ^ .a). It is important to notice that once again the linearly left-most position of the human noun phrase in (35) i s oc-cupied by the legal candidate for the antecedent of NP2 to be reflexivized. With the crucial notion 'left-most', we can systematical-l y account for what Oyakawa*s hypothesis cannot. It may be said, therefore, that Oyakawa*s hypothesis must be revised to be equipped with more descriptive adequacy with the i n -formation of the linear order (left-most), and the hierarchi-cal order (command) as well, of the two coreferential noun phrases. 1 . 2 . 3 The Top-most Human NP Condition The next argument suggesting the need for a revision of Oyakawa*s hypothesis stems from the following Oyakawa*s sen-tences. ( 3 7 ) Hosyuseitoo no ooboosa to zibun,no s i z i s i t e k i t a conservative *s unreason- and self *s supported party ableness seitoo no fuhai ga sono gakusee no otooto no party *s corrup- that student 's younger *s tion brother 36 sinyuu^no sisoo o museifu-syugi e katamuk-sase-ta. best *s thought anarchism toward lean (Caus) friend "(Lit.) The unreasonableness of the conservative : party and the corruption of the party that self* had supported made the thought of the student's younger brother's best friend^ lean towards anarchism." As seen in i t s English translation, (3?) has a non-human subject so that the highest human NP condition i s responsible for the antecedent-reflexive relation. Now, notice that the antecedent sinyuu 'best friend' i s the highest human noun phrase in the nominally complex structure. To show this clear-ly , Oyakawa gives the schematised surface structure of relevant noun phrases of (37) as followst (38) thought [-human] sono gakusee otooto that student younger brother sinyuu best friend 4, zibun self 37 Oyakawa (1973i112) supports the validity of his highest  human NP condition from the preceding fact, saying thati (39) "....the complexity of a nominally-complex NP can be increased as much as you want, yet only the highest human noun in the structural hierarchy i s allowed to be coreferential with the reflexive." However, we are able to show that (39) above never supports the va l i d i t y of the condition in question. Rather, what Oyakawa says as (39) i s the case regardless of the highest  human NP condition or the sub.iect-antecedent condition. To c l a r i f y this point, l e t us consider (40) below. (40) a. Zibunjno denki o dasita koto ga sono gakusee no self *s published that that student 's biography otooto no sinyuu no haha^o yuumei n i s i t a . younger 's best 's mother famous made brother friend "(Lit.) That s e l f ' s biography was published made that student's younger brother's best friend's mother^famous." b. Sono gakusee no otooto no sinyuu no haha^ ga that student 's younger 's best 's mother brother friend zibun^no denki o dasita. self's biography published 38 '(Lit.) The students younger brother's best friend's mother, published self,'s biography." 1 (4l,a) i s a schematic representation of the nominally complex noun phrase which (40) above has in common. (4l.b) and (4l.c) represent the underlying structure of (40.a) and (40.b) respec-tively. (4l) a. NPl [+humsu3 mother sinyuu best friend sono gakusee otooto that student younger brother b. NP C-humarff NPr no denki dasita 's published biography haha mother koto (Same as above) yuumel n i sita that famous made 39 c. S nana mothe r The nominally complex noun phrase (41.a) i s different from the one in (37) in that the noun phrase (41.a) i s i t s e l f human. In (4l.b), this nominally complex structure i s in the direct Object position. The highest human noun phrase haha 'mother* is the antecedent of the reflexive as (39) dictates. It i s thus clear that the highest human NP condition i s responsible for (40.a) because of i t s non-human subject. Now* we must notice that the same noun phrase haha'motti-er', the highest human noun phrase in the nominally complex structure, i s also the antecedent in (40.b) as shown in (4l.c). Nevertheless* the sentence at issue cannot be an example of the highest human NP condition since i t s subject (i.e. NPj.) . .-. . . . . . . | i s human. (Recall that the highest human NP condition and the subject-antecedent condition are mutually exclusive.) 40 Thus, the subject-antecedent condition i s responsible for (4o.b), yet (39) i s s t i l l true with (40.b). Por the foregoing reason, we must reject the claim that the quotation (39) supports the highest human NP condition. Furthermore, in order to validate (39) which is the case regardless of the two conditions, we need a condition allow-ing no constituent but the highest human noun phrase within the nominally complex noun phrase to be eligible for the ante-cedente of the reflexive. Therefore, we are proposing that such a condition be c a l l -ed the top-most human NP condition, and that this condition be defined as followst (42) The top-most human NP condition The antecedent of the reflexive must be the top-most human noun phrase i f the eligible antecedent i s the nominally complex noun phrase. It must be worth recapitulating that the quotation (39) is the case with both the subject-antecedent condition and the highest human NP condition so that (39) no longer supports *1 the highest human NP condition only, and, as a result, the condition (42) above i s independent of Oyakawa's two conditions. 1.2.4 The Revision Of Oyakawa's Hypothesis To conclude the examination of Oyakawa's hypothesis, we shall present a revised proposal based on the foregoing ex-amination. Fir s t , observe the following. (*3) a. NPa2 NPr wherei NPai(NPa2) and NPr are coreferential human noun phrases. NPai(NPa2) i s the subject of Si(S2). The schematization (43) i s a simplified representation of the sentence structure which meets the subject-antecedent condition. (43.b) could be the underlying structure of either non-ambiguous or ambiguous sentences. When NPaj is not equal to NPa2, sen-42 tences are ambiguous with NPr being coreferential with either the former noun phrase or the la t t e r (e.f. 9). When NPai equals to NPa2» non-ambiguous sentences result. It i s important to notice here that the crucial notion •left-most* discussed previously i s also valid to describe the above configurations. Therefore, we may say about these configurations that the antecedent of i t s reflexive i s the left-most human noun phrase in a give S cycle. Also, notice that reflexivization applies forward in the above cases, since the antecedent (the left-most human noun phrase), precedes i t s coreferent^(c.f. 28). Next, l e t us take a look at the configurations in (44). (44) a. Si NPr wherei NPa and NPr are coreferential human noun phrases. NPs i s the subject of S A. *3 (44) b. NPs NPr [-human) where: NPa and NPr are coreferential human noun phrases. NPa i s the theme of S i . NPs i s the subject of S 2 . These two configurations are intended to show the cases where S 2 does not satisfy the subject-antecedent condition and NPa, the highest human noun phrase, can be the antecedent of the reflexive. As shown in 1.2.1, (44) i s also peculiar in that i t i s not an instance of the subject-antecedent condition, yet reflexivization takes place forward.(cf. 21, 24 and 26). Nevertheless, NPa i s the left-most human noun phrase and commands NPr to be reflexivized. Thus, (44) can be accounted for along the same line as (43). Notice that we are also able to pre-dict the forward manifestation of reflexivization quite sys-tematically 1 that i s , in (44) the antecedent precedes i t s reflexive as does that in (43). What follows i s the case where the backward manifestation of reflexivization i s observable. 44 (*5) a. NPs NPa £-human) "NPr" wheret NPa and NPr are coreferential human noun phrases. NPs i s the subject of S A. b. NP Inhuman] NPr The configuration (45.a) represents the sentence structure whose subject position i s occupied by a nominally complex non-human noun phrase, while (45.b) corresponds to the sen-tence structure that has either the sententially complex NP subject or the sentential NP subject (c.f. 14, 15 and 16). In any case, a given sentence that has one of the underlying structures of (45) comes about to manifest Backward reflex-ivization. Closer examination easily makes us aware that the de-*5 scription of preceding (43) and (44) does not differentiate from that of (45) above t that is, the antecedent of the reflexive is NPa which is the left-most human noun phrase, commanding its coreferent as shown in the configurations. The backward application of reflexivization is due to the linear order of the two coreferential noun phrases t the noun phrase to be reflexivized precedes its coreferent, which is quite predictable from (28). Japanese reflexivization, therefore, may be defined in terms of the linear and hierarchical order of two coreferential noun phrases in the following wayt (46) Japanese Reflexivization In a given S that dominates two coreferential noun phrases, NPa and NPr, change NPrvinto the reflexive pronoun zibun ' s e l f i f NPa is the left-most human noun phrase and also commands NPr. This definition must be accompanied by the top-most human NP  condition proposed in (42) so that no left-branching noun phrase of a nominally complex noun phrase can be the ante-46 cedent of the reflexive. From the foregoing, i t may also he said that what Oyakawa really implies by his two conditions i s the linear and hier-archical positions of two coreferential noun phrases. The  subject-antecedent condition is one special case of Forward reflexivization where the left-most human noun phrase is accidentally the subject of a sentence. Furthermore, our definition (46) in terms of the linear and hierarchical order of the antecedent and i t s reflexive i s able to account for 8 Japanese reflexivization in a uniform manner , whereas Oyakawa uses two different factors t the syntactic relation •subject* and the hierarchical position * command*. *7 CONCLUSION Our discussion of Japanese reflexivization has been based on Oyakawa's two elaborated conditions, the subject-antecedent  condition and the highest human NP condition* Our closer ex-amination of the conditions eventually led us to the conclusion that information about the linear order of two coreferential noun phrases i s crucially needed as well as the hierarchical information, although Oyakawa in his hypothesis dismisses the linear information as irrelevant. Moreover, i t may be said that Japanese reflexivization i s , as correctly observed by Oyakawa, "the unitary operation" resulting in either Forward or Backward reflexivization as the surface phenomenon. This surface manifestation i s pre-determined depending on whether or not the left-most human noun phrase precedes i t s coreferential noun phrase. To conclude the chapter, we present, as a result of the foregoing discussion, the revised proposal (1), which w i l l be given greater elaboration in the next chapter. 48 (47) The Revised Proposal (I) Japanese Reflexivization (i) In a given S that dominates two coreferential noun phrases, NPa and NPr, change NPr into the re-flexive pronoun zibun * s e l f i f NPa i s the left-most human noun phrase and also commands NPr. ( i i ) When the antecedent i s the nominally complex noun phrase, only the top-most human noun phrase is eligible for the antecedent. ( i i i ) When NPa precedes NPr, reflexivization applies forward, resulting in Forward reflexivization superficially. When NPa follows NPr, Backward reflexive ization results. *9 NOTES FOR CHAPTER I 1. A l l example sentences are to be written in Roman alphabet with the following conventions. i . The conjugation of verbs i s shown only when i t i s relevant to the discussion, i i . The following abbreviations are adopted throughout the present thesis* (Pass) — passive marker rare (Caus) — causative sase 'make (someone) do (something)' (Lit.) — l i t e r a l translation 2 . Oyakawa's definition of the subject-antecedent condition is to be quoted later as ( 8 ) in this section. 3. In relation to this, observe the following. ( 1 2 ) b*. Rekisi.wa sorezitai.o kurikaesu. history i t s e l f repeat 'History repeats i t s e l f . ' Unlike (12.b), this sentence is grammatical suggesting that there seems to be a non-human reflexive pronoun in Japanese. This point i s to be discussed later in 1 . 2 . 1 , Chapter II. 4. Oyakawa does not mention the precedence of causativiza-tion over reflexivization e x p l i c i t l y . However, we may say so for the following reason. Consider Oyakawa's examples. (i) a. Zibun*ga hutatabi erabareta koto ga Satoo-san.o self again elected that Mr. odorok-sase-ta. be surprised (Caus) "(Lit.) That self* was elected again surprised Mr. Satoo£." b. Zibun*no hon ga uredasita koto ga syoosetuka*ni self *s book start-selling that writer to syoorai e no kiboo o ataeta. future to hope gave "(Lit.) That self.'s book started selling well gave the writer* a hope for his future." 50 (i) c. Zibun.no an ga saiyoosareta koto ga sono self *s plan adopted that the kikakubuin* o utyootennisita. member of delighted the plan-ning staff "(Lit.) That self.'s plan was adopted delighted the membef\jOf the planning staff." In order to account for the reflexive-antecedent relation in ( i ) , Oyakawa gives the underlying structure of (i.a), for example, as followsi Oyakawa's explanation (1973»107) readsi ( i i i ) "This underlying structure presents a situa-tion where the antecedent Satoo-san 'Mr. Sato' for Backward Reflexivization i s the embedded subject NPa so that the subject-antecedent condition might be considered as valid. How-ever, there are other cases l i k e (22d-e) which are not causative sentences, so they cannot be explained by this condition." In the quotation, (22.d) and (22.e) correspond to (i.b) and (i.c) respectively. Thus, according to Oyakawa, a l l examples in (i) f a l l under the highest human NP condition. Notice that the con-dition in question and the sub.iect-antecedent condition are mutually exclusive. Therefore, in order that Si in ( i i ) meets the highest human NP condition. S3 cannot have the human sub-ject NPa. In other words, the highest human NP condition can be responsible for (i.a) only when NPa is a constituent of S i f a higher sentence. Hence, causativization precedes reflexivization. f o l l o w s i t h e m a t i z e d sentence", we imply the sentences as 51 (i) Zoo wa nana ga nagai. elephant trunk long "(Lit.) As for the elephant, the trunk i s long," ( i i ) UBC n i wa Nitobe-garden ga aru. in i s "(Lit.) As for in UBC, the Nitobe garden is there." What we must bear in mind here as relevant to our main concern i s that the thematic noun phrases Chomsky-adjoin to the left-most position, and also that the intervening particle deletion depends upon the kind of particle. In the above ex-amples, for instance, the intervening particle no (genitive) must be deleted to derive (i) from the following ( i * ) , where-as ni (locative) may not be deleted in ( i i ) whose non-thematiz-ed structure i s ( i i * ) below. (i*) Zoo no hana ga nagai. elephant *s trunk long "(Lit.) Elephant's trunk i s long." (ii») Nitobe-garden ga UBC n i aru. in i s "The Nitobe garden i s in UBC." 6. Consider the sentences in ( i ) . (i) a. Kunio.ga Kenta.o zibun. #,no u t i de korosita. 1 3 s e l f 1 J , s house at k i l l e d "(Lit.) Kunio*^ k i l l e d Kenta at s e l f ' s house." b. Kenta,ga Kunio,ni zibun.#.no u t i de koros-1 Jby s e l f 1 J , s house at k i l l rare-ta. (Pass) "(Lit.) Kentaj was k i l l e d by Kunio at s e l f ' s house." c. Kunio.ni wa Kenta.ga zibun*, .no u t i de koros-xby 3 self 1 J , s house at k i l l rare-ta. (Pass) "(Lit.) As for by Kunio,, Kenta, was k i l l e d at s e l f ^ ' s house." J 52 In these examples, (i.c) i s different from (i.b), the passive version of (i.a), i n that the b-sentence has the thematic noun phrase Kunio n i wa *As for by Kunio*. It must be noticed here that Kunio. the thematic noun phrase, has no chance of being the antecedent of the reflexive but only Kenta. the subject of the sentence can be. Ggawa (1974*137) correctly observes this and gives a solu-tion of the problem i n the following ways ( i i ) 1. The subject-antecedent condition takes precedence over the theme-antecedent condition. 2, The theme-antecedent condition is sus-pended, by virtue of the subject-ante-cedent condition, when the subject which intervenes between a thematic NP and i t s identical NP i s human. 3 . If the intervening subject i s not human, reflexivization applies. The theme-antecedent condition above i s the condition that de-termines the thematic noun phrase as the antecedent of the re-flexive . Notice that we may modify what Ggawa says in ( i i ) into such a way as ( i i i ) below since the thematic noun phrase i s also the highest human noun phrase. ( i i i ) The highest human NP condition does not apply i f the human subject intervenes between a theme and i t s reflexive. Noticeably, ( i i i ) above i s the paraphrase of (1?) in 1.1.2. In other words, ( i i ) i s not necessary. Rather, the highest  human NP condition along with the subject-antecedent condition plays a significant role in determining the antecedent of the reflexive even in the thematized sentence structure without any modification. Therefore, Qgawa's solution i s virtually redundant as well as such a condition as the theme-antecedent  condition. 7. See note 4 c, above. 8. What follows is Oyakawa*s (1973*124) conclusion to the question of "directionality" i n Japanese reflexivization. "....what we have called Forward and Backward Reflexiv-ization are the surface results of the unitary operation." This conclusion of Oyakawa*s i s supported by our analysis of Japanese reflexivization in terms of the linear and hierarchi-53 cal order of two noun phrases concerned, for the definition we have proposed in (ko) clearly implies that Japanese re-flexivization i s able to be accounted for in a uniform way regardless of the direction in which i t applies* CHAPTER II AKATUKA'S LIKE-NP CONSTRAINT AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (II) 2 INTRODUCTION We are concerned with the ungrammaticality of such sen-tences as theset (48) a. *Kunio^wa zibunjO tataita. self hit "Kunio hit himself." b. *Kunio^wa zibun^ni kuruma o katta. self to car bought "Kunio bought a car to himself." These sentences d i f f e r entirely from those discussed previously in that each simplex sentence above perfectly satisfies the reflexivization condition (4?), yet each is ungrammatical.1 Therefore, a further condition would be needed to block such sentences as (48). In regard to this, Akatuka proposes the syntactic con-straint, the Like-NP Constraint, and the two relevant trans-55 formational rules which are f u l l y examined i n the course of the following discussion. The examination of them w i l l even-t u a l l y suggest that Akatuka's constraint and two rules be d i s -carded as inadequate and that the p o s s i b i l i t y ; o f an a l t e r n a t i v e so l u t i o n be looked i n t o . Consequently, we s h a l l have to de-termine whether or not the alleged Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun zibun ' s e l f i s a genuine r e f l e x i v e form. As the conclusion to the chapter, we s h a l l present our proposal based on the ex-amination. 2.1 AKATUKA'S LIKE-NP CONSTRAINT In the following three sections, we s h a l l examine i n d e t a i l Akatuka's Like-NP Constraint and two related trans-formational rules — Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion and Unspecified-Body-Deletion. 2.1.1 The Like-NP Constraint Akatuka (1772t30) proposes the constraint as quoted below i n (49). using the notion 'peer'; whose d e f i n i t i o n by Postal (1970tl78-179) also f o l l o w s i 56 (49) The Like-NP Constraint "(The constraint) discards the sentences as ungrammatical i f the reflexive and i t s ante-cedent are in peer relation." (50) The peer relation "Two NP, NPi and NP2, neither of which dom-inates the other....in a phrase marker P are peers with respect to a node Si, just i n case the paths between each of these NP and Si are such that they contain no NP-nodes not sepa-rated from the starting point NP, NPA or NP2» by a node SA." The underlying structure of (48.a) i s given in (51) to see how the constraint is able to account for the ungrammatically. (51) S Kunio* N P o V Kunio. tataita _ i hit In this underlying structure, NPi is perfectly eligible to be the antecedent of NP2 since the former is the left-most human noun phrase which also commands the latter. However, reflexiv-ization between these two coreferential noun phrases must be blocked. For, according to Akatuka, NPA and NP2 are "in peer relation". Hence, (48.a) i s ungrammatical. Furthermore, i t 57 i s important to notice that the constraint in question remains 2 in effect only between "the two maximum NP*s in the simplex sentence"."' Therefore, the following sentences given by Akatuka do not violate the Like-NP Constraint. (52) a. HirosijWa zibun^no t i t i o sonkei site i r j i . self *s father respect i s "(Lit.) Hirosi*^ respects s e l f ' s father." b. Hirosi^wa oyahukoomono no zibun^o hazita. u n f i l i a l son self ashamed of "(Lit.) Hirosi^ was ashamed of u n f i l i a l s e l f ^ " c. Hirosi^wa kagami n i ututta zibun^o nagameta. mirror in reflected self looked at "(Lit.) Hirosi, looked at self* who was reflected in the mirror." In (52.a) above, the reflexive zibun ' s e l f i s the left-branch-ing noun phrase of the direct object t i t i 'father*, while in (52.b) and (52.c) the reflexive occupies the direct object position as the head noun of the relative clause. Hence, the above sentences are exempt from the Like-NP Constraint. The following diagrams i l l u s t r a t e the preceding point more clearly. (53.a), (53.b) and (53.c) correspond to (52.a), (52.b) and (52.c) respectively. 58 (53) Hire-si^ NP? no t i t j > / \ ^ s f a t h e r H i r o s i . z i b u n s e l f s o n k e i s i t e i r u r e s p e c t i s b. oyaJftuKoomono a5a u n f i l i a l son i i ashamed o f / 59 In these diagrams, NP X and NP2 are not i n peer r e l a t i o n because they are not "the two maximum NP*s i n the simplex sentence". Therefore, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n may take place between the two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases, r e s u l t i n g i n the grammatical sen-tences. Thus, as f a r as such sentences i n (48) are concerned, the Like-NP Constraint i s c r u c i a l . 2.1.2 Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion and Unspecified-Body- Deletion Akatuka proposes two transformational rules which are i n t e r - r e l a t e d with the constraint above. Let us observe the sentences i n (54) i n r e l a t i o n to the two rules at issue. (54) a. •Kunio^wa zibun^o t a t a i t a . s e l f h i t "Kunio h i t himself." b, Kunio^wa zibun.no hoc- o t a t a i t a . s e l f 's cheek h i t " ( L i t . ) Kunio., h i t s e l f ^ s cheek." c. Kunio wa Kenta o t a t a i t a . h i t "Kunio h i t Kenta." 60 d. Kunio wa Kenta no hoo o t a t a i t a . •s cheek h i t "Kunio h i t Kenta on h i s cheek." Akatuka (19?2»33) accounts f o r the ungrammatically of (5*.a) i n the following wayt (55) " . . . . i f the action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb a f f e c t s the subject NP, then the s p e c i f i c body part must be mentioned...., otherwise the sentence i s i l l - f o r m e d . " Contrary to what i s mentioned i n (55)» the s p e c i f i c body part does not have to be mentioned i f the subject noun phrase i s not affected by the action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb i n such a case as (5*.c) where not the subject Kunio but the d i r e c t object Kenta was h i t . In order to explain why i t i s the case here, Akatuka f i r s t assumes that "a class of Japanese verbs of physical contact are r e a l l y 3-place predicates i n the deep-LL er l e v e l " . By the "3-place predicates", Akatuka seems to imply that the verb i n t h i s category o b l i g a t o r i l y requires the actor, the one who i s affected by the action, and the s p e c i f i c body part the action a f f e c t s to be i n the deeper l e v e l . The two transformational rules we are primarily concerned with 61 here are based on this assumption. Let us consider the following (56) in which the under-lying structure of (5*.b) and (5*.d) are given as (56.a) and (56.b) respectively. (56) a. b. Kenta In the above schematization, three places in question are occupied by NPj, NP2 and N P 3 . According to Akatuka, Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion i s responsible for the derivation of (5*.b) and (5*Kd) from (56.a) and (56.b) respectively, deleting the direct object (i.e. N P 2 ) . For 62 the derivation of ( 5 4 .a) and (5*..c), another transformational r u l e , Unspecified-Body-Deletion, i s to he applied to the under-l y i n g structures i n ( 5 6 ) . The ap p l i c a t i o n of the rule y i e l d s ( 5 * .a) and (54.c) from ( 5 6 .a) and (56.b) respectively, deleting NP3 above. The Like-NP Constraint, then, discards ( 5 * .a) as ungrammat i c a l . Akatuka also accounts f o r the ungrammaticality of the f o l -lowing (58.b) along the same l i n e s as above. The sentences i n (57) and (58) are a l l c i t e d from Akatuka. (57) a. Tanaka wa Satoo o nagutta. h i t "Tanaka h i t Satoo." b. Satoo wa Tanaka n i nagur-rare-ta. by h i t (Pass) "Satoo was h i t by Tanaka." (58) a. Tanaka wa Satoo no atama o nagutta. •s head h i t "Tanaka h i t Satoo on his head." b. *Satoo no atama wa Tanaka n i nagur-rare-ta. •s head by h i t (Pass) " ( L i t . ) *Satoo's head was h i t by Tanaka." 63 (58) c. Satoo wa Tanaka n i atama o nagur-rare-ta. by head h i t (Pass) "Satoo was h i t on h i s head by Tanaka." d. Satoo^wa Tanaka n i zibun^no atama o nagur-by s e l f 's head h i t rare-t a . (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Satoo. was h i t on s e l f ^ ' s head by Tafiaka." 1 (57.b) i s the passive sentence derived from i t s active counter-part (57.a). To y i e l d the passive sentence (57.b), the subject-object inversion took place and, then, the passive marker rare o was attached to the main verb naguru • h i t ' . This same deriva-t i o n a l process, however, cannot r e s u l t i n the grammatical passive version of (58.a). E i t h e r (58.c) or (58.d) i s r e a l l y the correct passive sentence of (58.a). According to Akatuka, i n the "deep-er l e v e l " of (57.a) and (58.a), which Doth share the 3-place predicate naguru ' h i t ' as shown i n the following schematic rep-resentation, they have the underlying structure i n common. 64 (59) S Satoo Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion deletes NP2 i n (59) to result i n (58.a), while Unspecified-Body-Deletion i s responsible for the derivation of (57.a), deleting NP-j of ( 5 9 ) . As for (58.c) and (58.d), their derivational process would be illustrated in the following way. (60) a. Satoo wa Tanaka n i Satoo no atama o nagur-rare-ta. by 's head hit (Pass) "(Lit.) Satoo was hit on Satoo's head by Tanaka." b. SatoOjWa Tanaka n i zibun.no atama o nagur-rare-ta. by self 's head hit (Pass) "(Lit.) Satoo j W a s h i t on s e l f ' s head by Tanaka." c. Satoo wa Tanaka n i 0 atama o nagur-rare-ta. by head hit (Pass) - . . . •'; •9'' • "(Lit.) Satoo was h i t on 0 head by Tanaka." The application of passivization to (59) results i n (60.a). 65 Reflexivization changes Satoo in Satoo no 'Satoo*s* into zibun 'self* with the subject noun phrase, Satoo. being the antecedent in (60.b). When ^ -pronominalization operates i n -stead of reflexivization, (60.c) results. Thus, i t i s claim-ed by Akatuka that the above-mentioned peculiar phenomenon in Japanese passivization can be accounted for only when we as-sume that "a class of Japanese verbs of the physical contact are really 3-place predicates in the deeper level". Now, with the information from the preceding observation, we shall examine Akatuka's two transformational rules and constraint so that we can present some counter-examples and counter-arguments to them. 2.1 . 3 Examination of Akatuka*s two rules and constraint F i r s t , consider the following sentences which are the crucial counter-examples to the Like-NP Constraint. ( 6 l ) a. *Konboo o motta Kunio.wa zibun.o tataita. •L mm. stick had self h i t "(Lit.) Kunio ± who had a stick h i t s e l f ^ " 66 (61) b. *Okane o motta Kunio ^wa zibun^ni kuruma o katta. money had self to car bought "(Lit.) Kunio. who had money bought self. a car. •" Compare the above with the sentences in (48). (6l.a) and (6l.b) d i f f e r from (48.a) and (48.b) respectively only be-cause the subject noun phrase is the head noun of the relative construction, whereas the subject of (48) is the maximum noun phrase. Recall that the reflexive pronoun cannot occupy the direct/indirect object position i f i t i s in peer relation with the subject nounnphrase. Therefore, the sentences in ( 6 l ) must be blocked as unacceptable. The Like-NP Constraint, however, does not hold in ( 6 1 ) . For, the constraint i s valid only when the two coreferential noun phrases are maximum noun phrases. By showing the relevant part of (6l.a) and (6l.b) schematical-ly, we can demonstrate this point more precisely. (62) a. konboo motta stick had 67 (62) b. Kunio, NP okane money motta had Notice, in the above, that neither NPg nor NP^ of NPlt the subject noun phrase of ( 6 l ) , i s the maximum noun phrase. The notion 'peer1 i s the one defined between two maximum noun phrases as we observed in regard to the examples in (52). Hence, reflexivization may take place between NP2, the head noun phrase of NP^ , and i t s coreferential noun phrase in the direct object position (i.e. 6 l.a), or the indirect object position (i.e. 6 l.b). As a result, the ungrammatical sen-tences are produced. Thus;,' i t i s obvious that the Like-NP Constraint i s not plausible enough to be responsible for the incorrect applica-tion of Japanese reflexivization. Second, we observed that Akatuka's one ground for assum-ing the "3-place predicate" stems from Japanese passivization. 68 In order that we can present the counter-argument to this account of the "3-place predicates", l e t us compare (57) and (58) in the previous section with what follows. (63) a. Kunio wa Kenta no inu o kakusita. *s dog hid "Kunio hid Kenta's dog." h. 'Kenta no inu wa Kunio n i kakus-rare-ta. 's dog by hid (Pass) "Kenta*s dog was hidden by Kunio." c. KentajWa Kunio n i zibun^no inu o kakus-rare-ta. by self 's dog hid (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta. had s e l f ' s dog hidden by Kunio." 1 d. Kenta-wa Kunio n i 0 inu o kakus-rare-ta. by dog hid (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta had 0 dog hidden by Kunio." (64) a. Kunio wa Kenta no b i i r u o nonda. *s beer drank "Kunio drank Kenta*s beer." b. 'Kenta no b i i r u wa Kunio n i nom-rare-ta. *s beer by drink (Pass) "Kenta*s beer was drunk:: by Kunio." 6 9 c. Kenta.wa Kunio n i zibun.no b i i r u o nom-rare-ta. by self 's beer drink (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta* had self!s beer drunk by Kunio." 1 d. Kenta wa Kunio n i 0 b i i r u o nom-rare-ta. by beer drink (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta had 0 beer drunk by Kunio." (64) a/ Kunio wa Kenta no hon o utta. •s book sold "Kunio sold Kenta*s book." b. 'Kenta no hon wa Kunio n i ur-rare-ta. *s book by s e l l (Pass) "Kenta's book was sold by Kunio." c. Kenta^wa Kunio n i zibun.no hon o ur/-rare-ta. by self 's book s e l l (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta* had self.'s book sold by Kunio." 1 d. Kenta*wa Kunio n i 0 hon o ur-rare-ta. by book s e l l (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta had 0 book sold by Kunio." The above b-sentences are in marginal acceptance unless they are direct translations from a foreign language. Either the c-sentences or the d-sentences are acceptable passive sen-70 tences of the a-sentences. Notice, here, that the verbs in-volved in the above examples are not the verbs of "physical contact". Nevertheless, we are able to observe the same be-havior of Japanese passivization as that claimed by Akatuka in (57) and ( 5 8 ) previously t the ordinal subject-object inversion cannot result in grammatical passive sentences. Therefore, we must say that what Akatuka claims is not an isolated phenomenon on the verbs of "physical contact" but one observable in Japanese passivization in general t that i s , under a certain condition, the person who i s affected by the action identified by the verb may occupy the subject position by virtue of passivization.^ Akatuka's ground to assume the verbs of "physical contact" as the "3-place predicates" is thus highly ad hoc. Third, closer examination of the verbs of "physical eon-tact" also raises another serious counter-argument, which con-sequently leads us to the conclusion that the constraint and the two rules by Akatuka must be discarded. Consider the following. 71 (66) a. *Kunio-wa zibun^o k a i t a . s e l f scratched " ( L i t . ) Kunio.. scratched s e l f ^ . " b. Kunio.wa zibun.no senaka o k a i t a . s e l f 's back scratched " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ scratched s e l f ^ ' s back." c. *Kunio wa Kenta o k a i t a . scratched "Kunio scratched Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no senaka o k a i t a . *s back scratched "Kunio scratched Kenta's back." (67) a. *Kunio.wa zibun^o sasutta. s e l f stroked " ( L i t . ) Kunio,^ stroked s e l f ^ " b. Kunio^wa zibun.no ude o sasutta. s e l f 's arm stroked " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ stroked s e l f ^ ' s arm." c. *Kunio wa Kenta o sasutta. stroked "Kunio stroked Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no ude o sasutta. *s arm stroked "Kunio stroked Kenta's arm." 72 (68) a. *Kunio^wa zibun.o monda. s e l f massaged " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ massaged s e l f ^ . " b. Kunio^wa zibun^no a s i o monda. s e l f ' s l e g massaged " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ massaged s e l f ^ ' s l e g . " c. *Kunio wa Kenta o monda. massaged "Kunio massaged Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no a s i o monda. *s l e g massaged "Kunio massaged Kenta's l e g . " What we must notice here i s that a l l the verbs used i n (66) through (68) are the verbs of "physical contact", yet they require the s p e c i f i c body part to be mentioned whether or not the action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb af f e c t s the subject noun phrase. In other words, a l l the c-sentences above are ungrammatical since the s p e c i f i c body part i s not mentioned. Otherwise, they are grammatical as the d-sentenees show. Also, compare (54.c), which i s grammatical, with the c-sen-tences above, which are ungrammatical. The s p e c i f i c body part does not have to be mentioned i n (54.c), whereas i t has to be 73 mentioned i n the c-sentences. Therefore, the ungrammatically of ( 5 4 .a) i n the previous section i s not due to what (55) says, f o r some verbs seem to semantically and o b l i g a t o r i l y require the s p e c i f i c body part to be mentioned and some do not, regard-less of the syntactic function of the noun phrase to be a f f e c t -ed by the action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb. In addition, Akatuka's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the verbs of "physical contact" i t s e l f i s not c l e a r . Observe the sentences i n ( 6 9 ) , (70) and ( 7 1 ) . ( 6 9 ) a. *KuniOjWa zibun^o aratta. s e l f washed " ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ washed s e l f " b. K u n i o f a zibun.no senaka 0 aratta. s e l f *s back washed " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ washed s e l f s back." c. *Kunio wa Kenta o aratta. washed "Kunio washed Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no senaka 0 aratta. •s back washed "Kunio washed Kenta*s back." 7* (70) a. *Kunio.wa zibun^o tumanda. self held -(Lit.) KuniGj^ held s e l f b. Kuniofa zibun.no hana o tumanda. self *s nose held "(Lit.) Kunio£ held s e l f ' s nose." c. *Kunio wa Kenta o tumanda. held "•Kunio held Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no hana o tumanda. •s nose held "Kunio held Kenta's nose." (71) a. •Kunio.wa zibun^o fusaida. self covered "(Lit.) Kunio^ covered self^." b. Kunio^wa zibun^no kuti o fusaida. • self 's mouth covered "(Lit.) Kunio^ covered s e l f ' s mouth." c. •Kunio wa Kenta o fusaida. covered "•Kunio covered Kenta." d. Kunio wa Kenta no kuti o fusaida. 's mouth covered "Kunio covered Kenta's mouth." 75 We are not sure i f the verbs involved in the above examples f a l l under "a class of the verbs of physical contact" or not. We may say, however, that in (69) through ( 7 1 ) , the specific body part must be mentioned when the verbs in question are used in the sense of "physical contact". In other words, the verbs at issue are examples which semantically require the three arguments, regardless of the noun phrase to be affected by the action identified by the verb. Now, r e c a l l that Akatuka assumes the following to block the a-sentences in (66) through ( 7 1 ) • (i) A class of verbs of physical contact must have three arguments in the deeper level ( i i ) Unspecified-Body-Deletion transformation ( i i i ) Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion (iv) The Like-NP Constraint If we adhere to Akatuka, i n (66) through ( 7 1 ) , rule ( i i ) i s responsible for the blocking of the a and c-sentences, while the b and d-sentences are derived by the transformational rule ( i i i ) . Then, the constraint (iv) marks the a-sentences 76 as ungraramatical. Notice, however, that the ungrammatical c-sentences are to be l e f t unmarked. Thus, i f we were to follow the above-mentioned ( i ) - ( i v ) , the ungrammatical sen-tences r e s u l t . To sum up the examination, we may conclude that c l o s e r examination of Akatuka's constraint and two related;trans-formational rules suggests that these are inadequate f o r the foregoing three reasons. Therefore, i t i s necessary f o r us to discard them e n t i r e l y . Our examination, however, has i t s e l f given no solution to the problem of why the r e f l e x i v e pronoun cannot emerge i n the d i r e c t / i n d i r e c t object p o s i t i o n . In the following sections, we s h a l l reconsider the inadequacy of the alleged r e f l e x i v e zibun ' s e l f * , so that we are able to propose an alternative solution to the problem which remains unsolved. 2.2 THE GENUINE REFLEXIVE AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (II) F i r s t , i n 2.2 .1 , we s h a l l t r e a t the zibunzisin-form as another candidate f o r a Japanese r e f l e x i v e . Then, i n 2.2.2, to j u s t i f y the zibunzisin-form as the genuine r e f l e x i v e , the 77 treatment of the alleged reflexive zibun 'self* i s to be discussed, which i s virtually to suggest that reflexiviza-tion in Japanese be a phenomenon of the simplex sentence. The result of the following sections w i l l be presented as the revised proposal (II) and as a conclusion to the chapter. 2.2.1 Another Candidate For The Reflexive Pronoun Let U 3 f i r s t consider the examples below to get the basic idea of the bound morpheme - z i s i n which would be crucial in order to tackle the problem l e f t unsolved in the previous section. (72) a. Kunio ga syatyoo ni natta. president to became "Kunio became the president (of a company)." b. Kunio-zisin ga syatyoo n i natta. president to became "Kunio himself became the president (of a company)." (73) a. Kunio ga Kenta n i syukudai 0 yar-sase-ta. by homework do (Caus) "Kunio made Kenta do the homework." 78 (73) b. Kunio ga Kenta-zisin n i syukudai o yar-by homework do sase-ta. (Caus) "Kunio made Kenta himself do the homework." The b-sentences convey the contrastive meaning in comparison with the a-sentences. Thus, the bound morpheme - z i s i n func-tions as a sort of emphasizes, giving the word to which - z i s i n i s attached the contrastive meaning. Notice, also, that the non-contrastive sentences (i.e. a-sentences) must be perfectly grammatical before the bound morpheme is attached. Now, bearing the above information in mind, compare the following sentences in (7*0 with those in (48) which i s cited here again from the previous section. (48) a. •KuniOjWa zibun.^0 tataita. self hit "Kunio hit himself." b. *KuniOjWa zibun.ni kuruma o katta. self to car bought "Kunio bought a car to himself." 79 (74) a. Kunio.wa zibunzisin^o tataita. h i t "Kunio hit himself." b. Kunio.wa zibunzisin.ni kuruma o katta. "Kunio bought a car to himself." Example (74) i s only different from (48) in that the alleged reflexive zibun-form i s replaced with the zibunzisin-form. What i s important here i s that (48) must be blocked as un-grammatical, .while (74) i s perfectly well-formed. Remember that Akatuka accounts for the ungrammatieality of (48) by say-ing that the zibun-form i n (48) i s unacceptable because i t i s "in peer relation" with i t s coreferential noun phrase. Being "in peer relation" with i t s coreferent, however, the zibunzisin-form i s perfectly acceptable in ( 7 * ) . Why i s i t the case here? Furthermore, i t i s unlikely that the zibunzisin-form in (7*) can be treated along the same line as that in (72) and (73) I namely, as a compound word. For, there exists no non-contrast ive version for (7*) i possible non-contrastive sen-tences are ungrammatical as shown in (48). The treatment of the zibunzisin-form. therefore, must differentiate from that 80 of the bound morpheme - z i s i n * The above f a c t would suggest that the ungrammatically i n question should not be a t t r i b u t e d to the syntactic r e l a t i o n , such as the peer r e l a t i o n of two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases, and also that the adequacy of the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e pronoun be reconsidered. Therefore, l e t us assume f o r the time being that the r e f l e x i v e pronoun i n Japanese i s not the alleged ^zi^un-form but the zibunzisin-form. Hence, the ungrammatically of (48) i s not due to the v i o l a t i o n of such a syntactic constraint as the Like-NP Constraint, but i s simply due to the inadequacy of the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e pronoun. If the r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s r e a l l y the zibunzisin-form. we are able to account f o r the following otherwise ignored phenomenon quite systematically i n exactly the same manner as above. Consider the following examples, f i r s t . (75) a. Mizu^wa s o r e z i t a i ^ n i tetubun o fukunde i r u . water i t s e l f i n i r o n contain i s " ( L i t . ) Water ± contains i r o n i n i t s e l f ^ " 81 (75) b. TaiyoojWa sorezitai.kara hikari o dasu. the sun i t s e l f from light emit "(Lit.) The sun. emits the ligh t from i t s e l f ' " The sorezitai-form in these examples is the non-human counter-part of the zibunzisin-form. (Henceforth, zibunzisin and sorezitai are translated as 'oneself* and ' i t s e l f * respec-tiv e l y for ease of reference.) Although i t i s used less fre-quently than zibunzisin 'oneself, sorezitai ' i t s e l f * in Japanese behaves in exactly the same fashion as i t s human counter-part j that i s , sorezitai * i t s e l f * i n (75) i s co-referential with the left-most non-human noun phrase which also commands sorezitai ' i t s e l f * . The following (76) re-presents this more clearly. (76) a. S tetubun fukunde iru iron contain i s mizu. water sorezitai. i t s e l f 82 (76) b. taiyoo. NP2 1 y\ NP the sun taiyoo. h i k a r i dasu the sun l i g h t emit s o r e z i t a i . i t s e l f 1 In the diagrams, NPi i s the left-most noun phrase commanding NP£» s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f . Hence, NPX and NP 2 p e r f e c t l y meet, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n with NPA being the antecedent ( c f . 47). (Incidentally, these sentences must be blocked as ungrammati-ca l i f we adhere to Akatuka*s Like-NP Constraint, since the two noun phrases are i n peer r e l a t i o n . ) Again, i t must be noticed that the claim that s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f i s a compound word, consisting of the demonstrative sore ' i t ' and the bound morpheme - z i t a i does not hold 1 that i s , the bound morpheme can be attached only to the grammatical sentences i n order that the sentences to which - z i t a i i s attach-ed convey the contrastive meaning. The following (77) and (78) show an example. 83 (77) a. Mizu n i eiyoo ga aru. water i n n u t r i t i o n i s " ( L i t . ) N u t r i t i o n i s i n water." b. Mi z u - z i t a i n i eiyoo ga aru. water i n n u t r i t i o n i s " ( L i t . ) N u t r i t i o n i s i n water i t s e l f . " (78) a. Kunio no zizyoden ga rippana syoosetu da. •s autobiography excellent novel i s "Kunio*s autobiography i s an excellent novel." b. Kunio no zizyoden-zitai ga rippana syoosetu da. *s autobiography excellent novel i s "Kunio*s autobiography i t s e l f i s an excellent novel." Thus, s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f * behaves just l i k e i t s human counter-part, z i b u n z i s i n 'oneself*. So long as we t r e a t the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e , we are bound to f a i l to r e a l i z e t h i s r e l a t i o n between z i b u n z i s i n * oneself* and s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f , which share the above-mentioned common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . In other words, unless we re j e c t the notion to treat the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e , we cannot cope with the non-human re-f l e x i v e pronoun. 84 To sum up, as an alt e r n a t i v e proposal to Akatuka's Like- NP Constraint, we have so f a r claimed that the genuine re-f l e x i v e pronoun i n Japanese i s not the alleged zibun-form but the zibunzisin-form. Furthermore, should i t be so, the otherwise ignored s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f can be treated i n exact-l y the same manner as zibunzisin ' o n e s e l f . Then, what i s the zibun-form? This question w i l l be the main topic i n the following section, i n order that.we can further elaborate our proposal. 2.2.2 The Treatment Of Zibun ' s e l f If the r e f l e x i v e pronouns are r e a l l y zibunzisin 'one-s e l f and s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f i n Japanese, the reason why we have the zibun-form such as i n (80) i s our main concern i n t h i s section. (80) Kunio^wa Kenta n i zibun^o waraw-rare-ta. by s e l f laugh at (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio.^ had Kenta laugh at s e l f F i r s t , observe the sentences i n (81) through (84). Watasi.wa Kenta n i I to watasi^ ga iku to i t t a . I zibun. s e l f 2 go that said "I said to Kenta that I would go." Anata.wa Kenta n i you to anata. ga iku to i t t a . you zibun. s e l f 1 go that said •You said to Kenta that you would go." Kunio.wa Kenta n i fkare^ ga iku to i t t a . to \ h e go that said zibun. s e l f 1 "Kunio said to Kenta that he would go." Watasi^wa watasi, no hon o yonda. j 1 •s book read zibun. s e l f 1 "I read my book." Anata.wa you anata£ no hon o yonda, you zibun. s e l f 2 's book read •You read your book." Kunio ^ wa kare. no hon o yonda. he zibun. s e l f 1 "Kunio read h i s book." 86 (83) a. Watasi^wa Kenta n i by watasi.o syookai-sase-ta. introduce (Caus) zibun. s e l f "I made Kenta introduce me." b. Anata^wa Kenta n i you by J anata^ o syookai-sase-ta. y o u introduce (Caus) zibuni S e l f - 1 "You made Kenta introduce you." Kunio.wa Kenta n i by kare. o syookai-sase-ta, i l he zibun. s e l f 3 introduce (Caus) "Kunio^made Kenta introduce him^." (84) a. Watasi.wa Kenta n i I by I " watasi. n i kuruma o kau I to car buy zibun. s e l f 1 koto o nattoku-sase-ta. that agree (Caus) "I made Kenta agree to buy me a car. / anaxa. to car b. Anata-wa Kenta n i you by « nata^ n i kuruma o kau you zibun. s e l f 2 buy koto o nattoku-sase-ta. that agree (Caus) "You made Kenta agree to buy you a car. 87 (84) c. Kunio.wa Kenta n i by < kare. n i kuruma o kau he -to car buy zibun. s e l f 1 koto o nattoku-sase-ta. that agree (Caus) "Kunio*, made Kenta agree "to buy him^ a car." As shown above, the zibun-form i s f u l l y interchangeable^ with the personal pronouns' without changing the meaning of the sentences. The zibun-form. however, d i f f e r e n t i a t e s from others i n the following two aspects. ( i ) Zibun ' s e l f * refers to the f i r s t , the second and the t h i r d person as shown i n (81) through (84). ( i i ) Also, zibun 'self* i s e n t i r e l y free from a major feature of the Japanese language, the speech l e v e l . • o (It i s not the case with the other pronouns.) In r e l a t i o n to what the above ( i i ) implies, i t would be easier to observe the examples below. (85) a. (Watasi^wa) ima now watasi. no u t i de gozaimasu. I •s house at be(formal) zibun* s e l f 1 *bre^ I (informal) "I am at my home now." 88 (85) a*. (Ore-wa) ima I now ore. I 1 zibun. s e l f 1 •watasi. no u t i da. *s house be(informal) I (formal) "I am at my home now." b. (Anata-wa) ima now anata. no u t i n i irassyaimasu ka? y . *s house at be(formal) zibun. s e l f x •omae. you (informal) "Are you at your home now?" b'. (Omae*wa) ima you now omae- no u t i n i i r u ka? v o u 's house at be(informal) zibun. s e l f 1 •anata*(formal) I you 'Are you at your home, now?" c. (Ano kata.wa) ima that person now ano kata- no u t i n i that per son , ,_ ' s house at zibun* s e l f ; 1 •aitu*^ .that person(informal) irassyaimasu. be(formal) "That person i s at h i s home now." 89 (85) c». (AitUjWa) ima that person now -aitu. no u t i n i i r u . that person . 's house at be (informal) *ang kata l that person(formal) That person i s at his home now. ti In Japanese the verb of a sentence generally controls the the verbs in formal form, whereas the a*, b f, and c'-sentences have the informal form. The zibun-form can be co-occurrent o with both forms, but the others cannot.' In addition to the above observation, we oare able to present four more reasons to postulate the zibun-form as a personal pronoun, rather than a reflexive pronoun. F i r s t , consider the following sentences by Hirakouji (1973*17-18). A l l sentences are cited here with minor changes. (86) a. Zibun wa sanzyuusan-sai de arimasu. speech level. In the above, the a, b, and c-sentences have self thirty-three-years copula 11 I am thirty-three years old. tt a'. Zibun-zisin wa sanzyuusan-sai de arimasu. self thirty-three-years copula "(I don't know about others, but) I am thirty-three years old." 90 (86) b. Zibun wa siai-no-tame kesseki simasita. self game-because of absent did "I was absent (from the class) because of the game." b*. Zibun-zisin wa siai-no-tame kesseki simasita. self game-because of absent did (I don't know about others, but) I was absent (from the class) because of the game." Hirakouji treats zibun 'self* in (86.a) and (86.b) as jargon, differentiating them from those in (86.a') and (86. b*). Hirakouji*s explanation (1973»18) readst (87) "They(86.a-b) used to be uttered by people who belonged to the army. Some students who commit themselves to a university sports club which places them under a st r i c t discipline often use sentence like (2)....The zibun*s in (3) and (4) are not necessarily such jargon. They are used in a ordinary conversation." In the quotation, ( 2 ) , (3) and (4) corespond to (86.b), (86.a*) and (86.b*) respectively. Notice that we can plausibly account for the zibun-form above, postulating zibun 'self* as a personal pronoun ; that i s , although i t is jargon, zibun *self* in (86.a) and (86.b) is a personal pronoun which i s free from the speech level. (In fact, zibun 91 • s e l f * to r e f e r to the f i r s t person was employed i n the army i n order to maintain the simplest way of communication with-out the formality. Also, i t i s used i n a u n i v e r s i t y sports club or the l i k e where the army-like s t r i c t order i s kept.) As to (86.a*) and (86.V), they are the contrastive versions of (86.a) and (86.b) ( c f . ?2 and 73). Second, consider the following examples. (88) a. Zibun wa doo desu ka? s e l f how i s "How about you?" b. Zibun ga kinasai t s e l f come "(You) cornel" In these examples, the zibun-form refers to the second person. Unless zibun ' s e l f i s treated as a personal pronoun, t h i s occurrence of zibun ' s e l f must be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the other occurrences. However, as shown i n ( i ) previously, that zibun • s e l f refers to the second person as a personal pro-noun i s quite predictable. Thus, with zibun ' s e l f as a personal pronoun, we can give a systematic account f o r both 92 (86) and (88) i n exactly the same manner. Third, observe the following causative sentences. (89.a) i s Akatuka's. (89) a. Taroo.wa Ziroo.ni zibun.».o nagur-sase-ta. l 0 1 3 •••• \ by s e l f h i t (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Taroo.made Ziroo h i t s e l f . . " b. Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibun^..o kak-sase-ta. by s e l f paint (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ made Kenta paint s e l f ^ " c. Kunio 4wa Kenta.ni z i b u n . o syookai-sase-ta. i 3 1*3 # . by s e l f introduce (Caus) " ( L i t . ) KuniOj^ made Kenta introduce s e l f . ^ " In a l l the above causative sentences, the zibun-form only r e f e r s to the subject of the matrix sentence. Akatuka at t r i b u t e the ungrammatical reading ( i . e . the one indicated by the index ji.) to the v i o l a t i o n of the Like-NP Constraint. f o r NP 2 and NP3 i n the following schematization of (89.a) are i n peer r e l a t i o n . 93 (90) Taroo. nagur • Z i r o o 1 h i t However, we have observed i n the previous section that z i b u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f can be i n peer r e l a t i o n with i t s ante-cedent. Hence, (91) i s ambiguous where the zj,bun.-form i n (89) has been replaced by zib u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f . (91) a. Taroo^wa Ziroo ..ni zibunzisin-jO nagur-sase-ta. by oneself h i t (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Taroo*^ made Ziroo j h i t s e l f . ^ . " b. KuniOjjWa Kenta^ni z i b u n z i s i n ^ o kak-sase-ta. by oneself paint (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. paint s e l f . . . " c. Kunio^wa Kenta ..ni z i b u n z i s i n ^ ..o syookai-sase-ta. by oneself introduce (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. introduce s e l f . . . " 94 In the above, unless the zibun-form is treated as a personal pronoun on the one hand and the zibunzisin-form. on the other hand as a reflexive, the ambiguity of (91) . cannot ibe accounted for systematically. Notice that we could account for the ambiguity in question quite systematical-l y in the following way, using the underlying structure of (91.b) in terms of schematization (i.e. 92). (92) The derivation of the sentence indicated by the index 2 in (91.b) would bet (i) Reflexivization — NP3 gets reflexivized under the coreferential identity with NPg. being changed into zibunzisin 'oneself in the S2 cycle. 95 ( i i ) Causativization — kak 'paint' i s combined with the causative sase, forming kak-sase. Also, be-cause of t h i s , the S 2 node i s to be deleted, ( i i i ) As a re s u l t of ( i i ) , the sentence with the index X i s derived having NP2 and NP-j as i t s constituents, When NPi and NP2 are co r e f e r e n t i a l , the sentence i n d i -cated by i r e s u l t s i n the following way» (i ) Nothing happens i n the S 2 cycle. ( i i ) Causativization — Same as above. 11 ( i i i ) Pronominalization — NP-j, now a constituent of the matrix sentence S i , gets pronominalized. As a r e s u l t , ( 8 9 . b ) i s derived, (iv) -zisin-attachment — If the bound morpheme - z i s i n i s attached to the r e s u l t of ( i i i ) , the sentence with the index i i n (91.h) r e s u l t s . Notice that the ambiguity of (91.h) i s just a fort u i t o u s matter, f o r the bound morpheme - z i s i n could be attached to NPi or NP2, r e s u l t i n g i n the following grammatical (93.a) or (93.b) respectively. 9 6 (93) a. Kunio^-zisin wa Kenta n i zibun^o kak-sase-ta. by s e l f paint (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ himself made Kenta paint s e l f ^ . " b. Kuniojwa Kenta-zisin n i zibun-o kak-sase-ta. by s e l f paint (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ made Kenta himself paint s e l f ^ . " Therefore, i t i s of importance to notice that the sen-tence with the r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s only the one indicated by the index j. i n (91), while the reading with i i s accept-able only when i t conveys the contrastive meaning. In other words, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese i s a phenomenon observable only i n the simplex sentence. Moreover, t h i s would also ex-p l a i n why the reading with the index i , i n (91) i s the dominant one. What we have claimed above i s not only peculiar to the causative sentences. Consider the following examplesi (94) a. Kunio.wa zibun. < 4o t a t a i t a Kenta.o niranda. l i 3 j s e l f h i t stared at " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ stared at Kenta who h i t s e l f ^ . " a. Kunio^wa zibunzisin^© t a t a i t a Kenta^o niranda. oneself h i t stared at " ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ stared at Kenta^ who h i t s e l f . j . " 97 ( 9 * ) b. Kunio.wa zibun^ # io kaita Kenta^0 tataeta. self painted admired "(Lit.) Kunio.- admired Kenta who painted s e l f " b'« Kunio^wa zibunzisin^o kaita Kenta o tataeta, oneself painted admired "(Lit.) Kunio. admired Kenta. who paint-ed s e l f . " J c. KuniojWa zibun.*.o syookaisita Kenta n i self introduced to tikazuita. approached "(Lit.) Kunio. approached Kenta who introduced self-V' c'. Kunio-wa zibunzisin^^o syookaisita Kenta ni oneself introduced to tikazuita. approached "(Lit.) Kunio. approached Kenta* who introduced s e l f . " The diagram (95) below represents the underlying structure that the sentences in ( 9 * ) have in common. 98 (95) Kenta. NP< Kunio. Kenta 1 j In the above diagram, NP2 i s the r e l a t i v e clause with NP3 being i t s head noun. When NP5 i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NP^, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes place i n the S 2 cycle, y i e l d i n g the a', b* and c'-sentences with the index j[, which i s the dominant reading of them. Otherwise, with NP^ being i t s coreferent, NP5 gets pronominalized, r e s u l t i n g i n the a, b .and c-sentences. The - z i s in-attachment i s responsible f o r the a 1 , b* and c^-sentences with the index i , which are one case of the contrastive versions of the a, b and c-sentences. Hence, the ambiguity i s once again coincident. The fourth reason to j u s t i t y our treatment of the zibun« form as a personal pronoun comes from the following passive sentences* 99 Compare (96) with (1). (1) a. Kunio.ga Kenta^o zibun^^no u t i de korosita. self *s house at k i l l e d "(Lit.) Kunio-Jeilled Kenta at s e l f s house." b. Kenta^wa Kunio^ni zibun .^no u t i de by self 's house at koros-rare-ta. k i l l (Pass) "(Lit.) Kenta i was k i l l e d by Kunio at self., *s house. (96) a. Kunio.wa Kenta.ni zibun.*.o syookais-by self introduce rare-ta. (Pass) "(Lit.) Kunio*^ had Kenta introduce s e l f " b, Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibunzisin..0 syookais-by oneself introduce rare-ta. (Pass) "(Lit.) Kunio^ had Kenta,. introduce s e l f y . " Recall that (l.b) was crucial to propose the sub.iect- antecedent condition i n the previous chapter ( c f . 1.1.1) , since in (l.a) and i t s passive (l.b) zibun •self* only refers 100 to the subject noun phrase. Hence, the a p p l i c a t i o n of passiv-i z a t i o n must precede r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n so long as we treat the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e pronoun. However, i t does not seem to be the case with (96.b), since z i b u n z i s i n •oneself* refers back to both Kunio and Kenta. To account f o r t h i s , we assume the following deriva-t i o n a l processes, using the underlying structure of ( 9 6 ) . (97) S i The sentence with the index j. i n (96,b) would be derived i n the following way: ( i ) R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n — NPjj, i s to be changed into z i b u n z i s i n 'oneself*, being c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NP 2 p r i o r to p a s s i v i z a t i o n . ( i i ) P a s s i v i z a t i o n — NP3 i s to be deleted by Equi-NP  deletion* Also, the verb syookais 'introduce' i s combined with the passive marker rare. Now, NP2 and NPjj, are the constituents of the passive sen-tence S l t the S 2 node having been eliminated, ( i i i ) The r e s u l t of ( i i ) i s the sentence with the index 1 i n (96.b). The sentence with the index i i n (96.b) would be derived i n t h i s way1 ( i ) P assivization — Same as above ( i i ) . ( i i ) Pronominalization — NP^ being changed into the zibun-form under the r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y with NPA, (96.a) r e s u l t s , ( i i i ) -zisin-attachment — - z i s i n being attached to NPij., the sentence with index i i n (96.b) re s u l t s . Again, the ambiguity of (96.b) i s just fortuitous, because the bound morpheme - z i s i n could be attached to NPA or NP2 rather than NP4, y i e l d i n g the grammatical sentences, (98.a) 102 or (98.b) respectively. (98) a. KuniOj-zisin wa Kenta n i zibun.0 syookais-by s e l f introduce rare- t a . (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. himself had Kenta introduce s e l f " b. Kunio.wa Kenta-zisin n i zibun^o syookais-by s e l f introduce rare- t a . (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio, had Kenta himself introduce s e l f " Thus, postulating zibun • s e l f * as a personal pronoun on the one hand, and z i b u n z i s i n •oneself* as the r e f l e x i v e on the other, we are able to account f o r the ambiguity very p l a u s i b l y . Therefore, as a conclusion to t h i s section we may say that what has been treated as Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n (by Akatuka, Oyakawa etc.) through the zibun-form r e a l l y consists of two d i f f e r e n t syntactic phenomena » r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n the simplex sentence and pronominalization i n the complex sentence. 103 CONCLUSION Through the examination of Akatuka 'S Like-NP Constraint and related two transformational rules, we have encountered the question of the adequate form of the reflexive pronoun in Japanese. In order to give a plausible account of the problem, we have postulated the zibun-form as a personal pronoun on the one hand, and the zibunzisin-form as the genuine re-flexive on the other, with the following resultst (i) sorezitai ' i t s e l f , the non-human counter-part of zibunzisin 'oneself, can be treated as the reflexive pronoun, ( i i ) What has been classified as reflexivization in Japanese so far really consists of two different syntactic processes i reflexivization and pro-nominalization. As a conclusion to this chapter, we may present what the foregoing discussion has resulted in as our revised proposal (II) in the following: 104 (99) The Revised Proposal (II) Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ( i ) In a given simplex sentence that dominates the two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases, NPa and NPr, change the l a t t e r into zibunzisin 'one s e l f ( s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f ) i f NPaUs the l e f t -most human (non-human) noun phrase which also commands NPr. ( i i ) When NPa i s i n a higher sentence, change NPa into zibun ' s e l f . (Pronominalization 1 2) 105 NOTES FOR CHAPTER II 1. The deep structure of these sentences i s also unaccept-able as shown belowi i . *Kunio wa Kunio o tataita. hit -Kunio h i t Kunio." i i . *Kunio wa Kunio n i kuruma o katta. to car bought "Kunio bought Kunio a car." In Chapter III, this point i s to be discussed in detail. 2. By the notion "maximum NP", Akatuka seems to imply that an NP which is not dominated by another NP node i s a "maximum NP". Therefore, the head noun of the relative construction is not a "maximum NP", and neither i s the left-branching NP. 3. Noriko A. McCawley, "A Study of Japanese Reflexivization," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, I l l i n o i s University 1972) P.30. 4. Ibid., p.34. 5. It i s well-known that there are two types of passive sen-tences in Japanese t the plain passive-derived by the subject-object inversion plus passive marker rare attachment and the so-called affective passive. What we are concerned with here is the characteristics of the latter type of passive in general, not peculiar to the verbs of "physical contact." 6. At present, the condition under which the personal pronouns are to be interchanged with zibun • s e l f i s not clear. 7. In Japanese, personal pronouns which refer to the third person are missing. Kare 'he' in (81) through (84) and kanozyo 'she* are sometimes classified as such personal pronouns. How-ever, this classification i s highly questionable since the gender is quite foreign in Japanese. 8. As for the discussion i n detail about the speech level, see. Akiko Shinoda (1973)» for example. 9. In these examples, ano hito 'that person' and aitu 'that person* are not personal pronouns. Nevertheless, our main claim would remain in effect. 10. This, usage of zibun 'self* i s more frequently observable i n the Kansai dialect which i s spoken in Osaka area. 106 11. The t e r m ' p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ' i n t h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s o n l y r e f e r s t o t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f z i b u n ' s e l f * i n o r d e r t o show t h a t z i b u n ' s e l f ' , and z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f a r e d e r i v e d i n a d i f f e r e n t manner. As f o r t h e p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n Japanese, we l e a v e i t s g e n e r a l f o r m u l a t i o n f o r f u t u r e s t u d y . 12. N o t i c e t h a t t h i s p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i s i n t h e above-mentioned sense ( c f . n o t e 10). A l s o , ( i i ) i n t h e r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l ( I I ) i s n o t t h e case w i t h s o r e ' i t / t h a t ' because i t i s n o t a p e r s o n a l pronoun. See t h e examples belowt i . R e k i s i ^ w a s o r e z i t a i ^ o k u r i k a e s u . h i s t o r y i t s e l f r e p e a t " H i s t o r y r e p e a t s i t s e l f . " i i . SensoOjWa r e k i s i . g a sorezitai***© k u r i k a e s u war h i s t o r y i t s e l f r e p e a t k o t o o simesu. t h a t show " ( L i t . ) The war shows t h a t h i s t o r y , r e p e a t s i t s e l f ± . " 1 i i i . *Sensoo.wa r e k i s i ga sore.,0 k u r i k a e s u k o t o o war h i s t o r y i t r e p e a t t h a t s i m e s u . show " ( L i t . ) The war*, shows t h a t h i s t o r y r e p e a t s A l t h o u g h i i i above might be a c c e p t a b l e as a d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n f r o m a f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e , i t i s o t h e r w i s e u n a c c e p t a b l e . Hence, s o r e ' i t / t h a t ' must be t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m z i b u n ' s e l f . CHAPTER III SOME RESIDUAL PROBLEMS AND THE INTERPRETIVE THEORY 3 INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter, we claimed that the genuine r e -f l e x i v e i n Japanese i s not the zibun-form but the zibunz i s i n -forra, and that zibun 'self* and z i b u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f are the respective r e s u l t s from pronominalization and r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . We must admit, however, that with t h i s approach there s t i l l i s a d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the adequate deep structure to which the transformational rules apply. Consider the following, f o r example. (100) a. Kunio^wa zibunzisin-o t a t a i t a . oneself h i t "Kunio h i t himself." a*. *Kunio wa Kunio o t a t a i t a . h i t "•Kunio h i t Kunio." 108 (100) b. Kunio-wa Kenta n i zibun-^o tatak-sase-ta. by s e l f h i t (Caus) - ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ made Kenta h i t s e l f b*. *Kunio wa Kenta n i Kunio o tatak-sase-ta. by h i t (Caus) "•Kunio made Kenta h i t Kunio," In the present chapter, we s h a l l look into a possible account f o r t h i s i n Jackendoff s proposal known as the In-terpre t i v e Theory. As a r e s u l t , i t w i l l be shown that the approach i n the framework of Jackendoff's proposal can shed l i g h t on the following two problems as well, which the stan-dard transformational approach seems unable to account f o r . ( i ) The occurrence of zibun * s e l f ' w i t h the p a r t i c l e de •by/with* ( i i ) Non-coreferential zibun ' s e l f and zibu n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f 3»1 The Interpretive Theory by Jackendoff In order that the c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y can be interpreted i n the semantic component, Jackendoff (1972ill2) formulates English r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n the following wayi 1 0 9 (101) R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n English NPA (X'coref ^ ^ ^ e f J * n the environment.... OBLIGATORY According to Jackendoff, t h i s r u l e says thatt (102) " . . . . i n the proper contexts f o r r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n NP2 i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPA i f and only i f i t i s r e f l e x i v e . " It i s important to notice here (.that, the revised proposal (II) i n the previous chapter being preserved, 1 the r u l e ( 1 0 1 ) can remain i n ef f e c t even i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n s f o r example, the r e f l e x i v e z i b u n z i s i n •oneself 1 i n ( 1 0 0 . a ) i s to be interpreted as c o r e f e r e n t i a l with Kunio. the left-most human noun phrase which commands the r e f l e x i v e , by the rule ( 1 0 1 ) . As the r e f l e x i v e z i b u n z i s i n •oneself* i s presented i n the deep structure i n the Interpretive Theory, such a ungrammatical deep structure as ( 1 0 0 . a * ) can be disregarded. Likewise, zibun * s e l f ' i n ( 1 0 0 . b ) can be e a s i l y i n -terpreted as c o r e f e r e n t i a l with i t s e l i g i b l e antecedent Kunio by the rul e something l i k e follows* 110 (103) Pronominalization NPi o(coref £ of 2pro| i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n , f c * • • OBLIGATORY In (lOO.b) both.. Kunio and Kenta. the left-most human noun phrase i n the matrix sentence and i n the embedded sentence respectively, w i l l q u a l i f y as NP^ and zibun ' s e l f * as NP 2. As indicated i n (lOO.b) the zibun-form can be only coreferen-t i a l with Kunio. the matrix subject. Therefore, we must maintain a l l the conditions mentioned previously i n the r e -vised proposal (II) as "the environment" i n order f o r the ru l e to r e s u l t i n the correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Using the revised proposal (II) as "the environment", r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n and pronominalization i n Japanese may be formulated i n the following way i n terms of the Interpretive Theory t (104) a. R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n TNP 2 NPi (/coref ^£2, ] i f / ( i ) NPi i s the left-most noun phrase • commanding NP2 and ( i i ) both NPi and NP 2 are i n a given simplex sentence I l l (104) b. Pronominalization f N P 2 — x —• NP, </coref ] i f ( i ) same as above and ( i i ) NPA i s i n a higher sentence This formulation not only avoids such ungrammatical deep structures as i n (100) but also accounts f o r the coreferen-t i a l i t y observable i n the examples belowi (105) a. Kunio^wa zibun^de syukudai o s i t a . s e l f by homework d i d "Kunio did the homework by himself." b. Zibun^de syukudai o s i t a koto ga Kunio-ni s e l f by homework d i d that to z i s i n o ataeta. confidence gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) did the homework "by himself gave Kunio confidence." The zibun-form i n (105) i s a perfect instance of our anal-y s i s i n the preceding chapters since the pronoun zibun • s e l f * i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with the left-most human noun phrase which commands zibun ' s e l f as the index shows i n (105). However, 112 the standard transformational rule by which one of the two co r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases i s to be changed into the zibun-form cannot be accountable f o r the occurrence of zibun ' s e l f * i n the above examples because the possible deep structures f o r the sentences i n question are e n t i r e l y unacceptable as shown below t (106) a. *Kunio wa Kunio de syukudai o s i t a . by homework did "•Kunio d i d the homework ^by Kunio." b. •Kunio de syukudai o s i t a koto ga Kunio n i by homework d i d that to " • ( L i t . ) That (he) d i d the homework :by. Kunio gave Kunio \\J.I confidence." It seems to be because of t h i s d i f f i c u l t y that the pronoun zibun • s e l f ' with the p a r t i c l e de_ 'by/with* has been r a r e l y treated i n the current l i n g u i s t i c works i n terms of the stan-dard transformational approach.-' Contrary to t h i s , the in t e r p r e t i v e approach does not have to assume the ungrammatical deep structure (106). Ac-cording to the rul e (104), Kunio i n (105) i s to be q u a l i f i e d as NPi and zibun • s e l f 1 as NP2 i n (104). 113 Next, we shall treat mere complicated examples. (107) a. Kunio .wa zibun*, de zibun.no syukudai o s i t a . self by self 's homework did "(Lit.) Kunio. did self**s homework by self*^" 1 b. Zibun^de zibun^no syukudai o sita koto ga self by self * s homework did that Kunio*.ni z i s i n o ataeta. to confidence gave "(Lit.) That (he) did aelf^'s homework by self* gave Kunio. r - confidence." 1 l (108.a) and (108.b) below are the schematical representation of (107.a) and (107.b) respectively. (108) a. S 114 (108) b. (Same as VP of 108.a) In these schematizations, pronominalization between NPX and NP3 is accountable by the standard transformational approach, in which NP3 i s to be changed into zibun 'self*. But, pro-nominalization between NPX and NP2 i s to remain unaccounted for by the same approach because of the ungrammatical deep structures. The interpretive approach, once again, shows no d i f f i c u l -ty in explaining the antecedent-reflexive relation in (107). In both (108.a) and (108.b), the rule (104.b) gives the two interpretations as follows* (109) a. NPX(Kunio) +coref NP? (zibun'self) b. NPX(Kunio) +coref NP 3(zibun'self) The interpretive approach thus accounts for such complicated instances as (107). whereas the standard transformational 115 approach seems unable to account f o r them. Jackendoff (19?2tll2) also imposes the following con-d i t i o n on English r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . (110) The Consistency Condition If the table of coreference marks two NPs c o r e f e r e n t i a l , these NPs must i n f a c t be able to describe the same i n -d i v i d u a l . Jackendoff uses (111) below to show how the condition works. (111) a. *The boy^shot he r s e l f ^ . b. * F i n k e l s t e i n ^ shot yourself^. The r e f l e x i v e rule marks the two noun phrases i n (111) co-r e f e r e n t i a l as indicated by the index i , . This interpreta-t i o n , however, i s to be rejected because of the Consistency  Condition whereby the male i n d i v i d u a l i n (111.a) cannot de-scribe the same i n d i v i d u a l as the female ' h e r s e l f . The t h i r d person 'Pinkelstein* and the second person i n d i v i d u a l • y o u r s e l f cannot be the same i n ( l l l . b ) . In other words, the condition r e j e c t s (111.a) because of i t s gender d i s -agreement, whereas ( l l l . b ) because of i t s person disagree-116 m e r i t . Notice that t h i s condition must be adopted into Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n order to block such ungrammatical sentences as f o l l o w s i (112) a. • R e k i s i f a zibunzisin^o kurikaesu. hi s t o r y oneself repeat "•History repeats oneself." b. •Kuniojwa s o r e z i t a i ^ o t a t a i t a . i t s e l f h i t "•Kunio h i t i t s e l f . " It i s obvious that the r e f l e x i v e rule (104.a) cannot bloek the ungrammaticality of (112). The r e f l e x i v e rule gives the following interpretations. (113) a. (Rekisi'history*) +coref (zibunzisin*oneself*) b. (Kunio) +coref ( s o r e z i t a i * i t s e l f * ) Then, i t i s the Consistency Condition that discards (113) above * that i s , the non-human noun phrase r e k i s i 'history* cannot describe the same i n d i v i d u a l as the human noun phrase z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f i n (113.a). Likewise. Kunio and s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f i n (113.b) cannot be the same because of t h e i r human-117 ness disagreement. Thus, Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n too requires the Consist- ency Condition. To sum up, we may say that the Interpretive Theory i s equipped with more descriptive adequacy than the standard transformational approach on the basis of the following two points* (i ) Without assuming ungrammatical deep structures, the interpretive approach can account f o r such an instance as (100) pl a u s i b l y , ( i i ) Zibun ' s e l f * with the p a r t i c l e de 'by/with 1 can be treated p l a u s i b l y only when the zibun -form i s assumed to be present i n the deep structure. 3.2 Non-coreferential z i b u n * s e l f and zibunzisin*oneself' F i r s t , l e t us observe (114) below. (114) a. Nihon-zin^wa z i b u n z i s i n # i o kantan n i koros-eru. Japanese oneself e a s i l y k i l l can "Japanese can e a s i l y k i l l one's own s e l f . " 118 (114) b. Ano nihon-zin^wa zibunzisin.© kantan n i that Japanese oneself easily koros-eru. k i l l can "(Lit.) That Japanese can easily k i l l s e l f ^ . " Although i t i s hard to see from i t s English translation, (ll4.a) is acceptable only when zibunzisin •oneself i s not corefer-ential with nihon-zin •Japanese1 i namely, (114.a) does not mean that •Japanese can easily k i l l Japanese* but something to the effect that 'Japanese can easily commit suicide'. More examples of this type followi (115) a. Ningen^wa zibunzisin.© aisu. men oneself love "Men love one's own self." b. Ano ningen^wa zibunzisin^ 0 aisu. that man oneself love "(Lit.) That man (person) gloves s e l f * (116) a. Kodomo^wa zibunzisin*^© kontorooru deki-nai. children oneself control can not "Children cannot control one's own sel f . " b. Ano kodomo^wa zibunzisinjo kontorooru deki-nai. that child oneself control can not "(Lit.) That child*^ cannot control s e l f " 119 In accounting for the zibunzisin-form in the a-sentences by the standard transformational approach, we shall encounter the two problems. For one thing, the possible underlying structures are ungrammatical as discussed i n section 3 of this chapter and, for another, even i f we admit the ungrammati-cal underlying structures, zibunzisin 'oneself in the a-sentences above cannot be derived through the transformational reflexive rule for there are not two coreferential noun phrases for reflexivization to apply to. (Recall that (114.a),for example, does not mean 'Japanese can easily k i l l Japanese.') Now, compare the b-sentences with the a-sentences in (114) through (116). The coreferentiality observable in the b-sentences i s acceptable as shown by the index. Why i s i t that zibunzisin 'oneself behaves differently in each example? In order to explain this phenomenon, we are proposing that a feature QfspecificTJ i s needed in Japanese reflexiv-ization. In (114) through (116), what differentiates the a-sentences from the b-sentences i s the demonstrative ano •that* attached to the left-most human noun phrases of the former sentences. For example, the left-most human noun 120 phrase i s nihon-zin 'Japanese' i n general i n (114.a), while the left-most human noun phrase i n (114 .0) i s s p e c i f i c ano  nihon-zin 'that Japanese' and, as a r e s u l t , only the l a t t e r sentence shows the acceptable c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y . Notice that the p a r a l l e l phenomenon can be observed i n Japanese pronominalization t the zibun-form. (117) a. Nihon-zin-wa Japanese 4 r zibun,,.. no koto o hanas-nai •s a f f a i r t a l k not p i i h o n - z i n I Japanese " ( L i t . ) Japanese, do not talk one's.own a f f a i r . " 1 1 b. Sono nihon-zin^wa the Japanese (zibun. s e l f 1 sono nihon-zin ^ the Japanese no koto o •s a f f a i r hanas-nai. t a l k not •'(Lit.) The Japanese, does not t a l k about s e l f ' s a f f a i r . " (118) a. Ningen^wa men 'azibu^.ga k i r a i n a koto o su-nai. s e l f hate thing do not •ningen men " ( L i t . ) Men do not do what one hates." 121 (118) b. Sono ningen.wa the man zibun. s e l f 1 sono ningen the man ga k i r a i n a hate koto o su-nai. thing do not " ( L i t . ) The man(person). does not do what self-^ hates." ( 1 1 9 ) Kodomo^wa children l zibun*. no kanzyoo ga kontorooru s e l f , . ^ , •s temper control rkodomo children deki-nai. can not " ( L i t . ) Children cannot control one*! own temper." b. Sono kodomoiwa ( zibun. the c h i l d { I sono kodomo [ the c h i l d kontorooru deki-nai. control can not no kanzyoo ga 's temper " ( L i t . ) The c h i l d , cannot control s e l f ' s temper." 1 In the above examples, i f the e l i g i b l e antecedent i s a spe-c i f i c noun phrase, the zibun-form i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l ( i . e . b-sentences), but otherwise zibun ' s e l f * i s non-coreferential 122 ( i . e . a-sentences). Therefore, we propose such a condition as f o l l o w s i (120) The S p e c i f i c Antecedent Requirement For the zibun(zisin)-form to be c o r e f e r e n t i a l , there must exi s t a noun phrase which describes a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l i n a given sentence. Consider the in t e r p r e t a t i o n procedure of (114) and (11?), f o r example, to see how the condition (120) validates i t s e l f . i ) By the rules (104), the interpretations below are given to (114) and (117). <»*•••>• (SgiJUi2) » <S£tB8gK£>+coref ' l i B 1 " ' <w;.)i(«fs + o o r e f * i i ) The condition (120) rules out (l l 4 . a ) and (117.a). < U * . . M < § i g g £ ^ ) + c o r e f 1 2 3 i i i ) As a r e s u l t , (114.b) and (11?.b) are to be interpreted as c o r e f e r e n t i a l . This procedure thus t e l l s us c o r r e c t l y that the coreferen-t i a l i t y of the a-sentences i n (114) through ( 1 1 9 ) i s un-acceptable. But, the acceptable reading of the sentences ( i . e . non-coreferential reading) i s s t i l l l e f t unaccounted f o r . More precisely, (114.a) and (11?.a) can be interpreted only on the basis of -coref and zibun(zisin) *(one)self* must be interpreted as a noun, not a pronoun of any kind. In short, the following should holdt ( 1 2 1 ) - ( u * . , ) , ( ^ t o , _ e o r e f bV ( 1 1 7 . a ) , ( % ^ n ) -coref Therefore, we must incorporate the condition (120) into Japanese reflexivization/pronominalization (104) as a t h i r d condition so that such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as (121) can be possible* 124 (122) a. Reflexivization NPi tfcoref [ ^ | e f J it (i) Same as (104.a) and ( i i ) Same as (104.a) and ( i i i ) NPi must be a noun phrase which describes a specific individual, b. Pronominalization NPi +coref [ ^ r G ] i f (i) Same as (104.b) and ^ ( i i ) Same as (104.b) and ( i i i ) Same as above It is because of the violation of the third condition above that the interpretation (121) results from the rules (122). The following schematization represents the foregoing. (123) Reflexivization Pronominalization i NPi -coref NP2 NPj +coref NP2 i The Consistency Condition I e.g. (Il4.a),(115.a) (116.a),(117.a) (118.a),(119.a) etc. e.g. ( 1 0 0 ) , ( 1 0 5 ) , ( 1 0 7 ) . 1 ( 1 1 1 ) * ( 1 1 2 ) , * ( l l 4 . a ) etc. 125 Next, l e t us observe the following examples which would further support the incorporation of (120) into (104) as a t h i r d condition. (124) a. Gakusee. W a zibunzisin*.o kadaihyooka suru. student x . oneself over-estimate do a Qakusee-tati 4 * student(PITT " ( L i t . ) Students over-estimate one's own s e l f . " b. Gakusee. student b ! Gakusee-tati . student (PI.)1 wa zibun # iga benkyoo s i t e i r -s e l f study not-doing n a i koto n i kizuk-nai. that r e a l i z e not " ( L i t . ) Students do not r e a l i z e that one i s not studying." (124.a) and (124.b) are d i f f e r e n t from (124 . 3 * ) and (124.b») i n that the l a t t e r have the p l u r a l marker - t a t i attached to the subject noun phrase. As shown by the index i , z i b u n z i s i n •oneself* and zibun 's e l f * i n (124) are not c o r e f e r e n t i a l with the left-most noun phrase gakusee(-tati) * student(s)*, yet both examples i n (124) are grammatical. It might be claimed that the Consistency Condition i s responsible f o r the non-coreferentiality i n (124.a*) and 126 (124,b') because gakuseetati 'students 1 with the p l u r a l marker cannot describe the same i n d i v i d u a l as the zibun(aisin)-form. However, we must r e c a l l that the Consistency Condition i s able to d i s q u a l i f y gakusee-tat i 'students' as NPA i n (104), but i s unable to give the non-coreferential i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r (124,a') and (124,b'). In other words, the combination of (104) and the Consistency Condition cannot derive the i n -terpr e t a t i o n of (125) below, <125) >• <' 2 ^ , ) ' ( iS^» (^i^eTf-"' < ^ . » ' > ' < « ! § K £ 2 B t * > - « - « ' ( S i r 1 ) Contrary to t h i s , the rules (122) with (120) being t h e i r t h i r d condition can c o r r e c t l y account f o r the non-coreferen-t i a l i t y of (124), According to (122), gakusee-tatft 'students' does ndt q u a l i f y i t s e l f f o r NPA because i t i s not a " s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l " , so that (122) r e s u l t s i n the in t e r p r e t a t i o n of ( 1 2 5 .a) and ( 1 2 5 .b) f o r (124.a') and (124,b') respectively. (Notice that (124.a) and (124,b) are also given the non-co-r e f e r e n t i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r the same reason,) The Interpretive Theory thus p l a u s i b l y accounts f o r the 127 n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y of the zibun and zibunzisin-form. A l -though they seem to be equipped with more explanatory adequacy than the standard transformational approach, the i n t e r p r e t i v e rules (122) need f u r t h e r elaboration since there are such sen-tences as followst (126) a. Kenta^dake wa z i b u n z i s i n ^ j j n i toohyoo s i t a . only oneself vote d i d " ( L i t . ) Only Kenta.^ voted f o r s e l f ^ . " b. Kenta^hitori ga z i b u n ^ n o kuruma de k i t a . alone s e l f 1 s car by came " ( L i t . ) Kenta^ alone came by s e l f ^ x ' s car." These sentences are ambiguous j that i s , both the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and the non-coreferential readings are possible. For example, (126.a) could mean e i t h e r that 'only Kenta voted f o r Kenta,* or that * although others voted f o r someone else rather than themselves, only Kenta voted f o r one's own s e l f . In order to account f o r the ambiguity, the r e f l e x i v e rule (122.a) must i n t e r p r e t ( 1 2 6 . a ) as both c o r e f e r e n t i a l and non-coreferential, which i s impossible i n terms of the r u l e . Since we are not able to solve t h i s problem f o r the present, we are simply pointing out i t s existence and leave i t f o r future study. 128 CONCLUSION The intent of t h i s chapter has been to tre a t some r e -sidual problems, a treatment which has been, i n e f f e c t , a comparison of the standard transformational approach with the Interpretive Theory by Jackendoff. This comparison eventually suggests the precedence of Jackendoffs proposal over the standard transformational approach on the basis of the following points i i ) Due to the d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the adequate deep structures, the standard transformational approach cannot derive such a sentence as (100) plau s i b l y , whereas the int e r p r e t i v e approach can systematically give the correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r the antecedent-reflexive r e l a t i o n , i i ) For the same reason as above, the standard trans-formational approach f a i l s to account f o r the zibun-form plus the p a r t i c l e de 'by/with', whereas the interp r e t i v e approach accounts f o r i t i n the same manner as f o r the other zibun occurrences. 129 i i i ) The interpretive rules (122) can be responsible for non-coreferential zibun 'self* and zibunzisin •oneself* as observable in (114) through (119). 130 NOTES FOR CHAPTER I I I 1. With the information i n the revised proposal ( I I ) , we s h a l l propose r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n and pronominalization rules i n terms of the Interpretive Theory ( )later as (104) and (122). 2. See note 11 i n the previous chapter. 3. One might say that a plausible explanation i s possible i n the framework of the standard transformational approach, assum-ing the underlying structure of (105) as fo l l o w s i i . Kunio wa Kunio no t i k a r a de syukudai o s i t a . *s a b i l i t y by homework d i d " ( L i t . ) Kunio did the homework with Kunio*s a b i l i t y . " i i . Kunio no t i k a r a de syukudai o s i t a koto ga *s a b i l i t y by homework did that Kunio n i z i s i n o ataeta. to confidence gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) did the homework with Kunio's a b i l i t y gave Kunio the confidence." The a p p l i c a t i o n of pronominalization r e s u l t s i n i i i i . a. Kunio.wa zibun.no t i k a r a de syukudai o s i t a . s e l f 's a b i l i t y by homework did " ( L i t . ) Kunio. did the homework with s e l f . ' s a b i l i t y . " x b, Zibun.no t i k a r a de syukudai o s i t a koto ga s e l f 's a b i l i t y by homework did that Kunio n i z i s i n o ataeta. to confidence gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) did the homework with s e l f . ' s a b i l i t y gave Kunio^the confidence." Every native speaker of Japanese may accept i i i as a paraphrase of (105). Therefore, what i s needed to y i e l d (105) from i i i seems to b e a n optional transformational rule something l i k e t i k a r a - d e l e t i o n which deletes t i k a r a ' a b i l i t y ' i n i i i . However, we must say that t h i s treatment i s very ad hoc f o r the two reasons belowt F i r s t , the rule deletes t h e ^ l e x i c a l item t i k a r a ' a b i l i t y * rather a r b i t r a r i l y . Second, and more important, i i i above i s 131 not the only paraphrase of ( 1 0 5 ) . The sentences i n i v , f o r example, could be also the paraphrase of ( 1 0 5 .a). i v . Kunio.wa zibun.no s e l f x , s kangae de syukudai o s i t a , idea by homework did nooryoku r e f a c u l t y etc. " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ d i d the homework with s e l f ^ / s idea/ f a c u l t y e t c. " Thus, i n order to y i e l d (105.a) from both i i i and i v , we must increase such a rul e as t i k a r a - d e l e t i o n up to as many as three (or presumably more). Hence, f t h i s approach cannot be f a r from being ad hoc. 4. The rule (104,b) a c t u a l l y gives a t h i r d interpretations NP 2(zibuja'self •) -coref NP 3(ii 1bjin. ,self 1) Notice that i n (108.a) NP 2 i s not the left-most noun phrase and a l s o t h a t i n (108.b) N P 2 and N P 3 are i n the same simplex sentence.' CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION In Chapter I and Chapter I I , we have examined Oyakawa's and Akatuka's hypothetical treatments of Japanese r e f l e x i v -i z a t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n a revised proposal. The revised proposal v i r t u a l l y suggests t h a t i 1 ) Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s a phenomenon i n a simplex sentence with the zibunzisin-form being the genuine r e f l e x i v e , otherwise— a. the v i o l a t i o n of Akatuka's Like-NP Constraint ( c f . 48 and 7*) cannot be accounted f o r plau-s i b l y b. the ambiguity of certa i n type of sentences ( c f . 96) i s unaccountable c. the same behavior of the non-human r e f l e x i v e s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f * as i t s human counter-part z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f cannot be coped with (the humanness condition ho longer holds i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ) , 2) as a r e s u l t of the foregoing, the treatment of the 133 zibun-form must be d i f f e r e n t from that of the genuine r e f l e x i v e pronouns. 3) the antecedent i s the left-most noun phrase which commands zibun ' s e l f or z i b u n z i s i n ( s o r e z i t a i ) 'one-s e l f ( i t s e l f )' , and, as a r e s u l t — a. the subject-antecedent condition i s one s p e c i a l instance of the above-mentioned condition b. the highest human NP condition i s also a s p e c i f i c case where the antecedent i s human and does not meet the subject-antecedent condition c. there are some sentences i n which neither the high- est human NP condition nor the subject-antecedent  condition can give a plausible explanation ( c f . 32 and 3 4 ) , whereas the revised proposal can. 4 ) the l i n e a r order (as well as the h i e r a r c h i c a l order) of the two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases i s c r u c i a l i n predetermining Forward and Backward operation of the ru l e , whereas Oyakawa discards the l i n e a r l i t y as i r -relevant i n Japanese. 13* In addition, comparing the standard transformational ap-proach with Jackendoff*s inte r p r e t i v e approach i n the l a s t chapter, we could c l a r i f y t h a t i 5) i n the Interpretive Theory, the ungrammatical deep structure can be avoided so t h a t — a. such sentences as (7*0 and (75) are accountable with no d i f f i c u l t y b. the zibun-form with the p a r t i c l e de 'by/with* can be accounted f o r as an instance of pro-nominalization ( c f . 106, 107 and 108) 6) there exists the non-coreferential z i b u n ( z l s i n ) -form which requires the J~+ s p e c i f i c ] feature to be attached to the antecedent ( c f . 114 through 119) 7) there also e x i s t s the ambiguity f o r which a r u l e must give both the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and the non-coreferen-t i a l interpretations at the same time ( c f . 126). (At present, we are not able to account f o r t h i s ambiguity, therefore, the existence of the problem i s simply point-ed out as warranting further investigation.) 8) as a r e s u l t of the comparison, the i n t e r p r e t i v e ap-135 proach i s more advantageous as f a r as the foregoing points are concerned. In order to conclude the present thesis, the revised proposal i s recapitulated i n terms of the diagram belowt y commands^ NPa<^ and/or /NPr precedes NPa C+specif i c j i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPr NPa and NPr are i n the same simplex sentence NPr zibunzisin oneself B-humanJ NPr* -k s o r e z i t a i nrr -» i t s e l f (rhuman] (Reflexivization) NPa G-specif i c j i s not cor e f e r e n t i a l with NPr NPa i s i n a higher sentence NPr zibun s e l f (Pronominalizat ion) 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY Akamajian, Adrian, and Chisako Kitagawa. "Pronominalization, Relativization, and Thematization i Inter-related System of Ooreference i n Japanese and English," University of Massachusetts, (Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistic Club), 197*. Akatuka, Noriko. "A Study of Japanese Reflexivization," Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, I l l i n o i s University, 1972. Hasegawa, Kinsuke. "Transformations and Semantic Interpre-tation," Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 3, No. 2 (1972), pp. 141-159. Hirakouji, Kenji. "Jibun Forms in Japanese," Papers in Japanese Linguistics. Vol. 2. No. 2 (1973) PP. 17-43. Jackendoff, Ray S. "An Interpretive Theory of Pronouns and Reflexives," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistic Club), 1968. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachussets 1 The MIT Press, 1972. Kuno, Susumu. Notes on Japanese Grammar. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-27. Cambridge, Massachussets 1 Harvard University, 197©. "Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse," Linguistic Inquiry. Vol. 3, No. 3, (1972), pp. 269-320. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Massachussets t The MIT Press, 1973. Kuroda, S.-Y. "On Kuno's Direct Discourse Analysis of the Japanese Reflexive zibun," Papers in Japanese  Linguistics. Vol. 2, No. 2 (1972) pp. 136-147. Langacker, Ronald W. "On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command," in David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, eds., Modern Studies in  English. Prentice-Hall, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1969. 137 Muraki, Masatake. "Presupposition, Pseudo-clefting and Themat-i z a t i o n , " Unpublished Ph, D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . The University of Texas at Austin, 1971. Ogawa A. Toshimitsu. "A Study of Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974. Oyakawa, Takatsugu. "Japanese Reflexivization..I,." Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . Vol. 2, No. 1 (1972), pp. 9^-135. Postal, Paul M. Cross-over Phenomena. New York t Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971. Shinoda, Aiko. " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Japanese Speech Levels and s t y l e s , " Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . Vol. 2, No. 1 (1972), pp.~o*"6-81. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093433/manifest

Comment

Related Items