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 U n i v e r s i t y , Japan, 1970 B.A., Kwanseigakuin U n i v e r s i t y , Japan, 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e Department  of  LINGUISTICS  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1975  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the I  Library shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  this  written  the requirements f o r  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,  make i t  freely available  that permission  for  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  representatives. thesis  It  this  that  study. thesis  i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  permission.  Department of The  fulfilment of  s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or  by h i s of  in p a r t i a l  University of B r i t i s h  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Columbia  not be allowed without my  i ABSTRACT Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n has only recently come to l i n guists' attention i n the framework of Chomsky's l i n g u i s t i c model, the transformational  generative  grammar.  The present t h e s i s , also being based on t h i s newly developed model, i s aimed at i n v e s t i g a t i n g the nature of the Japanese r e f l e x i v e system.  In e f f e c t , the investigation i s  to become a procedure whereby inconsistencies of the current hypothetical treatments of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n 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 s t r u c t u r a l positions of the antecedent and i t s r e f l e x i v e , which w i l l outline the basic property of Japanese reflexivization. notionst  I t i s also claimed that Langacker's two  'command' and 'precede', are c r u c i a l i n account-  ing f o r the question of the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , Forward and Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .  The r e s u l t of the examination  w i l l be presented as the revised proposal  (I) to conclude  11  the c h a p t e r . Next, i n Chapter I I , 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 Japanese  reflexivization.  treatment of  The examination w i l l  eventually  suggest t h a t the i l l - f o r m e d n e s s t r e a t e d by Akatuka  stems  r a t h e r from the inadequacy of what has been a l l e g e d l y ed as a Japanese reason.  treat-  r e f l e x i v e pronoun than from a s y n t a c t i c  Consequently, the a l t e r n a t i v e t o r e p l a c e the a l l e g e d  r e f l e x i v e form w i l l be p r e s e n t e d w i t h s y n t a c t i c evidence i n which the e x i s t e n c e of the non-human r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s t o be p o i n t e d out as w e l l .  The c o n c l u s i o n t o the chapter w i l l  be presented as the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l ( I I ) showing t h a t the c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y between the antecedent and the genuine r e f l e x i v e i s r e a l l y a phenomenon o b s e r v a b l e o n l y i n a simplex sentence. In cussed.  Chapter I I I , some problems l e f t unsolved w i l l be  dis-  Having shown t h a t the p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s t o the prob-  lems are not f a r from b e i n g ad hoc so l o n g as we adhere t o the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach, the a l t e r n a t i v e  so-  l u t i o n s w i l l be looked i n t o i n the framework o f J a c k e n d o f f ' s I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory i n which, u n l i k e the s t a n d a r d t r a n s f o r m s -  * • •  111  t i o n a l theory, the antecedent-reflexive r e l a t i o n i s to be accounted f o r i n 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 r e v i s i o n  i n the preceding chapters w i l l play a c r u c i a l r o l e i n formul a t i n g Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n by the interpretive  approach.  In Chapter IV, the conclusions to the preceding three chapters are to be recapitulated so that a schematic represent a t i o n of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s presented as both the conclusion to the present thesis and a tentative conclusion to the issue of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I.  Page  OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL (I)  1  1.1  Oyakawa's Hypothesis  2  1.2  An Examination Of Oyakawa's Hypothesis  NOTES FOR CHAPTER I II.  THE REVISED PROPOSAL (II)  5*  2.1  Akatuka's Like-NP constraint  55  2.2  The Genuine Reflexive And The 76  NOTES FOR CHAPTER II  105  SOME RESIDUAL PROBLEMS AND THE INTERPRETIVE THEORY 3.1 The Interpretive Theory By Jackendoff  107 108  3.2  N o n - p r e f e r e n t i a l Zibun ' s e l f And Zibunzisin 'oneself*  IV.  49  AKATUKA'S LIKE-NP CONSTRAINT AND  Revised Proposal (II)  III.  18  117  NOTES FOR CHAPTER I I I  130  CONCLUSION  132  BIBLIOGRAPHY  136  CHAPTER I  OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL ( I )  1  INTRODUCTION T h i s chapter i s mainly concerned w i t h t h e c o r e f e r e n -  t i a l i t y o f the two noun phrases, namely, the antecedentT reflexive (1)  relation  observable i n such sentences as f o l l o w s t  a. KuniOjga Kenta^o z i b u n ^ j n o u t i de k o r o s i t a . self  *s house a t k i l l e d  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ k i l l e d Kenta a t s e l f ^ ' s b. Kenta-ga  house."  K u n i o ^ n i zibun^^^no u t i de k o r o s by  self  *s house a t k i l l  rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kenta* was k i l l e d by Kunio a t 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 -  c u s s i o n i s t o be mainly based on Oyakawa's two e l a b o r a t e d c o n d i t i o n s t t h e s u b j e c t - a n t e c e d e n t c o n d i t i o n and the high-  2  est  human NP c o n d i t i o n ,  A c l o s e examination o f the two con-  d i t i o n s e v e n t u a l l y suggests t h a t we r e v i s e Oyakawa's hypothe s i s i t s e l f to avoid i t s inconsistency.  The r e s u l t o f the  f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be p r e s e n t e d as the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l t o conclude the chapter.  1.1  OYAKAWA•S HYPOTHESIS We s h a l l observe Oyakawa's two c o n d i t i o n s which are the  most c r u c i a l c o n s t i t u e n t s o f h i s h y p o t h e s i s .  In 1.1.1, t h e  s u b j e c t - a n t e c e d e n t c o n d i t i o n i s t o be observed and i n 1.1.2, the h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n .  1.1.1  The sub.iect-antecedent I t i s claimed  condition  by Oyakawa (1973) t h a t the antecedent o f a  Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun must be t h e s u b j e c t o f the sentence. dition.  T h i s c o n d i t i o n i s c a l l e d the sub.iect-antecedent  con-  2  In o r d e r t o c l a r i f y the nature o f the above c o n d i t i o n , l e t us observe the u n d e r l y i n g of diagrams. respectively.  s t r u c t u r e o f (1) f i r s t  i n terms  (2.a) and (2,b) correspond t o ( l . a ) and ( l . b )  3  (2)  a.  Kenta. •Kunio* In the above, (l.b) i s the passive version of ( l . a ) .  In  both sentences, the r e f l e x i v e 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 i s the subject noun phrase of S i and NPr i s to be r e f l e x i v i z ed under the r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y 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 antecedent 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 a s i l l u s t r a t e d  (4)  a . Tom^  belowi  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 to " ( L i t . ) Tom.  self  *s p i c t u r e  miseta. showed  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  Jim.ni zibuni .no syasin o miseta. to self *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 . "  Although the r e f l e x i v e either  'Tom'  'himself  o r ' J i m ' i n (4,a)i  c o u l d be c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h i t s Japanese t r a n s l a t i o n ( i .  e. 4 . b ) o n l y h a s one r e a d i n g a s shown b y t h e i n d e x (4.c)  i.  Also,  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 with the d i r e c t object of the verb rather than  5 the s u b j e c t . part  T h i s i s n o t the case w i t h i t s Japanese counter-  ( i . e . 4.d) s i n c e i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h e r e f l e x i v e  zibun 'self*  t o be c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h 'Jim'.  Hence, the  a s t e r i s k f o r t h e index j . .  Oyakawa a l s o d i s c u s s e s t h e command c o n d i t i o n which i s inter-dependent w i t h t h e sub.iect-antecedent c o n d i t i o n . First, (5)  consider the following.  a. Kunio^wa Kunio^ga yonda hon o Kenta n i y a t t a . r e a d book  t o gave  "Kunio gave the book he read t o Kenta." b. Kunio.wa zibun^ga yonda hon o Kenta n i y a t t a . self r e a d book t o gave " ( L i t . ) Kunio. gave t h e book s e l f , read t o Kenta." c. *Zibun^wa Kunio.ga yonda hon o Kenta n i y a t t a . self  r e a d book  t o gave  " ( L i t . ) * S e l f . gave t h e book Kunio. read t o Kenti." 1  Oyakawa a t t r i b u t e s t h e ungrammaticality  o f (5»c) t o the  v i o l a t i o n o f t h e command c o n d i t i o n which, as:..-#irs:to p r o posed by Langacker (1969»l67);, i s .defined r as f o l l o w s :  6  (6)  The command condition [ l ]  Neither A nor B dominates the other  £ 2 3 The S-node that most immediately dominates A also dominates B i f £ 13 and [ 2 J •commands' B.  above meet, we say A  Now, l e t us examine whether i t i s v a l i d or not f o r 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-  i n a t e NPa.  S i n c e there are two  NPa  i n (7), r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n may  and NPr  forward  ( i . e . 5.b)  c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases, seem t o apply  o r backward ( i . e . 5.c).  i z a t i o n does n o t operate backward.  either  However, r e f l e x i v -  Obviously,  i t i s the com-  mand c o n d i t i o n that" b l o c k s the backward a p p l i c a t i o n of r e flexivization. From the f o r e g o i n g , Oyakawa (1973 i n i t i o n of the sub.iect-antecedent  * 118)  g i v e s the  c o n d i t i o n along with  defthe  command c o n d i t i o n i n the f o l l o w i n g wayi (8)  The  sub.iect-antecedent c o n d i t i o n  The antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e must be the s u b j e c t of a sentence and commands the c o r e f e r e n t i a l NP t o be r e f l e x i v i z e d .  The above c o n d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Oyakawa, not o n l y b l o c k s the ungrammatical (5«c)i  but a l s o t e l l s us  a b l y t h a t the f o l l o w i n g sentences  (9)  a. Kunio.wa Kenta^ni z i b u n . to  self  predict-  are ambiguous.  .no kuruma o 's  car  untensuru drive  koto o tanonda. that  asked  " ( L i t . ) Kunio. asked Kenta. t o d r i v e s e l f . .*s car." 1  J  1 J  8  (9)  b . Kunio.wa Kenta.ga zibun..no koto o yuu no o x j 1j self 's t h i n g say t h a t kiratta. hated " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ hated Kenta^to t a l k about  self^."  c. Kunio.wa K e n t a ^ n i zibun^^.no syukudai o y a r by  self  *s homework  do  sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta- do s e l f ^ - ' s homework."  d. Kunio.wa K e n t a ^ n i z i b u n . .no mono o arawby  self  's s t u f f  wash  sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. wash s e l f . ^ * s  stuff."  N o t i c e t h a t Kenta above i s u n d e r l y i n g l y t h e s u b j e c t o f the embedded sentence, which would be shown more c l e a r l y f o l l o w i n g s i m p l i f i e d u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (9.a).  i n the  9  (10)  NPjEj, above can be r e f l e x i v i z e d , b e i n g c o r e f e r e n t i a l e i t h e r NPi o r NP2  f  f o r NP^ and NP  s u b j e c t o f S i and S  2  2  with  are r e s p e c t i v e l y the  and command NPjj. a t t h e same time.  T h e r e f o r e , n o t h i n g prevents NPij, from b e i n g 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 w i t h e i t h e r NP  X  o r NP . 2  The above (10) i s , i n f a c t , ambiguous and so a r e the o t h e r sentences  i n (9).  (9.c) and (9.d) a r e o n l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e o t h e r sentences i n t h a t a c a u s a t i v e sase 'make (someone) do (something)*  i s i n v o l v e d i n them.  But t h e account  o f t h e i r am-  b i g u i t y i s not out o f l i n e w i t h t h a t f o r (9.a).  We would  assume the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (9»c), f o r example, i n the f o l l o w i n g two ways*  (11)  In the above, NPzj. i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h NP2 t h a t i s the subj e c t o f the embedded S2.  T h e r e f o r e , i n the S2 c y c l e ,  reflex-  i v i z a t i o n a p p l i e s and r e s u l t s i n the r e a d i n g i n d i c a t e d by J[. in  ( 9 . c ) , w h i l e the r e s u l t a n t second r e a d i n g i s p o s s i b l e when  NP^ i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h NP^, the s u b j e c t o f the m a t r i x  sen-  tence as shown i n ( 1 1 ) .  Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o Oyakawa, the subject-antecedent d i t i o n a l o n g with the command c o n d i t i o n determines  con-  the ante-  11  cedent  o f the r e f l e x i v e i n a c r u c i a l manner i n Japanese r e -  flexivization.  1.1.2  The Highest Human NP C o n d i t i o n Another o f Oyakawa's s i g n i f i c a n t c o n d i t i o n s i s the h i g h -  est  human NP c o n d i t i o n . First,  l e t us c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g which i s t o p r o v i d e  us with t h e p r e l i m i n a r y access t o our main concern  i n the sec-  tion.  (12)  a. H i s t o r y ^ repeats b . * R e k i s i . g a zibun.o history self  itself^. kurikaesu. repeat  " ( L i t . )*Historj^ repeats  selfj.."  U n l i k e E n g l i s h , the Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun has o n l y one form^ z i b u n ' s e l f son.  r e g a r d l e s s o f gender, number and p e r -  Furthermore, the Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun c a r r i e s  J~+ human phrases  f e a t u r e with i t ^ i m p l y i n g t h a t non-human noun  are unable t o be the antecedent  Hence, i n the above example, r e k i s i g i b l e f o r the antecedent would n e e d n a i e o n d i t i o n ,  of zibun  'self.  ' h i s t o r y ' i s never  o f the r e f l e x i v e i n ( 1 2 . b ) .  eliWe  t h e r e f o r e , t o b l o c k ungrammatical  12 sentences such as (12.b).  The condition which follows i s due  to Oyakawa (1973«95). (13)  The humanness condition The antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e must be human.  Next, observe the following of Oyakawa's sentencesi (14)  a. Zibun^no gakusee no kageki na koodoo ga s e l f 's student *s r a d i c a l behaviors Yamada-sensee^o kyoosyoku kara sirizok-sase-ta. Prof. teaching from r e t i r e (Caus) " ( L i t . ) The r a d i c a l behaviors of s e l f ' s students made Prof. Yamada. r e t i r e from teaching." b. Syatyoo no k e t t e i to zibun^no iken no k u i t i g a i ga president's decision and s e l f ' s opinion discrepancy Tanaka-butyoo^ni aimai na taido o tor-sase-ta. Director by unclear attitude maintain (Caus) " ( L i t . ) The discrepancy between the president's decision and s e l f ^ ' s opinion caused Director Tanaka. maintain an unclear attitude." 1  (15)  a. Zibun^no gakusee no t o t t a kageki na koodoo ga s e l f 's student  adopted r a d i c a l behaviors  Yamada-sensee o kyoosyoku kara sirizok-sase-ta. Prof.  teaching from r e t i r e (Caus)  13  " ( L i t . ) The r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r s t h a t s e l f , * s students adopted made P r o f . Yamada, r e t i r e from t e a c h i n g . " (15)  b. Zibun.no y a r a k a s i t a tumaranai hema ga self  's  made  silly  mistake  Suzuki-si o meir-sase-ta. Kir. be depressed  (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) The s i l l y mistake t h a t s e l f , made depressed Mr. S u z u k i . "  (16)  a. Zibun.no gakusee ga k a g e k i na koodoo o self totta  ' s student  radical  behaviors  koto ga Yamada-sensee^o kyoosyoku Kara  adopted t h a t  Prof,  teaching  from  sirizok-sase-ta. retire  (Caus)  "(Lit,)' That s e l f . ' s s t u d e n t s adopted r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r s caused P r o f . Yamada. r e t i r e from t e a c h i n g . " b. Syatyoo ga z i b u n . n i dake k a i s y a no k i m i t u o president  s e l f t o o n l y company's s e c r e t  m o r a s i t a koto ga k a i k e i g a k a r i ^ o tomadow-sase-ta. told  that  accountant  be p u z z l e d (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) That the p r e s i d e n t t o l d the company's s e c r e t o n l y t o s e l f , p u z z l e d the accountant^."  N o t i c e t h a t the above sentences m a n i f e s t one p e c u l i a r syn-  14  t a c t i c feature; that i s , the subject of the sentence i s nonhuman. and  According to Oyakawa, the sentences i n (14), (15)  (16) have  a. "nominally complex NP subject", a " s e n -  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 i s note-worthy here i s that a l l sentences are p e r f e c t l y grammatical despite the absence of a human subject. words, the subject-antecedent  In other  condition does not hold i n the  above examples, which would suggest that a n other condition i s needed i n accounting f o r the reflexive-antecedent r e l a t i o n i n these  sentences.  In order to give a reasonable  explanation to the subject  matter here, Oyakawa assumes the highest human NP condition i n terms of the h i e r a r c h i c a l r e l a t i o n of the two ^ r e f e r e n 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 s a t i s f y the subject-antecedent condition.) only the highest human noun i n the s t r u c t u r a l hierarchy i s allowed to be c o r e f e r e n t i a l with the r e flexive."  15  To see how the condition works, consider the following  (18.a), (I8.b) and (I8.c) which represent the underly-  ing structure of ( l * . a ) ,  (18)  (15.a) and (l6.a) respectively.  a.  NP no kageki na koodoo ^ r a d i c a l behavior; APr no gakusee -* student a  Yamada-sensee. Prof."  4  zibun self  sirizok-sase-ta Yamada-sensee* r e t i r e (Caus) Prof. kyoosyoku teaching  b.  V£__(Same as NP^, r no gakusee •s student Yamada-sensee  4k  zibun self  kageki na koodoo totta r a d i c a l behaviors adopted  16  (18)  c.  zibun self  In the above s c h e m a t i z a t i o n ,  NP  lt  t h e s u b j e c t o f S i , i s non-  human r e g a r d l e s s o f i t s s t r u c t u r e .  Therefore,  as shown i n  (16), t h e h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n takes p l a c e , a l l o w i n g o n l y t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l l y h i g h e s t 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 h y p o t h e s i s ,  t h e sub.iect-antecedent  c o n d i t i o n and the h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n a r e a p p l y i n g i n a mutually  e x c l u s i v e way.  In a d d i t i o n , a c c o r d i n g  t o Oyakawa, both c o n d i t i o n s 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  ; t h a t i s , the former c o n d i t i o n 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 t h e two c o n d i t i o n s a r e mutu-  a l l y e x c l u s i v e , and do n o t apply t o t h e same  coreferential  noun phrases a t the same time, the ungrammaticality following  (19)» i n which Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n has been  a p p l i e d t o the sentences spectively,  (19)  of t h e  i n (14.a),  ( 1 5 . a ) and ( l 6 . a ) r e -  i s self-explanatory.  a. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee no kageki na koodoo ga P r o f . *s student zibun^o kyoosyoku kara self  teaching  from  radical  behaviors  sirizok-sase-ta. r e t i r e (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) *The r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r s o f P r o f . Yajaada.'s students made s e l f , r e t i r e from t e a c h i n g . "  b. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee no t o t t a k a g e k i n a Prof,  's student  adopted  radical  koodoo ga zibun^o kyoosyoku kara s i r i z o k behaviors s e l f  teaching  from  retire  sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) *The r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r s t h a t P r o f . Yamada^'s students adopted made self^ r e t i r e from t e a c h i n g . "  c. *Yamada-sensee.no gakusee ga kageki na koodoo o Prof,  's student  radical  behaviors  18 t o t t a koto ga zibun^o kyoosyoku k a r a adopted t h a t  self  sirizok-  t e a c h i n g from  retire  sase-ta. (Caus) " ( L i t . ) *That P r o f . Yamada^s students adopted the r a d i c a l b e h a v i o r s caused s e l f , r e t i r e from t e a c h i n g . "  With the i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d through the f o r e g o i n g o b s e r v a t i o n , we s h a l l examine Oyakawa's sub.iect-antecedent c o n d i t i o n and h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n i n s e c t i o n - 1 . 2 and, as a r e s u l t o f t h i s examination,  i t w i l l be suggested  that  Oyakawa's h y p o t h e s i s as based on the two c o n d i t i o n s be r e v i s e d .  1.2  AN EXAMINATION  OF OYAKAWA'S HYPOTHESIS  The examination o f the sub.iect-antecedent c o n d i t i o n and the h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n i s i n e f f e c t an of t h e h y p o t h e s i s .  I n 1.2.1, we s h a l l present the counter-  argument t o Oyakawa's treatment flexivization.  examination  o f Forward and Backward r e -  In 1.2.2, some counter-examples t o the two  c o n d i t i o n s are t o be t r e a t e d , whereby the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n Oyakawa*s h y p o t h e s i s become obvious. As b o t h a c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e chapter and a r e s u l t o f the  19 p r e c e d i n g examination, a r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l w i l l be p r e s e n t e d .  1.2.1  Forward and Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n As t o the d i r e c t i o n i n which Japanese  reflexivization  takes p l a c e , Oyakawa (1973«123-124) s a y s j  (20)  "....the c h o i c e between Forward and Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s u n i q u e l y predetermined by the h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f a g i v e n sentence i n terms o f f u n c t i o n s , such as s u b j e c t , and a r e l a t i o n , i . e . command, o f 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 t o use l i n e a r o r d e r t o account f o r Japanese 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 s y n t a c t i c o p e r a t i o n o f r e f l e x i v i z a ' t i o n , f o r a l l t h e n e c c e s s a r y informat i o n i s p r o v i d e d o u t s i d e o f the n o t i o n . "  What i s h i g h l y i m p l a u s i b l e i n the above q u o t a t i o n i s t h a t Oyakawa mentions  the s y n t a c t i c 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 " o f c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases — —  —  "command"  as the elements t o predetermine the " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " .  In f a c t , c o n t r a r y t o Oyakawa's e x p e c t a t i o n , t h e two elements never ^predetermine" Forward and Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n "uniquely". In o r d e r t o show t h a t Oyakawa's treatment o f the quest i o n o f " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " i s i m p l a u s i b l e , we can present t h e f o l lowing two types o f sentences  20  F i r s t , Oyakawa himself c i t e s (21) from Kuno (1972). The structure underlying (21) follows as the diagram ( 2 2 ) , (21)  Sono keiken ga Hanako^ni zibun^ga baka dearu that experience  to self  fool  is  koto o o s i e t a . that taught  (22)  In t h i s underlying structure, the subject NPi of S± cannot be the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e pronoun, f o r the huiaanness condition d i s q u a l i f i e s , the non-human subject sono keiken 'that  21  experience' as a candidate f o r the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e . In other words, the humanness condition predicts that S i does not meet the sub.iect-antecedent condition. Hence, as the high-* est human NP condition dictates, only the h i e r a r c h i c a l l y highest human noun phrase  ( i . e . NP2J i s e l i g i b l e f o r b?ing the  antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e .  Consequently,  takes place forward between NP2 and NP;, noun phrase into the r e f l e x i v e pronoun  reflexivization ,  changing the l a t t e r zibun ' s e l f ' .  There-  fore, the following account of Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n by Oyakawa (1973*119) i s implausible. (23)  "One way to explain why Backward Reflexivization* insteadc' of Forward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , takes place i n them would be to say that the subject-antecedent condition cannot be,met f o r : an obvious reasons the p o s i t i o n of subject.is occupied by something else which does not n a t u r a l l y q u a l i f y f o r the antecedent, of the r e f l e x i v e . The fact; that the condition i s not s a t i s f i e d c a l l s f o r Backward Reflexivization*"  Example (21) aboveodoes not meet the sub.iect-antecedent cond i t i o n , yet, rather than c a l l i n g f o r Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n as Oyakawa expects, i t " c a l l s f o r " Forward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . Likewise, the forward manifestation of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n observable i n the causative sentences below cannot  22 be accounted f o r 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, understand 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 i n (14) through ( 1 6 ) . * In (24.a) above* for example, only the forward application of reflexivization i s possible since the highest human noun phrase i s the one which precedes  23 i t s coreferent a f t e r causativization has applied. lowing schematization  The  fol-  represents t h i s point more c l e a r l y .  (25)  senkyo no kekka election s result T  satorf sase-ta realize (CausT" W.. no mlzyukusa ""s" immaturity Kunio  'J  The second type of sentences which also show that Oyakawa's  treatment of Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s implausible are the thematized sentences,-* (26)  a. Kunio^wa zibun^no tomodati ga sinda. s e l f •s  friend  died  " ( L i t . ) As f o r K u n i o ^ s e l f ' s f r i e n d died." b. Kunio^wa zibun^ga katta takarakuzi ga a t t a t a . self  bought  lot  fell  on  " ( L i t . ) As f o r Kunio*, the l o t which s e l f . bought won tne p r i z e . " It Is c l e a r that the sub.iect-antecedent  condition i s  not accountable f o r the above sentences since i n (26) the subject i t s e l f contains the r e f l e x i v e pronoun and the antecedent 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 t h a t NPr  above, which i s one  complex NP s u b j e c t subject So.  ( i . e . 26.a)  c o n s t i t u e n t of a  nominally  o r a s e n t e n t i a l l y complex  ( i . e * 26.b), i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPa,  Thus, i t i s impossible f o r S  A  t o meet the  NP  the theme of subject-ante-  cedent c o n d i t i o n s i n c e i t does not have c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases i n the S NPa  A  cycle.  Then, the h i g h e s t human noun phrase  i s t o be i d e n t i f i e d as the antecedent of the  reflexive.^  Although Oyakawa seems t o f a i l t o n o t i c e i t , the human NP  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 determining  a n t e c e d e n t - r e f l e x i v e r e l a t i o n even i n the thematized tences.  highest  Hence, the sentences i n ( 2 6 )  examples t o Oyakawa*s hypothesist NP c o n d i t i o n a p p l i e s forward.  above are  the  sen-  counter-  t h a t i s , the h i g h e s t human  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 ( 2 0 )  to  and  (23)  i s highly implausible.  In o r d e r  account p l a u s i b l y f o r t h i s s u b j e c t matter, i t i s necessary t o develop an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n . Now,  r e c a l l t h a t Oyakawa i n ( 2 0 )  i n f o r m a t i o n o f two  d i s c a r d s the  c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases as  i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , s a y i n g ^ t h a t  linear  irrelevant  "there i s no need  to use l i n e a r order to account f o r Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . " Nevertheless, we are able to give a very plausible  account  f o r the " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n by talcing into consideration the very thing Oyakawa rejects as i r r e l e v a n t , namely, the l i n e a r order of c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases.  The  " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s simply predetermined by whether or not the noun phrase precedes the c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrase to be r e f l e x i v i z e d . represents t h i s relationship  What follows  clearlyi  (28)  NPa  precedes commands follows commands  where:  Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n NPr.  Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  NPa and NPr are c o r e f e r e n t i a l human noun phrases  To sum up the foregoing, we may say that the very thing Oyakawa discards as irrelevant ( i . e . l i n e a r i t y ) plays a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n predetermining which d i r e c t i o n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes, along with the information of the h i e r a r c h i c a l order of noun phrases concerned  ( i . e . command). In  addition, we do not have to r e l y on the two d i f f e r e n t elements  27 to account f o r the " d i r e c t i o n a l i t y " as Oyakawa does t the syntactic r e l a t i o n 'subject*, on the one hand, and the h i e r a r c h i c a l order 'command', on the other*  Instead* the l i n e a r  and h i e r a r c h i c a l positions of c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases corr e c t l y predict which d i r e c t i o n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n oparates i n . 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 i n (29) which are c i t e d from Oyakawa » (29)  a. Zibuiij,4^no kenzyuu o, nakuslta keikan^ ga self  's service revolver  lost  policeman  butyoo^ni n a k i t u i t a . chief to implored " ( L i t . ) The policeman, who l o s t s e l f ' s service revolver implored the chief. b. Hensyuutyoo*wa zibun* *no denki o k a i t a editor s e l f ' s biography wrote J  syoosetukajni novelist  mannenhitu o okutta.  to fountain pen  presented  " ( L i t . ) The editor* presented a fountain pen to the n o v e l i s t * who wrote s e l f . * * s biography." 3  1 J  28  The above (29.a) should f a l l under Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . Butt Oyakawa attributes t h i s to an example of Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , giving the following deep structure. (30)  In the S2 cycle of (30), keikan 'policeman' can be r e f l e x i v ized under the r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y with NP2, the subject of S2* before r e i a t i v i z a t i o n takes place. not mention why butyoo ' c h i e f candidate f o r the r e f l e x i v e . t i o n how the application NPi+ i s blocked.  Oyakawa, however, does  must be discarded as an i l l e g a l In other words, he does not men-  of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n between NP3 and  Comparing (30) with (31), the underlying  structure of (29,b), we can see t h i s point c l e a r l y .  29  Notice that ( 3 D i s the underlying structure of the ambiguous sentence*  NP^ of t h i s structure may be c o r e f e r e n t i a l with  either NP^ o r NP3.  Then, why i s i t that butyoo 'chief* i n  (30) has no chance Of 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 NPl*, the highest human noun phrase of Si?  To  explain t h i s inconsistency, one might say that S i 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 h i s s e r v i c e r e v o l v e r * i n the  cycle.  Then, c o n s i d e r  the sentence ( 3 2 ) which i s f o l l o w e d by i t s s i m p l i f i e d underlying structure (33).  (32)  Z i b u n ^ * n o k a o - z y a s i n ga i n s a t u s - r a r e - t a koohosya^no #  self  *s f a c e - p i c t u r e  printed  (Pass)  candidate's  posutaa ga yuukensya ..ni k u b a r - r a r e - t a . voter  poster "(Lit.)  to hand-to  (Pass)  The c a n d i d a t e ' s p o s t e r s i n which s e l f ' s p o r t r a i t was p r i n t e d was handed t o the voters."  (33)  NP? no posutaa ^ *s p o s t e r NHt- no k a o - z v a s i n / \ ^ s portrait f koohosya.  1  koohosya, candidate  NP<  :T''~i  t candidate ^ > — ^ - - ^ ^ ^ [ • y u u k e n s y a . (^ame a s NP?) * v  o  t  e  r  yuukensya, k u b a r - r a r e - t a voter hand-to (PasiT J  v insatus-rare^ca p r i n t (Hss")~~"  The sub.iect-antecedent c o n d i t i o n i s not met i n the S above because S  2  2  cycle  has t h e non-human s u b j e c t NP3, koohosya no  k a o z y a s i n 'candidate's p o r t r a i t * .  Hence, the h i g h e s t human  31 noun phrase N P 2 the antecedent  koohosya •candidate' i s to be i d e n t i f i e d as of NP/+.  Then, i n the Sj cycle, S i 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 ungrammatic a l sentence as indicated by £ i n ( 3 2 ) . This i s a serious counter-example to Oyakawa's hypothesis. To avoid t h i s inconsistency, we must revise Oyakawa's hypothesis i n some way* above, the antecedent  Notice that, i n a l l the examples  of the r e f l e x i v e has a common property  i n that the antecedent  i s the left-most human noun phrase.  More precicely, i n both (29.a) and ( 3 0 ) , N P 2  i s the leftTmost  human noun phrase i n the S 2 cycle and r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n applies forward i n the same manner as Oyakawa's.  Next, i n the S i  cycle, NPi, which i s now a constituent of S j , i s the l e f t most human noun phrase a f t e r N P 2 reflexivization*  was deleted i n v i r t u e of  Notice, also, that N P 2  i d e n t i c a l noun phrases.  and NP^ here are  Hence, a non-ambiguous sentence or  the ungraramatical reading indicated by index j i n (29.a). The ungrammatical reading or non#ambiguity of (32) can be  32  accounted f o r along exactly the same l i n e . noun phrase i n the S 2 cycle and the S too.  ( 3 2 ) ,  is,  A  The left-most  cycle i s i d e n t i c a l i n  The ambiguity of ( 2 9 . b ) i s also predictable} that  i n (31) NP3 i s the left-most human noun phrase i n terms  of S 2 , and the left-most p o s i t i o n i s occupied by the human noun phrase NP  X  i n the S  A  cycle.  c a l noun phrases t h i s time.  N P 3 and NP  A  are not i d e n t i -  Hence, the ambiguous sentence  (29.b).  Second, the following sentences are another type of counter-examples t o Oyakawa's hypothesis, and support the notion 'left-most' i n Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n (34)  as well.  a. Zibun^ *^ga tootoo maketakoto ga Kunio^ n i self  a t l a s t defeated that  by  KentajO mihaos-sase-ta. think-better-of (Caus) " ( L i t . ) That s e l f * was defeated at l a s t made Kunio^ think b e t t e r of Kenta." b. Z i b u n # j g a gosinsur-rare-ta koto ga Kunio^ni self  diagnosed(Pass) erroneously  that  by  isya o koros-sase-ta. doctor k i l l  (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) That s e l f , was diagnosed erroneously made KentS*^ k i l l the doctor."  33  These sentences have the s e n t e n t i a l NP subject with a nonhuman noun koto 'that* as i t s head noun and, at the same time, there are two human noun phrases i n the h i e r a r c h i c a l l y highest p o s i t i o n , (35) below represents the structure under-: l y i n g (3^,a), f o r example.  (35)  at l a s t  The/above S  x  defeated  does not s a t i s f y the subject-antecedent condition  because of i t s non-human subject NP , so that the highest huX  man NP condition applies, producing the confusing s i t u a t i o n . In other words, there are two human noun phrases, N P 3 arid NPif, i n the same h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l .  As the index j[ i n  NP4 i s not e l i g i b l e f o r the antecedent  of NP . 2  (34.a)  shows,  Oyakawa would  account f o r t h i s saying that r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n must precede the  3*  a p p l i c a t i o n of causativization^ since NP3 Kunio used to be the subject of an embedded sentence, while  NP24.  Kenta used to  be the d i r e c t object as shown i n the following sehematical underlying structure (36),  However, t h i s treatment only makes  the s i t u a t i o n 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  i n (36).  Hence, nothing prevents r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n from applying forward to produce the ungrammatical  sentence. (That S i does not meet  the subject-antecedent condition never Implies r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes place backward, ( c f . 21, 24, and 26))  In neither case,  does the highest human NP condition hold to account f o r the  35  grammatical  sentence ( 3 ^ . a ) .  It i s important to notice that once again the l i n e a r l y left-most p o s i t i o n of the human noun phrase i n ( 3 5 ) i s occupied by the l e g a l candidate f o r the antecedent of NP2 t o be r e f l e x i v i z e d . With the c r u c i a l notion 'left-most', we can systematicall y account f o r 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 l i n e a r order (left-most), and the h i e r a r c h i c a l order (command) as well, of the two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases. 1.2.3  The Top-most Human NP Condition The next argument suggesting the need f o r a r e v i s i o n of  Oyakawa*s hypothesis stems from the following Oyakawa*s sentences. (37)  Hosyuseitoo no ooboosa to zibun,no  sizisitekita  conservative *s unreason- and s e l f *s supported party ableness seitoo no fuhai ga sono gakusee no otooto no party *s corruption  that student 's younger *s brother  36  sinyuu^no sisoo o museifu-syugi best *s thought anarchism friend  e katamuk-sase-ta.  toward lean (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) The unreasonableness of the conservative : party and the corruption of the party that s e l f * had supported made the thought of the student's younger brother's best f r i e n d ^ lean towards anarchism." As seen i n i t s English t r a n s l a t i o n ,  ( 3 ? ) has a non-human  subject so that the highest human NP condition i s responsible f o r the antecedent-reflexive r e l a t i o n .  Now, notice that the  antecedent sinyuu 'best f r i e n d ' i s the highest human noun phrase i n the nominally complex structure.  To show t h i s c l e a r -  l y , Oyakawa gives the schematised surface structure of relevant noun phrases of ( 3 7 ) as followst  (38)  thought [-human] sinyuu best f r i e n d sono gakusee that student  otooto younger brother  4,  zibun self  37 Oyakawa (1973i112) supports the v a l i d i t y of h i s highest human NP condition from the preceding f a c t , saying t h a t i (39)  "....the complexity of a nominally-complex NP can be increased as much as you want, yet only the highest human noun i n the s t r u c t u r a l hierarchy i s allowed to be c o r e f e r e n t i a l with the r e f l e x i v e . "  However, we are able to show that (39) above never supports the v a l i d i t y of the condition i n 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 t h i s point, l e t us consider (40) below. (40)  a. Zibunjno denki o d a s i t a koto ga sono gakusee no s e l f *s published that biography  that student 's  otooto no sinyuu no haha^o yuumei n i s i t a . younger 's best 's mother famous made brother friend " ( L i t . ) 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. s e l f ' s biography published  38  '(Lit.) The s t u d e n t s younger brother's best friend's mother, published s e l f , ' s biography." 1  (4l,a) i s a schematic representation of the nominally complex noun phrase which (40) above has i n common.  (4l.b) and (4l.c)  represent the underlying structure of (40.a) and (40.b) respectively. (4l)  a. NPl  [+humsu3  mother sinyuu best f r i e n d sono gakusee otooto that student younger brother b. NP C-humarff  koto that NPr no denki dasita 's published biography haha mother  (Same as above) yuumel n i s i t a famous made  39  c.  S  nana mothe r The nominally  complex noun phrase (41.a) i s d i f f e r e n t from the  one i n ( 3 7 ) i n that the noun phrase (41.a) i s i t s e l f human. In (4l.b), t h i s nominally Object p o s i t i o n .  complex structure i s i n the d i r e c t  The highest human noun phrase haha 'mother*  i s the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e as ( 3 9 ) d i c t a t e s .  It i s  thus c l e a r that the highest human NP condition i s responsible f o r (40.a) because of i t s non-human subject. Now* we must notice that the same noun phrase haha'mottier', the highest human noun phrase i n the nominally  complex  structure, i s also the antecedent i n (40.b) as shown i n ( 4 l . 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 f o r (4o.b), yet (39) i s s t i l l true with (40.b). Por the foregoing reason, we must r e j e c t the claim that the quotation  (39) supports the highest human NP condition.  Furthermore, i n order to validate (39) which i s the case regardless of the two conditions, we need a condition allowing no constituent but the highest human noun phrase within the nominally complex noun phrase to be e l i g i b l e f o r the antecedente of the r e f l e x i v e . Therefore,  we are proposing that such a condition be c a l l -  ed the top-most human NP condition, and that t h i s condition be defined as followst  (42)  The top-most human NP condition The antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e must be the top-most human noun phrase i f the e l i g i b l e antecedent i s the nominally complex noun phrase.  It must be worth r e c a p i t u l a t i n g that the quotation (39) i s 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 r e s u l t , the condition (42) above i s independent 1.2.4  The Revision Of Oyakawa's  of Oyakawa's two conditions.  Hypothesis  To conclude the examination of Oyakawa's hypothesis, we s h a l l present a revised proposal based on the foregoing examination.  F i r s t , observe the following.  (*3)  a.  NPa2  NPr  wherei NPai(NPa2) and NPr are c o r e f e r e n t i a l human noun phrases. NPai(NPa2) i s the subject of Si(S2). The schematization ( 4 3 ) i s a s i m p l i f i e d 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 i s not equal to NPa2, sen-  42 tences are ambiguous with NPr being c o r e f e r e n t i a l with either the former noun phrase or the l a t t e r (e.f. 9 ) . When NPai equals to NPa2» non-ambiguous sentences r e s u l t . It i s important to notice here that the c r u c i a l notion •left-most* discussed previously i s also v a l i d to describe the above configurations.  Therefore, we may say about these  configurations that the antecedent of i t s r e f l e x i v e i s the left-most human noun phrase i n a give S cycle.  Also, notice  that r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n applies forward i n 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 i n (44). (44)  a. Si  NPr wherei NPa and NPr are c o r e f e r e n t i a l human noun phrases. NPs i s the subject of S . A  *3 (44)  b.  NPs [-human)  NPr  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 S2  does not s a t i s f y the subject-antecedent  condition and NPa,  the highest human noun phrase, can be the antecedent reflexive.  of the  As shown i n 1.2.1, (44) i s also p e c u l i a r i n that  i t i s not an instance of the subject-antecedent  condition, yet  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes place f o r w a r d . ( c f . 21, 24 and 26). Nevertheless, NPa i s the left-most human noun phrase and commands NPr to be r e f l e x i v i z e d .  Thus, (44) can be accounted f o r along  the same l i n e as (43). Notice that we are also able to pred i c t the forward manifestation of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n quite systematically 1 that i s , i n (44) the antecedent  precedes i t s  r e f l e x i v e as does that i n (43).  What follows i s the case where the backward manifestation of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s observable.  44 (*5)  a. NPs £-human)  NPa  "NPr" wheret NPa and NPr are c o r e f e r e n t i a l 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 p o s i t i o n i s occupied by a nominally complex non-human noun phrase, while (45.b) corresponds to the sentence structure that has e i t h e r the s e n t e n t i a l l y complex NP subject or the sentential NP subject ( c . f . 14, 15 and 1 6 ) . In any case, a given sentence that has one of the underlying structures of (45) comes about to manifest Backward r e f l e x ivization. Closer examination e a s i l y makes us aware that the de-  *5  scription of preceding (43) and (44) does not differentiate from that of (45) above t that i s , the antecedent of the reflexive i s NPa which i s the left-most human noun phrase, commanding i t s coreferent as shown in the configurations. The backward application of reflexivization i s due to the linear order of the two coreferential noun phrases t the noun phrase to be reflexivized precedes i t s coreferent, which is quite predictable from (28). Japanese reflexivization, therefore, may be defined i n terms of the linear and hierarchical order of two coreferential noun phrases i n 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 i s the l e f t most human noun phrase and also commands NPr.  This definition must be accompanied by the top-most human NP condition proposed i n (42) so that no left-branching noun phrase of a nominally complex noun phrase can be the ante-  46  cedent of the r e f l e x i v e . From the foregoing, i t may also he said that what Oyakawa r e a l l y implies by h i s two conditions i s the l i n e a r and h i e r a r c h i c a l positions of two coreferential noun phrases. subject-antecedent condition  The  i s one special case of Forward  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n where the left-most human noun phrase i s accidentally the subject of a sentence.  Furthermore, our  d e f i n i t i o n (46) i n terms of the l i n e a r and h i e r a r c h i c a l order of the antecedent and i t s r e f l e x i v e i s able to account f o r  8 Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n a uniform manner , whereas Oyakawa uses two d i f f e r e n t factors  t the syntactic r e l a t i o n  •subject* and the h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n * command*.  *7  CONCLUSION  Our discussion of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n 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 l e d us to the conclusion that information about the l i n e a r order of 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 l y needed as well as the h i e r a r c h i c a l information, although Oyakawa i n his hypothesis dismisses the l i n e a r information as i r r e l e v a n t . Moreover, i t may be said that Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s , as c o r r e c t l y observed by Oyakawa, "the unitary operation" r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r Forward or Backward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n 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 c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrase. To conclude the chapter, we present, as a r e s u l t of the foregoing discussion, the revised proposal (1), which w i l l be given greater elaboration i n the next chapter.  48  (47)  The Revised Proposal (I) Japanese (i)  Reflexivization  In a given S that dominates two coreferential noun phrases, NPa and NPr, change NPr into the r e f l e x i v e pronoun zibun * s e l f i f NPa i s the left-most human noun phrase and also commands NPr.  (ii)  When the antecedent i s the nominally complex noun phrase, only the topmost human noun phrase i s e l i g i b l e f o r the antecedent.  (iii)  When NPa precedes NPr, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n applies forward, r e s u l t i n g i n Forward r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n s u p e r f i c i a l l y . When NPa follows NPr, Backward r e f l e x i v e ization results.  *9 NOTES FOR  CHAPTER I  1 . A l l example sentences are to be written i n Roman alphabet with the following conventions. i. ii.  The conjugation of verbs i s shown only when i t i s relevant to the discussion, The following abbreviations are adopted throughout the present thesis* (Pass) — (Caus) — (Lit.) —  passive marker rare causative sase 'make (someone) do (something)' l i t e r a l translation  2. Oyakawa's d e f i n i t i o n of the subject-antecedent condition i s to be quoted l a t e r as ( 8 ) i n t h i s section. 3.  In r e l a t i o n to t h i s , observe the following. ( 1 2 ) b*. Rekisi.wa s o r e z i t a i . o kurikaesu. history itself repeat 'History repeats  itself.'  Unlike (12.b), t h i s sentence i s grammatical suggesting that there seems to be a non-human r e f l e x i v e pronoun i n Japanese. This point i s to be discussed l a t e r i n 1 . 2 . 1 , Chapter I I . 4. Oyakawa does not mention the precedence of causativizat i o n over r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y . However, we may say so f o r 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) " ( L i t . ) That s e l f * was elected again surprised Mr. Satoo£." b. Zibun*no hon ga uredasita koto ga syoosetuka*ni s e l f *s book s t a r t - s e l l i n g that writer to syoorai e no kiboo o ataeta. future to hope gave " ( L i t . ) That s e l f . ' s book started s e l l i n g well gave the writer* a hope f o r his future."  50  (i)  c. Zibun.no an ga saiyoosareta koto ga sono s e l f *s plan adopted that the kikakubuin* o utyootennisita. member of delighted the planning s t a f f " ( L i t . ) That s e l f . ' s plan was adopted delighted the membef\jOf the planning s t a f f . "  In order to account f o r the reflexive-antecedent r e l a t i o n i n ( i ) , Oyakawa gives the underlying structure of ( i . a ) , f o r example, as followsi  Oyakawa's explanation (1973»107) readsi (iii)  "This underlying structure presents a s i t u a t i o n where the antecedent Satoo-san 'Mr. Sato' f o r Backward R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s the embedded subject NPa so that the subject-antecedent condition might be considered as v a l i d . However, there are other cases l i k e (22d-e) which are not causative sentences, so they cannot be explained by t h i s 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 i n ( i ) f a l l under the highest human NP condition. Notice that the cond i t i o n i n question and the sub.iect-antecedent condition are mutually exclusive. Therefore, i n order that S i i n ( i i ) meets the highest human NP condition. S3 cannot have the human subject NPa. In other words, the highest human NP condition can be responsible f o r (i.a) only when NPa i s a constituent of S a higher sentence. Hence, c a u s a t i v i z a t i o n precedes r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . if  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 " ( L i t . ) As f o r the elephant, the trunk i s long,"  (ii)  UBC n i wa Nitobe-garden ga aru. in is " ( L i t . ) As f o r i n UBC, the Nitobe garden i s there."  What we must bear i n 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 p a r t i c l e deletion depends upon the kind of p a r t i c l e . In the above examples, f o r instance, the intervening p a r t i c l e no (genitive) must be deleted to derive ( i ) from the following ( i * ) , whereas n i (locative) may not be deleted i n ( i i ) whose non-thematized structure i s ( i i * ) below.  6.  (i*)  Zoo no hana ga nagai. elephant *s trunk long " ( L i t . ) Elephant's trunk i s long."  (ii»)  Nitobe-garden ga UBC n i aru. in i s "The Nitobe garden i s i n UBC."  Consider the sentences i n ( i ) . (i) a. Kunio.ga Kenta.o zibun. ,no u t i de korosita. self 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." #  1  b.  1  J ,  Kenta,ga Kunio,ni zibun. .no u t i de korosby s e l f s house at k i l l rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kentaj was k i l l e d by Kunio at s e l f ' s house." #  1  c.  3  J  1  J ,  Kunio.ni wa Kenta.ga zibun*, .no u t i de korosby self s house at k i l l rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) As f o r by Kunio,, Kenta, was k i l l e d at s e l f ^ ' s house." x  3  1  J ,  J  52  In these examples, ( i . c ) i s d i f f e r e n t 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 f o r by Kunio*. I t must be noticed here that Kunio. the thematic noun phrase, has no chance of being the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e but only Kenta. the subject of the sentence can be. Ggawa ( 1 9 7 4 * 1 3 7 ) c o r r e c t l y observes t h i s and gives a solut i o n of the problem i n the following ways (ii)  1.  The subject-antecedent condition takes precedence over the theme-antecedent condition.  2,  The theme-antecedent condition i s suspended, by v i r t u e of the subject-antecedent condition, when the subject which intervenes between a thematic NP and i t s i d e n t i c a l NP i s human.  3.  If the intervening subject i s not human, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n applies.  The theme-antecedent condition above i s the condition that determines the thematic noun phrase as the antecedent of the reflexive . Notice that we may modify what Ggawa says i n ( i i ) into such a way as ( i i i ) below since the thematic noun phrase i s also the highest human noun phrase. (iii)  The highest human NP condition does not apply i f the human subject intervenes between a theme and i t s r e f l e x i v e . Noticeably, ( i i i ) above i s the paraphrase of (1?) i n 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 s i g n i f i c a n t role i n determining the antecedent of the r e f l e x i v e even i n the thematized sentence structure without any modification. Therefore, Qgawa's solution i s v i r t u a l l y redundant as well as such a condition as the theme-antecedent condition. 7.  See note 4, above. c  8. What follows i s Oyakawa*s (1973*124) conclusion to the question of " 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 . "....what we have c a l l e d Forward and Backward Reflexivi z a t i o n are the surface r e s u l t s of the unitary operation." This conclusion of Oyakawa*s i s supported by our analysis of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n terms of the l i n e a r and h i e r a r c h i -  53  c a l order of two noun phrases concerned, f o r the d e f i n i t i o n we have proposed i n (ko) c l e a r l y implies that Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i s able to be accounted f o r i n a uniform way regardless of the d i r e c t i o n i n 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 t a t a i t a . self  hit  "Kunio h i t himself." b.  *Kunio^wa zibun^ni kuruma o katta. s e l f to car bought "Kunio bought a car to himself."  These sentences d i f f e r e n t i r e l y from those discussed previously i n that each simplex sentence above p e r f e c t l y s a t i s f i e s the r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ungrammatical.  1  condition (4?), yet each i s  Therefore, a further condition would be  needed to block such sentences as (48). In regard to t h i s , Akatuka proposes the syntactic cons t r a i n t , the Like-NP Constraint, and the two relevant trans-  55  formational  r u l e s which are f u l l y examined i n the  the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n .  The  examination of them w i l l even-  t u a l l y suggest t h a t Akatuka's c o n s t r a i n t and carded as inadequate and  zibun  'self  Consequently, we  r u l e s be  dis-  s h a l l have t o  de-  the a l l e g e d Japanese r e f l e x i v e pronoun  i s a genuine r e f l e x i v e form.  t o the chapter, we  two  t h a t 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  s o l u t i o n be looked i n t o . termine whether or not  course of  As the  s h a l l present our p r o p o s a l  conclusion  based on the  ex-  amination.  2.1  AKATUKA'S LIKE-NP CONSTRAINT In the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e  s e c t i o n s , we  d e t a i l Akatuka's Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t formational  rules —  and  s h a l l examine i n two  related trans-  Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion  and  Unspecified-Body-Deletion. 2.1.1  The  Like-NP  Akatuka in  (49).  Constraint  (1772t30)  proposes the  u s i n g the n o t i o n  (1970tl78-179)  c o n s t r a i n t as quoted below  'peer'; whose d e f i n i t i o n by  also followsi  Postal  56  (49)  The Like-NP Constraint "(The constraint) discards the sentences as ungrammatical i f the r e f l e x i v e and i t s antecedent are i n peer r e l a t i o n . "  (50)  The peer r e l a t i o n "Two NP, NPi and NP2, neither of which dominates the other....in a phrase marker P are peers with respect to a node S i , just i n case the paths between each of these NP and S i are such that they contain no NP-nodes not separated from the s t a r t i n g point NP, NP or NP2» by a node S ." A  A  The underlying structure of (48.a) i s given i n ( 5 1 ) to see how the constraint i s able t o account f o r the ungrammatically. (51)  S  Kunio*  NPo  V  Kunio. _ i  tataita hit  In t h i s underlying structure, NPi i s p e r f e c t l y e l i g i b l e to be the antecedent of NP2 since the former i s the left-most human noun phrase which also commands the l a t t e r .  However, r e f l e x i v -  i z a t i o n between these two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases must be blocked. relation".  For, according to Akatuka, NP  A  and NP2 are " i n peer  Hence, (48.a) i s ungrammatical.  Furthermore, i t  57  i s important to notice that the constraint i n question remains 2  i n e f f e c t only between "the two maximum NP*s sentence"."'  Therefore,  i n the simplex  the following sentences given by  Akatuka do not v i o l a t e the Like-NP Constraint. (52)  a. HirosijWa zibun^no t i t i o sonkei s i t e i r j i . s e l f *s father respect  is  " ( L i t . ) Hirosi*^ respects s e l f ' s father." b. Hirosi^wa oyahukoomono no zibun^o h a z i t a . u n f i l i a l son " ( L i t . ) H i r o s i ^ was  self  ashamed of  ashamed of u n f i l i a l  self^"  c. Hirosi^wa kagami n i ututta zibun^o nagameta. mirror i n r e f l e c t e d s e l f looked at " ( L i t . ) H i r o s i , looked at s e l f * who was r e f l e c t e d i n the mirror." In (52.a) above, the r e f l e x i v e zibun ' s e l f ing noun phrase of the d i r e c t object t i t i (52.b) and  i s the left-branch-  'father*, while i n  (52.c) the r e f l e x i v e occupies the direct object  p o s i t i o n as the head noun of the r e l a t i v e 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 c l e a r l y . ( 5 3 . a ) , (53.b) and ( 5 3 . c ) correspond to (52.a), (52.b) and (52.c) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  58 (53)  Hire-si^ NP? n o t i t j >/\^ father Hirosi. s  sonkei s i t e i r u respect i s  zibun self b.  ashamed o f  oyaJftuKoomono a5a u n f i l i a l son i i  / 59  In these diagrams, NP  X  and NP  a r e not i n peer r e l a t i o n  2  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 coreferential  may  take p l a c e between the two  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 C o n s t r a i n t i s c r u c i a l .  2.1.2  I n a l i e n a b l e - P o s s e s s o r - D e l e t i o n and Unspecified-BodyDeletion Akatuka proposes two t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s which are  inter-related  with the c o n s t r a i n t above.  sentences i n (54) i n r e l a t i o n  (54)  a.  Let us observe the  t o the two r u l e s a t i s s u e .  •Kunio^wa zibun^o t a t a i t a . self  hit  "Kunio h i t h i m s e l f . " b,  Kunio^wa zibun.no hoc- o t a t a i t a . self  's cheek  hit  " ( L i t . ) Kunio., h i t s e l f ^ s c.  Kunio wa Kenta o t a t a i t a . hit "Kunio h i t Kenta."  cheek."  60  d.  Kunio wa  Kenta no hoo  o tataita.  •s cheek  hit  "Kunio h i t Kenta on h i s cheek."  Akatuka (19?2»33) accounts f o r the u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y of  (5*.a)  i n the f o l l o w i n g wayt  (55)  Contrary  " . . . . i f the a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by the verb a f f e c t s the s u b j e c t NP, then the s p e c i f i c body p a r t must be mentioned...., otherwise the sentence i s i l l - f o r m e d . "  to what i s mentioned i n ( 5 5 ) » the s p e c i f i c body p a r t  does not have t o be mentioned i f the s u b j e c t noun phrase i s not a f f e c t e d by the a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by the verb i n such a case as  ( 5 * . c ) where not the s u b j e c t Kunio but the d i r e c t  o b j e c t Kenta was  hit.  In order t o e x p l a i n why  i t i s the  case  here, Akatuka f i r s t assumes t h a t "a c l a s s of Japanese verbs of p h y s i c a l contact are r e a l l y 3 - p l a c e p r e d i c a t e s  i n the deep-  LL  er l e v e l " .  By the " 3 - p l a c e p r e d i c a t e s " , Akatuka seems t o  imply t h a t the verb i n t h i s c a t e g o r y o b l i g a t o r i l y r e q u i r e s a c t o r , the one  who  i s a f f e c t e d by the a c t i o n , and the  body p a r t the a c t i o n a f f e c t s t o be two  transformational  r u l e s we  the  specific  i n the deeper l e v e l .  The  are p r i m a r i l y concerned with  61  here are based on t h i s assumption. Let us consider the following ( 5 6 ) i n which the underl y i n g structure of (5*.b) and (5*.d) are given as (56.a) and (56.b) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  (56)  a.  b.  Kenta In the above schematization, three places i n question are occupied by NPj, NP  2  and N P 3 .  According to Akatuka,  Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion i s responsible f o r the derivation of (5*.b) and (5*Kd) from (56.a) and (56.b) respectively, d e l e t i n g the d i r e c t object ( i . e . N P 2 ) .  For  62 the d e r i v a t i o n o f ( 5 4 . a ) and (5*..c), another t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e , U n s p e c i f i e d - B o d y - D e l e t i o n , i s t o he a p p l i e d t o the underlying structures i n ( 5 6 ) .  The a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e y i e l d s  ( 5 * . a ) and (54.c) from ( 5 6 . a ) and (56.b) r e s p e c t i v e l y , NP3  deleting  The Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t , then, d i s c a r d s ( 5 * . a ) as  above.  ungrammat i c a l . Akatuka a l s o accounts f o r the ungrammaticality o f the f o l lowing (58.b) a l o n g the same l i n e s as above. (57)  and ( 5 8 ) are a l l  (57)  a.  The sentences i n  c i t e d from Akatuka.  Tanaka wa Satoo o n a g u t t a . hit "Tanaka h i t Satoo."  (58)  b.  Satoo wa Tanaka n i n a g u r - r a r e - t a . by h i t (Pass) "Satoo was h i t by Tanaka."  a.  Tanaka wa Satoo no atama o n a g u t t a . •s  head  hit  "Tanaka h i t Satoo on h i s head." b. *Satoo no atama wa Tanaka n i n a g u r - r a r e - t a . •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 n a g u r - r a r e - t a . by  head  h i t (Pass)  "Satoo was h i t on h i s head by d.  Tanaka."  Satoo^wa Tanaka n i zibun^no atama o nagurby s e l f 's head hit rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Satoo. was h i t on s e l f ^ ' s by Tafiaka."  head  1  (57.b) i s the p a s s i v e sentence d e r i v e d from i t s a c t i v e counterpart  (57.a).  To y i e l d the p a s s i v e sentence ( 5 7 . b ) , the s u b j e c t -  o b j e c t i n v e r s i o n took p l a c e and, then, the p a s s i v e marker r a r e o  was a t t a c h e d t o the main verb naguru  •hit'.  T h i s same d e r i v a -  t i o n a l p r o c e s s , however, cannot r e s u l t i n the grammatical p a s s i v e v e r s i o n of (58.a).  E i t h e r ( 5 8 . c ) o r (58.d) i s r e a l l y the c o r r e c t  p a s s i v e sentence o f ( 5 8 . a ) . e r l e v e l " o f (57.a) and p r e d i c a t e naguru  A c c o r d i n g t o Akatuka, i n the "deep-  ( 5 8 . a ) , which Doth share the 3 - p l a c e  ' h i t ' as shown i n the f o l l o w i n g schematic r e p -  r e s e n t a t i o n , they have the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e i n common.  64 (59)  S  Satoo Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion deletes NP  2  i n (59) to r e s u l t  i n ( 5 8 . a ) , while Unspecified-Body-Deletion i s responsible f o r the derivation of ( 5 7 . a ) , deleting NP-j of ( 5 9 ) . As f o r (58.c) and (58.d), t h e i r derivational process would be i l l u s t r a t e d i n the following (60)  way.  a. Satoo wa Tanaka n i Satoo no atama o nagur-rare-ta. by  's  head  h i t (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) Satoo was h i t on Satoo's head by Tanaka." b. SatoOjWa Tanaka n i zibun.no atama o nagur-rare-ta. by  s e l f 's  head  h i t (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) S a t o o j W a s h i t on s e l f ' s head by Tanaka." c. Satoo wa Tanaka n i by -  .  0 .  atama o nagur-rare-ta. head h i t (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) Satoo was h i t on  .  0  •';  •9'' •  head by Tanaka."  The a p p l i c a t i o n of p a s s i v i z a t i o n to ( 5 9 ) r e s u l t s i n ( 6 0 . a ) .  65  R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n changes Satoo i n Satoo no 'Satoo*s* into zibun 'self* with the subject noun phrase, Satoo. being the antecedent i n (60.b).  When ^-pronominalization operates i n -  stead of r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n ,  (60.c) r e s u l t s .  Thus, i t i s claim-  ed by Akatuka that the above-mentioned peculiar phenomenon i n Japanese p a s s i v i z a t i o n can be accounted f o r only when we assume that "a class of Japanese verbs of the physical contact are r e a l l y 3-place predicates i n the deeper l e v e l " .  Now, with the information from the preceding observation, we s h a l l 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  c r u c i a l counter-examples to the Like-NP Constraint. (6l)  a.  *Konboo o motta Kunio.wa zibun.o t a t a i t a . •L  stick  had  mm.  self  hit  " ( L i t . ) Kunio who had a s t i c k h i t s e l f ^ " ±  66  (61)  b. *Okane o motta Kunio ^wa money  had  zibun^ni kuruma o katta. s e l f to  " ( L i t . ) Kunio. who a car. •"  bought  had money bought s e l f .  Compare the above with the sentences i n (48). ( 6 l . b ) d i f f e r from (48.a) and  car  ( 6 l . a ) and  (48.b) respectively only be-  cause the subject noun phrase i s the head noun of the r e l a t i v e construction, whereas the subject of (48) i s the maximum noun phrase.  Recall that the r e f l e x i v e pronoun cannot occupy the  d i r e c t / i n d i r e c t object p o s i t i o n i f i t i s i n peer r e l a t i o n with the subject nounnphrase.  Therefore,  be blocked as unacceptable. does not hold i n ( 6 1 ) . the two  the sentences i n ( 6 l ) must  The Like-NP Constraint, however,  For, the constraint i s v a l i d only when  c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases are maximum noun phrases.  By showing the relevant part of ( 6 l . a ) and  (6l.b)  l y , we can demonstrate t h i s point more p r e c i s e l y .  (62)  a.  konboo stick  motta had  schematical-  67  (62)  b.  Kunio,  NP okane money  motta had  Notice, i n the above, that neither NP nor NP^ of NP g  lt  the  subject noun phrase of ( 6 l ) , i s the maximum noun phrase. The notion 'peer  1  i s the one defined between two maximum noun  phrases as we observed i n regard to the examples i n ( 5 2 ) . Hence, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n may take place between NP , the head 2  noun phrase of NP^, and i t s c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrase i n the d i r e c t object p o s i t i o n ( i . e . 6l.a), or the i n d i r e c t object position ( i . e . 6l.b).  As a r e s u l t , 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 f o r the incorrect applicat i o n of Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . Second, we observed that Akatuka's one ground f o r assuming the "3-place predicate" stems from Japanese p a s s i v i z a t i o n .  68 In order that we can present the counter-argument to t h i s account of the "3-place predicates", l e t us compare and (58) (63)  (57)  i n the previous section with what follows. 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 s e l f 's dog hid (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kenta. had s e l f ' s dog hidden by Kunio." 1  d.  Kenta-wa Kunio n i  0  by  inu o kakus-rare-ta. dog  hid  (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) 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  s e l f 's beer  drink (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) Kenta* had s e l f ! s beer drunk Kunio." 1  d.  Kenta wa Kunio n i 0  b i i r u o nom-rare-ta.  by " ( L i t . ) Kenta had Kunio."  (64)  a/  by  beer 0  drink (Pass)  beer drunk  by  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 s e l f 's book s e l l (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kenta* had s e l f . ' s book sold by Kunio." 1  d.  Kenta*wa Kunio n i 0 by " ( L i t . ) Kenta  had  hon o ur-rare-ta. book s e l l (Pass) 0 book sold by Kunio."  The above b-sentences are i n marginal acceptance unless they are d i r e c t translations from a foreign language.  E i t h e r the  c-sentences or the d-sentences are acceptable passive sen-  70  tences of the a-sentences.  Notice, here, that the verbs i n -  volved i n the above examples are not the verbs of "physical contact".  Nevertheless, we are able to observe the same be-  havior of Japanese p a s s i v i z a t i o n as that claimed by Akatuka i n (57)  and  ( 5 8 ) previously  t the ordinal  subject-object  inversion cannot r e s u l t i n grammatical passive  sentences.  Therefore, we must say that what Akatuka claims i s not  an  i s o l a t e d phenomenon on the verbs of "physical contact"  but  one observable i n Japanese p a s s i v i z a t i o n i n general t that i s , under a c e r t a i n condition, the person who action i d e n t i f i e d by the verb may  i s affected by  the  occupy the subject p o s i t i o n  by virtue of p a s s i v i z a t i o n . ^ Akatuka's ground to assume the verbs of "physical as the "3-place predicates" i s thus highly ad  contact"  hoc.  Third, closer examination of the verbs of "physical  eon-  t a c t " also raises another serious counter-argument, which consequently leads us to the conclusion that the constraint the two rules by Akatuka must be Consider the following.  discarded.  and  71 (66)  a. *Kunio-wa zibun^o k a i t a . self  scratched  " ( L i t . ) Kunio.. s c r a t c h e d b.  self^."  Kunio.wa zibun.no senaka o k a i t a . s e l f 's back scratched " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ s c r a t c h e d s e l f ^ ' s back."  c. *Kunio wa Kenta o k a i t a . scratched "Kunio s c r a t c h e d Kenta." d.  Kunio wa Kenta no senaka o k a i t a . *s back scratched "Kunio s c r a t c h e d Kenta's back."  (67)  a. *Kunio.wa zibun^o s a s u t t a . self  stroked  " ( L i t . ) Kunio,^ s t r o k e d b.  self^"  Kunio^wa zibun.no ude o s a s u t t a . self  's arm  stroked  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ s t r o k e d s e l f ^ ' s  arm."  c. *Kunio wa Kenta o s a s u t t a . stroked "Kunio s t r o k e d Kenta." d.  Kunio wa Kenta no ude o s a s u t t a . *s arm "Kunio s t r o k e d Kenta's  stroked arm."  72 (68)  a. *Kunio^wa zibun.o monda. self  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 n o t i c e here i s t h a t a l l the verbs used i n (66) through (68) are the verbs o f " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t " , y e t they r e q u i r e the s p e c i f i c body p a r t t o be mentioned  whether  o r not t h e a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by the verb a f f e c t s the s u b j e c t noun phrase.  In o t h e r words, a l l the c-sentences above a r e  ungrammatical s i n c e the s p e c i f i c body p a r t i s n o t mentioned. Otherwise, they a r e grammatical as t h e d-sentenees show. A l s o , compare (54.c), which i s grammatical, w i t h the c-sentences above, which are ungrammatical.  The s p e c i f i c body p a r t  does n o t have t o be mentioned i n (54.c), whereas i t has t o be  73 mentioned i n t h e c-sentences.  T h e r e f o r e , the u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y  of ( 5 4 . a ) i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n i s not due t o what ( 5 5 ) says, f o r some verbs seem t o s e m a n t i c a l l y and o b l i g a t o r i l y r e q u i r e the s p e c i f i c body p a r t t o be mentioned and some do not, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s y n t a c t i c f u n c t i o n o f t h e noun phrase t o be a f f e c t ed by t h e a c t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by the v e r b .  In a d d i t i o n , Akatuka's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the verbs o f " p h y s i c a l c o n t a c t " i t s e l f i s not c l e a r .  Observe the sentences  i n ( 6 9 ) , ( 7 0 ) and ( 7 1 ) .  (69)  a. *KuniOjWa zibun^o a r a t t a . self  washed  " ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ washed b.  s e l f "  K u n i o f a zibun.no senaka 0 a r a t t a . s e l f *s back washed " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ washed s e l f s back."  c. *Kunio wa Kenta o a r a t t a . washed "Kunio washed Kenta." d.  Kunio wa Kenta no senaka 0 a r a t t a . •s back washed "Kunio washed Kenta*s back."  7*  (70)  a. *Kunio.wa zibun^o tumanda. self  held  - ( L i t . ) KuniGj^ held b.  s e l f  K u n i o f a zibun.no hana o tumanda. s e l f *s nose  held  " ( L i t . ) Kunio£ held s e l f ' s nose." c. *Kunio wa Kenta o tumanda. held "•Kunio held Kenta." d.  (71)  Kunio wa Kenta no hana o tumanda. •s nose held "Kunio held Kenta's nose."  a. •Kunio.wa zibun^o fusaida. self  covered  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ covered s e l f ^ . " b.  Kunio^wa zibun^no k u t i o fusaida. •  s e l f 's mouth  covered  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ covered s e l f ' s mouth." c. •Kunio wa Kenta o fusaida. covered "•Kunio covered Kenta." d.  Kunio wa Kenta no k u t i o fusaida. 's mouth  covered  "Kunio covered Kenta's mouth."  75  We are not sure i f the verbs involved i n the above examples f a l l under "a class of the verbs of physical contact" or not. We may  say, however, that i n ( 6 9 ) through ( 7 1 ) , the s p e c i f i c  body part must be mentioned when the verbs i n question are used i n 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 i d e n t i f i e d by the verb.  Now,  r e c a l l that Akatuka assumes the following to block  the a-sentences i n ( 6 6 ) through ( 7 1 ) • (i)  A class of verbs of physical contact must have three arguments i n the deeper l e v e l  (ii)  Unspecified-Body-Deletion  (iii) (iv)  transformation  Inalienable-Possessor-Deletion The Like-NP Constraint  If we adhere to Akatuka, i n ( 6 6 ) through ( 7 1 ) , rule ( i i ) i s responsible f o r 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.  N o t i c e , however, t h a t the ungrammatical  c-sentences a r e t o be l e f t unmarked. f o l l o w t h e above-mentioned ( i ) - ( i v ) ,  Thus, i f we were t o t h e ungrammatical  sen-  tences r e s u l t .  To sum up t h e examination, we may conclude t h a t c l o s e r examination o f Akatuka's  c o n s t r a i n t and two r e l a t e d ; t r a n s -  f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s suggests t h a t these a r e inadequate f o r t h e f o r e g o i n g t h r e e reasons. to  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r us  d i s c a r d them e n t i r e l y .  Our examination, however, has i t s e l f g i v e n no s o l u t i o n to  t h e problem o f 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 o b j e c t p o s i t i o n .  I n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s ,  we s h a l l r e c o n s i d e r the inadequacy o f t h e a l l e g e d  reflexive  zibun ' s e l f * , so t h a t we a r e able t o propose an a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n t o the problem which remains  2.2  THE GENUINE REFLEXIVE AND THE REVISED PROPOSAL ( I I ) First,  i n 2 . 2 . 1 , we s h a l l t r e a t t h e z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m as  another candidate f o r a Japanese to  unsolved.  reflexive.  Then, i n 2.2.2,  j u s t i f y the z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m as t h e genuine r e f l e x i v e , t h e  77  treatment of the alleged r e f l e x i v e zibun 'self* i s to be discussed, which i s v i r t u a l l y to suggest that r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese be  a  phenomenon of the simplex sentence.  The r e s u l t of the following sections w i l l be presented as the revised proposal 2.2.1  (II) and as a conclusion to the chapter.  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 c r u c i a l i n order to tackle the problem l e f t unsolved  i n the previous  section.  (72)  a.  Kunio ga syatyoo n i natta. president t o 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 yarby homework  do  sase-ta. (Caus) "Kunio made Kenta himself do the homework." The b-sentences convey the contrastive meaning i n comparison with the a-sentences.  Thus, the bound morpheme - z i s i n func-  tions as a sort of emphasizes, giving the word t o 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 p e r f e c t l y grammatical before the bound morpheme i s attached. Now, bearing the above information i n mind, compare the following sentences i n (7*0 with those i n (48) which i s c i t e d here again from the previous section. (48)  a. •KuniOjWa zibun.^0 t a t a i t a . self  hit  "Kunio h i t himself." b. *KuniOjWa zibun.ni kuruma o katta. s e l f to  car  bought  "Kunio bought a car to himself."  79  (74)  a.  Kunio.wa zibunzisin^o t a t a i t a . hit "Kunio h i t himself."  b.  Kunio.wa zibunzisin.ni kuruma o k a t t a . "Kunio bought a car t o himself."  Example (74) i s only d i f f e r e n t from (48) i n that the alleged r e f l e x i v e zibun-form i s replaced with the zibunzisin-form. What i s important here i s that (48) must be blocked as ungrammatical, .while (74) i s p e r f e c t l y well-formed.  Remember  that Akatuka accounts f o r the ungrammatieality of (48) by saying that the zibun-form i n (48) i s unacceptable because i t i s " i n peer r e l a t i o n " with i t s c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrase.  Being  " i n peer r e l a t i o n " with i t s coreferent, however, the zibunzisinform i s p e r f e c t l y acceptable i n ( 7 * ) .  Why i s i t the case here?  Furthermore, i t i s u n l i k e l y that the zibunzisin-form i n (7*) can be treated along the same l i n e as that i n (72) and (73) I namely, as a compound word.  For, there exists no non-  contrast ive version f o r ( 7 * ) i possible non-contrastive sentences are ungrammatical  as shown i n ( 4 8 ) .  The treatment of  the zibunzisin-form. therefore, must d i f f e r e n t i a t e from that  80 o f the bound morpheme The  -zisin*  above f a c t would suggest t h a t the u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y i n  q u e s t i o n should not be a t t r i b u t e d t o the s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n , such as the peer r e l a t i o n o f two  c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases,  and a l s o t h a t the adequacy o f 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 t h a t  the  r e f l e x i v e pronoun i n Japanese i s not the a l l e g e d ^zi^un-form but the z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m . i s not due  Hence, the u n g r a m m a t i c a l l y of  (48)  t o the v i o l a t i o n of such a s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r a i n t  as the Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t , but i s simply due  t o the  inadequacy  o f the zibun-form as the r e f l e x i v e pronoun. I f the r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s r e a l l y the we  zibunzisin-form.  are able t o account f o r the f o l l o w i n g otherwise  ignored  phenomenon q u i t e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n e x a c t l y the same manner as above. Consider  (75)  a.  the f o l l o w i n g examples, f i r s t .  Mizu^wa s o r e z i t a i ^ n i tetubun o fukunde i r u . water  itself  " ( L i t . ) Water  ±  in  iron  contains i r o n i n  contain i s itself^"  81  (75)  b.  TaiyoojWa s o r e z i t a i . k a r a h i k a r i o dasu. the  sun  itself  from l i g h t  emit  " ( L i t . ) The sun. emits the l i g h t from itself'" The sorezitai-form i n these examples i s the non-human counterpart of the zibunzisin-form.  (Henceforth, zibunzisin and  s o r e z i t a i are translated as 'oneself* and ' i t s e l f * respect i v e l y f o r ease of reference.)  Although i t i s used less f r e -  quently than zibunzisin ' o n e s e l f , s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f * i n Japanese behaves i n exactly the same fashion as i t s human counter-part j that i s , s o r e z i t a i * i t s e l f * i n ( 7 5 ) i s cor e f e r e n t i a l with the left-most non-human noun phrase which also commands s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f * .  The following ( 7 6 ) r e -  presents t h i s more c l e a r l y . (76)  a. S  mizu. water sorezitai. itself  tetubun fukunde i r u iron contain i s  82  (76)  b.  taiyoo. 1 the sun  NP y\  NP  2  taiyoo. the sun  hikari light  dasu emit  sorezitai. itself 1  In the diagrams, NPi i s t h e l e f t - m o s t noun phrase commanding NP£» s o r e z i t a i  'itself.  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n w i t h NP  A  Hence, NP  X  and NP  2  p e r f e c t l y meet,  b e i n g t h e antecedent ( c f . 4 7 ) .  ( I n c i d e n t a l l y , these sentences must be b l o c k e d as ungrammatical  i f we adhere t o Akatuka*s  Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t ,  s i n c e the  two noun phrases are i n peer r e l a t i o n . ) Again, i t must be n o t i c e d t h a t the c l a i m t h a t 'itself  sorezitai  i s a compound word, c o n s i s t i n g o f the demonstrative  sore ' i t ' and the bound morpheme - z i t a i does not h o l d  1 that  i s , the bound morpheme can be a t t a c h e d o n l y t o the grammatical sentences i n o r d e r t h a t the sentences t o which - z i t a i ed convey t h e c o n t r a s t i v e meaning. show  an example.  i s attach-  The f o l l o w i n g ( 7 7 ) and ( 7 8 )  83 (77)  a.  Mizu n i e i y o o ga a r u . water i n n u t r i t i o n i s "(Lit.) Nutrition  b.  M i z u - z i t a i n i eiyoo ga a r u . water  i n nutrition i s  "(Lit.) Nutrition  (78)  a.  i s i n water."  i s i n water  Kunio no zizyoden ga r i p p a n a syoosetu da. •s autobiography "Kunio*s autobiography novel."  b.  Kunio no z i z y o d e n - z i t a i *s autobiography "Kunio*s autobiography excellent novel."  Thus, s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f * part,  itself."  zibunzisin  excellent  novel i s  i s an e x c e l l e n t  ga r i p p a n a syoosetu da. excellent itself  novel  is  i s an  behaves j u s t l i k e i t s human counter-  'oneself*.  So l o n g as we t r e a t t h e z i b u n -  form as the r e f l e x i v e , we a r e bound t o f a i l t o 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  * o n e s e l f * and s o r e z i t a i  'itself,  which share t h e above-mentioned common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  In  o t h e r words, u n l e s s we r e j e c t the n o t i o n t o t r e a t the zibunform as the r e f l e x i v e , we cannot cope with the non-human r e f l e x i v e pronoun.  84 To sum up, as an a l t e r n a t i v e p r o p o s a l t o Akatuka's  Like-  NP C o n s t r a i n t , we have so f a r claimed t h a t the genuine r e f l e x i v e pronoun i n Japanese i s not but  the z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m .  the a l l e g e d zibun-form  Furthermore, s h o u l d i t be so, the  otherwise ignored s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f l y the same manner as z i b u n z i s i n  can be t r e a t e d i n exact-  'oneself.  Then, what i s the zibun-form?  T h i s q u e s t i o n w i l l be the  main t o p i c i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ,  i n o r d e r that.we  can  f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t e our p r o p o s a l .  2.2.2  The Treatment Of Zibun  'self  I f the r e f l e x i v e pronouns a r e r e a l l y self  and s o r e z i t a i  'itself  zibunzisin  'one-  i n Japanese, the reason why  we  have the zibun-form such as i n (80) i s our main concern i n this  section.  (80)  Kunio^wa Kenta n i zibun^o waraw-rare-ta. by  self  laugh a t (Pass)  " ( L i t . ) Kunio.^ had Kenta laugh a t  First,  s e l f  observe the sentences i n (81) through (84).  Watasi.wa Kenta n i I  w a t a s i ^ ga i k u t o i t t a . I go t h a t s a i d zibun. self  to  2  " I s a i d t o Kenta t h a t I would go." Anata.wa Kenta n i you  anata. ga i k u t o i t t a . you go t h a t s a i d zibun. self  to  1  •You s a i d t o Kenta t h a t you would go." Kunio.wa Kenta n i f k a r e ^ to  \  h  ga i k u t o i t t a .  e  zibun. self  go t h a t  said  1  "Kunio s a i d t o Kenta t h a t he would go."  Watasi^wa  w a t a s i , no hon o yonda. j •s book read zibun. self 1  1  " I read my Anata.wa you  book."  anata£ no hon o yonda, you 's book read zibun. self 2  •You read your book." Kunio ^wa  kare. no hon o yonda. he zibun. self 1  "Kunio read h i s book."  86 (83)  a.  watasi.o  Watasi^wa Kenta n i  syookai-sase-ta. introduce  by  (Caus)  zibun. self "I made Kenta i n t r o d u c e b.  Anata^wa Kenta n i you by  me."  anata^ o s y o o k a i - s a s e - t a .  J  y  o  introduce  u  (Caus)  zibuni  Self-  1  "You made Kenta i n t r o d u c e you." kare. o s y o o k a i - s a s e - t a , i l he i n t r o d u c e (Caus) zibun. self  Kunio.wa Kenta n i by  3  "Kunio^made Kenta i n t r o d u c e him^."  (84)  a.  Watasi.wa Kenta n i" I  w a t a s i . n i kuruma o kau I  I  by  to  car  buy  zibun. self 1  koto o n a t t o k u - s a s e - t a . that  agree  (Caus)  " I made Kenta agree t o buy me a c a r . b.  Anata-wa Kenta n i  anata^ anaxa. n i kuruma o kau you to c a r buy by « zibun. self  you  /  2  koto o n a t t o k u - s a s e - t a . that  agree  (Caus)  "You made Kenta agree t o buy you a c a r .  87 (84)  c.  k a r e . n i kuruma o kau  Kunio.wa Kenta n i by  <  he zibun. self  to  car  buy  1  koto o n a t t o k u - s a s e - t a . that  agree  (Caus)  "Kunio*, made Kenta agree "to buy him^ a c a r . "  As shown above, t h e zibun-form i s f u l l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e ^ w i t h the p e r s o n a l pronouns' without changing the meaning o f the  sentences.  The zibun-form. however, d i f f e r e n t i a t e s from  o t h e r s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g two a s p e c t s .  (i)  Zibun ' s e l f * the  (ii)  r e f e r s t o t h e f i r s t , the second and  t h i r d person as shown i n (81) through (84).  Also, zibun 'self*  i s e n t i r e l y f r e e from a major  f e a t u r e o f the Japanese language, the speech  level.  • o  ( I t i s n o t the case w i t h t h e o t h e r pronouns.) In r e l a t i o n t o what t h e above ( i i ) i m p l i e s , i t would be e a s i e r t o observe the examples below.  (85)  a. (Watasi^wa) ima now  w a t a s i . no u t i de gozaimasu. I •s house a t b e ( f o r m a l ) zibun* self *bre^ I (informal) 1  "I am a t my home now."  88 (85)  a*. (Ore-wa) ima I  ore. I  no u t i da. *s house b e ( i n f o r m a l )  1  now  zibun. self 1  •watasi. I (formal) " I am a t my home now." b.  (Anata-wa) ima now  anata. no u t i n i i r a s s y a i m a s u ka? . *s house a t b e ( f o r m a l ) zibun. self y  x  •omae. you ( i n f o r m a l ) "Are you a t your home now?" b'.  (Omae*wa) ima you  now  omaev  o  no u t i n i i r u ka?  u  zibun. self  's house a t b e ( i n f o r m a l )  1  •anata*(formal) I you  'Are you a t your home, now?" c.  (Ano kata.wa) ima t h a t person  now  ano kata- no u t i n i t h a t p e r son , ,_ ' s house a t zibun* self; •aitu*^ .that p e r s o n ( i n f o r m a l ) 1  irassyaimasu. be(formal) "That person  i s a t h i s home now."  89 (85)  c». (AitUjWa) ima  aitu. no u t i n i i r u . that person t h a t person . 's house at be now (informal) *ang kata l that person(formal) That person i s at h i s home now. ti  In Japanese the verb of a sentence generally controls the speech l e v e l .  In the above, the a, b, and c-sentences have  the verbs i n formal form, whereas the a*, b , and c'-sentences f  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 t o postulate the zibun-form as a personal pronoun, rather than a r e f l e x i v e pronoun. F i r s t , consider the following sentences by Hirakouji (1973*17-18). (86)  A l l sentences are cited here with minor  a. Zibun wa sanzyuusan-sai de arimasu. self thirty-three-years copula 11  I am t h i r t y - t h r e e years o l d .tt  a'. Zibun-zisin wa sanzyuusan-sai de arimasu. self  thirty-three-years copula  " ( I don't know about others, but) I am t h i r t y - t h r e e years o l d . "  changes.  90  (86)  b.  Zibun wa siai-no-tame self  kesseki simasita.  game-because of absent d i d  "I was absent (from the class) because of the game." b*. Zibun-zisin wa siai-no-tame self  kesseki simasita.  game-because of absent d i d  (I don't know about others, but) I was absent (from the class) because of the game." Hirakouji treats zibun ' s e l f * i n (86.a) and (86.b) as jargon, d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g b*). (87)  them from those i n (86.a') and (86.  Hirakouji*s explanation (1973»18) readst "They(86.a-b) used to be uttered by people who belonged to the army. Some students who commit themselves to a u n i v e r s i t y sports club which places them under a s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e often use sentence l i k e (2)....The zibun*s i n ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are not n e c e s s a r i l y such jargon. They are used i n a ordinary conversation."  In the quotation, ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) corespond to (86.b), (86.a*) and (86.b*) r e s p e c t i v e l y . Notice that we can p l a u s i b l y account f o r the zibun-form  above, postulating  zibun 'self* as a personal pronoun ; that i s , although i t i s jargon, zibun *self* i n (86.a) and (86.b) i s a personal pronoun which i s free from the speech l e v e l . (In f a c t ,  zibun  91  • s e l f * t o r e f e r t o the f i r s t person was i n order t o m a i n t a i n the s i m p l e s t way out the f o r m a l i t y .  employed i n the army  of communication w i t h -  A l s o , i t i s used i n a u n i v e r s i t y s p o r t s  c l u b o r the l i k e where the army-like s t r i c t order i s kept.) As to (86.a*) and of  (86.a) and  ( 8 6 . V ) , they are the c o n t r a s t i v e v e r s i o n s  (86.b) ( c f . ?2 and  73).  Second, c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g examples.  (88)  a.  Zibun wa doo desu self "How  b.  how about  ka?  is you?"  Zibun ga k i n a s a i t self  come  "(You) cornel"  In these examples, the zibun-form r e f e r s t o the second Unless z i b u n ' s e l f  i s t r e a t e d as a p e r s o n a l pronoun,  occurrence of zibun ' s e l f other occurrences. zibun • s e l f  person. this  must be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from the  However, as shown i n ( i ) p r e v i o u s l y , t h a t  r e f e r s t o the second person as a p e r s o n a l pro-  noun i s q u i t e p r e d i c t a b l e . p e r s o n a l pronoun, we  Thus, with z i b u n ' s e l f  as a  can give a s y s t e m a t i c account f o r both  92 (86)  and (88)  i n e x a c t l y t h e same manner.  T h i r d , observe t h e f o l l o w i n g c a u s a t i v e sentences.  (89.a)  i s Akatuka's.  (89)  a.  Taroo.wa Z i r o o . n i zibun.».o nagur-sase-ta.  l  0  1  by  self  3  •••• \  h i t (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) Taroo.made Z i r o o h i t s e l f . . " b.  Kunio.wa K e n t a ^ n i zibun^..o k a k - s a s e - t a . by  self  paint  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ made Kenta p a i n t c.  Kunio wa K e n t a . n i z i b u n . o  3  1*3  by  self  self^"  syookai-sase-ta.  4  i  (Caus)  .  #  i n t r o d u c e (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) KuniOj^ made Kenta i n t r o d u c e s e l f . ^ " In a l l the above c a u s a t i v e sentences, t h e zibun-form o n l y r e f e r s t o t h e s u b j e c t o f the m a t r i x sentence. a t t r i b u t e t h e ungrammatical  Akatuka  r e a d i n g ( i . e . t h e one i n d i c a t e d  by t h e index ji.) t o the v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Like-NP C o n s t r a i n t . f o r NP  2  and  NP3 i n the f o l l o w i n g  are i n peer r e l a t i o n .  schematization of  (89.a)  93  (90)  Taroo. •Ziroo 1  nagur hit  However, we have observed i n t h e p r e v i o u s zibunzisin •oneself cedent. (89)  section that  can be i n p e e r r e l a t i o n with i t s ante-  Hence, (91) i s ambiguous where t h e zj,bun.-form i n  has been r e p l a c e d by z i b u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f .  (91)  a.  Taroo^wa Z i r o o ..ni z i b u n z i s i n - j O nagur-sase-ta. by  oneself  h i t (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) Taroo*^ made Z i r o o j h i t s e l f . ^ . " b.  KuniOjjWa Kenta^ni by  zibunzisin^o oneself  kak-sase-ta. paint  " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. p a i n t c.  (Caus)  self..."  Kunio^wa Kenta ..ni z i b u n z i s i n ^ ..o s y o o k a i - s a s e - t a . by oneself introduce (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. made Kenta. i n t r o d u c e s e l f . . . "  94  In the above, unless the zibun-form i s treated as a personal pronoun on the one hand and the zibunzisin-form. on the other hand as a r e f l e x i v e , the ambiguity of (91) cannot i b e  accounted f o r systematically.  .  Notice that we  could account f o r the ambiguity i n question quite systematicall y i n the following way, using the underlying structure of (91.b) i n terms of schematization  ( i . e . 92).  (92)  The derivation of the sentence indicated by the index 2 i n (91.b) would bet (i)  Reflexivization —  NP3 gets r e f l e x i v i z e d under  the c o r e f e r e n t i a l i d e n t i t y with NPg. being changed into z i b u n z i s i n 'oneself cycle.  i n the S2  95 (ii)  Causativization —  kak ' p a i n t ' i s combined with  the c a u s a t i v e sase, forming kak-sase. A l s o , because o f t h i s , (iii)  the S  2  node i s t o be d e l e t e d ,  As a r e s u l t o f ( i i ) , the sentence w i t h the index X i s d e r i v e d having NP2 and NP-j as i t s c o n s t i t u e n t s ,  When NPi and NP  2  a r e c o r e f e r e n t i a l , the sentence  indi-  cated by i r e s u l t s i n the f o l l o w i n g way»  (i) (ii)  Nothing happens i n the S Causativization —  2  cycle.  Same as above. 11  (iii)  Pronominalization  —  NP-j, now a c o n s t i t u e n t o f  the matrix sentence S i , g e t s pronominalized. a result, (iv)  (89.b)  As  i s derived,  -zisin-attachment —  I f the bound morpheme - z i s i n  i s a t t a c h e d t o the r e s u l t o f ( i i i ) ,  the sentence  w i t h the index i i n (91.h) r e s u l t s . Notice t h a t the ambiguity o f (91.h) i s j u s t a f o r t u i t o u s matter, f o r t h e bound morpheme - z i s i n c o u l d be attached t o NPi o r NP , r e s u l t i n g i n the f o l l o w i n g grammatical 2  or  (93.b) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  (93.a)  9 6  (93)  a.  K u n i o ^ - z i s i n wa Kenta n i zibun^o by s e l f  kak-sase-ta. p a i n t (Caus)  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ h i m s e l f made Kenta p a i n t s e l f ^ . " b.  Kuniojwa K e n t a - z i s i n n i zibun-o kak-sase-ta. by self p a i n t (Caus) " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ made Kenta h i m s e l f p a i n t s e l f ^ . "  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s o f importance  t o n o t i c e t h a t t h e sen-  tence with t h e r e f l e x i v e pronoun i s o n l y t h e one i n d i c a t e d by t h e index j. i n (91), w h i l e t h e r e a d i n g w i t h i i s a c c e p t a b l e o n l y when i t conveys the c o n t r a s t i v e meaning. words, r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  I n other  i n Japanese i s a phenomenon observable  o n l y i n the simplex sentence.  Moreover, t h i s would a l s o ex-  p l a i n why the r e a d i n g w i t h the index i , i n (91) i s the dominant one. What we have claimed above i s not o n l y p e c u l i a r t o the c a u s a t i v e sentences.  (94)  a.  C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g  Kunio.wa z i b u n . o < 4  l  t a t a i t a Kenta.o n i r a n d a .  i 3  self  examplesi  j  hit  stared at  " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ s t a r e d a t Kenta who h i t s e l f ^ . " a.  Kunio^wa zibunzisin^© t a t a i t a Kenta^o n i r a n d a . oneself hit stared at " ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ s t a r e d a t Kenta^ who h i t s e l f . j . "  97  (9*)  b.  Kunio.wa z i b u n ^ o k a i t a Kenta^0 tataeta. #i  self  painted  admired  " ( L i t . ) Kunio.- admired Kenta who self"  painted  b'« Kunio^wa z i b u n z i s i n ^ o k a i t a Kenta o tataeta, oneself painted admired " ( L i t . ) Kunio. admired Kenta. who ed s e l f . "  paint-  J  c.  KuniojWa zibun.*.o syookaisita Kenta n i self  introduced  to  tikazuita. approached " ( L i t . ) Kunio. approached Kenta who introduced s e l f - V ' c'. Kunio-wa zibunzisin^^o syookaisita Kenta n i oneself  introduced  to  tikazuita. approached " ( L i t . ) Kunio. approached Kenta* who introduced s e l f . " The diagram ( 9 5 ) below represents the underlying that the sentences i n ( 9 * ) have i n common.  structure  98 (95)  Kenta.  NP< Kunio. Kenta j 1  In the above diagram, NP b e i n g i t s head noun.  2  i s the r e l a t i v e clause w i t h  When NP5  i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l with  NP3 NP^,  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n takes p l a c e i n the S 2 c y c l e , y i e l d i n g the a', b* and c'-sentences with the index j[, which i s the dominant r e a d i n g o f them.  Otherwise, w i t h NP^ b e i n g i t s  c o r e f e r e n t , NP5 gets p r o n o m i n a l i z e d , 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 , b* and c^-sentences w i t h the index i , 1  which  are one case o f the c o n t r a s t i v e v e r s i o n s o f the a, b c-sentences.  and  Hence, the ambiguity i s once a g a i n c o i n c i d e n t .  The f o u r t h reason t o j u s t i t y our treatment of the zibun« form as a p e r s o n a l pronoun comes from the f o l l o w i n g p a s s i v e sentences*  99 Compare (96) (1)  a.  with (1).  Kunio.ga Kenta^o zibun^^no u t i de korosita. self  *s house at k i l l e d  " ( L i t . ) Kunio-Jeilled Kenta at house." b.  Kenta^wa Kunio^ni zibun .^no by  self  selfs  u t i de  's house at  koros-rare-ta. k i l l (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kenta was k i l l e d by Kunio at self., *s house. i  (96)  a.  Kunio.wa Kenta.ni zibun.*.o by  self  syookaisintroduce  rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio*^ had Kenta introduce b,  self"  Kunio.wa Kenta^ni zibunzisin..0 syookaisby oneself introduce rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ had Kenta,. introduce  Recall that (l.b) was antecedent  selfy."  c r u c i a l to propose the sub.iect-  condition i n the previous chapter ( c f . 1.1.1) ,  since i n ( l . a ) and i t s passive (l.b) zibun •self* only refers  100 t o the  s u b j e c t noun phrase.  Hence, the  a p p l i c a t i o n of  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 l o n g as we zibun-form as the seem t o be  the  r e f l e x i v e pronoun.  case with ( 9 6 . b ) , s i n c e  r e f e r s back t o both Kunio and To  account f o r t h i s , we  passiv-  treat  However, i t does not zibunzisin  •oneself*  Kenta. assume the f o l l o w i n g  t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s , u s i n g the u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e  derivaof ( 9 6 ) .  (97) Si  The  sentence w i t h the  d e r i v e d i n the f o l l o w i n g (i)  index j . i n (96,b) would  zibunzisin NP  2  be  way:  Reflexivization —  NPjj, i s t o be  changed i n t o  ' o n e s e l f * , b e i n g c o r e f e r e n t i a l with  p r i o r to  passivization.  the  (ii)  Passivization — deletion*  NP3 i s t o be d e l e t e d by Equi-NP  A l s o , the verb syookais ' i n t r o d u c e ' i s  combined with the p a s s i v e marker r a r e .  Now,  NP  2  and NPjj, are the c o n s t i t u e n t s o f the p a s s i v e sentence S (iii)  l t  the S  2  node h a v i n g been e l i m i n a t e d ,  The r e s u l t o f ( i i ) i s the sentence w i t h the index  1 i n (96.b).  The sentence with the index i i n (96.b) would be d e r i v e d i n t h i s way1 (i) (ii)  Passivization —  Same as above ( i i ) .  Pronominalization —  NP^ b e i n g changed i n t o 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 NP , A  (iii)  (96.a) r e s u l t s ,  -zisin-attachment —  - z i s i n being attached to  NPij., t h e sentence w i t h index i i n (96.b) results.  Again, the ambiguity of (96.b) i s j u s t f o r t u i t o u s , because the bound morpheme - z i s i n c o u l d be a t t a c h e d t o NP  A  o r NP  r a t h e r than NP4, y i e l d i n g the grammatical sentences,  2  (98.a)  102  o r (98.b) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  (98)  a.  K u n i O j - z i s i n wa Kenta n i zibun.0 by  syookais-  self  introduce  rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio. h i m s e l f had Kenta i n t r o d u c e s e l f " b.  Kunio.wa K e n t a - z i s i n n i zibun^o by  self  syookaisintroduce  rare-ta. (Pass) " ( L i t . ) Kunio, had Kenta h i m s e l f introduce s e l f "  Thus, p o s t u l a t i n g z i b u n • s e l f * as a p e r s o n a l pronoun on the one hand, and z i b u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f * as the on the other, we  are a b l e t o account  reflexive  f o r the ambiguity  very  plausibly. T h e r e f o r e , as a c o n c l u s i o n t o t h i s s e c t i o n we may  say  t h a t what has been t r e a t e d as Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n  (by  Akatuka, Oyakawa e t c . ) through the zibun-form of two  really consists  d i f f e r e n t s y n t a c t i c phenomena » r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n the  simplex sentence  and p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n 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 r e f l e x i v e pronoun i n 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 r e f l e x i v e on the other, with the following resultst (i)  s o r e z i t a i ' i t s e l f , the non-human counter-part of z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f , can be treated as the r e f l e x i v e pronoun,  (ii)  What has been c l a s s i f i e d as r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n Japanese so f a r r e a l l y consists of two d i f f e r e n t syntactic processes  i r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n and pro-  nominalization.  As a conclusion to t h i s chapter, we may present what the foregoing discussion has resulted i n as our revised proposal (II) i n the following:  104  (99)  The Revised P r o p o s a l ( I I )  Japanese (i)  Reflexivization  In a g i v e n simplex  sentence  t h a t 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 i n t o z i b u n z i s i n 'one s e l f (sorezitai  'itself)  i f NPaUs the l e f t -  most human (non-human) noun phrase which a l s o commands NPr. (ii)  When NPa i s i n a h i g h e r sentence, into zibun ' s e l f .  change NPa  (Pronominalization ) 1 2  105  NOTES FOR CHAPTER II 1. The deep structure of these sentences i s also unacceptable as shown belowi i.  *Kunio wa Kunio o t a t a i t a . hit -Kunio h i t Kunio."  ii.  *Kunio wa Kunio n i kuruma o katta. to car bought "Kunio bought Kunio a car." In Chapter III, t h i s point i s to be discussed i n d e t a i l . 2. By the notion "maximum NP", Akatuka seems to imply that an NP which i s not dominated by another NP node i s a "maximum NP". Therefore, the head noun of the r e l a t i v e construction i s not a "maximum NP", and neither i s the left-branching NP. 3. Noriko A. McCawley, "A Study of Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , " (Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , I l l i n o i s University 1972) P.30. 4.  Ibid., p.34.  5. I t i s well-known that there are two types of passive sentences i n Japanese t the p l a i n passive-derived by the subjectobject inversion plus passive marker rare attachment and the so-called a f f e c t i v e passive. What we are concerned with here i s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l a t t e r type of passive i n general, not p e c u l i a r 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 r e f e r to the t h i r d person are missing. Kare 'he' i n (81) through (84) and kanozyo 'she* are sometimes c l a s s i f i e d as such personal pronouns. However, t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s highly questionable since the gender i s quite foreign i n Japanese. 8. As f o r the discussion i n d e t a i l about the speech l e v e l , see. Akiko Shinoda (1973)» f o r example. 9. In these examples, ano hito 'that person' and a i t u 'that person* are not personal pronouns. Nevertheless, our main claim would remain i n e f f e c t . 10. This, usage of zibun 'self* i s more frequently observable i n the Kansai d i a l e c t which i s spoken i n 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 J a p a n e s e , 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 the abovem e n t i o n e d s e n s e ( c f . n o t e 10). Also, ( i i )i n the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l ( I I ) i s not the case w i t h sore ' i t / t h a t ' because i t i s n o t a p e r s o n a l p r o n o u n . See t h e e x a m p l e s b e l o w t i.  Rekisi^wa history  sorezitai^o itself  "History repeats ii.  kurikaesu. repeat  itself."  SensoOjWa r e k i s i . g a sorezitai***© k u r i k a e s u war history itself repeat koto o that  simesu. show  " ( L i t . ) The w a r shows t h a t h i s t o r y , itself ."  repeats  1  ±  i i i .  *Sensoo.wa r e k i s i g a sore.,0 k u r i k a e s u k o t o o war history i t repeat that simesu. show "(Lit.)  The  war*, shows t h a t h i s t o r y  repeats  A l t h o u g h i i i a b o v e m i g h t be a c c e p t a b l e a s a d i r e c t t r a n s l a t i o n from a f o r e i g n language, i t i s otherwise unacceptable. 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 I I I  SOME RESIDUAL PROBLEMS AND THE  3  INTERPRETIVE THEORY  INTRODUCTION In the p r e v i o u s chapter, we claimed t h a t the genuine r e -  f l e x i v e i n Japanese i s not the zibun-form but the z i b u n z i s i n forra, and 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 are the r e s p e c t i v e r e s u l t s from p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n and r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n . We must admit, however, t h a t with t h i s approach there  still  i s a d i f f i c u l t y i n determining the adequate deep s t r u c t u r e t o which the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e s a p p l y . Consider the f o l l o w i n g , f o r example.  (100)  a.  Kunio^wa z i b u n z i s i n - o t a t a i t a . oneself  hit  "Kunio h i t h i m s e l f . " a*. *Kunio wa Kunio o t a t a i t a . hit "•Kunio h i t Kunio."  108  (100)  b.  Kunio-wa Kenta n i zibun-^o t a t a k - s a s e - t a . by  self  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 t a t a k - s a s e - t a . by h i t (Caus) "•Kunio made Kenta h i t Kunio,"  In t h e p r e s e n t chapter, we s h a l l l o o k i n t o a p o s s i b l e account f o r t h i s i n J a c k e n d o f f s p r o p o s a l known as t h e I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory.  As a r e s u l t , i t w i l l be shown t h a t the  approach i n the framework o f J a c k e n d o f f ' s p r o p o s a l can shed l i g h t on the f o l l o w i n g two problems as w e l l , which t h e s t a n dard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach seems unable t o account f o r .  (i)  The occurrence o f z i b u n * s e l f ' w i t h t h e p a r t i c l e de •by/with*  (ii)  N o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l z i b u n ' s e l f and zibunzisin  3»1  'oneself  The I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory by J a c k e n d o f f In o r d e r t h a t t h e c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y can be i n t e r p r e t e d  i n the semantic component, Jackendoff ( 1 9 7 2 i l l 2 ) f o r m u l a t e s E n g l i s h r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g wayi  109  (101)  Reflexivization i n English NP  A  (X'coref  ^^^ef J  *  n  the environment....  OBLIGATORY  A c c o r d i n g t o Jackendoff, t h i s r u l e says t h a t t  (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 w i t h NP i f and o n l y i f it i s reflexive." A  I t i s important t o n o t i c e  here (.that, t h e r e v i s e d  ( I I ) i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r b e i n g p r e s e r v e d ,  proposal  the r u l e ( 1 0 1 )  1  can remain i n e f 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, t h e r e f l e x i v e z i b u n z i s i n be i n t e r p r e t e d  •oneself  1  in  (100.a)  i s to  as c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h Kunio. t h e l e f t - m o s t  human noun phrase which commands t h e r e f l e x i v e , by the r u l e ( 1 0 1 ) .  As t h e r e f l e x i v e z i b u n z i s i n  i n t h e deep s t r u c t u r e  i n the Interpretive  ungrammatical deep s t r u c t u r e  as  Likewise, z i b u n * s e l f ' i n terpreted  •oneself*  (100.a*)  (100.b)  Theory,  such a  can be d i s r e g a r d e d .  can be e a s i l y i n -  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  Kunio by the r u l e something l i k e  i s presented  follows*  antecedent  110 (103)  Pronominalization NPi  o(coref  £ of pro| 2  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 l e f t - m o s t human noun phrase i n the m a t r i x sentence and  i n the embedded sentence  r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i l l q u a l i f y as NP^  and  As i n d i c a t e d i n (lOO.b) the zibun-form t i a l w i t h Kunio. the matrix s u b j e c t .  zibun ' s e l f *  as  NP . 2  can be o n l y c o r e f e r e n Therefore, we must  m a i n t a i n a l l the c o n d i t i o n s mentioned p r e v i o u s l y i n the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l ( I I ) as "the environment" i n o r d e r f o r the r u l e t o r e s u l t i n the c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Using the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l  ( I I ) as "the environment",  r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n and p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n i n Japanese may formulated  i n the f o l l o w i n g way  i n terms of the I n t e r p r e t i v e  Theory t (104)  a.  Reflexivization  TNP 2 ^£2,  NPi  (/coref  /(i) •  NPi i s t h e l e f t - m o s t noun phrase commanding NP2  ]  if  and (ii)  be  both NPi and NP are i n a g i v e n simplex sentence 2  Ill (104)  b.  Pronominalization NP, x —  </coref —•  (i)  f N P  2  ]  i  f  same as above  and (ii)  NP  A  i s i n a h i g h e r sentence  T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n not o n l y a v o i d s such ungrammatical deep s t r u c t u r e s as i n (100) but a l s o accounts f o r the c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y observable (105)  a.  i n t h e examples belowi  Kunio^wa zibun^de syukudai o s i t a . s e l f by homework "Kunio d i d t h e homework  b.  Zibun^de syukudai s e l f by  homework  did  by himself."  o s i t a koto ga Kunio-ni d i d that  to  z i s i n o ataeta. confidence gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) d i d the homework "by h i m s e l f gave Kunio confidence." The  zibun-form  i n (105) i s a p e r f e c t i n s t a n c e o f o u r a n a l -  y s i s i n the p r e c e d i n g chapters s i n c e t h e pronoun z i b u n  •self*  i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h t h e l e f t - m o s t human noun phrase which commands zibun ' s e l f  as t h e index shows i n (105).  However,  112 the  s t a n d a r d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e by which one o f the two  c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases i s t o be changed i n t o the z i b u n form cannot be a c c o u n t a b l e f o r the occurrence o f z i b u n  'self*  i n t h e above examples because the p o s s i b l e deep s t r u c t u r e s f o r the  sentences i n q u e s t i o n a r e 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 t h e homework :by. Kunio gave Kunio \\J.I c o n f i d e n c e . "  I t seems t o be because o f t h i s d i f f i c u l t y t h a t t h e pronoun z i b u n • s e l f ' w i t h t h e p a r t i c l e de_ 'by/with* has been r a r e l y t r e a t e d i n the c u r r e n t l i n g u i s t i c works i n terms o f the s t a n dard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach.-' C o n t r a r y t o t h i s , the i n t e r p r e t i v e approach does n o t have t o assume t h e ungrammatical deep s t r u c t u r e c o r d i n g t o the r u l e  (106).  Ac-  (104), Kunio i n (105) i s t o 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 s h a l l treat mere complicated examples. (107)  a.  Kunio .wa zibun*, de zibun.no syukudai o s i t a . s e l f by  s e l f 's homework  did  " ( L i t . ) Kunio. d i d s e l f * * s homework by self*^" 1  b.  Zibun^de zibun^no syukudai o s i t a koto ga s e l f by s e l f * s homework d i d that Kunio*.ni z i s i n o ataeta. to confidence gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) d i d a e l f ^ ' s homework by self*1 gave Kunio. l r - confidence."  (108.a) and (108.b) below are the schematical representation of  (107.a) (108)  and  (107.b)  respectively.  a. S  114 (108)  b.  (Same as VP of 108.a) In these schematizations, pronominalization between NP  X  and  NP3  i s accountable by the standard transformational approach, i n which NP3 i s to be changed into zibun ' s e l f * . nominalization between NP  X  and NP  2  But, pro-  i s to remain unaccounted  f o r 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 i n explaining the antecedent-reflexive r e l a t i o n i n (107). In both (108.a) and (108.b), the r u l e (104.b) gives the two interpretations as follows* (109)  a.  NP (Kunio)  +coref  NP? ( z i b u n ' s e l f )  b.  NP (Kunio)  +coref  NP (zibun'self)  X  X  3  The interpretive approach thus accounts f o r such  complicated  instances as (107). whereas the standard transformational  115 approach seems unable t o account f o r them.  Jackendoff  (19?2tll2)  a l s o imposes the f o l l o w i n g  con-  d i t i o n on E n g l i s h r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n .  (110)  The C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n I f the t a b l e o f c o r e f e r e n c e 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 a b l e t o d e s c r i b e t h e same i n dividual.  Jackendoff uses (111) below t o show how  (111)  a.  *The boy^shot  b.  * F i n k e l s t e i n ^ shot  the c o n d i t i o n  works.  herself^. yourself^.  The r e f l e x i v e r u l e marks the two noun phrases i n (111) cor e f e r e n t i a l as i n d i c a t e d by the index i,.  This  interpreta-  t i o n , however, i s t o be r e j e c t e d because of the C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n whereby the male i n d i v i d u a l i n (111.a) cannot des c r i b e the same i n d i v i d u a l as the female ' h e r s e l f . t h i r d person 'Pinkelstein* •yourself the  and the second person i n d i v i d u a l  cannot be the same i n ( l l l . b ) .  condition  rejects  The  In o t h e r words,  (111.a) because o f i t s gender d i s -  agreement, whereas ( l l l . b ) because o f i t s person d i s a g r e e -  116 merit.  N o t i c e t h a t t h i s c o n d i t i o n must be adopted i n t o r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n i n o r d e r t o b l o c k such ungrammatical  Japanese sentences  as f o l l o w s i  (112)  a.  • R e k i s i f a zibunzisin^o kurikaesu. history  oneself  repeat  "•History repeats oneself." b.  •Kuniojwa s o r e z i t a i ^ o itself  tataita. hit  "•Kunio h i t i t s e l f . "  I t i s obvious t h a t the r e f l e x i v e r u l e the  u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y o f (112).  following  (113)  (104.a) cannot b l o e k  The r e f l e x i v e r u l e g i v e s the  interpretations.  a.  ( R e k i s i ' h i s t o r y * ) +coref  b.  (Kunio) +coref  (zibunzisin*oneself*)  (sorezitai*itself*)  Then, i t i s the C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n t h a t d i s c a r d s ( 1 1 3 ) above * t h a t i s , the non-human noun phrase r e k i s i  'history*  cannot d e s c r i b e the same i n d i v i d u a l as the human noun phrase zibunzisin 'oneself 'itself  i n (113.a).  L i k e w i s e . Kunio and s o r e z i t a i  i n (113.b) cannot be the same because o f 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 r e q u i r e s t h e C o n s i s t ency  Condition.  To sum up, we may say t h a t t h e I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory i s equipped w i t h more d e s c r i p t i v e adequacy t h a n the s t a n d a r d transformational  approach on the b a s i s o f the f o l l o w i n g two  points*  (i)  Without assuming ungrammatical deep s t r u c t u r e s , the  i n t e r p r e t i v e approach can account f o r such  an i n s t a n c e (ii)  as (100) p l a u s i b l y ,  Zibun ' s e l f * with t h e p a r t i c l e de 'by/with  1  can be t r e a t e d p l a u s i b l y o n l y when the zibun -form i s assumed t o be present i n the deep s t r u c t u r e .  3.2  Non-coreferential  zibun*self  and z i b u n z i s i n * o n e s e l f '  F i r s t , l e t us observe (114) below.  (114)  a.  Nihon-zin^wa Japanese  z i b u n z i s i n o kantan n i k o r o s - e r u . # i  oneself  "Japanese can e a s i l y k i l l  easily  k i l l can  one's own s e l f . "  118 (114)  b.  Ano nihon-zin^wa zibunzisin.© that Japanese  kantan n i  oneself  easily  koros-eru. k i l l can " ( L i t . ) That Japanese can e a s i l y k i l l  self^."  Although i t i s hard to see from i t s English t r a n s l a t i o n , ( l l 4 . a ) i s acceptable  only when z i b u n z i s i n • o n e s e l f  e n t i a l with nihon-zin  •Japanese  1  i s not corefer-  i namely, (114.a) does not  mean that •Japanese can e a s i l y k i l l Japanese* but something to the e f f e c t that 'Japanese can e a s i l y commit s u i c i d e ' . More examples of t h i s type f o l l o w i (115)  a.  Ningen^wa zibunzisin.© men  oneself  aisu. love  "Men love one's own s e l f . " b.  Ano ningen^wa z i b u n z i s i n ^ 0 a i s u . that man  oneself  love  " ( L i t . ) That man (person) gloves (116)  a.  Kodomo^wa zibunzisin*^© children  oneself  self*  kontorooru deki-nai. control  can not  "Children cannot control one's own s e l f . " b.  Ano kodomo^wa zibunzisinjo kontorooru deki-nai. that c h i l d oneself control can not " ( L i t . ) That child*^ cannot control  self"  119 In accounting f o r the zibunzisin-form i n the a-sentences by the standard transformational approach, we s h a l l encounter the two problems.  F o r one thing, the possible underlying  structures are ungrammatical as discussed i n section 3 of t h i s chapter and, f o r another, even i f we admit the ungrammatic a l underlying structures, z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f i n the asentences above cannot be derived through the transformational r e f l e x i v e r u l e f o r there are not two c o r e f e r e n t i a l noun phrases f o r r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n to apply t o .  ( R e c a l l that (114.a),for  example, does not mean 'Japanese can e a s i l y k i l l Japanese.') Now, compare the b-sentences with the a-sentences i n (114) through (116).  The c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y observable i n the  b-sentences i s acceptable as shown by the index.  Why i s i t  that z i b u n z i s i n ' o n e s e l f behaves d i f f e r e n t l y i n each example? In order to explain t h i s phenomenon, we are proposing that a feature QfspecificTJ i s needed i n Japanese r e f l e x i v ization.  I n (114) through (116), what d i f f e r e n t i a t e s 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.  F o r example, the left-most human noun  120 phrase i s n i h o n - z i n 'Japanese' i n g e n e r a l i n (114.a), w h i l e the  l e f t - m o s t human noun phrase i n (114.0) i s s p e c i f i c ano  n i h o n - z i n 'that Japanese' and, as a r e s u l t , sentence shows t h e a c c e p t a b l e  o n l y the l a t t e r  coreferentiality.  N o t i c e t h a t the p a r a l l e l phenomenon can be observed i n Japanese p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n t the zibun-form.  (117)  a.  Nihon-zin-wa Japanese  r  zibun,,..  no koto o hanas-nai  4 piihon-zin I Japanese  •s a f f a i r t a l k  " ( L i t . ) Japanese, do n o t t a l k affair."  one's.own  1  b.  not  1  Sono nihon-zin^wa ( z i b u n . no koto o self the Japanese •s a f f a i r sono n i h o n - z i n ^ the Japanese 1  hanas-nai. t a l k not •'(Lit.) The Japanese, does not t a l k s e l f ' s affair."  (118)  a.  Ningen^wa ' a z i b u ^ . g a k i r a i n a self men hate •ningen men  about  koto o s u - n a i . thing  do not  " ( L i t . ) Men do not do what one h a t e s . "  121  (118)  b.  Sono ningen.wa  zibun. self 1  the  man  koto o  ga  kiraina hate  sono n i n g e n the man  su-nai.  t h i n g do n o t " ( L i t . ) The man(person). does n o t do what self-^ h a t e s . "  Kodomo^wa  ( 1 1 9 )  children  z i b u n * . no kanzyoo ga kontorooru self , . ^ , l •s temper control rkodomo children  deki-nai. can not "(Lit.)  b.  C h i l d r e n cannot c o n t r o l one*! own temper."  Sono kodomoiwa ( z i b u n . the  child  kontorooru control  no kanzyoo ga  { 's I sono kodomo [ the c h i l d  temper  deki-nai. can n o t  " ( L i t . ) The c h i l d , temper."  cannot c o n t r o l  self's 1  In t h e above examples, i f t h e e l i g i b l e antecedent i s a spec i f i c noun phrase, t h e zibun-form i s c o r e f e r e n t i a l ( i . e . b s e n t e n c e s ) , but otherwise z i b u n ' s e l f * i s n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l  122 ( i . e . a-sentences). T h e r e f o r e , we propose such a c o n d i t i o n as f o l l o w s i  (120)  The S p e c i f i c Antecedent Requirement F o r t h e z i b u n ( z i s i n ) - f o r m t o be c o r e f e r e n t i a l , there must e x i s t a noun phrase which a s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l i n a given  describes  sentence.  C o n s i d e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n procedure o f (114) and (11?), f o r example, t o see how t h e c o n d i t i o n  (120)  validates  itself.  i)  By t h e r u l e s (104), t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s below are g i v e n t o (114) and (117).  <»*•••>• (SgiJUi2)  »  <S£t B 8gK£> +coref +ooref  <w;.)i(«fs ii)  The c o n d i t i o n  (120)  <U*..M<§igg£^)  'liB1"'  *  r u l e s out ( l l 4 . a ) and (117.a).  +  coref  123  iii)  As a r e s u l t , (114.b) and  (11?.b) are t o be  i n t e r p r e t e d as c o r e f e r e n t i a l .  T h i s procedure thus t e l l s  us c o r r e c t l y t h a t the  coreferen-  t i a l i t y o f the a-sentences i n (114) through ( 1 1 9 ) i s unacceptable.  But, the a c c e p t a b l e r e a d i n g  (i.e.  non-coreferential  for.  More p r e c i s e l y , (114.a) and  o f the sentences  reading) i s s t i l l l e f t  unaccounted  (11?.a) can be  interpreted  o n l y on the b a s i s o f - c o r e f and z i b u n ( z i s i n ) * ( o n e ) s e l f * must be i n t e r p r e t e d as a noun, not a pronoun of any k i n d .  In  s h o r t , the f o l l o w i n g s h o u l d holdt (121)  -  (u*.,),(^to,  _eoref  bV  (117.a),(%^ )  -coref  n  T h e r e f o r e , we must i n c o r p o r a t e  the c o n d i t i o n  (120) i n t o  Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n / p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n (104) as a t h i r d c o n d i t i o n so t h a t 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  (i)  e f  J  it  Same as (104.a)  and (ii) and (iii) b.  [^|  Same as (104.a) NPi must be a noun phrase which describes a s p e c i f i c individual,  Pronominalization NPi  +coref  (i)  [ ^  r  G  ]  if  Same as (104.b)  and ^(ii)  Same as (104.b)  and (iii)  Same as above  It i s because of the v i o l a t i o n of the t h i r d condition above that the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n The following (123)  (121) r e s u l t s from the r u l e s (122).  schematization represents the foregoing.  Reflexivization Pronominalization NPj  i +coref NP  2  i The Consistency Condition e.g.  I  (100),(105),(107).1(111) * ( 1 1 2 ) , * ( l l 4 . a ) etc.  NPi  e.g.  -coref  NP  2  (Il4.a),(115.a) (116.a),(117.a) (118.a),(119.a) etc.  125 Next, l e t us observe the f o l l o w i n g examples which would f u r t h e r support the i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f (120) i n t o  (104) as a  third condition.  (124)  a. Gakusee. student a  *  W  a  .  Qakusee-tati student(PITT  z i b u n z i s i n * . o kadaihyooka x  oneself  suru.  over-estimate do  4  " ( L i t . ) Students over-estimate one's own s e l f . " b. Gakusee. student b  !  wa z i b u n g a # i  G a k u s e e - t a t i .1 student (PI.)  self  benkyoo  siteir-  study  not-doing  n a i koto n i k i z u k - n a i . that  r e a l i z e not  " ( L i t . ) Students do n o t r e a l i z e t h a t one i s not s t u d y i n g . "  (124.a) and (124.b) a r e d i f f e r e n t from  (124.3*)  and (124.b»)  i n t h a t t h e l a t t e r have t h e p l u r a l marker - t a t i a t t a c h e d t o the s u b j e c t noun phrase.  As shown by t h e index i , z i b u n z i s i n  •oneself* and z i b u n ' s e l f * i n (124) a r e n o t c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h the l e f t - m o s t noun phrase g a k u s e e ( - t a t i ) * s t u d e n t ( s ) * , y e t both examples i n (124) are grammatical. I t might be claimed t h a t the C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y i n (124.a*) and  126 (124,b') because g a k u s e e t a t i ' s t u d e n t s cannot  1  w i t h the p l u r a l marker  d e s c r i b e the same i n d i v i d u a l as the z i b u n ( a i s i n ) - f o r m .  However, we must r e c a l l t h a t the C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n i s a b l e t o d i s q u a l i f y gakusee-tat i 'students' as NP  A  i n (104),  but i s unable t o g i v e the n o n - c o 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 for  (124,a') and (124,b').  In o t h e r words, the  combination  of (104) and the C o n s i s t e n c y C o n d i t i o n cannot d e r i v e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f (125)  <125)  below,  >• < ' ^ ) ' ( i S ^ » 2  ,  <^.»'>'<«!§K£2 *> B t  (^i^eTf-"'  -«-«'  C o n t r a r y t o t h i s , t h e r u l e s (122) w i t h  (Sir ) 1  (120) b e i n g t h e i r  t h i r d c o n d i t i o n can c o r r e c t l y account f o r the n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l i t y o f (124),  A c c o r d i n g t o (122), gakusee-tatft 'students'  does n d t q u a l i f y i t s e l f f o r NP  A  because i t i s n o t a " s p e c i f i c  i n d i v i d u a l " , so t h a t (122) r e s u l t s i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f ( 1 2 5 . a ) and ( 1 2 5 . b ) f o r (124.a') and (124,b') r e s p e c t i v e l y . ( N o t i c e t h a t (124.a) and (124,b) are a l s o g i v e n t h e non-cor 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 t h e same  reason,)  The I n t e r p r e t i v e 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 o f the z i b u n and z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m . though they seem to be equipped  Al-  w i t h more e x p l a n a t o r y adequacy  than the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach, the  interpretive  r u l e s ( 1 2 2 ) need f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n s i n c e t h e r e a r e such  sen-  tences as f o l l o w s t  (126)  a.  Kenta^dake wa only  z i b u n z i s i n ^ j j n i toohyoo s i t a . oneself  vote  did  " ( L i t . ) Only Kenta.^ voted f o r s e l f ^ . " b.  K e n t a ^ h i t o r i ga z i b u n ^ n o alone self s 1  kuruma de k i t a . car by came  " ( L i t . ) Kenta^ alone came by s e l f ^ x ' s  These sentences  are ambiguous j t h a t i s , both the  and the n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l r e a d i n g s are p o s s i b l e .  car."  coreferential F o r example,  (126.a) c o u l d mean e i t h e r t h a t 'only Kenta voted f o r Kenta,* o r t h a t * although o t h e r s voted f o r someone e l s e r a t h e r than themselves, account  o n l y Kenta voted f o r one's own  f o r the ambiguity,  self.  In order t o  the r e f l e x i v e r u l e ( 1 2 2 . 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 n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l , which i s i m p o s s i b l e i n terms of the r u l e . Since we are not a b l e t o s o l v e t h i s problem f o r the p r e s e n t , we it  are simply p o i n t i n g out i t s e x i s t e n c e and  f o r f u t u r e study.  leave  128 CONCLUSION  The  i n t e n t o f t h i s c h a p t e r has been t o t r e a t some r e -  s i d u a l problems, a treatment  which has been, i n e f f e c t , a  comparison o f the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach with the I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory by J a c k e n d o f f .  T h i s comparison  e v e n t u a l l y suggests the precedence o f J a c k e n d o f f s  proposal  over the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach on t h e b a s i s o f the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s i  i)  Due t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n determining t h e adequate deep s t r u c t u r e s , t h e standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach cannot d e r i v e such a sentence  as (100)  p l a u s i b l y , whereas the i n t e r p r e t i v e approach can s y s t e m a t i c a l l y g i v e the c o r r e c t 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 , ii)  F o r the same reason as above, the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach f a i l s t o account zibun-form p l u s t h e p a r t i c l e de  f o r the  'by/with',  whereas the i n t e r p r e t i v e approach accounts f o r it  i n t h e same manner as f o r t h e o t h e r z i b u n  occurrences.  129  iii)  The i n t e r p r e t i v e rules (122) can be responsible f o r non-coreferential zibun 'self* and z i b u n z i s i n •oneself* as observable  i n (114) through  (119).  130 NOTES FOR CHAPTER I I I  1. With t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n the r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l ( 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 p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n r u l e s i n terms o f the I n t e r p r e t i v e T h e o r y l a t e r as (104) and (122). ()  2.  See n o t e 11 i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r .  3. the ing  One might say t h a t a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e i n framework o f the s t a n d a r d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach, assumthe u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f (105) as f o 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 d i d the homework w i t h Kunio*s ability."  ii.  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 d i d t h a t Kunio n i z i s i n o a t a e t a . t o c o n f i d e n c e gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) d i d t h e homework w i t h Kunio's a b i l i t y gave Kunio the c o n f i d e n c e . "  The a p p l i c a t i o n o f p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n r e s u l t s i n i iii.  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 d i d " ( L i t . ) Kunio. d i d t h e homework w i t h s e l f . ' s ability." 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 d i d t h a t Kunio n i z i s i n o a t a e t a . to c o n f i d e n c e gave " ( L i t . ) That (he) d i d the homework w i t h s e l f . ' s a b i l i t y gave Kunio^the c o n f i d e n c e . " Every n a t i v e speaker o f Japanese may accept i i i as a paraphrase of (105). T h e r e f o r e , what i s needed t o y i e l d (105) from i i i seems t o b e a n o p t i o n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l r u l e something l i k e t i k a r a - d e l e t i o n which d e l e t e s t i k a r a ' a b i l i t y ' i n i i i . However, we must say t h a t t h i s treatment i s v e r y ad hoc f o r t h e two reasons belowt F i r s t , t h e r u l e d e l e t e s 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 t h e o n l y paraphrase o f ( 1 0 5 ) . The sentences i n i v , f o r example, could be a l s o t h e paraphrase o f ( 1 0 5 . a ) . iv.  Kunio.wa zibun.no self s x ,  kangae idea  de syukudai o s i t a , by homework did  nooryoku rye faculty etc. " ( L i t . ) Kunio^ d i d t h e homework w i t h s e l f ^ / s idea/ faculty etc. " Thus, i n o r d e r t o y i e l d (105.a) from both i i i and i v , we must i n c r e a s e such a r u l e as t i k a r a - d e l e t i o n up t o as many as t h r e e (or presumably more). Hence, t h i s approach cannot be f a r from b e i n g ad hoc. f  4.  The r u l e  (104,b) a c t u a l l y g i v e s a t h i r d  N P ( z i b u j a ' s e l f •) 2  -coref  interpretations  NP (ii bjin. self ) ,  3  1  1  N o t i c e t h a t i n (108.a) NP i s n o t t h e l e f t - m o s t noun phrase and a l s o t h a t i n (108.b) N P 2 and N P 3 a r e i n t h e same simplex sentence.' 2  CHAPTER IV  CONCLUSION  In Chapter I and Chapter I I , we have examined Oyakawa's and Akatuka's h y p o t h e t i c a l treatments o f Japanese ization, resulting  reflexiv-  i n a revised proposal.  The r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l 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 w i t h the z i b u n z i s i n - f o r m b e i n g the a.  genuine r e f l e x i v e ,  otherwise—  the v i o l a t i o n o f Akatuka's (cf.  Like-NP  Constraint  48 and 7*) cannot be accounted f o r p l a u -  sibly b.  the ambiguity o f c e r t a i n type o f sentences (cf.  c.  9 6 ) i s unaccountable  the same b e h a v i o r o f the non-human sorezitai 'itself*  as i t s human c o u n t e r - p a r t  zibunzisin 'oneself (the  cannot be coped w i t h  humanness c o n d i t i o n ho l o n g e r h o l d s i n  Japanese 2)  reflexive  reflexivization),  as a r e s u l t o f t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e treatment o f the  133  zibun-form must be d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f t h e genuine r e f l e x i v e pronouns. 3)  t h e antecedent  i s t h e l e f t - m o s t noun phrase  commands z i b u n ' s e l f  which  o r 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.  t h e s u b j e c t - a n t e c e d e n t c o n d i t i o n i s one s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e o f the above-mentioned c o n d i t i o n  b.  the h i g h e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n i s a l s o a s p e c i f i c case where the antecedent  i s human and does n o t  meet t h e subject-antecedent c o n d i t i o n c.  t h e r e a r e some sentences  i n which n e i t h e r the h i g h -  e s t human NP c o n d i t i o n n o r t h e s u b j e c t - a n t e c e d e n t c o n d i t i o n can g i v e a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n ( c f . 32 and 3 4 ) , whereas t h e r e v i s e d p r o p o s a l can. 4)  t h e l i n e a r o r d e r (as w e l l as t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l  order)  o f t h e 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 p r e d e t e r m i n i n g Forward and Backward o p e r a t i o n o f t h e r u l e , whereas Oyakawa d i s c a r d s t h e l i n e a r l i t y as i r r e l e v a n t i n Japanese.  13* In a d d i t i o n , comparing the standard t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l approach with J a c k e n d o f f * s i n t e r p r e t i v e approach i n the l a s t chapter, we  5)  could c l a r i f y  thati  i n the I n t e r p r e t i v e Theory, the ungrammatical s t r u c t u r e can be avoided so  that—  a. such sentences as (7*0 w i t h no  deep  and  (75)  are a c c o u n t a b l e  difficulty  b. the zibun-form w i t h the p a r t i c l e de  'by/with*  can be accounted f o r as an i n s t a n c e o f p r o n o m i n a l i z a t i o n ( c f . 106, 6)  107  and  t h e r e e x i s t s the n o n - c o r e f e r e n t i a l  108) zibun(zlsin)-  form which r e q u i r e s the J~+ s p e c i f i c ] f e a t u r e t o be a t t a c h e d t o the antecedent 7)  ( c f . 114  through  119)  t h e r e a l s o e x i s t s the ambiguity f o r which a r u l e must g i v e both the c o r e f e r e n t i a l and the n o n - c o 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 s a t the same time  ( c f . 126).  (At  p r e s e n t , we are not a b l e t o account f o r t h i s ambiguity, t h e r e f o r e , the e x i s t e n c e o f the problem i s simply p o i n t ed out as w a r r a n t i n g f u r t h e r 8)  investigation.)  as a r e s u l t o f 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 f o r e g o i n g  p o i n t s are concerned.  In o r d e r t o conclude the p r e s e n t t h e s i s , the r e v i s e d proposal i s recapitulated  i n terms o f t h e 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 G-specif i c j i s not c o r e f e r e n t i a l with NPr  NPa and NPr a r e i n the same simplex sentence  NPa i s i n a h i g h e r sentence  NPr  zibunzisin oneself  B-humanJ NPr* -k nrr -» s o r e z i t a i i  t  s  e  l  f  (rhuman] (Reflexivization)  NPr  zibun self  (Pronominalizat i o n )  136 BIBLIOGRAPHY Akamajian, Adrian, and Chisako Kitagawa. "Pronominalization, R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , and Thematization i Interrelated System of Ooreference i n Japanese and English," University of Massachusetts, (Reproduced by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c Club), 197*. Akatuka, Noriko.  "A Study of Japanese R e f l e x i v i z a t i o n , " Unpublished Ph. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I l l i n o i s University, 1972.  Hasegawa, Kinsuke.  Hirakouji, Kenji.  "Transformations and Semantic Interpret a t i o n , " L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry. V o l . 3, No. 2 (1972), pp. 141-159. "Jibun Forms i n Japanese," Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . V o l . 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 L i n g u i s t i c Club), 1968. Semantic Interpretation i n Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachussets 1 The MIT Press, 1972.  Kuno, Susumu.  Notes on Japanese Grammar. Mathematical L i n g u i s t i c s and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-27. Cambridge, Massachussets 1 Harvard University, 197©. "Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse," L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry. V o l . 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 i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . V o l . 2, No. 2 (1972) pp. 136-147.  Langacker, Ronald W.  "On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command," i n David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, eds., Modern Studies i n English. Prentice-Hall, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, 1969.  137 Muraki, Masatake.  " P r e s u p p o s i t i o n , P s e u d o - c l e f t i n g and Themati z a t i o n , " Unpublished Ph, D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t A u s t i n , 1 9 7 1 .  Ogawa A. T o s h i m i t s u .  Oyakawa, Takatsugu.  P o s t a l , P a u l M. Shinoda, A i k o .  "A Study of Japanese R e l a t i v i z a t i o n , " Unpublished Master's T h e s i s . University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 7 4 . "Japanese Reflexivization..I,." Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . V o l . 2, ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 9^-135.  Papers i n No. 1  C r o s s - o v e r Phenomena. New York t H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, Inc., 1 9 7 1 . " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Japanese Speech L e v e l s and styles," Papers i n Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s . V o l . 2, No. 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093433/manifest

Comment

Related Items