Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Verbal compounds in Japanese : implications for morphological theory Masahiko, Nakata 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 N32.pdf [ 3.33MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097138.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097138-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097138-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097138-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097138-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097138-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097138-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097138-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097138.ris

Full Text

VERBAL COMPOUNDS IN J A P A N E S E : IMPLICATIONS FOR MORPHOLOGICAL THEORY by KASAH1KO NAKATA B . A . M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y . 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( D e p o r t m e n t o f L i n g u i s t i c s , The U n i v e r s i o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ) Ve a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e a u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA AUGUST 1986 © M a s a h i k o N a k a t a , 198G In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of J- < *J $ (A < sj < c The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October /&, i^S^ i DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT A number of past s t u d i e s on v e r b a l compounds show the asymmetry bet-ween s u b j e c t s ( e x t e r n a l arguments) and non-subjects ( i n t e r n a l arguments). The same type of asymmetry between s u b j e c t s and non-subjects has been observed and well-known (though, see Bresnan 1983) i n syntax. Several l i n g u i s t s , such as Roeper and S i e g e l (1978), S e l k i r k (1982) and Lieber (1983), have proposed an independent p r i n c i p l e t o account f o r t h i s asymme-t r y . In t h i s t h e s i s , an attempt i s made to show such a p r i n c i p l e i s unnecessary. Moreover, i t i s argued t h a t the e x i s t i n g s y n t a c t i c p r i n c i p l e can be extended to cover the domain of morphology. Once the above proposal i s shown to be a d e s i r a b l e and p l a u s i b l e move, then other aspects of morphology, namely, a theory of p e r c o l a t i o n , can be reduced to bare minimal - 'Percolate f r e e l y ' . The problematic case of [ V-V ] compounds i n the previous t h e o r i e s i s v r e s o l v e d , again, by adopting the proposal made f o r s y n t a c t i c co-ordinate s t r u c t u r e three-dimensional r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are so many people who provided me with so much help, advice, and encouragement. I have been very fortunate to study with such bright classmates as Henry Davis, Helen L i s t , C h r i s t i n a Morrison, Yves Roberge, Diane Rogers and Wendy Thompson. I have benefitted so much just from l i s t e n i n g to them. Thank you. Thanks are also due to my past teachers. Dr. Sarah J . B e l l , who taught me to be generous with new theories. Dr. Maseru Ka.jita who taught me to take theories s e r i o u s l y , and Dr. Elan Dresher who taught me to respect past and forgotten theories. I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Matsuo Soga f or sharing with me h i s knowledge of the Japanese language. I am very g r a t e f u l to Linda Walsh who has read some parts o f t h i s t h e s i s and given me advice, comments and c r i t i c i s m . I would l i k e to thank Dr. Michael Rochemont f o r h i s challenging ideas ana questions from the sy n t a c t i c i a n ' s point of view. I am most indebted to my the s i s advisor. Dr. P a t r i c i a A. 5haw. Her enthusiasm, i n t e l l e c t u a l honesty and patience are second to no one's. It has been a tremendously rewarding experience working with her. My only regret, i s that t h i s t h e s i s does not l i v e up to her standard, I would also l i k e to express my gratitude to Mieko Ono who has been my classmate, informant and f r i e n d . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my family f o r putting up with me throughout t h i s t r y i n g time. Without t h e i r f i n a n c i a l and emotional support I could not have f i n i s h e d t h i s t h e s i s . I would l i k e to express my g r a t i -tude as weli as apology for a l l the worries I have caused. i i i " TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i i i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 2 2.1 Selkirk's Approach to Compounds 2 2.1.1. A Sketch of Selkirk's Theory of Word Formation 2 2.2. Fesetsky's Approach to Compounds 10 2.3. Lieber's Approach to Compounds 17 2.3.1. A 5ketch of Lieber's Theory of Word Formation 17 2.3.2. Lieber's <1983) Argument-linking Principle 19 2.4. The Representation of Predicate Argument Structure 31 2.4.1. Farmer's (1984) Proposal 31 2.4.2. Marantz' (1984) Proposal 36 2.4.3. Williams' (1981: 1983: 1985) Proposal 48 CHAPTER 3 AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 55 3.1 Introduction 55 3.2.1. Assumptions 55 3.2.2. Theory of Percolation 56 3.2.3. The Predicate Argument Structure 68 3.3. Consequences of the model proposed 77 3.3.1. Compounds 77 3.3.2. Conclusion and Residual Problems 8 i BIBLIOGRAPHY 84 - i v -" Q new s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h does not triumph by convincing i t s opponents and making them see the l i g h t , but r a t h e r because i t s opponents e v e n t u a l l y d i e end a new generation grows up that i s f a m i l i a r with i t " The Planck P r i n c i p l e "Montaigne remarked that no one i s exempt from t a l k i n a nonsense; the misfortune i s to do i t solemnly. I s h a l t h e r e f o r e avoid being soiemn i n the hope that no argument need be e n t i r e l y u s e l e ss even the worst one might serve a d i d a c t i c purpose and be c i t e d as wrong c i n v a l i d " Wolfgang Yourgra CHAPTER 1 Introduction Since the p u b l i c a t i o n of Roeper and Siegel's (1978) important work, "A Lexical Transformation f o r Verbal Compounds", l i n g u i s t s such as Selkirk (1982), Pesetsky (1982) and Lieber (1983) have t r i e d to reduce the F i r s t S i s t e r P r i n c i p l e to capture the s i m i l a r i t y between s y n t a c t i c and morpho-l o g i c a l asymmetries of subjects and non-subjects. In t h i s t h e s i s , the proposals made by these l i n g u i s t s w i l l be examined c r i t i c a l l y , and an attempt i s made to capture the s i m i l a r i t i e s observed by the previous re-searchers by extending some of the s y n t a c t i c p r i n c i p l e s to the domain of morphology. In the f i r s t three sections of Chapter 2, three proposed accounts f o r verbal compounds w i l l be examined. Se l k i r k (1982) takes such notions as 'sub-j e c t - o f and ' o b j e c t - o f as p r i m i t i v e s i n her theory and proposes a p r i n c i p l e to constrain verbal compounds using these p r i m i t i v e s . Pesetsky (1982) re-examines S e l k i r k ' s proposal and t r a n s l a t e s i t into Government-Binding theory i n which grammatical r e l a t i o n s are taken to be non-primitives, i . e . derivable from other p r i m i t i v e s in the theory. Lieber (1983) proposes another d i f f e r e n t approach in which an independent, a d d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e constrains the formation of verbal compounds. The l a s t three sections of Chapter 2 w i l l examine three d i f f e r e n t repre-sentations of predicate argument structure - Williams (1981 & 1985), Marantz (1984) and Farmer (1984) and the consequences of these proposals for verbal compounds. Chapter 3 contains an o u t l i n e of a model which synthesizes the pre-vious proposals. I t also contains a new approach to the verbal compounds which i n the previous approaches have been shown to be problematic. - 1 -CHAPTER 2 2.1. Selkirk's (1982) Approach to Compounds 2.1.1. A Sketch of S e l k i r k ' s Theory of Word Formation Se l k i r k observes that "word structure has the same general formal properties as s y n t a c t i c structure and moreover, that i t i s generated by the same sort of ru l e system" (p.2). The morphological structure S e l k i r k proposes d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of Lieber (1980) (see Section 3 below). S e l k i r k ' s conception of the morphological component i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n (2-1): (2-1) EXTENDED DICTIONARY Dictionary of ex i s t i n g words L i s t of bound morphemes I V Word Structure Rules The Dictionary component contains "a l i s t of f r e e l y occurring l e x i c a l items (words)". The l i s t of bound morphemes has a separate component. Together they c o n s t i t u t e the Extended Dictionary. A set of word structure rules defines "the possible morphological structures of a language". These are the subcomponents that form "the core of the word structure component". The main objective of S e l k i r k ' s monograph i s to show that word structure r u l e s are context-free i n the same sense as the X theory of syntax. She proposes the following r u l e s f o r generating the word s t r u c -t u r e s of language: (2-2) x n __> x m Y p x n __> Y P x m where 0 > n > m,p For compounds, S e l k i r k argues t h a t the c o n s t i t u e n t s of the E n g l i s h compound are of the category type Word. Thus, she proposes the f o l l o w i n g r u l e s f o r generating E n g l i s h compounds: (2-3) X -.-> Y X where X stands f o r (Word; Noun, Verb,...} and Y stands f o r (Word; Noun, Verb,...) Coupled with the above general schema to generate E n g l i s h compounds, she suggests, adopting the L e x i c a l F u n c t i o n a l Grammar, the f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n : (2-4) The F i r s t Order P r o j e c t i o n C o n d i t i o n (FOPC). A l l non-SUBJ arguments of a l e x i c a l category X i must be s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n the f i r s t order p r o j e c t i o n of XJ_. (1982:37) The d e f i n i t i o n of the " f i r s t order p r o j e c t i o n " i s given below: (2-5) The f i r s t order p r o j e c t i o n (FOP) of a category X n i s the i category X m that immediately dominates x n i s s y n t a c t i c rep-r e s e n t a t i o n ( i . e . , ) i n e i t h e r S-syntactic or W-syntactic s t r u c t u r e : What t h i s means, S e l k i r k e x p l a i n s , i s t h a t "the non-SUBJ arguments of an item must be ' l o c a l l y ' s a t i s f i e d , indeed, must be s i s t e r s to t h a t item." (1982:p.38) For example. - 3 -(2-6) a. N = (FOP) b. N = (FOP) N (OBJ) N N (OBJ) N pasta e a t i n g pasta devouring Correspondingly, the argument s t r u c t u r e s of 'eat' and 'devour' are shown i n (2-7) and (2-8): (2-7) eat: eating: (2-8) a. devour: devourinq: (AGENT, I SUBJ (AGENT, I SUBJ/0 (AGENT, I SUBJ (AGENT, i SUBJ/0 THEME) I OBJ/8) THEME) I OBJ/0 THEME) I OBJ THEME) I OBJ The d i f f e r e n c e between ' e a t i n g ' and 'devouring' i s th a t the l a t t e r cannot p a r t i c i p a t e i n a compound i n which the f i r s t stem cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d as an OBJ. Whereas 'e a t i n g ' can appear with a L o c a t i v e , as i n 'restaurant-e a t i n g ' and ' r o o f - t o p - e a t i n g ' 'devour' cannot. In Japanese, f o r example, 'de-bune' (=departing boat) has the f o l l o -wing s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n S e l k i r k ' s system: (2-9) N de: (THEME) SUBJ de bune I t i s reasonable to assume th a t the head i s located on the right-hand s i d e . - 4 -Selkirk observes that "the verb or deverbal element on the l e f t (in nonhead position) may not s a t i s f y i t s argument structure with i t s s i s t e r (the head)" (1982:25). The r e l a t i o n that the head appears to have to the verb or deverbal element in the nonhead p o s i t i o n can pragmatically determined. Selkirk claims that "...word structure i s thus e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l to syntac-t i c s t r u c t u r e , where the head of a phrase may have i t s arguments s a t i s f i e d by i t s complement(s), but not vice versa" (1982:25). Note that i f com-pounds of the form [V Nljij, as i n (2-9), were subject to the F i r s t Order Projection Condition, then a l l of these compounds would be ruled out since the node 'V would be the f i r s t order projection and a l l non-SUBJ must be s a t i s f i e d within that ' V . Since the FOPC applies to any l e x i c a l item that has arguments and does not sp e c i f y whether that l e x i c a l item i s head or not, i t i s , in p r i n c i p l e , n e c e s s a r i l y the case the FOPC applies to those compounds having one configuration (2-9). Now, the Japanese data that are of i n t e r e s t in considering S e l k i r k ' s theory are presented below: (2-10) a. u t a - u t a i 'song' 'to sing' singer b. h a n a 'flower' m I 'to look/watch' 'flower-appreciation' c. m a d o 'window' h u k i 'to clean' 'window-washer' There are two possible structures that the theory permits: „ 5 , . (2-11) a. N b. N N V V N V Selkirk suggests that for a compound to have a configuration such as the one i n ( 2 - l l b ) , i t must be shown that some r u l e r e f e r s to the subcomponent of the compound, namely, [ [ ] ( 3 3, which behaves as a constituent. N V V Furthermore, there should be examples of zero-formation independently of compounds. Note that i f the structure ( 2 - l l a ) i s chosen, S e l k i r k w i l l be forced to say the verbal/deverbal compounds in Japanese are NOT constrained by the FOPC at a l l . Since the examples in (2-10) are grammatical and since, according to the FOPC, the V i s the f i r s t order projection of the verb, i t s arguments must be s a t i s f i e d within that V. There are indeed words such as 'hanasi = "story" (verb hanos- "to speak")', ' h a s i r i = "run" (verb h a s i r - = "to run")', 'nokori = "remainder" (verb nokor- = "to remain")', etc.. Thus, independently of compounds there needs to be a r u l e of the form N --> V. Note that the f i n a l vowel, / i / , i n these examples i s not a nominalizer but i t i s a r e f l e x of an independently motivated epenthetic vowel. Tradi-t i o n a l l y , ( c f . J . McCawley, 1968), the Japanese verbs are grouped into two d i s t i n c t classes at the underlying l e v e l : (1) the consonant f i n a l verbs (henceforth C-verbs) and (2) the vowel-final verbs. What i s of in t e r e s t and of relevance here i s the C-verbs. When a c o n s o n a n t - i n i t i a l l e v e l II a f f i x or stem follows the C-verb, that i s , in the environments [[...C3C...3 ~ 6 -or [C...C3 EC. . .33 , the epenthetic vowel, / i / , i s inserted. What causes t h i s epenthesis i s that the Japanese s y l l a b i c template does not t o l e r a t e consonant c l u s t e r s . We assume, following Grignon (1983), that Japanese has the following s y l l a b l e template: (2-13) The Japanese S y l l a b l e Template ONSET RIME X Nucleus X' (X) C V (V/n) Thus, when the C-verbs are inserted into e i t h e r [[...C3C...3 or [[...C3[C...33 frames at Level I I , the epenthetic vowel, / i / , i s inserted to break up the offensive c l u s t e r s . I f , on the other hand, t h i s vowel, / i / , i s treated as a nominalizer, not only w i l l we lose a s i g n i f i c a n t phonological ge n e r a l i z a t i o n , but i t w i l l become necessary to add another word formation r u l e , namely, zero der i v a t i o n to account f o r examples such as i n (2-14). (2-14) v a. sosetsu-o kaki - t a i desiderative v 'novel' ACC, 'write' DESID. b. sosetsu-o kaki - nagara 'while writing a v 'while-ing' novel...' c. aoaetau-o kaki - kaketa ' about to write a 'about to' novel...' There w i l l be at l e a s t two possible structures any morphological theory can assign to each of the examples in (2-14): ( i ) [[[kak3i303; ( i i ) v n v - 1 t k a k i ] . On the other hand, i t may be the case that the s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n v frames of the s u f f i x e s have t o be complicated, e.g., ( i ) - t a i = [ [ [ v ln^ _3 Thus, the f i n a l vowel of the stems ending with consonants i s t r e a t e d as an epenthetic vowel. The former requirement, though, i s not met with [N V3 V compounds, i . e . , the [N V I v compound does not behave as a verb. However, there are numerous examples of nominalized [[CV V]]] compounds th a t do indeed VN behave l i k e verbs. Let me c l a r i f y the l a s t remark with examples: (2-15) a. h i k i - d a s i 'to p u l l ' 'to take out' b. t a b e 'to eat' 'drawer' 'scraps of food' n o k o s i 'to leave t r a n s . ' c. i k i - n o k o r i ' s u r v i v o r ' 'to l i v e ' 'to remain' d. o s i - i r e 'to push' 'to put i n t o ' ' c l o s e t ' Both stems i n these compounds are independent verbs, having word s t a t u s . These can have two p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e s : (2-16) N i i . N V V For these compounds, the s t r u c t u r e must be ( 2 - 1 6 i i ) , s i n c e the subcomponent of the compound, i . e . , [ [] • ] , seems t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e g u l a r i n f l e c -V V V t i o n as i n (2-17): ~ 8 -(2-17) h i k i - d a s i +(r)u Present Indicative h i k i - d a s i +ta Past Indicative h i k i - d a s i *(y)oo Non-past presumptive h i k i - d a s i +tai Desiderative h i k i - d a s i +(r)are Passive h i k i - d a s i +(s)ase Causative If the exocentric structure (2-16ii) were the structure for these CVV] compounds, we would need extra machinery to account f o r the behavior of these non-nominalized verbal compounds. Thus, there i s an independent necessity for a re-writing rule N,--> V. Returning to the examples in (2-10), they have the following structure when the verb i s t r a n s i t i v e : (2-18) N (FOP) (OBJ) N V I (AGENT, THEME) I SUBJ OBJ I . I Now, the same problem w i l l a r i s e i n Lieber's model i n section 2.3 with [[VVlv^N compounds where both stems have (obligatory) non-SUBJ arguments, e.g. 'tabe-nokosi': (2-19) N V = (FOP) V V tabe 'eat' (AGENT, THEME) nokosi (leave) (AGENT, THEME) SUBJ OBJ SUBJ OBJ According to the FOPC, t h i s structure should be ruled out: The obligatory non-SUBJ argument, THEME, in both verbs, cannot be s a t i s f i e d within the FOP of the compound. 2.2 Pesetsky's (1983) Approach to Compounds Having reviewed S e l k i r k ' s (1982) generalization, Pesetsky proposes that the 8 - C r i t e r i o n accounts for the compounds that involve argument-taking stems. Pesetsky's claim i s that i f the p o s i t i o n a l aspect of the 8-C r i t e r i o n i s s a t i s f i e d , then in compounds, an a v a i l a b l e 8-role must be assigned to that p o s i t i o n . The version of the 8-Criterion Pesetsky adopts i s the one in Chomsky Coupled with the government requirements on 8-marking, Pesetsky observes that "...where V i s ultimately responsible f o r assignment of a 8-role, the argument that receives that r o l e i s s i s t e r to some projection of V (p.35)". Given the above, Pesetsky derives S e l k i r k ' s generalization i n the - 10 -(1981): (2-20) " I f a s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n that can be 8-raarked i s obligat-ory, then i t i s o b l i g a t o r i l y 8-raarked by an element that may 8-raark i t ; i f such a p o s i t i o n i s only o p t i o n a l l y present, then 8-raarking of t h i s p o s i t i o n i s correspondingly optional, and w i l l apply just so as to s a t i s f y the 8 - C r i t e r i o n " (Chomsky 1981, p.40) following way: (2-21) a. pasta-eating i n trees b. •tree-eating of pasta In (2-21a), 'pasta' i n a compound receives a 8-role, THEME, from 'eat'. 'Trees', on the other hand, receives i t s 6-role, LOCATIVE, from ' i n * . The 6- C r i t e r i o n i s s a t i s f i e d . In (2-21b) 'tree' i n the compound i s 8-marked, THEME, by 'eat'. How-ever, 'pasta' cannot receive any 8-role e i t h e r from 'eat' or from ' o f . The Q-Criterion i s v i o l a t e d . Are both 'pasta' i n (2-21a) and 'tree' i n (2-21a) a c t u a l l y in the appropriate position to s a t i s f y the 8-Criterion? In other words, i s the nominal i n the compound such as 'pasta-eating' and 'tree-eating' s i s t e r to the verb, 'eat'? The answer, according to Pesetsky, i s "Yes". Pesetsky assumes ( i ) that "the process of morphological conversion (or zero derivation) changes l e x i c a l item of Class N into items of Class 0 and ( i i ) that a f f i x e s such as /-ing/ undergo a QR-like r u l e i n LF". Thus, at S-Structure, a compound l i k e 'tree-eating' has the following representation: (2-22) N tree N eat ing This structure i s converted to (2-23) at LF by a QR-like r u l e 2,3: - 11 -(2-23) V 1 i n g i tree V2 eat The trace l e f t by /-ing/, by s t i p u l a t i o n , i s of category 0, thus, the subcategorization requirement of /-ing/ i s s a t i s f i e d even a f t e r the Q R - l i k e r u l e has applied. Notice that 'tree' i s now s i s t e r to 'V. The posit-ional requirement of the 8 - C r i t e r i o n i s s a t i s f i e d . The 8 - C r i t e r i o n sanct-ions the verb to 8-mark 'tree'. Pesetsky goes on to claim that another generalization made by Selkirk <1982> supports the. existence of a f f i x a l t races. S e l k i r k ' s generalization i s that while non-SUBJ arguments can appear in compounds with argument-taking items, 5 U B J arguments can never appear in compounds. Pesetsky gives the following examples: (2-24) a. N l b. N ° dog N2 bark bark - 12 -The a f f i x a l traces, as shown by Pesetsky (1983:29), have the properties of an anaphor. Thus, " i f 'dog' i s a subject of 'bark' (being an external argu-ment), then the trace i n (2-24b) i s free in the domain of a subject, and v i o l a t e s P r i n c i p l e A of the Binding Theory (here, the Specified Subject Condition)" (1983:36)". How would Pesetsky account f o r the Japanese [VV] compounds? If we continued to assume the structure shown i n the preceding sections, then c l e a r l y , there i s nothing Pesetsky could say about i t . Suppose in Japan-ese, the f i r s t member of a compound undergoes zero-derivation as Pesetsky proposed for nouns i n English. This w i l l y i e l d , f o r example, the following structure for 'tabe-nokosi' at S-structure: (2-25) a. N 1 tabe N 2 nokosi 0 Subsequently, the zero morpheme i s adjoined to the N^- at LF. The r e s u l t of t h i s operation i s (2-25b): - 13 -(2-25) b. NO tabe V 2 V nokosi Now, the verb 'nokos-' 8-marks 'tabe'. The obligatory argument of 'nokos-' i s s a t i s f i e d . However, t h i s i s a very disturbing a n a l y s i s . Why should any class of l e x i c a l items undergo t h i s "process of morphological conversion" to become categoriless? Pesetsky's claim that since the category of the whole com-pound i s determined by the second member, the f i r s t member of the compound has the properties of prefixes such as the c a t e g o r i l e s s /counter-/, does not necessarily motivate a process of morphological conversion. Since Pesetsky states that the structure l i k e (2-21) 'tree-eating' i s fed into LF, we can sa f e l y assume in the lexicon t h i s process of morphological conversion has taken place. Furthermore, since he assumes the framework of L e x i c a l Phonology and Morphology such as the one proposed by Kiparsky (1981), the structure must have the s t r e s s and prominence already encoded. Let us see i f t h i s i s the case. Given the structure l i k e (2-21), the English Compound r u l e , f o r example by Hayes (1982), does not apply. The r e s u l t i s an ungrammatical form as i n (2-26): - 14 -[+EX] Instead, the compound has i t s main s t r e s s on the f i r s t member, t r e e - eat-i n g . In Japanese, i f i t i s the case t h a t the f i r s t member of the [VV] compound must undergo a process of morphological conversion, then what happens t o i t s argument s t r u c t u r e ? This c l a i m cannot be maintained s i n c e i f 'tabe' i n 'tabe-nokosi' i s assigned a 8-role then the f o l l o w i n g should be r u l e d out by the 8 - C r i t e r i o n but i t i s p e r f e c t l y grammatical: (2-27) tabe-nokosi no okasi ga ar-u. 'scraps of food' GEN. 'sweets' NOW. 'exists-N0N-PA5T' "There are l e f t - o v e r sweets" I f 'tabe' had undergone zero d e r i v a t i o n , r e c e i v e d a 9-role from 'nokos-', then ' o k a s i ' could not be i n t e r p r e t e d as a THEME-argument of 'tabe-nokosi'. - 15 -2.3. Lieber^s Approach to Compounds 2.3.1 A Sketch of Lieber's Theory of Morphological Component and Argument-linking Principle As a point of departure, Lieber (1983) takes the morphological struc-ture proposed in her doctoral t h e s i s (1980)). Her conception of a morpho-l o g i c a l component in generative grammar consists of three sub-components: (i) a permanent lexicon which contains l e x i c a l e n t r i e s , morpholexial rules and redundancy r e l a t i o n s ; ( i i ) a l e x i c a l structure component which con-s i s t s of unlabeled binary branching trees plus the Percolation Conventions; and ( i i i ) a s t r i n g dependent r u l e component which contains rules of redup-l i c a t i o n , i n f i x a t i o n , . . . e t c . Schematically, Lieber's (1980) model of mor-phology i s i l l u s t r a t e d as below: PERMANENT LEXICON CATEGORY: N CATEGORY: V CATEGORY: A I I v LEXICAL STRUCTURE -Lexical Structure Rewrite Rule -Feature Percolation Conventions I ; ; y STRING DEPENDENT RULES -Reduplication - I n f i x i n g -Umlaut etc. As with A l l e n (1978) and Pesetsky (1983), Lieber takes l e x i c a l seman-- 16 -t i c s to be autonomous. That i s . contrary to the Aronovian framework i n which morphological rules have access to semantic contents of morphemes, within Lieber's model the only information that the morphological rules can re f e r to i s c a t e g o r i a l . Thus, whereas Aronoff's model does not ever gene-rate such semantically anomalous words as ' r e k i l l ' and ' u n k i l i ' , Lieber's model i s permitted to generate words that may have a c o n f l i c t i n some semantic feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of a f f i x and stem. What Lieber's model does not allow morphological r u l e s to do i s to v i o l a t e the subcategoriza-tion of a f f i x . A l l a f f i x e s have in t h e i r l e x i c a l e n t r i e s the categories to which they attach. Stems have no such information i n t h e i r l e x i c a l en-t r i e s . The term 'subcategorization' here r e f e r s only to morphological subcategorization frames, not to s y n t a c t i c subcategorization frames such as the ones proposed by Chomsky (1965) f o r verbs. The claim that l e x i c a l semantics i s autonomous - i . e . , separate from morphology - has several advantages over the one that mixes these two. Lieber argues that the autonomy of l e x i c a l semantics accounts f o r <1) the difference i n 'grammaticality' between the two sorts of case - ' r e k i l l ' and ' u n k i l i ' on the one hand, 'unpeace' and ' r e f u s i t y ' on the other: the former i s the semantic ungrammaticality and the l a t t e r the structural/subcategor-i z a t i o n a l ungrammaticality; (2) the s t r u c t u r a l l y compositional but seman-t i c a l l y non-compositional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of such compounds as 'paleface', 'recap' and 'blackboard'. Lieber postulates two autonomous sets of semantic projection r u l e s : one for compositional l e x i c a l semantics and another of non-compositional l e x i c a l semantics. In her (1980) t h e s i s , she states, "What a theory of l e x i c a l semantics should look l i k e , what sorts of r u l e s are needed, and what so r t s of constraints must be placed on rules of l e x i c a l semantics are questions which must be answered i f we accept the autonomy of l e x i c a l - 17 -semantics, but they are questions which I cannot answer here ,"(1980:70) 2.3.2 L ieber's (1983) "Argument- l inking P r i n c i p l e " : In L i e b er (1983), "Argument-linking and Compounds i n E n g l i s h " , she observes t h a t a number of cur r e n t t h e o r i e s of syntax r u l e out the overgene-rated sentences such as (2-28a-c) by an independent p r i n c i p l e ' r e q u i r i n g t h a t l e x i c a l items which have argument s t r u c t u r e s must be able t o s a t i s f y those argument s t r u c t u r e s i n any t r e e i n t o which they are i n s e r t e d (p.257).' (2-28) a. « John put. b. * The magician appeared the r a b b i t . c. * Mary l i k e s . Although, Lieber does not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e the p r i n c i p l e s , 1 w i l l assume that the 6 - C r i t e r i o n and the P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e of Government-Binding (GB) theory (Chomsky, 1981 & 1982) or the Completeness P r i n c i p l e and the Coherence P r i n c i p l e of L e x i c a l F u n c t i o n a l Grammar (Bresnan, 1982 and Kaplan & Bresnan, 1982) are the p r i n c i p l e s which she r e f e r s to i n her a r t i c l e . Since both GB theory and LFG p r o h i b i t any s y n t a c t i c r u l e from a l t e r i n g the argument s t r u c t u r e s but permit l e x i c a l r u l e s to a f f e c t the argument s t r u c t u r e s , i t i s of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t to determine the l i m i t a -t i o n of these arg u m e n t - s t r u c t u r e - a f f e c t i n g r u l e s . L i e b e r ' s Argument-lin-king P r i n c i p l e s makes such an attempt with compounds i n E n g l i s h . L i e b e r (1983) assumes the f o l l o w i n g four axioms: (2-29) *• Feature P e r c o l a t i o n Conventions a. Convention 1 A l l f e a t u r e s of a stem morpheme, i n c l u d i n g category f e a -t u r e s , p e r c o l a t e t o the f i r s t non-branching node dominating that morpheme. - 18 -C o n v e n t i o n 2 A l l f e a t u r e s o f an a f f i x morpheme, i n c l u d i n g c a t e g o r y f e a -t u r e s , p e r c o l a t e t o t h e f i r s t b r a n c h i n g node d o m i n a t i n g t h a t morpheme. c. C o n v e n t i o n 3 I f a b r a n c h i n g n o d e f a i l s t o o b t a i n f e a t u r e s by C o n v e n t i o n 2, f e a t u r e s f r o m t h e n e x t l o w e s t l a b e l e d n o d e a u t o m a t i c a l l y p e r c o l a t e up t o t h e u n l a b e l e d b r a n c h i n g n o d e . d. C o n v e n t i o n 4 I f t w o s t e m s a r e s i s t e r s ( i . e . , t h e y f o r m a c o m p o u n d ) , f e a t u r e s f r o m t h e r i g h t - h a n d s t e m p e r c o l a t e up t o t h e b r a n -c h i n g n o d e d o m i n a t i n g t h e s t e m s . I I . I n t e r n a l a r g u m e n t I n t h e s e n s e o f W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , a l l o b l i g a t o r y ( i . e . , l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d ) a r g u m e n t s w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t a r e i n t e r n a l . F o r e x a m p l e , g i v e and e l e c t h a v e two i n t e r n a l a r g u m e n t s ; p u t h a s b o t h an N? and L o c a t i v e a s i n t e r n a l a r g u m e n t s ; and a p r e p o s i t i o n i i k e d u r i n g h a s one i n t e r n a l a r g u m e n t . I I I . S e m a n t i c a r g u m e n t S e m a n t i c a r g u m e n t s a r e p h r a s e s w h i c h a r e n o t o b l i g a t o r y o r l e x i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d . They i n c l u d e L o c a t i v e , I n s t r u m e n t a l s , Wanner p h r a s e s , B e n e f a c t i v e s , A g e n t i v e s , e t c . I V . FREE A s t e m i s f r e e i f i t i s l e f t u n l i n k e d by an a r g u m e n t - t a k i n g l e x i c a l i t e m . ( L i e b e r , 1983:253-7) Once t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s a r e e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d , L i e b e r s p r e s e n t s t h e u m e n t - l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e : ( 2 - 3 0 ) The A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e a . I n t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n CD I ] o r [ ] I ] , w h e r e r a n g e s ( v ) * <v3 P P o v e r a l l c a t e g o r i e s [^}c<must be a b l e t o i i n k a l l i n t e r n a l P a r g u m e n t s . b. I f a s t e m i s f r e e i n a compound w h i c h a i s o c o n t a i n s an a r g u m e n t - t a k i n g s t e m , «*• must be i n t e r p r e t a b i e a s a s e m a n t i c a r g u m e n t o f t h e a r g u m e n t - t a k i n g s t e m , i . e . . a s a L o c a t i v e , Manner, Agentive, Instrumental or Benefactive argument. The f i r s t p a r t <2-30a) d e f i n e s the s t r u c t u r a l requirement i n which a l l i n t e r n a l arguments must be s a t i s f i e d . In syntax, i t i s i n the s t r u c t u r e <2-31a) and i n Morphology, i t i s i n the s t r u c t u r e (2-31b): (2-31) V/P NP [ ] v C 3 For example, i n syntax (2-32) a. VP b. PP V NP P NP » i f i h i t Johni f o r Maryi 'HIT': ( P a t i e n t s ) 'FOR': ( B e n e f a c t i v e i ) The i n t e r n a l argument of 'HIT' and 'FOR', P a t i e n t and Benefactive, respec-t i v e l y , are l i n k e d with the s i s t e r s of the argument-taking l e x i c a l items, V and P. (Here, the l i n k i n g i s shown by i n d i c e s ) . An example of a compound as analyzed by the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e i s given i n (2-33)^. - 20 -(2-33) draw-bridge N V N i draw b r i d g e i 'DRAW: (Agent, Themei) By Convention 4, only the f e a t u r e s of the right-hand stem p e r c o l a t e up t o the branching node. The Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e r e q u i r e s that the i n t e r n a l argument. Theme, must be s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n the compound. ^ On the other hand, i n compounds l i k e 'hand^weave', the second stem 'weave', does not n e c e s s a r i l y hove to s a t i s f y i t s i n t e r n a l argument w i t h i n the compound, s i n c e a l l the f e a t u r e s of 'weave' are permitted to per c o l a t e up to the highest node: (2-34) hand-weave VP V NP i N V hand weave 'WEAVE': (Agent, Theme ) i 2 .3 .3 . Japanese Data At f i r s t glance, there seem to be 3 types of verbal compounds i n Japanese: ( i ) [V Nltf; ( i i ) [N V]y; ( i i i ) C X Vljg. In t h i s s e c t i o n these - 21 -sets of verbal compounds w i l l be analyzed within Lieber's model. It w i l l be revealed that the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e f a i l s to account f or one type of verbal compounds, namely, CV V]fj compounds. 2.3.2.1 [Verb-Noun!NOUN Compounds These are the compounds that have the i n t e r n a l constituents [Verb Noun] which behave as a noun. The simplest a n a l y s i s of t h i s sort of compounds takes the features of the right-hand stem percolating up to the uppermost node. Thus, creating a configuration i l l u s t r a t e d below: (2-35) N V N [ ] [ ] V N This group must then adhere to the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e . The exam-ples of t h i s group are such as the ones i n (2-36): (2-36) a. i r e - z u m i 'tatoo' 'to put i n ' 'ink' b. k a i - m o n o 'shopping' 'to buy' 'thing(s)' c u e - k i 'potted plant' 'to plant' 'tree' The second stem of each compound above may surface as d i r e c t - o b j e c t of the preceding verb: (2-37) a. sumi - o i r e - r u 'X puts ink i n ' ACC. Non-Past b. mono - o kaw-(r)u. 'X buys things' c. k i - o ue -ru. 'X plants trees' 22 These examples i n v o l v e t r a n s i t i v e verbs where o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l arguments must be s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n the compound. The Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e c o r r e c t l y accounts f o r these examples. There are some cases i n which the f i r s t stem i s i n t r a n s i t i v e t h a t i s these verbs do not r e q u i r e t h a t the second stem s a t i s f y the f i r s t p art of the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e . (2-38) a. d e - b u n e 'departing boat' 'to depart' 'boat' b. n a k i - g o t o 'complaint' 'to c r y ' 'matter/fact' The second stem i n these compounds shows up with a ' s o - c a l l e d ' semantic p o s t p o s i t i o n "de" i n syntax: (2-39) a. hune - de de-ru 'X leaves by boat' b. (sono) koto - de nak- ( r ) u . 'X c r i e s because of 'that' t h a t m a t t e r / f a c t ' In (2-39) 'koto' i s i n t e r p r e t e d as the cause or an in s t r u m e n t a l . The meaning of the compound, 'naki-goto', seems to obey A l l e n ' s (1978) " V a r i -able R C o n d i t i o n " which s t a t e s : - 23 -(2-40) V a r i a b l e R Condition In the primary compound " <*1 " " P i " - o<n - A J X where r t- cx, i s the semantic content of A i n terms of h i e r a r c h i c a l semantic f e a t u r e s and Pi $ m i s the semantic content of B i n terms of h i e r a c h i a l semantic f e a t u r e s sue h that <*n-x = p V the meaning of X ranges from 1-*! ( t <l • • - ^ n * to $m (h . . . Pn> ( A l l e n 1978:93) Walsh (1981) s u c c i n c t l y e x p l a i n s the V a r i a b l e R Condition as f o l l o w s : What the V a r i a b l e R Condition s t a t e s . . . i s that the range of p o s s i b l e and impossible meanings f o r a compound i s a f u n c t i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n of the h i e r a r c h i e s of the semantic f e a t u r e s of the compound elements." (Walsh 1981:16) Thus, the V a r i a b l e R Cond i t i o n p r e d i c t s the p o s s i b l e and impossible meanings of the N-N compounds such as w a t e r - m i l l as f o l l o w s : - 24 -(2-41) a. possible impossible m i l l powered by water m i l l which l i v e s near the water m i l l which produces m i l l which grinds water water m i l l located near the m i l l which drinks water water m i l l f o r analyzing the m i l l made out of content of water water m i l l where the m i l l which searches employees drink water f o r water (Allen 1978:92) Thus, one of the possible meanings the Variable R Condition predicts for compounds such as 'naki-goto' would be something l i k e 'the matter/fact which X c r i e s about'. However, 'de-bune' i n (2-38a) cannot be interpreted as 'the boat X leaves by/on'. The meaning of 'de-bune' i s more l i k e 'the boat that leaves'. The second stem, 'hune (=boat)', then, r e f e r s to the subject of the verb, 'de (=to depart)', as in (2-42): (2-42) Hune - ga de-ru. 'The boat leaves' NOM. The observation made above i s inconsistent with Lieber's claim that only the i n t e r n a l arguments p a r t i c i p a t e i n compound formation. There are, however, several others that seem to have the right-hand stem r e f e r r i n g to the subject of the argument-taking item: (2-43) a. t o b i - h i ' f l y i n g - f i r e ' 'to f l y ' ' f i r e ' b. n a g a r e - d a m a 'rampant b u l l e t s ' 'to flow' ' b u l l e t ' (loose t r a n s l a t i o n ) c. , k a r e - k i 'dried-up tree' 'to dry up' 'tree' ( i n t r a n s i t i v e ) - 25 -The right-hand stems of the above examples can appear only as s u b j e c t s with these verbs. (2-44) a. Hi - ga/»o/»de/*ni t o b ( r ) u . 'The f i r e f l i e s ' NOM./«ACC/"MANNER/«DAT. b. Tama - ga/*o/«de/«ni nagare-ru 'The b u l l e t s f l o w ' c. K i - ga/*o/*de/*ni kare-ru. 'The t r e e d r i e s up' Perlmutter and P o s t a l (1978) hypothesize that there are two types of i n t r a n s i t i v e p r e d i c a t e s (verb): ( i ) "unergative": p r e d i c a t e s have a subject at the i n i t i a l stratum; ( i i ) "unaccusative": p r e d i c a t e s have no subject at the i n i t i a l stratum. The c r i t e r i o n f o r c l a s s i f y i n g these two kinds of i n t r a n s i t i v e p r e d i c a t e s depends on, according to Perlmutter and P o s t a l , the meaning of the p r e d i c a t e . For in s t a n c e , one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of unergative p r e d i c a t e s i s that the i n i t i a l s ubject i s always Agent, Cognizer or E x p e r i -encer. On the other hand, the unaccusative p r e d i c a t e s lack an i n i t i a l s u bject completely. These p r e d i c a t e s represent " s t a t e s not i n v o l v i n g cog-n i t i o n , a c t i o n s without agents, e t c . (1978:40)". Note t h a t the Japanese verbs i n examples (2-38a) and (2-43) f a l l i n t o the c l a s s of "unaccusative" p r e d i c a t e s described by Perlmutter and P o s t a l . Within the framework of Government Binding (Chomsky 1981-82), Burzio (1982) makes the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n about case-assignment p r o p e r t i e s and Q p r o p e r t i e s of verbs. (2-45) Bu r z i o ' s G e n e r a l i z a t i o n : For a verb V i , i f V i assigns Case t o an NP i t d i r e c t l y 8-marks, then VPi i n d i r e c t l y 8-marks i t s s u b j e c t . What Perlmutter and P o s t a l (1978) c a l l 'unaccusative' verbs are c a l l e d ' e r g a t i v e ' verbs i n Bur z i o ' s framework. We w i l l r e t u r n to Bur z i o ' s genera-l i z a t i o n i n l a t e r s e c t i o n s with respect to Japanese 'unaccusative (or - 26 -e r g a t i v e ) verbs'. I t w i l l be shown i n Chapter 3, Burzio's G e n e r a l i z a t i o n holds f o r these verbs i n Japanese. For the time being, I w i l l assume that these are unaccusative verbs having only the i n t e r n a l arguments and no ex t e r n a l arguments. In Chapter 3, when the modified v e r s i o n of Li e b e r ' s Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e i s developed, I w i l l g i v e f u r t h e r support to the cla i m that some i n t r a n s i t i v e verbs i n Japanese are indeed "unaccusative". 2.3.3.2. [Noun-Verb! Noun Compounds This c l a s s i s rather more productive than the one above. Examples i n (2-46) show some compounds of t h i s type: (2-46) a. u t a 'song' h a n a 'flower' m a d o 'window' h i z a 'knee' y a m a 'mountain' u t a i 'si n g e r ' 'to s i n g ' m i ' f l o w e r - a p p r e c i a t i o n ' 'to look/watch' h u k i 'window-washer' 'to wipe' g e r i 'knee-kick' 'to k i c k ' n o b o r i 'mountain-climbing' 'climb' By the Right-hand hypothesis ( W i l l i a m s , 1981), each of the compounds i n (2-46) should have the f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e : (2-47) [ ] [ ] According to L i e b e r , i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e the verb normally l i n k s i t s o b l i g a -„ 27 -tory arguments "outside" the compound. Since a l l features of the verb are passed on to the highest node, the e n t i r e compound can appear as a verb in syntax, then the f i r s t stem can and must be interpreted as a semantic argument. ' But none of these compounds can appear as verbs independently. They must have a dummy verb, /&-/ ^, attached to them i n order to appear in syntax as verbs. For example, 'mado-huki-suru (= to window-clean)' and 'yaraa-nobori-suru <= to mountain-climb)'. The reason for t h i s i s that the compound formation takes place at Level II (Shaw and Nakata, i n preparation). The epenthetic vowel, / i f , at the end of the verbs occur only at Level I I . At t h i s point, the non-past s u f f i x /-ru/, which i s located at Level I i s in a c c e s s i b l e . Thus, the compound needs a verbal element to function as a verb, hence the fs-f attachment. The majority of the elements that the dummy verb, s-, attaches to are Noun. Furthermore, the compounds in (2-46) a l l function as nouns in syntax. Thus. we must amend the structure proposed in (2-47). There are two possible structures that the theory permits'. (2-46) Notice that both structures (2-48a-b) are subject to the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e since a l l the features of a verb cannot percolate up to the highest node i n order to s a t i s f y i t s argument structure outside the com-pound. - 28 -There i s another set of compounds that w i l l shed some l i g h t on which i s more l i k e l y to be the structure f or (2-43): (2-49) a. n o r i - o r i 'getting on and o f f 'to r i d e ' 'to descend' b. w a k a - z i n i 'premature death' 'young' 'to die' c. t a b e - n o k o s i 'scraps (of food)' 'to eat' 'to leave' (2-49o-c) do not contain any nominals and neither the f i r s t stem nor the second stem can appear as a noun in syntax independently. The only way the theory permits them to convert to nouns i s by z e r o - a f f i x a t i o n . The struc-ture f or the compounds in (2-49) i s as follows: (2-50) a. N [[ ]fl C ] OJ ( v) V N Returning to the compounds (2-46) then, they have the structure represented in (2-48b). However, the problem does not stop here. Notice in (2-50), the embedded verbs are both subject to the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e . For compounds l i k e (2-49a), when both verbs are i n t r a n s i t i v e , Lieber suggests that the second part of the p r i n c i p l e "holds only i f the free stem i s of a category which can act as an argument (p.265)." However, t h i s accounts for a structure such as the one in (2-50b): - 29 -(2-50) b. V V V [ ] v £ 3 V Within t h i s s t r u c t u r e even i f the f i r s t stem and the second stem are t r a n s i t i v e . i t i s p o s s i b l e to claim t h a t " s i n c e they share the same argu-ment s t r u c t u r e , they can somehow s a t i s f y t h a t argument s t r u c t u r e with the same noun...(1983:265)". Since the whole compound i s s t i l l a verb, i n syntax i t i s required t h a t there be an NP t h a t s a t i s f i e s the argument s t r u c t u r e . The s i t u a t i o n i s not i d e n t i c a l with Japanese i n (2-50a). The uppermost node i s not "V", t h e r e f o r e , the f e a t u r e s of a verb can not p e r c o l a t e up to t h i s p o s i t i o n . Then, the head verb i n (2-50a) cannot s a t i s f y i t s argument s t r u c t u r e 'outside' the compound. In the a l t e r n a t i v e model developed i n Chapter 3 these V-V compounds w i l l be proposed to have the t r e e s t r u c t u r e t h a t i s analogous t o the s y n t a c t i c co-ordinate s t r u c t u r e proposed by Lasnik and Kupin (1977;, W i l -liams (1978) and L i g h t f o o t (1983). 2.4 The Representation of P r e d i c a t e Argument S t r u c t u r e There have been s e v e r a l proposals as to how p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c -t u r e (PAS) must be represented. I w i l l present only three here w i t h i n a Government-Binding (GB) or GB-like framework. Each of the three proposals w i l l be t e s t e d against L i e b e r ' s Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e t o see i f the proposed PASs are compatible with the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e . 2.4.1 E § E i ? ? l § 11984). proposal According to Farmer (1984), " 8 - r o l e s . . . a r e argument s l o t s i n PAS, - 30 -nothing more." For example, she represents t r a n s i t i v e verbs such as 'love' and 'want' as follows: (2-52) a. love: ( (LOVE )> b. want: ( (WANT )) Following Williams (1981), Farmer assumes that "...subject i s an external argument and object an i n t e r n a l argument "(1984:205/n8) .though, she does not assume that " . . . l e x i c a l structures u n i v e r s a l l y have i n t e r n a l versus external arguments..."(1984:205/n27) . For Japanese, Farmer gives the following examples: (2-52) i n t r a n s i t i v e 'to walk' t r a n s i t i v e 'to eat' e. ( aruk) tabe) aqe) d i t r a n s i t i v e 'to give' (Farmer's p.47 (2.65)) According to these examples, Japanese does not seem to have the exter-n a l - i n t e r n a l d i s t i n c t i o n . However. on pp.48-49, she gives the following s y n t a c t i c representations with PASs: (2-52') c'. V d'. V NP-ga NP-gai N P - n i i <• Bfii <NIj Qk age)) pp. 48-49:(2.69)) - 31 -The argument-slots with '0' and/or 'NI' in <2-52d'-e'> enclosed in the i n t e r n a l parentheses with t h e i r respective head verbs. I w i l l assume that t h i s i s a f t e r 'S' Assignment had applied. However, I w i l l take the PASs in (2-52c-e> to be the correct representations of predicate argument structure for Japanese. Farmer stat e s , regarding these PASs such as in (2-52), "Each of these predicates has an argument s l o t that w i l l be c a l l e d the subject s i o t (p.47)". For English, in most cases, the external argument corresponds to the subject. However, for Japanese, since the non-configurationai analysis i s adopted by Farmer, she must, therefore, need an a d d i t i o n a l device to assign the subject s l o t in PASs of Japanese, which she c a i i s " " 5 ' Assign-ment" . (2-53) '5' Assignment Assign '5' to the left-most argument. If t h i s argument cannot be a subject for some reason, then assign ' 5 ' to any other argument. ( A l l PAS's - that i s both innermost and outermost PAS's - are subject to the principle') (p.66-7) From (2-53) the argument s l o t s are s t r i c t l y ordered as i s the case with Jackendoffs (1977). This i s a necessary consequence in Farmer's system for Japanese since Japanese i s conceived as non-configurationai and the Case-linking rules apply d i r e c t l y to the PASs. - 32 -The overview of Farmer's model for Japanese i s given below: (2-54) LEXICAL COMPONENT PERMANENT LEXICON contains: a. L i s t of nondecomposable items b. L e x i c a l e n t r i e s (e.g. PASs) c. Device of semantic l i n k i n g (e.g. kara, ni) PRINCIPLES: a. 'S' Assignment P r i n c i p l e s of WORD FORMATION and operations on PASs REGULAR CASE LINKING RULES e.g., (GA, NI, 0 ) e.g., (GA, (NI, 0 tabe) sase) S S I Note that the 'S' assignment p r i n c i p l e i s prevalent a l l through the lexicon of Japanese. Thus, the 'S' assignment p r i n c i p l e plays an important r o l e i n three subcomponents of the lexicon. Word formation rules are s e n s i t i v e to the existence of 'S' i n the PASs. For example, the passive morpheme i n Japanese i s able to erase the previously assigned 'S' and assign a new '5' to the next rightmost argument s l o t . An example of paaaivization i n Japanese i s given below: - 33 -(2-55) <1> '5' P r i n . < tabe) S (2) WF < tabe) rare) S (3) '5' P r i n . < tabe) rare) 0 5 How does Lieber's Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e f i t into Farmer's system? Since a l l argument s l o t s of PASs in Japanese are i n t e r n a l , the Argument-l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e p r edicts that any of these argument s l o t s can p a r t i c i p a t e in compounds. However, as the previous sections have shown, t h i s predic-t i o n i s not co r r e c t . A closer look reveals that the argument with 'S' assigned to i t does not seem to appear in compounds. Thus, the modifica-t i o n of Lieber's Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e may have the following clause: (2-56) (c) i f there i s no internal-external d i s t i n c t i o n i n the predi-cate argument structure, then a l l obligatory non-'S'-assig-ned arguments must be s a t i s f i e d i n compounds. (2-56c) w i l l predict that the examples in (2-38a) and (2 -43) are ungrammatical since within Farmer's theory there i s only one kind of i n t r a -n s i t i v e verb v i z . what Postal and Perlmutter (1978) c a l l "unergative". Also, (2-56c) w i l l r u l e out a l l compounds with derived causative verbs such as the ones given i n (2-57) 7: (2-57) a. h i t o - s a w a g + (s) a s e = people agitate-make' 'person' 'to agitate+CAUSE' b. o y a - n a k + (s) a s e = parent-cry-make' 'parent' 'to cry+CAUSE' c. y u - w a k + (s) a s i = hot water-boil-make' 'hot water' 'to boil+CAUSE' Each of the verb stems in (2-57) i s i n t r a n s i t i v e . Within Farmer's theory. - 34 -these have the f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e : (2-58) < ___ < ___ VERB) CAUSE) S S Unlike the passive morpheme, the c a u s a t i v e s u f f i x does not erase the pre-v i o u s l y assigned 'S'. The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the nominals i n (2-57) i s uniformly that of the "causee" and not of the "causer". Then, the con-s t r a i n t i n (2-56c) cannot account f o r these f a c t s . In f a c t , any c o n s t r a i n t t h a t r e f e r s to the '5' w i l l be untenable s i n c e i t w i l l lead to the f o l l o w i n g paradox: s i n c e there i s no d i s t i n c t i o n between the "unergative" verbs and the "unaccusative" verbs i n Farmer's theory, she must account f o r the d i f f e r e n c e shown i n (2-59) independent of p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e : (2-59) a. UNER&ATIVE verb *n a k i - o y a 'cry' 'parent' »k a c i - s e n s u 'win' 'player' « i k i - h i t o 'go' 'person' UNACCUSATIVE verb ok a k i - s u 'open' 'nest' = 'burglar' ok u k i - y o ' f l o a t ' 'world'* ' f l o a t i n g world' ok w a k i - m i z u 'gush' 'water'= 'spring-water' I f one t r i e s to r u l e out the examples i n (2-59a) by saying t h a t any argu-ment with 'S' cannot p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounding, then the examples i n (2-59b) must be r u l e d out, a l s o . In the a l t e r n a t i v e approach proposed i n P a r t I I I of the present the-s i s , Farmer's p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e i s r e j e c t e d . 2.4.2. H a r a n t z l (.1984) Proposal The model Harantz (1984) proposes d i f f e r s from Farmer's (1984) i n - 35 -s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . In Farmer's model, e s p e c i a l l y i n Japanese, a c o n s t i t u e n t r e c e i v e s i t s semantic r o l e by v i r t u e of occupying a p a r t i c u l a r s l o t i n the pre d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e v i a i n d e x a t i o n . Marantz, however, argues that c o n s t i t u e n t s i n sentences assign semantic r o l e s to other c o n s t i t u e n t s . Thus, when the c o n s t i t u e n t s appear i n the p r e d i c a t e argument s l o t s , they 'already bear the i n d i c a t e d semantic r o l e s ' . Semantic-role a s s i g n e r s are ( i ) l e x i c a l items (verbs, p r e p o s i t i o n s , nouns, a d j e c t i v e s ) ; ( i i ) p r e d i -cates; ( i i i ) case markings; and ( i v ) c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n s . In the unmarked case, an argument-taker ( p r e s e n t l y we r e s t r i c t our a t t e n t i o n to verbs and p r e p o s i t i o n s ) assigns i t s d i r e c t argument one and only one semantic r o l e . An i n d i r e c t argument of a verb, f o r example, though l i s t e d i n the p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e (PAS), i s assigned a semantic r o l e by a p r e p o s i t i o n . Marantz introduces two l e x i c a l f e a t u r e s , C+logical subject] and [ • t r a n s i t i v e ] . The fe a t u r e [ ^ l o g i c a l s u b j e c t ] , which i s relevant only at logico-semantic s t r u c t u r e , i n d i c a t e s whether or not the verb which names a f u n c t i o n from arguments to a p r e d i c a t e can assign an a d d i t i o n a l semantic r o l e to the c o n s t i t u e n t which the p r e d i c a t e i s predicated o f . On the other hand, i f the l e x i c a l item i s s p e c i f i e d as [ + t r a n s i t i v e 3 , then i t assigns a s y n t a c t i c r o l e . Marantz claims that only verbs and p r e p o s i t i o n s may be [ • t r a n s i t i v e ] and a d j e c t i v e s and nouns may not. Marantz' model of grammar i s schematized i n (2-60): (2-60) 1-s s t r u c t u r e Move Alpha < a general p r i n c i p l e surface s t r u c t u r e s s t r u c t u r e phonological s t r u c t u r e - 36 -Given t h i s crude overview of Marantz' model, l e t me i l l u s t r a t e i t with a couple of examples: (2-61) a. Elmer gave a porcupine to Hortense. b. A porcupine was given to Hortense by Elmer. The verb 'give' has a l e x i c a l representation (2-62a) and (2-62b) i s the l e x i c a l representation of 'give' a f t e r the a f f i x a t i o n of a passive morpheme /-en/: (2-62) a. give : ( i ) (theme, goal) [+logicaI subject] ( i i ) [+transitive] ( i i i ) /glv/ b. give+en : ( i ) (theme, goal) [-logical subject] ( i i ) C - t r a n s i t i v e l ( i i i ) /glv+En/ Thus, the constituent structures f o r (2-61) that derive from the informa-t i o n given in (2-63) w i l l have the following representations at 1-s struc-ture : ' 37 -(2-63) a. VP P NP was given a porcupine to Hortense by Elmer The semantic-role assignors, '(was) give(n)' and 'to', assign semantic r o l e s to 'porcupine' and 'Hortense', r e s p e c t i v e l y . The assignment of semantic r o l e s obeys one condition®: (2-64) If X bears a semantic r e l a t i o n with respect to Y, then X and Y must be s i s t e r s at 1-s structure. X and Y are s i s t e r s i f they are immediately dominated* by the same constituent node. Harantz gives the d e f i n i t i o n of immediate domination**: - 3 8 ~ (2-65) Immediate Domination* X i s immediately dominated* by Y i f f a. i t i s immediately dominated* by Y or b. i t i s immediately dominated* by a l e x i c a l category node that i s immediately dominated* by Y or c. i t i s immediately dominated* by a node Y' that i s immediate-l y dominated* by Y, where Y' and Y are of i d e n t i c a l category type Although in (2-63), the NP, 'porcupine', bears a semantic r e l a t i o n to the verb, 'give(n)', note that the l e x i c a l category 'V i s intervening. The immediate domination* (2-65b) permits the NP 'porcupine' and the verb 'give(n)' to be s i s t e r s . Before going into how verbal compounds are analyzed within Marantz' theory of grammar, i t i s necessary to show how causative constructions are analyzed by Marantz. F i r s t , Marantz argues that any morpheme that has semantic-role assign-ing features or argument structures must have an independent i - s c o n s t i -tuent structure. He postulates a general p r i n c i p l e as i n (2-66): (2-66) P r i n c i p l e If a l e x i c a l item assigns a semantic r o l e or has an argument structure, i t i s an independent constituent at 1-s structure What t h i s p r i n c i p l e p redicts f o r sentences with verb plus causative morpheme in Japanese i s that at 1-s structure, causative sentences are analyzed as b i c l a u s a l as shown i n (2-67): - 39 -(2-67) S NP VP CAUSER S V NP VP CAUSEE V verb -sase-For Japanese, the verb and the causative morpheme, according to Marantz, "merge" at s structure. With respect to the notion of "merger', there are at l e a s t two possible i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s to the above claim ^: a. At 1-s structure, some non-derived forms may be inserted, i . e . , stems/roots and a f f i x e s w i l l have independent, sepa-rate constituent structures, or b. at 1-s structure, derived forms may be decomposed Marantz seems to take the f i r s t option, (2-68). He s t a t e s . a. two ( l e x i c a l ) constituents at any l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c analy-s i s may correspond to a s i n g l e derived constituent at the next l e v e l b. a l l a f f i x a t i o n i s l e x i c a l c. the r e s u l t s of a f f i x a t i o n , derived words, are inserted at some l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c analysis (Marantz, 1984:222-223) Since each l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c analysis i s generated independently, and there i s no p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t i n g non-derived words from being inserted into s y n t a c t i c representations and the Merger P r i n c i p l e governs the mapping (2-68) (2-69) , 40 -of r e l a t i o n s and constituents, the decompositional analysis <2-S8a) i s not necessary. Note that the non-decompositional analysis does not v i o l a t e the Strong L e x i c a l i s t Hypothesis which r e s t r i c t s word formation to take place in the l e x i c o n . If the merger r e l a t e s , say, two constituents at one l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c analysis to one constituent at another l e v e l , then there i s no word formation taking place in syntax at a l l . Returning to the main theme of t h i s t h e s i s , 'Compounds', Marantz' theory accounts for most of the compounds involving argument-takers without Lieber's (1983) Argument Linking P r i n c i p l e . For example, i f A in (2-70) i s an argument-taker, and i f B bears a semantic r e l a t i o n to A, or vice versa, then A and B must be s i s t e r s by the p r i n c i p l e given in (2-64). The only statement that must be l e f t from Lieber's Argument Linking P r i n c i p l e i s (b) which says that a free stem must be interpretable as Manner phrase. Instru-mental, Benefactive and so on. (2-70) X A B However, the s i t u a t i o n i s not as c l e a r - c u t as described above. Recall that P r i n c i p l e (2-66) which states that any l e x i c a l item that has an argu-ment structure or assigns a semantic r o l e i s an independent 1-s structure constituent. If t h i s i s so, then compounds such as the ones i n (2-57), one of which i s repeated here as (2-71a), must have the following representa-t i o n at 1-s structure: - 41 -(2-71) a. oya-nak-ase 'parent-cry-make' oya sase One of the problems posed by the compounds of the type i n (2-67) i s exemplified by the representation i n (2-71). What i s the verb, /nak-/, dominated by? There seem to be two p o s s i b i l i t i e s : (2-72) a. X oya NP VP 1 I oya 2 nak sase - 42 ~ Note that the VP a n a l y s i s , i . e . , /nak-/ dominated by VP, i s ruled out on two grounds: (2-73) ( i ) the morphological subcategorization requires that the s u f f i x takes a verb ( i i ) Marantz assumes that "the causative verbs and a f f i x e s take propositional arguments (1984:264)" By the same token, the structure in (2-72a) i s ruled out by ( 2 - 7 3 i i ) , since at 1-s structure the causative morpheme i s required to have a propostion. However, i t seems that (2-73i) i s not a s u f f i c i e n t and necessary condition to r u l e out (2-72b). The support for t h i s view comes from Marantz' analyses of applied verb constructions and causative constructions in Chi-Mwi:ni, Bahasa Indonesian. Kinyarwanda. In these languages, the applied and causative morphemes never appear as independent constituents at surface structure - they are bound morphemes. But at 1-s structure, as shown below, these bound morphemes are on a par with free morphemes (loose-ly speaking, "words"): - 43 -(2-74) a. Chi-Mwi:ni Applied verb construction at 1-s structure (=Marantz' 7.14:p.232) S NPi VPi Hamadi -pik-'cook' 'food' Hamadi O-wa- p i k - i l - i l e 5P-0P--cook-APPL-T/A c h i l d r e n food 'Hamadi cooked food f o r the c h i l d r e n ' b . Malayalam causative construction at 1-2 structure (=Marantz' 7.94:o.277) Si NPi VPi acchan k u t t i y kara -ik'k' father-NOK child-ACC cry CAUSE 'Father made the c h i l d cry' 44 ~ Thus, only the predicate argument structure and [^logical subject] are relevant at 1-s structure. Therefore, in Japanese, the compounds involving the causative morpheme, /-sase-/, must have the representation in (2-72b) within Marantz' theory. Let us look at the l e x i c a l representation of the verb, the causative a f f i x and the derived causative verb of (2-57b) - 'oya-nakase': (2-75) a. nak- 'cry > • (i> Morph. C-N, +V] ( i i ) 1-s (0) [+log. subj.] ( i i i ) s s t r . [-transitive] (iv) Phono. /nak-/ sase 'CAUSE' : (i ) Morph. [-N, + V] [[V] ] ( i i ) 1-s (caused), [+log. sub}.] ( i i i ) s s t r . [+transitive3 (iv) Phono, /-sase-/ nak + sase 'cry-make' : (i ) Morph. [-N, +V] ( i i ) 1-s ('cause' (2 nak (0))) [+log. subj.] ( i i i ) s s t r . C+transitive] (iv) Phono, /nak+sase/ Both the verb, /nak-/, and the causative a f f i x , /-sase-/, are [+logical subject], that i s , the predicates they produce at 1-s structure assign addi t i o n a l semantic r o l e s to t h e i r respective subjects. However, the subject of the causative morpheme i s not necessarily present in the struc-ture l i k e i n (2-72b) at surface structure due to the Surface Appearance P r i n c i p l e which i s stated in (2-76): (2-76) The Surface Appearance P r i n c i p l e A constituent X w i l l appear in the surface structure tree by v i r t u e of bearing a r e l a t i o n with respect to some item Y i f f Y i s a l e x i c a l item ( i . e . , not a phrase) (Marantz 1984:85) ~ 45 -On the other hand, the subject of the root verb, Z, must appear at surface structure since i t i s , by s t i p u l a t i o n , exceptionally head-Governed by the causative s u f f i x - that i s , Z bears a s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n with respect to a l e x i c a l item, namely, /sase-/. I f so, then Z must NOT be phonologically absent. One way to get around the above problem i s to say that Z i s somehow linked with the noun outside the proposition, S in t h i s case. Note that Lieber's Argument Linking P r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t s that the l i n k i n g between 'Z' and 'oya' i s ungrammatical since 'Z' i s the external argument of the verb /nak-/. Within Marantz' theory, one must allow external arguments of vert-stems with a f f i x e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounding. The l i n k i n g mechanism proposed above i s necessary f o r Marantz' theory not only for Japanese but also f o r English. Consider the following exam-ples from Lieber (1963): (2-77) a. draw-bridge, pick-pocket, push-cart b. a f t e r - b i r t h , under-arm, under-belly Both sets of examples in (2-77) have the 1-s representations given in (2-78) : (2-78) a. b. N N S N PP N V NP 0 draw A bridge a f t e r B b i r t h - 46 Since the verb stem and the preposition have an obligatory argument and the constituents A and B, both of which have semantic r e l a t i o n s to the verb and the preposition, r e s p e c t i v e l y , an argumentmust appear in the surface struc-ture by the Surface Appearance P r i n c i p l e . The a l t e r n a t i v e approach presented i n Part 3 of the present thesis w i l l adopt several of Marantz' i n s i g h t f u l observations except P r i n c i p l e (2-65). 2.4.3. W i l l i a m s l (19811 i?83j. 1985) proposal Williams (in c l a s s l e c t u r e , 1985) proposes that the thematic r o l e assignment i s dependent on the notion of 'sisterhood' - that i s i f X as-signs a 8-role to Y, then X and Y must be immediate s i s t e r s . Following Jackendoff's (1977) proposal of "...assigning a l l and only the s t r i c t l y subcategorized phrases to the X complement in deep structure... (p.58)", Williams assumes that a l l i n t e r n a l arguments of a verb are inserted under the X single-bar. However, one argument which Williams c a l l s 'external argument', must be outside of the maximal projection of the head. The 8-r o l e assignment of the external argument i s done by predication. That i s , the index on the external argument percolates up to the maximal projection of the verb and turns the verb phrase into a one-place predicate. The predicate argument structure (PAS) Williams proposes i s of the form shown in (2-80): (2-80) Verb: ( 8 i , 82, ..8n) Williams advocates the p o s i t i o n i n which the thematic r o l e s l i s t e d in the PAS are not labeled and have no psychological nor semantic content within the grammar. What i s relevant for the r u l e s of grammar i s that each thematic r o l e l i s t e d i n the PAS i s d i f f e r e n t from the other. These thema-- 47 -t i c r o l e s are ' r e a l i z e d ' i n syntax by the f i x e d l i s t of environments which i s derived from the verb-independent set of r u l e s c a l l e d ' r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s ' : (2-81) (=Willlaraa (198l:<17))) A: ( Xy, 2W > where X and Z are major categories and y and w are either prepositions or case features, and A i s one of the argument types (p.88) For example, i f a verb takes a Goal argument, in English, a r e a l i z a -t i o n r u l e f or Goal should look something l i k e (2-67): (2-82) Goal: (NP, PPto> Since the r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e (2-82) has no reference to VP, i t implies that "Goal i s r e a l i z e d as PPto i n a l l English categories (1984:88)". Note that the r e a l i z a t i o n of the external argument i s not subject to the r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s since the r e a l i z a t i o n of an external argument ( i f there i s one) i s dependent on the r u l e s of predication. What a l l t h i s amounts to within Williams' system i s that the verb alone determines the assignment of 9-roles. Note that Williams' conception of 8-r o l e assignment d i f f e r s from Marantz' in that a l l arguments of a verb are treated on a par with each other i n Williams' (except f o r the external argu-ment) whereas Marantz takes an asymmetric view of arguments - i . e . , not a l l arguments have an equal status i n PAS. Also, within Marantz' theory, some arguments are assigned 8-roles by other means (for example, by preposi-t i o n s ) . On the other hand, Williams' conception of predicate argument structure and the ideas behind the " r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s " are quite s i m i l a r to those of Joan Bresnan's i n Marantz' book (1984:p.l9): - 48 -(2-83) " . . . d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t arguments (of Marantz' /MN) are a l l associated with e s s e n t i a l l y equivalent s l o t s in a predicate argument structure some s l o t s may be linked by semanti-c a l l y u n r e stricted grammatical functions l i k e subject ob-ject, while others are linked to semantically r e s t r i c t e d functions l i k e oblique object, marked by various preposi-t i o n s . For an argument p o s i t i o n to be linked to a semanti-c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d grammatical function, the argument occu-pying that p o s i t i o n must bear a semantic r o l e appropriate to the r e s t r i c t i o n . For example, in order for an argument of a verb to be associated with the oblique from-object function, i t must bear the source-role" (Marantz (1964:p.l9)) It w i l l be shown l a t e r that Williams' r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s make correct predictions for Japanese, where Marantz' theory of 8-role assignment f a i l s . Now, since Williams, l i k e Pesetsky (1983), S e l k i r k (1983"), Lieber (1983) and Marantz (1984), r e l i e s on the notion (immediate) sisterhood for 8-roie assignment, compounds of the form, [ V N ]N and E N V ]JJ are accoun-ted f o r straightforwardly. Also. unlike the problems seen in Marantz' theory. Williams' theory c o r r e c t l y accounts for compounds involving the causative s u f f i x - i . e . , the nominal in EN V-saselx i s interpreted as the 'causee' since i t i s an i n t e r n a l argument of the complex-verb. With respect to the E[VV] 0] compounds, however, the same problem that N has been raised in previous sections also a r i s e s within Williams' theory. Williams has pointed out in c l a s s lecture that there are two parts to Chomsky's (1982) 8-Criterion 1 0 : (2-84) Williams' 8 - C r i t e r i o n 1) Every argument i s assigned ( i ) exactly one 8-role (11) no more than one 8-role 2) Every 8-role i s assigned (to exactly one argument) (i) to an argument ( i i ) to no more than one argument - 49 One of the problematic examples for any version of 8-Criterion i s repeated as (2-85): (2-85) kuruma no n o r i - o r i no t o k i 'car/vehicle' GEN. 'get o n - o f f GEN. 'time' "the time of the getting on and o f f of a v e h i c l e " The verb, /nor-/ (=to get on/ride), takes one obligatory i n t e r n a l argument, namely, Goal, as in 'kuruma ni nor-u' (=get on to the v e h i c l e ) . On the other hand, the verb, / o r i - / (=to get off/descend), has Source as i t s obligatory i n t e r n a l argument as in 'kuruma kara o r i - r u ' (=get o f f from the v e h i c l e ) . Then, 'kuruma (=vehicle)' i s assigned two 8-roles in (2-85) i . e . , 'kuruma' i s both Source and Goal. This leads to the v i o l a t i o n of the Q-Criterion. In the a l t e r n a t i v e analysis, Williams' Q-Criterion i s maintained. One l a s t remark on Williams' theory of morphology: Williams (1981) claims that "...morphological r u l e s can a l t e r argument structure in only two ways... a r u l e can e i t h e r (a) externalize an i n t e r n a l argument or (b) i n t e r n a l i z e the external argument... (p.91)" An example of 'externaiiza-t i o n ' and ' i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ' i s given in (2-86): (2-86) a. E x t e r n a l i z a t i o n (i) E(Th):read (A, Th) > readable (A, Th) ( i i ) E (0) : see (A, Th) > seen (A, Th)~ b. I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ( i ) I(Th) : V (A) ---> Vsase (A, Th=A) ( i i ) K G ) : V(A > Vsase (A, G=A (Williams (1981: pp.93-4 & p.100)) Williams' claim here excludes a l l morphological rules that a f f e c t other than external arguments. However, consider the following examples from Carlson and Roeper (1980): - 50 -(2-67) d. b. a. c. John situated B i l l i n the front room. •John situated B i l l John resituated B i l l John resituated B i l l i n the front room e. f. (C&R's (9) p.125) Bob mis-calculated the time of our a r r i v a l . •that we would a r r i v e at 9 O'clock. (C&R's (14) p. 129) g-h. 1. Bob ran. •Bob ran B i l l Bob outran B i l l . (C&R's (16) p.131) The examples (2-87a-d) show that the a f f i x a t i o n of /re-/ makes an obliga-tory i n t e r n a l argument. Locative, of ' s i t u a t e ' into an optional one. C&R claim that i n t h i s case the prepositional phrase, ' i n the front room' i s not an argument but an adjunct. The examples in (2-87e-f) indicate that the created verb, 'mis-calculate', cannot take a propositional theme as i t s argument. The examples in (2-67g-i) show that the a f f i x a t i o n of /out-/ adde an i n t e r n a l argument. Thus, contrary to Williams' claim that a morphological rule a f f e c t s only the external argument, there seem to be a number of morphological rules that do a f f e c t i n t e r n a l arguments. If these two r u l e s , ' e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n ' and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ' , were aban-doned, we would lose the explanation f o r those compounds with V+sase - that i s , the external argument of a root verb can p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounds be-cause the causative a f f i x has i n t e r n a l i z e d the external argument of the root verb. Notice that these morphemes are prefixes and although they a f f e c t the verb's i n t e r n a l arguments they do not change the external arguments in any way. We may hypothesize that i f a language has argument structure affec-t i n g s u f f i x e s then i t may not have argument structure a f f e c t i n g prefixes, or v i c e versa. Of course, t h i s i s subject to empirical t e s t i n g . - 51 -FOOTNOTES 1. I am gr a t e f u l to Prof. M. Rochemont f or these examples. 2. Pesetsky (1983: fnl5) suggests that " . . . l e s s s t r i c t sisterhood requirements hold..." at "S-structure" to s a t i s f y the Projection P r i n c i p l e . Another suggestion made by Pesetsky i s that "S-struct u r e " f o r words might be misnamed;...syntactic 9-roles are not necessarily assigned... 3. The tree structure of 'restaurant-eating' i n which the verb does not have an obligatory i n t e r n a l argument i s exactly the same as 'pasta-eating' i n which 'pasta' i s interpreted as Theme of 'ea-t i n g ' . 4. The external argument i s underlined i n PAS. 5. Lieber's claim can be s u c c i n c t l y stated as follows: The argument-taker s a t i s f i e s i t s obligatory i n t e r n a l argument(s) eit h e r within the compound or outside the compound i n which case the s i s t e r to the argument-taker i n the.compound must be in t e r -pretable as a semantic argument. 6. /s-/ i s considered as a "dummy verb" only semantically, since i t does not a f f e c t the meaning of the l e x i c a l item i n any way nor does i t add or subtract arguments of a nominalized verb. 7. In (2-57c), the causative s u f f i x i s /-sas-/. See Kiyagawa '1980). 8. Note that even i f 5 i s not the maximal projection o f V. i . e . , S=INFL, these conditions predict correct outputs. 9. The Merger P r i n c i p l e (Marantz, 1984:227) When X and Y merge, the argument structure of the derived word X + Y i s the argument structure of X applied to the argument struc-ture of Y, or to Y i t s e l f , or the argument structure of Y applied to the argument structure of X and to X i t s e l f . Where the merger of X and Y expresses the r e l a t i o n s ( s ) between X-h and Y-h (con-s t i t u e n t s headed by X and Y, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , the LIST' r e l a t i o n s corresponding LIST and r e l a t i o n s borne by X and Y and con s t i -tuents between X and X-h and between Y and Y-h in constituent structure are determined by examining the i n t e r n a l structure of the derived word X+2. 10. Williams ( i n c l a s s l e c t u r e , UQAM 1985) has pointed out that (283:2) may be too strong due to the observation made by Roeper in the unpublished paper. For example, (i ) John promised B i l l a r a i s e , ( i i ) John promised B i l l . Assuming that the verb, 'promise', has three arguments in i t s PAS, (AGENT, THEME, GOAL), and these three 8-roles are assigned in ( i ) as AGENT = 'John', THEME = ' r a i s e ' , and GOAL = ' B i l l ' , 0-C r i t e r i o n (2 i ) w i l l r u l e out the example ( i i ) above. - 52 -Roeper c a l l s t h i s missing argument an " I m p l i c i t argument". - 53 -CHAPTER 3 AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 3.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The model of predicate argument structure outlined i n t h i s chapter i s a synthesis of several leading ideas presented in Chapter 2 and elsewhere. In the model developed here there i s only one p r i n c i p l e of 8-role assignment governing both the morphological and s y n t a c t i c components. 3.2.1. Assumptions The p a r t i c u l a r hypotheses adopted by the present model follow. F i r s t , Williams' version of the 8 C r i t e r i o n i s axiomatized with the proviso given in footnote 10 (Chapter 2): (3-1) a. Every argument i s assigned i . exactly one 8-role i i . no more than one 9-role b. Every 8-roie i s assigned to i . exactly one argument i i . no more than one argument The assignment of 8-role i s constrained by the Immediate S i s t e r Condition which i s a modified version of Marantz' (1984): (3-2) a. The Immediate S i s t e r Condition If X bears a semantic r e l a t i o n with respect to Y, then X and Y must be s i s t e r s . X and Y are s i s t e r s i f they are immediately dominated* by the same node. b. D e f i n i t i o n s of immediate domination* X i s immediately dominated* by Y i f f i . i t i s immediately dominated by Y or i i . i t i s immediately dominated* by a l e x i c a l category node that i s immediately dominated* by Y or i i i . i t i s immediately dominated* by a node Y' that i s immediately dominated* by Y, where Y' and Y are of i d e n t i c a l category type. - 54 -As with Williams (1985). I w i l l accept J a c k e n d o f f s observation that a l i s t r i c t l y subcategorized i n t e r n a l arguments must be inserted under the f i r s t - b a r projection of the verb in syntax as the F i r s t - B a r S t i p u l a t i o n in (3): (3) The F i r s t - B a r S t i p u l a t i o n A l l s t r i c t l y subcategorized i n t e r n a l arguments must appear within the f i r s t - b a r projection of the verb or the argument-taker in syntax. The f i r s t - b a r s t i p u l a t i o n w i l l r u l e out the popular analysis of the double-object construction in English as in (4): (4) VP = V V NP gave John a key Furthermore, the f i r s t - b a r s t i p u l a t i o n w i l l , also, r u l e out Hoji's (1983) binary branching analysis of Japanese. - 55 -(3-5) One other aspect, of the present model that d i f f e r s from most of the current morphological theories i s that verbs do not have s t r i c t subcate-g o r i z a t i o n frames as stated in the Aspects model (Chomsky, 1965), In h i s t h e s i s , Pesetsky (1982) shows that the s t r i c t subcategorization frames in the Aspects model and in subsequent models do not meet the "condition of epistemological p r i o r i t y (Chomsky 1981:10)"'. Syntactic categories such as NP, 5', AP, PP, small clauses, etc., are not "concepts that can be plausib-ly assumed to provide a preliminary, p r e l i n g u i s t i c analysis of a reasonable s e l e c t i o n of presented data, that i s to provide the primary l i n g u i s t i c data that are mapped by the language f a c u l t y to a grammar (Chomsky, 1981:10)". Pesetsky derives the e f f e c t s of s t r i c t subcategorization from other subsys-tems of grammar, such as Case theory, B - c r i t e r i o n and semantic selec t i o n (ref. Grimshaw, 1979, 1981). For example those subcategorization frames shown i n (3-6) can be predicted by Case theory: (3-6) (HP) a. \s I b- S' c. NP If a verb i s s p e c i f i e d as [^transitive] , i t can have either an NP or S' complement as i n (3-6a). If the verb i s [-transitive] and s p e c i f i e d for a complement (maybe in i t s predicate argument s t r u c t u r e ) , then the complement must be (3-6b). If the verb i s [+ t r a n s i t i v e ] , i t must necessarily have an - 56 -NP complement. If we assume that verbs do not have subcategorization frames. t h e n w e should be able to maintain the d i s t i n c t i o n between' a f f i x and non-affix which i s proposed i n the immediately following section. 3.2.2. Theory of Percolation There are at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t proposals of feature percolation: i . S e l k i r k ' s (1982) Percolation a. If a head has a feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n [ F ^ l . =u, i t s mother node must be s p e c i f i e d C Fj.j , and vice versa. b. If a non-head has a feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n t F ] ] , and the head has the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n [uFj], then the mother node must have the feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n [ F j ] . ( p . 76:3.20) i i . Lieber's (1980 fi. 83) Feature Percolation Convention a. Convention I A l l features of a stem morpheme including category features, percolate to the f i r s t non-branching node dominating that morpheme. b. Convention II A l l features of an a f f i x morpheme, including category features, percolate to the f i r s t branching node dominating that morpheme. c. Convention III If a branching node f a i l s to obtain features by Convention I I , features from the next lowest labeled node automatically percolate up to the unlabeled branching node. d. Convention IV I f two stems are s i s t e r s ( i . e . , they form a compound), features from the right-hand stem percolate up to the branching node dominating the stems. (3-7) (1983:252-3:(3)) The most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between these two systems of percola-t i o n concerns the notion of head. Within Lieber's theory of morphology. - 57 -there i s no mention of 'head' 1. Whereas f o r Selkirk (1982) t h e c o n c e p t , 'head', i s a necessary term since her theory of Percolation r e l i e s o n i t . Furthermore, she e x p l i c i t l y uses the concept, 'head', to claim t h a t s u c h examples as in (3-8) are exocentric: (3-8) a. cutthroat b. pickpocket c. scarecrow d. saw bones e. cutpurse f . daredevil (p.26: (2.17)) S e l k i r k explains that "Cutthroat does not designate a throat, but rather someone who cuts throats (p.26)". She suggests that "...the grammar o f English w i i i include a statement s p e c i f i c to t h i s p a r t i c u l a r configuration, assigning the verb-argument i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to the parts and the appropriate exocentric i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to the whole (p. 26)". Lieber, as mentioned in 2.0, on the other hand, argues for a n autono-mous l e x i c a l semantics to account f o r the non-compositional i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of compounds such a s in (3-8) without the concept of 'head'. The issue to be addressed here i s whether i t i s necessary to have t h i s concept in theory of grammar. Since S e l k i r k claims that the e x a m p l e s in (3-8) have no 'heads', i t cannot be a c o n f i g u r a t i o n a l l y definable term. Observe the following l e x i c a l structure of (3-8a): - 58 -(3-8) a. cutthroat Ni V i N2 cut throat I f , as S e l k i r k claims, "a word structure has the same general formal properties as s y n t a c t i c structure, and moreover, that i t i s generated by the same sort of r u l e system," then the d e f i n i t i o n of 'head' of a word structure should not be any d i f f e r e n t from that of a s y n t a c t i c structure. For example, Jackendoff (1977) gives the following d e f i n i t i o n of 'head': (3-9) D e f i n i t i o n of 'Head" the head of a phrase of category X n can be defined in two d i f f e r e n t ways, eit h e r as the Xn"* that i t dominates, or as the l e x i c a l category at the bottom of the e n t i r e configuration. (Jackendoff 1977:30) If S e l k i r k ' s observation that word structure and s y n t a c t i c structure share "the same general formal properties", then each of the examples in (3-8) should have a 'head' as defined in (3-9). Note that Selkirk s t i p u l a t e s that within W- syntax the upper bound f o r the category X i s fixed as X n, where n < 0. Recall in Chapter 2, the following set of phrase structure r u l e s has been given from S e l k i r k ' s monograph. (2-2) x n _> xm Y p X n -> Y p X m Where 0 > n > m:p The head of a word from (2-2), i s derivable by applying Jackendoff's d e f i -n i t i o n i n (3-9). If i t i s the case that Selkirk wants to maintain the - 59 -s i m i l a r i t y between word structure and s y n t a c t i c structure then her claim that the examples in (3-8) have no "heads' makes Jackendoff's d e f i n i t i o n given i n (3-9) 'sd absurdium'. Why 5 e l k i r k wants to claim that the examples in (3-8) are non-headed i s because of her commitment that the semantic head and the c a t e g o r i a l head of compounds must be isomorphic, i n other words, i f the meaning of a compound i s compositional then the compound i s headed; i f not, then that compound i s e x o c e n t r i c a l l y derived. From the above view, the 'head' in morphology and the 'head' in syntax d i f f e r , contrary to S e l k i r k ' s o r i g i n a l claim that word structure and s y n t a c t i c structure share the same general formai properties. In syntax nothing of the sort described above i s per-mitted, i . e . , regardless of the compositionality of the sentence, phrasal categories are endocentrically derived. If l e x i c a l semantics were isomorphic with l e x i c a l structure, not only those compounds Selkirk presented in (3-8) should be exocentric but a l l the bracketing paradox cases such as 'ungrammaticality', where the l e x i c a l structure i s not isomorphic with semantics, should also be exocentric. Since t h i s i s not the case in S e l k i r k ' s model, i . e . , the bracketing paradox cases are generated by regular Word Structure r u l e s , i t i s inconsistent to claim that compounds that have non-compositional meaning are e x o c e n t r i c a l l y generated. Furthermore, S e l k i r k , as does Lieber (1980), suggests that her 'non-headed' compounds such as i n (7), are "interpreted by semantic rules s p e c i f i c to them (p.25-26)". Thus, these compounds must be generated by the regular compound formation r u l e without any reference to the 'head' but to the language-particular l o c a t i o n - i . e . , whether right-hand or l e f t -hand . The next task i s to determine whether.the concept, 'head' i s necessary for the theory of Percolation. However, before going into Percolation, l e t - 60 -ua look at the l e x i c a l entry of the a f f i x i n both S e l k i r k ' s (1982) and Lieber's (1980) frameworks: (3-9) i . Lieber's (1980) a. The category and conjugation or declension c l a s s of an item b. Phonological representation c. Semantic representation d. Subcategorization (p.35) i i . S e l k i r k ' s (1982) a. I t s category (involving a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of i t s type ( l e v e l Af) and of i t s c a t e g o r i a l features, s y n t a c t i c and d i a c r i t i c ) b. I t s subcategorization frame c. I ta meaning d. Phonological representation (p.5) Given that the a f f i x i s s p e c i f i e d for i t s category and for i t s s i s t e r to which i t attaches, i t would be redundant f o r Percolation to re f e r to 'head'. Let me i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point with examples: (3-10) a. X b. Y x x y CCX 3y] The l e x i c a l structure i n (3-10a) i s necessary f o r mono-morphemes, such as 'dog', 'happy', or 'eat', etc. Thus, whether the stem, i n (3-10a-b), i s bare or a f f i x e d , i t must have the structure represented i n (3-10a). On the other hand, no a f f i x can have the (3-10a) structure, since the a f f i x must " 61 -always have a s i s t e r . Since the structure (3-10a) i s not the appropriate representation f o r an a f f i x with i t s own category to be inserted into, i t Bust be inserted into a binary branching tree such as the one in (3-10b). The percolation mechanism need not re f e r e i t h e r to the 'head' as in Se l k i r k ' s or to the a f f i x or the stem as in Lieber's i f we view the perco-l a t i o n as moving some set of features to a node in the tree. The sugges-t i o n made above takes one of the two functions of S e l k i r k ' s Percolation as given i n (3-7): Not only does S e l k i r k ' s Percolation percolate the features of the head up to the mother node but i t also acts as a well-formedness condition ensuring that the subcategorization of an a f f i x i s observed. I assume that Lieber's Percolation Conventions also have these two properties since they ensure that the percolation of the features of a f f i x e s takes precedence over the percolation of the features of stems. The proposal made here i s that Percolation has only one function, namely. Percolate f r e e l y , and subject to a ce r t a i n well-formedness condi-t i o n , c a l l i t "the generalized projection p r i n c i p l e " monitoring the repre-sentation at each l e v e l of an a l y s i s . (3-11) a. Percolation Percolate f r e e l y b. The Generalized Projection P r i n c i p l e 2 Representation at each l i n q u i s t i c l e v e l are projected from the permanent lexicon, i n that they observe the subcategorization properties of l e x i c a l items. The proposal here, then, i s d i f f e r e n t from Lieber's and S e l k i r k ' s . For Lieber, Percolation i s a set of conventions. For S e l k i r k , i t i s a set of well-formedness conditions. Here, Percolation i s proposed as "Percolate f r e e l y ' , that i s . Percolation i s viewed as a ru l e which i s already needed in syntax. - 62 ~ Let me give some examples of what has been proposed i n t h i s subsection so f a r . In the model proposed, there i s only one set of category-neutral context-free rewriting r u l e s , such as the one proposed by Lieber (1980). These r u l e s generate unlabeled binary branching trees: (3-12) As with 5elkirk and Lieber, the d i s t i n c t i o n between a f f i x and non-affix i s based on whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r l e x i c a l item has a subcategorization in i t s l e x i c a l entry: a f f i x e s are inherently s p e c i f i e d for s i s t e r s , whereas non-affixes are not. The category s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s indicated by the features, [ + N , + V ] , as in Se l k i r k ' s and Lieber's modeis. The l e x i c a l e n t r i e s of a f f i x and non-affix w i l l look something l i k e i n (3-13): (3-13) i . a f f i x : a. Category [ j;N, *V] b. Subcategorization [..._] or [_...] c. Semantic information d. Phonological information i i . non-affix: a. Category [ +N, +V] b. Phonological information c. Semantic information According to Pesetsky (1985), the subcategorization frame of an a f f i x serves two purposes: i t indicates the p o s i t i o n a l requirement and the ca t e g o r i a l requirement of i t s s i s t e r to which the a f f i x attaches. What i s relevant f o r morphology i s only the ' p o s i t i o n a l ' requirement. The 'cate-g o r i a l ' requirement i s relevant at the l e v e l of LF. I w i l l accept Peset-sky's (1985) hypothesis with no argument• - 63 -The overview of the proposed model i s given below: (3-14) a. The category-neutral context-free rewriting rules w i l l generate unlabeled binary branching trees e.g., b. The l e x i c a l i n s e r t i o n transformation i n s e r t s l e x i c a l items into the unlabeled binary branching trees, e.g., happy ness operat ive c. Percolation (Percolate f r e e l y ) which i s subject to the G.P.P., w i l l properly d i s t r i b u t e feature s p e c i f i c a t i o n s onto tree nodes, e.g.. happy ness operat ive d. For compounds, as Lieber (1980:1983) observes, there i s a language-specific statement as to whether the right-hand or the left-hand stem percolate's i t s features to the mother-node, e.g., ( i . ) English/Japanese ( i i . ) Vietnamese B A A B A B It might be objected that in cases such as 'happiness' and 'opera-- 64 -t i v e ' , the argument(s) of the stem i s (are) not s a t i s f i e d , thus, leading to the v i o l a t i o n of the (Generalized) Projection P r i n c i p l e . However, i t i s a well-known and well-established f a c t that c e r t a i n a f f i x e s have the inherent a b i l i t y to a l t e r the argument structure of the argument-taker as in (2-85) and (2-86). The prime example i s the passive morpheme. The passive mor-pheme makes the obligatory agentive argument an optional one i n English and in the d i r e c t (as opposed to i n d i r e c t or adversative) passive of Japanese. For example, (3-15) a. John k i l l e d B i l l . b. B i l l was k i l l e d (by John). c. John ga B i l l o Korosi-ta. NOM. ACC. 'Kill-PAST' a. B i l l ga (John ni) Koros-(r) are-ta. by PASSIVE The verb steiss, ' k i l l ' and 'koros-', have two obligatory arguments. In addition to e x t e r n a l i z i n g no argument and absorbing the case-assigning feature of the verb, the passive morphology o p t i o n a l i z e s the agentive argu-ment which used to be the external argument. The (Generalized) Projection P r i n c i p l e looks at the relevant l e v e l of l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s . In morphology, i t i s the word, not the constituents, that i s relevant. What t h i s means i s that, f o r example, i n passive, the Projection P r i n c i p l e w i l l look at the mother node which c a r r i e s the alt e r e d argument structure. Returning to the o r i g i n a l examples, 'happiness' and 'operative', they have the following l e x i c a l structures: - 65 -(3-16) happiness N ( (Agent) ) happy (Agent) b. operative ness A ( (AGENT) Theme) operat ive (Agent, Theme) Before turning to those compounds with argument-takers, I w i l l review the proposals made by Williams (1981) and Marantz (1984) on the representa-ti o n of predicate argument structure. - 66 -3 . 2 . 3 . The P r e d i c a t e Argument S t r u c t u r e In section 2.4, three d i f f e r e n t representations of predicate argument-structure (PAS) have been presented: (3-17) a. Farmer: Marantz 11, i n , 11, i n , ( 0j_...Qp ) arguments are s t r i c t l y ordered no d i s t i n c t i o n between external and i n t e r n a l arguments (at l e a s t for Japanese) ( ) Q i . . • Qfi arguments are unordered i f a verb i s [+logical subject!, then the function from arguments to predicates which the verb names produces an a d d i t i o n a l seman-t i c r o l e c. Williams: i . ( 9j....Gn ) i i . arguments are unordered i i i . one argument (usually, Agent), in the un-marked case, must be r e a l i z e d outside of the maximal projection of the head Since there has been a number of arguments against the nonconfigurational analysis of Japanese (Arai (1983), Saito (1983), and Hoji (1983)) and there seems to be some evidence of unaccusative (='ergative') verbs in Japanese (see section 2.2.1.), I w i l l r e j e c t Farmer's predicate argument structure f o r Japanese. There are two s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between Williams' and Marantz' theories: (i) Within Marantz' theory, the semantic r o l e of the argument in [NP, 5 1 p o s i t i o n i s determined by the predicate. On the other hand, within Williams' theory, the semantic r o l e of the argument in the [NP, 5 3 position i s determined by the head, i t s e l f . ( i i ) For Marantz, not a l l inherent arguments of the verb are assigned semantic r o l e s by the verb, but by other 67 constituents hence the d i s t i n c t i o n between ' d i r e c t ' and ' i n d i r e c t ' argu-ments. In Williams' a i l arguments are assigned 8-role by the argument-taker. Let us look at the f i r s t d i f f e r e n c e . Rothstein (1985) argues against Marantz' p o s i t i o n based on the marginal status of the examples in (3-18): (3-18) a. John's g i f t of the book l a t e b. John's a r r i v a l i n a hurry c. John's performance drunk (Rothstein, 1985:43) The nominal head in each of thes"e examples, ' g i f t ' , ' a r r i v a l ' and 'perfor-mance', has an external theta-role to assign. However, "the general rules of theta-role assignment designate agent as an external argument assigned through predication". Predication, as stated e a r l i e r , i s defined as a r e l a t i o n between YP and XP, each of which i s a maximal projection of Y and X, r e s p e c t i v e l y . If t h i s i s so, then 'John' cannot be assigned an agent r o l e through predication since the phrase that contains the head of the NP in (3-18) a f t e r 'John' i s an N' as shown i n (3-19): (3-19) [[John! [...head...] ] NP N' NP Rothstein suggests that the marginal status of these examples can be ac-counted f o r by allowing the agent r o l e which the head i s s p e c i f i e d for in i t s l e x i c a l entry to be 'improperly' assigned to 'John'". Once 'John' i s assigned a theta-role, then the secondary predicate can be predicated of 'John'. Rothstein claims that the above account can be maintained only i f the external theta-role i s e x p l i c i t l y s p e c i f i e d in the l e x i c a l entry, i . e . the head determines the external theta-role. Marantz' theory f a i l s , so Roth-st e i n ' s argument goes, to account for these marginal examples because the head in each of these phrases i s not s p e c i f i e d for an agent r o l e and there - 68 -i s no maximal projection to determine the external thematic-role of 'John' within Marantz' theory. Unfortunately, Rothstein's claim that in Marantz' theory the external theta-argument i s determined by the maximal projection i s i n c o r r e c t . In Marantz' theory, the 5 i s the maximal projection of the verb. Thus, the projection that acts l i k e a predicate of other theories such as Williams' (1980 & 81) and Rothstein's (1985), i s not the maximal projection but the nonmaximal projection of the verb within Marantz' theory. However, Rothstein i s correct in concluding that i n Marantz' theory 'John' i n (3-18) cannot be properly assigned a 6 - r o l e . Marantz' following comment confirms Rothstein's observation: "...nouns do not form predicates or other phrasal constituents that might take subjects "(p. 6 6 ) . Thus. Marantz would r u l e out. the p o s s i b i l i t y of taking the N' in (3-19) to be the predicate of 'John'. The issue discussed above, i . e . whether the external thematic argument i s determined by the head or by some projection of the head, has been pointed out by Bresnan (1982:p.291) and to which Marantz (1984) has given the following reply: "The arguments f or the p a r t i c u l a r representation of the asymmetries within the present theory come from considera-tions of the operation of the theory as a whole. I choose the present form of representation f o r these asymmetries excluding the subject from the P - A structure because i t both c o r r e c t l y captures the semantic asymmetries, as Bresnan points out..., and allows me to r e l a t e semantic subject/non-subject asymmetries to p a r a l l e l s y n t a c t i c asymmetries." (Marantz 1984:p.28) Marantz' main concern i s to capture the asymmetries between subject and nonsubject i n both semantic and s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s . The problem that Marantz' theory encountered with Rothstein's examples shown in (3-18) can be remedied by adopting the following r u l e proposed by Williams (1982): ~ 69 -(3-19) Det Rule The r e l a t i o n between the possessive NP and the following N' can be any r e l a t i o n at a l l . (Williams 1982:p.2S3) Thus, the marginal status of (3-18) can be accounted for by claiming that only i f 'John' i s interpreted as having the agentive r e l a t i o n to the following N', the phrase-final predicate can be predicated of 'John'. The second difference between Marantz' and Williams' theories i s the assignment of 8-roles. For Marantz, in the unmarked case, only the d i r e c t arguments of. a verb are assigned 8-roles by the verb, the i n d i r e c t argu-ments are assigned 8-roles by other than verbs, such as prepositions or case or s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n . For Williams, verbs assign 8-roles. How these 8-roles are manifested in syntax i s determined by the language-p a r t i c u l a r " r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s " . Thus, within Marantz' model, though a l l of the verb's obligatory arguments are s p e c i f i e d f o r 8-roles, only the phrases that are not headed by prepositions may be assigned 8-roles by the verb. However, Williams' model i s more r e s t r i c t i v e than Marantz'. This can be shown in the following: (3-20) i . Williams In the unmarked case, the NP bears a 8 X i f and only i f i t i s governed by Py. i i . Marantz In the unmarked case, i f an NP bears a 8 X, then the NP may be assigned that 8 X by Py. where 8 X stands f o r any thematic r o l e and P stands for any l e x i -c a l category For Marantz, the converse (3-21 i i i ) below i s not necessarily true: i i i . In the unmarked case, i f an NP i s assigned a 8 by Py, then that NP bears a Q x. When an argument can be r e a l i z e d i n two d i f f e r e n t environments, Marantz' theory seems to have some d i f f i c u l t y . Observe the following: ~ 70 ~ (3-22) a. k u r u m a k a r a ' o r i - t a 'vehicle' Source 'get - o f f PAST b. k u r u m a o o r i - t a "X got o f f (from) the v e h i c l e " Within Williams' system, SOURCE has two r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s : (3-23) a. SOURCE: ( NP, PPkara > b. SOURCE: ( NP ) Within Marantz' system, the argument of / o r i - / i s both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t and must be s p e c i f i e d when i t i s a d i r e c t argument or an i n d i r e c t argument, e.g., i f the verb / o r i - / i s a case-assigner, then the argument i s d i r e c t , i f i t ' s not, then i n d i r e c t . Furthei^more, when the verb / o r i - / i s nomlnaiized, Marantz' system completely breaks down: (3-24) a. k u r u m a k a r a n c o r i - k a t a GEN. Nominalizer b. k u r u m a n o o r i-k a t a "the way of getting o f f (from) the ve h i c l e " Williams' system does not have to state anything since the l i s t of r e a l i z a -tion r u l e s i s s p e c i f i e d verb-independently: the SOURCE in t e r p r e t a t i o n of 'kuruma' in (3-24b) i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . On the other hand, Marantz' system cannot predict (3-24b) since 'kuruma' in both (3-24a £> b) does not r e l y on the postposition nor the verb f o r case, and therefore, i t s 9-role assignment cannot be correlated with the case-assigning feature of the verb. The o v e r a l l p i c ture sketched above i s that as Japanese data show, i t i s necessarily the case that the B-roles must be assigned by the verb. The model being developed here adopts Marantz' predicate argument structure, i . e . , only the i n t e r n a l arguments of the verb are represented in , 71 -PAS. Marantz gives the supporting arguments and evidence for t h i s repre-sentation from various languages. With respect to compounds, ever since Roeper and 5iegel (1978) and subsequently S e l k i r k (1982) and Lieber (1983), i t has been shown that i t i s the i n t e r n a l arguments ( s i s t e r s to the verb for Roeper and 5iegel and non-subject arguments for Selkirk) that can p a r t i c i p a t e i n compound formation. Thus, the asymmetry of subjects and non-subjects seems to appear in morphology as well as i n syntax and seman-t i c s . Marantz' P r i n c i p l e (2-65) states that " i f a l e x i c a l item assigns a semantic r o i e or has an argument structure, i t i s an independent c o n s t i -tuent at 1-s structure". It was argued that t h i s p r i n c i p l e can not be included in the present model; consequently, we w i l l need a new way of assigning a semantic r o l e to the demoted subject in such cases as causative construction to have b i c l a u s a l structures at 1-s structure. However, the present model cannot have b i c l a u s a l analyses for causative constructions due to the elimination of P r i n c i p l e (2-65). As i t i s well-known in Japanese causative constructions, the s u f f i x /-sase-/ adds an extra argument, 'causer'. In the present model, the causative s u f f i x i s s p e c i f i e d with [•••logical subject] which produces t h i s extra thematic r o l e . Furthermore, we w i l l assume, along with Williams (1981), that the causative s u f f i x i n t e r n a l i z e s the verb's [+logical sub-ject] argument as 'causee'. It may be objected that the feature [*logical subject] i s merely a marker on the predicate that the verb names to i n d i -cate that the predicate produces another semantic r o l e . We are not denying t h i s view of the feature [^logical s u b j e c t ] . What the 'causee' argument does i s that the semantic r o l e the predicate produces must be assigned i n t e r n a l to that predicate i f and only i f the NP that i s to receive t h i s semantic r o l e i s in the appropriate p o s i t i o n . For example: ~ 72 -(3-25) a. Taroo ga oya ni nak-(s)aae-ta. NOM. DAT. 'cry-CAUSE-PAST' 'Taroo l e t (his) parents cry.' NP VP = PREDICATE NP V V V V Taroo ga oya ni nak (s)ase ta In (3-25). 'oya' i s in the appropriate p o s i t i o n to receive the semantic r o l e the predicate produces. It may be the case that t h i s semantic r o l e i s a fusion of 'causee' and the r o l e produced by the predicate. Note that i f the verb i s i n t r a n s i t i v e , as i n (3-25) 'nak', the causee NP can appear with the accusative case marker: - 73' * (3-25) b. Taroo ga oya o nak-(s)ase-ta. ACC. 5 NP VP = PREDICATE NP V V V V Taroo ga oya o nak (s)ase ta The noun 'oya' in (3-25b) i s not in the appropriate position for the predicate to assign the semantic r o i e i t produces; i t i s assigned only the 'causee' r o i e . I n s t h i s case, the ['logical subject] feature of the verb may or may not stay in the representation for semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . How do we predict/account f o r these two possible s y n t a c t i c analyses? Let us look at the l e x i c a l structure of the derived structure of 'nak-(s)ase: - 74 ~ (3-26) nak + sase (causee) [•logical subject] nak sase ( 0 ) (causee) [•log. subj.] [-transitive] [•log. subj] ([+transitive]) As we have proposed in section 3.2.2., the percolation i s "percolate f r e e l y " . Thus, everything can, in p r i n c i p l e , percolate up to the mother node, only what i s forced by the theory as a whole remains. Notice the feature, [ t r a n s i t i v e ] , in (3-26). There i s no necessary reason that the causative s u f f i x must be [ ^ t r a n s i t i v e ] . However, the subject of an intran-s i t i v e verb such as 'nak' can appear as a d i r e c t object of the derived causative verb o p t i o n a l l y , i t i s s u f f i c i e n t to claim that /-sase-/ has an optional feature [ • t r a n s i t i v e ] . Only when the subject of the i n t r a n s i t i v e verb appears within the f i r s t - b a r projection of the derived causative verb, does the theory forces the feature [+transitiveJ to percolate up to the mother node. The fusion of the feature, [•logical subject] of the verb, 'nakJ for example, and the semantic r o l e , 'causee', i s necessarily so i f we accept Williams' (1981) argument for incorporating "a li m i t e d use of the lambda c a l c u l u s " : that i s , the lambda calculus r e s t r i c t s the number of external argument to one and only one. - 75 -3.3 Cgn§«guenc§§ of the mod«l proposed 3.3.1. Compounds As stated in Section 2, the Argument-linking P r i n c i p l e of Lieber (1983) can be dispensed with, since the Immediate S i s t e r Condition w i l l account f o r a l l the compounds of the form i n (3-27): (3-27) X A B If A i s an argument-taker and X=B, then B must s a t i s f y A's argument struc-ture. On the other hand, B i s an argument-taker and X=B, then either A or what i s on the outside of the whole compound may s a t i s f y B's argument structure. Note that I have not made any r e s t r i c t i o n that only the inte r n a l arguments (obligatory or optional) may p a r t i c i p a t e i n compound formation. Such a r e s t r i c t i o n i s spurious since, by assumption, the external argument must be assigned i t s 8-roles by predication. Predication i s a r e l a t i o n between two phrasal categories, XP and YP, not between two l e x i c a l cate-gories . Now, we come to the [V-V] compounds i n which both verbs involved have obligatory i n t e r n a l arguments. F i r s t , we w i l l begin with those [V-V3 compounds that are verbs, such as the ones i n (3-28): (3-28) a. freeze-dry, s t i r - f r y , drop-kick, slam-duck b. hiki-das (to pull-take out), tabe-nokos (to eat-leave t r a n s i t i v e ) * o s i - i r e (to push-insert) Note that i n the above examples, both verb stems of the compounds are t r a n s i t i v e . thus, the obligatory i n t e r n a l arguments must be s a t i s f i e d . ~ 76 ~ Note, further, that the features of the right-hand stem percolate up to the mother node, thereby s a t i s f y i t s i n t e r n a l argument with the phrase outside the whole compound. The problem i s the in t e r n a l arguments of the left-hand verb stem. What i s cl e a r at t h i s point i s that the right-hand verb stem cannot serve as an argument to the left-hand verb stem ( c f . Lieber <1983:p265)). This i s ruled out on pre- t h e o r e t i c a l grounds: Verbs are assumed to be l e x i c a l items with no r e f e r e n t i a l function in semantic d e s c r i p t i o n . What-ever i t i s that can be an argument must be able to pick out some ent i t y i n the world. The fundamental idea behind the above assumption comes from Categorial Grammar developed by Edmund Husserl (1962). Since a l l current s y n t a c t i c theories, a i l versions of GB theories (Chomsky (1980 & 81), Marantz (1984), Farmer (1984)), LFG and Relational grammar, seen; to share the same assumption above, the burden i s on those morphoiogists who are working on verbal compounds. The proposal made here for the [ V - V ] compounds i s a three dimensional model, along the l i n e s of proposals by Lasnik and Kupin (1977), Williams (197e), Lightfoot (1984) (in a s e r i e s of lectures given at U.B.C. in 1983), and Goodali (1984) for co-ordination in syntax. The three dimensional proposal r a i s e s a couple of in t e r e s t i n g ques-t i o n s : (1) which stem percolates i t s features to the mother node? and ( i i ) how i s the i n t e r n a l argument of each of these verbs s a t i s f i e d ? F i r s t , i n the three dimensional structure, both stems percolate the features since there i s no way of t e l l i n g which i s on the right-hand side or on the left-hand side. Once the ca t e g o r i a l features are percolated up to the mother node, they w i l l be fused together: - 77 -(3-29) [-N, + V] [-N.+V] - - -> [-N, + V] Each verb con s t i t u t e s a s i n g l e , i n d i v i d u a l argument complex. The intern argument of each of the verb stems i n the compound i s s a t i s f i e d separate! This i s diagrammatically shown in (3-30): (3-30) a. VP V NP - 78 -b. VP NP V Each arrow constitutes a separate independent argument complex. Therefore, there i s no v i o l a t i o n of the9-C r i t e r i o n . Let us return to the examples i n (3-28b) , repeated here as (3-3ia) . The three dimensional proposal overgenerates the forms i n (3-31b) which have, on the right-hand side, the i n t r a n s i t i v e counterparts of /das-/, /nokos-/, and / i r e - / . (3-31) a. hiki-das (to pull-take out), tabe-nokos (to eat-leave ), o s i - i r e t r a n s i t i v e (to push-insert) b. «hiki-de (to p u l l - come out), *tabe-nokor (to eat-leave ), «osi-hair (to push-enter) intrans. How do we ru l e out the overgenerated examples such as the ones in (3-31b)? Note that each stem of the compounds in (3-31a) has one obligatory i n t e r n a l argument, whereas only one stem in each of the compounds i n ( 3 -79 ~ 31b) has an argument. The constraint I propose here i s the Across-the-Boarti A p p l i c a t i o n . That i s , i f i t i s the case some rule or condition applies to one stem then i t i s necessarily the case that the same rule or condition must apply to the other stem. 3.3.2 Conclusion and Residual Problems In t h i s chapter, we have argued that the s a t i s f a c t i o n of predicate argument structure i s governed by the same p r i n c i p l e , namely, the Immediate S i s t e r Condition, i n both syntax and morphology. Furthermore, Percolation i s proposed to be constrained by the (Generalized) Projection P r i n c i p l e which reduces percolation to bare minimal "percolate f r e e l y " . In the previous section where the Generalized Projection P r i n c i p l e has been proposed, I have d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided the formalized version of the Projection P r i n c i p l e i n Chomsky (1981:36-38) which i s given below: (3-32) (a ) i . [ ^  ... ... ^  ... ] i i . I ... $ . . . © < . . . 3 (Chomsky's (5) p36) (b) i . i f P i s an immediate constituent of X i n a t ~ i < and ^ = ot , then o< Q-marks j? i n % i i . i f ^  s e l e c t s P i n X as a l e x i c a l property, then °* s e l e c t s j i i n ^  at L i i i i . i f o( s e l e c t s p" i n ^  at L i , then s e l e c t s ^ in )f at Lj (Chomsky's (6):p38) The e f f e c t s of (3-31b.i.) can be obtained from the in t e r a c t i o n of our Immediate S i s t e r Condition and the F i r s t Bar S t i p u l a t i o n . With respect to (3-32b.ii. & i i i . ) i t i s ambiguous whether the term 'select' means s(emantic)-selection or c ( a t e g o r i a l ) - s e l e c t i o n . If i t des-ignates s - s e i e c t i o n , then the Projection P r i n c i p l e applies at the le v e l of - 80 ~ semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as well as at syntax since s - s e l e c t i o n consists of such notions as 'Proposition', 'Exclamation', 'Question' and so on. These notions are not a v a i l a b l e i n syntax but only in semantics. As we have stated e a r l i e r , there are no subcategorization frames as those proposed in the Aspects model. Thus, the term ' s e l e c t ' cannot mean c- s e l e c t i o n . However, we can s t i l l r e t a i n Chomsky's formalized Projection P r i n c i p l e as i t i s in (3-32). Furthermore, we r e t a i n the ambiguity of the term 's e l e c t ' . This i s a necessary move in the model proposed here. The c-s e i e c t i o n applies only in a f f i x a t i o n as shown in the derivation given in (3-14) since the s i s t e r of an a f f i x i s c a t e g o r i a l i y s p e c i f i e d . On the other i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 's e l e c t ' , i . e . the s - s e l e c t i o n , i t applies at the l e v e l of semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It also applies at the l e v e l of syntax where 8-roles, but not such semantic notions as 'Proposition', 'Exclama-t i o n ' or 'Question', are involved. Thus, as proposed, the Projection P r i n c i p l e i s generalized over morphology and over semantics. Another consequence of the analyses given in t h i s t h e s i s i s i f i t i s the case that Japanese has unaccusative verbs as proposed in Chapter 2, then c l e a r l y the non-configurational analysis of Japanese syntax must be abandoned. It seems that there are asymmetries between subjects and non-subjects which do e x i s t i n morphology of Japanese, as argued i n t h i s t h e s i s . The issues raised here are s t i l l very c o n t r o v e r s i a l in current l i n g u i s t i c theory. However, I hope the proposals and analyses given in t h i s t h e s i s w i l l shed some l i q h t on the future research. - 81 -FOOTNOTES I am indebted to Prof. E. Williams (personal communication') for pointing t h i s out to me. This i s a s l i g h t l y modified version of Chomsky's (1981) o r i g i n a l Projection P r i n c i p l e (p.29). The Extended Projection P r i n c i p l e of Chomsky (1982) i s rejected since the ad d i t i o n a l clause which states that every clause must have a subject can be derived from Rothstein's (1985) Predicate-Linking Rule: Rule f o r Predication (for English) a. Every non-theta-marked XP must be linked at S-structure to an argument which i t immediately C-commands and which immediately Commands i t . b. Linking i s from r i g h t to l e f t ( i . e . , a subject precedes i t s predicate) (Rothstein, 1 9 8 5 : 1 1 ) - 82 -BIBLIOGRAPHY All e n , M. (1978): Morphological Investigations, Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut Allwood, J, L.G. Andersson, and 0. Dahl (1977): Logic i n L i n g u i s t i c s , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great B r i t i a n A r a i , M. (1984): C o n f i g u r a t i o n a l i t y i n Japanese Syntax, M.A. t h e s i s , McGill University, Montreal, Canada Aronoff, M. (1976): Word Formation i n Generative Grammar, L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry Monograph 1, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Botha, R.P. (1980): "Word-based Morphology and Synthetic Compounding, Stellenbosch Pagers in L i n g u i s t i c s 5 Bresnan, J.W. (1982a): "The Passive in Lexica l Theory",in J.W. Bresnan, (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Bresnan, J.W. (1982b): " P o l a d i c i t y " i n J.W. Bressnan (ed.) The Mental E§P.I§§§Dtation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Burzio. L. (1981): I n t r a n s i t i v e Verbs and I t a l i a n A u x i l i a r i e s , KIT Doctoral d i s s e r t a i t o n , Cambridge, Massachusetts Carlson, G. and T. Roeper (I960): "Morphology and Subcategorization: Case and the Unmarked Complex Verb" in T. Hockstra et a l (eds.): k§ xi9§i Sl§!?!5§.?> F o r i s Publications. Holland Chomsky, N (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Chomsky, N. (1970): "Remarks on Nominalization," i n R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenboum (ed.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Massachusetts Chomsky, N. (1980): Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press, New York Chomsky, N. (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding, F o r i s P u b l i c a t i o n s , Holland Chomsky, N. (1982): Concepts and Con§eguences o f t h e Government and Binding Theory Farmer, A. (1980): On the Interaction of Morphology and Syntax, Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , M.I.T. Farmer, A. (1984): Modularity io Syntax: A Study o f Japanese and English, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fodor, J.D. (1977): Semantics^ T h e o r i e s of Meaning in Generative Grammar. - 83 -Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Grimshaw, J . (1979): "Complement Selection and the Lexicon: LI lQ . t 2 7 9 ; 3 2 & Grimshaw, J . (1981):, "Form, Function, and the Language Ac q u i s i t i o n Device" i n C L . Baker and J . J . McCarthy (ed.). The Logical Problem of Language A c q u i s i t i o n , MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Hendrick, R. (1980): On the Form and Functioning of Subcategorization. Distributed by the Indiana L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bloomington Indiana Jackendoff, R. (1972): Semantic Interpretation i n Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Jackendoff, R. (1977): X Syntax^ A Study of Phrase Structure, L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry Monograph 2, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Kapian, R. and J.W. Bresnan (1982): "Lexical-Functional Grammar: A Formal System for Grammatical Representation", i n J.W. Bresnan, (ed.) The M§Qtal Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Kiparsky, P. (1981): L e x i c a l Phonology, ms. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts Kolish, D., R. Montague, and G. Mar (1980): Logic.: Techniques of Formal Reasoning (2nd e d i t i o n ) , Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York Kuno. 5. ( 1 9 7 3 ) : The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Kuroda. 5-Y. (1978): "Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter equi in Japanese", in J . Hinds and I. Howard (eds.):, Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha, Japan Lasnik, H. and J . J . Kupin (1977): "A r e s t r i c t i v e Theory of Tranformational Grammar" Theoretical L i n g u i s t i c s 4, 173-196 Lieber, R. (1980): On the Organization of the Lexicon, Doctoral Di s s e r t a t i o n , MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Lieber, R. (1983): Argument Linking and English Compounds, L.I.. 14.2:251-285 Marantz, A., (1981): "Grammatical Relations, L e x i c a l r u l e s , and Japanese Syntax" i n A.K. Farmer and C. Kitagawa (eds.) Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s : The Formal Grammar Sessions^ Coyote Papers: Working Pagers in L i n g u i s t i c s from A^2, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona Marantz, A., (1984): On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - 84 -Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal (1978): The 1-Advancement Exciusiveness Law, ms. Pesetsky, D. (1982): Paths and Categories, Doctoral Di s s e r t a t i o n , KIT Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pesetsky, D. (1983): Logical Form and Morphology, ms, MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pesetsky, D. (1985): "Logical Form and Morphology", LI Peters, 5. and R. R i t c h i e (1973): "On the Generative Power of Trans-formational Grammars", Information Sciences 6, 49-83 Roeper. T., and M.E. 5iegel (1978): "A L e x i c a l Transformation f o r Verbal Compounds," LI 9, 199-260 Rothstein, S.D. (1985): The Syntactic Forms of Predication, KIT doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . Distributed by the Indiana University L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bioomington Indiana Saito, M. (1982): Case and Government in Japanese, m&., KIT S e l k i r k , E. (1982): The Syntax of Words, L i n g u i s t i c Inquiry Monograph 7 , KIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Walsh, L. (1981): The Outline of g Theory of Morphology. K.A. t h e s i s , McGill University, Montreal, Canada Williams, E . (1980): "Predication", LI 11, 203-238 Wiiiiams. E. (1981a): "On the Notions " L e x i c a l l y Related' and 'Head' of a Word". LI 12, 245-274 Wiiiiams, E. (1981b): "Argument Structure and Morphology," L i n g u i s t i c Review 1, 81-114 Williams. E. (1983): "Semantic vs Syntactic Categories", L i n g u i s t i c s and ?!]ii2§9PbY. §» 423-446 - 85 -

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097138/manifest

Comment

Related Items