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 I N J A P A N E S E : IMPLICATIONS  FOR MORPHOLOGICAL THEORY  by KASAH1KO NAKATA B.A.  McGill University.  1982  A T H E S I S SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in 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 of B r i t i s h Columbia) Ve a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s conforming to the r e a u i r e d  as standard  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 p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be  granted by the head of  department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r 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 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  October  /&,  Columbia  i^S^  i  DE-6  (3/81)  ABSTRACT  A ween The  number of p a s t s t u d i e s on v e r b a l compounds show t h e asymmetry s u b j e c t s ( e x t e r n a l arguments) and n o n - s u b j e c t s  same  type  observed  and  linguists, (1983), try.  o f asymmetry between s u b j e c t s and well-known (though,  such  see Bresnan 1983)  as Roeper and S i e g e l (1978),  In  this  thesis,  an attempt  in  Selkirk  has  syntax.  be a d e s i r a b l e and p l a u s i b l e move,  Lieber  f o r t h i s asymmea  principle  Moreover, i t i s argued t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g s y n t a c t i c  to  been  Several  (1982) and  i s made t o show such  can be extended t o c o v e r t h e domain of morphology. shown  arguments).  non-subjects  have proposed an independent p r i n c i p l e t o account  unnecessary.  is  (internal  bet-  is  principle  Once t h e above p r o p o s a l then  other  morphology, namely, a t h e o r y o f p e r c o l a t i o n , can be reduced  aspects  t o bare  of  minimal  - 'Percolate f r e e l y ' . The p r o b l e m a t i c case of [ V-V  ] compounds i n t h e p r e v i o u s t h e o r i e s  is  v  resolved,  again,  by  a d o p t i n g t h e p r o p o s a l made f o r s y n t a c t i c c o - o r d i n a t e  structure three-dimensional representation.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  There a r e so many people who p r o v i d e d me with so much h e l p , encouragement.  advice,  and  I have been very f o r t u n a t e t o study with such b r i g h t c l a s s m a t e s 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 b e n e f i t t e d so much j u s t from l i s t e n i n g t o them. Thank you. Thanks a r e a l s o due t o my p a s t t e a c h e r s . Dr. Sarah J . B e l l , who taught me t o be generous with new t h e o r i e s . Dr. Maseru Ka.jita who taught me t o take t h e o r i e s s e r i o u s l y , and Dr. E l a n Dresher who taught me t o r e s p e c t past and f o r g o t t e n t h e o r i e s . I wish t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. Matsuo Soga f o r s h a r i n g with me h i s knowledge o f t h e Japanese language. I am very g r a t e f u l t o L i n d a Walsh who has read some t h e s i s and g i v e n me a d v i c e , comments and c r i t i c i s m . I would l i k e ana q u e s t i o n s from  parts  o f  this  t o thank Dr. M i c h a e l Rochemont f o r h i s c h a l l e n g i n g i d e a s the s y n t a c t i c i a n ' s p o i n t o f view.  I am most i n d e b t e d t o my t h e s i s a d v i s o r . 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 p a t i e n c e a r e second t o no one's. It has been a tremendously rewarding e x p e r i e n c e working with h e r . My o n l y regret, i s t h a t t h i s t h e s i s does not l i v e up t o her s t a n d a r d , I would a l s o l i k e t o e x p r e s s my g r a t i t u d e t o Mieko Ono who has been my c l a s s m a t e , informant and f r i e n d . Finally, I would like t o thank my f a m i l y f o r p u t t i n g 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 c o u l d 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 t o e x p r e s s my gratitude as w e l i as apology f o r a l l the w o r r i e s I have caused.  iii  "  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER 1  i i i  INTRODUCTION  1  CHAPTER 2 2.1 2.1.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.4. 2.4.1. 2.4.2. 2.4.3.  2 Selkirk's Approach to Compounds A Sketch of Selkirk's Theory of Word Formation Fesetsky's Approach to Compounds Lieber's Approach to Compounds A 5ketch of Lieber's Theory of Word Formation Lieber's <1983) Argument-linking Principle The Representation of Predicate Argument Structure Farmer's (1984) Proposal Marantz' (1984) Proposal Williams' (1981: 1983: 1985) Proposal  CHAPTER 3 AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 3.1 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.3. 3.3.1. 3.3.2.  Introduction Assumptions Theory of Percolation The Predicate Argument Structure Consequences of the model proposed Compounds Conclusion and Residual Problems  BIBLIOGRAPHY  2 2 10 17 17 19 31 31 36 48 55 55 55 56 68 77 77 8 i 84  -iv-  " Q new s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h does not triumph by c o n v i n c i n g i t s opponents and making them see t h e 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 g e n e r a t i o n grows up t h a t i s f a m i l i a r w i t h i t " The Planck  Principle  "Montaigne remarked t h a t no one i s exempt from t a l k i n a nonsense; t h e m i s f o r t u n e i s t o do i t s o l e m n l y . I s h a l t h e r e f o r e a v o i d being soiemn i n t h e hope t h a t no argument need be e n t i r e l y u s e l e s s even t h e worst one might serve a d i d a c t i c purpose and be c i t e d as wrong c invalid" Wolfgang Yourgra  CHAPTER 1 Introduction S i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of Roeper and S i e g e l ' s (1978) important Lexical  Transformation  (1982),  Pesetsky  Sister  (1982) and  Principle  logical  f o r V e r b a l Compounds",  l i n g u i s t s such  L i e b e r (1983) have t r i e d  attempt  made  by  Selkirk  t o reduce the  by  these  In  l i n g u i s t s w i l l be examined  i s made t o c a p t u r e the s i m i l a r i t i e s observed  searchers  as  t o c a p t u r e the s i m i l a r i t y between s y n t a c t i c and  asymmetries o f s u b j e c t s and n o n - s u b j e c t s .  proposals  work, "A  extending  this  First morpho-  thesis,  critically, by the  the  and  previous  an re-  some of the s y n t a c t i c p r i n c i p l e s t o the domain  of  morphology. In  the  first  t h r e e s e c t i o n s of Chapter  v e r b a l compounds w i l l ject-of to  and  be examined.  t h r e e proposed  v e r b a l compounds u s i n g t h e s e p r i m i t i v e s .  examines S e l k i r k ' s p r o p o s a l and  accounts  (1982) t a k e s such n o t i o n s as  ' o b j e c t - o f as p r i m i t i v e s i n her theory and  constrain  which  Selkirk  2,  proposes  a  Pesetsky  for 'sub-  principle (1982)  re-  t r a n s l a t e s i t i n t o Government-Binding t h e o r y i n  grammatical r e l a t i o n s are taken t o be  from o t h e r p r i m i t i v e s i n the t h e o r y .  non-primitives,  i.e.  derivable  L i e b e r (1983) proposes another  different  approach i n which an independent, a d d i t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e c o n s t r a i n s the  formation  of v e r b a l compounds. The  l a s t t h r e e s e c t i o n s of Chapter  2 w i l l examine t h r e e d i f f e r e n t  sentations  o f p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e - W i l l i a m s  (1984)  Farmer  and  (1984) and  (1981  &  1985),  the consequences of t h e s e p r o p o s a l s  for  repreMarantz verbal  compounds. Chapter vious  3 c o n t a i n s an o u t l i n e of a model which s y n t h e s i z e s  proposals.  I t a l s o c o n t a i n s a new  pre-  approach t o the v e r b a l compounds  which i n the p r e v i o u s approaches have been shown t o be  - 1 -  the  problematic.  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 o f Word Formation  Selkirk  observes  that  "word s t r u c t u r e has the same  general  formal  p r o p e r t i e s as s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e and moreover, t h a t i t i s generated by the same s o r t o f r u l e system" The  morphological  from t h a t o f L i e b e r  (p.2). s t r u c t u r e S e l k i r k proposes  differs  (1980) (see S e c t i o n 3 below).  the m o r p h o l o g i c a l component  i s illustrated  significantly  S e l k i r k ' s conception  of  i n (2-1):  (2-1)  EXTENDED DICTIONARY  D i c t i o n a r y of e x i s t i n g words  L i s t o f bound morphemes  I  V Word S t r u c t u r e  The D i c t i o n a r y component c o n t a i n s (words)". they  The l i s t  constitute  Rules  "a l i s t  of f r e e l y occurring  lexical  o f bound morphemes has a s e p a r a t e component.  t h e Extended D i c t i o n a r y .  the subcomponents t h a t form "the c o r e o f t h e word s t r u c t u r e  structure syntax.  main  objective  rules She  are  of  S e l k i r k ' s monograph  context-free  Together  A s e t o f word s t r u c t u r e  d e f i n e s " t h e p o s s i b l e m o r p h o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s o f a language".  The  items  i s to  These  are  component". show  i n the same sense as the  proposes t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s f o r g e n e r a t i n g  rules  X  that  word  theory  the word  of  struc-  t u r e s of  language:  (2-2) x  n  __>  x  n  __>  where  x Y  Y  m  x  P  0 >  p  m  n  >  m,p  For compounds, S e l k i r k argues t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h e E n g l i s h compound a r e o f t h e c a t e g o r y t y p e Word.  Thus, she proposes t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e s f o r  g e n e r a t i n g E n g l i s h compounds: (2-3) X -.-> Y X where X s t a n d s f o r (Word; Noun, Verb,...} and Y s t a n d s f o r (Word; Noun, Verb,...) Coupled  w i t h t h e above g e n e r a l schema t o g e n e r a t e E n g l i s h  compounds,  she  condition:  s u g g e s t s , a d o p t i n g 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 (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 o f a l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y X i must be s a t i s f i e d within the f i r s t o r d e r 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 t h e " f i r s t o r d e r p r o j e c t i o n " i s g i v e n below: (2-5) The  first  o r d e r p r o j e c t i o n (FOP) o f a c a t e g o r y X  n  is  the  i category  X  resentation  m  t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y dominates x (i.e.,) in either  n  S-syntactic  i s s y n t a c t i c repor  W-syntactic  structure: What t h i s means, must  be  Selkirk explains,  'locally'  (1982:p.38)  satisfied,  For example.  - 3 -  i s t h a t "the non-SUBJ arguments of an item  indeed,  must  be  sisters  to  that  item."  (2-6) N = (FOP) b.  a. N  (OBJ)  pasta  N = (FOP)  N  N  eating  (OBJ)  pasta  N devouring  C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e argument s t r u c t u r e s o f ' e a t ' and 'devour' a r e shown i n (2-7) and ( 2 - 8 ) : (2-7) eat:  (AGENT, I SUBJ  THEME) I OBJ/8)  eating:  (AGENT, I SUBJ/0  THEME) I OBJ/0  devour:  (AGENT, I SUBJ  THEME) I OBJ  devourinq:  (AGENT, i SUBJ/0  (2-8) a.  The  d i f f e r e n c e between  participate an OBJ.  THEME) I OBJ  ' e a t i n g ' and ' d e v o u r i n g ' i s t h a t t h e l a t t e r  cannot  i n a compound i n which t h e f i r s t stem cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d as  Whereas ' e a t i n g ' can appear w i t h a L o c a t i v e ,  e a t i n g ' and ' r o o f - t o p - e a t i n g ' In Japanese,  f o r example,  as i n  'restaurant-  'devour' cannot. 'de-bune' (=departing boat) has t h e 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 r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e head i s l o c a t e d on t h e r i g h t - h a n d - 4 -  side.  S e l k i r k o b s e r v e s t h a t "the position)  may  not  verb or d e v e r b a l  satisfy  element on the  i t s argument s t r u c t u r e with  left its  ( i n nonhead sister  (the  head)" (1982:25).  The  r e l a t i o n t h a t the head appears t o have to the verb or  deverbal  in  the nonhead p o s i t i o n can  element  Selkirk claims  where the head of a phrase may  i t s complement(s),  pounds  o f the form  node ' V  as i n (2-9),  order  not s p e c i f y whether t h a t l e x i c a l the  configuration Now, theory  case  have i t s arguments s a t i s f i e d  (1982:25).  Note t h a t i f  were s u b j e c t  to the F i r s t  p r o j e c t i o n and  Order since  a l l non-SUBJ must  be  the  lexical  item  item  t h a t has  i s head or not,  FOPC a p p l i e s t o  those  arguments and  does  i t i s , in principle, compounds  having  one  (2-9).  the  Japanese data t h a t are of i n t e r e s t i n c o n s i d e r i n g  are presented below:  (2-10) a.  u t a - u t a i 'song' 'to s i n g '  b.  h a n a 'flower'  'flower-appreciation' m I 'to look/watch'  c.  m a d o 'window'  h u k i 'to c l e a n '  There are two  com-  'V .  the FOPC a p p l i e s t o any  necessarily  syntac-  then a l l of these compounds would be r u l e d out  would be the f i r s t  s a t i s f i e d within that Since  but not v i c e v e r s a "  [V Nljij,  Projection Condition, the  determined.  t h a t "...word s t r u c t u r e i s thus e n t i r e l y p a r a l l e l t o  t i c structure, by  pragmatically  singer  'window-washer'  p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t the t h e o r y  „  5  ,.  permits:  Selkirk's  (2-11) a.  N  b.  N  N  V  V  N  Selkirk one of  suggests  in (2-llb),  t h a t f o r a compound t o have a c o n f i g u r a t i o n such  as  the  i t must be shown t h a t some r u l e r e f e r s t o the subcomponent  the compound,  Furthermore,  V  namely,  there  [  [ N  ]  ( 3 V  3, which behaves as a c o n s t i t u e n t . V  s h o u l d be examples of z e r o - f o r m a t i o n  independently  of  compounds. Note t h a t i f the s t r u c t u r e ( 2 - l l a ) i s chosen,  S e l k i r k w i l l be  to say the v e r b a l / d e v e r b a l compounds i n Japanese are NOT FOPC  at  all.  Since  forced  c o n s t r a i n e d by  the examples i n (2-10) are grammatical  and  the  since,  a c c o r d i n g t o the FOPC, the V i s the f i r s t o r d e r p r o j e c t i o n of the verb, i t s arguments must be s a t i s f i e d There  are  speak")',  indeed  'hasiri  w i t h i n t h a t V.  words such as 'hanasi  = "run"  etc..  needs t o be a r u l e of the form N --> Note t h a t the f i n a l vowel, / i / ,  Thus, independently  of compounds t h e r e  i n t h e s e examples i s not a n o m i n a l i z e r motivated  e p e n t h e t i c vowel.  Tradi-  ( c f . J . McCawley, 1968), the Japanese verbs are grouped i n t o classes  (henceforth and  hanos- "to  V.  but i t i s a r e f l e x of an i n d e p e n d e n t l y  distinct  (verb  (verb h a s i r - = " t o r u n " ) ' , 'nokori = "remainder"  (verb nokor- = " t o remain")',  tionally,  = "story"  at the underlying l e v e l :  C-verbs) and  of r e l e v a n c e here  (1) the consonant f i n a l  (2) the v o w e l - f i n a l v e r b s .  i s the C-verbs.  What i s of  When a c o n s o n a n t - i n i t i a l  a f f i x o r stem f o l l o w s the C-verb, t h a t i s , i n the environments  ~ 6 -  two  verbs  interest level  II  [[...C3C...3  or  [C...C3 EC. . .33 ,  this  t h e e p e n t h e t i c vowel,  / i / , i s inserted.  e p e n t h e s i s i s t h a t the Japanese s y l l a b i c template does  consonant c l u s t e r s .  We assume,  following  Grignon (1983),  What causes not  tolerate  that  Japanese  has t h e f o l l o w i n g s y l l a b l e template: (2-13)  The Japanese S y l l a b l e ONSET  RIME  X  Nucleus  C Thus,  when  the  [[...C3[C...33 to  C-verbs  If, not will  are  will  (X)  V  (V/n) into  either  t h e e p e n t h e t i c vowel,  [[...C3C...3 /i/,  or  i s inserted  clusters.  on the o t h e r hand,  only  X'  inserted  frames a t L e v e l I I ,  break up t h e o f f e n s i v e  Template  t h i s vowel, / i / ,  i s t r e a t e d as a n o m i n a l i z e r ,  we l o s e a s i g n i f i c a n t p h o n o l o g i c a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ,  become n e c e s s a r y t o add another word  d e r i v a t i o n t o account f o r examples  formation  rule,  but  namely,  it zero  such as i n (2-14).  (2-14) a. b.  v sosetsu-o kaki - t a i desiderative v ' n o v e l ' ACC, ' w r i t e ' DESID. sosetsu-o k a k i - nagara 'while w r i t i n g a 'while-ing' novel...' aoaetau-o k a k i - kaketa ' about t o w r i t e a 'about t o ' novel...' v  c.  There  will  be  a t l e a s t two p o s s i b l e  theory can a s s i g n t o each o f t h e examples  - 1  structures  i n (2-14):  any  morphological  ( i ) [[[kak3i303; ( i i ) v n v  tkaki].  On t h e o t h e r hand,  v  i t may be t h e case t h a t t h e s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  frames o f t h e s u f f i x e s have t o be c o m p l i c a t e d , e.g., Thus,  i.e.,  vowel.  former  requirement,  though,  i s n o t met w i t h [N V 3  t h e [N V I compound does n o t behave a s a v e r b . v  numerous  examples  behave l i k e v e r b s . (2-15) a.  b.  d.  V  compounds,  However,  there are  of nominalized  [[CV V ] ] ] compounds t h a t do VN L e t me c l a r i f y t h e l a s t remark w i t h examples:  h i k i 'to p u l l '  -  d a s i 'to take out'  t a b e 'to e a t '  n o k o s i 'to l e a v e trans.' c. i k i - n o k o r i 'to l i v e ' ' t o remain'  Both  v  t h e f i n a l vowel o f t h e stems ending w i t h consonants i s t r e a t e d  as an e p e n t h e t i c The  ( i ) - t a i = [ [ [ l n ^ _3  o s i - i r e 'to push' 'to put i n t o '  indeed  'drawer' 'scraps of food' 'survivor' 'closet'  stems i n t h e s e compounds a r e independent v e r b s ,  h a v i n g word  status.  These can have two p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e s : (2-16) ii. N  N  V  V  For t h e s e compounds, t h e s t r u c t u r e must be ( 2 - 1 6 i i ) , s i n c e t h e subcomponent of t h e compound,  i . e . , [ [] • V  V  t i o n as i n ( 2 - 1 7 ) :  ~ 8 -  ] , seems t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r e g u l a r V  inflec-  (2-17) hiki-dasi  If  the  +(r)u  Present  hiki-dasi  +ta  Past  hiki-dasi  *(y)oo  Non-past  hiki-dasi  +tai  Desiderative  hiki-dasi  +(r)are  Passive  hiki-dasi  +(s)ase  Causative  exocentric  compounds,  we  Indicative  Indicative presumptive  s t r u c t u r e ( 2 - 1 6 i i ) were the s t r u c t u r e f o r  would need e x t r a machinery t o account f o r the  these non-nominalized  these  CVV]  behavior  of  n e c e s s i t y f o r a r e - w r i t i n g r u l e N,-->  V.  v e r b a l compounds.  Thus, t h e r e i s an independent  R e t u r n i n g t o the examples i n (2-10), they have the f o l l o w i n g s t r u c t u r e when the verb i s t r a n s i t i v e : (2-18) N  (FOP)  (OBJ)  N  V  I  (AGENT,  SUBJ  THEME)  OBJ  I I  Now,  the  [[VVlv^N e.g.  same  .  I  problem w i l l a r i s e i n L i e b e r ' s model i n s e c t i o n  compounds where both stems have ( o b l i g a t o r y ) non-SUBJ  'tabe-nokosi':  2.3  with  arguments,  (2-19) N V  =  (FOP)  V  V  tabe 'eat' (AGENT, THEME)  SUBJ  nokosi (leave) (AGENT, THEME)  OBJ  A c c o r d i n g t o the FOPC,  SUBJ  t h i s structure  OBJ  s h o u l d be r u l e d o u t :  The  obligatory  non-SUBJ argument, THEME, i n both v e r b s , cannot be s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n  the  FOP  of the compound.  2.2  Pesetsky's (1983) Approach to Compounds Having  that  the  taking  reviewed S e l k i r k ' s 8-Criterion  stems.  Criterion  Pesetsky's claim  assigned to that version  generalization,  accounts f o r the compounds t h a t  i s satisfied,  The  (1982)  i s that  Pesetsky involve  proposes argument-  i f the p o s i t i o n a l a s p e c t of the 8-  then i n compounds,  an a v a i l a b l e 8 - r o l e  must  be  position. of the 8 - C r i t e r i o n Pesetsky adopts i s the one  in  Chomsky  (1981): (2-20) "If a s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n t h a t can be 8-raarked i s o b l i g a t ory, then i t i s o b l i g a t o r i l y 8-raarked by an element t h a t 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 o f t h i s p o s i t i o n i s c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y o p t i o n a l , and w i l l a p p l y j u s t so as t o s a t i s f y the 8 - C r i t e r i o n " (Chomsky 1981, p.40) Coupled  with t h e government requirements on 8-marking,  t h a t "...where V i s u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e argument t h a t r e c e i v e s Given  the  above,  Pesetsky  observes  f o r assignment o f a 8 - r o l e ,  the  t h a t r o l e i s s i s t e r t o some p r o j e c t i o n o f V (p.35)". Pesetsky d e r i v e s  - 10 -  Selkirk's generalization  in  the  f o l l o w i n g way: (2-21)  In  a.  pasta-eating  i n trees  b.  •tree-eating  of pasta  (2-21a), 'pasta'  'Trees',  i n a compound r e c e i v e s  on t h e o t h e r hand, r e c e i v e s  a 8-role,  THEME,  from  i t s 6 - r o l e , LOCATIVE, from  'eat'.  'in*.  The  6-Criterion i s satisfied. In ever, The  (2-21b) ' t r e e ' i n t h e compound i s 8-marked, 'pasta'  cannot  Q-Criterion Are  r e c e i v e any 8 - r o l e e i t h e r from  'pasta'  i n (2-21a) and ' t r e e ' i n (2-21a)  p o s i t i o n t o s a t i s f y the 8 - C r i t e r i o n ?  nominal i n t h e compound such as ' p a s t a - e a t i n g ' the v e r b , The that  'eat' or from  How'of.  i s violated.  both  appropriate  THEME, by 'eat'.  actually  i n the  In o t h e r words,  i s the  and ' t r e e - e a t i n g ' s i s t e r  to  'eat'? answer,  according  t o Pesetsky,  i s "Yes".  "the process of morphological conversion  Pesetsky assumes ( i )  (or z e r o d e r i v a t i o n )  changes  lexical  item o f C l a s s N i n t o items o f C l a s s 0 and ( i i ) t h a t a f f i x e s such as  /-ing/  undergo a Q R - l i k e r u l e i n L F " .  like  ' t r e e - e a t i n g ' has t h e f o l l o w i n g  Thus,  at S-Structure,  a compound  representation:  (2-22) N  tree  N  eat This structure  ing  i s c o n v e r t e d t o (2-23) a t LF by a Q R - l i k e r u l e  - 11 -  2,3  :  (2-23)  V  in  1  g i  V2  tree  eat The  trace  l e f t by / - i n g / ,  subcategorization r u l e has a p p l i e d . i o n a l requirement  by s t i p u l a t i o n ,  requirement  of / - i n g / i s s a t i s f i e d  Notice that  ' t r e e ' i s now  of the 8 - C r i t e r i o n  i o n s the verb t o 8-mark  taking  the f o l l o w i n g  5UBJ  the  QR-like  The  posit-  The 8 - C r i t e r i o n  sanct-  t h a t another  generalization  traces.  arguments can never appear i n compounds.  examples:  (2-24) b.  Nl  a.  dog  N°  N2  bark  bark  - 12 -  made by  Selkirk's  w h i l e non-SUBJ arguments can appear i n compounds  items,  thus,  even a f t e r the  s i s t e r to 'V.  is satisfied.  <1982> s u p p o r t s the. e x i s t e n c e of a f f i x a l that  0,  'tree'.  Pesetsky goes on t o c l a i m  is  i s of c a t e g o r y  Selkirk  generalization with  argument-  Pesetsky g i v e s  The a f f i x a l anaphor. ment),  traces, Thus,  then  violates  ese,  i s a s u b j e c t of 'bark'  (being an e x t e r n a l argu-  the t r a c e i n (2-24b) i s f r e e i n the domain of a s u b j e c t , the  Specified  and  Subject  (1983:36)".  would Pesetsky  continued clearly,  " i f 'dog'  (1983:29), have the p r o p e r t i e s of an  P r i n c i p l e A of the B i n d i n g Theory (here,  Condition)" How  as shown by Pesetsky  to  account  f o r the Japanese  [VV]  compounds?  assume the s t r u c t u r e shown i n the p r e c e d i n g  t h e r e i s n o t h i n g Pesetsky  the f i r s t  c o u l d say about i t .  sections,  This w i l l  we then  Suppose i n Japan-  member of a compound undergoes z e r o - d e r i v a t i o n as  proposed f o r nouns i n E n g l i s h .  If  Pesetsky  y i e l d , f o r example, the f o l l o w i n g  s t r u c t u r e f o r 'tabe-nokosi' at S-structure: (2-25)  a. N  1  tabe  N  nokosi Subsequently,  2  0  the z e r o morpheme i s a d j o i n e d t o the N^- a t LF.  t h i s operation i s  (2-25b):  - 13 -  The  r e s u l t of  (2-25)  b. NO  V  tabe  2  V  nokosi Now, is  the verb  'nokos-' 8-marks 'tabe'.  The o b l i g a t o r y argument of 'nokos-'  satisfied. However,  lexical  t h i s i s a very d i s t u r b i n g a n a l y s i s .  Why  s h o u l d any c l a s s o f  items undergo t h i s " p r o c e s s of m o r p h o l o g i c a l c o n v e r s i o n " t o become  categoriless?  P e s e t s k y ' s c l a i m t h a t s i n c e the c a t e g o r y of the whole  pound i s determined  by the second  member,  the f i r s t  member o f the compound  has  the p r o p e r t i e s o f p r e f i x e s such as the c a t e g o r i l e s s  not  necessarily  Pesetsky LF,  we  motivate a p r o c e s s o f  states can  morphological  t h a t the s t r u c t u r e l i k e  c o n v e r s i o n has taken p l a c e .  conversion.  process  of  does Since into  morphological  s i n c e he assumes the framework of  Lexical  Phonology  (1981),  the s t r u c t u r e must have the s t r e s s and prominence a l r e a d y encoded.  Let  and  Furthermore,  /counter-/,  (2-21) ' t r e e - e a t i n g ' i s f e d  s a f e l y assume i n the l e x i c o n t h i s  com-  Morphology such as the one  proposed  by  Kiparsky  us see i f t h i s i s the c a s e . Given  example  the  structure  by Hayes (1982),  like  (2-21),  does not a p p l y .  form as i n (2-26):  - 14 -  the E n g l i s h  Compound  The r e s u l t i s an  rule,  for  ungrammatical  [+EX] Instead,  t h e compound has i t s main s t r e s s on t h e f i r s t member, t r e e - e a t -  ing. In compound  Japanese, must  i f i t i s t h e case t h a t t h e f i r s t member o f  undergo a p r o c e s s o f m o r p h o l o g i c a l  happens t o i t s argument s t r u c t u r e ? if  conversion,  t h e [VV] then  T h i s c l a i m cannot be m a i n t a i n e d  'tabe' i n ' t a b e - n o k o s i ' i s a s s i g n e d a 8 - r o l e then t h e f o l l o w i n g  be r u l e d o u t by t h e 8 - C r i t e r i o n b u t i t i s p e r f e c t l y  what since should  grammatical:  (2-27) tabe-nokosi  no  okasi  ' s c r a p s o f f o o d ' GEN. 'sweets' "There a r e l e f t - o v e r If  ga a r - u . NOW.  'exists-N0N-PA5T'  sweets"  'tabe' had undergone z e r o d e r i v a t i o n ,  r e c e i v e d a 9 - r o l e from  'nokos-',  then ' o k a s i ' c o u l d n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s a THEME-argument o f ' t a b e - n o k o s i ' .  - 15 -  2.3.  Lieber^s Approach to Compounds  2.3.1  A Sketch of Lieber's Theory of Morphological and Argument-linking Principle As a p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e ,  t u r e proposed logical  L i e b e r (1983) t a k e s the m o r p h o l o g i c a l  i n her d o c t o r a l t h e s i s  (1980)).  component i n g e n e r a t i v e grammar c o n s i s t s of t h r e e  redundancy r e l a t i o n s ;  struc-  Her c o n c e p t i o n of a morpho-  ( i ) a permanent l e x i c o n which c o n t a i n s l e x i c a l e n t r i e s , and  Component  sub-components:  morpholexial  rules  ( i i ) a l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e component which  con-  s i s t s of u n l a b e l e d b i n a r y b r a n c h i n g t r e e s p l u s the P e r c o l a t i o n Conventions; and  (iii)  lication, phology  a s t r i n g dependent r u l e component which c o n t a i n s r u l e s of redupinfixation,...etc.  is illustrated  S c h e m a t i c a l l y , L i e b e r ' s (1980) model of mor-  as below:  PERMANENT LEXICON CATEGORY: N  CATEGORY:  V  CATEGORY:  A  I I  v  LEXICAL STRUCTURE - L e x i c a l S t r u c t u r e Rewrite  Rule  -Feature P e r c o l a t i o n Conventions I ;  ;  y  STRING DEPENDENT RULES -Reduplication -Infixing -Umlaut etc.  As with A l l e n  (1978) and  Pesetsky  - 16 -  (1983),  L i e b e r takes l e x i c a l  seman-  tics  t o be autonomous.  which  morphological  That i s .  c o n t r a r y t o the Aronovian framework  r u l e s have a c c e s s t o semantic c o n t e n t s of  in  morphemes,  w i t h i n L i e b e r ' s model the o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the m o r p h o l o g i c a l r u l e s can refer to i s c a t e g o r i a l .  Thus, whereas A r o n o f f ' s model does not ever gene-  r a t e such s e m a n t i c a l l y anomalous words as ' r e k i l l ' model  is  semantic does  permitted feature  and  'unkili',  t o generate words t h a t may have a  s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f a f f i x and stem.  conflict  which  The  term  the ones proposed  ' s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ' here r e f e r s o n l y  Lieber  lexical  to  en-  morphological  not t o s y n t a c t i c s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frames such as  by Chomsky (1965) f o r v e r b s .  c l a i m t h a t l e x i c a l semantics  morphology  model  subcategoriza-  Stems have no such i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e i r  s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frames,  The  some  A l l a f f i x e s have i n t h e i r l e x i c a l e n t r i e s the c a t e g o r i e s t o  they a t t a c h .  tries.  in  What L i e b e r ' s  not a l l o w m o r p h o l o g i c a l r u l e s t o do i s t o v i o l a t e the  t i o n of a f f i x .  Lieber's  - has  i s autonomous - i . e . ,  s e v e r a l advantages over the one t h a t  argues t h a t the autonomy o f l e x i c a l  s e p a r a t e from  mixes  these  two.  semantics accounts f o r <1)  d i f f e r e n c e i n ' g r a m m a t i c a l i t y ' between the two s o r t s o f case - ' r e k i l l '  the and  ' u n k i l i ' on the one hand, 'unpeace' and ' r e f u s i t y ' on the o t h e r : the former is  the semantic  u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y and the l a t t e r the s t r u c t u r a l / s u b c a t e g o r -  i z a t i o n a l ungrammaticality; tically  non-compositional  (2)  the s t r u c t u r a l l y c o m p o s i t i o n a l but seman-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f such compounds as  'paleface',  'recap' and ' b l a c k b o a r d ' . Lieber one  postulates  two autonomous s e t s o f semantic p r o j e c t i o n  f o r c o m p o s i t i o n a l l e x i c a l semantics and another  lexical  semantics.  In her (1980) t h e s i s ,  lexical  semantics should look l i k e ,  of  non-compositional  she s t a t e s ,  "What a theory o f  what s o r t s of r u l e s a r e  what s o r t s o f c o n s t r a i n t s must be p l a c e d on r u l e s o f l e x i c a l questions  which  must  be answered i f we a c c e p t t h e  - 17 -  rules:  needed,  and  semantics  are  autonomy  of  lexical  s e m a n t i c s , but they a r e q u e s t i o n s which I cannot answer here L i e b e r ' s (1983) " A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  2.3.2  In  L i e b e r (1983),  ,"(1980:70)  Principle":  " A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g and Compounds i n E n g l i s h " ,  she  o b s e r v e s t h a t a number o f c u r r e n t t h e o r i e s o f s y n t a x r u l e o u t t h e overgenerated  sentences  that  lexical  those  such as (2-28a-c) by an independent p r i n c i p l e  'requiring  i t e m s which have argument s t r u c t u r e s must be a b l e t o  argument  structures  i n any t r e e  into  which  they  are  satisfy inserted  (p.257).' (2-28) a.  « John p u t .  b.  * The m a g i c i a n appeared t h e r a b b i t .  c.  * Mary  likes.  Although,  Lieber  does  assume Binding  that  not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h e p r i n c i p l e s ,  t h e 6 - C r i t e r i o n and t h e P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e  (GB) t h e o r y (Chomsky,  and  t h e Coherence  and  Kaplan & Bresnan,  article.  Since  altering  the  1981 & 1982) o r t h e Completeness  P r i n c i p l e o f L e x i c a l F u n c t i o n a l Grammar  both  of  1  will  GovernmentPrinciple  (Bresnan,  1982  1982) a r e t h e p r i n c i p l e s which she r e f e r s t o i n her GB t h e o r y and LFG p r o h i b i t any s y n t a c t i c  argument s t r u c t u r e s but p e r m i t l e x i c a l r u l e s t o  rule  from  affect  the  argument s t r u c t u r e s , i t i s o f t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l i m i t a t i o n of these argument-structure-affecting r u l e s .  Lieber's  Argument-lin-  k i n g P r i n c i p l e s makes such an attempt w i t h compounds i n E n g l i s h . L i e b e r (1983) assumes t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r (2-29) *•  axioms:  Feature P e r c o l a t i o n Conventions a.  Convention 1 All f e a t u r e s o f a stem 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 non-branching node d o m i n a t i n g t h a t morpheme.  - 18 -  Convention 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 tures, 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 dominating t h a t morpheme. c.  Convention 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 Convention 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.  Convention 4 I f two stems are s i s t e r s ( i . e . , they form a compound), 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 branc h i n g node dominating the stems.  II.  I n t e r n a l argument In the sense of W i l l i a m s (1980), a l l obligatory (i.e., lexically s p e c i f i e d ) arguments with the exception of the subject are 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 Locative as 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 argument.  III.  Semantic argument Semantic arguments are phrases which are not o b l i g a t o r y or lexically specified. 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 .  IV.  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 item. ( 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 are e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d , ument-linking Principle: (2-30) The a.  Argument-linking In  the  Liebers presents  the  Principle  c o n f i g u r a t i o n CD  I ] or [ ] I ] , where ranges () * <3 P P [^}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 v  over a l l c a t e g o r i e s  v  arguments. b.  I f a stem 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 argument of the argument-taking stem, i . e . . as a L o c a t i v e ,  Manner, A g e n t i v e , I n s t r u m e n t a l o r B e n e f a c t i v e argument. The  first  internal  p a r t <2-30a) d e f i n e s t h e s t r u c t u r a l requirement arguments must be s a t i s f i e d .  In syntax,  i n which a l l  i t i s i n the structure  <2-31a) and i n Morphology, i t i s i n t h e 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  V  b.  NP  »  i  hit  Johni  'HIT':  (Patients)  The i n t e r n a l argument o f 'HIT' and 'FOR',  PP  P  NP fi  for  Maryi  'FOR':  (Benefactivei)  P a t i e n t and B e n e f a c t i v e , r e s p e c -  t i v e l y , a r e l i n k e d w i t h t h e s i s t e r s o f t h e argument-taking and P.  (Here, t h e l i n k i n g i s shown by i n d i c e s ) .  l e x i c a l items, V  An example o f a compound  as a n a l y z e d by t h e A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e i s g i v e n i n ( 2 - 3 3 ) ^ .  - 20 -  (2-33) draw-bridge N  V  N i  draw 'DRAW: By the  C o n v e n t i o n 4, branching  internal  bridgei (Agent,  Themei)  only t h e f e a t u r e s of the right-hand  node.  The A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  Principle  stem p e r c o l a t e up t o requires  argument. Theme, must be s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n t h e compound.  On 'weave',  t h e o t h e r hand,  i n compounds l i k e 'hand^weave',  the  ^  t h e second  does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y hove t o s a t i s f y i t s i n t e r n a l  the compound,  that  stem  argument w i t h i n  s i n c e a l l t h e f e a t u r e s o f 'weave' a r e p e r m i t t e d  to percolate  up t o t h e h i g h e s t node: (2-34) hand-weave VP  V  NP i  N  V  hand  weave 'WEAVE':  (Agent,  Theme ) i  2 . 3 . 3 . Japanese Data At Japanese:  first  glance,  ( i ) [V Nltf;  t h e r e seem t o be 3 t y p e s o f v e r b a l ( i i ) [N V ] y ;  - 21 -  ( i i i ) C X Vljg.  compounds  in  I n t h i s s e c t i o n these  s e t s o f v e r b a l compounds w i l l be  revealed  be a n a l y z e d w i t h i n L i e b e r ' s model.  CV V]fj compounds.  [Verb-Noun!NOUN Compounds  These Noun]  will  t h a t t h e A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e f a i l s t o account f o r one  type o f v e r b a l compounds, namely,  2.3.2.1  It  a r e t h e compounds t h a t have t h e  which  compounds  behave  as a noun.  internal  The s i m p l e s t  constituents  a n a l y s i s of  this  [Verb  sort  of  t a k e s t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h e r i g h t - h a n d stem p e r c o l a t i n g up t o t h e  uppermost node.  Thus, c r e a t i n g a c o n f i g u r a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e d  below:  (2-35)  N  V  [  This  N  ]  [  V  ]  N  group must then adhere t o t h e A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e .  The exam-  p l e s o f t h i s group a r e such as t h e ones i n (2-36): (2-36) a.  b.  i r e 'to put i n ' k a i 'to buy'  -  c u e 'to p l a n t '  z u m i 'ink'  'tatoo'  m o n o 'thing(s)'  'shopping'  k i 'tree'  'potted  plant'  The second stem o f each compound above may s u r f a c e as d i r e c t - o b j e c t o f t h e preceding  verb:  (2-37) a.  sumi - o ACC.  ire-ru  'X puts i n k i n '  Non-Past  b.  mono - o  kaw-(r)u.  'X buys t h i n g s '  c.  ki  ue - r u .  'X p l a n t s t r e e s '  - o  22  These examples i n v o l v e t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s where o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l  arguments  must  Principle  be  correctly  s a t i s f i e d w i t h i n t h e compound.  The  Argument-linking  a c c o u n t s f o r t h e s e examples.  There a r e some c a s e s i n which t h e f i r s t stem i s i n t r a n s i t i v e these  v e r b s do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e second stem s a t i s f y t h e f i r s t p a r t  the A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g (2-38) a. b. The  that i s  second  of  Principle.  de 'to depart'  -  b u n e 'boat'  'departing  n a k i 'to c r y '  -  g o t o 'complaint' 'matter/fact'  boat'  stem i n t h e s e compounds shows up w i t h a  'so-called'  semantic  p o s t p o s i t i o n "de" i n s y n t a x : (2-39) a. b.  hune - de  de-ru  'X l e a v e s by boat'  (sono) k o t o - de n a k - ( r ) u . 'that'  'X c r i e s because o f that matter/fact'  In (2-39) 'koto' i s i n t e r p r e t e d as t h e cause o r an i n s t r u m e n t a l . The meaning o f t h e compound, ' n a k i - g o t o ' , seems t o obey A l l e n ' s (1978) " V a r i a b l e 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 C o n d i t i o n In t h e p r i m a r y compound  " Pi "  " <*1 "  - o<n - A J  where r  i s t h e s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t o f 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  tand  X  cx,  Pi  i s t h e semantic c o n t e n t o f B i n terms of h i e r a c h i a l semantic f e a t u r e s  $m sue h t h a t <* n  x  =  pV  the meaning of X ranges from -*! 1  to  $  m  (t<  l • • -^n*  (h . . . P > n  ( 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 t h e V a r i a b l e R C o n d i t i o n  as f o l l o w s :  What t h e V a r i a b l e R C o n d i t i o n s t a t e s . . . i s t h a t t h e range of p o s s i b l e and i m p o s s i b l e 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 o f t h e compound e l e m e n t s . " (Walsh 1981:16) Thus,  the  V a r i a b l e R C o n d i t i o n p r e d i c t s t h e p o s s i b l e and  meanings o f t h e N-N compounds such as w a t e r - m i l l as f o l l o w s :  - 24 -  impossible  (2-41) a.  possible mill  impossible  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 g r i n d s water water m i l l l o c a t e d near t h e m i l l which d r i n k s water water m i l l f o r a n a l y z i n g t h e m i l l made out o f c o n t e n t o f water water m i l l where t h e m i l l which s e a r c h e s employees d r i n k water f o r water ( A l l e n 1978:92) Thus,  one  o f t h e p o s s i b l e meanings t h e V a r i a b l e R C o n d i t i o n p r e d i c t s f o r  compounds  such  as ' n a k i - g o t o ' would be something  like  'the  matter/fact  which X c r i e s about'. However, leaves  by/on'.  leaves'. the  'de-bune' The  in  (2-38a) cannot be i n t e r p r e t e d as 'the boat  meaning  The second stem,  o f 'de-bune'  i s more l i k e  'the boat  X  that  'hune (=boat)', then, r e f e r s t o t h e s u b j e c t o f  verb, 'de (=to d e p a r t ) ' , as i n (2-42): (2-42) Hune - ga  de-ru.  'The boat l e a v e s '  NOM. The  o b s e r v a t i o n made above i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with L i e b e r ' s  o n l y t h e i n t e r n a l arguments p a r t i c i p a t e i n compound f o r m a t i o n . however, the  claim  that  There a r e ,  s e v e r a l o t h e r s t h a t seem t o have t h e r i g h t - h a n d stem r e f e r r i n g t o  s u b j e c t o f t h e argument-taking item: (2-43) a.  b.  t o b i 'to f l y '  -  n a g a r e 'to f l o w '  c. , k a r e 'to dry up' (intransitive)  h i 'fire'  'flying-fire'  d a m a 'bullet'  'rampant b u l l e t s ' (loose t r a n s l a t i o n )  k i 'tree'  'dried-up t r e e '  - 25 -  The  r i g h t - h a n d stems o f t h e above examples can appear o n l y as s u b j e c t s w i t h  these  verbs. (2-44) a.  Hi  - ga/»o/»de/*ni t o b ( r ) u . 'The f i r e NOM./«ACC/"MANNER/«DAT.  flies'  b.  Tama - ga/*o/«de/«ni n a g a r e - r u 'The b u l l e t s f l o w '  c.  Ki  -  P e r l m u t t e r and  ga/*o/*de/*ni k a r e - r u . 'The t r e e d r i e s up' P o s t a l (1978) h y p o t h e s i z e  that there  a r e two t y p e s o f  i n t r a n s i t i v e p r e d i c a t e s ( v e r b ) : ( i ) " u n e r g a t i v e " : p r e d i c a t e s have a s u b j e c t at t h e i n i t i a l s t r a t u m ; the  initial  ( i i ) "unaccusative":  stratum.  p r e d i c a t e s have no s u b j e c t a t  The c r i t e r i o n f o r c l a s s i f y i n g t h e s e 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, a c c o r d i n g t o P e r l m u t t e r and P o s t a l , t h e meaning o f t h e p r e d i c a t e .  For i n s t a n c e ,  one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f u n e r g a t i v e  p r e d i c a t e s i s t h a t t h e i n i t i a l s u b j e c t i s always Agent, C o g n i z e r encer.  On  t h e o t h e r hand,  subject completely. nition, verbs  the unaccusative  p r e d i c a t e s l a c k an  These p r e d i c a t e s r e p r e s e n t  a c t i o n s without agents,  or E x p e r i initial  " s t a t e s not i n v o l v i n g cog-  e t c . (1978:40)".  Note t h a t t h e Japanese  i n examples (2-38a) and (2-43) f a l l i n t o t h e c l a s s o f " u n a c c u s a t i v e "  p r e d i c a t e s d e s c r i b e d by P e r l m u t t e r and P o s t a l . W i t h i n t h e framework o f Government B i n d i n g (Chomsky 1981-82), (1982)  Burzio  makes t h e 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 o f v e r b s . (2-45) Burzio's Generalization: For a v e r b V i , i f V i a s s i g n s Case t o an NP i t d i r e c t l y marks, then V P i 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  ' e r g a t i v e ' v e r b s i n B u r z i o ' s framework. lization  i n later  'unaccusative' We w i l l  sections with respect t o  - 26 -  verbs  are  8-  called  r e t u r n t o B u r z i o ' s genera-  Japanese  'unaccusative  (or  ergative)  verbs'.  I t w i l l be shown i n Chapter 3,  h o l d s f o r t h e s e v e r b s i n Japanese. these  Burzio's Generalization  F o r t h e time b e i n g , I w i l l assume t h a t  a r e unaccusative verbs having only t h e i n t e r n a l  arguments  and no  e x t e r n a l arguments. In  Chapter 3,  when t h e m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f L i e b e r ' s A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  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 s u p p o r t t o t h e c l a i m t h a t some  i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b s i n Japanese a r e indeed " u n a c c u s a t i v e " .  2.3.3.2.  [Noun-Verb! Noun Compounds  T h i s c l a s s i s r a t h e r more p r o d u c t i v e than the one above.  Examples i n  (2-46) show some compounds o f t h i s t y p e : (2-46) a.  By  u t a  'song'  u t a i 'singer' 'to s i n g '  h a n a 'flower'  m i 'flower-appreciation' 'to l o o k / w a t c h '  m a d o 'window'  h u k i 'window-washer' 'to wipe'  h i z a 'knee'  g e r i 'to k i c k '  y a m a 'mountain'  n o b o r i 'mountain-climbing' 'climb'  t h e Right-hand  'knee-kick'  hypothesis (Williams,  (2-46) s h o u l d have t h e f o l l o w i n g  1981),  each o f t h e compounds i n  structure:  (2-47)  [  According t o L i e b e r ,  ]  [  ]  i n t h i s s t r u c t u r e t h e verb normally l i n k s i t s obliga„ 27 -  t o r y arguments " o u t s i d e " t h e compound. passed  on t o t h e h i g h e s t node,  syntax,  then  argument.  the f i r s t  S i n c e a l l f e a t u r e s of t h e verb a r e  t h e e n t i r e compound can appear as a verb i n  stem can and must be i n t e r p r e t e d as  ' But none o f these compounds can appear as verbs  a  semantic  independently.  They must have a dummy v e r b , /&-/ ^, a t t a c h e d t o them i n o r d e r t o appear i n syntax  as v e r b s .  'yaraa-nobori-suru The  reason  F o r example,  'mado-huki-suru  f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h e compound f o r m a t i o n i n preparation).  the end o f t h e v e r b s occur o n l y a t L e v e l I I . /-ru/,  compound  attachment.  syntax.  Furthermore,  p l a c e at  The e p e n t h e t i c vowel, At t h i s p o i n t ,  a v e r b a l element t o f u n c t i o n as a  Thus.  takes  verb,  / i f , at  t h e non-past  i s located at Level I i s i n a c c e s s i b l e .  The m a j o r i t y o f t h e elements  t o a r e Noun.  two  which  needs  and  <= t o mountain-climb)'.  L e v e l I I (Shaw and Nakata,  suffix  (= t o window-clean)'  hence  Thus, the the fs-f  t h a t t h e dummy verb, s-, a t t a c h e s  t h e compounds i n (2-46) a l l f u n c t i o n as nouns i n  we must amend t h e s t r u c t u r e proposed  i n (2-47).  There a r e  p o s s i b l e s t r u c t u r e s t h a t t h e theory permits'. (2-46)  Notice  t h a t both s t r u c t u r e s (2-48a-b) a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e  Principle highest  since node  Argument-linking  a l l t h e f e a t u r e s o f a verb cannot p e r c o l a t e  i n order t o s a t i s f y  pound.  - 28 -  up  t o the  i t s argument s t r u c t u r e o u t s i d e t h e com-  There  i s another s e t o f compounds t h a t w i l l  shed some l i g h t on  which  i s more l i k e l y t o be the s t r u c t u r e f o r (2-43): (2-49) a.  n o r i - o r i 'to r i d e ' 'to descend'  ' g e t t i n g on and o f f  b.  w a k a 'young'  'premature death'  c.  t a b e 'to e a t '  (2-49o-c)  - z i n i 'to d i e ' - n o k o s i 'to l e a v e '  ' s c r a p s (of f o o d ) '  do not c o n t a i n any nominals and n e i t h e r the f i r s t  second stem can appear  as a noun i n syntax i n d e p e n d e n t l y .  stem  nor  The o n l y way  theory p e r m i t s them t o c o n v e r t t o nouns i s by z e r o - a f f i x a t i o n .  The  the the  struc-  t u r e f o r the compounds i n (2-49) i s as f o l l o w s : (2-50) a.  N  [[ ]fl ( )  C ]  v  V  OJ  N  R e t u r n i n g t o the compounds (2-46) then, they have the s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t e d in  (2-48b).  However,  the problem  does not s t o p here.  N o t i c e i n (2-50),  the embedded v e r b s are both s u b j e c t t o 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 . compounds l i k e that  (2-49a),  when both verbs are i n t r a n s i t i v e ,  For  L i e b e r suggests  the second p a r t o f the p r i n c i p l e " h o l d s o n l y i f the f r e e stem i s of a  c a t e g o r y which can a c t as an argument (p.265)." a s t r u c t u r e such as the one  i n (2-50b):  - 29 -  However, t h i s accounts f o r  (2-50)  b. V  V  V  [ Within  this  structure  transitive.  3  V  i f the f i r s t stem and  the  second  stem  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o c l a i m t h a t " s i n c e they s h a r e the same  structure,  same  noun...(1983:265)". it  £  v  even  ment  syntax  ]  is  structure. uppermost  node  percolate  up  argu-  they can somehow s a t i s f y t h a t argument s t r u c t u r e w i t h S i n c e the whole compound i s s t i l l  r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e r e be an NP t h a t  The  are  satisfies  a  the  verb,  the  in  argument  s i t u a t i o n i s not i d e n t i c a l w i t h Japanese i n (2-50a).  The  is  not  not "V",  therefore,  to t h i s p o s i t i o n .  Then,  the f e a t u r e s of a verb the head verb i n  can  (2-50a)  cannot  s a t i s f y i t s argument s t r u c t u r e ' o u t s i d e ' the compound. In will  the a l t e r n a t i v e model developed i n Chapter 3 t h e s e  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  s y n t a c t i c c o - o r d i n a t e s t r u c t u r e proposed by L a s n i k and Kupin liams  (1978) and  2.4  The  There ture  (PAS)  Lightfoot  Representation  to  (1977;,  the Wil-  (1983). o f P r e d i c a t e Argument S t r u c t u r e p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c -  must be r e p r e s e n t e d .  o n l y t h r e e here w i t h i n  I w i l l present  or G B - l i k e framework.  be t e s t e d a g a i n s t L i e b e r ' s A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  proposed PASs a r e c o m p a t i b l e  2.4.1  compounds  have been s e v e r a l p r o p o s a l s as t o how  Government-Binding (GB) will  V-V  Each of the t h r e e P r i n c i p l e t o see  w i t h the A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  a  proposals if  the  Principle.  E § E i ? ? l § 11984). proposal  According  to  Farmer (1984),  - 30 -  " 8 - r o l e s . . . a r e argument s l o t s  in  PAS,  nothing and  more."  For example, she r e p r e s e n t s  transitive  verbs such as ' l o v e '  'want' as f o l l o w s : (2-52) a.  love:  (  (LOVE  )>  b.  want:  (  (WANT  ))  Following external she  Williams  (1981),  Farmer  assumes t h a t " . . . s u b j e c t  argument and o b j e c t an i n t e r n a l argument  "(1984:205/n8)  does not assume t h a t " . . . l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e s u n i v e r s a l l y have  v e r s u s e x t e r n a l arguments..."(1984:205/n27)  is  an  .though, internal  .  For Japanese, Farmer g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g examples: (2-52) aruk)  intransitive  tabe) e.  (  According  transitive  aqe)  'to walk' 'to e a t '  ditransitive 'to g i v e ' (Farmer's p.47 (2.65))  t o these examples, Japanese does not seem t o have the e x t e r -  nal-internal distinction. syntactic representations  However. with  on pp.48-49,  she g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g  PASs:  (2-52') c'.  V  d'.  V  NP-ga  NP-gai  NP-nii  <• Bfii <NIj Qk age)) pp. 48-49:(2.69))  - 31 -  The  a r g u m e n t - s l o t s with  internal  parentheses with  this i s after  'S'  '0' and/or 'NI'  their  r e s p e c t i v e head v e r b s .  Assignment had  applied.  (2-52c-e> to be the c o r r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s for  i n the  I w i l l assume t h a t  However, I w i l l take the P A S s i n of p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e  Japanese. Farmer s t a t e s , r e g a r d i n g  predicates (p.47)".  has  an  argument  these PASs such  as i n (2-52),  s l o t t h a t w i l l be c a l l e d  For E n g l i s h , i n most cases,  the s u b j e c t . is  i n <2-52d'-e'> e n c l o s e d  the  "Each of these subject  the e x t e r n a l argument corresponds to  However, f o r Japanese, s i n c e the n o n - c o n f i g u r a t i o n a i  adopted by Farmer,  a s s i g n the s u b j e c t  slot  she  must,  siot  therefore,  i n PASs of Japanese,  analysis  need an a d d i t i o n a l d e v i c e which she  c a i i s ""5'  to  Assign-  ment" . (2-53)  '5'  Assignment  Assign '5' t o the l e f t - m o s t argument. If this argument cannot be a s u b j e c t f o r some reason, then a s s i g n ' 5 ' to any other argument. ( A l l PAS's - that i s both innermost and outermost P A S ' s - are s u b j e c t t o the p r i n c i p l e ' ) (p.66-7) From with  (2-53)  Jackendoffs  the argument s l o t s are s t r i c t l y ordered (1977).  This  i s a necessary consequence  system f o r Japanese s i n c e Japanese i s c o n c e i v e d the C a s e - l i n k i n g r u l e s apply  as i s  directly  - 32  case  Farmer's  as n o n - c o n f i g u r a t i o n a i  to the PASs.  -  in  the  and  The overview of Farmer's model f o r Japanese i s g i v e n below: (2-54) LEXICAL COMPONENT PRINCIPLES: PERMANENT LEXICON  a.  'S' Assignment  contains: a.  L i s t o f nondecomposable items L e x i c a l e n t r i e s (e.g. PASs) Device of semantic l i n k i n g (e.g. k a r a , n i )  b. c.  P r i n c i p l e s of WORD FORMATION and o p e r a t i o n s on PASs  REGULAR CASE LINKING RULES e.g., e.g.,  (GA, NI, 0 ) (GA, (NI, 0 tabe) sase) S S I  Note  that  the 'S' assignment p r i n c i p l e i s p r e v a l e n t a l l through  l e x i c o n o f Japanese. role  in  sensitive morpheme assign  a  Thus, the 'S' assignment p r i n c i p l e p l a y s an important  t h r e e subcomponents of the l e x i c o n .  Word  t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f 'S' i n the PASs. in new  paaaivization  Japanese '5'  the  formation  For example,  i s a b l e t o e r a s e the p r e v i o u s l y  t o the next r i g h t m o s t argument  i n Japanese i s g i v e n below:  - 33 -  slot.  rules  the p a s s i v e  assigned An  are  'S'  example  and of  (2-55) <1>  '5' P r i n .  <  tabe) S  (2)  WF  <  tabe) r a r e ) S  (3)  '5' P r i n .  <  tabe) r a r e ) 0  How  does  Since  5  L i e b e r ' s Argument-linking  Principle f i t into  Farmer's  a l l argument s l o t s o f PASs i n Japanese a r e i n t e r n a l ,  the  system? Argument-  l i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t s t h a t any o f these argument s l o t s can p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounds. tion  is  However,  not c o r r e c t .  as the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s have shown, t h i s p r e d i c A c l o s e r look r e v e a l s t h a t the argument  a s s i g n e d t o i t does not seem t o appear i n compounds. t i o n of L i e b e r ' s Argument-linking  Thus,  with  'S'  the m o d i f i c a -  P r i n c i p l e may have the f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e :  (2-56) (c)  (2-56c)  i f t h e r e i s no i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l d i s t i n c t i o n i n the p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e , then a l l o b l i g a t o r y non-'S'-assigned arguments must be s a t i s f i e d i n compounds. will  predict  t h a t the examples i n (2-38a)  (2-43)  and  are  ungrammatical s i n c e w i t h i n Farmer's t h e o r y t h e r e i s only one k i n d of i n t r a nsitive Also,  verb  v i z . what P o s t a l and P e r l m u t t e r  (1978)  call  "unergative".  (2-56c) w i l l r u l e out a l l compounds with d e r i v e d c a u s a t i v e verbs such  as the ones g i v e n i n ( 2 - 5 7 ) : 7  (2-57) a.  h i t o - s a w a g + 'person'  (s) a s e = people  agitatemake'  'to agitate+CAUSE'  b.  o y a 'parent'  c.  yu  n a k + (s) a s e = parent-cry-make' ' t o cry+CAUSE'  - w a k +  (s) a s i = hot w a t e r - b o i l make'  'hot water' ' t o boil+CAUSE' Each o f t h e verb stems i n (2-57) i s i n t r a n s i t i v e .  - 34 -  W i t h i n Farmer's t h e o r y .  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) < ___ S Unlike  < ___ S  VERB)  the p a s s i v e morpheme,  viously  assigned  uniformly  'S'.  The  CAUSE) t h e c a u s a t i v e s u f f i x does not e r a s e the prei n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the nominals i n  t h a t of the "causee" and not of the " c a u s e r " .  (2-57)  Then,  is  the  con-  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 t o the '5' w i l l be u n t e n a b l e  since  s t r a i n t i n (2-56c) cannot account f o r t h e s e f a c t s .  it  will  lead  t o the f o l l o w i n g paradox:  since there i s  no  " u n e r g a t i v e " v e r b s and the " u n a c c u s a t i v e " v e r b s  distinction  between  the  in  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.  If  UNER&ATIVE verb  UNACCUSATIVE verb  *n a k i - o y a 'cry' 'parent'  ok  a k i - s u 'open' 'nest' = 'burglar'  »k a c i - s e n s u 'win' 'player'  ok  u k i - y o ' f l o a t ' 'world'* 'floating world'  « i k i - h i t o 'go' 'person'  ok  w a k i - m i z u 'gush' 'water'= 'spring-water'  one t r i e s t o r u l e out the examples i n (2-59a) by s a y i n g t h a t any  ment w i t h 'S' cannot p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounding, 59b)  (2-  must be r u l e d o u t , a l s o . In  sis,  then the examples i n  argu-  t h e a l t e r n a t i v e approach proposed i n P a r t I I I o f t h e p r e s e n t  the-  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. The  H a r a n t z l (.1984) P r o p o s a l model  Harantz  (1984) proposes d i f f e r s from - 35 -  Farmer's  (1984) i n  several respects. receives  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  i t s s e m a n t i c r o l e by v i r t u e o f o c c u p y i n g a p a r t i c u l a r s l o t i n t h e  predicate  argument s t r u c t u r e v i a  indexation.  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 t o other c o n s t i t u e n t s . Thus,  when t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s appear i n t h e p r e d i c a t e argument  'already  bear t h e i n d i c a t e d s e m a n t i c r o l e s ' .  ( i ) l e x i c a l items (verbs, cates;  nouns,  case,  and  they  assigners are  adjectives);  ( i i ) predi-  ( 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 .  unmarked verbs  prepositions,  Semantic-role  slots,  In t h e  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  prepositions)  semantic r o l e .  a s s i g n s i t s d i r e c t argument  one  and  only  An i n d i r e c t argument o f a v e r b , f o r example, though  i n t h e p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e (PAS),  i s assigned  to one  listed  a semantic r o l e by  a preposition. Marantz  introduces  [•transitive].  The  two  feature  lexical  features,  C+logical  subject]  [ ^ l o g i c a l s u b j e c t ] , which i s r e l e v a n t o n l y at  logico-semantic  structure,  function  arguments t o a p r e d i c a t e can a s s i g n an a d d i t i o n a l  from  and  i n d i c a t e s whether o r not t h e verb which names a semantic  r o l e t o t h e c o n s t i t u e n t which t h e p r e d i c a t e i s p r e d i c a t e d o f . On t h e o t h e r hand,  i f t h e 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 a s s i g n s a  syntactic  role.  Marantz  c l a i m s t h a t o n l y v e r b s and p r e p o s i t i o n s may  [ • t r a n s i t i v e ] and a d j e c t i v e s and nouns may n o t . Marantz' model o f grammar i s s c h e m a t i z e d i n (2-60): (2-60) 1-s  <  Move A l p h a surface structure phonological  structure  structure  - 36 -  a general  s structure  principle  be  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 c o u p l e of examples: (2-61)  The  a.  Elmer gave a porcupine t o Hortense.  b.  A p o r c u p i n e was  verb  ' g i v e ' has  g i v e n t o Hortense by  a l e x i c a l representation  l e x i c a l representation  Elmer.  (2-62a) and  (2-62b)  is  the  of ' g i v e ' a f t e r the a f f i x a t i o n of a p a s s i v e morpheme  /-en/: (2-62) a. g i v e  :  b. give+en  Thus,  the  t i o n given  (i) (ii) (iii)  (theme, g o a l ) [+transitive] /glv/  [+logicaI  subject]  : (i) (ii) (iii)  (theme, g o a l ) C-transitivel /glv+En/  [-logical  subject]  c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e s f o r (2-61) t h a t d e r i v e from the i n (2-63) w i l l  have the f o l l o w i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s  ture :  ' 37  -  at 1-s  informastruc-  (2-63)  a.  VP  P  was g i v e n The roles  semantic-role to  a porcupine assignors,  to  Hortense  NP  by  Elmer  '(was) g i v e ( n ) ' and ' t o ' ,  'porcupine' and 'Hortense',  respectively.  assign  The  semantic  assignment  of  semantic r o l e s obeys one condition®: (2-64) I f X bears a semantic r e l a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o Y, then X and Y must be s i s t e r s a t 1-s s t r u c t u r e . X and Y a r e s i s t e r s i f they a r e immediately dominated* by t h e same constituent node. Harantz g i v e s t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f immediate  -  38  ~  domination**:  (2-65) Immediate  Domination*  X i s immediately i t i s immediately  b.  i t i s immediately dominated* by a l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y node t h a t i s immediately dominated* by Y or  c.  i t i s immediately dominated* by a node Y' t h a t i s immediatel y dominated* by Y, where Y' and Y are o f i d e n t i c a l category type  'give(n)',  immediate  the NP,  Before  ing  p e r m i t s the NP  i s intervening.  'porcupine'  and  the  The verb  sisters.  theory of grammar,  First,  'porcupine', bears a semantic r e l a t i o n t o the  (2-65b)  going i n t o how  a n a l y z e d by  by Y or  note t h a t the l e x i c a l c a t e g o r y ' V  domination*  ' g i v e ( n ) ' t o be  dominated*  by Y i f f  a.  Although i n (2-63), verb,  dominated*  v e r b a l compounds are a n a l y z e d  i t i s necessary t o show how  within  Marantz'  c a u s a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s are  Marantz. Marantz argues t h a t any morpheme t h a t has s e m a n t i c - r o l e a s s i g n -  features  or argument s t r u c t u r e s must have an independent  tuent s t r u c t u r e .  i-s  consti-  He p o s t u l a t e s a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e as i n (2-66):  (2-66) Principle I f a l e x i c a l item a s s i g n s a semantic r o l e or has an argument s t r u c t u r e , i t i s an independent c o n s t i t u e n t at 1-s s t r u c t u r e What morpheme  this in  p r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t s f o r s e n t e n c e s with verb p l u s  Japanese  i s t h a t a t 1-s s t r u c t u r e ,  a n a l y z e d as b i c l a u s a l as shown i n (2-67):  - 39 -  causative  causative  sentences are  (2-67) S  NP  VP  CAUSER  S  V  NP  VP  CAUSEE  V  verb For  Japanese,  the verb and  "merge" at s s t r u c t u r e . a t l e a s t two (2-68) a.  b.  possible  With r e s p e c t  morpheme,  Marantz,  of "merger', t h e r e  above c l a i m  are  ^:  At 1-s s t r u c t u r e , some non-derived forms may be inserted, i.e., s t e m s / r o o t s and a f f i x e s w i l l have independent, separ a t e c o n s t i t u e n t s t r u c t u r e s , or at 1-s  structure,  derived  f i r s t option,  forms may (2-68).  He  be  decomposed  states.  two ( l e x i c a l ) c o n s t i t u e n t s a t any l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c analysis may c o r r e s p o n d t o a s i n g l e d e r i v e d c o n s t i t u e n t at the next l e v e l  b.  a l l affixation i s lexical  c.  the r e s u l t s of a f f i x a t i o n , d e r i v e d some l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s  inserted  at  S i n c e each l e v e l of s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s i s generated i n d e p e n d e n t l y ,  and  (Marantz,  there  according to  t o the n o t i o n  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o the  Marantz seems t o take the (2-69) a.  the c a u s a t i v e  -sase-  is  words, are  1984:222-223)  no p r i n c i p l e p r o h i b i t i n g n o n - d e r i v e d words from  into syntactic representations  , 40  and  -  the  being  Merger P r i n c i p l e governs the  inserted mapping  of r e l a t i o n s and necessary. Strong i n the  constituents,  Note t h a t the non-decompositional a n a l y s i s does not  L e x i c a l i s t H y p o t h e s i s which r e s t r i c t s word f o r m a t i o n lexicon.  I f the merger r e l a t e s , say,  of s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s t o one word f o r m a t i o n Returning theory  taking place  two  v i o l a t e the  to take  place  c o n s t i t u e n t s at one  level  c o n s t i t u e n t at another l e v e l , then t h e r e  i s no  i n syntax a t a l l .  t o the main theme of  this  thesis,  'Compounds',  Marantz'  accounts f o r most of the compounds i n v o l v i n g argument-takers without  Lieber's  (1983) Argument L i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e .  an argument-taker, then  the d e c o m p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s <2-S8a) i s not  A and  and  For example, i f A i n (2-70) i s  i f B bears a semantic r e l a t i o n to A, or v i c e  B must be s i s t e r s by the p r i n c i p l e g i v e n  statement t h a t must be  left  and  so  The  only  from L i e b e r ' s Argument L i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e i s  which says t h a t a f r e e stem must be mental, B e n e f a c t i v e  i n (2-64).  versa,  (b)  i n t e r p r e t a b l e as Manner p h r a s e . I n s t r u -  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 d e s c r i b e d that  P r i n c i p l e (2-66) which s t a t e s t h a t any  ment  s t r u c t u r e or a s s i g n s  constituent.  a semantic r o l e i s an  item  t h a t has  independent 1-s  Recall an  argu-  structure  I f t h i s i s so, then compounds such as the ones i n (2-57),  of which i s repeated here as t i o n a t 1-s  lexical  above.  (2-71a),  structure:  - 41  -  must have the f o l l o w i n g  one  representa-  (2-71) a.  oya-nak-ase  'parent-cry-make'  oya One  o f t h e problems posed by t h e compounds o f t h e type i n  exemplified dominated  sase  by?  by t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n There seem t o be two  (2-72) a.  i n (2-71).  possibilities:  X  oya  oya  NP  VP  1  I  2  - 42 ~  What i s t h e  nak  sase  (2-67)  verb,  is  /nak-/,  Note t h a t the VP a n a l y s i s , two  i.e.,  /nak-/ dominated by VP,  i s r u l e d out  on  grounds: (2-73) ( i)  the m o r p h o l o g i c a l s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n t a k e s a verb  (ii)  Marantz assumes t h a t "the c a u s a t i v e p r o p o s i t i o n a l arguments (1984:264)"  r e q u i r e s t h a t the s u f f i x  verbs and a f f i x e s  By the same token, the s t r u c t u r e i n (2-72a) i s r u l e d out by at 1-s s t r u c t u r e the c a u s a t i v e However, condition Marantz'  to  it  seems  rule  out  (2-72b).  Bahasa Indonesian.  a p p l i e d and c a u s a t i v e  t o have a  (2-73i) i s not a s u f f i c i e n t The support f o r t h i s  a n a l y s e s of a p p l i e d verb c o n s t r u c t i o n s  in Chi-Mwi:ni,  surface  that  morpheme i s r e q u i r e d  (2-73ii),  Kinyarwanda.  view  necessary comes  But at 1-s  from  constructions  In these languages,  morphemes never appear as independent  s t r u c t u r e - they are bound morphemes.  since  propostion. and  and c a u s a t i v e  take  the  c o n s t i t u e n t s at structure,  as  shown below, these bound morphemes are on a par with f r e e morphemes ( l o o s e ly speaking,  "words"):  - 43 -  (2-74) a.  Chi-Mwi:ni A p p l i e d verb c o n s t r u c t i o n s t r u c t u r e (=Marantz' 7.14:p.232) S  NPi  a t 1-s  VPi  Hamadi - p i k 'cook' Hamadi  'food'  O-wa-pik-il-ile 5P-0P--cook-APPL-T/A  children  food  'Hamadi cooked food f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' b.  Malayalam  causative  construction  a t 1-2 s t r u c t u r e  7.94:o.277) Si  NPi  acchan father-NOK  VPi  kuttiy  kara  child-ACC  cry  'Father made t h e c h i l d c r y '  44 ~  -ik'k' CAUSE  (=Marantz'  Thus,  only  the  r e l e v a n t a t 1-s  p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e and structure.  the c a u s a t i v e morpheme, w i t h i n Marantz'  Therefore,  /-sase-/,  and  subject]  are  i n Japanese, the compounds i n v o l v i n g  must have the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n (2-72b)  theory.  L e t us look a t the l e x i c a l affix  [^logical  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the verb,  the d e r i v e d c a u s a t i v e verb of  the  causative  (2-57b) - 'oya-nakase':  (2-75) a.  nak-  'cry >  •  (i> Morph. ( i i ) 1-s (iii) s str. ( i v ) Phono.  C-N, +V] (0) [+log. subj.] [-transitive] /nak-/  sase 'CAUSE' : (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)  Morph. [-N, + V] [[V] 1-s (caused), [+log. s s t r . [+transitive3 Phono, /-sase-/  nak + sase 'cry-make' : (i) Morph. [-N, +V] ( i i ) 1-s ('cause' (2 nak [+log. subj.] ( i i i ) s s t r . C+transitive] ( i v ) Phono, /nak+sase/ Both the verb, subject],  /nak-/,  that  additional  is,  semantic  the  and  the c a u s a t i v e a f f i x ,  p r e d i c a t e s they  r o l e s to t h e i r  ] sub}.]  (0)))  /-sase-/,  produce at 1-s  respective  like  in  subjects.  (2-72b) a t s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e due t o the  P r i n c i p l e which i s s t a t e d i n  [+logical  structure  s u b j e c t of the c a u s a t i v e morpheme i s not n e c e s s a r i l y p r e s e n t ture  are  assign  However, i n the  Surface  the  struc-  Appearance  (2-76):  (2-76) The  Surface  Appearance P r i n c i p l e  A c o n s t i t u e n t X w i l l appear i n the s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e t r e e by v i r t u e of b e a r i n g a r e l a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o 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 t h e other  hand,  the subject  structure since i t i s , causative lexical  suffix  item,  by s t i p u l a t i o n ,  - that i s ,  namely,  o f t h e r o o t verb, Z, must appear a t s u r f a c e e x c e p t i o n a l l y head-Governed by the  Z bears a s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n with r e s p e c t  /sase-/.  to a  I f so, then Z must NOT be p h o n o l o g i c a l l y  absent. One linked  way t o g e t around t h e above problem i s t o say t h a t Z i s with t h e noun o u t s i d e  Lieber's and  the p r o p o s i t i o n ,  Note t h a t  Argument L i n k i n g P r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e l i n k i n g between  'oya' i s ungrammatical s i n c e  /nak-/.  S i n t h i s case.  somehow  Within  Marantz' t h e o r y ,  'Z' i s t h e e x t e r n a l one must allow  argument o f the  'Z' verb  e x t e r n a l arguments of vert-  stems with a f f i x e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounding. The not  only  l i n k i n g mechanism proposed above i s necessary f o r Marantz' f o r Japanese but a l s o f o r E n g l i s h .  p l e s from L i e b e r (2-77) a. b.  theory  C o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g exam-  (1963):  draw-bridge, p i c k - p o c k e t , a f t e r - b i r t h , under-arm,  push-cart under-belly  Both s e t s o f examples i n (2-77) have t h e 1-s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s  given  i n (2-  78) : (2-78) a.  b. N  N  S  0  N  V  NP  draw  A  bridge  - 46  PP  after  N  B  birth  Since the verb stem and c o n s t i t u e n t s A and  B,  the p r e p o s i t i o n have an o b l i g a t o r y argument and  the  both of which have semantic r e l a t i o n s t o the verb  and  the p r e p o s i t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , an argumentmust appear i n the s u r f a c e t u r e by the S u r f a c e The will  struc-  Appearance P r i n c i p l e .  alternative  approach p r e s e n t e d i n P a r t 3 of the  adopt s e v e r a l of Marantz' i n s i g h t f u l o b s e r v a t i o n s  present  thesis  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) Williams assignment signs  (in  Jackendoff's  t o Y,  (1977)  subcategorized  the  1985)  i s dependent on the n o t i o n  a 8-role  Williams  class lecture,  then X and proposal  proposal proposes t h a t the  of ' s i s t e r h o o d '  Y must be  immediate  of " . . . a s s i g n i n g  - that i s i f sisters.  a l l and  phrases t o the X complement i n deep  thematic  only  argument',  However,  must be o u t s i d e  one  strictly  structure...  (p.58)",  argument which W i l l i a m s  inserted calls  of the verb and The  'external  form shown i n  argument s t r u c t u r e  (PAS)  The  8-  That i s ,  to the maximal p r o j e c t i o n  t u r n s the verb phrase i n t o a one-place  predicate  under  of the maximal p r o j e c t i o n of the head.  index on the e x t e r n a l argument p e r c o l a t e s up  as-  Following  r o l e assignment of the e x t e r n a l argument i s done by p r e d i c a t i o n . the  X  the  assumes t h a t a l l i n t e r n a l arguments of a verb are  X single-bar.  role  Williams  predicate. proposes i s  of  the  in  the  (2-80):  (2-80) Verb: Williams  ( 8 i , 82,  ..8 ) n  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  PAS  are not  the  grammar.  l a b e l e d and What  thematic r o l e l i s t e d  is  have no p s y c h o l o g i c a l  nor  semantic c o n t e n t  r e l e v a n t f o r the r u l e s of grammar  i n the PAS  - 47  i s d i f f e r e n t from the o t h e r .  -  is  that  within each  These thema-  tic is  r o l e s are ' r e a l i z e d ' derived  from  i n syntax by the f i x e d  the verb-independent  s e t of  list  of environments which  rules  called  'realization  rules': (2-81) (=Willlaraa A:  ( Xy,  (198l:<17)))  2 > W  where X and Z a r e major c a t e g o r i e s and y and w are either p r e p o s i t i o n s or case f e a t u r e s , and A i s one of the argument types (p.88) For example,  i f a verb t a k e s a Goal argument,  t i o n r u l e f o r Goal should look something l i k e  in English, a realiza-  (2-67):  (2-82) Goal: Since "Goal  (NP,  PPto>  the r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e i s realized  as PPto  i n  (2-82) has no r e f e r e n c e t o VP,  i t implies that  a l l E n g l i s h c a t e g o r i e s (1984:88)".  the r e a l i z a t i o n of the e x t e r n a l argument i s not s u b j e c t t o the rules  since  the r e a l i z a t i o n of an e x t e r n a l argument  Note t h a t realization  ( i f t h e r e i s one)  is  dependent on the r u l e s of p r e d i c a t i o n . What determines role  all  t h i s amounts t o w i t h i n W i l l i a m s ' system i s t h a t the verb  the assignment of 9 - r o l e s .  assignment d i f f e r s from  Note t h a t W i l l i a m s ' c o n c e p t i o n of  Marantz' i n t h a t a l l arguments of a verb  t r e a t e d on a par with each other i n W i l l i a m s ' (except f o r the e x t e r n a l  alone 8are argu-  ment) whereas Marantz t a k e s an asymmetric view of arguments - i . e . , not a l l arguments have an equal s t a t u s i n PAS. arguments tions).  are On  s t r u c t u r e and those  of  A l s o , w i t h i n Marantz' t h e o r y , some  a s s i g n e d 8 - r o l e s by o t h e r means ( f o r example, the o t h e r hand,  W i l l i a m s ' c o n c e p t i o n of  by  preposi-  predicate  argument  the i d e a s behind the " r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s " are q u i t e s i m i l a r  Joan  Bresnan's  in  Marantz' book  - 48 -  (1984:p.l9):  to  (2-83) "...direct and i n d i r e c t arguments (of Marantz' /MN) are a l l a s s o c i a t e d with e s s e n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t s l o t s i n a predicate argument s t r u c t u r e some s l o t s may be l i n k e d b y semantically u n r e s t r i c t e d grammatical f u n c t i o n s l i k e s u b j e c t object, while o t h e r s are l i n k e d to s e m a n t i c a l l y restricted functions l i k e oblique object, marked by v a r i o u s prepositions. For an argument p o s i t i o n t o be l i n k e d t o a semantically r e s t r i c t e d grammatical f u n c t i o n , the argument occupying t h a t p o s i t i o n must bear a semantic r o l e a p p r o p r i a t e to the r e s t r i c t i o n . For example, i n order f o r an argument of a verb t o be a s s o c i a t e d with the o b l i q u e from-object f u n c t i o n , i t must bear the s o u r c e - r o l e " (Marantz It  will  be shown l a t e r that W i l l i a m s ' r e a l i z a t i o n r u l e s make  p r e d i c t i o n s f o r Japanese, where Marantz' theory Now,  since  (1983) and  Williams,  Marantz (1984),  l i k e Pesetsky  for straightforwardly.  theory.  Williams'  causative s u f f i x  theory  - i.e.,  Also.  has  S e l k i r k (1983"),  and  has  pointed  u n l i k e the problems seen  in  the nominal i n EN V - s a s e l x  E[VV]  i s i n t e r p r e t e d as  out  the  0] compounds, however, the same problem t h a t N  i n c l a s s l e c t u r e t h a t t h e r e are 1 0  two  :  argument i s a s s i g n e d ( i ) e x a c t l y one 8 - r o l e (11) no more than one 8 - r o l e  2) Every  the  complex-verb.  (2-84) Williams' 8-Criterion Every  Marantz'  c o r r e c t l y accounts f o r compounds i n v o l v i n g  Chomsky's (1982) 8 - C r i t e r i o n  1)  Lieber  E N V ]JJ are accoun-  been r a i s e d i n p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s a l s o a r i s e s w i t h i n W i l l i a m s '  Williams  fails.  (immediate) s i s t e r h o o d f o r  [ V N ]N  'causee' s i n c e i t i s an i n t e r n a l argument of the With r e s p e c t t o the  correct  of 8 - r o l e assignment  (1983),  r e l i e s on the n o t i o n  8 - r o i e assignment, compounds of the form, ted  (1964:p.l9))  8-role i s assigned  (to e x a c t l y one  ( i ) t o an argument ( i i ) t o no more than one  - 49  argument)  argument  theory. parts  to  One as  of the p r o b l e m a t i c examples f o r any v e r s i o n of 8 - C r i t e r i o n  is  repeated  (2-85): (2-85) kuruma  no  ' c a r / v e h i c l e ' GEN.  nori-ori  no  'get o n - o f f  GEN.  toki 'time'  "the time of the g e t t i n g on and o f f of a v e h i c l e " The  verb, /nor-/  namely, other  Goal, hand,  (=to get o n / r i d e ) , t a k e s one o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l as  i n 'kuruma n i nor-u'  the verb,  /ori-/  (=get on t o the v e h i c l e ) .  (=to get o f f / d e s c e n d ) ,  i n t e r n a l argument as i n 'kuruma kara o r i - r u '  vehicle).  Then,  'kuruma ( = v e h i c l e ) ' i s a s s i g n e d two  'kuruma' i s both Source  and G o a l .  On  has Source  obligatory  i.e.,  argument,  as  the its  (=get o f f from  the  8 - r o l e s i n (2-85)  T h i s l e a d s t o 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 a n a l y s i s , W i l l i a m s ' Q - C r i t e r i o n i s maintained. One claims two  last  remark on W i l l i a m s ' theory of morphology:  that "...morphological  ways...  a r u l e can e i t h e r  r u l e s can a l t e r argument s t r u c t u r e  (1981) in  only  (a) e x t e r n a l i z e an i n t e r n a l argument or  i n t e r n a l i z e the e x t e r n a l argument... t i o n ' and  Williams  (p.91)"  An example of  (b)  'externaiiza-  ' i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ' i s g i v e n i n (2-86):  (2-86) a.  Externalization  (i)  E(Th):read  (ii) b.  E (0)  (A, Th)  : see  (A, Th)  > readable > seen  (A,  Th)  (A, T h ) ~  Internalization  (i) (ii)  I(Th) : V (A) ---> Vsase (A, Th=A) K G ) : V(A > Vsase (A, G=A ( W i l l i a m s (1981: pp.93-4 & p.100))  Williams' than  claim  here e x c l u d e s a l l m o r p h o l o g i c a l  e x t e r n a l arguments.  C a r l s o n and  Roeper  However,  (1980): - 50 -  rules that  affect  c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g examples  other from  (2-67)  John •John John John  a. b.  c.  d. e. f.  Bob  gh.  Bob •Bob Bob  1.  The  s i t u a t e d B i l l i n the f r o n t room. situated B i l l resituated B i l l r e s i t u a t e d B i l l i n the f r o n t room (C&R's (9) p.125) m i s - c a l c u l a t e d t h e time of our a r r i v a l . • t h a t we would a r r i v e a t 9 O'clock. (C&R's (14) p. 129) ran. ran B i l l outran B i l l . (C&R's (16) p.131)  examples (2-87a-d) show t h a t t h e a f f i x a t i o n o f / r e - / makes an  t o r y i n t e r n a l argument. claim not  Locative,  of ' s i t u a t e ' i n t o an o p t i o n a l one.  t h a t i n t h i s case the p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase, an argument but an a d j u n c t .  the c r e a t e d  verb, 'mis-calculate',  argument.  The  obliga-  The  ' i n the f r o n t room'  C&R is  examples i n (2-87e-f) i n d i c a t e t h a t  cannot take a p r o p o s i t i o n a l theme as i t s  examples i n (2-67g-i) show t h a t 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, only  the  contrary  to Williams'  e x t e r n a l argument,  claim that a morphological r u l e  there  seem t o be a number  of  affects  morphological  r u l e s t h a t do a f f e c t i n t e r n a l arguments. If  t h e s e 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 l o s e the e x p l a n a t i o n is,  the e x t e r n a l argument o f a r o o t verb can p a r t i c i p a t e i n compounds be-  cause root  f o r those compounds with V+sase - t h a t  the  causative  a f f i x has i n t e r n a l i z e d the e x t e r n a l argument  of  verb. Notice  t h a t these morphemes a r e p r e f i x e s and a l t h o u g h they a f f e c t the  verb's i n t e r n a l arguments they do not change t h e e x t e r n a l arguments i n way. ting  the  We  any  may h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t i f a language has argument s t r u c t u r e a f f e c -  s u f f i x e s then i t may not have argument s t r u c t u r e a f f e c t i n g  or v i c e v e r s a .  Of c o u r s e , t h i s i s s u b j e c t  - 51 -  to empirical t e s t i n g .  prefixes,  FOOTNOTES 1.  I am g r a t e f u l t o P r o f . M. Rochemont f o r these examples.  2.  Pesetsky (1983: f n l 5 ) suggests t h a t " . . . l e s s s t r i c t sisterhood requirements hold..." a t " S - s t r u c t u r e " t o s a t i s f y the P r o j e c t i o n Principle. Another suggestion made by Pesetsky i s t h a t "Sstructure" f o r words might be misnamed;...syntactic 9 - r o l e s a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y a s s i g n e d . . .  3.  The t r e e s t r u c t u r e o f ' r e s t a u r a n t - e a t i n g ' i n which t h e verb does not have an o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l argument i s e x a c t l y t h e same as 'pasta-eating' i n which 'pasta' i s i n t e r p r e t e d as Theme o f 'eating'.  4.  The e x t e r n a l argument i s u n d e r l i n e d  5.  L i e b e r ' s c l a i m can be s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d as f o l l o w s :  i n PAS.  The argument-taker s a t i s f i e s i t s o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l argument(s) either w i t h i n t h e compound o r o u t s i d e t h e compound i n which case the s i s t e r t o t h e argument-taker i n the.compound must be i n t e r p r e t a b l e as a semantic argument. 6.  / s - / i s c o n s i d e r e d as a "dummy v e r b " o n l y s e m a n t i c a l l y , since i t does not a f f e c t t h e meaning o f t h e l e x i c a l item i n any way nor does i t add or s u b t r a c t arguments of a nominalized v e r b .  7.  In (2-57c),  8.  Note t h a t even i f 5 i s not t h e maximal p r o j e c t i o n S=INFL, these c o n d i t i o n s p r e d i c t c o r r e c t o u t p u t s .  9.  The Merger P r i n c i p l e (Marantz, 1984:227)  the causative  suffix  i s /-sas-/.  See Kiyagawa o f V.  '1980). i.e.,  When X and Y merge, t h e argument s t r u c t u r e of t h e d e r i v e d word X + Y i s t h e argument s t r u c t u r e of X a p p l i e d t o t h e argument s t r u c t u r e o f Y, or t o Y i t s e l f , o r t h e argument s t r u c t u r e of Y a p p l i e d to t h e argument s t r u c t u r e o f X and t o X i t s e l f . Where t h e merger of X and Y e x p r e s s e s t h e r e l a t i o n s ( s ) between X-h and Y-h (cons 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 ) , t h e 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 c o n s t i tuents between X and X-h and between Y and Y-h i n c o n s t i t u e n t structure a r e determined by examining t h e i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e of the d e r i v e d word X+2. 10.  Williams ( i n c l a s s l e c t u r e , UQAM 1985) has p o i n t e d out that (283:2) may be t o o s t r o n g due t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n made by Roeper i n t h e u n p u b l i s h e d paper. F o r example, (i) John promised B i l l a r a i s e , (ii) John promised B i l l . Assuming that the verb, 'promise', has t h r e e arguments i n its PAS, (AGENT, THEME, GOAL), and t h e s e t h r e e 8 - r o l e s a r e assigned i n ( i ) as AGENT = 'John', THEME = ' r a i s e ' , and GOAL = ' B i l l ' , 0C r i t e r i o n (2 i ) w i l l r u l e out t h e example ( i i ) above.  - 52 -  Roeper c a l l s t h i s m i s s i n g argument an " I m p l i c i t  - 53 -  argument".  CHAPTER 3 AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH 3.1. I n t r o d u c t i o n The  model o f p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e o u t l i n e d  i n t h i s chapter i s  a s y n t h e s i s o f s e v e r a l l e a d i n g i d e a s p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter 2 and In  the  assignment  3.2.1.  model developed here t h e r e i s o n l y one  principle  elsewhere. of  governing both the m o r p h o l o g i c a l and s y n t a c t i c components.  Assumptions  The p a r t i c u l a r hypotheses adopted by the p r e s e n t model f o l l o w . W i l l i a m s ' v e r s i o n of the 8 C r i t e r i o n i n f o o t n o t e 10 (3-1)  a.  b.  i s a x i o m a t i z e d with the p r o v i s o g i v e n  Every argument i s a s s i g n e d  The assignment  e x a c t l y one 8 - r o l e no more than one 9 - r o l e  Every 8 - r o i e i s a s s i g n e d t o i. ii.  e x a c t l y one argument no more than one argument  of 8 - r o l e i s c o n s t r a i n e d by the Immediate S i s t e r C o n d i t i o n  i s a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f Marantz' (3-2)  First,  (Chapter 2 ) :  i. ii.  which  8-role  a.  (1984):  The Immediate S i s t e r C o n d i t i o n I f X bears a semantic r e l a t i o n with r e s p e c t t o 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.  Definitions  of immediate  domination*  X i s immediately dominated* i. ii.  iii.  by Y i f f  i t i s immediately dominated  by Y or  i t i s immediately dominated* by category node t h a t i s immediately by Y or  a lexical dominated*  i t i s immediately dominated* by a node Y' t h a t i s immediately dominated* by Y, where Y' and Y are o f i d e n t i c a l c a t e g o r y t y p e .  - 54 -  As with W i l l i a m s ali  strictly  first-bar  (1985).  subcategorized  projection  of the  I will  accept J a c k e n d o f f s observation  i n t e r n a l arguments must be verb i n syntax as the  inserted  First-Bar  that  under  the  Stipulation  in  (3): (3)  The  First-Bar  Stipulation  All s t r i c t l y s u b c a t e g o r i z e d i n t e r n a l arguments must appear w i t h i n the f i r s t - b a r p r o j e c t i o n of the verb or the argumenttaker i n syntax. The  first-bar stipulation will  object construction  in English  r u l e out as  in  the  popular a n a l y s i s  of the  double-  (4):  (4)  VP = V  V  NP  gave Furthermore,  the  John first-bar stipulation will,  (1983) b i n a r y b r a n c h i n g a n a l y s i s  - 55  of  -  Japanese.  a  key also,  r u l e out  Hoji's  (3-5)  One current  other  aspect, of the p r e s e n t model t h a t d i f f e r s from  m o r p h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s i s t h a t v e r b s do not have  g o r i z a t i o n frames as s t a t e d i n the Aspects model thesis, the  Pesetsky  (1982) shows t h a t the s t r i c t  A s p e c t s model and  5',  AP,  PP,  strict  (Chomsky 1981:10)"'.  the  subcate-  1965),  In h i s  s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frames i n  i n subsequent models do not meet the  epistemological p r i o r i t y NP,  (Chomsky,  most of  "condition  Syntactic categories  such  s m a l l c l a u s e s , e t c . , are not "concepts t h a t can be  of as  plausib-  l y assumed t o p r o v i d e a p r e l i m i n a r y , p r e l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s of a reasonable s e l e c t i o n of p r e s e n t e d d a t a , t h a t i s t o p r o v i d e the primary that  linguistic  a r e mapped by the language f a c u l t y t o a grammar (Chomsky,  Pesetsky  d e r i v e s the e f f e c t s of s t r i c t  tems o f grammar,  such as Case t h e o r y ,  (ref.  1979,  Grimshaw,  1981).  s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n from  1981:10)".  other  B - c r i t e r i o n and semantic  data  subsys-  selection  For example those s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frames  shown i n (3-6) can be p r e d i c t e d by Case t h e o r y : (3-6)  (HP) a.  If  a  verb i s s p e c i f i e d as  complement as i n (3-6a). complement must be  \s  I  b-  S'  [^transitive] ,  c.  NP  i t can have e i t h e r an NP or  I f the verb i s [ - t r a n s i t i v e ] and  specified  S'  for a  (maybe i n i t s p r e d i c a t e argument s t r u c t u r e ) , then the complement  (3-6b).  I f the verb i s [ + t r a n s i t i v e ] ,  - 56 -  i t must n e c e s s a r i l y have an  NP  complement. If  should  we  assume t h a t verbs do not have s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  be  able  t o maintain  which i s proposed i n the  frames.  the d i s t i n c t i o n between' a f f i x  and  t h e n  we  non-affix  immediately f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .  Theory of P e r c o l a t i o n  3.2.2.  There are a t l e a s t two  d i f f e r e n t proposals  of f e a t u r e p e r c o l a t i o n :  (3-7) i.  S e l k i r k ' s (1982) P e r c o l a t i o n  a.  I f a head has a f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n [ F ^ l . node must be s p e c i f i e d C Fj.j , and v i c e v e r s a .  b.  I f a non-head has a f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n t F ] ] , and the head has the f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n [ u F j ] , then the mother node must have the f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n [ F j ] . ( p . 76:3.20)  ii. a.  Lieber's  (1980 fi. 83)  Feature  =u, i t s mother  P e r c o l a t i o n Convention  Convention I 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 , percolate to the f i r s t non-branching node dominating that morpheme.  b.  Convention II All features of an affix morpheme, i n c l u d i n g category features, p e r c o l a t e to the f i r s t branching node dominating t h a t morpheme.  c.  Convention I I I If a branching node f a i l s t o o b t a i n f e a t u r e s by Convention I I , f e a t u r e s from the next lowest l a b e l e d node 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 the u n l a b e l e d branching node.  d.  Convention  IV  If two stems are s i s t e r s ( i . e . , they form a compound), features from the right-hand stem p e r c o l a t e up to the branching node dominating the stems. (1983:252-3:(3)) The tion  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  c o n c e r n s the n o t i o n of head.  - 57 -  Within  systems of p e r c o l a -  Lieber's theory  of  morphology.  there  i s no mention of  'head',  Whereas f o r S e l k i r k (1982) t h e  'head' . 1  i s a necessary term s i n c e her theory  Furthermore,  she  explicitly  examples as i n (3-8)  are  concept,  of P e r c o l a t i o n r e l i e s o n  it.  that  such  uses the concept,  'head',  to c l a i m  exocentric:  (3-8) a. d.  cutthroat saw bones  b. e.  pickpocket cutpurse  c. f.  scarecrow daredevil (p.26: (2.17))  Selkirk  explains that "Cutthroat  someone  who  English w i i i assigning  cuts throats  mous l e x i c a l  suggests  but  rather  t h a t "...the grammar o f  i n c l u d e a statement s p e c i f i c t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,  as mentioned i n 2.0,  i n (3-8)  the  appropriate  26)".  on the other  hand, argues f o r a n  semantics t o account f o r the n o n - c o m p o s i t i o n a l  of compounds such a s  (3-8)  She  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o the whole (p.  Lieber,  concept  (p.26)".  a throat,  the verb-argument i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o the p a r t s and  exocentric  The  does not d e s i g n a t e  without the concept of  autono-  interpretation  'head'.  i s s u e t o be addressed here i s whether i t i s necessary to have t h i s i n theory  have  no  of grammar.  'heads',  Since  S e l k i r k claims  t h a t the e x a m p l e s  i t cannot be a c o n f i g u r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n a b l e  Observe the f o l l o w i n g l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e of  - 58  -  (3-8a):  in  term.  (3-8) a.  cutthroat Ni  If,  N2  cut  throat  as S e l k i r k c l a i m s ,  properties the  Vi  "a word s t r u c t u r e has  as s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e ,  same  and  moreover,  the same g e n e r a l that  s o r t of r u l e system," then the d e f i n i t i o n of  structure  s h o u l d not  be any  For example, J a c k e n d o f f (3-9)  i t i s generated 'head' of  d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of a s y n t a c t i c  (1977) g i v e s the  D e f i n i t i o n of  formal  f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n of  a  by  word  structure. 'head':  'Head"  the head of a phrase of c a t e g o r y X can be d e f i n e d in two d i f f e r e n t ways, e i t h e r as the X "* t h a t i t dominates, or as the lexical category at the bottom of the entire configuration. n  n  (Jackendoff 1977:30) If  S e l k i r k ' s observation  "the  same g e n e r a l  should that  formal p r o p e r t i e s " ,  have a 'head' as d e f i n e d within  where  t h a t word s t r u c t u r e and  W-  syntax the  n < 0.  r u l e s has  then each of the examples i n  i n (3-9).  Note t h a t  Selkirk  the f o l l o w i n g s e t of  share (3-8)  stipulates  upper bound f o r the c a t e g o r y X i s f i x e d as  R e c a l l i n Chapter 2,  been g i v e n  syntactic structure  phrase  X, n  structure  from S e l k i r k ' s monograph.  (2-2) x  n  X  n  _> m  Y  x  ->  Y  p  p  X  m  Where 0 > n > The  head of a word from  nition  i n (3-9).  m:p  (2-2),  i s d e r i v a b l e by a p p l y i n g  Jackendoff's d e f i -  I f i t i s the case t h a t S e l k i r k wants to m a i n t a i n - 59  -  the  similarity  between word s t r u c t u r e and  that  the  examples i n (3-8)  given  i n (3-9) Why  have no  s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e then  "heads' makes J a c k e n d o f f ' s  5 e l k i r k wants t o c l a i m t h a t the examples i n (3-8)  compounds  must be  isomorphic,  compositional  i n other  compound  is  compound  i s exocentrically derived.  morphology and  the  claim  that  formai  properties.  mitted,  i.e.,  If l e x i c a l  the c a t e g o r i a l head  i f the  meaning  contrary  of the c o m p o s i t i o n a l i t y  'head'  not  S i n c e t h i s i s not  a  in  to S e l k i r k ' s o r i g i n a l general  above i s  of the sentence,  per-  phrasal  derived.  s e m a n t i c s were isomorphic with l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e ,  paradox  of  then that  the  of the s o r t d e s c r i b e d  those compounds S e l k i r k p r e s e n t e d i n (3-8)  is  non-headed  s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e share the same  In syntax nothing  regardless  words,  are  From the above view,  'head' i n syntax d i f f e r ,  c a t e g o r i e s are e n d o c e n t r i c a l l y  structure  definition  then the compound i s headed; i f not,  word s t r u c t u r e and  bracketing  claim  'sd absurdium'.  i s because of her commitment t h a t the semantic head and of  her  c a s e s such as  should  be e x o c e n t r i c  'ungrammaticality',  isomorphic with semantics,  should  where also  but the  be  rules,  only  a l l the lexical  exocentric.  the case i n S e l k i r k ' s model, i . e . , the b r a c k e t i n g  c a s e s are generated by r e g u l a r Word S t r u c t u r e  not  paradox  i t i s inconsistent  to  c l a i m t h a t compounds t h a t have n o n - c o m p o s i t i o n a l 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 L i e b e r  'non-headed'  compounds such as i n (7),  s p e c i f i c t o them (p.25-26)". the  regular  but t o the  compound  Thus,  formation  language-particular  (1980), suggests t h a t  her  are " i n t e r p r e t e d by semantic r u l e s t h e s e compounds must be generated  r u l e without any  reference  t o the  l o c a t i o n - i . e . , whether r i g h t - h a n d  by  'head' or  left-  hand . The  next task  f o r the theory  i s t o determine whether.the concept, 'head' i s necessary  of P e r c o l a t i o n .  - 60  However, b e f o r e  -  going i n t o P e r c o l a t i o n , l e t  ua  look  a t the l e x i c a l  Lieber's  entry of the a f f i x  i n both  Selkirk's  (1982)  and  (1980) frameworks:  (3-9) i.  Lieber's a. b. c. d.  (1980)  The c a t e g o r y and c o n j u g a t i o n item Phonological representation Semantic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n Subcategorization  or d e c l e n s i o n c l a s s of an  (p.35) ii.  S e l k i r k ' s (1982) a.  b. c. d.  I t s category (involving a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of (level A f ) and o f i t s c a t e g o r i a l f e a t u r e s , and d i a c r i t i c ) I t s s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frame I t a meaning Phonological representation  i t s type syntactic  (p.5) Given t h a t t h e a f f i x to  which  'head'.  i t attaches,  i s s p e c i f i e d f o r i t s category  and f o r i t s  sister  i t would be redundant f o r P e r c o l a t i o n t o r e f e r  L e t me i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t with  to  examples:  (3-10) a.  X  b.  Y  x  x  y  CC 3y] X  The l e x i c a l 'dog',  s t r u c t u r e i n (3-10a) i s necessary  'happy', o r ' e a t ' , e t c .  f o r mono-morphemes,  Thus, whether t h e stem,  bare or a f f i x e d , i t must have t h e s t r u c t u r e r e p r e s e n t e d other hand,  no a f f i x can have t h e (3-10a) s t r u c t u r e ,  " 61 -  such  as  i n (3-10a-b), i s i n (3-10a).  On the  s i n c e t h e a f f i x must  always  have a s i s t e r .  representation  Since  (3-10a) i s not t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  f o r an a f f i x with i t s own c a t e g o r y t o be i n s e r t e d  Bust be i n s e r t e d i n t o a b i n a r y The  the s t r u c t u r e  percolation  b r a n c h i n g t r e e such as t h e one i n (3-10b).  mechanism need not r e f e r e i t h e r t o the 'head' as i n  S e l k i r k ' s or t o t h e a f f i x o r t h e stem as i n L i e b e r ' s lation  into, i t  i f we view t h e  as moving some s e t o f f e a t u r e s t o a node i n t h e t r e e .  perco-  The sugges-  t i o n made above t a k e s one o f t h e two f u n c t i o n s o f S e l k i r k ' s P e r c o l a t i o n given of  i n (3-7):  the  head  as  Not o n l y does S e l k i r k ' s P e r c o l a t i o n p e r c o l a t e the f e a t u r e s up t o t h e mother node but i t a l s o a c t s as a  c o n d i t i o n ensuring  that the subcategorization  of an a f f i x  well-formedness  i s observed.  I  assume t h a t L i e b e r ' s P e r c o l a t i o n Conventions a l s o have these two p r o p e r t i e s since  they  ensure t h a t t h e p e r c o l a t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e s of  affixes  takes  precedence over t h e p e r c o l a t i o n o f the f e a t u r e s o f stems. The namely. tion,  proposal  made  Percolate  freely,  call  sentation  here i s that P e r c o l a t i o n has only  one  function,  and s u b j e c t t o a c e r t a i n well-formedness  i t "the generalized  condi-  p r o j e c t i o n p r i n c i p l e " m o n i t o r i n g the r e p r e -  a t each l e v e l o f a n a l y s i s .  (3-11) a.  Percolation Percolate  b.  freely  The G e n e r a l i z e d  Projection Principle  2  Representation a t each l i n q u i s t i c l e v e l a r e p r o j e c t e d the permanent lexicon, i n that they observe s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s o f l e x i c a l items. The  proposal  here,  then,  i s d i f f e r e n t from L i e b e r ' s and  For L i e b e r , P e r c o l a t i o n i s a s e t o f of well-formedness c o n d i t i o n s . freely', in  that i s .  conventions.  from the  Selkirk's.  For S e l k i r k , i t i s a s e t  Here, P e r c o l a t i o n i s proposed as " P e r c o l a t e  P e r c o l a t i o n i s viewed as a r u l e which i s a l r e a d y  syntax.  - 62 ~  needed  Let me g i v e some examples o f what has been proposed i n t h i s so f a r .  In t h e model proposed,  context-free  rewriting rules,  These r u l e s generate u n l a b e l e d  subsection  t h e r e i s only one s e t of c a t e g o r y - n e u t r a l such as t h e one proposed by L i e b e r  b i n a r y branching  (1980).  trees:  (3-12)  As with 5 e l k i r k and L i e b e r , based in  t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between a f f i x and n o n - a f f i x i s  on whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r  i t s lexical  entry:  lexical  item has a  a f f i x e s are inherently  subcategorization  specified  for  sisters,  whereas n o n - a f f i x e s a r e n o t . The  category  specification  i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e f e a t u r e s ,  S e l k i r k ' s and L i e b e r ' s modeis. will  look something l i k e  The l e x i c a l  [ + N , + V ] , as i n  e n t r i e s o f a f f i x and n o n - a f f i x  i n (3-13):  (3-13) i.  affix:  ii.  According serves  two  a.  Category  [ j;N,  *V]  b. c. d.  Subcategorization [..._] or [_...] Semantic i n f o r m a t i o n Phonological information  non-affix: a. b. c.  Category [ +N, +V] Phonological information Semantic i n f o r m a t i o n  t o Pesetsky  (1985),  purposes:  t h e s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frame o f an a f f i x  i t i n d i c a t e s t h e p o s i t i o n a l requirement  and t h e  c a t e g o r i a l requirement o f i t s s i s t e r t o which t h e a f f i x a t t a c h e s .  What i s  r e l e v a n t f o r morphology i s o n l y t h e ' p o s i t i o n a l ' requirement. gorial'  requirement i s r e l e v a n t a t t h e l e v e l o f L F .  sky's (1985) h y p o t h e s i s  with no argument•  - 63 -  I will  The  'cate-  accept  Peset-  The  overview of the proposed model i s given  below:  (3-14) a.  The category-neutral context-free rewriting generate u n l a b e l e d b i n a r y branching t r e e s 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 i n t o the u n l a b e l e d b i n a r y branching t r e e s , e.g.,  happy c.  operat  ness  ive  operat  ive  ( i i . ) Vietnamese  B  might  items  For compounds, as L i e b e r (1980:1983) observes, there i s a language-specific statement as t o whether the r i g h t - h a n d or the l e f t - h a n d stem p e r c o l a t e ' s i t s f e a t u r e s t o the mothernode, e.g., ( i . ) English/Japanese  It  will  Percolation (Percolate f r e e l y ) which i s s u b j e c t to the G.P.P., w i l l p r o p e r l y d i s t r i b u t e f e a t u r e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s onto t r e e nodes, e.g..  happy d.  ness  rules  A be o b j e c t e d  B t h a t i n c a s e s such as  - 64 -  A  A B 'happiness' and  'opera-  tive',  t h e argument(s) o f t h e stem i s (are) not s a t i s f i e d , thus, l e a d i n g t o  the v i o l a t i o n o f t h e ( G e n e r a l i z e d ) well-known and w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d ability and  Projection P r i n c i p l e .  However, i t i s a  f a c t t h a t c e r t a i n a f f i x e s have the i n h e r e n t  t o a l t e r t h e argument s t r u c t u r e o f t h e argument-taker as i n  (2-86).  The prime example  i s the p a s s i v e  morpheme.  (2-85)  The p a s s i v e  mor-  pheme makes t h e o b l i g a t o r y a g e n t i v e argument an o p t i o n a l one i n E n g l i s h and in  t h e d i r e c t (as opposed t o i n d i r e c t o r a d v e r s a t i v e )  For  example,  passive  o f Japanese.  (3-15) a.  John k i l l e d  b.  Bill  c.  John ga NOM.  Bill  a.  Bill  (John n i ) K o r o s - ( r ) a r e - t a . by PASSIVE  The verb steiss, to  addition feature  Bill.  was k i l l e d  ga  'kill'  (by John). o ACC.  and 'koros-',  externalizing  of the verb, the p a s s i v e  (Generalized)  linguistic  analysis.  that i s relevant.  the  arguments.  In  case-assigning  morphology o p t i o n a l i z e s t h e a g e n t i v e arguargument.  P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e l o o k s a t the r e l e v a n t  level  of  In morphology, i t i s t h e word, not t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s , What t h i s means i s t h a t ,  Projection Principle w i l l argument  have two o b l i g a t o r y  no argument and a b s o r b i n g  ment which used to be the e x t e r n a l The  Korosi-ta. 'Kill-PAST'  f o r example,  i n p a s s i v e , the  look a t t h e mother node which c a r r i e s t h e a l t e r e d  structure.  R e t u r n i n g t o the o r i g i n a l examples, have t h e f o l l o w i n g  lexical  structures:  - 65 -  'happiness' and ' o p e r a t i v e ' ,  they  (3-16) happiness N ( (Agent) )  happy (Agent) b.  ness  operative A ( (AGENT) Theme)  operat  ive  (Agent, Theme)  Before t u r n i n g t o  those compounds w i t h argument-takers,  the p r o p o s a l s made by W i l l i a m s (1981) and Marantz t i o n o f p r e d i c a t e argument  structure.  - 66 -  I will  review  (1984) on t h e r e p r e s e n t a -  3.2.3.  In  The P r e d i c a t e Argument S t r u c t u r e  section  structure  2.4,  (PAS)  (3-17) a.  three d i f f e r e n t representations  of  predicate  argument-  have been p r e s e n t e d :  Farmer:  (  0j_...Qp  )  arguments a r e s t r i c t l y  11,  ordered  no d i s t i n c t i o n between e x t e r n a l and arguments ( a t l e a s t f o r Japanese)  in,  (  Marantz  internal  ) Q i . . • Qfi  arguments are  11,  if a verb i s [ + l o g i c a l s u b j e c t ! , then the function from arguments t o p r e d i c a t e s which the verb names produces an a d d i t i o n a l semantic role  in,  c.  Williams:  i .  ( 9j....G  ii.  one argument ( u s u a l l y , Agent), i n the unmarked case, must be r e a l i z e d o u t s i d e of the maximal p r o j e c t i o n o f the head  (1983), S a i t o  nonconfigurational  (1983), and H o j i  I will  r e j e c t Farmer's p r e d i c a t e argument  there  Japanese structure  Japanese. There  theories:  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 W i l l i a m s ' and  ( i ) W i t h i n Marantz'  by the p r e d i c a t e .  W i l l i a m s ' t h e o r y , the semantic  r o l e o f the argument i n the  determined  by the head,  Marantz'  t h e o r y , the semantic r o l e of the argument i n  [NP, 5 1 p o s i t i o n i s determined  is  (1983)) and  t o be some e v i d e n c e o f u n a c c u s a t i v e ( = ' e r g a t i v e ' ) verbs i n  (see s e c t i o n 2.2.1.), for  unordered  t h e r e has been a number of arguments a g a i n s t the  a n a l y s i s of Japanese ( A r a i seems  )  n  arguments are  iii.  Since  unordered  itself.  On the o t h e r hand, w i t h i n  ( i i ) For Marantz,  [NP, 5 3 p o s i t i o n not a l l  inherent  arguments of the verb are a s s i g n e d semantic r o l e s by the verb, but by other  67  constituents ments.  In  hence  the d i s t i n c t i o n between ' d i r e c t ' and  W i l l i a m s ' a i l arguments  'indirect'  a r e a s s i g n e d 8 - r o l e by  the  argu-  argument-  taker. Let  us look a t the f i r s t d i f f e r e n c e .  Rothstein  (1985) argues a g a i n s t  Marantz' p o s i t i o n based on the marginal s t a t u s of the examples  i n (3-18):  (3-18) a. b. c.  John's g i f t o f the book l a t e John's a r r i v a l i n a h u r r y John's performance drunk ( R o t h s t e i n , 1985:43)  The nominal head i n each of thes"e examples, mance', of  'gift',  has an e x t e r n a l t h e t a - r o l e t o a s s i g n .  ' a r r i v a l ' and  However, "the g e n e r a l  t h e t a - r o l e assignment d e s i g n a t e agent as an e x t e r n a l argument  through  predication".  Predication,  r e l a t i o n between YP and XP, X,  respectively.  as  'perfor-  stated e a r l i e r ,  rules  assigned  i s d e f i n e d as  each of which i s a maximal p r o j e c t i o n of Y and  I f t h i s i s so,  then 'John' cannot be a s s i g n e d an agent  r o l e through p r e d i c a t i o n s i n c e the phrase t h a t c o n t a i n s the head of the in  (3-18) a f t e r  a  NP  'John' i s an N' as shown i n (3-19):  (3-19) [[John! NP Rothstein counted its  suggests  [...head...] N'  ]  NP  t h a t the m a r g i n a l s t a t u s of t h e s e examples  ac-  f o r by a l l o w i n g the agent r o l e which the head i s s p e c i f i e d f o r  l e x i c a l e n t r y t o be ' i m p r o p e r l y ' a s s i g n e d t o 'John'".  assigned  can be  a theta-role,  in  Once 'John'  is  then the secondary p r e d i c a t e can be p r e d i c a t e d  of  'John'. Rothstein  c l a i m s t h a t 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  specified  head determines the e x t e r n a l t h e t a - r o l e . s t e i n ' s argument goes, head  i n the l e x i c a l entry,  i . e . the  Marantz' t h e o r y f a i l s ,  so Roth-  t o account f o r t h e s e marginal examples  because  i n each o f t h e s e phrases i s not s p e c i f i e d f o r an agent r o l e and  - 68 -  the there  i s no maximal p r o j e c t i o n t o determine t h e e x t e r n a l t h e m a t i c - r o l e of w i t h i n Marantz' t h e o r y . theory  t h e e x t e r n a l theta-argument i s determined  is incorrect. verb.  Thus,  such  Unfortunately, Rothstein's  In Marantz' t h e o r y ,  projection  c l a i m t h a t i n Marantz'  by t h e maximal p r o j e c t i o n  t h e 5 i s the maximal p r o j e c t i o n o f t h e  the p r o j e c t i o n t h a t a c t s l i k e a p r e d i c a t e of o t h e r  as W i l l i a m s ' but  (1980 & 81) and R o t h s t e i n ' s  the  nonmaximal  'John'  (1985),  p r o j e c t i o n of the  theories  i s not the  verb  within  maximal Marantz'  theory. However,  Rothstein  i s c o r r e c t i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t i n Marantz'  'John' i n (3-18) cannot be p r o p e r l y a s s i g n e d a 6 - r o l e . comment c o n f i r m s R o t h s t e i n ' s o b s e r v a t i o n : or  Marantz' f o l l o w i n g  "...nouns do not form p r e d i c a t e s  o t h e r p h r a s a l c o n s t i t u e n t s t h a t might take  Marantz would r u l e out. t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  theory  subjects "(p.66).  Thus.  o f t a k i n g t h e N' i n (3-19) t o be t h e  p r e d i c a t e o f 'John'. The is  i s s u e d i s c u s s e d above, i . e . whether t h e e x t e r n a l thematic  determined  pointed  by the head or by some p r o j e c t i o n of  out by Bresnan  the  head,  argument has  (1982:p.291) and t o which Marantz (1984) has  been given  the f o l l o w i n g r e p l y : "The arguments f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e asymmetries w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t t h e o r y come from considerat i o n s o f the o p e r a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r y as a whole. I choose the p r e s e n t form o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r these asymmetries excluding t h e s u b j e c t from t h e P - A s t r u c t u r e because i t both c o r r e c t l y c a p t u r e s t h e semantic asymmetries, as Bresnan p o i n t s o u t . . . , and a l l o w s me t o r e l a t e semantic s u b j e c t / n o n s u b j e c t asymmetries t o p a r a l l e l s y n t a c t i c asymmetries." (Marantz 1984:p.28) Marantz'  main  nonsubject The shown  concern  i s t o c a p t u r e t h e asymmetries between  i n both semantic  and  and s y n t a c t i c d e s c r i p t i o n s .  problem t h a t Marantz' theory encountered  i n (3-18) can be remedied by a d o p t i n g  Williams  subject  (1982):  ~ 69 -  with R o t h s t e i n ' s  examples  t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e proposed by  (3-19)  Det  Rule  The r e l a t i o n between the p o s s e s s i v e NP and the f o l l o w i n g can be any r e l a t i o n a t a l l .  N'  ( W i l l i a m s 1982:p.2S3) Thus, only  the if  m a r g i n a l s t a t u s o f (3-18) can be accounted f o r by c l a i m i n g that 'John'  f o l l o w i n g N', The  i s i n t e r p r e t e d as having the  agentive  the p h r a s e - f i n a l p r e d i c a t e can be p r e d i c a t e d o f  second  d i f f e r e n c e between Marantz'  of 8 - r o l e s .  arguments  of. a verb a r e a s s i g n e d 8 - r o l e s by the verb,  case these  For Marantz,  8-roles  particular  are  For W i l l i a m s ,  a r e not headed by p r e p o s i t i o n s may However,  the  argu-  such as  prepositions  or  verbs a s s i g n  8-roles.  How  Thus, w i t h i n Marantz'  the v e r b ' s o b l i g a t o r y arguments are s p e c i f i e d that  'John'.  the i n d i r e c t  manifested i n syntax i s determined  "realization rules".  the  i n the unmarked c a s e , o n l y the d i r e c t  are a s s i g n e d 8 - r o l e s by o t h e r than v e r b s , or s t r u c t u r a l p o s i t i o n .  to  and W i l l i a m s ' t h e o r i e s i s  assignment  ments  relation  by  the  language-  model, though  a l l of  f o r 8 - r o l e s , o n l y the  be a s s i g n e d  phrases  8 - r o l e s by the  W i l l i a m s ' model i s more r e s t r i c t i v e than Marantz'.  verb.  T h i s can  be shown i n the f o l l o w i n g : (3-20) i.  Williams In the unmarked case, the NP bears a 8 governed by Py.  ii.  X  i f and o n l y i f i t i s  Marantz In the unmarked c a s e , i f an NP bears a 8 , be a s s i g n e d t h a t 8 by Py. X  then the NP  may  X  where  8  X  stands f o r any t h e m a t i c r o l e and P s t a n d s f o r any  lexi-  cal category For Marantz, iii.  the converse  (3-21  iii)  In the unmarked c a s e , t h a t NP bears a Q .  below i s not n e c e s s a r i l y  true:  i f an NP i s a s s i g n e d a 8 by Py,  then  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  theory seems t o have some d i f f i c u l t y .  ~ 70 ~  environments,  Observe the f o l l o w i n g :  Marantz'  (3-22) a.  k u r u m a 'vehicle'  b.  k a r a ' Source  o r i - t a 'get - o f f PAST  k u r u m a o o r i - ta "X got o f f (from) t h e v e h i c l e "  W i t h i n W i l l i a m s ' system, SOURCE has two r e a l i z a t i o n  rules:  (3-23) a.  SOURCE:  ( NP,  b.  SOURCE:  ( NP )  W i t h i n Marantz' system, and must be s p e c i f i e d e.g., if  t h e argument o f / o r i - /  i s both d i r e c t  and i n d i r e c t  when i t i s a d i r e c t argument or an i n d i r e c t  i f t h e verb / o r i - /  i t ' s not, then  PPkara >  i s a case-assigner,  then the argument i s d i r e c t ,  indirect.  Furthei^more,  when  t h e verb / o r i - /  c o m p l e t e l y breaks down: (3-24) a. k u r u m a  i s nomlnaiized,  k a r a n c GEN.  Marantz'  o r i - k a t a Nominalizer  W i l l i a m s ' system does not have t o s t a t e a n y t h i n g s i n c e t h e l i s t rules i s specified  'kuruma' system  in  verb-independently:  (3-24b) i s r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e .  cannot  predict  cannot  be  of r e a l i z a -  the SOURCE i n t e r p r e t a t i o n On t h e other  (3-24b) s i n c e 'kuruma' i n both  r e l y on t h e p o s t p o s i t i o n nor t h e verb f o r case, assignment  system  k u r u m a no o r i-k a t a "the way o f g e t t i n g o f f (from) t h e v e h i c l e "  b.  tion  argument,  hand,  Marantz'  (3-24a £> b) does  and t h e r e f o r e ,  of  not  i t s 9-role  c o r r e l a t e d with t h e c a s e - a s s i g n i n g f e a t u r e  o f the  verb. The o v e r a l l p i c t u r e sketched  above i s t h a t as Japanese data  show, i t  i s n e c e s s a r i l y t h e case t h a t t h e B - r o l e s must be a s s i g n e d by t h e verb. The  model  being  developed  here adopts Marantz'  predicate  argument  s t r u c t u r e , i . e . , only the i n t e r n a l arguments of t h e verb a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n  , 71 -  PAS.  Marantz g i v e s the s u p p o r t i n g  sentation  from v a r i o u s  Roeper and  5iegel  it  has  for  languages.  (1978) and  and  participate  5 i e g e l and  evidence f o r t h i s  With r e s p e c t  t o compounds,  subsequently S e l k i r k (1982) and  been shown t h a t i t i s the  Roeper  arguments and  repre-  ever s i n c e  Lieber  (1983),  i n t e r n a l arguments ( s i s t e r s t o the  non-subject arguments f o r  i n compound f o r m a t i o n .  Thus,  Selkirk)  verb  that  can  the asymmetry of s u b j e c t s  and  n o n - s u b j e c t s seems t o appear i n morphology as w e l l as i n syntax and  seman-  tics. Marantz' semantic tuent  Principle  r o i e or has  at  1-s  (2-65) s t a t e s t h a t " i f a l e x i c a l  an argument s t r u c t u r e ,  structure". the p r e s e n t  I t was model;  i t i s an  in  assigning  a semantic r o l e t o the demoted s u b j e c t  consequently,  we  independent  model cannot have b i c l a u s a l a n a l y s e s  structure.  for  not  be  way  of  causative  However,  causative  a  consti-  w i l l need a new  i n such c a s e s as  c o n s t r u c t i o n t o have b i c l a u s a l s t r u c t u r e s a t 1-s  due  assigns  argued t h a t t h i s p r i n c i p l e can  included  present  item  the  constructions  t o the e l i m i n a t i o n of P r i n c i p l e (2-65). As  i t i s well-known  /-sase-/ causative extra  adds  an e x t r a argument,  suffix  that  j e c t ] argument as subject]  'causee'.  will  view of the f e a t u r e  does  is  that  assume,  along  i n t e r n a l i z e s the v e r b ' s  I t may  be o b j e c t e d  [^logical subject].  i f and  semantic r o l e i s i n the a p p r o p r i a t e  ~ 72  -  only  What the  are not  'causee'  For  that i s to example:  be  this  sub-  [*logical  t h a t the verb names t o We  the  Williams  [+logical  t h a t the f e a t u r e  i f the NP  position.  suffix  model,  with  the semantic r o l e the p r e d i c a t e produces must  to that predicate  the  which produces  produces another semantic r o l e .  this  internal  suffix  we  i s merely a marker on the p r e d i c a t e  c a t e t h a t the p r e d i c a t e  In the present  [•••logical s u b j e c t ]  Furthermore,  the c a u s a t i v e  constructions,  'causer'.  i s s p e c i f i e d with  thematic r o l e .  (1981),  i n Japanese c a u s a t i v e  indidenying  argument assigned  receive  this  (3-25)  a.  Taroo  ga oya n i nak-(s)aae-ta. NOM. DAT. 'cry-CAUSE-PAST' 'Taroo l e t ( h i s ) p a r e n t s c r y . '  NP  VP = PREDICATE  NP  V  V  V  Taroo ga  In  (3-25).  V  oya n i nak  (s)ase  ta  'oya' i s i n the a p p r o p r i a t e p o s i t i o n t o r e c e i v e  r o l e the p r e d i c a t e produces.  I t may  the  semantic  be the case t h a t t h i s semantic r o l e i s  a f u s i o n of 'causee' and the r o l e produced by the p r e d i c a t e . Note t h a t  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 a c c u s a t i v e case marker:  - 73' *  (3-25)  b.  Taroo  ga  oya ACC.  o  nak-(s)ase-ta.  5  NP  VP  = PREDICATE  NP  V  V  V  Taroo ga  The  noun 'oya'  oya  i n (3-25b) i s not  o  nak  V  (s)ase  i n the a p p r o p r i a t e  p r e d i c a t e to a s s i g n the semantic r o i e i t produces; 'causee' may  or may How  Let  roie.  us  not do we  I n t h i s case,  the  s  stay  the  f e a t u r e of the verb  possible syntactic  look a t the l e x i c a l s t r u c t u r e of the d e r i v e d  - 74 ~  only  the  f o r semantic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  f o r these two  (s)ase:  position for  i t i s assigned  ['logical subject]  i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  predict/account  ta  structure  analyses? of  'nak-  (3-26) nak + sase (causee) [•logical  subject]  nak  As  ( 0 )  (causee)  [•log. subj.] [-transitive]  [•log. subj] ([+transitive])  we have proposed i n s e c t i o n 3.2.2.,  freely". node,  Thus,  only  feature,  everything  sitive  [transitive],  verb  causative  the p e r c o l a t i o n i s " p e r c o l a t e  i n p r i n c i p l e , p e r c o l a t e up t o the mother  i n (3-26).  as a whole remains.  There i s no necessary  [^transitive].  However,  verb o p t i o n a l l y ,  i t i s sufficient  [•transitive].  Notice  reason  that the  of  the  derived  t o c l a i m t h a t /-sase-/  has an  Only when the s u b j e c t of t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e  appears w i t h i n the f i r s t - b a r p r o j e c t i o n of t h e d e r i v e d c a u s a t i v e the  theory  the  the s u b j e c t of an i n t r a n -  such as 'nak' can appear as a d i r e c t o b j e c t  optional feature  does  can,  what i s f o r c e d by the theory  c a u s a t i v e s u f f i x must be  verb  sase  f o r c e s the f e a t u r e  [ + t r a n s i t i v e J t o p e r c o l a t e up  verb,  to  the  mother node. The f u s i o n of the f e a t u r e , example, Williams' calculus":  and the semantic r o l e , (1981)  [ • l o g i c a l s u b j e c t ] of the verb, 'causee',  'nak  i s n e c e s s a r i l y so i f we  argument f o r i n c o r p o r a t i n g "a l i m i t e d use o f the  that i s ,  the lambda c a l c u l u s r e s t r i c t s the number of  argument t o one and o n l y one.  - 75 -  J  for  accept lambda  external  3.3  Cgn§«guenc§§ of the mod«l proposed  3.3.1.  Compounds  As (1983)  stated can  i n S e c t i o n 2,  the A r g u m e n t - l i n k i n g  be d i s p e n s e d w i t h ,  Principle  of  Lieber  s i n c e the Immediate S i s t e r C o n d i t i o n  will  account f o r a l l t h e compounds o f t h e form i n (3-27): (3-27) X  A  B  I f A i s an argument-taker and X=B, ture. what  On the other i s on  then B must s a t i s f y A's argument  struc-  hand, B i s an argument-taker and X=B, then e i t h e r A or  the outside  o f the whole compound may  satisfy  B's  argument  the  internal  structure. Note  that  arguments  I  be a s s i g n e d  between  only  ( o b l i g a t o r y or o p t i o n a l ) may p a r t i c i p a t e i n compound  Such a r e s t r i c t i o n must  have not made any r e s t r i c t i o n t h a t  i s spurious i t s 8-roles  two p h r a s a l  since,  by assumption, t h e e x t e r n a l  by p r e d i c a t i o n .  categories,  formation.  XP and YP,  Predication i s a  argument relation  not between two l e x i c a l  cate-  gories . Now,  we come t o t h e [V-V] compounds i n which both verbs i n v o l v e d  obligatory  internal  arguments.  compounds t h a t a r e verbs, (3-28) a.  Note  that  transitive.  we w i l l  begin with  those  stir-fry,  drop-kick,  slam-duck  hiki-das (to pull-take out), tabe-nokos ( t o t r a n s i t i v e ) * o s i - i r e (to push-insert) in  t h e above examples,  thus,  the  [V-V3  such as t h e ones i n (3-28):  freeze-dry,  b.  First,  have  both verb stems of t h e  o b l i g a t o r y i n t e r n a l arguments must  ~ 76 ~  eat-leave  compounds be  are  satisfied.  Note, f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e f e a t u r e s o f t h e r i g h t - h a n d stem p e r c o l a t e up t o t h e mother node,  thereby s a t i s f y  the whole compound.  i t s i n t e r n a l argument with t h e phrase o u t s i d e  The problem  i s t h e i n t e r n a l arguments o f t h e l e f t - h a n d  verb stem. What i s c l e a r a t t h i s p o i n t i s t h a t t h e r i g h t - h a n d verb s e r v e as an argument t o t h e l e f t - h a n d verb stem ( c f . This  i s r u l e d out on p r e - t h e o r e t i c a l grounds:  lexical  Lieber  stem  cannot  <1983:p265)).  Verbs a r e assumed  t o be  items with no r e f e r e n t i a l f u n c t i o n i n semantic d e s c r i p t i o n .  What-  ever i t i s t h a t can be an argument must be a b l e t o p i c k out some e n t i t y the  world.  The  fundamental  C a t e g o r i a l Grammar developed syntactic  theories,  Marantz (1984), the  by Edmund H u s s e r l (1962).  a i l versions  Farmer (1984)),  same assumption  working  i d e a behind t h e above assumption  above,  comes  in  from  Since a l l current  o f GB t h e o r i e s (Chomsky (1980 & 8 1 ) ,  LFG and R e l a t i o n a l grammar, seen; t o share  t h e burden i s on those m o r p h o i o g i s t s  who a r e  on v e r b a l compounds.  The p r o p o s a l made here f o r t h e [ V - V ] compounds i s a t h r e e model,  along  t h e l i n e s o f p r o p o s a l s by L a s n i k and Kupin  (197e),  Lightfoot  dimensional  (1977),  Williams  (1984) ( i n a s e r i e s o f l e c t u r e s g i v e n at U.B.C. i n 1983),  and G o o d a l i (1984) f o r c o - o r d i n a t i o n i n syntax. The tions:  three (1)  d i m e n s i o n a l p r o p o s a l r a i s e s a couple o f i n t e r e s t i n g which stem p e r c o l a t e s i t s f e a t u r e s t o t h e mother  ( i i ) how i s t h e i n t e r n a l argument o f each o f t h e s e verbs First, features or  i n the three dimensional s t r u c t u r e ,  node?  quesand  satisfied?  both stems p e r c o l a t e t h e  s i n c e t h e r e i s no way o f t e l l i n g which i s on t h e r i g h t - h a n d  side  on t h e l e f t - h a n d s i d e . Once t h e c a t e g o r i a l f e a t u r e s a r e p e r c o l a t e d up t o  the mother node, they w i l l be f u s e d t o g e t h e r :  - 77 -  (3-29) [-N, Each verb c o n s t i t u t e s  + V]  [-N.+V]  a single,  --->  [-N,  + V]  i n d i v i d u a l argument complex.  argument o f each o f the verb stems i n t h e compound i s s a t i s f i e d This i s diagrammatically  shown i n (3-30):  (3-30) a. VP  V  NP  - 78 -  The i n t e r n separate!  b. VP  NP  V  Each arrow c o n s t i t u t e s a s e p a r a t e independent argument complex. t h e r e i s no v i o l a t i o n Let The have,  on  of t h e 9 - C r i t e r i o n .  us r e t u r n t o t h e examples i n (3-28b) ,  r e p e a t e d here as  d i m e n s i o n a l p r o p o s a l o v e r g e n e r a t e s the forms i n  three  Therefore,  the r i g h t - h a n d s i d e ,  the i n t r a n s i t i v e  (3-3ia) .  (3-31b)  counterparts  of  which /das-/,  /nokos-/, and / i r e - / . (3-31) a.  hiki-das nokos  (to b.  ( t o p u l l - t a k e o u t ) , tabe-  (to eat-leave  transitive  ), o s i - i r e  push-insert)  «hiki-de  (to p u l l  (to e a t - l e a v e  - come o u t ) , *tabe-nokor  intrans.  ),  «osi-hair  ( t o push-enter)  How do we r u l e out t h e overgenerated examples such as t h e ones i n (3-31b)? Note internal  that  each stem o f the compounds i n (3-31a) has  argument,  one  obligatory  whereas only one stem i n each of t h e compounds i n ( 3 -  79 ~  31b)  has  Boarti  an argument.  Application.  applies  The c o n s t r a i n t  That  I propose here i s t h e  i s , i f i t i s the case some r u l e  t o one stem then i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y  condition  must apply t o t h e o t h e r stem.  3.3.2  C o n c l u s i o n and R e s i d u a l Problems In  this  chapter,  t h e case t h a t  Across-the-  or  condition  the same r u l e  we have argued t h a t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f  or  predicate  argument s t r u c t u r e  i s governed by t h e same p r i n c i p l e , namely, t h e Immediate  S i s t e r Condition,  i n both syntax and morphology.  is  proposed  which  t o be c o n s t r a i n e d  reduces  previous  percolation  section  where  have  by the ( G e n e r a l i z e d )  t o bare minimal  the  Furthermore,  Generalized  deliberately  Projection  "percolate Projection  avoided the  Percolation Principle  freely".  In the  Principle  formalized  has  proposed,  I  version  Projection  P r i n c i p l e i n Chomsky (1981:36-38) which i s g i v e n below:  been  of the  (3-32) (a)  i . [^ ii.  I  ...  ... ^ ... ]  ... $  . . . © <  . . . 3  (Chomsky's (5) p36) (b)  i . i f P i s an immediate c o n s t i t u e n t and ii.  iii.  The  ^  i  n  a  t  ~i<  = ot , then o< Q-marks j? i n %  i f ^ s e l e c t s P i n X as a l e x i c a l s e l e c t s ji i n ^ a t L i  p r o p e r t y , then °*  i f o( s e l e c t s p" i n ^ a t L i , then  s e l e c t s ^ i n )f a t L j (Chomsky's (6):p38)  e f f e c t s o f (3-31b.i.) can be o b t a i n e d from t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f our  Immediate S i s t e r C o n d i t i o n With  respect  and t h e F i r s t Bar S t i p u l a t i o n .  to (3-32b.ii.  ' s e l e c t ' means s ( e m a n t i c ) - s e l e c t i o n ignates  of X  s-seiection,  & iii.)  or c ( a t e g o r i a l ) - s e l e c t i o n .  then t h e P r o j e c t i o n  - 80 ~  i t i s ambiguous whether the  term  I f i t des-  P r i n c i p l e a p p l i e s at t h e l e v e l of  semantic  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as w e l l as a t syntax s i n c e s - s e l e c t i o n c o n s i s t s  such n o t i o n s as ' P r o p o s i t i o n ' ,  'Exclamation', 'Question' and so on.  of  These  n o t i o n s are not a v a i l a b l e i n syntax but o n l y i n semantics. As  we have s t a t e d e a r l i e r ,  those proposed  t h e r e a r e no s u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n frames  i n the A s p e c t s model.  Thus,  the term  as  ' s e l e c t ' cannot mean  c-selection. However, we can s t i l l as  it  i s i n (3-32).  'select'. seiection (3-14)  This  r e t a i n Chomsky's f o r m a l i z e d P r o j e c t i o n  Furthermore,  i s a n e c e s s a r y move i n the model proposed  the s i s t e r of an a f f i x  o t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ' s e l e c t ' , of semantic  where 8 - r o l e s , tion'  i s categorialiy  interpretation.  Another  then  subjects  c-  given  in  specified.  On  are involved.  Thus,  'Proposition',  as proposed,  the  'Exclama-  the  Projection  semantics.  consequence of the a n a l y s e s g i v e n i n t h i s t h e s i s i s i f i t  t h a t Japanese  has u n a c c u s a t i v e verbs as proposed  c l e a r l y the n o n - c o n f i g u r a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f Japanese  abandoned.  The  I t a l s o a p p l i e s a t the l e v e l of syntax  but not such semantic n o t i o n s as  or 'Question',  case  here.  term  i . e . the s - s e l e c t i o n , i t a p p l i e s at the  P r i n c i p l e i s g e n e r a l i z e d over morphology and over  the  the  a p p l i e s o n l y i n a f f i x a t i o n as shown i n the d e r i v a t i o n  since  level  we r e t a i n the ambiguity o f  Principle  It which  in  Chapter  syntax  must  is 2, be  seems t h a t t h e r e are asymmetries between s u b j e c t s and  non-  do  this  exist  i n morphology o f Japanese,  as  argued  in  thesis. The linguistic  issues  raised  theory.  this thesis will  here  However,  are s t i l l  very  controversial  in  current  I hope the p r o p o s a l s and a n a l y s e s g i v e n  shed some l i q h t on the f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .  - 81 -  in  FOOTNOTES I am indebted t o P r o f . E. p o i n t i n g t h i s o u t t o me.  Williams  ( p e r s o n a l communication') f o r  This i s a s l i g h t l y m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f Chomsky's (1981) o r i g i n a l P r o j e c t i o n P r i n c i p l e (p.29). The Extended P r o j e c t i o n Principle of Chomsky (1982) i s r e j e c t e d s i n c e t h e a d d i t i o n a l c l a u s e which states t h a t every c l a u s e must have a s u b j e c t can be d e r i v e d from R o t h s t e i n ' s (1985) P r e d i c a t e - L i n k i n g Rule: Rule f o r P r e d i c a t i o n ( f o r E n g l i s h ) a. Every non-theta-marked XP must be l i n k e d a t S - s t r u c t u r e to an argument which i t immediately C-commands and which immediately Commands i t . b.  L i n k i n g i s from r i g h t t o l e f t i t s predicate)  ( i . e . , a subject  (Rothstein,  - 82 -  precedes  1985:11)  BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l e n , M. (1978): M o r p h o l o g i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of C o n n e c t i c u t , S t o r r s , C o n n e c t i c u t Allwood, J , L.G. Andersson, and 0. Dahl (1977): L o g i c i n L i n g u i s t i c s , Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 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. M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t r e a l , Canada  thesis,  A r o n o f f , M. (1976): Word Formation i n G e n e r a t i v e Grammar, L i n g u i s t i c I n q u i r y Monograph 1, MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts Botha, R.P. (1980): "Word-based Morphology S t e l l e n b o s c h Pagers i n L i n g u i s t i c s 5  and S y n t h e t i c Compounding,  Bresnan, J.W. (1982a): "The P a s s i v e i n L e x i c a l T h e o r y " , i n J.W. Bresnan, (ed.) The Mental R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Grammatical R e l a t i o n s , 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 R e l a t i o n s , MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts B u r z i o . 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 , D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a i t o n , Cambridge, Massachusetts  KIT  C a r l s o n , G. and T. Roeper (I960): "Morphology and S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n : Case and the Unmarked Complex Verb" i n T. Hockstra e t a l ( e d s . ) : k§ i9§i Sl§!?!5§.?> F o r i s P u b l i c a t i o n s . H o l l a n d x  Chomsky, N (1965): Massachusetts  A s p e c t s of the Theory o f Syntax, MIT  P r e s s , Cambridge,  Chomsky, N. (1970): "Remarks on N o m i n a l i z a t i o n , " i n R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenboum (ed.) Readings i n E n g l i s h T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Massachusetts Chomsky, N. (1980): New York  Rules and R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , Columbia  University Press,  Chomsky, N. (1981): L e c t u r e s on Government and B i n d i n g , F o r i s P u b l i c a t i o n s , Holland Chomsky, N. Binding  (1982): Theory  Concepts and Con§eguences o f t h e Government and  Farmer, A. (1980): On the I n t e r a c t i o n o f Morphology d i s s e r t a t i o n , M.I.T.  and Syntax, D o c t o r a l  Farmer, A. (1984): M o d u l a r i t y i o Syntax: A Study o f Japanese E n g l i s h , MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fodor, J.D.  (1977):  Semantics^  - 83 -  and  T h e o r i e s o f Meaning i n G e n e r a t i v e Grammar.  Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Cambridge, Grimshaw, J .  (1979):  Grimshaw, J .  (1981):,  Massachusetts  "Complement S e l e c t i o n and the L e x i c o n : LI l Q . t 2 7 9 ; 3 2 & "Form, F u n c t i o n , and the Language A c q u i s i t i o n  D e v i c e " i n C L . Baker and J . J . McCarthy ( e d . ) . The L o g i c a l Problem Language A c q u i s i t i o n , MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts  of  Hendrick, R. (1980): On the Form and F u n c t i o n i n g of S u b c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . D i s t r i b u t e d by the Indiana L i n g u i s t i c s C l u b , Bloomington Indiana J a c k e n d o f f , R. (1972): Semantic I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n G e n e r a t i v e Grammar, P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts J a c k e n d o f f , R. (1977): X Syntax^ A Study o f Phrase S t r u c t u r e , I n q u i r y Monograph 2, MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts  MIT  Linguistic  Kapian, R. and J.W. Bresnan (1982): " L e x i c a l - F u n c t i o n a l Grammar: A Formal System f o r Grammatical R e p r e s e n t a t i o n " , i n J.W. Bresnan, (ed.) The M§Qtal R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Grammatical R e l a t i o n s , MIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts K i p a r s k y , P. (1981): Massachusetts  L e x i c a l Phonology,  ms.  MIT,  Cambridge,  K o l i s h , D., R. Montague, and G. Mar (1980): Logic.: Techniques of Formal Reasoning (2nd e d i t i o n ) , H a r c o u r t Brace J o v a n o v i c h , Inc., New York Kuno. 5. (1973): The S t r u c t u r e o f the Japanese Cambridge, Massachusetts  Language. MIT P r e s s ,  Kuroda. 5-Y. (1978): "Case marking, c a n o n i c a l sentence p a t t e r n s , and counter e q u i i n Japanese", i n J . Hinds and I . Howard ( e d s . ) : , Problems i n Japanese Syntax and Semantics, K a i t a k u s h a , Japan L a s n i k , H. and J . J . Kupin (1977): "A r e s t r i c t i v e Theory of T r a n f o r m a t i o n a l Grammar" T h e o r e t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s 4, 173-196 L i e b e r , R. (1980): On the O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the L e x i c o n , D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , MIT, Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s . D i s t r i b u t e d by the Indiana U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s C l u b , Bloomington, I n d i a n a . L i e b e r , R. 285  (1983):  Argument L i n k i n g and E n g l i s h Compounds, L.I.. 14.2:251-  Marantz, A., (1981): "Grammatical R e l a t i o n s , L e x i c a l r u l e s , and Japanese Syntax" i n A.K. Farmer and C. Kitagawa (eds.) P r o c e e d i n g s of the A r i z o n a Conference on Japanese L i n g u i s t i c s : The Formal Grammar S e s s i o n s ^ Coyote Papers: Working Pagers i n L i n g u i s t i c s from A^2, U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , Tucson, A r i z o n a Marantz, A., (1984): On the Nature o f Grammatical Cambridge, Massachusetts  - 84 -  Relations,  MIT P r e s s ,  P e r l m u t t e r , D. and P. P o s t a l ms.  (1978):  The 1-Advancement E x c i u s i v e n e s s Law,  Pesetsky, D. (1982): Paths and C a t e g o r i e s , D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Cambridge, Massachusetts. P e s e t s k y , D. (1983): Massachusetts.  L o g i c a l Form and Morphology,  Pesetsky, D.  " L o g i c a l Form and Morphology",  (1985):  ms,  MIT.  KIT  Cambridge,  LI  Peters, 5. and R. R i t c h i e (1973): "On the G e n e r a t i v e Power of Transf o r m a t i o n a l Grammars", I n f o r m a t i o n S c i e n c e s 6, 49-83 Roeper. T., and M.E. 5 i e g e l (1978): Compounds," LI 9, 199-260  "A L e x i c a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n f o r V e r b a l  R o t h s t e i n , S.D. (1985): The S y n t a c t i c Forms of P r e d i c a t i o n , KIT doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . D i s t r i b u t e d by the Indiana U n i v e r s i t y L i n g u i s t i c s Club, Bioomington Indiana S a i t o , M.  (1982):  Case and Government i n Japanese,  m&.,  S e l k i r k , E. (1982): The Syntax of Words, L i n g u i s t i c KIT P r e s s , Cambridge, Massachusetts  KIT  Walsh, L. (1981): The O u t l i n e of g Theory o f Morphology. M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t r e a l , Canada Williams, E .  (1980):  "Predication",  K.A.  "Argument S t r u c t u r e and Morphology,"  W i l l i a m s . E. (1983): "Semantic ?!]ii2§9PbY. §» 423-446  thesis,  LI 11, 203-238  W i i i i a m s . E. (1981a): "On the N o t i o n s " L e x i c a l l y R e l a t e d ' and Word". LI 12, 245-274 W i i i i a m s , E. (1981b): Review 1, 81-114  'Head' of a  Linguistic  vs S y n t a c t i c C a t e g o r i e s " , L i n g u i s t i c s  - 85 -  7,  I n q u i r y Monograph  and  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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

Comment

Related Items