UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

From sentence to discourse : integrated explanations for certain linguistic phenomena in Japanese Ono, Mieko 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A1 O56.pdf [ 10.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100456.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100456-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100456-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100456-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100456-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100456-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100456-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100456-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100456.ris

Full Text

FROM SENTENCE TO DISCOURSE: INTEGRATED EXPLANATIONS FOR CERTAIN LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA IN JAPANESE By MIEKO ONO B.A., Tokyo Women's Christian College, 1973 M.A., Tokyo Women's Christian University, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (DEPARTMENT OF ASIAN STUDIES)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1990 © Mieko Ono, 1990  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the  requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or by  his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  A o a n  Studies  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Nrw 1Q  I Q QD  ii Abstract This thesis examines those aspects of language in which syntax and extra-syntactic factors interface. There  are  three  major  approaches  to  discourse  study  (interpretation of a sentence in discourse): i)  Discourse Study without Syntax: Any 1 inguistic phenomena can be explained through discourse; syntax is dissolved into discourse study.  ii)  Discourse Study Interacting w i t h Syntax: Syntactic rules and discourse functions interact or intermingle w i t h each other.  iii)  Modular Approach to Discourse Study: Syntax is autonomous, but can feed information into other e x t r a syntactic components to obtain the final interpretation of a sentence in context.  Approach ( i i i )  is adopted here, where a "Government and Binding"  (Chomsky (1981))  type of generative grammar is assumed as the  syntactic framework. Four linguistic phenomena in Japanese are chosen for case studies of the mode of interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.  iii Chapter  2  examines  the  Japanese reflexive  The c o -  zibun.  r e f e r e n c e problem is s o l v e d through s y n t a c t i c r u l e s f o r the anaphoric use and d i s c o u r s e rules for the r e f e r e n t i a l use. Chapter 3 examines d e m o n s t r a t i v e s . used as d e i x i s ,  the  problem  is m a i n l y  S i n c e they are  discussed  originally  in s e m a n t i c  and  d i s c o u r s e arenas. The comparison between pronoun and demonstrative is also d i s c u s s e d . coreference,  Both Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 deal w i t h the problem of which  is  one  disambiguation  mechanism  in  the  comprehension of discourse. Chapter involves  4 examines  another  type  of  quantifier  interpretation.  disambiguation  This  mechanism.  problem  The  scope  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n being represented in LF, why a c e r t a i n reading is obtained in the actual d i s c o u r s e environment is explained from the v i e w p o i n t of the human attention s y s t e m (conscious and unconscious). C h a p t e r 5 examines the p a r t i c l e  wa,  w h i c h is m o s t commonly  c o n s i d e r e d a t o p i c marker or an old i n f o r m a t i o n marker.  Wa  marks a  c e r t a i n s e m a n t i c s t r u c t u r e in s y n t a c t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and such a s e n t e n c e has an i m p o r t a n t nature  of  the  f u n c t i o n in d i s c o u r s e o r g a n i z a t i o n .  contrastiveness  associated with  a  wa  waThe  sentence  is  explained in this light. In t h i s m o d u l a r type of approach, the phenomena w h i c h  were  f o r m e r l y explained by f a i r l y complex s e t s of r u l e s have become more t r a n s p a r e n t , and some s e e m i n g l y c o n f l i c t i n g a n a l y s e s done in the past  iv are  now  considered  as  analyses  of  different  aspects  of  a  single  phenomenon.  )  V  T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  v  Acknowledgements  ix  Chapter 1:  Introduction  1  Notes(Chapter 1)  7  Chapter 2:  The "Reflexive" Pronoun in Japanese  2.0  Introduction  8  2.1  Three Types of Pronoun Usage  8  2.2  The Referential Use of Zibun  12  2.3  The Anaphoric Use of Zibun  18  2.4  Anaphor, Pronominal, and Variables  2.4.1  The Binding Theory  24  2.4.2  Governing Domain  25  2.4.3  Topic-Bound vs. Subject-Bound  2.4.3.1  Topic-Antecedent  30  2.4.3.2  Topic vs. Subject  37  2.4.3.3  Zibun as a variable  40  vi  2.4.4  Zero-topic and Referential Use  2.5  Zibun and Kuno and Kuroda's  42  Extra-Syntactic Notions  47  2.6  Examination of Discourse Data  52  2.7  Conclusion  61  Notes (Chapter 2)  63  Chapter 3: Japanese Demonstratives:  Ko-So-A  3.0  Introduction  3.1  The Use of the Demonstratives  3.1.0  Introduction  70  3.1.1  Ternary vs. Binary  73  3.1.2  Territory Formation: Physical Distance vs. Psychological Distance  68  79  3.1.3  Speaker's Territory and Egocentricity  85  3.2  The Use of Ko/So in Discourse  3.2.1  Introduction  101  3.2.2  The Ko/So - Antecedent Relation  106  3.2.3  Problems in the Use of So  122  3.3  Conclusion  132  Notes (Chapter 3)  134  vii  Chapter 4: Quantifier Reading 4.0  Introduction  137  4.1  Quantifier  4.1.1  Quantifier Reading in Japanese  137  4.1.2  Linear Order Hypothesis and Subjecthood  1 40  4.1.3  Wide/Narrow vs. Same/Different  1 46  4.2  "Attention" Systems in Discourse  153  4.3  Focus of Interest, Quantifier, and Word Order  1 58  4.4  Conclusion  166  4.5  Addendum  4.5.1  Grosz's 'Focus'  1 67  4.5.2  Kuno's 'Focus'  1 71  4.5.3  Rochemont's'Focus'  177  Notes (Chapter 4)  180  Interpretation  Chapter 5: The Function of the Particles Wa and Ga 5.0  Introduction  184  5.1  The Particle Wa  184  5.1.1  A Characteristic of the Use of Wa  185  5.1.2  Wa and Human Judgement  197  5.1.3  Judgement Marker vs. Topic Marker  200  5.1.4  Wa in Contrastive Reading  5.1.4.1  "Contrastiveness" and the Categorical Judgement....203  viii  5.1.4.2  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (I): Particle Deletion  5.1.4.3  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (II): Contrastive Construction  5.1.4.4  21 1  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (III): Indefinite Nouns  5.1.4.5  206  217  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (IV): Subject NPs and Definiteness Effect  222  5.1.4.6  The Nature of "Contrastiveness"  230  5.2  Ga  and Wa  5.2.1  Ga  vs. Wa  5.2.2  Wa, Ga, and Discourse  243  5.3  Conclusion  251  Notes (Chapter 5)  253  240  Chapter 6: Concluding Remarks  259  Bibliography  262  Appendix  285  ix  Acknowledgements T h i s t h e s i s h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d due t o t h e h e l p o f m a n y p e o p l e . F i r s t , I w o u l d l i k e to thank my r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r , P r o f e s s o r M a t s u o S o g a , f o r h i s e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d p a t i e n c e a s w e l l a s f o r i n n u m e r a b l e p i e c e s of a d v i c e and s u g g e s t i o n s a l l t h r o u g h m y g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s at t h e U n i v e r s i t y of British Columbia. W i t h o u t h i s h e l p , I c o u l d not have m a n a g e d to s o l v e the p r o b l e m s w h i c h a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e of c o m p l e t i n g m y w o r k . I w o u l d a l s o l i k e to e x p r e s s s p e c i a l t h a n k s to P r o f e s s o r M i c h a e l Rochemont. My d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h h i m h a v e g i v e n m e g r e a t intellectual s t i m u l a t i o n , and h i s i n s i g h t f u l s u g g e s t i o n s have a l w a y s been " e y e - o p e n e r s " to me. I l e a r n e d a lot f r o m h i m , not only about l i n g u i s t i c s , but a l s o f r o m h i s i n d e f a t i g a b l e s p i r i t in s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s . My s p e c i a l t h a n k s go t o P r o f e s s o r s H i r o k o T e r a k u r a a n d K e n - i c h i T a k a s h i m a as w e l l . T h e i r c o n s t a n t e n c o u r a g e m e n t and s u g g e s t i o n s n e v e r f a i l e d t o r e m i n d m e o f t h e b r i g h t s i d e of l i f e w h e n I w a s a l m o s t o v e r w h e l m e d by t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s I f a c e d , and they helped me r e g a i n the c o u r a g e to c o m p l e t e my w o r k . I am a l s o d e e p l y i n d e b t e d to P r o f e s s o r s A s h o k A k l u j k a r and P a t r i c i a S h a w f o r t h e i r c o m m e n t s , e n c o u r a g e m e n t , and s u p p o r t . P r o f e s s o r s N a o m i M c G l o i n and Guy C a r d e n c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e r e v i s i o n of my t h e s i s w i t h t h e i r invaluable c o m m e n t s . Many thanks to them, e s p e c i a l l y to P r o f e s s o r Carden for his generous o f f e r of t i m e f o r d i s c u s s i o n . I w o u l d f u r t h e r l i k e to e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n to P r o f e s s o r s Bob L e v i n e and S u s a n n e C a r r o l l , v i s i t i n g r e s e a r c h e r s in the L i n g u i s t i c s d e p a r t m e n t , who g a v e m e v a l u a b l e i n p u t t o a p a r t of m y e a r l i e r d r a f t . My f e l l o w s t u d e n t s a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d in my t h e s i s in d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t w a y s : s o m e of t h e m r e a d a l l o r p a r t s o f m y m a n u s c r i p t s i n t h e i r v a r i o u s s t a g e s ; s o m e h e l p e d to c l a r i f y p r o b l e m s in d i s c u s s i o n s ; s o m e o f f e r e d me t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e ; and a l l of t h e m m a d e m y g r a d u a t e l i f e m e m o r a b l e . T h e s e p e o p l e are: Helen L i s t , Kathy Hunt, Bruce B a g e m i h l , Henry D a v i s , M a s a h i k o N a k a t a , Gary A r b u c k l e , and R o s e m a r y Haddon. I especially appreciate Masahiko Nakata's c o n s t a n t f r i e n d s h i p a l l t h r o u g h m y g r a d u a t e l i f e a t U. B. C. A n d v e r y s p e c i a l t h a n k s go t o G a r y A r b u c k l e f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n t y p i n g o u t a n d p r o o f - r e a d i n g m y m a n u s c r i p t s . W i t h o u t h i s h e l p in s e t t i n g up t h e m a t e r i a l , m y t h e s i s w o u l d n o t have been c o m p l e t e d . I f e e l t h a t I am v e r y f o r t u n a t e to have had so h e l p f u l a G r a d u a t e A d v i s o r as P r o f e s s o r K i n y a T s u r u t a and so p a t i e n t and r e s o u r c e f u l a d e p a r t m e n t s e c r e t a r y for graduate s t u d i e s as Rachel Rousseau. Many thanks for their support. L a s t , I w i s h to s a y "Domo a r i g a t o o g o z a i m a s i t a " to my m o t h e r Y o s h i k o Ono, b r o t h e r Koya, and my dear g r a n d m o t h e r Yoshi.  1  Chapter 1 Introduction  There are many linguistic phenomena where syntax and discourse interact (Kuroda 1973, Inoue 1982). As for the mode of this interaction, Kuno's series of works (1978, 1979, and elsewhere) for example, called Functional Grammar, integrate syntactic and discourse rules into rule sets based on functional perspectives. In his framework, the phenomena by which s y n t a c t i c a l l y well-formed sentences turn out to be i l l - f o r m e d sentences in discourse are given interesting explanations:  e.g., i f the  v i o l a t i o n of the  inevitable  discourse rules is the r e s u l t  of the  application of syntactic rules, the penalty is low (the sentence is not felt to be too bad) (1978, Chapter 3).  In the spectrum of interaction,  considering Kuno's system to occupy the middle ground, one end w i l l be occupied by Chomsky's generative grammar, which claims an autonomous system of grammar; and the other by discourse-oriented grammar (Givon 1979). This  thesis  assumes  a "Government and Binding"  type of  generative grammar, and several l i n g u i s t i c phenomena are analyzed. Many important w o r k s of functional grammar are also taken into consideration in the course of research, as they deal w i t h the area in  2  which s y n t a c t i c and discourse phenomena overlap.  The reason for  adopting the generative grammar approach is that the theory of the autonomy of grammar and the modular account of human language provides an explanation for a complex phenomenon by means of a combination of much s i m p l e r rule sets and p r i n c i p l e s , instead of employing rules which are directly applied to the phenomena and which attempt to explain everything at once; and furthermore  makes it  possible to explain independent phenomena by the use of the same principles (integrated explanation of linguistic phenomena). In this framework, formal grammar  1  and other human cognitive  functions are viewed as autonomous, each being a modular component of language. What actual variety of modules language consists of is s t i l l under investigation. Newmeyer (1 983) presents one potentially accurate but preliminary sketch, shown below: • (1)  "Language"  [Newmeyer: p. 3]  3  As for the formal grammars, Extended Standard Theory and Government Binding Theory assume the following model: (2) D-structure Syntactic Move-alpha S-structure PF Move-  LF Move-alpha  Phonetic Form (PF)  Logical Form (LF) [Saito (1985): p. 1 1 ]  LF and PF are syntactic representations respectively.  for semantics and phonology,  LF is followed by LF' as assumed in Chomsky (1977).  Semantics by i t s e l f , which may possibly form an independent module, may be distinguished from pragmatics, which can be broken down into 2  several  modules  ( w h i c h probably  p r i n c i p l e s proposed  includes  by Grice (1975)  Newmeyer's model suggests).  those  conversational  as one of the  modules,  The i n t e r a c t i o n between  s e m a n t i c , and pragmatic phenomena  will  as  syntactic,  be v i e w e d in a s i m i l a r  direction as in Dretske (1972): (3)  ...the semantical differences between C (U) and C (u") are to be represented as having their source in the apparently non-semantical differences between U and U' - is by  4  c a l l i n g the difference while acknowledging that certain p r a g m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s , j u s t as c e r t a i n s y n t a c t i c differences, figure importantly in the semantic analysis of some expressions in which they are embedded. (C(U) is a larger l i n g u i s t i c expression in which an expression U is embedded. [M. 0.]) [p. 427] 3  In t h i s l i g h t , passive, for example, would be v i e w e d as having a syntactic representation as a sentence, but the d i s t r i b u t i o n of passive constructions is conditioned by discourse (Williams 1977, Oosten 1984). The situations are the same when a certain pragmatic phenomenon is closely connected to a semantic phenomenon, a semantic phenomenon to a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon, a s y n t a c t i c phenomenon to a pragmatic phenomenon (cf. Kuno's functional grammar), and so forth. For example, Rochernont (1985) is a work carried out w i t h i n the framework of the autonomy of grammar w i t h modular components, which accounts for English focus as in (4): (4)  Focus, it is concluded, is a s y n t a c t i c a l l y represented notion w i t h s y s t e m a t i c though varying phonological and semantic representations, [pp. 177-178]  In t h i s t h e s i s , I have s e l e c t e d four l i n g u i s t i c phenomena in Japanese, some of which have been studied largely in syntax, some of which have been studied for the most part in pragmatics (contextdependent aspect), and some of which have been studied from both angles, but not often as the result of the interaction between syntax and p r a g m a t i c s ; and I i n v e s t i g a t e how the modular account of these  5  phenomena provides us w i t h a much simpler but integrated explanation for them. The f i r s t two chapters deal w i t h the problem of coreference.  In  Chapter 2, the reflexive pronoun zibun is examined. This topic has been examined mainly in syntax. However, I w i l l argue that syntactic rules and pragmatic (discourse) accounts of the coreference problem of zibun w i l l provide a fuller explanation of the phenomenon as a whole. In Chapter 3, d e m o n s t r a t i v e  pronouns  are  examined.  The  coreference problem of demonstrative pronouns is considered to be mainly one of a pragmatic nature, since their original function is deixis. The central concerns of the investigation are the semantic nature of the demonstrative, and the demonstrative in discourse anaphora. The former w i l l occupy a good deal of space, since it is related to the manner of "demonstration"; in the latter, demonstratives are compared w i t h pronouns in terms of the usage in discourse anaphora. In Chapter 4, I w i l l examine interpretation of quantifier nouns in a sentence.  Quantifier interpretation has been considered in syntactic  terms, but  I will  show that the choice between the readings  is  determined by extra-syntactic factors. In Chapter 5, the property and function of the particle wa, which is best known as a "topic" marker, is discussed. The examination w i l l be carried out from the standpoints of semantics, syntax, and pragmatics.  6  In the course of this thesis, some of the apparently conflicting analyses done in the past may become, not alternative solutions to the same problem, but merely studies of the different aspects (modular components) of phenomena.  Independent l i n g u i s t i c phenomena, on the  other hand, may be found to be dominated by the same principle of cognitive functioning.  Even certain phenomena which are seemingly  particular to Japanese can be recognized as manifestations of functions of human cognition, ones which may happen to be strongly dominating factors in Japanese, but scarcely specific to it alone.  7  Notes(Chapter 1)  1  Formal grammar i t s e l f is modular (cf. Chomsky (1981), Nakajima (1985-86), and LGB-type generative grammar.  2  Gazdar (1979) puts it t h i s way: P r a g m a t i c s = Meaning-Truth Conditional [p. 2], Wilson (1975), on the other hand, proposes nontruth conditional semantics. In this thesis, I assume that semantics is at least truth-conditional ( w i t h the possible addition of non-truth conditional and conventional meaning (?); cf. Wilson), and that pragmatics is the context-dependent aspect of meaning, although the line between the two has not been clearly defined so far.  3  U and IT are, for example, sentences having c o n t r a s t i v e features (stress), which Dretske regards as pragmatic features, adapting the definition of pragmatics in C. Morris and R. Carnap {international Encyclopedia of United Science, Chicago, 1955). Although his view of semantics and pragmatics differs from the one I have adopted in this thesis, the point made by Dretske offers an idea of how to look at the mode of interface between syntax, semantics, and discourse.  8  Chapter 2 The "Reflexive" Pronoun in Japanese  §2.0  Introduction The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate how zibun, which is  generally considered to be the Japanese r e f l e x i v e , e s t a b l i s h e s  a  coreferential relation to another noun. My concern is not the generation of zibun  but i t s disambiguating mechanism in terms of the  inter-  pretation.  Although zibun is often regarded as a counterpart of English  reflexives such as myself, yourself, or himself, zibun also exhibits a fair number of s i m i l a r i t i e s to pronouns in English. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of zibun w i l l be taken into serious consideration in this chapter.  §2.1  Three Types of Pronoun Usage According to Evans (1980), there are three categories'  usage of pronouns.  in the  Let us call them the referential use, the anaphoric  use, and the bound variable use, in consideration of the relationship between a pronoun, i t s referent, and the expression where the referent is pinned down as a linguistic form, if any.  9  Referential Use (1)  Look at him! (e.g., pointing at a man walking over there)  (2)  I heard that the company which John was working for went bankrupt. I wonder how he is making his living now.  Anaphoric Use (3)  John said that he w i l l go to Mexico next month. (John = he)  (4)  John loves his mother. (John = his)  Bound Variable Use (5)  Everyone loves his mother.  In (1) and (2), the object as a referent must actually be pointed out or described as s a l i e n t in some manner.  In determining  its  reference, pragmatic factors are involved. In (3) and (4), a coreferential relation is established between the NP John and the pronoun he since John and he refer to the same person.  In (5), although everyone  by  i t s e l f cannot make a reference to any person, each member of a set of everyone  can be i t s referent just like the bound variables in logic. In  examples (3) and (4), the reading that he is not John referential use. Lasnik  belongs to the  2  (1979)  proposes  a non-referential  rule;  3  the rule  s y n t a c t i c a l l y determines when two NPs are "not coreferential" and leaves the rest of the cases without d i s c r i m i n a t i n g referential cases (1) and (2) and anaphoric cases (3) and (4). Lasnik-type  approach  results  in the  As a consequence, the  coreference  (but  not  non-  coreference) relation is eventually determined in the pragmatic domain.  10  However, Evans considers the existence of case (5) as very crucial, and places emphasis on the connection (though not immediate) between (3)4  (4) and (5), drawing a d i s t i n c t i o n between "intended coreference" and "referentially  dependent  relation  (grammatical  coreference)."  Rochemont (1983) makes the further assumption that "a pronoun is referentially  dependent on some NP only if the  two phrases  are  coindexed." Now, in the case of the Japanese reflexive zibun, although i t s anaphoric aspect tends to get primary attention, I must point out that despite the name "reflexive," which in English denotes behavior which is s y n t a c t i c a l l y different from the pronoun (cf. Chomsky (198 0 ) , zibun in fact exhibits all three usages of pronouns, as shown in (6) - (9): Referential Use (6)  Ara, ara,  darenimo  yarazu ni zibun bakari  anybody (to) not giving  self  ga  only NOM  tabete iru wa. eat -ing 'Oh my, without giving it to anybody, only self is eating.'  (7)  Zibun self  wa  hi tori de  saki ni  kaetta  rasii yo.  TOP  alone  earlier  went home  seem  'It seems that self alone left earlier.' [Since zibun is usually identified w i t h English self, the tentative translations are given using that word, although the best and most idiomatic rendering of these examples would be with the pronoun he. ] Anaphoric Use (8)  Taroo  wa  [zibun no oya]  o  taisetu ni suru.  Taroo  TOP  self's parent(s) ACC be attentive to  'Taroo is attentive to self's parent(s).' Bound Variable Use (9)  Daremo Everyone  5  ga [zibun no oya] o taisetu ni suru. NOM  'Everyone is attentive to self's parents.' Taking the Evans-type approach (also cf. Reinhart (1983)), I w i l l divide (6) - (9) into two categories:  (8) and (9) w i l l be called anaphoric, and  (6) and (7) referential in this chapter. In the following sections, I w i l l f i r s t examine the referential use of zibun,  which  is p r a g m a t i c a l l y "bound"  6  anaphoric use, which is s y n t a c t i c a l l y bound.  in discourse, then  the  I w i l l also show how  coreference under syntactic r e s t r i c t i o n and coreference conditioned by discourse interact on a single instance of zibun  in a sentence. A  12  sentence is taken to be both a minimum unit of discourse and a syntactic product.  §2.2  The Referential Use of Zibun F i r s t , observe the following examples (10) - (12).  Imaginable  contexts for these sentences would be internal monologues including interjectional expressions. (10)  Zibun ga self  ikeba  NOM  yokatta.  go (provisional)  be preferable-PAST  '(I wish) self (= I) should have gone.' (11)  Konna toki koso  zibun ga  in this very situation  sikkari sinakereba.  self NOM should become courageous  'In this very situation self (= I) should become courageous.' (12)  Kore wa  zibun  mo  ukauka site  self (NOM) too be off one's guard  irarenai zo. can-not-be-ing  'Well, self (= I) too can not be off 'self's' guard.' In an internal monologue, the speaker is the only one in the "world" created by his consciousness (internal world); in other words, he occupies an absolute position and does not have to identify his position in r e l a t i o n to other people.  Zibun  is uniquely chosen in an internal  monologue, instead of the f i r s t person pronouns such as ore, boku, watasi, and the like, the choice of which is s o c i o - c u l t u r a l l y determined;  13  i.e., consideration of the outside world is involved. However, zibun is not merely the substitute for the f i r s t person pronoun /; it is rather "self" in opposition to "other."  (13) - (15) show clear instances of the  self/other opposition: (13)  Hito wa hito,  zibun wa zibun  da  others (contrastive)  self (contrastive)  COP  'Others are others, self is self.' (14)  Anotoki  wa  [NP [NP zibun  that time  TOP  [  self  ga  nigeru]  no]  SUB escape]  seiippai  de,  tanin no koto  ga NOM made  doing everything in one's power COP other's matter as well kangaete  irarenakatta.  think  not be-ing-PAST  'At that moment, all self could do was to escape and could not think about others as well.' (15)  Hito wa ninotugi de, mazu zibun ga others  second  first  self  kawaii. dear  'Others are second; f i r s t , self is dear.' "Self," which is opposed to "other" is not n e c e s s a r i l y fixed on the speaker.  Zibun  may also be the hearer, as in (16) - (18), or a third  party, as in (19) - (21):  14  (16)  Mazu  zibun  first  ga  saki ni  self NOM  before me  tabete eat  miro yo. try (imperative)  '(You) try/eat first!' (17)  Zibun no koto 'self's' matter  na-n-da kara it is  zibun de  denwa sinasai.  since self (in person)  telephone  (imperative) 'Since it is self's own matter, phone them yourself.' (18)  [Basu  ni nori-okureta]  bus  to  miss  no  wa  COMP  zibun no  TOP self  sei  's (own) fault  desyoo isn't it 'The reason you missed the bus is self's own fault, isn't it? (19)  Zibun bakari only  tabete eat  iru wa. -ing  'Only self is eating.' (20)  Zibun  ga  yareba  self NOM do (provisional) '(I wish) self would do it.'  ii it is good  noni  naa.  though  l-wish  15  (21)  [NP[S Zibun ga self  kaita] tegami] ni zibun ga henzi  NOM wrote letter to  o kaite  reply ACC  iru wa. '(Look at him.) self is w r i t i n g a reply to the letter which self wrote.' The three zibun s in (22) form a "minimal trio" each of which refers to a different person: (22)  a. Zibun ga siyoo.  (1st person)  w i l l do 'Self w i l l do i t : b. Zibun ga  sinasai.  (2nd person)  do (imperative) '(Self) do it!' c. Zibun ga site iruyo. do -ing  (3rd person)  'Self is doing it, isn't he?' (22a) is a v o l i t i o n a l expression which requires a 1st person subject; (22b) is an imperative which requires a 2nd person subject; and in (22c) -te iru yo  implies that the speaker is an observer.  With the help of  these l i n g u i s t i c devices and/or a shared environment between the speaker and the hearer,  the r e f e r r i n g o b j e c t s w i l l  be  clarified.  Interestingly enough, this kind of deictic use seems to be controlled by a s i m i l a r p r i n c i p l e which dominates ko-so-a  demonstratives w i t h  16  respect to the "speech arena" formation.  (Cf. Chapter 3 for Japanese  Demonstratives.) To summarize, zibun  in the referential use has the following  properties: 1)  Zibun, unlike the typical personal pronoun, is free from considerations of gender and honorific.  2)  Zibun contrasts with "other" in the self-other opposition;  3)  the "self" which is opposed to "other" can be shifted according to context; that is, zibun can be 1st person, 2nd person, or 3rd person.  Now, zibun in a discourse bound case is assumed to show the restricted mode of the same use (the deictic use). In w r i t t e n discourse, zibun can be either a narrator who is the w r i t e r himself or a narrator who is one of the characters whose internal feelings are described in the current discourse.  In this sense, each sentence can be understood through i t s  embedding in a higher abstract sentence such as (23): (23)  <NP wa> [  ] to omotta  7  (thought)  kanzita  (felt)  handansita  (judged)  mita  (observed) etc.  [NP = performer ( w r i t e r / a character from whose point of view the story is told)]  17  However, these outer frames of sentences in (23) seldom, at least in a consistent manner, exist as linguistic forms in actual discourse; they do not have real forms, except for the occasional realizations such as (24) - (27), when the discourse environment permits them. (24)  Watasi  wa  I  omowazu [zibun ga ikeba yokatta]  TOP involuntarily  to COMP  sakenda. cried out 'I involuntarily cried out that self (I) should have gone in person. (25)  Hanako wa [zibun ga sikkari-si-na-kere-ba] to TOP  COMP  ketui sita. decided  'Hanako decided that self (she) should brace (herself) up.' (26)  Taroo wa [zibun mo ukauka site irarenai zo] TOP  to COMP  omotta. decided  'Taroo thought that self (he) should not be off selfs' guard.' (27)  Sono otoko wa [zibun no ban ga kita] the man TOP [self 's turn NOM came] o  sitta.  ACC  realized  koto COMPUhe fact)  'The man realized that self's (his) turn came.'  18  However, once sentences have the forms of (24) - (27) instead of (24') (27') below, they possibly fall into the domain of anaphoric u s e  8  just  like the (28) - (28') pair does. (24')  Zibun ga ikeba yokatta! 'I should have gone in person.'  (25')  Zibun ga sikkari-si-nakere-ba... 'I should brace myself up."  (26')  Zibun mo ukauka-site-irarenai zo. 'I should not be off my guard.'  (27')  Zibun no ban ga kita.' 'It's my turn.'  (24) - (27) vs (24') - (27') are analogous to (28) vs (28'): (28)  He is running! (referential)  (28')  John said that he was running (when he saw Jane), (anaphoric)  In this section, zibun in the referential use has been observed in typical settings. The next section w i l l concern anaphoric use.  §2.3  The Anaphoric Use of Zibun Zibun d i f f e r s from  respects:  English r e f l e x i v e s in the f o l l o w i n g  two  i) long distance coreference (i.e., zibun does not observe  clause-mate condition); ii) its antecedent is the subject of the sentence.  19  In this section, the coreference rule for anaphoric use of zibun w i l l be examined. As for the coreference in syntax, the notion "c-command" (29) is gaining significance in recent literature: (29)  C-Command: Node A c (constituent)-commands node B if the branching node most immediately dominating A also dominates B. [Reinhart: 1976] S  NP  2  V  NP i c-commands N P 2 N P 2 cannot c-command NP] Now, assuming that Japanese is a configurational language, zibun also 9  seems to observe the general coreference rule for pronouns (cf. Saito (1985)) which is given in (30): (30)  Zibun cannot c-command its antecedent.  Rule (30) defines the case where zibun is disjoint in reference as shown in (3 1).  20  NP  PP  2  NP  V  P  3  (i)  NP3 is not eligible as the antecedent of NP 1 and NP2.  (ii)  NP2 is not eligible as the antecedent of NPi.  Thus in (32) NP2 is zibun; then, NP3 cannot be its antecedent: (32)  [s, Tarooj NP, ga  suki  NOM like  wa TOP  zibunj NP  nan n da] it-is-that  ni [s to  2  to COMP  2  Zirooj NP  3  koso  Hanakok  (emphatic) N P  4  tubuyaita]. muttered  Taroo muttered to self that it is Ziroo, not me, who likes Hanako.'  21  In (33b) and (34b), zibun is not coreferential w i t h Taroo since it does not observe Rule (30) (zibun does c-command Taroo ): (33)a. Tarooj ga [NP zibunj no kodomo] self  "s  child  o  sikatta.  ACC scolded  Taroo scolded self's child.' S  NP  VP  Taroo-ga NP  V  Zibun no kodomo-o  sikatta  b. *Zibuni ga [NP Tarooi no kodomo] o sikatta. 'Self scolded Taroo's child.' S  NP  VP  Zibun-ga NP  VP  Taroo no kodomo-o  sikatta  22  (34) a. Tarooi ga [NP zibuni no [ o  self  ie  o  katta  hito ]  's house ACC bought  person]  sagasita.  ACC looked for 'Taroo looked for the person who bought self's house.' b. *Zibunj ga [NP Tarooi no ie o katta hito] o sagasita. 'Self looked for the person who bought Taroo's house.' Next, as is w e l l - k n o w n , the antecedent of zibun  is subject (subject-  antecedent condition), zibun also observes Rule (35): (35)  The antecedent must c-command zibun .  In (36), Taroo does not c-command zibun; although zibun  cannot c -  command Taroo; thus, Taroo cannot be i t s antecedent (unless Taroo is mentioned somewhere in d i s c o u r s e and referred to by zibun  in  referential use): (36)  *[NP[S  Zibuni ga  katte iru]  inu]  ga  [NpTarooi no  self SUB  was keeping  dog  NOM  Taroo  neko] ni kamituita. cat  to  bit  'The dog which self was keeping bit Taroo's cat.'  's  23  Also observe (37a) - (37c): (37)a. *[NpTaroo no sigotoba] Taroo's workshop sae  wa  [Npzibun no kazoku]  TOP  self's family (NOM)  hairenai.  even cannot enter 'As for Taroo's workshop, even self's family cannot enter.' b.* [NpTarooj no kazoku] wa [Npzibunt no sigotoba] ni hairenai. 'As for Taroo's family, they cannot enter self's workshop.' c * [NpZibun, no sigotoba] wa [NpTarooj no kazoku] sae hairenai. 'As for self's workshop, even Taroo's family cannot enter it." In all three examples, Taroo does not c-command zibun because of NP nodes and all get  Note that if one takes Taroo no kazoku instead of  Taroo in (37b) as the antecedent of zibun, then it is grammatical w i t h no violation of rules. Now in a configuration like (31), if NP3 is zibun, the potential antecedents are NP) and NP2 (Rule 30); and both NP 1 and NP2 c-command zibun  in NP3 position (Rule (35)).  However, the  subject-antecedent  condition for Japanese r e f l e x i v e s a l l o w s only NP1 to be a possible antecedent.  Consequently, zibun  in subject position as in (38a) is  considered as a referential case while (38b) is anaphoric:  24  (38) a. Zibun ga  ikoo.  NOM shall-go 'Self (I) shall go.' b. Taroo wa [zibun ga ikoo] to itta. TOP  said  Taroo said that self (he) shall go.' Thus, Rule (30), (35) and the S - A (subject-antecedent) condition explain basic cases of zibun coreference in anaphoric use. Cases which do not fall in the domain of these rules and conditions are considered as referential.  In the next section, the nature of these rules is examined in  more detail w i t h i n the framework of universal grammar, to see how the Japanese zibun behaves therein. §2.4  Anaphor, Pronominal, and Variables  §2.4.1  The Binding Theory The  expressions  binding  theory  (Chomsky  into three categories:  1981) anaphor,  classifies  nominal  pronominal, and R-  expression, and states the conditions for each category as in (39): (39)  Binding Condition [p. 1 88] (A)  An anaphor is bound in i t s governing category.  (B)  A pronominal is free in its governing category.  (C)  An R-expresssion (e.g., name and variable) is free.  25  The governing category is defined as in (40): (40)  Governing Category [p. 1 88] a is the governing category for fi if and only if a is minimal category containing fi and a governor of fi, where a = NP or S.  The notion "binding" is defined as in (41): (41)  a is X (= A or A')-bound by fi if and only if a and fi are coindexed, fi c-commands a, and fi is in an X-position. [p. 184]  Under the definition of the governing domain in (40) and the binding conditions in (39), zibun is considered neither as a anaphor  (cf. the  long-distance coreference) nor as a pronominal (cf., the  subject-  antecedent property). This conflict w i l l be pursued in the next section. §2.4.2  Governing Domain Zibun is distributionally different from English reflexive:  zibun  can occur in the subject position and possessive case, whereas English reflexives cannot.  10  In both of these cases, zibun cannot be an anaphor,  since they are free in governing categories if a possessive bearing NP as w e l l as S is taken as the governing category (one possible assumption about such NPs).  26  Because of a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in i t s formulation, Huang (1982) proposes a modification of the governing category (40), which is given below in (42): (42)a. Governing Category [Huang, p. 337] a is a governing category for fi if and only if a is the minimal category containing fi, and a  SUBJECT  which, if  fi is an anaphor, is accessible to fi. b. SUBJECT is AGR (agreement) or a subject of NP and S. c. " A c c e s s i b i l i t y " is defined as following (Chomsky 1981, p.21 1 ff.): (i)  a is accessible to fi is if and only if in the c command domain of a and assignment to fi of the index to a would not violate (ii).  (ii)  *[y..5..], where y and 8 bear the same index (/ w i t h i n /' condition).  If a  SUBJECT  is accessible to fi (= an anaphor or a pronominal),  then an anaphor and a pronominal share the same governing category; if a SUBJECT  is not accessible to fi, then an anaphor and a pronominal have  different governing categories since the a c c e s s i b i l i t y is irrelevant to a pronoun. Thus, w i t h fi in the subject (= governed inside a ,  11  SUBJECT)  position as in (43), and  if fi is an anaphor then a is not i t s governing  category since an anaphor cannot be i t s own subject ( / w i t h i n /' condition), whereas if category.  fi  is a pronominal then a is i t s governing  27  (43)  [  fit  a  Ii  Given a sentence like (44), if zibun  is an anaphor, S is the governing  category instead of NP and it is bound in the S; if zibun  is a pronominal,  NP is its governing category and it is free in the NP. (44)  [s Tarooi ga Hanako o [NP zibuni no NOM  ACC  self  ie]  de sekkyo-sita.]  's house at  lectured  'Taroo lectured Hanako at self's house.' In either case, Taroo = zibun  reading is obtained. The identity of zibun  is obscure, but the coreference is s t i l l accounted for. However, this type of analysis is not free from problems both for the anaphor hypothesis and the pronominal hypothesis. Suppose zibun an anaphor, the analysis cannot explain the zibunj  reading in (45) since  NPj is outside of its GC (governing category): (45) a. [s Tarooj ga [s HanakOj ga [s] zibunj/j ga tadasii] to 3  2  NOM  NOM  NOM right  omotte-iru] to omotta]. is-thinking  thought  'Taroo thought that Hanako was thinking that self was right.'  is  28  b.  [s Yamadai ga [s, Matidaj ga [ N P ziburii/j no kuruma] 2  NOM de  NOM  's  car  ziko-o-okasita] to.itta].  w i t h had-an-accident  said  'Mr. Yamada said that Mr. Matida had an accident by self's car.' In (45a), since zibun in subject position is not an accessible subject, S2 instead of S i is GC and Taroo is outside of G C . Yamada is outside of G C .  13  12  In (45b) Sj is GC and  If zibun is a pronominal, on the other hand,  the problem of GC is not a problem any more since a pronominal is free in GC but may (or may not) be coindexed w i t h NP outside of GC. Then, the fact that zibun  is always coindexed w i t h the subject becomes a very  peculiar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c for a pronominal controlled by condition B in (39).  (Sportiche's (1986) explanation for this is that the long distance  coreference property of zibun is that of a bound pronoun (i.e., zibun is either an anaphor or a bound pronoun). I w i l l pursue this point further in § 2.4.3.3). Now, the possible resolution for the problems of the governing category w i l l be found in Manzini and Wexler (1987) and Wexler and Manzini (1987).  In Manzini and Wexler and Wexler and Manzini, five  values of parameter for GC (and two values of parameter for the proper antecedent) are set up.in universal grammar.  29  (46)  GC parameter [M & W: 1987a, p. 53] 7 is a governing category for a iff y i s the minimal category which contains a and  (47)  a.  has a subject, or  b.  has an INFL, or  c.  has a TNS, or  d.  has an indicative TNS, or  e.  has a root TNS.  Binding [ibid, p. 64] a.  An anaphor is bound in its governing category by a proper antecedent.  b.  A pronominal is free in its governing category from proper antecedents.  (48)  Antecedent parameter [ibid, p. 64] A proper antecedent for a is a.  a subject fi, or  b.  an element fi whatsoever.  In Japanese, the value (e) w i l l be selected in (46) for GC and (45) are nicely accounted for as anaphor cases. In the next section, this anaphor solution is further investigated in connection w i t h topic-antecedent cases.  30  §2.4.3  Topic-bound vs. Subject-bound  §2.4.3.1  Topic-Antecedent  The topic sensitive property of zibun  has been pointed out by  Kuno (1 973), Matsuda (1 975), and Kitagawa (1 981), among others.  First  of a l l , it is important to distinguish two types of topics, i.e., Topic 1 and Topic 2. For Topic 1 the topic NP is associate w i t h the gap in S. (49)  TaroOj wa  [s ei Hanako o  TOP  syookai sita]  ACC  introduced  'As for Taroo, (he) introduced Hanako.' (50)  Hanakoi wa [s Taroo TOP  ga  e,  NOM (ACC)  syookai sita] introduced  'As for Hanako, Taroo introduced (her).' In (49), the topic corresponds corresponds to the object.  to the subject;  in (50), the  topic  (The "e" is either a pro or a trace in Saito  (1985); the "e" is a trace in Kuroda ((1988) and elsewhere).)  Note that  w i t h Topic 1, t o p i c a l i z a t i o n does not affect the coreference relation of the subject-antecedent condition, as can be seen in (51): (51) a. Taroot ga Hanako NOM  o  zibun, no  nooto  ACC  self "s  notebook  'Taroo hit Hanako w i t h self's notebook.'  de INS  butta. hit  31  b. Taroo-j wa  [s ei Hanako  TOP  (NOM)  o  zibuni no nooto de butta.]  ACC  'As for Taroo, (he) hit Hanako w i t h self's notebook.' c. HanakOj  wa  [s Tarooi ga  TOP  ej  zibunj/*j no nooto  NOM (ACC)  de butta.] 'As for Hanako, Taroo hit (her) w i t h self's notebook.' In (51), zibun coindexed  is coreferential w i t h subject  w i t h topic NP; as a result,  coreference relation.  NP, w h i c h is in turn  Taroo  and zibun  obtain a  This does not hold for (51c) since topic NP is  coindexed w i t h the object, which cannot be coreferential w i t h zibun. Also observe (52): (52)  Tarooi wa [zibun*j ga TOP  NOM  ei itiban yoku  sitte-iru],  very w e l l  know  'As for Taroo, self knows him very well.' Zibun  in (52) is only interpreted as referential.  This subject-bound  property is observed in a relative clause case like (53a). like (53b), the ambiguity of zibun is nicely accounted for:  In an example  32  (53)a. [NpCsTaroo-j ga ej ziburij/*j no ie  de  fssyo ni  home at  benkyoosita]  together  studied  HanakOj] 'Hanako whom Taroo studied w i t h at self's home' b. Tarooi wa [ 5 ej [NP ts ej zibun ,/j no kuruma 0 aratte-iru] TOP  car ACC is-washing  otokoj] 0 nagamete-iru]. man ACC is-watching 'Taroo is watching a man who is washing self's car.' In (53b), ej is coindexed w i t h the head noun of the relative clause and e, is coindexed w i t h topic, and unlike ej  in (53a), each e in the subject  positions is coreferential w i t h zibun. Therefore,  in the  case of Topic 1, the  subject-antecedent  condition and not topic-antecedent, s t i l l holds. The situation is different in the case of Topic 2, where there is no corresponding argument position of the verb, as in (54) and (55): (54)a. Tarooi wa [zibunj ga TOP  NOM  tyokusetu soko ni itta.] in person there  went  'As for Taroo, self went there personally.' b. Tarooj wa [zibuni no TOP  otooto  ga  itta.]  's younger brother NOM went  'As for Taroo, self's younger brother went.'  33  c. Taroo, wa [[ziburij ga katte-ita] inu] ga byooki ni natta. TOP self NOM kept  dog NOM sick  became  'As for Taroo, the dog which self was keeping became sick.' ( 5 5 ) a. Tarooj  wa  [itiban s i t a no musume]j  TOP 2  youngest  dookyosite iru. live  daughter  ga  zibunj/*j to  NOM  self  with  semantically anomalous)  -ing (zibun = Taroo )  'As for Taroo, his youngest daughter lives w i t h self.' b. Tarooj  wa TOP 2  hahaoyaj ga [zibun,/j no zaisan] mother NOM  self's property  o ACC  kanrisite-iru. manage - i n g (zibun = Taroo/hahaoya )  'As for Taroo, his mother manages self's property.' There are cases in which the establishment apparently d i f f i c u l t . (56) a. ?Taroo  14  of coreference  The examples in (56) are such cases: wa  TOP 2  Hanako  ga NOM  zibun  to  kekkon sita.  with  married  'As for Taroo, Hanako married self.'  is  34  b. ?Taroo wa Hanako ga zibun  o  syookai sita.  ACC  introduced  'As for Taroo, Hanako introduced self.' These, as a matter of fact, are good i l l u s t r a t i o n s of the nature of Topic 2. With Topic 2, whether the connection between the topic and the rest of the sentence is appropriate or not is determined pragmatically.  In  isolation, these sentences have low acceptability because of the lack of pragmatic i n f o r m a t i o n . The coreferential relationship between zibun 15  and Taroo in these cases is not impossible, simply open. Therefore, the statement that the zibun coreference is sensitive to topic means that it is sensitive to Topic 2. The question then, is what  is the  antecedent.  nature of topic-antecedent In the  following,  I will  as opposed examine  to  subject-  T o p i c 2 and  its  coreferential relationship to zibun. According to Kuno (1973, p62ff) Topic 2 is created through a process of " S u b j e c t i v i z a t i o n " from either NP-no (possessive) or N P - n / (locative) as shown in (57) and (58). (57)a. John no otoosan 's  father  ga  sinda.  (=Kuno's (23))  NOM died  'John's father died.' b. John ga otoosan ga sinda. NOM  NOM  c. John wa otoosan ga sinda. TOP  (Subjectivization)  (Thematization)  35 (58)  Bunmeikoku  no dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga  c i v i l i z e d countries 's mizikai.  male  's average life span NOM  (=Kuno's (27))  is-short 'It is the average life span of men of c i v i l i z e d countries that is short.' Kuno claims that sentences such as (59) (=Kuno's (18) (1 973, p25 1)), and (56) above, which do not have a corresponding NP-no or N P - m sentence, are base generated. (59) a. [sSakana wa fish  [stai  ga  ii.]  TOP red snapper NOM good  'As for fish, red snapper is good.' b. [sHana  wa  blossoms  [s sakura  TOP cherry-blossom  ga  ii.]  NOM good  'As for flowers, cherry blossoms are the best.' On the other hand, Kuroda (1986 and elsewhere) labels Topic 2 as the "major s u b j e c t "  1 6  and argues that unlike Topic 1 sentences (for  which Kuroda has maintained the movement analysis since 1965), these sentences are base-generated and get the nominative case marker ga in position,  then  are  moved under  S' p o s i t i o n j u s t  like  Topic  1.  Consequently, Kuroda considers examples like (60) (given in Mikami (I960)) as a separate category of wa sentences.  36  (60) a. [NpSinbun  o  yomitai]  hito  newspaper ACC read-want person  wa/*ga  koko  ni  TOP  here  in  arimasu. exist 'As for those who want to read newspapers, they are here.' b. Basyo place  wa/*ga TOP  okunai-setu indoor-theory  ga  attooteko  datta.  NOM predominant  was  'As for the place (of the murder), the "indoor" theory was predominant." Now back to the topic of zibun coreference. zibun  If the cases where  is coreferential w i t h Topic 2 are considered as pragmatically  determined, then the ungrammaticality of the Topic I case in (51c) (repeated here as (61)) w i l l be left without explanation, since the functional difference between Topic 1 and Topic 2, i f any, is far from clear in terms of zibun coreference. (61) .  HanakOj wa [sTarooj ga TOP  ej  zibunj/*j no nooto de butta.]  NOM (ACC)  'As for Hanako, Taroo hit (her) with self's notebook.' On the other hand, if this coreference is considered a syntactic phenomenon, it is puzzling why both subject and topic are chosen as the antecedents.  I shall  pursue  the  latter  investigation of the nature of topics in syntax.  case  further  under  the  37  §2.4.3.2  Topic vs. Subject  F i r s t , let us look at the previously proposed topic structures. (62) gives a summary of Kuno and Kuroda's analyses introduced in the previous section. (62) a. Kuno's Analysis (1 973)...base-generation Ex. [sSakana wa [stai ga ii.]]  (cf (59))  b. Kuroda's Analysis (1986)...movement Ex. [s'Sakanaj wa [stj [stai ga ii.]] On the other hand, Saito (1985) suggests two derivations for topic sentences as in (63). (63) a. Tarooj wa [sHanako ga ei suki da.] 'As for Taroo, Hanako likes him.' b. [sTarooi wa [sHanako ga tj suki da.]] In (63a), the relationship between N P - w a "aboutness relation" (Saito 1985, p.287) that the base-generated N P - w a  and S is "licensed" by the  Hoji (1985) further assumes  is Kuno's "thematic" topic and N P - w a  created by movement is Kuno's "contrastive" topic as shown in (64) (=Hoji's (73)). (64) a. "Thematic" Ex. [ " N P w a [ -[ NP-gf3 [ S  r  s  s  vp  ei V]]]]  b. "Contrastive" Ex. [ N P r w a [ N P - g f 3 s  s  [ V P ti V]]]  38  Hoji i d e n t i f i e s the "thematic" topic as the E(xpression) of Banfield (1973). Now, evidence  in favor of the s t r u c t u r e (64a)  rather  than  (62a)/(62b) for Topic 2 comes from examples such as (65). (65)a. Taroo wa T0P2  kodomo-tati wa children  mina dokuritu sita.  TOPI  all  be-independent  'As for Taroo, as for his children, (they) all get up on their own.' b. Taroo  wa T0P2  otootoi  wa  younger brother  e\  TOPI  daigaku  ni  yaranakatta.  university  to  did-not-send  kodomo  o  child  ACC  'As for Taroo, as for his younger brother, (he) did not send his child to a university.' c. Taroo wa T0P2  kodomoj  wa  child  TOP1  Hanako ga ei  sodatete-iru is-raising  (e.g. Hanako is his ex-wife) 'As for Taroo, as for his child, Hanako is raising (him).' Since Topic 2 precedes Topic 1 (S/S ) in these examples, the following 1  structure (66) can be suggested.  39  (66)  Topic 2  S'/S S  Now, using the recent version of X'-theory described by Chomsky (1986) which f a c i l i t a t e s the comparison of structures despite their apparent diversity, (66) may be represented as (67). (67) CP  (68)  It is [cpJohn [cpwho left.]]  Assuming (67) is the correct structure for Topic 1 and Topic 2, the position occupied by Topic 2 is that of a s m a l l - c l a u s e s u b j e c t  1 7  as  possibly assumed in English cleft constructions such as (68); while Topic 1 under CP(=S') instead of IP(=S), as suggested by Kuroda (1988), is in the specifier's position and is not a subject in the same sense of Topic 2.  This explains why N P - w a , which is under S', by Kuroda's  movement analysis, and binds the object, cannot be the antecedent in (61).  Furthermore, t h i s gives a consistent view for the s y n t a c t i c  structure of zibun coreference w i t h the subject-antecedent condition.  40  Although I have to leave the details of this analysis for future research, I assume this as one possible syntactic explanation. In the  next  s e c t i o n , another  possibility  for the  variable  interpretation of zibun is examined for syntactic topic coreference. §2.4.3.3  Zibun as a Variable  The claim that zibun (and null pronouns, but not overt pronouns) can be a variable has been made several times in the literature (Hoji (1982), Saito and Hoji (1983) among others).  Saito and Hoji (1983)  claim that the difference between (69a) and (69b), which have the configuration shown in (70), is due to the fact that zibun  exhibits a  weak crossover effect while kare does not. (69) a. [s J i r o j - o [s [NP Hanako-ga kare|-o k i r a t t e i r u koto]-ga ACC [VP ti yuuutuni depressed  NOM him ACC dislike  fact NOM  siteiru]]]. make  (=S&H(15b))  '(Lit.) Jiroj, the fact that Hanako d i s l i k e s himi has depressed.' b* [s J i r o r o [s [NP Hanako-ga zibunj-o k i r a t t e i r u koto]-ga [VP tj yuuutuni (70) a. QOj [ b* QOj [  kare, zibunj  siteiru]]]. tj tj  (=(15c))  ] ]  (weak crossover)  (QO: quasi-operator  = scrambled NP)  41  If zibun  is a variable and kare  is not (which is assumed to be true),  (70b) is accounted for as a result of v i o l a t i n g the Bijection Principle (Koopman and Spontiche (1982)), which prevents an operator  from  binding more than one variable. This assumption leads to the stipulation given in (7 1): (7 1)  When zibun is locally A'-bound, it must be construed as a variable. (Saito & Hoji, p. 255)  However, Saito & Hoji eventually c l a i m s that instead of the Bijection principle, which requires many stipulations to make it work in (70), (70b), which exhibits a weak crossover effect, is better explained by the general principle given in (72): (72)  A variable cannot be antecedent of a pronoun or an anaphor that it does not c-command, [p. 256]  A stipulation such as (71), in fact, has problems. Observe (51b), repeated here as (73): (73)  Tarooi wa TOP  [s ei Hanako (NOM)  o  zibuni no nooto de butta.]  DO  'As for Taroo, he hit Hanako w i t h self's notebook.' Suppose (73) is derived by movement as Kuroda and Saito suggest. Then since zibun is locally A'-bound by Taroo which, in turn, binds the trace, the sentence v i o l a t e s the Bijection Principle.  However, in r e a l i t y the  sentence is grammatical. If zibun  is an anaphor, it has to be A-bound; i f zibun  is a  variable, it has to be A'-bound. Since Topic 2 is in the A ' - p o s i t i o n , if (7 1) is a correct generalization, zibun has to be a variable. But this is  42  not the case. This conclusion indirectly supports the p o s s i b i l i t y of the alternative "subject" analysis for Topic 2 presented in the previous section. In the next s e c t i o n , I w i l l  examine how discourse  affects  coreference. §2.4.4  Zero-Topic and Referential Use Huang (1982 and 1984) c l a i m s that the empty topic binds the  object EC (empty category) in Chinese. (74)  [topSi],  [Zhangsan shuo [Lisi bu renshi ei] say  not know  '[Hirrij], Zhangsan said that Lisi didn't know ei.' [Huang (1984), p. 542] He also c l a i m s that this type of zero-topic binding is only allowed in a "topic-prominent" language like Chinese. In fact, the topic NP deletion observed for Chinese in Tsao (1977) is s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r to Japanese N P - w a deletion (cf. Mikami (1960), Kuno (1978) and Terakura (1984)). Huang's z e r o - t o p i c is motivated by the "topic-chain" phenomenon in discourse as shown in (75): (75)  [[TopiCj]  ] [ [ ei ]  ] [ [ e, ]  ] [ [ ei ]  ]  Huang assumes that this coindexing in (75) can be done in LF' module followed after L F  1 8  (cf. (2) in Chapter 1). That is, in Huang's i n t e r -  pretive framework, the coindexing in syntax provides the coreferential  43  relationships in a sentence and the coindexing in the type above provides information for a sentence to be interpreted in discourse. Now in Japanese, (13) in §2.6 also provides an example of zero analysis for Topic 1. In examples like (76), let us also assume that they have a zero topic which is Topic 2 as in (77); then zibun is, in fact, not referential but anaphoric and coindexed (in syntax) w i t h Topic 2. (76) a. zibun ga NOM  zikani  soko  ni  itta  in person there to  went  'Self went there in person.' b. Taroo ga NOM  zibun no kodomo self  's  child  o ACC  syuzyutu-sita operated  Taro operated self's child.' (77) a. [ej]  [zibunj ga zikani soko ni itta.]  TOP 2 b. [ej]  [Tarooj ga zibunj/j no kodomo o syuzyuti-sita.]  TOP 2 The problem is that unlike Topic 1, since Topic 2 is an extra-NP, it is not clear whether a sentence has a zero Topic 2 or not.  The  discourse concept of a 'global topic' could offer one possible solution for this. Assuming that "global topic" (discourse topic) is what a discourse is about, while "local topic" (Topic 1 and Topic 2) is what a sentence is about, it is observed that the "global topic" and Topic 2 have s i m i l a r functions; it has often been pointed out that Topic 2 has a discourse function s i m i l a r to such expressions as Taroo to ieba, "speaking of  44  Taroo," Taroo no koto da keredomo, Taroo no ken ni tuite da ga ne,  "talking about things concerning Taroo."  Then, i s i t the case that a l l  referential cases are, in fact, anaphoric ones and bound by Topic 2 ? To see this point, f i r s t compare examples (78) and (79b). (78) and (79b) are identical, except that i t i s apparent that the subject-antecedent condition is violated in (79b), while it is not in (78). (78)  Taroo ga Hanako o [zibun no tomodati no mae] self  's  de  friend in front of  LOC  home-hazimeta. start to praise 'Taroo started to praise Hanako in front of self's friend.' [Zibun = Taroo]  (79) a. Sorekara Hanako ni after that  nani  EXP what  ga NOM  okotta  no.  happened Q  'Then, what happened to Hanako?' b. Taroo ga Hanako o zibun no tomodati no mae de homehazimeta no sa. 'I w i l l t e l l you, Taroo started to praise Hanako in front of self's friend.' [Zibun = (Taroo)ZHanako }  Suppose we account for this antecedent shift phenomenon  19  in a fashion  parallel to the zero topic analysis. That is, Hanako is the global topic in the m i n i - d i s c o u r s e (79) and is coindexed w i t h the Topic 2 in  45  discourse interpretation as shown in (80) and zibun then is Hanako. Notice here that the subject-antecedent condition is not violated, since Hanako (= zibun ) is the Topic 2 but not the direct object (which is also Hanako).  (80) Hanako [Discourse Information]  Hanako-o  no tomodati no mae-de zibun  homehazimeta  However, (79b) is not exactly a Topic 2 sentence. Example (81), which is in fact (79b) w i t h the NP overt, is, in fact, ungrammatical. (81) * [s-Hanako wa [sTaroo ga Hanako o zibun no tomodati mae de homehazimeta.]] Now let us replace (79b) with (82a). (82) a. Taroo ga kanozyo/e o zibun no tomodati she no mae de homehazimeta no sa. b. [ei  [Tarooj ga kanazyoj/ei o zibunj/j no tomodati  TOP 1 no mae de homehazimeta no sa.]]  46  If (82a) has the structure of (82b) w i t h / w i t h o u t the resumptive pronoun kanozyo, then zibun is coreferential w i t h the zero topic which is, in turn, coindexed w i t h the discourse topic Hanako.  However, as Kuno  (1978, p104) reports, it is rather rare, though not impossible, that a non-subject NP in the preceding discourse occurs as a zero topic. Also, (82b) is a counter example to cases such as (61) which does not allow coindexing between Topic 1 and zibun . 20  Therefore, although Topic 2 has  a function s i m i l a r to that of the discourse topic, (79b) does not necessarily have Topic 2 as the zero form. The same thing can be said of pairs (24-27) vs. (24'-27') in relation with the performative analysis in terms of the abstract "localization" of discourse function. Let us return our attention to the data (4) in §2.6 (the relevant portion repeated here as (83)). (83)  Johnj wa  [Np[sono  TOP 1 lureta] Bill]  ie  ni zibun*j  that house in o ACC  self  o ACC  kakumattesheltered  uragitta-nodaroo. betrayed-would-have  'Perhaps it was the case that John betrayed B i l l , who sheltered self in that house.' Zibun in (83) is not John but Mary, which has occurred e a r l i e r in the previous discourse.  Mary is the protagonistic character and from her  point of view the story is narrated. Thus, the referential use of zibun, which is identified w i t h the narrator and/or the protagonistic character can override s y n t a c t i c  47  coreference as in cases such as that shown in (83) (John* zibun), where the  syntactic  protagonist.  antecedent  does  not  coincide w i t h  the  narrator/  There are also discourses which do not have p a r t i c u l a r  narrators (cf. Kuroda's reportative and non-reportative d i s t i n c t i o n in Kurado (1973b)). In connection w i t h this topic, I w i l l examine two key notions which, although they are not syntactic concepts, are relevant to zibun coreference.  §2.5  Zibun and Kuno and Kuroda's Extra-Syntactic Notions Kuno (1973) c l a i m s that the notion of "awareness" plays the key  role in determining the choice between zibun and kare 'he', as he states in (84): (84)  Zibun in a constituent clause (A) is p r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h a noun phrase (B) of the matrix sentence only if A represents an action or state that the referent of B is aware of at the time it takes place or has come to be aware of at some later time. In other words, zibun appears in subordinate clauses only when the clauses represent the internal feeling of the referent of zibun and the f i r s t person pronoun appears in its place in the direct representation of the internal feeling, [p. 322]  In Kuno's a n a l y s i s , apparent  free v a r i a t i o n s of "reflexive" zibun /  "pronominal" kare in cases like (85) - (87) are not free variations as far as  an e x t r a - s y n t a c t i c  level  is concerned.  In other  words,  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of those two is dominated by an e x t r a - s y n t a c t i c factor, which is "awareness."  48  (85)  Taroo wa [Ziroo ga TOP ^  zibun/kare  NOM  o  'self/him  nantonaku  ACC somehow  sakete-iru  to]  omotta.  be-avoiding  COMP  thought  'Taroo thought that Ziroo was somehow avoiding him.' (86)  Taroo wa [kyoodai-tati ga TOP  siblings  zibun/kare  o  self/him  ACC  NOM  tayori-ni-site-iru  koto]  ga  depend-on  COMP  NOM  wazurawasikatta was-annoying  'Taroo felt that it was annoying that his siblings depended on him.' (87)  Taroo wa [Nptteki no supai ga TOP enemy o  's  mihatte-ita]  spy  toki]  sirokuji-chu  zibun/kare  NOM all the time ' s e l f / h i m mo fudan to  ACC was-watching when too  usual  kawari-nakatta. was-the-same  'Taroo was his usual self even when the enemy's spies were watching him.' As a native speaker myself, I certainly detect that the choice of the use of these two controls, say, the nuance of the utterance.  The problem  w i t h a notion like "awareness" is the difficulty in defining what exactly it means or even in proving that it e x i s t s , although i n t u i t i v e l y the concept does not seem to be far off what native speakers sense in examples like (85) - (87).  49  Kuroda (1973 a and b) deals w i t h the same problem.  Kuroda  (1973a) argues that, contrary to Kuno's claim of "awareness" factor in zibun coreference, the following example (88) (= (5) in Kuroda, p. 139) does not involve "awareness": (88)  Oedipus wa Jacasta ga zibun o unda  ie  bore house kodomotati  to  children  with  de ima wa now  koohuku-soo-ni kurasite-imasu. happily  living-is  'Oedipus now lives happily w i t h his children in the house where Jacasta bore him.' At this point, Oedipus did not have the slightest idea of the fact that J a c a s t a had borne him. Thus, Kuroda c l a i m s the difference between reportive style and non-reportive style determines the choice between zibun/kare (89)  in cases like (89): Johnj wa Billj ga zibunj/j/karej o hometa toki Mary no soba ni ita. 'John was by Mary when B i l l praised himself.'  According to Kuroda, if the story is told from the narrator's point of view (omnipresent but not omniscient) kare is used (reportative); on the other hand, if the story is told from the subject's (= John in this case) point of view, zibun is used (nonreportative).  (In either c a s e / - reading  is intact.) Thus, zibun is used in (89) not because John is aware of the event but because John's viewpoint is employed.  50  Kuno's "awareness" and Kuroda's "viewpoint" do seem to be related to the "self-other" opposition scheme of zibun in §2.2. That is, in (85)(87), the events are viewed from Taroo as the center of consciousness and the self's awareness of the events naturally follows from the "selfcentricity". To extend this discussion any further would take us too far from  the main point of t h i s chapter.  However, the  "self-other"  opposition schema, which I assume to be the essential characteristic of the use of zibun, is not a sudden invention of any sort.  The Japanese  language has often been called an "epistemological language" (Kuroda 1973; McCawley 1978) which l i n g u i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e s what is related to "I" and what is not.  The concrete examples given in the  literature quoted above are in the following form: (90) a.  (Watasi wa) soo omou / kangaeru / sinziru / omotte-iru / kangaete-iru I  so  believe  'I believe so.' b. (Watasi no yuuzin wa) soo *omou / *kangaeru / * s i n z i r u / omotte-iru / kangaete-iru my friend  believe  'My friend believes so.' According to Akatsuka, the distinction between "my" belief and someone else's belief (which "I" can never know for sure) creates this difference. The usage of some adjectives is another case, which is mentioned in Kuroda. An example of this is:  51  (9 Da. Watasi/*Taroo wa atui. hot  'I am hot.' b. *Watasi/Taroo wa  atu-gatte-iru. hot-feel-(being in a certain state)  'Taroo is hot.' Such epistemological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a strongly dominating factor in Japanese, which can be extended to broader aspects of the language than normally thought,  p o s s i b l y including the  in-group/out-group  distinction in the honorific system and the principles governing the use of the koso-a-do  demonstratives (cf. Chapter 3).  What is noteworthy in both Kuno's and Kuroda's hypotheses is that the subject NP which is independently defined in grammar is also the site of manifestation of such conceptions as "awareness" and " v i e w point," which have extra-syntactic natures.. Now, to review the p o s i t i o n , there are two uses of  zibun:  referential use and anaphoric use; the former is pragmatically bound and the latter is s y n t a c t i c a l l y bound. Every zibun is potentially ambiguous. Then the s t r u c t u r a l information makes a certain prediction, namely possible and impossible coreference information  relationships.  provides who is i d e n t i f i e d w i t h  The contextual  zero t o p i c , who is  construable as the performer of abstract performative frame, who is the narrator, and the like. Although the final decision on the choice of the antecedent involves complex pragmatic factors, there is now a series of  52  candidates for  the  contextual, for  zibun.  most  likely  antecedent, e i t h e r  structural  In the following section, I w i l l analyze some  discourse data drawn from texts to test the foregoing predictions. §2.6  Examination of Discourse Data  [Data]  (1)  . . ^ l i : i t M A m t i : i t ^ A ^ * . J : a H o ^ A \  ~>tzmoxn.  MK).  ofc.  (2)  KM*. (3)  or  mi>ifi&ftoit^ss^oit.  S#o£vS£fI9. U ^ D o S J f c ,  ( R ® SO  a  • 129)  m*zt>Ltz.  *«5£<A^&l*&ifcjS£a<  ( r a ^ M ^ ^ • 141)  &  i*co^*fcov^TS  . . . I ^ M ^ ^ W ^ A ^ t f c K ^ H ^ t u ^ .  &mz%^mzLfri>.  iftlHE  #£-MlTfc£  {Fimmnbiph • 123) fcW£&#*£.  ^ ^ J i t  53  (4) N a r / - w a henzi-o m a t - t e tyuuibukaku zibun -r\\ s o s o i - d e i - r u 6///|<-no me-kara kao-o s o r a s i - t a . B/'//|<-no g i w a k u - g a zibun -r\i m u k e - r a r e - t e i - r u koto, z/fcunm-ga otooto-no John\-r\\ y a r - a s e - r u dake no r i y u u - g a a r - u koto, kotoni otooto-ga keisatu-ni ima t u k a m a t t e - i - r u koto - korerano kan-gae-ga subayai hirameki-de Mary -no atama-no naka-o tuukasi-ta. Osoraku (dareka-ni tanom-are-te) John\-wa sono ie-ni zibun -/kare\-o kakumat-te kure-ta Billy-o uragit-ta no dar-oo. Isi no yowai John\-no koto dakara. S i k a s i zibun -wa mukankei da. m  m  m  m  m  m  'Mary turned away from the stare of Billy,, who w a s watching 5ELF attentively and w a i t i n g for an answer. That Billys suspicion was turned on 5ELF [i.e., that Billy suspected SELF ], that 5ELF had a good reason to have [her ] younger brother John\ do that, especially that [her ] brother^ was in the custody of the police - these ideas rushed through [her ] mind. Perhaps i t was the case that (being asked to) John\ betrayed Billy, who sheltered SELF /him\ in that house. Because Johns was infirm of purpose. But 5ELF was not a party to that.' (Oshima's original.) m  m  m  m  m  m  m  m  m  m  (5)  E  S  ^mtz^tcb.  X%<  g  T  L  *  t  '  ^  X  ^  t  z  &  ^  m  ^  k  9 fcS  —&i,zi&\,\x&i>fstff^fr'f(izmtztiLV. saigas z ) &±S#W;^ftfrfc-^-i£<HtMf  &LX*t:frt>mt>'J?l,&r>X hit. o O'SrV^ffittSrSfc U f c .  tfit:. fc-S^##&;L'?:££*5&L,T'b*.  t>K ISI t % < X\Z S <ft»-141)  b  h b .  *ixi**&^tz&&ifimL&#<nm^*x&zmzm^m&tz ^  fctfpfc  "Cft & .  (ftIff • 245 )  246 )  (8) 4*tiJK#<aE#0#5<a#£a»&a»jEo/£.  (10)  r j / ^ t ^ j  r^Lfr-tZtmfrZ?  fcS^lifflfrtsifc.  i bSftttTK-ytz. g ^ ® a a ^ (2) <7) BR O  3te^&JI*»fli*£.  ^s&S&Al^fctelillSftfc&cT)^.  ftkr&M^fc^'^T'te&v^  ^jgj;  0  *$8£5£ti  fc&*Lji.&ib*>Ji&fcf^SE  ^ - y a ^ ^ W M -96) (12) A f B f c V ^ t f . mbxvt^tzhL^Xo  -#T<Oj&^\  %*->X^r>  I,  *(iZm  (t'lt^)  (13) u ^ u a f r i B i m ; : . T^m^xma. &M&Z.il&V&&i:mt& coi>cr>t LXxKfeL. Z o Ltifo%.l,zmt>ti. % a L tz&fe coil cr> JiX ± # T v ^ < 0 ^ f f c ^ 3 ifc*SJBi-6. fo&MVkXte. Ziiififrtitoft » £ 3 g * f LTV^fc*)*!. i#i^A£fc&£frt>fc'Otf>B W f c & ^ S i ^ T v^S*»^0. fc £ LX a t t ) l T \ i 9 oo&o l*^fli(:5:^3t *R1Mtf)ffii$®vM fc IX LfrMmtihtzZ a. **ifc44J: o t i n f c = f i r s « a ^ « ^ < r fc^'-c^ - s o ^ f c . -c^s. $:5t3:fc*i&:K3fifc:* a S o t v ^ ^ o ^ f c Ltufo. R i S f t e i f c . £_ it*>J3B<*>Atffca n ^ ^ T ^ S 3 i # f c |S] t**31fc:& & Atf fc*H*rtfv*-0*S v ^ v ^ & f t A J l - C f c * S^tiS A^conf fc a $ S * . T V * ( ^ £ 3 5 : A H • 83-4)  [TEXTS] Shiga, Naoya: "Wakai," in Gendai Ninon Bungaku Taikei 3 4 , Tikuma Shoboo, Tokyo. Shimizu, Tooru: Tokyo.  Shiisyuposu  no Shinwa, by A. Camus, Sintyoo Bunko,  T s u j i , Kunio: "Enkei-Gekizyoo k a r a , " i n Kita no Misaki, Sintyoo Bunko, Tokyo.  56  [The Skeletons of the Relevant Sentence Structures in the Data] 1.  [Watasi ga NOM  atta  kagiri de  wa  daremo  met  as far as  TOP  everyone NOM  zibun no koto  ga  sika hanasanakatta.  self's matter (ACC)  but  did not speak.  'As far as I know, everyone spoke of nothing but self's own matter.' 2.  [[rel-cl]  otoko ya [rel-cl] onna-tati] man and  o  women  ga NOM  [zibun no mae] self  s front  mitumete ita.  ACC were gazing at 'The man who...and the woman who...were gazing in front of selves.' 3.  Watasi ga...sore I  NOM it  o ACC  [zibun no self  siya]  ni  s' field of vision LOC  tutumi-konda. put into (put things in perspective) '...and I put things into perspective.' 4 5.  [cf. Data] Titij father  wa ei zibun TOP  'self  ga  wakaranakatta.  NOM (object) could not recognize  'My father could not recognize self.'  57  Titij  wa  ei  [sobo  ga  TOP [grandmother koto  o  [zibun no uti]  NOM self  s' home  e  kuru]  GO come]  iyagatta.  COMP ACC  hated.  'My father was unwilling for my grandmother to come to self's home.' Tumai  wa  wife  ei [zibun no atama]  TOP  self  's  head  o  monda.  ACC massaged  'My wife massaged self's head.' [  ] to  zibun  COMP  self  ga  itta.  SUB said  'Self said that...' Zibun^ wa self i  ei  [Np[zibun2  TOP  ni  ['self2's'  no zutuu]  ga naotte iru] no]  headache NOM has gone]  kizuita  to noticed 'Self noticed that self's headache was gone.' Zibun1  1  wa  self  1  o  kanjita.  ACC  TOP  ei  [Np[zibun2 [self2  no  me]  's  eyes  felt  'Self felt that self's eyes lighted up.'  ga  kagayaku] no]  NOM light up]  58  11.  Eien yori mo karej  wa ei [zibun no yuuki  eternity-than  he  TOP  no hoo]  aisu.  o  (rather)] ACC  to  ronsyoo  [self's courage and proof  love  'He loves self's courage and proof more than eternity.' 12.  Taroo to ieba,  otooto  ga  [zibun no sinyuu]  speaking of Taroo younger brother NOM to with  iede site simatta has run away from home  self  's friend  rashii  yo.  seems  you-know  'Speaking of Taroo, his younger brother seems to have run away w i t h self's friend.' 13.  [ej[ei[Np[Np[s[Np[Zibuni no syuui] no hito-bito] ga idaite iru] [[self's surrounding people] [Npsamazama na sinnen]], [  [various kinds of beliefs,]  NOM  have]  ]] demotte [NP...[Npkat i]] e  with  o  supposition ACC  sasaete iru]]. support -ing '0 supports this supposition [that...] w i t h various kinds of beliefs which those around self usually have and...' In (1), zibun is daremo. Daremo  is the c-commanding subject.  Thus, it s a t i s f i e s Rule (35) and the subject-antecedent Furthermore,  since  daremo  condition.  is a quantified NP, this is a typical  s y n t a c t i c a l l y bound (bound variable) case. Notice that watasi  is in the  59  adverbial clause, thus i t cannot c-command zibun. The referential use of zibun  i s also possible.  However, the context  excludes  this  possibility. In (2), there is the same case as in (1). Here a plural NP acts in the same way as a quantified NP in Japanese (cf. Hoji (1982)). In (3), the c-commanding subject i s watasi.  Thus, watasi  is  coreferential w i t h zibun. Also zibun can be referential, referring to the narrator.  However, since the subject is the same as the narrator, the  two coincide and the reference remains the same. In (4), second sentence from the bottom, John topic; thus i t is a possible antecedent.  Mary  is the subject-  is a performer in an  i n v i s i b l e performative sentence, such as Mary wa...to omotta thought...".  "Mary  Oshima (1979) c l a i m s that i f one replaces zibun by kare,  then kare i s John; otherwise zibun  only has a zibun-Mary  reading.  However, the fact is that zibun is ambiguous between John and Mary or the subject and the performer.  The reason why only the  zibun-Mary  reading i s possible is related to a type of discourse strategy:  that i s ,  zibun is used consistently to refer to Mary in the previous discourse. Examples (5), (6), and (7) are all taken from Naoya Siga's "Wakai" (Reconciliation). The story is narrated by the hero who appears as zibun, and zibun is consistently used to refer to the narrator. In (5), the local topic titi  binds the subject.  object zibun is marked by ga.) Thus, titi  (Notice that the  is a possible antecedent as  far as the structure i s concerned. However, the context (especially the  60  style of narration) c l a r i f i e s that zibun is referential and refers to the narrator. In (6), the subject  sobo  and the subject  titi  are possible  antecedents, but again the context specifies that zibun refers to the narrator. In (7), tuma is the subject.  But the head mentioned is not the  wife's head but rather her husband's head. He is the narrator. Examples (8), (9) and (10) are also taken from Shiga's Wakai; however, the uses of zibun  i l l u s t r a t e d therein are a l i t t l e different  from those in the previous examples. In (8), the matrix subject zibun refers to the narrator. observation: zibun  is referential by position and  Note that this sentence sounds like an objective  the narrator describes his own action.  This is because  is coreferential w i t h a performer in an i n v i s i b l e performative  sentence such as X wa...to mita, 'X observed...'; thus, the narrator is the observed object (= zibun ) and the observer (= X) simultaneously. (9) and (10) provide another interesting case.  In (9), zibun \ is  referential by position. Zibun 2 is either referential or anaphoric. anaphoric,  zibun 2 is c o r e f e r e n t i a l  w i t h the subject  If  zibun \ . If  r e f e r e n t i a l , each zibun can have a different reference as a logical possibility. However, zibun \ and zibun 2 are coreferential contextually. (1 0) exhibits the same case.  61  In (1 1), zibun can be either referential or anaphoric by position; however, it is anaphoric by context and bound to the c-commanding subject kare, which in turn is referential, referring to Geete (Goethe). The final cases are related to Topic 2. Zibun in (12) is ambiguous between the Topic 2, Taroo, and the subject otooto. In (13), zibun is coreferential with the subject which is null but bound by Topic 1.  Topic 1, in turn, is also null but identified w i t h  huzyoori na ningen (absurd man) through the topic chain. §2.7  Conclusion Syntax cannot give the complete answer to the  coreference  p o s s i b i l i t i e s of Japanese reflexives. However, it is tooextreme a move to leave the whole issue to a theory of pragmatics, since zibun observes  certain syntactic restrictions.  still  The d i s t i n c t i o n between  referential and anaphoric uses, which captures the nature of zibun, is more than just assuming zibun as the English reflexive e q u i v a l e n t . That is, every zibun  21  is potentially ambiguous between referential and  anaphoric. Anaphoric cases are the ones whose coreference relations to other NPs are determined by sentence grammar which says, d e t a i l s aside, that zibun has to be bound to the subjects (including Topic 2 ) .  2 2  If a sentence has a zero topic (which may get a coindex through the subject in case Topic 1), its referent is determined in discourse. And such a process  is assumed to be in the formal representation  discourse structure, i.e., in the LF' module.  of  62  Thus, the basic schema is:  the sentence grammar feeds  the  information such as potential candidates for the coreference (i.e., general "subjects" including Topic 2) to the n o n - s y n t a c t i c modules where the final disambiguation in the coreference interpretation takes place. The LF' module of grammar identifies what is the entity of the topic. If it is null in syntax, Topic 1 is easily identifiable through topic chain in surface structure of discourse; while the Topic 2 case is more abstract and i t s nature is not fully clear yet, but it is related to the "ground" on which the story is told (cf. Chapter 5, m u l t i - w a or topic in a global sense.  sentences)  Now, subject which is s y n t a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i -  fiable candidate for the zibun coreference is also identified, in turn, as the s i t e of "awareness" or " v i e w p o i n t . "  23  If these are key notions to  determine the coreference in discourse, it explains why the subjectbound topic, as opposed to the object-bound topic, is coreferential w i t h zibun.  The cases where zibun  is c o r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h the  narrator  (referential case) seem to fall in the same pragmatic domain controlled by a notion such as "viewpoint'V'awareness."  63  Notes (Chapter 2)  1  There is a fourth category, "E-type pronouns." However, these three are sufficient for the purpose in this chapter. A c t u a l l y (3) and (4) are s t i l l ambiguous between the coreference given by sentence grammar and the coreference given by discourse rule (referential use) since the pronouns are preceded by their antecedents. However, in (i), such a p o s s i b i l i t y is excluded. The coreference reading is solely determined by sentence grammar. This was pointed out to me by M. Rochemont (personal communication).  2  (i) 3  His mother loves John, (he = John)  If NP 1 precedes and kommands N P 2 , and N P 2 is not a pronoun, then NPi and N P 2 are noncoreferential.  Definition:  A kommands B if the  minimal c y c l i c node dominating A also dominates B. [Lasnik, 1976, p. 15] 4  The following pair does not exhibit a parallelism, unlike (4) and (5): (i)  His mother loves everyone, (he * everyone)  (ii)  His mother loves John, (he = John)  5  In Japanese, zibun ' s e l f , but not kare 'he', has this type of use.  6  The term "bind" is used here in an i n t u i t i v e l y understandable not a syntactically defined one for anaphoric use.  7  Kuno's direct discourse analysis (e.g. 1973) is developed on this aspect of zibun.  8  'Anaphora' or 'anaphoric' expressions are different from 'anaphor': the l a t t e r is defined in the binding theory; the former means the expressions which have coreferential NPs in the same sentence.  9  The c o n f i g u r a t i o n a l i t y does not n e c e s s a r i l y d i c t a t e the tree s t r u c t u r e as in (29) (cf. Hoji [1982] for a binary branching  sense,  64  hierarchical structure). However, the choice of the configurational representations does not affect our analysis. 0  Zibun in object position and clause-bound cases like (i) in general are slightly awkward: (i) a.  Hanakoi ga zibuni o hometa. 'Hanako praised 'self."  b.  Tarooi ga zibuni o syookai-sita. 'Taroo introduced 'self."  (For an unknown reason, if zibun-de (by him/her self) is added, these sentences sound more natural.) There are peculiar cases w i t h zibun-o. Once sentences in (ii) are embedded, unlike (i) where zibun can have long-distance coreference, they s t r i c t l y observe the clause-mate condition, as in (iii): (ii) a.  Taroo wa zibun o korosita. 'Taroo suppressed 'self."  b. Taroo wa zibun o migaita. 'Taroo cultivated 'self." ( i i i ) a. HanakOj wa [Tarooi ga zibuni/*j o korosita] to omotta. 'Hanako thought that Taroo suppressed 'self'.' b. HanakOj wa [Tarooj ga zibunj/*j o migaita] to omotta. 'Hanako thought that Taroo cultivated 'self'.' The nature of zibun w i t h these subjective state verbs might be that of an ordinary noun which has a meaning like "ego" or "mind." An expression such as kare wa zibun to iu mono o motte iru, 'He is his  own man' contains such a zibun. This assumption is compatible w i t h the following claim of Kuno's:  65  Zero pronominalization in the possessive case: the more predictable the reference of the possessor is, the more possible it is that the possessive phrase becomes a zero pronoun, (translated by M. 0. [Kuno 1983]) Then, what is coreferential w i t h Taroo is not zibun but the zero pronoun in the possessive position of zibun. Even so, however, it is s t i l l necessary to explain why the zero pronoun refers to Taroo and not Hanako. The explanation w i l l be given in exactly the same manner as it is given here, for the zero pronoun for this kind of zibun is used as the inalienable possession. 1 1  1 2  This condition is needed because of s m a l l clauses and believe contexts.  type  In the f o l l o w i n g sentence, it is a l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t to make a c o m parison between / and j and zibun^ but this is due simply to memory capacity: (i)  [s Tarook ga [s HanakOj ga [s, Zirooj ga [ N P zibunj/j/?k NOM NOM NOM 3  2  no ie] de yopparatte-iru] to itta] to itta]. 's house in drunk said said 'Taroo said that Hanako said that Ziroo was drunk in 'self's' house.' 1 3  Possessive is a problematic case for GC. GC for (i) often receives irregular treatment and assumes S instead of NP. (cf. Anderson (1979)): (i)  [s John washed [ N P his car.]]  1 4  M. Soga's comments on Topic 2 called my attention to these kinds of examples, reflecting the nature of Topic 2. I also owe example (59) to Soga.  1 5  Terms which imply s o c i o - c u l t u r a l bonds supply good contextual information for zibun as coreferential w i t h a topic. The use of  66  kinship terms like musume (daughter), hahaoya (mother) in (55) is such a case. 1 6  Shibatani (1976-77 and the reference cited there) argues that the f i r s t NP in (i) can not be coreferential w i t h zibun ; thus can not be a subject. (i)  Yamada-sensij prof.  ga musukoj ga zibun*i/j NOM son NOM  ni to  unzarisite-iru. is-disgusted 'It is Prof. Yamada whose son is disgusted w i t h self.' However, it is possible for zibun to be coreferential w i t h the f i r s t NP as shown in (ii). (ii)  Yamada-sensii ga musukoj ga zibuni/j no  ie house  de at  netuite-iru. be-i 11-in-bed 'It is Prof. Yamada whose son is i l l in bed in self's house.' The reason why zibun^ gets "*" may be that "zibun ni unzarisiteiru" is a clause-bound expressions s i m i l a r to the cases (ii) in note 10. 1 7  M. Rochemont pointed this out to me.  1 8  M. Rochemont pointed out to me that Discourse Representation Theory in Heim (1982) might implement this phenomenon in formalization.  1 9  This phenomenon was f i r s t observed, to my knowledge, by Heizo Nakajima and reported in Kitagawa (1981).  2 0  Some native speakers have informed me that (61c) is slightly better than the scrambling case, i.e., w i t h Hanako-o instead of Hanako-wa. This may suggest the (61c) could be improved in a certain discourse  67  environment. However, the discourse context like (78) is, at least, not the one for (61c) to improve. 2 1  After I completed this chapter, I learned that the English reflexive is not so straightforward, and is also controlled by a certain discourse factor, (cf. Zribi-Hertz (1989))  2 2  Psych-verb cases (McCawley (1976)) are not d i r e c t l y discussed in this chapter. For the treatment of this type of sentence in a GB framework, cf. B e l l e t t i and Rizzi (1988).  2 3  H. Terakura has pointed out to me that the term "subject of consciousness" used in Ann Banfield (1982) (Unspeakable Sentences, London) may possibly be added to this list.  68  Chapter 3 Japanese Demonstratives:  §3.0  Ko-So-A  Introduction In the preceding chapter, I examined the Japanese r e f l e x i v e  pronoun zibun,  w h i c h is used r e f e r e n t i a l l y / a n a p h o r i c a l l y .  chapter, I w i l l be examining Japanese demonstratives,  In t h i s  w i t h special  attention to those used anaphorically as antecedents in discourse, and compare them w i t h pro-nominal elements in discourse.  I will  first  examine the main issues concerning the nature of demonstratives and provide  a general  perspective  demonstratives work.  regarding  exactly  how  Japanese  I believe that any factual observation which is  made about their use in discourse should be re-examined in the light of their  d e i c t i c function.  Then, I w i l l  examine  the  distributional  difference between the /co-series and the so-series in discourse.  One  might say that such choices are more or less pragmatic matters:  see,  for instance, the following example, where we can employ either ko or so :  69  (1)  Tantyoosa  ni tomonau  monotony  follow  to taihi sareru. be-compared riyuu ni yoru.  1  aki  wa  boredom  yoku often  hiroo weariness  Kore/sore wa tugi-no-yoo na this/that  following  (Kobayashi: Tantyoo na Shigoto)  reason 'Boredom caused by the monotony (of tasks) is often compared with weariness. This is for the following reason.' This type of problem is often regarded as a matter of, say, the language user's subjective ( = ko ^ o b j e c t i v e ( = so ) a t t i t u d e s toward the referent.  However, my concern here is not s t y l i s t i c s , but rather the  behavior of the  demonstrative  itself,  which  may e v e n t u a l l y  be  correlated w i t h various kinds of phenomena, some purely l i n g u i s t i c and some not.  A close examination of the nature of the referents of each  demonstrative is one of the main aims of this investigation.  In the  course of the chapter, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the use of the various demonstratives w i l l be compared with that of pronouns.  70  §3.1  The Use of the Demonstratives  §3.1.0  Introduction While English has a twofold demonstrative system, i.e.  here-there,  this-that/  Japanese has a threefold system, the /co-series, the so-  series, and the a-series demonstratives, which are distributed over the various syntactic categories as shown in (2): (2) ko  so  a  kore  sore  are  dore  koitu  soitu  aitu  doitu  koko  koko  asoko  doko  sow sot  atti  dotti  (direction)  kotti kotira  nominal-  konna  sonna  anna  donna  determiner  kono  sono  ano  dono  adverb  koo  soo  aa  doo  noun 1  do  (interrogative)  (object) noun 2 (object/ person) noun 3 (place) noun 4  ira  at  ira  dot  ira  adjective  For  purposes of translation, Japanese demonstratives and English ones  are taken to correspond in the following manner:  71  Japanese  (3)  ko  English  |  so  this/here  a  that/there  The a-series are sometimes translated as "that one over there/' since objects pointed out by the a-series can be found further away than those pointed out by the so-series. The traditional views about the threefold system in Japanese demonstratives are based on t h i s observation, namely, that the objects for ko-so-a  may be arrayed according to the  distance from the speaker, as shown in (4): (4)a.  Kono kyuuri  to, soko no tomato  this cucumber and that ni aru no  nasu  exist  eggplant  to, eeto, asoko  tomato and  er...  kasira. Dattara are mo isn't  if so  that too  that tyoodai. give-me  (At a greengrocer's) 'I w i l l take these cucumbers and those tomatoes and, er, is that one (over there) an eggplant? If it is, give me some of that, too.' b.  cf. SPEAKER : cucumber -> tomato -» eggplant [ko ]  Proximal  [so]  [a]  Medial  Distal  The modified version of (4b), which is presented in (5), incorporates the existence of the hearer in this schema and is often considered to be a better-supported alternative:  72  The schema given in (5) indicates that something near to the speaker is referred to by ko ; something near to the hearer rather than the speaker is referred to by so ; and something distant from both the speaker and 0  the hearer is referred to by a. Sakuma  (1936/enlarged  representative of the nawabari  ed.  1951)  is often  quoted' as  the  'territory' theory developed from the  view presented in (5). Sakuma c l a i m s that something in the speaker's t e r r i t o r y is referred to by ko ; something in the hearer's t e r r i t o r y is referred to by so ; and something in neither the speaker's nor the hearer's territory is referred to by a, as shown in (6):  1  73  (6)  Speaker  Hearer  [a ]  [Sakuma 1951]  There have been many modifications of this theory after its formulation by Sakuma, but the idea of territory formation has been accepted as the foundation of studies of the Japanese demonstratives.  Now, in the next  three sections I w i l l investigate three core notions in such theories of the demonstratives:  (i) ternary vs. binary; (ii) distance; and ( i i i ) the  existence of the hearer.  §3.1.1  Ternary vs. Binary Sakuma's demonstrative theory assumes a t r i p a r t i t e structure in  t e r r i t o r i a l formation.  On the other hand, Mikami (1955) c l a i m s that  t e r r i t o r i a l formation takes place in two sets of binary relations: ko vs. so and ko vs. a, as shown below in (7):  74  (7)  b.  a.  [a ]  Case 1  >  Case 2  According to Mikami, there are two cases of psychological t e r r i t o r y formation w i t h respect to koso-a  use. In Case 1, ko and so share the  oval field. The oval shape indicates that the field shared by the two has two centers: the speaker and the hearer. In Case 2, the territory of ko completely overlaps or absorbs the t e r r i t o r y of so, and ko in turn is opposed to a. The speaker is the center of ko in this case; however, a does not have a corresponding center. As the result of the combination of the binary sets indicated in Case 1 and Case 2, the apparent opposition is formed.  koso-a  In cases like that exemplified by (4), the shift  from Case 1 to Case 2 takes place rapidly (Okamura 1972). This assumption may explain the lack of so-a matic expressions given in (8) below:  pairs in the i d i o -  75  (8)a.  pairs  koso sore  ya  kore  ya  de  ' b e c a u s e of t h i s and t h a t '  t h a t a n d t h i s (and) w i t h soko  koko ni  there  here  'over t h e r e and over here'  at  soo  koo  in t h a t w a y  suru utini  in t h i s way  sonna  konna  do  while de  in that (reason) in t h i s (reason) w i t h  'while doing this and d o i n g t h a t ' ' b e c a u s e of c a s e s l i k e t h a t and c a s e s 1 ike this'  b.  pairs  ko-a are  (ya)  kore  (ya)  t h a t (and)  this  (and)  a a da  k o o da  that way  2  that  here c.  *so-a  ' t h i s and that'  this way  kare ( = are)  koko  'one t h i n g a n d / o r a n o t h e r '  kore  ' t h i s and t h a t / a b o u t '  this kasiko ( = asoko)  'over here and over there'  there pairs-  The p a r a d i g m does not, of c o u r s e , p r o v i d e d i r e c t s u p p o r t to t h e b i n a r y t h e o r y , b u t a t t h e l e a s t i t t e l l s u s t h a t f o r s o m e r e a s o n so-a  cannot  76  form pairs in opposition. More interesting items of data on idiomatic expressions are given in (9) below: (9)  dare  'so and so'  sore  who that (person) doko  soko  'such and such a  where there  place'  nanda  ka( = a)nda  itte  (it is) what  (it is) this  saying  'on some pretext or other'  The interrogative forms, dare 'who', doko 'where', and nani 'what' are combined w i t h so or a but never w i t h ko. This fact indicates a special property in ko, and I w i l l be returning to this topic in section 3.1.3. The next item of data to consider related to the binary theory is the possible range of choices among the demonstratives.  Without any  change in physical position, the speaker can point out the same referent, sometimes w i t h ko, sometimes w i t h so ; ko-so  and ko-a  are i n t e r -  changeable, respectively, under certain conditions. However, a l l three members of the ko-so-a time:  series are not interchangeable at the same  R = a referent which is approximately the same distance from A and B, w i t h the two facing one another. b.  A:  Kore/sore/*are  wa nan-desu ka.  this that  what  Q  'What is t h i s / t h a t ? ' B:  Kore/sore/*are ga rei no yatu sa. in question one 'This/that is the one I mean.'  (1 Da. I  R  AB  I  78  b. Hyottositara  ano tubo, syuusyuuka ga nodo  by some chance that  vase  collector  kara te ga deru hodo hosigatte-iru enthusiastically  want  to-ka-iu.... I hear  [(monologue) Kore o sagasu tame ni dorehodo this  look for  how much  kuroo-sita-koto-ka.] have-a-hard-time 'Hey, is that the vase which I hear that many collectors are drooling over? [Finally I found it. What a hard time I had to track it down!]' Ko-so  in (10) and ko-a in (1 1) are interchangeable, respectively; but it  is not possible to use a in (10) and so in (1 1). The possible pairs in (10) and (11) correspond to the pairs given in the binary opposition. Again, t h i s does not provide direct support for the binary theory, but the i m p l i c a t i o n s are worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g .  I will  be  assuming a modified binary system, of which the d e t a i l s w i l l  be  discussed in §3.1.3.  In t h i s chapter,  79  §3.1.2.  Territory Formation: Physical Distance vs. Psychological Distance Assuming that the primary function of demonstratives is deictic  (Lyons:  1977), let us focus on the spatial use of demonstratives, where  it is clear how S-H-R are arranged in physical space. The problem here is how we determine whether the referent is closer to S, c l o s e r to H, or close to neither S nor H. The following examples demonstrate that the physical distance involved is not the main factor in determining the "distance" (although it is not t o t a l l y irrelevant). (12) a. A:  Soko wa moo sukosi there  mizikame ni tanomu yo.  a l i t t l e more  shorter  please  (at a barber shop) 'Will you make it a l i t t l e shorter there?' Who can t e l l which person is physically closer to the speaker's hair, the speaker whose hair it i s , or the barber who is actually touching the speaker's hair? Also observe (1 3) and (1 4): (13)  A:  Kore ga this  koko no  here (this restaurant)  da yo. 'This is the chef's special.'  itamae no ziman-ryoori chef  special (dish)  80  B:  Yaa kore wa w e l l this  umasoo  da.  looks-good  'Well, t h i s / i t looks good.' (14)  Kono usa-tyan wa nanto-iu onamae? this  bunny  what  name  'What is this bunny's name?' In (13), the dish is on the table, in between the two speakers, or it is even possible in this instance for it to be physically closer to B; but A s t i l l uses ko.  In (14), the utterance is made to a small child who is  playing w i t h a stuffed animal: the addressee is touching the referent, the speaker is not, but nevertheless the speaker s t i l l uses ko. The fact is that the physical distance is very much affected by the psychological one.  In (13), A's utterance i m p l i e s that he is the host or at least  patronizes the restaurant; and in this sense, the dish on the table is "closer" to A than to B. In (14), a friendly speaker is eager to show her closeness to the doll and thus to the g i r l :  t h i s is why she used ko  instead of the alternative, so. The psychological parameters of distance perception may be i l l u s t r a t e d by (15):  81  (I5)a.  Each speaker (A, B, C, D) is almost the same distance from the referent, a scorpion.  b.  A:  Saa, kore/*sore ga mekisiko this  Mexico  sin-syu  de  saisyuusita  at  collected  no sasori da yo.  new species  scorpion  'Here it is. These are the scorpions of a new species which I collected in Mexico.' B:  Dore dore!  Kore/*sore wa sugoi ya. Mata korekusyon  let me see  this  collection  ga fueta ne. added 'Let me see! This is great. You've added to your collection again.' C:  Konna/Sonna  mono o tukamaeru tame ni  this kind of/that kind of  thing  catch  82  harubaru  makisiko made i t t e k i t a - n o - k a i .  all the way  Mexico  Aikawarazu  kawarimono-da-ne.  as usual  to  went  eccentric  'You went all the way to Mexico to catch this/that thing? You are as eccentric as ever! D:  Kimoti-warui! *Konna/Sonna disgusting  that  dokoka e  yatte yo.  somewhere  send  Anna/*konna/*sonna that  mono  hayaku  thing  quickly  ([in a whisper to C]  mono no doko ga i i - n o - k a s i r a , thing  where-good  mattaku.) actually 'Disgusting! Take that thing away. (I don't understand what he sees in it, really!) In (15b), as an enthusiastic collector, A is "close" to his c o l l e c t i o n ; thus, he uses ko. B is on A's side, and shows his strong interest by also using ko.  C is amazed by A's hobby:  he may use so  to express his  disgust, or remain w i t h ko to show his amazement, which counts as a form of interest.  D is a person t o t a l l y out of sympathy w i t h A's hobby.  83  She wants to create a psychological distance between herself and what she sees as A's bizarre collection, and so ko is avoided when speaking to the group as a whole. However, since D either considers C her ally or wants to w i n C over to her side, she uses a in the remark addressed privately to C (cf. (7b)). Thus, Sakuma's theory of t e r r i t o r y formation, i l l u s t r a t e d in (16) below, makes better sense when constructed on the basis of the participants' perception of psychological distance: (16) [ko  [so  }  }  speaker and hearer's territory R. Lakoff (1974) categorizes English demonstrative uses into three classes:  S p a t i o - t e m p o r a l d e i x i s (pointing words); discourse  d e i x i s (anaphora); and emotional deixis.  I do not agree w i t h this  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , at least as far as Japanese is concerned, since even spatio-temporal deixis is not free from psychological assessments of  84  "distance," as I have demonstrated above. But what interests me most is the  emotional d e i x i s w h i c h  'closeness.'  i s used for "vividness" or c r e a t i n g  Lakoff's examples are duplicated here as (17) for this and  ( 1 8 ) f o r that : (17)a. I see there's going to be peace in the Mideast. This Henry Kissinger really is something!  ( = Lakoff's (8))  b. He kissed her w i t h this/an/*the unbelievable passion. ( = (11)) (1 8)a. How is that throat?  ( = (35))  b. That Henry Kissinger sure knows his way around Hollywood! ( = (45)) Lakoff's comment on the tftat-case  i s , "these are perhaps the most  curious semantically, since the distance marker that seems to establish emotional closeness between speaker and addressee" (p. 351). However, this is no surprise at a l l if that is considered to be an undifferentiated equivalent of both so and a ; (1 8) would be a case of a in Japanese. The emotional closeness in (17) is between the speaker and the referent, while that in (18) is the speaker and the hearer, or the two who share the conversation. Lakoff's analysis of English this/that  can easily be  fitted into the schema for the Japanese ko and a in (16). The point on which I disagree w i t h Lakoff is that, unlike her, I assume that spatiotemporal d e i x i s is also affected by psychological factors.  Lakoff's  categorization of the demonstratives may be d e s c r i p t i v e l y right, but I believe that three usages are generated from the fundamental schema of  85  the function of demonstratives, where the (psychological) distance factor is one of the parameters.  The reason why I consider the term  'territory' should be preferred over 'distance' is that 'territory' implies a sense that the subject matter or the other parties 'belong' to the speaker; while 'distance' does not. Now, notice that in the case of a  in (16), the speaker and the  hearer form the territory whereas the referent does not belong to it; or in the case of so, the referent belongs to the hearer's t e r r i t o r y but not to the speaker's.  In the schema in (16), speaker, hearer, and referent  participate in the formation of territory. However, is it the case that the hearer's existence is as significant a factor as that of the other two in territory formation? This is the problem that I w i l l be addressing in the next section.  §3.1.3  Speaker's Territory and Egocentricity In the preceding section, I mentioned that the sense of distance is  affected by the speaker's perceptions; however, it is also true that the physical distance constrains the perception to a certain extent.  For  example, in pitch darkness, the speaker can only use ko for a referent which he can touch or feel. A person cannot use so to refer to the food in his own mouth, and other people cannot refer to that same food w i t h ko. Here, the assumption of a hierarchy of 'truth' in McCawley (1978) may lead to an explanation:  86  (19)  A Hierarchy of 'Truth' A Ego's knowledge acquired through his sensory experiences. Ego's knowledge acquired through purely logical reasoning. Ego's knowledge acquired v i a someone else's knowledge. [McCawley (1978): p. 178]  A thing which the speaker can perceive w i t h c e r t a i n t y w i t h i n his t e r r i t o r y is one whose existence the speaker can confirm senses.  w i t h his  Such an object w i l l be the most c e r t a i n l y 'true' for him, in  McCawley's terms, and w i l l thus be referred to by ko. Observe (20): (20) sense  taste  experiencer  Kono/*sono/(ano)  a z i nandaroo.  (What i s t h i s / * t h a t t a s t e ? )  non-experiencer  *Kono/sono a z i t y o t t o h e n d a r o o . (Isn't * t h i s / t h a t / ( t h e )  taste a  little strange?)  smell  K o n o / * s o n o / ( a n o ) nioi nandaroo.  *Kono/sono  (What i s t h i s / * t h a t  ( W h a t do y o u t h i n k  smell?)  n i o i doo o m o o . *this/that/  [the] s m e l l i s ? )  touch  Kono/*sono/(ano) tezawari  *Kono/sono  karasuruto, asa rasii.  mitaidaroo.  (Judging from  (*This/that texture is like linen,  this/(the)/*that  t e x t u r e , i t s e e m s t o be l i n e n . )  isn't i t ? )  tezawari asa  87  feeling  Konna/*sonna/(anna)  s u g a s u g a - *Konnani/sonnani  s h i i k i b u n w a h i s a s i b u r i da.  kai?  (1 h a v e n o t h a d t h i s / * t h a t r e -  (You f e e l * t h 1 s / t h a t  k i b u n ga i i  good?)  f r e s h i n g f e e l i n g for a long time.)  sound  oto nandaroo.  Kono/*sono/ano  oto ikaga.  *Kono/sono  (What i s t h i s / * t h a t / t h a t (over  ( W h a t do y o u t h i n k ^ t h i s / t h a t  there)  s o u n d i s ? ; eg. the a d d r e s s e e i s  sound?)  using headphones.)  sight  Kono/-*sono/ano  e m i t a k o t o ga  arunaa.  Kabe no * k o t t i / s o t t i g a w a w a donnahuu dai.  (1 h a v e s e e n t h i s / * t h a t  painting  before.)  (What i s ^ t h i s / t h a t (the other) s i d e of t h e w a l l l i k e ? )  In t h e c a s e s o f ' t a s t e , ' ' s m e l l , ' a n d ' t o u c h ' i t i s o f c o u r s e p o s s i b l e f o r  the  s p e a k e r and t h e h e a r e r t o e x p e r i e n c e t h e s a m e f o o d , s m e l l , o r t e x t u r e at t h e s a m e t i m e ; but s u c h i n s t a n c e s a r e e x c l u d e d .  In cases concerning 'feeling,' 'taste,' 'smell,' and 'touch,' a can be used only when the speaker is referring to past experiences; while a is perfectly all right for referring to present experiences observed through 'sight'  and  'sound.'  However,  in the  latter  case,  ko and a  are  differentiated according to the physical distance from the source of sound or  sight.  When someone asks the  experience, so is used.  experiencer about  the  In other words, things (the experience in this  case) which do not belong to the speaker are indicated by so. This fact casts the significance of the role of the hearer in the use of so into doubt.  88  In her categorization of emotional deixis, Lakoff claims that that creates a "closeness" or "togetherness" between speaker and hearer. According to Sakuma's schema, in the case of a, the hearer and the speaker belong to the same territory.  In r e a l i t y , however, it is not  necessarily the case that the hearer is involved in the use of the aseries: typical examples are soliloquies like those in (20), but this may be involved in other situations as w e l l . Examine ( 2 1 ) - (23): (21)  Kimi niwa soozoo mo tukumai you  daroo  ga anna sugasugasii  cannot-imagine probably but that  kibun wa feeling  umarete hazimete no  refreshing  keiken sa.  f o r - t h e - f i r s t - t i m e - i n one's life  experience  'You probably cannot imagine (this), but that was the f i r s t time in my life I experienced that refreshing feeling.' (22)  Ano  soba wa umakatta naa. Kimi mo  that noodle  was-good  you  zehi  itido  by all means  once  tamesite goran yo. try 'Those noodles were darn good. You should try them sometime!'  89  (23)  Ano tezamari kara suruto  asa  that texture judging-from  linen seems-like  kinu mitai ni zyuryookan ga silk like  weight  mitaidatta  nakute  ne.  do-not-have  keredo, but  Zitubutu o real thing  siranai  kimi ni  setumei suru no wa  tyotto  don't know  you  explain  a little  muzukasii kedo... difficult 'Judging from that texture, it seemed like linen, but it is as light as silk. Since you have not seen the real thing, it is very difficult to explain.' It would seem to be the case that the existence of the addressee is a somewhat  secondary  factor  in the  above cases:  these are  monologues, and the addressees exist for the speakers.  not  Thus, as an  alternative, I propose the following hypothesis: the principle governing the d i s t i n c t i v e use of the three demonstratives is established on an "egocentric" basis. The t e r r i t o r y is always formed w i t h the speaker's ego as i t s center, and the way in which the object is referred to depends on whether it is w i t h i n the speaker's ego domain or not. This egocentric hypothesis may seem a bit too speculative to be of use in explaining a l i n g u i s t i c phenomenon.  However, there are some other phenomena for  which the egocentricity hypothesis gives a better interpretation than other existing analyses, or at least new openings for investigation: the  90  focus of interest (Zubin 1979, also cf. Chapter 4), for instance, and s t o r y - r e t e l l i n g (Bartlett 1932 reported by Zubin). Moreover, McCawley's hierarchy of 'truth' is based on the degree of distance from the speaker's ego. Now,  returning to the problem w i t h the demonstratives,  the  following diagram w i l l i l l u s t r a t e what seems to be going on: (24)  [so ]  [so ]  The boundaries of the speaker's territory, which is formed on the basis of the speaker's ego, are elastic: may  something in the m i c r o w o r l d  be referred to by ko, or the whole universe may be ko.  The  boundaries of a correspond exactly w i t h ko. Thus, a is also e l a s t i c , changing to conform w i t h the speaker's territory. As the result of this territory formation (the flexible domain of ko ), something in the speech arena which does not belong to the speaker's territory w i l l be indicated by so, regardless of whether the hearer is inside or outside of this schema. In other words, whether the speaker's ego recognizes the other  91  existence in this schema or not is a secondary factor. For example, in an actual conversation, it can be the case that the speaker stands in opposition to the other, and he may utter a sentence like (25): (25)  Kore wa boku no omotya de, sore wa kimi no. this .  I  toy  that  you  'This is my toy and that is yours.' Here, the speaker t r i e s to make a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between something which is in his territory and something which is not, and by the nature of the conversation, the hearer exists in a domain which is opposed to the speaker's. Or observe (26) below: (26) a. A:  Kono tubo  doo omou.  this  how  pot  think  'What do you think of this pot?' b. B:  (Dore dore) Aa, kore wa neuti mono da nee. this valuable thing '(Let me see) Well, this is a valuable one, you know.'  In (26a), the speaker is A and the hearer is B, and A used ko ; in (26b), the speaker is B and the hearer is A, and B used ko. Here, the t e r r i t o r i e s of the two speakers overlap almost completely. Hearer's existence is not included in this schema, even though two people have taken turns in playing the roles of speaker and hearer in t h i s conversation.  The  92  speaker's position is placed in opposition to the rest of the "world," let us say, and t h i s "world" is often  represented  by the  conversational situations: ko (speaker) is opposed to so  hearer  in  (non-speaker,  possibly hearer). On the other hand, in a ko-a opposition, the speaker's ego does not contrast i t s e l f w i t h the rest of the world.  Rather, a is w i t h i n the  domain of the speaker's ego, or w i t h i n an extension or projection of the speaker's ego domain. Within the speaker's "world," ko, which indicates the "here" and "now" is opposed to a, which in turn indicates the "there" and "then." Seen in this light, it is easy to explain why in the a-series the togetherness of the speaker and the hearer is emphasized more than w i t h the ^co-series. Below, I w i l l explain this point further. F i r s t of a l l , if one is making a serious effort to play the hearer's role (it w i l l be necessary to make such an effort as long as one is interested in the conversation or wishes to be a hearer), one has to participate in the speaker's story in an attentive manner. uses ko, the hearer w i l l make an effort  If the speaker  to identify the /co-object.  However, the hearer cannot refer to some object existing in someone's inner world using ko even if he succeeds in forming a clear image of the /co-object (cf. (20)). Thus, ko is ruled out in (27):  93  (27)  A:  Tyuugaku  no  junior high school  dookyuu ni Yamada toiu classmate  otoko ga ite ne. Koitu no man  was  do-hazurete  this man  henzin-buri  wa  eccentric manner  ita ne.  extraordinary 'I have a junior high school classmate called Yamada. His eccentricity was extraordinary.' B:  Sore de *kono/sono So  this that  hito  ima  person now  doosite-iru no. is doing  Q  'So, what is that/(the) friend doing now?' Notice that in the use of ko in (26), speaker and hearer are very close, and the two share the referent as the ko object. Yet the use of ko does not bring a s i m i l a r type of "togetherness" as is implied by the use of a. This is because in (26), the two t e r r i t o r i e s separate:  overlap yet are  still  there exist two egos as the center of each territory in the  same 'space.' On the other hand, in cases w i t h a there is no t e r r i t o r i a l overlap as there is w i t h the ko case given above. According to the Cooperative Principle of Conversation in Grice (1975), a conversation is formed on the basis of the mutual cooperation of the speaker and the hearer:  the  speaker may offer something which is more commonly shared between  94  the two.  A l s o , i f the hearer can relate  to the speaker  through  identifying the a-referent, which e x i s t s in the speaker's mind as his "there" and "then," it means that the hearer can share, in a sense, the speaker's inner world.  The more successfully the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has  been carried out, the closer the relationship established between the two: (28)  A:  Ano koro wa hontooni yokatta yo. Naa, Yoshida-kun that time  really  nice  you know  ya Kinosita-kun nimo ano toozi no seikatu o and  too  that time  taikensasete-yaritai  life yo.  let-(them)-experience-for-them 'Those were the good old days. You know, I want to let Yoshida and Kinoshita experience what life was like at that time (for their sakes).' B:  Ee, hontooni ano koro wa  yoi  zidai desita ne.  yes  good  time  really  that time  'Yes, it was a really good time, wasn't it.'  95  C:  Sono koro no koto o that time  thing  zehi  hanasite-kudasai.  by all means  tell-(it)-for-me  'Please t e l l me (for my sake) how things were at that time.' (29)  A:  Kimi to dookyuu no Tanaka-kun ne. you  classmate  'You know your classmate Tanaka?' B:  Aa, ano Tanaka ne. 'Oh, that Tanaka?'  The curious thing here is why the referent is far  from the speaker/  hearer t e r r i t o r y - for the speaker, further than the so-object in the actual situation - while at the same time, the speaker (and often the hearer) identifies the referent with "closeness." A possible explanation is as f o l l o w s :  the speaker has the referent  in his inner w o r l d ,  regardless of the hearer's acquaintanceship w i t h it, since things do exist in the speaker's ego world, and the ko-a opposition occurs w i t h ko as his ego center and a as the extension of his ego domain: the former is d i f f i c u l t for the hearer to share; but the l a t t e r is more or less a c c e s s i b l e and the speaker tends to choose the referent  which is  mutually familiar,  the  participants  in the  since such a t o p i c , shared c o n v e r s a t i o n , makes  between  it i n t e r e s t i n g  two  and thus  practical. Certainly, though, the speaker can s t i l l use ko-a even if the  96  hearer cannot identify  the referent, leaving the l a t t e r a contented  listener. As for the so series, according to the standard assumptions of t e r r i t o r y theories, the so-object is in the hearer's territory. Observe (30): (30)  A:  Mukasi,  onazi tyoonai ni taihenna wanpaku kozoo ga  old days same ite ne.  town  very  Tasika  naughty  tabakoya no hitori-musuko  was if-l-remember-right cigar store datta to was  only-son  omou  kedo,  tonikaku  koituno  (I) think  though  anyway  this one  warugaki-buri-ttara rotten l i t t l e brat  kid  nakatta  yo.  was-no-comparison  'In the old days (when I was small), there was a naughty kid in the same town I lived in - if I r e member right, he was the only son of the [man who owned the] cigar store, I think - anyway, he (this one) was the most unbelievable rotten l i t t l e brat.'  97  B:  Aa, sono ko nara s i t t e - i r u wa. Ano ko no itazura oh that child  (I) know  niwa zuibun very  that child  nakasareta  mono,  suffer greatly  you know  mischief  'Oh, I know that kid. His mischief gave me a lot of trouble.' C:  Hee.... Demo sono Yeah...  but  dooiu  kankei  ko ga ima no  that child  hanasi  to  the-story-you-told  ga aru no.  what relationship  is  'Yeah. But what does that kid have to do w i t h the story you told me?' Kitagawa (1978) characterizes the use of so in discourses like (30) as "to put the identity locus of the referent in the addressee's sphere, or, at least, away from the speaker's" (p. 236), and sono hito 'that person' means "the person whom you have mentioned" (p. 236), which s a t i s f i e s one of Grice's conversational p r i n c i p l e s , "Be Relevant".  However, in  w r i t t e n paragraphs is the person whom the w r i t e r has mentioned in the hearer's t e r r i t o r y ?  It is often the case in w r i t t e n discourse that the  existence of the hearer ( = reader) cannot be specified. phenomenon in this:  the referent  I see the  is simply outside of the  so-  speaker  domain; however, in many cases, the hearer exists in such an "outside"  98  domain, and f a c e s the speaker as an i n t e r l o c u t o r . use of so  T h i s can explain the  r e g a r d l e s s of whether mutual p a r t i c i p a t i o n between speaker  and hearer is involved or not. If  the  demonstrative  system  is a n a l y z e d f r o m  the  speaker-  centered v i e w p o i n t used above, this may form a bridge between a type of f o c u s i n g s y s t e m and the d i s c o u r s e use of the d e m o n s t r a t i v e s : referent  the  w h i c h is h i g h l i g h t e d because of being in the s p e a k e r ' s ego  domain may f a l l  o u t s i d e of that domain in the next  i n s t a n t , as the  s p o t l i g h t of a t t e n t i o n moves along w i t h the f l o w of the d i s c o u r s e . I w i l l return to t h i s topic later in this chapter. Now, in s e c t i o n 3.1.1, I examined the binary theory as opposed to the ternary theory.  A s s u m i n g the s u p e r i o r i t y of the binary  framework  on the b a s i s of "egocentricity," I propose the f o l l o w i n g schema (31) the koso-a  for  demonstrative s y s t e m in Japanese:  (31)  •so  There e x i s t two kinds of o p p o s i t i o n s in the s y s t e m :  i) speaker's "here  and now" vs. "there and then" - [KO] vs. [A]; ii) speaker's c o g n i t i v e w o r l d  99  vs. outside world - [KO] vs. [SO], The domain of ko is e l a s t i c and so is that of a. The way ko and a are used in (32) indicates the nature of the ko-a opposition: (32)  Hee, ano oh  e  ga kimi ga  that painting  you  seriotosita  daifuntoo-site make-strenuous-efforts  to-iuu...[(monologue) Makasa  made-a-successful-bid konna tokoro  de kono  a-place-like-this  this  by no means e painting  to  saikai-suru towa see-again  omatte-inakatta naa.] did-not-think 'Oh, is that the painting you went a l l out to make a successful bid for? [I never imagined that I would see this painting again in a place like this.] The referent in the speaker's "there" is referred to by a. The Japanese sentence i m p l i e s the existence of a hearer; thus, the purpose of the utterance is an objective identification of the referent. distance is the dominant factor.  The physical  Then, in the monologue, the speaker's  strong concern for the referent is the controlling factor; the physical distance is almost irrelevant and the speaker recognizes the referent in his "here" domain. In w r i t t e n texts, apart from dialogues, a is seldom  100  used except In cases like (33), in which the w r i t e r believes he can share the same cognitive sphere: (33)  Kono yoona  syakaizyoosei  no  l i k e - t h i s the-state-of-society ni ano 19xx-nen tooji no that  (year)  then  ugoki  wa  movement  wareware us  zyookyoo o the-state-of-affairs  omoidasaseru. make-(us)-recall. 'The way the state of society is developing reminds us of the way it was in (that) 19xx.' This usage is predicted by the nature of a : in w r i t t e n discourse it is not easy (though as the above shows, it is not impossible) to identify oneself or feel oneself related with the w r i t e r ' s "there and then." As for the ko-so opposition, more elaboration is needed as regards the i m p l i cations of being outside of the speaker's domain. The operation of the so series in discourse is, as a matter of fact, far from simple. In the rest of this chapter, I w i l l examine the use of so  in discourse, and in the  course of this the nature of ko and a w i l l also be discussed.  101  §3.2  The Use of Ko/So in Discourse  §3.2.1  Introduction There are two major problems which w i l l be examined in the  following sections.  The f i r s t one concerns anaphoricity.  demonstratives is often c l a s s i f i e d into two categories: out the reference)  The use of  deixis (pointing  and anaphora (finding the referent in discourse).  However, Kuno (1973 a, b) claims that ko is a "semi-anaphora" or "semidemonstrative ( = deixis [M. 0.])" because of the "vividness" imparted by i t s use; while Mikami (1970) claims that a is always deixis. Compare (34) and (35): (34)  Soo ieba  Tanaka mo  speaking-of-that  moo  mago  ga iru  too already grandchild  da naa. Ano otoko ga oziityan nante yobareru  tyotto  that man  grandpa  soozoo  dekinai kedo....  a l i t t l e imagine  is-called  tosi  have  age  zu  wa  picture  cannot  'Speaking of that, Tanaka too is at the age where he could have grandchildren. I cannot picture that man (he) being called grandpa.'  102  (35)  A:  Mukasi  onazi tyoonai ni tabakoya no hitori-musuko  old days same de taihenna very  town  at  wanpaku  tobacco store only-son ga ite nee.  naughty kid  was  'In the old days, there was a very naughty kid who was the only son of the cigar-store (owner).' B:  Sono/ano ko nara watasi mo s i t t e - i r u wa. that kid if I too know 'If you are talking about that kid, I know him.'  If a as in (34) and (35) are deictic, then what about so in (35)? Kuno admits this type of use is "probably nonanaphoric but demonstrative" (1973a, p. 289).  In fact, so  in (35) is different from the so s in (36),  but what exactly differentiates the usage in (36) from that in (35) is s t i l l far from clear: (36)  Sore wa kahun-bunseki to iwareru that  pollen-analysis  hoohoo de kahun no  i s - c a l l e d method  pollen  naka no keisitu no bubun ga itai tosite nokori, sono syurui, in ryoo  silica  portion  kara kako no  quantity from past  remain as  leave  syokusei  no  plant-distribution  that type hukugen reconstruct  o  103  s i , sore o toosite that  kikoo  no hensen o siru toiuu  through climate  change  know  mono de aru. (Sikata: Yoozo no kigen) 'That is a method which is called pollen analysis. The s i l i c a component of the pollen is left as remainder, and from that type and quantity we restore the plant d i s t r i bution in the past, and through that we come to know the changes in the climate.' Thus, the question which must be addressed here is: what is the exact nature of the anaphoric ( = discourse) use of the demonstratives, ko, (a ), and so ? A second question which must be asked concerns the determining factor governing the choice between ko and so. Observe (37) and (38): (37)  Naisin de  motiron  desi  no soo ga zibun o  in one's inmost heart of course disciple toki-husete  kono hoo  o kokoromi-saseru no o matte ita  convince this method no de aru. Desi disciple  monk  make-(him)-try  no soo nimo Naigu no kono sakuryaku ga monk  too  this strategy  wakaranai hazu wa nai. Sikasi sore ni taisuru must-know  wait  but  that  against  hankan ill-feeling  104  yori wa sooiu sakuryaku o toru than  such strategy  yori tuyoku kono  kokoro-moti no hoo ga  take  psychology  desi no soo no doozyoo o ugokasita  more strong this disciple priest  sympathy  appealed to  no-de-aru. it w i l l be the case that  (Akutagawa: Hana)  'In the depths of his heart, of course, he was waiting for his disciple monks to convince him and make him try this  method. His disciples must have sensed this (his) strategy. But, more than the i l l - f e e l i n g towards that (such a) strategy, it would be the case that Naigu's psychology, which made him think in that way, appealed to the sympathies of this disciple.' (38)  Naigu wa hazime, kore o zibun no at f i r s t this sei  face-metamorphosize  da to kaisyaku-sita. Sikasi  because of kaisyaku  his  kao-gawari ga sita  interpret dake de wa  interpretation only  doomo kono  but  somehow this  zyuubun  ni setumei ga  adequately  explain  tsukanai yoo-de-aru. Motiron, Naka-doozi ya Ge-boosi ga of course  and  105  warau genin wa 2Qk& ni a m ni tigainai (ga).... laugh cause  there  was  must  (Akutagawa: Hana)  'At f i r s t Naigu interpreted this to mean that it was because his face had undergone a metamorphosis. It seemed that this interpretation as w e l l could not explain things adequately. Of course, the reason why Nakadoozi and Geboosi laughed was there, (but)....' In (37), besides the original kono (sakuryaku)/sooiu (sakuryaku) combination, three other combinations would be theoretically possible: (39)  a.  [kono/sooiu)  b.  [kono/*kooiu)  c.  [sono/sooiu]  d.  {sono/*kooiu}  (original)  However, (39b) and (39d), which contain kooiu as the second component, are not acceptable. Why is this so? In (38), the combinations are as follows: (40)  a.  [kono/soko)  (original)  b.  [kono/??koko]  c.  [sono/soko)  d.  [sono/??koko)  Again, some pairs, like (40b) and (40d) are less preferred, if not entirely unacceptable, when compared w i t h their so counterparts. mines the choice between ko and so here?  What deter-  106  The two questions posed above are related, and involve many subsequent topics like pronoun vs. demonstrative, referential vs. nonreferential, antecedents in discourse, and so on. In what follows, these topics w i l l also be examined in the course of the investigation of the two major questions.  §3.2.2  The Ko/So - Antecedent Relation In this section, I w i l l discuss how ko and so are used in discourse.  F i r s t , let us look at the results of the analysis of actual texts in Ono (1975 and 1977) to see what differences there may be. Five s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s were chosen for this study of the demonstratives. 4  The total  number of occurrences of the demonstratives in question was 571: 253 cases of ko and 3 18 cases of so. The results which are relevant to this section's objectives are as follows: [1]  i)  The average distance between the antecedents and demonstratives (D = 1 means the antecedent is in the adjacent sentence).  D /co-series  1.063  so-series  0.377 (t = 13.407 Pr << 0.001)  107  The antecedent of ko is found further distant than that of so in the previous discourse, that i s , ko has a longerdistance power of referral.  Within the data, cases in  which the antecedent is more than two sentences away are only to be found with ko antecedents. ii)  The location of ko/so antecedents Ko and its antecedent tend to be found in two separate sentences:  it is rare to find i t s antecedent w i t h i n the  same clause as the ko, w h i l e the antecedent of so  is  usually found in the same sentence. sentence  kore sore  5  same  different  21  53  74  69  24  93  90  77  167  In extreme cases, the antecedent of so is found in the adjacent noun phrase in coordinate structures, e.g., "Aru Kapone to sono i t i m i , " " A l Capone and his gang." impossible to substitute ko for so here.  It is  108  [2]  1)  The type of the antecedent Ko has a sentential level antecedent as w e l l as a word level one, while so prefers to have a word level antecedent. word  sentential (clause, sentence) kore (wa/ga)  6  sore (wa/ga)  ii)  20  32  52  4  35  39  24  67  91  The size of the antecedent Ko can refer to a fairly large portion of discourse, as shown below: number of sentences  2  3  4  5  6  12  20  26  kono/UP  0  0  2  1  0  0  1  0  4  kono yoona/ koo iu  6  3  1  1  1  0  0  0  12  koo/kono yooni  1  1  1  1  2  1  0  1  8  7  4  4  3  3  1  1  1  24  On the other hand, it turns out that the antecedents of so are no more than single sentences. Besides [1] and [2] above, the following are additional interesting characteristics of the data:  109  Postcedent: Ko can have a postcedent as w e l l as an antecedent.  7  Ex.: ...tugi'ni kore mo yooi ni dekiru pasu no hoohoo dearu. next  this too easy  can pass  method  Sore wa dai-hati-zu no yooni, hidari te o ue ni it  Figure 8  kahei o oyayubi to coin  as  left-hand  nakayubi to de  upward sasaeru.  thumb and middle finger w i t h  hoka no yubi wa kahei no ue o oou other finger  coin ' on  hold  muke, put Soko e... there  no dearu....  cover (Mazikku Shooziten)  'Next, this is also an easy method for a pass. It is, as Figure 8 shows, that you put your left palm upward and hold the coin with your thumb and middle finger. There,... cover the coin w i t h the other fingers.' Reflexive Reference: Ko can refer to itself, i.e., the reflexive usage. Ex.1  Kono this  bun sentence  no kono  gozyun  this word order  wa  bunpoo ni grammar  kanatte-imasu. agree 'This word order in this sentence is grammatical.'  1 10  Ex.2  Katute no kimi no tomo Kibi deatta kono zibun. former  you  friend  this  (kono = katute no...zibun)  self  (Nakazima: Sangetuki)  'I (self) who was once your friend Kibi.' [5]  Negation: So can refer to a statement embedded in the negation, but ko cannot. Ex.  Kore wa hannin he  offender  8  dewa nai. is-not  Sonna/*konna bakana that  this  absurd  koto ga aru hazu ga nai. thing  never can be  'He is not the murderer. Such an absurd thing cannot be the case.' (cf.  Kare wa hannin nanka-zyaa-nai. Koo in this way  tubuyaite-mite mutter  mo nanni naroo.) no use 'He is not the murderer. It is no use to mutter in this way.' Let us examine the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these findings.  F i r s t , the  demonstratives in discourse use are not s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l y related to the superficial ( = physical) distance in discourse; i.e., it is not the case that the antecedent is closer to the demonstrative ko than the demonstrative so in the temporal order in discourse.  9  Next, the deictic nature  111  of ko is strongly exhibited in the data. That is, the reflexive use in [4] is one thing, and the postcedent in [3] is another.  In the latter, this type  of use implies that what the speaker wants to say is already in his mind preceding i t s appearance in discourse: in other words, it supports the assumption that he actually refers to something which e x i s t s in his mind in cases involving ko. In the former, Example 1 is a clear-cut case of the reflexive use of the deixis to the "meta-sentence" of the actual sentence. The use in Example 1 lends great support to that in Example 2, where ko refers not to the expression but to the actual existence in the f i c t i o n a l w o r l d created by the discourse. negation, [5].  Let us now consider the  A negative expression has, as a matter of course, i t s  affirmative counter-part.  According to Ishigami (1983), the difference  between affirmative sentences and negative sentences is based on the difference in how to choose (the direct) material for one's utterance. Ishigami i l l u s t r a t e s this point using examples like that reproduced in (41), and the figure duplicated here with my own interpretations as (42): (41 )a. Shingoo wa akai signal  red  'The signal is red.' b. Shingoo wa aoku-nai. signal  NEG  'The signal is not green.  1 12  (42)  [affirmative]  da (it is)  object  (direct material)  (signal i s red)  (observed f a c t )  (signal i s red)  speakerspeech act [negative]  nai (it is not)  (direct material)  ( s i g n a l i s green)  (observed f a c t )  ( s i g n a l i s red)  object  speaker  • speech act  1 13  Ishigami argues that in (41a), the direct material is [shingoo ga akai (koto)] "(the fact that) the signal is red," which matches the "reality" which the speaker sees in front of his.eyes. On the other hand, in (41b), the direct material is [signal is green], which the speaker gets not from the observation of "reality" but his (subjective) choice, and t h i s material contradicts what he actually sees; then the utterance [signal is not green] is obtained. This argument i t s e l f is established on the basis of a metaphysical conception. The interesting point given my present concerns is:  the negative sentence expresses  existence of what the speaker conceptualizes.  the negation of the  In Chapter 5, a sentence  which contains a certain use of the particle ga, which is called neutral description  (Kuno, 1973) or thetic sentence (Kuroda, 1965 and e l s e -  where) w i l l be introduced, and Ishigami's theory of negation can explain why this type of sentence is very difficult, if not impossible, to negate (a fact pointed out by Kuroda and others). That is, a negative utterance is not a direct observation of the outside world. Another important point is that Ishigami's schema about negation c l a i m s that f i r s t you have to conceptualize something to exist as the direct material for i t s negation.  In light of this, the f o l l o w i n g con-  ditional case (43) could be given a s i m i l a r explanation:  1 14  (43)  Moshi kyoo no if  gogo  today's afternoon power-failure  koto wa nai to omou thing  teiden ni nattara,  not  ga,  sugu  think but immediately  hatudenki o  karini  power-generator  borrow  sonna/*konna this  kenkyuuzyo ni laboratory  ikinasai. go  'If you have a power failure this afternoon - I don't think that w i l l be the case - go immediately to the laboratory to borrow a generator.' Koo  refers to the subjunctive idea [kyoo no gogo teiden ni naru ], not  [Mosi kyoo no gogo teiden ni nattara ], which includes the [if  ] frame.  Keeping this point in mind, I w i l l examine the ko- antecedent relation in the following. F i r s t of a l l , what is the implication of the tendency that ko has to refer to larger chunks of discourse, at the least sentential s t a t e ments (cf. [2])? Compare (44b) and (44c) w i t h (44a):  1 15  (44)a. Tantyoosa  ni tomonau  monotony  follow  to taihi sareru.  aki  wa  boredom  yoku often  hiroo weariness  ( = (1) in this chapter)  be-compared 'Boredom caused by the monotony (of tasks) is often compared with weariness.' b.  Kore wa tugi-no-yoo na riyuu ni yoru. this  following  reason  'This is for the following reason.' c.  Sore wa tugi-no-yoo na riyuu ni yoru. this  following  reason  'This is for the following reason.' In (44c), sore can be replaced by [tantyoosa ni tomonau aki ga yoku hiroo to hikakusareru no/?koto 1. while in (44b) kore is replaced by [tantyoosa ni tomonau aki wa. yoku hiroo to hikakusareru to-iu-no/koto  n o m i n a l i z e r in Japanese; thus, although so sentence, precisely speaking so other hand, ko  1. No is the  refers to the previous  refers to a nominal concept.  On the  refers to a sentential concept, i.e., to is a quotative  marker and toiukoto  is different from the simple koto .  1 0  (Notice that  the particle wa is used in the latter, but i t s place is taken by ga in the former, since wa cannot occur in NP according to the general rules for  1 16  its use.) The levels of conceptualization seem to be different in ko and so.  Next compare ko in (45): (45)  Zyagaimo to ninzin o sainome potato  carrot  ni kitte, tyotto  small cube  cut  a little  yawarakai-gurai ni yudete, kore o guriinpiisu to soft  boil  this  green peas  mazete-kudasai. mix 'First cut potato and carrot into small cubes and boil them until a l i t t l e tender, and mix this with green peas.' Although the referent cannot be pinned down in a linguistic form, i.e., in a noun form (cf. this is accusative in the f o l l o w i n g sentence), it is obvious that the referent is something which is prepared in the way described in the preceding sentence:  the diced and boiled potato and  carrot. This is a good example of how deixis works in discourse. The ko- referent is in the speaker's t e r r i t o r y or in the ' r e f l e c t i o n ' of his inner world.  It must have some r e a l i t y at least in his mind, though it  does not necessarily have to exist for other people. On the other hand, in (written) discourse, the w r i t e r tries to relate his thought to the readers (including the w r i t e r himself).  In (45), the previous discourse has  established such an existence as the referent:  the referent's existence  is inferrable for the reader from the previous discourse. The reader has  1 17  received sufficient information from the previous discourse to figure out what is in the speaker's mind at the moment in question. It is often the case that the ko- reference is hard to pin down as a linguistic form, a word, a phrase, or a sentence in a discourse (Ono, 1975 and 1977); and as Kuno (1973) points out, the referent has a "vividness" in context. Although it is not impossible for it to refer to some concrete object mentioned in discourse, the ko- referent normally takes a sentence or sentences.  A l l these facts indicate that ko refers to some imaginary  existence evoked in the context.  11  Thus it takes a good deal of discourse  (at least a sentential expression) to establish a plausible referent in context.  Negative and conditional clauses are either to negate or to  suppose a certain existence; the imaginary existence of something is the foundation upon which these expressions are based, and ko can refer to such kinds of existences as w e l l . Thus, I support the contention that ko is always deixis, regardless of whether it is used in an actual pointing manner or used as the discourse anaphora. Now then, what is the difference between ko and so ? In (45), kore can be replaced by sore but it lacks the "vividness" which is attached to the ko- use. Roughly speaking, the anaphoric use of so can be described as "what l/you have mentioned in the previous discourse" (Kitagawa (1978) assumes that Grice's "be relevant" is operating here); while ko is described as a discourse deixis.  It is, in fact, possible  to  use so to refer to a statement including a negative or an /'f-frame, as in (46) and (47), as w e l l as excluding them (cf. Ex. in [5] and (43)):  1 18  (46)  Kare wa hannin he  murderer  sinzite  inai.  (I) believe not  dewa nai. Sonna/*Konna is not  that/this  Tada  mondai wa...  only  problem  uwasu wa rumor  'He is not the murderer. I don't believe that (such a) rumor. But the problem is...' (47)  Mosi if  kesa  nesugosazu ni,  ano hikooki ni  this morning without-oversleeping that airplane  notte-itara.... took  soo/koo in this way  kangaeta dake de hiyaase think  only  ga  cold sweat  nizimideru. break out 'If I hadn't overslept this morning and had taken that airplane...the very thought makes me break out in a cold sweat.' The difference in ko/so in (47), for example, is that while soo kangaeta dake de can be easily replaced w i t h [mosi...tara ] to kangaeta dake de,  what koo refers to is a hypothetical situation, "I had not overslept this morning and had taken that airplane" but not the expression [mosi...tara ].  1 19  Now, we can readily understand why there are many conjunctive words of so origin in Japanese. Observe (36), (37), and (38), which are dupli-cated here as (48), (49), and (50) respectively: (48)  Sore wa kahun-bunseki to iwareru that  pollen-analysis  hoohoo de kahun no  i s - c a l l e d method  pollen  naka no keisitu no bubun ga itai tosite nokori, sono syurui, in  silica  ryoo  portion  remain as leave  kara kako no  quantity from past s i , sore o toosite that  syokusei  no  plant-distribution kikoo  that  type  hukugen  o  reconstruct  no hensen o siru toiuu  through climate  change  know  mono de aru. (Sikata: Yoozo no kigen) 'That is a method which is called pollen analysis. The s i l i c a component of the pollen is left as remainder, and from that type and quantity we restore the plant d i s t r i bution in the past, and through that we come to know the changes in the climate.' (49)  Naisin de  motiron  desi  no soo ga zibun o  in one's inmost heart of course disciple monk toki-husete  kono hoo  convince this method  o kokoromi-saseru no o matte ita  make-(him)-try  wait  120  no de aru. Desi  no soo  disciple  monk  nimo Naigu no kono sakuryaku ga too  this strategy  wakaranai hazu wa nai. Sikasi sore ni taisuru must-know  but  that  yori wa sooiu sakuryaku o toru than  such strategy  yori tuyoku kono  against  hankan ill-feeling  kokoro-moti no hoo ga  take  psychology  desi no soo no doozyoo o ugokasita  more strong this disciple priest  sympathy  appealed to  no-de-aru. it w i l l be the case that  (Akutagawa: Hana)  'In the depths of his heart, of course, he was waiting for his disciple monks to convince him and make him try this  method. His disciples must have sensed this (his) strategy. But, more than the i l l - f e e l i n g towards that (such a) strategy, it would be the case that Naigu's psychology, which made him think in that way, appealed to the sympathies of this disciple.' (50)  Naigu wa hazime, kore o zibun no at f i r s t this sei because of  kao-gawari ga sita  his  face-metamorphosize  da to kaisyaku-sita. Sikasi interpret  but  doomo kono somehow this  121  kaisyaku  dake de wa  interpretation only  zyuubun  ni setumei ga  adequately  explain  tsukanai yoo-de-aru. Motiron, Naka-doozi ya Ge-boosi ga of course  and  warau genin wa soko ni aru ni tigainai (ga).... laugh cause  there  was  must  (Akutagawa: Hana)  'At f i r s t Naigu interpreted this to mean that it was because his face had undergone a metamorphosis. It seemed that this interpretation as w e l l could not explain things adequately. Of course, the reason why Nakadoozi and Geboosi laughed was there, (but)....' In (48), ko would also be possible (providing so was substituted for ko throughout), but the use of so  imposes an objective tone on the style,  referring only to the informative aspect of the information carried in the previous discourse. In (49), if the viewpoint of the utterance which contains  kono is a l i t t l e bit inclined towards Naigu, who has the  strategy in his mind; on the other hand, in the last utterance, which contains sooiu, it is a l i t t l e bit towards desi no soo. If sooiu were to be replaced by kooiu, sakuryaku would be given a more prominent central topic status in this discourse, which cannot be the case.  In (50), kono  and soko are used in a s i m i l a r way; also, if soko were to be replaced by koko, the sentence would lose i t s tone of objective judgement.  I will  summarize the differences observed in the above examples as follows:  122  (i)  So is related to a certain mechanism which operates to pass  information from the previous discourse to the current discourse. A certain objective tone is imposed on this use, since the referent is not in the speaker's current area of concern ( = territory). (ii)  Ko is related to a certain mechanism which indicates where "we"  ( = speaker and hearer, hearer, or w r i t e r and reader) have shared an experience through an imaginary scene built on the basis of information given by the discourse, manufactured by the use of "here and now" deixis ko. More sample discourses showing this type of "spotlighting" ko use w i l l be found in the Appendix. With this taken care of, the next section w i l l be concerned w i t h some residual problems connected w i t h so, which has a more c o m p l i cated nature than ko.  §3.2.3  Problems in the Use of So In t h i s s e c t i o n , the d i s t i n c t i o n between demonstratives and  pronouns w i l l be discussed in terms of the use of so. In §3.1.0, the correspondence between that in English, a language which has a twofold demonstrative system, and so and a in Japanese w i t h i t s threefold demonstrative system, was touched upon. The Japanese so, in turn, can apparently be translated into not only that but also it. Compare (51) and its Japanese counterpart, (52):  123  (51 )a. What is that on Ms. Kimura's desk? b. That/It is a stuffed bird from South America, I heard. (52) a. Kimura-san no tukue no ue ni aru sore wa nanda? b. Sore/0  wa nanbei no tori no hakusei da soo desu.  Japanese is poor in third person pronouns, in contrast w i t h a very rich demonstrative system, makes the situation a l i t t l e complicated. Kare/ kanozyo/karera  "he/she/they" are newcomers to the language, which  o c c a s i o n a l l y replace zero pronouns, and English  it  i s generally  translated using sore or a zero pronoun. (52) is a case of either = sore or that = sore/it  = 0 in the translation.  pronoun or a demonstrative?  Then is sore  that/it  used as a  Or is it the case that the function of sore  does not exactly f i t into the that vs. it  d i s t i n c t i o n in E n g l i s h ?  12  In  what f o l l o w s , the nature of so w i l l be examined in comparison w i t h pronouns. One of the characteristics of pronouns is their bound variable use (Evans (1980), Partee (1982), among others).  So, unlike ko and zero  pronouns, seems to have this use: (53)  Kono mati dewa, subete no tatemono ga this town in  every  sono/0/*kono  building  rekisi 0 monogatatte-iru. history  tell  "In this town, every building t e l l s i t s own history.'  124  However, also observe the slightly different cases in (54): (54)a. Kono naka kara dore-demo suki na burooti o erande, this among  whatever  like  brooch  choose  sore/0/*kore o konya no paatee ni site iki-nasai. that  tonight  party  put  go  'Choose whatever brooch you like of those, and go to tonight's party wearing it.' b. Kyoo kore kara today  now  depaato  ni itte  department store  sagasite-mimasu. Mosi try to look for  if  go  nanika something  yoi mono ga mitukattara, good one  find  sore/0/*kore o Haruko-san e no purezento ni simasu. that  present  make  'Now I am going to the department store to look for something (for that purpose). If I can find something good, I w i l l make it a present for Haruko.'  125  c. Kondo wa Kyooto no yukigesiki o toritai ne. next time  snow-scene  Sore/ 0/*Kore  take a picture  that  o Afurika ni iru Kyooto-umare no tomodati ni okuttara Africa  is  born  friend  send-if  yorokobu-daroo naa. be-glad-will 'Next time, I want to take pictures of snow scenes in Kyoto. If I send them to my friend from Kyoto who lives in Africa right now, he w i l l be delighted.' In these examples,  sore does not refer to s p e c i f i c objects.  These  examples remind me of the E-type pronoun in (55), which are (6) - (8) in Evans (1980): (55) a. Few M.P.s came to the party but they had a good time. b. Few congressmen admire Kennedy, and they are very junior. c. John owns some sheep and Henry vaccinates them in Spring. In these examples, the pronoun is not bound by the quantifier.  According  to Evans, in (55c), for example, the sentence e n t a i l s that "Harry vaccinates  all the sheep John owns" (p. 3 3 9 ) , unlike the  quantifier  binding case (56): (56)  Some sheep are such that John owns them and Harry vaccinates them in Spring.  126  Evans treats these cases in (55) as referential, although the pronouns do not refer to specific entities. Now,  let  us assume  that  the  demonstratives  are  always  referential regardless of whether they are in the d e i c t i c use or the anaphoric use.  Ko  does not have much trouble in adapting to this  assumption, since i t s referential nature has been made clear in the discussions in the previous sections.  In the case of discourse anaphora,  the speaker's territory is formed in the speaker's inner realm, which has i t s r e f l e c t i o n in the discourse.  Then, so  is defined as something  outside of the speaker's territory: the referent is not the speaker's "now and here" but "then and there."  If so, there already e x i s t s a good  background for so as w e l l to be considered as referential a l l the time. Maclaran (1982) suggests adapting the idea of discourse referent in Karttunen (1976) for the non-specific referent cases. F i r s t look at (57), which is Karttunen's (34): (57)a. Harvey courts a girl at every convention. b. Most boys in this town are in love with a go-go dancer. The sentences (57a) and (57b) are both ambiguous between the specific reading and the non-specific reading. However (58), which is Karttunen's (35), has only the specific reading:  127  (58) a. Harvey courts a girl at every convention. She is very pretty. b. Most boys in this town are in love w i t h a go-go dancer. Mary doesn't like her at a l l . Here, indefinite NPs "establish" discourse referents for the pronoun to refer to. Thus, although there is no specific fish which exists in (59), it can refer to it, since the imaginary discourse referent does exist in the speaker's mind, and thus supposedly in the hearer's mind as w e l l : (59)  B i l l wants to catch a fish and eat it for supper.  The discourse referent exists, however, in a modal bound fashion; the referent is a temporary one. McCawley (1979) argues for Karttunen's proposal.  He suggests  taking the universe of discourse as time-dependent and time branchdependent in order to avoid the universal quantifier reading for (60) ( = McCawley's (18d)): (60)  If b l i s t e r s develop on the patient's body, you should bandage them. (For every b l i s t e r X, if X develops on the patient's body, you should bandage X.)  128  Thus, " b l i s t e r s develop on the. patient's body" in (60) i s causing a "temporary addition of a corresponding discourse referent to the context domain" (p. 384). If Kartunen's discourse referent i s a step in the right direction, the o r i g i n a l d e i c t i c nature of demonstratives can fully u t i l i z e i t s referential function in discourse, where successive sentences may be bound by certain modals, mood, tenses, aspects, and so on, to create a certain imaginary world.  This can be supported by the claim made by  Stechow (1982) and others that the demonstrative entails the existence of the referent. is d e s c r i b e d  13  If so, the level where this type of referential mention  is not in LF but in LF'.  Now, although Maclaran (1982) concludes that there are no genuine bound variable cases in English demonstratives, Japanese sono seems to differ in this respect. Unlike ko in kono, so in sono in general is in fact ambiguous between the following two cases in (61): (6 Da. Rei no in question  tukue ni hikidasi ga t u i t e - i r u ne. Sono hikidasi desk drawer  there-is  that drawer  no naka o mite-goran. inside  look  'You know that/the desk which has a drawer. Look inside of the/that drawer.'  129  b. Monooki  ni tukue ga simatte-aru ne. Sono hikidasi  storage room  desk  store  that  drawer  no naka o mite-goran. inside  look  There is a desk in the storage room. Look inside of i t s / (the) drawer.' (61a) is a typical so use in discourse, but in (61b), sono is being used in the sense of sore no "that 's," or perhaps closer to the "it 's" in English. Sono is potentially ambiguous between these two readings.  However,  the bound variable case (53) has only the use of sono found in (61b). In English there is no possessive case for demonstratives, although there are determiners.  What is so  in (53) then, in terms of i t s function, a  demonstrative or a pronoun?  In relation to this question, the next  example (62) provides some interesting evidence: (62)a. Aru kapone to sono/0  itimi.  'Al Capone and his gang.' b. Yosiko ga sono/0  hansei half-a-life  o okutta spent  mura. village  'The village where Yoshiko spent half of her life.'  130  c. Sono/0  kodomo-tati ga s o n k e i - s i t e - i r u t i t i o y a children  respect  father  'The father whom his children respect.' In these cases, the so-that  correspondence is ruled out.  So, whose  referents are non-human otherwise, apparently works like the personal pronouns here, or at least is used like "pro-forms." Notice in (62c), sono is cataphoric, which is normally not allowed for ko. Both the d e m o n s t r a t i v e s  and the pronouns can "stand  for"  expressions as a part of their functions; thus, the repetition of the same expressions may be avoided in this way. A typical example for this use of the demonstratives is given in (63), examples of which are not rare in certain styles of writing: (63)  Hitori damatte  tabi nideru,  alone quietly leave for a trip  Taroo wa sonna otoko da. such a  man  'Quietly leaving for a trip alone, Taroo is such a man.' If it is the case that the use of sono in (53) is the same as the usage exhibited in (62) - supposing some uses employ only the "stand for" function of demonstratives - sono is not referential there but rather to be identified w i t h the bound variable use. So far, there is no conclusive evidence bearing on this dispute concerning the non-referential use in demonstratives (also cf. Stechow (1982)). What is clear so far is that  131  the way pronouns and d e m o n s t r a t i v e s  14  refer i s different, although both  stand for the previous expression, as in (64): (64)  He w i l l stay. I am sure of it. What a mistake. I am sure of that.  (N. Parton, Vancouver Sun )  The difference in the ways a pronoun and a demonstrative refer is that the former "stands for" the NP in the simplest way; i.e., instead of using the same NP, the pronoun which has the same referent as the NP is used; the l a t t e r "stands for" the NP which i s defined or identifiable in a discourse.  In other words, in the case of demonstratives, what it  stands for in (65) is not just onion, but onion which was stir-fried  until  its sweet flavor came out or onion which is in a certain state after the  preceding cooking procedure. On the other hand, in the case of a pronoun, what it stands for is onion regardless of whatever state it is in now. (65)  Tamonegi o zyuubun-ni onion  ACC  well  amami  ga deru made  sweet flavor NOM draw until  itamete-kudasai. Sorekara, sore o suupu no nabe ni stir-fry  then  ACC soup  's pan to  utusite-kudasai. transfer ' S t i r - f r y the onion until i t s sweet flavor comes out. Then, transfer t h a t / i t into a soup pan. Sore  in (65) can have both the demonstrative reading and the pronoun  reading. Considering the fact that there are bound variable cases in (53)  132  and non-referential cases in (62), and the observation that it is usually translated w i t h sore, it seems to be the case that the function of sore covers that of a demonstrative and a pronoun. §3.3  15  Conclusion In t h i s chapter, a good deal of space has been devoted to d i s -  cussing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Japanese demonstratives. The reason is that although various useful observations and assumptions have been put forward by many researchers, these mainly concern spatial deixis; there are quite a few noteworthy proposals about discourse use, but they are usually l i m i t e d to dialogue. The framework of the characterization has mainly been constructed on the basis of spatio (-temporal) deixis. Meanwhile, the observations presented  by l i n g u i s t s and often by  rhetoricians about so-called anaphora demonstratives have succeeded in capturing certain aspects of demonstratives, but in the d e l i m i t a t i o n of the contextual environment. My main concern, apart from the nature of the demonstrative, is the use of demonstratives as one apparatus of discourse.  It seems to me a reasonable procedure to take a f i r s t step  towards the goal by getting a consistent view of the essential nature of demonstratives; otherwise, certain factual, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c uses might be mistakenly considered as essential, when in r e a l i t y such uses were of an a posteriori  nature, manifested as a result of the influence of  certain factors originating in the way demonstratives are employed. If the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each use (spatial, temporal, and so on) can be referred back to some more basic nature (which is actually the case), a consistent view of the demonstratives in a l l s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l and  133  discourse uses w i l l have been obtained.  It cannot be denied that the  framework presented in §3.1 concerning such a basic nature contains some speculative assumptions. However, I believe that this is a viable attempt to deduce a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between 'facts' in the actual use of demonstratives; and that on the basis of such a framework, the "anaphora" use of the demonstrative can be reexamined.  The  difference between pronoun and demonstrative has also been discussed. In conclusion, anaphoric demonstratives are a l l referential by nature (except some uses of sore  which should be handled in sentence  grammar) and they can be bound in discourse (LF') but not in a sentence (LF).  134  Notes (Chapter 3)  1  Sore is used in the original text.  2  Ka is the old form of a.  3  * is used as a marker for "bad" or impossible formulations regardless of whether these are syntactic or not.  4  [Data corpus] (A)  Hideo Suzuki (1974), "Hyogaki no Kankyo Fukugen," Kagaku vol. 44-7.  (B)  Daiichiro Sugimoto (1974), "Taiyo Nyutorino," Kagaku vol. 44-7.  (C)  Kazutaka Kobayashi (1974), "Tanch! na Shigoto no Dotai," Kagaku vol. 44-7.  (D)  Marikazu Shikata (1974), "Yojo no kigen to kakuritsukatei," Seibutsu-kagaku vol. 26-2.  (E)  Shozo Osawa (1 965), "Ribosomu no Sei-gosei," Seibutsubutsuri vol. 5-4.  5  Kore and kono (NP) behave differently: kono can refer farther than kore because of the (partially) identical NP of the antecedent which i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w s kono. Considering t h i s extra factor, the comparison is made on the basis of the -re (noun) forms.  6  Kore/sore (noun form) which is used as the topic or the subject is chosen for the comparison.  7  Sentence (i) seems to be a case where, at the f i r s t glance, the postcedent is the whole f o l l o w i n g story. However, this style is rather new in Japanese and it is said to have come into use under the influence of the dummy subject construction in English: (i)  Sore wa ame no s i t o - s i t o huru hen ni hito no that/it rain quietly fall in a strange way one's  135  ki o meiraseru yoona spirits depress  ban evening  desita.  'It was an evening when the quietly falling rain depressed one's s p i r i t s in a strange way' This claim may sound a l i t t l e too strong, since ko is used in s i m i l a r sentences apparently referring to non-negative portions of s t a t e ments. However, the point is that konna cannot be used in the context of Ex. in [5], or, putting it in a different way, if konna is used, it refers to the whole event of his being accused as a murderer but not the previous statement by i t s e l f . The following example permits a ko which refers to the statement including the negative: (i)  Kare wa hannin nanka-zyaa-nai. Kore/sore wa h a k k i r i - s i t e - i r u . 'He is not the murderer. This is for sure.'  In the above (i); for example, once kore is changed to kono zizitu "this fact," sono zizitu is ruled out. The level of reference in the conceptualization of ideas seems to differ in ko and so. In German, the distance component of jener and dieser can be pinned down in discourse context according to the temporal order, like Japanese zensya 'the former' and koosya 'the latter'. As for the function of to/no/koto cf. McCawley (1978), Josephs (1 976), Watanabe (1 989), among others. I use the term 'discourse' in opposition to 'sentence,' 'context' as referring to the contextual aspect of discourse.  and use  It cannot be used deictically (observation from M. Rochemont). M. Rochemont suggested to me that Discourse Representation Theory developed in Heim (1982) might be useful to describe this type of phenomenon for demonstratives. The demonstrative expressions like "this man" are compared w i t h the definite expression "the man here" in Stechow (1982). According to Stechow, the former is directly referential while the latter is not,  136  and this difference is evident in the interpretation of the following example, (i) ( = Stechow's (4) and (5)): (i)a. b.  Next year, I w i l l consult this fortune-teller. Next year, I w i l l consult the fortune-teller here.  In (a), "this fortune-teller" means Mr. So-and-so whom the speaker can point out, whereas in (b), "the fortune-teller here" can mean the one who w i l l be found here next year, whoever he is, in addition to the interpretation as (a). 5  The alternative view is that there are two kinds of sore : one is a demonstrative, the other is a pronoun.  137  Chapter 4 Quantifier Reading  §4.0  Introduction The third disambiguation mechanism in discourse, in addition to  zibun coreference  and demonstratives,  is the quantifier reading in  Japanese. This problem has been examined in syntax in connection w i t h the formalism of the quantification in formal logic, but l i t t l e e x t r a syntactic work has been carried out. The purpose of this chapter is to determine factors which control the pragmatic aspects of quantifier reading, that is, why a certain reading is prominent and why one reading is chosen over another.  §4.1  Quantifier Interpretation  §4.1. i  Quantifier Reading in Japanese A quantifier sentence like (1) is generally viewed as potentially  ambiguous between (1 b) and (1 c):  138  (Da.  Everyone admires someone.  b.  (Vx)  (Ey)  A D M I R E (x,  y)  c.  Gy)  (Vx)  A D M I R E (x,  y)  May (1977) proposes two distinct LF representations for (1), which are created by two different operations on Quantifier Raising. However, May (1985) proposes a Scope P r i n c i p l e which c o n t r o l s the i n t e r a c t i o n between two operators.  In either way, the ambiguity is captured in  syntax and i t s disambiguation process is left for an e x t r a - s y n t a c t i c component. On the other hand, examples like (2), which is a Japanese equivalent of (1), is considered as unambiguous by Kuroda (1970) while 1  its scrambled version is ambiguous. This view is adopted by current GB literature like Hoji (1985 and 1986). (2)a.  Daremo  ga  dareka  o sonkeisiteiru (=( 1 b))  everyone NOM someone ACC  admires  'Everyone admires someone.' b.  Dareka o daremo ga sonkeisiteru. (=( 1 b)/( 1 c)) 'Someone, everyone admires.'  Furthermore, Hoji (1986) gives the following paradigm (3).  139  (3) a.  *QP-ga WH-o V  b.  WH-Oj QP-ga t i V (unambiguous: WH takes wide scope)  c.  QP-ga QP-o V (unambiguous: QP-ga takes wide scope)  d.  QP-Oj QP-ga t \ V (ambiguous)  Assuming  May's  (1985)  Scope  Principle,  Hoji  adds  some  generalizations (4) particular to Japanese to account for (3). (4) a.  Scope interpretation is more r e s t r i c t e d in Japanese than in English in the sense that it reflects more closely the hierarchical relation at S-structure.  b.  In Japanese the wh-phrase always takes wide scope over a non-wh quantifier (but English does not have this restriction), [p. 9]  Now, suppose syntax takes care of the scope interpretation in Japanese as in the way Hoji c l a i m s or something s i m i l a r to that, and feeds the information to semantics, the questions that w i l l arise are: i) why the scope reading is more or less close to the hierarchical r e l a t i o n at S structure; i i ) why certain QPs tend to have wide scope; i i i ) how the ambiguity represented in (3d) is disambiguated. As for i i i ) , it is not the problem of syntax; for i) and i i ) , syntax offers s y n t a c t i c sides of i t s explanations but they are not the whole story.  In what f o l l o w s , the  problems of quantifier interpretations w i l l be examined in order to answer the above questions.  140  §4.1.2  Linear Order Hypothesis and Subjecthood The phenomenon observed in (2) is interpreted in two ways: i) the  word order affects the quantifier reading; i i ) subject NPs get wide scope reading. The f i r s t view is taken by Kuno (1973a, and the revised version in 1973b); the second one is taken by Keenan (1976) as one of his subject properties. F i r s t let us examine Kuno's claim concerning the linear order hypothesis (5) for Japanese. (5)  Rule 1:  In the basic word order structure, i f two quantifiers appear in the order of Qi - Q2, the obtained reading is the "same" vs. the "different."  Rule 2:  If the order of Q, - Q2 is changed into Q Qi as the result of leftward movement, the obtained reading is the "same" vs. the "same."  Rule 3:  If the order of Qi - Q2 is changed into Q2 Qi as the result of rightward movement, the obtained reading is the "different" vs. the "same" - the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of each Q is unchanged.  2  [summary translation from Kuno 1973b; see also Kuno 1973a, footnote 33, p. 384,] Kuno's terms "same" vs. "different" roughly overlaps the terms "wide" vs. "narrow" but they are not exactly the same. They are in a sense hybrids of wide/narrow 2.  and group/distributive.  This is especially true in Rule  Since Kuno's functional grammar does not differentiate s y n t a c t i c  141  factors and nonsyntactic factors, the above rule set is better understood as more discourse oriented readings than just the wide/ narrow  scope  interpretation. Let us examine how Kuno's system operates. According to this rule set, the surface linear order rule which assigns the "same" vs. "different" readings for Qi - Q2 is only applicable to cases of basic word order.  Rule 2 accounts for the "same" vs. "same"  reading in scrambled sentences like sentences (b) in (6) and (7), in oppos i t i o n to the corresponding basic word order sentences ( 6 a ) and (7a). (6) a. Gonin no onna five  sannin no kodomo 0  ga  women (nom)  [same]  three  sodateta.  child (acc) raised  [different]  Five women raised three children.' b.  Sannin no kodomo 0 gonin no onna ga sodateta. [same]  [same]  (7) a. Syoosuu no ningen a few  ga  takusan no kaisya  people (nom) many  [same]  0  company (acc)  [different]  gyuuzitte-iru. have under one's control 'A few people have many companies under their control.  142  b.  Takusan no kaisya o syoosuu no ningen ga gyuuzitte-iru. [same]  [same]  Kuno c l a i m s that Japanese has the rightward movement for sentential adverbs, as w e l l as the leftward movement in scrambling, as in (6) and (7).  Example (8) (Kuno's (34), 1973b) represents such cases, and is  accounted for by Rule 3: (8) a.  Mainen  oozei no kankoo-kyaku  every year  many tourists  ([same])  [different]  ga  nihon ni kimasu.  (nom) Japan to  come  (mainen = S-adverb)  'Every year many tourists come to Japan.' b. Oozei no kankoo-kyaku many tourists [different] [same]  ga  mainen  nihon  ni kimasu.  (nom) every year Japan to vs.  ([same])  vs.  ([different])  come  (mainen = S-adverb) (mainen = VP-adverb)  'Many tourists, every year, come to Japan.' Kuno argues that an example like (8b), in fact, represents either of the f o l l o w i n g two structures: one, the sentence is derived by moving the sentential adverb to the right. leftward  movement,  rightward  Rule 3 in (5) predicts that, unlike movement  does  not  affect  the  interpretation of the quantifier. This is why the "different" reading is obtained for many tourists.  Two, sentence (8b) represents the basic  143  structure, i.e., every year is a VP-adverb. Therefore, the "same" reading is obtained for many tourists by Rule 1 in (5). Thus, Kuno contends that not only is the surface word order a relevant factor in determining the quantifier reading, but also the direction of movement.  He also contends that the crossing is another  factor. Let us examine this conclusion next. Japanese passives like (2) is treated as "a basic word order sentence as far as the quantifier reading is concerned" (Kuno 1973b, p. 273), which gives an ad hoc appearance in a Standard Theory framework such as that w h i c h Kuno adopted,  e s p e c i a l l y when his  leftward  movement rule for the quantifier interpretation handles English passive cases in the way illustrated in (9) ( = Kuno's (14) in 1973b): (9)a.  Every girl likes many bovs.  Q  1  [same]  °2  [different]  b. Many boys every girl likes.  Q, '2  [same]  Q  i  [different]  144  c.  Many boys are liked by every girl. Q2  Qi  [same]  [different]  Here, the leftward movement creates the [same] vs. [different] reading, which c o n t r a d i c t s Rule 2.  This poses a minor problem to Kuno's  contention. However, in current GB-type generative grammar, this is no problem at a l l since passive sentences are generated as in (10) below, and Rule 1 in (5) accounts for the [same] vs. [different] reading in both Japanese and English. (10)  A are liked many boys by every girl.  Furthermore, in (8), sentence (8b) is not necessarily considered as a case of the r i g h t w a r d movement.  Many  tourists  in fact is  ambiguous, not only in (8b) but also in (8a). Observe example (11): (1 1 )a. Mainen  oozei no kankookyaku ga  every year many  tourist  [same] vs. [same]  [same]  tourist  (nom) Japan to come  (mainen = VP-adverb)  b. Oozei no kankookyaku ga many  nihon ni kimasu.  mainen  nihon ni kimasu.  (nom) every year Japan to come [different] (mainen = VP-adverb)  'Many tourists come to Japan every year.' In the case of VP-adverbs, the [same] vs. [same] reading in (1 la) (=(8a)) 2  can be obtained by preposing mainen.  Thus, w h i l e (8a) ([same] vs.  145  [different]) is a sentential adverb case, (11a) ([same] vs. [same]) is a preposed VP-adverb case. If this is so, then Rule 3 has to be dismissed from the rule sets in (5).  In other words, the principle of quantifier interpretation can be  stated w i t h f a i r l y simple rules:  Qi - Q 2 gets the [same] vs. [same]  reading after scrambling by leftward movement; otherwise, sentences get the [same] vs. [different] reading. Next, let us consider Keenan's c l a i m about  the wide scope  property of the subject element in connection w i t h the linear order hypothesis.  Keenan's claim is generally supported, except when a  sentence contains a sentential adverb like (1 1 b) or Locative as in (12b): (12)a. Itutu no paatii  de  nanninka no  kyaku  ga  five  at  some  guest  (nom)  party  [same]  [different]  dontyan-sawagi 0 sita. went-on-a-spree 'At five parties, some guests went on a spree.' b.  Nanninka no kyaku ga itutu no paatii de dontyansome  guest  [same] sawagi 0 sita.  five [same]  party  146  The readings in (13) represent Kuno's contention w i t h the understanding that the basic word order of Japanese existential sentence is L + S + V instead of S + L + V, thus assuming that(12b) is the preposed case of (12a). If this is so, the conclusion to be drawn from this data is that the wide scope reading is not the property of the subject but the result of the p o s i t i o n , i.e., the 'sentence  i n i t i a l position,' since in (12a) not  subject but locative gets the "same" (i. e., "wide" in this case) reading; that is, the leftmost quantifier, which in most cases, is incidentally the subject, always gets the "same" reading in sentences w i t h the basic word order. phenomenon.  In fact,  t h i s seems to be a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of  the  However, there is a question to be asked here, which is:  why, then, the sentence i n i t i a l position gets the "same" reading. Before exploring the answer for this question, the problem associated w i t h wide/narrow scope interpretation w i l l be discussed in the next section.  §4.1.3  Wide/Narrow vs. Same/Different F i r s t let us examine Kuno's terms "same" and "different" more  closely in order to determine the relationship between his terms and the more general terms."wide/narrow."  147  (13)  Tasuu  no  many (pos)  otoko  ga  syoosuu no  onna  o  homeru.  man (nom) a few (pos) woman (acc) praise  'Many men praise a few women.' (14)  Syoosuu no  onna  ga  tasuu  no otoko ni homerareru.  a few (pos) women (nom) many (pos) man by  be-praised  'A few women are praised by many men.' The reading obtained for (13) is:  each member of the "same" 'many'  praises each member of the "different" sets of 'a few', as shown in (15a) and (15b). (15) a. a set of 'many' = ( B i l l , John,...Tom]  a set of 'a few' = {'a few)', 'a few2',...'a few '} n  a set of 'a f e w i ' = (Sarah, Jane,...Sue] a set of 'a few2* = (Julie, Mary,...Lucy]  a set of 'a f e w ' = (Nancy, Ann,...Karen] n  B i l l praises 'a f e w i ' John praises 'a f e w 2 '  a few women  149  On the other hand, in the reading in (14), each member of the same 'a few'  (e.g., Karen, Julie,...Margaret) is praised by each member of the  different sets of 'many,' as demonstrated  3  in (16a) and (16b).  (1 6)a. a set of 'few' = {Karen, Julie,...Margaret]  a set of 'many' = Cmanyi', 'many2'...'manyn']  a set of 'manyT = {Tom, Bill...Sam] a set of 'many2' = {John, Joe,...Adam] a set of 'many3' = {Jim, Ken,...Jeff]  a set of 'manyn' = {Brian, Steve...Ben]  Karen was praised by 'manyi' J u l i e was praised by 'many2'  Margaret was praised by 'manyn'  [the same 'few'] vs. [different 'many']  150  Thus, what is clear is that Kuno's terms "same" and "different" are in fact referring to a set, and not an individual member. Now, the w i d e / n a r r o w scope i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  for the  English  equivalents of (13) and (14) is often described in a way somewhat like (1 7) and (1 8), respectively:  151  (1 7)  Many men praise a few women. (Vx)  (3y)  P R A I S E (x,  y)  (= For many men, there are a few women they praise.) (18)  A few women are praised by many men. Oy)  (Vx)  B E - P R A I S E D (x,  y)  (= There are a few women such that they are praised by many men.) Furthermore, Kuno's "same vs. different" corresponds in a certain manner w i t h loup's (1973) "collective vs. individual." quantifier all,  For example, the plural  according to loup, gets the "individual" reading when it  gets wide scope; i. e., "there can be as many garages as there are women" [p. 1 19].  On the other hand, when the singular quantifier gets wide  scope, all  gets the "collective" reading, i.e., "women work together to  build the garage." (19)  A l l women built a garage.  Using loup's terms, then (15b) can be explained in the f o l l o w i n g way: each member of the "same" set of many men "different" [A many [A  FEW WOMEN]  FEW WOMEN]  (= individual) praises  (= set, not each member), i. e., there can be as  as whatever numbers represented as many. A set is  treated just like a singular quantifier. Now the problem is Kuno's "same" vs. "same" r e a d i n g , which is 4  typically presented in subject-object scrambling cases like (20) (also cf. (6b) and (7b)):  152  (20)  Syoosuu no a few  onna  o tasuu no otoko ga homeru.  woman  many  man  praise  '(lit.) A few women, many men praise.' [same] vs. If the "same" a few women, singular quantifier, then  [same]  i . e., [A FEW  [MANY MEN]  WOMEN]  (= set) is treated like a  (= set) has to be "collective" as a set  and obtains the "same" many men reading in (21): (21)  r  \  J  v many men  However, this type of "set" reading is not likely to be considered as a part of syntactic scope interpretation but it is rather taken as an extras y n t a c t i c phenomenon. According to Contreras (1986), plural  and  153  collective NPs have either "group" or "distributive" readings.  5  If so, it is  the case that (21) gets the "distributive" reading, as w e l l as the "group" reading shown in the i l l u s t r a t i o n , on the f i r s t quantifier. Likewise, the "group" reading, instead of the " d i s t r i b u t i v e " reading shown in the illustrations,  is also p o s s i b l e in (15b) and (16b).  assumptions, the w i d e / n a r r o w i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  Given  these  in syntax, w h i c h is  considered as ambiguous in this case, is s t i l l intact. So far, I have dealt with the question of how one interpretation of two quantifiers affects the meaning of a sentence which differs from the other interpretations involving (syntactic) scope interpretation and other non-syntactic factors.  In the next section, I w i l l deal w i t h the  question asked earlier in this section, i.e., why does the sentence i n i t i a l position get the "same" reading?  I w i l l examine Zubin's 'focus' system  assuming some sort of "centering" device i s relevant to the interpre;  tation of quantifiers.  §4.2  "Attention" systems in discourse In Zubin's (1979) system, "focus" is controlled by the s p e c i f i c  l i m i t a t i o n s and biases of human perception.  The speaker's "focus of  interest," as Zubin c a l l s it, has at least two cognitive roots, Selective Attention and Egocentric Bias:  154  (22)  S E L E C T I V E ATTENTION  Every person has the following tendencies: 1.  To focus interest on entities that are cognitively salient to him.  2.  To focus interest on relatively few entities in the narrated scene, in comparison to the total range of entities available  3.  To focus interest on one entity or on one set of homogeneous entities at a time.  4.  To persevere in attention on one entity.  5.  To reach a satiation l i m i t where attention is shifted. [Zubin 1979: p.471]  (23)  EGOCENTRIC B I A S  We process information about other human beings more readily than that about nonhumans, and we process information about ourselves most readily. [Zubin 1979: p.471] (24)  EGOCENTRIC S C A L E  speaker (ego) > hearer > other person > inanimate, concrete > abstract [Zubin 1979: p.478] Zubin attempts to draw a relationship between the cognitive of the semantic substance focus and the grammatical  encoding.  bias He  concludes that nominative (grammatical subject) is used to indicate the  155  speaker's "focus of Interest" in German.  Zubin claims that his focus-of-  speaker's interest is different from the notion of 'topic' which tends f i r s t to be in an oblique case and then in the nominative; his 'focus' is always in the nominative from the beginning. And also, Zubin's 'focus' has nothing to do w i t h volitional attention, in which "conscious effort" (to use Zubin's term) is drawn out from the hearer's side by the speaker. The distributional difference among ' t o p i c ' , his 'focus', and 'conscious 6  attention' is exhibited in (25) and (26): (25)  habe  Den Film  (top/acc)  ich  schon dreimal gesehen.  (focus/nom)  'The movie I have seen already three times.' (26)  Mensch, ist der Josef scharf.  Den  mochte  (top/attention/acc) ich  mal besser kennenlernen.  (focus/nom) (Attention is indicated w i t h stress by Zubin.) 'Joseph is really something. Him, I would like to get to know better.' In r e a l i t y , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Zubin's 'focus' largely coincides w i t h that of 'topic' except in a marked structure like (25), since in languages which are not topic prominent, a nominative or (grammatical)  156  subject usually coincides w i t h the sentential realization of a discourse topic. It is to be noted here that is referred to as "focus" in various theories, which is considered some kind of highlighting phenomenon, can be c l a s s i f i e d into two categories:  that of the preconscious attention  system, like Zubin's, and that of the conscious attention system.  As  w i l l be shown in §4.5 Addendum, the conscious attention systems can be further divided into Grosz-type 'focus' which centers our attention on what the discourse is a l l about, Kuno's "new" information-type 'focus' w h i c h draws our attention  to what is new in the discourse, and  Rochemont's focus, relevant to what is not "under discussion." According to Zubin, however, 'focus' is the grammatical encoding of  "PRECONSCIOUSLY  disposed speaker's interest," which is a part of the  cognitive property of the human attention mechanism. Although deictic use, word order, and s t r e s s are other devices in this mechanism by which a speaker's  C O N S C I O U S EFFORT  at communication is conducted, but  they are not related to Zubin's focus system. Now, I w i l l investigate the connection between subjecthood and Zubin's "focus of the interest."  7  First, the following two assumptions w i l l be taken as premises: (27)  Assumption I:  Human attention is r e s t r i c t e d to a specific entity.  157 (28)  Assumption II:  Assumption  The nominative NP is the center of attention in the preconscious levels.  I is derived from  cognitive properties  of " s e l e c t i v e  attention" in Zubin. Assumption II is Zubin's 'focus of the interest'. A hypothesis can be drawn from these assumptions, which is: (29)  The  The subject NP receives the "same" reading by its inherent nature.  "sameness" is used in the sense of the one s p e c i f i c entry in  opposition to diverse entries.  The following examples w i t h indefinite  quantifiers i l l u s t r a t e this specific vs. n o n - s p e c i f i c opposition: 8  (30) a.  Dareka  ga  minna  o  aisiteiru.  someone (nom) everyone (acc) love 'Someone (specific) loves everyone.' [same] b.  Minna  ga  dareka  o  everyone (nom) someone (acc)  aisiteiru. love  'Everyone loves someone (unspecific).' [different] In this section, adopting Zubin's assumptions about the human attention system, an item or group of items represented as the subject is assumed to get s p e c i f i c attention and as a result it receives the "same" reading.  In the f o l l o w i n g section, this assumption w i l l be  158  investigated further in connection w i t h cases where non-subjects  get  the "same" reading.  §4.3  Focus of Interest, Quantifier, and Word Order In the preceding section, it is assumed that the subject gets the  same reading. However, observe (31). The example sentence in (31) is ambiguous between the s p e c i f i c dareka  reading and the non-specific  one: (3Da.  (Itumo)  dareka  (always) someone  ga  (watasitati o)  mihatteiru.  (nom)  (we (acc))  be-watching  'Someone is always watching us.' b. Specific reading: the same 'dareka' a set of 'dareka' = {x], x = John, Bill,...Sue. c. Non-specific reading: different 'dareka' a set of 'dareka' = Cdarekai', 'dareka2',...'dareka '} n  a set of 'darekai' = {xi), xi = John, Lucy,...Bill, a set of 'dareka2' = (X2J, x = Mary, Jean,...Bob. 2  a set of 'dareka ' = (x ), x = Lisa, Ron,...Tom n  n  n  159  Why is it the case that (31a) is ambiguous in meaning between (31b) and (31c)?  The key factor is a sentential adverb, itumo:  without it, the  preferred reading is (31b); with it, the preferred reading is (31c). Consider now Kuno's examples of the rightward movement in (8), discussed in §4.1.2, which is duplicated below as (32), and include some interesting cases of the mode of interaction between locative/temporal adverbs and subject quantifier phrases: (32)a.  oozei no kankoo-kyaku  Mainen every year  many tourists  ga  nihon ni kimasu.  (nom) Japan to  come  [different] 'Every year many tourists come to Japan.' b.  Oozei no kankoo-kyaku many tourists  ga  mainen  nihon  ni kimasu.  (nom) every year Japan to  come  [same/different] 'Many tourists, every year, come to Japan.' My interpretation of this phenomenon is as follows: every year  belongs  to the set of elements which cast the following part of the sentence into  the  frame  of  the  Accordingly, every year  locative/temporal  situational  binds the sentence in (32a) and the verb phrase  in (32b), in terms of time. Thus, in (32a), every year than many tourists  setting.  has a wider scope  (subject); w h i l e in (32b), the ambiguity on the  subject NP which is outside of the temporal frame surfaces because of  160  pragmatic  reasons.  That i s , in r e a l i t y it is more l i k e l y to have  "different" many t o u r i s t s than the "same" many t o u r i s t s .  Note that  besides the property of subject in our discussion, the quantifier reading is also affected by one's knowledge and beliefs about the world.  The  rule (29) is pragmatically sensitive by nature. Now, in addition to (29), cases like (32) a generalization such as (33): (33)  Temporal/Locative phrases have the widest scope (and the "same" reading) because of their function as frame setters for a sentence. 9  Observe example (34): (34)a.  Mainiti everyday  gonin no five  ([same])  hito  ga  (pos) person (nom)  kuru. come  [different]  'Everyday, five people come. b.  Mainiti  everyday ([same]) denwa  gonin  no  hito  ga  hatizyuttuu  five (pos) person (nom) [[same]/[different] o  eighty  no  (pos)  [different]]  kakeru.  telephone (acc) make-call Every day, five people make eighty calls.  161  In (34b), the subject has the wider scope than the non-subject  items  w i t h i n the domain of the temporal frame of every day, which in turn has the widest scope.  As a result, five people  is ambiguous between the  "same" and "different" reading in (34b), w h i l e it tends to get  the  "different" reading in (34a); (33) overrides (34). Let us now consider word order as  it  is r e l a t e d  to  the  interpretation of quantifiers. (35) is a case of the reversed word order of (13), which is derived by S c r a m b l i n g : (35)  Syoosuu no a few  onna  o  10  tasuu  no  (pos) woman (acc) many (pos)  otoko  ga  homeru.  man (nom) praise  'A few women, many men praise.' The reading obtained is: the same 'a few' vs. the same 'many', not the same 'a few' vs. different 'many' as in (14). This is predicted by Kuno's Rule 2. The reading in (35) has two significant implications. F i r s t , the subject NP receives the "same" reading not because it is the leftmost element (i.e., in sentence i n i t i a l position) but because it is subject. Hence, the inherent a t t e n t i o n - c a l l i n g nature of subjects is supported here.  Second, the s e n t e n c e - i n i t i a l preposed item (hereafter,  SIP)  obtains the "same" reading. This can be explained if the v a l i d i t y of the surface linear order principle is assumed.  Thus, based on the above  observation, one may advance the following (36):  162  (36)  The SIP gains the "same" reading because of its position, (to be revised)  However, this does not explain why the sentence i n i t i a l position gets the "same" reading.  Masunaga's (1982) notion of "bridge" seems to  provide an explanation for that. According to her, the SIP constitutes a bridge between the previous discourse and the rest of the sentence; that is, the SIP has an anaphoric function and i t s antecedent is given in a l i n g u i s t i c or n o n - l i n g u i s t i c form.  I assume that it is because of this  anaphoric nature that the SIP has to be specific.  Thus, (36) w i l l be  revised to (37): (37)  The SIP gains the "same" reading because of its discourse anaphoric function.  The "same" reading, originating in the anaphoric function as w i t h the SIP, seems to hold the key to the "same" reading on topic NP's, too. Consider (38). (38a) is an instance of nominative t o p i c a l i z a t i o n ; (38b) is one of accusative topicalization: (38) a. Sannin no  gakusei  wa  three (pos) student purozyekuto o project  hutatu  (top/nom)  two  no (pos)  hikiuketa.  (acc) took-charge-of  Three students took charge of two projects.' [the same 'three']  vs. [different/same(?) 'two']  163  b. Hutatu no  purozyekuto  wa  sannin  no  gakusei  project  (top/acc)  three  (pos)  student  two (pos)  ga  hikiuketa.  (nom) t o o k - c h a r g e - o f  '(As for) two p r o j e c t s , three students took charge of them.' [the same 'two'] vs. [the same 'three']  NP-wa  is e i t h e r  contrastive  or t h e m a t i c .  But, all  the  topicalized  q u a n t i f i e r NPs are c o n s i d e r e d to be i n s t a n c e s of c o n t r a s t i v e t o p i c s .  n  (For the d e t a i l s of t h i s argument see Chapter 5) T o p i c , in general, is anaphoric by nature, although the c o n t r a s t i v e topic has i t s antecedent in the p r e v i o u s d i s c o u r s e , w h i l e t h i s is not n e c e s s a r i l y the c a s e f o r the thematic  topic  discourse).  (i.e.,  the  antecedent  T h u s , the c o n t r a s t i v e  1 2  narrower sense than the t h e m a t i c topic. s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d  could topic  be  in  the  is a n a p h o r i c  universal in an even  If it is anaphoric, the  uniquely; t h u s , the  "different"  referent  referents  are  i m p o s s i b l e in t h i s case.  Note, however, that the c o n t r a s t i v e n e s s w h i c h is often regarded in the same light as e x h a u s t i v e n e s s , does not a f f e c t the reading.  In the  f o l l o w i n g example, c o n t r a s t i v e reading is indicated by s t r e s s , w h i c h is often the c a s e :  1 3  164  (39) a. Sannin no onna no ko ga gonin three (pos)  girl  no otoko no ko ni kisusita.  (nom) five (pos)  boy  to  kissed  'Three g i r l s kissed five boys.' b. Hutari no otoko  ga  vattu  no  pai  o  two (pos) man (nom) eight (pos) pie (acc)  tairageta. ate-up  'Two men ate up eight pies.' [the same 'two'] vs. [different 'eight'] Here, in spite of the contrast, the "different" reading is s t i l l obtained for the second quantifier; that is, the stress gives the emphasis on the amount, but does not change the quantifier reading itself.  Hence, the  emphatic tone associated w i t h the contrastive topic is not likely to be an influential factor in the quantifier reading in question, w h i l e the anaphoric nature is. Thus, we arrive at (40): (40)  Topic gains the "same" reading because of its anaphoric function.  The f o l l o w i n g (41) sums up the dominant readings and the g e n e r a l i zations which account for them: (41 )a. Qi (subject) - Q [same]  [different] (by (29))  b. Qi (non-subject) [same]  2  - Q  2  (subject) [same]  (by (37) and (29))  165  c. Qi (Top-subject) - Q2 [same]  [different]  (by (40) (and (29)))  c' Q (Top) - Q (subject) 2  [same]  [same]  (by (40) and (29))  d. Qi (Loc/Temp) - Q2 (subject) [same]  [same/different]  (by (33) and (29)?)  The surface linear order principle is descriptively correct, but it does not provide any explanation for the phenomenon.  The set of  hypotheses (29), (33), (37), and (40) discussed in this section are my attempt to resolve this problem. If (29) holds, the prominence of the subject  1 4  in a sentential expression is supported from an e x t r a -  syntactic point of view.  Zubin's assumption that something prominent  to us, i.e. the center of attention, cannot be a diverse e n t i t y is e m p i r i c a l l y supported in our perception of the outside world.  As for  (33), (37), and (40), they are related to the discourse function of those sentence  initial  elements.  L o c a t i v e / t e m p o r a l adverbs  provide a  situational setting for the sentence; that is, they are used to cast the sentential discourse into a l o c a t i v e / t e m p o r a l frame.  In this sense,  topic also has this "framing" function. Utterances always occur within the framework of the topic.  I assume that SIP in Scrambling and the  contrastive topic both have v i r t u a l l y the same function in terms of their anaphoricity.  The difference between the two is: the l a t t e r has the  particle wa, and the former does not. As is discussed in Chapter 5, the anaphoric aspect of N P - w a is rather secondary compared to i t s semantic  166  function, i.e., that of the categorical judgement marker.  As the Grosz-  type 'focus' c l a i m s , anaphoric use is closely related to our conscious attention system, as opposed to the unconscious attention system (i. e., Zubin's 'focus'), which is, in turn, tied to subjecthood. s y n t a c t i c rules, the proposed g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s for  Unlike the  extra-syntactic  phenomena are sensitive to certain pragmatic factors related to our real world knowledge.  §4.4  Conclusion This chapter has given an explanation of the disambiguation  mechanism of quantifier reading in Japanese. The scope interpretation which is assumed to have LF representation w i d e / n a r r o w reading for the Qi - Q  2  in syntax provides a  sequence.  However, actual  readings obtained for such sentences are more or less influenced by some e x t r a - s y n t a c t i c factors.  Contreras' "group" vs. " d i s t r i b u t i v e "  reading is a relevant case for such influential factors. Kuno's "same" vs. "different," which offers a type of reading supported by our intuition, is also considered as another case of such meanings which are not purely s y n t a c t i c , having a certain relationship to the w i d e / narrow reading. "Same/different" overlaps wide/narrow for a sentence w i t h the basic word order. On the other hand, in cases of scrambling, although syntax a l l o w s an ambiguous scope i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  here, what  is a c t u a l l y  obtained in the discourse environment is more likely to be the "same" -  167  "same" reading, which involves functions of the subject  item and  preposed non-subject item in discourse.  §4.5  Addendum  §4.5.1  Grosz's'Focus': Defined solely on a s e m a n t i c  15  basis in a  processing model Grosz (1977,  1978, and elsewhere) considers focus to be an  active process of attention-calling (she often uses the terms "focusing" or "highlighting"), and takes it to be f o r m a l l y representable on partitioned semantic networks. Her concept of 'focus' is formed on the basis of a task-oriented dialogue,  16  to be incorporated into a computer processing model. The  p a r t i c u l a r nature of the task-oriented dialogue is that the discourse formation process is parallel to the actual task.  Hence, this type of  discourse provides an opportunity to check the d e s c r i p t i o n - f o r m i n g process w i t h the actual chronology of the task without worrying about the degree of idiosyncrasy in the discourse style. Grosz's model (1977) of the focusing mechanism in task-oriented dialogues is as follows.  A task as represented in discourse consists of  hierarchially nested subtasks.  When it is completed, the description of  each subtask fades from focus; however, the parent task remains in focus.  Therefore,  when the  d e s c r i p t i o n of a s i b l i n g subtask  is  completed, discourse anaphoric expressions are related to the concepts  168  in the parent task in focus, not to the already completed sibling task(s). Thus, this is a t w o - f o l d focus system (Grosz, 1978); that is, the main task is " e x p l i c i t l y " focused w h i l e subtasks or objects involved are " i m p l i c i t l y " focused.  The f o l l o w i n g examples are given in Grosz  (1977)' : 7  (42)  Discourse I (= Figure 11-7, p. 23)  (E = expert; A = apprentice; [italics] focused task)  = an object in focus, or a  [M-Task]  E:  Good morning. I would like for you to reassemble the compressors.  [S-Task i l  E:  I suggest you begin by attaching the pump to the platform ...(other SubTaski - i ~ ) n  [S-Task ] 2  [M-Task]  E:  Good. A l l that remains then is to attach the belt housing cover to the belt housing frame.  A:  A l l right. I assume the hole in the housing cover opens to the pump pulley rather than to the motor pulley.  A:  A l l right. The belt housing cover is on and tightened down. (60 utterances after the beginning.)  E:  Fine. Now, let's see if /'tj works.  169  (43)  Discourse II (= Figure 11-14, p. 37) [S-Task,]  [S-Task ] 2  A:  How do I remove the flywheel?  E:  First loosen the two alien head setscrewsk holding it to the shaft, then pull it off.  A:  The two screws] are loose but I'm having trouble getting the wheel off.  E:  Use the wheel puller. Do you know how to use i t ?  A:  No.  E:  Loosen the screw in the center and place the jaw around the hub of the wheel, then tighten the screw^. m  Discourse I in (42) shows the nested hierarchical structure of tasks, i.e., (M-T ( S - T i ( S - T i ~ i , . . . 5 - T i ~ ) , S - T 2 ) ) , while Discourse II in (43) consists n  of two sibling tasks, S - T i and S - T 2 . The use of the discourse anaphoric expressions, including repetitions, indicates the task description units since they are l i k e l y to have their antecedents, which are in focus, w i t h i n the same task descriptions:  j = i in M-Task in (42); 1 = k in S-  Taski and n = m in S - T a s k 2 in (43).  Bullwinkle  (1977) suggests using Grosz's type of 'focus' for  anaphora disambiguation:  170  (44) a. Ira wants to have a party,- at his housej. It is going to be at 8 o'clock p.m. Invite {everyone at the lab; Mitch, Dave, Candy, Bruce, and Beth) to attend, (it = i) b. Ira wants to have a party,- at his housej. It is at 25 Wildwood Street. Invite (everyone at the lab; Mitch, Dave, Candy, Bruce, and Beth] to attend, (it = i) It refers to a party, not his house, unless his house rather than a party is in focus in this conversation. The same thing happens in a Japanese zero anaphora case: (45)  Tanaka  ga  zibun no iei< de  (nom) self's house yaru-rasii  paateei  at  o  party (acc)  yo.  seems to throw, you know (mod) 0  Mitaka datte-iu  (it is)  I've heard  keredo,  iku kai.  although  go (Q)  (0=1)  'I heard that (Mr.) Tanaka is going to throw a party at his own house. It's in Mitaka, I've heard. Are you going?' It seems to be natural to interpret that the locational information, Mitaka,  is given for a party, not for his own house, in (45).  Now, in much literature, the term 'focus' is often used as just another name for what is traditionally called 'topic'. Grosz's 'focus' can be counted as one such example: 'topic' in her sense is the same entity which is referred to as 'global topic' in Chapter 2 (cf. also 'discourse  171  topic' in Chapter 5).  As observed in Chapter 2, this type of topic  frequently coincides w i t h sentential topic in actual discourse.  On the  other hand, the topic-focus a r t i c u l a t i o n descended from the  Prague  School - which has had, and continues to have, a great influence on this area of study - presupposes the complementary distribution of topic and focus.  Also "new information" in Praguian FSP (functional sentence  perspective),  "comment"  in t o p i c - c o m m e n t  (Hockectt,  1958),  and  "Rheme" in theme-rheme ( H a l 1 i d a y , 1967) have often been regarded as "focused" items, depending on the definition accorded the term 'focus.' In the f o l l o w i n g two sections,  I will  introduce Kuno's 'focus' and  Rochemont's 'focus', which are controlled by principles largely contrary to that of Grosz's.  §4.5.2  Kuno's'Focus': Information value represented in word order A series of important works by Susumu Kuno can be considered  North American descendants of Praguian FSP. Kuno (1978) defines focus as new information, w i t h word order arranged (in principle) in the sequence of old information to new information before a verb. That is, w i t h the exception of e m p h a t i c a l l y s t r e s s e d cases, the  position  immediately preceding the verb is the most likely place for focus (cf. Kuno § 1 , especially §1.5. (46) = Kuno's (8) and ( l O ) ) . ^  172  (46)  A:  Ziroo wa Hanako to Bosuton ni (top)  with  itta?  to  went  Did Ziroo go to Boston w i t h Hanako? Ba:  Un, Bosuton ni  itta  yo.  to  went  (emphatic modal)  yes  'Yes, they went to Boston.' Bb:  *Un, Hanako to itta yo. 'Yes, he went to (Boston.) w i t h Hanako.'  (47)  A:  Ziroo wa Bosuton ni Hanako to i t t a ?  Ba:  *Un, Bosuton ni i t t a yo.  Bb:  Un, Hanako to itta yo.  Kuno regards new information as having higher informational value than iess new  information.  The test applied w i t h the above examples is  based on the n o n - d e l e t a b i l i t y of new information; the immediately preceding the verb, Bosuton (47), is new and cannot be deleted. essential  notion of newness  ni  information  in (46) and Hanako  to in  However, later he changes the  to one of importance  because of the  phenomenon observed in the following model discourse given by Kuno (1982):  173  (48)  Ai  You must have spent a fortune during your trip on hotels. Couldn't you stay w i t h your friends or your friends' friends?  Bi  In some c i t i e s , I did, but I had to stay in hotels in many cities.  A  2  You f i r s t went to Paris, right? Did you stay in a hotel there?  B2  No, I didn't stay in a hotel 0 - I stayed w i t h an old friend of mine who is studying music there.  A3  Did you stay in a hotel in London? I hear hotels are getting terribly expensive there.  B3  a.  Yes, I stayed in a hotel 0 because I didn't have any friends there.  b.  Yes, unfortunately, in a hotel.  c.  *Yes, in London.  In the above, 0 in B 2 (= in Paris  ) is older and less important; however,  in B 3 - , 0 (= in London ) is newer but less important, while in a hotel a  older but more important.  is  Thus, Kuno's deletion rule is revised from  "deleting less new information rather than newer" to "deleting  less  important information rather than more important." Kuno's version of 'focus' predicts that items such as wh-words, which one would i n t u i t i v e l y consider to be "highlighted," w i l l focused.  be  The wh-question construction is the very thing which is  174  u t i l i z e d to gain the information that the speaker desires; in other words,  the  wh-word  information.  is the  most  important  piece  of  unfilled  As a consequence, the piece of information in the answer  which f i l l s the gap created by the wh-word is focused. However, Kuno's version does not predict cases involving the discourse anaphoric use of demonstratives.  These d e i c t i c signal words  are also another device for "highlighting." If one accepts this sort of h i g h l i g h t i n g as a type of 'focus', then  first  of a l l , Kuno's new  information strategy c e r t a i n l y does not work in these cases, since demonstratives have antecedents and are therefore not new in any sense. Second, even if one employs the notion of 'importance', the antecedent is not the  important  item in discourse  in the same sense as  the  informational gap-filling word in an answer is. Therefore, the function of discourse anaphoric expressions cannot be accommodated in Kuno's focus system. At f i r s t glance, it might appear that Kuno's notion of 'focus' and i t s predictions of focused items are opposed to Grosz's. According to Kuno's informational value based 'focus', a topic or thematic item is less likely than other items to be focused. However, this is not always the case (cf. Kuno 1972, 1975): (49)a. Tikyuu wa earth (top)  marui. round  'The earth is round.  175  b. Kinoo,  Ikeda-san  yesterday  ga  tazunete-kimasita.  Mr. Ikeda (nom)  come to v i s i t  Ikeda-san wa mamonaku Amerika e iku to itte-imashita. (top)  soon  America to go  said that  'Yesterday, Mr. Ikeda came to v i s i t me. He said that he would go to America soon.' (50)a. Dare  ga  kore  o  kowasita no.  who (nom) this (acc)  broke (Q)  'Who broke this?' b. Boku I  wa/*ga (top/nom)  s  kowasite-nai  yo.  have not broken  I'll t e l l you (mod)  'I didn't break it.' ("I" contrasts w i t h "someone" who did it.) c. (= Kuno's (2-2) in 1972) John to Mary to B i l l ga and  and  John wa/ga (top/nom) Mary wa/ga  tazunete kimasita.  (nom)  v i s i t i n g come  kudamono o fruit okasi  kuremasita.  (acc) o  (top/nom) cookies (acc)  gave-me kuremasita. gave-me  176  Bill  wa/ga  hon  o  motte kite  kuremasita.  (top/nom) book (acc) bringing coming  gave-me  In contrast w i t h the topics in (49), the topics in (50c), John and Nary (but not Bill  ) all constitute  new information, since they are not  predictable in the context (cf. Kuno 1972: 276).  One might say that  these topics (and also 6/7/ ) are a l l old information, since they are already mentioned in the previous discourse. However, it is misleading to assign an old-new distinction to one of noun quality (as in the above); the "old-new d i s t i n c t i o n " is the d i s t i n c t i o n made on the information structure of discourse; thus, a sentence element is identified as new or old only in terms of how it is related to i t s embedded c o n t e x t . other hand, according to the definition of importance, focused since they are non-deletable. dispute over identifying boku (-wa)  19  On the  these topics are  In (50b), there is not much  as new information and boku  also non-deletable, important information; thus the topic boku  is  becomes  focused. According to Halliday (1967, 1968, and elsewhere), his rheme  structure is different from old-new  theme-  information, although the  two can be overlapped: the former is the structure of a sentence (i.e., theme  is the sentence i n i t i a l element and rheme  is the rest); whereas  the latter is the information structure for discourse. According to the former view, the topic in topic-comment a r t i c u l a t i o n s is more like a combination of the above two classes old and theme.  177  While Grosz's type of "focus" works to pivot the  expanding  discourse, Kuno's type of "focus" is relevant to the expansion itself. Here there seems to exist two opposed dynamisms in discourse:  one  works to bring about convergence w i t h the topic ( = Grosz's focus), the other works towards the expansion of discourse or the addition of new information to that already given.  §4.5.3  Rochemont's 'Focus': a syntactically represented and contextually construable entity There are studies of 'focus' in generative grammar (Chomsky  (1970), Jackendoff  (1972)  among others).  A more recent work,  Rochemont (1986) is an extensive study of 'focus' in English, which deals w i t h phonological, syntactic, and discourse aspects of 'focus' from the viewpoint of generative grammar.  Rochemont's 'focus', which is  diagnosed by the well-formedness of question/answer pairs like (51) below, is treated as a syntactic notion, s y s t e m a t i c a l l y associated w i t h prominent stress and certain pragmatic environments. (51)  a.  Who did Tom c a l l ?  b.  Tom called Mary. focus  It is not the purpose of this chapter to give an overview of Rochemont's complex theory of focus. construable  What is relevant here is his notion  c-  in (52), using the pragmatic notion "under discussion,"  178  which in turn provides a possible alternative to rather loosely defined concepts like old information. This c-construable  is used to identify  Rochemont's focus in discourse context. (52)  a.  If a is not c-construable, then a is focused, [p. 172]  b.  a is c-construable if (i) a is under discussion, or (ii) a is an indexical expression  "Under discussion" means either that it is s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned in the previous discourse, or mentioned using the expression w i t h the same sense or the same reference.  "Indexical expressions" are the personal  pronouns /, you, we; locative and temporal adverbs such as here, today, last time;  and verbs of appearance such as arrive.  is further divided into two categories:  there,  C-construable  "conventional" and "conver-  sational," in the sense of Grice (1975). The rule for Contrastive focus in (53) makes an interesting claim: (53)  If a / S is directly c-construable [ = the case of (i) in (52b), M.O.], where a / S is the result of extracting a from 5, and S is not c-construable, then a is a focus, [p. 175]  This is to say that old information can be focused. At least, it is safe to say that a topic can be focused, considering the varied definitions of "old." Rochemont's rule also predicts that in Kuno's (50c), John, and 6/7/  are c o n t r a s t i v e l y focused  construable).  (a / S  Mary,  = conversationally  c-  Considering the fact that Kuno (1973) c l a s s i f i e d topics  into two categories, thematic topic and contrastive topic, Kuno's theory  179  also indicates s i m i l a r consequences, which naturally follow from seeing topic (Grosz's focus or Japanese wa- marked NP) and focus as two independent  notions,  20  neither two ends of a single spectrum nor in  complementary distribution. They have two different functions, which I assume belong to different dynamisms of discourse formation.  180  Notes (Chapter 4) 1  There are some disagreements over the readings in (2a); however, even for those who disagree w i t h the unambiguous reading, the preferred reading is s t i l l ( l b ) , and (1c) is marginal. On the other hand, for those who disagree w i t h the ambiguity treatment in ( l a ) , the unambiguous reading is also (1b). Whichever is the case (unambiguously obtained reading or preferred one), ( l b ) has the prominence in reading.  2  There is no difference between the same 'every' and the different 'every.'  3  The entries of a few women can overlap. That is, in actuality, one may for example obtain the following cases, which are consistent w i t h the assertion: (i)  'a few' : 'a few,' * 'a f e w ' ; 'a few,' = 'a few2"; 'a few,' <t 'a f e w 2 ' ; 'a few," £ 'a f e w ' ; 'a few,' ™ 'a f e w 2 ' . 2  2  Thus, the "different" can include a case like 'a few,' = 'a few " in (i) which is, in effect, equivalent to the "same" reading. However, we find these special cases only after checking into the situation in the real world. This is a consequence of the potential discrepancy between what is asserted in language and what actually takes place in reality. 2  4  Kuno (1971) c l a i m s that the s u b j e c t - o b j e c t scrambling case is ambiguous in terms of wide/narrow scope interpretation. However Kuno (1973 a & b) c l a i m s the unambiguous "same" - "same" reading for it.  5  Contreras specifies certain conditions for "distributive" reading. On the other hand, according to W i l l i a m (1986), any NP which has a "group" reading potentially has a "distributive" reading when it is in subject position.  6  It is w e l l - k n o w n that Japanese, as a member of the s o - c a l l e d topic prominent languages, has the topic marker wa. An English sentence like (i) can be t r a n s l a t e d into Japanese either as ( i i ) or ( i i i ) , depending on the context:  181  (i)  B i l l saw Mary at the park.  (ii)  Biru wa Merii o kooen de mita. (top) (acc) park at saw  (iii)  Biru ga Merii o kooen de mita. (nom)  On the other hand, English has t o p i c a l i z a t i o n as in (iv); however, the s t r u c t u r a l l y - m a r k e d topic sentence which is approximate to the Japanese wa sentence in discourse function is a l e f t - d i s l o c a t e d sentence like (v) (cf. Reinhart, 1982): (iv)  Mary, B i l l likes. (Topicalization)  (v)  Mary, B i l l likes her. (Left Dislocation)  It is not clear, however, whether the German topic sentence, for example (vi) given by Zubin, is functionally s i m i l a r to English (iv), (v), or neither of them: (vi)  Den Film habe ich schon dreimal the movie (top/acc) have I (nom) already three times gesehen. seen.  Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the discourse function of this type of sentence is required. 7  Zubin uses n o m i n a t i v e and ( g r a m m a t i c a l ) s u b j e c t in an interchangeable sense. Shibatani (1978) argues that in the m u l t i nominative construction, which is one of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Japanese, only one of the several nominatives in a sentence is the subject. Problems to be examined here involve subjecthood, the status of the subject in syntactic theories, and the analysis of the m u l t i - n o m i n a t i v e construction. However, these w i l l be left for future research, as they do not affect the main lines of the argument.  8  Although the 'same' is almost synonymous w i t h 'specific,' the scope relation and s p e c i f i c i t y are closely related but not exactly the same;  182  if the speaker has a specific person in mind it takes wide scope but not vice versa (cf. Maclaran, 1982). Within Temporal/Locative, T seems wider than L: (i)  Mainiti dokoka de nanninka ga umarete-iru. every day somewhere some numbers (of people) is-born ([same]) [different] 'Every day, somewhere, some number of babies are born.'  (ii)  Dokoka de mainiti nanninka ga umarete-iru. [same] ([different])  A movement analysis is assumed for scrambling (cf. Saito, 1985). However, whether the structure is derived by movement or not is not an essential problem in this analysis. Even if it is not derived by movement, the function of the SIP is intact. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of topics is o r i g i n a l l y given by Kuno (cf. for example, 1973a). The following i l l u s t r a t e s that a quantifier NP can occur in N P - w a position only when it has the contrastive reading: (i)  Oozei no hito wa kita. many (pos) people (c-top/*t-top) came.  Thematic topic:  Kuzira  wa  whale (top)  honyurui  da.  mammal (cop)  'A whale is a mammal.' Contrastive topic:  Kaze wa huite-iru. wind is-blowing 'The wind is blowing (but it is not cold).'  Other means to indicate contrastiveness are: the contrastive topic in question and the exhaustive-listing ga (cf. Kuno 1973a), which is untestable because it is the nominative marker. It is not surprising then that the subject is responsive to zibun, egocentric pronoun in Japanese, as the antecedent.  the  183  1 5  "Semantic" could be replaced here w i t h "pragmatic"; i.e., it is used here in a wide, or non-truth conditional, sense.  1 6  Linde (1979) takes a s i m i l a r approach.  1 7  Supplementary explanations and c l a r i f i c a t i o n s have been added to these examples.  1 8  Kuno uses * to indicate sentences which are i n f e l i c i t o u s in their contexts. Throughout t h i s t h e s i s , * is used to i n d i c a t e ungrammatical sentences as well as infelicitous sentences, in contexts where this does not cause any confusion.  1 9  Also cf. the argument of Reinhart (1985), which is briefly introduced in Chapter 5.  2 0  "Topic" has certainly created another "thicket" of terminology, even less transparent than the one associated w i t h "focus." However, I assume Japanese N P - w a is a topic which happens to occur w i t h a morphological marker.  1 84  Chapter 5 The Function of the Particles Wa and Ga  §5.0  Introduction Many analyses and observations have been made concerning the  p a r t i c l e wa in terms of sentence structure, semantics, and discourse function, the last being the most popular topic. The main concern in this chapter is not to challenge a p a r t i c u l a r analysis or observation, but rather to provide an integrated explanation of the nature of wa (and ga in that connection) which underlies the recognized c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the use of wa. In this way, some disagreements between the previous analyses  may be r e s o l v e d  differences  in points  of  into mere view.  After  terminological clashes this  is  recognized,  or the  reinterpretation of such disagreements w i l l shed new light on already existing analyses.  §5.1  The P a r t i c l e wa The Japanese particle wa is most commonly considered to be a  topic marker or an old information marker. While these are intuitively  185  appealing explanations, the vagueness of the concepts 'topic' and 'old information' causes difficulty in defining the terms.  In fact, it is quite  possible to assume that the use of wa is not p r i m a r i l y controlled by discourse factors such as these.  A Characteristic of the Use of Wa  §5.1.1  "I am a cat" is the famous opening sentence of Soseki Natsume's ( 1 8 6 7 - 1 9 1 6 ) 1905 novel Wagahai  wa Neko dearu  (/ am a cat ), which  looks at human l i f e from the viewpoint of a house cat.  Outside of  fiction, though, this type of utterance is totally absurd. Japanese has a peculiar sentence type which is often called the "eel-sentence," named after a popular example given in (1): (1)  Boku  wa  [UNP  Particle  [unagi da], [eel  ?] P V  A possible context for (1) is at a restaurant. Suppose a w a i t e r is taking orders.  Each customer says something like, "Boku wa sushi da (I am  going to have sushi)"; "Boku wa soba da (I am going to have noodles)"; or "Boku wa unagi da (=( 1))." Or when fishing, one might say (1) in answer to a question such as, "What did you catch?" Last but not least, (1) can l i t e r a l l y mean "I am an eel" in a fictional context. Additional examples of this type are given in (2) below:  186  (2) a.  Titi  wa  my father  kuruma da. car  'My father is a car/My father goes to work by car/My father's favorite pastime is repairing a c a r / e t c ' b.  wa kyooryuu da.  Otooto my brother  dinosaur  'My brother is a dinosaur./My brother loves dinosaurs./My brother got a toy dinosaur./etc.' Suppose that someone asked you how your father goes to work. You could answer w i t h (3a) or (3b), but a nonredundant answer like (2a) is not merely acceptable but somewhat preferred: (3) a.  Titi my father  wa kuruma car  de sigoto  ni  by  to  work  ikimasu. go  'My father goes to work by car.' b.  T i t i wa kuruma de ikimasu. 'My father goes by car.'  In turn, (3b) is a w e l l - f o r m e d answer to a question like, "What kind of stuffed animal did your brother get for Christmas?" This type of sentence has the form of [X wa Y da ], and is equated w i t h the English copula sentence [X is Y], While English copula sentences  187  are translated into either [X wa Y da ] or [X ga Y da ], it is often the case that "NP wa " is translated into English using "as for NP" as an approximation. (4)  Translation equivalent: Japanese  English  X ga Y da X wa Y da  • X is Y *  "~~  "  ^ As for X, it is Y  The following translations ( D and (2') may describe the nature of such wa sentences: (1')  Boku wa unagi da. 'As for me, I am an e e l / i t is (an) eel.'  (2')a. T i t i wa kuruma da. 'As for my father, he is a c a r / i t is a car.' b.  Otooto wa kyooryuu da. 'As for my brother, he is a dinosaur/it is a dinosaur.'  The ambiguity between the above two readings has yielded a number of studies of these so-called "eel sentences." Now, the questions that should be asked here are:  i) whether or  not "da " in an "eel-sentence" is the Japanese equivalent of the English verb "to be" or the copula; and if so, i i ) whether or not the Japanese-  188  specific  particle  wa  embodies the special function in the " e e l -  sentence" phenomenon (English copula sentences are used rarely, if at a l l , in the same way as (1) and (2) in Japanese).  In what follows, I w i l l  argue for the copula hypothesis for da, rather than the others, in investigating the function of wa. Let us f i r s t look at Okutsu (1978), which challenges the copula hypothesis.  He proposes instead the propredication hypothesis, which  maintains that da is the proform of (a part of) the predicate, such as -tabetai  (to want to eat), -kudasai  (please give), -tyumonsuru  (to  order), etc., as shown in (5): (5)  Propredication Hypothesis: Okutsu (1978) Boku wa unagi I  eel  ga  tabetai  Nom (obj)  want to eat  o  tyuumonsuru  'I want to eat eel.'  'I order an eel.'  Acc. o Acc. 0 Okutsu  proposes  the  propredication  (optional) p a r t i c l e deletion.  kure  'Give me eel.  give (Imp) da  transformation  1  Okutsu's p r o p r e d i c a t i o n  f o l l o w e d by hypothesis,  however, is not w e l l r e s t r i c t e d , which is a crucial defect in theory construction.  According to Okutsu, "da " can replace almost anything -  1 89  verbs, adjectives, and nominal adjectives - in i t s derived forms w i t h various suffixes, tenses, negative morphemes, etc., associating w i t h various grammatical cases (!). This can be seen in (6): (6) a. Q:  Kinoo  kimitati  yesterday  you (two)  doko  ni  ita  where LOC  no.  be-Past Q  'Where were you yesterday?' A,:  Otooto wa gakkoo brother school Boku wa I  A : 2  uti  ni ITE LOC be-(gerund) ni  home  ITA  LOC  Otooto wa gakkoo  be-Past  DE,  ("da"  boku wa uti DA.  in gerund)  'My brother was at school and I was at home.' b.  Q:  Kimi wa you  itu when  ko-rare-nai come-can-Neg  no. Q  'When cannot you come?' A,:  (Boku wa) suiyoobi ni on  A : 2  KO-RARE-NAI  come-can-Neg  (Boku wa) suiyoobi DA you(ne). know  190  c.  Q:  kimi wa nani you  A|:  o  hanas-ase-rare-ta  no.  what Acc speak-Causative-Passive-Past Q  boku wa zibun no kazoku ni tuite  no  self's family  's  about  hanasi o story  KAK-ASE-RARE-TA.  A :  Boku wa zibun no kazoku ni tuite no hanasi DA (yo).  2  Emp. In ( 6 ) , "da " replaces the past form of the verb iru  in (a), a  negative form of the verb kuru in (b), and a causative-passive past form of the verb hanasu  in (c). Furthermore, in Okutsu's analysis, w i t h the  exception of the equational case of ( 7 c ) which he admits is the copula case, even (7a) and (7b), which are usually not considered as " e e l sentences,"  2  are also derivable from (8a) and (8b) respectively:  (7) a. Boku wa Yamada da. I  (name)  'As for me, I am Yamada.' b.  Boku wa gakusei da. I  student  'As for me, I am a student.'  191  c.  Tokyo wa Nihon Japan  no  syuto  da.  's  capital city  'As for Tokyo, it is the capital city of Japan.' (8) a. Boku wa Yamada [to as b. Boku wa gakusei [ni to  iu], call (oneself) zokusuru], belong  'I belong to the students.' To treat (7c) as an exception is poorly motivated.  I cannot see why (8')  below is not acceptable for (7c) as an underlying form, if (8a) and (8b) are acceptable for (7a) and (7b) respectively: (8')  Tokyo wa Nihon no syuto to onazi-da. as  same  'As for Tokyo, it is the same as the capital city of Japan.' It is true that Okutsu's main idea is not undermined by excluding (7c) from his proform analysis.  But the point is that there is nothing to  prevent including (7c) in "eel sentences" since da can replace anything in his theory. The r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of Okutsu's  (1981)  condition for the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of transformation: should be "presupposed."  theory  states  the  target elements  What this "presupposition" means is not clearly  192  stated by Okutsu, but it seems to be s i m i l a r to s o - c a l l e d "old" or "known" information.  (This s t i l l does not make the status of (7) any  clearer, because of the nature of these widely used but loosely defined notions.)  However, I must say that t h i s r e v i s i o n does not put any  essential  r e s t r i c t i o n on his rule s e t s , but rather c r e a t e s a less  restricted  theory of grammar:  sentence grammar  has to u t i l i z e  contextual information to make i t s e l f fully functional.  To progress  toward the aim of a w e l l - r e s t r i c t e d theory, the idea that "da " is the proform of various pre-dicative expressions w i l l have to be abandoned. For the purpose pseudo-cleft Okutsu.  of deriving the "eel sentences," Kitahara's  hypothesis (1981) is a potential alternative to that of  The "eel-sentence" is derived through  its  pseudo-cleft  counterpart as shown in (9): (9)  Pseudo-cleft Hypothesis: Kitahara (1 981) a. [Boku I  ga  tabe-tai  Nom  want to eat  'What I want to eat is eel.' b. [Boku no no] p wa unagi da. N  c. [Boku no]|s|p wa unagi da. d. Boku wa unagi da. 'As for me, it is eel.'  no]  NP  wa unagi eel  da.  193  Kitahara c a l l s the f i r s t "no" in (9b) the prenominal particle, like "no" in (1 O); and the second "no" the nominalizer particle as in (1 1). (10)  Taroo no hon book 'Taroo's book.'  (11)  [Tenisu tennis  o  suru  nolNp wa tanosii  Acc play  fun  'Playing tennis is fun.' According to Kitahara, "da " is a part of the pseudo-cleft construction, but different from the copulative "da " in (7). Kitahara's analysis does not require contextual information be taken into consideration; however, it shares the same  fundamental  basis; i.e., a l l information which is necessary for interpretation is already provided in the sentence as the underlying form. Thus Kitahara's a n a l y s i s also places a large burden on sentence grammar, j u s t  as  Okutsu's does. In conclusion, there does not seem to be any reason to assume two kinds of "da," and to treat the "eel-sentence" as a s y n t a c t i c a l l y special case.  What is apparent here is that as far as syntax is  concerned, the eel sentence is not different from those given in (7), and a l l of these [ X wa Y da ] sentences are c l a s s i f i e d as  copulative  194  sentences.  However, the Japanese copula sentence tends to rely on  3  context for interpretation more than the English one does. The question then w i l l be why Japanese copula sentences allow such apparently free combinations of X and Y. It seems that the particle wa has something to do w i t h this phenomenon.  To pursue this point  further, let us move to another set of data which is not of the [X wa Y da ] type. First, let us consider example (12): (12) a.  Taroo wa Tokyo  e  itta.  to went 'As for Taroo, he went to Tokyo.' b.  Taroo wa Hanako ga Nom  shookaisita. introduced  'As for Taroo, Hanako introduced (him).' Both movement and non-movement analyses have been proposed for the structures of (12), which are represented in (13):  195  (13) a.  5/?  NP  Tarc-OjWa  NP  e  i  itta b.  S/?  NP  Taroo, wa  Hanako ga  l  NP e,  I  V  syookaishita  The wa-attached N P s , Taroo in (13a) and Taroo in (13b), are bound to the nominative in the former and the accusative in the latter. However,  196  there are also cases where a w a - a t t a c h e d NP is not bound to any arguments w i t h i n S, as in (14): (14)a. Sakana wa [ fish  tai  s  ga  red snapper  umai].  Nom good  'As for fish, red snapper is tasty.' b. Horidei wa [ hawai ga ii]. s  holiday  Hawaii  good  'As for holidays, Hawaii is good.' c. Taroo wa [ Hanako ga s  sono kai  Nom. the meeting  ni  deta].  to  attended  'As for Taroo, Hanako attended the meeting.' In (14c), Taroo has something to do w i t h Hanako's going to the meeting. For example, Hanako might be Taroo's assistant, and she went to a business-related meeting on his behalf. The examples in (14) remind us of the phenomenon seen in the copula case.  Without context or real  world knowledge, the relationship between the NP and the rest of the sentence looks rather arbitrary. sentences,  the  Just as it does in some copulative  co-occurence of two nouns apparently  creates a  nonsensical sentence. What then is the role of wa in these sentences? that wa  marks the major break in a sentence.  It can be seen  Looking at the matter  197  from another standpoint, wa apparently functions to join two otherwise unrelated elements into one sentence in (14). That raises a fundamental question: what makes a sentence a sentence?  In the following, I w i l l  look at Kuroda's (1965 & 1972) analyses of the sentence w i t h wa and the sentence without wa, which holds the key to this question.  Wa and Human Judgment  §5.1.2  Adapting the framework of Brentano-Marty's theory of judgment for Japanese, Kuroda (1965) claims that the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two types of human judgment explained below, thetic in (15) and categorical in (16), gains substantial support from Japanese, because of the particle wa:  (15)  Thetic (single) judgment: represents simply the recognition or rejection of material of judgment. [p. 154, Kuroda, 1972]  (16)  Categorical (double) judgment: consists of two separate acts, one, the act of recognition of that which is to be made the subject, and the other, the act of affirming or denying what is expected by the predicate about the subject. [p. 1 54, Kuroda, 1 972]  In the categorical judgement (16), the particle wa marks the "subject" in Japanese. Note that Kuroda uses the terms 'subject' and 'predicate' not in the s y n t a c t i c sense, but in the sense of t r a d i t i o n a l grammar or logic linked to Port-Royal l o g i c .  4  Throughout this chapter, the term 'subject'  198  w i l l be used in Kuroda's sense.  Although in t r a d i t i o n a l grammar and  logic, the subject-predicate structure of a sentence corresponds to the s i m i l a r structure of judgment, in Brentano-Marty's theory, a sentence has the subject-predicate structure, but judgment may or may not have it.  Kuroda argues that in Japanese, however, the  subject-predicate  structure in categorical judgment happens to be marked by the particle wa' as in (17). A sentence without the wa-marked phrase is 'subjectless' in judgment, and that is thetic.  A thetic sentence like (18) is  simply used to recognize an event. (17)  a.  Inu  wa  dog (Nom)  hasitte-iru.  (= Kuroda's 7.2)  is-chasing  'The dog is running.' b.  Inu  wa  neko o oikakete-iru. (= Kuroda's 8.2)  dog (Nom) cat Acc is chasing 'The dog is chasing the cat.' (18)  a.  Inu ga hasitte-iru.  (= Kuroda's 7.1)  'The/A dog is running.' b.  Inu ga neko o oikakete-iru.  (= Kuroda's 7.2)  'The/A dog is chasing a cat.' In the t h e t i c judgment sentence in (18), inu 'dog' and neko 'cat' are simply participants in the event. On the other hand, in the categorical  199  judgement  sentence  (17),  inu 'dog' unlike neko 'cat' is not just a  participant but has a prominent status in the description of the event. The judgement underlying the example of the thetic case in (18b), for instance, is analyzed as (19) by Kuroda: (19)  a.  X is chasing of Y  (kernel judgement)  b.  X is a dog  (identification of participants)  c.  Y is a cat  Categorical judgements are based on thetic judgements like (19) and, in addition, X is chosen among the participants and given prominent status, "subject," marked by wa. Such, in outline, is Kuroda's conceptual proposal on the nature of the wa- sentence. In this framework, once the event and the entity are recognized through judgment, the r e f l e c t i o n of this judgment act is r e a l i z e d in sentence form as a wa- sentence. Regardless of whether an HP-wa has a direct connection to the rest of the sentence as a participant of the event described there,  the wa- sentence is a s y n t a c t i c r e a l i z a t i o n of  the subject-predicate structure in judgment.  Judgment underlies a  w e l l - f o r m e d sentential expression; then, syntax detects the structural well-formedness of the sentence.  In other words, while syntax has to  provide a c e r t a i n device to describe t h i s phenomenon, the " e e l sentences," even though their NPs lack thematic roles, are perfectly well-formed.  As is indicated by wa, the sentences represent a cate-  gorical judgement.  5  200  In the following sections, I w i l l investigate further of assigning wa such a l o g i c o - s e m a n t i c f u n c t i o n , c a t e g o r i c a l judgement,  6  consequences  i.e., marking a  in connection w i t h the common functional  approach to wa.  §5.1.3  Judgement Marker vs. Topic Marker Wa has often been called the topic marker, but what the popular  term "topic" refers to is a rather opaque concept. There have been many attempts to define "topic." While such definitions or c r i t e r i a for "topic" are often vague, Japanese wa- marked NPs seem to coincide w i t h the "theme" in the tradition.  7  "theme-rheme" a r t i c u l a t i o n of the  Prague  school  Reinhart (1982) c l a i m s that the "theme," which is also her  sentence topic, is determined relative to a discourse, in the way shown in (20) (= Reinhart (6)): (20) a.  (Who did Max see yesterday?) Max saw Rosa yesterday,  b.  (topic = Max)  (Has anybody seen Rosa yesterday?) Max saw Rosa yesterday,  (topic = Rosa)  Reinhart claims that topichood should be defined as "a  RELATION  between  an argument and a proposition r e l a t i v e to a context" (p. 7; emphasis mine) instead of as a "old information."  8  PROPERTY  of the referents relative to a context, like  For the "relation" in question, Reinhart argues that  201  "aboutness"  is the e s s e n t i a l  notion for  TOPIC  In the  OF.  semantic  definitions of "about" by logicians, (21a) is simultaneously "about" the class of crows and the class of black things, and furthermore "about" the c l a s s of non-black things and the c l a s s of non-crows, since (21a) is equivalent to (21 b): (21) a. b.  A l l crows are black. A l l non-black things are non-crow.  What Reinhart c a l l s a sentence topic is, on the other hand,  ABOUT  a single  one of a l l the referring expressions in a given sentence; the context determines which one is the topic. Thus, she claims that "aboutness" is a pragmatic notion rather than a semantic one. Reinhart's  d e f i n i t i o n of topichood w i t h  "aboutness"  as  a  pragmatic concept seems to be applicable to Japanese wa sentences too. The Japanese equivalents of (20) are given in (22), where it is apparent that the topics are morphologically marked by wa: (22) a.  b.  Max wa Rosa  o  mita.  Acc  saw  Rosa wa Max ga Nom  mita. saw  Reinhart's PPA (Possible Pragmatic Assertion) is the formula to distinguish a pragmatic assertion (= what a statement is about in a pragmatic sense) which is relative to a context, from a l l the possible  202  assertions for the proposition of a given sentence (= what a statement is about in a semantic or logician's sense).  In Japanese, this distinction  is not only assumed on an abstract level, but also the contextually chosen pragmatic assertion in PPA is morphologically marked by wa. The c r i t e r i a employed by Reinhart to identify the topic are Strawson's (1964) "subjecthood" c r i t e r i a .  S t r a w s o n uses the term  "subject" and "topic" interchangeably and what S t r a w s o n means by "subject" is the "subject" in traditional philosophical logic, as is the case w i t h Kuroda.  Now, according to Strawson's c r i t e r i a , what a  statement is about (= topic) is: i) presumed knowledge, i.e., "assumed to be already in the audience's presumption  of knowledge)  possession" (the p r i n c i p l e of  in accordance  communication (the principle of relevance);  with  the  purpose  the of  ii) (tends to be) the center  of the truth value assessment, i.e., a statement is verified according to whether it is a true/false statement about the topic. Now, w h i l e S t r a w s o n uses the  term  "topic" and  "subject"  interchangeably, Kuroda rejects the term "topic" and chooses "subject" because of the d i s c o u r s e - o r i e n t e d nature of the former.  Kuroda  comments on this point as follows: (23)  ...In fact, one might assume that the form of human judgement is uniformly something like the predicate form of modern logic, and any term, or set of terms, in such a form may be assigned the role of topic depending on discourse contexts. If such a claim is made, the concept of topic is kept valid as a valid concept, but the subject-predicate structure is not recognized as a (or the) form of judgement at a l l . [1972, p. 159]  203  However, "topic" in Reinhart's definition does not necessarily c o n f l i c t w i t h the "subject-predicate" structure in Kuroda's proposal. Strawson's (pragmatic) c r i t e r i a are not the c r i t e r i a for the  RELATION  but  the c r i t e r i a for the properties of the chosen argument (= topic) in context. Reinhart's definition of topichood can therefore be divided into two parts:  the r e l a t i o n between an argument and a proposition in a  sentence, and the s e l e c t i o n procedure of the topic in a discourse. I assume that the relationship underlying a topic sentence is contextfree; that is, the subject-predicate relation and the "aboutness" relation reflects the internal structure of a sentence or the reinterpretation of that internal structure  in discourse context.  It is necessary  to  postulate something like the subject-predicate relation in semantics, or else one cannot explain why a sentence which contains an NP without any thematic role (cf. (1), (2), and (14)) can be realized as a sentence.  §5.1.4  Wa in Contrastive Reading  §5.1.4.1  "Contrastiveness" and the Categorical Judgement  Kuroda (1965) assumes that the c a t e g o r i c a l judgement  is a  transformationally derived structure ( = syntactic structure) which is marked by wa, w h i l e wa i t s e l f has the inherent semantic  feature,  contrastiveness; that is, creating the contrastive effect and marking the categorical judgement are two different functions of the same wa, the former being primary and the latter secondary. On the other hand, Kuno  204  (1972) claims that there are two kinds of wa, the thematic wa and the contrastive wa. A natural consequence of his functional analysis is that Kuno postulates two types of wa. Hoji (1985) c l a i m s , however, that the functional ' d i s t i n c t i o n between "thematic" wa and "contrastive" wa have different syntactic representations.  He proposes a base-generated  structure (24a) for  "thematic", and a movement structure (24b) for "contrastive": (24)a.  Thematic wa S"  NP  VP  205  If wa marks an NP dominated by S",  9  then Taroo  in (25) is non-  contrastive; if wa marks an S dominating NP, then it is contrastive: (25)  Taroo wa Tookyoo e Tokyo  itta.  to went  'Taroo went to Tokyo.' Hoji's analysis is motivated by the p o s s i b i l i t y of variable/anaphora binding in "reconstruction" cases, which involves syntactic movement. If his analysis holds, here is a case where two different  discourse-  related functions, topic and contrastive in Kuno (1972), are represented by different syntactic structures.  In general, there is no reason that a  discourse function should be distinguished by i t s syntactic form, though an agreement might take place accidentally. d i s t i n c t i o n does not fully  In fact, Hoji's syntactic  coincide w i t h the d i s t i n c t i o n between  "thematic" and "contrastive" in a functional sense, for the structure in (24b) is also shared by "scrambling" (Hoji 1985), which does not involve the p a r t i c l e wa, and has a different discourse function (cf. Masunaga 1982).  Furthermore, his contrastive wa examples are ones where wa  has a heavy s t r e s s .  While i t is observed in English that  stress  placement changes coreference relation (cf. Chomsky 1971 and 1976), which is handled in syntax, s t r e s s is not the primary means for conveying contrastiveness on topic in Japanese.  Thus it is not clear  whether Hoji is discussing a syntactic effect of s t r e s s p l a c e m e n t ,  10  where v i r t u a l l y any element including wa can receive a stress, or an effect of (contrastive) wa.  206  In the next s e c t i o n s ,  I will  investigate  the nature of  the  contrastiveness in a wa-sentence.  §5.1.4.2  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (I): Particle Deletion  In casual conversation, p a r t i c l e s are often dropped after  the  nominative and accusative NPs, as in (26): (26)  a.  Taroo 01 Hanako to Tookyoo e with  to  itta  yo.  went Emp.  Taroo went to Tokyo with Hanako, you know.' b.  Kimi 0i kore 02 sitte-(i)ru? you  this  know  'Do you know this?' According to Kuno (1973), the deletable particles are not ga and o, but wa and o; and the deleted p a r t i c l e in a sentence like (26) is always wa instead of ga. Saito's (1982a) claim of an inherent case of the nominative NP is based on this observation of Kuno's. Evidence for wa-deletion comes from Japanese wh-words, which cannot be followed by wa, and in which particle deletion is very d i f f i c u l t , if not entirely impossible, as is the case in (27):  207  (27) a. Dare  ga/?0/*wa  Hanako  to  kenkasita no.  with  quarreled Q  'Who had a quarrel w i t h Hanako?' b. Dare  ga/?0/*wa  Hanako  ni  denwa s i t a no ka na.  to  phoned-l-wonder  'I wonder who phoned Hanako?' c. Dare  ga/??0/*wa  yatta no. did Q  'Who did (this)?' Contrary to Kuno's claim, however, ga- deletion is quite possible. In the thetic sentences in (28), particle deletion s t i l l takes place: (28) a. (Ara,) ame  (oh!) rain  0  futte-(i)ru.  Nom  is-falling  '(Oh!) It's raining.' b. (A), dareka oh  someone  0  kita.  Nom came  '(Oh!) Someone came (to the door).'  208  c. Mite. Ano hito  0  odotte-(i)ru.  look! that man Nom is-dancing 'Look! That man is dancing.' The d i f f i c u l t y of ga deletion after wh-words is due to another factor, possibly the focus nature of wh-words. (I w i l l come back to this topic in the section on ga. ) Likewise, no deletion of wa is reported in cases where it is contrastive (Tsutsui, 1981 and 1984).  It is reported that  Emonds also points out the same fact in the data (in Hoji 1985). Some examples are provided in (29) to show that wa  sentences in the  contrastive construction and wa w i t h stress cannot be deleted: (29)a. Yamada w a / * 0  motiron  iku  yo. Hayasi w a / * 0 tabun  of course go you-know ikanai  11  probably  ne.  does-not-go l-would-say 'Yamada, of course, goes, you know. (But) Hayasi probably does not go, I would say.' b. Kudamono  wa/*0  suki desu. • like  'I like fruit (but I don't like something else).' Accordingly, (30b) cannot be contrastive since a contrastive sentence cannot have 0 for wa, while (30a) is ambiguous depending on i t s context:  209  (30)a. Sono hon wa that book  yomi-masita. read (polite)  'I read that book.' b. Sono hon 0 yomi-masita. This fact suggests that there is a strong correlation between wa and the contrastiveness which is not merely a contextual product. Terakura (1984) provides an interesting case in terms of the wa = 0 phenomenon. She claims that there exist cases where the absence of wa is obligatory. Such examples are given in (31): (31 )a. Yuube aru paatii e i t t a n da kedo ne. Soko de atta kimura to yuu hito  *wa/0  anata no kookoo no sempai da soo ne. (= Terakura (7b))  'I went to a party last night. The person I called Kimura that I met there. I understand (he) is a graduate from your high school.' b. Tyotto henna koto o ukagaimasu ga, Nihon e kaetta tomodati aa oite i t t a ueki  * w a / 0 watakusi no tokoro de  wa basyo ga nai no de o-taku ni ikaga to omoimasite. Kanari ookii gomu no ki desu ga motte mairimasyoo ka. (= Terakura (7c))  210  'I'm afraid I'm going to ask an odd question. A plant a friend of mine left when he returned to Japan. I have no room for (it) at my place, so I'm wondering if you would like to have (it). (It) is a fairly big rubber plant. Would you like me to show (it) to you?' Terakura identifies the discourse function of these sentence i n i t i a l NPs as being "not currently in addressee's consciousness" in Chafe (1976)'s sense, just like LD (left-dislocation) 2 in Prince (1983 and 1984). However, Terakura's examples like (31) can in fact have wa, contrary to what she has claimed, but then the discourse function of the NP {-wa ) have been changed  12  (the contrastive feature of wa is more or  less apparent compared w i t h 0 version) and they are no longer f e l i c i t o u s in those contexts.  Thus, "obligatory (absence)" means "obligatory" at  least on the level of discourse. However, (3 1) may also be syntactically different from s o - c a l l e d topic s e n t e n c e s . '  3  It seems to me that (29)  belongs to the same group of sentences as (32) below: (32)  Hi tori damatte sake o alone  quietly  nomu, Taroo wa sonna otoko da.  ACC drink  such a man  'Drink(ing) sake alone and quietly, Taroo is such a person.' The example (32) does not f i t into the d e f i n i t i o n of c a t e g o r i c a l judgement,  and there is no wa  version for (32) since the sentence  i n i t i a l element seems like a preposed relative clause w i t h sonna as the pro-form; i . e. [hitori  damatte  sake o nome( = sonna)] otoko  "a man who  21 1  drinks sake alone and quietly."  If (31) is a (32)-type sentence, (31)  cannot be dealt w i t h as a categorical judgement. Now, the n o n - d e l e t a b i l i t y of wa in c o n t r a s t i v e  environments  shown in (29) and the contrastive wa version of (3 1) lend support to the assumption that wa has an inherent semantic feature.  However, i f the  particle wa is the one which contributes to the contrastiveness, why is it the case that (33), which is a typical non-contrastive ( = "thematic"), general statement has the contrastive reading given in (34)? (33)  Kuzira wa honyuurui da. whale  mammal  'A whale is a mammal.' (34)  Kuzira wa honyuurui da ga same wa gyorui da. whale  mammal  but shark  fish  'A whale is a mammal but a shark is a fish.' The next section w i l l be devoted to investigating this problem.  §5.1.4.3  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (II): Contrastive Construction  Contrastive reading is t y p i c a l l y associated w i t h wa- sentences like (35):  212  (35)  Ani  wa  older brother otooto  futuu no kaisyain da  ga  ordinary company employee  but  wa  younger brother  yuumei na komedian da. famous comedian  'Older brother is an ordinary company employee but younger brother is a famous comedian.' The use of wa here is called contrastive (Kuno, 1972). One might say, however, that the contrastive reading results from the contrastive context:  each sentence  in i s o l a t i o n does not n e c e s s a r i l y have a  contrastive implication, as shown in (36): (36)  a.  Ani wa futuu no kaisyain da. 'Older brother is an ordinary company employee.'  b.  Otooto wa yuumei na comedian da. 'Younger brother is a famous comedian.'  Nevertheless, there are reasons to assume that wa has something to do w i t h contrastiveness. First, consider (37): (37) a. Ame wa hutte-imasu. ( = Kuno (18a)) rain  falling-be  'Rain is falling.'  213  b. Oozei no hito wa paatee many people  party  ni to  kimasita. ( = Kuno (19a)) come  'Many people came to the party.' In Kuno's t h e m a t i c - c o n t r a s t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n , although generic sentences like Kuzira wa honyurui da  ("Whales are mammals") are  t y p i c a l examples which have the thematic wa, many sentences are ambiguous between thematic and contrastive (e.g. Biru wa gakusei da, " B i l l is a student"), and some only have the contrastive wa. Examples of the latter (unambiguously contrastive) case are in (37). The sentences in (37) cannot be thematic since they would violate the r e s t r i c t i o n that a thematic NP must be generic or anaphoric, but they are perfectly a l l right as contrastives, as shown in (37'): (37')a. Ame wa hutte-imasu. Demo kaze wa huite-imasen rain  i s - f all ing  but  kara  daizyoobu  desyoo.  as  alright  w i l l be  wind  is-not-blowing  'It is raining. But as the wind is not blowing, it w i l l be alright.'  214  b.  Oozei no hito wa paatee  ni k i m a s i t a ga paatee wa  many people  to  tittomo at all  party  come  but party  moriagarimasendesita. was-not-a-success  Many people came to the party but the party (itself) was not a success at a l l . It is likely the case that even if sentences like (37) were given without context, one would embed them in an imaginary context to interpret them.  fully  It is the sentences which demand such f e l i c i t o u s  contrastive environments; they are ungrammatical otherwise. Sentences which are grammatical only in discourse are not allowed, on principle. Thus, the examples in (37) provide cases where the sentences in i s o l a t i o n already imply the contrastive reading; that is, wa seems to have a contrastive feature i n t r i n s i c to it. However, the problem s t i l l remains as regards whether the sentences in (36) are different from the sentences in (35); are they two different wa, the contrastive wa (35) and the thematic wa for (36), as Kuno c l a i m s ?  1 4  for  To answer this  question, the role of the contextual environment w i l l be investigated next. First, consider (38) and (39):  215  (38) a. Ame ga rain  hutte-kita. come-to-fall  'Rain has started to fall.' b. Tuki ga  dete-iru.  moon  is-there  'There is the moon.' (39) a* Ame ga hutte-kita ga tuki ga (mada) dete-iru. b.  Ame ga hutte-kita ga tuki wa dete-iru. 'It has started to rain but the moon is ( s t i l l ) there.'  c. Ame wa hutte-kita ga tuki ga dete-iru. d. Ame wa hutte-kita ga tuki wa dete-iru. Ame in (38a) and tuki in (38b) are non-generic and also non-anaphoric when one is describing the outside scene, which is a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of thetic sentences.  Thus, it is necessary to use ga instead of wa in (38).  However, once embedded in a [clause] ga [clause] construction, wa is necessary'  5  in both clauses, as in (39d), or at least in one of the two  clauses, as in (39b) and (39c). If it were really the case that because of the [clause] ga [clause] construction, two events/ideas get contrasted, then (39a) should be grammatical without changing ga into wa, but it actually  is n o t . '  6  construction requires  On the other hand, if the [clause]  ga  [clause]  a wa- sentence(s) to play a key role in creating  216  the contrastive effect, one can explain why wa is needed in (39c). But the semantic function of the [clause] ga [clause] form i t s e l f does not seem to have anything to do w i t h the contrastiveness; it is very common to find non-contrastive sentences in this construction, as in (40) where ga can be translated as "and" rather than contrastive "but": (40)a. Boku no  tomodati de Yamada to-iu  I Cs) ga and  friend  and  kore  ga  this person  no  ga  iru-n-desu  called one Nom  be  taihenna  kawarimono  desite...  quite  a character  be (Ger.)  Nom  'I have a friend called Yamada and this person is quite a character and...' b. Kono biiru wa this beer  nihon no  desu  made-in-Japan be  ga  nakanaka ikemasu  and  pretty good  yo. you know 'This beer is from Japan and it's pretty good, you know.' .What the [clause] ga [clause]  construction does here is to provide a  felicitous environment ( = context) for the wa-sentence, just as in the case of "discourse conditioned" (Williams, 1977) sentences, for example a passive sentence which seems to require a s p e c i f i c environment in discourse, or a cleft sentence as a less controversial c a s e . it is the wa  sentence  which  17  is d i r e c t l y connected  Moreover, with  the  217  contrastiveness. The reason why the sentences in (36) in isolation are apparently neutral in terms of contrastiveness w i l l be explained by the nature of contrastiveness in §5.1.4.6.  In the following two sections, I  w i l l examine the nature of subject NP in wa-sentences in relation to the contrastiveness feature.  §5.1.4.4  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (III): Indefinite Nouns  Kuroda (1965, 1972) claims that his subject "cannot be indefinite specific" for the reason given below in (41): (41)  Now assume that one has made a categorical judgement in which the subject is referred to by an indefinite noun in referential use. The speaker's mind must then have been directed not towards i t s i n d i v i d u a l i t y , but t o w a r d s it as a c o m p l e t e l y unmarked r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of those individual e n t i t i e s that share the attribute represented by the noun used as the subject, say, dog. Then, if the speaker assigns a certain attribute expressed by the predicate to the subject, he would in fact be assigning this property to an arbitrary individual entity that might be named by the particular attribute used to refer to it, dog. In other words, he would, in effect, have made a generic statement concerning the class of objects, dogs, contradicting our i n i t i a l assumption that he intended to make a statement about a specific object he is r e f e r r i n g to. Thus, no subject in the l o g i c a l sense can be indefinite specific. [Kuroda 1972, p. 167]  Thus, he c l a i m s that (42a) can be translated w i t h either wa or ga, but (42b) must be translated with ga.  218  (42) a. The dog is running. 'Inu wa/ga hasitte-iru.' b. A dog is running. 'Inu wa*/ga hasitte-iru.' The argument in (41) is explicated further in Kuroda (1965) as follows: a categorical judgement (also called "predication") consists of a logical premise and a c o n c l u s i o n ,  18  as in (43a).  Supposing (42b) were a wa-  sentence, it would have to have the same form as (43b). (43) a. If X is A, then X is B. (is true) b. If it is a dog, then it is running. However, the i f - c l a u s e in (43b) cannot be a logical premise of the predication. Thus, (42b) cannot be a wa- sentence. The  reason  why (44a)  is  ungrammatical  while  (44b)  is  grammatical is also explained by Kuroda in the same fashion: (44) a* A man is intelligent, b. A man is mortal. Man in (44b) has to be interpreted as generic, instead of a specific "a man"; while in (44a) a man cannot obtain such a generic (indefinite nonspecific) interpretation; thus, the sentence is ungrammatical.  219  (45), on the other hand, is an apparent counter-example to this: if basu in (45) refers to one in sight of the speaker, that is an indefinite specific, "a bus." (45)  Basu wa h a s i t t e - i r u bus  is-running  '[A bus is running.]' (This translation is usually equivalent to the ga version of the sentence.) The sentence also sounds perfectly all right in contexts such as (46): (46)  Are, basu wa hasitte-iru. why! noni though  Densya wa  tomatte-iru  electric train  be-stopped  naa. (interjection)  'Why, [a bus is running], though the e l e c t r i c trains are stopped!' Nevertheless, (46) is not a genuine indefinite s p e c i f i c case, for the speaker is really giving a general statement on buses through discussion of a single instance. The speaker can consider the statement true in an area which is his concern at that moment. A generalization about the indefinite subject is: i f there is an indefinite noun in the subject position of the categorical judgement, it  220  must be non-specific. Thus, in (44a) "a man" has to receive the generic reading. Now, the cases which require serious attention here are those where an indefinite non-specific sentence semantically f a i l s to obtain the generic reading. The sentence is s t i l l grammatical if read w i t h a certain contrastive implication. Consider (47) and (48): (47)  Nanninka wa buzi  nogareta  some people safely  escaped  'Some people escaped safely.' (48) a. Dareka wa byooki desu. (= Kuno (18c)) someone  sick  is  'Someone is sick.' b. Dareka wa (itumo) someone  kesseki desu.  (always) absent  is  'Someone is always absent.' (47) and (48) are categorical judgement sentences (wa- sentences) w i t h indefinite nouns as their subjects, "nanninka" and "dareka."  They are  g r a m m a t i c a l only when read w i t h a c o n t r a s t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n .  For  instance, in (47) "some who managed to escape" is contrasted w i t h "the others who did not."  The situation is exactly the s a m e  19  in (48):  the  sentence may only have this reading w i t h a contrast between "some" and "the others." More examples of this type w i l l be found in cases involving numerals:  221  (49)a. Sono paatee ni that party  gozyuunin wa  to fifty people  kita. came  'Fifty people came to that party.' b. Yonin  wa  four people  totyude  dete-itta.  in the middle went out  'Four people left in the middle.' Japanese does not have (in)definite particles. Gozyuunin in (49a) and yonin  in (49b) can be definite, as "the f i f t y people" and "the four"  respectively, and then they are no different from other categoricals. On the other hand, if gozyuunin  and yonin  are indefinite, then they must  have a contrastive reading: the "four people" in contrast to, say, "the people who stayed there" in (49b). This contrastive phenomenon is also observed in Kuno (1 973). The questions to be asked now are:  why is the c o n t r a s t i v e  reading compulsory in these cases?; and again, what is the relationship between the generic reading ("thematic" in Kuno (1973)) and the contrastive reading ("contrastive") in indefinite nouns? These questions w i l l be answered in the next section.  222  §5.1.4.5  "Contrastiveness" and Wa (IV): Subject NPs and Definiteness Effect.  There are some l i n g u i s t i c phenomena where the d i s t i n c t i o n between definite and indefinite plays a key role. This has often been called the "definiteness effect" or the "definiteness r e s t r i c t i o n . " A typical example of the DE is observed in the existential there- sentence in English, as in (50): (50)a. There is a table in this room, b^There is the table in this room. Only the indefinite NP a table is allowed in this construction. Unlike English, Japanese does not have (in)definite a r t i c l e s . However, beyond the existence (or non-existence) of morphological marking devices, the notion of (in)definiteness comes into play in many languages, if not a l l , in the form of various "definiteness effects" ( G i l , 1987).  Milsark  (1977), however, claims that the definiteness r e s t r i c t i o n on the theresentence has been too narrowly defined.  The NPs which are excluded  from t h i s environment are not only "the NP" but also a group of NPs which he called "strong" NPs. The "weak" versus "strong" d i s t i n c t i o n shown in (51) is intended to describe the actual r e s t r i c t i o n s on theresentences.  223  (51)  WEAK a sm [of "sm" vs. "some" in Postal (1969): M.O.] number determiners 0 plural and mass determiner in nonuniversal reading  STRONG "definites" the  demonstratives pronouns possessive DET's universals all every each  any when not polarity item of some 0 DET in universal reading [Milsark (1977), p. 8] Milsark identifies the d i s t i n c t i o n of the "weak" versus the "strong" as that of "cardinality" versus "quantification."  Here, a definite a r t i c l e  like the English the is viewed merely as a l i n g u i s t i c manifestation of the quantificational effect (cf. Chomsky (1975) for the as a universal  224  quantifier). After a l l , it is already clear from a language like Japanese that the existence of the a r t i c l e is a rather different issue from the existence of the concept "definiteness."  20  Now, according to Milsark, words like some, many, few, and their analogous expressions are treated as ambiguous  21  between the non-  quantified reading (weak) and the quantified reading (strong). For example, in his theory, the strong sense of "some" salesmen is nearly synonymous w i t h "some" of the salesmen; but more precisely what the strong reading means is "some" of the limited set of the group. That is, "some" people could be "some of the students" or "some of the people on the earth."  What Milsark is not aware of, however, is that number  determiners (numerals including a as a singular determiner) are also ambiguous between the quantified and non-quantified readings, or "strong" and "weak." The strong reading of a in a man is the generic reading, that i s , the u n i v e r s a l l y quantified man, whereas the weak reading is the numerical interpretation of "a." Returning to wa, a definiteness effect on the bare NPs construed as (in)definite, apparently more complicated than was the case w i t h there, now appears more clearly when viewed in terms of the nature of the NP (-wa ) .  22  The key examples here are the indefinite noun subjects,  as in (47) - (49), duplicated below as (52) - (54):  225  (52)  Nanninka wa  buzi  nogareta  some people  safely  escaped  'Some people escaped safely.' (53) a. Dareka wa byooki desu. (= Kuno (18c)*) someone  sick  is  'Someone is sick.' b. Dareka wa (itumo) someone  kesseki desu.  (always) absent  is  'Someone is always absent.' (54) a. Sono paatee that party  ni  gozyuunin wa  kita.  to  fifty people  came  'Fifty people came to that party.' b. Yonin wa four people  totyude  dete-itta.  in the middle  went out  'Four people left in the middle.' Nanninka, dareka, gozyuunin, and yonin, in these examples, are respec-  t i v e l y member(s) of certain l i m i t e d sets:  for instance, (52), some  people of the sinking ship; (53), someone among my classmates;  (54),  fifty people on the invitation list, or four people at the meeting. The  domain of the quantification is pragmatically defined:  only context  226  determines what the "limited sets" in question are. Kuno's often-quoted claims in (55) are correct at some level of the description: (55)  a.  Wa is either thematic  or contrastive  b.  Themes must be anaphoric or generic. Nonanaphoric nongeneric themes result in ungrammaticality.  c.  On the other hand, nonanaphoric nongeneric noun phrases can be contrasted. [Kuno 1973, p. 59-60]  However, an integrated explanation of the nature of the NPs is to be found in a rather different manner.  F i r s t of a l l , I do not accept the  binary approach to the function of wa, the division into thematic and contrastive, but rather consider these two the result of the interaction between the nature of the subject NP (semantics) and the context (pragmatics). Categorical judgement requires a quantificational nature for the subject NPs. "Fifty people" can be the uniquely identifiable entity in the context, "the fifty people"  (i.e., "definite" in the usual  sense), or members of the uniquely identifiable set, "fifty people of the group."  In the latter, these l i m i t e d s e t s are uniquely i d e n t i f i a b l e  because the domain of quantification is pragmatically determined by context.  Ladusaw (1982)  also  c l a i m s that X of the p a r t i t i v e  c o n s t r u c t i o n "x of the X" (e.g., "three of the men") i s "a group level n  individual,  denoting  the set of a l l p r o p e r t i e s  that  the unique  contextually relevant group of men have" (p. 238). This "group level individual" (as opposed to "individual entity") is an equivalent notion to Kuroda's subject quality of the categorical judgement (cf. (41)). Then, what the c o n t r a s t i v e reading in indefinite nouns means should be  227  considered in the light of the nature of the subject NP. To do so, let us look at indefinite noun cases in contrastive environments.  A typical  environment is given in (56): (56)a. Nanmin-tati wa hidoku tukarete-ita. Ooku ga/wa sono mati refugees ni  very was-exhausted many  the town  sibaraku todomaru-koto-ni-sita. Daga nanninka wa  ACC for a while  decided-to-stay  sarani  saki ni susunda.  further  ahead  but  some  went  'The refugees were very exhausted. Many of them decided to stay in the town. But some of them went further.' b. Takasi wa usagi (NAME)  o  katte-iru.  rabbit ACC be-raising  yatu, sanbiki wa makkuro, sosite one  three  pure-black and  Nihiki wa two  massiro pure-white  nokori wa zenbu the rest  all  buti da. speckled 'Takasi is raising rabbits. Two of them are pure-white ones, three of them are pure-black, and the rest are speckled.'  no  228  In (56a), "many of them" contrasts w i t h "some of them"; in (56b) "two of them," "three of them," and "the. rest" create the contrastive effect. Let us examine the subject NP closely in (57): (57)a. Takasi ga usagi o NOM naru.  kai-hazimete  itinen  start to raise (Gerund)  Nanbikika  wa  become some of them  moo sudeni  ni  one year to kodomo o  already  young ACC  unde-iru. have-borne 'One year has already passed since Takasi started to raise rabbits. Some of them have already borne young. b. Takasi ga usagi o kai-hazimete itinen ni naru. Sono uti no among them nanbika wa moo sudeni kodomo o unde-iru. 'One year has already passed since Takasi started to raise rabbits. Some of them have already borne young.' The difference between (57a) and (57b) is that (57b) has an "of the X" expression,  sono uti no, which works to reinforce the connection  between the whole number of rabbits  and some (of them), while (57a)  has no such phrase. An interesting phenomenon observed here is that the  229  contrastiveness seems to be a l i t t l e "faded" in (57b). Compare (58) with (59): (58) a. Nanninka wa  buzi  nogareta.  some (people) safely  escaped  'Some (of them) safely escaped.' b. Hansuu wa itumo half  atumari  ni okureru  always meeting  be-late  'Half (of them) are always late for the meeting.' (59) a. Sono fune that ship  no  nanninka  's  some people  wa  buzi  nogareta.  safely  escaped  'Some people in that ship escaped safely.' b. Watasi no guruupu no hansuu wa itumo atumari ni okureru my group  's  half  always meeting  be-late  'Half of the people in my group are always late for a meeting.' Again, (58) has a stronger contrastive implication than (59) w i t h "of the X." My assumption here is that the lack of an expression to l i m i t the set in (58) indicates that the set is easily identifiable in the context.  In  other words, these sentences in (58) are strongly related to the previous discourse w i t h i t s contextually unique set.  On the other hand, the  existence of an expression l i m i t i n g the set, in that ship or in my group  230  means that the set is less identifiable and needs explicit mentioning. In other words, without these expressions, the connection between the two sentences is weak. The relation between "strong relatedness" and "contrastiveness" w i l l be examined further in the next section, and an overall picture of the contrastive effect w i l l be provided there.  §5.1.4.6  The Nature of "Contrastiveness"  Through the observations and arguments in the previous sections, I have come to the conclusion that the c o n t r a s t i v e reading of  wa  sentences, which has often been used as a p r i m i t i v e notion, is the product of both the i n t r i n s i c and the e x t r i n s i c nature of a wa  sentence.  There are two s i g n i f i c a n t factors involved in inducing a contrastive quality in the sentence:  one is related to the semantic property of  subject NP of a categorical sentence, and the other is related to the contextual environment for the sentence in question. I w i l l discuss the former first. The f o l l o w i n g three sentences represent:  a generic sentence,  which is non-contrastive ( = (60a)); a non-generic sentence, which is ambiguous ( = (60b)); and a sentence w i t h an indefinite noun as i t s subject, which is always contrastive ( = (60c)).  231  (60)a. Kuzira wa honyuurui da. 'A whale is a mammal.' b. Taroo wa gakusei da. 'Taro is a student.' c. Gonin wa kita. 'Five (of them) came.' Instead of postulating two kinds of wa, thematic and contrastive, their differences w i l l be explained in a uniform manner as follows: Suppose that "X is contrastive" means that X contrasts w i t h Y. Then X and Y w i l l have something like the figure-ground distinction: the ground i s needed  for the figure to stand  out.  In (60c),  gonin  automatically receives the p a r t i t i v e reading because of the nature of subject NP of categorical judgement.  The "of X" portion is the "ground"  upon which the "figure" gonin stands out. A careful observation reveals, however, what actually contrasts i s not just gonin and "of X" but five people's coming vs. the other people (= X - 5)'s not coming. Likewise, in  (60b) where i t has the contrastive reading, Taro's being a student contrasts w i t h the other's not being students or perhaps the other's not yet having a clear status in the set consisting of both kinds of people. In a generic statement like (60a), whale's being a mammal  is set  against the other (= whole set of living creatures minus whales)'s being in non-specified classes.  Notice that generally speaking, when we  232  compare two, we always compare the two on the same ground. As in the case of figure-ground opposition, the vaguer and broader the ground is, the less salient the figure becomes. considered as non-contrastive.  This is why (60a) is generally  In §5.1.4.5, I used the term "strong  relatedness" in connection w i t h the overt/covert case of "of X." If X is obvious from context, it means that the contrasting party is clearly definable in discourse. In a generic sentence like (60a), where "of X" is conventionally definable by our knowledge of the world, the contrastive effect almost fades out. However, once (60a) is embedded in a context like that found in (61) ( = (34)), the situation becomes a l i t t l e different: (61)  Kuzira wa honyuurui da ga same wa gyorui da. whale  mammal  but shark  fish  'A whale is a mammal but a shark is a fish.' Now the context c l a r i f i e s what contrasts w i t h what; i.e., whale's being a mammal to shark's being a fish. The subject status of whale and shark makes the two nouns prominent; however, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of wa contrast is not item contrast (cf. the exhaustive ga in the following section), but rather statement contrast. contrast in further detail next.  I w i l l discuss the statement  233  F i r s t observe (62): (62)a. Taroo wa hon  o  katta  ga  book Acc bought but Ziroo wa (hon o) kawanakatta. did-not-buy 'Taro bought a book but Ziro did not buy one.' b. Taroo wa hon  o  katta  ga  Ziroo wa kuruma o katta. car  bought  'Taro bought a book but Ziro bought a car.' c. (Sono okane  de)  that money w i t h  Taroo wa  ie  o katta ga  house bought Ziroo wa bizinesu o hazimeta. business started  '(With that money), Taro bought a house but Ziro started a business. In (62), one might say that Taroo and Ziroo are in contrast; however, when [X\-wa - Y i ] is contrasted w i t h [ X - w a - Y ] , not only Xi and X but 2  2  2  also Y] and Y contrast, as is evident from the resultant ungrammatical 2  sentences  23  in (62'a):  234  (62')a* Taroo wa hon o katta ga Ziroo wa hon o katta. Taro bought a book but Ziro bought one.' b. Taroo wa hon o katta ga Ziroo wa kuruma o katta. 'Taro bought a book but Ziro bought a car.' However, in two contrastive statements, wa focal points, in the sense of Dretske (1972).  marked items serve as Next, let us examine the  case of m u l t i p l e - s u b j e c t constructions in terms of the statement contrast. Observe (63): (63)a. [Supootu wa [(fuyu ni) sukii wa simasu]] ga... sports  winter in  ski  do  but  'As for sports, I ski in winter, but...' b. [Watasi wa  [asa  I  morning  wa [koohi wa nomimasen.]]] coffee  do-not-drink  'I don't drink coffee in the morning.' In the m u l t i - s u b j e c t construction, it is observed that the leftmost N P wa is thematic and the rest are contrastive (Kuno, 1973). This can be explained by assuming a nesting structure for those sentences. example, the subject NP is sports  For  in (63a) and among the possible  235  descriptions concerning sports, ski  is chosen as the second subject.  This relation in (63a) and (63b) is illustrated in (64a) and (64b) below: (64)a.  In (64b), on the ground of the description about /, the description about morning  is s a l i e n t , which in turn serves as the ground for  the  description about coffee. Rather than the dichotomy between thematic and contrastive, the contrastive effect is gradual in this schema - the more r e s t r i c t e d the ground is, the more d i s t i n c t i v e the figure is - and this graduation, I believe, matches our intuition about the sentence.  236  Next observe (65): (65)a. Watasi wa I  asa  wa  morning  koohii  o  nomimasen  ga  coffee Acc do-not-drink  but  hiru (ni) wa (koohii o) nomimasu. daytime b. Watasi wa asa wa  drink koohii wa nomimasen ga otya wa nomimasu.  'I don't drink coffee in the morning but drink tea.' c* Watasi wa  asa wa koohii wa nomimasen ga hiru wa otya wa nomimasu.  'I don't drink coffee in the morning but I drink tea in the daytime.' d* Watasi wa  asa wa koohii wa nomimasen ga hiru wa koohii wa nomimasu.  'I don't drink coffee in the morning but drink it in the daytime.' The p a r a l l e l construction provides a f e l i c i t o u s environment for the contrastive effect of wa sentences; in (65a) the description of morning and that of daytime concerning  c o n t r a s t on the ground of the  / ; in (65b), the description of coffee  description  and that of  tea  contrast on the ground of the description concerning morning, for which the  description  concerning  /  serves as the ground.  There is a  237  r e s t r i c t i o n against two nesting descriptions contrasting w i t h another two nesting descriptions at the same time (cf. (65c)); in other words, once the descriptions contrast w i t h each other, they cannot serve as the ground f o r another grammatical). way around.  d e s c r i p t i o n (cf. (65d); notice  that  (65a) i s  (65d) i s probably a special case of (65c), or the other Thus, (66), Kuno's counter-example for (65c) and (65d),  which i s reported in Enomoto (1983), is a case where t w o p a r a l l e l descriptions concerning / contain more than one contrastive wa for each: (66) Boku wa syuumatu ni wa hon wa yomu ga zassi wa yomazu I  weekend  book  read  magazine do-not-read  syuuzitu ni wa sinbun wa yomu ga hon wa yomanai weekday  newspaper  read  book  do-not-read  'On weekends, I read books but do not read magazines; however, on weekdays I read newspapers but do not read books.' However, this is not a genuine counter-example. There are two types of parallel here: one is my weekend's book-reading magazine-reading  (also my weekday's  vs. my weekend's non-  newspaper-reading  weekday's non-book-reading ); the other is my weekend's activity  weekday's activity.  vs. my vs. my  That i s , (66) has the following nesting structure of  (66'a), which is also illustrated using a tree structure in (66'b):  238  (66')a [\ Boku wa [2 [3 syuumatu ni wa [4 [5 hon wa yomuls ga 5[zassi wa yomazuls U [3 syuuzitu ni wa [4 [5 sinbun wa yomub ga [hon wa yomanails Uh h h  Boku-wa  syuumatu-wa  hon-wa  syuuzitu-wa  zassi-wa-(not)  sinbun-wa  hon-wa-(not)  As shown in (66'b) the items in contrast have to be under s i s t e r nodes in the  parallelism.  contrastive  Thus, w h i l e (66'a) is a p e r f e c t l y  well-formed  sentence, (67b) below is not, since kuruma-wa  and  konpyuuta-wa do not have a s i s t e r relationship as illustrated in (67c): (67)a. Taroo wa kuruma 0 katta ga car  bought  Ziroo wa konpyuutaa 0 katta. computer  bought  'Taroo bought a car but Ziroo bought a computer.' b* Taroo wa kuruma wa katta ga Ziroo wa konpuuta wa katta.  239  kuruma-wa  konpyuutaa-wa  Note that the c o n t r a s t i v e p a r a l l e l i s m does not n e c e s s a r i l y occur along w i t h s y n t a c t i c a l l y parallel s t r u c t u r e s like (65). (68)  [Taroo wa  katta] hon  o Ziroo wa  bought book A c c  Look at  (68):  kawanakatta. did-not-buy  'Ziro did not buy the book Taro bought.' Here, the r e l a t i v e c l a u s e and Ziroo-wa  2 4  and the main clause c o n t r a s t ; yet,  Taroo-wa  are in a s i s t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p in the c o n t r a s t i v e p a r a l l e l i s m  scheme. S u m m i n g up, the i n t r i n s i c g r o u n d - f i g u r e c o n t r a s t of the s e n t e n c e on the one hand, and the e f f e c t parallelism  2 5  on the  other,  c o n t r a s t i v e in actual discourse.  interact  of the e x t r i n s i c  to produce w h a t  wa-  contextual we  feel  as  240  §5.2  Ga and Wa  §5.2.1  Ga vs. Wa  The copula sentences which we saw at the beginning of this chapter do in fact have ga counterparts, as shown in (69): (69) a. Boku wa susi da. '[lit.] As for me, it is sushi.' b. Boku ga susi da. '[lit.] i am sushi.' M i n i - d i s c o u r s e s for (69a) and (69b) are given in (70a)  and  (70b)  respectively: (70) a. Q:  Kimi wa nani you  (o taberu)?  what Acc eat  'What are you going to eat?' A: b. Q:  Boku wa susi da. Dare ga susi (o tyuumonsita no)? who Nom  ordered  Q  'Who ordered sushi?' A:  Boku ga susi da.  Nani "what" in (70a) and dare "who" in (70b) are  information-seeking  words, and susi and boku "I" supply the information for them. Kuroda  241  c a l l s this "focus in the sense of Chomsky (1970)." Kuno (1970) c a l l s the use of ga here exhaustive l i s t i n g .  26  The interesting fact is that A in (70b) has its alternative (7 1): (71)  Susi wa boku da. '[lit.] As for sushi, it is me.'  Now then, let us assume tentatively that the choice of wa and ga marks the difference of the order of information as shown in (72): (72) a. Kimi wa nani? Boku wa susi da. ( = (69a)) Old  New  b. Dare ga susi? Boku ga susi da. ( = (69b)) New  Old  Susi wa boku da. ( = (71)) Old  New  Supposing that the old-new is marked by wa, and the new-old is marked by ga, then in (72b) the reversal in the information order seemingly determines the choice between the two particles. However, the problem is that although wa  marks old-new order e x c l u s i v e l y , ga may mark  new-new order, which is the thetic case, in addition to new-old order. Thus, ga does not exclusively mark a reversed information order of the case of wa. Another problem is that the dichotomy of old-new or new-  242  old divided by wa or ga in a sentence is not the structure found in many cases. For instance, look at (73): (73)a. Kimi wa nani o taberu? 'What w i l l you have?' Boku wa susi o tabevoo. I  sushi  old  new  will-eat old  'I w i l l have sushi' b. Kimi wa kono okane you  o doo suru no.  this money Acc how  do Q  'What are you going to do w i t h this money?' Boku wa kono okane I old  (  o  this money Acc old  tvokinsimasu. save new  'I w i l l deposit this money (at the bank).' In (73a) wa  occurs after old and the rest is new-old; in (73b)  wa  occurs after old and the rest is old-new. If the reversal shown in (72) is assumed to take place in predication instead of the informational structure, then both (69a) and (69b) are considered as categorical sentences. The difference between (69a) and (69b) is that in (69a) the predication is done in normal order, but in (69b) it is done in reversed order. Ogiwara (1986), in fact, develops this analysis of the reversed order of predication w i t h i n Montague Grammar. This line of approach  243  not only contributes to the establishment of an integrated theory of wa and ga, but also provides a good perspective to understand one of the mechanisms operating in discourse. I w i l l discuss this topic further in the next section.  §5.2.2  Wa, Ga, and Discourse Unlike English, Japanese does not have c l e f t sentence  con-  structions equivalent in syntax. However, as far as discourse function is concerned, non-thetic ga sentences serve a s i m i l a r function as cleft sentences.  27  Let us take a further look at this point.  Lacking cleft sentences, Japanese has pseudo-cleft sentences as in (74), which is in the construction of (75): (74)a. Kono tegami  o  this letter Acc  kaita  no wa Taroo da.  wrote  The person who wrote this letter is Taroo.' b. Taroo ga nom  tyuumonsita no wa unagi da. order  'What Taroo ordered is eel.'  eel  244  c. Taroo ga tegami o dasita no wa Pari (kara) da, letter  sent  Paris  'Where Taroo sent a letter is from Paris.' (75)  [NP  [s  ] no ] wa  NP da.  (The pre-copula NP may be followed by a case-marking particle.) Now, the status of no in the pseudo-cleft is controversial. Kitagawa and Ross (1 982) argues that this no is a pre-nominal modifier, the same one used in (76), under the assumption that no connects not only NP and NP but also S and NP (cf. Soga and Fujimura, 1978). (76)  Watasi no hon I  book  [IINP no [book]NP  Thus the r e l a t i v e clause in pseudo-cleft is assumed to be headed by a null pronoun PRO instead of a real NP. On the other hand, Haig (1983) proposes that no is a nominal head of the relative clause, assuming two cases  for  it:  referential  and n o n - r e f e r e n t i a l .  An i n t e r e s t i n g  consequence of Haig's proposal is: if (74b), for example, is a case of referential no, then no works more like the pronoun "one" in English and there is no difference from the ordinary copula sentence; on the other hand, i f it is a case of non-referential  no,  then the sentence is  245  equivalent to the specificational p s e u d o - c l e f t  28  in Higgins (1972). In  other words, in the referential case, the sentence is equivalent to (77): (77)  Yamada wa watasi da. 'I am Yamada.'  (77) is often used almost interchangably with (77'): (77')  Watasi ga Yamada da. 'I am Yamada.'  Ga in (77') has the focus/exhaustive l i s t i n g r e a d i n g .  29  On the other  hand, the specif icational pseudo-cleft only allows wa, and interestingly enough, if the order is reversed (which, unlike predicational, is possible in English (cf. W i l l i a m , 1983)), ga (ex-listing) is needed, as shown in (78) and (79): (78) a. Kono tegamo o kaita no wa Taroo da. 'The person who wrote this letter is Taroo.' b. Taroo ga kono tegami o kaita (no da). 'It is Taroo who wrote this letter.' (79) a. Taroo ga tyuumonsita no wa unagi da. 'What Taroo ordered is eel.'  246  b. Unagi ga Taroo ga tyuumonsita no d a .  30  (78b), for example, has the thetic reading, but the focus reading is the one which pairs w i t h (78a) in a functional sense. Now, although it is probably the case that the reversal of the order takes place either in semantics (Montague framework) or in syntax ( W i l l i a m s ) , which are almost i d e n t i c a l in a functional sense, the alternation of wa/ga is determined by different discourse factors.  (77)  is used, for instance, in the following environment: (80)  Yamada-san wa donata desu ka. who 'Who is Mr. Yamada?' Minasan Yamada t o - i u otoko o osagasi no yoo desu ne. everybody  called  man  Yamada wa  (zitu wa)  look for  seem  watasi desu.  as a matter of fact 'It seems that people are looking for a man called Mr. Yamada. (As a matter of fact), Mr. Yamada is me.' In (80), topic continuity - once a topic is established, it is maintained for a while (cf. Givon (1983)) - is involved; Yamada is repeated in the third sentence. (77'):  On the other hand, (81) is a typical environment for  247  (8 Da. Dare ga Yamada-san desu ka. who  Mr.  'Who is Mr. Yamada?' Watasi ga Yamada desu. 'I am Yamada.' b. Anata no oture ga Yamada-san desu ka. your  company  'Is your company Mr. Yamada?' lie,  zituwa  watasi ga Yamada (nan) desu.  No as a matter of fact  (emphatic)  'No, as a matter of fact, I am Yamada.' The exhaustive ga is used in a w e l l - f o r m e d question-answer pair in (81a) or a parallel construction in (81b), just like focus in English (cf. Rochemont (1985)). Now, as has already been observed in the previous section, wa is associated w i t h contrastiveness; and the e x h a u s t i v e - l i s t i n g ga is also associated w i t h a type of contrastiveness: no oture  in (81b).  watasi contrasts w i t h anata  In this sense, the contrastiveness in ga  is not  different from that found in wa in §5.1.4.6. That is, the NP is selected and contrasts w i t h the rest of the members of a certain set, and the  248  contextual (including s t r u c t u r a l ) p a r a l l e l i s m induces the contrastive effect in discourse. (82)  Watasi wa Tookyoo e ikimasu ga. I  Tokyo to  go  Yasuda-san wa Nyuuyooku e ikimasu. New York to  go  'I go to Tokyo but Mr. Yasuda goes to New York.' (83)  Watasi (ga Tookyoo e iku no) de wa nakute I Tokyo to go is-not-the-case Suzuki-san ga Tookyoo e ikimasu. Tokyo  to  go  'It is not the case that I go to Tokyo, but it is the case that Mr. Suzuki goes to Tokyo.' The difference i s , however, in the case of wa, it is the  statement  contrast - the predicate should be different as w e l l as the subject in (82) - but the subject becomes the focal point for the contrast; on the other hand, ga is not the statement contrast and the predicate may be identifiable as the same kind in interpretation. It seems to be the case that the exhaustiveness in ga is a secondary induced factor, partially because of the nature of the question-answer environment - you have to give information no more or no less than what is needed (Grice's conversational maxim of Quantity) - and probably more fundamentally,  249  it would seem to be related to the non-"class" reading of the NP (-ga ), unlike the NP (-wa  ) (cf. the nature of the subject in (41) in §5.1.4.4),  although the details are not susceptible of proof at this stage. Now, Japanese is often called a topic-prominent language because of the wa -marked NP, while in a language like English focus marking (constructionally/phonologically:  cf. Rochemont (1985)) is far more  prominent than topic. In Japanese, (sentence) topic is always marked by wa ; furthermore, when a discourse is carried out on the same topic, or the topic is obvious from context, NP (-wa  ) is expressed by 0. The  latter c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , the d e l e t a b i l i t y (or, null topic) of N P - w a ,  may  lead us to make a claim such as (84): (84)  Any sentence can potentially have the N P - w a element at the sentence i n i t i a l position in discourse, w i t h the exception of thetic sentences.  Zero topic a n a l y s i s for zibun  in Chapter 2 is based on the above  assumption. Apparent thetic sentences may be categorical, if it is bound by a temporal/locative element (with wa ), which is, in turn, 0, as shown in (85): (85) a. Hi ga tette-imasu. sun  is-shining  'The sun is shining.  250  b. Soto wa/kyoo w a / 0 hi ga tette-imasu. outside/today 'Outside/today the sun is shining.' Thetic  sentences  u s u a l l y cannot  be negated  (Kuroda  1969  and  elsewhere), as in (86a); but categorical can, as in (86b): (86)a* Hi ga tette-imasen. Neg b  Soto/0 wa hi ga tette-imasen. Neg  As is discussed under eel-sentences, the possibly non-thematic nature of N P - w a enables us to add a discourse topic, say "Mary," to a sentence during the course of interpretation, w i t h the sense of "speaking.of Mary." When we have on the one hand a language which overtly marks what we are talking about (topic prominent) a l l the time, and on the other a language which marks what is in focus (focus prominent), it may not be unreasonable  to expect that these two languages w i l l  use  different strategies in discourse formation. I w i l l leave this problem, however, for more intensive studies of discourse structure.  251  §5.3  Conclusion The function of wa  has been one of the most studied topics in  Japanese t r a d i t i o n a l grammar.  It has been a big issue because it  concerns not just problems of syntax or discourse but also problems involving various linguistic components at the same time. In this sense, the problem of wa  is one of the most i n t e r e s t i n g cases for the  a p p l i c a t i o n of the modular approach proposed in recent  generative  theories. I began my investigation of this topic w i t h intensive studies of Kuroda's conceptual proposal of adopting the categorical and thetic d i s t i n c t i o n into Japanese sentences. judgement  happens  According to Kuroda, categorical  to be m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y / s y n t a c t i c a l l y marked in  Japanese because of the p a r t i c l e wa.  As w e l l , the wa- sentence  as  discussed in this chapter has a long history of discourse study, often relating to the commonly accepted v i e w s of wa as a topic marker or old information marker. The f i r s t several sections are devoted to j u s t i f y i n g the view of wa  as the judgement marker, rather than the t o p i c / o l d information  marker. Then, Kuno's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of topic, contrastive vs. thematic, is examined to c l a r i f y the notion of contrastive as it applies to sentences.  What we feel as contrastive in terms of wa  two sources:  the  inherent  nature of N P ( - w a  wa-  actually has  ) and contextual  parallelism. The former is related to the semantic property of subject NP of categorical judgement.  In the latter, the nature of wa contrast is  252  closely linked to its characteristic statement-contrast instead of i t e m contrast.  The contrastive reading reported in the literature, which is  sometimes expressed in terms of graduation, is the r e s u l t of the interaction between the property of wa and the contextual environment. By means of this analysis, the difference between contrastive wa and thematic wa is dissolved, and they are no longer d i s t i n c t i v e categories. Many of the topics discussed in each section above are not new, but rather c l a s s i c a l ; but the purpose of my research here has been to propose an integrated framework for the nature of wa.  Some of the  seemingly conflicting analyses proposed in the past have, I believe, been reconciled by being reworked w i t h different components in the over-all view of wa which is proposed here.  253  Notes (Chapter 5)  1  Base generation is a possible alternative.  2  (7a) and (7b) can have the "eel" reading; e.g., 'I am going to meet Yamada' for (7a) and 'I play the role of a student' for (7b). However, these are irrelevant for the present purpose.  3  We use the terms 'copula' and 'verb, to-be' interchangably.  4  "Subject in the logical sense" does not mean "logical subject" in generative grammar.  5  The truth conditional difference between the s u b j e c t - p r e d i c a t e structure and the subjectless structure is argued in Kuroda (1969 & 1970).  6  "Judgement" is used as a term in logic, not in psychology, Kuroda, 1972, note 2.)  7  This term was o r i g i n a l l y used by members of the Prague School although Halliday of the London School contributed largely to the development of the concept. 'Theme' is the leftmost element of a sentence, which serves as "the s t a r t i n g point of the utterance," whereas 'rheme' is "what the speaker states about" the theme (cf. Brown and Yule (1983)).  8  The referents are constantly changing their roles in context: the same referent can be old or new, depending on context. Also look at (1) ( = Reinhart (37)): (i)  A:  Who did Felix praise?  B:  Felix praised  (cf.  HIMSELF.  According to Reinhart, himself is new (focus expression), but it is also old, since it is the same person as Felix (topic expression.) Thus himself is old and new at the same t i m e , which is a  254  contradiction. However, the o l d - n e w d i s t i n c t i o n might not necessarily be made in terms of referents. That is, what is new is the information that [Felix praised X and X is someone] (the someone happening to be Felix himself in this case; also cf. §4.2.2 in Chapter 4). Hoji notes that the 5" is the same as the node E(xpression) of Banfield (1973). The proposal of the node E is also adopted in van Riemidjik and Z w a r t z (1974) for l e f t - d i s l o c a t i o n as opposed to topicalization (reported in Reinhart, 1983). Hoji also points out that c e r t a i n phrases like a P P - w a can be contrastive without stress. Rochemont (1 986) c l a s s i f i e s 'focus' into two categories: contrastive focus and presentational focus. While ga in a thetic sentence is related to the latter, non-deletable ga marks the contrastive focus only. In Terakura's a n a l y s i s , these are not considered as deletion but simply non-wa sentences. Thus, once the sentences get wa, they are different sentences from Terakura's. Cf. note 10 in Terakura (1 984). In fact, (36) is ambiguous between the thematic and the contrastive, but it is not a relevant issue. M. Soga has pointed out that (39a) is not so bad, especially when the order is reversed, like "tuki ga dete iru ga ame ga hutte kita." However, (i)c is very bad: (i)a.  Taroo ga Nom  tatte-iru. be-standing  'Taroo is standing'  255  b.  Ziroo ga Nom  suwatte-iru. be-sitting  'Ziroo is sitting.' c*  Taroo ga t a t t e - i r u ga, Ziroo ga suwatte-iru. 'Taroo is standing but Ziroo is sitting.'  The reason why (39a) is felt s l i g h t l y better than (i)c probably has something to do w i t h the fact that (39a) involves a cause and effect relation, i.e., rain falling is a counter-expectation of moon shining. The contrastive effect is produced pragmatically (by our knowledge of the world), as w e l l . Look at the sentences in (i) and (ii): (i)  Gonbe ga Nom  tane (o) makya ( = make ba), seed Acc sow Conditional  karasu ga/wa crow  hojikuru. dig up 'When Gonbe sows seeds, crows dig them up.' (ii) Taroo ga/wa Tookyoo e itte, Ziroo ga/wa Oosaka to go (Ger.)  itta. to go  'Taroo went to Tokyo and Ziroo went to Osaka.' Ba in (i) is a conditional marker, and the -te form ( = a gerund form) in (ii) is used to enumerate events. In these cases which can but do not necessarily have wa, two ideas contrast pragmatically. For the d i s t r i b u t i o n of passive sentences in discourse, cf. Givon (1979) and Oosten (1984). There are also some arguments against such discourse constitutions in terms of passive. Haiman ( 1 9 7 8 ) argues conditionals and topics.  for  the  close  relationship  between  256  1 9  Dareka can be a specifiable someone, but this is not a relevant issue here.  2 0  Gil (1987) argues that the reason why some languages have the ( i n ) d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e w h i l e some do not is c o n t r o l l e d by two independent parameters in the universal grammar: configurationality and the count-mass distinction.  2 1  M. Rochemont pointed out to me that sm and some are different l e x i c a l i t e m s rather than being ambiguous. However, i t does undermine Milsark's contention over "weak" vs. "strong."  2 2  Kuroda (1969) also points out, without going into d e t a i l s , that indefinite NPs can be used like "variables."  2 3  Contrary to wa, the particle mo is used in s i m i l a r environments to (62'), [X, - Y,] and [X - Yi]: 2  (i)  Taroo ga hon o katte, Ziroo mo hon o katta. 'Taro bought a book and Ziro bought one, too.'  2 4  It has been observed that wa cannot appear in subordinate clauses. But an exception to this is the contrastive wa as shown in (i): friend is in contrast with someone else who did not buy a car: (i)  [[ tomodati wa katta] kurumaW friend bought car s  'The car which my friend bought' According to Kuroda (1972), subordinate structures do not represent judgement, but are "judgement materials without judgement forms." 2 5  The interaction between the negative and wa creates an interesting effect:  257  (i)  Sanzyuunin wa konakatta. thirty people did-not-come 'Thirty people did not come.'  The sentence can mean thirty people did not come although t w e n t y nine (twenty-eight, twenty-seven, e t c . . ) people did come. This reading involves the underlying expectation in the utterance. That is, the sentence i m p l i e s that "thirty" is what the speaker had in his mind, but the actual number of people who came was less than that. An affirmative sentence like (ii) can also be interpreted in a s i m i l a r manner: (ii)  Hyakunin wa kita. 'A hundred people came.'  The sentence means that as many as a hundred people came. I consider that the type of contrastive implication involved in (i) is of a different nature than what I discuss in this section, although it originates in the function of wa. The p a r t i c l e mo also exhibits a s i m i l a r (but d i f f e r e n t l y manifested) type of problem: cf. Soga (1976). Two types of ga, thetic ga and non-thetic (exhaustive) ga can be viewed as focus markers for non-contrastive (presentational) focus and contrastive focus (Rochemont's (1986) terms) respectively. Kuno (1973) makes some i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s about the s i m i l a r i t y between exhaustive-listing ga in Japanese and stress and cleft constructions in English (cf. "Wa and Ga (Part I)" in Kuno (1973)). A l s o cf. W i l l i a m s (1983), where two types of pseudo-cleft differentiated in his predication theory.  are  If the predicate is stative, ga is the exhaustive-listing except w i t h numeral/quantifier NP like (i) (Kuno, 1973):  258  (i)  T a k u s a n no h i t o ga b e z i t a r i a n da. many people vegetarian 'Many p e o p l e a r e  vegetarians.'  T h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s a r e p r e f e r r e d t o ( 7 9 b ) p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e of t h e "-ga -ga " s e q u e n c e w h i c h i s n o t m u l t i - n o m i n a t i v e :  (<) (i)a.  Unagi  b.  o  T a r o o ga t y u u m o n s i t a .  T a r o o ga u n a g i 6 t y u u m o n s i t a .  p  259  Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks  A sentence uttered in an actual speech situation is not free from context.  Thus, the question is how formal grammar  and  grammatical factors interact for sentences to receive full  extracompre-  hension in actual discourse. With the purpose of giving answers to this question, four linguistic phenomena were examined in this thesis. The f i r s t two chapters concern the coreference  problems of  pronouns: reflexive pronouns in Chapter 2 and demonstrative pronouns in Chapter 3. The former has been studied mostly in syntax, often w i t h analogies to the English reflexive pronoun; the latter has been studied from the viewpoint of pragmatics.  In Chapter 4, quantifier reading was  examined. A l l three topics are related to disambiguation mechanisms in discourse. The topic of Chapter 5 is of a slightly different nature, not a disambiguation system, but the so-called "topic" marker wa, one of the most interesting cases which has overt manifestations at each level of representation:  semantics, syntax, and pragmatics.  260  w h i l e the LF' module of grammar w i l l identify the entity of the null element in the topic position. The final determination procedure among the eligible antecedents is complex and s t i l l not very clear; yet it is highly possible that the pragmatic factors like "awareness'V'viewpoint" control the final determination of the referent, where the structurally defined concept "subject" enters as one strong candidate for the site of the manifestation of such pragmatic conceptions.  In Chapter 3, unlike  zibun, demonstratives are shown to be always r e f e r e n t i a l w i t h the exception of the problematic cases created by those of the so-  series,  some of which exhibit a strong anaphoric nature or at least a possible disappearance of the d i s t i n c t i o n between pronouns ( = proforms which stand for referents) and demonstratives ( = demonstration).  The latter  case may be handled in the formal representation of discourse structure (LF' module).  In Chapter 4, quantifier reading was examined.  representation sentence.  The LF  provides the w i d e / n a r r o w reading for a q u a n t i f i e r  The final interpretation is determined by the interaction  between the subjecthood, the sentence i n i t i a l position which serves an important discourse function, and the "egocentricity." The egocentricity has turned out to have a wide influence on l i n g u i s t i c phenomena in Japanese (which is often c a l l e d an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l language), for example, in zibun  in Chapter 2 and in the demonstrative  d i s t i n c t i o n in Chapter 4. categorical  ko-so-a  In Chapter 5, adopting Kuroda's thetic vs.  d i s t i n c t i o n , it is argued  that  a semantic  structure  corresponds to a syntactic structure through wa as the marker of the categorical  judgement;  and  that  syntactic  structure,  in  turn,  261  corresponds to discourse structure, i.e., the function of the sentence topic marked by wa seems to have a significant influence on discourse organization.  NP-wa  has an anaphoric nature to a certain extent;  however, i t s manner of reference is totally different from pronoun type anaphora, functioning rather as a "nexus" in the flow of discourse (cf. Grice's conversational maxim, "Be relevant."). The absence of NP-wa, as a consequence, indicates that the topic NP established in the previous sentence is s t i l l in effect, and this local discourse is about the same topic. The mode of interaction assumed from these analyses is that w i t h a form as a medium, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics interface on it; a certain linguistic phenomenon has a function on each linguistic level  (though i t might have a null function on some l e v e l ( s ) of  representation).  The autonomous system prevents t w o - d i r e c t i o n a l  interactions between two different levels of representation. of zibun,  In the case  for example, the ambiguity represented in syntax is eventually  disambiguated outside of the s y n t a c t i c module.  The case w i t h the  quantifier is apparently a l i t t l e different from the case of zibun, but not to a substantial degree; here the LF representation of the scope reading provides the ambiguity for certain cases like scrambling, and such readings are reinterpreted outside of syntax in a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y related manner to the readings in LF.  262  B ib1 i ography  Akatsuka, Noriko (1983) "Conditionals," Papers in Japanese Vol. 6, pp. 1-33.  Linguistics,  (1985) "Conditionals and the Epistemic Scale," Language, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 625-639. Akmajian, Adrian and Chisato Kitagawa (1976), "Deep-structure Binding of Pronouns and Anaphoric Bleeding," in Language, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 61-77. Allerton, D. J. and A. Cruttenden (1979) "Three reasons for accenting a definite subject," Linguistics 15, pp. 4 9 - 5 3 , Cambridge University Press, Great Britain. A l l w o o d , Jens (1981) "On the D i s t i n c t i o n s between Semantics and Pragmatics," in Wolfgang K l e i n and W i l l i a m Levelf (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics,  Anderson, M. (1979) Noun Phrase University of Connecticut.  Structure,  D. Reidel, Dordrecht.  doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n ,  Banfield, A. (1973) "Grammar of Quotation, Free Indirect Style, and Implications for a Theory of Narrative", Foundation of Language, vol. 10, pp. 1-39. Bedell, George (1972) "On No, " U. C. L. A. Papers in Syntax: Studies in East Asian Syntax, Vol. 3, pp. 1-1 9.  B e l l e t t i , Adriana and Luigi R i z z i (1988)  "Psych-Verbs and e-theory",  Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 6, pp. 291-352.  263  Breivik, Leiv Egil (1981) "On the Interpretation of Existential THERE," Language 57, pp. 1 -25.  (1983) "On the Use and Non-use of Existential THERE, a review of Gary L. Milsark, Existential  sentences in English, " Lingua,  pp. 333-368. Brockway, Diane (1 981) "Semantic Constraints on Relevance, " in H. Parret, M. Sbisa, and J . Varschueren (eds.), Possibilities and Limitations  of Pragmatics:  Proceedings of the Conference on  Pragmatics, Uribino, Italy; Benjamins, Amsterdam.  Brown, Gillian, and George Yule (1983) Discourse Analysis, University Press, Cambridge.  Cambridge  Bullwinkle, Candace (1977) "Levels of Complexity in Discourse for Anaphora Disambiguation and Speech Act Interpretation," Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on  Intelligence,  Artificial  pp. 43-49.  Carlson, Greg N. (1977) "A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural," Linguistics  and Philosophy  1, pp. 41 3-457.  Chafe, Wallace L. (1976) "Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View," in Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York. Chang, Sandra and James McCloskey (1987) "Government, Barriers, and Small Clauses in Modern Irish", Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 18-2, pp. 173-237. Chomsky, Noam (1971) "Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation," in D. D. Steinberg and L. A. Jakobvits (eds.), Semantics, University Press, Cambridge. (1974) "Questions of Form and Interpretation," Analysis,  Vol 1, No. 1, 1 975, pp. 75-1 09.  Linguistic  264  (1977) Essays on Form and Interpretation,  Studies in  Linguistic Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris  Publications, Dordrecht. (1982)  Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of  Government and Binding, (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 6), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Contreras, Heles (1986) "What does Everybody Want?" in M. Brame, H. Contreras and F. Newmeyer (eds.) A Festshrift for Sol Saprta, Noit Amrofer, pp. 55-64. Creider, Chet A. (1979) "On the explanation of Transformations," in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics Vol 1 2, Discourse and Syntax, Academic Press, Inc., New York. Di jk, Teun A. (1 981) "Sentence Topic and Discourse Topic," in Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse, pp. 177-193.  Downing, Pamela (1 985) "A Discourse-Based Explanation for Quantifier Float Constraints in Japanese," ms., Linguistic Society of America, Seattle, December. Dretske, Fred I. (1972) "Contrastive Statements," The Philosophical Review, Vol. LXXXI, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Ehlich, Konrad (1982) "Anaphora and Deixis: Same, S i m i l a r , or Different?" in R. J . J a r v e l l a and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action, pp. 73-99, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.  265  Enomoto, Yoshio (1 983)  Relevance of Focus and Ground in Semantic  Analysis, doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Erteschik-shir, Nomi (1986) "WH-Questions and Focus," Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 1 17-149, D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht. Evans, Gareth (1980) "Pronouns," Linguistic Inquiry 1 1.2. Facey, Kikuko (1983) "Japanese r e f l e x i v i z a t i o n and psychological semantics," Papers in Japanese Linguistics,  Vol. 6, pp. 35-42.  Fillmore, Charles J. (1971) "Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1 971," Indiana University Linguistics Club (1975), Bloomington, Indiana. Firbas, Jan (1966) "Non-thematic Subjects in Contemporary English," Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2, Academia, Editions de  l'Academie Tchecoslovaque des Sciences (Prague), pp. 239-256. Fukuchi, Hajime (1985) Danwa no kozo, Taishukan, Tokyo. Gazdar, Gerald (1979) Pragmatics: Implication, Presupposition, Logical Form, Academic Press, New York.  and  Gil, David (1987) "Definiteness, Noun Phrase Configurationality, and the Count-Mass Distinction," Chapter 10 in Eric J. Reuland and A l i c e G. TerMeulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge. Givon, Talmy (1 979) On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press, New York. (ed.)  (1983) Topic Continuity in Discourse:  Cross-Language Study, Benjamins, Amsterdam.  AQuantitive  266  Grice, H. Paul (1975) "Logic and Conversation," in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics J. Speech Acts, Academic  Press, New York. Grosz, Barbara J. (1977) The Presentation and Use of Focus in Dialogue Understanding. Stanford Research Institute Technical Note 151, SRI Project 5844, A r t i f i c i a l Intelligence Center. (1978) "Focusing in Dialog," in TINLAP-2, University of Illinois, pp. 96-103. (1978) "Focusing in Dialogue," The Technical Issues in Natural Language Processing, Vol. 2, University of Illinois. (1981) "Focusing and description in natural language dialogues," in Bennie L. Webber and Ivan A. Say (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gundel, Jeanette K. (1985) '"Shared Knowledge' and Topicality," Journal of Pragmatics,  Vol. 9, pp. 83-1 07.  Gunji,Takao (1983) "Generalized Phrase-Structure Grammar and Japanese Reflexivization," Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1 15-156. Haig, John H. (1979)  "Real and Apparent Multiple Subject Sentences",  Papers in Japanese Linguistics,  vol. 6, pp. 8 7 - 1 2 5 .  (1982) "Prenominal Modification and the Distribution of NO in Japanese," ms., University of Hawaii at Manoa. (1983) "The Structure of Japanese Clefts," ms., Linguistic Society of America, Washington D. C , December. Hai'k, Isabelle (1984) pp. 185-39.  "Indirect Binding", Linguistic  Inquiry, vol. 15-2,  267  Haiman, John (1978) "Conditionals are Topics," Language, Vol. 54, pp. 564-589. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967) "Notes on t r a n s i t i v i t y and theme in English, Part 1," Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 3 7 - 8 1 . (1967) "Notes on t r a n s i t i v i t y and theme in English, Part 2," Journal of Linguistics,  Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 199-244.  (1968) "Notes on t r a n s i t i v i t y and theme in English, Part 3," Journal of Linguistics,  Vol. 4, pp. 153-308.  Hasegawa, Nobuko (1980) "Three Reasons for Not Deriving Japanese Reflexives from Full NP's," Papers in Japanese Linguistics 7. (1981) "The VP Complement and'Control'Phenomena: Beyond Trace Theory," L inguistic Analysis 7.1. Hattori, Shiro (1 968) "KORE, SORE, ARE to this, that," in Eigo Kiso Goei no Kenkyu, Sanseido, Tokyo. Heim, Irene (1982)  The Semantics  of Definite  and Indefinite Noun  Phrase, doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Hendrix, Gary G. (1975) "Expanding the U t i l i t y of Semantic Networks Through Partitioning," Advance Papers, International Joint Conference on Artificial  Intelligence, Tbilisi, Georgian SSR,  September. Higgins, Roger (1 973) On the Nature of Pseudoclefts, doctoral dissertation, MIT. Hirakoji, Kenji (1973) "Jibun Forms in Japanese," Papers in Japanese Linguistics 94, Vol. 2:2, winter, pp. 17-43. Hockett, Charles F. (1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics, Macmillian.  New York:  268  Hoji, Hajime (1982) "The X-schema in Japanese and the * Parameter," ms, University of Washington/MIT. (1985) Logical Form Constraints and Configurational  Structures in Japanese, doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. (1986) "Scope Interpretation in Japanese and i t s Theoretical Implications", The Proceedings of WCCFL V. Hopper, P. J. (1 979) "Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse," in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1 2, Discourse and Syntax, Academic Press Inc., New York. Horn, Laurence R. (1 981) "Exhaustiveness and the Semantics of Clefts," in NELS 1 1, pp. 125-142. Horvath, J u l i a and Michael Rochemont (1986) "Pronoun in Discourse and Sentence Grammar," Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 17-4. Huang, C.-T. James (1982)  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory  of Grammar, doctoral dissertation, MIT. (1984) "On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns", Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 15-4, pp. 531-44.  Ide, Itaru (1958) "Daimeishi," in Bunpo Kakuronhen, Meijishoin, Tokyo. Inoue, Kazuko (1976) Henkeibunpo to Nihongo: Imikaishaku o chushin ni,  Taishukan, Tokyo. (1976) "Reflexivization: An Interpretative Approach," in M. Shibatani, Syntax and Semantics 5; Academic Press, New York. (1982) "An Interface of Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse Structure," Lingua vol. 57, pp. 259-300.  269  (1 983) "'wa' to 'ga'," in K. Inoue (ed.), Nihongo no kihonkoza, pp. 4 5 - 5 6 , Sanshodo, Tokyo. loup, Georgette (1 973) "Some Universals for Quantifier Scope," in Ralph W. Fasold and Roger I say (eds.), Analyzing Variation in Language. Ishigami, Teruo (1983), "Bun niokeru Hitei to Uso - Gengoshutai no Nodoteki-sokumen - , " Nihongogaku, vol. 2, Tokyo. Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar,  MIT Press, Cambridge. Josephs, Lewis S. (1975), "Complementation," Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 5, Academic Press, New York. Kamio, Akio (1979) "On the Notion Speaker's Territory of Information: a functional analysis of certain sentence-final forms in Japanese," in E. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (ed.), Explorations in Linguistics  (Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue),  Society of Linguistics and Literature, Tokyo. (1985) "Danwa niokeru Shiten," Nihongogaku, December, Vol. 14, pp. 10-21. Kamp, Hans (1982) "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation," in J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, and M. B. J . Stoklof (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part I.  Kaplan, R. (1966) "Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education," Language Learning, 16, pp. 1-20.  Karttunen, L. (1976) "Discourse Referents," in J . D. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics,  Volume 7, Notes from the Linguistic  Underground, Academic Press Inc., New York.  270  Keenan, Edward L. (1974) "The Functional Principle: Generalizing the Notion of 'SUBJECT OF'," in Papers from the Tenth Regional  Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. (1976) "Towards a Universal Definition of'Subject'," in Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York. Keenan, Elinor Ochs (1976) "Foregrounding Referents: A Reconsideration of Left Dislocation in Discourse," in Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistic Society. Kempson, Ruth M. (1975) Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1977) Semantic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (1984) "Anaphora, the Compositionality Requirement, and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction," NELS, vol. 14, pp. 183-206. Kempson, Ruth M. and Annabel Cormack (1981) "Quantification and Pragmatics," Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 4, pp. 1 17-189. Kiss, Kataline (1981) "On the Japanese Double Subject Construction," The Linguistic Review I, Vol. 1 No. 2.  Kitagawa, Chisato (1977) "NO -introduced Relative Clauses," Journal of the Association  of Teachers of Japanese, Vol. XII, No. 2 + 3, pp.  229-247. (1978) "A Note on Sore and Are, " in E. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (ed.), Explorations in Linguistics  (Papers in Honor of  Kazuko Inoue), Society of Linguistics and Literature, Tokyo. (1981) "Anaphora in Japanese: Kare and Zibun," in Ann Kathleen Farmer and Chisato Kitagawa (eds), Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese Linguistics:  The Formal  271  Grammar Sessions, Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics  from A  -> Z 2, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 61-75. (1982) "Topic Constructions in Japanese," Lingua 57, pp. 175214. Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross (1982) "Prenominal Modification in Chinese and Japanese", Linguistic Analysis, vol. 9-1. Kitahara, Yasuo (1981) Nihongo no Bunpo : Nihongo no Sekai 6, Susumu Ono and Saiichi Maruya (eds.), Tyuokoron-sha, Tokyo. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1982) Principle", The Linguistic Review  " V a r i a b l e s and the  Bijection  2.2.  Kuno, Susumu (1972) "Functional Sentence Perspective: A Case Study from Japanese and English," Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 3, pp. 2 6 9 312. (1972) "The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences", Linguistics  Inquiry, vol. 2, pp. 333-378.  (1973) Nihonbunpo kenkyu, Taishukan, Tokyo. (1 973a) The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press,  Cambridge. (1973b) Nihon-bunpo Kenkyu, Taishukan Press, Tokyo. (1975) "Three Perspectives in the Functional Approach to Syntax," in Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism,  Chicago Linguistic Society. (1976) "Subject, Theme, and the Speaker's Empathy," in Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York. and Etsuko Kaburaki (1977) "Empathy and Syntax," Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 627-672.  272  (1978) Danwa no Bunpd, TaishGkan Press, Tokyo. (1979) "On the Intersection between Syntactic Rules and Discourse Principles," in E. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (ed.), Explorations in Linguistics  (Papers in Honor of Kazuko  Inoue), Society of Linguistics and Literature, Tokyo. (1980) "The Scope of the Question and Negation in Some VerbFinal Languages," in Papers in Sixteenth Regional Meeting of  Chicago Linguistics Society, edited by Jody Kreemer and Almerindo E. Ojeda, pp. 155-169. (1982) "Principles of Discourse Deletion," colloquium delivered in the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Linguistics Department. (1 982) "The Focus of the Question and the Focus of the Answer," in Papers from the Parasession  on  Non-declaratives,  Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 134-155. (1983) Sin nihon-bunpo Kenkyu Taisyukan, Tokyo. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, doctoral dissertation, M. I. T. (Published in 1979, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, A Garland Series, Garland Publishing, Inc., New York and London). (1 969) "Remarks on the notion of SUBJECT with reference to words like ALSO, EVEN, orONLY, i l l u s t r a t i n g certain manners in which formal systems are employed as auxiliary devices in linguistic descriptions, Part 1," in the Annual Bulletin No. 3, the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, pp. 111130. (1970) "Remarks on the Notion Subject w i t h Reference to Words Like ALSO, EVEN, or ONLY, Part I", in Annual Bulletin, vol.  273 4, pp. 127-152, Logopedics and Phoniatrics Research Institute, Tokyo University. (1972) "The Categorical and the Thetic Judgement," Foundations of Language 9, pp. 153-185.  (1 973a) "On Kuno's Direct Discourse Analysis of the Japanese Reflexive Zibun," Papers in Japanese Linguistics 2.1, pp. 1 3 6 -  147. (1973b) "Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammar Meet: A Case Study from Japanese," in Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New York, pp. 377-391. (1974) "Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese (I)," Papers in Japanese Linguistics,  Vol. 3, pp. 59-93.  (1 975-76), "Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese (I I)," Papers in Japanese Linguistics,  Vol. 4, pp. 85-96.  (1 976) "Headless Relative Clauses in Modern Japanese and the Relavancy Condition," Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 2. (1 976-77) "Pivot-Independent Relativization in Japanese (III), Interlude: Types of Japanese relatives," Papers in Japanese Linguistics, Vol. 5, (1 976-77), pp. 157-179. (1979) "(Ko) • So • A nitsuite," in Eigo to Nihongo, Kuroshio Shuppan, Tokyo. (1 979) The 'WHOLE of the Doughnut, Syntax and its  Boundaries, E. Story-Scientia, Ghent. (1 985) "The Movement Theory of Wa Topics in Japanese", LSA meeting, Seattle.  274  (1986) "Movement of Noun Phrases in Japanese" in Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito (eds.), Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, pp. 229-272. (1988) "Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese", in William Poster (ed.) Papers from the Second International  Workshop on Japanese Syntax, CSLI, pp.  103-144. Ladusaw, William A. (1982) "Semantic Constraints on the English Partitive Construction," in Daniel P. Flickinger, Marlys Macken, Nancy Wiegand (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal  Linguistics.  Lakoff, Robin (1974) "Remark on T/i/'s and That," Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. (1974) "Remarks on this and that, " Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 10. Lappin, Shalom (1984) "Pronominal Binding," ms., University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. Lasnik, Howard (1976) "Remarks on Coreference," Linguistic ' 2.1. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge.  Analysis  Cambridge University Press,  L i , Charles and Sandra A. Thompson (1 976), "SUBJECT and TOPIC: A New Typology of Language," in Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York. Linde, Charlotte (1979) "Focus of Attention and the Choice of Pronouns in Discourse," in Syntax and Semantics,  Syntax,  Academic Press, Inc., New York.  Vol. 12, Discourse and  275  Linde, Charlotte and William Labov (1975) "Spatial Networks as a Site for the Study of Language and Thought," Language, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 924-939. Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press. Maclaran, Rose (1982) The Semantics and Pragmatics of the English Demonstratives, doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. Makino, Seiichi (1982) "Japanese Grammar and Functional Grammatical," Lingua 57, pp. 125-173. (1984) "Speaker/Listener Oreintation and Formality Marking in Japanese," Gengo Kenkyu, pp. 126-145. M. Rita Manzini and Kenneth Wexler (1987) "Parameters, Binding Theory, and Learnability", Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 18-3, pp. 413-444. Masunaga, Kiyoko (1982) "Bridging," in Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Linguistics,  Aug. 29th - Sep. 4th,  1982, Tokyo. Editors Shiro Hattori, Kazuko Inoue; The Linguistic Society of Japan, Taishukan, Tokyo. Materna, Pavel, Eva Hajicova, and Peter Sgall (1987), "Redundant Answers and Topic-Focus Articulation," Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 10-1, pp. 101-113. Matsuda, Hiroshi (1975) A Transformational Study of Japanese Reflexivization, M. A. thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. May, Robert (1977) The Grammar of Quantification, sertation, MIT.  doctoral d i s -  (1985) Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, MIT Press,  Cambridge, Mass.  276  Maynard, Senko Kumiya (1981) "The Given/New Distinction and the Analysis of the Japanese Particles -WA and -GA," Aspects in Linguistics:  International Journal of Human Communications,  Vol. 14, pp. 109-132. McCawley, J. D. (1979) "Presupposition and Discourse Structure," in C K. Oh and D. A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics,  Volume 11,  Presuppostion, Academic Press Inc., New York. McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka (1976) "Reflexivization: A Transformational Approach," in M. Shibatani, Syntax and Semantics 5, Academic Press, New York. (1978) "Another look at no, koto, and to : Epistemology and Complementizer Choice in Japanese," in J. Hinds and I. Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha,  Tokyo. McGloin, Naomi H. (1976) "Negation," Syntax and Semantics Academic Press, New York.  5,  Mikami, Akira (1 955) Gendai Goho Josetsu, Tokoshoin, Tokyo. (1960) Zoo wa Hana ga Nagai, Kuroshio-shuppan, Japan. (1972) Gendai goho shinsetsu, Kuroshio-shuppan, Tokyo. Milsark, Gary L. (1977) "Towards an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English," Linguistic Analysis,  Vol. 3 No. 1, pp.  1-30.  Miyaji, Yutaka (1964) "Daimeishi," in M. Tokieda and Y. Endo (eds.), Koza Gendaigo, Volume 6, Kogobunpo no Mondaiten, Meijishoin, Tokyo. Morgan, J. L. (1975) "Some Interactions of Syntax and Pragmatics," in Syntax and Semantics 3, Academic Press, New York.  277  Murata, Yuzaburo (1982) Kind-eibunpd, Taishukan, Tokyo. Nakajima, Heizo (1 985) "Module Bunpo no Tenkai (Chd)," Gengo vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 88-96. (1 985) "Module Bunpo no Tenkai (Jo)," Gengo vol. 4, no. 11. (1986) "Module Bunpo no Tenkai (Ge)," Gengo vol. 5 no. 1. Nakamura, Masuru (1989) "Reflexives in Japanese", Gengo Kenkyu 95, Japan, pp. 206-230. Newmeyer, F. J . (1983) Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Its  Possibilities, London.  The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and  Nishio, Hiroko (1983) "Passives and Causatives in Japanese and Elsewhere, " Papers in East Asian Languages, vol. 1, Hawaii.  Oehrle, Richard T. (1981) "Common Problems in the Theory of Anaphora and the Theory of Discourse," in H. Parret, M. Sbisa, and J . Varschueren (eds.), Possibilities  and Limitations  Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics,  of Pragmatics:  Uribino, Italy;  Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 509-530. Ogihara, Toshiyuki (1986) "The Semantics of the'Obligatory Focus' Construction in Japanese," ms. (To appear in Texas Linguistic Forum.) Ohso, Mieko (1979) "A Constraint on the Antecedent of Zero Pronominalization in Japanese," in E. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki (ed.), Explorations in Linguistics  (Papers in Honor of  Kazuko Inoue), Society of Linguistics and Literature, Tokyo. Okamura, K. (1972) "Daimeishi towa Nani-ka," in K. Suzuki and 0. Hayashi (eds.), Hinshibetsu Nihongo Bunpo Koza: Meishi,  Daimeishi, Meijishoin, Tokyo.  278  Okutsu, Keiichiro  (1 978), " 'Boku wa Unagi da' no Bunpd - Da to No - ,  Kuroshioshuppan, Tokyo. (1981) "Unagibun wa Koko kara kita ka," Kokugo to kokubungaku, vol. 58-5, Tokyo, pp. 76-88. Ono, Mieko (1975) "Shijigo no Kino: shijisaki Kettei no Keishikika o Mezashite - ," M. A. thesis, Tokyo Women's Christian University, Tokyo. (1975) "Bunsho ni Tsukawareta Shi j i go," Tokyo Joshi Daigaku Nihon Bungaku, Vol. 48, 1975; reprinted in Kokugogaku  Ronsetsu-shiryo,  Vol. 13, No. 14, 1977, pp. 11-31.  (1984) "Ref lexive Pronouns in Japanese," in Japanese Studies in Canada, edited by Bernard Saint-Jacques and Matsuo Soga, Canadian Asian Studies Association. Onoe, Keisuke (1981) '"Wa no keizyoshi-sei to Hyogen-teki-kino," Kokugo to kokubun-gaku, vol. 58, Japan, Tokyo Daigaku Kokugokokubun Gakkai, Tokyo, pp. 102-1 18. Oosten van, Jeanne (1984) "The Nature of Subjects, Topics, and Agents: A Cognitive Explanation," doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. (Published by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1 986.) Oshima, Shin (1979) "Conditions on Rules: Anaphora in Japanese," in E. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, and M. Muraki, Explorations in Linguistics, Kenkyusha, Tokyo. Oyakawa, Takatsugu (1973) "Japanese Reflexivization I," Papers in Japanese Linguistics 94, Vol. 2:1, summer, pp. 94-134. (1974) "Japanese Ref lexivizatiom 11," Papers in Japanese Linguistics Vol. 3, pp. 129-199.  279  Partee, Barbara Hall (1972) "Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns," in Harman and Davidson (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht. (1982) "Compositionality," in F. Landman and F. Valtman (eds.), Varities of Formal Semantics, Foris Publications, Dordrecht. (1985) "Ambiguous Pseudoclefts w i t h Un-ambiguous BE, " NELS 16. Postal, Paul M. (1969) "On so-called 'Pronouns' in English," in David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane (eds.), Readings in Transformational Grammar, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Prince, Ellen F. (1978) "A Comparison of Wh-Clefts and If-Clefts in Discourse," Language, Vol 54, IV, pp. 883-905. (1979) "On the Given/New Distinction," in Papers from the Regional Meeting, vol 15, 1 979, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 267-78. (1984) "Topicalization and Left-Dislocation: A Functional Analysis," in Sheila J. White and Virginia Teller (eds.), Discourses  in Reading and Linguistics,  Annals of the New York  Academy of Sciences, Vol. 433, pp. 213-225. (1 985) "Fancy Syntax and 'Shared Knowledge'," Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 65-81. Putman, Hilary (1958) "Formalization of the Concept'ABOUT'," Philosophy  and Science,  Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 125-130.  Reinhart, Tanya (1980) "Conditions for Text Coherence," Poetics Today vol. 1, no. 4, The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University, pp. 161-180.  280  (1982) "Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics," Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, London & Canberra. Rochemont, Michael S. (1 978) A Theory of Stylistic  Croom Helm,  Rules in English,  doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (1983) "Coindexing and Coreference," ms., UBC. (1 985) "Focus in Generative Grammar, " The Linguistic Review 4, pp. 365-373. (1986) Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Rooth, Mats (1984) "How to Get Even w i t h Domain Selection," NELS (North Eastern Linguistic Society) vol. 1 4, pp. 377-401. Saito, Mamoru (1 982a) "Case and Government in Japanese," ms., M. I. T., Massachusetts. (1982b) "Case Marking in Japanese, A Preliminary Study," ms., MIT. (1984) "Three Notes on Syntactic Movement in Japanese" ms. MIT. (1 985) Some Asymmetries  in Japanese and Their Theoretical  Implications, doctoral dissertation, M. I. T., Massachusetts. (1986) "Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A'-movement", ms., NYU Workshop on Phrase Structure.  281  Saito, Mamoru and Hajime Hoji (1983)  "Weak Crossover and Move a i n  Japanese", Natural Language and Linguistic  Theory 1, pp. 2 4 5 -  59. Sakuma, Kanae (1936; enlarged ed. 1951) Gendai-nihongo no Hyogen to Goho, Koseisha-koseikaku, Tokyo. Sgall, Peter (1975) "Conditions of the use of sentences and a semantic representation of topic and focus," in Formal Semantics of Natural Language, edited by Edward L. Keenan. Shibatani, Masayoshi (1978) "Mikami Akira and the Notion of "Subject" in Japanese Grammar" in John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.) Problems in Japanese Syntax, Kaitakusha, pp. 52-67. (1976) Japanese Generative Grammar: syntax and  Semantics  5, Academic Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi and Chiseko Cotton ( 1 9 7 6 - 7 7 )  "Remarks on  Double-Nominative Sentences", Papers in Japanese  Linguistics,  vol. 5, pp. 261-277. (1978) "Mikami Akira and the Notion o f ' S u b j e c t ' i n Japanese Grammar," in John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kaitakusha Press, Tokyo. Shirai, Ken-ichi (1981) "Remarks on Predicates taking Ga for Object Marking," Descriptive Applied Linguistics,  XV, International  Christian University, Tokyo. Smith, Donald L. (1979) "Where THIS Refers to HERE in English and Japanese, "in Explorations in Linguistics  (in Honor of Kazuko  Inoue), Society of Linguistics and Literature, Tokyo. Soga, Matsuo (1976) "The Structure of Negation and Delimitational P a r t i c l e s in Japanese," Journal of the Association  of Japanese, Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 65-83.  of Teachers  282  Soga, Matsuo and T a i j i Fujimura (1979) "A Note on Noun Modification in Japanese," Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese,  Vol. XIII, No. 1. Sportiche, Dominique (1986) 374.  "Zibun", Linguistic  Inquiry  17, pp. 3 6 9 -  Stechow, Arnim von (1981) "Topic, Focus, and Local Relevance," in W. Klein and W. Levelt (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, pp. 95-130, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht. (1982) "Three Local Deictics," in R. J. J a r v e l l a and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action, pp. 7 3 - 9 9 , John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Strawson, P. (1964) "Identifying Reference and Truth-Values", Theoria 30, pp. 90-1 18. Szabolcsi, Anna "The Semantics of Topic-Focus Articulation," in J. A.G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, and M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematisch Centrum,  Amsterdam. Takahashi, T. and M. Suzuki (1982) "Ko So : A no s h i j i - r y o e k i ni tsuite," in Kokuritsu Kokugo KenkyO hokoku 71, Kenkyu Hokoku,  Vol. 3, Shuei Publishing Co, Tokyo. Terakura, Hiroko (1984) "Discourse Function of Sentence-Initial NP in Conversation," Descriptive Applied Linguistics  XVIII, pp. 2 2 3 -  235, International Christian University, Tokyo. (1984) "The Deletion of the Theme of the Sentence and Discourse Structure," in Proceedings of the Nitobe-Ohira Memorial Conference on Japanese Studies, The University of  B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada.  283  Tichey, Pavel (1978) "Questions, Answers, and Logic," Philosophical Tsao, F. (1977)  Quarterly,  A Functional  Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 275-284.  Study of Topic in Chinese:  toward Discourse Analysis, Southern California.  American  The First  Step  doctoral dissertation, University of  Tsubomoto, Atsuro (1981) "It's A l l A/o: Unifying Function of No in Japanese," in Chicago Linguistic  Society,  17, pp. 3 9 3 - 4 0 3 .  Tsutsui, Michio (1981a) " E l l i p s i s of wa in Japanese," ms., Middlebury Symposium of Discourse Analysis in Japanese, Middlebury. (1981b) "Topic Marker E l l i p s i s in Japanese," Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, Vol. II, No. 1 Spring, pp. 163-179. (1983) " E l l i p s i s of Ga, " Papers in Japanese Linguistics,  Vol.  6, pp. 199-243. (1984) "'Wa' no Shoryaku," Gengo, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 112-121. Vennemann, Theo (1975) "Topics, sentence accent, e l l i p s i s : a proposal for their formal treatment," in Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, University Press, Cambridge. Watanabe, Shinichiro (1979) "Nihongo no Bunretsubun nitsuite," in Eigo to Nihongo, Kuroshioshuppan, Tokyo. Weissenborn, Jurgen and Wolfgang Klein (eds.) (1982) HERE AND THERE, Cross-Linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam. Wexler, Kenneth and M. Rita Manzini (1987) "Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory" in Thomas Roeper and Edwin W i l l i a m s (eds.), Parameter Setting, D. Reidel, pp.41-76.  284  Williams, Edwin S. (1 977) "Discourse and Logical Form," Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 101-139. ; and Sperber, Dan (1979) "Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories;" Syntax and Semantics 1 1, Academic Press, New York. (1980) "Predication," Linguistic 203-238.  Inquiry, Vol 1 1, No. 1, pp.  (1980-81) "Remarks on Stress and Anaphora," Journal of Linguistic Research, vol. 1 no. 3, pp.  1-15.  (1983) "Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories," Linguistics Philosophy 6, pp. 423-446. (1986) "A Reassignment of the Function of LF", Inquiry, vol. 17-2, pp. 265-299.  and  Linguistic  Wilson, Deirdre (1975) Presupposition and Non-truth-conditional Semantics. Academic Press, New York. Yamanashi, Masaaki (1986) Hatsuwakoi, Taishukan, Tokyo. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1989) "Anaphor binding and Narrative Point of View", Language 65-4, pp. 695-727. Zubin, David A. (1979) "Discourse Function of Morphology: The Focus System in German," in Talmy Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 12, Academic Press, New York.'  285 Appendix [Data]  -v^y £Ho#JC£> vnciF -y 7 u  o'J?L±.W%bZ*>ZX>bfrtz& 0 &^c\b&XVp<c?). 1  tw^x. *mizx-7'm%:<x. . A £ v^ £ £ XiXX  Hl^ra. 7 k £ £ L & # ^ - C » 9 > < fc . *  £ n ha h  >Vy (2^-fet3 <  fc  tt  ^•ftfrg&fc. & f c 3 y - T ' £ o $ 9 L * ; i ? f c £ o { 1 - £ - r . x-7" fcfcoUsOfcoT. ^ ^ y fc^ft£v^*£< 0/ittfc\ ^ < f t ^ ^ y ( O f e v a ^ o ^ : } : , i fc'fco&Tfc <£ < fcfrofcfc. 3  o £ 2"  fcAtiT^ott^tf^fc^v-y  $o#o4?i*jfc  i ^ ^ A ^ T . ± i l  t *> a CSDi a t o o  5  • e f i i f r f c i r ^ f c . t A & * > £ > h 3 < f l J o T * S £ L - £ f c £ . Tkfcfcgj; k ^ ^ t ^ t f i T t v ^ t S . fc t * j & * f c A # £ $ v ^ B f c : f l j o T .  #fc:fc$  Ltz  K) L%^X,  Z<7)&&X.  %.=¥-ttfrti<\Q>.X'X'b%  < W  It £ O .  *»^>*>ttr fc ^ o / c ^ .  ±fvk £B L T . <7) <£> iixfcffiLrfcv^T. fcfc^tffc;**fcAixTv^*:*), y ^ ^ y v - x ^ f f o t . JL^ASo&comb^.ti& £ fc fc'tw.  *b->X. &tt<r>&1fifrhh bco%s<.X3.te%'Z^tztbX.  ^ LT,  ftZXixX  <h ^tX^tztb.  .  vn^^fc' r i < ^ F 7 ? > i - fc fc r fcfcv^ Lfrr>tz*>.  v^o>£ A * I  [2]  *£-C3!5!«&&3S£ LfcV*i ^ * £ & £ o < * i B r « L*>fc^§tilf;£T'$&£^:k^o^ttfe*i£#> H ¥ r r £ o < £ d f c - ? £ > £ . H W f c v**tftf>bX,:lfc8i31*)»±5BJI"r. #tifc:L / , £ « o T V * f c t t * i f c * fc. v * & l i * £ # « ; f o i i - o ^ . fcfifcftfcliTo < 0 fcv^. ft<o*ni»<afcv*±»fc:fc&i'y$ 9 * r * i & < H i t , *fcl£« 0  B»»f L f c » T * B 3 L . f c * i - e f c S . eOfl-ti*£«-*ifc*fc r ^ j i 0 fc r  S S K - f S J S E f c : * < £ f c £ . *< fci: 9 » * > o f c f e i f c £ * T . «ajH* iii'*fa»fe=&ft-*«Sfc:i: 0 . * £ & - r . ± i i £ M £ a » < 0 M LXMm fcSBfcfc&ofci: A#fc£<0»3!&£A*U KSStfiS*.*: fe M»£A*iS . ^ t t ( D i O ? i * * « l ^ a * ^ - o t t ? i « t t i r - C - C * S j S i T .  T .fttf)I!itf>fMfc;£fifr^.M Bfc&£>&£>L T & ^ T . & < * J I ^ £ £ £ & v ^ f e T ' £ > & . ISli-fc^i artftf*. ifiv^fc^lft^ao ££Bift«"B  ft-fc^S J: afcfiSifcifc.SWSrAiiS tmv^i:v^||i*^rfc<7)te*s .  fc ofc=fc*Hi?frJ8*S v^(i^^LTfc# . jEflOfc^fc'MJKTfc ££^T^fc*£Sfcv*.  li^;bfefr< . ^fc'fcfcfc&^feft&o  287 [33 L£  r ^ E T ' ^ o T V ^ c / v f < . * ^ f c ^ * ^ B a ^ f f c 9 2r£r*B:fr L «t o . ^ • f ^ ^ T ' - f A T ^ ^ ^ 7 A J H * 1 * 7 7 1 l f (1 180 cc) < L>^XcotfL&^-. ^ ' { f t ' i i S r ^ & ^ f c ( t t < \^coX\ !  ££t.  < i <fcv > T A i i * - * . » ^ i f c « a 1 f * # *  9 £ > £ 9 A * i  9SK fcv^fcfrttT . HnUfcS t < o t ^ t , L*fct<7)±fc. V ^ j t / t i t ^ T < t l £ .  lilir  E H ^ O i 5 f c d ^ ( 2 . p&fc 0 L f c f c v > L W t f i f c \ #3fe{i# *S*>t>tf>T-*fc. ® £ < 7 ) * $ i i f c ' 5 ^ f c 5 : £ fc . ^HTJS'JT'. SC^m^fc fc§§^T'L J: o . # f B < 7 ) M t f ) f c d ^ f c f c ^ f c / - , . m & O f c 5 ^ f c { £ . 5  L * L i -5 .  L£L*:£3u T'L  7*y££c#. = + # f t f c * * s < fc  ^goiifcfc 3 ^ £  , *a**flj*iat. fc 3  j : 3 fc. W 9 3 r l * « F * S S * » ^ >  1-fe^^i  I£<S £> £ 9 * 9^LJ5£>fc  oat.  £12.  a  fc^Tv^fcT^ott^T'St^  £ J L L * : 4 > . i> 3 - 0 ^ < 7 ) * f c o t f T .  d 5 IBSfcfcv^-f.  i^^t.  « 8 < f c § . fcfc 3 0 > * f f t £ £ ! ^ T . S f c & f r & ^ l ^ j & H ^  ft«£T5tf>.Lfc:*;«£*IH£<flJoTs 3^3^-H2.  3 3 f c r « U  it^,  ±iifc1t$£  - A # f c * » = A f l " C t ± * fc d ^ S r f c - ^ D o t t  288  L # > U ©c\commii&fr£>  [4]  -e^T',  75^xfc*fc £ 1 \  fefc^.-C*>.  m ^ ^ ¥ t t 7 5 ? * £ $ v * 3 5 r £ fci-e  %  3ft»«  fc&frfcifcti  (A10) T * f e * > T * a L  ^ y t ^ C ^ v ^ f ,  mtb&Mizyyvx*x <mr>xmti*&b  t=*5*»fe-Ct.  t-t.  0£v*<  ftofcfe$££-f£ # y £ # - y 7 " l  £fefcBb^JfcI T .  %  tTfc< i  t\z.  £fc £  IP^fc^-e. ± < X  <®frLXXti  ^2# (^J35^r> A ) c / ^ n y n - v  < fcn-fcfci^-c. ^ ^ f c y ^ ^ x ^ A f L . \Zt#ycD\Q-frmteM:^mfrzfJ±^&ZlZbbX.  a  tzz--?fr$£bLX  .  ftfc<7)204Hi. fc £ fc'££>£ £ * > l - T \ *ffi*»fe^* SS±fe=SrV^ J: 3 t » * o { t 5 § f f i t t . < D i 3 U , 3 0 # L f c f e & 9 f c ' L . *-C*9> s  •t#*t.  titftti.  t f o < D t S < t>^fc£.<&tfX'&-tW*  r a t . afcfe^T'^-t.  M@^»9>t<'k  mzt*v-mLxi»hmm*xtix.  -fe^y^^xfc^r 9 £ L f c .  -v-ytm  1&<z>llwr*a»Wfci>cottzft^z fc .  289  [53  *#»±v**SJKfc:.i.i-*&B8tt-6.  o J t i a ^ i S l f r ^ H ,  m*b-i. fc # te. i » t 4 l : j a ^ H 5 ^ t , ^tiOJBcJgfrferE. E  x3\<. ±£)?£*m^fc.frtr. ®fr£.m#>h. ®  S ffl  TJ  li  11TJ 0) 38tf>t& #  * "T i l WT i  ^ 5 I P f c J £ L < ^ - ^ 9 . £ * > ± « fc  #fcte.  V  * <o t? £> £ .  £^'M^£tA§'fc!g  S . <r<?)fc # H * » f e ± < ? ) * » { i . < i * S & v ^ J : a fcL. MJ£co*»*»fc fc  [Observations] Sample (1):  After the description of the rough procedure for  each dish, the dish is referred to by ko. Sample (2):  The main topic is (sake no) zoom'.  Ko 1 — kono zooni 2 — kore = sanpei-ziru  (sake no zooni)  3 — kono sakana -> sake  290 Sample (3): Ko  1 ..."miso " i s the main concern 2 ...the topic is shifted to momen-doohu 3 ...dengaku is the topic of the whole paragraph 4 ...miso is now being focused; miso is the essential factor of dengaku Sample (4): Ko  1 — kono burausu (the focused object of the dyeing procedure). 2 — koko e  3 — koo-site  These referents are in certain stages  4 — kore ga  of the procedure  5 —  Sample (5):  koo-site  The procedure is s t r i c t l y temporal-linear order in this case, and ko refers to a certain point of such a procedure to add the comment.  In this kind of  typical procedural discourse, the reader follows the procedure w i t h some v i s u a l i z a t i o n of what he is doing.  

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.831.1-0100456/manifest

Comment

Related Items