Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
In this article, I argue for the existence of a complex predicate containing negation in the form of [[V-Neg]-V]. If Neg is a functional category, this will falsify the prohibition against syntactic verb incorporation that picks up a... more
In this article, I argue for the existence of a complex predicate containing negation in the form of [[V-Neg]-V]. If Neg is a functional category, this will falsify the prohibition against syntactic verb incorporation that picks up a functional head to reach a lexical head, or the Principle of Lexical Integrity, which in effect prohibits merger of any functional category within a complex word or any application of syntactic operation (movement or deletion) that targets part of a complex word. It will be argued, however, that these complex predicates are not considered bona-fide counterexamples to these hypotheses or principles of word formation because negation in Japanese can be a lexical adjective. Moreover, in cases where negation behaves as functional category, I argue that the lexical verb that selects the negation is grammaticalized to an aspectual functional category. The assumptions regarding the syntactic ambiguity of negation and grammaticalization will help us understand how complex predicates expand their host class and ultimately transform into a fullfledged construction. This will also shed light on the issue of whether and how some complex predicates can retain their lexical properties after the entire construction has been grammaticalized. The bidirectional change toward grammaticalization and lexicalization can be understood from a 'constructionalization' viewpoint.
In this article, we will show that minimizers in Japanese, which are originally used as Negative Polarity Items (NPI) in a negative context, can sometimes behave as focus markers when they are used postnominally. We will first review the... more
In this article, we will show that minimizers in Japanese, which are originally used as Negative Polarity Items (NPI) in a negative context, can sometimes behave as focus markers when they are used postnominally. We will first review the previous syntactic analysis of minimizers in English made by Tubau (2016). Then, we will propose a revised syntactic analysis of the Japanese minimizers, on the basis of newly discovered synchronic and diachronic facts, arguing that the usage of the Japanese minimizers as focus markers has been developed as a result of grammaticalization as Upward Reanalysis (Roberts and Roussou (2003)) along the nominal spine.
In Japanese, Nominative Case on a subject in an adnominal clause can alternate with Genitive Case under limited syntactic and semantic conditions, a fact called “Nominative/Genitive Conversion” (NGC). Harada (1971) showed that the range... more
In Japanese, Nominative Case on a subject in an adnominal clause can alternate with Genitive Case under limited syntactic and semantic conditions, a fact called “Nominative/Genitive Conversion” (NGC). Harada (1971) showed that the range of possible environments for NGC was narrowing and identified two different idiolects distinguished only in terms of the ages of the speakers. This article reviews corpus data from Ogawa (2016) to show that this diachronic change is still in progress. Next, within the minimalist framework, we argue that this ongoing change can be explained under the hypothesis that the syntactic size of a Genitive subject clause has been shrinking over the last 100 years, probably due to the decline in the frequency of such Genitive subjects and the Minimal Structure Principle (MSP) (Bošković 1997) operating during language acquisition. We make a prediction about the different acceptability ratings by native speakers of different age groups for adjectival and nominal...
Every linguistic theory has dealt with language change in one way or another. Among others, generative syntax, under the Principles and Parameters Theory since Chomsky (1981), has attributed the linguistic typology to a set of parameters... more
Every linguistic theory has dealt with language change in one way or another. Among others, generative syntax, under the Principles and Parameters Theory since Chomsky (1981), has attributed the linguistic typology to a set of parameters that are incidental to the universal grammar and whose values are to be fixed within four or five years after birth. Alongside, language changes have been assumed to be triggered by a change in the value of a relevant parameter, as Lightfoot (1991) argues. Such a parametric theory of language change is argued against by functional linguists such as Joan Bybee. Thus, Bybee (2015) argues that given a parametric change, any diachronic language change must have occurred abruptly in the grammar, which is in conflict with the actual tendency of language change:
Since Vendler (1967) classified verbs into four semantic types, that is, states, activities, accomplishments and achievements, two major streams of theorizing this classification have been proposed. In one stream, Hale and Keyser (1993),... more
Since Vendler (1967) classified verbs into four semantic types, that is, states, activities, accomplishments and achievements, two major streams of theorizing this classification have been proposed. In one stream, Hale and Keyser (1993), Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998), and Kageyama (1996) propose that different verb meanings should be represented on their lexical semantic representations, a ‘submodule’ of the language faculty, with the basic assumption that the linguistically relevant information is projected from the lexicon, by a set of linking rules. In the other stream, the linguists of the minimalist syntax persuasion, including Mateu and Rigau (2002), Zubizarreta and Oh (2007), and Ramchand (2008), have explored a view of the architecture of grammar whereby the lexicon is eliminated as a module with its own special primitives and modes of combination, and argued for a syntactic representation of these basic classifications of verb meaning. A...
As for the morphosyntactic size of a compound, it has occasionally been suggested that some of the N-N compounds can be larger than derived words but are smaller than phrases (Allen (1978), Giegerich (2005)) or that some of the V-V... more
As for the morphosyntactic size of a compound, it has occasionally been suggested that some of the N-N compounds can be larger than derived words but are smaller than phrases (Allen (1978), Giegerich (2005)) or that some of the V-V compound are words, while others are phrases (Kageyama (1993, 2001), Nishiyama (1998)). However, exactly how large each compound is remains controversial, partly because their nature is synchronically variable in terms of phonology, morphology, syntax, and/or semantics. In relation to this problem, there has been a long-standing issue of which of morphology and syntax should deal with the internal structure of these two types of compound and others. Here arises a set of reciprocative discussions between the lexicalists and anti-lexicalists over the data that belong to morphosyntax, and yet no settlement has been reached so far, because both types of approach have as much defects as merits. With these problems recalcitrant to a synchronic analysis in mind, I will shed a diachronic perspective on them. More specifically, this article launches a simple hypothesis that the morphosyntactic size of a compound tends to be diachronically enlarged from the domain of morphology to that of syntax, as is known by the names such as demorphologization and/or constructionalization. I will collect relevant data from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) and the literature on the traditional Japanese linguistics. Then, I will provide a morphosyntactic analysis of the diachronic generalization, in terms of two outstanding syntactic theories: Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz (1993), Marantz (1997)) and Cartography (Cinque (2003, 2006)). Three kinds of data presented in support of the above hypothesis are: (i) the demorphologization of many combining forms including-phobia,-holic, psycho-, techno-, their reanalysis as independent words, and their development as N-N compounds, (ii) the emergence of the resultative construction from the corresponding V-A form in English, and (iii) the development of the syntactic V-V compounds from the lexical V-V compounds such as kami-kiru 'bite-cut' and yomi-kiru 'read-cut' in the history of Japanese (Aoki (2010)). I will argue that these three types of diachronic changes are the instances of what I call ''syntactic constructionalization'' at the so-called ''word'' level, the VP/vP-level, and the AspectP-level, respectively.
In English, there are a couple of words whose categorial status is murky, the most notable of which is near. It is sometimes referred to as a preposition (Svenonius (2010)), as a transitive adjective (Maling (1983)), or as an intransitive... more
In English, there are a couple of words whose categorial status is murky, the most notable of which is near. It is sometimes referred to as a preposition (Svenonius (2010)), as a transitive adjective (Maling (1983)), or as an intransitive adjective whose PP complement happens to be filled by an empty P (Kayne (2005)). The first aim of this article is to show that the three analyses are all correct synchronically in that they represent a different stage of grammaticalization on the cline from transitive adjective to intransitive adjective to preposition, on the basis of the newly discovered fact (i) that the semantic gradability of near began a sharp declination from the late 19th century, (ii) that its morphological compatibility with the preposition to also began a sharp declination from the same period, and (iii) that its collocation with the adverb right became possible around the same period, among others. The second aim of this article is to provide a syntactic analysis of the grammaticalization of near, with recourse to the insights put forth by Waters (2009) as to the grammaticalization of inside from N to Axial Part to P.
Japanese V-V compounds have two structures of head-head and complement-head, and both types show atransitivity, where the internal argument(s) of a transitive or ditransitive verb are not realized. There are two independent reasons for... more
Japanese V-V compounds have two structures of head-head and complement-head, and both types show atransitivity, where the internal argument(s) of a transitive or ditransitive verb are not realized. There are two independent reasons for atransitivity. One is the clause structure where the internal argument is not licensed by a verb but by a functional head, in accordance with the recent constructionist hypothesis. The other is auxiliation, a process in which a lexical verb is reanalyzed as an auxiliary. This insight roots in traditional grammar of Japanese, and we translate the insight in current theoretical terms. Depending on the subtype of compound, head-head compounds do or do not show the harmony of transitivity between the two items of the compound, and we offer an analysis of it in terms of the auxiliation of the second verb of the compound.