Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:46:25.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit Arguments in Japanese Potentials and Resultatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Wako Tawa  and
Mineharu Nakayama
Wako Tawa
Affiliation:
Amherst College
Mineharu Nakayama
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many, if not all, languages possess syntactic constructions in which covert arguments, often referred to as “implicit arguments”, are required. While the implicit arguments in Western languages have received considerable attention, the study of the same topic in non-Western languages such as Japanese has been neglected. In this article, the nature of the implicit arguments of the potential and resultative constructions in Japanese is investigated. A detailed examination reveals that the implicit AGENTs in these two constructions differ in terms of the specificity of their reference, which in turn suggests that the representations of the two types of implicit arguments reflect this difference. It is argued that the implicit AGENT of the potential construction should be analyzed as proarb while that of the resultative construction is realized as pro.

Résumé

Résumé

La majorité, sinon l’ensemble, des langues comportent des constructions syntaxiques dans lesquelles la présence d’arguments non-réalisés lexicalement, que l’on désigne souvent sous l’appellation «arguments implicites», est requise. Alors que l’étude des arguments implicites dans les langues occidentales a reçu une grande attention, celle de ce sujet dans les langues non-occidentales tel que le japonais a été négligée. Cet article se penche plus particulièrement sur l’étude de la nature des arguments implicites des constructions potentielles et résultatives du japonais. L’examen détaillé de ces constructions révèle que les AGENTs implicites de ces deux constructions diffèrent en termes de la spécificité de leur référence, ce qui à son tour suggère l’existence d’une différence dans la représentation de ces deux types d’arguments implicites. Il est argumenté que l’AGENT implicite de la construction potentielle devrait être analysé comme proarb alors que celui de la construction résultative se réalise comme pro.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 423 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive Arguments Raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20:219–251.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael, and Manzini, M. Rita. 1988. On Implicit Arguments. In In Mental Representation: The Interface Between Language and Reality, ed. Kempson, Ruth M., 105–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel. 1984. Quantifier-pro and the LF Representation of PROarb . Linguistic Inquiry 15:499–504.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1993. Syntactic Predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2:167–211.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Huang, C.T. James. 1984. On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15:531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, C.T. James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, ed. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Kenneth J., 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ijima, Masahiro. 1991. Kanoobun no tasooteki-bunseki. In Nihongo no Voice to Tadoosei, ed. Nita, Yoshio, 149–189. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Inoue, Kazuko. 1985. On Implicit Agent in Japanese. In Reports on Japanese Grammar, ed. Kazuko, Inoue, 29–36. Tokyo: International Christian University.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Roeper, Thomas. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15:381–416.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1983. What Can Japanese Say About Government and Binding. In Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Barlow, Michael, Flickinger, Daniel P., and Wescoat, Michael T., 153–164. Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Masaru. 1990. Japanese as a pro Language. In Bunpoo to Imi no Aida: Kunihiro Tetsuya Kyooju Kanreki Taikan Kinen Ronbunshuu, ed. Iinkai, Bunshuu Henshuu, 61–91. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Mineharu, and Tawa, Wako. 1988. Implicit Argument: Evidence from Passives and Potentials in Japanese. In Proceedings of Japanese Syntax Workshop: Issues on Empty Categories, ed. Tawa, Wako and Nakayama, Mineharu, 9–38. New London, Conn.: Connecticut College.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Mineharu, and Tawa, Wako. 1995. Implicit Arguments in Japanese Direct Passives. Ms., Ohio State University and Amherst College.Google Scholar
Okada, Hisami. 1989. Analysis of Two Types of Potential Construction in Japanese. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:501–558.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1986. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18:267–310.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1988. Comments on Nakayama and Tawa’s Paper: Questions about Representation in Implicit Arguments. In Proceedings of Japanese Syntax Workshop: Issues on Empty Categories, ed. Tawa, Wako and Nakayama, Mineharu, 39–49. New London, Conn.: Connecticut College.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1987. The Syntactic Projection of Lexical Thematic Structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5:561–601.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1991. Evaluative Predicates and the Representation of Implicit Arguments. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 99–131. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Case Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical Relations and Surface Cases. Language 54:789–809.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1983. Proarb. Linguistic Inquiry 14:188–191.Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A Configurational Approach to Case Marking. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no Syntax to Imi I. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and the Subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:297–315.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1987. Implicit Arguments, the Binding Theory, and Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5:151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1991. The Argument-Bound Empty Categories. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 77–98. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Noriko. 1992. Scrambling and Anaphora in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar