Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:58:31.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morpho-semantic bracketing paradox and compositionality: The implications of the sized inalienable possession construction in Japanese1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2013

KAZUHIKO FUKUSHIMA
KAZUHIKO FUKUSHIMA*
Affiliation:
Kansai Gaidai University
*
Author's address: Kansai Gaidai University16-1 Nakamiya Higashino-cho Hirakata-shi, Osaka 573-1001, Japan[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One challenge to lexical (or, more specifically, morphological) integrity – and more generally to compositionality of meaning – is bracketing paradox. Sized inalienable possession (SIP) in Japanese (e.g. ko-kubi ‘small-neck’ in [VP [NPko-kubi-o] kasigeru] ‘small-neck-acc tilt’) is an instance of bracketing paradox where morphological bracketing (such as above) and semantic bracketing (below) conflict with each other. Specifically, a prefix like ko- above acts as an adverbial modifier for a VP, not as a nominal modifier (i.e. [VP slightly (ko) [VP neck tilt]] ‘tilt one's neck slightly’). It is proposed that: (a) syntactically, an SIP expression and its ‘host’ verb are collocationally dependent, and (b) Semantically, either argument or adjunct SIP expressions are Montagovian functors. They take (or act upon) a predicate meaning as an argument to give rise to an appropriate interpretation. This has the effect of confining the unusual adverbial modification within SIP expressions. Without additional stipulations, the current proposal solves hitherto unnoticed empirical problems faced by previous syntactic accounts. In doing so, it avoids employing mechanisms contradicting morphological integrity, namely LF movement of a bound morpheme or co-indexing a word-internal element. Thus, at least in the domain of SIP, the current approach enables us to remain faithful to morphological integrity. A broader issue touched upon here is how compositional semantics is accomplished when it is superficially violated as above. This paper shows that strict adherence to iconicity between syntax and semantics is by no means a necessity for compositional semantics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 91 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of this paper were presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics 2003, the Chicago Linguistics Society 40, the Kansai Linguistic Society 28, a Kansai Lexicon Project meeting, the 10th Korea-Japan Workshop for Linguistics and Language Processing, the 44th Meeting of Societas Linguistica Europaea, the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics 9, and Les Deécembrettes 8. Many thanks to the audiences of the meetings for their input. The paper also benefited from intimate interactions at colloquia hosted by International Christian University, Waseda University, and Kobe University. I am grateful to individual contributions of Farrell Ackerman, Mark Aronoff, Daisuke Bekki, Olivier Bonami, Joan Bresnan, Dunstan Brown, Alastair Butler, Brent de Chene, Jae-Woong Choe, Bernard Fradin, Takao Gunji, Junko Hibiya, Hajime Hoji, Ikumi Imani, Brian Joseph, Taro Kageyama, Hans Kamp, Chiharu Kikuta, Jong-Bok Kim, Hideki Kishimoto, Laurence Labrune, Terry Langedoen, Keiko Murasugi, Kentaro Nakatani, Norio Nasu, Dick Oehrle, Sadayuki Okada, Masaki Sano, Yutaka Sato, Tomoyuki Yoshida, Kei Yoshimoto, and Yoko Yumoto. In addition, comments, suggestions, and criticisms from three referees for Journal of Linguistics are highly appreciated. I am alone responsible for the shortcomings that may be found in this paper. This project grew out of my attempt to solve an exercise problem found in Keitairon-to Imi [Morphology and meaning] (1999) by Professor Kageyama. I hope that this paper lives up to his expectations.

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Farrell & Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris & Jacobson, Pauline. 2007a. Introduction: Direct compositionality. In , Barker & , Jacobson (eds.), 1–19.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris & Jacobson, Pauline (eds). 2007b. Direct compositionality (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph & Stechow, Arnim von (eds.). 1993. Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berline: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bekki, Daisuke. 2010. Ko-mimi-ni hasam-u: Setuzikuriage to katakuriage bunseki [Insert into one's ear: Affix-raising vs. type-raising analyses]. Proceedings of the 140th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 140–145.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio IV, 163–178.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max. 1985. Adverbial modification. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Daijisen [Large fountain of words]. 2006. Tokyo: Shoggakan.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967/1980. Essays in actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sciullo, Di, , Anne-Marie & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 2007. Compositionality as an empirical problem. In , Barker & , Jacobson (eds.), 23–101.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2004. Mismatches at the syntax–semantics interface. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) 2004, 119–139. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1979. Implicational reversal in natural language. In Guenthner, Franz & Schmidt, Siegfried J. (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages, 289–301. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1991. Phrase structure grammar, Montague semantics, and floating quantifiers in Japanese. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 581–628.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1993. Model theoretic semantics for Japanese floating quantifiers and their scope properties. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 213–228.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1998. Negation in the lexicon, not in NegP. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 34.1, 171–184.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1999a. Bound morphemes, coordination, and bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 35, 297–320.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1999b. A lexical comment on a syntactic topic. In , Levine & , Green (eds.), 199–222.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2002. Competence and performance revisited: The implications of social role terms in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 939–968.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2003. Verb-raising and numeral classifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bed- fellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12, 313–347.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. Lexical v–v compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs. syntax. Language 81, 568–612.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2007. Conspiracy of form and context for proper semantic interpretation: The implications of lonesome numeral classifiers in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 960–989.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2013. Montagovian Morphology: Direct compositionality and bound morphemes. Ms., Kansai Gaidai University.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao. 1987. Japanese phrase structure grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao. 1999. On lexicalist treatments of Japanese causatives. In , Levine & , Green (eds.), 119–160.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao & Hasida, Koiti. 1998. Topics in constraint-based grammar of Japanese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic structure. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Herman. 1987. Type change in semantics: The scope of quantification and coordination. In Klein, Ewan & van Benthem, Johan (eds.), Categories, polymorphism and unification, 96–119. Edinburgh: Center for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Herman. 1993. Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hendriks, Herman. 2001. Compositionality and model-theoretic interpretation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10, 29–48.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope, and c-comannd. In Horn, Laurence & Kato, Yasuhiro (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 115–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1995. Negative polarity and the dynamics of vertical inference. In Forget, Danielle, Hirschbüehler, Paul, Martineau, France & Rivero, María-Luisa (eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, 157–182. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 117–185.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Paycheck pronouns, Bach-Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8, 77–155.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2002. The (dis)organization of the grammar: 25 years. Linguistics and Philosophy 25, 601–626.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2012. Direct compositionality. In Werning, Markus, Hinzen, Wolfram & Machery, Edouard (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality, 109–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo M. V., with Partee, Barbara H.. 2011. Compositionality. In Benthem, Johan van & Meulen, Alice ter (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 2nd edn., 495–553. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo-to gokeisei [Grammar and word-formation]. Tokyo: Hitsuji.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1999. Keitairon-to imi [Morphology and meaning]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 2009. Isolate: Japanese. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 512–526. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. Nihongo hiteibun-no koozoo [The structure of negative sentences in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Kindaichi, Haruhiko. 1957. Nihongo [The Japanese language]. Tokyo: Iwanami.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2006. Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua 117, 247–288.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2008. On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44, 379–435.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. More on bracketing paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 177–183.Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 163–201.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 227–285.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke. 2007. The scope interpretation of complex predicates in Japanese: A unified lexicalist analysis. Journal of Linguistics 43, 489–530.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 2003. Complex predicates and predicate raising. Lingua 113, 447–480.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1980. On the notion ‘affective’ in the analysis of negative polarity items. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steve. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia M. (eds.). 1999. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Scalise, Sergio. 2006. The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio V, 7–32.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In , Bäeuerle et al. (eds.), 302–323.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher, Sag, Ivan A. & Iida, Masayo. 1999. The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In , Levine & , Green (eds.), 39–79.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and the logical form: A linguistically realistic theory. Language 58, 144–184.Google Scholar
McGloin, Naomi. 1976. Negation. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Japanese generative grammar (Syntax and Semantics 5), 371–419. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse- configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in English. In Hintikka, Kaarlo Jaakko Juhani, Moravcisk, Julius M. E. & Suppes, Patrick (eds.), Approaches to natural language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, 221–242. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Morita, Yoshiko. 2003. Quantificational prefixes in Japanese. Working Papers at Otsuma Women's University 35, 11–25.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003. Solving the brackting paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39, 275–325.Google Scholar
Nihon kokugo daijiten [Large-scale dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2006. Tokyo: Shoggakan.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara [H.] & Rooth, Mats. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguities. In , Bäuerle et al. (eds.), 361–383.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1985. Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 193–245.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press & Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 5, 205–259.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn.Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexicalist perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 277–325.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory of grammar. Language 64, 451–84.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. & Stalnaker, Robert C.. 1973. A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 195–220.Google Scholar
Uda, Chiharu. 1992. Complex predicates in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard & McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 67, 439–474.Google Scholar
Werning, Markus, Hinzen, Wolfram & Machery, Edouard. 2012. The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yuhara, Ichiro. 2008. A multimodular approach to case assignment in Japanese: A study of complex and stative predicates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1997. Three types of polarity. In Hamm, Fritz & Hinrichs, Erhard (eds.), Plurality and quantification (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy), 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar