Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:24:27.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of variable behavior verbs: Experimental evidence from the accusative–oblique alternations in Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2019

SHIN FUKUDA
SHIN FUKUDA*
Affiliation:
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
*
Author’s address: Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 1890 East-West Rd., Honolulu, HI 96822, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Japanese has two types of two-place motion verbs whose ‘objects’ can be marked as either accusative or oblique (accusative–oblique alternations). The accusative–goal verbs mark their objects with accusative case -o or the goal marker -ni, and the accusative–source verbs mark their objects with accusative -o or the source marker -kara. Previous studies describe systematic differences in the interpretation of the arguments of these verbs and the events they denote between the two structures. This study argues that these alternating verbs are variable behavior verbs that are linked to two distinct syntactic structures. The core evidence for this claim comes from the results of two acceptability judgment experiments with Japanese native speakers that examined: (i) selectional restrictions on the subjects of the alternating verbs and (ii) the ability of their subjects to license ‘floating’ numeral quantifiers. The results of the experiments demonstrate that the accusative–source verbs alternate between the transitive and unaccusative structures, whereas the accusative–goal verbs consistently behave like transitive verbs but assign two different structural cases to their objects. Thus, the study shows that there are multiple ways in which two-place motion verbs are mapped onto distinctive syntactic structures, whereby the core meaning of the verbs and their syntactic structures together determine their interpretation.

Keywords

argument realizationexperimental syntaxJapaneseunaccusativityvariable behavior verbs
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , 01 April 2020 , pp. 269 - 314
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Many thanks to Ivano Caponigro, James Collins, Kamil Deen, Grant Goodall, Julie Jiang, Masha Polinsky, Bonnie Schwartz, Jon Sprouse, and members of the audience at the EALL talk at University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa in Fall 2018, for helpful comments and discussions. I am also grateful to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees and Kersti Börjars, the editor of Journal of Linguistics, for their helpful comments and suggestions that significantly imporved this paper. Special thanks are due to Yuki Hirose, who kindly allowed me to run the experiments whose results are reported in this study with her students. All remaining errors are of course my own.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The properties of anti-causatives crosslinguistically. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 187–211. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Benedicto, Elena & Runner, Jeffry (eds.), Functional projections (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17), 19–48. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of prediction. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Geuder, Wilhelm. 1998. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
de Swart, Peter, Lamers, Monique & Lestrade, Sander. 2008. Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin M.2006. The syntactic and semantic roots of floating quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Kempchinsky, Paula & Slabakova, Roumyana (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v . Linguistic Inquiry 38, 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2008. Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118, 190–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Ramchand, Gillian. 2005. Prepositions and results in Italian and English: An analysis from event decomposition. In Verkyul, Henk J., de Swart, Peter & van Hout, Angeliek (eds.), Perspectives on aspect, 81–105. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Shin. 2012. Aspectual verbs as functional heads: Evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30, 965–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Semantic structure and semantic content. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1986. Some transitivity alternations in English (Lexicon Project Working Paper 7). Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1992. The syntactic character of thematic structure. In Roca (ed.), 107–144.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: A Festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger, 53–108. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harada, S.-I. 1973. Counter Equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 7, 113–147. [Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In Miyagawa & Saito (eds.), 20–53.Google Scholar
Harly, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalization and the syntax of vP. In Giannakidou, Anastasia & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Quantification, definiteness and nominalization, 321–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v . Lingua 125, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternation. In Comrie, Bernard & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘Degree Achievements’. In Mathews, Tanya & Strolovitch, Devon (eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX (SALT 9), 127–144. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Spelling out the double-oconstraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28, 723–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta structure. In Roca (ed.), 145–174.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7, 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, Yasuo. 1999. A note on floating quantifiers in Japanese. In Muraki, Masatake & Iwamoto, Enoch (eds.), Linguistics: In search of the human mind, 236–267. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, W. M. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1998. The structure of extended nominal phrases: The scrambling of numerals, approximate numerals, and quantifiers in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Fujii, Hideo. 1999. Transitivity alternations in Japanese. In Pylkkänen, Liina, van Hout, Angelika & Harley, Heidi (eds.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon (MIT Working Papers on Linguistics 35), 87–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1993. Numeral classifier phrases inside DP and the specificity effect. In Choi, Soonja (ed.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 3, 171–186. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. On external arguments. In Benedicto, Elena & Runner, Jeffry (eds.), Functional projections (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17), 103–130. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zariing, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published by Garland, 1979]Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Bruun & Bojesen Christensen, Rune Haubo. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models (R package version 2.0-30). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/lmerTest.pdf (accessed 9 July 2018).Google Scholar
Legate, Julie. A. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88, 495–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie. A. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Achenese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2004. Event paths, conflation, argument structure, and VP shells. Linguistics 42, 523–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihara, Ken-ichi. 1998. Suuryooshi renketsu koobun-to “kekka”-no gan’i [Quantifier linking construction and the implication of ‘resultative’]. Gengo6, 86–95; 7, 94–102; 8, 104–113.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989a. Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 362–367.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989b. Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1994. (S)aseas an elsewhere causative. Program of the Conference on Theoretical Linguistics and Japanese Language Teaching, Tsuda University, 61–76.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1998. (S) aseas an elsewhere causative and the syntactic nature of words. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16, 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and Korean. In Vance, Timothy J. & Jones, Kimberly (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 270–282. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Case, argument structure, and word order. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Arikawa, Koji. 2007. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Babyonyshev, Maria. 2004. The EPP, unaccusativity, and the resultative constructions in Japanese (Scientific Approaches to Language No. 3). Kanda: Center for Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Saito, Mamoru (eds.). 2008. The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007. Measurement in the nominal and verbal domain. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2008. Syntax and semantics of floating numeral quantifiers. In Miyagawa & Saito (eds.), 287–319.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Mineharu & Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1991. Remarks on Japanese subjects. Lingua 85, 303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 4, 157–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William. 1981. The ‘double-o constraint’: Evidence for a direct object relation in Japanese. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt & Geuder (eds.), 97–134.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/(accessed 9 July 2018).Google Scholar
Ritter, Elisabeth & Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In Butt & Geuder (eds.), 135–164.Google Scholar
Roca, Iggy M. 1992. Thematic structure: Its role in grammar. Berlin: De Gruiter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi & Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson & Sprouse, Jon. 2013. Judgment data. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyan (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Semantics of Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9, 327–373.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativization. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Japanese generative grammar (Syntax and Semantics 5), 239–244. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53, 789–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76, 859–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugamoto, Nobuko. 1982. Transitivity and objecthood in Japanese. In Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Studies in transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15), 423–447. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2008. Ditransitive constructions. In Miyagawa & Saito (eds.), 423–455.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2011. Double complement unaccusatives in Japanese: Puzzles and implications. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no Sintakusu to Imi I [Japanese syntax and semantics I]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990a. Ergativity of nouns and case assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 277–287.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990b. The unaccusative hypothesis and noun classification. Linguistics 28, 929–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994. Unaccusative mismatches and resulative in Japanese. In Koizumi, Masatoshi & Ura, Hiroyuki (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24), 335–354. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. Another look at Unaccusative mismatches in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 22, 400–416.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. Jr. & Wilkins, David P.. 1996. The case for effector: Case roles, agents and agency revisited. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hideaki. 2001. EPP and the ordering effects on interpretation: A preliminary study. Nanzan Nihongo Kyooiku [Nanzan studies in Japanese language education] 8, 300–338.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hideaki. 2002. Is verb raising necessary for A-scrambling in Japanese? In Endo, Yoshio, Martin, Roger & Yamashita, Hideaki (eds.), Working Papers in Biolinguistics 1: Papers in Syntax and Semantics, 99–116. Yokohama: Biolinguistics Association at Yokohama National University (BAY).Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hideaki. 2006. A-type movement in Japanese and the EPP. In Yim, Changguk (ed.), Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG) 8, 333–352. Seoul: Hankuk Universiry of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Yatsushiro, Kazuko. 1999. Case licensing and VP structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fukuda supplementary material

Fukuda supplementary material 1

Download Fukuda supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB