Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Article (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
Language
- English (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Japanisch (6) (remove)
In Japanese, as in other classifier languages like Chinese and Malay, numerals do not directly quantize nouns, but first combine with a classifier to form a measure phrase (MP; cf. Aikhenvald 2000). From the perspective of constraint-based approaches to syntax/semantics, the mutual selective restriction between classifiers and nouns can be stated in terms of information-sharing and featural identity, to some extent parallel to the treatment of gender/number agreement (between determiner and noun, for instance) (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994; Kathol 1999). There are, however, data that challenge this line of approach to noun-classifier matching. We demonstrate in this paper that it is possible that a single noun is associated with different types of classifier, and show why they are problematic for unification-based approaches, similar to the situation with case syncretism in European languages (Ingria 1990 and others). Later in the paper, we argue that information-sharing between noun, predicate and classifier is not completely transitive, and present a formal analysis which models multiple selectional requirements with sets.
It is generally accepted among psycholinguists that real-time human sentence processing proceeds incrementally from left to right. Recently proposals have been made in the domain of syntax to reduce phenomena which have hitherto been accounted for in terms of linguistic performance to linear structures given at the level of competence. Keeping in line with this tendency in research, this paper tries to reestablish the much discussed relationship between the two aspects of language, competence and performance: the issue of processing difficulty dependent on sorts of multiple clause embedding is addressed by incorporating into HPSG a mechanism reflecting left-to-right processing and memory costs calculated at each processing step.
In this paper I develop a unified analysis of the Japanese passive, which provides a uniform syntactic/semantic representation of the alleged varieties of passives (direct, indirect, possessive) as a complex predicate that encodes the triadic relation of "lack of control" among an agent, undergoer and event. Various differences among the direct, possessive, and indirect passives (the adversative effect implicature, the possibility of reflexive binding, the animacy constraint on the subject, etc.) are explained as cooperative effects of the core syntactic/sematic properties of the passive morpheme -(r)are and functional/pragmatic factors like conversational implicature and empathy constraints.
While both Japanese and English have a grammatic al form denoting the progressive, the two forms (te-iru & be+ing) interact differently with the inherent semantics of the verb to which they attach (Kindaichi, 1950; McClure, 1995; Shirai, 2000). Japanese change of state verbs are incompatible with a progressive interpretation, allowing only a resultative interpretation of V+ te-iru, while a progressive interpretation is preferred for activity predicates. English be+ing denotes a progressive interpretation regardless of the lexical semantics of the verb. The question that arises is how we can account for the fact that change of state verbs like dying can denote a progressive interpretation in English, but not in Japanese. While researchers such as Kageyama (1996) and Ogihara (1998, 1999) propose that the difference lies in the lexical semantics of the verbs themselves, others such as McClure (1995) have argued that the difference lies in the semantics of the grammatical forms, be+ing and te-iru. We present results from an experimental study of Japanese learners’ interpretation of the English progressive which provide support for McClure’s proposal. Results indicate that independent of verb type, learners had significantly more difficulty with the past progressive. We argue that knowledge of L2 semantics-syntax correspondences proceeds not on the basis of L1 lexical semantic knowledge, but on the basis of grammatical forms.
S.R. Ramsey writes (1979: 162): "The patterning of tone marks in Old Kyoto texts divides the vocabulary into virtually the same classes as those arrived at by comparing the accent distinctions found in the modern dialects. This means that the Old Kyoto dialect had a pitch system similar to that of proto-Japanese. The standard language of the Heian period may not actually be the ancestor of all the dialects of Japan, but at least as far as the accent system is concerned, it is close enough to the proto system to be used as a working model. The significance of this fact is important: It means that each of the dialects included in the comparison has as much to tell, at least potentially, as any other dialect about Old Kyoto accent."
In her discussion of the Japanese adversative passive, Anna Wierzbicka writes (1988: 260): “The problem is extremely interesting and important both for intrinsic reasons and because of its wider methodological implications. It can be formulated like this: if one form can be used in a number of different ways, are we entitled to postulate for it a number of different meanings or should we rather search for one semantic common denominator (regarded as the MEANING of the form in question) and attribute the variety of uses to the interaction between this meaning and the linguistic or extralinguistic context?” Though it “may seem obvious” that the second stand is “methodologically preferable” (261), she takes the first position and concludes that “the Japanese passive has to be recognized as multiply ambiguous” (286). In the following I intend to show that this view is both wrong and fruitful.