THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT SUPPORT …pwd/sosc03.pdf · THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT...

Chapter 3

THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGESTHAT SUPPORT IT BY THEIR MERGERS:

JAPANESE1

1. IntroductionJapanese is a topic prominent SOV language. Predicate adjectives occur in

the final V position without a copula (as in [1]), and when they are intended ina modifying CLASSIFICATION sense, they are positioned before their modifiedpartner (as in [2]) (Kuno 1978.66):

(1) Taroo ga mada waka-i[Taroo still young-Pres]‘Taroo is still young’

(2) Waka-i hito ga ki-ta[young-Pres person come-Past]‘The young person came’

The postpositions ga (cf. [1] & [2]) and wa (cf. [3] below]) are the much-discussed Japanese ‘subject’ and ‘topic’ markers, respectively. The postposi-tion o generally marks patients; and ni marks recipients and locations (amongother uses). Cf. Davis 1990 for a general interpretation of their senses (inwhich ga is not ‘subject’, and in which ni is a marker of PERIPHERAL content).

2. The use of no: relative clauses and adjectivesJapanese restrictive relative clauses look much like adjectival clauses. The

modifying restrictive relative clause is preposed to its syntactic head andretains its grammatical accoutrements; it lacks the equivalent of the Englishrelative pronoun and “the verb form that appears at the end of a relative clauseis identical with that of a sentence-final verb” (Kuno 1973.146, 234 & 235):

1 I would like to thank Jack Wiedrick for comments on this chapter.

52 THE SEMANTICS OF SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY

(3) (a) John wa hon o yon-da[John book read-Past]‘John read the book’

(b) John wa,yon-dahon o katazuke-ta[ read-Past book put.away-Past]‘John put away the book that he read’

(4) (a) Watakusi ga Mary o sit-te iru[I know-Gerund Copula]‘I know Mary’

(b) Watakusi ga sit-te iru Mary[I know-Gerund Copula ]‘the Mary that I know’

Kuno (1973.30-31) describes Japanese ‘verbs’ as ‘actions’ and not ‘states’;and in the present tense, verbs are felt as indicating a semantically future time(Kuno 1973.136-37). To express a present time, e.g. ‘knows’ in (4), “actionverbs must be followed by i-ru ‘be in the state of’” (Kuno 1973.30). Thus, wehave (5) (Kuno 1973.137 & 146):

(5) (a) John ga kono hon o yom-u[ that book read-Pres]‘John will read this book’

(b) John wa,yom-u hon o katazuke-ta[ read-Presbook put.aside-Past]‘John put aside the book that he was about to read’

Relative clauses take two distinctive shapes, but with no contrast betweenrestrictive and non-restrictive. Compare (3) - (5) with (6), which employs ano (Kuno 1973.73):2

2 Jack Wiedrick makes the following remarks about (6):

“This example is not necessarily a non-restrictive relative clause. Cp. this exchange:

A: dare ga itiban yoku dekiru daroo?who GA best well be.able probably‘I wonder, who does the best?’

JAPANESE 53

(6) Kono class no John ga yoku dekiru[this class well is-able]‘John, who is in this class, does well’

The dependent clauses in (3b), (4b), (5b), and (7) represent Type 1 non-restrictive relative clauses (Kuno 1973.235):

(7) Watakusi ni eigo o osie-te iru Mary[I English teach-GerundCopula ]‘Mary, who is teaching me English’

The relative clause in (6) is a Type 2 non-restrictive relative clause. Theelement no, which appears in (6), has a restrictive use, but it seems to be

B: sore wa Johndaroothat WA J. probably‘That would probably be John’

A: demo futari iru daroo? asa no kurasuno to ima nobut 2.person exist probably morningNO class NO andnowNO

kurasu noclass NO

‘But aren’t there two? One in the morning class, and one in (our) class now’

B: soo datta ka?thuswas ? ‘Oh, were there?’

A: soo da yo. dakara, doti?thusis EMPH therefore which‘Yes, there are. So, which one?’

B: kono kurasu no John ga yoku dekiruthis class NO J. GA well be.able‘The one in this class (is the one who) does best’

It seems as if Kuno simply wanted to make a point, and chose to see only theinterpretation that suited him. I [JW] personally feel that the English-type restrictive/non-restrictive contrast is one that doesn’t really apply to Japanese syntax. Consider:

gakusei no Johnstudent NO J.‘John, the student’‘John the student’‘the student, John’‘the student John’

How it should be glossed depends on the context in which you find it.”


limited to constructs involving numbers and classifiers (Kuno 1973.25):

(8) (a) ni-satu no hon[two-volume book]‘two books’

(b) ip-pai no mizu[one-cup water]‘a cup of water’

Kuno (1973.25. Cf. also Kuno 1973.74) says of such:

The no in these examples [i.e. (8)] is not the genitive particle no but the attributive

form of the copula da, which appears in ...

(i) John wa gakusei da

student is

‘John is a student’

(ii) gasukei no Johnstudent is

‘John, who is a student’

Compare (6) with (9), for example, in which the no is, apparently, the mark ofpossession (Kuno 1973.68):

(9) Kono class no danseiga yoku dekiru[this class ’s male well are-able]‘This class’s boys (and only they) do well’

The use with numbers and classifiers as in ‘two-volume book’ appears to bethe only restrictive use of no. Other uses pattern as does the non-restrictive(6). Candidates, which like (9), may expand no into a restrictive use aredeclared to be — like (9) — examples of the ‘genitive’ no. Except for thedistinction between John and dansei, the two sentences are identical, and wemight suppose that there is one syntactic form here, and not two. Recall Farsi -e; ‘the good horse’ and asb-e mard ‘the man’s horse’. Mandarinalso blends the possessive mark with the modificational: ‘the

JAPANESE 55

teacher’s car’ and ‘ the thief who is running’.3

2.1 Complementisers: the use of no and toThe shape no occurs still again as a ‘complementiser’ (This is Kuno’s

term.) along with to (Kuno 1973.213):

(10) (a) Watakusi wa John ga Mary o butu no o mi-ta[I hits see-Past]‘I saw John hitting Mary’

(b) *Watakusiwa John ga Mary o butu to mi-ta[I hits see-Past]

(11) (a) *John wa nihongo ga muzukasiino o it-ta[ Japanese difficult-is say-Past]

(b) John wa nihongo ga muzukasiito it-ta[ Japanese difficult-is say-Past]‘John said that Japanese is difficult’

According to Kuno (1973.213 & 215):

... no clauses represent an action, state, or event that the speaker presupposes to betrue, while the to clause represents an action, state, or event that does not havesuch a presupposition ... it is natural that to, which was originally a particle forreporting someone else’s statement, be used for representing an action, state, orevent about which the speaker has not made a presupposition.

The suggestion from this observation is that the relation of the contents of thePROPOSITIONS connected by the complementiser no is a tighter one than therelation between the contents of PROPOSITIONS connected by to.

The postposition no is used in the expression of possessives, adjectives,relative clauses, and as a complementiser. Kuroda (1976.270), in discussingcertain relative clause constructions using no,

3 Tsubomoto (1976.400) notes that in A no B combinations, where the sense is possessive,that

In genitive ‘A no B’ construction [sic], A is generally larger than B in the semanticdomain, as in nihon no Tokyo ‘Tokyo of Japan’ rather than *Tokyo no nihon ‘Japan ofTokyo.


(12) Taroo wa ringo sara no ue ni at-ta no o[Taroo apple plate on be-Past

tot-te, poketto ni ire-ta take-Gerund pocket put.in-Past]

‘Taroo picked up an apple which was on a plate and put it in apocket’

(13) ?Taroowa Hanako ga kinoo ringo o kat-ta noo[Taroo Hanako yesterday apple buy-Ger

tot-te, poketto ni ire-ta take-Gerund pocket put.in-Past]

‘Taroo picked up an apple which Hanako bought yesterday andput it in a pocket’

remarks that “it would be a piece of fortuitous good luck if one’s informantaccepted” (13).4 The difficulty seems to lie in the lack of connection betweenHanako’s buying an apple and Taroo’s picking it up and putting it in hispocket. The first act is irrelevant to the second and that relevancy is preciselywhat is required with/signalled by no (Kuroda 1976.270):

THE RELEVANCY CONDITION: For a headless relative clause to be acceptable, it is

necessary that it be interpreted pragmatically in such a way as to be directly relevant

to the pragmatic content of its matrix clause ... Note that in order for the above

justification for direct relevancy of ... [Ringo ga sara no ue ni atta ‘There was/were

an apple/apples on a plate/plates’] in ... [(12)] to be valid, it is necessary that ...

[Ringo ga sara no ue ni atta] be interpreted as ‘simultaneous with the time reference

of the matrix clause.

Tsubomoto (1981) extends the relevancy condition to the contrasts of (10) and(11) and also to the ‘cleft’-looking sentences of (14) (Tsubomoto 1981.396):

(14) (a) Ringo o tabe-ta no wa Taroo da[apple eat-Past Taroo be]‘It’s Taroo that ate an apple’

4 Jack Wiedrick remarks that “This sentence would work better rearranged and with a pauseadded”:

(i) Taroowa ringo, Hanako ga kinoo katta no o totte, poketto ni ireta.[T. WA apple H. GA yesterdayboughtNO Otakingpocket in inserted‘Taroo took the apple, that Hanako bought yesterday, and put it in his pocket’

JAPANESE 57

(b) *Ringo o tabe-ta to wa Taroo da[apple eat-Past Taroo be]‘It’s Taroo that ate an apple’

In (10), no succeeds because the speaker’s act of witnessing and the eventwhich is witnessed (John hitting Mary) can be amalgated as componentaspects of a larger occurrence.5 In (11), the speaker’s act of claiming and thefact that he claims (that Japanese is difficult) are unconnected; they share nocommon world, hence, no fails. The element to then marks the looser relationof (11), and it in turn fails in the tighter relationship between the events in(10). The common thread which unites the usages of no is expressed byTsubomoto (1981.395):

UNIFYING FUNCTION OF no:No unifies two propositions closely, as if they were one event

This broader interpretation is implied by Kuroda (1976.273) with hisexamples in (15):

(15) (a) Taroo wa Hanako ga osoikakat-te[Taroo Hanako approach.to.attack-Gerund

ki-ta no o nejihuse-tacome-Past floor.and.hold.down-Past]

‘Taroo floored and held down Hanako, who had approachedto attack’

(b) ?Taroowa Hanako ga harubaru tazunet-te[Taroo Hanako a.long.wayvisit-Gerund

ki-ta no o nejihuse-tacome-Past floor.and.hold.down-Past]

‘Taroo floored and held down Hanako, who had come a longway to visit him’

The problem with (15b) is that one cannot plausibly see Hanako’s coming along way to visit and Taroo’s flooring her and holding her down as reasonableaspects of a coherent whole (‘visit’ ... ‘floor.hold.down’); in (15a), thecoherency is apparent (‘approach.to.attack’ ... ‘floor.hold.down’). Therefore,

5 Both Tsubomoto (1981.393) and Kuroda would see simultaneity as the necessary conditionsupporting (10).


(15a) succeeds where (15b) does not.

2.2 A third complementiser: kotoA third complementiser koto is used in Japanese. It, like no, indicates that

the speaker presupposes its clause to be true (Kuno 1973.213 & 215-16):

(16) John wa Mary ga baka da to nagei-ta[ stupid is deplore-Past]‘John deplored that Mary was stupid’

In (16), phrased with to, Mary may or may not, in fact, be stupid; but in (17),the presence of koto implies that she indeed is:

(17) John wa Mary baka na koto o nagei-ta[ stupid is deplore-Past]‘John deplored that Mary was stupid’

Because the verbs hayaigattensita ‘formed a hasty conclusion’, itta 'said’,omotta ‘thought’, kangtigaisita ‘made the wrong guess’, and gokaisita‘formed the wrong notion’ identify events whose complements are necessarilyuncertain, they may appear only with to and not with koto nor no (Kuno1973.215 & 217). Further complementary and partially complementarydistrubutions of these complementisers exist (Kuno 1973.219-20):

Verbs of perception [e.g. ‘see’, ‘hear’, ‘feel’, etc.] can take only no clauses ...Verbs of ordering [e.g. ‘order’, ‘demand’, ‘ask’, ‘force’, etc. (Kuno 1973.220)]can take koto clauses, but not no clauses ... With verbs of expecting it ispereferable to use koto, but no and to are also acceptable.

The verb manabu ‘learn’ also requires koto while rejecting no and to (Kuno1973.214):

(18) (a) Watakusi wa nihongo ga muzukasiikoto o manan-da[I Japanese difficult learn-Past]‘I learned that Japanese is difficult’

(b) *Watakusiwa nihongo ga muzukasiino o manan-da

(c) *Watakusiwa nihongo ga muzukasiito o manan-da

JAPANESE 59

We can understand why (18b) is not acceptable; John’s learning, as an action,has nothing to do with the fact (or not) that Japanese is difficult. With respectto (18c), the verb manabu ‘learn’ conflicts with to precisely in the way verbssuch as hayagattensita ‘formed a hasty conclusion’ do not.6 The greatertenuousness between the two events (one of which is ‘form a hastyconclusion’) is compatible with to, whereas in (18c), the closer connection ofnecessity implied between the two events (one of which is manabu ‘learn’)conflicts with the looseness of to.

Sentences (19) - (21) illustrate the possibility of a three-way contrast(Kuno 1973.220):

(19) Mary wa John ga kuru no o kitaisite-ita[ come was-expecting]‘Mary was expecting that John would come’

(20) Mary wa John ga kuru koto o kitaisite-ita

(21) Mary wa John ga kuru to o kitaisite-ita

There seems to be some subtle difference in meaning among these sentences.Sentence ... [(21)] most likely means that the expectation did not come true. Thisseems to be related to the nonpresuppositional nature of to. Between ... [(20) and(19)], it seems to be the case that the latter represents a stronger conviction on thepart of the subject that John would come. This might be due, again, to the fact thatno represents a concrete action, state, or event directly perceived by any of five (orsix) senses, while koto represents a more abstract concept (Kuno 1973.221).

This scale of ABSTRACT — CONCRETE is used by Kuno to explain thecontrasting acceptabilities of these sentences (Kuno 1973.222):

(22) (a) Watakusi wa Columbusga Amerika o[I America

hakkensita no o siranakat-tadiscovered know.not.Past]

‘I did not know (the fact) that Columbus discoveredAmerica’

6 Jack Wiedrick comments about (18c) that “This sentence is indeed kind of marginal, butcould be read as: ‘I learned (by instruction) that Japanese was difficult (but later that turnedout not to be quite true).’ It would be better with a verb like osierareta ‘was taught’.


(b) Watakusi wa Columbusga Amerika o[I America

hakkensita koto o siranakattadiscovered know.not-Past]

‘I did not know (the fact) that Columbus discoveredAmerica’

(23) (a) *Watakusiwa kuzira ga honyuu-doobutu de aru[I whale mammal

no o siranakat-taknow.not-Past]

(b) Watakusi wa kuzira ga honyuu-doobutu de aru[I whale mammal

koto o siranakat-taknow.not-Past]

‘I did not know the fact that a whale is a mammal’

“Sentence ... [(22)] can be an abstract concept or a concrete event, but ...[(23)] cannot be a concrete event. Therefore, it is expected that nominalizing... [(23a)] with no would result in an awkward clause” (Kuno 1973.21-22).7

We may see in the ‘stronger conviction’ of (19) expressed by no themaximum degree of integration between two events imposed by Mary’sexpectation (conviction ?), whereas in (20) the bond is lessened and it ismerely a matter of fact. The contrast between (22a) and (23a) is more elusive... and the more interesting. It may be that ‘not knowing’ (but impliedsubsequent discovery) is more compatible ... integrateable ... with a historicaloccurrence, whereas supposed eternal truths (non-occurrences) such as whalesbeing mammals are more remote and disconnected from John’s learning ...and hence not compatible with no. It does not seem unreasonable to applyKuroda’s and Tsubomoto’s scheme of integration to these examples and to

7 Jack Wiedrick opbserves of (23a):

I don’t see anything wrong with this sentence. I’m quite sure that any numberof native speakers would accept it (with perhaps a caveat that the koto version isbetter in a “neutral” academic context). But it is especially acceptable in acontext where you are thinking about the behaviour of whales, and perhapssurprised to discover that they suckle their young, you say (23a), meaning: ‘Ididn’t know whales were mammals ( i.e. do mammal things like suckle theiryoung, etc.)!’ In this sense, being a mammal is seen as a kind of lifestyle,rather than a classification, and (23a) seems quite appropriate.

JAPANESE 61

those in (24):

(24) (a) John wa Mary ga sin-de simat-ta no o[ dying ended.up.with

kii-tahear-Past]

(b) John wa Mary ga sin-de simat-ta koto o[ dying ended.up.with

kii-tahear-Past]

‘John heard about the fact that Mary had died’

(c) John wa Mary ga sin-de simat-ta to kii-ta[ dying ended.up.with hear-Past]‘John heard that Mary had died (Mary might or might nothave died)’

Sentences (24b) and (24c) are from Kuno (1973.216), but we may expect that(24a) is also possible (kiku is a verb of perception) and that it would mean‘John heard Mary die’.8 Cp. (10a).The relations that have emerged to this point suggest that no, koto, and to arerelated as in Figure 1. The three marks of complexity appear to form the

CLASSIFICATION PRIMARYIDENTIFICATION

SUPPLEMENTARYIDENTIFICATION

MORE DISTINCT & NOT SEQUENCED

MORE DISTINCT & CONSEQUENCED

no koto to

Figure 1: Japanese complexity.

8 Jack Wiedrick comments on (24a):

This sentence could NEVER mean ‘John heard Mary die.’ For that, you would have touse the verb kikoeru ‘be audible’:

John niwa Mary ga sinde simatta no ga kikoeta.J. NI WA M. GA dying ended.up NO GA was.audible'John heard Mary die.'

(It’s a strange sentence though; it kind of implies that he only heard her last dying gasp,and not anything before that [because of simatta].) The verb kiku ‘hear’, on the otherhand, has more the sense of ‘heard (because you asked, or through the grapevine)’, so(24a) means more-or-less the same thing as (24b), but there is a feeling that he mighthave heard all the gory details with no, whereas with koto it could only have been thestatement ‘Mary is dead’ (or the like).


left most end of the continuum and to form it in a way that seems to ignorethelanguage distinctions of ‘adjective’, ‘restrictive relative clause’, ‘non-restrictive relative clause’, ‘complementiser’, etc. 2.3Adverbial clauses: to

Adverbial clauses are also frequently marked by a to (Kuno 1973.184, 188& 205):

(25) John wa,boosi o nugu to, Mary ni aisatusi-ta[ hat take.off greet-Past]‘John, upon taking off his hat, greeted Mary’

(26) Gakkoo ni iku to Mary ga ki-te i-ta[school go come-GerundCopula-Past]‘When I got to school, Mary had already been there’

(27) Natu ni naru to New York ni ikimasu[summer become go]‘When summer comes, I go to New York’

(28) Ie o deru to, ame ga hutte-ita[house leave rain falling-was]‘On my leaving home, it was raining’

... there is no logical connection between the speaker’s leaving and it’s raining ...At the same time, S1 and S2 cannot be two independent events: S1 to S2 isacceptable only when the events represented by S1 and S2 are such that they areamenable to the paraphrase ‘Upon S1’s happening (or while S1 was happening),what do you think happened? S2 did’. ... Because of the ‘what do you thinkhappened next?’ connotation, the S1 to S2 construction brings the flavor ofsuspense or surprise (Kuno 1973.188-89).

The temporal sequencing of to-clauses is necessary; it is the apparentoverlapping of ‘raining’ and ‘pouring’ which damages (29b) (Kuno1973.188):

(29) (a) Ame ga huru to, nukarumi da[rain fall muddy is]‘When it rains, it becomes muddy’

JAPANESE 63

(b) ?Ame ga huru to, dosyaburi da[rain fall squall is]‘Whenever it rains, it pours’

And (Kuno 1973.201):

(30) John wa uwagi o nugu to, hangaani kakemasi-ta ka[ jacket take.off hanger hang-Past Q]‘Taking off his jacket, did John hang it on a hanger?’

Sentence (30) “... has only one interpretation, namely, ... The speaker takes itfor granted that John took off his jacket, and [(30)] cannot also be understoodas questioning whether it is true that John took off his jacket and hung it on ahanger ... In ... [(30)] the speaker takes it for granted that John took his jacketand then questions whether he hung it on a hanger or not” (Kuno 1973.201).

The possibility of ‘surprise’ and the absence of ‘logical connection’ in(28) and the distinction between the events in (30) so that only one of them isquestioned with ka, are consonant with the greater looseness associated withto, which is therefore appropriate to the expression of adverbial relations of‘when’, ‘on V-ing’, etc.

3. Further elaboration of the continuum: teThe te-Gerundive will also be used to relate complex expressions (Kuno

1973.195-96):

(31) Watasi wa anata ni it- te hosii[I you go-Gerund want]‘I want you to go’

(32) John wa uwagi o nui-de hangaani kake-ta[ jacket take.off-Gerund hanger hang-Past]‘John took off his jacket and put it on a hanger’

(33) John wa hikoozyooni it- te, nimotu kensa o[ airport go-Gerundluggage inspection

uke-taundergo-Past]

‘John went to the airport and underwent luggage inspection’


The V1-te V2 pattern cannot be used when two simultaneous actions or states areinvolved ... the two actions involved must be either both self-controllable or bothnon-self-controllable ... This is why ... [(33)] has, as one of its readings, theconnotation that the speaker went to the airport in order to [Emphasis mine,PWD] undergo the luggage inspection’. (Kuno 1973.196-97)

The difference between to and te can be seen in the contrast between (30) and(34) (Kuno 1973.201):

(34) John wa uwagi o nui-de, hangaani[ jacket take.off-Gerund hanger

kakemasi-ta kahang-Past Q]

‘Did John take off his jacket and hang it on a hanger?’

In ... [(34)] whether it was true that John took off his jacket and hung it on ahanger is being questioned. In ... [another sense of (34)] the speaker takes forgranted that John took off his jacket and then questions whether he hung it on ahanger or not [as in (30)]’. (Kuno 1973.201)

In contrast with (30), in which only the hanging of the jacket is questioned,both components of (34) are questioned. Like (30), sentence (34) questionsthe hanging of the jacket took place. The difference lies in how the taking offof the jacket relates its being hung up. In (34), the two actions appearsufficiently distinct that each is subject to independent questioning, while in(30), the activity is more complex. There is one event ... hanging up a jacket ...which is made more involved by the presence of more than one aspect to theachievement of the task, namely that the jacket has been taken off. But theremoval of the jacket in (30) does not stand as an event in its own right.Hence, in (30) it is not questionable. Figure 1 is now expanded to Figure 2.

CLASSIFICATION

PRIMARYIDENTIFICATION




no koto to

&

&

STILLMORE DISTINCT & CONSEQUENCED

te


JAPANESE 65

3.1 TaraA more precise segmentation is possible among the when/if-clauses.

Compare (27) with (35) (Kuno 1973.184):


(35) Natu ni nat-tara New York ni ikimasu[summer become go]‘When summer comes, I go to New York’

“... [(27)] means that the speaker goes to New York every summer, while ...[(35)] says that he intends to go to New York the coming summer. In otherwords, ... [(27)], with to, represents habitual actions, while ... [(35)], withtara, represents a single future action [of going. Emphases mine, PWD]”(Kuno 1973.185). The two events expressed in (27) appear more connected,than the two in (35). Thus, (36a) is acceptable because there is in ‘returninghome’ no necessary connection between the two; but when consequence isimposed as in (36b) by the shared performer and the events of returning homeand cooking, then tara fails (Kuno 1973.180-81):

(36) (a) Ie ni kaet-tara, tegamiga ki-te ita[home return- letter come-Gerundhad]‘When I returned home, the letter had arrived’

(b) *Ie ni kaet-tara, gohan o tukut-ta[home return- meal prepare-Past]‘When I returned home, I cooked dinner’

This indicates that tara-clauses are less tightly bound than to-clauses, whichrequire some greater sense of connection. Compare also (Kuno 1973.180):

(37) (a) John ga uwagi o nui-dara, Mary ga hangaani[ jacket take.off- hanger

kake-tahang-Past]

‘When John took off his jacket, Mary hung it on a hanger’


(b) *John ga uwagi o nui-dara, hangaani kake-ta[ jacket take.off- hanger hang-Past]‘When John took off his jacket, he hung it on a hanger’

... in ... [(37b)] the Agent of S1 and that of S2 are identical (namely, John), andsince the action of taking off one’s jacket and that of hanging it on a hanger areboth self-controllable, it is considered that there was a self-controllable timesequence between S1 and S2. Hence, the sentence is ungrammatical. One the otherhand, in ... [(37 a)] the agent of sentence S1 and the agent of S2 are not identical,and although each action must have been self-controllable on the part of the agent,the time sequence does not imply that Mary hung John’s jacket after waiting forhim to take it off. It simply means that Mary’s hanging John’s jacket on a hangerfollowed [Emphases mine, PWD] John’s taking it off ... S2 represents anunexpected or surprising event (Kuno 1973.170-71).9

Both (36b) and (37b) contain clauses that bear some sense of control ... orconsequence ... between them, which conflicts with tara, which signalsprecisely the absence of such consequence.

The contrast between the unquestioned version of (30) with to (Kuno1973.200) and (32) with te and (37) with tara is instructive:

(30) John wa uwagi o nugu to, hangaani kakemasi-ta[ jacket take.off hanger hang-Past]‘Taking off his jacket, John hung it on a hanger’

(32) John wa uwagi o nui-de hangaani kake-ta[ jacket take.off-Gerund hanger hang-Past]‘John took off his jacket and put it on a hanger’

9 Jack Wiedrick comments as follows about (37b):

It’s true that with John ga it can’t really be John who hung up his own coat (it’s simplyunspecified, but you assume it probably wasn’t him, or they would’ve said itdifferently). But the sentence is fine in the reading: ‘After John took off his coat, (I, thedoorman, etc.) hung it on a hanger.’ To have it be John, you could use -te instead (asKuno suggests), or change it to John wa, in which case the sense would be: ‘John, aftertaking off his coat, hung it on a hanger.’ Using -tara makes it seem like taking off thecoat was an obstacle to be overcome (maybe it took a while), and that hangingsomething (anything) on the hanger was his intention from the start, i.e. it wasnecessary that he remove his coat before he could hang it on the hanger. It would seemnatural in a scene where he enters a house, only to have the host confront himimmediately and proffer a hanger, at which he would feel obligated to remove his coatin haste so as not to rudely keep the anxious host waiting.

JAPANESE 67

(37) (a) John ga uwagi o nui-dara, Mary ga hangaani[ jacket take.off- hanger

kake-tahang-Past]

‘When John took off his jacket, Mary hung it on a hanger’

(b) *John ga uwagi o nui-dara, hangaani kake-ta[ jacket take.off- hanger hang-Past]‘When John took off his jacket, he hung it on a hanger’

In (30), the removal of the jacket is a component of its being hung up. In (32),the two events are more distinct but connected so that the second is aconsequence of the first. And in (37), the two are still more distinct in that thesecond is not a consequence of the first. Recall that the second constitutes an‘unexpected or surprising event’ in the context of the first. In terms of Figure2, tara will be ... presently ... the rightmost.

3.2 NaraThe last clause type of this sort is introduced by nara. We may set it in

contrast with to and tara from (27) and (35) (Kuno 1973.170):


(35) Natu ni nat-tara New York ni ikimasu[summer become go]‘When summer comes, I go to New York’

(38) (a) * Natu ni naru nara, New York ni ikimasu[summer become if go]‘If summer is to come, I will go to New York’

(b) Ima sugu naru nara, New York ni ikimasu[now immediately become go]‘If summer is to come right now, I will go to New York’

Sentence (27) represents the complex so that there is a necessary connectionbetween summer coming and going to New York (the habitual trip), while in


(35) there is no necessary connection, and it can be a one-time occurrence.But nara does not allow the comparable expression. Cf. (38a).10 The reason isthat with nara “S1 represents a state or an action that the hearer can assert[Emphasis mine, PWD]” (Kuno 1973.170). Another aspect of nara isillustrated by (39) (Kuno 1973.170-71):

(39) (a) John ga kuru nara, kaerimasu[ come if return]‘If John comes, I will leave (resolution)’

(b) % Johnga kuru nara, Mary ga kaerimasu[ come if return]‘If John comes, Mary will leave (resolution)’

“... [(39b)] would be acceptable if one imposes upon Mary ga kaerimasu‘Mary will leave’ the causative interpretation ‘I will make Mary leave’”(Kuno 1973.171). The “S2 of S1 nara S2 must represent the speaker’sevaluation, will, resolution, request, or order” (Kuno 1973.170). In general,the first clause marked by nara “cannot have an action or event in S2 whoserealization depends upon that of a future action or event represented by S1”(Kuno 1973.173). Thus,

(40) (a) Tabako o nomu nara, seiramu ga ii[tabacco smoke Salem good]‘If you are going to smoke (as you say you are), Salem isbest’

(b) * Tabako o nomu nara, yamerarenakunaru desyoo[tabacco smoke addicted become]‘If you are going to smoke (as you say you are), you will beaddicted to it’

“In ... [(40b)], ... the hearer will become unable to stop smoking ... only after

10 Jack Wuedrick comments as follows on (38a):

This is possible if the meaning is something like: ‘If (the plans are) pushed ahead tosummer, I’ll go to New York.’ Or, if you live in a place which never experiences a“real” summer (say, Antarctica), and yet you heard a forecast that summer wouldindeed come that year (but you’re not holding your breath), then it’s also a possiblesentence in Kuno’s intended reading.

JAPANESE 69

he has started smoking” (Kuno 1973.173), and this imputed connection iswhat disables the sentence.11 The connection between events depicted by naraseems even more loose than that of dara. There is a sense of assertion that isabsent from the preceding.12

4. CoördinationCoördination is signalled by to (and ni and ya) for nouns and by si for

clauses (Kuno 1973.114 & 202):

(41) John to Mary ga kekkonsi-ta[ marry-Past]‘John and Mary became man and wife’‘John got married and Mary got married’

11 Jack Wiedrick disputes Kuno’s comments as follows:

Kuno’s judgement here is simply not true. There’s nothing wrong with thissentence as it stands (except for his choice of verb, which marks him as an oldfogy!). It would be ok as a conditional (e.g. listing-pros-and-cons-type advice), but asa warning or censure, though, it is particularly appropriate, i.e.: ‘If you’re dead set onsmoking, then I guess you can expect to get addicted.’ Kuno assumes that the onlyreading is one where the smoking has not yet taken place, but the sentence actuallymakes more sense when said to a person who is already a smoker (and who has mostlikely complained about not being able to quit). The sense is kind of: ‘Don’t comebitching to me’, or ‘You made your bed, now lie in it.’

Also, what Kuno (1973.170) says is true about B not allowing (unmodified) verbsin -ta in A nara B, but this is not because of any so-called ‘constraint that [B] mustrepresent the speaker’s evaluation, will, resolution, resolution, or order’. That’s nottrue at all; I can come up with dozens of perfectly fine sentences that break the“constraint”. Consider:

nisinhoonara, 5 wa 101dabase.2 NARA 5 WA101 is‘If (we count in) binary, (then) 5 is 101’

The statement is neither my will nor my evaluation; it is simply a mathematical fact.It’s true that nara is often used in situations where the speaker is making a statementof will or intent, but this is not the ONLY usage possible. As you can see, nara canalso be used when stating a logical or inevitable consequence of something in theprotasis. What makes the -ta troublesome in the apodosis is simply this fact of the“timeless” character of nara. However, if you push the apodosis into “irrealis” (forlack of a better word), then it becomes ok:

Taroo ga kita nara, Mary wa naita darooT. GA cameNARA M. WA cried probably‘If Taroo came, (then) I’ll bet that Mary cried’

12 Kuno (1973.168) writes that “It is usually said that this pattern has a strong degree ofassertion about the statement represented by S1”.


(42) John wa e o kaku si haiku o tukuru[ picture paint poem compose]‘John paints pictures and composes poems’

(43) * John wa e o si haiku o tukuru ka[ picture poem compose Q]

Sentence ... [(42)] is an example of pure coordination by si ‘and’, which is used tojuxtapose two events without saying which event took place first. It seems that thecommand power of ka cannot be extended to the left of si. Example ... [(43)] isungrammatical because the intended function of ka is to make the whole sentencea question, while si prevents the command power of ka from being extended to theleft of it. Thus, ... [(43)] ends up with the juxtaposition of a declarative clause andan interrogative clause, which is an ungrammatical combination in Japanese, aswell as in English and many other languages (Kuno 1973.203).

The coördinate clauses with si force the stringing together of the clauses in away that appears to mirror the looser semantic relation of GENERAL RELE-VANCE. The coördinate clause contrasts with the temporal to-clause in thisway (Kuno 1973.205-06):

(44) (a) John wa,boosi o nugu to, Mary ni aisatusi-ta[ hat take.off greet-Past]‘John, upon taking off his hat, greeted Mary’

(b) ?John wa,Mary ni, boosi o nugu to, aisatusi-ta[ hat take.off greet-Past]‘John, upon taking off his hat, greeted Mary’

(45) (a) John wa, e o kaita si, haiku o tukut-ta[ picture paint poem compose-Past]‘John painted pictures and composed poems’

(b) * Johnwa, haiku o, e o kaita si, tukut-ta

... the grammaticality (in spite of its awkwardness) of ... [(44b)] indicates that theV1 to is still subordinate to V2. If V1 and V2 formed a coordinate structure ‘V1and V2’, no element of V2 could be preposed to the left of V1 ... The awkwardnessof ... [(44b)] indicates that V1 to V2 has a status somewhere between the‘subordinate phrase –– main phrase’ construction and the coordinatingconstruction (probably closer to the former than to the latter (Kuno 1973.206).

JAPANESE 71

5. ConclusionFigure 3 summarizes the patterns of Japanese. One of the prominent con-

CLASSIFICATION

PRIMARYIDENTIFICATION




no koto to

STILL MORE DISTINCT &CONSEQUENCED

te

STILL MORE DISTINCT & NOT CONSEQUENCED

tara

ASSERTED & NOT CONSEQUENCED

nara

CONJOINED

si

&

&


clusions is that the organization of Japanese is not in terms of theclassifications which we impose from the perspective of linguistics.Examination of the Japanese examples shows that English notions such as‘when’, ‘if’, ‘in order to’, etc. (and the linguistic concepts that they inspire)are scattered across the various ways of expressing complexity in Japanese.The functional categories of CLASSIFICATION, PRIMARY IDENTIFICATION,SUPPLEMENTARY IDENTIFICATION, SUPPLEMENTARY REMARK, etc. areaccidental in the organization of Japanese, yet Japanese is very sensible ... inits own terms. The principle appears to be one in which two occurrences, firstseen as merged as two suns locked into one orbit, gradually draw apart untilthey occupy their own orbits and accept their separate identities.

The content manipulated and organized by the Japanese clausalpostpositions is visually presented in Figure 4. The principle which guidesthe visualization is that of merger, encapsulation, and identity at the left of theFigure ... a condition that is then gradually attenuated across the complexexpressions, until at the right, there is a complete separation so that thecontent of neither PROPOSITION is conceived as belonging to some largerconceptuali-

no koto to te tara nara si

Figure 4: Semantic organization of complexity in Japanese.


zation of what happened. One of the constants of no is the RelevancyCondition; and no13 and koto both mark the contents of their PROPOSITIONS,not only as unquestionable, but also as not contingent. Their content is so inthe way that calling a book a book is so. It just is. With the postposition markto, the clause is more contingent14, and although the Relevancy Conditionappears to be no longer in force, but a connection of consequence (somethinglike ‘and then’) continues to relate the contents of the two PROPOSITIONS. Theportion marked by to cannot be questioned; and this condition contrasts towith te, which does permit the content of its clause to be queried. Thepostposition tara loosens the intertwining of the contents of twoPROPOSITIONS still more in that there is now no necessary connection betweenthe two contents; they are juxtaposed pieces of some larger occurrence.15 Theuse of nara differs from tara in that its PROPOSITION has a stronger degree ofindependence from the whole and some component of assertion.16 Finally, sijuxtaposes events without relating them as to which came first. They are noweach their own event. This condition is expressed in Figure 4 by the removalof the two events from their encapsulating ring.

It is important to keep in mind that the shapes in Figure 4 ... and in theFigures below ... are arbitrary. They are only an attempt to make the intuitiveinterpretations of the patterns of Japanese more concrete. With thisreservation,

Figure 5: Semantic organization of complexity in Bella Coola.

those shapes may then be distributed in Bella Coola, Farsi, and in Warlpiri asin Figures 5, 6, and 7. The results may in certain cases seem artificial; and if

13 Recall Kuroda’s association of ‘simultaneity’ to no, and Tsubomoto’s claim that eventslinked with no are “as if they were one event”.

14 Kuno asserts that “there is no logical connection” between events linked with to, and thatto brings a “flavor of suspense or surprise”.

15 Kuno’s comment on tara was that it signalled a “single future action” that “simply ...followed”.

16 It is an expression of the “speakers evaluation, will, resolution, request, or order” (Kuno).

JAPANESE 73

Figure 6: Semantic organization of complexity in Farsi.

Figure 7: Semantic organization of complexity in Warlpiri.17

this is so, it is because the language in question fails to exploit the organi-zation present in Japanese (both in number and configuration).

17 An alternative to Figure 7 might identify the relation marked by the infinitivalconstruction (cf. [i]) with that of the adjectival (cf. [ii]. Simpson 1988.211), thus merging thetwo distinctions on the left of Figure 7:

(i)[I Aux grief-Inchoative-Nonpastyou-Dat sick

lie-Infinitive-Comp-Dat]‘I feel sorry for you while you are lying sick’

(ii)[Japanangka-Erg-Conative shoot-Past kangaroo-Dativerock-Loc-Dative

big-Loc-Dative]‘Japanangka shot at the kangaroo on the big rock’

There are several reasons for making this equation. First , the infinitival constructionexpresses a relation between the two PROPOSITIONS that is tighter than that expressed by

/ (the adjoined relative markers) and certainly more integrated (Cp. Hale’s[1976.82] “ongoing or in effect at the time” and the ‘if’ induced by irrealis combined withkatji in Warlpiri [cf. sentence (50) in Chapter 3].) than that expressed by (thepurposive clauses) or (conjoined clauses). This semantic relation between theinfinitival clause and the other clause forms places the infinitival construction adjacent to (orat the same place on the scale if the proposed identification is accepted) as the adjectivalexpressions. Second, the infinitival clauses are marked by a ‘nominaliser’ , whichcreates forms which may then take case marking. Compare the occurrence of the dative in theinfinitival form in (i) with the adjectival form in (ii). Third , both the infinitival form and theadjectival form may be interlaced within the remainder. “Infinitive clauses ... have the abilityto appear within the main clause and to permute with other constituents of it” (Hale1976.94). The clauses related by / , , and may not show this formalinterconnection (Nash 1986.240).

THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT SUPPORT …pwd/sosc03.pdf · THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT...

Documents

Transcript of THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT SUPPORT …pwd/sosc03.pdf · THE FRAMEWORK AND LANGUAGES THAT...