Cover not available
Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 245–270

Chapter 11
Ambiguities in Japanese pseudo-coordination and its dialectal variation

ORCID logo | University of Tsukuba
| University of Shizuoka
This paper addresses Japanese pseudo-coordination containing an existential verb by focusing on the two types of existential verbs, one taking an animate subject and the other taking an inanimate subject. Though both can form a pseudo-coordination expression, one is two-way ambiguous in aspectual interpretation, and the other is not. Moreover, dialectal variation is observed. This paper attempts to explain the difference between the two interpretations of Japanese pseudo-coordination and assigns a different structure to each interpretation. More specifically, in one interpretation, existential verbs are truly existential verbs of a lexical category, and in the other interpretation, they are functional categories. Based on this analysis, dialectal variation is also explained based on the notion of externalization.
Keywords: aspect, dialectal variation, existential verbs, externalization, Japanese, morphology, suppletion, syntax, voice
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Description of -te aru sentences in SJ and FJ
    • 2.1Aru as an intransitivizer
    • 2.2Intransitivizing resultatives in FJ
    • 2.3Some characteristics of -te aru sentences in FJ
    • 2.4Research questions
  • 3.Explanation of -te aru sentences in SJ and FJ
    • 3.1A structural difference between the two readings of chaa sentences
    • 3.2Proposals
  • 4.Supporting evidence for the suppletion analysis
    • 4.1Another phenomenon
    • 4.2Proposal
  • 5.Summary and some remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.274.11shi
References (22)
References
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2016. What Kind of Creatures Are We? NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. 1977. Nihongo ni ‘henkei’ wa hitsuyoo da [Japanese needs ‘transformation’]. Gekkan Gengo 68, 88–95.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Shintaro and Fujii, Tomohiro. 2015. String vacuous head movement. Gengo Kenkyu 147: 31–55.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Wesley. 1992. The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. On Japanese passives. In Explorations in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, George Bedell, Eichi Kobayashi & Masatake Muraki (eds), 305–347. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive. In Ergativity, Alana Johns, Diane Massam & Juvenal Ndayiragije (eds), 173–195. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2019. ‘teiru’ shinkoobun no toogokoozoo to suuryoofukushi no kaishaku ni tsuite [syntactic structures of ‘teiru’ progressives and the interpretation of adverbial quantifiers]. In Nihongo Toogoronkenkyuu no Hirogari [Toward an Integrated Approach to Japanese Syntax], Koichi Takezawa et al. (eds.), 25–44. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. & Momoi, Katsuhiko. 1986. The constituent of -te complements. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 11: 1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihara, Kenichi. 1997. Dooshi no asupekutokoozoo [Aspect of verbs]. In Voisu to Asupekuto [Voice and Aspect], Kenichi Mihara & Ryuichi Washio (eds), 107–196. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagano, Akiko. 2016. Morphological realization of Focus Head in Hakata Japanese. Tsukuba English Studies 35: 1–31.Google Scholar
Nakatani, Kentaro. 2013. Predicate Concatenation: A Study of the V-te V Predicate in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential Complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Case checking/valuation in Japanese: Move, Agree or Merge? Nanzan Linguistics 8: 109–127.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nominalization. In Handbook of Japanese syntax, Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa & Hisashi Noda (eds), 271–331. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shimada, Masaharu & Nagano, Akiko. 2019. “-te aru” bun ni mirareru bunpookan sai [On a dialectal variation the Japanese “-te aru” construction]. In Nihongo Toogoronkenkyuu no Hirogari [Toward an Integrated Approach to Japanese Syntax], Koichi Takezawa et al. (eds.), 45–64. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 2015. Mieru’ ninshikikoobun no toogokoozoo to ‘te’kei jutsugo no toogo to imi [Syntactic structures of ‘mieru’ constructions of cognition and syntax and semantics of ‘te’ predicates]. In Goiimiron no Aratana Kanoosei o Sagutte [Further Exploration into Lexical Semantics], Yoko Yumoto & Naoyuki Ono (eds), 243–273. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2007. An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Urushibara, Saeko. 2003. On the form and meaning of aspectual markers. In Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language, Shuji Chiba et al. (ed), 778–792. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2003. Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of a Puzzle. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar