Cover not available
Part of
Competition in Word-Formation
Edited by Alexandra Bagasheva, Akiko Nagano and Vincent Renner
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 284] 2024
► pp. 275–296

Chapter 9
Competition of lexicon vs. pragmatics in word formation

Japanese lexical V-V compounds and argument synthesis

| Kansai Gaidai University
Pragmatic information (motivating an onomasiological perspective) interacts and competes with formal grammar (embodying a semasiological inclination), namely, the lexicon and its formal word-formation mechanisms to give rise to intricate patterns of argument structures of Japanese lexical V-V compounds. The compound formation process involves argument synthesis (argument matching) displaying intricacies inexplicable without appealing to speaker intentions regarding reference choices, argument designation preferences, perspective adjustment, etc. Downplaying or denying interaction and competition between the two domains above would undermine generalization, analytical precision, efficiency, and creativity within morphology.
Keywords: grammar-pragmatics interface, semasiology-onomasiology interaction, V-V compounds, argument structures, argument synthesis, Japanese
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Lexicon/morphology and pragmatics
  • 3.Japanese lexical V-V compounds and pragmatics
    • 3.1V-V compounds and argument synthesis: A prolegomenon
    • 3.2Simple cases of argument synthesis
    • 3.3Complex cases of argument synthesis 1: Speaker-oriented reference choice
    • 3.4Complex cases of argument synthesis 2: Speaker-intended discourse prominence and differential object marking
    • 3.5Complex cases of argument synthesis 3: Speaker-oriented anomaly avoidance
    • 3.6Summary
  • 4.Unattractive alternatives
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.284.09fuk
References (41)
References
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Eric Wanner & Lira R. Gleitman (eds), 173–218. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard. 2004. Pragmatics and the lexicon. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 488–514. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Pragmatics and morphology: Morphopragmatics. In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, Yan Huang (ed), 491–510. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2002. Competence and performance revisited: the implications of social role terms in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 939–968.Google Scholar
. 2005. Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon vs. syntax. Language 81(3): 568–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
. 2008. On the type-wise productivity of lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: A thematic proto-role approach. Gengo Kenkyu 134: 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Telicity makes or breaks verb serialization. Quo vadis morphology? On-line Proceedings of Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 10, Jenny Audring, Francesca Masini & Wendy Sandler (eds), 55–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Negation as an empirical/conceptual tool: A case study with V-V compounds. Jezikoslovlje 18: 5–23.Google Scholar
. 2021. Getting a head with Japanese lexical V-V compounds. In Japanese and Korean Linguistics, Volume 28, Hae-Sung Jeon, Peter Sells, Zixi You, Sotaro Kita & Jaehoon Yeon (eds), 229–243. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Steinbach, Markus. 2006. A skeptical note on the syntax of speech acts and point of view. In Form, Structure, Grammar, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 313–322. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 427–441. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 2004. Some interactions of pragmatics and grammar. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 407–426. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harada, Shinichi. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 7 (Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo): 113–147.Google Scholar
Himeno, Masako. 1999. Hukugoodooshi-no Kozo-to Imiyoohoo (Structure and semantic usage of compound verbs). Tokyo: Hitsuzi.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Application, Deborah Schiffrin (ed), 11–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2017. Pragmatics and the lexicon. In The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, Yan Huang (ed), 511–531. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabatek, Johannes, Obrist, Philipp & Wall, Albert. 2021. The third wave of studies on DOM in Romance: An introduction to this volume. In Differential Object Marking in Romance (3rd ed.): The Third Wave, Johannes Kabatek, Philipp Obrist, & Albert Wall (eds), 3–19. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1982. Word formation in Japanese. Lingua 57: 215–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Bunpoo-to Gokeisei (Grammar and word-formation). Tokyo: Hitsuzi.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold & Fodor, Jerry. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39(2): 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 2001. Morphology and pragmatics. In The Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 272–279. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1993. Structural head and aspectuality. Language 69(3): 480–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith. 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 2015. The pragmatics of word-formation. In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 1128–1142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2022. Syntax in the Treetops. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 2014. Introduction. In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds), 1–14. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998. V-V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 175–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Francesco, Gardani, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2019. Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renner, Vincent. 2020. An ecosystem view of English word-formation. The Mental Lexicon 15(1): 4–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction (2nd ed.). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Santana-Lario, Juan & Valera, Salvador. 2017. Competing Patterns in English Affixation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2017. Competition in natural languages. In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Juan Santana-Lario & Salvador Valera (eds), 1–65. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol L. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yumoto, Yoko. 2005. Hukugoodooshi/Haseidooshi-no Imi-to Toogo: Mojuuru Keitairon-kara Mita Nichieigo-no Dooshi Keisei (The semantics and syntax of compound verbs/derived verbs: verb-formation in Japanese and English viewed from a modular morphological perspective). Tokyo: Hitsuzi.Google Scholar