an asymmetry in copular sentences: evidence from japanese

言語研究(Gengo Kenkyu)117(2000),3～36 3

An Asymmetry in Copular Sentences:

Evidence from Japanese Complex Nominals Headed by -no*

Yuki MATSUDA

(University of Washington)

Key words: Copular sentences, the morpheme -no as pronouns and

formal nouns.

1. Introduction

Japanese has nominal phrases which resemble English free relatives

as illustrated in (1) 1, 2) .

* I wish to thank Shige-Yuki Kuroda , Toshiyuki Ogihara, and particularly Hajime Hoji, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama for very helpful comments and suggestions. I also thank Satoshi Kinsui for discussing various issues related to the morpheme -no and for providing helpful feedback on an earlier version of this paper. I profited enormously from detailed comments and valuable suggestions made by two anonymous reviewers. Their suggestions led to various improvements. Any remaining errors are of course my own.

1) The abbreviation COP stands for 'copula'. The indicative mood particle -da 'be' (the adnominal form is -na 'be') and the politeness particle -desu 'be' are used as a copula in Japanese.

2) There is a Japanese counterpart to what McCawley (1988) refers to as -ever

free relatives, as shown in (i).

(i) a. I'll buy whatever you like. b. watasi wa kimi ga suki na no wa nan de-mo kaimasu.

I TOP you NOM like COP NO TOP what cop-also busy 'I'll buy whatever you like.'

Although there are many interesting issues involving this type of Japanese nominal phrase, this paper will not discuss them and concentrates on the type of nominal phrase schematically represented as in (4).

4 Yuki MATSUDA

(1) a. I'll buy [what you like].

b. Watasi wa [kimi ga suki na no] o kaimasu.

I TOP YOU NOM like COP NO ACC buy

'I'll buy what you like.'

Just like English free relatives, Japanese nominal phrases headed by the

morpheme -no can occur in any syntactic position where regular noun

phrases can, as illustrated by the a-examples in (2) and (3).

(2) a. [Kimi ga suki na no] wa taka-soo da.

you NOM like COP NO TOP expensive-look cop

'What you like seems to be expensive.'

b. [NP Kono tubo] wa taka-soo da.

this pot TOP expensive-look cop

'This pot looks expensive.'

(3) a. [Ryoo ga tabe-noko-si-ta no] ni neko kan o maze-te

Ryoo Nom eat-left-do-PAST NO with cat can ACC mix-cont.

Kitty ni yat-ta.

Kitty to give-PAST '(I) mixed [what Ryoo left half eaten] with a can of cat food

and gave it to Kitty.'

b. [NP Gohan] ni neko kan o maze-te Kitty ni yat-ta.

rice with cat can ACC mix-cont. Kitty to give-PAST '(I) mixed some rice with a can of cat food and gave it to

Kitty.'

In the a-examples, of (2) and (3), a "free relative" occurs in the topic

position and the indirect object position respectively. As we see from

the b-examples, each "free relative" can be freely replaced by a regular

noun phrase. The examples above show that Japanese has a free-

relative-like construction headed by -no, but we will see below that there

An Asymmetry in Copular Sentences 5

are differences in distribution between English free relatives and

Japanese nominal phrases headed by -no3,4). Thus, to avoid

terminological confusion, I will refer to the nominal phrase represented

as in (4) as NO-phrase throughout this paper.

(4) [[s ... e ....pred-n] no]

(Where pred-n is a predicate with an adnominal ending, and e is a

gap associated with some element outside the sentence containing

it.)

NO-phrases are claimed to subject to some semantic constraints.

First, they cannot refer to a human being without yielding a derogatory

connotation (Kuroda 1976-77). Second, they cannot refer to a time or

a place (Kinsui 1998). Third, they cannot refer to an abstract concept

(Kamio 1983). These constraints are illustrated by the examples in (5)

through (8).

3) For example, in English a PP cannot be used as a focused phrase in a

pseudo-cleft.

(i) a. *Where John went is to New York. b. Zyon ga it-ta no wa nyuu yooku ni da.

John NOM go-PAST TOP New York to COP 'It is to New York that John went.'

4) Another difference between Japanese nominal phrases headed by -no and English free relative clauses is that the former are semantically more versatile than the latter. For example, in the English pseudo-cleft (ia), the free relative in the subject position cannot refer to a human, but the Japanese counterpart

can.

(i) a. *[What/Who is sitting over there] is Professor Tanaka. b. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru no] wa Tanaka sensei da.

over-there at siting be (HON.) Top Tanaka teacher cop 'The one sitting over there is Professor Tanaka.

6 Yuki MATSUDA

(5) a. *[Kinoo koko de baiorin o hii-ta no] wa totemo

yesterday here at violin ACC play-PAST TOP very

kirei dat-ta.

pretty COP-PAST

Intended reading: 'The person who played violin here yester-

day was very pretty.'

b. [Kinoo koko de baiorin o hii-ta hito] wa totemo

yesterday here at violin ACC play-PAST person TOP very

kirei dat-ta.

pretty COP-PAST

'The person who played violin here yesterday was very pret-

ty.'

(6) a. *Fumiko wa [Jiroo ga Yooko to yoku syokuzi o suru no]

Fumiko TOP Jiro NOM Yoko and often dine ACC do

de ohiru-gohan o tabe-ta.

at lunch ACC eat-PAST

Intended reading: 'Fumiko ate lunch at where Jiro and Yoko

often dine together.'

b. Fumiko wa [Jiroo ga Yooko to yoku syokuzi o suru mise]

Fumiko TOP Jiro NOM Yoko and often dine ACC do store

de ohiru-gohan o tabe-ta.

at lunch ACC eat-PAST 'Fumiko ate lunch at where Jiro and Yoko often dine

together.'

(7) a. *[Yasuko wa kodomo ga me o samasu no] ni

Yasuko TOP child Nom eye ACC open at

oki-nakerebaikenai.

up-must

Intended reading: 'Yasuko has to get up at the time her child

wakes up.'


b. [Yasuko wa kodomo ga me o samasu zikan] ni

Yasuko TOP child NOM eye ACC open time at

oki-nakerebaikenai.

up-must 'Yasuko has to get up at the time her child wakes up .'

(8) a. *[Haruko wa zibun no syoorai ni-taisuru ookii no] o motteiru.

Haruko TOP self GEN future toward big ACC have be

Intended reading:' Haruko has a big dream for her future.'

b. [Haruko wa zibun no syoorai ni-taisuru ookii yume] o

Haruko TOP self GEN future toward big dream ACC

motte iru.

have be 'Haruko has a big dream for her future .'

The topic-phrases in (5a-b) are used to refer to a person. (5b) is

felicitous and interpretable. By contrast, (5a) with the NO-phrase is

derogatory since it sounds as the person it describes deserves no

respect. A similar contrast applies to (6) through (8). For example,

the topic-phrases in (8) are used to talk about an abstract concept, one's

dream. While (8b) is acceptable, (8a) with the NO-phrase sounds as if

whatever Haruko has is a concrete object, and not a dream.

However, the following set of examples show that some NO-phrases

are not subject to such semantic constraints5).

(9) a. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru no] wa Tanaka sensei da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) Top Tanaka -teacher cop

'The one sitting over there is Professor Tanaka.'

5) The abbreviation HON stands for 'honorific form'.

8 Yuki MATSUDA

b. *[Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru no] wa ogenki da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) TOP healthy cop

Intended reading: 'The person sitting over there is healthy.'

(10) a. [Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa Tookyoo da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP Tokyo COP

'The place where Taro was born is Tokyo.'

b. *[Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa kirei da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP pretty cop

Intended reading: 'The place where Taro was born is pretty.'

(11) a. [Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa 1970-nen da.

Taro Nom be-born-PAST TOP 1970-year cop

'The year in which Taro was born is 1970.'

b. *[Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa orinpikku ga at -ta

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP Olympic NOM have-PAST

Intended reading: 'In the year in which Taro was born we had

the Olympics.'

In (9a), the NO-phrase refers to a human being: the person who is sit-

ting there. Similarly in (9b), the NO-phrase refers to a human being,

and this sentence says that the person is healthy. In both examples, the

NO-phrase appears to refer to a human being, but for some reason (9a)

is acceptable. The same is true of (10). In (10a), the NO-phrase

refers to a place, and this sentence says that this place is Tokyo.

Similarly, in (10b), the NO-phrase refers to a place, and the entire

sentence says that this place is pretty. Here again, (10a) is acceptable.

It is puzzling why some NO-phrases are exempt from the semantic

constraints discussed above while others are not.

Note first that whether or not each NO-phrase is anomalous depends

upon the type of expression with which it occurs in the same sentence.

When the sentence in question has a "referential" expression in the


position immediately preceding the copula da, as in the a-examples in

(9) through (11), the NO-phrase does not produce any semantic ano-

maly. On the other hand, when a nominal that describes a "property"

occupies the pre-copular position, the NO-phrase produces an

anomalous semantic effect6). We also notice that (12b) below is as

good as (12a), which contains a referential expression in the pre-copular

position, despite the fact that (12b) contains an expression that

describes a property (i.e., kyodai 'huge').

(12) a. [[s 1912-nen ni tinbotu-si-ta] no] wa taitanikku-goo da-tta

1912-year in sink-do-PAST TOP Titanic COP-PAST

'It was the Titanic that sank in 1912.'

b. [[s 1912-nen ni tinbotu-si-ta] no] wa kyodai da-tta.

1912-year in sink-do-PAST Top huge COP-PAST

'The one that sank (i.e., the Titanic) in 1912 was huge.'

The reason seems to be that the subject in (12a-b) denotes a non-human

object. These facts lead to the following hypothesis: in general, NO-

phrases refer to concrete objects (or persons who are not treated with respect) and cannot refer to humans who are worthy of respect, loca-

tions, and abstract ideas. However, when a NO-phrase occurs with a

referential expression in a copular sentence, the NO-phrase does not

produce any semantic anomaly. At this point, this is merely a

descriptive generalization. It must be shown how this "semantic

specialization" of some NO-phrases in copular sentences comes about

and why this is restricted to some copular sentences. This is the task

I take up in this paper.

6) Referential expressions include proper names (e.g. John), deictics (e.g. that man), and definite descriptions (e.g. the book). Under normal circum-stances, these expressions are used to refer to some particular object. Property denoting expressions include common nouns (e.g. a man), adjectives

(e.g. kind), and verbs (e.g. walk).

10 Yuki MATSUDA

The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, I examine

the distribution of NO-phrases in copular sentences and present an

analysis. Assuming functional application, I argue that all sentences

including so-called "equative" copular sentences are asymmetric in that

they consist of an argument and a predicate without a predetermined

surface order. I contend that so-called cleft sentences are a special type

of copular sentences in that the NO-phrase must play the role of a

predicate. In section 3, I will illustrate how this analysis will solve the

problem introduced above and discuss additional evidence for our

proposal.

2. Properties of NO-phrases

In this section, I briefly summarize the previous works that deal

with the syntactic and semantic properties of NO-phrases. I then point

out their problems and give an account of why NO-phrases in some

copular sentences are immune to the semantic constraint I discussed

above.

2. 1. Pronouns versus Formal Nouns

Previous studies of Japanese grammar such as Okutsu (1974) as-

sume that the morpheme -no occurs in a NO-phrase either as a pronoun

(zyun-daimei zyosi) or as a formal noun (zyun-tai zyosi). According to

Okutsu (1974) and Inoue (1976), the pronoun -no is a relative head and

the formal noun -no is a functional noun which takes a clausal comple-

ment. Their structural differences are shown schematically in (13).

(13) a. NO-phrases headed by the pronoun -no: [NP [s ... ei ... ] [NP no]i]

b. NO-phrases headed by the formal noun -no: [NP[N' [s ..... ] [N no]]]

According to this classification, the crucial difference between the

pronoun -no and the formal noun -no is that the former accompanies a

clause that has a gap associated with the morpheme -no. For example,


the pronoun -no in (14a-b) is related to the gap (indicated by ei) in the

relative clause, but the formal noun -no in (15) has no gap associated

with the formal noun -no.

(14) a. [NP [s Mariko ga ei katta] [NP no]i] wa zyoobu da-tta.

Mariko NOM bought TOP durable COP-PAST

'The one which Mariko bought was durable.'

b. [NP [s Mariko ga ei katta] [NP no]i] wa kono kaban da.

Mariko NOM bought TOP this bag cop

'The one that Mariko bought was this bag.'

(15) [NP[N' [s koko no susi ga oisii] [N no]] o sitte imasu ka?

this-place GEN sushi NOM delicious ACC knowing is Q

'Do you know (the fact) that this (store's) sushi is delicious?'

The pronoun -no can be replaced by a common noun such as mono 'thing'

as long as its meaning is compatible with what the relative clause

describes, as illustrated in (16a-b).

(16) a. [NP [s Mariko ga ei katta] [NP mono]i] wa zyoobu da-tta.

Mariko NOM bought thing TOP durable COP-PAST

'The thing which Mariko bought is durable.'

b. [NP [s Mariko ga ei katta] [NP mono]i] wa kono kaban da.

Mariko NOM bought thing TOP this bag cop

'The thing that Mariko bought was this bag.'

On the other hand, Okutsu and Inoue argue that the role of a formal

noun is to turn a tensed clause into a nominal expression and that a

formal noun itself has no substantive meaning. For example, the -no in

(15) simply turns its sentential complement into a nominal expression

and does not add any substantive meaning to it. This idea is supported

by the fact that the morpheme -no in (15) cannot be replaced by a noun

12 Yuki MATSUDA

with a substantive meaning, such as mono 'thing', as shown in (17a).

On the other hand, the -no in (15) can be replaced by koto 'fact', which

is also a formal noun, as shown in (17b).

(17) a. *[NP[N'[s koko no susi ga oisii] [N mono]] o sitte imasu ka?

this-place GEN sushi NOM delicious thing ACC know Q

Lit. 'Do you know the thing that this (store's) sushi is delicious?'

b. [NP[N' [s koko no susi ga oisii] [N koto]] o sitte imasu ka?

this-place GEN sushi NOM delicious fact ACC know Q

'Do you know the fact that this (store's) sushi is delicious?'

Kuroda (1976-77) introduces another construction in which the

formal noun -no plays a role. He points out the following semantic

difference between gapped and head-internal (or pivot-independent)

relative clauses: in general, NO-phrases sound derogatory when they

refer to persons, as in the second sentence in (18a), but this generali-

zation does not extend to cases like (18b), which contains a head-in-

ternal relative clause7).

(18) a. #Asoko ni tatte irassyaru go-roozin o soko ni

(over-) there at stand be (HON) aged (HON) ACC there at

oyobi site, mukoo ni tatte irassyaru no o koko ni

have-come over-there at stand be (HON) ACC here at

oyobi site kudasai.

have-come please

'Please have those honorable aged persons standing over

there come there near you and those standing far over there

come here.' (Kuroda 1992: 159 (11) )

7) See Kuroda (1976-77, 1992, 1998, 1999) for a detailed discussion of this construction and his proposal.


b. Taroo wa sensei ga hikoozyoo ni otuki ni natta no

Taro TOP teacher NOM airport at arrive (HON)

o sassoku kuruma de hoteru e oture si-ta.

ACC directly car with hotel to bring (HON) do-PAST

'Taro took directly to the hotel by the car the teacher who had

arrived at the airport.' (ibid.: 160 (13) )

The NO-phrase in (18b) is located in the direct object position of the

matrix verb oture si-ta 'escorted'. This type of predicate would nor-

mally require a direct object that denotes a person. Indeed, the entire

NO-phrase appears to describe a person, namely the teacher. Never-

theless, the NO-phrase in this example is acceptable. Kuroda contends

that the -no that occurs in (18a) is a pronoun, whereas the -no that oc-

curs in (18b) is a nominalizing complementizer (alias a formal noun).

Kuroda assumes the structure given in (19) for NO-phrases containing

the nominalizing complementizer -no8).

(19) [NP [S ... V-u]-no] (ibid.: 146 (1) )

The V in (19) represents a verbal or non-verbal predicate and -u indi-

cates the adnominal ending of this predicate. The morpheme -no is a

nominalizing complementizer. The structure in (19) is analogous to

(13b), which was posited for NO-phrases with the formal noun -no.

2. 2. Cleft Sentences

There is another construction which allegedly involves the formal

noun -no. Earlier works including Okutsu (1974) assume that the

NO-phrase that occurs in a cleft sentence is headed by a pronoun -no.

However, Nakau (1973) and Hoji (1987) argue against this view and

8) Kuroda (1998: 74) assumes that the nominalizing complementizer -no is an N but the entire NO-phrase is not an NP or a DP, but an S.

14 Yuki MATSUDA

claim instead that cleft sentences are accompanied by a nominalizing

complementizer. Japanese cleft sentences are exemplified by sen-

tences like (20b) and (20c), which conform to the structure given in

(20a) 9).

(20) a. [S ... e ...] -no wa/ga X-da

NO TOP/NOM COP

b. [Taroo ga e at-ta no] wa Hanako da.

Taro NOM meet-PAST Top Hanako cop

'It was Hanako that Taro met e.'

c. [Taroo ga e at-ta no] ga Hanako da.

Taro NOM meet-PAST NOM Hanako cop

'The one that Taro met e is Hanako'

In each structure, X appears to be related to the empty element e in that

S becomes a complete sentence when the gap is replaced by X. From

a pre-theoretical point of view, a cleft sentence can be obtained by "cleaving" one constituent from a normal declarative sentence and

placing it at the pre-copular position10). Semantically, a cleft sentence

consists of two parts: the part that describes what is presupposed and

9) See Hoji (1987), Hasegawa (1997), and Matsuda (1997) for the syntax and semantics of Japanese cleft sentences.

10) There are two types of cleft sentences in Japanese, namely so-called WA- clefts, as shown in (20b), and GA-clefts, as shown in (20c). WA-clefts are

those in which the NO-phrase is topicalized, and GA-clefts are those in which the NO-phrase is nominative case marked. Matsuda (1997) and Hasegawa

(1997) observe some differences between WA-clefts and GA-clefts. For example, so-called syntactic connectedness effects discussed by Akmajian

(1970) and Higgins (1973) are observed only in WA-cleft sentences. In addition, the pre-copular element can be accompanied by a case particle in WA-clefts but that is not possible in GA-clefts. These differences seem to be related to the fact that the NO-phrase in a GA-cleft is in focus whereas the one

in WA-cleft carries presupposition-related information. See Matsuda (1997) for an analysis of such phenomena.


the focused part that specifies the information that was unknown. In

(20b) with a topicalized NO-phrase, the NO-phrase corresponds to the

presupposition portion, but in (20c) with a nominative case-marked

NO-phrase, it corresponds to the focused portion.

Based on the contrast between (21) and (22) below, Nakau (1973:

67) claims that the morpheme -no that occurs in cleft sentences does not

arise from a relative clause formation and is not a pronoun but is a

formal noun -no (an abstract noun no in Nakau's terminology). Sen-

tence (21) shows that the focused element in cleft sentences is option-

ally accompanied by a case particle.

(21) [NP Hanako ga sanseesi-ta no] wa Taroo no teean (ni) da.

Hanako Nom approve-PAST TOP Taro GEN proposal (to) cop

'It was Taro's proposal that Hanako approved of.'

By contrast, a topic phrase headed by a lexical noun such as mono 'thing'

cannot replace the NO-phrase in (21) if the focused element is case

marked as shown in (22).

(22) [NP Hanako ga sanseesi-ta mono] wa Taroo no teean (*ni) da.

Hanako NOM approve-PAST thing TOP Taro GEN proposal (to) cop

'The thing that Hanako approved was Taro's proposal'

If the focused element in (22) is not case marked, the resulting sentence

is perfectly acceptable with a meaning equivalent to that of (21). Thus,

despite their semantic similarity, the -no that occurs in a cleft sentence

and a noun mono that occurs in a similar context behave differently with

respect to case marking. Nakau claims that the relative head in (22),

mono 'thing', is associated with the gap inside the embedded clause but

that the formal noun -no in (21) is not associated with the gap inside the

clause.

Hoji (1987) points out that NO-phrases in cleft sentences do not

16 Yuki MATSUDA

have a derogatory meaning. To account for this phenomenon, Hoji

claims that the NO-phrase in a cleft sentence is headed by a nominaliz-

ing complementizer11). As shown in (23), Hoji argues that the

nominalizing complementizer -no and the pronoun -no are categorially

distinct: the nominalizing complementizer -no is a C and the pronoun -no

is an N. Hoji's claim can be represented as in (23a-b)12).

(23) a. NO-phrase with a pronoun -no

[NP [N' [s ... ei...] [NP no]i]-wa/ga X da. b. NO-phrase with a nominalizing complementizer

[CP Opi [c' [s ... ti... ] [c no]]]-wa/ga Xi da.

Hoji argues that the nominalizing complementizer -no is not associated

with the gap inside the embedded clause. Rather Hoji posits a null

operator in the Spec (CP) position that is associated with the trace po-

sition. That is, the null operator originates in the position of the trace

and moves to the Spec (CP) position. Hoji assumes that the null

operator in Spec (CP) and the focused X stand in a predication relation

and indicates this by co-indexing them. According to Hoji's analysis,

the NO-phrase in a cleft sentence does not produce any derogatory

meaning because the -no in question is a nominalizing complementizer

and not a pronoun.

11) Hoji assumes that the -no used as a nominalizing complementizer (= formal noun) is "inserted only at PF" (p. 3). This assumption is reasonable

given the fact that in classical Japanese, -no is not phonologically realized. See Kinsui (1994) for the historical development of the morpheme -no. Kondo

(1988) also discusses cleft sentences in classical Japanese. Also, see Kitagawa and Ross (1982) for the hypothesis that all occurrences of -no are

pre-nominal modification markers inserted at PF. Pursuing this hypothesis would go beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore I will discuss this

hypothesis on a different occasion. 12) Hoji uses the symbol t, instead of e, for the empty category in (23b) to

indicate that the empty category is created by a null operator movement. This paper uses the symbol e for any type of empty category, whether it is

analyzed as a trace or an empty pronoun.


In sum, the previous studies of Japanese NO-phrases suggest that

NO-phrases can be headed by the pronoun -no or the formal noun -no.

Nakau and Hoji argue that the NO-phrase in a cleft sentence is headed

by the nominalizing complementizer -no (alias the formal noun -no), not

the pronoun -no. The question remains, however, as to why the NO-

phrase in a cleft sentence (i.e. a sentence that conforms to the pattern

in (24)) is always one that contains the formal noun -no.

(24) [[S ... e ....] no]-wa/ga X da.

(where e is a gap associated with X.)

We will address this question in the following section.

2. 3. Toward An Account of this Phenomenon

2. 3. 1. Asymmetry in Copular Sentences

In copular sentences such as (25a-b), there is a gap in each NO-

phrase that is associated with the expression in the pre-copular position.

(25) a. [s ... e ...]-no wa/ga X da

NO TOP/NOM COP

b. Taroo ga e at-ta no wa Hanako da.

Taro NOM meet-PAST Top Hanako cop

'It was Hanako that Taro met e.'

c. Taroo ga e at-ta no ga Hanako da.

Taro NOM meet-PAST Nom Hanako cop

'The one that Taro met e is Hanako'

This means that cleft sentences like (25b) and (25c) have non-cleft

counterparts in which the "dislocated" element is "moved back" to the

position indicated by the gap.

18 Yuki MATSUDA

(26) Taroo ga Hanako ni at-ta

Taro Nom Hanako DAT meet-PAST

'Taro met Hanako.'

We see in (26) that the dislocated element is in an argument position.

As mentioned above, Hoji (1987) claims that cleft sentences are derived

via a null operator movement. In analyzing English cleft sentences,

Heggie (1988: 241) observes that a cleft element must not be a predi-

cate.

27 a. [Whati John is ei] is nicei.

b. *It is nicei [Opi that John is ei].

Sentence (27a-b) indicate that unlike pseudo-cleft sentences, cleft

sentences cannot cleft a predicate. According to Heggie, wh-operators

can assign a theta role, but a null operator cannot. Japanese clefts are

like English clefts in that they cannot cleft a predicate, as shown in (28).

(28) a. *[[s Taroo ga ei si-ta] no] wa [suugaku o benkyoo]i da.

Taro NOM do-PAST TOP math ACC study COP

Intended reading: 'What Taro did is to study math.'

b. *[[s Taroo ga ei na] no] wa senseii da.

Taro NOM COP TOP teacher cop

Intended reading: 'What Taro is is a teacher.'

This suggests that the NO-phrase in a cleft sentence is a predicate.

We can now make some descriptive generalizations about the ex-

amples introduced at the beginning of the paper. I repeat the relevant

examples here as (29), (30), and (31).


(29) a. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru no] wa Tanaka sensei da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) Top Tanaka -teacher cop





(30) a. [Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa Tookyoo da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP Tokyo cop


b. *[Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa kirei da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP pretty COP


(31) a. [Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa 1970-nen da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP 1970-year cop


b. *[Taroo ga umare-ta no] wa orinpikku ga at -ta.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP Olympic NOM have-PAST


the Olympics.'

These examples show that while some NO-phrases cannot refer to a

human, time, or place, other NO-phrases including the a-examples in

(29) through (31) are not subject to this condition. As we saw in

Section 1, there is an interesting restriction on the type of NO-phrase

that occurs in a copular sentence and the pre-copular expression that

occurs in the same sentence. That is, when a sentence has a proper

name in its pre-copular position, the NO-phrase is semantically felici-

tous. On the other hand, when a nominal that describes a property

occupies the pre-copular position of the sentence, the NO-phrase is

semantically anomalous. Our task in this section is to construct a the-

20 Yuki MATSUDA

ory that accounts for this correlation in an explanatory manner. I will

pursue the idea given in (32) in our proposal.

(32) Every sentence has an asymmetric syntactic structure.

In "normal" (i.e., non-cleft) sentences, the subject is considered to be an

argument, whereas the VP is a predicate13). Cleft sentences are also

subject to the constraint given in (32). However, the case of cleft

sentences is special in that the surface order of the argument of the

predicate is not predetermined. That is, a cleft sentence has the

predicate as the first element and the argument as the second element at

LF. The terms "argument" and "predicate" are used here to designate

quasi-semantic notions, and they correspond to the semantic types e and

<e, t>, respectively. If we assume a straightforward mapping

relationship between syntax and semantics, we need to posit two dis-

tinct nominal categories that correspond to the two semantic types in

question. For the purpose of this paper, I will adopt a variant of the DP

hypothesis proposed in Stowell (1991), Vergnaud and Zubizarreta

(1992), and Longobardi (1994, 1999), which posits distinct syntactic

categories for referential expressions and predicative expressions. In

essence, I will assume the following generalization stated in Longobardi

(1994: 620).

(33) A "nominal expression" is an argument only if it is introduced by

a category D.

For example, a common noun man is an NP. Under (33), an NP is

interpreted as a predicate and an N refers to a kind in the sense of

Carlson (1977) and Vergnaud and Zubizarreta (1992). The D position

13) If the subject is quantificational, then the subject is understood to be a generalized quantifier (denoting a set of sets of individuals), whereas the VP

is still a predicate (denoting a set of individuals).


determines the particular designation of the whole DP by making

reference to a single object (Longobardi 1994: 648). For example, the

expression the man refers to a specific man in a given context, hence an

argument. On this syntactic analysis, any copular sentence has one DP

and one NP. This provides us with a convenient way of distinguishing

between argument and predicate categorially14) . In addition, I assume

that adjectival nouns are NPs and deictic expressions and proper names

are DPs by default. I also assume that a null operator is understood

semantically as a lambda operator abstracting over the gap in an open

sentence. Following the standard assumption, I will also assume that

the morpheme -no can be a pronoun or a formal noun and that the NO-

phrase in a cleft sentence is headed by a formal noun.

Given (32), we have the following types of copular sentences in-

volving NO-phrases.

(34) a. [NP Opi [s ...ei...] formal noun-no] wa/ga DPi da.

b. [DP [NP [S ...ei...] pronoun-noi]] wa/ga NP da.

(34a) is a cleft sentence, and the gap inside the clause is associated with

the DP in the pre-copular position. Recall that the dislocated element in

a cleft sentence cannot be a predicate. This means that the dislocated

element is an argument, hence a DP. The NO-phrase in (34b) contains

a regular relative clause headed by a pronoun and is a DP. Thus, if a

given NO-phrase is a DP, it must be headed by a pronoun. On the other hand, if a given NO-phrase is an NP, it is headed by a formal noun.

Based upon the structural distinctions posited in (34), we are now in a

position to propose (35) to account for the above data.

14) I concede that there are perhaps many different ways of distinguishing between argument and predicate in categorial terms: e.g., NP vs. N' or NP vs.

CP. I adopt the categorial distinction between DP and NP merely as a descriptive device.

22 Yuki MATSUDA

(35) The pronoun -no is lexically specified as denoting concrete objects

(including persons who receive no respect), excluding persons

who are worthy of respect, places, times, and abstract objects.

The net effect of (35) is that when the nominal in question is a DP

containing the pronoun -no and yet is required to denote a person, place,

time or abstract object, then this results in a semantic anomaly.

Since our focus in this paper is NO-phrase with a gap, the following

logically possible structures containing nominal phrases headed by the

morpheme -no will not be discussed in this work.

(36) a. [NP[S ...... ] formal noun-no] wa/ga DP da

b. [DP[NP[S ...... ] formal noun-no]] wa/ga NP da

c. [NP [S ..... ] pronoun-no] wa/ga DP da

d. [DP[NP [S ..... ] pronoun-no]] wa/ga NP da

In addition, sentences that conform to the schema in (37) are ruled out

by (32).

(37) a. [NPOPi [S ...ei... ] formal noun-no] wa/ga NPi da.

b. [DP[NP [S ... ei... ] pronoun-noi]] wa/ga DP da.

They are symmetric in the sense that they contain two NPs or two DPs.

In sum, in this section I have proposed that every copular sentence

has an asymmetric structure in the sense defined above. Although

Japanese copular sentences have not been studied extensively, copular

sentences of other languages have been studied by many researchers.

Some make claims that are incompatible with the claim being defended

here. For example, Rapoport (1987: 67) argues on the basis of the data

involving Hebrew copular sentences that equative sentences license two

arguments. According to our view, even "equative" sentences, in

which two names appear to be equated, must be asymmetric. In the


next section, I will examine whether our analysis accounts for the

semantic constraints we observed in Section 1.

3. An Explanation of the Data and Further Consequences

3. 1. Human, Time, Place, and Abstract Noun Restrictions

As we saw in Section 1, nominals that describe concrete objects can

be replaced by NO-phrases with no restrictions. However, only in

limited circumstances can nominals that describe persons, times or

places be replaced by NO-phrases. (38b) is an example in which a

relativized nominal referring to a concrete object is substituted for by a

NO-phrase.

(38) a. Taroo ga taisetu ni site iru mono wa totemo hurui.

Taro NOM precious as do is thing TOP very old

'The thing that Taro treasures is very old.'

b. Taroo ga taisetu ni site iru no wa totemo hurui.

'The thing that Taro treasures is very old.'

On the other hand, the examples in (39) through (42) exemplify cases

in which a NO-phrase cannot replace a relativized nominal that denotes

a human, time, or place.

(39) a. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru hito] wa ogenki da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) person TOP healthy cop

'The person sitting over there is healthy.'




(40) a. Taroo ga umare-ta tokoro wa kirei da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST place TOP pretty cop

'The place where Taro was born is pretty.'

24 Yuki MATSUDA

b. *Taroo ga umare-ta no wa kirei da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP pretty cop


(41) a. Taroo ga umare-ta tosi (ni) wa orinpikku ga at-ta.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST year (in) TOP Olympic NOM have-PAST

'In the year in which Taro was born we had the Olympics.'

b. *Taroo ga umare-ta no (ni) wa orinpikku ga at-ta.

Taro Nom be-born-PAST (in) TOP Olympic Nom have-PAST


the Olympics.'

(42) a. Taroo ga asagohan o taberu zikan ni Hanako wa okite kuru.

Taro NOM breakfast ACC eat time at Hanako top arise come

'At the time when Taro eats his breakfast, Hanako gets up.'

b. *Taroo ga asagohan o taberu no ni Hanako wa okite kuru.

Taro NOM breakfast ACC eat at Hanako top arise come

Intended reading: 'At the time when Taro eats his breakfast,

Hanako gets up.'

(39) and (40) contain in the pre-copular position an adjectival noun,

which is invariably an NP. Thus, given that any sentence is asym-

metric, the NO-phrase in (39b) or (40b) must be a DP and contains a

pronoun associated with the gap within the embedded clause. Since a

phrase headed by the pronoun -no is inherently incapable of denoting an

honorable person, place or time, (39b) and (40b) are anomalous. (41)

and (42) are not copular sentences in that they contain "regular"

predicates, which are invariably predicates. Thus, the NO-phrases in

(41) and (42) are DPs and contain the pronoun -no. Since the pronoun -no is incapable of denoting a time , (41b) and (42b) are anomalous.

Let us now turn to the examples in (43) through (46) in which a

NO-phrase successfully replaces a relativized nominal headed by a noun


that denote a human, place, or time.

(43) a. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru hito] wa Tanaka sensei da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) person TOP Tanaka -teacher cop

'The person sitting over there is Professor Tanaka.'

b. [Asoko ni suwatte irassyaru no] wa Tanaka sensei da.

over-there-at sitting is (HON) TOP Tanaka -teacher cop


(44) a. Taroo ga umare-ta tokoro wa Tookyoo da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST place TOP Tokyo cop


b. Taroo ga umare-ta no wa Tookyoo da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP Tokyo cop


(45) a. Taroo ga umare-ta tosi wa 1970-nen da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST year TOP 1970-year cop


b. Taroo ga umare-ta no wa 1970-nen da.

Taro NOM be-born-PAST TOP 1970-year cop


(46) a. Taroo ga asagohan o taberu zikan wa gozen 7-zi da.

Taro NOM breakfast ACC eat time TOP a.m. 7-o'clock cop

'The time when Taro eats breakfast is 7 a.m.'

b. Taroo ga asagohan o taberu no wa gozen 7-zi da.

Taro NOM breakfast ACC eat TOP a.m. 7-o'clock cop

'The time when Taro eats breakfast is 7 a.m.'

Note here that b-examples in (43) through (46) are felicitous. They

contain a name in the pre-copular position, which is a DP. This allows

26 Yuki MATSUDA

each NO-phrase to be an NP containing formal noun -no.

In addition to the data involving nouns denoting a person, place or

time, our system can also deal with what we might call an "abstract-

noun" restriction, discussed in Kamio (1983). An example was

presented above in (8). Kamio argues that the pronoun -no cannot

replace nouns with an abstract meaning. For example, sinnen 'belief' in

(47a) below cannot be replaced by -no as shown in (47b) because this

noun denotes an abstract concept.

(47) a. Katai sinnen o motta hito

strong belief ACC have person

'The person with a strong belief.'

b. *Katai no o motta hito

Intended reading: 'The person with a strong belief.'

Keeping this fact in mind, let us consider the sentences in (48).

(48) a. Hanako ga okyaku ni sessuru taido wa ii ga,

Hanako NOM customer to attend attitude TOP good but

Taroo ga (okyaku ni) sessuru taido wa yoku nai.

Taro NOM (customer to) attend attitude TOP good not

'The attitude with which Hanako serves a customer is good but

the attitude with which Taro serves a customer is not good.'

b. *Hanako ga okyaku ni sessuru taido wa ii ga,

Hanako NOM customer to attend attitude TOP good but

Taroo ga (okyaku ni) sessuru no wa yoku nai.

Taro NOM (customer to) attend TOP good not

Intended reading: 'The attitude with which Hanako serves a

customer is good but the attitude with which Taro serves a

customer is not good.'

In (48a-b) , two non-copular sentences are conjoined by -ga 'but'.


(48b) shows that a relative clause headed by the abstract noun taido

'attitude' cannot be replaced by a corresponding NO-phrase. Our

proposal correctly rules out (48b). (48b) contains an adjective, ii

'good', which is invariably a predicate. This means that the NO-phrase

in (48b) must be a DP. Since a DP NO-phrase contains a pronoun,

(48b) is ruled out15) . By contrast, the pair of sentences in (49) exem-

plify a case in which a NO-phrase replaces a relativized nominal headed

by an abstract noun.

(49) a. Syatyoo ga iyagaru taido wa konna taido da.

president NOM despise attitude TOP this-kind attitude cop

'The attitude which the president despises is this kind of at-

titude.'

b. Syatyoo ga iyagaru no wa konna taido da.

president NOM despise TOP this-kind attitude cop

'The one (attitude) which the president despises is this kind

of attitude.'

Note that in (49a-b), the pre-copular nominal is a deictic expression and

therefore is a DP. This allows the NO-phrases in (49a-b) to be an NP

containing a formal noun -no. This accounts for the fact that (49b) is

acceptable despite the fact that the NO-phrase replaces a relativized

nominal headed by an abstract noun.

15) The data presented in (48) are relevant for what is known as the "N'-deletion" hypothesis (see Saito and Murasugi 1990). Unlike (48b), (i) is ac-

ceptable.

(i) Hanako no okyaku ni sessuru taido wa ii ga, Taroo no wa yoku-nai. Hanako GEN customer to attend attitude TOP good but Taro TOP good-not

'Hanako's attitude to attend to customers is good but Taro's is not good .'

The contrast between (48b) and (i) indicates that the second occurrence of - no in (i) is not an instance of the pronoun -no but the genitive -no. Note that

the -no in (i) cannot be a formal noun because non-pronominal NO-phrases are NPs and thus cannot occur with the predicative expression yokunai 'not good'.

28 Yuki MATSUDA

In sum, we have seen that our system can explain why only some

relativized nominals can be replaced by NO-phrases. It is clear from the

above discussion that by assuming that all sentences are asymmetric

(see (32)), we can explain the data in question.

3. 2. Coordination

In this subsection, I will look at some data involving coordination

that provide our proposal with further support. According to descrip-

tive grammarians of Japanese (e.g., Jordan 1963: 45), the conjunction -to

connects two or more "nominal phrases." If NO-phrases are indeed "nomi-

nal phrases" in the relevant respect, we expect -to to be able to connect

two or more NO-phrases. In fact, this is possible in cases like (50).

(50) [Taroo ga kat-ta no] to [Hanako ga kat-ta no] wa onazi

Taro NOM buy-PAST and Hanako NOM buy-PAST TOP same

mono da.

thing cop

'The one that Taro bought and the one that Hanako bought are

the same things.'

However, this is not always possible. Consider (51).

(51) a. (Pointing at a person in a picture)

[Kyoo koko ni irassyaru no] wa kono sensei da. today here to come (HON) TOP this teacher cop

'The one that will come here today is this teacher.'

b. (Pointing at a person in a picture) *[Kyoo koko ni irassyaru no] to [Bill ga sensyuu

today here to come (HON) and Bill NOM last-week

oaisi -ta no] wa onazi kono sensei da.

meet (HON) -PAST TOP same this teacher cop


Intended reading: 'The one that will come here today and the

one that Bill met last week are the same teacher (I am

pointing at).'

The NO-phrase in (51a) occurs with a deictic expression. This sen-

tence is appropriate in an honorific context. This is expected from the

discussion so far. That is, the NO-phrase is an NP because the NO-

phrase in (51a) occurs with a deictic expression, which is a DP. As an

NP, this NO-phrase contains the formal noun -no. Thus, (51a) is ac-

ceptable in an honorific context. Consider now (51b). In this example,

two NO-phrases are coordinated by the conjunction -to 'and'. (51b) is

unacceptable even though (51b) contains the same deictic expression in

the pre-copular position as (51a), namely kono sensei 'this professor'.

The sentences (52a-b) make the same point. Each example in (52)

contains a name in the predicate position. This allows the NO-phrase in

(52a) to be a formal-noun NP, which in turn accounts for its accepta-

bility. Despite this fact, (52b) is unacceptable presumably because

NO-phrases are conjoined by -to.

(52) a. Tabemono ga oisii no wa Oosaka da.

food NOM delicious TOP Osaka cop

'The place where food is delicious is Osaka.'

b. *Tabemono ga oisii no to manzaisi ga ooi no

food NOM delicious and comedian NOM many

wa Osaka da.

TOP Osaka cop

Intended reading: 'The place where food is delicious and the

place where there are many comedians is Osaka.'

Given that (50) is acceptable, the unacceptability of (51b) and (52b) is

puzzling. If we assume that the conjunction -to can conjoin two or more "nominal phrases

," we do not seem to be able to account for the fact that

30 Yuki MATSUDA

(51b) and (52b) are unacceptable since NPs are presumably "nominal

phrases." However, if we assume that -to can only conjoin two DPs,

which functions as an argument, the above puzzle is solved. This idea

is supported by the fact that nominals that clearly behave like predicates

cannot be conjoined by -to. Consider the contrast between (53a) and

(53b) below.

(53) a. Taroo to Hanako wa isya da.

Taro and Hanako TOP doctor cop

'Taro and Hanako are doctors.'

b. *Taroo wa sakka to isya da.

Taro TOP writer and doctor cop

Intended reading: 'Taro is (simultaneously) a writer and doctor.'

(53a) is acceptable but (53b) is not. In (53a), two names are conjoined

by -to and in (53b) two common nouns are conjoined by -to. In order to

turn (53b) into an acceptable sentence, the two common nouns must be

conjoined by the gerundive form -de of the copula da as shown in (54)

(54) Taroo wa sakka de isya da.

Taro TOP writer and doctor cop

'Taro is (simultaneously) a writer and doctor.'

By contrast, two names cannot be conjoined by the gerundive form -de

of the copula -da as shown in (55).

(55) *Taroo de Hanako wa isya da.

Taro and Hanako Top doctor cop

Intended reading: 'Taro and Hanako are doctors.'

The unacceptable examples in (51b) and (52b) are now accounted for.

They are unacceptable because they consist of two DPs. By (32) and


(35), this type of sentence is ruled out, namely every sentence has an

asymmetric syntactic structure and the pronoun -no is lexically specified

as denoting concrete objects and human beings deserving no respect,

excluding honorable persons, places, times, and abstract objects.

The above discussion suggests that the syntactic properties of the

particle -to must be characterized in categorial terms. Given our

proposal, we can simply say that -to conjoins two or more DPs (and not

NPs) 16). This in turn provides further argument for our proposal that

16) An anonymous reviewer points out that the following data might be a

problem for my analysis.

(i) Kono otoko wa tempura to susi da. this man TOP tempura and sushi cop Lit: 'This man is tempura and sushi.' (one possible meaning is that the

things that this man ordered is tempura and sushi.)

This sentence contains a deictic expression, kono otoko 'this man', in the topic

position, which is likely to be used as an argument. - Let us suppose that it is an argument. Then given my hypothesis that any sentence is asymmetric, we

must conclude that the nominal phrase conjoined by -to 'and' is a predicate. This is prima facie a problem for my claim about -to 'and', according to which

-to 'and' coordinates two or more DPs. However, the interpretation that (i) actually has indicates that the conjoined

expression is not used as a predicate. In other words, the interpretation in question should be paraphrased as 'This man does something to tempura and

sushi.' rather than as 'This man is such that he has a property of both being tempura and sushi at the same time.' The "does something" part can be in-

stantiated by various verbal expressions (such as eat or order) appropriate to the context. This suggests that the conjoined expression is used as an argu-

ment and therefore does not constitute a problem for my analysis. My anal-

ysis allows the deictic expression kono otoko 'this man' to be an NP and hence allows it to be used as a predicate. See Kuroda (1992), Takubo and Kinsui (1998), and Hoji, Takubo, Kinsui & Ueyama (1999) for syntax and semantics

of Japanese demonstrative expressions. My asymmetry hypothesis applies even to those cases in which two demonstrative nominals are "equated".

Thus, even in cases like (ii), one of the two nominals must be a DP and the other must be an NP.

(ii) kono hito wa ano sensei da. this person TOP that teacher cop 'This person (I am pointing out now) is that teacher (I met the other

day).'

32 Yuki MATSUDA

any sentence is asymmetric.

4. Conclusion

We have argued that the syntactic and semantic properties of NO-

phrases (i.e., phrases headed by the morpheme -no) are accounted for

by assuming that they can occur as DPs or as NPs and by assigning an

asymmetric structure to any sentence at LF, including so-called equa-

tive sentences. Evidence for our proposal is found in a host of different

constructions such as clefts and coordinate structures.

(ii) is meaningful in a context where the speaker characterizes the one he is pointing at in a picture as the teacher he met the other day. In this case, kono hito 'this person' must be the argument, and ano sensei 'that teacher' must be a predicate. Note also that according to my analysis, sentences like (iii) with two NO-phrases must be asymmetric as well, which means that one nominal is a DP and the other is an NP. Whichever nominal is taken to be the DP, this nominal contains a pronoun -no and has a derogatory connotation. Therefore, (iii) is ruled out.

(iii) *koko ni ututte irassyaru no wa watasi ga senzitu here at showing is (HON) TOP I NOM the-other-day

oaisi-ta no da. meet (HON) -PAST COP Intended reading: 'The person in this picture is the person that I met

the other day.'

Just as NO-phrases are not pre-determined to be arguments, demonstrative expressions, proper names, and definite descriptions can be used as predicates or as arguments.


References

Akmajian, Adrian 1970 Aspects of the grammar of focus in English.

Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Carlson, Greg 1977 Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral disser-

tation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Hasegawa, Nobuko 1997 A copula-based analysis of Japanese clefts:

wa-cleft and ga-cleft. In: Kazuko Inoue (ed.) Researching and

verifying an advanced theory of human language: Explanation of the

human faculty for constructing and computing sentences on the basis of

lexical conceptual features. A report of COE research, 15-38. Kanda

University of International Studies.

Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer 1998 Semantics in generative

grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Heggie, Lorie A. 1988 The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Higgins, F. R. 1973 The pseudocleft construction in English. Doctor-

al dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hoji, Hajime 1987 Japanese clefts and reconstruction/chain binding

effects. Paper presented at the 1997 WCCFL 6, University of

Arizona, Tucson.

Hajime Hoji, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama

1999 Demonstratives, bound variables, and reconstruction

effects. Paper presented at the 1999 Asian GLOW, Nanzan

University, Nagoya, Japan.

Inoue, Kazuko 1976 Henkei bunpoo to nihongo I 'Transformational

grammar and Japanese I.' Tokyo: Taishukan.

Jorden, Eleanor Harz 1963 Beginning Japanese part I. New Haven

and London: Yale University Press.

Kamio, Akio 1983 Meisiku no koozoo (The NP structure). In:

Kazuko Inoue (ed.) Nihongo no kihonkoozoo, 77-126. Tokyo: San-

seidoo.

34 Yuki MATSUDA

Kinsui, Satoshi 1994 Nihongo no iwayuru N'-sakujyo ni tuite 'On the

so-called Japanese N'-deletion.' ms. Kobe University.

1998 Daimeisi NO no imiteki hantyuu ni tuite 'On the cate-

gory of pronominal -no'. ms. Osaka University.

Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia N. G. Ross 1982 Prenominal modifi-

cation in Chinese and Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 9: 19-53.

Kondo, Yasuhiro 1988 Cleft sentence in old Japanese. Journal of

Faculty of Humanities at Japan Women's University: 1-10.

Kuroda, S. -Y. 1976-7 Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese

III. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5: 157-179. Reprinted in S. -Y.

Kuroda 1992a Japanese syntax and semantics as Pivot-independent

relativization in Japanese. 114-174.

1992b (Ko) so a ni-tuite 'On (ko) so a'. In: Satoshi Kinsui

and Yukinori Takubo (eds.) Sizisi 'Demonstratives', 91-104.

Tokyo: Hituzi.

1998 Syubu naizai kankeisetu 'Head-internal relative

clauses'. In: H. Hirano and T. Nakamura (eds.) Gengo no naizai to

gaizai 'Internal and external existence of Language', 1-79. Tohoku

University.

1999 Syubu naizai kankeisetu 'Head-internal relative

clauses'. In: S. -Y. Kuroda and T. Nakamura (eds.) Kotoba no kaku

to syuuen 'The core of language and its surroundings', 27-103.

Tokyo: Kuroshio.

Longobardi, Giuseppe 1994 Reference and proper names: A theory

of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25:

609-665.

1999 The Structure of DPs: some principles, parameters

and problems. To appear in M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.) Hand-

book of syntactic theory, Blackwell.

Matsuda, Yuki 1997 Representation of focus and presupposition in

Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,

Los Angeles.


Nakau, Minoru 1973 Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo:

Kaitakusha.

Okutu, Keiichiro 1974 Seisei nihon bunpoo ron 'A Theory of genera-

tive Japanese grammar.' Tokyo: Taishukan.

Rapoport, Tova R. 1987 Copular, nominal, and small clauses: A

study of Israeli Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,

Mass.

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi 1990 N'-deletion in Japanese.

The University of Connecticut Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 87-

107.

Stowell, Timothy 1991 Determiners in NP and DP. In: K. Leffel

and D. Bouchard (eds.) Views on phrase structure, Kluwer,

Dordrecht, 37-56.

Takubo, Yukinori & Satoshi Kinsui 1998 "On the relation between

the deictic and the non-deictic use of the Japanese demonstratives,"

A talk presented at a Symposium on Diachronic and Synchronic

Studies on Syntax of East Asian Languages, University of Southern

California, November 6-8, 1998.

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta 1992 The defi-

nite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in

English. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 595-652.

36 Yuki MATSUDA

コピュラ文における非対称性一「の」節の分析を通して一

松田結貴

(ワシントン大学)

日本語の文の中で名詞的構成素「の」で終わる「の」節は意味的に曖昧であり,

人間・場所・時間・抽象的な概念を指すことができる「の」節と,それが不可能

な「の」節とがある.この事実はよく知られているが,どのような条件の下でこ

のような制約が出てくるのかは明らかにされていない.この論文では主にコピュ

ラ文にあらわれる「の」節をとりあげ,コピュラ文は常に非対称的であると仮定

することによって,この「の」節の意味的分布が系統立てて説明できるというこ

とを示す.まず,「の」節が項として機能する時には上に述べたような意味的制

約を受け,述語として機能する時にはその制約を受けないという一般化を提案す

る.さらにいわゆるDP仮説を取り入れ,「の」節の意味的曖昧さを「の」節の

範疇と内部構造から予測できることを示す.またこの分析は接続詞「と」による

接続可能性をも予測できることを示す.

(受理日 1999年12月1日)

an asymmetry in copular sentences: evidence from japanese

Documents