Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T20:28:38.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicate union and the syntax of Japanese causatives1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stanley Dubinsky
Stanley Dubinsky
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper presents a monoclausal, multipredicate analysis of Japanese causatives, adopting the fundamental assumptions of Relational Grammar. Evidence is provided for the existence of two distinct classes of causatives, distinguished on the basis of the agentivity of the matrix subject. It is also demonstrated that the surface case marking of the causee is constrained by its relative status to the matrix subject with respect to a set of Proto-Agent entailments (as proposed in Dowty 1991).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 43 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aissen, J. & Perlmutter, D. (1976). Clause reduction in Spanish. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 2. 1–30. Revised version (1983). In Perlmutter, D. (ed.) Studies in relational grammar I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 360–403.Google Scholar
Davies, W. & Rosen, C. (1988). Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64. 52–88.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1985a). Japanese union constructions: a unified analysis of -sase and -rare. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1985b). Oblique to direct object advancement in Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 15. 57–75.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1990). Japanese direct object to indirect object demotion. In Joseph, B. & Postal, P. (eds.) Studies in relational grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 49–86.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. (1993). A union analysis for Japanese ‘adversative passives’. Ms., University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. & Raposo, E. (1986). Clause union, the stratal uniqueness law, and the chômeur relation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 295–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and Θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 205–232.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. (1973). Counter equi-NP deletion. Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 7. 113–148. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Harada, S. I. (1976). Honorifics. In Shibatani, S. (ed.) Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1978). Theoretical perspectives on Japanese linguistics. In Hinds, J. & Howard, I. (eds.) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1983). Shin-nihonbunpoo kenkyuu. Tokyo: Taisyukan.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 1. 1–30.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978). Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter equi in Japanese: a preliminary survey. In Hinds, J. & Howard, I. (eds.) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Martin, S. (1975). A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Syntax and semantics 22: structure and case marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Morishima, Y. (1989). An analysis of Japanese causative constructions. Ms., University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1984). Working is and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua. In Perlmutter, D. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 292–330.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1983). Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.) Studies in relational grammar I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–128.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1984a) The I-advancement exclusiveness law. In Perlmutter, D. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 81–125.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P. (1984b). Impersonal passives and some relational laws. In Perlmutter, D. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in relation grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 126–170.Google Scholar
Poser, W. (1983). What is the double-o constraint a constraint on? Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1983). Universals of causitive union: a co-proposal to the Gibson-Raposo typology. Chicago Linguistic Society 19. 338–352. Revised (1983). Chômeur causees and the universals of causative union. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 179–198.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (1984). The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In Perlmutter, D. & Rosen, C. (eds.) Studies in relational grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 38–77.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1973). Semantics of Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9. 327–373.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53. 789–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonoike, S. (1978). On the causative constructions in Japanese. In Hinds, J. & Howard, I. (eds.). Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar