| { | |
| "paper_id": "Y04-1005", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:35:22.107884Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Towards a Proper Treatment of Adjuncts in Japanese", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Kenji", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yokota", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "", | |
| "institution": "Akita University", | |
| "location": { | |
| "addrLine": "1-1" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "yokota@ed.akita-u.ac.jp" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "In this paper we will discuss interpretation of adverbs in Japanese. We will explore the division of labor between the syntactic requirements, semantic requirements, and discourse-contextual constraints involving adverbial interpretation. It will then be argued that this inter-modular approach utilizing LFG explains various elusive paradigms of the adverbs.", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "Y04-1005", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this paper we will discuss interpretation of adverbs in Japanese. We will explore the division of labor between the syntactic requirements, semantic requirements, and discourse-contextual constraints involving adverbial interpretation. It will then be argued that this inter-modular approach utilizing LFG explains various elusive paradigms of the adverbs.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Abstract", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will start with lexical semantic considerations of adverb scope. Pustejovsky (1991 Pustejovsky ( , 1995 argue that different types of adjuncts modify different types of subevents in the event structure of a verb. Under recent assumptions in LFG, lexical semantic information is encoded in f(unctional) structure (Butt 1995 , Andrews and Manning 1999 , Wilson 1999 . There have been a number of proposals concerning the level of lexical semantic representation that can capture the various properties of a verb, including argument projection, aspectual class, transitivity alternation, and so on (Jackendoff 1990 , Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995 , Kageyama 1996 , among many others). We conjecture that event structure representations factor out the part of the verb semantics that contribute to the aspectual property of the verb, while leaving the other components of the meaning to be specified by the LCS that accompanies each subevent as shown in (1), in which x and y represent external argument and internal argument, respectively. \"*\" indicates the head subevent, and \"<\" means 'precedes' and the structure in the parentheses shows that the corresponding LCS for the subevent.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 68, | |
| "end": 85, | |
| "text": "Pustejovsky (1991", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF25" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 86, | |
| "end": 106, | |
| "text": "Pustejovsky ( , 1995", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF26" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 315, | |
| "end": 325, | |
| "text": "(Butt 1995", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 326, | |
| "end": 352, | |
| "text": ", Andrews and Manning 1999", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 353, | |
| "end": 366, | |
| "text": ", Wilson 1999", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF34" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 598, | |
| "end": 614, | |
| "text": "(Jackendoff 1990", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 615, | |
| "end": 647, | |
| "text": ", Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 648, | |
| "end": 663, | |
| "text": ", Kageyama 1996", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(1) a. state (e.g. aru 'exist'): State (at-STATE (y)) b. act (e.g. tataku 'pound'):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Process (act (x, y)) c. achievement (e.g. sinu 'die'):", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Transition Process State* (P<S) (act (x, y)) (at-STATE (y))", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "d. accomplishment (e.g. tsukuru 'build'): Transition Process* State (P<S) (act (x, y)) (at-STATE (y)) (5) a. Ken ga Jiroo o oomatade aruk-ase-ta. Ken Nom Jiro Acc with strides walk-Caus-Past (i)'Ken made Jiro walk, with vigorous stride.' <2,1,11,8> (ii)'Ken made Jiro walk with vigorous stride' <15,6,1,0> b. Oomatade Ken ga Jiroo o aruk-ase-ta.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(i)'Ken made Jiro walk, with vigorous stride.' <3,2,9,8> (ii)'Ken made Jiro walk with vigorous stride.' <10,7,4,1>", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "What is remarkable is that in (3b) and (5b), unlike (4b), expected semantic scope ambiguities do not arise. The differences cannot be accounted for nicely only by assuming that linear order correlates with adverbial scope. Lexical semantic considerations for a given adverb class on the whole correlates with more restricted distribution and its interpretation. However, the above data suggest that the lexical semantic account discussed above is insufficient to handle these facts correctly. The next step will be to spell out decisive factors of licensing of each adverb in those examples.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Scope Ambiguity and Lexical Semantics", | |
| "sec_num": "1." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section we will introduce to our alternative semantics the dual analysis of adjuncts/complements proposed in Dowty (2000) , in which he argues that the meaning difference results from a complement vs. adjunct ambiguity, not an ambiguity in the adverb per se, and that the availability of both readings will depend on word order. 1 Take (6) as a simple illustration, which is ambiguous between a complement reading and an adjunct reading.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 117, | |
| "end": 129, | |
| "text": "Dowty (2000)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "(6) a student of high moral principles i) a student who studies high moral principles [complement reading] ii) a student who has high moral principles", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "[adjunct reading]", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The point here is that the ambiguity comes from the complement vs. adjunct reading, not from the multiple meanings (if any) of the preposition of, though the word order is irrelevant in this case. Keeping this in mind, we consider the contrast between (3b) and (4b). To account for their modification relation, we suggest that adverbs in Japanese are not always adjuncts. To be more specific, VP-adverbs such as manners, modifying a specified event and seen as process-related modifiers, can behave like either complements or adjuncts in marked word order (e.g. at the sentence-initial position). This idea seems quite promising in a language like Japanese, since there is no (strong) evidence in support of structural differences between complements and adjuncts in the language. Given this, manner adverbs such as yukkurito 'slowly' in (4) can be analyzed either as an adjunct modifying the matrix verb (4bi) or as a complement relating to its head, i.e. the embedded verb (4bii). By contrast, a depictive adverb like damatte 'silently' contained in (3) is preferably analyzed as an adjunct, since it will modify event rather than process component. The adverb oomatade 'with vigorous stride' in (5), in contrast, is preferably analyzed as a complement (see (5bii)). 2 It should be noted that we do not deny that surface word order will play some part in the interpretation of adverbs. So the scope (un)ambiguity observed in (3)-(5) have to do with a structural nature as well as a (lexical) semantic nature, which follows that c-structure as well as f-structure will participate in semantic interpretation (Yokota 2001) . Another important assumption to be introduced here is that a complement generally forms a complex predicate with the head verb at the representation level of grammatical relations (e.g. f-structure for LFG), which permits the complement completing the meaning of its head in a compositional manner. Hence, it seems reasonable to assume that certain types of adverbs are subcategorized for by the head verb.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 1609, | |
| "end": 1622, | |
| "text": "(Yokota 2001)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF33" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We will illustrate the dual analysis hypothesis in LFG. Sentences like (4b) can involve either adverb-as-complement structure (7a) or adverb-as-adjunct (7b). (7a) in effect allows the corresponding sentence to act like a single predicate. Depending on contextual factors, a complement analysis of adverbs (7a) might give way to an adjunct analysis of adverbs (7b), and vice versa. In addition, the preferred interpretation might vary among speakers. An advantage with f-structures in (7) based on the dual analysis hypothesis enables us to overcome (potentially) problematic situations involving f-structure representations in LFG, where adjuncts' relative scope to one another is not encoded at f-structure (cf. Andrews and Manning 1999) .", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 713, | |
| "end": 738, | |
| "text": "Andrews and Manning 1999)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have argued that adverbs classified as process-related (e.g. manner adverbs) restrict the range of events referred to; so that when such adverbs are selected by a verb, they contribute a necessary part of the information that the VP supplies in defining a given situation, just as an object selected by a transitive verb. If these adverbs function as complements, it is then predicted that such adverbs can modify V1 (or the embedded verb) alone from outside the VP. This is ascertained by the examples (4b) and (5b).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "The dual analysis of adverbs", | |
| "sec_num": "2." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "In this section, given the dual analysis approach discussed in the previous section, we will consider the syntactic and semantic behavior of Japanese adverbs, and then conclude that arguments (or complements) can transfer while adjuncts cannot, contrary to the assumption postulated by Matsumoto (1996) where he claims that both can transfer freely. We start with an example involving a clearly adjunct. Example 8contains a circumstantial clausal adjunct -mama 'with'. 3 (In the translations below, the angle brackets indicate which portion of the sentence is being modified by the adjunct, represented in square brackets.) [hudangi-no-mama-no] mikkai]o shita / tsuzuketa / Taro-Top spy-with casual wear-Gen-with-Gen secret meeting Acc did / continued / ketteishita / kokoromita / nozonda. decided / tried / hoped 'Taro did / continued to / decided to / tried to / hoped to <meet secretly with a spy> [wearing his everyday-clothes].' (Note that Taro did / continued / decided / tried / hoped to meet a spy secretly, where (= at the meeting) he could wear his everyday clothes.)", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 286, | |
| "end": 302, | |
| "text": "Matsumoto (1996)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF21" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 624, | |
| "end": 644, | |
| "text": "[hudangi-no-mama-no]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The differences of sentence meaning show that in (8a) the adjunct clause, which is outside the projection of the VN, unambiguously modifies the main verb, whereas in (8b) the adjunct, which remains within the projection of the VN, modifies only the VN. (8a) reads, for example, 'When Taro tried to meet a spy secretly, Taro wore his everyday clothes'. In this case, the adjunct modifies the main verb kokoromita 'tried'. In (8b), on the other hand, 'Taro tried to meet a spy secretly, where (= at the meeting) he would wear his everyday clothes'. The adjunct clause therefore modifies the VN mikkai 'secret meeting' unambiguously. Matsumoto (1996) , with the assumption that adjuncts as well as arguments can be transferred freely, provides the following sentences in (9) as cases of adjunct transfer; the adverbs are supposedly transferred out of the VN phrase, square-bracketed in (9). 9 We note that it will often be difficult to determine whether a particular occurrence of an adverb instantiates an adjunct or complement, mainly because in Japanese almost all dependents are optional in context unlike languages like English. Hence, there are few reliable syntactic criteria to be used in determining the identity of a phrase in the language. Under such a difficult situation, though, we will make use of two diagnostic tests that seem especially significant to the present study; one is the nani 'what' replacement test, the other is the causative construction test. We reexamine Matsumoto's (1996:72) two examples supposedly involving such VN adjuncts (square-bracketed below); one is a ni-marked purpose clause, which can be used with a verb of motion (Miyagawa 1986 , Saiki 1987 10a John Top finely the paper Gen cutting Acc did 'John cut the paper to very small pieces.'", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 631, | |
| "end": 647, | |
| "text": "Matsumoto (1996)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF21" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1486, | |
| "end": 1507, | |
| "text": "Matsumoto's (1996:72)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1660, | |
| "end": 1674, | |
| "text": "(Miyagawa 1986", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1675, | |
| "end": 1687, | |
| "text": ", Saiki 1987", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Matsumoto's account of (10) is, however, wrong. We instead argue that seeming adjuncts such as nimarked purpose clauses and result adverbs are actually transferred complements rather than adjuncts. A descriptive generalization to be drawn is as follows: a VN's argument can transfer, while a VN's adjunct cannot. This generalization is confirmed by the following arguments. Notice that in (11a) the VN cannot be replaced by nani 'what', indicating that the ni-marked purpose clause cannot be a dependent of suru. Likewise, in (11b) the adverb komakaku 'finely' loses its result reading if the NP is replaced by nani, which shows that the adverb cannot be a dependent of suru. Incidentally, if a result adverb is placed just in front of the main verb suru, then its result reading is available as shown in (12), in which suru may function as the heavy verb suru. Hence, (11b) and 12 John Top what Acc finely do-Pol-Past Q '(Lit.) What did John do to very small pieces?'", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We turn to another diagnostic test employing the morphological causative construction (S. Yatabe p.c.): in such a construction, a complement preceding the causer argument is interpreted with respect to the caused event, while an adjunct preceding the causer argument with respect to the causing event. To see this, consider the following example. In (13a) hooseki o 'jewelry Acc' is interpreted with respect to the caused event, i.e. nusumu 'steal', and it is thus considered an argument of the base verb nusumu 'steal'. On the other hand, in (13b) the square bracketed clause is interpreted with respect to the causing event, i.e. causative suffix -sase 'make/let do', which suggests that the clause is an adjunct. Now let us check whether the ni-marked purpose clause and the result adverb are really adjuncts as Matsumoto As indicated in the English translations, both in (14a) and (14b) the adverbials in the square brackets are interpreted with respect to the caused event, namely, the base verb tobee o s-'visit the USA' and setsudan o s-'cut', respectively. It seems, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the ni-marked purpose clause and the adverb of result are complements rather than adjuncts. 4 The same arguments hold for additional cases provided by Matsumoto (1996:78) , in which the main verb is not suru, but a control/raising verb supposedly exhibiting the same behavior as light suru. The nani replacement test given in (16) shows that the adverbs in question are simply not be of the matrix verbs (hajime-'begin' and kokoromi-'attempt'). We can now recognize from the observations above that VN-complements can transfer while VN-adjuncts cannot. It may be worth pointing out, in passing, that the proposal treating all adjuncts as complements subcategorized for by the head in some version of HPSG (e.g. Van Noord and Bouma 1994, Bouma, Malouf and Sag 2001) is not sufficient to give a full account of examples discussed in this section.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 815, | |
| "end": 824, | |
| "text": "Matsumoto", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1206, | |
| "end": 1207, | |
| "text": "4", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1265, | |
| "end": 1284, | |
| "text": "Matsumoto (1996:78)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1839, | |
| "end": 1868, | |
| "text": "Bouma 1994, Bouma, Malouf and", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1869, | |
| "end": 1878, | |
| "text": "Sag 2001)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Lastly, we provide the PS rules for Japanese covering the facts we have been discussing. We adopt an XCOMP analysis in LFG, originally due to Kaplan and Zaenen (1989) , where they propose an analysis of long-distance dependencies in terms of functional uncertainty. The rule (18a) states that either the XP is XCOMP*GF (except ADJUNCT) or it is an element of the this, the bracketed elements in (15) might be ambiguous between two readings; manner (focusing on the process of some action/ motion) and result (focusing on the resulting state of some action/motion), both of which appear to be available without much difficulty in cases like (15). The exploration of such possibilities must be left for future research.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 142, | |
| "end": 166, | |
| "text": "Kaplan and Zaenen (1989)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "ADJUNCT set. More specifically, (18a) generates a constituent structure in which arguments (except adjuncts) occur immediately dominated by an S. For instance, in VN constructions only arguments of an XCOMP can be allowed two alternative positions, namely, inside/outside a VN phrase. (18b) allows the alternative possibility of the arguments (except adjuncts) appearing inside an NP. In this manner, VP-adjuncts are handled by the rule (18a), while VN-adjuncts by (18b). (Note again that the postulation of adjunct transfer cannot be maintained any more as discussed in the present section.) We will extend the dual analysis of adverbs to the issue of scrambling adjuncts in the next section.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Non-transfer of adjuncts", | |
| "sec_num": "3." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As regards scrambling, we follow an assumption that adjunction is in principle quite free, that is, every element is base-generated and there are no major syntactic restrictions (e.g. subjacency (Chomsky 1973 )) on either the category or the level of a phrase to which something adjoins (Choi 1996) . Scrambling is usually taken to be a phenomenon that does not affect semantics. Scrambling of adjuncts changes the semantic scopes of adjuncts, while scrambling of complements does not. Scrambling of adjuncts out of a complement is not possible, while scrambling of a complement out of a complement is. Hence, adjuncts in the usual case do not undergo scrambling (e.g. Saito 1985 , Gunji 1999 . Admitting that adverbs do not usually participate in scrambling, we argue that adverbs still can be scrambled as long as they are considered complements selected by the head. Let us first consider the following examples. The argument (or complement)-like behaviour of long fronted adjuncts can be interpretatively motivated; such adjuncts do not function as scene setters of the higher clause. In (20), the locative phrase in sentence-initial position is more closely related to asobu 'play' than omotta 'thought'. In other words, omou 'think' does not normally support a locative of any type, while asobu 'play' supports a -de phrase. Somewhat informally, the crucial factor in determining the dominant interpretation lies in how easy it is to imagine an appropriate context. In light of cases like (20b), the locative adverb kooen de 'in the park' is lexically selected (or subcategorized for) by the verb asobu 'play', though in real utterances such a phrase 'Mary suddenly said that John started crying.' b. Kyuuni shika Mary ga [John ga naki-dasa-nak-atta to] itta. suddenly only Nom Nom cry-begin-Neg-Past that said 'Mary said that John only suddenly started crying.'", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 195, | |
| "end": 208, | |
| "text": "(Chomsky 1973", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 287, | |
| "end": 298, | |
| "text": "(Choi 1996)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 669, | |
| "end": 679, | |
| "text": "Saito 1985", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 680, | |
| "end": 692, | |
| "text": ", Gunji 1999", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Re-examination of adjunct scrambling", | |
| "sec_num": "4." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The central claims we have argued for in this paper are the following. The variance of adverbial interpretation is more of lexical semantic nature than of structural nature. To account for elusive paradigms involving adverbs, we need to reexamine the traditional distinction between adjuncts and complements. To substantiate it, we have shown that a newly identified semantic perspective of the dual analysis of adjuncts/complements is highly valid in the study of syntax/semantics of adverbs. The present study will lead us to argue that placement and interpretation of adverbs cannot be easily explained by a single domain of grammar (e.g. surface phrase structure), but must rather be considered by simultaneous interactions of different components of grammar (e.g. (lexical) semantic structure, syntactic structure, and discourse (information) structure). This line of analysis will be incorporated into the LFG architecture without difficulty.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "Conclusion", | |
| "sec_num": "5." | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We use the terms \"argument\" and \"complement\" alternately at appropriate points in this paper, following the conventional usage in the literature. 2 Adverbs of the same type include hageshiku (yusaburu) '(shake)violently', ryuuchooni (hanasu) '(speak) fluently', tsururito (suberu) 'slip', gaburito (kamitsuku) '(bite) violently', gutto (hipparu) '(pull) well', nikotto warau 'smile', chiratto miru 'have a look at'.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The same arguments will hold for other types of clausal adjuncts including temporal, concessive, degree, rationale, and locative, though we do not explore it here.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Concerning LFG formalism, we assume that a complement forms a complex predicate with the matrix predicate (e.g. V, VN, VP) at f-structure, and the c-structure (or surface structure) is either mono-clausal or multi-clausal, though it cannot be discussed here in detail for lack of space.5As is well known, the distinction between result adverbs and manner adverbs is not always clear-cut. Considering", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The sentences (20a) and (20b) may be ambiguous. If so, it follows that the adverb can be interpreted to modify the matrix verb as well as the embedded verb. The point here is that an adverb is interpreted with respect to the embedded verb (see also (4b) and (5b) above).", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "See for a detailed discussionMuraki (1978),Kato (1985),Sells (1996) and references therein.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "may not be always realized. 7 Taking it into account, we propose that only \"subcategorized adverbs\" newly recognized here can participate in scrambling. This is supported by an example like (21), which shows that non-subcategorized adverbs (arguably, genuine adjuncts) cannot be scrambled without altering sentence meaning. In (21a) a temporal adjunct chookikan 'for a long time' is marked with the genitive marker no, and stays within the projection of the VN, hence the adjunct is considered a VN-modifier.(21) a. [Chookikan-no] tobee o shita / tsuzuketa / ketteishita / kokoromita / nozonda. for.a.long.time-Gen visit.USA-Acc did / continued / decided / tried / hoped '(Lit.) (I) did / continued / decided / tried to / hoped to <visit USA> [for a long time]' b.[Chookikan] tobee o shita / tsuzuketa / ketteishita / kokoromita / nozonda. for.a.long.time visit.USA-Acc did / continued / decided / tried / hoped '(Lit.) (I) <visited / tried to visit / hoped to visit USA> [for a long time].' In (21b), the adjunct chookikan is not marked with the genitive case marker, and it is outside the NP, which means that it is no longer an adjunct of the VN. Note that in (21b) the adjunct chookikan modifies the main verb shita / kokoromita / nozonda etc, but does not modify only the VN tobee 'visit USA'. The difference in interpretation between (21a) and (21b) strongly indicates that an adjunct can no longer modify its head alone if it is outside the projection of the head.In the remainder of this section, we argue that scrambling of adverbs is motivated by lexical semantic restrictions and perhaps in some cases discourse factors such as focus, which is similar to aboutness conditions (Kuno 1976) , characterization conditions (Takami 1992) requiring the rest of the sentence to make a meaningful predication about the fronted element. Consider 22. 22 A functional-syntax approach by Kuno and Takami would explain (22) as follows; if all of a scrambled sentence, including both main and embedded clauses, does give a reading that is \"about\" the preposed constituent, then the sentence will be acceptable even when scrambled out of a relative clause. There are pairs of acceptable and unacceptable sentences that are structurally identical. This situation would seem to rule out appealing to any structural condition. Instead, it seems necessary to look at the meaning of the sentence and see if the rest of the sentence makes a meaningful predication about the fronted element. The aboutness constraint can account for examples like (22). For instance, (23a) can be paraphrased using a such that relative clause; \"The machine gun is such that the police are searching for the guy who stole it.\" However, it appears difficult for such a functional account employing the paraphrasability to explain the difference between (23a) and (23b), where an adverb is in the sentence-initial position. The special relationship between a predicate and its dependents could be represented in Pustejovsky's (1995) notion of the qualia structure. Such formalization must be left for future research.'Hanako thinks that Taro blindly believes in that theory.' The sentence-initial adverb in (23a) must be construed with the matrix verb in (23), while the one in (23b) may not be construed with the matrix verb. As mentioned above, in a functional-syntax view, a scrambled phrase must be characterized by the content of the remnants; that is, the remnant clause as a whole must serve as a characterization of the scrambled element. But it is not clear how the fronted adverbs are related to the entire meaning of the rest of the sentence. To account for (23) straightforwardly, we should consider semantic compatibility between the adverb and either the matrix or embedded verb, which is to be ascribed to the dual analysis of adjuncts/complements than to functional notions such as aboutness or characterization. In (23b), for instance, moomokutekini 'blindly' must be analyzed as a complement of the head shinjiru 'believe', since adjuncts cannot be transferred as shown in section 3. Note also that in the present account there is no need to characterize certain types of adjuncts (e.g. moomokutekini in (19b)) as subcategorized adjuncts. We contend that the so-called subcategorized adjuncts in effect are treated as adverb complements subcategorized for by the head (just like the assumption adopted in Categorial Grammar).Let us next consider another case. Recall that there are many cases where adverbs appear to behave like complements. Examples (taken from Saito 1985:174) like (24) can be straightforwardly accounted for with the dual analysis. 24 In these sentences, the sentence-initial adverbs are construed with the embedded verb, because the scrambled adverbs contain a specific/referential NP. Hence, these adverbs are semantically analyzed as complements under the dual analysis. Lastly, consider examples in (25b) and (26b), taken from Sugisaki (2000: 387-388) with slight modifications, contain the shika-na(i) 'only-Neg' constituent. The focus particle shika 'only' phrase is always associated with the main verb na(i) 'Neg' within the same clause. 8 The present analysis of adjuncts/complements do not treat sentences like (25b) and (26b) as instances of adjunct scrambling, but characterize them as cases of argument (or complement) scrambling where the shika phrase is subcategorized for by the Neg. ", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 28, | |
| "end": 29, | |
| "text": "7", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 516, | |
| "end": 530, | |
| "text": "[Chookikan-no]", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1687, | |
| "end": 1698, | |
| "text": "(Kuno 1976)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 1729, | |
| "end": 1742, | |
| "text": "(Takami 1992)", | |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF31" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 4937, | |
| "end": 4961, | |
| "text": "Sugisaki (2000: 387-388)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 5152, | |
| "end": 5153, | |
| "text": "8", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "annex", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Complex Predicates and Information Spreading in LFG", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "D" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Andrews", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "C", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "D" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Manning", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Andrews, A. D. and C. D. Manning. 1999. Complex Predicates and Information Spreading in LFG. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bouma", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Malouf", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "I", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sag", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", | |
| "volume": "19", | |
| "issue": "1", | |
| "pages": "1--65", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Bouma, G., R. Malouf and I. Sag. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(1), 1-65.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Butt", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": null, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Butt, M. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF3": { | |
| "ref_id": "b3", | |
| "title": "Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "H. -W", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Choi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Choi, H. -W. 1999. Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF4": { | |
| "ref_id": "b4", | |
| "title": "Conditions on transformations", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "N", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Chomsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1973, | |
| "venue": "A Festschrif tfor Morris Halle", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrif tfor Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF6": { | |
| "ref_id": "b6", | |
| "title": "Discontinuous NPs in German A Case Study of the Interaction of Syntax", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "De Kuthy", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "De Kuthy, K. 2000. Discontinuous NPs in German A Case Study of the Interaction of Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF7": { | |
| "ref_id": "b7", | |
| "title": "The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in categorial grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "D", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Dowty", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "ZAS Papers in Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "17", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "1--20", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Dowty, D. 2000. The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in categorial grammar. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17, 1-20.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF8": { | |
| "ref_id": "b8", | |
| "title": "Light verbs and theta-marking", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Grimshaw", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Mester", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1988, | |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", | |
| "volume": "19", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "205--232", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Grimshaw, J. and A. Mester. 1988. Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19:205-232.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF9": { | |
| "ref_id": "b9", | |
| "title": "On lexicalist treatments of Japanese causatives", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "T", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gunji", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "Readings in HPSG", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "119--160", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Gunji, T. 1999. On lexicalist treatments of Japanese causatives. In G. Green and R. Levine (Eds.), Readings in HPSG, pp. 119-160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF10": { | |
| "ref_id": "b10", | |
| "title": "Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jackendoff", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1972, | |
| "venue": "Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF11": { | |
| "ref_id": "b11", | |
| "title": "Dooshi Imiron [Verb Semantics", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "T", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kageyama", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kageyama, T. 1996. Dooshi Imiron [Verb Semantics]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF12": { | |
| "ref_id": "b12", | |
| "title": "Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "M" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Kaplan", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Zaenen", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1989, | |
| "venue": "Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "137--165", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kaplan, R. M. and A. Zaenen. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In M. Baltin and A. Kroch (Eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, pp. 17-42. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Reprinted in M. Dalrymple et al. (Eds.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, pp. 137-165. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF13": { | |
| "ref_id": "b13", | |
| "title": "Negative Sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Monnograph 19", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Y", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kato", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kato, Y. 1985. Negative Sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Monnograph 19. Sophia University.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF14": { | |
| "ref_id": "b14", | |
| "title": "Modal phrase and adjuncts", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Koizumi", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "Japanese/Korean Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "2", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "409--428", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Koizumi, M. 1993. Modal phrase and adjuncts. In P. M. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 2, 409-428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF15": { | |
| "ref_id": "b15", | |
| "title": "Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kuno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1976, | |
| "venue": "Subject and Topic", | |
| "volume": "18", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker's empathy. C. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. PACLIC 18, December 8th-10th, 2004, Waseda University, Tokyo", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF16": { | |
| "ref_id": "b16", | |
| "title": "Danwa no bunpoo", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kuno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. 1978. Danwa no bunpoo [Discourse Grammar]. Tokyo: Taishuukan Publishing Co.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF17": { | |
| "ref_id": "b17", | |
| "title": "NPI licensing, o/ga alternation, verb raising and scrambling", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kuno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2002, | |
| "venue": "Japanese/Korean Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "10", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "465--480", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. 2002. NPI licensing, o/ga alternation, verb raising and scrambling. In N. M. Akatsuka and Straus (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 10, 465-480. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF18": { | |
| "ref_id": "b18", | |
| "title": "Nichieigo no jidooshi koobun [A Functional Analysis of Intransitive Constructions in English and Japanese", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Kuno", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Takami", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. and K. Takami. 2001. Nichieigo no jidooshi koobun [A Functional Analysis of Intransitive Constructions in English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kenkyuusha.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF19": { | |
| "ref_id": "b19", | |
| "title": "Unaccusativity: at the syntactic lexical semantic interface", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "R", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Levin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "R" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Hovav", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Levin, R. and M. R. Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: at the syntactic lexical semantic interface. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF20": { | |
| "ref_id": "b20", | |
| "title": "The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "C", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Manning", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "I", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "S" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Iida", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "Readings in HPSG", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "39--79", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Manning, C., I. S. and M. Iida. 1999. The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In G. Green and R. Levine (Eds.), Readings in HPSG, pp. 39-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF21": { | |
| "ref_id": "b21", | |
| "title": "Complex Predicates in Japanese: a syntactic and semantic study of the notion 'word", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Y", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Matsumoto", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: a syntactic and semantic study of the notion 'word'. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF22": { | |
| "ref_id": "b22", | |
| "title": "The shika nai construction and predicate restructuring", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Muraki", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1978, | |
| "venue": "Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "155--177", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Muraki, M. 1978. The shika nai construction and predicate restructuring. In J. Hinds and I. Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, pp. 155-177. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF24": { | |
| "ref_id": "b24", | |
| "title": "Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "A", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Przepi\u00f3rkowski", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "231--245", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Przepi\u00f3rkowski, A. 1999. On case assignment and \"adjuncts as complements.\" In Webelhuth, G., J.-P. Koenig, and A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Studies in Constraint- Based Lexicalism, pp. 231-245. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF25": { | |
| "ref_id": "b25", | |
| "title": "The syntax of event structure", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pustejovsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "Cognition", | |
| "volume": "41", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "47--81", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47-81.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF26": { | |
| "ref_id": "b26", | |
| "title": "The Generative Lexicon", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "J", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pustejovsky", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1995, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF27": { | |
| "ref_id": "b27", | |
| "title": "A theory of focus interpretation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Rooth", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "Natural Language Semantics", | |
| "volume": "1", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "117--121", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 117-121.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF28": { | |
| "ref_id": "b28", | |
| "title": "Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Sells, P. 1996. The projection of phrase structure and argument structure in Japanese", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "M", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Saito", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1985, | |
| "venue": "Studies on the Universality of Constraint-Based Phrase Structure Grammars. Report of the International Scientific Research Program", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "39--60", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Saito, M. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Sells, P. 1996. The projection of phrase structure and argument structure in Japanese. In T. Gunji (Ed.), Studies on the Universality of Constraint-Based Phrase Structure Grammars. Report of the International Scientific Research Program, Joint Research, Project No. 06044133. Osaka University, Graduate School of Language and Culture, pp. 39-60.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF29": { | |
| "ref_id": "b29", | |
| "title": "Regularity in inflection and derivation: rule and analogy in Japanese deverbal compound formation", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Y", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sugioka", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1996, | |
| "venue": "Acta Linguistica", | |
| "volume": "45", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "231--253", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sugioka, Y. 1996. Regularity in inflection and derivation: rule and analogy in Japanese deverbal compound formation. Acta Linguistica 45, 231-253.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF30": { | |
| "ref_id": "b30", | |
| "title": "Scrambling of adjuncts and last resort", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Sugisaki", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2000, | |
| "venue": "Japanese/ Korean Linguistics", | |
| "volume": "9", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "379--389", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Sugisaki, K. 2000. Scrambling of adjuncts and last resort. In M. Nakayama and C. J. Quinn, Jr. (Eds.), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics Volume 9, 379-389. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF31": { | |
| "ref_id": "b31", | |
| "title": "Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Takami", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1992, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Takami, K. 1992. Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF32": { | |
| "ref_id": "b32", | |
| "title": "The scope of adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Van Noord", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "G", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Bouma", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1994, | |
| "venue": "Proceedingsof the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-94)", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "250--256", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Van Noord, G. and G. Bouma. 1994. The scope of adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. In Proceedingsof the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-94), 250-256. Kyoto.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF33": { | |
| "ref_id": "b33", | |
| "title": "Complex-Predicate Formation and Some Consequences in Japanese", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Yokota", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 2001, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the 6th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "324--351", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Yokota, K. 2001. Complex-Predicate Formation and Some Consequences in Japanese. In M. Butt and T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, 324-351. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF34": { | |
| "ref_id": "b34", | |
| "title": "Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Wilson", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1999, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "Wilson, S. 1999. Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": { | |
| "FIGREF0": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": ", and the other is an adverb of result, which can be used with a change of state verb(Nitta 1989) (10b). (The phrases in question are square-bracketed.) (10) a. Jon wa [jishin no higai o choosa shi ni] chookikan tobee o surukoto John Top earthquake Gen damage Acc research do Pur for.a.long.time visit.USA Acc do Comp ni shita. Dat decided 'John decided to go to the US for a long time in order to survey the earthquake.' b. Jon wa [komakaku] sono kami no setsudan o shita." | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF1": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "are different in nature. (12) Jon wa nani o komakaku shi-mashi-ta ka." | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF2": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "15) 5 a. Sono taihuu wa [fukuzatsu ni] idoo o hajimeta. the typhoon Top complicatedly movement Acc began 'The typhoon began to move in a complicated way.' b. Karera wa [oohaba ni] kourikakaku no nesage o kokoromita. they Top substantially retail.price Gen lowering Acc attempted 'They attempted to make a substantial reduction in retail prices.'" | |
| }, | |
| "FIGREF3": { | |
| "uris": null, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "type_str": "figure", | |
| "text": "16) a. ??Sono taihuu wa [fukuzatsu ni] nani o hajime-mashi-ta-ka. the typhoon Top complicatedly what Acc begin-Pol-Past-Q '(Lit.) What did the typhoon begin in a complicated way?' b. ??Karera wa [oohaba ni] nani o kokoromi-mashi-ta-ka. they Top substantially what Acc attempt-Pol-Past-Q '(Lit.)What did they attempt to do vastly?' The causative test in (17) shows that the adverbs in question are interpreted with respect to their base verb (i.e. hajime-'begin' and kokoromi-'attempt'), which leads us to analyze such adverbs as complements, not adjuncts. (17) a. ?[Fukuzatsu ni] teikiatsu ga sono taihuu ni idoo o hajime-sase-ta. complicatedly low pressure Nom the typhoon Dat movement Acc begin-Caus-Past 'The low pressure made the typhoon <begin to move> [in a complicated way].' b. [Oohaba ni] shachoo ga karera ni kourikakaku no nesage o kokoromi-sase-ta. substantially president Nom they Dat retail.price Gen lowering Acc attempt-Caus-Past 'The company president made them <attempt to make a reduction in retail prices> [substantially].'" | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF1": { | |
| "text": "[wearing his everyday clothes], <did / continued to / decided to / tried to / hoped to meet secretly with a spy>.' (Note that Taro wore his everyday clothe when he did / continued / decided tried / hoped to meet a spy secretly.) b. Taroo wa supai-to [ NP", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>8) a. [Hudangi no mama] Taroo wa supai to</td><td>[ NP mikkai]o</td><td>shita / tsuzuketa / ketteishita /</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">[casual wear Gen-with] Taro Top spy with secret meeting Acc did / continued / decided /</td></tr><tr><td>kokoromita / nozonda.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>tried /hoped</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>'Taro,</td><td/><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF3": { | |
| "text": "Let us begin with the nani 'what' replacement test to check whether the phrase in question is really a dependent of a VN. Gen damage Acc research.do.Pur. for.a.long.time what Acc do Comp ni shi-mashi-ta ka.", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"3\">(11) a. ??Jon wa [jishin no higai o choosa shi ni]</td><td>chookikan</td><td>nani o</td><td>suru koto</td></tr><tr><td>John Top earthquake Dat do-Pol-Past Q</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">'(Lit.) What did John decide to do for a long time in order to survey the damage from the</td></tr><tr><td>earthquake?'</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. ??Jon wa [komakaku] nani o</td><td>shi-mashi-ta ka.</td><td/></tr><tr><td>John Top finely</td><td colspan=\"2\">what Acc do-Pol-Past Q</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">'(Lit.) What did John do to very small pieces?'</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF4": { | |
| "text": "Nan'no setsumei mo se-zu ni] Taroo wa Hanako ni amerika e ik-ase-ta. what Gen explanation even do without Taro Top Hanako Dat USA to go-Caus-Past 'Taro <made Hanako visit the US> [without giving any explanation to her].'", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(13) a. [Hooseki o] Taroo wa Jiroo ni Hanako kara</td><td>nusum-ase-ta.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">jewelry Acc Taro Top Jiro Dat Hanako Source steal-Caus-Past</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'Taro made Jiro <steal> [the jewelry] from Hanako.'</td></tr><tr><td>b. [</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| }, | |
| "TABREF5": { | |
| "text": "Acc research do Pur Taro Top John Dat visit.USA. Acc do-Caus-Past 'Taro made John <visit the US> [in order for her to do survey the damage from the earthquake].", | |
| "content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td>claims.</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(14) a. [Jishin no higai o choosa shi ni]</td><td>Taroo wa Jon ni</td><td>tobee o</td><td>s-ase-ta.</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">earthquake Gen damage '</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. [Komakaku] Taroo wa Jon ni</td><td colspan=\"2\">sono kami no setsudan o s-ase-ta.</td></tr><tr><td>finely</td><td colspan=\"3\">Taro Top John Dat the paper Gen cut Acc do-Caus-Past</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">'Taro made John <cut the paper> [finely].'</td><td/></tr></table>", | |
| "html": null, | |
| "type_str": "table", | |
| "num": null | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } | |
| } |