Japanese morphology and its theoretical consequences : derivational morphology in distributed morphology

要旨

DISTRIBUTED MORPHOLOGY (DM) (Halle and Marantz, 1993) is a research program in morphology which abandons the traditional generative Lexicon (Chomsky, 1965 and
\n1995, among many). Recent work argues that all generative processes, including
\nderivational morphology, can be accomplished syntactically, the SINGLE ENGINE HYPOTHESIS (Marantz, 2001).
\nIn Chapter 1, I introduce the most recent work within DM which adopts and adapts Chomsky’s DERIVATION BY PHASE HYPOTHESIS to lexical-category formation. I then
\nreanalyze some important and well-known data of Aronoff (1976) in order to show that
\nthe single engine hypothesis is motivated and explanatory.
\nChapter 2 proposes an analysis of two types of common deverbals nominalizations in
\nJapanese. I argue that, actually, only one of the two types is deverbal; the other type is
\nroot-derived. Those root-derived nominalizations that contain apparent verbal transitivity
\nmarkers, the focus of this chapter, raise a paradox for the single engine hypothesis
\nbecause of their non-compositional semantics. I resolve it by adopting a proposal of den
\nDikken (1995)’s: anomalous transitivity markers are
\nAFFIXAL PARTICLES.
\nChapter 3 concentrates on lexical causatives in Japanese. There is a widely-held view
\namong linguists (Harley, 1995, 1996, Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 1995, Pinker, 1989,
\namong many), that a lexical causative cannot be derived from a verb which has an
\nagentive subject. Using observations of Matsumoto (1996) and data from idioms in
\nJapanese I argue that no such semantic criterion applies in Japanese. Given the proper
\npragmatic reading, all verbs with agentive subject can have a mono-clausal causative
\npartner. To put it another way, all verbs, regardless of their lexical semantics have lexical
\ncausatives in Japanese. This seemingly unique characteristic of Japanese is argued to be
\ndirectly related to the fact that apparent transitivity markers in Japanese are affixal
\nparticles as argued in Chapter 2.
\nChapter 4 concludes with a comparison of transitivity marking in Turkish and Korean
\nwith Japanese. I argue differences support the affixal particle analysis for Japanese. The
\nproposed analysis, under standard historical assumptions about Japanese, raises an issue
\nabout the diachronic direction of grammaticalizations. With Roberts and Roussou
\n(2003)’s work on grammaticalizations as background, this issue is briefly discussed.
\n

主題