Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:24:17.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affectees in subject position and applicative theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kyumin Kim
Kyumin Kim*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is twofold. First, based on passives in Japanese and Korean, it expands the domain of the applicative head (Appl) to include an argument in the structural subject position. These languages provide evidence for a new type of Appl, peripheral Appl, distinct from the well-known high Appl in Bantu: unlike high Appl, peripheral Appl is the highest argument-introducing head under T, and can merge above VoiceP. The recognition of peripheral Appl makes it possible to account for the cross-linguistic positional variation among affectee arguments. Second, the article provides articulated clause structures for passives in Japanese and Korean in terms of Appl. The applicative account proves to be successful in providing a unified account of Japanese possessive and non-possessive passives, and of Korean possessive passives and causatives.

Résumé

Résumé

L'objectif de cet article est double. D'abord, sur la base des passifs en japonais et en coréen, il étend le domaine de la tête applicative (Appl) pour inclure un argument en position structurale sujet. Ces langues apportentdes arguments pour un nouveau type d’Appl, soit Appl périphérique, qui est distinct de la tête Appl plus haut bien connu dans les langues bantoues : à la différence du haut Appl, l'Appl périphérique est la tête la plus élevée qui introduit un argument sous T, et peut fusionner au-dessus du Groupe Voix. La reconnaissance de l’Appl périphérique permet d’expliquer la variation positionnelle interlinguale entre des arguments appliqués. En second lieu, cet article fournit des structures propositionnelles pour les passifs en japonais et en coréen en termes d'Appl. Cette approche applicative réussit à fournir une explication unifiee des passifs possessifs et non possessifs en japonais, et de passifs possessifs et causatifs en coréen.

Keywords

peripheral applicativehigh applicativepassiveaffectee(non-)agentivityapplicatif périphériqueapplicatif élevépassifargument appliqué(non-)agentivité
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 77 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

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.)

References

Aoun, Joseph and Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20:141–172.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph and Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baek, MiHyun. 1997. Korean I suffix: A functional approach. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:353–389.Google Scholar
Belvin, Robert and Dikken, Marcel den. 1997. There, happens, to, be, have. Lingua 101:151–183.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 151–190. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Moshi, Lioba 1993. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, ed. Mchombo, Sam, 50–93. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Buell, Leston Chandler. 2005. Issues in Zulu verbal morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government binding approach. Reidel: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Cho, Jai Hyoung. 1994. On scrambling: Reconstruction, crossover, and anaphor binding. In Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics, ed. Kim-Renaud, Young-Key, 255–274. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook. 1989. Restructuring parameters and scrambling in Korean and Hungarian, In Configurationality, ed. Marcz, Laszlo and Muysken, Pieter, 267–292. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics (MITOPL) 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1989. Thematic underspecification: The case of have. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL) 10, ed. Brunson, Babara, Burton, Strang, and Wilson, Tom, 85–93. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL).Google Scholar
Cuervo, Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1997. Predicate union and the syntax of Japanese passive. Journal of Linguistics 33:1–37.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Kinsuke. 1964. Nihongo-bunpoo-siron. Gengobunka 1:3–46.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Kinsuke. 1968. The passsive construction in English. Language 44:224–243.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2009. Chokusetu-judoobun to Shoyuu-judoobun: Little v toshite-no RARE to sono Sosei [Direct passives and possessor passives: Rare as little v and its features]. In Goi-no Imi to Bunpoo [Lexical meanings and grammar], ed. Yumoto, Yoko and Kishimoto, Hideki, 433–454. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1991. The generalized projection principle and its implications for passive constructions. Journal of Japanese linguistics 13:53–89.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994a. Passives, causatives, and light verbs: A study on theta role assignment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994b. Theta role assignment, passivization, and excorporation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3:147–178.Google Scholar
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1999. Passives. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Tsujimura, Natsuko, 191–235. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Howard, Irwin and Niyekawa-Howard, Agnes M.. 1976. Passivization. In Syntax and semantics: A Japanese generative grammar, ed. Shibatani, Masayoshi, 201–237. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Inoue, K. 1979. Henkeibumpoo to Nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Taishukan: Tokyo.Google Scholar
Kang, Myung Youn. 1997. Bare phrase approach to Korean morphological causative/passive construction. Language Research 33:79–100.Google Scholar
Katada, Fusa. 1991. The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22:287–313.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyung Hwan. 1994. Adversity and retained object passive construction. In Proceedings of the 4th Japanese and Korean Linguistics, ed. Akatsuka, Noriko, 331–346. Department of Linguistics, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kim, Hee Sue. 2005. Causatives, passive and their ambiguities in Korean, Japanese, and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2009. Two types of inchoatives in Korean. Language Research 45:231–255.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2011. High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua 121:487–510.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2012a. Argument structure licensing and English have. Journal of Linguistics 48:71–105.Google Scholar
Kim, Kyumin. 2012b. External argument introducers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo. 1990. The syntax and semantics of Korean case: The interpretation between lexical and semantic levels of representation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Kuroda, ShigeYuki. 1992. Passives in Japanese. Ms., Indiana University and University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Serving the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Kubo, Miori. 1990. Japanese passives. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige Yuki. 1965b. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige Yuki. 1979. On Japanese passives. In Exploration in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, ed. Bedell, G., Kobayashi, E., and Mraki, M., 305–347. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Lee, Yung Suk. 1991. Scrambling and pronoun binding. In Proceedings of the 4th Harvard Biennial International Symposium on Korean Linguistics, ed. Kuno, Susumu et al., 329–338. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Lee, Kee Dong. 1987. The meanings of the two passives in Korean. Language Research 23:185–201.Google Scholar
Lee, Sangcheol. 1986. Passives and causative construction in Korean: Towards a universal characterization in terms of categorical grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Mchombo, S.A., 113–150. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2001. Linking arguments to phrase structure: A study of passive, psych verbs, and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan and Kim, Soonwon. 1992. Case assignment in the inalienable possession construction in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:37–68.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1989. Adverbials and structural case in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3:297–308.Google Scholar
McCawley, Noriko A. 1972. On the treatment of Japanese passives. In Proceedings of Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Peramteau, P.M., Levi, J.N., and Phares, G.C., 256–270. Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2006. German inherent datives and argument structure. In Datives and other cases, ed. Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, Andre, and Abraham, Werner, 49–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2006. The interpretation of German datives and English have. In Datives and other cases, ed. Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, Andre, and Abraham, Werner, 185–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and semantics 22, San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard and Nishio, Hiroko. 1981. Adversity. Coyote papers: Working papers in Linguistics from A —> Z, ed. Farmer, Ann K. and Kitagawa, Chisato, 163–187. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Linguistics Circle.+Z,+ed.+Farmer,+Ann+K.+and+Kitagawa,+Chisato,+163–187.+Tucson,+Arizona:+University+of+Arizona+Linguistics+Circle.>Google Scholar
Ngonyani, Deo. 1998. Properties of applied objects in Kiswahili and Kindendeule. Studies in African Linguistics 27:67–95.Google Scholar
Oshima, David. 2006. Adversity and Korean/Japanese passives: Constructional analogy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15:137–166.Google Scholar
Park, Sang Do. 2005. Parameters of passive constructions in English and Korean. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Park, Jung Won. 1994. Morphological Causatives in Korean: Problems in grammatical polysemy and constructional relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Park, Sang Do and Whitman, John. 2003. Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese. In Proceedings of Japanese and Korean Linguistics 12, ed. McClure, William, 307–321. Department of Linguistics, Graduate Center of the City University of New York.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1984. Working Is and inversion in Italian, Japanese, and Quechua. In Studies in Relational Grammar 2, ed. Perlmutter, David and Rosen, Carol, 292–330. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth and Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1997. The function of have. Lingua 101:295–321.Google Scholar
Rivero, Luisa. 2009. Intentionality, high applicatives, and aspect: Involuntary state constructions in Bulgarian and Slovenian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:151–196.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamuro. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:69–118.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language 61:821–848.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Nam Sun. 2002. A comparative study of Japanese passive and Korean passive. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 32:165–196.Google Scholar
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 16:817–889.Google Scholar
Toribio, Jacqueline. 1990. Specifier-head agreement in Japanese. In Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Halpern, Aaron L., 535–548. Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Uda, Chiharu. 1994. Complex predicates in Japanese. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1999. Checking theory and dative subject construction in Japanese and Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8:223–254.Google Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi. 1993. When causatives mean passive: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2:45–90.Google Scholar
Whitman, John and Hahn, Sharon Soon-ie. 1988. Korean morphological passive/causatives. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Korean Linguistics, ed. Baek, Eung-Jin, 714–727. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Whitman, John., and Park, Sang Do. 2003. Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese. In Proceedings of Japanese and Korean Linguistics 12, ed. McClure, William, 307–321. Department of Linguistics, Graduate Center of the City University of New York.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1979. Are grammatical categories vague or polysemous? (The Japanese ‘adversity’ passive in a typological context). Papers in Linguistics 12:110–162.Google Scholar
Yang, DongWhee. 1979. Kwuke uy phi/sa-dong [Passive and causative verbs in Korean]. Hangeul: Journal of the Korean Linguistic Society 230:33–49.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jae Hoon. 1991. The Korean causative-passive correlation revisited. Language Research 27:73–58.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jae Hoon. 2002. The causative-passive ambiguity and the notion of “contiguity” as a crucial factor in explaining the retained-object passive constructions. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 32:197–221.Google Scholar
Yeon, Jae Hoon. 2003. Korean grammatical constructions. London: Saffron.Google Scholar