Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:35:35.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the nature of goal marking and delimitation: Evidence from Japanese1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2008

JOHN BEAVERS
JOHN BEAVERS*
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, B5100, Austin, TX 78712-0198, U.S.A. jbeavers@mail.utexas.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates two ways goals of motion events can be expressed in so-called ‘verb-framed’ languages (Talmy 2000), focusing on the Japanese postpositions -made and -ni. It is typically assumed that these postpositions are both goal-markers, but differ in the exact goal semantics they encode, giving rise to non-overlapping distributions. Based on a range of distributional differences, I argue instead that they are more radically distinct than this: -made marks the endpoint of event participants (including but not limited to paths of motion), while -ni is a dative case that marks the goal argument of motion verbs. This suggests that it is possible for two functionally distinct participant markers to converge and give the appearance of being alternate ways of realizing the ‘same’ participant. Furthermore, adpositions such as -made, an inherently non-motion-encoding resource, represent an understudied strategy for marking goals across languages, something that has ramifications for how motion typologies are constructed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 283 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

My initial investigations into this topic were conducted in the summer of 2001 with the support of the NSF Small Grant for Exploratory Research BCS-0004437 to Beth Levin. I would like to thank David Oshima for his native speaker judgments, thoughtful discussion, and patience in helping me get a handle on the data presented here. I am also indebted to Tsuguro Nakamura for his extensive comments and discussion. I would also like to thank Tim Baldwin, Jürgen Bohnemeyer, Olivier Bonami, Bruno Estigarribia, Hana Filip, Itamar Francez, Iván García, Mika Hama, Caroline Heycock, Masayo Iida, Beth Levin, Ivan Sag, Peter Sells, Dan Slobin, Natsuko Tsujimura, Maarika Traat, Kiyoko Uchiyama, and audiences at the 2003 ACL-SIGSEM workshop on prepositions at Toulouse and the Stanford Semantics Workshop for their help and comments. I would also like to thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics reviewers for their extensive and insightful feedback. I am also grateful to Ewa Jaworska for her formatting help.

References

REFERENCES

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aske, Jon. 1989. Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. In BLS 15, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2002. Aspect and the distribution of prepositional resultative phrases in English. LinGO Working Paper #2002-7. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2008. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana & Schäfer, Martin (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 245–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John, Levin, Beth & Tham, Shiao-Wei. 2008. The typology of motion events revisited. Ms., The University of Texas at Austin, Stanford University & Wellesley College.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Enfield, Nicholas J., Essegbey, James, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide, Kita, Sotaro, Lüpke, Friederike &Ameka, Felix K.. 2007. Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83, 495–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier. 1997. The aspectual impact of French locative PPs. In Drewery, Alice, Kruijff, Geert-Jan & Zuber, Richard (eds.) The Second ESSLLI Student Session. Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier. 1999. Les constructions du verbe: Le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Deep unaccusativity in LFG. In Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick & Meijas-Bikandi, Errapel (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 45–57. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1990. Japanese direct object to indirect object demotion. In Postal, Paul & Joseph, Brian (eds.), Studies in relational grammar 3, 49–86. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1994. Predicate union and the syntax of Japanese causatives. Journal of Linguistics 30, 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in lingusitics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1997. The limits of argument structure. In Mendikoetxea, Amaya & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam (eds.), Theoretical issues at the morphology–syntax interface, 203–230. Bilbao: Universidad de País Vasco, Euskal Herriko Univertsitatea.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher & Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in degree achievements. In SALT IX, 127–144.Google Scholar
Im, Sung-Chool. 2001. Typological patterns of motion verbs and their semantic differences in Korean. In International Symposium on Korean Linguistics, 123–150. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Inagaki, Shunji. 2002. Motion verbs with locational/directional PPs in English and Japanese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 47, 187–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps event quantification in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14, 305–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindaichi, Haruhiko. 1976. Kokugo dooshi no ichibunrui [A classification of Japanese verbs]. In Kindaichi, Haruhiko (ed.), Nihongo dooshi no asupekuto [Aspect in Japanese verbs], 5–26. Tokyo: Mugi Shobo.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Makino, Seiichi & Tsutsui, Michio. 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.Google Scholar
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, Montserrat. 2001. Delimited events in English and Spanish. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 9, 31–59.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1997. Kuukan iddo no gengo hyoogen to sono kakutyoo [Linguistic expressions of spatial motion and their extensions]. In Tanaka, Shigenori & Matsumoto, Yo (eds.), Kuukan to idoo no hyoogen [Expression of space and motion], 126–229. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehleisen, Victoria & Imai, Mutsumi. 1996. Transitivity and the incorporation of ground information in Japanese path verbs. In Lee, Keedong, Sweetser, Eve & Vespoor, Marjolijn (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 329–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Tsuguro. 1997. Actions in motion: How languages express manners of motion. In Ukaji, Masatomo, Nakao, Toshio, Kajita, Masaru & Chiba, Shuji (eds.), Studies in English linguistics: A Festschrift for Akira Ota on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, 723–738. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Şeyda & Slobin, Dan I.. 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In Özsoy, A. Sumru, Akar, Didar, Nakipoglu-Demiralp, Mine, Erguvanli-Taylan, Eser & Aksu-Koç, Ayhan (eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 259–270. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James & Busa, Frederica. 1995. Unaccusativity and event composition. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Higginbotham, James & Squartini, Mario (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect, and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 159–177. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Sadakane, Kumi & Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. On the nature of the ‘dative’ particle ni in Japanese. Linguistics 33, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: Papers in language processing and acquisition, 95–151.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In Shibatani, Masayoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, Sven & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.), Relating events in narrative 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. & Hoiting, Nini. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. BLS 20, 487–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 1993. Incomplete versus divergent representations of unaccusative grammars of Italian. Second LanguageResearch 9, 22–48.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 1995. Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second langauge: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, Lynn, Selinker, Larry & Smith, Michael Sharwood (eds.), The current state of interlanguage, 79–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76, 859–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella & Shomura, Yoko. 2001. Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity: Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 247–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringer, David. 2003. Acquisitional evidence for a universal syntax of directional PPs. Conference booklet of ACLSIGSEM workshop: The linguistic dimensions of prepositions and their use in computational linguistics formalisms and applications, 44–55. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar
Stringer, David. 2006. Typological tendencies and universal grammar in the acquisition of adpositions. In Saint-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Syntax and semantics of prepositions, 57–68. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 181–238. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization – via aspect and result. BLS 17, 480–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Eri. 2002. Event composition and path in Japanese. WECOL 12. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia.Google ScholarPubMed
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 490–508. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantic interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994. Unaccusative mismatches and resultatives in Japanese. In Koizumi, Masatoshi & Ura, Hiroyuki (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 24: Formal approaches to Japanese linguistics 1, 335–354.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. An introduction to Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2002. Japanese enter/exit verbs revisited. Studies in Language 26, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2003. Event cancellation and telicity. In McClure, Michael (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 12, 388–399. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko. To appear. Motion verbs, telicity, and argument projection. In Hudson, Mutsuko Endo, Sells, Peter & Jun, Sun-ah (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 13. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality, and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2001. An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity, 1–15. The 3rd Workshop on Text Structure, The University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2003. Serial verbs and serial motion. In Beermann, Dorothee & Hellan, Lars (eds.), The Workshop on Multi-verb Constructions, 1–27. Trondheim: Trondheim Summer School, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rapoport, Tova (eds.), The syntax of aspect, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wienold, Götz. 1995. Lexical and conceptual structures in expressions for movement and space: With reference to Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Indonesian as compared to English and German. In Egli, Urs, Pause, Peter E., Schwarze, Cristoph, von Stechow, Arnim & Wienold, Götz (eds.), Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, 301–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoneyama, Mitsuaki. 1986. Motion verbs in conceptual semantics. Bulletin of the Faculty of Humanities 22, 1–15. Tokyo: Seikei University.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating syntax and lexical semantics. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 129–162. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan & Yangklang, Peerapat. 2004. A third way to travel: The place of Thai in motion-event typology. In Strömqvist, Sven & Verhoeven, Ludo (eds.), Relating events in narrative 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 159–190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar