<%BANNER%>

Verb meanings and their effects on syntactic behaviors

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

VERB MEANINGS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SYNTACTIC BEHAVIORS : A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ENGLISH AND JAPANESE ERGATIVE PAIRS By Toru Matsuzaki A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTI AL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 200 1

PAGE 2

To Chieko with love and gratitude

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have so many people to thank for the completion of this dissertation. First, I would like to thank Dr. Ann Wehemeyer, the chair of my supervisory committee, for her constant support, valuable advice, and her outstanding scholarship. When ever I felt that I lost perspective, she always came up with articles and books where I could find light to follow. I should also thank Dr. D. Gary Miller for his abundant feedback on my dissertation. I will never f o rget the magnificent view from his offic e at Turlington where we had heated discussions on focal points of my dissertation. I also would like to thank Dr. Marie Nelson and Dr. Joseph Murphy for being patient with my slow progress in my dissertation. I should not forget to thank Dr. Mohammad Moha mmad for being a committee member before he left for University of Texas. Among the excellent graduate students in the Program in Linguistics at the University of Florida who constantly gave me moral support and served as informants for this dissertation w ere Jodi Bray, Kim Duk Young, Evelyne Ngauchi, Jongbum Ha, and Philip Monahan. I also need to thank my friends John Pasden, a former student in Beginning Japanese, and Larry Tankersky, my American mentor, for providing me with plentiful linguistic insight. Their keen interest in linguistics made me proud that I am a linguist. I should not forget to express my gratitude for the staff at the Electronic Thesis and Dissertation office. Whenever I had problems with my template, ETD counselors solved every single one of them in a split second.

PAGE 4

iv I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Robin Gibson and Jean Gibson, whose Gibson Dissertation Fellowship at the University of Florida College of Liberal Arts and Science enabled me to devote ample time to doin g research for this dissertation. Their generous support enabled me to complete the dissertation half a year earlier. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Chieko for her constant support and encouragement that she has never ceased to give to me for more than five years since we came to Gainesville. Without her, I would not have been able to muster the courage to come over to America, let alone complete this dissertation.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. iii LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ viii ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ ix CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 2 ERGATIVE ALTERNATION ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 2.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 2.2 English Ergative Pairs ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 2. 2.1 Syntacti c Aspects ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 2. 2.2 Ergative Alternation and Other Similar Syntactic Operations ......................... 14 2. 2.2.1 Ergatives and passives ................................ ................................ .............. 15 2. 2.1.2 Ergatives and middles ................................ ................................ ............... 16 2. 2.2 Semantic Aspects ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 2.3 Japanese Ergative Pairs ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 2. 3.1 Syntactic Characteristics ................................ ................................ .................. 23 2. 3.2 Morphological Characteristics ................................ ................................ ......... 24 2.4 Ergative Alternation : Issues ................................ ................................ .................... 29 2.5 Unaccusativity ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 30 2.5.1 The Unaccusativity Hypothesis ................................ ................................ ....... 31 2. 5.2 Unaccusative Verbs in English ................................ ................................ ........ 33 2. 5.3 Unaccusative Verbs in Japanese ................................ ................................ ...... 35 2. 5.4 Semantic Characterization of Unaccusativity ................................ .................. 41 2.5.5 Unaccusativity and Ergative Alternation ................................ ......................... 46 2. 6 Direction of Derivation ................................ ................................ ........................... 48 2. 6.1 Derivational Direction of English Ergative Pairs ................................ ............ 49 2. 6.1.1 Causativization ................................ ................................ .......................... 49 2. 6.1.2 Anticausativization ................................ ................................ ................... 51 2. 6.2 Derivational Direction of Japanese Ergative Pairs ................................ .......... 5 3 2. 6.2.1 Transitivization vs. intransitivization ................................ ........................ 54 2.6.2.2 Causativization vs. passivization ................................ .............................. 55

PAGE 6

vi 3 SEMANTIC CH ARACTERIZATION OF ERGATIVE ALTERNATIONS ............... 59 3. 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 59 3. 2 Two Issues of Ergative Alternation ................................ ................................ ........ 60 3. 3 A Problematic Case: The English C ut and Break ................................ ................... 62 3. 4 Conditions for Ergative Alternation : English ................................ ......................... 67 3. 4.1 Change of State ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 3. 4.2 Agentivity ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 71 3. 4.2.1 Kill verbs ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 73 3. 4.2.2 Destroy verbs ................................ ................................ ............................ 75 3. 4.3 External vs. Internal Causation ................................ ................................ ........ 77 3. 4.4 Onset Causation vs. Extended Causation ................................ ......................... 79 3. 5 Lexical Specification ................................ ................................ ............................... 82 3.5.1 Lexicalization of Instrument ................................ ................................ ............ 82 3. 5.1.1 Case theory ................................ ................................ ................................ 82 3.5.1.2 Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) ................................ ......................... 84 3.5.2 Specification of Cause or Means ................................ ................................ ..... 85 3. 6 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: Japanese ................................ ....................... 87 3. 6.1 Change of State ................................ ................................ ................................ 88 3.6. 2 Specification of Instrument and Means ................................ ........................... 92 3.6 3 Inanimate S ubjects ................................ ................................ ........................... 95 3.6 .4 Kir /kire cut /get cut ................................ ................................ ...................... 97 3.6 .4 Polysemy ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 101 3.6. 5 Sino Japanese Change of State Verbs ................................ ........................... 103 3.7 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 106 4 SEMANTIC RELATIONS BETWEEN ERGATIVE PAIRS ................................ .... 108 4. 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 108 4. 2 Lexicalist View of Japanese Ergative Pairs ................................ .......................... 111 4. 3 Lexical versus Synta ctic Derivations ................................ ................................ .... 114 4.3.1 Lexical Derivation ................................ ................................ .......................... 115 4.3.2 Post Lexical Derivation ................................ ................................ ................. 117 4. 4 Semantic Approach ................................ ................................ ............................... 121 4.4.1 Semantic Discrepanci es between Japanese Ergative Pairs ............................ 122 4.4.2 Spurious Ergative Pairs ................................ ................................ .................. 128 4. 5 Dichotomous View of Japanese Ergative Pairs ................................ .................... 132 4.5.1 Idiomatization ................................ ................................ ................................ 132 4.5.2 Paradigmatic Structure (PDS) ................................ ................................ ........ 133 4.5.3 PDS for Ergative Pairs ................................ ................................ .................. 135 4.5.4 Distributed Morphology ................................ ................................ ................. 139 4. 6 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 140 5 ASPECT AND ERGATIVE PAIRS ................................ ................................ ............ 142 5. 1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 142 5. 2 Japanese Aspectual Properties: Issues ................................ ................................ .. 144

PAGE 7

vii 5. 3 Classifications of English Lexical Aspect ................................ ............................ 147 5. 4 Japanese Verbs and their Aspectual Properties ................................ .................... 149 5. 5 Ergative Pairs and their Aspectual Properties ................................ ....................... 153 5.5.1 Grammatical Functions and Thematic Roles ................................ ................. 154 5.5.2 Terminative Orientedness ................................ ................................ .............. 157 5.6 Ergative Intransitives ................................ ................................ ............................ 159 5.6.1 Progressives in Ergative Intransitives in te iru ................................ ............. 159 5.6.2 Change of state and endpoi nt ................................ ................................ ......... 162 5.6.3 Dowtys (1979) Interval Semantics ................................ ............................... 163 5.6.4 Syntactic Test owaru finish ................................ ................................ ....... 165 5.6.5 V owar finish V Test to the Ergative Pairs in Jacobsen (1992) ................ 167 5.7 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 173 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................ ............................ 175 6.1 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 175 6.2 Further Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 179 6.2.1 Va lidity of Lexical Semantics Syntax Interface ................................ ............ 179 6.2.2 Causativization ................................ ................................ ............................... 182 APPENDIX: JACOBSEN S (1992) LIST OF ERGATIVE PAIRS ............................... 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 195 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ........................... 222

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1: Alternations patterns of cut and break ................................ ................................ ............... 66 2: Dowtys interval based classification of change of state verbs ................................ ........ 164 3: V owar test for Japanese ergative intransitives ................................ ................................ 169

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy VERB MEANINGS AND TH EIR EFFECTS ON SYNTA CTIC BEHAVIORS: A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O ENGLISH AND JAPANE SE ERGATIVE PAIRS By Toru Matsuzaki December 2001 Chairman: Ann Wehmeyer Major Department: Linguistics Ergative alternation is a process of valency shift observed cross linguistically in which verbs alternate in t ransitivity with little or no change in form. Verbs that participate in the ergative alternation in English have been investigated from syntactic and semantic perspective. Japanese ergative pairs, on the other hand, are characterized not only by valency sh ift but also by their derivational oppositions between transitive and intransitive alternants. Given such characteristics previous research has mainly focused on describing the derivational patterns and classifying ergative pairs accordingly. This in turn results in insufficient attention to semantic aspects of Japanese ergative pairs. The major research goal of this dissertation is to investigate whether verbal meanings determine the alternating behaviors of ergative verbs. Under the framework of lexical semantics, this dissertation presents a semantic analysis of ergative pairs in Japanese I propose to utilize research findings reported in works on English ergative

PAGE 10

x pairs to explicate the cause of the alternating behaviors of Japanese ergative pairs. One crucial finding is that semantic properties of verbs such as change of state and specification of causation are key factors both in English and Japanese in differentiating verbs that undergo the alternation from those which do not Nevertheless, my researc h shows that there is some significant disagreement between English and Japanese in terms of the ergative alternatability of verbs. I suggest that such discrepancy results in part from lexical idiosyncrasies in each language. More importantly, however, I p ropose that different alternating behaviors may reflect the way native English and Japanese speakers perceive certain events differently. The implication of this observation will be that other different syntactic behaviors between English and Japanese may reflect people s different perception of events.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This dissertation presents a contrastive analysis of transitive/intransitive verb pairs in English and Japanese. The primary goal is to investigate under the framework of lexical semantics how semantic aspects of verb s affect the alternatabil ity of Japanese verbs The transitive/intransitive verb pair which I refer to as ergative pair 1 throughout this dissertation is described either as a single verb which is used both transitively and intransitively, as in English, or as a pair of morpholog ically related verbs, as in Japanese, which respectively describe a transitive and intransitive situation (Levin 1985:19 20) The transitive and intransitive member of the ergative pair is referred to as ergative transitive and ergative intransitive respe ctively. Examples of English and Japanese ergative pairs include: (1) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE English Japanese English Japanese break war break war e sink sizum e sink sizum b end mag e bend mag ar melt tok as melt tok e bake yak bake yak e 1 Depending on the approaches adopted by linguists, ergative is also referred to as unaccusative. In Government Binding theory, the term ergative is most commonly used (Burzio 1986). In Relational Grammar, on the other hand, unaccusative is widely used (Perlmutter 1978). Following Roberts (1987), I restrict the term ergative to verbs like break and open which have transitive counterparts. This allows me to distinguish ergative verbs from unaccusative verbs like come and appear which lack transitive counterparts. As will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2, the distinction between ergative and unaccusative is crucial to the present research.

PAGE 12

2 Ergative pairs are also characterized by c hange in argument structure Consider the following typical case of English ergative alternation (2) a. Tom broke the vase. b. The vase broke. Crucially, it is observed that the syntactic object ( vase ) of the ergative transitive ( break ) corresponds to the syntactic subject of the ergative intransitive. This type of configurational correlati on characteristic of the ergative pair is specifically referred to as ergative alternation 2 In Western linguistics, the ergative alternation has been investigated for more than three decades within theoretical frameworks such as Case Grammar (Fillmore 196 8 b 1970), Generative Semantics ( Lakoff 1968a, 1970 ), Government and Binding Theory (Burzio 1986), Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991), and Lexical Semantics (Levin 1993, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995). In particular, Fillmore (1970) focuses not only on verbs that participate in the ergative alternation but also on verbs that do not, attempting to account for the cause of the difference semantically. What is striking about Fillmore is that he laid the foundation for the subsequent lexical semantic app roaches to this issue. Building on a more in depth analysis by Smith (1978) of the ergative alternatability of verbs, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) devote a whole chapter (Chapter 3 ) to investigating the semantics syntax interface involved in the Englis h ergative alternation ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav refer to it as causative alternation ) 2 The ergative alternation is also referred to a s causative alternation (Haspelmath 1993, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995), transitivity alternation ( Hale and Keyser 1987), and unaccusativity alternation (Kiparsky 1998), among others.

PAGE 13

3 arguing that whether a given verb participates in the alternation depends to a great extent on the semantic properties lexically inherent in the verb In Japanese linguistics, on the other hand, previous research on ergative pairs has mainly focused on their distinct suffix al forms as shown in ( 1 ) above proposing a range of classifications accordingly ( Sakuma 1936, Teramura 1982, Shibatani 1990, Jacobsen 1992). Thi s may partly explain why there have been only sporadic and incomplete semantic analyses provided for Japanese ergative pairs (cf. Okuda 1978, Jacobsen 1982 a 1992, Hayatsu 1987, Mitsui 1992, Kageyama 1996). With a thorough lexical semantic approach present ed in the present study it will be shown that Japanese ergative pairs can be semantically characterized to a large extent. This in turn suggests the possibility that the alternatability of a verb will be better accounted for in reference to the semantic pr operties of the verb. Furthermore, such a lexical semantic approach will suggest a need to propose a morpho semantic classification distinct from the morphology based classifications proposed in the past ( cf. Hayatsu 1989). One question that has been cont inuously addressed in the literature on lexical semantics over the decades is whether the syntactic behaviors of verbs are predictable from the semantics of the verbs (Perlmutter 1978, Wasaw 1985, Pinker 1989 :104ff Levin 1993a, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1 995 :1 1998, Ono 1997). 3 In particular, researchers have sought to uncover semantically coherent verb classes which are fairly constant with respect to argument structure. Under this verb class model, let us consider the English 3 As for the view that the relationship between the lexical semantics and syntax is not necessarily consistent, see S.T. Rosen (1996), Lemmens (1998), and Rosen and Ritter (1998). See also Chapter 6 of the present dissertation.

PAGE 14

4 verbs happen and cut The v erb happen belongs to a semantic verb class called verbs of occurrence and can only occur in in transitive constructions (cf. Levin 1993a:260 261): (3) a. The accident happened yesterday. b. *My brother happened the accident yesterday. (On the interpret ation that My brother caused the accident yesterday ) By contrast, the transitive verb cut which belongs to the semantic class verbs of cutting fails to occur in ergative intransitive constructions (Levin 1993a:156). (4) a. The butcher cut the meat. b. *The meat cut. (On the interpretation that The meat got cut ) Given the correlation between verbs and their syntactic behaviors just described, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) conduct detailed analyses of the semantics of English er gative pairs seeking to determine which semantic properties contribute to verbs alternatability. Drawing on a representation of verb meaning referred to as predicate decomposition, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995 :94 ) propose the following lexical semanti c representation template for ergative verbs: (5) [[x DO SOMETHING ] CAUSE [y BECOME STATE ]] Accordingly, the ergative verb break is represented as follows ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995 : 83 ): (6) break : [[x DO SOMETHING ] CAUSE [y BECOME BROKEN ]] One key feature in the representation in dealing with the issue of the lexical semantic syntax interface, according to Levin and Rappaport Hovav is the primitive BECOME On their view, this primitive represents the semantic property change of state, which Levin and Rappaport Hovav view as one of the crucial elements which have to do with the

PAGE 15

5 ability of verbs to alternate in transitivity (for detailed discussion of this issue, see Chapter 3 ) 4 In Japanese the ergative alternation is typically represented as foll ows: 5 (7) a. Taroo wa kabin o wat ta. (< war + ta) Taro TOP vase ACC break PAST Taro broke the vase b. Kabin ga ware ta. vase NOM break PAST The vase broke One characteristic associate d with the Japanese ergative alternation in comparison to the English equivalent is that the former marks the difference in transitivity morphologically as readily observed in the contrast between war and ware (Tsujimura 1990b:938) Since there are a nu mber of distinct suffixal forms associated with ergative transitives and intransitives, one primary research goal researchers have attempted to achieve is to classify this particular group of verbs based on their derivational features ( cf. Chapter 2; see a lso Shimada 1979 for a detailed outline of previous studies). Compared to the rich tradition of morphological research on verb classifications involving ergative pairs, their syntactic and semantic aspects have not received much attention from researchers A s f or syntactic characterization of ergative pairs, Okutsu (1967) first introduced the so called dynamic ( dootai teki ) approach to the derivational verbal morphology based on generative grammar. The dynamic approach differs from the 4 Another key assumption of the template is that the underlying semantic structure of break is a transitive one. On this view, the ergative intransitive use of the verb is derived by virtue of detransitivization, a completely opposite process to causativization which is widely held to account for the ergative alternation in general. See Chapter 2 for more discussion of this issue. 5 In this dissertation the following abbreviations are used : ACC=accusative particle ASP= te iru aspect marker DAT=dative, EMP=emphatic marker GEN=genitive, GER=gerund, INF=infinitive, NEG=negation marker, NOM=nominative particle, OBL= oblique PAST=past tense marker PRG=progressive, TOP=topic particle

PAGE 16

6 (1967) first introduced the so called dynamic ( dootai teki ) approach to the derivational verbal morphology based on generative grammar. The dynamic approach differs from the so called static ( seit ai teki ) approach in that according to Okutsu, the former approach explores the syntactic derivation of transitive verbs (i.e. transitivization) and intransitive verbs (i.e. intransitivization) mediated by the addition of derivational suffixes, while th e latter approach focuses on classifications of ergative pairs based solely on morphological distinctions. Most importantly, Okutsu adopts the idea of embedding from generative syntax, arguing that ergative transitive constructions are bi clausal structu res where an intransitive clause is embedded into a transitivizing clause containing the transitivizing suffix as Inoue (1976) further develops a generative syntactic approach to ergative pairs in Japanese. With the growing interest in lexical semantics over the past three decades, researchers have investigate d the relationship between verb s ability to alternate in transitivity and their meaning s Okutsu (1967) is among the first scholars who point to the significance of semantic based analyses and encou rage further research along these lines Following the earlier attempts by Miyajima (1972) and Nishio (1978), a series of work by Hayatsu (1987, 1989, 1995) attempts to determine the semantic properties of verbs that have to do with the verbs ability to a lternate in transitivity. As with English, one semantic property thus isolated is change of state that is brought about on a Theme argument Furthermore Hayatsu notes that the subjects of ergative intransitives have a strong tendency to be inanimate. In o ther words, ergative intransitives containing animate Themes are most likely to resist alternating with transitive counterparts in Japanese.

PAGE 17

7 Overall, Hayatsu s approach is notable in that it is comparable to the lexical semantic approach that has been inte nsively discussed in the Western linguistics. Drawing more on the findings in lexical semantics in Western linguistics Kageyama (1996) extends a long discussion about the relationship between verb meanings and the syntactic realizations of their argument structures. In keeping with Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) analogous to Levin and Rappaport Hovav s lexical semantic representation as in ( 5 ) above, Kageyama conducts a comparative analysis of the English and Japanese ergative alternation s On his ter ms, the alternation is not only a morphological or/and syntactic phenomen on but also a semantically explicable process Kageyama basically agrees with other scholars like Smith, Haspelmath, and Levin and Rappaport Hovav among others, in arguing that a giv en verb participates in the ergative alternation when a Theme argument is perceived to bring about a chang e on its own without any intervention of an external causer or agent (Kageyama 1996:158ff). What is noteworthy about Kageyama, however, is that he att empts to fuse Western lexical semantic approaches and traditional affix based approaches together to account for Japanese ergative pairs and their alternating behaviors. Specifically, Kageyama assumes that the extent to which a given event is perceived to occur spontaneously or to be intervened by an external causer or agent is signaled in a fairly consistent manner by (the) suffixal forms added to Japanese ergative verb pairs. Another line of semantic approach to the Japanese ergative pairs is proposed an d discussed in Jacobsen (1982 a 1992). Under the assumption that there are regular correlations between morphological markedness and semantic markedness Jacobsen associat es morphological patterns shown by ergative pairs with speakers empirically

PAGE 18

8 based ev ent views. Based on his markedness theory, Jacobsen argues that if one member of a transitive intransitive pair is more marked than the other, then the morphological markedness reflects the atypicality of a change event. 6 For instance, if an intransitive m ember is more marked than its transitive counterpart, the change of state denoted by the intransitive verb is perceived to occur less naturally in an autonomous situation than in a coerced situation. Furthermore, Jacobsen defines the typical realization o f a concept (1992: 10) as prototype, maintaining that in spite of some major historical changes in verbal morphology fairly regular markedness patterns observed in many of the Japanese transitive/intransitive verb oppositions still reflect a strong corre lation between morphology and semantic s In short Jacobsen holds that morphological and semantic markedness is a reflection of universal linguistic principles, suggesting the universality of prototype held among human beings. It has been noticed in the l iterature that verbs that alternate in transitivity in one language are likely to undergo the same phenomenon in other languages (1993:92, Hale and Keyser 1998:89). Cross linguistically, for instance, verbs equivalent to the English break undergo the ergat ive alternation, whereas verbs equivalent to the verb laugh do not (Pinker 1989:134). Given this observation, this dissertation research purports to 6 Jacobsen s position that the correlation between form al markedness and semantic markedness observable among ergative pairs is based on the idea of prototype rather than t hat of accumulation of information is notable when compared to the general principle that languages show formal markedness patterns which reflect proportional accumulation of semantic information (Dowty 1979:46). In this general principle, a formally marke d lexical item or grammatical structure is provided with more semantic properties than a formally unmarked counterpart is. Cross linguistically, for instance, plural nouns are formally more marked than singular nouns since they in addition to the basic ca tegory nominal contain plurality which is seen as a more marked feature than singularity (Greenberg 1963, Haspelmath 1993 :87 ).

PAGE 19

9 supplement data from Japanese for further research on the lexical semantics and syntax relationship. Furthe rmore, in view of insufficient cross linguistic data in this area of research (Levin 1985:61) a study of the Japanese alternation that this dissertation presents from a lexical semantic point of view will serve to further explicate the mechanism of the le xical semantic and syntactic interface cross linguistically. The organization of the dissertation is as follows. In Chapter 2, I first outline characteristics of ergative alternations in English and Japanese. Then, I discuss unaccusativity and middle cons tructions, which are assumed to be relevant to ergative alternations. I analyze morphological oppositions which characterize the Japanese ergative alternation. In particular I focus on the issue of the direction of derivation regarding the alternation. I w ill suggest that the directions of Japanese ergative pairs basically follow morphological markedness patterns. Chapter 3 deals with semantic aspects of ergative pairs. I first discuss semantic properties of English and Japanese verbs that appear to be res ponsible for the syntactic expressions of arguments occurring with the verbs. Then, I demonstrate that a given change of state verb is paired with the transitive/intransitive counterpart when a means or an instrument responsible for the change of state is unspecified. In this view, lack of the intransitive counterparts of Japanese transitive verbs like kar cut (with a sickle, scissors, etc.) and hik grind, mince will be accounted for on the basis of the fact that both verbs lexically specify a means o r an instrument whereby the events are brought about. In Chapter 4 I review in detail the classification of ergative pairs presented by Jacobsen (1992). Adopting the concept of semantic transparency (Aronoff 1976), I propose that the ergative pairs under the classification of Jacobsen be separated into those

PAGE 20

10 which are semantically transparent and those which are not. Drawing on the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993), I argue that ergative pairs that are semantically transparent are derived post lexically, whereas those which are semantically opaque are listed as separate lexical items in the lexicon. In Chapter 5, I turn to the issue of aspect of the Japanese ergative pairs. I first illustrate that intransitive members of ergative pa irs have a perfect meaning and transitive members have a progressive meaning, respectively, in combination with the aspectual marker te iru I propose that the type of an argument in the syntactic subject position determines the aspectual realization of a predicate suffixed by te iru Furthermore, given that certain intransitive members can be interpreted as progressive in te iru constructions, I suggest that the semantic property change of state should be sub categorized according to length of time and definite endpoint necessary for a change to be completed.

PAGE 21

11 CHAPTER 2 ERGATIVE ALTERNATION 2.1 Introduction In Western linguistics, the phenomenon of alternation has been regarded as one of the prominent syntactic behaviors regarding verbs and their co occurring arguments. In a broad sense, the ergative alternation is class ified under the macro category called diathesis alternation Diathesis alternations are concerned with alternations in the expression of the arguments of verbs (Levin 1993b:80), subsuming, in addition to the ergative alternation, other types of alternati ons such as locative alternation and dative alternation (1) Locative Alternation : Jack sprayed paint on the wall. Jack sprayed the wall with paint. (Levin 1993a:51) (2) Dative Alternation : Bill sold Tom a car Bill sold a car to Tom. (Levin 1993a:46) One characteristic that differentiates the ergative alternation from the dative and locative alternations is a change in valency. As evident in ( 1 ) and (2) the dative and locative alternations have to do with a cha nge in the syntactic arrangement of arguments of verbs. On the other hand, the ergative alternation involves not only a change in the arrangement of verbs arguments but also a change in the number of syntactically realized arguments, as shown in ( 4 ) in Ch apter 1, repeated here below:

PAGE 22

12 ( 3 ) a. Tom broke the vase. b. The vase broke. In addition to the fact that the Theme vase is post verbal in (3a) but pre verbal in (3b) in relation to break the transitive ergative predicate typically occurs with two arguments (i.e., dyadic), whereas the intransitive ergative predicate occurs with a single argument (i.e., monadic). In this respect, the ergative alternation is also characterizable as a valency shift alternation. The ergative alternation is observed cro ss linguistically (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973, Haspelmath 1993) and has been extensively investigated in languages such as English ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995), French (Labelle 1992), Japanese (Okutsu 1967, Jacobsen 1992, Kageyama 1996), and Ko rean (Croft 1990), among others. In this chapter, I first outline the ergative alternation in English and Japanese, focusing on differences and similarities in the ways in which it is represented in both languages. Then I go on to discuss unaccusativity wi th respect to alternatability of verbs. Finally, I discuss the issue of direction of derivation regarding the Japanese ergative alternation. 2.2 English Ergative Pairs 2. 2.1 Syntactic Aspects It is well known that there are an enormous number of ergative v erb pairs in English (Langacker 1991:387). As noted in Chapter 1, the English ergative alternation is expressed in a majority of cases by one single verb with no morphological change Such identity in form between a transitive use and an intransitive use r esults in the fact that the distinction in transitivity regarding an ergative verb is discerned solely by virtue of the context where each member occurs (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973:3). More specifically,

PAGE 23

13 only a shift in the valency of verbs argument str ucture indicates the difference in transitivity in English The transitive use of break is a case of dyadic valency, consisting of an Agent and a Theme, while the intransitive use represents a monadic valency, taking a Theme argument only. Typologically, a lternations in which no changes in verb forms occur between ergative transitives and intransitives are referred to as labile alternation s Other languages that predominantly show this alternating pattern include Chinese, German, German, and Greek (Teramura 1982 :305 Haspelmath 1993:102). In addition to the shift in valency just described, the ergative alternation needs to meet the following two condition s. Firstly, the object or internal argument of the transitive alternant should always be realized as th e subject of the intransitive alternant (Comrie 1985:322). As evident in (3) above, the predicate break and the argument vase follow this constraint The rationale for imposing such a constraint on the configurational relation between a predicate and its i nternal NP argument is that it is necessary to distinguish genuine ergative ver b pairs from verbs which undergo the so called unspecified object alternation (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994:37). (4) a. Tom smokes cigarettes b. Tom smokes. At first glance, smoke seems to undergo the ergative alternation, given that it alternates in transitivity without any morphological mediator, just like break According to the constraint noted above however, the transitive and intransitive uses of smoke are not e ligible for an ergative pair in that the object ( cigarettes ) of the transitive use in (4a) is not realized as the subject of the intransitive use; rather, it is syntactically unexpressed or unspecified in the original object position.

PAGE 24

14 Secondly, the obje ct of the transitive alternant and the subject of the intransitive alternant should have an identical thematic role, a thematic and syntactic correlation that Langacker refers to as ergative pattern (1991:387; cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:79 ). In a sense, this constraint is self explanatory given that while Theme arguments are syntactically realized differently they are both base generated as internal arguments. Again the internal argument of break in (3) meets this requirement: The object ( vase ) o f the transitive use in (3a) and the subject of the intransitive in (3b) share the sam e Theme role. This thematic relation accounts for why smoke in ( 4 ) fails to constitute an ergative pair ; the subject ( Tom ) of the intransitive construction is an Agent, w hile the object of the transitive is a Theme. Given these observations, the ergative alternation would be schematized as follows: (5) a. NP 1 V tr NP 2 (transitive construction) b. NP 2 V intr (intransitive construction) In short, the process of erga tive alternation will be summarized as (1) a shift in valency of the arguments of the verb (2) parallelism between the subject of the transitive construction and the object of the intransitive construction and (3) the preservation of the thematic role assi gned to the verb s internal argument. 2. 2.2 Ergative Alternation and Other Similar Syntactic Operations In the preceding section, we observed that the ergative alternation undergoes a series of syntactic operations such as valency shift and configurational parallelism of arguments Note that such syntactic behaviors are not restricted to the ergative alternation; rather, they are readily observable in other transformational operations In this section, we outline syntactic and semantic characteristics of pa ssivization and middle

PAGE 25

15 formation, demonstrating that in spite of striking similarities, the two syntactic formations should be distinguished from the ergative alternation. 2. 2.2.1 Ergatives and passives Passivization is characterized in general as transf orming a transitive verb into an unergative (i.e., intransitive), along with advancement of the object of the transitive to the subject of the intransitive (Perlmutter 1978:181ff; cf. Shibatani 1985:822). Put more informally, passivization involves a NP mo vement from a transitive internal argument position into a passive external argument position whereby the syntactic subject of the passive corresponds to the syntactic object of the transitive. Given this description Larson (1988:366) argues that passiviz ation and ergative alternation share a crucial parallelism in terms of NP movement, as illustrated below ( t stands for trace ) ( 6 ) a. The boat was sunk t b. The boat sank t I argue that the two syntactic processes should not be considered identi cal for the following two reasons. Firstly, English passivization necessarily involves an overt, regular morphological change in verbs, whereas the ergative alternation does not. Jaeggli (1986) maintains that in passivization, the role of the passive suffi x en is seen as absorbing the external theta role which is originally associated with the external argument of a transitive verb. In this respect, passivization is characterized as the interaction of morphological and syntactic process, while ergative a lternation is simply a syntactic process in English. 1 1 Not every scholar accepts Jaeggli s formulation of the passive. See Miller (1993:186 8) for his pre movement string analysis.

PAGE 26

16 Secondly, the ergative alternation is distinct from passivization in that the latter always implies that an Agent that brings about an event can be syntactically indicated in passive structures (cf. Sie wierska 1984:78, Roeper 1987:268, Haspelmath 1993:90 Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994:69 ). Evidence for this claim is observed in the fact that passives can co occur with a by phrase, whereas ergative intransitives cannot. ( 7 ) a. The boat was sunk by Bill b. *The boat sank by Bill (Roeper 1987:268) Even when no by phrase is syntactically present, passives still imply that an Agent is present implicitly. This is exemplified in the following: ( 8 ) a. The ship was sunk to collect the insurance. b. *The ship sank to collect the insurance. (Roeper 1987:268) In short, that the passive be V en can co occur with a purpose infinitive clause as in ( 8 a) substantiate s our view that passives invariably posit the presence of agentivity, whether it is overt ly expressed or not. 2. 2.1.2 Ergatives and middles Middle formation is a process of suppressing the subject of a transitive and moving the object of the transitive into the subject position of a middle verb as typically illustrated below (Hoekstra and Ro berts 1993:183 184) : 2 ( 9 ) a. Someone bribed the bureaucrats b. Bureaucrats bribe easily (Keyser and Roeper 1984:381). 2 Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995) claim that no movement takes place in middle formation. In their terms, the grammatical subj ect in middles are base generated in the VP internal subject position.

PAGE 27

17 ( 10 ) a. The butcher cuts the meat b. The meat cuts easily (Levin 1993a:26) In the examples, sentences (9b) a nd (10b) are middle constructions and the verbs ( bribe and cut ) occurring in these constructions are referred to as middle verbs or simply middles. Numerous studies analyze middle formation in reference to ergative alternation (Fiengo 1980, Keyser and R oeper 1984, Hale and Keyser 1987, Fagan 1988, 1992, Condoravdi 1989, Fellbaum and Zribi Hertz 1989, Levin 1993a, Fujita 1994, Kitazume 1996, Nakamura 1997). One syntactic characteristic of middle formation has to do with the application of the syntactic ru le Move a to the internal argument of a transitive predicate so that the argument is externalized in the middle construction, as illustrated in ( 9 ) and (10) above. Furthermore, the thematic role of the internal argument remains the same whether it is in th e transitive construction or in the middle construction. Recall that these are among the characteristics involved in the ergative alternation as well 3 Given such similarities, Hale and Keyser ( 1986, 1987 1988 ) maintain that middle formation and ergative alternation are fundamentally identical, provid ing a single lexical rule for both middle and ergative formations (cf. Fujita 1994:73): ( 11 ) The Ergative Middle Alternation [x cause [y undergo change ], (by )]] < ----> [y undergo c hange (by )] (Hale and Keyser 1987:20) 3 Rapoport (1993:173 4) also points out a semantic similarity between ergatives and middles. Just like ergatives, middles can be observed in verbs which lexicalize a change of state (c f. Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1).

PAGE 28

18 According to Hale and Keyser, the only distinction between the ergative alternation and the middle alternation is that the LCS of the latter contains a means clause as depict ed by the parenthesized by phrase (see C hapter 3, Section 3.5 for further discussion of the relationship between means clause and ergative alternatability ) In spite of the similarities just described substantial evidence has been presented that middles and ergatives are essentially distinct f rom each other for reasons that follow Firstly, as Keyser and Roeper (1984) note middles are stative verbs, meaning that they cannot describe events. Ergatives, on the other hand, are event verbs. This contrast is illustrated by the fact that middles can not occur in progressive constructions, while ergatives can. ( 12 ) a. The boat is sinking b. *Bureaucrats are bribing easily. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:385) Keyser and Roeper also suggest that middles cannot occur in situations which descr ibe particular events in time, whereas ergatives can. This is evident in the following example where the ergative sink occurs in the past tense, while the middle bribe does not. ( 13 ) a. The boat sank in less than an hour b. ?Yesterday, the mayor bribed easily, according to the newspaper. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:384) Keyser and Roeper observe that ( 13 b) is marginally grammatical since middles only describe situations which are generic or held to be generally true (1984:384). It has been noted i n the literature that while ergatives imply no Agent, middles always entail Agent implicitly (Fiengo 1980:57, Keyser and Roeper1984:404 405, Hale and Keyser 1986:15 16 1987 :18, Condoravdi 1989, Nakamura 1997:119, Fujita

PAGE 29

19 1994:87). By implicit Agent it is meant that the middle construction always implies an Agent in the eventuality denoted by the middle verb but the thematic role of Agent can have no phonetic or structural realization. 4 Put differently, Agent is present semantically but absent syntacticall y in the middle construction (Nakamura 1997:123; see also Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994:69). 5 One way of illustrating that middles express the existence of Agent implicitly but not syntactically is to see if they may co occur with agent oriented adjuncts li ke a by phrase or a to infinitive phrase. The ungrammaticality of the following sentences points to the validity of this statement. 6 ( 14 ) a. *The official bribes easily by managers. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:406) b. Bureaucrats bribe easily to k eep them happy ( Keyser and Roeper 1984:407) In short, the presence of an Agent at the underlying semantic level of middles may crucially differentiate middles from ergative intransitives, which are assumed to involve 4 Miller (1993:178) suggests that the implicit argument in middles may well be interpreted as a Benefactive rather than Agent. 5 Stroik (1992:131) argues that the Agent role in middles can be expressed syntactically, mainly i n an adjunct position as illustrated below: (i) a. That book read quickly for Mary b. No Latin text translates easily for Bill 6 Keyser and Roeper (1984:407) attribute the ungrammaticality to the notion of control. That is, the implicit Agent o f middle cannot control the lower clause, making the whole sentence ungrammatical, while the implicit Agent in passive as in ( i ) below which is optionally expressible (i.e., by Bill ), control s the lower clause, making the whole sentence grammatical ( Keyse r and Roeper 1984:407) (i) The bureaucrats were bribed (by Bill) to keep them happy. Given the optionality of by phrase in passives Keyser and Roeper consider the notion implicit to have a different implication for middles and passives, respective ly (1984:406 ).

PAGE 30

20 no identifiable external Agent (Pinker 1989:130; cf. Marantz 1984:180; see Chapter 3 for more detailed discussion of agentivity and ergative verbs). In summary, we observed that although the ergative alternation resembles passivization and middle formation in a number of ways, the for mer is crucially distinct from the latter in terms of the presence or/and implication of agentivity. Accordingly the ergative alternation investigated in the present study exclusively refers to the pattern schematized in ( 5 ) above. 2. 2.2 Semantic Aspects Another aspect that needs to be analyzed regarding ergative pairs is a semantic distinction between transitive and ergative members. The semantic relation between ergative pairs has often been represented through the schemata called Lexical Conceptual Str ucture (LCS) in the literature (Guerssel et al. 1985, Hale and Keyser 1987, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). The LCSs of break for instance, are typically represented as follows: (15) a. ergative transitive break : x CAUSE [y BECOME broken] b. er gative intransitive break : y BECOME broken What is schematically striking about the LCS of the transitive alternant is its complex structure, consisting of a causing subevent and a central subevent ( Hale and Keyser 1987). One apparent semantic property th at distinguishes ergative transitives from ergative intransitives is the presence of CAUSE in the transitive LCS, which is, in a less

PAGE 31

21 technical schematization, paraphrased into cause to V intransitive (Parsons 1990:106). 7 The representation in ( 15 ) indic ates that the Agent argument x is associated with CAUSE whereas the Theme argument y is associated with the state broken. Given that CAUSE is not present in the ergative intransitive, uncertainty remains as to how the event denoted by break takes place. Most researchers assume that the events denoted by ergative intransitives occur with no intervention of an Agent (Haspelmath 1993, Matsumoto 2000 a ). In other words, they are perceived to occur spontaneously 8 Thus, when we say The vase broke in English, t he vase just broke on its own accord, meaning that there is no Agent involved in the event. The view that the ergative intransitive entails no Agent appears to raise a problem. Consider the following sentence: (16) Tom hit the vase with a bat, and it brok e Evidently, the example indicates that the breaking of the vase did not occur spontaneously; instead, it is Tom, namely an Agent, who brought about the event Evidence like (16) seems to suggest that it is necessary to recognize an Agent at the semantic level of the ergative intransitive. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) assume that Agent or Cause is indeed involved in the event denoted by the ergative intransitive. The argument carrying this thematic role is simply invisible syntactically, according to L evin and Rappaport Hovav because it is unspecified in surface constructions. By 7 In light of the presence of CAUSE in the transitive LCS, Pinker (1989) and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) refer to the alternation typified by break as causative ( i nchoative) alternation 8 Due to this spontaneous nature of e rgative intransitives, they are often referred to as inchoative.

PAGE 32

22 underspecification Levin and Rappaport Hovav mean that ergative intransitive constructions can imply the presence of an Agent or a Cause. It is simply that they do not identif y the type of the Agent or the Cause (cf. Davidse 1992:109). The unspecification of Agent or Cause characterizing the ergative intransitive also suggests the verb does not lexicalize agentivity or cause. It should be noted here that underlying the claim by Levin and Rappaport Hovav is their view that our real world knowledge makes it difficult to imagine that events like the breaking of a vase would occur without an external cause (1995:93). Their agentive or causative analysis of ergative intransitive is r eflected in part in the single causative lexical semantic representation of break (cf. Chapter 1) in which ergative intransitives are derived from causative transitive s through the process of detransitivization. 9 Nevertheless, I claim, for the reasons that follow, that an argument can be made for the spontaneity of the ergative intransitive. Firstly, returning to (16), the event ( Tom hit the vase with a bat ) leading to the rupture of the vase is not essential to the ergative intransitive break ; in other wor ds, it is not a fundamental component of the LCS of ergative intransitive break It follows, therefore, that the Agent Tom participating in the event of hitting the vase has no essential involvement in the resultant state of the vase. Secondly, as Levin an d Rappaport Hovav (1995 :107 ) note, even if it is claimed that break in (16) involves an Agent, the Agent is interpreted, at best, as a passive participant. Based on Levin and Rappaport Hovav s view, I assume that the passive nature of a participant still e nables us to conceive the breaking of the vase in (16) as occurring spontaneously 9 Researchers such as Oosten ( 1977 ) Levin and Rappaport Hovav ( 1995 ) and Kageyama ( 1996 ) hypothesize that Theme is identified with Agent or Cause in ergative intransitive situations.

PAGE 33

23 (for relationship between passive participant and unspecification of causing event, see Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.5; see also Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:107). 2.3 Japanese Ergative Pairs 2. 3.1 Syntactic Characteristics Ergative pairs are also commonly observed in Japanese. As illustrated above, the English ergative alternation involves the parallelism between the object of a transitive predicate and the subject of an ergati ve predicate. The same configurational relationship also holds for Japanese ergative pairs where the subject object correlation is indicated by case marking rather than word order (Okutsu 1967:49, Miyajima 1972:684, Hayatsu 1987:81, Mitsunobu 1992:85) ( 17 ) a. Sono otokonoko ga mado o wat ta the boy NOM window ACC break PAST The little boy broke the window b. Mado ga ware ta windo w NOM break PAST The window broke Note that the object mado in (17a), which is marked with the accusative marker o is realized as the subject with the nominative marker ga in ( 17 b), forming the object subject relationship characte ristic of the ergative alternation. 10 In addition, the NP mado 10 T he correlation between the accusative case marker o and the transitivity of verb s has been discussed by scholars for more than a century. Otsuki (1897), who was strongly influenced by western grammar, first suggested that transitive verbs should take o a s the accusative marker. Matsushita (1923:18) further developed Otsukis view, maintaining that all verbs that occur with o should be considered transitive (cf. Nomura 1982, Morita 1994, Suga and Hayatsu 1995). Thus, in Matsushitas view, verbs like ik go and hasir run, which are usually viewed as intransitive when occurring optionally with the directional particle e or ni to, were considered to be transitive verbs when occurring with o (i) Waga miti o iku I GEN way ACC go

PAGE 34

24 bears the same thematic role ( Theme ) in both constructions following another criterion on whether a verb is considered to participate in the ergative alternation Based on the correspondence between (17a) and (17b), Okutsu (1967) provides a configurational template for the Japanese ergative alternation, which is fundamentally identical to the English corresponding template given in ( 15 ) above (cf. Suga 1981:122, Jacobsen 1992:60): ( 18 ) N P 1 g a N P 2 o V tr N P 2 ga V intr On Okutsu s view, the subject ( N P 1 ) of a transitive predicate is deleted when a verb undergoes intransitivization and added when a verb undergoes transitivization. 2. 3.2 Morphological Characteristics One key differe nce between Japanese and English ergative alternating verbs is that the former overtly exhibits a shift in transitivity by means of derivational morphology as exemplified earlier and repeated below 11 I will go my own way (ii) Yamamiti o hasit ta mountain path ACC run PAST I ran along the mountain path While basically following Matsushitas proposal, Okutsu (1967) maintains that the verbs in ( i ) (ii) which Okutsu subsumes under the category called motion verbs ( idoo doosi ), should be regarded as intransitive since the case marker o occurring with those verbs is not an accusative case marker but a directional particle. 11 A small number of verbs such as hirak open and mas increase, which Martin (1975) refers to as ambivalent pairs, show no morphological distinction between intransitive and transitive uses (cf. Morita 1994:168 170) There are more verbs among Sino Japanese verbs (cf. Jacobsen 1992), a type of complex verbs made up of Chinese stems and Japanese native verbal suffix suru (e.g. i doo suru move and shuuryoo suru end ), which are identical in form regardless of their transitivity. For these ambivalent pairs, transitivity can only be denoted configurationally.

PAGE 35

25 ( 19 ) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE Japanese En glish Japanese English war break war e break sizum e sink sizum sink mag e bend mag ar bend tok as melt tok e melt yak bake yak e bake In other words, while English represents a change in transitivity by syntactic means alone Japanese mark s the same process morphologically as well as syntactically (Teramura 1982 :305 ). 12 While the number varies from scholar to scholar, the re are numerous morphologically related ergative pairs in Japanese. While Jacobsen (1992) provides a list of about 371 verbs, Hayatsu (1989) identifies almost 600 ergative pairs in the Japanese lexicon. It has been noticed that m orphological distinctions as observed in (19) are not inconsistent Rather, most of the ergative pairs in Japanese are found to follow certain regular derivational patterns, which are fairly discernible and are limited in number. In view of this fact, one of the main goals of inve stigating Japanese ergative pairs has been to identify the derivational patterns and classify them according ly (cf. Shimada 1979) 12 The morphological oppositions characterizing Japanese ergative pairs date back to Old Japanese (cf. Shimada 1979, Kageyama 1996:179 180, Komatsu 1999). While several derivational suffixes have undergone phonetic changes over time, the changes are highly consistent. For instance, many of the intransitive members with the ending e (r) paired with the transitive (y)as (Jacobsen s Class IX) used to be spelled yu Thus, the modern Japanese ergative pair hier /hiyas was hiy /hiyas in Old Japanese. Komatsu (1999:101) notes that the yu intransitives implied that events occur spontaneously, whereas the (y)as transitives indicated that events are brought about by intentional agents. Kageyama (1996) speculates that ergative pairs in Old Japa nese might have held closer links between affixal forms and their semantic functions (cf. Dubinsky 1985:259). According to Kageyama, the pair tumor /tum which we considered to have opaque semantic links (Chapter 4), might have had a closer semantic corre lation.

PAGE 36

26 Shibatani (1990), for instance, provides a five group classification of ergative pairs as below. 13 (20) INTRANS ITIVE TRANSITIVE Group a ar e ag ar rise ag e raise atum ar gather atum e gather tam ar accumulate tam e accumulate Group b f e ak open ak e open itam be damaged itam e damage ukab float ukab e float Group c e as ar e be ruined ar as ruin okur e be late okur as postpone ta(y) e be extinct ta(y) as annihilate Gr oup d f as wak boil wak as boil nak cry nak as make cry kusar spoil kusar as spoil Group e e f hag e tear off hag tear off 14 or e be broken or break sak e split sak split One question that classifications like those above inevitably pose is whether particular suffix forms reflect verbs transitivity; in other words, is it possible to predict 13 Most recently, Jacobsen (1992) proposes a sixteen group of ergative pairs in Japanese (see Appendix; cf. Chapter 4). 14 Morita (1994:166) and Kageyama (1996:180 1) note that the pair hage / hag is made more complicated due to another semantic and morphologically similar pair hagare /hagas tear off . Other multiple pairs like hage hagare / hag hagas include tizim tizimar /tizimer tiziras shrink vi /shrink vt usure usurag usumar /usumer weaken vi /weaken vt

PAGE 37

27 merely by suffix al form whether each member of a given pair is transitive or intransitive? If this is the case, then it follows that the significance of syntactic configuration will be enormously diminished in dealing with the ergative alternation in Japanese. The classification in (20) seems to sugges t that there is such a relationship between suffixal form and transitivity. That is, the suffixes ar in Group (20a) and as in Group (20c d ) are constantly associated with intransitive and transitive, respectively The correspondence between suffix form and transitivity just described does not always hold for all groups of Japanese ergative pairs. A s pointed out by Okutsu (1967), Jacobsen (1992) and among others, the suffix e exhibits a conflicting behavior in terms of transitivity. That is, it function s as a transitivizer in Group ( 20 b), and as an intransitivizer in Group ( 20 d). Such conflicting functions associated with e naturally make the transitivity of a given verb containing the suffix unpredictable Jacobsen (1992) exemplifies this point by prov iding a hypothetical Japanese verb pair harik and harike Given that e can be either a transitivizing or an intransitivizing suffix, there is simply no telling which form of the pair is transitive. In fact, the inconsistent behavior of the suffix seems to have puzzle d researchers who attempted to prove an inherent relationship between suffix form and transitivity. 15 At the very least the dual functions of the suffix e suggest that the transitivity of morphological pairs is not completely predictable fro m the form of a derivational suffix. 16 This in turn suggests that the syntactic configuration in 15 Kitagawa and Fujii (1999 ), while emphasizing the regularity of the derivational process of morphological pairs in most of Jacobsens classes, had to adopt a semantic approach to the morphological pairs in Group (b) and (d) in order to elucidate their elusive behaviors. 16 The dif ferent morpho semantic behaviors observable between as and e might be better explained under Aronoffs view of structural transparency and semantic coherence (1976:20 21; cf. Tyler 1999:80). In keeping with his terminology it might be argued that

PAGE 38

28 (18) above still plays an important role in determining the transitivity of ergative pairs in Japanese. Additionally, this research project raises a question o f semantic coherence between morphologically related verb pairs. Specifically, I propose to attempt to determine whether or not morphological oppositions reflect changes in the semantics of the pairs. As Chapter 4 will demonstrate, numerous modern Japanese ergative pairs hold little or no semantic affinity. This indicates that shared verb stems between ergative pairs do not necessarily mean that the pairs are semantically correlated. As Ichihashi (1992:18 19) points out, ergative pairs like ak open vs. a kas reveal and bake disguise oneself vs. bakas bewitch are hardly considered semantically related. I will demonstrate later that such semantically tenuous pairs are ubiquitous in the Japanese ergative pairs. Given this fact, the present study focu ses mainly on Japanese ergative pairs whose shared verb stems hold semantic affinity. To summarize, I will refer to morphologically related Japanese verb pairs as ergative pairs only when they (1) share a common root, (2) hold very close semantic affiniti es, and (3) have the same noun phrase as the subject in the intransitive construction and the object in the transitive construction (cf. Hayatsu 1987, Ichihashi 1992:18 19). transi tive verbs containing as are not structurally transparent. In other words, there is no rule for determining which variant should be attached to its verb stem, but these variants are considered semantically transparent because they are always associated wi th transitive meanings. In contrast, verbs containing a non variant suffix e might be said to be structurally transparent. They are not, however, semantically coherent because no constant semantic association can be attributed to this suffix.

PAGE 39

29 2.4 Ergative Alternation : Issues Several issues have been raised surrounding the ergative alternation (cf. Levin 1985:18). One has to do with whether the ergative alternation involves a lexical rule or syntactic rule (Keyser and Roeper 1984 ; cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 ). Another question that needs to be addressed is whether verbs which alternate in transitivity consist of a single lexical entry or two separate lexical entries (Pinker 1989:71 72). Furthermore, the direction of derivation involving the ergative alternation has also been discussed in the literature (Comrie 1985, Croft 1990 Dixon 1991, Jacobsen 1985, Haspelmath 1993). While those issues call for further investigation, the present chapter is more concerned with the obvious fact that not all verbs participate in the ergative alternation. More specifically, there are intransi tive verbs which do not occur in transitive constructions and transitive verbs which do not occur in intransitive constructions (Pinker 1989:130; cf. Ritter and Rosen 1998). As mentioned previously, the intransitive verb laugh cannot be used transitively i n English. (21) a. Tom laughed b. *Bill laughed Tom (on the interpretation Bill caused Tom to laugh ) Along the same lines, the transitive verb destroy lacks its anti causative, intransitive counterpart. (22) a. The storm destroyed the house b. *The house destroyed (on the interpretation The house came to the state of being destroyed )

PAGE 40

30 The most common way to grammatically achieve the interpretation as instantiated within the parenthesis in (22b) is to use a passive construction. 17 (23) The house was destroyed Given (22) and (23), the obvious question is why verbs vary regarding their alternatability As will be discussed in Chapter 3, I will follow Wasaw (1985), Pinker (1989), and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), among others, i n suggesting that the syntactic behaviors of verbs are to a large extent dependent on the semantics of the verbs. Moreover, given that verbs that participate in the ergative alternation belong to the same semantic classes across languages (Levin 1985:22), it is important to conduct a thorough analysis of languages other than English to corroborate this admittedly expansive generalization My ultimate goal is to find whether the semantics syntax approach proposed for the English ergative pairs can be adapted to Japanese ergative pairs. 2.5 Unaccusativity It has been noted in the literature that unaccusativity plays an important part in the ergative alternation (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Arad 1998). The effect of unaccusativity on the ergative alternati on is discerned most noticeably in the fact the intransitive members of ergative pairs are usually identified as unaccusative (Borer and Wexler 1987 :158 Tsujimura 1990b:935, 1996:323 4, Levin and Rappaport Hovav, 1995 :80 Ono 1997:168) 18 This seems to s uggest that a close examination of 17 D. Gary Mi ller (p.c.) pointed out to me that The house self destructed would be another way to express the same meaning inchoatively. 18 In keeping with Perlmutter (1978) and others, I utilize the term unaccusative in the current section regardless of whether unaccu sative verbs alternate with transitive uses.

PAGE 41

31 unaccusativity may help us better understand the mechanism of the ergative alternation. In this section I first review the syntactic and semantic characteristics of unaccusatives And then I discuss how the semantic prope rties associated with unaccusativity may account for the ergative alternation system in English and Japanese. 2.5.1 The Unaccusativity Hypothesis In 1978 Perlmutter proposed that intransitive verbs do not constitute a homogeneous group but instead consist of two distinct types of verbs: unergative and unaccusative verbs. Under the theory of the Unaccusative Hypothesis, Perlmutter maintained that the arguments that are subjects of unaccusative verbs such as arrive and fall are in fact objects at the initial level of representation. On a Government Binding approach unaccusative verbs are assumed to generate their sole argument as the direct object in D structure. Following Burzio s generalization that the unaccusative verbs fail to assign case to their intern al argument in D structure (Burzio 1986, cf. Grimshaw 1987 ) Tom in ( 24 ) is considered an argument without case ( 24 ) Unaccusative Verb: arrive S NP Infl Infl VP V NP arrive Tom (Spencer 1991:260)

PAGE 42

32 For the purpose of acquiring a subject case Tom moves to the position external to VP which is unoccupied in the underlying structure (25) S NP Infl Infl VP V NP Tom i arrive t i On the other hand, unergative verbs such as run or laugh have their argument in the subject position at both levels (i.e. D and S structures). As a consequence, the type of movement as illustrated in (25) does not occur to the unergative verb run in ( 26 ) since the NP Tom originates in the subject position in D structure : (26) Unergative Verb: run S NP Infl Infl VP V Tom ran (Spencer 1991:260 ) The s plit intransitivity just described is observable across languages. In particular, for the purpose of demonstrating the universality of unaccusativity a number of unaccusative

PAGE 43

33 diagnostics have been proposed in different languages 19 In what follows, we look at how unaccusativity is represented in English and Japanese. 2. 5.2 Unaccusative Verbs in English As discussed in the preceding section, the distinction between unaccusativity and unergativity is summarized broadly as the former having an underlyi ng object and the latter having an underlying subject (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:3). In this section we examine English split intransitivity, focusing on diagnostics which reflect the differing underlying argument structures of unaccusativity and unergativity. In keeping with the view that unaccusativity is observed cross linguistically, several diagnostics have been proposed in English (L. Levin 1988, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992a). In particular, the resultative construction is considered in th e literature to be a diagnostic which provides evidence that the surface subject of the unaccusative verbs is in fact the underlying object (Simpson 1983, Levin and Rappaport 1989, Kageyama 1996). It is well known that unaccusative verbs can occur in the r esultative construction, whereas unergative verbs do not, as illustrated below: (27) a. The vase broke into pieces b. *Tom talked hoarse (on the interpretation After Tom talked too much, his voice became hoarse. ) Sentence (27a) is grammatical in that the resultative attribute ( into pieces ) is predicated of the subject ( the vase ). In contrast, sentence ( 27b ) is ungrammatical in that the attribute hoarse cannot form a resultative relationship with the subject Tom The only way sen tence (27b) can be grammatical is when the attribute hoarse is not resultative but 19 For instance, Impersonal Passivization in Dutch (Perlmutter 1978) and Ne cliticization in Italian (Burzio 1986) are such diagnostics.

PAGE 44

34 descriptive on the interpretation of Tom talked, while his voice was hoarse Given the contrast in ( 27 ), Simpson (1983:146) argues that : The controller of a resultative a ttribute must be an OBJECT, whether that object is a surface OBJECT, as in transitive verbs, or an underlying OBJECT, as in passives and intransitive verbs of the Unaccusative class. What is noticeable about Simpson s view is that the parallelism bet ween a controller and an OBJECT agrees with the view that the subject of an unaccusative verb is invariably the underlying object. Thus, the subject vase in (27a) is considered to originate in the internal position where it serves as a controller juxtapose d to the attribute ( into pieces ). The underlying syntactic configuration between vase and the verb break will be indirectly illustrated by the transitive construction involving the verb break as illustrated in (28) below. (28) Tom broke the vase into pie ces Another unaccusative diagnostic that appear to point to the underlying structure of the unaccusativity verb is adjective passive formation ( Grimshaw 1987:245, Levin and Rappaport 1986, 1989:327). (29) a. fallen leaves (cf. Leaves fell on to th e ground) b. the stolen car (cf. The car was stolen) c. the walked man (cf. The man walked along the beach) Levin and Rappaport (1989:327) point out the correspondence between unaccusative subjects and transitive objects, main taining that adjectival passives are predicated of both unaccusative subjects and transitive objects, but not of unergative and transitive subjects.

PAGE 45

35 2. 5.3 Unaccusative Verbs in Japanese It is maintained that as in English, sentences containing unaccusative verbs involve movement of an internal argument in Japanese (Miyagawa 1989a:23 ; cf. Kageyama 1993:46 ). As described earlier, the internal argument of an English unaccusative verb, which occurs within a VP, has its thematic role Theme assigned directly by t he verb. Since the verb fails to assign case to any internal argument, the NP moves to the position external to the VP in order to acquire a subject case via inflection. The same is true of Japanese unaccusatives as well, except for the fact that in Japane se the moved NP is overly marked with the case marker ga The template of Japanese unaccusativity is diagrammed as follows (Miyagawa 1989a:85): (30) S NP i ga VP t i V In (30), the NP is first assigned the thematic role Th eme by an unaccusative verb (V). Since the V assigns no case (Miyagawa 1989a:89), the NP moves to the subject position to receive case, leaving a trace behind. As will be discussed in more detail later, it is important to ensure that the NP in (30) has alr eady received its thematic role Theme from the verb inside the VP prior to the movement, since the case marker ga is incapable of assigning a thematic role Evidence that unaccusativity also exists in Japanese has been presented in the literature (Tsujimur a 1991, Miyagawa 1989a, Kageyama 1996). At least two unaccusative diagnostics appear to have direct relevance to Japanese ergative pairs. The

PAGE 46

36 first diagnostic concerns Numeral Quantifiers (NQ) and the constraints on their correlation with NP referents. The Japanese NQ consists of a numeral and a classifier (CL; e.g., satu for book, nin for person, etc.), usually placed after an NP that is counted. (31) a. Taroo wa hon o ni satu kat ta Taro TOP book ACC two CL buy PAST Taro bought two books. b. Tomodati ga san nin uti ni ki ta Friend NOM three CL (my) house to come PAST Three friends came to my house. Miyagawa (1989a) postulates that the NP and the NQ constitute syntactically sep arate phrases; in other words, the NQ is neither a specifier nor a complement of the NP. Furthermore, the NQ is not an argument of the verb in that the verb does not assign a thematic role to it. Rather, the relation between the NP and the NQ is more like that of predication in which the NQ is predicated of the NP (Miyagawa 1989a:22). In this respect, the NQ is analogous to a small clause like raw in the following sentence, where raw is predicated of its antecedent meat (cf. Williams 1980). (32) John ate the meat raw (Miyagawa 1989a:22) In order to form a proper predication relationship, the NQ and the NP should always be in a mutual c command relation (Miyagawa 1989a:27ff). This is illustrated in the following examples: (33) a. Tomodati ga 2 ri Sinzyuku de Tanaka sensei ni at ta friend NOM 2 CL Shinjuku in Prof. Tanaka DAT meet PAST Two friends met Professor Tanaka in Shinjuku. (Miyagawa 1989a:28) b. *Tomodati no kuruma ga 3 nin kosyoo sita friend GEN car NOM 3 CL broke down Three friends car broke down (Miyagawa 1989a:29)

PAGE 47

37 In sentence (33a), the NQ 2 ri two and its referent NP tomodati friend are in a mutual c command relation outside the VP. The relation is diagrammed as below (Miyagawa 1989a:29): (34) S NP NQ VP tomodati ga 2 ri Tanaka sensei ni at ta By contrast, tomodati and san nin in sentence (33b) do not form a mutual c command relationship because tomodati fails to c command 3 nin This is illustrated in the following tree diagram (Miyagawa 1989a:30): (35) S NP NQ VP NP N 3 nin tomodati no kuruma ga kosyoo sita It is interesting to note, however, that there are some cases in which the mutual c command does not seem to obtain for the relation between an NQ and its referent in Japanese. For instance, the following example shows that the NP doa door and the NQ huta tu two are not in a mutual c command relation because the VP ( kono kagi de huta tu ai ta ) that dominates the NQ does not dominate the NP. Nevertheless, sentence (36) is grammatical.

PAGE 48

38 (36) Doa ga [ vp kono ka gi de huta tu ai ta]. (< ak open + ta ) door NOM this key with two CL open PAST Two doors opened with this key. (Miyagawa 1989a:43) Miyagawa explains the grammaticality of ( 36 ) by hypothesizing tha t the NP doa door originates inside the VP and leaves a trace after moving outside the VP. It is this trace, according to Miyagawa, that enables the NP doa and the NQ huta tu two to form a mutual c command relation. The tree diagram of this derivation is illustrated as follows (Tsujimura 1996:272): (37) S NP VP doa i ga PP NP NQ V NP P t i huta tu ai t a kono kagi de The grammaticality of sentence (36) implies that the verb ak open is an unaccusative verb. Such mutual c command relationship between a NP trace and an NQ does not obtain for unergative verbs like hasir run as diagramed below (Tsujimura 1996:273 4) : (38) *Gakusei ga [ vp awatete inu to sannin hasit ta] student NOM hurriedly dog with 3 CL run PAST Three students ran hurriedly with the dog.

PAGE 49

39 S NP VP Adv PP NQ V gakusei ga N P awatete sannin hasit ta inu to In (38), the subject NP gakusei student originates and remains in the p osition external to the VP, preventing itself from forming a mutual c command relation with the referent NQ sannin three . Resultative constructions also serve as a diagnostic of Japanese unaccusativity (Tsujimura 1991). As with English, the controllers of resultative attributes can be predicated of the subjects of unaccusative verbs as well as the objects of transitive verbs in Japanese (Tsujimura 1991:97). (39) Hanako no kami ga i [ vp t i nagaku nobi ta] Hanako GEN hair NOM long grow PAST Hanako s hair grew long The subject NP kami hair in (39), which is marked so with ga is linked to its trace inside the VP. Thus, it follows from the generalization given above (Section 2. 5. 3 ) that the resultative attribute n agaku long is predicated of the underlying OBJECT kami On the other hand, as expected from the behavior of the English verb talk as described above, the Japanese equivalent hanas talk does not occur in resultative constructions. (40) *Taroo wa [ vp kutakuta ni hanasi ta] Taro TOP exhausted talk PAST Taro talked exhausted

PAGE 50

40 Since the subject ( Taro ) is a base generated subject, it violates Simpson s requirement that the controller should be OBJECT. Thus, sentence (40) pr oves to be ungrammatical. Based on the unaccusative diagnostics just described, given below are Japanese intransitive verbs which are identified as unaccusative in the literature (Miyagawa 1989a:43, 97 99, Tsujimura 1990a:283, 1990c:264, 1996:276, 323) 20 ( 41) simar close ak open koware broke taore fall katamar solidify ku come hair enter agar go up, rise tuk arrive kuzure collapse kire be cut more leak toke melt tamar accumulate ware break sub er slide kie turn off ukab float tuk turn on de come out ik go oti fall kaer return tat depart korogar roll hazum bounce To summarize this section, we have observed that a range of diagnostics both in En glish and Japanese has attested to the view of split intransitivity Note, however, that these diagnostics in essence reflect the fact that the distinction between unaccusative and unergative is syntactically coded (cf. Levin and Rappaport 1989:9). In othe r words, these diagnostics do not tell us what semantic aspects, if any, of verbs result in such different syntactic behaviors. As will be discussed below, Perlmutter (1978:161) had already suggested that the distinction between unaccusative and unergative can be explained semantically (for further work on semantic implications of unaccusativity, see Levin 20 Kishimoto ( 1996:264 5 ) gives the following additional list of unaccusa tive verbs: obore be drowned, sin die, umare be born, nemur sleep, tissoku suru smother, hurue tremble, kuru go wrong, kom be crowded, moe burn, yowar weaken, katamuk lean, mahi suru paralyze, nak cry, korob fall down kumor get cloudy, naor heal.

PAGE 51

41 1985). In the section that follows, I will conduct a semantic analysis of split intransitivity, suggesting that the unaccusative/unergative distinction i s characterizable semantically as well as syntactically. 2. 5.4 Semantic Characterization of Unaccusativity In the preceding section, I have demonstrated that the subjects of unaccusative verbs originate in the object position at the underlying level both i n English and Japanese. In so doing, I outlined several diagnostics which are proven to attest to split intransitivity. One difficulty, however, with the analysis of unaccusativity on the basis of such diagnostics has to do with the fact that unaccusative diagnostics in general depict the core structure of unaccusative verbs (e.g., [collapse tent]) in indirect ways. In other words, all these diagnostics deal with deep unaccusativity, where the argument appears only in the subject position (cf. Bresnan and Z aenen 1990) There are, however, some diagnostics that seem to point to surface unaccusativity in English ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:19): (42) a. There appeared a ship on the horizon b. Into the room came a man Sentences (42a b) are examples of there insertion construction and locative inversion, respectively (L. Levin 1988 Hoekstra and Mulder 1990 ). Note that both diagnostics overtly indicate the original position of the internal arguments ( ship and Tom ) of the unaccusative verbs ( appear and came ). Given (42), one may well claim that unaccusativity is indeed a syntactic phenomenon, which makes no semantic account necessary (cf. C. Rosen 1984). The problem with the surface unaccusative diagnostics, however, is that they are applicabl e to a limited number of unaccusative verbs. For

PAGE 52

42 instance, the ergative intransitives melt permits neither there insertion construction nor locative inversion. (43) a. *There melted lots of ice that morning (L. Levin 1988:23) b. *On the street s of Chicago melted a lot of snow ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:224) Another problem with unaccusative diagnostics has to do with inconsistency with respect to the selection of unaccusative and unergative verbs. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:13) sug gest that different unaccusative diagnostics may bring about a conflicting result as to whether a given verb is unergative or unaccusative. For instance, as discussed by Borer (1998:61), the Dutch unaccusative verb vallen fall can occur with the unaccusa tive diagnostic impersonal passive if the verb is provided with the additional meaning of intention (see Levin and Rappaport 1989 for further discussion of unaccusative mismatch). In view of the syntactic uncertainty involving unaccusativity just describ ed, Van Valin (1990) argues that the unaccusative unergativity distinction is better explained semantically (cf. Tsujimura 1994a, Kishimoto 1996). In fact, Perlmutter had initially suggested the possibility of explaining the unaccusative unergative distinc tion semantically, stating that [ I ] nitial unergativity vs. unaccusativity is predictable from the semantics of the clause ( 1978: 161; cf. Van Valin 1990:221). In 1984, Perlmutter and Postal formulate the Universal Alignment Hypothesis, assuming that seman tically characterizable verbs of unaccusative type in one language are also unaccusative in all other languages (cf. Mulder and Wehrmann 1989:117):

PAGE 53

43 (44) Universal Alignment Hypothesis There exist principles of universal grammar which predict t he initial relation borne by each nominal in a given clause from the meaning of the clause (Perlmutter and Postal 1984:97) Building on the hypothesis Perlmutter and Postal categorize English unergative and unaccusative verb s semantically as follows (1984:98 99) : (45) Unergative verbs a. Predicates describing willed or volitional acts: work, play, speak, talk, smile, grin, frown, grimace, think, meditate, cogitate, daydream, skate, ski, swim, hunt, bic ycle, walk, skip (voluntary), jog, quarrel, fight, wrestle, box, agree, disagree, knock, bang, hammer, pray, weep, cry, kneel, bow, courtesy, genuflect, cheat, lie (tell a falsehood), study, whistle (voluntary), laugh, dance, crawl, etc. Manner of speak ing verbs: whisper, shout, mumble, grumble, growl, bellow, blurt out, etc. Predicates describing sounds made by animals: bark, neigh, whinny, quack, roar (voluntary), chirp, oink, meow, etc. b. Certain involuntary bodily process 21 cou gh, sneeze, hiccup, belch, burp, vomit, defecate, urinate, sleep, cry, weep etc. (46) Unaccusative verbs a. Predicates expressed by adjectives in English : a very large class, including predicates describing sizes, shapes, weights, colors, smells states of mind, etc. b. Predicates whose initial unclear term is semantically a Patient : burn, fall, drop, sink, float, slide, slip, soar, flow, ooze, seep, trickle, drip, gush, hang, sway, wave, tremble, shake, languish, thrive, drown, stumble, roll, succumb, dry, blow away, boil, seethe, lie (involuntary), sit (involuntary), 21 If bodily processes are perceived as involuntary, they might well be unaccusative (cf. Miller 1993:66).

PAGE 54

44 I nchoative: melt, freeze, evaporate, vaporize, solidify, crystallize dim, brighten, redden, darken, yellow, rot, decompose, germinate, sprout, bud, wilt, wi ther, increase, decrease, reduce, grow, collapse, dissolve, disintegrate, die, perish, choke, suffocate, blush, open, close, break, shatter, crumble, crack, split, burst, explode, burn up, burn down, dry up, dry out, scatter, disperse, fill, vanish, dis appear, etc. c. Predicates of existing and happening : exist, happen, transpire, occur, take place, and various inchoatives such as arise, ensue, result, show up, end up, turn up, pop up, vanish, disappear etc. d. Involuntary emission of stimuli th at impinge on the senses : shine, spark, glitter, glisten, glow, jingle, clink. clang, snap (involuntary), crackle, pop, smell, stink etc. e. Aspectual predicates: begin, start, stop, cease, continue, end etc. f. Durative: last, remain, stay, survive etc. In general, unergative verbs appear to reveal a unified, constant characteristic: a majority of them, with the exception of verbs of involuntary bodily process, involve volition, or agentivity of the argument 22 By contr ast, the argument of the unaccusative entails no agentivity (Dowty 1991:605ff, Borer 1994:21). More importantly, however, the thematic role Patient in (46b) indicates that unaccusativity involves change of state or location as one of its key semantic p roperties. In particular, it is readily noticed that the inchoative verbs are associated with this semantic property (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:80). As will be discussed in more detail later in Chapter 3, change of state plays a crucial role in de termining not only unaccusativity of verbs but also the ability of verbs to alternate in transitivity. 22 Dowty (1991:607) characterizes volition as involving sentience.

PAGE 55

45 Another semantic property that appears to have been noticed in the recent literature as a defining characteristic of unaccusativity is that of aspect. In particular, telicity or a natural endpoint in time, which typically characterizes the aspectual classes of Achievements and Accomplishments, is also considered to characterize unaccusativity ( McClure 1990, Dowty 1991 :607 Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992a:2 60, 1995:166 7, Tsujimura 1996:329, Arad 1998). 23 The correlation between unaccusativity and telicity is demonstrated in part by the fact that most of the unaccusatives do not combine with adverbials of duration like for an hour (47) a. *Tom arrived for an hour. b. *The accident happened for an hour. By contrast, unergatives, which are characterized as atelic, are compatible with the same adverbial phrase. (48) a. Tom walked for an hour. b. Tom cried for an hour. The telic nature of unacc usativity is also observed in Japanese. Tsujimura (1991 :97 ) points out that the Japanese aspectual marker te iru means resultative state when occurring with unaccusative verbs, whereas it means progressive when occurring with unergative verbs. Thus, as il lustrated below, the accusative predicate ai te iru (< ak open + te iru ) expresses a resultative state. (49) Mado ga zenbu ai te iru. window NOM all open ASP All the windows are open (Tsujimura 1991:98) 23 Tenny (1987, 1994) uses the term delimit edness rather than telicity to describe the same aspectual situation. Arad (1998:18) estimates that 95% of unaccusatives are telic.

PAGE 56

46 By contra st, the unergative predicate arui te iru (< aruk walk + te iru ) expresses progressive. (50) Masao wa ima eki no mae o arui te iru Masao TOP now station GEN in front of walk ASP Masao is walking in front of t he station now (Tsujimura 1991:98) Interestingly enough, if unergatives co occur with adverbials that designate the endpoint (i.e., telicity) of the activities denoted by the verbs, then the te iru constructions with such unergatives no longer express progressive but rather resultative state (cf. Tsujimura 1991:104). (51) Masao wa go mairu arui te iru Masao TOP five miles walk ASP Masao has walked five miles Examples (50) and (51) seem to show that telicity has to do with the distinction between unaccusativity and unergativity in Japanese (the issue of aspect in relation to unaccusativity will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5). 2.5.5 Unaccusativity and Ergative Alternation As mentioned at the beginning of this sect ion, many of the intransitive alternants of the English ergative alternating verbs are identified with unaccusative verbs. Arad (1998:13) further assumes that the ability of verbs to participate in the ergative alternation serves as one of the unaccusative diagnostics (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:31). This is readily illustrated by the intransitive verbs of the following alternating pairs, which are found in the list of the unaccusative verbs in (46) above. (52) a. Tom broke the vase T he vase broke b. The heat melted the ice in no time The ice melted in no time

PAGE 57

47 c. Tom opened the door The door opened If the contention that the intransitive members of ergative pairs are unaccus ative is correct, then one may well say that the ergative alternation overtly shows the underlying position of the single argument of the unaccusative verb. Thus, the transitive alternants in (52a c) can be claimed to show the position where the subject of the unaccusative verb is assumed to originate. Furthermore, if we follow the view that the intransitive break is unaccusative, then the transitive construction could serve as evidence that the subject of an unaccusative verb is identified as an internal a rgument, originating in the object position. While most of the intransitive alternants of the ergative alternating verbs are unaccusatives, it is nevertheless important to note the fact that not all the unaccusative verbs participate in the alternation (G rimshaw 1987:251, Pinker 1989:42 43, Ono 1997:168). In other words, only a subset of the unaccusative verbs can alternately occur in transitive constructions. Pinker lists the following verbs as unaccusatives which do not causativize (1989:42 3): (53) fal l, come, appear, arrive, enter, ascend, die, vanish, exist Additionally, among the unaccusative verbs given in (45) above, the following seem to fail to enter into the ergative alternation (cf. Pinker 1989:131 132, Levin 1993a): 24 24 Some of the non alternating unaccusative verbs may be used as transitive verbs depending on the meaning. (i) a. The su n shines. b. *The scientists shines the sun (ii) a. The flashlight shines. b. Tom shines the flashlight. D.G. Miller (p.c.) points out that since the verbs in (i) and (ii) have different past tense forms ( shone and shined respectively), they should be considered different verbs.

PAGE 58

48 ( 54 ) soar, flow, ooze, seep, trickle, gush, tremble, languish, flourish, thrive, stumble, succumb, seethe, sit; evaporate, yellow, rot, decompose, germinate, sprout, bud, wilt, wither, collapse, disintegrate, perish, blush, disappear; happen, transpire, occur, take place; arise, ensue, result, show up, end up, pop up; shine, spark, glitter, glisten, glow, crackle, smell, stink; last, remain, stay The question remaining to be addressed is: what aspects of the unaccusative verbs in (53) and (54) make them unable to alternate with a transitive use? Given that unaccusativity is determined semantically (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:21), is it possible to further account for such differing behaviors among unaccusative verbs on semantic grounds? While many of the non alternating unaccusatives might be semantically characterized as verbs of existence and appearance or verbs of emission (cf. Levin 1993a ), are there any semantic properties shared by these two classes of verb whereby we can predict the non alternating behaviors of the se verbs ? As stated earlier, the position that I take throughout my dissertation is that the syntactic behaviors of verbs are generally explicable semantically. Thus I assume that the distinction between alternating and non alternating unaccusative verbs s hould be made in terms of their semantic properties. We will discuss this issue in more detail in Chapter 3. 2. 6 Direction of Derivation One of the issues addressed in the literature with regard to the ergative alternation has to do with the direction of d erivation between ergative transitives and ergative intransitives. In other words, research is concerned with which member of the ergative pair is basic and which one is derived. Earlier research based on derivational morphology and markedness theory has r evealed that the direction of derivation between ergative pairs varies from language to language ( Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973, Haspelmath 1993). As noted previously, Japanese is among those languages in which morphological

PAGE 59

49 pairs are formally distinguishab le and ample research has been conducted on the issue of derivational direction (Okutsu 1967). For languages like English, however, in which the distinction between transitives and ergatives is not overly marked, the direction of derivation has been a moot point ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Hale and Keyser 1998). In this section, I review how the issue of direction of derivation has been addressed in the literature on the ergative alternation in English and Japanese. 2. 6.1 Derivational Direction of Engl ish Ergative Pairs 2. 6.1.1 Causativization The view most commonly held by researchers regarding the direction of derivation is that transitive ergatives are derived from intransitive bases, a process usually referred to as causativization (Chomsky 1970:215 Williams 1981, Keyser and Roeper 1984, Guerssel et al. 1985, Pinker 1989, S.T. Rosen 1996). On this view, the ergative transitive break for instance, is derived from the intransitive break as a result of the addition of the semantic element CAUSE to the latter. 25 (55) intransitive break cause (+ intransitive break ) transitive break Keyser and Roeper (1984) and Guerssel et al. (1985) consider the process of causativization to take place in the lexicon, representing the LCS of the ergative verb break as follows: (56) a. LCS for intranstive break : y come to be BROKEN b. LCS for transitive break : x CAUSE (y come to be BROKEN) 25 Hale and Keyser (1986) consider the process of causativization to be a crucial property of ergative alternation in that it clearly distinguishes the ergative alternation from the middle alternation. Hale and Keyser argue that a middle verb is derived from a dyadic LCS, while an ergative intransitive is derived from a monadic LCS (1986:11).

PAGE 60

50 The representation in (56) demonstrate s that the transitive LCS (x CAUSE (y come to be BROKEN)) is derived from the e rgative LCS (y come to be BROKEN) by virtue of what they call a causative rule. On this view, the ergative alternation reflects a syntactic realization of the intransitive and transitive LCSs of break In short, Guerssel et al. argue that while the basic a rgument structure of the ergative verb is monadic, both transitive and intransitive uses of ergative pairs are listed in the lexicon. This implies that the verb break has two separate lexical entries in English (cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1) In support of the causativizing process of the ergative alternation, Hale and Keyser (1998:100, 111) simply posit the concept of basic argument structure, maintaining that [ I ] n the absence of morphological evidence, the direction is always from the simpler structure ( the intransitive or inchoative) to the more complex (the transitive) Haspelmath (1993) expresses a similar causativization view from a semantic point of view: There are independent semantic reasons to think that the causative member of an inchoative/cau sative alternation is semantically derived, while the inchoative member is semantically basic...on purely semantic grounds we seem to be forced to conclude that causative verbs are derived from inchoatives (1993:89) As evidenced in the arguments by Hal e and Keyser and Haspelmath, they rely on their own intuition concerning the direction of derivation with little concrete evidence. Drawing on grammatical judgment, Chomsky (1970) notes that it is the ungrammaticality of NP grow children and the grammatic ality of children grow that enables us to say the ergative use of grow is basic. This observation, however, does not account for the contradicting case where it is grammatical to say He broke the rule but ungrammatical to say The rule broke (for further d iscussion of this issue see Chapter 3, Section 3.2 ).

PAGE 61

51 2. 6.1.2 Anticausativization While hardly any conclusive evidence is provided for the theory of causativization, the view that ergative intransitives are derived from their corresponding ergative transit ive bases has gained substantial ground recently. In contrast to causativization, this process is referred to as anti causativization (Zubizarreta 1987) or detransitivization ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). In keeping with the proposal by Guerssel et al. (1985), Keyser and Roeper (1984) view ergative pairs as being generated in the lexicon. Crucially, however, Keyser and Roeper differ from Guerssel et al. in that they assume that ergative uses are derived from the transitive bases via ergative rule. The a nticausative process presented by Keyser and Roeper is characterized by movement of the argument via Move a from the object position inside the transitive VP. Keyser and Roeper illustrate this process by the verb sink (Keyser and Roeper 1984:402) (57) s ink / [ S NP [ VP ____ [NP]]] [ S NP i [ VP ____ [ t i ]]] Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) basically follow Keyser and Roeper in suggesting that the LCS of break is a single causative representation and the ergative intransitive counterpart is derived t hrough what they call detransitivization In support of their view of detransitivization Levin and Rappaport Hovav provide evidence that possible subjects of ergative intransitives are a subset of possible objects of the corresponding transitive ergatives due to selectional restrictions imposed on the former. That is, ergative transitives appear to allow a wider rage of objects than the corresponding intransitives allow subjects. This is illustrated below, in which the

PAGE 62

52 syntactic objects table and skirt of the transitive ergatives in (58a) and (59a) fail to occur in the subject positions of the intransitive counterparts in (58b) and (59b). (58) a. The waiter cleared the table. b. *The table cleared (59) a. The dressmaker lengthened the skirt b. *The skirt lengthened ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:86) On Levin and Rappaport Hovav terms, causativization approach does not provide a satisfactory explanation as to how transitives can be derived from non existent intransitive cou nterparts. Building on their claim that the basic use of the verb will impose less stringent restrictions on its arguments Levin and Rappaport Hovav conclude that ergative transitive constructions are basic (1995:86). Moreover, as Levin and Rappaport H ovav point out, cross linguistic morphological evidence appears to support their transitive based and intransitive derived view (1995:87 88). Citing a study by Haspelmath (1993) in which ergative alternating patterns in more than twenty languages are analy zed, Levin and Rappaport Hovav stress the fact that the ergative intransitive form of break seemingly the prime example of the ergative verb among researchers, has a strong tendency to be more marked morphologically than the transitive counterpart. In lig ht of the evidence of derivational morphology, it is reasonable to assume even in languages like English where there are hardly any morphological distinctions between ergative transitives and intransitives, that

PAGE 63

53 ergative transitives are basic and the corr esponding intransitives are derived via detransitivization. 26 2. 6.2 Derivational Direction of Japanese Ergative Pairs As mentioned previously, the ergative pairs in Japanese are striking in that almost all the pairs are distinct in form. In a majority of ca ses, the formal distinctions are asymmetrical that is either transitive ergatives are more marked than the corresponding intransitives or vice versa. Furthermore, as illustrated in Section 2. 3. 2 above, morphological derivations between pairs appear to fol low relatively constant patterns. Given such consistent correspondence between derivational forms and transitivity, it has been proposed that the derivational directions of Japanese ergative pairs are basically predictable (Okutsu 1967, Jacobsen 1982, 1985 1992, Kanaya 2000). There is a caveat, however, about relying too much on derivational morphology to determine the direction of derivation. In fact, in light of a wide range of morphological devices whereby one member of an ergative pairs is derived from the other, Levin (1985) argues that it is not possible to assume that one member of the pair is derived from the other on the basis of the nature of the morphological relation between the verbs involved (21) Since Levin does not seem to take Japanese d ata into account in her analysis, it remains to be seen whether her argument is applicable to ergative pairs in Japanese. In what follow s we will investigate how accurately the derivational patterns of Japanese ergative pairs may allow us to determine the direction of derivation. 26 It is important to note here that researchers are not always certain about the directionality of derivation. Dixon (1991:291), for instance, expresses his uncertainty about his position, suggesting that the direction is determined depending on the ergative verb type. Building for the most part on native speakers intuition, Dixon assumes that break crush and smash are basically transitive, burst and explode are basically intransitive, and tear and chip are indecisive.

PAGE 64

54 2. 6.2.1 Transitivization vs. intransitivization Based on the view that morphologically marked forms are derived, Okut s u (1967) proposes three derivational patterns associated with ergative pairs in Japanese The first pattern is referred to as tadooka (Transitivization) which involves a derivational process of deriving transitive forms from intransitive bases by means of the Transitivizer as ( 60 ) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE ugok move ugok as move tob fly tob a s let fly wak boil wak as boil The second pattern is zidooka (Intransitivization) which shows a derivational patter n completely opposite to tadooka ; it derives transitive forms from the intransitive bases by virtue of the Intransitivizer ar ( 61 ) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE hasam put between hasam ar get caught between 27 tunag connect tunag ar get connected husag block husag ar get blocked The two opposing derivational patterns just described may raise a question about describing the direction of derivation regarding the English ergative alternation as either causativization or anticausativization The issue may be further complicated by the third pattern called ryookyokuka (Polarization) in whi ch both transitive and intransitive forms appear to be derived from some hypothetical roots. 28 27 When there is no intransitive counterpart in English, I use get + past participle, following a suggestion by Croft (1991:267 8), to differentiate it from the pr ototypical, agentive be passive. 28 Haspelmath (1993) notes that the Japanese ergative pairs are characterized as non directed alternation in that both transitive and intransitive uses are derived from the same

PAGE 65

55 ( 62 ) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE naos fix naor get fixed hirak open hirak open For the pair naos and naor the transitive suffix s and the intransitive suffix r are considered equal in terms of markedness, making it impossible for us to determine the derivation of direction. For the ambivalent pair hirak on the other hand, since there is no change in form between the tra nsitive and intransitive, Polarization would be the most appropriate classification (Okutsu 1967:58). In short, given the morphological evidence for multiple derivational patterns of Japanese ergative pairs, one may well reconsider the question of derivati onal direction involving the English ergative alternation 2.6.2.2 Causativization vs. passivization It is important to notice that in Japanese the process of transitivization and intransitivization just described is often considered comparable to the proc ess of causativization and anticausativization, respectively (Shibatani 1973, Noda 1991, Jacobsen 1992 Kitagawa and Fujii 1999 ) This observation arises in part from morphological evidence. That is, the transitivizer as bears a morphological resemblance to the Japanese causative suffix ( s ) ase a causative morpheme which attaches to either intransitive or transitive verbs almost freely to create the meaning cause somebody to do stem. One typical pair representing the non directed alternation is atumar /atume collect, gather, a derivational pattern comprising Jacobsen s Class III. In this pair, the transitive and intransitive uses are equipollently derived from the stem atum by virtue of the derivational suffixes ar an d er respectively. The problem with Haspelmath s claim, however, is that the number of verb pairs (31) surveyed is very small compared to the number of ergative pairs (134) given by Jacobsen (1992). More importantly, his analysis of derivational suffix es is rather vague. For instance, while Haspelmath labels the pair yurer /yuras as non directed, he considers a similar pair kawak /kawakas as causativization. It seems that at the very least Haspelmath analyzes these particular pairs mainly from a isomo rphic point of view without taking into account the semantic function of the Transitivizer as

PAGE 66

56 (something ). Likewise, the intransitivizer ar is viewed as resembling the J apanese passive suffix rare a passive morpheme whose most common function is to passivize transitive verbs. 29 Given such similarities, Noda (1991) concludes that there is little difference between causativization/passivization and transitivization/anticau sativization. The only difference, according to Noda, should be the degree of productivity involved in each process; causativization/passivization is more productive than transitivization/anticausativization in that the former is applied to a larger number of verbs. Moreover, the parallelism between transitivization and causativization, on the one hand, and the parallelism between intransitivization and passivization, on the other, has been demonstrated syntactically in the literature (Ichihashi 1992). As s chematized previously, repeated here in (63), the configurational property characteristic of the ergative pairs is that the object of the transitive verb corresponds to the subject of the intransitive verb. (63) NP 1 ga NP 2 o V tr (transitive construction) NP 2 ga V intr ( i ntransitive construction) The identical correlation is observed between the non causative (i.e. intransitive) and causative constructions mediated by ( s ) ase 29 Diachronical surveys seem to suggest that the transitivizer as was derived from the causative morpheme ( s ) ase and the intransitivizer ar was derived from t he passive morpheme are (cf. Shibatani 1990:236).

PAGE 67

57 (64) a. NP 1 ga NP 2 o Vi + ( s ) ase (causative construction) A kira wa Taroo o go mairu aruk ase ta 30 Akira TOP Taro ACC five mile walk CAUS PAST Akira made Taro walk five miles b. NP 2 ga Vi (intransitive construction) Taroo wa go mairu arui ta (< aruk + ta) Taro TOP five mile walk PAST Taro walked five miles Along the same lines, the syntactic configuration of passivization is comparable to ( 64 ). (65) a. NP 1 ga NP 2 o V tr (active (i.e. transitive) construction) Taroo ga hon o nusun da Taro NOM book ACC steal PAST Taro stole the book b. NP 2 ga (NP 1 ni) V tr + (r)are (passive construction) Hon ga (Taroo ni) nusm are ta book NOM (Taro by) steal PASS PAST T he book was stolen by Taro In spite of the striking morphological and syntactic similarities just described, many researchers agree that the processes of transitivization and intransitivization should be distinguished from causativization and passivizati on Shibatani (1976a) discusses the disparity between transitivization and causativization from a structural point of view. More specifically, transitive verbs with the transitivizer as are lexicalized, contributing to a mono clausal structure as a whole. Causative verbs with the causative morpheme ( s ) ase on the other hand, are assumed to constitute an embedded structure, just like complex structures associated with the analytical causative verbs make or have in English ( Shibatani 1976a:244; see also Kur oda 1993). 30 The choice between ase and s ase entirely depends on whether the stem of a verb ends with a consonant ( kak write kak ase make someone write ) or a vowel ( tabe eat tabe sase make someone e at).

PAGE 68

58 (66) a. Taroo wa isi o ugokas ita Taro TOP stone ACC move PAST Taro moved the stone b. Taroo wa Akira ni isi o ugok ase ta Taro TOP Akira DAT st one ACC move CAUSE PAST Taro made Akira move the stone As for the contrast between ergative intransitives and passives, Noda (1991:225 6) suggests that it is the lack of agentivity that differentiates ergative intransitives from passives. According to Noda, the ergative ware in (65a) implies that a balloon blew up spontaneously, whereas the passive war are in (67b) implies that somebody blew up the balloon, whether on purpose or by accident. (67) a. Huusen ga ware ta b alloon NOM burst PAST The balloon burst b. Huusen ga war are ta balloon NOM break PASS PAST The balloon was burst Jacobsen (1992) mentions non productive characteristic of morphologically based transitivization and intransitivization in Japanese, arguing that as a whole causativization and passivization are productive enough for native speakers never need to memorize each causativized and passivized form individually (cf. Chapter 4, Section 4. 2)

PAGE 69

59 CHAPTER 3 SEMANTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF ERGATIVE ALTERNATIONS 3. 1 Introduction The fundamental hypothesis behind the present research is based on a view of lexical semantics in which the semantics of verbs is responsible to a great extent for the syntactic realizati ons of arguments surrounding the verbs (Wasaw 1985, Grimshaw 1987, Pinker 1989, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998). The rationale behind the syntax lexical semantics interface is that the alternatability of the arguments of ver bs, as represented by ergative alternation, dative alternation, and locative alternation, among others, is predictable from the meaning of the verbs. According to Levin (1993a), for instance, the semantic group of English verbs called break verbs, such as break crack shatter and tear undergo the ergative alternation, whereas the semantic group of verbs called hit verbs, such as batter hammer hit and pound do not. One main research goal regarding ergative pairs has been to elucidate the conditions u nder which verbs allow alternation in transitivity (Ritter and Rosen 1998:135). As mentioned in Chapter 1, Pinker (1989) notes that semantic properties that appear to be pertinent to the alternating behaviors of verbs are similar across languages : The sam e alternations in other languages are prone to applying to the same kinds of verbs and being constrained by the same kinds of criteria and shifts in interpretation as one finds in English (1989:97) Specifically, Pinker points out that verbs with the mean ing break ing have a strong tendency to participate in a lexical ergative alternation cross linguistically, whereas verbs

PAGE 70

60 with the meaning laugh ing invariably lack a lexical ergative alternant or variant (1989:134; see also Marantz 1984:181 2, Hale and Keyser 1998:89). Haspelmath conducts an extensive cross linguistic survey of derivational morphology between ergative pairs, generalizing that ergative pairs in a majority of languages contain change of state as an essential semantic component (1993:92 9 3). In this chapter I will provide a lexical semantic analysis of the ergative alternation in English and Japanese. It will be demonstrated that while verbs which undergo this particular alternation appear to belong to similar semantic classes in both lan guages, there are yet crucial differences that need to be addressed 3. 2 Two Issues of Ergative Alternation There are two issues surrounding the ergative alternation that need to be addressed here. One is that there are transitive and intransitive verbs w hich do not alternate in transitivity under any circumstances. As mentioned above, the English verb hit simply lacks an ergative intransitive use. (1) a. Tom hit the boy b. *The boy hit The Japanese equivalent tatak hit also fails to occur in intransitive constructions. (2) a. Taroo wa Akira o tatai ta (< tatak + ta) Taro NOM Akira ACC hit PAST Taro hit Akira b. Akira ga tatakat ta 1 (tatakar + ta) Akira NOM get hit PAST Akira got hit 1 Since there is no intransitive counterpart to tatak I have coined a hypothetical form upon which native speakers would agree as the most probable form. In what follow s whenever I need to coin a hypothetical form, I fo llow this principle

PAGE 71

61 Another complex aspect of the ergative alternation is that verbs which alternate in transitivity are not always consistent with their behaviors (Van Voorst 1995:513, Lemmens 1998:37). For instance, while the English verb break normally alternates in transitivity, when the verb tak es contract as a Theme argument, it fails to undergo the alternation. 2 (3) a. He broke the contract b. *The contract broke ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:85) Van Voorst (1995:514) lists more cases of such inconsistent behaviors of erg ative verbs. ( 4 ) a. He cracked the plate The plate cracked b. He cracked the security code *The security code cracked ( 5 ) a. He crashed his car into a tree His car crashed into a tree b. He crashed the party *The party crashe d ( 6 ) a. He thickened the sauce The sauce thickened b. He thickened the line *The line thickened ( 7 ) a. He twisted the cord The cord twisted when he pulled on it b. He twisted his hair with his fingers *His hair twisted ( 8 ) a. He stretched the elastic band The elastic band stretched b. He stretched his leg *His leg stretched 2 Brousseau and Ritter (1991:60) note that the same phenomenon is observed in French. (i) a. Jean a bris sa l accord John broke the agreement b. *L accord s est bris (e) The agreement broke

PAGE 72

62 Given these examples, as will be discussed later in more detail, the alternatability of verbs appears to depend not only on the verbs t hemselves but also on the constructional environments where these verbs occur. The same observation applies to a number of Japanese ergative verbs. The intransitive verb tat to stand is paired with tate set up, alternating in transitivity according to the configurational template given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 above: (9) a. Boo ga tat te iru pole NOM stand ASP The pole stands b. Kodomo ga boo o tate te iru child NOM pole ACC put up ASP The child is putting up the pole However, if the intransitive verb tat occurs with an animate subject, then the transitive counterpart becomes ungrammatical in the construction that follows the same tem plate: (10) a. Kodomo ga rooka ni tat te iru child NOM hallway in stand ASP A child stands in the hallway b. *Taroo wa kodomo o rooka ni tate te iru. Taro TOP child ACC hallway in s tand ASP Taro stands a child in the hallway Given the examples from English and Japanese, the objectives of this chapter are (1) to explain why some verbs alternate in transitivity while others simply do not and (2) to elucidate the conditi ons under which typical ergative verbs like break fail to show the alternating behavior. 3. 3 A Problematic Case: The English C ut and Break One way of explaining how the semantics of verbs determine the syntactic structures of arguments occurring with the v erbs is to compare verbs which are

PAGE 73

63 semantically distinct. The contrast between break and hit is a case in point. As will be discussed later in detail, the transitive use of break entails the semantic properties cause and change of state, while hit does not. The weakness of this approach might be that if there is more than one semantic property that differs among verbs as in break and hit then it becomes more difficult to pinpoint the true cause of the differing syntactic behavior shown by each verb. In this respect, the contrast between the English break and cut has been considered more appropriate to the study of the syntax lexical semantics interface due to the ir semantic similarities (e.g., the transitive uses of the verbs entail both cause and ch ange of state ), on the one hand, and yet some crucial syntactic differences, on the other. In this section I outline the semantic differences and similarities between the two verbs and their syntactic behaviors that are assumed to reflect the semantic pro perties The verb break is one of the verbs which are subsumed in general under a large semantic verb group called change of state (Levin 1993a). In particular, the change of state described by break is considered so prototypical that it is often used as the label of a subclass of change of state verbs (e.g. verbs of breaking break type verbs, etc.) such as shatter, crack, split, etc The essential semantic property associated with this particular verb group would be summarized as a change in the mater ial integrity ( Hale and Keyser 1987:7) or, more elaborately, as a change that involves an initial condition of being whole and a final condition of being (able to be) separated into several detachable portions (Ravin 1990:222). It is this semantic prope rty that distinguishes break verbs from other change of state verb groups such as verbs of bending, verbs of cooking, and verbs of change of color (See Levin 1993 a for detailed study of this issue). T he

PAGE 74

64 verb cut also involves a similar kind of change of state as break namely a separation in its material integrity (Hale and Keyser 1986:11, 1987:7). It is interesting to note, however, that under the semantic model approach, the verb cut which comprises another semantic group of verbs referred to as contact effect (e.g., crush, pierce, slash, bite, shoot, etc .), is normally separated from verbs of breaking (Levin 1995:67) Given that break and cut share change of state as one of their essential semantic properties, it is necessary to account for wh y they should be classified into separate semantic verb groups. One may seek an explanation for this question in the syntactic behaviors that each verb shows. In fact, the syntactic structures where cut and break can occur have been discussed extensively i n the literature, particularly under the scope of argument structure alternations ( Kilby 1984, Guerssel et al. 1985 Hale and Keyser 1986, 1987, 1988, Pinker 1989 :104 109 Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b:136, 1994:62 3, 1995:103, Levin 1993 a:5 11, Miller 1 993:180 ). In the remainder of this section, we compare the syntactic behaviors of the two verbs. Firstly, both verbs typically undergo the middle alternation as illustrated below (cf. Chapter 2, Section 2.2) ( 11 ) a. This bread cut s easily. b. This glass breaks easily. (Pinker 1989:106) On the other hand, they both fail to undergo the so called contact locative alternation, a syntactic behavior which is typified by verbs like hit and bump (12) a. I hit the wall with the bat. I hit the bat against the wall. b. I cut the bread with the knife I cut the knife against the bread.

PAGE 75

65 c. I broke the egg with a spoon I broke a spoon against the egg (Pinker 1989:107) What is more striki ng is certain alternating behaviors associated with cut but not with break One such behavior is conative alternation in which cut takes the preposition at implying that the subject is trying to affect the oblique object but may or may not be succeeding (Pinker 1989 :104 ; see Guerssel et al. 1985 :50 Miller 1993 :180 Levin 1995 :67 for further discussion ). ( 13 ) a. Margaret cut the bread. b. Margaret cut at the bread. (Pinker 1989:104) ( 14 ) a. Janet broke the cup. b. *Janet broke at t he cup. (Levin 1995:67) Another syntactic behavior exclusive to cut is part possessor ascension, in which the possessor appears as the direct object and the body part noun appears in a locative prepositional phrase (Fillmore 1970 :126). ( 15 ) a. Sam cut Brians arm. b. Sam cut Brian on the arm. (Pinker 1989:105) (16) a. Jim broke his leg b. Jim broke him on the leg. (Fillmore 1970 :126) T he most frequently discussed alternating behavior, however, in relation to cut and break is ergative alternation. As mentioned previously, break is among other change of state verbs that undergo the ergative alternation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2 above) The verb cut on the other hand, does not undergo this alternation 3 3 The verb cut rarely occurs in a seemingly intransitive construction as follows: ( i) This bread cuts

PAGE 76

66 ( 17 ) a. Margaret c ut the bread. b. *The bread cut. (Levin 1995:66) The argument structure alternations in which cut and break do and do not participate are summarized as follows: Table 1: Alternation patterns of cut and break causative conative middle contact locative part possession alternation alternation alternation alternation alternation cut + + + break + + Once argument structure alternations are understood to revolve around verbal predicates, one may say that cut and break show a good deal of syntactically distinct behaviors. The question that still remains to be address ed is what factors of the verbs trigger such different syntactic behaviors Or put differently, since I conform to the position that the semantics of verbs determine the syntactic behaviors of the verbs, what are the semantic properties that are responsibl e for different alternating behaviors as exemplified by cut and break ? In the next section, I will extend our discussion and explore semantic properties of verbs in English and Japanese, especially focusing on the verbs meanings that might have to do with the different behaviors in terms of the ergative alternation Hale and Keyser (1987:19) however, call the sentence an unadorned middle, differentiating it from the genuine ergative intransitive construction The vase broke

PAGE 77

67 3. 4 Conditions for Ergative Alternation : English 3. 4.1 Change of State One verbal semantic property that is viewed as playing a crucial role in determining alternatability of verbs is that of change. In linguistics literature, verbs undergoing the ergative alternation have been understood to indicate some sort of change brought about on a Theme argument As early as the 1920s, Jespersen had pointed out that verbs that bring about a change in a person or a thing tend to be doublefaced or alternate in transitivity in English (Jespersen 1927:332 3). (18) Change class verbs break the ice the ice breaks boil water the water boils burst the boiler the boiler burst improve an invention his heal th has improved Levin (1985:18 19) specifies the types of change associated with verbs, maintaining that verbs of change of state and position undergo the ergative alternation in English. (19) Change of state: break, crack, open, close, melt, freeze, har den, dry Change of position 4 : roll, bounce, move, float, drop, turn Traditionally, however, change of state or, more elaborately, changes in the physical shape or appearance of some entity (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:80), has been viewed in th e literature as the key semantic property determining whether a given verb may participate in the ergative alternation (Fillmore 1970, Smith 1978, Levin 1985, 1993a, Pinker 1989, Haspelmath 1993 Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b, 1994, 1995, Van Voorst 1995 S.T. Rosen 1996). The role of change of state in verbs alternatability will be made more explicit when compared to verbs which inherently involve no change 4 In Levin (1993b), change of position is referred to as manner of motion.

PAGE 78

68 of state at all. Fillmore (1970) clearly illustrates this point by comparing the verbs break and hit (20) a. John/A rock broke the stick The stick broke b. John/A rock hit the tree *The tree hit (Fillmore 1970:122 123) According to Fillmore, the reason why a contact verb like hit fails to alternate in t ransitivity is that unlike break it does not inherently entail any effect or change of state on a co occurring Theme argument. This point will be illustrated more explicitly in (21). (21) a. I hit the vase with a hammer, but it did not break; it was ma de of iron b. I broke the vase with a hammer, but it did not break; it was made of iron Based on this observation, Fillmore concludes that break participates in the ergative alternation because it lexically entail s a change of state The esse ntial role of change of state in verbs alternatability is further illustrated by the verb bake in a unique manner (Atkins et al. 1988, Levin 1993a:175 & 243 4, Kageyama 1996:161 2, Ono 2000:8ff). The verb is normally categorized as a change of state verb and in this sense, as expected, it undergoes the ergative alternation. (22) a. She baked the potatoes b. The potato es baked (Kageyama 1996:161) Interestingly enough, if we replace potato with cake, then the intransitive construction bec omes ungrammatical.

PAGE 79

69 (23) a. She baked the cake b. The cake baked. 5 Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992a:259) explain that the meaning of bake in (23) is slightly different from the one in (22) in that baking a cake implies creation in add ition to the basic change of state meaning, roughly phrased into create by means of change of state bake. In short, as pointed out by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992b:139), only when bake implies change of state, does it exhibit the ergative alternation. That the additional semantic property of creation may hinder bake from alternating in transitivity is further supported by the fact that other verbs of creation like make, produce, build, assemble, etc. do not undergo such alternation Note, however, chan ge of state is not necessarily the sole factor in determining whether a given verb will undergo the ergative alternation. Firstly, as Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994:41) point out, some groups of verbs such as verbs of emission (sound or light) and positio n, which are not readily identified with verbs of change of state, do alternate in transitivity as illustrated below. (24) a. Tom beamed the flashlight. The flashlight beamed b. Tom hung the photo on the wall The photo hung on the wall. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994:42) More importantly, there are many verbs of change of state in English which do not alternate in transitivity ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b:133n) As noted earlier 5 Kageyama (1996:161) gave the sample sentences She baked a cake/*A cake baked with no explanation about why he changed the article (from the to a ) as well as the noun. In order to minimize additional complexities, I chose to use the cake in my sample sentences.

PAGE 80

70 contact effect verbs to which cut belongs provide support for this statement. Levin refers to this group of verbs simply as cut verbs, listing the following members (1993a:156): (25) chip, clip, cut, hack, hew, nip, saw, scrape, scratch slash, snip Recall tha t while cut is normally classified in a different semantic class than break it crucially involves change of state ( Fillmore 1970, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995). 6 Nevertheless, the transitive verb cut fails to occur intransitively, as illustrated b elow (26) a. Elsa clipped the article out of the paper. b. *The article clipped out of the paper. ( 27 ) a. I sawed the board in half. b. *The board sawed in half. ( 28 ) a. Jane scraped the carrot thoroughly. b. *The carrot scr aped thoroughly. ( 29 ) a. Vandals had slashed most of the seats on the train. b. *Most of the seats on the train slashed. ( 30 ) a. I hurriedly snipped the string. b. *The string hurriedly snipped. Another semantic group of verbs that nee ds to be mentioned here is what Levin refers to as destroy verbs (Levin 1993a:239). (31) Destroy verbs: annihilate, blitz, decimate, demolish, destroy, devastate, exterminate, extirpate, obliterate, ravage, raze, ruin, waste, wreck 6 For the purpose of illuminating the difference between break and cut, Levin (1993a:9) refers to break as a pure change of state verb.

PAGE 81

71 Like c ut verbs, the destroy verbs involve change of state but fail to alternate in transitivity. (32) a. The bomb destroyed the whole city b *The whole city destroyed (33) a. The bulldozer razed the building b. *The building razed Levin (1993a:239 ) note s that the destroy verbs do not participate in the ergative alternation since they uniformly denote the total destruction of entities (see Section 3.4.2.2 below for more detailed discussion of destroy verbs). In short, the examples in (26) (30) and (32) (33) suggest that change of state is not the sole determining factor of the alternatability of verbs in English. 3. 4.2 Agentivity Another semantic property that needs to be considered surrounding the ergative alternation is agentivity. When an entity is agentive, the entity or agent always involves volition or intention (Talmy 1976, Delancey 1984). 7 As discussed in Chapter 2, agentivity is most typically associated with the subjects of unergative verbs. 7 One difficulty with agentivity is its definition In particular, the difficulty has to do with the question of whether agentivity can be characterized by one single semantic feature such as animacy or volition (Cruse 1973, Hopper and Thompson 1980, Delancey 1984, Schlessinger 1995; see Somers 1987 and Abdul Roaf 1998 for detailed reviews of discussion on this issue). Due to the difficulty in pinpointing a single semantic property associated with agentivity, it has become more common to take a multiple element approach to this issue i n recent years Foley and Van Valin (1984:32) consider a combination of animacy, volition and control to be the contributing factor to the agentive interpretation of an actor. Oosten (1980 :482 ) proposes the most comprehensive view of agentivity arguing that four semantic properties intention ality volition, control, and responsibility combine to make an entity agentive

PAGE 82

72 (34) a. I walked along the ri ver b. Tom runs five miles every day. Agentivity also characterizes the subjects of causative transitive verbs. Returning to the contrast between break and cut it has been assumed in the literature that t he impossibility of cut in the ergative intransitive construction is due to its indispensable implication of a volitional agent that takes control of the use of a sharp instrument (OGrady 1980:63, Kilby 1984:44 Haspelmath 1993:93 94, Lemmens 1998:37 ) In other words, the agent oriented verb cu t is incompatible with ergative intransitive constructions in which, as mentioned in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, the thematic roles of Agent and Cause are suppressed and not in central focus. Such semantic constraints on the subjects of cut are reflected in se lectional restrictions on the choices of arguments as subjects. That is, the ungrammaticality of The lightning cut the clothesline is due to the fact that no natural forces such as lightning can be viewed as being volitional ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 199 5:103). By contrast, agentivity is not necessarily an essential semantic property for break While the verb can take an agentive entity as subject in transitive constructions as in Tom broke the vase it is important to note that the event denoted by break can be brought about in varying manners. This is illustrated by the fact that unlike cut the transitive ergative use of break takes non agentive inanimate entities like an instrument and natural force as subject ( cf. Langendoen 1970:72 3 Talmy 1976, 198 5, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995) 8 8 Nishimura (1993:503) suggests the possibility of assigning the Agent role to the instrumental subject.

PAGE 83

73 (35) a. The ax broke the window. b The earthquake broke the window. c. The falling stone broke the window. Langacker (1991:332 ) points out that there are many other ergative verbs in English like open and wake up that allow a wide range of causers or causing events as subjects. In short, under the assumption that causative change of state verbs that undergo the ergative alternation are lexically unspecified about agentivity one might attribute the unalternatability of cut to its entailment of a volitional agent as part of the inherent meanings of the verb 3. 4.2.1 Kill verbs While the concept of agentivity seems to account for the contrast between break and cut in terms of alternatab ility in transitivity, t he analysis based on agentivity poses several problems. Firstly, agentivity does not necessarily determine correctly whether a given change of state transitive verb ergativizes Compare kill with break Like the transitive use of br eak the verb kill contains CAUSE in its semantic representation and its internal argument appears to undergo change of state. 9 As with break the verb occurs with non agentive as well as agentive causes. (36) a. An arrow through the heart killed Max b. Malaria killed Nigel (Foley and Van Valin 1984:32) Nevertheless, kill does not participate in the ergative alternation as shown below. (37) a. *Max killed (due to an arrow through the heart) b. *Nigel killed (due to Malaria ) 9 Fontenelle and Vanandroye (1989:19) refer to as kill as a purely causative verb, differentiating it from ergative verbs like break

PAGE 84

74 Instead, the inchoative meaning of death is expressed with the completely distinct lexical item die or the verbal phrase pass away (38) a. Max died due to an arrow through the heart b. Nigel died/passed away with M alaria The peculiarity of kill in terms of the ergative alternation will be made more explicit when compared to other verbs with similar meaning such as assassinate murder slaughter, etc., which also fail to be used intransitively. (39) a. The terror ist assassinated/murdered the senator. b. *The senator assassinated/murdered. (40) a. The terrorists slaughtered many civilians. b. *Many civilians slaughtered. The inability of the verbs in (39) and (40) to alternate in transitivity will be accounted for by our preceding discussion on agentivity because this set of verbs apparently lexicalizes agentivity 10 This is readily illustrated by the fact that none of the verbs can take non agentive subjects. As mentioned above the subject of kill can be an inanimate object or natural force which, for lack of volition, could not be the subject of assassinate and murder (cf. Fillmore 1968:28) 10 Intention is also an essential lexical semantic component of murder and assassinate That these verbs entail intention as an indispensable feature i s shown by the fact that it is redundant for them to have the phrase on purpose, whereas the verb kill can occur with the phrase. ( i ) a. #The man murdered the senator on purpose b. #The man assassinated the senator on purpose c. The man killed the senator on purpose L ack of i ntention in the verb kill i s further i llustrated by the fact that the verb can occur with the adverb phrase by accident whereas assassinate and murder cannot. (ii) a. The man killed his brother by accident. b. The ma n assassinated/murdered his brother by accident.

PAGE 85

75 (41) a. *The explosion assassinated/murdered the senator ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:102) b. *The earthquake assassinated/murdered the senator. ( 42 ) a. The explosion killed more than one hundred people. b. The earthquake killed more than one hundred people. The question that remains to be addressed, therefore, is whether it stil l is possible to account for the unalternatability of kill without relying on agentivity. Levin and Rappaport Hovav argue that transitive verbs that always require an animate i ntentional and volitional agent as subject never detransitivize (1995:102). 11 Such verbs include, other than assassinate and murder verbs of creation like write and build In short, agentivity does account for the alternatability of certain transitive change of state verbs. Nevertheless, given the non alternating behavior of the no n agentive kill there seems to be a need to reconsider the validity of adopting agentivity to the analysis of English ergative pairs. 3. 4.2.2 Destroy verbs Another group of verbs that raise a question about viewing agentivity as a contributing factor in verbs non alternatability are destroy verbs. Maruta (1998:94) analyzes the verbs destroy and devastate arguing that these verbs are similar to kill in that while they can take non agentive subjects like natural force s as subjects they do not alternative ly occur transitively and intransitively 11 By volitional or intentional it is meant that an agent is interpreted as deliberately performing an action which brings about a change of state in a patient (Delancey 1984:5). The obligatory presenc e of the volitional agent as the causer of an event is also considered an essential property which determines whether a given transitive event is prototypical or not (Delancey 1985, Lakoff 1977, Hopper and Thompson 1980).

PAGE 86

76 (43) a. The avalanche destroyed several houses b. *Several houses destroyed. ( 44 ) a. Hurricanes devastated the region b. *The region devastated. Levin (1993 a ) suggests that an additional semant ic property may provide an account for such syntactic behaviors of destroy verbs According to Levin, it is the degree of change of state that results in the non alternatability of the destroy verbs listed in (31) In other words, destroy verbs imply that the Themes ( house and region ) of these verbs undergo a complete demolition of their physical structures, entirely losing the ir original function s or use s (Levin 1993 a :239 ; cf. Dixon 1991:112 ). This will be illustrated more clearly by the awkwardness of sen tence ( 45 b) compared to (45a) : ( 45 ) a. I broke the glass, but I was able to drink some water with a remaining piece. b. #I destroyed the glass, but I was able to drink some water with a remaining piece. Another way of demonstrat ing that the destroy verbs indicate the totality of destruction is that they do not occur with the particle up which, combined with deformation /separation verbs, emphasizes the completeness of a change of state In other words, it is redundant to attach u p to a verb which already means a complete destruction lexically (Jackendoff 1990:116, Kageyama 1996:222). For instance, the verb wreck and waste which are among the destroy verbs in Levin (1993a:239), does not occur with up ( 46 ) a. The earthquake wreck ed up hundreds of old buildings b. *The war wasted up the country.

PAGE 87

77 This is not the case with break which does not inherently involve such totality of destruction. Thus, the use of up with break as in Tom broke up the vase is grammatical 12 In shor t, the impossibility of destroy verbs to occur in ergative intransitive constructions as in (43b) and (44b) above again suggest s that agentivity associated with the subject of the causative transitive is not the sole factor in determining the verb s altern atability. To summarize, although change of state and agentivity are crucial semantic properties that have much to do with the alterability of verbs, they do not provide an adequate explanation about the two key semantic groups of verbs cut and destroy ve rbs under consideration. 3. 4.3 External vs. Internal Causation We have observed that the two semantic properties change of state and agentivity do not convincingly account for the alternatability of verbs in English. At the very least, these semantic prop erties did not adequately account for the syntactic behaviors exemplified by certain causative transitive verbs like kill and destroy Given such problems, another approach to the ergative alternation proposed in the literature over the last two decades is to focus on the type of causation relevant to the realization of an eventuality. More specifically, this approach suggests that causation is not a uniform concept but rather characterized by its multifaceted properties. The crucial difference between caus ation and agentivity is that the former places more emphasis on the connection between agents/causers and caused events, as frequently discussed in the causal chain model (cf. Croft 1990). 12 In terms of aspect, destroy is classified into Accomplishment, while break is Achievement (Brinton 1988:29, Smith 1991; for more discussion of aspectual characteristics of Accomplishment and Achievement, see Chapter 5 below).

PAGE 88

78 Smith (1978) recognizes two semantic features associated with ergat ive verbs, namely independent activity and external control. 13 In other words, Smith argues that verbs that participate in the ergative alternation express activity or change of state that can occur relatively independently but at the same time has the possibility of being controlled by an external agent (Smith 1978:101 2; cf. Davidse 1992:109). For instance, verbs like break and open alternate since the events denoted by these verbs can occur independently or be externally controlled. By contrast, verbs like destroy or build which denote activities or changes of state that are controlled only by external agents do not alternate in transitivity. Along the same line, verbs like shudder or laugh do not alternate with transitive uses in that control over the se activities cannot be relinquished entirely to external agents (Smith 1978:107; cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:90). In short, Smith assumes that the alternation between an ergative intransitive and an ergative transitive reflects the dual features ( independent activity and external control ) associated with the ergative verbs. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) follow and expand on Smith s view of change in relation to causation, proposing a distinction between external causation and internal causation which is nearly equivalent to Smith s independent activity and external control. In their terms, verbs which fail to undergo the ergative alternation represent internally caused eventualities, which result either from the volition or will of age nts that perform activities like play and speak or from the inherent properties of the arguments that undergo the events represented by verbs like blush and tremble By 13 Independent activity might be identified with spontaneous event. For the correlation between ergative intransitives and spontaneity, see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 above.

PAGE 89

79 contrast, verbs like break which participate in the ergative alternation describe event ualities that are necessarily caused by an external cause, whether it is an agent, a natural force, or an i nstrument ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:91 3). One major difference between the contentions of Smith and those of Levin and Rappaport Hovav has to do with how we perceive the eventuality denoted by the ergative use of a verb. For instance, with the sentence The vase broke Smith claims that the vase can break spontaneously with no intervention of an outside cause. Levin and Rappaport Hovav on the o ther hand, argue that our real world knowledge tells us that the vase could not break without an external cause (1995:93). In their views, even in sentences like the following, the eventualities are perceived as being brought about by some external cause, which Levin and Rappaport Hovav identify with the Theme arguments plate and door themselves (cf. Kageyama 1996). (47) a. The plate broke by itself. b. The door opened by itself. ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:88) I would argue that the existenc e of an external cause is highly unlikely in sentences like (47). Rather, it seems more natural to assume that, as Smith argues, eventualities represented by ergative verbs could occur independently or spontaneously. In short, I would claim that Smith s du al semantic features of independent activity and external control differentiate ergative verbs from non alternating causative change of state of verbs like cut and destroy more properly 3. 4.4 Onset Causation vs. Extended Causation Shibatani (1973a) notes that two types of causation are observed cross linguistically. When causation serves as an initial impulse so that the event denoted by a given verb follows, this type of causation is referred to as ballistic On the other hand, if

PAGE 90

80 causation is responsibl e not only for the instigation of the event but also for its entire process, then the causation is referred to as controlled Drawing on the English verbs send and bring/take Shibatani describes the former as an example of ballistic causation and the latt er as that of controlled causation. While Shibatani does not specifically mention the two types of causation in relation to ergative alternation, his theory lays the foundations for subsequent studies of ergative pairs along this line (cf. McCawley 1976, T almy 1985b). Van Voorst (1993, 1995) and Kiparsky (1997) utilize the two types of causation to account for the alternatability of verbs. When transitive verbs are available for the ergative alternation, the external causers of the verbs are ballistic, a ca usation type characterized by Talmy (1985b) as onset causation Under the concept of onset causation, the agents or external causers occurring with ergative transitives merely initiate events, lacking full control of the events ensuing after the initiation 14 By contrast, when transitive verbs fail to alternate with intransitive uses, the verbs external causers are likely to control the events that follow, the other causation type characterized as extended causation (Talmy 1985b). Under the concept of exten ded causation, agents or external causers continue to participate in the entire process of an eventuality. 15 Based on the two 14 Due to the nature of the causation, the agents or external causers may also be referred to as instigator (Wilkins and Van Valin 1993). 15 Ma ruta (1998 :100 ) schematizes the LCS s of onset causation and extended causation as follows: ( i ) a. [x ACT ON y] INITIATE [y ] (x = Initiator) b. [x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y ] (x = Extended Causer) What characterizes Maruta s template s are the use of IN ITIATE as the connector between the two sub events and the characterization of the external argument x as Initiator while the connector for non alternating causative verbs is simply CAUSE

PAGE 91

81 differing types of causation, Kiparsky (1997) analyzes the contrasting behaviors exhibited by smear and splash (cf. Hale and Keyser 1993, 1997). (48) a. Mary smeared paint on the wall. b. #Paint smeared on the wall. (49) a. Mary splashed paint on the wall. b. Paint splashed on the wall. (Kiparsky 1997:494) In Kiparsky s terms, smear is grammatically anomalous in intransitive constructions in that smear denotes a process requiring the initiation and continuous participation of a causing Agent (1997:495), while splash does not entail such extended causation. 16 Kiparsky adds that the same analysis also applies to the lack of the intransitive use in other verbs like shelve, paint, ring, put, push, and kick In light of the distinction between onset and extended causation, the two external causation verbs break and cut seem to be distinguishable with respect to the availability of the ergative alternation. That is, the event of breaking is seen as that of onset causation, continuing independently or autonomously after the initial physical force by an external agent or cause. The event of cutting, on the other hand, is seen as that of extended causation since some external agent or instrument needs not only to initiate the event but also to continue participating in the entire process of the event. The concept of onset and extended causation might also explain the lac k of the intransitive use of destroy since the verb requires incessant intervention of an external agent or causer until the completion of the event (cf. Maruta 1998:100). 16 Hale and Keyser (1993, 1997) analyze smear and splash in terms of the lexical licensing of manner component (cf. Section 3.5.2).

PAGE 92

82 3. 5 Lexical Specification In this section I propose that the notion of agentivity i s still a key factor in accounting for the alternatability of verbs. Instead of limiting our attention to decomposing agentivity into multiple semantic components (cf. Section 3.4.2.3), however, I suggest that agentivity is a minimal unit simply meaning v olition. Based on this view, I would argue that agentivity can be associated with a variety of inanimate entities such as instruments as long as they are used by volitional agents ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). Such association enables agentive cut ver bs, which inherently entail the use of instruments, to take instruments as subjects. Consequently, I will propose that the specification of an instrument or a means involved in the realization of an event is a nother semantic factor in determining whether a given verb of change of state can undergo the ergative alternation. 3.5.1 Lexicalization of Instrument 3. 5.1.1 Case theory It has been noticed in the literature that the verb cut lexicalizes the use of an instrument ( cutting device ) during the course of the event denoted by the verb ( Guerssel et al. 1985:51 2, Hale and Keyser 1987:5, Brousseau and Ritter 1991, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992:137, 1995:107, Levin 1993a, 1993 b, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998:100ff ). Traditionally, the use of an instrument a ssociated with verbs has been considered an important component of thematic roles. In a framework of Case Grammar, Fillmore (1968b) recognizes a need to include the case of Instrumental in addition to the cases of Agent and Object when schematizing transit ive event verbs like open 17 17 In more modern terminology Instrumental, Agent, and Object are comparable to instrument, agent, and patient/theme, respectively.

PAGE 93

83 ( 50 ) open : + [_____ O (I) (A)] In (50) it is crucial that Instrumental and Agent, which are in parentheses are optional cases Consequently, the following constructions are made possible ( 51 ) a. John opened the door with a key. ([____O I A]) b. John opened the door. ([____O A]) c. The key opened the door. ([____O I ]) d. The door opened. ([____O]) One crucial point of Fillmore s schematization is that the absence of a case results in th e absence of the argument associated with the case and accordingly the absence of the meaning associated with the argument as well. Thus, the absence of the Instrumental key as in (51b) and (51d) makes it almost improbable for us to interpret the whole sen tence as involving the use of a key. One problem arises when Fillmore s schematization is applied to verbs like cut In fact, Langendoen (1970 :72 ) describes the basic case structure of cut as follows: ( 52 ) cut : Patient, Result, Instrument, (Agent) Notice that in (52) Instrument is an obligatory case Since Langendoen appears to follow Fillmore in assuming that obligatory case means obligatory syntactic realization, the case frame in (52) postulates that sentences containing the verb cut need to occu r with some form of instrument overtly. Thus, in considering the sentences The boy cut the cloth with the scissors and The scissors cut the cloth to be grammatical, Langendoen follows this principle. However, whether deliberately or not, he fails to mentio n that a sentence like The boy cut the cloth is also grammatical, although no instrument is syntactically

PAGE 94

84 expressed. In short, Fillmore and Langendoen are of the opinion that there are no ambiguous relations between case roles and their syntactic realizati ons of arguments 3.5.1.2 Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) Instead of utilizing thematic roles, Guerssel et al. (1985) draw on the framework of LCS, describing the indispensable association of an instrument with cut as follows: ( 53 ) cut LCS: x produce C UT on y, by sharp edge coming into contact with y ( Guerssel et al. 1985 :51 ) On their view, the use of a sharp instrument is posited as part of the inherent lexical meanings of cut (See also Hale and Keyser 1986, 1987) 18 In other words, even if a cutting device does not syntactically occur with cut the sentence implies underlyingly that the event of cutting is caused by the use of a certain cutting device. ( 54 ) a. Tom cut the cake in half. b. I cut my face while I was shaving. c. The phone wires were cut by the thieves. 18 In the schematization of cut it is important to make a distinction between instruments and natural forces. This may be illustrated by the fact that a cutting device can be the subject of the verb cut whereas natural forces cannot. ( i ) a. The knife cut the bread b. *The lightning cut the clothe sline (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:103) Levin and Rappaport Hovav assume that agentivity is still the key to the eligibility of a syntactic subject of cut In their term, the use of a cutting device like a knife is naturally associated with a voliti onal agent who has control over it. Schlesinger (1995) attributes the acceptability of the instrumental subject to the additional feature CAUSE associated with INSTRUMENT.

PAGE 95

85 While no instruments are overtly expressed in (54), each sentence implies the use of some form of cutting device, such as a knife in (54a), a razor in (54b), and perhaps a pair of scissors or a knife in (54c). 19 On the other hand, the LCS of break does not contain such a delineation of a cutting device ( Guerssel et al. 1985 :55 ) : (55) break LCS: x CAUSE (y come to be BROKEN) Given the sentence Tom broke the vase therefore, it is not obvious how Tom caused the e vent; Tom could have broken the vase by hammering it or by knocking it off from a table by accident, or perhaps he might have broken it by smashing it against the wall. The crucial point to be made underlying the LCS in (55) is that in order for the event denoted by break to take place the use of an instrument is not obligatory. 3.5.2 Specification of Cause or Means As observed above, the key difference between Case Grammar and LCS regarding the lexical representations of verbs is that LCS views the lexical ized semantic features as being preserved throughout derivations. This position is more clearly expressed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) under the notion of specification (cf. Van Voorst 1995 ) It is noted that verbs sharing certain lexically sp ecified properties syntactic ally behave differently from those, even if they appear semantically close, that lack such specified properties. For instance, as pointed out by Gropen et al. (1991), the verbs fill and pour are semantically relatively similar i n that both describe, roughly 19 Ravin (1990:214) maintains that in a sentence like the following, cut does not sp ecify the use of any instrument: (i) The broken window cut Johns finger (on the interpretation of John brushes his finger against the glass ) Ravin explains that unless any autonomous causative argument exercising the action of cutting is specifie d the verb is not considered to entail the use of an instrument.

PAGE 96

86 speaking, the act of putting substance into some sort of container. They are observed, however, to behave contrastively in the following ways: (56) a. fill the glass with water b. *fill water into the glass (57) a. *p our the glass with water b. pour water into the glass (Gropen et al. 1991:155) One explanation offered by Gropen et al. about the contrastive behaviors is that pour specifies the manner in which a substance is transferred, while fill does not ne cessarily entail such a specific manner involved in the act (Gropen et al. 1991:160 1). Building on the concept of specification, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) explain the differing syntactic behavior of break and cut regarding the erg ative alternation. On their view, cut lexically specifies the use of a sharp instrument in its LCS as shown in (53) above and its use should be implicitly, if not explicitly, presumed at all subsequent levels of derivation. On the other hand, since break d oes not specify the use of an instrument in the LCS, the manner in which the event of breaking occurs remains unknown unless specified by some other means such as adjuncts. As mentioned in Section 3.4.2 above, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) attribute the lack of specification of a causer or a causing event for break to the fact that break can take a range of subjects such as instrument s and natural force s. On the same principle Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992 b :131) discuss the distinction between wipe v erbs and clear verbs. That is, wipe verbs such as erase, mop rinse, scour, vacuum, and wipe which lexicalize a manner or an instrument component, do not alternate with intransitive uses, whereas clear verbs such as clear, clean, and

PAGE 97

87 empty which do not l exicalize a manner or an instrument component, do occur in intransitive construction. Similarly, from the perspective of manner instrument Hale and Keyser (1993:90, 1997:54) and Kiparsky (1997:494) account for the unalternatability of smear class verbs wh ich contrast with alternating splash class verbs Given the view of specification, I argue that in consider ing the contrast between break and cut the concept of agentivity is too broad and ambiguous for us to capture. Instead, my proposal is that the conce pt of specification is more straightforward in differentiating the two verbs semantically. 20 I will demonstrate later in this chapter that the lexical specification of means explains the alternatability of many change of state verbs not only in English but also in Japanese The generalization to be drawn from the arguments provided so far might be that lexical specification of an instrument or a means plays a key role in determining the syntactic realization of the argument structure associated with an event verb. 3. 6 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: Japanese In the previous sections, we have observed that verbs that participate in the ergative alternation in English are semantically characterizable to a large extent. The question to be addressed in the remainder of this chapter is whether the semantic analysis 20 The notion of semantic specification described above does not explain all alternating phenomena. There are still several verbs which appear to be evidence against our account The verb kil l which has raised a problem with the analysis of agentivity, still resists our analysis of semantic specification (Brousseau and Ritter 1991:56 67). That is, the verb does not specify a means or an instrument lexically whereby the act of killing is perfo rmed. For instance, when we say Tom killed the senator it is simply impossible to determine how Tom carried out the act unless provided with additional information contextually. In this respect, kill is comparable to break but it fails to undergo the erg ative alternation (see Section 3. 4 2 1 above). I would argue that the verb kill is a matter of lexical idiosyncrasy with regards to ergative alternation.

PAGE 98

88 provided for the English ergative alternation may also account for the alternatability of verbs in Japanese. 3. 6.1 Change of State Like in English, many verbs that participate in the ergative alter nation in Japanese involve change of state (Miyajima 1972, Nishio 1978, 1982, Hayatsu 1987, 1995, Jacobsen 1992, Mitsui 1992, Mitsunobu 1992). For instance, it is observed that Jacobsen s (1992) Class I verbs contain several verbs of physical change of sta te, which correspond to Levin s (1993a) break class verbs. 21 (58) break verbs (Levin 1993a) Class I ( Jacobsen 1992) TRANS INTRANS break war ware or ore tear (off) yabur yabure tigir tigire sak sake smash kudak kudake Furthermore, a number of Japanese de adjectival verb pairs such as hukamar /hukame deepen and k atamar /katame harden, which usually express a gradual change of state, belong to Jacobsen s Class III. In short, one may state that change of state is the key semantic property of Japanese ergative pairs. Hayatsu (1995) emphatically illustrates this point by comparing two semantically similar verbs kawakas and hos According to Hayatsu, both verbs are transitive and generally understood to mean to dry. While the English dry ergativizes, only kawakas does so in Japanese. 21 Teramura (1982 :271ff ) does not consider the verbs of this group ergative pairs. Instead, he refers to them as zihatutai ( inchoative voice ), arguing that the intransitive members of the verbs of this group are derived from the transitive bases mediated by the suffix e (e.g., ware war break )

PAGE 99

89 (59) a. Tom dried his cl othes in the sun b. His clothes dried in the sun (60) a. Taroo wa huku o kawakas ita (< kawakas + ta) Taro TOP clothes ACC dry PAST Taro dried his clothes b. Huku ga kawai ta (< kawak + ta) clothes NOM dry PAST The clothes dried (61) a. Taroo wa huku o hos ita Taro TOP clothes ACC hang to dry PAST Taro hung his clothes out to dry b. *Huku ga hosat ta (< hosar + ta) clothes NOM hang out to dry PAST The clothes hung out to dry Hayatsu points out that hos lacks its intransitive counterpart since it does not inherently entail the re sultant state of dryness, whereas kawakas does (1995:179 180). This will be illustrated more clearly by the following examples: (62) a. Taroo wa huku o hosi te kawakas ita Taro TOP clothes ACC hang and let dry PAST Taro hung his clothes and let them dry b. *Taro o TOP huku o kawakasi te hos ita Taro TOP clothes ACC let dry and hang out PAST Taro let his clothes dry and hung them out Thus, it will be more appropriate for hos to be translated into hang out (to dry). In short, the differing syntactic behaviors demonstrated by kawakas and hos in (60) and (61) seem to point to the significance of change of state in determining the alternatability of verbs in Japanese. Fo llowing the contrast between kawakas and hos Hayatsu (1995:182) lists Japanese verbs that alternate in transitivity, noting that many of them involve certain change of state or position.

PAGE 100

90 (63) ore break in or break tr kire get cut off, seve red kir cut, sever kuzure collapse kuzus demolish tubure get crushed tubus crush magar bend in mage bend tr koware break in kowas break tr yabure tear in yabur tear tr ware break in war break tr tizim shrink tizime reduce nobi get extended nobas extend hirogar spread in out hiroge spread tr out katamar harden in katameru harden tr nie boil in nir boil tr yake burn in yak burn tr koge get scorched kogas scorch same cool samas cool kawak dry in kawakas dry tr nure get wet nuras make wet yogore get dirty yogos soil somar get dyed some dye kimar get decided kime decide sadamar get decided sadame decide hazimar begin in hazime begin tr tomar stop in tome stop tr okor happen okos cause kie go out kes extinguish horobi go to ruin horobos destroy tae die out tayas exterminate agar rise age raise nagare flow naga s wash away utur move utus move oti fall otos drop ori get off oros let off korogar roll in korogas roll tr sagar get lower sager lower sizum sink intr sizumer sink tr tore get take n harvested tor ta ke, harvest nuke come out nuk pull out hazure come off hazus take off hagare peel hagas peel hage peel in off hag peel tr off hanare move away from hanas separate from hodoke come untied hodok untie moge come off mog pluck off hair enter ire put in tuk adhere to tuke attach

PAGE 101

91 uwar get planted ue plant umar be buried ume bury osamar subside osame pacify tumar get packed tume pack kakar hang in come in conta ct kake hang tr put in contact kasanar pile up in kasane pile up tr kabusar get covered kabuse cover sonawar get provided sonae provide with hamar fit in into hame fit tr into Based on the list above, Hayatsu characterizes Ja panese ergative pairs as verbs that focus on a state resulting from an action (1995:179). As Hayatsu s use of the word many indicates, there are verbs in Japanese that focus on change of state and yet fail to alternate in transitivity. Mitsunobu (1992: 76) brings up this point, providing a list of transitive verbs which, while they imply change of state, lack intransitive counterparts. (64) hur shake tutum wrap huse lay down mak wind , migak polish susug rinse musub tie tog sharpen sibor squeeze nur paint hos dry kizam mince ara wash mog pluck 22 kar mow tukuro mend hakob carry hik pull nager throw kazar decorate am knit sik lay kosira e make har paste While the verbs listed above still raise an issue of how to define change of state, 23 Mitsunobu correctly points out that some apparent change of state verbs like kizam and tog fail to alternate with intransitive counterparts. The next question that needs to be addressed is whether there are other semantic properties that contribute to the distinction 22 The transitive mog is paired with moge in Jacobs en (1992) and Hayatsu (1995). 23 For instance, the following example shows that migak does not necessarily entail change of state. (i) Kutu o migai ta kedo, yogore wa oti nak atta shoe ACC polish PAST but stain NOM come off NEG PAST (I) polish ed the shoes, but the stain did not come off

PAGE 102

92 between non alternating verbs as in (64) and an enormous number of alternating verbs in Japanese. 3.6. 2 Specification of Instrument and Means Towards the end of her 1995 article, Hayatsu also points out that there are several transitive verbs that express change of state but yet do not alternate in transitivity In addition to kizam mince (cf. (64)), Hayatsu lists the verbs kar c ut (with a sickle), nag cut horizontally (with a sickle), and tat cut with scissors, which I would refer to as Japanese verbs of cutting. As correctly observed, they all describe physical changes of state brought about in Themes but have no intransi tive counterparts. ( 65 ) a. Taroo wa kyuuri o komakaku kizan da. (< kizam + ta) Taro TOP cucumber ACC i nto small pieces cut PAST Taro cut cucumbers (up) i nto small pieces (with a knife) b *Kyuuri ga komakaku kizamat ta. (kizamar + ta) Cucumber NOM i nto small pieces get cut PAST Cucumbers got cut (up) i nto small pieces (with a knife) (66 ) a. Taroo wa kusa o kat ta (< kar + ta) Taro TOP grass ACC cut PAST Taro cut the grass (with a sickle) b. Kusa ga kare ta (< kare +ta) grass NOM get cut PAST The grass got cut (67) a. Taroo wa kam a de kusa o nai da (< nag + ta) Taro TOP sickle with grass ACC cut PAST Taro cut the grass horizontally with the sickle b. *Kusa ga nagat ta (< nagar + ta) grass get get cut PAST The grass got cut horizontally ( 6 8 ) a. Taroo wa katagami ni sotte nuno o tat ta Taro TOP pattern along cloth ACC cut PAST Taro cut the cloth along the pattern (with the scissors)

PAGE 103

93 b. *Katagami ni sotte nuno ga tatat ta (< tatar + ta) pattern along cloth NOM get cut PAST The cloth got cut along the pattern (with the scissors) Hayatsu maintains that the transitive verbs in (65) (68) lack intransitive counterpart s since they are provide d with a wide range of inf ormation about the process of cutting (1995:192 3) For instance, kizam in (65) specifies the manner of cutting an object (i.e., use of a knife ) and the resulting state of an entity after being cut (i.e., small pieces). In a similar vein the semantics of nag in ( 67 ) include a type of object ( i.e., grass) and a means ( i.e., sickle) in addition to the fundamental meaning of cutting. Given these examples, Hayatsu generalizes that most verbs of cutting in Japanese fail to alternate in transitivity since they provide detailed information on what are involved in the courses of actions denoted by the verbs (e.g., manner, type of object, instrument, etc.) Fundamentally, I concur with Hayatsu s analysis of Japanese non alternating verbs of cutting. My position, h owever, is crucially different from Hayatsu s in that the semantic property shared by those non alternating verbs could be minimally characterized as the entailment of the use of an instrument Additional change of state verbs that lexicalize the use of an instrument follow: (69) a. Taroo wa daikon o (orosigane de) oros ita. Taro TOP radish ACC (grate r with) grate PAST Taro grated the radish (with the grate r ) b. *Daikon ga (orosigane de) or ita. radish NOM (grate r with) get grated PAST The radish got grated well (with the grate r ) (70) a. Taroo wa koohiimame o hii ta. (< hik + ta) Taro TOP coffee bean ACC grind PAST Taro ground the co ffee beans

PAGE 104

94 b. *Koohiimame ga hik eta. coffee bean NOM get ground PAST Coffee beans got ground (71) a. Taroo wa enpitu o kezut ta (< kezur + ta) Taro TOP pencil ACC sharpen PAST Taro sharpened a pencil b. *Enpitu ga kezur eta. pencil NOM get sharpened PAST The pencil got sharpened ( 72 ) a. Taroo wa hootyoo o toi da (< tog + ta) Taro TOP knife ACC hone PAST Taro honed the knife b. *Hootyoo ga togat ta. (< togar + ta) knife NOM get honed PAST The knife got honed (73) a. Taroo wa take o soi d a. (< sog + ta) Taro TOP bamboo ACC sharpen PAST Taro sharpened the bamboo b. *Take ga soge ta. bamboo NOM get sharpen PAST The bamboo got sharpened (74) a. Taroo ga goma o sut ta. (< sur + ta) Taro NOM sesame ACC grind PAST Taro ground sesame b. *Goma ga sure ta. sesame NOM get ground PAST Sesame got ground The specificity of an ins trument or a means associated with the verbs in (69) (74) will be more highlighted when compared with the alternating physical change of state verbs given in ( 63) above, none of which presuppose the use of an instrument or a means in order for an event t o take place. Evidence for this claim is that the events denoted by these verbs can occur in a variety of ways as illustrated below :

PAGE 105

95 (75) a. Taroo wa kabin o yuka ni otosi te wat te simatta Taro TOP vase ACC floor onto drop and break PAST Taro dropped the vase and broke it b. Taroo wa kabin o kanazuti de wat ta. Taro TOP vase ACC hammer with break PAST Taro tore apart the paper with his hands c. Odoroitakoto n i Taroo wa sude de kabin o wat ta surprisingly Taro TOP bare hand with vase ACC break PAST Surprisingly, Taro broke the vase with his bare hands 3.6 3 Inanimate Subjects In the preceding section, we have observed that lexical specification of the use of an instrument prevents a causative transitive verb from ergativizing in Japanese. Given this observation, one may question how we can tell whether a given verb is lexically specified in terms of th e use of an instrument. We observed above that English verbs with a lexically specified instrument are restricted in terms of choices of syntactic subjects, almost limited to animate or quasi animate agents (Section 3.4.2). In this section, we investigate Japanese alternating verbs, demonstrating that the criterion of animate vs. inanimate syntactic subjects is not valid for Japanese causative transitive verbs in most cases. Instead, I propose that the specification of an instrument depends entirely on our lexical knowledge of verbs. It has been noted in the literature that unlike English many languages do not allow non volitional agents such as natural forces and instruments to occur as transitive subjects ( Delancey 1984:203, Croft 1990:59 ; cf. Talmy 1976:4 5, Langacker 1991:332). Japanese is among those languages (Yoshikawa 1995). For instance, the ergative transitive war break, for instance, precludes an inanimate entity from occurring as subject, as illustrated below.

PAGE 106

96 ( 76 ) a. #Zisin ga mado o wat ta earthquake NOM window ACC break PAST The earthquake broke the window b. *Ono ga mado o wat ta ax NOM window ACC break PAST The ax broke the window c. *Booru ga atat ta koto ga mado o wat ta ball NOM hit PAST GER NOM window ACC break PAST The ball s hitting broke the ball None of the events of breaking in (76b d) are brought about directly by an animate cause Instead, they occur due to a na tural force ( earthquake ), a physical contact with a tool ( ax ), or a causing event causation ( balls rolling ). Note that Japanese has a strong tendency to describe events brought about by inanimate causes as intransitive events, placing affected themes in s ubject positions. De subjectivized causing events are in turn represented in the form of an adverbial (77a) or a clause (77b c). ( 77 ) a. Zisin no seide mado ga ware ta earthquake GEN due to window NOM break PAST Due to the earthquake the window broke b. Ono ga ata t te mado ga ware ta ax NOM hit and window NOM break PAST The ax hit the window and t he window broke c. Booru ga korogat te kabin ni atari kabin ga ware ta ball NOM roll and vase OBL hit vase NOM break PAST The rolling ball hit the vase and the vase broke Other Japanese equivalents to English break type verbs follow the same syntactic pattern. ( 78 ) a. The nail tore my shirt b. Syatu ga kugi ni hikkakat te sake ta shirt NOM nail on catch and tear PAST The shirt caught on the nail and it tore

PAGE 107

97 ( 79 ) a. Too much weight fractured my bones b. Zyuuryo ga kakari sugi te hone ga ore ta weight NOM on too much and bones NOM fracture PAST Too much weight was on me and my bones fractured Given the unacceptability or, at best, much less acceptability of inanimate causing events as syntactic subjects in Japanese, we conclude tha t the view that the degree of specification can be measured by the range of causing events that verbs permit does not hold for Japanese verbs (cf. Section 3.5.1.3) This in turn suggests that the degree of specification of a causer or a causing event is en tirely dependent on our lexical knowledge of verbs. 3.6 .4 Kir /kire cut /get cut Another ergative pair kir /kire cut/get cut, which appears to show inconsistent alternating behaviors at first blush, lends support to utilizing the concept of lexicall y specified instrument as a determining factor of verb s alternatability in Japanese. Unlike the English verb cut the Japanese corresponding contact effect verb kir cut is morphologically related to the intransitive equivalent kire displaying a typic al pattern of ergative alternation. ( 80 ) a. Taroo ga ito o kit ta. Taro NOM thread ACC cut PAST Taro cut the thread b. Ito ga kir eta. thread NOM get cut PAST The thread got cut ( 81 ) a. Akira cut the thread b. *The thread cut

PAGE 108

98 It is interesting note that there are cases in which the Japanese kir behaves exactly the same way as the English cut does. In the following ex amples, the Japanese kir does not alternate with the intransitive kire (82) a. Taroo wa keeki o kit ta. Taro TOP cake ACC cut PAST Taro cut the cake b. *Keeki ga kire ta. cake NOM get cut PAST The cake got cut (83) a. Niwasi ga ki no eda o kit ta gardener NON tree GEN branch ACC cut PAST The gardener cut the branches of the tree b. *Ki no eda ga kire ta. tree GEN branch NOM get cut PAST The branches of the tree got cut (Washio 1997:75) Given such contradictory behaviors of kir /kire the questions to be answered are: (1) why the ergative pair kir /kire is possible in Japanese and (2) what are t he circumstances that preclude the pair from obtaining as in (82) and (83). I propose that the specification of an instrument is the key to both questions. More specifically, when kir does not alternate with kire it usually presupposes the use of an ins trument even if no instrument is mentioned syntactically. Whether the pair kir /kire lexicalizes the use of an instrument is determined in part by the pair s compatibility with the adjunct te de by hand. That is, if the pair is incompatible with the adj unct, then it entails the use of an instrument. (84) a. #Taroo wa keeki o te de kit ta Taro TOP cake ACC hand by cut PAST Taro cut the cake by hand

PAGE 109

99 b. #Keeki ga te de kire ta cake NOM hand by get cut P AST The cake got cut by hand By contrast, when kir alternate with kire no instrument is inherently specified for the verb. Thus, the alternating kir in (85) can occur not only with instrumental adjuncts but also non instrumental ones. ( 85 ) a. Ta roo wa ito o te de kit ta Taro TOP thread ACC hand by cut PAST Taro snapped the thread by hand b. Taroo wa ito o hasami de kit ta Taro TOP thread A CC scissors with cut PAST Taro cut the thread with the scissors Apparently, the type of a noun that follows determines the specification of the use of an instrument in kir That is, the object ito thread in (85) can be broken by hand due to its material and thinness. The object keeki cake in (84), on the other hand, is most likely associated with the use of some sort of cutting device so that each slice should be in an orderly shape. In short, it could be stated that whether the Jap anese contact effect verb kir lexically specifies the use of an instrument depends on the Theme it occurs with (cf. Washio 1997:73 5 ) There is another causative transitive verb setudan suru sever, amputate, a Sino Japanese verb semantically correspondi ng to kir which might corroborate the argument just presented As illustrated below, the verb never occur s in intransitive constructions under any circumstances. ( 86 ) a. Isya wa Taroo no asi o setudan sita doctor TOP Taro GEN leg A CC amputate PAST The doctor amputated Taro s leg

PAGE 110

100 b. Taroo no asi ga setudan sita Taro GEN leg NOM get amputate PAST Taro s leg got cut Following the concept of lexical specification of an instrument I argue that sentence ( 86 b) is unacceptable in that the action denoted by setudan suru always specifies the use of a cutting device whereby an entity is severed Such obligatory specification of a cutting device for setudan suru is demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of the sentence given below. 24 ( 87 ) Taroo wa roopu o te de setudan sita. Taro TOP rope ACC hand by sever PAST Taro severed the rope by hand To summarize, given the examples discussed above, I f irst proposed that the verb kir should be semantically differentiated into (1) to cut something by any means and (2) to cut something by using an instrument. With the latter meaning, the verb fails to undergo the ergative alternation due to its specificat ion of an external causer (i.e., instrument). 24 In contrast to kiru the verb setudan suru presupposes that the affected object should always be cut into separate parts (i) a. Taroo wa himo o hasami de kit ta Taro TOP rope ACC scissors with cut PAST Taro cut the rope with scissors b. Taroo wa kamisori de hige o sotte i te kao o kit ta Taro TOP razor with beard ACC shave while face ACC cut PAST Taro cut his face with a razor while shaving his beard (ii) a. T aroo wa ziko de nakayubi o setudan sita Taro TOP accident in middle finger ACC sever PAST Taro had his middle finger severed in the accident b. Taroo wa kamisori de hige o sotte i te kao o setudan sita Taro TOP razor with beard ACC shave while face ACC cut PAST Taro severed his face with a razor while shaving his beard

PAGE 111

101 3.6 .4 Polysemy In the preceding section we have observed that the Japanese contact and effect verb kir shows differing syntactic behaviors regarding the ergative alternation depending on whether or not it spec ifies the use of an instrument lexically. In fact, it has been noticed in the literature that there are hardly any ergative verbs in Japanese which always show the alternating behavior (Nishio 1978, Kageyama 1996, Ono 2000) For example, the transitive war break does not alternate with the intransitive ware when it is used in contexts like the following: ( 88 ) a. Taroo wa uisukii o mizu de wat ta. Taro TOP whisky ACC water with mix PAST Taro mixed whisky with water b. *Uisukii ga mizu de ware ta. whisky NOM water with mix PAST (Whisky mixed with water) ( Kageyama 1996 :191 ) More instances in which war fail to alternate with ware are illustrated below. No te that the transitive war in (89a) and (90a) does not mean destruction of a physical material but is used more or less in a figurative sense. (89) a. Minna de kanzyoo o wat ta everyone among bill ACC split PAST Among everybody, (we) split the bill b. *Minna de kanzyoo ga ware ta everyone among bill NOM split PAST The bill split among everyone (90) a. Yokozuna wa dohyoo o wat ta Grand champion TOP sumo ring ACC step over PAST The sumo grand champion stepped over the ring b. *Dohyoo ga ware ta sumo ring NOM get step over PAST The ring got stepped over

PAGE 112

102 Other p hysical change of state ergative verbs like yabur / yabrer show the same phenomenon. ( 91 ) a. Taroo wa syoozigami o yabut ta Taro TOP sliding screen paper ACC tear PAST Taro tore the sliding screen paper b. Sy oozigami ga yabure ta sliding screen paper NOM tear PAST The sliding screen paper tore ( 92 ) a. Taroo wa yakusoku o yabut ta Taro TOP promise ACC break PAST Taro broke his promise b. *Yakusoku g a yabure ta promise NOM break PAST His promise broke Nishio (1978:175) suggests that the inconsistent behavior of a verb regarding the ergative alternation is attributed in general to polysemy of the verb. The meanings of war in (89a) and ( 90a) above are among many other meanings that are associated with war It is this semantic nuance in contrast to the basic meaning of physical destruction that prevents the alternation of war as in (89b) and (90b). Given this view, the question remainin g to be addressed is whether there are any particular semantic properties that are more likely to trigger the alternation than others. I propose that the most probable solution to this issue will be sought in the concept of semantic drift Miyagawa (1989a: 123) originally proposed this concept to explain idiomatization of a verbal phrase consisting of a nominal and a verb (see Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1 for further discussion of idiomatization). In our current discussion, however, I would use semantic drift to mean any type of semantic shift away from the prototypical sense of a word. Under this assumption, the phenomenon of semantic drift

PAGE 113

103 might explain the ungrammaticality of (88b) above: war in uisukii o war is used figuratively, drifting away from its orig inal, basic meaning of physical destruction. The concept of semantic drift still poses a problem because it is not always clear how we should determine the basic meaning of a verb. Returning to the kir /kirer pair, it seems almost impossible to state that the act of cutting without the use of any instrument is the basic meaning or vice versa. Nevertheless, given examples of non alternating contexts like above, I suggest that the effect of semantic drift on the alternatability of the ergative verb is worth further investigation. 3.6. 5 Sino Japanese Change of State Verbs It is interesting to note that verbs that correspond to destroy verbs in English appear to show inconsistent behaviors in Japanese with regard to alternation. Most Japanese dictionaries glo ss destroy as hakai suru and, as expected, the verb fails to alternate in transitivity. (93) a. Teki ga mati zentai o hakai sita enemy NOM city whole ACC destroy PAST The enemy destroyed the whole city b. *Mati zentai ga hakai sita city whole NOM get destroy PAST The whole city got destroyed Verbs like hakai suru are usually referred to as light verb predicates or Sino Japanese verbs ( Jacobsen 1992), consisting of a nominal (e.g., hakai destruction ) and the light verb suru do. It should be noted that this particular group of verbs typically show no formal change between a transitive and an intransitive use. As a consequence, just like Englis h alternating verbs such as break and smash the only way to tell the transitivity of such verbs is through the configuration in which they occur. In this way, the contrast

PAGE 114

104 between (93a b) is designate d by the configurational parallelism characteristic of ergative pairs (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2). Like English, Japanese has several words synonymous to hakai suru Kadokawa Ruigo Sinziten a Japanese thesaurus dictionary, lists the following verbs as the synonyms of hakai suru (94) hakai suru destroy ve rbs hunsai suru destroy kaimetu suru get completely destroyed hasai suru destroy zenkai suru get completely destroyed kekkai suru collapse hookai suru collapse tookai suru collapse sonkai suru destroy; collapse As expected, none of these verbs except for sonkai suru alternate in transitivity. (95) a. Taroo wa dainamaito de ganseki o hasai sita. Taroo TOP dynamite w ith rock ACC destroy PAST Taro destroyed the rock with dynamite b. *Ganseiki ga dainamaito de hasai sita. rock NOM dynamite with get destroy PAST The rock got destroyed with dyn amite (96) a. Teiboo ga kekkai sita. River bank NOM collapse PAST The river bank collapsed b. *Koozui ga teiboo o kekkai sita. flood NOM river bank ACC demolish PAST The flood demolished the river bank One main difference between English destroy verbs and Japanese hakai verbs is that more than half of the hakai suru verbs given in (97) are only used in transitively (cf. Yoshikawa 1995:97 8). (97) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE ----hunsai suru destroy ----hasai suru destroy zenkai suru get completely destroyed ---kaimetu suru get completely destroyed ----kekkai suru collapse ----

PAGE 115

105 tookai suru collapse ----hookai suru collapse ----sonkai suru collapse sonkai suru destroy Such an intransitive propensity for hakai suru verbs seems quite interesting. Tsujimura (1990) accounts for this phenomenon, arguing tha t Sino Japanese light verbs tend to be intransitive when they have synonymous native ergative pairs (Tsujimura 1990:285). Given that hakai suru verbs can be matched to several native ergative pairs such as kowas /koware break kuzus /kuzure destroy/get destroyed taos /taore fell/fall, the observation by Tsujimura seems to account for the predominance of the intransitive meaning of hakai suru verbs. Returning to the verb hakai suru the manner or means whereby the act of razing is performed is not s o explicitly specified as setudan suru As a consequence, a wider variety of means or instruments are possible for the occurrence of hakai suru ( 98 ) a. Teki wa kuusyuu de mati o kanzen ni hakai sita enemy TOP air raid by city AC C completely destroy PAST The enemy destroyed the city by the air raid b. Isya wa reezaa koosen de gansaiboo o hakai sita doctor TOP laser with cancer cells ACC destroy PAST The doctor destroyed the can cer cells with laser c. dainamaito de biru o kanzen ni hak a i sita dynamite with building ACC completely destroy (People) completely destroyed the building with dynamite Yet setudan suru and hakai suru have one semanti c property in common: as with setudan suru the action depicted by hakai suru will never be carried out by a person or people without recourse any form of means ( 99 ) *Taro o ga sude de kuruma o hakai sita Taro NOM bare hand by car ACC demolish PAST Taro demolished the car by his bare hands

PAGE 116

106 Based on the observations above, I propose that we focus more on the use of instruments which is lexically specified by each verb, as evident in the glosses. 3.7 Summary In this chapter, I presented a lexical semantic analysis of ergative verbs in English and Japanese. Firstly, I reviewed and discussed the past research on English ergative alternating pairs, focusing on the fact that a large number of verbs that participate in th e ergative alternation show significant semantic consistencies. Here I focused particularly on change of state and lack of agentivity. Then I emphasized the importance of exploring semantic properties that might prevent verbs from alternating in transitivi ty. Various theoretical frameworks such as Case Theory and LCS were shown to suggest that specification of means plays a key role in determining the alternatability of transitive verbs with intransitive uses. I demonstrated that an instrument, for instance is almost always associated with agentivity due to the inseparable connection existing between the two. Such association served as evidence for our claim that agentivity is a key concept that we need to consider in discussing the ergative alternation. Fu rthermore, I proposed that the distinction between onset causation versus extended causation seems greatly promising to future research on ergative verbs and their behaviors in English. My investigations of Japanese ergative pairs based on the research fin dings from English proved to account for the alternating behaviors of many verbs, on the one hand, but pointed to several crucial differences between the two languages, on the other. As for the similarities, it was demonstrated that change of state is the key semantic property in Japanese as well, enabling us to explain why verbs that do not inherently entail the semantic property fail to transitively alternate. Furthermore, I demonstrated that

PAGE 117

107 specification of an instrument or a means whereby an event is c arried out seems to be more vital in describing certain transitive change of state verbs which, under no circumstances, alternate with intransitive equivalents. We demonstrate d that this concept of specification of means is particularly a significant facto r in observing the contradicting behaviors of kir /kire in terms of the ergative alternation. As for the differences, it is observed that the Japanese equivalents to destroy verbs are used predominantly intransitively. Most importantly however, we demons trated that Japanese is among the languages that are least likely to take inanimate subjects as causers or causing events. As will be discussed in Chapter 5, this appears to reflect a typological distinction between a DO language (English) and a BECOME language (Japanese).

PAGE 118

108 CHAPTER 4 SEMANTIC RELATIONS BETWEEN ERGATIVE PAIRS 4.1 Introduction We observed that the English ergative alternation is essentially the process of preserving the meaning of the verb stem between the ergative pair ( see Chapter 2, Section 2. 2. 2 ; cf. Haspelmath 1993 :90, Fellbaum 2000:54 55 ). The only semantic change involved in the process is the addition of the semantic primitive CAUSE to the ergative intransitive in the case of causativization (Guerssel et al. 1985 :54 55 ) or the elimination of CAUSE from the ergati ve transitive in the case of anticausativization ( Zubizarreta 1987:87 88 ). 1 The addition or elimination of CAUSE is structurally represented by the addition of external argument to the monadic argument structure or the deletion of the external argument fro m the dyadic argument structure, respectively. On this view, the English ergative alternation is exclusively a valency changing process between a transitive and an intransitive In a majority of cases, the fundamental meaning of the verb stem between the Japanese ergative pair also remains the same. The pair war /ware for instance, preserves the essential meaning break and the only difference between the pair is whether the semantic feature CAUSE is involved or not. It should be noted, however, that th ere are a 1 Lemmens (1998:38) claims that any type of alternation cause s a semantic change between the ergative pair The semantic change that Lemmens is concerned with however, has more to do with the differences in how a n event is construed depending on the constructions in which a verb occurs; it has no direct relevance to the lexical semantics of verbs, in which my concern lies in the current study.

PAGE 119

109 number of ergative pairs in Japanese in which the core meaning of the verb stem between the pair does not seem to hold the strong semantic link as observed in war /ware For instance, the alternation between kome fill (as in fill a gun with b ullets ) and kom become crowded which Jacobsen (1992) classifies under Class II in his list of ergative pairs, apparently involves further semantic changes besides the addition or deletion of CAUSE (henceforth I call semantically inconsistent pairs l ike kome /kom opaque as opposed to semantically close related like war /ware transparent ) The objective of this chapter is to reanalyze the Japanese morphological pairs provided by Jacobsen (1992) in terms of whether or not they hold transparent se mantic relations. Given the substantial number of opaque ergative pairs in Japanese, I first suggest that Jacobsen s list of ergative pairs be divided into two groups, with t he first group including pairs whose semantic relationships are transparent, and t he second group including pairs whose semantic relationships are opaque 2 Furthermore, I will argue that transparent ergative pairs which show semantic, as well as configurational, correspondence are derived post lexically in contrast to opaque ergative p airs which are stored in the permanent lexicon. The idea of dual levels of derivation will serve to bring to our attention the semantic relationships between ergative pairs, an area of research which, in my view, has not yet receive d due attention In so d oing, I will propose that it is 2 Fagan (1988:200) also recognizes dual levels of ergative pairs, that is the Dynamic Lexicon and the Static Lexicon. In his terms, verb pairs like lie/lay belong in the Static Lexicon, wh ereas the ergative centralize belongs to the Dynamic Lexicon. Fagan s approach, however, crucially differs from mine in that Fagan recognizes the different types of lexicon on the basis of whether a given ergative pair is correlated through a productive ru le as observed in Ergative Formation (e.g., affixation of ize ) or Middle Formation.

PAGE 120

110 possible to place less emphasis on the role of derivational morphology in connection with the Japanese ergative alternation (cf. Jacobsen 1992:54). The organization of this chapter is as follows. In Section 4. 1, we reconsid er Jacobsen s lexicalist view of Japanese ergative pairs. Based on previous research on their productivity and predictability, I argue that not all Japanese ergative pairs should be considered separate lexical items. In Section 4. 2, we review two opposing views of English ergative pairs in terms of the level of derivation: lexical versus post lexical derivations. I emphasize that controversies over the issue of derivational level are mainly due to the fact that unlike Japanese, English does not overtly spec ify a change in transitivity. In Section 4. 3, I demonstrate that the ergative pairs in Jacobsen (1992) are not constant in terms of semantic relationship between the pairs. My reanalysis found that 68 (about twenty percent) of the 341 ergative pairs provid ed by Jacobsen hold semantically opaque relationships. Drawing on idiosyncrasy or spuriousness associated with certain English transitivity alternating pairs ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995), I suggest the possibility of setting up two distinct derivatio nal levels for Japanese ergative pairs. In Section 4. 4, based on the frameworks of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993) and Paradigmatic Structure (Miyagawa 1989a, 1998), I propose that ergative pairs that are semantically transparent are derive d post lexically, whereas those that are semantically opaque are derived and registered in the lexicon. Building on such dual levels of derivation, I conclude that only verb pairs that maintain semantic transparency should be considered genuine ergative pa irs in Japanese.

PAGE 121

111 4.2 Lexicalist View of Japanese Ergative Pairs O ne main goal of previous works on Japanese ergative pairs has been to classify the pairs based on their suffixal patterns Most recently, Jacobsen (1992) conducted an extensive analysis of th em classifying 341 transitivity ergative pairs into sixteen categories according to suffix forms (see Appendix) 3 One of the conclusions that Jacobson draws from his analysis is that the derivational oppositions between ergative pairs are not productive. The oppositions are not productive one cannot, given an intransitive form, simply create its transitive counterpart, or vice versa, through a set rule of suffixation. ( Jacobsen 1992:56) Lack of productivity might be reflected in the fact that there appea r to be no phonological or morphological rules whereby a given suffix attaches to a particular verb stem. In other words, native speakers are unable to systematically derive transitive forms from intransitives and vice versa when needs arise. For instance, if native speakers were given a hypothetical transitive verb hamus they would have no phonological or morphological clues to rely upon as to whether the verb should follow Class I pattern ( hamus hamus e ) or Class IV pattern ( hamus hamus ar ). 4 3 Jacobsen notes that the ergative pairs listed in his Appendix are based on Kenkyusha s New School Japanese English Dictionary (1968), with some additions from Shimada ( 1979). 4 T he lack of productivity between Japanese ergative pairs will be more highlighted when compared to the productive causativizing suffix (s)ase As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2. 6.2.1, the suffix (s)ase which can attach to almost all verbs, render s them into causative predicates, point ing to the high productivity of the suffix. With this suffix, therefore, our hypothetical verb hamus is readily rendered into the causative form hamus ase

PAGE 122

112 Fur thermore, Jacobsen points out that the morpho phonological shape of a verb does not reflect the transitivity of the verb. As mentioned in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Jacobsen discusses the hypothetical ergative pair harik / harik e to illustrate his point. Gi ven that e can be either a transitivizing or an intransitivizing suffix, there is simply no telling which form of the pair is transitive or intransitive In the same vein, the transitivity of our hypothetical form hamus when paired with hamus e would b ecome much less predictable if we knew nothing about the transitivity status of hamus In short, Jacobsen sees no reason to consider the derivational patterns of ergative pairs to be comparable to other productive derivational suffixes such as (s)ase in terms of productivity and predictability. In light of the observations just described, Jacobsen (1992: 56 ) concludes that (E) ach member of a transitive/intransitive pair need s to be memorized as a separate lexical item ( cf. Shibatani 1990:308, Kitagawa an d Fujii 1999:89 ). I argue that Jacobsen s lexicalist approach to Japanese ergative pairs is somewhat an overgeneralization for the reasons that follow Firstly, as for the lack of productivity concerning derivational suffixes, Nishio (1954) points out tha t the intransitivizing suffix ar in Jacobsen s Class III pattern ar / e has been comparatively productive in Japanese. According to Nishio, for example, the first use of the transitive uke take (an exam) dates back to the eighth century, whereas the in transitive counterpart ukar pass (an exam ) was not listed in a dictionary until the middle of twentieth century. Nishio notes that the following ergative pairs show a similar gap with respect to the time when the pairs appear in writing for the first ti me (1954:43)

PAGE 123

113 (1) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE tutomar be fit for the role of tutome play the role of makar get a discount make give a discount iitukar be told to do iituke tell (someone) to do Furthermore, Nishio cla ims that nonce ergative pairs like sirabar /sirabe consult (a dictionary)/get consulted and ikar /iker arrange (flowers)/get arranged seem acceptable to native speakers due to the productivity of ar 5 These examples apparently serve as evidence tha t the intransitivizing suffix ar when paired with the transitive counterpart e has been productive in modern Japanese (cf. Shibatani 1990:235). 6 Secondly, Jacobsen himself admits that the unpredictability of transitivity associated with ergative pairs does not apply to all cases. To the contrary, the transitivity of the ergative pair is predictable for the most part from its suffixal forms (cf. Chapter 2, Section 2. 3.2). This view would be supported by the fact that the suffixes se(ru) os(u) and as (u) always attach to intransitive verb stems to form transitive alternants (Jacobsen 1992:57). ( 2 ) a. se(ru) : abi se pour (over another) (cf. ab i pour (over oneself)) ki se put on (anothers) body (cf. ki put on (one s own) body) neka se put to bed (cf. ne go to bed) b. os(u) : ok os wake up (cf. ok i get up in ) mod os return tr (cf. mod or return in ) yog os soil (cf. yogo re become dirty ) 5 Miyachi (1985) illustrates that ar is producti ve in modern Japanese not only for Class III verbs but also for Class IV ar/ 6 It may be possible to refer to relative productivity shown by ar as semi productive, in contrast to typical productive cases like (s)ase and (r)are (cf. Jackendoff 19 97).

PAGE 124

114 c. as(u) : hit as soak tr in (cf. hit ar soak in in) maw as turn tr (cf. maw ar turn in ) kow as break tr (cf. kow are break in ) In fact, the suffixes (a)s and ar represent the maj ority of the transitive and intransitive members, respectively, of the ergative pairs. To summarize, it has been shown that morphological evidence does not necessarily support Jacobsen s lexicalist based approach to Japanese ergative pairs. Rather, the rel ative predictability of transitivity in relation to suffixal forms seems to point to certain productivity of ergative pairs. Such limitation of the morpho phonological analysis requires us to seek another theoretical approach to this issue. In the next sec tion, we consider verbs levels of derivation that appear to be relevant to the issue of productivity of Japanese ergative verbs. 4.3 Lexical versus Syntactic Derivations The question of determining the level of derivation in which the ergative pair is generated has been subject to intense discussion among Western linguists When a given transformation involves an overt, productive derivational morpheme such as the passive morpheme in English passivization, it is reasonable to say that the derivation ta kes place in syntax. However, where there is no overt suffix mediating between ergative transitives and intransitives but a change in transitivity apparently affects the argument structures surrounding both alternates as in English, it is bound to raise a question about whether a verb with an identical form but a different transitivity should be considered a single lexical item or two separate items. In this section, I review how scholars with different research interests view ergative pairs in terms of the level of derivation. Building on the diverse views presented below, I will propose that two levels of derivation (i.e. lexical vs.

PAGE 125

115 non lexical) be recognized for Japanese ergative pairs and that it is semantic correlation rather than morphological corresp ondence that determines the derivational nature of each ergative pair in Japanese. 4.3.1 Lexical Derivation Keyser and Roper (1984) are among the scholars who first address the question of whether the ergative pairs are derived in the lexicon or in the sy ntax (cf. Guerssel et al. 1985) Under the theory of generative grammar, Keyser and Roper propose that ergative intransitives are derived from their transitive counterparts in the lexicon by virtue of the so called Ergative Rule (1984:402; see also Chapter 2, Section 2. 6.1.2 above). The tenet of their Ergative Rule is that Move which is normally applied to passives and middles at the syntactic level, is considered to be valid at the lexical level as well in ergative formation. Keyser and Roeper maintain that the lexical nature of ergative intransitives is discernible in the fact that they are eligible for the lexical rule of Compound Formation, in contrast to the fact that the same compound formation is not possible for syntactically derived middles (1984 :391 2). (3) a. The boat sinks fast the fast sinking boat b. Bureaucrats bribe easily *easily bribing bureaucrats Not all scholars concur with the view of lexical Move Some simply view the ergative alternation as a result of a syntactic projection of a lexical item (Marantz 1984, Manzini 1992, Schlesinger 1995 ) On this view there occurs no movement of arguments; instead, it is how each argument is linked to surface g rammatical positions that determines the transitivity of a verb. For instance, Manzini (1992) posits that ergative pairs are provided with two thematic roles in the lexical representation: one is of an

PAGE 126

116 obligatory internal thematic role and the other is of an optional external thematic role. According to Manzini, the ergative verb sink for instance, is schematized as follows: (4) sink : (ext. ); int. (Manzini 1992:287) Crucially, the distinction between the obligatory internal theta role and the optional external theta role is registered uniquely at the lexicon (Manzini 1992:287). It is simply the optional representation of the external thematic role in the syntax, Manzini maintains, that results in the ergative alternation of sink Schlesinger (1995), on the other hand, recognizes two distinct lexical subentries for the ergative pair, listing each member in the lexicon along with its co occurring arguments such as Agent and Theme. Under the assumption of multiple lexical subentries, it is postulated that verbs participating in the ergative alternation are provided with two separate lexical subentries, one for a transitive alternant and t he other for an intransitive alternant For instance, the lexical entry for open is assumed to consist of the following two subentries: (5) open 1 : one core argument with role of opener ; features: CAUSE and CONTROL one core argumen t with role of thing that is opened ; feature CHANGE open 2 : a single core argument with role of thing that opens ; feature: CHANGE ( Schlesinger 1995:49) Despite the differing views of how the ergative pair is generated and represented, the analyses portrayed above are in agreement on the following idea: the distinction between ergative transitive and ergative intransitive is uniquely registered in the lexicon

PAGE 127

117 4.3.2 Post Lexical Derivation Others posit that the ergative alternation is not merely a realization of separate subentries of a single verb Under the framework of lexical semantics Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) postulate two levels of lexical representation for ergative verbs: lexical semantic and lexical synta ctic (or argument structure to use Levin and Rappaport Hovav s term ) representation. Under this analysis, ergative verbs have a single causative lexical semantic representation, as illustrated below for the verb break (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:83) : ( 8 ) break : [[x DO SOMETHING ] CAUSE [y BECOME BROKEN ]] Levin and Rappaport Hovav hold that the inchoative intransitive alternant which corresponds to the second component (y BECOME BROKEN ) of the schematization above will obtain when the external cau se x is not projected into argument structure, a process they refer to as detransitivization. The immediate cause of detransitivization is, according to Levin and Rappaport Hovav the binding of the external cause within the semantic lexical representation as shown below: ( 9 ) Intransitive break LSR [[ x DO SOMETHING ] CAUSE [ y BECOME BROKEN ]] Lexical binding Linking rules Argument structure < y > ( 10 ) Transitive break LSR [[ x DO SOMETHING ] CAUSE [ y BECOME BROKEN ]] Linking rules Argument structure x < y > (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:108)

PAGE 128

118 The question that remains to be addressed is how argument structure should be characterized in terms of the level of derivation. In oth er words, while the association of lexical syntax with argument structure by Levin and Rappaport Hovav implies that this representational level may have to do with syntax in some way, Levin and Rappaport Hovav do not clearly assert that detransitiv iz ation should occur in syntax. However, the dual levels of representations just described enable us to view the difference in transitivity as the result of derivational process, not as a mere reflection of inherent lexical sub entries. In this respect their analys is bear s a resemblance to Keyser and Roeper s analysis. Hale and Keyser (1993, 1997, 1998) discuss the level of derivation involved in the ergative alternation in a different light. One of the ir constant theses is that argument structure, which they refer to as lexical argument structure, is syntactic (1993:55). Building on this principle, Hale and Keyser utilize conventional syntactic tree diagrams, portraying the derivations of various types of verbs such as location verbs and ergative verbs. For instanc e, the fundamental representation of the de adjectival ergative verb thin ( as of gravy ) is diagrammed in a complex VP structure consisting of an inner VP and an outer vP, as illustrated below (adapted from Hale and Keyser 1993:79): (11) vP DP v v VP DP V ( the gravy ) V AP thin

PAGE 129

119 On Hale and Keyser terms, the verbal use of thin is derived from its original adjective use by way of the process of conflation in accordance with head movement (1993:80), and subsequent to conflation it is the behavior of the DP gravy within l syntax that determines the transitivity of the de adjectival verb thin Accordingly, the intransitive use of thin which requires no external argument in [vP, DP ] involves movement of gravy to the position, while the derived verb thin remains in situ, as diagrammed below ( adapted from Hale and Keyser 1993:79): (12) vP DP v ( the grav y j ) v VP DP V t j V AP ( thin i ) t i With the processes of conflation and movement, intransitive constructions like The gravy is thinning nice ly and middles like The gravy thins easily will be made possible. On the other hand, the transitive use of thin as in the cook thinned the gravy involves no movement of the DP gravy This is because the outer DP position is occupied with the external agen t Tom Consequently, only the derived verb thin undergoes movement; specifically, to acquire a causative meaning, it moves to the outer vP, which is a null causative light verb with the same meaning as the causative verb make

PAGE 130

120 (13) vP DP v ( Tom) v VP ( thin i ) DP V ( the gravy ) V AP t i t i (adapted from Hale and Keyser 1993:72) It a 1998 article, while assuming that break is a de nominal verb Hale and Keyser adopt the concept of conflation to the ergative alternating process of the verb (1998:90). With the conflation theory, the derivations of transitive and intransitive uses of break follow the processes represented in (12) and (13). Thus, the sentences the vase broke and Tom broke the vase would be diagrammed as follows (adapted from Hale and Keyser 1998:110): (14) vP DP v ( the vase j ) v VP DP V t j V N ( break i ) t i

PAGE 131

121 (15) vP DP v ( Tom) v VP ( break i ) DP V ( the vase ) V N t i t i To summarize we have observed that one derivational theory represented by Keyser and Roeper holds that the transitivity of a verb is specified as lexical subentries in the lexicon, whereas Levin and Rappaport Hovav and Hale and Keyser take the position that the ergative alternation is characterized as a non lexical process. Hale and Keyser, i n particular make it clear that the alternation is strictly a syntactic phenomenon. 4.4 Semantic Approach In Section 4. 2, we observed that both productive and unproductive characteristics of derivational morphology in relation to Japanese ergative pairs make it difficult for us to conclude that the ergative pairs are unexceptionally stored in the lexicon In Section 4. 3, I demonstrated that there are basically two views of ergative verbs in English regarding the level of their derivation. One is that transitive and intransitive uses are registered as separate lexical items in the lexicon and the other is that one or both members of the ergatives are derived post lexically or syntactically. In this section, I will suggest that semantic relationships between ergative pairs may provide a solution to this issue.

PAGE 132

122 4.4.1 Semantic Discrepancies between Japanese Ergati ve Pairs As I have pointed out repeatedly the ergative pairs in Jacobsen (1992) are classified according to their derivational patterns. While Jacobsen conducts semantic analyses of the pairs in terms of markedness and aspect (see Jacobsen s (1992) Chapte r 3 and Chapter 6, respectively), I suggest that other semantic aspects should be investigated regarding the Japanese ergative pairs. For instance, we have observed above (Chapter 3, Section 3. 4.2) that certain semantic properties such as change of state a nd specification of a means have to do with the alternatability of verbs. We also observed, however, that such semantic properties of verbs do not account for the alternatability of all Japanese ergative pairs. In fact, there are a number of examples in Ja cobsen s list of ergative pairs for which our semantic analysis does not provide satisfactory explanations. A certain number of pairs like kas /kari lend/borrow, for instance, cannot be viewed as entailing change of state. More importantly, however, Ja cobsen s list contains a number of pairs whose semantic links seem obscure Compare the ergative pairs war /ware break vt /break vi and sute /sutar throw out/fall into disuse . As we have seen above, t he semantic relationship between war and ware is fa irly straightforward. By contrast, as the glosses to the pair indicate, the pair sute /sutar can hardly be understood to correlate with each other in the same way as war /ware ( 16 ) a. Taroo ga gomi o sute ta Taro NOM g arbage ACC throw away PAST Taro threw out the garbage b. Sono boosi wa tokku ni sutare te iru. the hat NOM long ago go out of fashion PAST The hat went out of fashion long ago

PAGE 133

123 Teramura ( 1982:307 ) Hayatsu (1987:93), Morita ( 1994:160 1 ), and Kageyama (1996:180 183) among others, discuss such semantic discrepancies between Japanese ergative pairs. Other examples that reflect a discrepancy in meaning between ergative pairs follow. 7 ( 17 ) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIIVE tar suffice tas add, supplement hate come to an end hatas carry out kom become crowded kome fill with tazusawar participate in tazusae carry on ones person ko gare burn with passion for kogas scorch hagem be diligent in hagemas encourage kor become absorbed in koras concentrate tr on ake dawn akas spend (the night) kake become lacking kakas miss (a meeting) kure (day, year) come to an end kuras pass (time) From the glosses that he attaches to the pairs in (17), it is likely that Jacobsen himself might have recognized the semantic disparity between the pair. It is all the more striking therefore, that we find no mention of them in Jacobsen s 1992 work 8 7 There is a possibility that such weak semantic links may have been stronger for many of the pairs in Old Japanese (cf. Kageyama 1996:180). Nihonkokugo Daijiten states that the pair sutar /sute for instance, used to be r elated to each other in the sense disposal of things as useless Another issue that may need to be addressed in dealing with the Japanese ergative pairs is that some of those pairs whose semantic links are weak are written in different Chinese characters. Again, for the pair sutar /sute distinct Chinese characters are used in modern Japanese, and I assume that such different use of Chinese characters reflects to some extent semantic discrepancies between the pairs. These facts suggest that there is a need to conduct a detailed his torical analysis of ergative pairs (cf. Kuginuki 1970, Komatsu 1999) 8 In Jacobsen s list there are other pairs which do not appear to have close semantic link while the glosses indicate that they do For instance, Jacobsen translates the pair mome /mom into become wrinkled and wrinkle, respectively. In modern Japanese, however, the intransitive mome is most likely to mean have trouble or disagreements. ( i ) Ano katei wa itumo ironna koto de mome te iru that family T OP always various things over have trouble ASP There is always trouble over many things in that family

PAGE 134

124 Interestingly enough, such semantically tenuous pairs tend to lack the configurational relationship characteristic of the ergative alternation (cf. Chapter 2, Section 2. 3) For instance among the transitive members of the semantically distinct pairs listed in (17), the following do not alternate with their intransitive counterparts when it is required that the object of the transitive correspond to the subject of the intransitive. ( 18 ) a. Taroo ga suupu ni sio o tasi ta Taro NOM soup to salt ACC add PAST I added salt to the soup b. *Suupu ni sio ga tari ta soup into salt NOM suffice PAST ( The salt in the soup sufficed ) ( 19 ) a. Taroo wa sono yakusoku o hatasi ta Taro TOP the promise ACC fulfill PAST Taro fulfilled his promise b. Sono yakusoku ga hate ta the promise NOM come to an end PAST ( The promise came to an end ) ( 20 ) a. W a tasi wa kenzyuu ni tama o kome ta I TOP gun into bullet ACC fill PAST I loaded the gun b. *Kenzyuu ni tama ga kon da gun into bullet NOM crowd PAST ( The gun got loaded with bullets ) (21) a. Taroo wa taikin o tazusae te iru Taro TOP a large amount of money ACC carry ASP Taro carries a large amount of money As I discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.6.4 above, semantic discrepancies observed in mome /mom have to do with the issue of semantic drift of a verb.

PAGE 135

125 b. *Taroo wa taikin ga tazusawat te iru Taro TOP a large amount of money NOM participate in ASP ( A large amount of money participates in Taro ) (22) a. Taroo wa me o korasi ta Taro TOP eye ACC concentrate PAST Taro concentrated his eyes b. *Taroo wa me ga kot ta Taroo TOP eye NOM become absorbed in PAST ( Taro s eyes were absorbed in.) (23) a. Taroo wa asa no zyogingu o kakasi ta koto ga nai Taro TOP morning GEN jogging ACC miss PERF NEG Taro has never missed jogging in the morning b. *Taro wa asa no zyogingu ga kake ta koto ga nai Taro TOP morning GEN jogging NOM become lacking PERF NEG ( As for Taro, jogging in the morning has never become lacking ) It is also interesting to note that semantic opaqueness can be discerned in pairs whose glosses do not necessarily indicate such noticeably tenuous semantic relations as those of the pairs in (17) above. For instance, while Jacobsen provides tukamar /tukam with the glosses be caught/catch, indicating that the pair is semantically identical in every way but voice st atus, Teramura (1982) points out that the pair is not so semantically transparent given that tukamar is interpreted more appropriately as be arrested. (24) a. Dareka ga watasi no ude o tukan da omeone NOM I GEN arm ACC catch P AST Someone caught my arm b. Hannin ga keisatu ni tukamar u criminal NOM policeman by be caught PRES The criminal is caught by the policeman (Teramura 1982:307) As expected, the pair fails to show the con figurational correlation (i.e., correspondence between transitive object and intransitive subject).

PAGE 136

126 (25) a. Saru ga ki no eda o tukan da monkey NOM tree GEN branch ACC catch PAST The monkey caught a branch of the tree b. *Ki no eda ga saru ni tukamat ta tree GEN branch NOM monkey by be caught PAST A branch of the tree was caught by the monkey In light of the semantic discrepancies between Japanese ergative pairs as described above I reanalyzed Jacobsen s list of morphological pairs. As a consequence, I found that the following sixty eight pairs of verbs show some sort of semantic discrepancy in the verb stems, resulting in tenuous semantic links between th e pairs. 9 (26) CLASS INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE I. hirake open in hirak open tr mome become wrinkled mom wrinkle sire become known sir come to know II. itam hurt in itame hurt tr kom become crowded kome fill with muka face mukae meet, welcome so go along with soeru add sukum crouch sukume duck (ones head) taga differ tagae break (ones word) tiga differ tigae change tum become pa cked tume pack tuta go along tutae transmit 9 The analysis of the semantic mismatches seem s to point to several other facts about the Japanese ergative pairs. First, there are hardly any such semantic discrepancies among the verbs in Jacobsen s Class I. As noted earlier, this particular class of ergative pairs contains many verbs meaning destruction and violence which may lend support to the argument that change of state is the most significant semantic factor in determining whether a given verb will alternate in transitivity. Secon dly, Jacobsen s Class XVI which consists of the pairs with idiosyncratic morphological patterns, contain s a relatively higher portion of semantically tenuous verbs This may reflect the general view that morphological consistencies have the tendency to co incide with semantic consistencies. The extreme case of this morpho semantic relationship might be the verb pair sin /koros die/kill, in which the two morphologically unrelated verbs are understood to be completely separate lexical items despite the sem antic affinity, that is death.

PAGE 137

127 yam stop in yame stop tr yasum rest in yasume rest tr III. azukar keep azuke entrust to kurumar become wrapped up in kurume lump together with maziwa r mingle with mazie mix with osamar subside osame pacify osowar learn osie teach sazukar receive sazuke grant sutar fall into disuse sute throw away suwar site sue set tazusawar participate in tazusae carry on ones person ukar pass (an exam) uke take (an exam) IV. matagar sit astride matag straddle tamawar be granted tama grant tukamar be caught tukam catch V. kitar come kitas bring about nar become nas make nobor rise nobos bring up, serve sator realize satos make realize tar suffice tas add, supplement VI. kogare burn with passion for kogas scorch mure become steamed mus steam VII. kari borrow kas lend tari suffice tas add, supplement VIII. ak open in akas reveal a go together awas bring together hagem be diligent in hagemas enco urage huk blow in hukas puff, smoke kor become absorbed in koras concentrate tr on megur come around meguras turn around wazura be troubled wazurawas trouble IX. ake dawn akas spend (the night) bake turn into bakas bewitch hate come to an end hatas carry out huke grow late hukas stay up late at (night) kake become lacking kakas miss (a meeting) kure (day, year) comes to an end kuras pass (time)

PAGE 138

128 X. kori learn (from experience) koras give (one) a lesson deki come into existence dekas bring about tozi close in tozas close tr XI. hi become dry hos dry s ugi go past sugos p ass (time) XII. mi see miseru show XIII. amae act dependent (on) amayakas spoil hagure stray from hagurakas put off, evade obie become frightened at obiyakas frighten, threaten XIV. kom or be fully present kome fill with XV. sutare fall into disuse sute throw away XVI. hosor become thin hosome make narrow kake run kar drive, spur kikoe become audible kik hear kudar go down kudasar bestow nobi become extended nobe extend tuki run out in tukus use up tumor become accumulated tum accumulate use disappear usina lose Given the semantically opaque pairs above, the question to be add ressed is how we should characterize such pairs, particularly in contrast to semantically transparent pairs. In light of the proposal of dichotomous derivational levels lexical vs. post lexical of ergative pairs as described above, our interest lies in whe ther the morphological pairs in Jacobsen (1992) should be treated uniformly with respect to the level of derivation, regardless of the varying degree of semantic transparency. 4.4.2 Spurious Ergative Pairs In the discussion of the alternatability of verbs in English, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) note that a class of nonagentive intransitive verbs referred to as verbs of

PAGE 139

129 emission (e.g., sound, light, smell, etc.) usually fail to participate in the ergative alternation. (27) a. The jewels glittered/sp arkled b. *The queen glittered/sparkled the jewels ( 28 ) a. The stream burbled/roared b. *The rocks burbled/roared the stream ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:92) According to Levin and Rappaport Hovav this class of verbs exh ibits no alternating behavior in that the eventualities denoted by these verbs are conceptualized as resulting from the internal physical characteristics of their single argument (1995:92), just like the verbs play and speak (cf. Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1 .3). It is interesting to note that verbs of emission occasionally show an alternating behavior. Intransitive verbs of sound emission are particularly worth noting because there appear to be no consistent rule as to which verbs can alternate with a transit ive, causative use (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, G. Song 1996, Atkins et al. 1997). For instance, buzz and burp, which do not usually occur in transitive constructions as illustrated in (29) and (30) can be used transitively in contexts like (31) a nd (32). (29) a. The bees buzzed b. *The postman buzzed the bees (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:117) (30) a. The doctor burped b. The nurse burped the doctor (Smith 1978:107)

PAGE 140

130 ( 31 ) a. The doorbell buzzed. b. The postman buzzed the doorbell. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:115) ( 32 ) a. The baby burped. b. The nurse burped the baby. (Smith 1978:107) Examples like (31b) and (32b) may pose a problem since they can be evidence aga inst the view that meanings of verbs enable us to predict their syntactic behaviors. Levin and Rappaport Hovav propose a solution to this problem, assuming that buzz and burp in (31) and (32) are essentially different from those in (29) and (30) To expla in the alternating behaviors of buzz and burp as shown in (31) and (32), Levin and Rappaport Hovav propose that they be consider ed merely idiosyncratic or spurious, being distinguished from the normal uses of the verbs (G. Song (1996) refers to such ca usative uses of verbs of sound emission as unexpected causatives ). One reason for their claiming that there are such idiosyncratic causative pairs is that the intransitive alternants will causativize only for certain highly specific choices of objects f or the transitive use (1995:115). Their observation appears to explain the alternatability of burp in particular since those who burp need to be restricted to babies. As for buzz and other verbs of sound emission like ring and clatter that undergo the alt ernation Levin and Rappaport Hovav assume that they are distinct from genuine ergative pairs like break since the former does not allow natural forces or instruments as syntactic subjects. (33) a. *The short circuit rang the bell. (cf. Tom rang the bel l)

PAGE 141

131 b. *The dishwasher clattered the dishes. (cf. Tom clattered the dishes) ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:116) More importantly, Levin and Rappaport Hovav suggest that the spurious pairs represent two distinct semantic representations, no t related by any productive rule ( 1995: 119). This clearly contrasts with the semantic representation of break which is assumed to consist of a single causative LCS (cf. Chapter 1). The implication of the dual semantic representations for the spurious pai r is that it points to the possibility of listing causative and non causative uses of certain idiosyncratic causative pairs in two separate lexical entries. Building on the observation by Levin and Rappaport Hovav I propose that the idea of idiosyncrasy may also apply to the semantically opaque pairs in (25) above when contrasted to those with semantic transparency. More specifically, Japanese ergative pairs can be categorized differently based on semantic affinity between the pairs. In the next section, I demonstrate that the Japanese ergative pairs whose semantic relationships are understood to be weak are registered as separate lexical entries in the lexicon ( cf. Aronoff 1976 :19 Tyler 1999:8 1 ). In this view, not only idiosyncratic meanings but also tra nsitivity status are listed as part of our lexical knowledge. Conversely, for those pairs such as war /ware break that obey the standard configurational pattern and are semantically transparent I would assume that only the verb stem ( war ) is listed in the permanent lexicon in Japanese.

PAGE 142

132 4.5 Dichotomous View of Japanese Ergative Pairs 4.5.1 Idiomatization With regard to Jacobsen s claim that each member of Japanese ergative pairs is registered in the lexicon, I suggest that the idea of idiomatization ad vanced by Miyagawa (1989a, 1998) is rather insightful in dealing with the issue of lexical versus non lexical derivation of ergative pairs. Idiomatization, by definition, refers to a process in which a combination of a nominal and a verb takes on a non lit eral meaning due to the linguistic phenomenon called semantic drift (Miyagawa 1989a:123). For instance, the subject verb structure consisting of Japanese nominal ude arm and the verb nar ring gives rise to a non literal meaning as illustrated below: ( 33) ude + nar ude ga nar u arm ring arm NOM ring INF be itching for (lit. one s arm rings ) (Miyagawa 1989a:124) The key assumption behind idiomatization is that the meaning of an idiomatic verb phrase is unpre dictable from its original meaning. More crucially, the unpredictability of idiomatization leads Miyagawa to claim that idiomatic verbs should be learned as separate lexical items. On Miyagawa s terms, idioms that are generated by means of idiomatization are registered in the permanent lexicon (Miyagawa 1998:71). Building on the view of idiomatization I propose that if the morphologically derived member of an ergative pair is not related closely enough to its underived counterpart semantically, then each member of the pair should be listed as a separate lexical item despite the morphological correlation. By contrast, if one member of an ergative pair is semantically, as well as morphologically, related to the other member, then it is likely that the deriv ed word might be formed post lexically (cf. Miyagawa 1998). Moreover, following Miyagawa (1984) I assume that semantic predictability

PAGE 143

133 indicates the possibility that an ergative pair can be formed productively. In the section that follows I apply the lexic al paradigmatic system presented in Miyagawa (1989 a 1998) to Japanese ergative verbs in an attempt to establish two distinctive derivational levels based on semantic coherence. 4.5.2 Paradigmatic Structure (PDS) As note d previously (Chapter 2, Section 2. 6 .2.1), Japanese has a highly productive causativizing suffix (s)ase which can attach to any type of verb to create a causative meaning equivalent to the English cause someone/something to do (something) construction. It has been noticed in the literatur e that there are numerous cases where (s)ase causative predicates have non literal or idiomatic meanings which have little or no association with those of the underived bases (Miyagawa 1984, 1989a, 1998, Zenno 1985). In order to depict the process of idio matization associated with (s)ase causative forms, Miyagawa (1989a) adopts a lexical entry called Paradigmatic Structure (PDS). In Miyagawa s terms, PDS is the mental device that organize[s] verbs in the lexicon according to their meaning and the number of arguments that they take (1989a:117). A PDS consists of three slots, that is: intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive as shown below (Miyagawa 1980:109): (34) INTR TR DITR Since each slot is determin ed according to the number of arguments that a verb takes, a genuine intransitive verb like sin die can only fill the intransitive slot.

PAGE 144

134 (35) INTR TR DITR sin die Miyagawa (1980, 1984, 1989a) proposes to utilize the PDS to account for the emergence of idiomatic meaning associated with (s)ase derivatives. Firstly, based on the notion of blocking (Aronoff 1976), Miyagawa posits two possible PDSs for (s)ase causative predicates, one for the blocked (s)ase and the other for the unblocked (s)ase (36) INTR TR DITR Vi stem Vt stem Vi stem + (s)ase INTR TR DITR Vi stem Vi stem + (s)ase (adapted from Miyagawa 1980:113) The first PDS illustrates that the derived (s)ase predicate, being blocked by a pre existing transitive stem, cannot enter into the permanent lexicon. Fo r instance, the causative form agar ase cause to rise derived from the intransitive stem agar rise cannot enter into the permanent lexicon of the PDS since the transitive stem age raise already occupies the transitive slot, as illustrated below

PAGE 145

135 (37) INTR TR DITR agar rise ager raise agar ase (blocked) (Miyagawa 1989a:121) By contrast, the second PDS indicates that the (s)ase derivative enter s into the permanent lexicon since it is not blocked by a transitive stem. It is the unblocked (s)ase derivative, in Miyagawa s view, that takes on an idiomatic meaning. Thus, the PDS of niow smell, which lacks a transitive stem, incorporates the causa tive derivative niow ase into the permanent lexicon, allowing it to have the idiomatic meaning hint (Miyagawa 1989a:124). (38) INTR TR DITR niow smell niow ase hint I assume that semantic d rift analogous to idiomatization takes place in the PDS of the unblocked (s)ase above. 4.5.3 PDS for Ergative Pairs Returning to the issue of semantic relations between ergative pairs, I propose to follow the fundamental view of PDS that verbs stems are registered in the permanent lexicon I do not assume, however, that morphological derivatives as well as verb stems of the ergative pair are registered in the permanent lexicon (cf. Miyagawa 1984:178). Rather, I assume that the PDS of the ergative pair h as a main lexical entry in which no transitivity is implicated for a verb stem. Alternatively I assume that the PDS has

PAGE 146

136 subentries in which transitivity is specified by morphological forms. The whole PDS is illustrated as follows (since our focus is on er gative pairs, I omit a ditransitive slot from): (39) Lexical Entry V stem Lexical Subentries INTR TR (Vi derivative) (Vt derivative) In essence, I assume tha t all verb stems of Japanese ergative verbs in Lexical Entry are provided with an entry in the permanent lexicon. Lexical Entry is almost equal to the slot in Miyagawa s original PDS since both are concerned with operations in the lexicon. It is the leve l of lexical subentries, however, that is undecided as to whether it is inside or outside the permanent lexicon. Following a proposition by Miyagawa (1998), I assume that while the PDS is basically a level of representation that filters verbs in terms of w hether or not they belong to the permanent lexicon, there is the possibility that it deals with a certain post lexical operation as well. Based on this view, I propose that the lexical subentries described in ( 39 ) above are a level of operation that could be either lexical or post lexical. The remaining question, then, is : what distinguishes lexically derived pairs from those which derived post lexically? For Miyagawa, it was the concept of blocking that distinguishes lexical causatives from analytical cau satives with respect to idiomatization of (s)ase My answer to this question is semantic transparency. More specifically, for pairs which hold a semantically opaque relation, we assume that the main lexical entry consists of two subentries in which morpho logically full fledged forms are registered.

PAGE 147

137 Crucially, the lexical subentries of such semantically opaque pairs are registered in the permanent lexicon. (40) Lexical Entry V stem Lexical Subentries INTR TR (Vi derivative) (Vt derivative) opaque Permanent Lexicon By contrast, I do not assume that semantically transparent pairs, which I consider to be genuine ergative pai rs in Japanese, derive their morphological distinctions in the lexicon. Rather, I propose that transitive and intransitive suffixes are inserted post lexically. 10 (41) Lexical Entry V stem Lexical Subentries INTR TR (Vi derivative) (Vt derivative) transparent Post Lexicon Given the lexical entry templates above, we assume that the semantically opaque pair sute /su tar is represented as follows: 10 My position of post lexical insertion of derivational suffixes is based in part on Miyagawa (1998), who argues that lexical insertion should be allowed to take place in later stages of syntactic derivation (73).

PAGE 148

138 (42) Lexical Entry sut Lexical Subentries INTR TR ( sut e ) ( sut ar ) opaque Permanent Lexicon On the other hand, the semantically transparent pair war /ware is represented as follows: (43) Lexical Entry war Lexical Subentries INTR TR ( war e ) ( war ) transparent Post Lexicon The question that remains to be addressed regarding the post lexical insertion of derivational suffixes as in ( 43 ) is how derivational unpredi ctability as discernible between war /ware and ake /ak can be understood to take place outside the realm of the lexicon. More specifically, if Miyagawa s statement (1998:84 87) that the morphological oppositional patterns of ergative pairs in Japanese mus t be learned is correct, then it is necessary to provide a solution to the following obvious contradiction: morphological patterns are those that should be memorized for the most part reflect ing the characteristics of the permanent lexicon, while in my an alysis they attach to verb stems post lexically. In the next section, I propose to apply the framework of Distributed Morphology to this problem.

PAGE 149

139 4.5.4 Distributed Morphology Distributed Morphology is a theoretical framework which claims that morphology is distributed among several different components. (Halle and Marantz 1993:112). In Distributed Morphology (henceforth DM), it is assumed that the lexicon is a list of underived, underspecified vocabulary items (Tyler 1999:20). As pointed out by Halle and Marantz, the underspecification associated with the vocabulary items particularly seems to serve its purpose in describing a language like English, which is characterized in general as less specified with respect to morpho syntactic features such as tense and agreement. On their terms, for instance, the ergative alternation exhibited by sink is a typical case of underspecification in which the distinction in transitivity is not morpho syntactically specified (Halle and Marantz 1993:122). The problem with DM is how we should deal with languages like Japanese, which particularly indicates morpho syntactically the difference in transitivity. I suggest that late insertion, another key concept in DM, may provide a solution for this problem. Halle and Marantz (199 4) maintain that syntactic operations lack all phonological features. Such division between syntax and phonology is made possible by late insertion, which states that phonological features are inserted into the terminal nodes after the syntax (Halle and Ma rantz 1994:275). Their assumption appears to have significant implication s for the issue of morph o syntactic inconsistencies associated with the verbs in Group 1 and 2 in Jacobsen s list since it points to the possibility that phonological features do not directly control the syntactic behaviors of ergative pairs in Japanese. One more problem remains, however, with the idea of adopting DM to the Japanese ergative pairs. That is, the phonological features discussed in the literature are exclusively inflecti onal ones (Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994; cf. Miyagawa 1998:82).

PAGE 150

140 This implies that there is no assurance that DM is a working theory for explaining derivational features like the oppositional patterns of the Japanese ergative pairs. Miyagawa (1998 :82 ) chall enges the inflection based view of DM, arguing that the concept of underspecified feature can apply not only to inflection features but also to derivational features like morphological oppositional patterns of Japanese ergative pairs. I argue that the impl ication that Miyagawa s claim has on our study is significant; if we accept that derivational features can be inserted later in the derivation, then our version of PDS, which has been modified from Miyagawa s to explain how semantic links affect the deriva tional status of the ergative verb becomes more convincing. 4.6 Summary In this chapter I have presented a semantic analysis of the ergative alternation in Japanese. I have shown that a number of ergative pairs, while their valency shift patterns like th at of the English ergative alternation, show a varying degree of semantic discrepancies between transitive and intransitive alternants. Bearing in mind that such discrepancies may have resulted in part from semantic changes that have occurred to these pair s over time, I proposed that the ergative pairs whose semantic relationships are remote be listed as separate lexical items in the modern Japanese lexicon. This view is based on the idea that it is next to impossible for us to predict the meaning of one me mber of a morphological pair from the other member when the pair holds weak semantic relationship. For ergative pairs which show configurational and semantic coherence, on the other hand, I proposed to view them as sharing a verbal root of an identical mea ning in the lexicon. On this view, the distinction between transitive and intransitive is a corollary of morphological derivation and valency shift both of which I

PAGE 151

141 consider to be part of a non lexical process. Consequently, the strong lexicalist view held by Jacobsen that all the ergative pairs are learned as separate lexical items is reduced to the extent that only semantically tenuous pairs are listed separately in the lexicon.

PAGE 152

142 CHAPTER 5 ASPECT AND ERGATIVE PAIRS 5. 1 Introduction In the preceding two chapter s I presented a semantic analysis of ergative pairs both in English and Japanese. In Chapter 3, we have observed that given semantic properties such as change of state and instigation of causation, we can make a prediction for most verbs as to which verbs alternate in transitivity and which verbs do not. In Chapter 4, I proposed that it is necessary to pay close attention to the semantic relationships between transitive and intransitive members of ergative pairs. I also demonstrated that only semantically transparent pairs are considered to be genuine ergative pairs both in English and Japanese. I n this chapter I present another semantic analysis of Japanese ergative pairs, focusing on the aspectual properties associated with transitive and intransitive ergative s. It has been noticed in the literature that ergative pairs differ not only in causative situation but also in aspect. There are two aspectual classes that are relevant to Englis h ergative pairs: accomplishments and achievements. It seems that ergative transitives are understood to be members of the accomplishment class and ergative intransitives to be those of the achievement class (Dowty 1979, Van Valin 1993, Shirai 2000). Aspec tual properties of Japanese ergative pairs, on the other hand, have been investigated in terms of derivational aspectual meaning in conjunction with te iru an aspectual marker which is usually equated with the English progressive be V ing Specifically, occurring with te

PAGE 153

143 iru ergative transitives are observed to receive progressive interpretations, while ergative intransitives are observed to receive perfect interpretations. In what follows, I will propose that the duration and endpoint of eventuality ar e attributed to the different aspectual meanings between ergative transitives and intransitives when combined with te iru My durational approach to this issue is based in part on interval semantics (Dowty 1979), in which the duration of time needed for t he realization of an event is considered the essential feature in establishing the traditional achievements accomplishments distinction. Additionally, I will argue that verbs expressing events that entail duration and a clear endpoint invariably take on pr ogressive readings in conjunction with te iru Consequently, the implication of the analysis of ergative pairs with the aspectual maker te iru is that the pairs can be sub grouped by virtue of the two aspectual features, namely duration and endpoint. The organization of the chapter is as follows. In Section 5. 2, I discuss transitive and intransitive verb pairs in Japanese and pose two questions on the aspectual properties of these verb pairs combined with the aspectual marker te iru In Section 5. 3, I re view Vendlerian linguistic aspectual classifications. I point out that two aspectual categories (achievement and accomplishment) might be closely related to transitivity status of a verb. In Section 5. 4, I review two aspectual classifications of Japanese v erbs, one is by Kindaichi (1950) and the other by Fujii (1976) and Takahashi (1976). I propose that the semantic property result or change of state is a key factor in achieving a unified approach to Japanese aspectual classification. In Section 5.5, I disc uss Jacobsen s prominence theory, illustrating that the choice between progressive and perfect associated with te iru predicates is determined by the thematic role of an argument which occupies the syntactic

PAGE 154

144 subject position. In Section 5.6, I propose to apply the theory of interval semantics (Dowty 1979) to the aspectual classification of Japanese verbs. Along the lines of Fujii (1976) and Takahashi (1976), this framework stresses the importance of taking interval of time into account in dealing with aspe ctual studies in general. Subsequent to the syntactic test x V owar x finish V ing, I will demonstrate that the concept of change should be first separated into interval and non interval, and that the interval class should be further divided into specified endpoint and unspecified endpoint. I will conclude that when intransitive verbs imply change of state or location, it is the interval of time and the specified endpoint of the change that produce a progressive meaning in the te iru constru ction. 5. 2 Japanese Aspectual Properties: Issues In Japanese there is an aspectual marker te iru consisting of a gerundive te and an existential verb iru 1 which is most commonly equated with the English progressive marker ing For instance, the verb ne mur sleep combines with the aspectual marker, giving rise to a progressive reading: (1) Taroo wa suyasuya to nemut te iru Taro TOP soundly sleep ASP Taro is sleeping soundly What is striking about te iru is that there are many verbs that express a perfect meaning when occurring with the suffix. The aspectual property perfect or resultative state 1 The gerundive te becomes de following a nasal sound n as in sin de (< sin die) and yon de (< yom read).

PAGE 155

145 arising from te iru predicates as in (2) is characterized as a state resulting from an event ( Jacobsen 1992:162). 2 (2) a. Takusii wa gohun mae ni tui te iru taxi TOP five minutes ago arrive ASP The taxi arrived five minutes ago b. Taroo wa maeba ga kake te iru Taro TOP front tooth NOM be chipped ASP As for Taro, his front tooth is chi pped c. Hodoo ni saihu ga oti te iru sidewalk on wallet NOM drop ASP A wallet is lying on the sidewalk The difference between progressive and perfect is mainly due to the lexical meaning of verbs to which te iru attaches. Shira i (1998:663) observes that verbs like nemur sleep and uta sing, which are dynamic and durative, express progressive in te iru and verbs like ore break, which represent punctual change of state, express perfect in te iru 3 In relation to the pro gressive/perfect distinction, Japanese ergative pairs provide a further interesting set of data. It has been noticed in the literature that cutting across these pairs there is a general tendency for intransitive ergative members to have perfect readings an d for transitive members to have progressive readings combining with te iru ( Kindaichi 1950, Yoshikawa 1976, Okuda 1978b, Jacobsen 1982a, 1992, Takezawa 2 Many researchers recognize more than two aspectual categories associated with te iru For instance, Yoshikawa (1976) propos es five categories (progressive, resultative state, simple state, experiential, and iterative), while Shirai (2000) proposes four of them (progressive, resultative state, perfect, and habitual). In this dissertation, I follow Jacobsen s dichotomous view (i .e., progressive versus perfect) because our main focus of this chapter is on the distinction between progressive and non progressive. 3 While admitting the correlation between verbal aspects such as activities, achievements, etc. and the progressive/per fect distinction, McClure (1996:283) asserts that almost all Japanese verbs can have perfect readings with te iru

PAGE 156

146 1991, Tsujimura 1996 Ogihara 1998, Shirai 1998, 2000 ). The translation of each te iru form given bel ow reflects this tendency. (3) TRANSITIVE + te iru INTRANSITIVE + te iru kit te iru be cutting kire te iru be cut wat te iru be breaking ware te iru be broken taosi te iru be letting fall taore te iru have fallen ake te iru be openi ng ai te iru be open kowasi te iru be breaking koware te iru be broken The obvious question that arises from these examples is why such different readings emerge for ergative pairs regarding te iru forms. It is clear that transitivity status i tself has nothing to do with the different readings. This is illustrated by sentence (1) above where the progressive reading results from the intransitive nemur in combination with te iru As discussed in Chapter 3, one apparent semantic property that di stinguishes between transitive and intransitive members of ergative pairs is the presence of CAUSE in the semantic representation of transitives, which is roughly paraphrased into cause to V intransitive. Given this fact, one may argue that the semantic feature CAUSE induces a progressive reading in transitives with te iru However, there are a number of cases where non causative verbs express progressive in conjunction with the aspectual marker. For instance, the intransitive wara laugh receives a pr ogressive interpretation occurring with te iru although it lacks CAUSE as one of its semantic components. (4) Taroo ga oogoe de warat te iru Taro NOM out loud laugh ASP Taro is laughing out loud It is clear that while the semantic property CAUSE might be relevant to the surfacing of a progressive meaning in the te iru transitive ergative, the question of how we should account for cases like (1) still remains.

PAGE 157

147 A more complicated issue, however, has to do with the possibili ty of interpreting some ergative intransitive verbs as progressive or perfect depending on the context. The ergative intransitive yaker broil, roast is a case in point. In (5a), yake te iru describes a situation in which the process of broiling is compl ete. In (5b), on the other hand, the same process is still in progress. (5) a. Kono niku wa moo zyuubunni yake te iru. this meat TOP already well broil ASP This meat is already well done b. Niku wa zyuuzyu u oto o tate nagara yake te iru. meat TOP nice sound ACC making while broil ASP The meat is broiling, (while) making a nice sound The contrast between (5a) and (5b) casts further doubt on the view of considering CA USE to be solely responsible for the distinction between progressive and perfect. Instead, it seems necessary to consider whether there are any other factors involved in the emergence of the two different aspectual meanings. 5. 3 Classifications of English Lexical Aspect Classifications of verbs based on their lexical aspect have long been discussed i n the literature of philosophy (Ryle 1949, Kenny 1963) and linguistics (Vendler 1957, Comrie 1976, and Dowty 1979, among other s) The most well known aspectual classification in the field of linguistics is Vendler s (1957) four way classification consisting of states activities, accomplishments, and achievements ( 6 ) a. States : have, possess, desire, want, like, dislike, l ove, hate, rule, dominate, know, believe, etc. b. Activities : run, write, walk swim push, pull, etc. c. Accomplishments : paint a picture, make a chair, build a house, write/read a novel, deliver a sermon, give/attend a lecture, play a game of chess, grow up, recover from illness, get ready (for something), etc.

PAGE 158

148 d. Achievements : recognize, realize, spot, identify, lo se/find an object, reach the summit, win the race, cross the border, start, stop, resume, be born, die, etc. (Vendler 1957:150) Vendler suggests that the four aspectual categories are distinguished from each other according to temporal schemata such as time stretch and time instant. Smith (1991) characterizes and schematizes each aspectual category, which she calls situation type, by utilizing three features (i.e., static , durative, and telic ). (7) Situations 4 Sta te Durative Telic States [+] [+] [ ] Activity [ ] [+] [ ] Accomplishment [ ] [+] [+] Achievement [ ] [ ] [ ] According to this schematization, activities are distinguis hed from accomplishments in that the former does not involve telicity, while the latter does. On the other hand, accomplishments are distinguished from achievements in that the former represents a durative event, while the latter represents a punctual even t (Dowty 1979, Tenny 1987, 1994, Van Valin 1990). 5 As mentioned above, some aspectual classifications seem to point to a correlation between aspectual properties and transitivity. More specifically, Dowty s list of verbs of the four aspectual categories su ggests that there is a tendency for transitives to be accomplishments and intransitives to be achievements (Dowty 1979:66 71; cf. Hasegawa 4 Smith (1991) adds another situation semelfactive to Vendler s four way classification. In the current discussion, however, I follow Ven der s classification. 5 The temporal features do not always distinguish aspectual categories. For instance, Van Valin (1993:154) notes that Achievement verbs can also express durative events.

PAGE 159

149 1996:58). What is more striking is that when ergative verbs are added to categories, ergative intransitives and trans itives are invariably achievements and accomplishments, respectively (cf. Shirai 1998). For instance, examples from Shirai (1996:340), originally from Foley and Van Valin (1984) and Van Valin (1990, 1993), categorize the intransitive break shatter and co ol as achievements, and the transitive counterparts as accomplishments. 6 If we posit that English ergative pairs can be differentiated in terms of lexical aspect, then it may well be that progressive and perfect readings associated with te iru forms are attributed to differing lexical aspect inherent in Japanese ergative pairs. In the following section I outline how Japanese verbs have been characterized aspectually in the literature. 5. 4 Japanese Verbs and their Aspectual Properties Aspectual analyses of Japanese verbs have been intensively conducted for more than a century. While Japanese linguists had long been aware that Japanese verbs are characterizable aspectually (cf. Otsuki 1897 ), Kindaichi (1950) is considered the first to have presented a system atic classification. Kindaichi s aspectual class, which happens to be a four way classification analogous to Vendlers consists of Stative, Continuative, Instantaneous, and Type Four ( Kindaichi 1950:50 1; for translation of each class, I follow Jacobsen 1 992 :162 3 ). ( 8 ) a. Stative verbs : ar exist, deki be able, wakar understand, mie be visible, yoos need, etc. 6 Under the framework of causal chain, Smith (1991:64n) charac terizes Achievements and Accomplishments as inchoative and causative, respectively. I assume that this distinction has relevance to the ergative intransitive/transitive contrast.

PAGE 160

150 b. Continuative verbs : yom read, kak write, wara laugh, syaber chat, uta sing, mi see, kik he ar, tabe eat, etc. c. I nstantaneous verbs: sin die, tuk arrive, ik go, kimar be decided, tomar stop, mitukar be found, kekkon suru get married, etc. d. Type Four verbs: sobie te iru tower above, su gure te iru be excellent, arihure te iru be common, ni te iru resemble, etc. One main distinctive feature in Kindaichi s classification is that of punctuality. This is best illustrated by the two categories continuative and instantaneous, w here the distinction is made on the basis of whether or not the event denoted by a verb continues for a certain interval of time. Under this duration approach, continuous verbs represent events that continue for a certain amount of time, whereas the instan taneous verbs represent events that may take place and end almost simultaneously. What is notable about Kindaichi s classification is that the aspectual marker te iru is utilized as a syntactic and/or semantic test to validate his four way classification Note in particular that for continuous and instantaneous verbs, the affixation of te iru results in an additional aspectual distinction between progressive and perfect respectively ( 9 ) a. continuative + te iru progressive Taro wa ima hon o yon de iru Taro TOP now book ACC read ASP Taro is reading a book now b. instantaneous + te iru perfect Kono sakana wa moo sinde iru yo this fish TOP already die ASP EMP Th is fish is already dead

PAGE 161

151 In short, Kindaichi advances two types of aspectual properties of verbs in his classification, that is the lexical aspectual distinction between continuative and instantaneous on the one hand, and the grammatical aspectual distinc tion between progressive and perfect on the other. Fujii (1976) suggest s that the duration distinction between continuative and instantaneous is not always concomitant with the distinction between progressive and perfect in the te iru construction. For in stance, while tir (flowers) scatter is a continuous verb, it receives a perfect reading when combined with te iru (10) Zimen ni hana ga tit te iru ground on flowers NOM scatter ASP The flowers are scattered on the g round (Fujii 1976:106) Similarly, hutor become fat and yaser become thin both of which imply gradual, continuous events, express a perfect meaning with te iru ( Okuda 1978a:38; see also Jacobsen 1982a:90, 1992:181 ). ( 11 ) a. Ano hito wa sukosi hutot te iru that person TOP a little get fat ASP That person is a little fat b. Ano hito wa zuibun yase te iru that person TOP very get thin ASP That person is very thin Based on the observatio n just presented Takahashi (1976) propose s an overarching distinction between result and non result above the distinction between continuative and instantaneous. 7 ( 12 ) I. Result verbs A. Continuative verbs: nobi become long ( hana ga ) tir (flowe rs) scatter, ki put on ( clothes), kabur put on (a hat) 7 Towards the end of his article Kindaichi (1950) also briefly discusses the possibility of using the concept change for a classification of Japanese verbs.

PAGE 162

152 B. I nstantaneous verbs: panku suru (a tire) gets punctured, kie become extinguished, de come out, sin die, kekkon suru get married II Non result verbs A. Continuative verbs: hasir run, mi see, asob play, hur (rain) falls, urayamasigar show signs of envy. B. I nstantaneous verbs: i tibetu sur u glance at, butukar bump i nto, mokugeki suru witness (an event). ( Takahash i 1976 : 126 translated by Jacobsen 1992:171) In Takahashi s terms, result verbs involve a result or a change of state undergone by a Theme in the course of an event or an activity whereas non result verbs do not entail such meanings. In short, Takahashi ar gue s that all verbs labeled as result induce a perfect reading with te iru whether they are continuative or instantaneous. Given this view, we may well explain that huto t te iru and yase te iru in (11) are interpreted as perfect simply because they repre sent results or changes of state brought about in Themes. As will be discussed later, the distinction between result and non result has a strong influence on Okuda (1978a.b), who, flatly denying the duration distinction (i.e., continuative vs. instantaneo us), claims that Japanese verbs are aspectually classified into change and non change groups solely depending on whether subjects are perceived to undergo a change of state. In particular, Okuda considers the semantic property change to be fairly signifi cant for perfect readings of intransitive members of ergative pairs in te iru (cf. Kiryu 1999:50). In his view, the intransitive member of the ergative pair nagare / nagas flow/let flow does not have a perfect meaning in te iru because the verb pair doe s not entail any change of state brought upon a Theme (Okuda 1978b:22). To summarize, we have observed that researchers hardly reached agreement as to how Japanese verbs should be classified in terms of aspect. Moreover, the issue is

PAGE 163

153 complicated by the asp ectual marker te iru Since the classifications by Fujii and Okuda, however, result or change of state has emerged as one key factor for a possible consensus classification. Given this observation, I suggest that ergative pairs, which are generally charac terized as involving change of state, might serve in part as a solution to a uniform classification due to their consistent behaviors concerning progressive versus perfect readings combined with te iru 5. 5 Ergative Pairs and their Aspectual Properties In the preceding section, we have observed that result or change of state associated with Theme arguments is considered in the recent literature the primary semantic property responsible for the emergence of perfect meaning in verbs with the aspectual marker te iru This observation poses a problem for analysis of a sentence like the following. (13) Taro o ga tugitugi to kyoositu no mado o wat te iru Taro NOM continuously classroom GEN window ACC break ASP Taro i s now breaking windows of the classroom over there Recall that war is paired with the intransitive counterpart ware in Japanese, forming an ergative pair. That the transitive war entails a change of state as part of its inherent meaning i s substantiated by the following example. (14) Taroo ga kabin o wat te simat te moo tukae nai Taro NOM vase ACC break ASP and any more use NEG Taro has broken the vase and we cannot use it any more The uselessn ess of the vase indicates that war break in (14) apparently entails a change of state. Nevertheless, the same verb in (13) does not mean a resultant state but expresses

PAGE 164

154 an iterative meaning. 8 In fact, this observation brings us back to the ergative pair s given in (3) above, where all the transitive change of state members are progressive in te iru forms. This suggests that it is necessary to conduct a further analysis of ergative pairs to pinpoint the cause of their different aspectual meanings in te i ru 5.5.1 Grammatical Functions and Thematic Roles Okuda (1978), Jacobsen (1992), and Tsujimura (1996), among others, consider grammatical functions of arguments to be crucial in determining the aspectual meaning of a given verb in conjunction with te ir u Recall that the ergative alternation is characterized by the configurational parallelism between the object of a transitive use and the subject of an intransitive use. Accordingly, the subject of the transitive use is usually an Agent, while the subject of the intransitive use invariably bears a Theme role. Given this observation, Okuda argues that the difference in aspectual meaning between te iru ergative intransitives and te iru ergative transitives is due to different thematic roles associated with the subjects of ergative pairs (cf. Shirai 1998). On this view, the subjects of transitive uses of ergative pairs are Agents, which cause changes of state but do not undergo any of those changes. It is this association of the thematic role Agent with an a rgument in the subject position that gives rise to a progressive interpretation in transitive ergative te iru forms (Tsujimura 1996:322; cf. Miyagawa 1987:40). By contrast, the subjects of intransitive members of ergative pairs are logical objects which i n general 8 Strictly speaking, the actions represented by ot te iru and wat te iru are not continuation of a single act, which is the most common situation associated with progress ive, but rather a series of repeated actions often referred to as iterative (Jacobsen 1992:165). I consider such an iterative action to be part of the category of progressive.

PAGE 165

155 bear the thematic role of Theme. 9 As a consequence, intransitive uses of ergative pairs, whose subjects undergo change of state, receive perfect readings with te iru One question that needs to be answered regarding Okuda s analysis is why the thematic role of an argument in the subject position is so crucial in determining the aspectual meaning of ergative pairs. Particularly, in a transitive construction, where the Agent and Theme arguments occur in the subject and object position respectively it is necessary to explain why the aspectual marker te iru should be linked to the Agent over the Theme, inducing a progressive interpretation in te iru forms. Jacobsen (1992) hold s that the degree of focus associated with each grammatical function d etermines the aspectual meanings of ergative pairs (cf. Tsujimura 1996) On his view, the grammatical function subject , regardless of the thematic role type that it is associated with is inherently more focal than that of object. Therefore in a typic al Japanese transitive template as demonstrated below, the Agent X, which takes the subject position, receives greater focus than the Theme Y does because of the position that the former occupies. (15) X ga Y o V (transitive construc tion) Agent Theme Jacobsen assumes that the aspectual marker te iru is simply connected with the Agent subject over the Theme object resulting in a progressive reading of a whole verb predicate V te iru Thus, we assume that ag entivity associated with Tar o o in (16) 9 Drawing on a GB framework, Takezawa (1991) explains that the perfect readin gs of intransitive verbs emerge when an NP in the subject position holds an A chain with the NP trace in the post verbal position of the intransitives as a result of NP movement. According to Takezawa, this A chain accounts for why passives also take on pe rfect readings when the predicates combine with te iru

PAGE 166

156 becomes more prominent than the change s of state undergone by mado window and eda branch inducing progressive reading s over perfect reading s (16) a. Taro o ga asoko de mado o wat te iru Ta ro NOM over there window ACC break ASP Taro is breaking the window over there Taro o ga asokode mado o wat te iru Agent Theme progressive b. Taro o ga niwa no ki no eda o ot te iru Taro NOM garden GEN tree GEN branch ACC break ASP Taro is breaking branches over there Taro o ga niwa no ki no eda o ot te iru Agent Theme progressive This prominence theory in con nection with agentivity appears to account for the dominant progressive readings of the transitive te iru constructions (cf. Moriyama 1988) It is important to note here that the link between te iru and the argument in the subject position is not necessa rily a strict one. Rather, it should be stated that the link is our default perception of an event. This means that if we are provided with proper contexts that affect our perception, then the link may be shifted to a Theme argument in the object position, resulting in a perfect reading. This is most likely to occur when a sentence contains adverbs which strongly imply a resultative state or a perfect situation. 10 10 Ando (1982:102) suggests that a variety of aspectual meanings associated with te iru are due not only to co occurring verbs but also to co occurring adverbs and contextual factors.

PAGE 167

157 For instance, if a sentence contains the aspectual adverb sudeni already, as in (17), then it s natural reading is that of perfect. (17) a. Taro o wa sudeni mado o go mai wat te iru Taro TOP already widow ACC five CL break ASP Taro has already broken five widows b. Taro o wa sudeni maeba o s anbon ot te iru Taro TOP already front tooth ACC three break ASP Taro has already broken three front teeth (18) a. Taro o ga sudeni kyoositu no mado o go mai wat te iru Agent already Theme perfect b. Taro o wa sudeni maeba o sanbon ot te iru Experiencer already Theme perfect 5.5.2 Terminative Orientedness One more question surrounding the pr ominence theory described above is whether there is a theoretical background for assuming that an Agent invariably becomes prominent over a Theme, giving rise to a progressive reading in conjunction with te iru Kiryu (1999) accounts for this tendency in Japanese by referring to the language as a less terminative oriented language in contrast to more terminative oriented languages like English. 11 According to Kiryu, Japanese verbs of change of state do not necessarily indicate that a change is brought about in a Theme. This is typically illustrated in the following: 11 Ikegami (19 82) initially proposed the concept of terminative orientedness under the terminology of suru ( DO ) verbs and naru ( BECOME ) verbs.

PAGE 168

158 (19) a. Ake ta ga aka nak atta open PAST but open NEG PAST (I) opened it, but it did not open (Kiryu 1999:58) b. Mizu o wakasi ta kedo w aka nak atta water ACC boil PAST but boil NEG PAST (I) boiled the water, but it did not boil (Ikegami 1988:394) In contrast, English change of state verbs ensure that once change s take place they reach their completive stage. Thus, conjoining two seemingly contradictory clauses as in (19) is simply impossible in English as shown in the English translations. Given these facts, Kiryu concludes that for Japanese transitive change of state verbs the action component receives more focus t han the change component due to its typological characteristic of less degree of terminative orientedness. This in turn results in the association of te iru with an Agent, giving rise to a progressive interpretation. Furthermore, Kiryu argues that since v erbs of change of state in Japanese still potentially imply the termination of a change, the shift in focus towards the terminative stage may be triggered given an appropriate context. In summary, both prominence and termination theories have one key assum ption in common; in Japanese, the aspectual marker te iru chooses to combine with the action or activity by an Agent over the change brought about in a Theme. As a consequence, most transitive change of state verbs, by default, have progressive readings w hen occurring with te iru These theories, however, still fail to provide an account for why, as mentioned above, some intransitive change of state verbs which have no Agents can have progressive readings with te iru

PAGE 169

159 5.6 Ergative Intransitives 5.6.1 Pr ogressives in Ergative Intransitives in te iru Recall that some Japanese ergative intransitives can take on progressive, as well as perfect, readings combined with te iru Consider the sentences in (5), repeated in (20) below (cf. Okuda 1978b :18). (20) a Niku wa sudeni zyuubunni yake te iru. meat TOP already well broil ASP The meat is already well done b. Niku wa zyuuzyuu oto o tate nagara yake te iru. meat TOP nice sound ACC mak ing while broil ASP The meat is broiling, (while) making a nice sound The progressive aspect of the predicate yake te iru in (20b) is made more explicit when followed by the genuine progressive predicate saityuu da be in the middle of (=PRG). ( 21) a. *Niku wa sudeni zyuubunni yake te iru saityuu da. meat TOP already well broil ASP PRG The meat is already in the middle of being well done b. Niku wa zyuuzyuu oto o tate nagara yake te iru meat TOP nice sound ACC making while broil ASP saityuu da. PRG The meat is in the middle of broiling, (while) making a nice sound Since te iru in (21a) retains a perfect meaning, it simply conflicts with the progre ssive predicate saityuu da resulting in the ungrammaticality of the whole sentence. Other verbs which show the same phenomenon as yake include toke melt and moe burn. ( 22 ) a. Koori wa sukkari toke te iru ice TOP completely melt ASP The ice has completely melted b. Koori wa yukkuri toke te iru ice TOP slowly melt ASP The ice is gradually melting

PAGE 170

160 (23) a. Takigi wa sukkari moe te iru firewood TOP completely b urn ASP The firewood has completely burned b. Takigi wa ikioi yoku moe te iru firewood TOP fiercely burn ASP The firewood is burning fiercely Comparing sentences (22a) and (23a) to sentences (22b) and (23b), one may clai m that the te iru forms in the latter sentences receive progressive interpretations since they co occur with manner adverbs such as yukkuri and zyuuzyuu While yake te iru is more likely to be interpreted as perfect without any manner adverbs, moe te iru is unclear as to which meaning perfect or progressive is the default interpretation. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.5.1 above, since te iru forms are typically associated with progressive when occurring in contexts which contain agentive subjects i n Japanese, progressive interpretations arising from agentless intransitive constructions strike us as puzzling. It is surprising to note that few researchers mention this phenomenon ( cf. Okuda 1978b, Jacobsen 1982 a ) I assume that this is simply becaus e native speakers of Japanese in general hold a close association between intransitive members of ergative pairs and perfect meaning. In fact, some intransitive ergatives will never be interpreted as progressive in te iru constructions, no matter what the contexts may be For instance predicates like koware te iru and ore te iru simply do not co occur with the progressive marker saityuu da as demonstrated below: (24) *Dentyuu ga ore te iru saityuu da utility pole NOM break ASP PRG The utility pole is in the middle of breaking

PAGE 171

161 (25) *Razio ga koware te iru saityuu da radio NOM break ASP PRG The radio is in the middle of breaking On closer inspection, however, we ca n readily observe that other intransitive members of ergative pairs are more or less ambiguous as to whether they are progressive or perfect with te iru For these verbs, it is either contexts or aspectual predicates like saityuu da as illustrated in (20) (23) that may determine their aspect. Okuda (1978) suggests that for those intransitive members which have the potential to develop both perfect and progressive readings, the events denoted by such verbs should be understood to involve the two sub even ts action and change almost occurring at the same time. In other words, intransitive verbs that are potentially perfect and progressive describe the syntactic subject as doing some action and causing a change to itself at once. On this view, the syntac tic subject of yake broil is viewed as being engaged in the action of burning as well as undergoing a change of state. Consequently, Okuda claims, it is due to the association of the sub event action with the aspectual marker te iru that induces prog ressive readings in intransitive te iru constructions. 12 Apparently, Okudas analysis confronts a problem. That is, he does not clarify the criterion whereby we can make a distinction between intransitive verbs which involve both action and change, o n the one hand, and those which involve only change, on the other. For instance, Okuda assumes that nie cook only has a perfect reading combined with te iru since it involves only change, but he give s no specific reasons why it should be so (1978b: 25) I argue that the lack of clarity in his analysis makes 12 Okudas view of the complex sub event structure coincide s with the sub event structure by Pustejovsky (1991) or the com plex lexical semantic representation by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995).

PAGE 172

162 Okuda claim that nie te iru means nothing but perfect which is proven to be wrong if we look at the progressive reading in (26). (26) Zyagaimo ga gutugutu nie te iru Potato NOM n icely cook ASP The potatoes are cooking nicely In short, while Okudas sub event approach may allow us to account for the progress occurrence of intransitive members of ergative pairs, it nevertheless fails to provide a precise explanatio n for the question of whether a given intransitive member can be progressive as well as perfect or simply perfect with te iru In the next section, I propose to apply different theoretical frameworks to the analysis of te iru forms in addition to Okudas sub event approach. 5.6.2 Change of state and endpoint As part of the solution to the issue of predicting the aspectual properties of te iru constructions, I basically follow Takahashis result and non result distinction. In particular, as observed in C hapter 3, since a good portion of ergative pairs involve change of state or location, I will focus on result/change verb class in addressing the issue Takahashis characterization of result verb class, given in (14) above, is repeated in (27). 13 (27) Resu lt verbs A. Continuative verbs B. I nstantaneous verbs 13 Hayashi and Shinzato (1999) also develop a classification similar to Fujii and Takahashi. Instead of the aspectual features of change vs. non change and continuous vs. instantaneo us Hayashi and Shinzato propose to employ the features of [+/ process] and [+/ bound]. On their terms, [process] is concerned with whether an activity or an event needs interval of time and [bound] is concerned with whether an activity or an event has an endpoint.

PAGE 173

163 What is noticeable about Takahashi s result class is that, compared to Okuda s change class, Takahashi takes into consideration a further temporal distinction between continuative an d instantaneous. More specifically, Takahashi s framework is concerned not only with a change of state but also with the length of time involved in the change. In my analysis of the aspectual meanings of Japanese ergative pairs, I consider the length of t ime or interval needed for change of state to account in part for the cause of the twofold aspectual properties of certain ergative intransitives Additionally, I propose that change of state be described in terms of whether or not it entails an inherent endpoint. In light of these two aspectual properties interval and inherent endpoint, intransitive ergatives that can have progressive meaning in te iru are aspectually characterized as change of state verbs whose process takes place over interval of time and is marked by a clear, specific endpoint. 5.6.3 Dowtys (1979) Interval Semantics To separate change of state verbs which inherently involve interval of time from those which do not, the present research adopt s interval semantics a theoretical fr amework originally formulated by Dowty (1979 ). Interval semantics is concerned primarily with the notion of change of state with its focus on whether a change may take place in one single step or in two or more distinct steps. According to Dowty, the inter val based approach will allow us to reclassify accomplishments and achievements, which are considered to consist exclusively of change of state verbs, into the following four separate categories (1979:184):

PAGE 174

164 Table 2: Dowty s interval based classifica tion of change of state verbs Non Agentive Agentive Single change notice realize ; kill point out ( something of state ignite to someone ) Complex change flow from x to y build ( a house ), walk from of state dissolve x to y walk a mile The remainder of our discussion will focus on the two classes single change of state and complex change of state since the distinction between single and complex is tantamount to a distinction between non interval and interval. That is, single cha nge of state verbs like notice and point out express events which take place in an instant, whereas complex change of state verbs like dissolve and walk a mile require some interval of time until the events are complete. Among several syntactic tests that Dowty utilizes to ensure that each verb falls into the appropriate category, I propose to focus on x finished V ing test since it differentiates single change of verbs from those of complex change of state, namely it is incompatible with verbs expressing i nstant interval of events ( Kenny 1963, Dowty 1979, Mourelatos 1981, Tsujimura 1996 ). (28) a. *John finished noticing the picture (Binnick 1991:177) b. John finished walking a mile. Based on Dowty s interval semantics, I will demonstrate that t he syntactic test x V owar a Japanese equivalent of the x finished V ing accounts for the relationship between intransitive members of ergative pairs and their complex aspectual meanings with te iru

PAGE 175

165 5.6.4 Syntactic Test owaru finish While the Japa nese verb owar end, finish is used most commonly as a free verb (e.g., zyugyoo ga owar u class ends ), it compounds frequently with other verbs, forming aspectual compound verbs which describe the events denoted by the base verbs as being completed by an Agent (cf. Matsumoto 1996:170). (29) a. Taroo wa gohan o tabe owat ta Taro TOP meal ACC eat finish PAST Taro finished eating a meal b. Taroo wa syukudai o si owat ta Taro TOP homework ACC do finish PAST Taro finished doing his homework Note that owar is not compatible with verbs that describe events occurring instantly. (30) a. *Taroo wa eki ni tuki owat ta Taro TOP station at arrive finish PAST Taro finished arriving at the station b. *Taroo wa matigai ni kizuki owat ta Taro TOP error OBL notice finish PAST Taro finished noticing the errors Given (29) and (30), one may generalize that owar occurs felicitously with non stative verbs that require a certain leng th of time prior to the completion of the eventualities. Turning to Japanese ergative intransitives, it is interesting to note that intransitive ergatives that can have progressive readings with te iru are grammatical in compounding with owar The afore mentioned change of state intransitive ergatives yake toke and moe meet all the criteria 14 14 The aspectual verb owar has a variable form oe While restrictions on the choice between the two forms have been extensively discussed in the literature (Shibatani 1973c:66 68, Matsumoto 1996:170ff), I will choose to utilize owar for my syntactic test for the sake of convenience.

PAGE 176

166 (31) a. Niku wa yake owat ta meat TOP roast finish PAST The meat finished cooking b. Koori wa toke owat ta ice TOP melt finish PAST The ice finished melting c. Takigi wa moe owat ta firewood TOP burn finish PAST The firewood finished burning In contrast, ergative intransitive s do not occ ur with owar when they refer exclusively to perfect situations in te iru constructions. (32) a. Dentyuu ga ore te iru. utility pole NOM break ASP The utility pole is broken b. *Dentyuu ga ore owat ta utility pole NOM break finish PAST The utility pole finished breaking (33) a. Razio ga koware te iru radio NOM break ASP PRG The radio is broken b. *Razio ga koware owat ta radio NOM break finish PAST The radio finished breaking It seems clear that there is a close correlation between the progressive interpretation of te iru ergative intransitive predicates and the compatibility of owar with ergative intransitives. I argue that such ergative intr ansitives are characterized as verbs entailing (1) change of state involving interval of time and (2) inherent clear endpoint in events. The question that remains is how many intransitive ergatives are compatible with owar In the next section, I analyze Jacobsen s list of Japanese ergative pairs with the aim of suggesting an aspectual classification of change of state ergative pairs

PAGE 177

167 5.6.5 V owar finish V Test to the Ergative Pairs in Jacobsen (1992) We observed in Chapter 4 that many of the ergative pairs in Jacobsen (1992) are semantically opaque and therefore should be separated from those who hold a close semantic link. In the survey that follows, I focus my attention on the ergative pairs which are semantically transparent (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1 (25)). Moreover, following Dowty s view that the x finished V ing test concerns the two different types of change (i.e., single versus complex change), I eliminate from Jacobsens data the pairs which do not involve change of state 15 This leaves us w ith the following eighty five ergative pairs which are semantically transparent and entail a change of state as part of the semantic properties (34) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE agar rise age raise ak open ake open are become ravaged aras ravage atatamar warm atatame warm boke become unclear bokas make unclear hae grow hayas let grow huyake become soaked huyakas soak hag peel off hage peel off hekom become dented hekomas dent he r decrease heras decrease hie cool (off) hiyas let cool hirogar spread hiroge spread hiromar spread out hirome spread out hodoke come untied hodok untie hogure become untied hogus untie hue increase huyas increase hukamar deepen hukame deepen hukuram swell hukuramas cause to swell 15 To determine whether or not a given verb pair expresses a change of state, I referred to the criteria utilized by Levin (1993 a ) for her classifications of change of state verbs in English. In Levin s classi fications, verbs of change of position or location are subsumed under change of state, whereas verbs of appearance or disappearance are not. In dealing with Japanese counterparts in both cases, I follow Levin (1993 a ).

PAGE 178

168 ie heal iyas heal karamar become entangled karame entangle kare wither; dry out karas wither; dry out katamar harden katam e harden kawak dry kawakas dry kawar change kae change kire become severed kir sever kiyomar become pure kiyome purify koe become fertile koyas make fertile koge become scorched kogas scorch kozire bec ome worse koziras make worse konare become digested konas digest koor freeze kooras freeze koware become destroyed kowas destroy kudake become smashed kudak smash kusar go bad kusaras let go bad kuzure become razed kuzus raze magar bend mage bend makure become tucked up makur tuck up marumar become round marume make round mekure (a page) become turned mekur turn (a page) midare become disordered midas put in disorder m oe burn moyas burn muke peel muk peel mure become steamed muras steam nezire become twisted nezir twist nie cook ni cook nigor become muddy nigos muddy nobi become extended nobas extend nukumor warm (up) nukume warm (up) nure become wet nuras wet nurum become lukewarm nurume make lukewarm ore break or break oti drop otos drop sagar become lower sage lower sake tear sak tear same cool (off ) samas let cool (off) sebame become narrow sebamar make narrow simar close sime close sime become wet simes wet sodat grow sodate grow somar become dyed some dye sor bend soras bend sum become cle ar sumas make clear sure become worn out sur wear out takamar heighten takame heighten

PAGE 179

169 taore fall taos let fall tawam bend tawame bend tizim shrink tizime reduce togar become sharpened tog sharpen to ke dissolve tok dissolve toke melt tokas melt tomor light(up) tomos light (up) toroke melt torokas melt tubure become crushed tubus crush tunagar become connected tunage connect uruo become moistened ur uowas moisten wakare become divided wake divide wak boil wakas boil ware break war break yabure tear yabur tear yake roast yak roast yawarag become softened yawarage softened yozire get twisted yo zir twist yugam become crooked yugame bend yurum become loose yurume loosen yogore become dirty yogos soil The V owar I applied to the intransitive verbs in (32) shows that twenty four verbs are grammatical or, at best, margin al. Table 3: V owar test for Japanese ergative intransitives V owar grammatical 12 marginal 12 ungrammatical 62 The 12 intransitive members which are grammatical with owar are illustrated in actual contexts below.

PAGE 180

170 (35) a. Doa ga aki owara nai uti ni kankyaku wa kannai ni door NOM open finish hardly when audience TOP hall into nadarekon da storm PAST Hardly did the doors finish opening when the audience stormed into the hall b. Men ga hogure owaru mae ni soup o noodle NOM become expanded finish before soup base ACC ire te kudasai add please Please add the soup base before the noodles finish expanding c. Sentakumono ga kawaki owaru mae ni kansooki ga tomat ta laundry NOM dry finish before dryer NOM stop PAST Before the laundry finished drying, the dryer stopped d. Botoru no mizu ga koori owaru made moo sukosi zikan ga bottle GEN water NOM freeze finish before more a little time NOM kakaru yo take EMP It will take a little more time before the bottled water finishes fr eezing e. Gomi ga zenbu moe owaru mae ni hi ga kie ta garbage NOM all burn finish before fire NOM go out PAST The fire went out before all the garbage finished burning f. Zyagaimo ga yooyaku nie owat ta potato NOM at last cook finish PAST The potatoes finally finished cooking g. Doa ga simari owaru made ugoka naide kudasi door NOM close finish until move not please Do not move until the doors finish closing h. Satoo ga wazuka ippun de toke owat ta sugar NOM just one minute in dissolve finish PAST The sugar finished dissolving in just one minute i. Koori ga toke owaru made matte kudasai ice NOM melt finish until wait please Will you wait until the ice finishes melting ? j. Oyu ga waki owaru mae ni gasu ga kire ta hot water NOM boil finish before gas NOM run out PAST The gas ran out before the water finish boiling

PAGE 181

171 k. Hone ga tunagari owaru ma de ude o ugokasa naide kudasai bone NOM heal finish before arm ACC move not please Dont move your arm before the bones finish healing l. Sakana ga yooyaku yake owat ta fish NOM finally bake finish PAST The fish finally finished roasting The verbs in (33) have one essential characteristic in common: they all lexically depict the endpoint of changes of state. For example, the verbs yake and toke lexically refer to specific endpoints of changes, that is, the endpoints where something is ready to be eaten after being roasted and a piece of ice has changed into liquid, respectively. These verbs are in striking contrast to verbs which do not lexic alize such inherent endpoints. Thus, change of state verbs like koe become fat and agar rise lexically specify no clear endpoint. 16 Consequently, they prove to be ungrammatical when occurring with owar ( 36 ) a. *Taroo wa koe owat ta Taro TOP bec ome fat finish PAST Taro finished becoming fat b. *Huusen ga agari owat ta balloon NOM rise finish PAST The balloon finished rising Note also that all of the verbs above except for tun a gar in (33k) can grammat ically co occur with the progressive suffix saityuu da as demonstrated below. (37) a. Doa ga ai te iru saityuu ni seki o tata naide kudasai door NOM open ASP while seat ACC stand NEG please While the door is opening, please do not stand up from your seat 16 Since I focus on lexical aspects on my analysis, sentences like hyakkiro made hutoru gain weight up to 100 kilograms and sankai made aga tta go up to the third floor are, even though they refer to certain endpoints compositionally, outside the scope of the current study.

PAGE 182

172 b. Ima oyu no naka de men ga hogure te iru now hot water GEN inside noodles NOM become expand ASP saityuu da PRG The noodles are expanding in the hot water now c. Ima kansooki no naka de sentakumono ga kawai te iru saityuu da now dryer GEN inside laundry NOM dry ASP PRG The laundry is drying now in the dryer d. Niku ga reitooko no naka de koot te iru saityuu da meat NOM freezer GEN inside freeze ASP PRG The meat is freezing now in the freezer e. Ima syookyakuro no naka de gomi ga moe te iru saityuu da now incinerator GEN inside garbage burn ASP PRG The garbage is burning in the incinerator f. Zyagaimo ga gutugutu nie te iru saityuu da potato NOM nicely cook ASP PRG The potatoes are cooking nicely g. Doa ga simat te iru saityuu niwa sono tikaku ni tata naide door NOM close ASP PRG while there near stand NEG kudasai please While the door is closing, please do not stand near it h. Satoo ga oyu no naka de toke te iru saityuu da sugar NOM hot water GEN inside dissolve ASP PRG The sugar is dissolving in the hot water i. Koorasi te oita niku ga ima toke te iru saityuu da frozen meat NOM now melt ASP PRG The frozen meat is melting now j. Ohuro ga ima wai te iru saityuu da bath NOM now boil ASP PRG The bath is getting ready now k. #Kossetu sita hone ga ima tunagat te iru saityuu da broken bone NOM now heal ASP PRG The broken bone is healing now

PAGE 183

173 l. Sakana ga zyuuzyuu to yake te iru saityuu da fish NOM nicely roas t ASP PRG Fish is cooking nicely now To summarize, in light of the results of the two syntactic tests, I propose to reclassify Japanese intransitive change of state verbs as follows. Firstly, the change of state verbs sh ould be separated into interval and non interval groups. My findings have shown that a majority of the verbs belong to the interval group. Secondly, verbs of the interval group should be further divided into a specified endpoint group and an unspecifie d endpoint group. This classification is diagrammed below. (38) specified endpoint ( nie boil, yake roast, interval of time toke melt, etc.) unspecified endpoint ( koe get fat, agar rise, hae grow, etc.) chan ge non interval of time ( war break, or snap, yabure tear, etc.) My conclusion is that when intransitive members of Japanese morphological pairs represent change of state or location, it is the combination of an interval of time and a specific endpoint that enables these verbs to have progressive meanings in the te iru construction. 5.7 Summary I have maintained in this chapter that change of state verbs in Japanese should not be classified as one single group. Instead, in applying the theoret ical framework of interval semantics to Japanese morphological pairs, I have demonstrated that change of state verbs should be reclassified based on the interval of time and the specificity of the

PAGE 184

174 endpoint of a change. In this way, we are better able to pr edict the emergence of progressive meanings among intransitive members of morphological pairs. My view is basically consistent with Okuda in that change of state is the most crucial factor in inducing a perfect meaning in the te iru construction. In the c ourse of my analysis, however, I have proposed that the interval of time involving a change of state, which is rejected by Okuda, and the endpoint of change should be taken into account for providing a more precise explanation to some special verbs like ya ke and toke

PAGE 185

175 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 6.1 Conclusion The primary objective of this dissertation has been to provide a thorough lexical semantic approach for Japanese ergative pairs based on the rich research tradition of the lexical semantic approach to ergative pairs in Western linguistics. Specifically, there were two primary goals of conducting a lexical semantic analysis of Japanese ergative pairs. First, it was expected that additional data from non European languages like Japanese might add new perspective to the findings of previous studies, serving in part to test the validity of the lexical semantic approach which has been predominantly targeted toward European languages. Second, in light of the fact that Japanese linguistics or kokugogaku has a long, ric h tradition of detailed morphological description of ergative pairs, my constant position was to de emphasize and minimize the role of derivational morphology in dealing with ergative alternation so that other areas of studies such as syntax and semantics would receive more of our attention. As for the first goal, I demonstrated that a lexical semantic approach to the ergative alternation is feasible for explicating the alternating behaviors of certain semantically coherent groups of verbs in Japanese. In e ssence, change of state, a semantic property that is viewed as a crucial factor in triggering verbs alternation in English, proved to have significant relevance to the distinction between verbs which undergo the ergative alternation and verb s which do not I proposed that the unavailability of

PAGE 186

176 tatakar for instance, as a possible intransitive equivalent of tatak hit be accounted for due to the lack of the semantic property change of state associated with the verb, as with the English hit For those v erbs that express change of state but yet fail to alternate in transitivity, I proposed to consider two additional semantic factors, that is (1) specification of a means or an instrument and (2) the contrast between onset and extended causations. For the f irst factor, it was demonstrated that our understanding that some verbs lexically specify a means or an instrument provided an account for the non alternating behaviors of change of state transitive verbs such as kar cut (with a sickle) and hik grind. What is more noteworthy about the concept of specification of a means and an instrument is that it proved to correctly account for the pair kir /kire cut/get cut, which is characterized as being inconsistent with respect to its alternating behaviors. The foregoing discussion revealed that kir is lexically optional as to whether it specifies the use of a cutting device and that the alternation between the pair kir /kire obtains only when the transitive kir is used in a context where the verb does not necessitate the use of an instrument. As for the onset and extended causations, it was shown that the contrast explains the non alternating behaviors of some transitive change of state verbs like destroy and devastate in English. While these verbs, which represent the semantic class destroy verbs, might well be characterized as verbs of total destruction (Levin 1993a), I proposed that the extendedness of causation associated with the verbs would better account for the impossibility of their ergative (or i nchoative) use. Interestingly enough, it was shown that the criterion of onset extended causation does not hold for the Japanese equivalents collectively referred to as hakai suru destroy verbs since many of the hakai suru verbs

PAGE 187

177 are intransitive. This pr esents a striking contrast to the English destroy verbs, which are predominantly transitive. As for the second goal of the research, I analyzed 341 ergative pairs identified and classified by Jacobsen (1992 ) according to certain regular derivational patter ns. The result of my research showed that there are a large number of pairs which, while they are morphologically related, hold more or less tenuous semantic links. I proposed that such semantically less transparent pairs be separated from those which are semantically transparent. Based on the theory of Distributed Morphology I further suggested that the insertion of derivational suffixes take place post lexically. The implication of this view is that productivity is not necessarily measured by the extent t o which the relationship between form and meaning is predictable. Rather, at least in the case of ergative pairs in particular, the semantic coherence and transparency is crucial in determining whether a given pair is listed as separate lexical items or ge nerated from a single lexical item. We also explored aspectual characteristics of Japanese ergative pairs in combination with the aspectual marker te iru Our investigations have revealed that the emergence of the two distinct aspectual meanings progressi ve and perfect associated with ergative transitives and ergative intransitives, respectively, has to do with the correlation between thematic roles and their grammatical functions. We observed that the thematic role in the syntactic subject in a sentence d etermines the aspectual meaning of the te iru predicate in Japanese. That is, an Agent role in the syntactic subject position induces a progressive reading in an ergative transitive te iru predicate and a Theme role in the same position induces a perfect meaning in an ergative intransitive te iru predicate. Furthermore, I pointed out that some ergative intransitives could be interpreted as

PAGE 188

178 progressive, and demonstrated that this phenomenon would be accounted for by further specifying change of state base d on interval of time and telicity. This aspectual research has indicated the significance of considering ergative pairs not only from the perspective of semantic verb class but also from the perspective of transitivity within a pair. Lastly, pedagogic al implications of the findings are in order. It is generally agreed that non native speakers find comprehending and remembering the distinction between ergative transitives and intransitives in Japanese, each of which has rigid morphological oppositions, to be an onerous task (Yoshikawa 1989:71). This is particularly true of learners whose native language, like English, has no such morphological distinctions between ergative pairs. To these learners, even the fact that ergative alternations are universally observed across languages seems to provide little help. In particular, the overwhelming number of morphological pairs could discourage learners from continuing with their study of Japanese. In this light, while the research method adopted in the present study is rather theoretical, I believe that the pedagogical implications of my findings will hold major significance both for teachers and learners of Japanese. Firstly, the elimination of a number of semantically tenuous and archaic pairs from Jacobsen s list of ergative pairs has enabled us to propose a new, simplified classification of ergative pairs. As a consequence, the semantically, as well as morphologically, constant classification will facilitate the acquisition of this particular group of verbs b y learners of Japanese. Secondly, my claim that morphological pairs are partially productive or predictable will help students to better deal with a linguistic phenomenon that has usually been left simply

PAGE 189

179 to a matter of memorization. While it may still be a controversial issue whether the framework of Distributed Morphology is viable for explaining the entire derivational patterns of Japanese ergative verb pairs, I believe that the analysis presented in Chapter 4 may well lead us to further points of debat es regarding how we may be able to utilize the notion of productivity to challenge the heavy reliance in the field of pedagogy on memorizing ergative pairs. 6.2 Further Issues 6.2.1 Validity of Lexical Semantics Syntax Interface The current research posite d the existence of a close correlation between the semantics of verbs and syntactic behaviors like argument structure and alternations. Based on this view, I maintained that verbs of certain semantic classes show noticeable consistent syntactic behaviors b oth in English and Japanese. As repeatedly mentioned, however, previous studies have also pointed out a number of cases that appear to challenge the semantic class model (cf. C. Rosen 1984, S.T. Rosen 1996, Lemmens 1998, Ritter and Rosen 1998). One of the difficulties that the semantic class model is confronted with is that a majority of verbs can appear in a bewildering range of syntactic contexts ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:279). For instance, the Japanese verb orir get off is shown to take a vari ety of argument structures. (1) a. kuruma kara ori ru car from get off INF to get off (from) the car b. kuruma o ori ru car ACC get off INF to get off the car

PAGE 190

180 c tugi no ek i de densya o ori ru next GEN station at train ACC get off INF to get off the train at the next station d. erebeetaa de sankai made ori ru elevator in third floor down to come down I NF to come down to the third floor in an elevator Needless to say, lexical semantic approaches alone are incapable of predicting every single syntactic structure involving orir Given such multi faceted behaviors of verbs in terms of argumen t structure, one may well have good reason to question the validity of proposing the semantic class model or universal mapping relations such as Universal Alignment Hypothesis and Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (cf. Rosen 1996:192). As discussed in Chapter 3, verbs that belong to the same semantic class can behave differently in terms of the ergative alternation. Ritter and Rosen stress this point, arguing against the use of verb meanings for explicating alternating behaviors of verbs: The variab le behavior of verbs with respect to the different alternations undermines the lexical semantic approach; it is difficult to see how the lexical semantic specification of a single verb could exclude an alternation in one use and allow it in another (Ritter and Rosen 1998:141). Moreover, it seems that classifications of verbs are not determined solely by their meanings (Ritter and Rosen 1998:141). In other words, the classifications will never be flawless without taking into consideration the constructions in which those verbs occur. In keeping with this view, English verbs like dance jump or walk can be said to be ambiguous in a strict sense as to whether they are considered unergative and unaccusative. Rather, for such verbs it might be the context or co nstruction in which they occur that determines their verbal type. For instance, dance is viewed as a typical unergative verb, being unable to causativize as illustrated in (2b). However, when the directional phrase

PAGE 191

181 across the room is added the verb can occ ur in a causative transitive construction as in (2c). (2) a. Bill danced. b.*Sue danced Bill. c. Sue danced Bill across the room. (Ritter and Rosen 1998:141) Ritter and Rosen (1998) argue that the grammaticality of (c) is due to the newly ad ded telic or delimited meaning. Since telicity is one major feature differentiating unaccusativity from unergativity, one may claim that dance in (c) has shifted from the original unergative to an unaccusative. The examples appear to suggest that the com positional factor is undeniably relevant to the verb type classification. In short, the examples appear to point to the claim that it is necessary to distinguish a ver b s core semantics from the semantics of the expression when the verb appears in differe nt argument structure arrays ( Goldberg 1995b: 384) The issue of syntactic semantic interface has also been addressed under the theory of generative grammar. Based on the Projection Principle, the theory of GB has emphasized the role of the lexicon in acc ounting for the constructions of phrases and sentences, maintain ing the idea that major aspects of the syntax of sentences are directly projected from the lexical properties of verbs. In order to implement the theory of the Projection Principle, verbs must have inherently structured lexical representations which may take the form of an argument structure or may take a lexical semantic representation of some type ( Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:279). Following the proposal of the Minimalist Program, however, the role of lexicon in syntax has been greatly reduced. The basic tenet of the theory is that there is no internal interface between the lexicon and the syntax (cf. Tyler 1998:40). While there seems to be no specific discussion in Minimalist

PAGE 192

182 Program on th e issue of lexical syntactic interface with respect to the ergative alternation, it is expected that the theory will view the process of alternation as being part of the operations in the computational system (cf. Tyler 1998:7 10). 6.2.2 Causativization We have observed in Chapter 2 that certain semantically coherent transitive and intransitive verbs never alternate in transitivity under any circumstances. For instance, it was shown that certain unaccusative verbs never alternate with transitive uses (cf. S ection 2.5.5). There are some cases, however, where such rules appear to be violated. Consider the following sentences: (3) a. The government disappeared him. b. Disappear fear. c. Clinton promised to grow the economy. (S.T. Rosen 1996:203 ) As mentioned in Chapter 1, disappear is a member of verbs of occurrence, which are typically unaccusatives and usually characterized as not being used as causative transitives. Along the same lines, the verb grow in the sense of develop, strengthen is normally used intransitively. Why, then, are the causativized uses of the verbs as shown in (3) possible? In fact, while S.T. Rosen suggests that there are certain additional requirements on causativization, she stops short of explaining what these req uirements are. In relation to this issue, I recently found in a newspaper article another instance of a genuine intransitive verb being causativized. 1 1 Another case where anomalous causativization is observed is children s misuse of verbs as in You cried her (Matsumoto 2000b:190).

PAGE 193

183 (4) The fire started on the south side of the home, near a spare bedroom, then spread to the atti c and collapsed the roof, he said. ( The Gainesville Sun July 11, 2001) More interestingly, I also found in another newspaper article an example of a genuine causative transitive verb being used intransitively. (5) Technically, he s unconscious b ecause he s not conversing like you and I are conversing, but he is showing very promising signs of starting to arouse somehow, De Campos said. ( The Gainesville Sun July 12, 2001) The use of arouse in the intransitive sense as in (5) s eems particularly interesting given that it has the intransitive counterpart arise as the independent lexical item. Similar examples might well be observed the use of raise and lay as intransitive in place of rise and lie respectively. These examples seem to point to two characteristics that English has shown in the course of history in regard to verbs and their transitivity. Firstly, the syntactic and semantic distinctions between morphologically related ergative pairs become more and more unclear. Second ly, when this ambiguity occurs there is a tendency for transitive uses of verbs to eat into the semantic territory of intransitives, not vice versa. Examples of causativization of unaccusative verbs such as disappear and collapse do not seem so surprising to me considering the fact that Japanese allows a number of unaccusatives to causativize via the suffixation of as or os to the verb stems. (6) a. Ziko ga okot ta. accident NOM happen PAST An accident happened b. Torakku no untensyu ga ziko o okosi ta. truck NOM driver NOM accident ACC cause PAST The truck driver caused the accident (Kageyama 1996:180)

PAGE 194

184 (7) a. Kuzira no sugata ga suity uu ni kie ta whale GEN body NOM water into disappear PAST The body of the whale disappeared into the water b. Kuzira wa suityuu ni sono sugata o kes ita whale TOP water into its body ACC make disappear P AST The whale hid its body into the water I would assume that unaccusatives in general have potential for causativization cross linguistically. It is a question of linguistic system in each language whether one language is more prone to causa tivize unaccusatives. In languages like Japanese where there are semi productive causativizing suffixes, it is likely that we see more cases of causativization of unaccusatives. By contrast, in languages like English where no causativizing suffixes have be en developed, it is very rare to observe such causativization process. Nevertheless, simply because unaccusatives are potentially causative oriented, we have occasional chances of coming across cases like (6) and (7). Such idiosyncratic utterances might be simply slips of the tongue or intentional wrong uses of words for novel effect

PAGE 195

185 APPENDIX JACOBSEN S (1992) LIST OF ERGATIVE PAIRS INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE I. e / hageru peel in off hagu peel tr off hirakeru open in hiraku open tr hodokeru come untied hodoku untie hureru shake in huru shake tr kakeru lack in kaku lack tr kireru become cut off, severed kiru cut, sever kudakeru become smashed kudaku smash kuzikeru become crushed kuziku crush makureru become tucked up makuru tuck up mogeru come off mogu pluck off momeru become wrinkled momu wrinkle mukeru peel in muku peel tr nezireru become twisted neziru twist nugeru come off nugu take off nukeru come out nuku pull out oreru break in oru break tr sabakeru sell in sabaku sell tr sakeru tear in saku tear tr sireru become known siru come to know sogeru become worn down sogu slice off sureru rub in suru rub tr (kosureru) (kosuru) tigireru become torn off tigiru tear off tokeru dissolove in toku dissolove tr toreru be take, harvested toru take, harvest tureru be caught (of fish) turu catch (fish) ureru sell in uru sell tr wareru break in waru break tr yabureru tear in yaburu tear tr yakeru burn in yaku burn tr yoz ireru become twisted yoziru twist

PAGE 196

186 Cf. also: mieru become visible miru see nieru boil in niru boil tr II. / e aku open in akeru open tr doku (noku) get out of the way dokeru (nokeru) remove hairu enter ireru put in hikkomu draw back hikkomeru pull back hisomu lurk hisomeru conceal hukumu include (in self) hukumeru include (in another) husu lie down huseru lay down itamu hurt in itameru hurt tr kagamu bend in kagameru bend tr karamu become connected karameru connect komu become crowded komeru fill with kurusimu suffer kurusimeru torment mukau face mukaeru meet, welcome muku face mukeru cause to face (kata muku lean in katamukeru lean tr ) (so muku turn (ones back) on) so mukeru turn tr away (utu muku look down utu mukeru cause to face down) nagusamu become consoled nagusameru console narabu line up in naraberu line up tr nurumu become lukewarm nurumeru make lukewa rm sirizoku retreat sirizoku drive back sizumu sink intr sizumeru sink tr sitagau go along with sitagaeru take along with sodatu grow up sodateru bring up, raise sorou become complete soroeru make complete sou go along with soeru add sobomu (tubomu) become narrow sobomeru (tubomeru) make narrow sukumu crouch sukumeru duck (ones head) susumu advance in susumeru advance tr tagau differ tagaeru break (ones word) tatu stand in tateru stand t r (ara datu become aggravated ara dateru aggravate) (ira datu become irritated ira dateru irritate) (saka datu stand on end saka dateru ruffle up) tawamu bend in tawameru bend tr tigau differ tigaeru change (matigau become m istaken matigaeru mistake) tizimu shrink tizimeru reduce todoku be delivered todokeru deliver

PAGE 197

187 tugau mate in with tugaeru mate tr with tuku adhere to tukeru attach (kata zuku become tidy kata zukeru tidy up) (kizu tuku become damaged kizu tukeru damage) (na tuku become attached to na tukeru win over) (tika zuku approach tika zukeru allow to approach) tumu become packed tumeru pack tutau go along tutaeru transmit tuzuku continue in tuzuker u continue tr ukabu float in ukaberu float tr yamu stop in yameru stop tr yasumu rest in yasumeru rest tr yawaragu become softened yawarageru soften yurumu become loose yurumeru loosen yugamu become crooked yugameru bend t r yureru shake yuru shake tr III. ar / e agaru rise ageru raise aratamaru become improved aratameru improve ataru touch ateru cause to touch atatamaru become warm atatameru warm tr up atumaru gather in atumeru gath er tr azukaru keep azukeru entrust to butukaru bump into butukeru strike against hamaru fit in into hameru fit tr into hayamaru become hasty \ hayameru hasten hazimaru begin in hazimeru begin tr hedataru become separated he dateru separate hikumaru become lower hikumeru lower hirogaru spread in out hirogeru spread tr out hiromaru spread in hiromeru spread tr hukamaru deepen in hukameru deepen tr kabusaru become covered kabuseru cover kakaru hang in come in contact kakeru hang tr put in contact karamaru become connected karameru connect kasanaru pile up in kasaneru pile up tr katamaru harden in katameru harden tr kawaru change in kaeru change tr kimaru become decided kime ru decide kiwamaru reach an extreme kiwameru carry to an extreme kiyomaru become pure kiyomeru purify kurumaru become wrapped up in kurumeru lump together with kuwawaru join intr kuwaeru add marumaru become round marumeru make round

PAGE 198

188 matomaru take shape matomeru put into order mazaru become mixed with mazeru mix with maziwaru mingle with mazieru mix with mitukaru be found mitukeru find mookaru be earned mookeru earn nukumaru become warm nukum eru warm tr up osamaru subside osameru pacify osowaru learn osieru teach owaru end in oeru end tr sadamaru be decided sadameru decide sagaru become lower sageru lower (bura sagaru hang in down bura sageru hang tr down s azukaru receive sazukeru grant sebamaru become narrow sebameru make narrow simaru close in become tight simeru close tr tighten sizumaru become quiet sizumeru make quiet somaru be dyed someru dye sonawaru be provided sona eru provide with sobomaru (tubomaru) become narrow sobomeru (tubomeru) make narrow sutaru fall into disuse suteru throw away suwaru sit sueru set takamaru rise takameru raise tamaru collect in tameru collect tr tasukaru be helped tasukeru help tazusawaru participate in tazusaeru carry on ones person tizimaru (tuzumaru) shrink tizimeru (tuzumeru) reduce todomaru stop in todomeru stop tr tomaru stop in tomeru stop tr toozakaru move away toozak eru keep at a distance tukaru soak in in tukeru soak tr in tumaru become packed tumeru pack turanaru line up in turaneru line up tr tutawaru be handed down tutaeru transmit tutomaru be fit for the role of tutomeru play the r ole of tuyomeru become strong tuyomeru strengthen ukaru pass (an exam) ukeru take (an exam) umaru (uzumaru) be buried umeru (uzumeru) bury usumaru become thin usumeru make thin uwaru be planted ueru plant yasumaru become re sted yasumeru rest yokotawaru lie down yokotaeru lay down yowamaru weaken in yowameru weaken tr yudaru be boiled yuderu boil

PAGE 199

189 IV ar / hasamaru become caught between hasamu put between husagaru become obstructed husagu obstruct kurumaru become wrapped up in kurumu wrap up matagaru sit astride matagu straddle tamawaru be granted tamau grant togaru become sharp togu sharpen tukamaru be caught tukamu catch tunagaru become connected tunagu connect V. r / s amaru remain amasu let remain hitaru soak in in hitasu soak tr in kaeru return in kaesu return tr (hiru gaeru wave in hiru gaesu wave tr (kutu gaeru tip in over kutugaesu tip tr over kaeru hatch in kaesu hatch tr kieru go out kesu extinguish kitaru come kitasu bring about korogaru roll in korogasu roll tr kudaru go down kudasu lower mawaru turn in mawasu turn tr modoru return in modosu return tr naoru becom e better naosu fix naru become nasu make (nakunaru become lost, die nakunasu lose) nigoru become muddy nigosu muddy noboru rise nobosu bring up, serve nokoru remain nokosu leave okoru happen okosu cause satoru realize satosu make realize simeru become wet simesu wet taru suffice tasu add, supplement tirakaru become scattered tirakasu scatter tomoru become lit tomosu light tooru pass through toosu let pass through uturu appear, become reflected utusu capture (an image), reflect uturu move intr uturu move tr wataru cross over watasu hand over yadoru lodge at yadosu give lodging to VI. re / s arawareru appear arawasu show

PAGE 200

190 hanareru move awa y from hanasu separate from hazureru come off hazusu take off kakureru hide in kakusu hide tr kegareru become unclear kegasu make unclear koboreru spill in kobosu spill tr kogareru burn with passion for kogasu scorch konare ru become digested konasu digest kowareru break in kowasu break tr kuzureru collapse kuzusu demolish mabureru become smeared mabusu smear midareru become disordered midasu put into disorder mureru become steamed musu steam nagareru flow nagasu wash away nogareru escape nogasu let escape taoreru fall taosu bring down tubureru become crushed tubusu crush VII. ri / s kariru borrow kasu lend tariru suffice tasu add, supplement VI II. / as aku open in akasu reveal au go together awasu bring together hagemu be diligent in hagemasu encourage hekomu become dented hekomasu dent heru decrease in herasu decrease tr hikaru shine hikarasu cause to s hine hikkomu draw back hikkomasu pull back huku blow in hukasu puff, smoke hukuramu swell hukuramasu cause to swell huru rain hurasu cause to rain kagayaku shine kagayakasu cause to shine kawaku dry in kawakasu dry tr kiku take effect kikasu use kooru freeze in koorasu freeze tr koru become absorbed in korasu concentrate tr on kusaru spoil in kusarasu spoil tr mayou become perplexed mayowasu perplex meguru come around megurasu turn a round moru leak in morasu leak tr naku cry nakasu cause to cry naru ring in narasu ring tr nayamu be troubled nayamasu trouble

PAGE 201

191 odoroku be surprised odorokasu surprise sawagu become excited sawagasu cause excitement s oru bend in sorasu bend tr suberu slip suberasu let slip suku become transparent sukasu make transparent sumu end in sumasu end tr teru shine terasu shine light on tiru scatter in tirasu scatter tr tobu fly tob asu let fly togaru become sharp togarasu sharpen tomu become rich tomasu make rich ugoku move in ugokasu move tr waku boil in wakasu boil tr wazurau be troubled wazurawasu trouble yorokobu be happy yorokobasu please IX. e / as akeru dawn akasu spend (the night) areru become ravaged arasu ravage bakeru turn into bakasu bewitch bareru come to light barasu expose bokeru become unclear bokasu make unclear deru come out dasu take out haeru grow in hayasu grow tr hageru peel intr off hagasu peel tr off hareru clear in up harasu clear tr up hateru come to an end hatasu carry out hieru become cool hiyasu cool hueru increase in huyasu increase hukeru grow late hukasu stay up late at (night) huyakeru become soaked huyakasu soak ieru heal in iyasu heal tr kakeru become lacking kakasu miss (a meeting) kareru wither; dry in out karasu let wither, dry tr out kireru run out in kirasu run out of koeru become fat, fertile koyasu fatten, fertilize kogeru become scorched kogasu scorch korogeru roll in korogasu roll tr kozireru become worse kozirasu make worse kureru (day, year) comes to an end kurasu pass (time) magireru become confused with; magirasu conceal in; distract be distracted makeru be defeated makasu defeat moeru burn in moyasu burn tr moreru leak in morasu leak tr

PAGE 202

192 mureru become steamed murasu ste am nareru become accustomed to narasu accustom to, tame nigeru escape nigasu let escape nukeru be left out nukasu leave out nureru become wet nureru make wet okureru be late for okurasu delay sameru awake samasu wake tr up soreru deviate sorasu divert taeru die out tayasu exterminate tareru drop in tarasu let drop tizireru become curly tizirasu curl tr tokeru melt in tokasu melt tr torokeru melt in ; be bewitched torokasu melt tr ; bew itch tuieru be wasted tuiyasu consume zireru be impatient zirasu irritate zureru become out of line zurasu shift out of line zyareru be playful zyarasu play with X. i /as akiru grow tired of akasu make (one) tire of d ekiru come into existence dekasu bring about ikiru live ikasu bring to life koriru learn (from experience) korasu give (one) a lesson mitiru become full mitasu fill nobiru become extended nobasu extend toziru close in to zasu close tr XI. i / os hiru become dry hosu dry horobiru go to ruin horobosu destroy okiru get up in okosu get tr up oriru get off orosu let off otiru fall otosu drop sugiru go past sugosu pass (time) XII. / se abiru pour (over oneself) abiseru pour (over another) kaburu become covered with, put kabuseru cover (with), put on anothers on (ones own) head head kiru put on (ones own) body kseru put on (anothers) body niru resem ble niseru model after noru get on noseru put on, give a ride to

PAGE 203

193 yoru approach yoseru allow to approach Cf. also: miru see miseru show XIII. e / akas amaeru act dependent (on) amayakasu spoil hagureru stray from hagurakasu put off, evade obieru become frightened at obiyakasu frighten, threaten sobieru rise high sobiyakasu hold (shoulders) high Cf. also: neru go to bed nekaseru put to bed XIV. or / e komoru be fully present komeru fi ll with nukumoru become warm nukumeru warm tr up XV. are / e sutareru fall into disuse suteru throw away torawareru be seized with, caught by toraeru seize, catch wakareru become divided wakeru divide XVI. Miscellaneous affix pa irs not fitting the above patterns hagareru peel in off hagu peel tr off hogureru become untied hogusu untie hosoru become thin hosomeru make narrow hukureru swell hukuramasu cause to swell kakeru run karu drive, spur kasur eru become hoarse karasu make hoarse kikoeru become audible kiku hear koeru go over kosu go over kudaru go down kudasaru bestow kusuburu smoke kusuberu fumigate maziru become mixed mazeru mix with nakunaru become los t nakusu lose nigiwau become prosperous nigiwasu make prosperous nobiru become extended noberu extend obusaru get on (someones back) obuu carry on (ones back) oyobu reach oyobosu extend (influence) to

PAGE 204

1 94 sasaru become stuck in sasu stick, thrust into tukamaru become caught tukamaeru catch tukiru run out in tukusu use up tumoru become accumulated tumu accumulate umareru be born umu give birth to uruou become moistened uruosu moisten useru disap pear usinau lose uzumoreru become buried uzumeru bury yureru sway yurugasu cause to sway

PAGE 205

19 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdul Raof, Hussein. 1998. Subject, Theme and Agent in Modern Standard Arabic Surrey: Curzon. Abraham, Werner. 1990. A Note on the Aspect Syntax Interface. In Joan Mascaro and Marina Nespor (eds.). Grammar in Progress: GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk Dordrecht: Foris Publications: 1 12. Abusch, Dorit. 1986. Verbs of Change, Causation, and Time Stanford, Cal. : CSLI. Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1994. The Middle Construction and the Syntax Semantics Int erface. Lingua 93: 59 90. Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middles and Nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 173 197. Allerton, D.J. 1982. Valency and the English Verb London: Academic Press. Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the Argument Structu re of Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 517 555. Alsina, Alex. 1996. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance Stanford, Cal. : CSLI. Anderson, Mona Katherine. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure Doctoral dissertation. University of C onnecticut. Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. Comments on the Paper by Wasaw. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasaw and Adrian Akmajian (eds.). Formal Syntax New York: Academic Press: 361 377. Ando, Sadao. 1982. Nihongo doosi no asupekuto (Aspect of Japanes e Verbs). Gekkan Gengo 11(9): 84 108. Apresjan, Ju. D. 1973. Regular Polysemy. Linguistics 142: 5 32. Arad, Maya. 1998. Are Unaccusatives Aspectually Characterized? (and other related questions). The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 1 20. A ronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

PAGE 206

196 Atkins, Beryl T, Judy Kegal and Beth Levin. 1988. Anatomy of a Verb Entry: from Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice. International Journal of Lexicography 1: 84 126. Bach, Emmon. 1981. On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics. In Peter Cole (ed.). Radical Pragmatics New York: Academic Press: 63 81. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing Chicago: U niversity of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark, Kyle Johnson and Ian Roberts. 1989. Passive Arguments Raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219 251. Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17 : 19 47. Borer, Hagit. 1998. Deriving Passive Without Theta Roles. In Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari and Patrick M. Farrell (eds.). Morpho logy and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications: 60 99. Borer, Hagit and Kenneth Wexler. 1987. The Maturation of Syntax. In Thomas Roeper and Edwin Williams (eds.). Parameter Setting Dordrecht: Reidel: 123 172. Bower s, John S. 1981. The Theory of Grammatical Relations Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. In Joan Bresnan (ed.). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press: 3 86 Bresnan, Joan and Jonni. M. Kanerva. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1 50. Bresnan, Joan and Annie Zaenen. 1990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Far rell and Errapel Mejias Bikanidi (eds.). Grammatical Relations: A Cross Theoretical Perspective Stanford, Cal. : CSLI: 45 57. Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 207

197 Bris s on, Christine. 1994. The Licensing of Unexpressed Obje cts in English Verbs. Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Chicago Linguistic Society: 90 102. Brousseau, Anne Marie and Elizabeth Ritter. 1991. A Non Unified Analysis of Agentive Verbs. The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications: 53 64. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax Dordrecht: Reidel. Carrier, Jill and Jannet H. Randall. 1992. The Argument Structu re and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173 234. Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, Mass.: Th e MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar New York: John Wiley: 184 277. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding Do rdrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Chung, Sandra and Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, Aspect, and Moo d. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 202 258. Clark, Eve V and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language 55: 767 811. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Aspect and Voice: Some Reflections on Perfect and Passive. In Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen (eds.). Syntax and Semantics Vol. 14: Tense and Aspect New York: Academic Press: 65 78.

PAGE 208

198 Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Causative Verb Formation and Other Verb deriving Morphology. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Descri ption Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 309 348. Condoravdi, Cleo. 1989. The Middle: Where Semantics and Morphology Meet. Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics : 53 64. Cook, Vivian and Mark Newson. 1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Croft, William. 1990. Possible Verbs and the Structure of Events. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.). Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Lingu istic Categorization London: Routledge: 48 73. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Croft, William. 1994. Voices: Beyond Control and Affectedness. In Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). Voices: Form and Function Amsterdam: John Benjamin: 89 117. Cruse, D. Alan. 1972. A Note on English Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 520 28. Cruse, D. Alan. 1973. Some Thoughts on Agentivit y. Journal of Linguistics 9: 11 21. Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davidse, Kristin. 1992. Transitivity/ergativity: The Janus Headed Grammar of Actions and Events. In Martin Davies and Louise Ravelli (eds.). Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice London: Pinter Publishers: 104 135. Delancey, Scott. 1982. Lhasa Tibetian: A Case Study in Ergative Typology. Journal of Linguistic Research 2(1): 21 31. Delancey, Scott. 1984. No tes on Agentivity and Causation. Studies in Language 8: 181 213. Delancey, Scott. 1985. Agentivity and Syntax. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity Chicago Linguistic Society: 1 12. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where Have All the A djectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax Berlin: Mouton. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principle Oxford: Clare n don Press.

PAGE 209

199 Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar Dordrecht: Reide l. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67: 547 619. Dubinsky, Stanley. 1985. Japanese Union Constructions: A Unified Analysis of sase and rare Doctoral dissertation. Cornell University. Embick, David. 1998. Voice Systems and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics : 41 72. Engelberg, Stefan. 1999. 'Punctuality' and Verb Semantics. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics : 127 140. Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1988. The English Middle . Linguistic Inquiry 19: 181 203. Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fehri, Abdelkader Fassi. 1987. Anti Causatives in Arabic, Cau sativity and Affectedness Lexicon Project Working Papers 15. Fellbaum, Christiane. 1990. English Verbs as a Semantic Net. International Journal of Lexicography 3: 279 301. Fellbaum, Christiane. 2000. Autotroponomy. In Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacoc k (eds.). Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches Oxford: Oxford University Press: 52 67. Fellbaum, Christiane and Anne Zribi Hertz. 1989. The Middle Construction in French and English: A Comparative Study of its Syntax and Semantics Bloomin gton, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications. Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface Structure: The Interface of Autonomous Components Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Refer ence New York: Carland Publishing. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968a. Lexical Entries for Verbs. Foundations of Language 4: 373 393. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968b. The Case for Case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T Harms, (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston: 1 88.

PAGE 210

200 Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The Grammar of 'Hitting' and 'Breaking'. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar New York: John Wiley: 120 133. Fillmo re, Charles J. 1977. The Case for Case Reopened. In Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations New York: Academic Press: 59 81. Foder, Jerry A. 1970. Three Reasons for not Deriving 'kill' from 'cause to die '. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429 438. Foley, William F and Robert D. Van Valin Jr 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fontenelle, Thierry and Jocelyne Vanandroye. 1989. Retrieving Ergative Verbs from a Lexical Data Base. Dictionaries 11: 11 39. Fujii, Tadashi. 1976. 'Doosi + te iru' no imi (The meaning of 'verb + te iru'). In Haruhiko Kindaichi (ed.). Nihongo doosi no asupekuto (Aspect of Japanese verbs) Tokyo: Mugi Shobo: 97 116. Fujita, Koji. 1 994. Middle, Ergative & Passive in English: A Minimalist Perspective. The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 71 90. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995a. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago: Chicago University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995b. The Relationships between Verbs and Constructions. In Marjolijn Versoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 383 398. Greenber g, Josepf Harold. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Josepf Harold Greenberg (ed.). Universals of Language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 73 113. Grimshaw, Jane. 1987. Unaccusative -An Ove rview. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 17 : 244 59. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Grimshaw, Jane. 1994. Lexical Reconciliation. Lingua 92: 411 430.

PAGE 211

201 Grimshaw, Jane and Sten Vinker. 199 3. Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds.). Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 143 155. Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander and Richard Goldberg. 1991. Affectedness and Direct Objects: The Role of Lexical Semantics in the Acquisition of Verb Argument Structure. Cognition 41: 153 195. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics Amsterdam: North Holla nd Publishing Company. Guerssel, Mohamed. 1986. On Berber Verbs of Change: A Study of Transitivity Alternations Lexicon Project Working Papers 9. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin and Josie White Eagle. 1985. A Cross Linguistic Study of Transitivity Alternations. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity Chicago Linguistic Society: 48 63. Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language 59: 781 819. Hale, Kenneth and Sa muel Jay Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1987. A View from the Middle Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Hale Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1988. Explaining and Constraining the English Middle. In Carol Tenny (ed.). Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science: 41 57. Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 199 3. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press: 53 109. Hale, Kenneth and Samue l Jay Keyser. 1997. On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (eds.). Complex Predicates Stanford, Cal.: CSLI: 29 65. Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. The Basic Elements of Argument Structure. The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32 : 73 118. Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1999. Bound Features, Merge, and Transitivity Alternation. Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon 35 : 49 72.

PAGE 212

202 Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Keyser Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). The View From Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press: 111 176. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275 288. Harasawa, Itsuo. 1994. A Pragmatic View of V te i ru and V te ar u . Journal of Pragmatics 22: 169 197. Harley, Heidi and Rolf Noyer. 1998. Licensing in the Non Lexical Lexicon: Nominalizations, Vocabulary Items and the Encyclopedia. The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32 : 119 137. Hasegawa, Yoko. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective 'te' in Japanese Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications. H aspelmath, Mark. 1993. More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.). Causatives and Transitives Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 87 120. Hayashi, Mari and Rumiko Shinzato. 1991. 'Doosi te iru' no asupekuto: kateisei to yuugensei ni yoru kizyutu (Aspect of 'verb + te iru': a description on the basis of delimitedness and durativeness). Bungaku Gogaku 128: 60 74. Hayatsu, Emiko. 1987. Taioosuru tadoosi no aru zidoosi no imiteki toogoteki tokuty oo (Characteristics of intransitive verbs with corresponding transitive verbs). Gengogaku Kenkyu 6: 79 109. Hayatsu, Emiko. 1989. Yuutui tadoosi to mutui tadoosi no imizyoo no bunpu (Semantic distribution of alternating transitive verbs and non alterna ting transitive verbs). Mathematical Linguistics 16: 353 364. Hayatsu, Emiko. 1995. Yuutui tadoosi to mutui tadoosi no tigai nituite (On differences between alternating transitive verbs and non alternating transitive verbs). In Kazuyoshi Suga and Emik o Hayat s u (eds.). Doosi no zi ta (Transitivity and intransitivity of verbs) Tokyo: Hit s uji Shobo: 179 197. Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in Government Binding Theory Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Hoekstra, Teun and Rene M ulder. 1990. Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1 79.

PAGE 213

203 Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle Constructions in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds.). Knowledge an d Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 183 220. Hopper, Paul J and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56: 251 299. Horn, Laurence R. 1980. Affixation and the Unaccu sative Hypothesis. Chicago Linguistics Society 16 : 134 146. Huddleston, Rodney. 1970. Some Remarks on Case Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 501 511. Ichihashi, Kumiko. 1992. A Study on Transitivity Alternation in Japanese Master's thesis. University of Kansas. Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. Suru to naru no gengogaku (Linguistics of 'do' and 'become') Tokyo: Taishukan. Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1988. Transitivity: Intransitivization vs. Causativization: Some Typological Considerations Concerning Verbs of Ac tion. In Caroline Duncan Rose and Theo Vennemann (eds.). On Language: Rhetorica, Phonolgica, Syntactica London: Routledge: 389 401. Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpoo to nihongo (Transformational grammar and Japanese) Tokyo: Taishukan. Jackendoff, R ay S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1976. Toward an Explanatory Semantic Representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 89 150. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1982a. Transitivity in the Japanese Verbal System Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Jacobs en, Wesley M. 1982b. Vendler's Verb Classes and the Aspectual Character of Japanese te iru . Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society : Berkeley Linguistics Society: 373 383.

PAGE 214

204 Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1984. Lexical Aspect in Japanese. Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics : Chicago Linguistic Society: 150 161. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1985. Morphosyntactic Transitivity and Semantic Markedness. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity : Chicago Lingu istic Society: 122 37. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1989. Tadosei to puroto taipu ron (Transitivity and prototype). In Susumu Kuno and Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.). Nihongo gaku no shin tenkai (New developments of the studies of Japanese linguistics) Tokyo: Kuro sio Publishers: 213 248. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1997. Agentivity and Aspect in Japanese. In Akio Kamio (ed.). Directions in Functional Linguistics Amst erdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 83 116. Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587 622. Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles Part 3: Syntax .Vol.2. Heidelberg: Carl Winters. Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to gokeisei (Grammar and word formation) Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Doosi imi ron (Verbal semantics) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Kageyama, Taro. 1999. Keitairon to imi (Morphology and meaning) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Kanaya, Takehiro. 2000. Doosi no zita tairitu no keitairon teki kanzen kaimei (Morphological analysis of Japanese transitivity alternation). The Eighth Princeton Japanese Pedagogy Workshop : ms. Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion, and Will London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Keyser, Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the Middle and Ergative Constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 381 416. Kilby, David. 1984. Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb London: Croom Helm. Kindaichi, Haruhi ko. 1950. Nihongo doosi no itibunrui (A classification of Japanese verbs). Gengo Kenkyu 15: 48 63.

PAGE 215

205 Kindaichi, Haruhiko (ed.). 1976. Nihongo doosi no asupekuto (Aspect in Japanese verbs) Tokyo: Mugi Shobo. King, Robert Thomas. 1988. Spatial Metaphor in German Causative Constructions. In Brygida Rudzka Ostyn (ed.). Topics in Cognitive Linguistics Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company: 555 585. Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. Remarks on Denominal Verbs. In Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan and Peter Sells (e ds.). Complex Predicates Stanford, Ca l .: CSLI: 473 499. Kiryu, Kazuyuki. 1999. Conceptualization and Aspect in Some Asian Languages. In Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov (eds.). Tense Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity: Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 43 62. Kishimoto, Hideki. 1996. Split Intransitivity in Japanese and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Language 72: 248 86. Kita, Sotaro. 1999. Japanese Enter/Exit Verbs without Motion Semantics. Studies in Language 23: 307 330. Kitagawa, Chisato and Hideo Fujii. 1999. Transitivity Alternations in Japanese. Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon : 87 115. Kitazume, Sachiko. 1996. Middles in English. Word 47: 161 183. Kizu, Mik a. 1996. A Goal Phrase and Unaccusativity. ESCOL 96 : 194 205. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Secondary Predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 25 79. Komatsu, Hideo. 1999. Nihongo wa naze henka suru ka (Dynamics of the Japanese language: From a universal point of view) Tokyo: Kasama Shoin. Kornfilt, Jaklin and Nelson Correa. 1993. Conceptual Structure and Its Relation to the Structure of Lexical Entries. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham (eds.). Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conce ptual Structure Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 79 118. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.). Phrase Structure and the Lexicon Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 1 09 137. Kuginuki, Toru. 1970. Zyoodai go doosi ni okeru zita taioo keisiki no siteki tenkai (Historical development of transitive intransitive correspondence in Old Japanese). Kokugo Ronkyu 2: 240 284.

PAGE 216

206 Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Languages Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kuroda, Shige Yuki. 1965. Causative Forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 1: 30 50. Kuroda, Shige Yuki. 1993. Lexical and Productive Causatives in Japanese: An Examination of the Theory of Paradigmatic St ructure. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 15: 1 81. Labelle, Marie. 1992. Change of State and Valency. Journal of Linguistics 28: 375 414. Lakoff, George. 1968a. Some Verbs of Change and Causation. In Susumu Kuno (ed.). Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press: III 1 27. Lakoff, George. 1968b. Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure. Foundations of Language 4: 4 29. Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity of Syntax New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston. Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society : 236 287. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2 Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press. Langendoen, D. Terence. 1970. Essentials of English Grammar New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335 391. Lemmens, Maarten. 1998. Lexical Perspectives on Transitivity and Ergativity Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Levin, Beth. 1985. Lexical Semantics in Review: an Introduction Lexical Project Working Papers 1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Levin, Beth. 1993a. English Verb Class and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 217

207 Levin, Beth. 1993b. The Contribution of Linguistics. In Madelein Bates and Ralph M. Weischedel (eds.). Challenges in Natural Language Processing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 76 98. Levin, Beth. 1995. Approaches to Lexical Semantic Representation. In Donald E. Walker, Antonio Zampolli and Nicolleta Calzolari (eds.). Autom ating the Lexicon: Research and Practice in a Multilingual Environment Oxford: Oxford University Press: 53 91. Levin, Beth and Steven Pinker. 1991. Introduction to Special Issue of Cognition on Lexical and Conceptual Semantics. Cognition 41: 1 7. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1986. The Formation of Adjectival Passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623 661. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappapo rt. 1988. Nonevent er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics 26: 1067 1083. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1989. An Approach to Unaccusative Mismatches. NELS 19 : 314 329. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992a. The Le xical Semantics of Verbs of Motion: The Perspective from Unaccusativity. In Iggy M. Roca (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar New York: Foris Publications: 247 269. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992b. Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexi cal Semantics Exploration. In Beth Levin and Steven Pinker (eds.). Lexical and Conceptual Semantics Cambridge: Blackwell: 123 151. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. Lingua 92: 35 77. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax Lexical Semantics Interface Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1996. Lexical Semantics and Syntactic Structure. In Shalom Lappin (ed.). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory Oxford: Blackwell: 487 507. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1998. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, (eds.). The Handbook of Morphology Oxford: Blackwell: 248 271 Levin, Beth and Tova R. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. Papers from the Twenty Fourth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society: 275 89.

PAGE 218

208 Levin, Beth., Grace Song and Beryl T.S. Atkins. 1997. Making Sense of Corpus Data: A Case Study of Verbs of Sound. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2: 23 64. Levin, Lori S. 1988. Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages New York: Garland Publishing. Li, Ping and Yasuhiro Shirai. 2000. The Acquisition of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lieber, Rochelle. 1998. The suffix ize in English: Implic ations for Morphology. In Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari and Patrick M. Farrell (eds.). Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications: 12 33. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics 2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manzini, Maria Rita. 1992. The Projection Principle(s): A Reexamination. In Iggy M. Roca (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar Berlin : Foris Publications: 271 291. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. U. Penn Work ing Papers in Linguistics 4 : 201 225. Martin, Samuel Elmo. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese New Haven: Yale University Press. Maruta, Tadao. 1998. Sieki doosi no anatomii: goiteki siekidoosi no goi gainen koozoo (Anatomy of causative verbs: lexic al conceptual structure of lexical causative verbs) Tokyo: Shohakusha. Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion 'Word' Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications. Matsumoto, Yo. 2000a. Causative Altern ation in English and Japanese: A Closer Look. English Linguistics 17: 160 192.

PAGE 219

209 Matsumoto, Yo. 2000b. Nihongo ni okeru tadoosi: nizyuu tadoosi pea to niti eigo no sieki kootai (Transitive verbs in Japanese: Ditransitive verb pairs and causative altern ation in Japanese and English). In Tadao Maruta and Kazuyoshi Suga (eds.). Niti eigo no zita no kootai (Transitivity alternations in English and Japanese) Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo: 167 207. Matsuoka, Mikinari. 1999. A Reconsideration of Unaccusativity in Ergative Alternations. WCCFL 18 : 351 63. Matsushita, Daisaburo. 1923. Dooshi no jita hishido no kenkyu (Study of transitivity/intransitivity and passivity/causativity of verbs). Kokugakuin Zasshi 29 30: [Reprinted in Suga & Hayatsu 1995:13 40]. Mats uzaki, Toru. 2000. Progressive and Perfect. Southern Journal of Linguistics 24: 164 182. Matsuzaki, Toru. 2001. A Semantic Approach to Transitive Alternations in Japanese: Lexical Idiosyncrasies vs. Post Lexical Derivations. SECOL LXIV The Universit y of Tennessee: ms. McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical Insertion in a Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure. Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society University of Chicago: 71 80. McCawley, James D. 1976. Re marks on What Can Cause What. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions New York: Academic Press: 117 129. McCawley, James D. 1978. Notes on Japanese Clothing Verbs. In John Hinds and Irwin Howard (e ds.). Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics Tokyo: Kaitakusha: 68 78. McClure, William. 1990. A Lexical Semantic Explanations for Unaccusative Mismatches. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Mejias Bikanidi (eds.). Grammatical Relat ions: A Cross Theoretical Perspective Stanford Cal. : CSLI: 305 318. McClure, William. 1993a. Unaccusativity and 'Inner' Aspect. WCCFL 11 : 313 325. McClure, William. 1993b. A Semantic Parameter: The Progressive in Japanese and English. Japanese/Ko rean Linguistics 3 : 254 270. McClure, William. 1996. Japanese Aspect and Kinds of Eventualities. Language Sciences 18: 277 293.

PAGE 220

210 McGinnis, Martha Jo. 1999. Reflexive Clitics and the Specifiers of nP. Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexic on 35 : 137 160. Miller, D. Gary. 1993. Complex Verb Formation Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mitsui, Masataka. 1992. Zita taioo no imi teki ruikei (A semantic classification of transitivity correspondence). Nihongo to Nihonbungaku 16: 21 30. Mitsunobu, Hitomi. 1992. Yuutui tadoosi to mutui tadoosi (Alternating transitive verbs and non alternating transitive verbs). Reisawa Daigaku Kiyoo 55: 69 89. Miyachi, Koichi. 1985. Aru gata doosi no shosoo (Aspects of ar verbs) Tokyo: Ofus ha. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1980. Complex Verbs and the Lexicon Tucson, Ariz.: University of Arizona, Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1984. Blocking and Japanese Causative. Lingua 64: 177 207. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Lexical Categories in Japanese. Lingua 73: 29 51. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1988a. Unaccusative Verbs in Japanese. ESCOL 4 : 199 210. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1988b. Theme Subjects and Numeral Quantifiers. In Wako Tawa and Mineharu Nakayama (eds.). Proceedings of Japanese Syntax Workshop New London: Conne cticut College: 132 167. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989a. Syntax and Semantics 22: Structure and Case Marking in Japanese New York: Academic Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989b. Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 659 668. Miyagaw a, Shigeru. 1998. ( S)ase as an Elsewhere Causative and the Syntactic Nature of Words. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16: 67 110. Miyajima, Tatsuo. 1972. Doosi no imi yoohoo no kizyutu teki kenkyuu (A Descriptive Study of the Meaning and Usage of Verbs ) Tokyo: Shuuei Shuppan. Miyajima, Tatsuo. 1985. 'Doa o aketa kedo akana katta': Doosi no imi ni okeru 'kekka sei' ('I opened the door, but it did not open': The resultativity of verb meaning). Mathematical Linguistics 14: 335 353. Morita, Yoshiyuki 1994. Doosi no imiron teki bunpoo kenkyuu (A semantic and syntactic study of verbs) Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.

PAGE 221

211 Moriyama, Takuro. 1988. Nihongo doosi zyutugobun no kenkyuu (A study of Japanese verb predicate sentences) Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Mourelatos, Alexa nder P. D. 1981. Events, Process, and States. In Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 14: Tense and Aspect New York: Academic Press: 191 212. Muehleisen, Victoria and Mutsumi Imai. 1995. Transitivity and the Incorporation of Ground Information in Japanese Path Verbs. In Marjolijn Versoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.). Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 329 346. Mulder, Rene and Pim Wehrmann. 1989. Lo cational Verbs as Unaccusatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989 : 111 121. Nakamura, Masaru. 1997. The Middle Construction and Semantic Passivization. In Taro Kageyama (ed.). Verb Semantics and Syntactic Structure Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers: 115 1 47. Nakau, Minoru. 1976. Tense, Aspect, and Modality. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar New York: Academic Press: 421 482. Nakayama, Mineharu and Masatoshi Koizumi. 1991. Remarks on Japanese Subjects. Lingua 85: 303 319. Nara, Hiroshi. 1999. Strength of Evidence and the Semantics of the Japanese te iru Aspect Affix. Language Sciences 21: 423 447. Nedyalkov, V.P and G.G. Silnitsky. 1973. The Typology of Morphological and Lexical Causatives. In Kiefr Ferenc (ed.). Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics Dordrecht: Reidel: 1 32. Nichols, Johanna. 1986. On Form and Content in Typology. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.). Language Typology 1985 Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 141 162. Nishiguchi, Tais uke. 1993. Long Distance Passive. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.). Japanese Syntax in Comparative Grammar Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers: 79 114. Nishimura, Yoshiki. 1993. Agentivity in Cognitive Grammar. In Richard A. Geiger and Brygida Rudzka Ostyn (eds.). Co nceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 487 530. Nishio, Toraya. 1954. Doosi no hasei ni tuite (On the derivation of verbs). Kokugogaku 17 [Reprinted in Suga & Hayatsu 1995:41 57].

PAGE 222

212 Nishio, Toraya. 1978. Zidoosi to tadoosi ni okeru imiyoohoo no taioo ni tuite (On the semantic relationship between intransitive and transitive verbs). Kokugo to Kokubungaku 55: 173 186. Nishio, Toraya. 1982. Zidoosi to tadoosi: taioosuru mono to sinai mono (Transitives and intran sitives: verbs that alternate in transitivity and those that do not). Nihongo Kyoiku 47: 57 68. Nitta, Yoshio. 1983. Doosi to asupekuto: goironteki toogoron no kanten kara (Verbs and aspect: from a lexico syntactic perspective). Mathematical Linguisti cs 14: 113 128. Nitta, Yoshio. 1983. Kekka no hukusi to sono syuuhen: goiteki toogoron no sisei kara (Resultative adverbs and their co occurring verbs: from a lexico syntactic perspective. In Minoru Watanabe (ed.). Hukuyoogo no kenkyuu (Studies of adju ncts) Tokyo: Meiji Shoin: 117 136. Noda, Naofumi. 1991. Bunpooteki na boisu to goiteki na boisu no kankei (Correlations between grammatical and lexical voice). In Yoshio Nitta (ed.). Nihongo no boisu to tadoosei (Voices and transitivity in Japanese) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan: 211 232. Nomura, Takeshi. 1982. Zidoo tadoo ukemi doosi ni tuite (On intransitive, transitive, and passive verbs). Nihongo Nihonbunka 11 [Reprinted in Suga & Hayatsu 1995:137 150]. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1983. Aspectual Properti es in English and Japanese Verb Classification. Sophia Linguistica 13: 100 107. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1998. The Ambiguity of the te iru Form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 87 120. O'Grady, William D. 1980. The Derived Intransitive Construction in English. Lingua 52: 57 72. Oishi, Akira and Yuji Matsumoto. 1997. Detecting the Organization of Semantic Subclasses of Japanese Verbs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2: 65 89. Okuda, Yasuo. 1978a. Asupekuto no kenkyuu o megutte, I (On the study of aspect, I). Kokugo Kyoiku 53: 53 65. Okuda, Yasuo. 1978b. Asupekuto no kenkyuu o megutte, II (On the study of aspect, I). Kokugo Kyoiku 54: 14 27.

PAGE 223

213 Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1967. Zidooka, tadooka, oyobi ryookyokuka tenkei (Pa tterns of intransitivization, transitivization, and bipolarization). Kokugogaku 70: 46 66. Ono, Kiyoharu. 1999. Intransitive Transitive Phrase Pairs in Japanese. Theoretical Linguistics 25: 15 29. Ono, Naoyuki. 1997. Externalization and Event Struc ture. In Taro Kageyama (ed.). Verb Semantics and Syntactic Structure Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers: 149 176. Ono, Naoyuki. 2000. Doosi kurasu moderu to zita kootai (Verb class models and transitivity alternations). In Tadao Maruta and Kazuyoshi Suga (eds .). Niti eigo no zita no kootai (Transitivity alternations in English and Japanese) Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo: 1 31. Oosten, van Jeanne. 1977. Subject and Agenthood in English. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society Chica go Linguistic Society: 459 471. Oosten, van Jeanne. 1980. Subjects, Topics and Agents: Evidence from Property factoring. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Berkeley, Cal.: Berkeley Linguistics Society: 479 494. Otsuki, Fumihiko. 1897. Koo nihon bunten (Japanese grammar) Tokyo: Benseisha. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Li n guistics Society Berkeley Linguistics Society: 157 189. Perlmutter, David M and Paul M. Postal. 1984. The 1 Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In David M. Perlm utter and Carol G. Rosen (eds.). Grammatical Relations 2 Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 81 125. Pesetsky, David M. 1982. Paths and Categories Doctoral dissertation. MIT. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argu ment Structure Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Platt, John T. 1971. Grammatical Form and Grammatical Meaning: A Tagmemic View of Fillmore's Deep Structure Case Concepts Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The Synt ax of Event Structure. Cognition 41: 47 81.

PAGE 224

214 Pustejovsky, James. 1995a. The Generative Lexicon Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Pustejovsky, James. 1995b. Unaccusativity and Event Composition. In Pier Marco Bertinet et al. (eds.). Temporal Reference Aspect and Actionality 1: Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier: 159 177. Quinn, Charles J., Jr. 1994. 'Uchi/Soto': Tip of a Semiotic Iceberg? 'Inside' and 'Outside' Knowledge in the Grammar of Japanese. In Jane M. Bachni k and Jr. (eds.) Charles J. Quinn. Situated Meaning: Inside and Outside in Japanese Self, Society, and Language Princeton, New Jers e y: Peinceton University Press: 247 294. Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalis t Approach Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rapoport, Tova R. 1993. Verbs in Depictives and Resultatives. In James Pustejovsky (ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 163 184. Rapoport, Tova R. 1999a. The Engl ish Middle and Agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 147 155. Rapoport, Tova R. 1999b. Structure, Aspect, and the Predicate. Language 75: 653 677. Rappaport, Malka. 1993. Levels of Lexical Representation. In James Pustejovsky (ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press: 37 54. Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin. 1988. What to Do with Theta roles. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 21: Thematic Relations New York: Academic Press: 7 36. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Be th Levin. 1998. Building Verb Meanings. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications: 97 134. Ravin, Yael. 1990. Lexical Semantics without Thematic Roles Ox ford: Clarendon Press. Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1998. Delimitting Events in Syntax. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds.). The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors Stanford, Cal.: CSLI Publications: 135 164. Roberts, Ian G. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit Arguments and the Head Complement Relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267 310.

PAGE 225

215 Rosch, Eleanor. 1977. Classific ation of Real World Objects: Origins and Representations in Cognition. In Philip Nicholas Johnson Laird and Peter Cathcart Wason (eds.). Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 212 222. Rosen, Carol G. 1984. The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations. In David M. Perlmutter and Carol G. Rosen (eds.). Grammatical Relations 2 Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 38 77. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1996. Events and Verb Classification. Lingu istics 34: 191 223. Ruhl, Charles. 1979. The Semantic Field of Break, Cut and Tear . The Sixth LACUS Forum South Carolina: 200 214. Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind London: Hutchinson's University Library. Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spence r. 1998. Morphology and Argument Structure. In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.). The Handbook of Morphology Oxford: Blackwell: 206 236. Sakakura, Atsuyoshi. 1974. Kaikoo nihon bunpoo no hanasi (Revised: Story of Japanese Grammar) Tokyo: Kyo iku Shuppan. Sakuma, Kanae. 1936. Gendai nihongo no hyoogen to gohoo (Expressions and uses of modern Japanese) Tokyo: Koseikakuhan. Sanfilippo, Antonio. 1991. Thematic and Aspectual Information in Verb Semantics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 87 114. Schlesinger, Izchak M. 1995. Cognitive Space and Linguistic Case: Semantic and Syntactic Categories in English Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973a. A Linguistic Study of Causative Constructions California. Doctora l dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973b. Semantics of Japanese Causativization. Foundations of Language 9: 327 373. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973c. Where Morphology and Syntax Clash: A Case in Japanese Aspectual Verbs. Gengo Kenkyu 64: 65 96. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976a. Causativization. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar New York: Academic Press: 239 294.

PAGE 226

216 Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976b. The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspectus. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions New York: Academic Press: 1 40. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and Related Constructions: A Prototype Analysis. Language 61: 821 848. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shimada, Masahiko. 1979. Kokugo ni okeru zidoosi to tadoosi (Intransitive and transitive verbs in Japanese) Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Shinzato, Rumiko. 1993. A Unified Analysis of Japanese Aspect Marker te iru . Language Quarterly 31: 41 57. Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1993. Inherent Aspect and the Acquisition of Tense Aspect Morphology in Japanese. In Heizo Nakajima and Yukio Otsu (eds.). Argument Structure: Its Syntax and Acquisition Tokyo: Kaitakusha: 185 211. Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1996. Does Accomplishments Always Have Duration? The Dowty Van Valin System vs. the Smith System of Inherent Aspect. CLS 32 Chicago Linguistics Society: 335 345. Shirai, Yasu hiro. 1997. On the Primacy of Progressive Over Resultative State: The Case of Japanese teiru . Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6 : 512 524. Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1998. Where the Progressive and the Resultative Meet: Imperfective Aspect in Japanese, Chinese, Ko rean and English. Studies in Language 22: 661 692. Shirai, Yasuhiro. 2000. The Semantics of the Japanese Imperfective teiru : An Integrative Approach. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 327 361. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic A nalysis London: Croom Helm. Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport and Annie E. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club: 143 157. Smith, Carlota S. 197 8. Jespersen's 'Move and Change' Class and Causative Verbs in English. In Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Edgar C. Polome and Werner Winter (eds.). Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill 2: Descriptive Linguistics Mouton: The Hague: 101 9.

PAGE 227

217 Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Soga, Matsuo. 1970. Similarities between Japanese and English Verb Derivations. Lingua 25: 268 290. Soga, Matsuo. 1983. Tense and Aspect in Modern Colloquial J apanese Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Somers, H. L. 1987. Valency and Case in Computational Linguistics Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Song, Grace. 1996. Causation, Adacity and Lexical Aspect. ESCOL 95 : 299 307. Song, J ae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal Typological Perspective London: Longman. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar Oxford: Blackwell. Starosta, Stanley. 1978. The One Pe r Cent Solution. In Werner Abraham (eds.). Valence, Semantic Case and Grammatical Relations Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company: 459 576. Stroik, Thomas. 1992. Middles and Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 127 137. Suga, Kazuyoshi. 1980. He izon suru zidoosi to tadoosi no imi (Semantics of double transitives). Kokugogaku 120: 31 41. Suga, Kazuyoshi. 1981. Zi ta tigai: zidoosi to mokutekigo sosite zita no bunrui (Differences between transitives and intransitives: intransitive verbs and the ir objects, and the classification of transitives and intransitives). In Mabuchi Kazuo hakase taikan kinen kokugaku ronzyuu Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten: [Reprinted in Suga & Hayatsu 1995:122 136]. Suga, Kazuyoshi. 1986. Zidoosi tadoosi (Intransitives and intransitives). Kokubungaku Kaishaku to Kansho 51: 57 63. Suga, Kazuyoshi and Emiko Hayatsu. 1995a. Dooshi no zita (Transitivity and intransitivity of verbs) Tokyo: Hit s uji Shobo. Suga, Kazuyoshi and Emiko Hayatsu. 1995b. Doosi no zita o minaosu tam eni (In order to re examine the transitivity and intransitivity of verbs). In Kazuyoshi Suga and Emiko Hayatsu (eds.). Doosi no zi ta (Transitivity and intransitivity of verbs) Tokyo: Hit s uji Shobo: 207 231.

PAGE 228

218 Sugimoto, Takeshi. 1991. Ni kaku o toru doo si: zyun tadoosi to zyudoosi (Verbs that occur with ni : semi transitive verbs and passive verbs). In Yoshio Nitta (ed.). Nihongo no boisu to tadoosei Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan: 233 250. Takahashi, Taro. 1976. Sugata to mokuromi (Form and meaning). In H aruhiko Kindaichi (ed.). Nihongo doosi no asupekuto (Aspect in Japanese verbs) Tokyo: Mugi Shoboo: 117 54. Takezawa, Koichi. 1991. Zyudoobun, nookakubun, bunri hukanoo syoyuu koobun to 'te iru' no kaisyaku (Passives, ergatives, and inalienable possessi on sentences in the interpretation of teiru ). In YoshioN itta (ed.). Nihongo no boisu to tadoosei (Japanese voice and transitivity) Tokyo: Kurosio Syuppan: 59 81. Takezawa, Koichi. 1993. Secondary Predication and Locative/Goal Phrases. In Nobuko Hase gawa (ed.). Japanese Syntax in Comparative Grammar Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers: 45 77. Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic Causative Types. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar New York: Academic Press: 43 116. Talmy, Leonard. 1985a. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 57 149. Talmy, Leonard. 1985b. Force Dynamics in Languag e and Thought. Papers form the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity Chicago Linguistic Society: 293 337. Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness Cambridge, Mass. MIT. Tenny, Carol. 1992. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolsci (eds.). Lexical Matters Stanford Cal. : CSLI: 1 27. Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax Semantics Interface Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no sintakusu to imi 1 (T he syntax and semantics of Japanese 1) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no sintakusu to imi 2 (The syntax and semantics of Japanese 2) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990a. Ergativity of Nouns and Case Assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 277 287.

PAGE 229

219 Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990b. The Unaccusativity Hypothesis and Noun Classification. Linguistics 28: 929 957. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990c. Unaccusative Mismatches in Japanese. ESCOL 6 : 264 276. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1991 On the Semantic Properties of Unaccusativity. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13: 91 116. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994a. Unaccusative Mismatches and Resultatives in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 1 : 335 354. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994b. Resultatives and Motion Verbs in Japanese. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 24: 429 440. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics Oxford: Blackwell. Tsujimura, Natsuko and Masayo Iida. 1999. Deverbal Nominals and Telicity in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 107 130. Tyler, Leslie Jo. 1999. The Syntax and Semantics of Zero Verbs: A Minimalist Approach Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida. van Hout, Angeliek. 1 998. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations: A Case Study of Dutch and Its Acquisition New York: Garland Publishing. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1987. The Unaccusative Hypothesis vs. Lexical Semantics: Syntactic vs. Semantic Approaches to Verb Classi fication. NELS 17 : 641 661. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66: 221 260. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1993. A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin Jr. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company: 1 164. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and J. Lapolla Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. and David P. Wilkins. 1996. The Case for 'Effector': Case Roles, Agents, and Agency Revised. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning Oxford: Clarendon Press: 289 322. Van Voorst, Jan. 1993. Again st a Composite Analysis of Certain Causative Constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8: 145 165.

PAGE 230

220 Van Voorst, Jan. 1995. The Semantic Structure of Causative Constructions. Studies in Language 19: 489 523. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and Times. P hilosophical Review 66: 143 160. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1989. Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39 94. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects Dordrecht: Reidel. Wasaw, Thomas. 1977. T ransformations and the Lexicon. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasaw and Adrian Akmajian (eds.). Formal Syntax New York: Academic Press: 327 360. Wasaw, Thomas. 1985. Postscript. In Peter Sells (ed.). Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories Stanf ord, Cal.: CSLI: 193 205. Washio, Ryuichi and Kenichi Mihara. 1997. Boisu to asupekuto (Voice and aspect) Tokyo: Kenkyusha Shuppan. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language Sydney: Academic Press. Wilkins, David P and Jr Robert D. Van Valin. 1993. The Case for A Case Reopened: Agents and Agency Revisited. Center for Cognitive Science, State University of New York, Buffalo. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203 238. Williams, Edwin. 1 981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81 114. Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Yoshikawa, Chizuko. 1995. Doosi no bunp oo (Grammar of verbs) Tokyo: Kurosio Shuppan. Yoshikawa, Taketoki. 1976. Gendai nihongo doosi to asupekuto no kenkyuu (Research on the aspect of verbs in modern Japanese). In Haruhiko Kindaichi (ed.). Nihongo doosi no Asupekuto (Aspect in Japanese ver bs) Tokyo: Mugi Shobo: 155 328. Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics. In James Pustejovsky (ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 129 161.

PAGE 231

221 Zenno, Yasushi. 1985. The Paradigmatic Structure and Japanese Idioms Master's thesis. The Ohio State University. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in the Syntax Dordrecht: Foris.

PAGE 232

222 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Toru Matsuzaki received his Bachelor of Arts degree in the English language in 1987 from Seinan Gakuin University in Japan. He went on to a master s degree program at Seinan Gakuin University majoring in English literature. His area o f interest was Old English philology and he received his Master of Arts in 1989. His m aster s thesis was on the history of Old English religious terminology. After completing the Ph.D. course in English literature with non thesis option in 1992, Mr. Matsuz aki taught English at several universities as a lecturer between 1993 and 1996. In fall 1996, he was enrolled in the Ph.D. degree program in the Program in Linguistics at the University of Florida and graduated in December 2001


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000333/00001

Material Information

Title: Verb meanings and their effects on syntactic behaviors : a study with special reference to English and Japanese ergative pairs
Physical Description: x, 222 p.
Language: English
Creator: Matsuzaki, Toru ( Dissertant )
Wehemeyer, Ann ( Thesis advisor )
Miller, Gary ( Reviewer )
Nelson, Marie ( Reviewer )
Murphy, Joseph ( Reviewer )
Moha, Mohammed ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2001
Copyright Date: 2001

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Linguistics thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Linguistics

Notes

Abstract: Ergative alternation is a process of valency shift observed cross-linguistically in which verbs alternate in transitivity with little or no change in form. Verbs that participate in the ergative alternation in English have been investigated from syntactic and semantic perspective. Japanese ergative pairs, on the other hand, are characterized not only by valency shift but also by their derivational oppositions between transitive and intransitive alternants. Given such characteristics, previous research has mainly focused on describing the derivational patterns and classifying ergative pairs accordingly. This in turn results in insufficient attention to semantic aspects of Japanese ergative pairs. The major research goal of this dissertation is to investigate whether verbal meanings determine the alternating behaviors of ergative verbs. Under the framework of lexical semantics, this dissertation presents a semantic analysis of ergative pairs in Japanese. I propose to utilize research findings reported in works on English ergative pairs to explicate the cause of the alternating behaviors of Japanese ergative pairs. One crucial finding is that semantic properties of verbs such as change of state and specification of causation are key factors both in English and Japanese in differentiating verbs that undergo the alternation from those which do not. Nevertheless, my research shows that there is some significant disagreement between English and Japanese in terms of the ergative alternatability of verbs. I suggest that such discrepancy results in part from lexical idiosyncrasies in each language. More importantly, however, I propose that different alternating behaviors may reflect the way native English and Japanese speakers perceive certain events differently. The implication of this observation will be that other different syntactic behaviors between English and Japanese may reflect people's different perception of events.
Subject: ergative pairs, lexical semantics, change of state, unaccusativity, aspect, semantic transparency
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains x, 222 p.; also contains graphics.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000333:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0000333/00001

Material Information

Title: Verb meanings and their effects on syntactic behaviors : a study with special reference to English and Japanese ergative pairs
Physical Description: x, 222 p.
Language: English
Creator: Matsuzaki, Toru ( Dissertant )
Wehemeyer, Ann ( Thesis advisor )
Miller, Gary ( Reviewer )
Nelson, Marie ( Reviewer )
Murphy, Joseph ( Reviewer )
Moha, Mohammed ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2001
Copyright Date: 2001

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Linguistics thesis, Ph. D.
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Linguistics

Notes

Abstract: Ergative alternation is a process of valency shift observed cross-linguistically in which verbs alternate in transitivity with little or no change in form. Verbs that participate in the ergative alternation in English have been investigated from syntactic and semantic perspective. Japanese ergative pairs, on the other hand, are characterized not only by valency shift but also by their derivational oppositions between transitive and intransitive alternants. Given such characteristics, previous research has mainly focused on describing the derivational patterns and classifying ergative pairs accordingly. This in turn results in insufficient attention to semantic aspects of Japanese ergative pairs. The major research goal of this dissertation is to investigate whether verbal meanings determine the alternating behaviors of ergative verbs. Under the framework of lexical semantics, this dissertation presents a semantic analysis of ergative pairs in Japanese. I propose to utilize research findings reported in works on English ergative pairs to explicate the cause of the alternating behaviors of Japanese ergative pairs. One crucial finding is that semantic properties of verbs such as change of state and specification of causation are key factors both in English and Japanese in differentiating verbs that undergo the alternation from those which do not. Nevertheless, my research shows that there is some significant disagreement between English and Japanese in terms of the ergative alternatability of verbs. I suggest that such discrepancy results in part from lexical idiosyncrasies in each language. More importantly, however, I propose that different alternating behaviors may reflect the way native English and Japanese speakers perceive certain events differently. The implication of this observation will be that other different syntactic behaviors between English and Japanese may reflect people's different perception of events.
Subject: ergative pairs, lexical semantics, change of state, unaccusativity, aspect, semantic transparency
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains x, 222 p.; also contains graphics.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0000333:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










VERB MEANINGS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SYNTACTIC BEHAVIORS:
A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
ERGATIVE PAIRS

















By

Toru Matsuzaki


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001














To Chieko with love and gratitude















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have so many people to thank for the completion of this dissertation. First, I

would like to thank Dr. Ann Wehemeyer, the chair of my supervisory committee, for her

constant support, valuable advice, and her outstanding scholarship. Whenever I felt that I

lost perspective, she always came up with articles and books where I could find light to

follow. I should also thank Dr. D. Gary Miller for his abundant feedback on my

dissertation. I will never forget the magnificent view from his office at Turlington where

we had heated discussions on focal points of my dissertation. I also would like to thank

Dr. Marie Nelson and Dr. Joseph Murphy for being patient with my slow progress in my

dissertation. I should not forget to thank Dr. Mohammad Mohammad for being a

committee member before he left for University of Texas.

Among the excellent graduate students in the Program in Linguistics at the

University of Florida who constantly gave me moral support and served as informants for

this dissertation were Jodi Bray, Kim Duk-Young, Evelyne Ngauchi, Jongbum Ha, and

Philip Monahan. I also need to thank my friends John Pasden, a former student in

Beginning Japanese, and Larry Tankersky, my American mentor, for providing me with

plentiful linguistic insight. Their keen interest in linguistics made me proud that I am a

linguist. I should not forget to express my gratitude for the staff at the Electronic Thesis

and Dissertation office. Whenever I had problems with my template, ETD counselors

solved every single one of them in a split second.









I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Robin Gibson and Jean

Gibson, whose Gibson Dissertation Fellowship at the University of Florida College of

Liberal Arts and Science enabled me to devote ample time to doing research for this

dissertation. Their generous support enabled me to complete the dissertation half a year

earlier.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Chieko for her constant support and

encouragement that she has never ceased to give to me for more than five years since we

came to Gainesville. Without her, I would not have been able to muster the courage to

come over to America, let alone complete this dissertation.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ....................................................................... .....................iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ........... ............ viii

A B STR A C T................................................... ix

CHAPTERS

1 IN TRODU CTION ........................... ...................... .. ..................1

2 ERGATIVE ALTERNATION ............ ..... ................................. 11

2.1 Introduction ......................... ... ...... ......... ................................. ......................... 11
2.2 E english E rgative P airs ...................... .. .. ......... .. .......................... .............. 12
2.2.1 Syntactic A aspects .......................... .... ...... ...... ... ................... 12
2.2.2 Ergative Alternation and Other Similar Syntactic Operations...................... 14
2.2.2.1 E rgatives and passives ........................................ .......... .............. 15
2.2.1.2 E rgatives and m iddles ........................................ ......................... 16
2.2.2 Semantic Aspects ... ..... ............................................ .............. 20
2.3 Japanese E rgative Pairs ...................... .. .. ......... .. ........................ .............. 23
2.3.1 Syntactic C characteristics ...................... .. .. .............................. .............. 23
2.3.2 M orphological Characteristics ........................................ ....... .............. 24
2.4 E rgative A lternation: Issues ............................ .............................. .............. 29
2 .5 U n accu sativ ity .............................................................................. 3 0
2.5.1 The Unaccusativity Hypothesis ........................................................ 31
2.5.2 U naccusative V erbs in English.............................................. ... ................. 33
2.5.3 Unaccusative Verbs in Japanese .............................................. 35
2.5.4 Semantic Characterization of Unaccusativity ............................................ 41
2.5.5 Unaccusativity and Ergative Alternation.............................. .................... 46
2.6 D direction of D erivation .............................. ........................................... 48
2.6.1 Derivational Direction of English Ergative Pairs ........................................ 49
2 .6.1.1 C au sativization............................... ............ .............. .. ............ 49
2 .6.1.2 A nticau sativization .................. ............................... ...................... ... 5 1
2.6.2 Derivational Direction of Japanese Ergative Pairs ....................................... 53
2.6.2.1 Transitivization vs. intransitivization...................... .............. 54
2.6.2.2 Causativization vs. passivization............. ............................................. 55









3 SEMANTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF ERGATIVE ALTERNATIONS ...............59

3 .1 In tro d u ctio n ..................... ... .......................................................................... 5 9
3.2 Tw o Issues of Ergative Alternation ............. ................................... .............. 60
3.3 A Problematic Case: The English Cut and Break ............... ............. .............. 62
3.4 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: English........ ............................... 67
3 .4 .1 C change of State ........6........... ...... ........... .... .. ...... ... .. ............ ... ...... .. 67
3.4.2 A gentivity ................................................................................ .. ................ 71
3.4.2.1 Kill verbs...... ......... ............................. 73
3.4.2.2 D estroy verbs ................................... ......... ........... .. ....... ...... .. 75
3.4.3 External vs. Internal C ausation.............................................. ... ................. 77
3.4.4 Onset Causation vs. Extended Causation................................................. 79
3 .5 L exical Specification ................. .. ........................................ ................ .. 82
3.5.1 Lexicalization of Instrument ............. ............ ....... .... 82
3.5.1.1 Case theory........................................................... 82
3.5.1.2 Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) .................................................. 84
3.5.2 Specification of Cause or Means ....................................................... 85
3.6 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: Japanese ............................................... 87
3.6.1 C change of State ......................... .. ........... .............. ...................... .................... 88
3.6.2 Specification of Instrument and Means .................................................. 92
3.6.3 Inanim ate Subjects .................... ................. ........................ .............. 95
3.6.4 Kir-kire- 'cut/get cut' ................................. ..................................... 97
3.6.4 Polysemy ....................................................... .. ................. 101
3.6.5 Sino-Japanese Change-of-State Verbs ................................. ...... .... ... 103
3 .7 S u m m ary ............................................................................... 10 6

4 SEMANTIC RELATIONS BETWEEN ERGATIVE PAIRS ..................................108

4 .1 Introduction ................ ..... ...1 ............................. ............... 108
4.2 Lexicalist View of Japanese Ergative Pairs ...................................... ............ 111
4.3 Lexical versus Syntactic D erivations .............................................................. 114
4.3.1 Lexical Derivation........................................ 115
4.3.2 Post-L exical D erivation ......... .................................................. .............. 117
4.4 Sem antic A pproach............. ............ .. ........ ...... .. ..... ... ........... 121
4.4.1 Semantic Discrepancies between Japanese Ergative Pairs .......................... 122
4.4.2 Spurious Ergative Pairs ............................... ................ .............. 128
4.5 Dichotomous View of Japanese Ergative Pairs ...................... .................... 132
4.5.1 Idiom atization ........ ............... ....................................................... 132
4.5.2 Paradigm atic Structure (PD S) ..................................................................... 133
4.5.3 PD S for Ergative Pairs .............. ......................................................... 135
4.5.4 Distributed Morphology............................. .............. 139
4.6 Sum m ary ......... .. ....... ...................................................................... 140

5 ASPECT AND ERGATIVE PAIRS ...................................................... ................142

5.1 Introduction.. .............. ..................................................... 142
5.2 Japanese A spectual Properties: Issues ............................................................... 144









5.3 Classifications of English Lexical Aspect .................................................... 147
5.4 Japanese Verbs and their Aspectual Properties ........................................ ...... 149
5.5 Ergative Pairs and their Aspectual Properties............................ 153
5.5.1 Grammatical Functions and Thematic Roles ........................................... 154
5.5.2 Terminative Orientedness .................................. 157
5.6 Ergative Intransitives ................ .......... ....... ............... 159
5.6.1 Progressives in Ergative Intransitives in -te iru........................... 159
5.6.2 Change of state and endpoint................... ......................... .............. 162
5.6.3 D ow ty's (1979) Interval Sem antics ..................................... .............. 163
5.6.4 Syntactic Test -ow aru 'finish' .................................................................... 165
5.6.5 V-owar- 'finish V Test to the Ergative Pairs in Jacobsen (1992) .............. 167
5.7 Summ ary ................................. ................................ ........ 173

6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH................................ ...............175

6 .1 C onclu sion ............................................... 175
6.2 Further Issues .................................................... ................. .......... .. 179
6.2.1 Validity of Lexical Semantics-Syntax Interface ............ ...... ............ .. 179
6.2.2 Causativization ............. .... ........... .................... .... .......... 182

APPENDIX: JACOBSEN'S (1992) LIST OF ERGATIVE PAIRS .............................185

B IB L IO G R A P H Y ..... .. .... ...... .... .......... .................................. .............. 195

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................ ............................................222
















LIST OF TABLES



Table Page

1: A lternations patterns of cut and break ......................................................................... 66

2: Dowty's interval-based classification of change-of-state verbs ....................................... 164

3: V-owar- test for Japanese ergative intransitives ..................................... .................169















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

VERB MEANINGS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SYNTACTIC BEHAVIORS:
A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
ERGATIVE PAIRS

By

Toru Matsuzaki

December 2001


Chairman: Ann Wehmeyer
Major Department: Linguistics

Ergative alternation is a process of valency shift observed cross-linguistically in

which verbs alternate in transitivity with little or no change in form. Verbs that

participate in the ergative alternation in English have been investigated from syntactic

and semantic perspective. Japanese ergative pairs, on the other hand, are characterized

not only by valency shift but also by their derivational opposition between transitive and

intransitive alternants. Given such characteristics, previous research has mainly focused

on describing the derivational patterns and classifying ergative pairs accordingly. This in

turn results in insufficient attention to semantic aspects of Japanese ergative pairs.

The major research goal of this dissertation is to investigate whether verbal

meanings determine the alternating behaviors of ergative verbs. Under the framework of

lexical semantics, this dissertation presents a semantic analysis of ergative pairs in

Japanese. I propose to utilize research findings reported in works on English ergative









pairs to explicate the cause of the alternating behaviors of Japanese ergative pairs. One

crucial finding is that semantic properties of verbs such as change of state and

specification of causation are key factors both in English and Japanese in differentiating

verbs that undergo the alternation from those which do not. Nevertheless, my research

shows that there is some significant disagreement between English and Japanese in terms

of the ergative altematability of verbs. I suggest that such discrepancy results in part from

lexical idiosyncrasies in each language. More importantly, however, I propose that

different alternating behaviors may reflect the way native English and Japanese speakers

perceive certain events differently. The implication of this observation will be that other

different syntactic behaviors between English and Japanese may reflect people's different

perception of events.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This dissertation presents a contrastive analysis of transitive/intransitive verb

pairs in English and Japanese. The primary goal is to investigate under the framework of

lexical semantics how semantic aspects of verbs affect the alternatability of Japanese

verbs. The transitive/intransitive verb pair, which I refer to as ergative pair1 throughout

this dissertation, is described either as a single verb which is used both transitively and

intransitively, as in English, or as a pair of morphologically related verbs, as in Japanese,

which respectively describe a transitive and intransitive situation (Levin 1985:19-20).

The transitive and intransitive member of the ergative pair is referred to as ergative

transitive and ergative intransitive, respectively. Examples of English and Japanese

ergative pairs include:

(1) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE

English Japanese English Japanese
break war- break ware-
sink sizume- sink sizum-
bend mage- bend magar-
melt tokas- melt toke-
bake yak- bake yake-



Depending on the approaches adopted by linguists, "ergative" is also referred to as
"unaccusative." In Government-Binding theory, the term ergative is most commonly used
(Burzio 1986). In Relational Grammar, on the other hand, unaccusative is widely used
(Perlmutter 1978). Following Roberts (1987), I restrict the term ergative to verbs like
break and open which have transitive counterparts. This allows me to distinguish ergative
verbs from unaccusative verbs like come and appear which lack transitive counterparts.
As will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2, the distinction between ergative and
unaccusative is crucial to the present research.









Ergative pairs are also characterized by change in argument structure. Consider the

following typical case of English ergative alternation

(2) a. Tom broke the vase.

b. The vase broke.

Crucially, it is observed that the syntactic object (vase) of the ergative transitive (break)

corresponds to the syntactic subject of the ergative intransitive. This type of

configurational correlation characteristic of the ergative pair is specifically referred to as

ergative alternation.2

In Western linguistics, the ergative alternation has been investigated for more than

three decades within theoretical frameworks such as Case Grammar (Fillmore 1968b,

1970), Generative Semantics (Lakoff 1968a, 1970), Government and Binding Theory

(Burzio 1986), Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1991), and Lexical Semantics (Levin

1993, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995). In particular, Fillmore (1970) focuses not

only on verbs that participate in the ergative alternation but also on verbs that do not,

attempting to account for the cause of the difference semantically. What is striking about

Fillmore is that he laid the foundation for the subsequent lexical semantic approaches to

this issue. Building on a more in-depth analysis by Smith (1978) of the ergative

alternatability of verbs, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) devote a whole chapter

(Chapter 3) to investigating the semantics-syntax interface involved in the English

ergative alternation (Levin and Rappaport Hovav refer to it as "causative alternation"),





2 The ergative alternation is also referred to as causative alternation (Haspelmath 1993,
Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995), transitivity alternation (Hale and Keyser 1987), and
unaccusativity alternation (Kiparsky 1998), among others.









arguing that whether a given verb participates in the alternation depends to a great extent

on the semantic properties lexically inherent in the verb.

In Japanese linguistics, on the other hand, previous research on ergative pairs has

mainly focused on their distinct suffixal forms as shown in (1) above, proposing a range

of classifications accordingly (Sakuma 1936, Teramura 1982, Shibatani 1990, Jacobsen

1992). This may partly explain why there have been only sporadic and incomplete

semantic analyses provided for Japanese ergative pairs (cf. Okuda 1978, Jacobsen 1982a,

1992, Hayatsu 1987, Mitsui 1992, Kageyama 1996). With a thorough lexical semantic

approach presented in the present study it will be shown that Japanese ergative pairs can

be semantically characterized to a large extent. This in turn suggests the possibility that

the alternatability of a verb will be better accounted for in reference to the semantic

properties of the verb. Furthermore, such a lexical semantic approach will suggest a need

to propose a morpho-semantic classification distinct from the morphology-based

classifications proposed in the past (cf Hayatsu 1989).

One question that has been continuously addressed in the literature on lexical

semantics over the decades is whether the syntactic behaviors of verbs are predictable

from the semantics of the verbs (Perlmutter 1978, Wasaw 1985, Pinker 1989:104ff, Levin

1993a, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:1, 1998, Ono 1997).3 In particular, researchers

have sought to uncover semantically coherent verb classes which are fairly constant with

respect to argument structure. Under this verb-class model, let us consider the English





3 As for the view that the relationship between the lexical-semantics and syntax is not
necessarily consistent, see S.T. Rosen (1996), Lemmens (1998), and Rosen and Ritter
(1998). See also Chapter 6 of the present dissertation.









verbs happen and cut. The verb happen belongs to a semantic verb class called 'verbs of

occurrence' and can only occur in intransitive constructions (cf. Levin 1993a:260-261):

(3) a. The accident happened yesterday.

b. *My brother happened the accident yesterday. (On the interpretation that
'My brother caused the accident yesterday')

By contrast, the transitive verb cut, which belongs to the semantic class 'verbs of

cutting' fails to occur in ergative intransitive constructions (Levin 1993a:156).

(4) a. The butcher cut the meat.

b. *The meat cut. (On the interpretation that 'The meat got cut')

Given the correlation between verbs and their syntactic behaviors just described,

Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) conduct detailed analyses of the semantics of

English ergative pairs, seeking to determine which semantic properties contribute to

verbs' altematability. Drawing on a representation of verb meaning referred to as

predicate decomposition, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:94) propose the following

lexical semantic representation template for ergative verbs:

(5) [[x DO-SOMETHING] CAUSE [y BECOME STATE]]

Accordingly, the ergative verb break is represented as follows (Levin and Rappaport

Hovav 1995:83):

(6) break: [[x DO-SOMETHING] CAUSE [y BECOMEBROKEN]]

One key feature in the representation in dealing with the issue of the lexical semantic-

syntax interface, according to Levin and Rappaport Hovav, is the primitive BECOME. On

their view, this primitive represents the semantic property 'change of state,' which Levin

and Rappaport Hovav view as one of the crucial elements which have to do with the









ability of verbs to alternate in transitivity (for detailed discussion of this issue, see

Chapter 3).4

In Japanese the ergative alternation is typically represented as follows:5

(7) a. Taroo-wa kabin-o wat-ta. (< war- + ta)
Taro-TOP vase-ACC break-PAST
'Taro broke the vase.'

b. Kabin-ga ware-ta.
vase-NOM break-PAST
'The vase broke.'

One characteristic associated with the Japanese ergative alternation in comparison to the

English equivalent is that the former marks the difference in transitivity morphologically,

as readily observed in the contrast between war- and ware- (Tsujimura 1990b:938). Since

there are a number of distinct suffixal forms associated with ergative transitives and

intransitives, one primary research goal researchers have attempted to achieve is to

classify this particular group of verbs based on their derivational features (cf. Chapter 2;

see also Shimada 1979 for a detailed outline of previous studies).

Compared to the rich tradition of morphological research on verb classifications

involving ergative pairs, their syntactic and semantic aspects have not received much

attention from researchers. As for syntactic characterization of ergative pairs, Okutsu

(1967) first introduced the so-called dynamic (dootai-teki) approach to the derivational

verbal morphology based on generative grammar. The dynamic approach differs from the


4 Another key assumption of the template is that the underlying semantic structure of break is a transitive
one. On this view, the ergative intransitive use of the verb is derived by virtue of detransitivization, a
completely opposite process to causativization which is widely held to account for the ergative alternation
in general. See Chapter 2 for more discussion of this issue.

5 In this dissertation the following abbreviations are used: ACC=accusative particle, ASP= te-iru aspect
marker, DAT=dative, EMP=emphatic marker, GEN=genitive, GER=gerund, INF=infinitive,
NEG=negation marker, NOM=nominative particle, OBL=oblique, PAST=past tense marker,
PRG=progressive, TOP=topic particle.









(1967) first introduced the so-called dynamic (dootai-teki) approach to the derivational

verbal morphology based on generative grammar. The dynamic approach differs from the

so-called static (seitai-teki) approach in that, according to Okutsu, the former approach

explores the syntactic derivation of transitive verbs (i.e., transitivization) and intransitive

verbs (i.e., intransitivization) mediated by the addition of derivational suffixes, while the

latter approach focuses on classifications ofergative pairs based solely on morphological

distinctions. Most importantly, Okutsu adopts the idea of 'embedding' from generative

syntax, arguing that ergative transitive constructions are bi-clausal structures where an

intransitive clause is embedded into a transitivizing clause containing the transitivizing

suffix -as. Inoue (1976) further develops a generative syntactic approach to ergative pairs

in Japanese.

With the growing interest in lexical semantics over the past three decades,

researchers have investigated the relationship between verbs' ability to alternate in

transitivity and their meanings. Okutsu (1967) is among the first scholars who point to

the significance of semantic-based analyses and encourage further research along these

lines. Following the earlier attempts by Miyajima (1972) and Nishio (1978), a series of

work by Hayatsu (1987, 1989, 1995) attempts to determine the semantic properties of

verbs that have to do withthe verb's ability to alternate in transitivity. As with English,

one semantic property thus isolated is change of state that is brought about on a Theme

argument. Furthermore, Hayatsu notes that the subjects of ergative intransitives have a

strong tendency to be inanimate. In other words, ergative intransitives containing animate

Themes are most likely to resist alternating with transitive counterparts in Japanese.









Overall, Hayatsu's approach is notable in that it is comparable to the lexical semantic

approach that has been intensively discussed in the Western linguistics.

Drawing more on the findings in lexical semantics in Western linguistics,

Kageyama (1996) extends a long discussion about the relationship between verb

meanings and the syntactic realizations of their argument structures. In keeping with

Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) analogous to Levin and Rappaport Hovav's lexical

semantic representation as in (5) above, Kageyama conducts a comparative analysis of

the English and Japanese ergative alternations. On his terms, the alternation is not only a

morphological or/and syntactic phenomenon but also a semantically explicable process.

Kageyama basically agrees with other scholars like Smith, Haspelmath, and Levin and

Rappaport Hovav, among others, in arguing that a given verb participates in the ergative

alternation when a Theme argument is perceived to bring about a change on its own

without any intervention of an external causer or agent (Kageyama 1996:158ff). What is

noteworthy about Kageyama, however, is that he attempts to fuse Western lexical

semantic approaches and traditional affix-based approaches together to account for

Japanese ergative pairs and their alternating behaviors. Specifically, Kageyama assumes

that the extent to which a given event is perceived to occur spontaneously or to be

intervened by an external causer or agent is signaled in a fairly consistent manner by (the)

suffixal forms added to Japanese ergative verb pairs.

Another line of semantic approach to the Japanese ergative pairs is proposed and

discussed in Jacobsen (1982a, 1992). Under the assumption that there are regular

correlations between morphological markedness and semantic markedness, Jacobsen

associates morphological patterns shown by ergative pairs with speaker's empirically-









based event views. Based on his markedness theory, Jacobsen argues that if one member

of a transitive-intransitive pair is more marked than the other, then the morphological

markedness reflects the atypicality of a change-event.6 For instance, if an intransitive

member is more marked than its transitive counterpart, the change of state denoted by the

intransitive verb is perceived to occur less naturally in an autonomous situation than in a

coerced situation. Furthermore, Jacobsen defines the "typical realization of a concept"

(1992: 10) as prototype, maintaining that in spite of some major historical changes in

verbal morphology, fairly regular markedness patterns observed in many of the Japanese

transitive/intransitive verb opposition still reflect a strong correlation between

morphology and semantics. In short, Jacobsen holds that morphological and semantic

markedness is a reflection of universal linguistic principles, suggesting the universality of

prototype held among human beings.

It has been noticed in the literature that verbs that alternate in transitivity in one

language are likely to undergo the same phenomenon in other languages (1993:92, Hale

and Keyser 1998:89). Cross-linguistically, for instance, verbs equivalent to the English

break undergo the ergative alternation, whereas verbs equivalent to the verb laugh do not

(Pinker 1989:134). Given this observation, this dissertation research purports to



6 Jacobsen's position that the correlation between formal markedness and semantic
markedness observable among ergative pairs is based on the idea of prototype rather than
that of accumulation of information is notable when compared to the general principle
that languages show formal markedness patterns which reflect proportional accumulation
of semantic information (Dowty 1979:46). In this general principle, a formally marked
lexical item or grammatical structure is provided with more semantic properties than a
formally unmarked counterpart is. Cross-linguistically, for instance, plural nouns are
formally more marked than singular nouns since they, in addition to the basic category
'nominal,' contain 'plurality,' which is seen as a more marked feature than 'singularity'
(Greenberg 1963, Haspelmath 1993:87).









supplement data from Japanese for further research on the lexical-semantics and syntax

relationship. Furthermore, in view of insufficient cross-linguistic data in this area of

research (Levin 1985:61), a study of the Japanese alternation that this dissertation

presents from a lexical semantic point of view will serve to further explicate the

mechanism of the lexical-semantic and syntactic interface cross-linguistically.

The organization of the dissertation is as follows. In Chapter 2, I first outline

characteristics of ergative alternations in English and Japanese. Then, I discuss

unaccusativity and middle constructions, which are assumed to be relevant to ergative

alternations. I analyze morphological opposition which characterize the Japanese

ergative alternation. In particular I focus on the issue of the direction of derivation

regarding the alternation. I will suggest that the directions of Japanese ergative pairs

basically follow morphological markedness patterns.

Chapter 3 deals with semantic aspects of ergative pairs. I first discuss semantic

properties of English and Japanese verbs that appear to be responsible for the syntactic

expressions of arguments occurring with the verbs. Then, I demonstrate that a given

change-of-state verb is paired with the transitive/intransitive counterpart when a means or

an instrument responsible for the change of state is unspecified. In this view, lack of the

intransitive counterparts of Japanese transitive verbs like kar- 'cut (with a sickle, scissors,

etc.)' and hik- 'grind, mince' will be accounted for on the basis of the fact that both verbs

lexically specify a means or an instrument whereby the events are brought about.

In Chapter 4, I review in detail the classification of ergative pairs presented by

Jacobsen (1992). Adopting the concept of semantic transparency (Aronoff 1976), I

propose that the ergative pairs under the classification of Jacobsen be separated into those









which are semantically transparent and those which are not. Drawing on the theory of

Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993), I argue that ergative pairs that are

semantically transparent are derived post-lexically, whereas those which are semantically

opaque are listed as separate lexical items in the lexicon.

In Chapter 5, I turn to the issue of aspect of the Japanese ergative pairs. I first

illustrate that intransitive members of ergative pairs have a perfect meaning and transitive

members have a progressive meaning, respectively, in combination with the aspectual

marker -te iru. I propose that the type of an argument in the syntactic subject position

determines the aspectual realization of a predicate suffixed by -te iru. Furthermore, given

that certain intransitive members can be interpreted as progressive in -te iru

constructions, I suggest that the semantic property 'change of state' should be sub-

categorized according to 'length of time' and 'definite endpoint' necessary for a change

to be completed.














CHAPTER 2
ERGATIVE ALTERNATION


2.1 Introduction

In Western linguistics, the phenomenon of alternation has been regarded as one of

the prominent syntactic behaviors regarding verbs and their co-occurring arguments. In a

broad sense, the ergative alternation is classified under the macro-category called

diathesis alternation. Diathesis alternations are concerned with "alternations in the

expression of the arguments of verbs" (Levin 1993b:80), subsuming, in addition to the

ergative alternation, other types of alternations such as locative alternation and dative

alternation.

(1) Locative Alternation:
Jack sprayed paint on the wall.
Jack sprayed the wall with paint. (Levin 1993a:51)

(2) Dative Alternation:
Bill sold Tom a car.
Bill sold a car to Tom. (Levin 1993a:46)

One characteristic that differentiates the ergative alternation from the dative and locative

alternations is a change in valency. As evident in (1) and (2), the dative and locative

alternations have to do with a change in the syntactic arrangement of arguments of verbs.

On the other hand, the ergative alternation involves not only a change in the arrangement

of verbs' arguments but also a change in the number of syntactically-realized arguments,

as shown in (4) in Chapter 1, repeated here below:









(3) a. Tom broke the vase.

b. The vase broke.

In addition to the fact that the Theme vase is post-verbal in (3a) but pre-verbal in (3b) in

relation to break, the transitive ergative predicate typically occurs with two arguments

(i.e., dyadic), whereas the intransitive ergative predicate occurs with a single argument

(i.e., monadic). In this respect, the ergative alternation is also characterizable as a

valency-shift alternation.

The ergative alternation is observed cross-linguistically (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky

1973, Haspelmath 1993) and has been extensively investigated in languages such as

English (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994, 1995), French (Labelle 1992), Japanese

(Okutsu 1967, Jacobsen 1992, Kageyama 1996), and Korean (Croft 1990), among others.

In this chapter, I first outline the ergative alternation in English and Japanese, focusing on

differences and similarities in the ways in which it is represented in both languages. Then

I go on to discuss unaccusativity with respect to alternatability of verbs. Finally, I discuss

the issue of direction of derivation regarding the Japanese ergative alternation.


2.2 English Ergative Pairs

2.2.1 Syntactic Aspects

It is well known that there are an enormous number of ergative verb pairs in

English (Langacker 1991:387). As noted in Chapter 1, the English ergative alternation is

expressed in a majority of cases by one single verb with no morphological change. Such

identity in form between a transitive use and an intransitive use results in the fact that the

distinction in transitivity regarding an ergative verb is discerned solely by virtue of the

context where each member occurs (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973:3). More specifically,









only a shift in the valency of verbs' argument structure indicates the difference in

transitivity in English The transitive use of break is a case of dyadic valency, consisting

of an Agent and a Theme, while the intransitive use represents a monadic valency, taking

a Theme argument only. Typologically, alternations in which no changes in verb forms

occur between ergative transitives and intransitives are referred to as labile alternations.

Other languages that predominantly show this alternating pattern include Chinese,

German, German, and Greek (Teramura 1982:305, Haspelmath 1993:102).

In addition to the shift in valency just described, the ergative alternation needs to

meet the following two conditions. Firstly, the object or "internal argument" of the

transitive alternant should always be realized as the subject of the intransitive alternant

(Comrie 1985:322). As evident in (3) above, the predicate break and the argument vase

follow this constraint. The rationale for imposing such a constraint on the configurational

relation between a predicate and its internal NP argument is that it is necessary to

distinguish genuine ergative verb pairs from verbs which undergo the so-called

unspecified object alternation (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994:37).

(4) a. Tom smokes cigarettes.

b. Tom smokes.

At first glance, smoke seems to undergo the ergative alternation, given that it alternates in

transitivity without any morphological mediator, just like break. According to the

constraint noted above, however, the transitive and intransitive uses of smoke are not

eligible for an ergative pair in that the object (cigarettes) of the transitive use in (4a) is

not realized as the subject of the intransitive use; rather, it is syntactically unexpressed or

"unspecified" in the original object position.









Secondly, the object of the transitive alternant and the subject of the intransitive

alternant should have an identical thematic role, a thematic and syntactic correlation that

Langacker refers to as 'ergative pattern' (1991:387; cf Levin and Rappaport Hovav

1995:79). In a sense, this constraint is self-explanatory given that while Theme arguments

are syntactically realized differently, they are both base-generated as internal arguments.

Again the internal argument of break in (3) meets this requirement: The object (vase) of

the transitive use in (3a) and the subject of the intransitive in (3b) share the same Theme

role. This thematic relation accounts for why smoke in (4) fails to constitute an ergative

pair; the subject (Tom) of the intransitive construction is an Agent, while the object of the

transitive is a Theme. Given these observations, the ergative alternation would be

schematized as follows:

(5) a. NPi Vtr NP2 (transitive construction)

b. NP2 Vintr (intransitive construction)

In short, the process of ergative alternation will be summarized as (1) a shift in valency of

the arguments of the verb (2) parallelism between the subject of the transitive

construction and the object of the intransitive construction and (3) the preservation of the

thematic role assigned to the verb's internal argument.

2.2.2 Ergative Alternation and Other Similar Syntactic Operations

In the preceding section, we observed that the ergative alternation undergoes a

series of syntactic operations such as valency shift and configurational parallelism of

arguments. Note that such syntactic behaviors are not restricted to the ergative

alternation; rather, they are readily observable in other transformational operations. In

this section, we outline syntactic and semantic characteristics of passivization and middle









formation, demonstrating that in spite of striking similarities, the two syntactic

formations should be distinguished from the ergative alternation.

2.2.2.1 Ergatives and passives

Passivization is characterized in general as transforming a transitive verb into an

unergative (i.e., intransitive), along with advancement of the object of the transitive to the

subject of the intransitive (Perlmutter 1978:181ff; cf Shibatani 1985:822). Put more

informally, passivization involves a NP movement from a transitive internal argument

position into a passive external argument position whereby the syntactic subject of the

passive corresponds to the syntactic object of the transitive. Given this description,

Larson (1988:366) argues that passivization and ergative alternation share a crucial

parallelism in terms of NP movement, as illustrated below (t stands for "trace")

(6) a. The boat was sunk t.

b. The boat sank t.

I argue that the two syntactic processes should not be considered identical for the

following two reasons. Firstly, English passivization necessarily involves an overt,

regular morphological change in verbs, whereas the ergative alternation does not. Jaeggli

(1986) maintains that in passivization, the role of the passive suffix -en is seen as

'absorbing' the external theta-role which is originally associated with the external

argument of a transitive verb. In this respect, passivization is characterized as the

interaction of morphological and syntactic process, while ergative alternation is simply a

syntactic process in English.1




1 Not every scholar accepts Jaeggli's formulation of the passive. See Miller (1993:186-8)
for his pre-movement string analysis.









Secondly, the ergative alternation is distinct from passivization in that the latter

always implies that an Agent that brings about an event can be syntactically indicated in

passive structures (cf. Siewierska 1984:78, Roeper 1987:268, Haspelmath 1993:90,

Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994:69). Evidence for this claim is observed in the fact that

passives can co-occur with a by-phrase, whereas ergative intransitives cannot.

(7) a. The boat was sunk by Bill.

b. *The boat sank by Bill. (Roeper 1987:268)

Even when no by-phrase is syntactically present, passives still imply that an Agent is

present implicitly. This is exemplified in the following:

(8) a. The ship was sunk to collect the insurance.

b. *The ship sank to collect the insurance. (Roeper 1987:268)

In short, that the passive be V-en can co-occur with a purpose infinitive clause as in (8a)

substantiates our view that passives invariably posit the presence of agentivity, whether it

is overtly expressed or not.

2.2.1.2 Ergatives and middles

Middle formation is a process of suppressing the subject of a transitive and

moving the object of the transitive into the subject position of a middle verb, as typically

illustrated below (Hoekstra and Roberts 1993:183-184):2

(9) a. Someone bribed the bureaucrats.

b. Bureaucrats bribe easily. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:381).




2 Ackema and Schoorlemmer (1995) claim that no movement takes place in middle
formation. In their terms, the grammatical subject in middles are base-generated in the
VP internal subject position.









(10) a. The butcher cuts the meat.

b. The meat cuts easily. (Levin 1993a:26)

In the examples, sentences (9b) and (10b) are middle constructions and the verbs (bribe

and cut) occurring in these constructions are referred to as middle verbs or simply

"middles."

Numerous studies analyze middle formation in reference to ergative alternation

(Fiengo 1980, Keyser and Roeper 1984, Hale and Keyser 1987, Fagan 1988, 1992,

Condoravdi 1989, Fellbaum and Zribi-Hertz 1989, Levin 1993a, Fujita 1994, Kitazume

1996, Nakamura 1997). One syntactic characteristic of middle formation has to do with

the application of the syntactic rule Move ac to the internal argument of a transitive

predicate so that the argument is externalized in the middle construction, as illustrated in

(9) and (10) above. Furthermore, the thematic role of the internal argument remains the

same whether it is in the transitive construction or in the middle construction. Recall that

these are among the characteristics involved in the ergative alternation as well.3 Given

such similarities, Hale and Keyser (1986, 1987, 1988) maintain that middle formation

and ergative alternation are fundamentally identical, providing a single lexical rule for

both middle and ergative formations (cf. Fujita 1994:73):

(11) The Ergative-Middle Alternation

[x cause [y "undergo change"], (by...)]]
<------ >
[y "undergo change", (by...)] (Hale and Keyser 1987:20)





3 Rapoport (1993:173-4) also points out a semantic similarity between ergatives and
middles. Just like ergatives, middles can be observed in verbs which lexicalize a change
of state (cf Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1).









According to Hale and Keyser, the only distinction between the ergative alternation and

the middle alternation is that the LCS of the latter contains a means clause as depicted by

the parenthesized by-phrase (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5 for further discussion of the

relationship between means clause and ergative alternatability).

In spite of the similarities just described, substantial evidence has been presented

that middles and ergatives are essentially distinct from each other for reasons that follow.

Firstly, as Keyser and Roeper (1984) note, middles are stative verbs, meaning that they

cannot describe events. Ergatives, on the other hand, are event-verbs. This contrast is

illustrated by the fact that middles cannot occur in progressive constructions, while

ergatives can.

(12) a. The boat is sinking.

b. *Bureaucrats are bribing easily. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:385)

Keyser and Roeper also suggest that middles cannot occur in situations which describe

particular events in time, whereas ergatives can. This is evident in the following example

where the ergative sink occurs in the past tense, while the middle bribe does not.

(13) a. The boat sank in less than an hour.

b. ?Yesterday, the mayor bribed easily, according to the newspaper.

(Keyser and Roeper 1984:384)

Keyser and Roeper observe that (13b) is marginally grammatical since middles only

describe situations which are generic or "held to be generally true" (1984:384).

It has been noted in the literature that while ergatives imply no Agent, middles

always entail Agent implicitly (Fiengo 1980:57, Keyser and Roeperl984:404-405, Hale

and Keyser 1986:15-16, 1987:18, Condoravdi 1989, Nakamura 1997:119, Fujita









1994:87). By "implicit Agent" it is meant that the middle construction always implies an

Agent in the eventuality denoted by the middle verb but the thematic role of Agent can

have no phonetic or structural realization. 4 Put differently, Agent is present semantically

but absent syntactically in the middle construction (Nakamura 1997:123; see also

Ackema and Schoorlemmer 1994:69).5 One way of illustrating that middles express the

existence of Agent implicitly but not syntactically is to see if they may co-occur with

agent-oriented adjuncts like a by-phrase or a to-infinitive phrase. The ungrammaticality

of the following sentences points to the validity of this statement.6

(14) a. *The official bribes easily by managers. (Keyser and Roeper 1984:406)

b. *Bureaucrats bribe easily to keep them happy.

(Keyser and Roeper 1984:407)

In short, the presence of an Agent at the underlying semantic level of middles may

crucially differentiate middles from ergative intransitives, which are assumed to involve





4 Miller (1993:178) suggests that the implicit argument in middles may well be
interpreted as a Benefactive rather than Agent.

5 Stroik (1992:131) argues that the Agent role in middles can be expressed syntactically,
mainly in an adjunct position as illustrated below:
(i) a. That book read quickly for Mary.
b. No Latin text translates easilyfor Bill.

6 Keyser and Roeper (1984:407) attribute the ungrammaticality to the notion of "control."
That is, the implicit Agent of middle cannot control the lower clause, making the whole
sentence ungrammatical, while the implicit Agent in passive as in (i) below, which is
optionally expressible (i.e., by Bill), controls the lower clause, making the whole sentence
grammatical (Keyser and Roeper 1984:407).
(i) The bureaucrats were bribed (by Bill) to keep them happy.
Given the optionality of by-phrase in passives, Keyser and Roeper consider the notion
"implicit" to have a different implication for middles and passives, respectively
(1984:406).









no identifiable external Agent (Pinker 1989:130; cf. Marantz 1984:180; see Chapter 3 for

more detailed discussion of agentivity and ergative verbs).

In summary, we observed that although the ergative alternation resembles

passivization and middle formation in a number of ways, the former is crucially distinct

from the latter in terms of the presence or/and implication of agentivity. Accordingly, the

ergative alternation investigated in the present study exclusively refers to the pattern

schematized in (5) above.

2.2.2 Semantic Aspects

Another aspect that needs to be analyzed regarding ergative pairs is a semantic

distinction between transitive and ergative members. The semantic relation between

ergative pairs has often been represented through the schemata called Lexical Conceptual

Structure (LCS) in the literature (Guerssel et al. 1985, Hale and Keyser 1987, Levin and

Rappaport Hovav 1995). The LCSs of break, for instance, are typically represented as

follows:

(15) a. ergative transitive break: x CAUSE [y BECOME broken]

b. ergative intransitive break: y BECOME broken

What is schematically striking about the LCS of the transitive alternant is its complex

structure, consisting of a causing subevent and a central subevent (Hale and Keyser

1987).

One apparent semantic property that distinguishes ergative transitives from

ergative intransitives is the presence of CAUSE in the transitive LCS, which is, in a less









technical schematization, paraphrased into 'cause to V-intransitive' (Parsons 1990:106).7

The representation in (15) indicates that the Agent argument x is associated with CAUSE,

whereas the Theme argument y is associated with the state "broken." Given that CAUSE is

not present in the ergative intransitive, uncertainty remains as to how the event denoted

by break takes place. Most researchers assume that the events denoted by ergative

intransitives occur with no intervention of an Agent (Haspelmath 1993, Matsumoto

2000a). In other words, they are perceived to occur spontaneously.8 Thus, when we say

The vase broke in English, the vase just broke on its own accord, meaning that there is no

Agent involved in the event.

The view that the ergative intransitive entails no Agent appears to raise a problem.

Consider the following sentence:

(16) Tom hit the vase with a bat, and it broke.

Evidently, the example indicates that the breaking of the vase did not occur

spontaneously; instead, it is Tom, namely an Agent, who brought about the event.

Evidence like (16) seems to suggest that it is necessary to recognize an Agent at the

semantic level of the ergative intransitive. Levin and Rappaport Hovav(1995) assume

that Agent or Cause is indeed involved in the event denoted by the ergative intransitive.

The argument carrying this thematic role is simply invisible syntactically, according to

Levin and Rappaport Hovav, because it is unspecified in surface constructions. By



7 In light of the presence of CAUSE in the transitive LCS, Pinker (1989) and Levin and
Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) refer to the alternation typified by break as 'causative
inchoativee) alternation'

8 Due to this spontaneous nature of ergative intransitives, they are often referred to as
inchoativee."









underspecification Levin and Rappaport Hovav mean that ergative intransitive

constructions can imply the presence of an Agent or a Cause. It is simply that they do not

identify the type of the Agent or the Cause (cf. Davidse 1992:109). The unspecification

of Agent or Cause characterizing the ergative intransitive also suggests the verb does not

lexicalize agentivity or cause. It should be noted here that underlying the claim by Levin

and Rappaport Hovav is their view that our real world knowledge makes it difficult to

imagine that events like the breaking of a vase would occur without an external cause

(1995:93). Their agentive or causative analysis of ergative intransitive is reflected in part

in the single causative lexical semantic representation of break (cf Chapter 1) in which

ergative intransitives are derived from causative transitives through the process of

detransitivization.9

Nevertheless, I claim, for the reasons that follow, that an argument can be made

for the spontaneity of the ergative intransitive. Firstly, returning to (16), the event (Tom

hit the vase i/ i/h a bat) leading to the rupture of the vase is not essential to the ergative

intransitive break; in other words, it is not a fundamental component of the LCS of

ergative intransitive break. It follows, therefore, that the Agent Tom participating in the

event of hitting the vase has no essential involvement in the resultant state of the vase.

Secondly, as Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995:107) note, even if it is claimed that break

in (16) involves an Agent, the Agent is interpreted, at best, as a passive participant. Based

on Levin and Rappaport Hovav' s view, I assume that the passive nature of a participant

still enables us to conceive the breaking of the vase in (16) as occurring spontaneously



9 Researchers such as Oosten (1977), Levin and Rappaport Hovav(1995), and Kageyama
(1996) hypothesize that Theme is identified with Agent or Cause in ergative intransitive
situations.









(for relationship between passive participant and unspecification of causing event, see

Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.5; see also Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:107).


2.3 Japanese Ergative Pairs

2.3.1 Syntactic Characteristics

Ergative pairs are also commonly observed in Japanese. As illustrated above, the

English ergative alternation involves the parallelism between the object of a transitive

predicate and the subject of an ergative predicate. The same configurational relationship

also holds for Japanese ergative pairs where the subject-object correlation is indicated by

case-marking rather than word order (Okutsu 1967:49, Miyajima 1972:684, Hayatsu

1987:81, Mitsunobu 1992:85).

(17) a. Sono otokonoko-ga mado-o wat-ta.
the boy-NOM window-ACC break-PAST
'The little boy broke the window'

b. Mado-ga ware-ta.
window-NOM break-PAST
'The window broke'

Note that the object mado in (17a), which is marked with the accusative marker -o, is

realized as the subject with the nominative marker -ga in (17b), forming the object-

subject relationship characteristic of the ergative alternation. 10 In addition, the NP mado


10 The correlation between the accusative case marker -o and the transitivity of verbs has
been discussed by scholars for more than a century. Otsuki (1897), who was strongly
influenced by western grammar, first suggested that transitive verbs should take -o as the
accusative marker. Matsushita (1923:18) further developed Otsuki's view, maintaining
that all verbs that occur with -o should be considered transitive (cf Nomura 1982, Morita
1994, Suga and Hayatsu 1995). Thus, in Matsushita's view, verbs like ik- 'go' and hasir-
'run,' which are usually viewed as intransitive when occurring optionally with the
directional particle -e or -ni 'to,' were considered to be transitive verbs when occurring
with -o.
(i) Waga miti-o iku
I-GEN way-ACC go









bears the same thematic role ("Theme") in both constructions, following another criterion

on whether a verb is considered to participate in the ergative alternation Based on the

correspondence between (17a) and (17b), Okutsu (1967) provides a configurational

template for the Japanese ergative alternation, which is fundamentally identical to the

English corresponding template given in (15) above (cf Suga 1981:122, Jacobsen

1992:60):

(18) NPi-ga NP2-o Vtr

NP2-ga Vintr

On Okutsu's view, the subject (NP1) of a transitive predicate is deleted when a verb

undergoes intransitivization and added when a verb undergoes transitivization.

2.3.2 Morphological Characteristics

One key difference between Japanese and English ergative alternating verbs is

that the former overtly exhibits a shift in transitivity by means of derivational

morphology, as exemplified earlier and repeated below. 1




'I will go my own way'
(ii) Yamamiti-o hasit-ta
mountain path-ACC run-PAST
'I ran along the mountain path'
While basically following Matsushita's proposal, Okutsu (1967) maintains that the verbs
in (i)-(ii), which Okutsu subsumes under the category called motion verbs (idoo-doosi),
should be regarded as intransitive since the case marker -o occurring with those verbs is
not an accusative case marker but a "directional particle."

11 A small number of verbs such as hirak- 'open' and mas- 'increase,' which Martin
(1975) refers to as "ambivalent pairs," show no morphological distinctionbetween
intransitive and transitive uses (cf. Morita 1994:168-170). There are more verbs among
Sino-Japanese verbs (cf Jacobsen 1992), a type of complex verbs made up of Chinese
stems and Japanese native verbal suffix -suru (e.g., idoo-suru 'move' and shuuryoo-suru
'end'), which are identical in form regardless of their transitivity. For these ambivalent
pairs, transitivity can only be denoted configurationally.









(19) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE

Japanese English Japanese English
war- break ware- break
sizume- sink sizum- sink
mage- bend magar- bend
tokas- melt toke- melt
yak- bake yake- bake

In other words, while English represents a change in transitivity by syntactic means

alone, Japanese marks the same process morphologically as well as syntactically

(Teramura 1982:305). 12 While the number varies from scholar to scholar, there are

numerous morphologically-related ergative pairs in Japanese. While Jacobsen(1992)

provides a list of about 371 verbs, Hayatsu (1989) identifies almost 600 ergative pairs in

the Japanese lexicon.

It has been noticed that morphological distinctions as observed in (19) are not

inconsistent. Rather, most of the ergative pairs in Japanese are found to follow certain

regular derivational patterns, which are fairly discernible and are limited in number. In

view of this fact, one of the main goals of inve stigating Japanese ergative pairs has been

to identify the derivational patterns and classify them accordingly (cf Shimada 1979).





12 The morphological opposition characterizing Japanese ergative pairs date back to Old
Japanese (cf Shimada 1979, Kageyama 1996:179-180, Komatsu 1999). While several
derivational suffixes have undergone phonetic changes over time, the changes are highly
consistent. For instance, many of the intransitive members with the ending -e(r) paired
with the transitive -(y)as- (Jacobsen's Class IX) used to be spelled -yu. Thus, the modem
Japanese ergative pair hier-/lhoii)- was hIn- hlnyi in Old Japanese. Komatsu (1999:101)
notes that the -yu intransitives implied that events occur spontaneously, whereas the -
(y)as- transitives indicated that events are brought about by intentional agents. Kageyama
(1996) speculates that ergative pairs in Old Japanese might have held closer links
between affixal forms and their semantic functions (cf. Dubinsky 1985:259). According
to Kageyama, the pair tumor-/tum-, which we considered to have opaque semantic links
(Chapter 4), might have had a closer semantic correlation.










Shibatani (1990), for instance, provides a five-group classification of ergative pairs as

below. 13


INTRANSITIVE

ar
agar- 'rise'
atumar- 'gather'
tamar- 'accumulate'

0
ak- 'open'
itam- 'be damaged'
ukab- 'float'

e
are- 'be mined'
okure- 'be late'
ta(y)e- 'be extinct'


0
wak- 'boil'
nak- 'cry'
kusar- 'spoil'

e
hage- 'tear off
ore- 'be broken'
sake- 'split'


(20)


One question that classifications like those above inevitably pose is whether

particular suffix forms reflect verbs' transitivity; in other words, is it possible to predict



13 Most recently, Jacobsen (1992) proposes a sixteen group of ergative pairs in Japanese
(see Appendix; cf. Chapter 4).

14 Morita (1994:166) and Kageyama (1996:180-1) note that the pair hage-/hag- is made
more complicated due to another semantic and morphologically similar pair hagare-
/1hug,'t- 'tear off' Other multiple pairs like hage-, hagare-/hag-, hagas- include tizim-,
tizimar-/tizimer-, tiziras- 'shrinkvi/shrinkvt,' usure-, usurag-, usumar-/usumer-
'weakei/weakenwt.'


Group a


TRANSITIVE

e
age- 'raise'
atume- 'gather'
tame- 'accumulate'

e
ake- 'open'
itame- 'damage'
ukabe- 'float'

as
aras- 'ruin'
okuras- 'postpone'
ta(y)as- 'annihilate'

as
wakas- 'boil'
nakas- 'make cry'
kusaras- 'spoil'

0
hag- 'tear off'14
or- 'break'
sak- 'split'


Group b


Group c


Group d


Group e









merely by suffixal form whether each member of a given pair is transitive or intransitive?

If this is the case, then it follows that the significance of syntactic configuration will be

enormously diminished in dealing with the ergative alternation in Japanese. The

classification in (20) seems to suggest that there is such a relationship between suffixal

form and transitivity. That is, the suffixes -ar in Group (20a) and -as in Group (20c, d)

are constantly associated with intransitive and transitive, respectively.

The correspondence between suffix form and transitivity just described does not

always hold for all groups of Japanese ergative pairs. As pointed out by Okutsu (1967),

Jacobsen (1992), and among others, the suffix -e exhibits a conflicting behavior in terms

of transitivity. That is, it functions as a transitivizer in Group (20b), and as an

intransitivizer in Group (20d). Such conflicting functions associated with-e naturally

make the transitivity of a given verb containing the suffix unpredictable. Jacobsen (1992)

exemplifies this point by providing a hypothetical Japanese verb pair harik- and harike-.

Given that -e can be either a transitivizing or an intransitivizing suffix, there is simply no

telling which form of the pair is transitive. In fact, the inconsistent behavior of the suffix

seems to have puzzled researchers who attempted to prove an inherent relationship

between suffix form and transitivity.15 At the very least, the dual functions of the suffix -e

suggest that the transitivity of morphological pairs is not completely predictable from the

form of a derivational suffix.16 This in turn suggests that the syntactic configuration in



15 Kitagawa and Fujii (1999), while emphasizing the regularity of the derivational process
of morphological pairs in most of Jacobsen's classes, had to adopt a semantic approach to
the morphological pairs in Group (b) and (d) in order to elucidate their elusive behaviors.

16 The different morpho-semantic behaviors observable between -as and -e might be
better explained under Aronoff s view of structural transparency and semantic coherence
(1976:20-21; cf. Tyler 1999:80). In keeping with his terminology, it might be argued that









(18) above still plays an important role in determining the transitivity of ergative pairs in

Japanese.

Additionally, this research project raises a question of semantic coherence

between morphologically-related verb pairs. Specifically, I propose to attempt to

determine whether or not morphological opposition reflect changes in the semantics of

the pairs. As Chapter 4 will demonstrate, numerous modem Japanese ergative pairs hold

little or no semantic affinity. This indicates that shared verb stems between ergative pairs

do not necessarily mean that the pairs are semantically correlated. As Ichihashi (1992:18-

19) points out, ergative pairs like ak- 'open' vs. akas- 'reveal' and bake- 'disguise

oneself vs. bakas- 'bewitch' are hardly considered semantically related. I will

demonstrate later that such semantically tenuous pairs are ubiquitous in the Japanese

ergative pairs. Given this fact, the present study focuses mainly on Japanese ergative

pairs whose shared verb stems hold semantic affinity.

To summarize, I will refer to morphologically-related Japanese verb pairs as

ergative pairs only when they (1) share a common root, (2) hold very close semantic

affinities, and (3) have the same noun phrase as the subject in the intransitive

construction and the object in the transitive construction (cf. Hayatsu 1987, Ichihashi

1992:18-19).







transitive verbs containing -as are not structurally transparent. In other words, there is no
rule for determining which variant should be attached to its verb stem, but these variants
are considered semantically transparent because they are always associated with
transitive meanings. In contrast, verbs containing a non-variant suffix -e might be said to
be structurally transparent. They are not, however, semantically coherent because no
constant semantic association can be attributed to this suffix.









2.4 Ergative Alternation: Issues

Several issues have been raised surrounding the ergative alternation (cf. Levin

1985:18). One has to do with whether the ergative alternation involves a lexical rule or

syntactic rule (Keyser and Roeper 1984; cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3). Another question

that needs to be addressed is whether verbs which alternate in transitivity consist of a

single lexical entry or two separate lexical entries (Pinker 1989:71-72). Furthermore, the

direction of derivation involving the ergative alternation has also been discussed in the

literature (Comrie 1985, Croft 1990, Dixon 1991, Jacobsen 1985, Haspelmath 1993).

While those issues call for further investigation, the present chapter is more

concerned with the obvious fact that not all verbs participate in the ergative alternation.

More specifically, there are intransitive verbs which do not occur in transitive

constructions and transitive verbs which do not occur in intransitive constructions (Pinker

1989:130; cf Ritter and Rosen 1998). As mentioned previously, the intransitive verb

laugh cannot be used transitively in English.

(21) a. Tom laughed.

b. *Bill laughed Tom (on the interpretation "Bill caused Tom to laugh")

Along the same lines, the transitive verb destroy lacks its anti-causative, intransitive

counterpart.

(22) a. The storm destroyed the house.

b. *The house destroyed. (on the interpretation "The house came to the state
of being destroyed")









The most common way to grammatically achieve the interpretation as instantiated within

the parenthesis in (22b) is to use a passive construction. 17

(23) The house was destroyed.

Given (22) and (23), the obvious question is why verbs vary regarding their

alternatability. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, I will follow Wasaw (1985), Pinker

(1989), and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995), among others, in suggesting that the

syntactic behaviors of verbs are to a large extent dependent on the semantics of the verbs.

Moreover, given that verbs that participate in the ergative alternation belong to the same

semantic classes across languages (Levin 1985:22), it is important to conduct a thorough

analysis of languages other than English to corroborate this admittedly expansive

generalization My ultimate goal is to find whether the semantics-syntax approach

proposed for the English ergative pairs can be adapted to Japanese ergative pairs.


2.5 Unaccusativity

It has been noted in the literature that unaccusativity plays an important part in the

ergative alternation (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Arad 1998). The effect of

unaccusativity on the ergative alternation is discerned most noticeably in the fact the

intransitive members of ergative pairs are usually identified as "unaccusative" (Borer and

Wexler 1987:158, Tsujimura 1990b:935, 1996:323-4, Levin and Rappaport Hovav,

1995:80, Ono 1997:168).18 This seems to suggest that a close examination of


17 D. Gary Miller (p.c.) pointed out to me that The house self-destructed would be another
way to express the same meaning inchoatively.

18 In keeping with Perlmutter (1978) and others, I utilize the term unaccusative in the
current section regardless of whether unaccusative verbs alternate with transitive uses.









unaccusativity may help us better understand the mechanism of the ergative alternation.

In this section I first review the syntactic and semantic characteristics of unaccusatives.

And then I discuss how the semantic properties associated with unaccusativity may

account for the ergative alternation system in English and Japanese.

2.5.1 The Unaccusativity Hypothesis

In 1978 Perlmutter proposed that intransitive verbs do not constitute a

homogeneous group but instead consist of two distinct types of verbs: unergative and

unaccusative verbs. Under the theory of the Unaccusative Hypothesis, Perlmutter

maintained that the arguments that are subjects of unaccusative verbs such as arrive and

fall are in fact objects at the initial level of representation. On a Government-Binding

approach, unaccusative verbs are assumed to generate their sole argument as the direct

object in D-structure. Following Burzio's generalization that the unaccusative verbs fail

to assign case to their interml argument in D-structure (Burzio 1986, cf Grimshaw 1987),

Tom in (24) is considered an argument without case.

(24) Unaccusative Verb: arrive

S

NP Infl'


Infl VP

V NP

0 amve Tom


(Spencer 1991:260)









For the purpose of acquiring a subject case, Tom moves to the position external to VP,

which is unoccupied in the underlying structure.

(25) S

NP Infl'

Infl VP

V NP

Tomi amve ti

On the other hand, unergative verbs such as run or laugh have their argument in the

subject position at both levels (i.e. D- and S-structures). As a consequence, the type of

movement as illustrated in (25) does not occur to the unergative verb run in (26) since the

NP Tom originates in the subject position in D-structure:

(26) Unergative Verb: run




NP Infl'

Infl VP

V

Tom ran (Spencer 1991:260)

The split intransitivityjust described is observable across languages. In particular, for the

purpose of demonstrating the universality of unaccusativity, a number of unaccusative









diagnostics have been proposed in different languages. 19 In what follows, we look at how

unaccusativity is represented in English and Japanese.

2.5.2 Unaccusative Verbs in English

As discussed in the preceding section, the distinction between unaccusativity and

unergativity is summarized broadly as the former having an underlying object and the

latter having an underlying subject (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:3). In this

section we examine English split intransitivity, focusing on diagnostics which reflect the

differing underlying argument structures of unaccusativity and unergativity.

In keeping with the view that unaccusativity is observed cross-linguistically,

several diagnostics have been proposed in English (L. Levin 1988, Levin and Rappaport

Hovav 1992a). In particular, the resultative construction is considered in the literature to

be a diagnostic which provides evidence that the surface subject of the unaccusative

verbs is in fact the underlying object (Simpson 1983, Levin and Rappaport 1989,

Kageyama 1996). It is well known that unaccusative verbs can occur in the resultative

construction, whereas unergative verbs do not, as illustrated below:

(27) a. The vase broke into pieces.

b. *Tom talked hoarse. (on the interpretation 'After Tom talked too much,
his voice became hoarse.')

Sentence (27a) is grammatical in that the resultative attribute (into pieces) is predicated

of the subject (the vase). In contrast, sentence (27b) is ungrammatical in that the attribute

hoarse cannot form a resultative relationship with the subject Tom. The only way

sentence (27b) can be grammatical is when the attribute hoarse is not resultative but



19 For instance, Impersonal Passivization in Dutch (Perlmutter 1978) and Ne-cliticization
in Italian (Burzio 1986) are such diagnostics.









descriptive on the interpretation of 'Tom talked, while his voice was hoarse.' Given the

contrast in (27), Simpson (1983:146) argues that:

The controller of a resultative attribute must be an OBJECT, whether that object
is a surface OBJECT, as in transitive verbs, or an underlying OBJECT, as in
passives and intransitive verbs of the Unaccusative class.

What is noticeable about Simpson's view is that the parallelism between a controller and

an OBJECT agrees with the view that the subject of an unaccusative verb is invariably

the underlying object. Thus, the subject vase in (27a) is considered to originate in the

internal position where it serves as a controller juxtaposed to the attribute (into pieces).

The underlying syntactic configuration between vase and the verb break will be indirectly

illustrated by the transitive construction involving the verb break, as illustrated in (28)

below.

(28) Tom broke the vase into pieces.

Another unaccusative diagnostic that appear to point to the underlying structure of

the unaccusativity verb is adjective passive formation (Grimshaw 1987:245, Levin and

Rappaport 1986, 1989:327).

(29) a. fallen leaves
(cf Leaves fell on to the ground)

b. the stolen car
(cf The car was stolen)

c. *the walked man
(cf The man walked along the beach)

Levin and Rappaport (1989:327) point out the correspondence between unaccusative

subjects and transitive objects, maintaining that adjectival passives are predicated of both

unaccusative subjects and transitive objects, but not of unergative and transitive subjects.









2.5.3 Unaccusative Verbs in Japanese

It is maintained that as in English, sentences containing unaccusative verbs

involve movement of an internal argument in Japanese (Miyagawa 1989a:23; cf.

Kageyama 1993:46). As described earlier, the internal argument of an English

unaccusative verb, which occurs within a VP, has its thematic role Theme assigned

directly by the verb. Since the verb fails to assign case to any internal argument, the NP

moves to the position external to the VP in order to acquire a subject case via inflection.

The same is true of Japanese unaccusatives as well, except for the fact that in Japane se

the moved NP is overly marked with the case marker -ga. The template of Japanese

unaccusativity is diagrammed as follows (Miyagawa 1989a:85):

(30) S



NP, ga VP


ti V

In (30), the NP is first assigned the thematic role Theme by an unaccusative verb (V).

Since the V assigns no case (Miyagawa 1989a:89), the NP moves to the subject position

to receive case, leaving a trace behind. As will be discussed in more detail later, it is

important to ensure that the NP in (30) has already received its thematic role Theme from

the verb inside the VP prior to the movement, since the case marker -ga is incapable of

assigning a thematic role

Evidence that unaccusativity also exists in Japanese has been presented in the

literature (Tsujimura 1991, Miyagawa 1989a, Kageyama 1996). At least two

unaccusative diagnostics appear to have direct relevance to Japanese ergative pairs. The









first diagnostic concerns Numeral Quantifiers (NQ) and the constraints on their

correlation with NP referents. The Japanese NQ consists of a numeral and a classifier

(CL; e.g., -satu for 'book,' -nin for 'person,' etc.), usually placed after an NP that is

counted.

(31) a. Taroo-wa hon-o ni-satu kat-ta.
Taro-TOP book-ACC two-CL buy-PAST
'Taro bought two books.'

b. Tomodati-ga san-nin uti-ni ki-ta.
Friend-NOM three-CL (my) house-to come-PAST
'Three friends came to my house.'

Miyagawa (1989a) postulates that the NP and the NQ constitute syntactically separate

phrases; in other words, the NQ is neither a specifier nor a complement of the NP.

Furthermore, the NQ is not an argument of the verb in that the verb does not assign a

thematic role to it. Rather, the relation between the NP and the NQ is more like that of

predication in which the NQ is predicated of the NP (Miyagawa 1989a:22). In this

respect, the NQ is analogous to a small clause like raw in the following sentence, where

raw is predicated of its antecedent meat (cf Williams 1980).

(32) John ate the meat raw. (Miyagawa 1989a:22)

In order to form a proper predication relationship, the NQ and the NP should always be in

a mutual c-command relation (Miyagawa 1989a:27ff). This is illustrated in the following

examples:

(33) a. Tomodati-ga 2-ri Sinzyuku-de Tanaka-sensei-ni at-ta
friend-NOM 2-CL Shinjuku-in Prof Tanaka-DAT meet-PAST
'Two friends met Professor Tanaka in Shinjuku.'

(Miyagawa 1989a:28)
b. *Tomodati-no kuruma-ga 3-nin kosyoo-sita
friend-GEN car-NOM 3-CL broke down
'Three friends' car broke down' (Miyagawa 1989a:29)










In sentence (33a), the NQ 2-ri 'two' and its referent NP tomodati 'friend' are in a mutual

c-command relation outside the VP. The relation is diagrammed as below(Miyagawa

1989a:29):

(34) S



NP NQ VP



tomodati-ga 2-ri Tanaka sensei-ni at-ta

By contrast, tomodati and san-nin in sentence (33b) do not form a mutual c-command

relationship because tomodati fails to c-command 3-nin. This is illustrated in the

following tree diagram (Miyagawa 1989a:30):

(35) S



NP NQ VP


NP N3-nin


tomodati-no kuruma-ga kosyoo-sita

It is interesting to note, however, that there are some cases in which the mutual c-

command does not seem to obtain for the relation between an NQ and its referent in

Japanese. For instance, the following example shows that the NP doa 'door' and the NQ

huta-tu 'two' are not in a mutual c-command relation because the VP (kono kagi-de huta-

tu ai-ta) that dominates the NQ does not dominate the NP. Nevertheless, sentence (36) is

grammatical.









(36) Doa-ga [vp kono kagi-de huta-tu ai-ta]. (< ak- 'open' + ta)
door-NOM this key-with two-CL open-PAST
'Two doors opened with this key.' (Miyagawa 1989a:43)

Miyagawa explains the grammaticality of (36) by hypothesizing that the NP doa 'door'

originates inside the VP and leaves a trace after moving outside the VP. It is this trace,

according to Miyagawa, that enables the NP doa and the NQ huta-tu 'two' to form a

mutual c-command relation. The tree diagram of this derivation is illustrated as follows

(Tsujimura 1996:272):

(37) S


NP VP


do i-ga PP NP 1NQ

kN P i j huta-tu ai-ta

kono kagi e

The grammaticality of sentence (36) implies that the verb ak- 'open' is an unaccusative

verb. Such mutual c-command relationship between a NP trace and an NQ does not

obtain for unergative verbs like hasir- 'run' as diagramed below (Tsujimura 1996:273-4):

(38) *Gakusei-ga [vp awatete inu-to sannin hasit-ta].
student-NOM hurriedly dog-with 3-CL run-PAST
'Three students ran hurriedly with the dog.'
















Adv PP NQ V
gakusei-ga
N P
awatete sannin hasit-ta

inu to

In (38), the subject NP gakusei 'student' originates and remains in the position external to

the VP, preventing itself from forming a mutual c-command relation with the referent NQ

sannin 'three.'

Resultative constructions also serve as a diagnostic of Japanese unaccusativity

(Tsujimura 1991). As with English, the controllers of resultative attributes can be

predicated of the subjects of unaccusative verbs as well as the objects of transitive verbs

in Japanese (Tsujimura 1991:97).

(39) Hanako-no kami-gai [vp ti nagaku nobi-ta].
Hanako-GEN hair-NOM long grow-PAST
'Hanako' s hair grew long'

The subject NP kami 'hair' in (39), which is marked so with -ga, is linked to its trace

inside the VP. Thus, it follows from the generalization given above (Section 2.5.3) that

the resultative attribute nagaku 'long' is predicated of the underlying OBJECT kami. On

the other hand, as expected from the behavior of the English verb talk as described above,

the Japanese equivalent hanas- 'talk' does not occur in resultative constructions.

(40) *Taroo-wa [p kutakuta-ni hanasi-ta].
Taro-TOP exhausted talk-PAST
'Taro talked exhausted'









Since the subject (Taro) is a base-generated subject, it violates Simpson's requirement

that the controller should be OBJECT. Thus, sentence (40) proves to be ungrammatical.

Based on the unaccusative diagnostics just described, given below are Japanese

intransitive verbs which are identified as unaccusative in the literature (Miyagawa

1989a:43, 97-99, Tsujimura 1990a:283, 1990c:264, 1996:276, 323).20

(41) simar- 'close' ak- 'open'
koware- 'broke' taore- 'fall'
katamar- 'solidify' ku- 'come'
hair- 'enter' agar- 'go up, rise'
tuk- 'arrive' kuzure- 'collapse'
kire- 'be cut' more- 'leak'
toke- 'melt' tamar- 'accumulate'
ware- 'break' suber- 'slide'
kie- 'turn off ukab- 'float'
tuk- 'turn on' de- 'come out'
ik- 'go' oti- 'fall'
kaer- 'return' tat- 'depart'
korogar- 'roll' hazum- 'bounce'

To summarize this section, we have observed that a range of diagnostics both in

English and Japanese has attested to the view of split intransitivity. Note, however, that

these diagnostics in essence reflect the fact that the distinction between unaccusative and

unergative is syntactically coded (cf Levin and Rappaport 1989:9). In other words, these

diagnostics do not tell us what semantic aspects, if any, of verbs result in such different

syntactic behaviors. As will be discussed below, Perlmutter (1978:161) had already

suggested that the distinction between unaccusative and unergative can be explained

semantically (for further work on semantic implications of unaccusativity, see Levin



20 Kishimoto (1996:264-5) gives the following additional list of unaccusative verbs:
obore- 'be drowned,' sin- 'die,' umare- 'be born,' nemur- 'sleep,' tissoku-suru 'smother,'
hurue- 'tremble,' kuru- 'go wrong,' kom- 'be crowded,' moe- 'burn,' yowar- 'weaken,'
katamuk- 'lean,' mahi-suru 'paralyze,' nak- 'cry,' korob- 'fall down,' kumor- 'get
cloudy,' naor- 'heal.'









1985). In the section that follows, I will conduct a semantic analysis of split intransitivity,

suggesting that the unaccusative/unergative distinction is characterizable semantically as

well as syntactically.

2.5.4 Semantic Characterization of Unaccusativity

In the preceding section, I have demonstrated that the subjects of unaccusative

verbs originate in the object position at the underlying level both in English and Japanese.

In so doing, I outlined several diagnostics which are proven to attest to split intransitivity.

One difficulty, however, with the analysis of unaccusativity on the basis of such

diagnostics has to do with the fact that unaccusative diagnostics in general depict the core

structure of unaccusative verbs (e.g., [collapse tent]) in indirect ways. In other words, all

these diagnostics deal with deep unaccusativity, where the argument appears only in the

subject position (cf. Bresnan and Zaenen 1990).

There are, however, some diagnostics that seem to point to surface unaccusativity

in English (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:19):

(42) a. There appeared a ship on the horizon

b. Into the room came a man

Sentences (42a-b) are examples of there-insertion construction and locative inversion,

respectively (L. Levin 1988, Hoekstra and Mulder 1990). Note that both diagnostics

overtly indicate the original position of the internal arguments (ship and Tom) of the

unaccusative verbs (appear and came). Given (42), one may well claim that

unaccusativity is indeed a syntactic phenomenon, which makes no semantic account

necessary (cf. C. Rosen 1984). The problem with the surface unaccusative diagnostics,

however, is that they are applicable to a limited number of unaccusative verbs. For









instance, the ergative intransitives melt permits neither there-insertion construction nor

locative inversion.

(43) a. *There melted lots of ice that morning. (L. Levin 1988:23)

b. *On the streets of Chicago melted a lot of snow.

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:224)

Another problem with unaccusative diagnostics has to do with inconsistency with

respect to the selection of unaccusative and unergative verbs. Levin and Rappaport

Hovav (1995:13) suggest that different unaccusative diagnostics may bring about a

conflicting result as to whether a given verb is unergative or unaccusative. For instance,

as discussed by Borer (1998:61), the Dutch unaccusative verb vallen 'fall' can occur with

the unaccusative diagnostic impersonal passive if the verb is provided with the additional

meaning of "intention" (see Levin and Rappaport 1989 for further discussion of

unaccusative mismatch).

In view of the syntactic uncertainty involving unaccusativity just described, Van

Valin (1990) argues that the unaccusative-unergativity distinction is better explained

semantically (cf. Tsujimura 1994a, Kishimoto 1996). In fact, Perlmutter had initially

suggested the possibility of explaining the unaccusative-unergative distinction

semantically, stating that "[I]nitial unergativity vs. unaccusativity is predictable from the

semantics of the clause" (1978:161; cf Van Valin 1990:221). In 1984, Perlmutter and

Postal formulate the Universal Alignment Hypothesis, assuming that semantically-

characterizable verbs of unaccusative type in one language are also unaccusative in all

other languages (cf. Mulder and Wehrmann 1989:117):









(44) Universal Alignment H)plathe'i'
There exist principles of universal grammar which predict the initial
relation borne by each nominal in a given clause from the meaning of the
clause
(Perlmutter and Postal 1984:97)

Building on the hypothesis, Perlmutter and Postal categorize English unergative and

unaccusative verbs semantically as follows (1984:98-99):

(45) Unergative verbs

a. Predicates describing willed or volitional acts:
work, play, speak, talk, smile, grin, frown, grimace, think, meditate,
cogitate, daydream, skate, ski, swim, hunt, bicycle, walk, skip (voluntary),
jog, quarrel, fight, wrestle, box, agree, disagree, knock, bang, hammer,
pray, weep, cry, kneel, bow, courtesy, genuflect, cheat, lie (tell a
falsehood), study, whistle (voluntary), laugh, dance, crawl, etc.

Manner-of-speaking verbs.
whisper, shout, mumble, grumble, growl, bellow, blurt out, etc.

Predicates describing sounds made by animals:
bark, neigh, whinny, quack, roar (voluntary), chirp, oink, meow, etc.

b. Certain involuntary bodily process21
cough, sneeze, hiccup, belch, burp, vomit, defecate, urinate, sleep, cry,
weep, etc.

(46) Unaccusative verbs

a. Predicates expressed by adjectives in English:
a very large class, including predicates describing sizes, shapes, weights,
colors, smells, states of mind, etc.

b. Predicates whose initial unclear term is semantically a Patient:
burn, fall, drop, sink, float, slide, slip, soar, flow, ooze, seep, trickle, drip,
gush, hang, sway, wave, tremble, shake, languish, thrive, drown, stumble,
roll, succumb, dry, blow away, boil, seethe, lie (involuntary), sit
(involuntary),





21 If bodily processes are perceived as involuntary, they might well be unaccusative (cf
Miller 1993:66).









Inchoative:
melt, freeze, evaporate, vaporize, solidify, crystallize, dim, brighten,
redden, darken, yellow, rot, decompose, germinate, sprout, bud, wilt,
wither, increase, decrease, reduce, grow, collapse, dissolve, disintegrate,
die, perish, choke, suffocate, blush, open, close, break, shatter, crumble,
crack, split, burst, explode, burn up, burn down, dry up, dry out, scatter,
disperse, fill, vanish, disappear, etc.

c. Predicates of existing and happening:
exist, happen, transpire, occur, take place, and various inchoatives such as
arise, ensue, result, show up, end up, turn up, pop up, vanish, disappear, etc.

d. Involuntary emission of stimuli that impinge on the senses:
shine, spark, glitter, glisten, glow, jingle, clink, clang, snap (involuntary),
crackle, pop, smell, stink, etc.

e. Aspectual predicates:
begin, start, stop, cease, continue, end, etc.

f Durative:
last, remain, stay, survive, etc.

In general, unergative verbs appear to reveal a unified, constant characteristic: a majority

of them, with the exception of verbs of involuntary bodily process, involve volition, or

'agentivity' of the argument.22 By contrast, the argument of the unaccusative entails no

agentivity (Dowty 1991:605ff, Borer 1994:21). More importantly, however, the thematic

role 'Patient' in (46b) indicates that unaccusativity involves 'change of state or location'

as one of its key semantic properties. In particular, it is readily noticed that the inchoative

verbs are associated with this semantic property (cf Levin and Rappaport Hovav

1995:80). As will be discussed in more detail later in Chapter 3, change of state plays a

crucial role in determining not only unaccusativity of verbs but also the ability of verbs to

alternate in transitivity.


22 Dowty (1991:607) characterizes volition as involving 'sentience.'









Another semantic property that appears to have been noticed in the recent

literature as a defining characteristic ofunaccusativity is that of aspect. In particular,

telicity or a natural endpoint in time, which typically characterizes the aspectual classes

of Achievements and Accomplishments, is also considered to characterize unaccusativity

(McClure 1990, Dowty 1991:607, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992a:260, 1995:166-7,

Tsujimura 1996:329, Arad 1998).23 The correlation between unaccusativity and telicity is

demonstrated in part by the fact that most of the unaccusatives do not combine with

adverbials of duration likefor an hour.

(47) a. *Tom arrived for an hour.

b. *The accident happened for an hour.

By contrast, unergatives, which are characterized as atelic, are compatible with the same

adverbial phrase.

(48) a. Tom walked for an hour.

b. Tom cried for an hour.

The telic nature of unaccusativity is also observed in Japanese. Tsujimura

(1991:97) points out that the Japanese aspectual marker -te iru means resultative state

when occurring with unaccusative verbs, whereas it means progressive when occurring

with unergative verbs. Thus, as illustrated below, the accusative predicate ai-te iru (< ak-

'open' + te iru) expresses a resultative state.

(49) Mado-ga zenbu ai-te iru.
window-NOM all open-ASP
'All the windows are open' (Tsujimura 1991:98)




23 Tenny (1987, 1994) uses the term "delimitedness" rather than telicity to describe the
same aspectual situation. Arad (1998:18) estimates that 95% of unaccusatives are telic.









By contrast, the unergative predicate arui-te iru (< aruk- 'walk' + te iru) expresses

progressive.

(50) Masao-wa ima eki-no mae-o arui-te iru
Masao-TOP now station-GEN in front of walk-ASP
'Masao is walking in front of the station now'

(Tsujimura 1991:98)

Interestingly enough, if unergatives co-occur with adverbials that designate the endpoint

(i.e., telicity) of the activities denoted by the verbs, then the -te iru constructions with

such unergatives no longer express progressive but rather resultative state (cf. Tsujimura

1991:104).

(51) Masao-wa go-maim arui-te iru
Masao-TOP five miles walk-ASP
'Masao has walked five miles'

Examples (50) and (51) seem to show that telicity has to do with the distinction between

unaccusativity and unergativity in Japanese (the issue of aspect in relation to

unaccusativity will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5).

2.5.5 Unaccusativity and Ergative Alternation

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, many of the intransitive altemants

of the English ergative alternating verbs are identified with unaccusative verbs. Arad

(1998:13) further assumes that the ability of verbs to participate in the ergative

alternation serves as one of the unaccusative diagnostics (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav

1995:31). This is readily illustrated by the intransitive verbs of the following alternating

pairs, which are found in the list of the unaccusative verbs in (46) above.

(52) a. Tom broke the vase.
The vase broke.

b. The heat melted the ice in no time.
The ice melted in no time.









c. Tom opened the door.
The door opened.

If the contention that the intransitive members of ergative pairs are unaccusative is

correct, then one may well say that the ergative alternation overtly shows the underlying

position of the single argument of the unaccusative verb. Thus, the transitive altemants in

(52a-c) can be claimed to show the position where the subject of the unaccusative verb is

assumed to originate. Furthermore, if we follow the view that the intransitive break is

unaccusative, then the transitive construction could serve as evidence that the subject of

an unaccusative verb is identified as an internal argument, originating in the object

position.

While most of the intransitive alternants of the ergative alternating verbs are

unaccusatives, it is nevertheless important to note the fact that not all the unaccusative

verbs participate in the alternation (Grimshaw 1987:251, Pinker 1989:42-43, Ono

1997:168). In other words, only a subset of the unaccusative verbs can alternately occur

in transitive constructions. Pinker lists the following verbs as unaccusatives which do not

causativize (1989:42-3):

(53) fall, come, appear, arrive, enter, ascend, die, vanish, exist

Additionally, among the unaccusative verbs given in (45) above, the following seem to

fail to enter into the ergative alternation (cf Pinker 1989:131-132, Levin 1993a):24



24 Some of the non-alternating unaccusative verbs may be used as transitive verbs
depending on the meaning.
(i) a. The sun shines.
b. *The scientists shines the sun
(ii) a. The flashlight shines.
b. Tom shines the flashlight.
D.G. Miller (p.c.) points out that since the verbs in (i) and (ii) have different past tense
forms (shone and shined respectively), they should be considered different verbs.









(54) soar, flow, ooze, seep, trickle, gush, tremble, languish, flourish, thrive,
stumble, succumb, seethe, sit; evaporate, yellow, rot, decompose, germinate,
sprout, bud, wilt, wither, collapse, disintegrate, perish, blush, disappear;
happen, transpire, occur, take place; arise, ensue, result, show up, end up,
pop up; shine, spark, glitter, glisten, glow, crackle, smell, stink; last, remain,
stay

The question remaining to be addressed is: what aspects of the unaccusative verbs in (53)

and (54) make them unable to alternate with a transitive use? Given that unaccusativity is

determined semantically (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:21), is it possible to

further account for such differing behaviors among unaccusative verbs on semantic

grounds? While many of the non-alternating unaccusatives might be semantically

characterized as verbs of existence and appearance or verbs of emission (cf Levin 1993a),

are there any semantic properties shared by these two classes of verb whereby we can

predict the non-alternating behaviors of these verbs? As stated earlier, the position that I

take throughout my dissertation is that the syntactic behaviors of verbs are generally

explicable semantically. Thus I assume that the distinction between alternating and non-

alternating unaccusative verbs should be made in terms of their semantic properties. We

will discuss this issue in more detail in Chapter 3.


2.6 Direction of Derivation

One of the issues addressed in the literature with regard to the ergative alternation

has to do with the direction of derivation between ergative transitives and ergative

intransitives. In other words, research is concerned with which member of the ergative

pair is basic and which one is derived. Earlier research based on derivational morphology

and markedness theory has revealed that the direction of derivation between ergative

pairs varies from language to language (Nedyalkov and Silnitsky 1973, Haspelmath

1993). As noted previously, Japanese is among those languages in which morphological









pairs are formally distinguishable and ample research has been conducted on the issue of

derivational direction (Okutsu 1967). For languages like English, however, in which the

distinction between transitives and ergatives is not overly marked, the direction of

derivation has been a moot point (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Hale and Keyser

1998). In this section, I review how the issue of direction of derivation has been

addressed in the literature on the ergative alternation in English and Japanese.

2.6.1 Derivational Direction of English Ergative Pairs

2.6.1.1 Causativization

The view most commonly held by researchers regarding the direction of

derivation is that transitive ergatives are derived from intransitive bases, a process usually

referred to as causativization (Chomsky 1970:215, Williams 1981, Keyser and Roeper

1984, Guerssel et al. 1985, Pinker 1989, S.T. Rosen 1996). On this view, the ergative

transitive break, for instance, is derived from the intransitive break as a result of the

addition of the semantic element CAUSE to the latter.25

(55) intransitive break cause (+ intransitive break) transitive break

Keyser and Roeper (1984) and Guerssel et al. (1985) consider the process of

causativization to take place in the lexicon, representing the LCS of the ergative verb

break as follows:

(56) a. LCS for intranstive break: y come to be BROKEN

b. LCS for transitive break: x CAUSE (y come to be BROKEN)




25 Hale and Keyser (1986) consider the process of causativization to be a crucial property
of ergative alternation in that it clearly distinguishes the ergative alternation from the
middle alternation. Hale and Keyser argue that a middle verb is derived from a dyadic
LCS, while an ergative intransitive is derived from a monadic LCS (1986:11).









The representation in (56) demonstrates that the transitive LCS (x CAUSE (y come to be

BROKEN)) is derived from the ergative LCS (y come to be BROKEN) by virtue of what

they call a causative rule. On this view, the ergative alternation reflects a syntactic

realization of the intransitive and transitive LCSs of break. In short, Guerssel et al. argue

that while the basic argument structure of the ergative verb is monadic, both transitive

and intransitive uses of ergative pairs are listed in the lexicon. This implies that the verb

break has two separate lexical entries in English(cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1).

In support of the causativizing process of the ergative alternation, Hale and

Keyser (1998:100, 111) simply posit the concept of basic argument structure, maintaining

that "[I]n the absence of morphological evidence, the direction is always from the simpler

structure (the intransitive or inchoative) to the more complex (the transitive)."

Haspelmath (1993) expresses a similar causativization view from a semantic point of

view:

There are independent semantic reasons to think that the causative member of an
inchoative/causative alternation is semantically derived, while the inchoative
member is semantically basic...on purely semantic grounds we seem to be forced
to conclude that causative verbs are derived from inchoatives. (1993:89)

As evidenced in the arguments by Hale and Keyser and Haspelmath, they rely on their

own intuition concerning the direction of derivation with little concrete evidence.

Drawing on grammatical judgment, Chomsky (1970) notes that it is the ungrammaticality

of *NP grow children and the grammaticality of children grow that enables us to say the

ergative use of grow is basic. This observation, however, does not account for the

contradicting case where it is grammatical to say He broke the rule but ungrammatical to

say *The rule broke (for further discussion of this issue see Chapter 3, Section 3.2).









2.6.1.2 Anticausativization

While hardly any conclusive evidence is provided for the theory of

causativization, the view that ergative intransitives are derived from their corresponding

ergative transitive bases has gained substantial ground recently. In contrast to

causativization, this process is referred to as anti-causativization (Zubizarreta 1987) or

detransitivization (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). In keeping with the proposal by

Guerssel et al. (1985), Keyser and Roeper (1984) view ergative pairs as being generated

in the lexicon. Crucially, however, Keyser and Roeper differ from Guerssel et al. in that

they assume that ergative uses are derived from the transitive bases via ergative rule. The

anticausative process presented by Keyser and Roeper is characterized by movement of

the argument via Move ac from the object position inside the transitive VP. Keyser and

Roeper illustrate this process by the verb sink (Keyser and Roeper 1984:402).

(57) sink / [s NP [p [NP]]]

[s NP, [w [t,]]]

Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) basically follow Keyser and Roeper in

suggesting that the LCS of break is a single causative representation and the ergative

intransitive counterpart is derived through what they call detransitivization In support of

their view of detransitivization, Levin and Rappaport Hovav provide evidence that

possible subjects of ergative intransitives are a subset of possible objects of the

corresponding transitive ergatives due to selectional restrictions imposed on the former.

That is, ergative transitives appear to allow a wider rage of objects than the

corresponding intransitives allow subjects. This is illustrated below, in which the









syntactic objects table and skirt of the transitive ergatives in (58a) and (59a) fail to occur

in the subject positions of the intransitive counterparts in (58b) and (59b).

(58) a. The waiter cleared the table.

b. *The table cleared.

(59) a. The dressmaker lengthened the skirt.

b. *The skirt lengthened (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:86)

On Levin and Rappaport Hovav' terms, causativization approach does not provide a

satisfactory explanation as to how transitives can be derived from non-existent

intransitive counterparts. Building on their claim that "the basic use of the verb will

impose less stringent restrictions on its arguments," Levin and Rappaport Hovav

conclude that ergative transitive constructions are basic (1995:86).

Moreover, as Levin and Rappaport Hovav point out, cross-linguistic

morphological evidence appears to support their transitive-based and intransitive-derived

view (1995:87-88). Citing a study by Haspelmath (1993) in which ergative alternating

patterns in more than twenty languages are analyzed, Levin and Rappaport Hovav stress

the fact that the ergative intransitive form of break, seemingly the prime example of the

ergative verb among researchers, has a strong tendency to be more marked

morphologically than the transitive counterpart. In light of the evidence of derivational

morphology, it is reasonable to assume, even in languages like English where there are

hardly any morphological distinctions between ergative transitives and intransitives, that









ergative transitives are basic and the corresponding intransitives are derived via

detransitivization. 26

2.6.2 Derivational Direction of Japanese Ergative Pairs

As mentioned previously, the ergative pairs in Japanese are striking in that almost

all the pairs are distinct in form. In a majority of cases, the formal distinctions are

asymmetrical, that is either transitive ergatives are more marked than the corresponding

intransitives or vice versa. Furthermore, as illustrated in Section 2.3.2 above,

morphological derivations between pairs appear to follow relatively constant patterns.

Given such consistent correspondence between derivational forms and transitivity, it has

been proposed that the derivational directions of Japanese ergative pairs are basically

predictable (Okutsu 1967, Jacobsen 1982, 1985, 1992, Kanaya 2000). There is a caveat,

however, about relying too much on derivational morphology to determine the direction

of derivation. In fact, in light of a wide range of morphological devices whereby one

member of an ergative pairs is derived from the other, Levin (1985) argues that "it is not

possible to assume that one member of the pair is derived from the other on the basis of

the nature of the morphological relation between the verbs involved" (21). Since Levin

does not seem to take Japanese data into account in her analysis, it remains to be seen

whether her argument is applicable to ergative pairs in Japanese. In what follows, we will

investigate how accurately the derivational patterns of Japanese ergative pairs may allow

us to determine the direction of derivation.


26 It is important to note here that researchers are not always certain about the
directionality of derivation. Dixon (1991:291), for instance, expresses his uncertainty
about his position, suggesting that the direction is determined depending on the ergative
verb type. Building for the most part on native speakers' intuition, Dixon assumes that
break, crush, and smash are basically transitive, burst and explode are basically
intransitive, and tear and chip are indecisive.









2.6.2.1 Transitivization vs. intransitivization

Based on the view that morphologically marked forms are derived, Okutsu (1967)

proposes three derivational patterns associated with ergative pairs in Japanese. The first

pattern is referred to as tadooka ('Transitivization'), which involves a derivational

process of deriving transitive forms from intransitive bases by means of the Transitivizer

-as.

(60) INTRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE

ugok- 'move' ugokas- 'move'
tob- 'fly' tobas- 'let fly'
wak- 'boil' wakas- 'boil'

The second pattern is zidooka ('Intransitivization'), which shows a derivational pattern

completely opposite to tadooka; it derives transitive forms from the intransitive bases by

virtue of the Intransitivizer -ar.

(61) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE

hasam- 'put between hasamar- 'get caught between'27
tunag- 'connect' tunagr- 'get connected'
husag- 'block' husagar- 'get blocked'

The two opposing derivational patterns just described may raise a question about

describing the direction of derivation regarding the English ergative alternation as either

causativization or anticausativization The issue may be further complicated by the third

pattern called ryookyokuka ('Polarization'), in which both transitive and intransitive

forms appear to be derived from some hypothetical roots.28


27 When there is no intransitive counterpart in English, I use 'get + past participle,'
following a suggestion by Croft (1991:267-8), to differentiate it from the prototypical,
agentive be-passive.

28 Haspelmath (1993) notes that the Japanese ergative pairs are characterized as non-
directed alternation in that both transitive and intransitive uses are derived from the same









(62) TRANSITIVE INTRANSITIVE

naos- 'fix' naor- 'get fixed'
hirak- 'open' hirak- 'open'

For the pair naos- and naor-, the transitive suffix -s and the intransitive suffix -r are

considered equal in terms of markedness, making it impossible for us to determine the

derivation of direction. For the ambivalent pair hirak-, on the other hand, since there is no

change in form between the transitive and intransitive, Polarization would be the most

appropriate classification (Okutsu 1967:58). In short, given the morphological evidence

for multiple derivational patterns of Japanese ergative pairs, one may well reconsider the

question of derivational direction involving the English ergative alternation

2.6.2.2 Causativization vs. passivization

It is important to notice that in Japanese the process of transitivization and

intransitivization just described is often considered comparable to the process of

causativization and anticausativization, respectively (Shibatani 1973, Noda 1991,

Jacobsen 1992, Kitagawa and Fujii 1999). This observation arises in part from

morphological evidence. That is, the transitivizer -as bears a morphological resemblance

to the Japanese causative suffix -(s)ase, a causative morpheme which attaches to either

intransitive or transitive verbs almost freely to create the meaning 'cause somebody to do


stem. One typical pair representing the non-directed alternation is atumar-/atume-
'collect, gather," a derivational pattern comprising Jacobsen' s Class III. In this pair, the
transitive and intransitive uses are equipollently derived from the stem atum- by virtue of
the derivational suffixes -ar and -er, respectively. The problem with Haspelmath's claim,
however, is that the number of verb pairs (31) surveyed is very small compared to the
number of ergative pairs (134) given by Jacobsen (1992). More importantly, his analysis
of derivational suffixes is rather vague. For instance, while Haspelmath labels the pair
yurer-/yuras- as non-directed, he considers a similar pair kawak-/kawakas- as
causativization. It seems that at the very least Haspelmath analyzes these particular pairs
mainly from a isomorphic point of view without taking into account the semantic
function of the Transitivizer -as.









(something).' Likewise, the intransitivizer -ar is viewed as resembling the Japanese

passive suffix -rare, a passive morpheme whose most common function is to passivize

transitive verbs.29 Given such similarities, Noda (1991) concludes that there is little

difference between causativization/passivization and transitivization/anticausativization.

The only difference, according to Noda, should be the degree of productivity involved in

each process; causativization/passivization is more productive than

transitivization/anticausativization in that the former is applied to a larger number of

verbs.

Moreover, the parallelism between transitivization and causativization, on the one

hand, and the parallelism between intransitivization and passivization, on the other, has

been demonstrated syntactically in the literature (Ichihashi 1992). As schematized

previously, repeated here in (63), the configurational property characteristic of the

ergative pairs is that the object of the transitive verb corresponds to the subject of the

intransitive verb.

(63) NPi-ga NP2-o Vtr (transitive construction)

NP2-ga Vintr (intransitive construction)

The identical correlation is observed between the non-causative (i.e. intransitive) and

causative constructions mediated by -(s)ase.










29 Diachronical surveys seem to suggest that the transitivizer -as was derived from the
causative morpheme -(s)ase and the intransitivizer -ar was derived from the passive
morpheme -are (cf Shibatani 1990:236).









(64) a. NPi-gaNP2-o Vi + -(s)ase (causative construction)
Akira-wa Taroo-o go-maim aruk-ase-ta30
Akira-TOP Taro-ACC five-mile walk-CAUS-PAST
'Akira made Taro walk five miles'

b. NP2-ga Vi (intransitive construction)
Taroo-wa go-mairu arui-ta (< aruk- + ta)
Taro-TOP five-mile walk-PAST
'Taro walked five miles'

Along the same lines, the syntactic configuration of passivization is comparable to (64).

(65) a. NPi-gaNP2-o Vtr (active (i.e. transitive) construction)
Taroo-ga hon-o nusun-da
Taro-NOM book-ACC steal-PAST
'Taro stole the book'

b. NP2-ga (NPi-ni) Vtr + -(r)are (passive construction)
Hon-ga (Taroo-ni) nusm-are-ta
book-NOM (Taro-by) steal-PASS-PAST
'The book was stolen by Taro'

In spite of the striking morphological and syntactic similarities just described,

many researchers agree that the processes of transitivization and intransitivization should

be distinguished from causativization and passivization. Shibatani (1976a) discusses the

disparity between transitivization and causativization from a structural point of view.

More specifically, transitive verbs with the transitivizer -as are lexicalized, contributing

to a mono-clausal structure as a whole. Causative verbs with the causative morpheme -

(s)ase, on the other hand, are assumed to constitute an embedded structure, just like

complex structures associated with the analytical causative verbs make or have in English

(Shibatani 1976a:244; see also Kuroda 1993).



30 The choice between -ase and -sase entirely depends on whether the stem of a verb ends
with a consonant (kak- 'write' kak-ase- 'make someone write') or a vowel (tabe- 'eat'
- tabe-sase- 'make someone eat).









(66) a. Taroo-wa isi-o ugokas-ita
Taro-TOP stone-ACC move-PAST
'Taro moved the stone'

b. Taroo-wa Akira-ni isi-o ugok-ase-ta
Taro-TOP Akira-DAT stone-ACC move-CAUSE-PAST
'Taro made Akira move the stone'

As for the contrast between ergative intransitives and passives, Noda (1991:225-

6) suggests that it is the lack of agentivity that differentiates ergative intransitives from

passives. According to Noda, the ergative ware- in (65a) implies that a balloon blew up

spontaneously, whereas the passive war-are- in (67b) implies that somebody blew up the

balloon, whether on purpose or by accident.

(67) a. Huusen-ga ware-ta
balloon-NOM burst-PAST
'The balloon burst'

b. Huusen-ga war-are-ta
balloon-NOM break-PASS-PAST
'The balloon was burst'

Jacobsen (1992) mentions non-productive characteristic of morphologically-based

transitivization and intransitivization in Japanese, arguing that as a whole causativization

and passivization are productive enough for native speakers never need to memorize each

causativized and passivized form individually (cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.2)














CHAPTER 3
SEMANTIC CHARACTERIZATION OF ERGATIVE ALTERNATIONS


3.1 Introduction

The fundamental hypothesis behind the present research is based on a view of

lexical semantics in which the semantics of verbs is responsible to a great extent for the

syntactic realizations of arguments surrounding the verbs (Wasaw 1985, Grimshaw 1987,

Pinker 1989, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995, Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998). The

rationale behind the syntax-lexical semantics interface is that the alternatability of the

arguments of verbs, as represented by ergative alternation, dative alternation, and locative

alternation, among others, is predictable from the meaning of the verbs. According to

Levin (1993a), for instance, the semantic group of English verbs called break-verbs, such

as break, crack, shatter, and tear, undergo the ergative alternation, whereas the semantic

group of verbs called hit-verbs, such as batter, hammer, hit, andpound, do not.

One main research goal regarding ergative pairs has been to elucidate "the

conditions under which verbs allow alternation in transitivity" (Ritter and Rosen

1998:135). As mentioned in Chapter 1, Pinker (1989) notes that semantic properties that

appear to be pertinent to the alternating behaviors of verbs are similar across languages:

The same alternations in other languages are prone to applying to the same kinds
of verbs and being constrained by the same kinds of criteria and shifts in
interpretation as one finds in English (1989:97)

Specifically, Pinker points out that verbs with the meaning 'breaking' have a strong

tendency to participate in a lexical ergative alternation cross-linguistically, whereas verbs









with the meaning 'laughing' invariably lack a lexical ergative alternant or variant

(1989:134; see also Marantz 1984:181-2, Hale and Keyser 1998:89). Haspelmath

conducts an extensive cross-linguistic survey of derivational morphology between

ergative pairs, generalizing that ergative pairs in a majority of languages contain 'change

of state' as an essential semantic component (1993:92-93). In this chapter, I will provide

a lexical semantic analysis of the ergative alternation in English and Japanese. It will be

demonstrated that while verbs which undergo this particular alternation appear to belong

to similar semantic classes in both languages, there are yet crucial differences that need to

be addressed.


3.2 Two Issues of Ergative Alternation

There are two issues surrounding the ergative alternation that need to be

addressed here. One is that there are transitive and intransitive verbs which do not

alternate in transitivity under any circumstances. As mentioned above, the English verb

hit simply lacks an ergative intransitive use.

(1) a. Tom hit the boy.

b. *The boy hit.

The Japanese equivalent tatak- 'hit' also fails to occur in intransitive constructions.

(2) a. Taroo-wa Akira-o tatai-ta. (< tatak- + ta)
Taro-NOM Akira-ACC hit-PAST
'Taro hit Akira'

b. *Akira-ga tatakat-ta.1 (tatakar- + ta)
Akira-NOM get hit-PAST
'Akira got hit'


1Since there is no intransitive counterpart to tatak-, I have coined a hypothetical form,
upon which native speakers would agree as the most probable form. In what follows,
whenever I need to coin a hypothetical form, I follow this principle.









Another complex aspect of the ergative alternation is that verbs which alternate in

transitivity are not always consistent with their behaviors (Van Voorst 1995:513,

Lemmens 1998:37). For instance, while the English verb break normally alternates in

transitivity, when the verb takes contract as a Theme argument, it fails to undergo the

alternation. 2

(3) a. He broke the contract.

b. *The contract broke. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:85)

Van Voorst (1995:514) lists more cases of such inconsistent behaviors of ergative verbs.

(4) a. He cracked the plate The plate cracked

b. He cracked the security code *The security code cracked

(5) a. He crashed his car into a tree His car crashed into a tree

b. He crashed the party *The party crashed

(6) a. He thickened the sauce The sauce thickened

b. He thickened the line *The line thickened

(7) a. He twisted the cord The cord twisted when he pulled on it

b. He twisted his hair with his fingers *His hair twisted


(8) a. He stretched the elastic band The elastic band stretched

b. He stretched his leg *His leg stretched






2 Brousseau and Ritter (1991:60) note that the same phenomenon is observed in French.
(i) a. Jean a brisesa l'accord
'John broke the agreement
b. *L'accord s'est brise(e)
'The agreement broke'









Given these examples, as will be discussed later in more detail, the alternatability of

verbs appears to depend not only on the verbs themselves but also on the constructional

environments where these verbs occur.

The same observation applies to a number of Japanese ergative verbs. The

intransitive verb tat- 'to stand' is paired with tate- 'set up,' alternating in transitivity

according to the configurational template given in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 above:

(9) a. Boo-ga tat-te iru
pole-NOM stand-ASP
'The pole stands'

b. Kodomo-ga boo-o tate-te iru
child-NOM pole-ACC put up-ASP
'The child is putting up the pole'

However, if the intransitive verb tat- occurs with an animate subject, then the transitive

counterpart becomes ungrammatical in the construction that follows the same template:

(10) a. Kodomo-ga rooka-ni tat-te iru
child-NOM hallway-in stand-ASP
'A child stands in the hallway'

b. *Taroo-wa kodomo-o rooka-ni tate-te iru.
Taro-TOP child-ACC hallway-in stand-ASP
'Taro stands a child in the hallway'

Given the examples from English and Japanese, the objectives of this chapter are (1) to

explain why some verbs alternate in transitivity while others simply do not and (2) to

elucidate the conditions under which typical ergative verbs like break fail to show the

alternating behavior.


3.3 A Problematic Case: The English Cut and Break

One way of explaining how the semantics of verbs determine the syntactic

structures of arguments occurring with the verbs is to compare verbs which are









semantically distinct. The contrast between break and hit is a case in point. As will be

discussed later in detail, the transitive use of break entails the semantic properties 'cause'

and 'change of state,' while hit does not. The weakness of this approach might be that if

there is more than one semantic property that differs among verbs as in break and hit,

then it becomes more difficult to pinpoint the true cause of the differing syntactic

behavior shown by each verb. In this respect, the contrast between the English break and

cut has been considered more appropriate to the study of the syntax-lexical semantics

interface due to their semantic similarities (e.g., the transitive uses of the verbs entail both

'cause' and 'change of state'), on the one hand, and yet some crucial syntactic

differences, on the other. In this section I outline the semantic differences and similarities

between the two verbs and their syntactic behaviors that are assumed to reflect the

semantic properties.

The verb break is one of the verbs which are subsumed in general under a large

semantic verb group called "change of state" (Levin 1993a). In particular, the change of

state described by break is considered so prototypical that it is often used as the label of a

subclass of change-of-state verbs (e.g., verbs of breaking, break-type verbs, etc.) such as

shatter, crack, split, etc. The essential semantic property associated with this particular

verb group would be summarized as 'a change in the material integrity' (Hale and Keyser

1987:7) or, more elaborately, as a 'change that involves an initial condition of being

whole and a final condition of being (able to be) separated into several detachable

portions' (Ravin 1990:222). It is this semantic property that distinguishes break-verbs

from other change-of-state verb groups such as "verbs of bending," "verbs of cooking,"

and "verbs of change of color" (See Levin 1993a for detailed study of this issue). The









verb cut also involves a similar kind of change of state as break, namely 'a separation in

its material integrity' (Hale and Keyser 1986:11, 1987:7). It is interesting to note,

however, that under the semantic-model approach, the verb cut, which comprises another

semantic group of verbs referred to as "contact-effect" (e.g., crush, pierce, slash, bite,

shoot, etc.), is normally separated from verbs of breaking (Levin 1995:67).

Given that break and cut share change of state as one of their essential semantic

properties, it is necessary to account for why they should be classified into separate

semantic verb groups. One may seek an explanation for this question in the syntactic

behaviors that each verb shows. In fact, the syntactic structures where cut and break can

occur have been discussed extensively in the literature, particularly under the scope of

argument structure alternations (Kilby 1984, Guerssel et al. 1985, Hale and Keyser 1986,

1987, 1988, Pinker 1989:104-109, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b:136, 1994:62-3,

1995:103, Levin 1993a:5-11, Miller 1993:180). In the remainder of this section, we

compare the syntactic behaviors of the two verbs.

Firstly, both verbs typically undergo the middle alternation as illustrated below

(cf. Chapter 2, Section 2.2).

(11) a. This bread cuts easily.

b. This glass breaks easily. (Pinker 1989:106)

On the other hand, they both fail to undergo the so-called "contact locative" alternation, a

syntactic behavior which is typified by verbs like hit and bump.

(12) a. I hit the wall with the bat.
I hit the bat against the wall.

b. I cut the bread with the knife.
*I cut the knife against the bread.









c. I broke the egg with a spoon
*I broke a spoon against the egg. (Pinker 1989:107)

What is more striking is certain alternating behaviors associated with cut, but not with

break. One such behavior is conative alternation, in which cut takes the preposition at

implying that "the subject is trying to affect the oblique object but may or may not be

succeeding" (Pinker 1989:104; see Guerssel et al. 1985:50, Miller 1993:180, Levin

1995:67 for further discussion).

(13) a. Margaret cut the bread.

b. Margaret cut at the bread. (Pinker 1989:104)

(14) a. Janet broke the cup.

b. *Janet broke at the cup. (Levin 1995:67)

Another syntactic behavior exclusive to cut is part-possessor ascension, in which "the

'possessor' appears as the direct object and the body-part noun appears in a locativee

prepositional phrase'" (Fillmore 1970:126).

(15) a. Sam cut Brian's arm.

b. Sam cut Brian on the arm. (Pinker 1989:105)

(16) a. Jim broke his leg

b. *Jim broke him on the leg. (Fillmore 1970:126)

The most frequently discussed alternating behavior, however, in relation to cut and break

is ergative alternation. As mentioned previously, break is among other change-of-state

verbs that undergo the ergative alternation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2 above). The verb

cut, on the other hand, does not undergo this alternation 3



3 The verb cut rarely occurs in a seemingly intransitive construction as follows:
(i) This bread cuts.









(17) a. Margaret cut the bread.

b. *The bread cut. (Levin 1995:66)

The argument structure alternations in which cut and break do and do not participate are

summarized as follows:




Table 1: Alternation patterns of cut and break


causative conative middle contact-locative part-possession
alternation alternation alternation alternation alternation

cut + + +
break + +


Once argument structure alternations are understood to revolve around verbal

predicates, one may say that cut and break show a good deal of syntactically distinct

behaviors. The question that still remains to be addressed is what factors of the verbs

trigger such different syntactic behaviors. Or put differently, since I conform to the

position that the semantics of verbs determine the syntactic behaviors of the verbs, what

are the semantic properties that are responsible for different alternating behaviors as

exemplified by cut and break? In the next section, I will extend our discussion and

explore semantic properties of verbs in English and Japanese, especially focusing on the

verbs' meanings that might have to do withthe different behaviors in terms of the

ergative alternation


Hale and Keyser (1987:19), however, call the sentence an "unadorned" middle,
differentiating it from the genuine ergative intransitive construction The vase broke.









3.4 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: English

3.4.1 Change of State

One verbal semantic property that is viewed as playing a crucial role in

determining alternatability of verbs is that of "change." In linguistics literature, verbs

undergoing the ergative alternation have been understood to indicate some sort of change

brought about on a Theme argument. As early as the 1920s, Jespersen had pointed out

that verbs that bring about a change in a person or a thing tend to be "doublefaced" or

alternate in transitivity in English (Jespersen 1927:332-3).

(18) Change-class verbs
break the ice the ice breaks
boil water the water boils
burst the boiler the boiler burst
improve an invention his health has improved

Levin (1985:18-19) specifies the types of change associated with verbs, maintaining that

verbs of change of state and position undergo the ergative alternation in English.

(19) Change of state: break, crack, open, close, melt, freeze, harden, dry

Change of position4: roll, bounce, move, float, drop, turn

Traditionally, however, change of state or, more elaborately, "changes in the

physical shape or appearance of some entity' (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:80), has

been viewed in the literature as the key semantic property determining whether a given

verb may participate in the ergative alternation (Fillmore 1970, Smith 1978, Levin 1985,

1993a, Pinker 1989, Haspelmath 1993, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b, 1994, 1995,

Van Voorst 1995, S.T. Rosen 1996). The role of change of state in verbs' alternatability

will be made more explicit when compared to verbs which inherently involve no change


4 In Levin (1993b), change of position is referred to as "manner of motion."









of state at all. Fillmore (1970) clearly illustrates this point by comparing the verbs break

and hit.

(20) a. John/A rock broke the stick.
The stick broke.

b. John/A rock hit the tree.
*The tree hit. (Fillmore 1970:122-123)

According to Fillmore, the reason why a contact verb like hit fails to alternate in

transitivity is that unlike break, it does not inherently entail any effect or change of state

on a co-occurring Theme argument. This point will be illustrated more explicitly in (21).

(21) a. I hit the vase with a hammer, but it did not break; it was made of iron

b. *I broke the vase with a hammer, but it did not break; it was made of iron

Based on this observation, Fillmore concludes that break participates in the ergative

alternation because it lexically entails a change of state.

The essential role of change of state in verbs' alternatability is further illustrated

by the verb bake in a unique manner (Atkins et al. 1988, Levin 1993a:175 & 243-4,

Kageyama 1996:161-2, Ono 2000:8ff). The verb is normally categorized as a change-of-

state verb and in this sense, as expected, it undergoes the ergative alternation.

(22) a. She baked the potatoes.

b. The potatoes baked. (Kageyama 1996:161)

Interestingly enough, if we replace 'potato' with 'cake,' then the intransitive construction

becomes ungrammatical.









(23) a. She baked the cake.

b. *The cake baked.5

Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992a:259) explain that the meaning of bake in (23) is

slightly different from the one in (22) in that baking a cake implies 'creation' in addition

to the basic change-of-state meaning, roughly phrased into 'create by means of change of

state bake.' In short, as pointed out by Levin and Rappaport Hovav(1992b: 139), only

when bake implies change of state, does it exhibit the ergative alternation. That the

additional semantic property of creation may hinder bake from alternating in transitivity

is further supported by the fact that other verbs of creation like make, produce, build,

assemble, etc. do not undergo such alternation

Note, however, change of state is not necessarily the sole factor in determining

whether a given verb will undergo the ergative alternation. Firstly, as Levin and

Rappaport Hovav (1994:41) point out, some groups of verbs such as verbs of emission

(sound or light) and position, which are not readily identified with verbs of change of

state, do alternate in transitivity as illustrated below.

(24) a. Tom beamed the flashlight.
The flashlight beamed.

b. Tom hung the photo on the wall.
The photo hung on the wall. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994:42)

More importantly, there are many verbs of change of state in English which do not

alternate in transitivity (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1992b:133n). As noted earlier,




5 Kageyama (1996:161) gave the sample sentences She bakeda cake/*A cake bakedwith
no explanation about why he changed the article (from the to a) as well as the noun. In
order to minimize additional complexities, I chose to use 'the cake' in my sample
sentences.









contact-effect verbs to which cut belongs provide support for this statement. Levin refers

to this group of verbs simply as cut verbs, listing the following members (1993a:156):

(25) chip, clip, cut, hack, hew, nip, saw, scrape, scratch
slash, snip

Recall that while cut is normally classified in a different semantic class than break, it

crucially involves change of state (Fillmore 1970, Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1994,

1995).6 Nevertheless, the transitive verb cut fails to occur intransitively, as illustrated

below.

(26) a. Elsa clipped the article out of the paper.

b. *The article clipped out of the paper.

(27) a. I sawed the board in half.

b. *The board sawed in half.

(28) a. Jane scraped the carrot thoroughly.

b. *The carrot scraped thoroughly.

(29) a. Vandals had slashed most of the seats on the train.

b. *Most of the seats on the train slashed.

(30) a. I hurriedly snipped the string.

b. *The string hurriedly snipped.

Another semantic group of verbs that needs to be mentioned here is what Levin refers to

as destroy verbs (Levin 1993a:239).

(31) Destroy verbs:
annihilate, blitz, decimate, demolish, destroy, devastate, exterminate,
extirpate, obliterate, ravage, raze, ruin, waste, wreck



6 For the purpose of illuminating the difference between break and cut, Levin (1993a:9)
refers to break as a 'pure' change of state verb.









Like cut verbs, the destroy verbs involve change of state but fail to alternate in

transitivity.

(32) a. The bomb destroyed the whole city.

b *The whole city destroyed.

(33) a. The bulldozer razed the building.

b. *The building razed.

Levin (1993a:239) notes that the destroy verbs do not participate in the ergative

alternation since they uniformly denote the total destruction of entities (see Section

3.4.2.2 below for more detailed discussion of destroy verbs). In short, the examples in

(26) (30) and (32) (33) suggest that change of state is not the sole determining factor

of the altematability of verbs in English.

3.4.2 Agentivity

Another semantic property that needs to be considered surrounding the ergative

alternation is agentivity. When an entity is agentive, the entity or 'agent' always involves

volition or intention (Talmy 1976, Delancey 1984).7 As discussed in Chapter 2,

agentivity is most typically associated with the subjects of unergative verbs.




7 One difficulty with agentivity is its definition In particular, the difficulty has to do with
the question of whether agentivity can be characterized by one single semantic feature
such as 'animacy' or 'volition' (Cruse 1973, Hopper and Thompson 1980, Delancey
1984, Schlessinger 1995; see Somers 1987 and Abdul-Roaf 1998 for detailed reviews of
discussion on this issue). Due to the difficulty in pinpointing a single semantic property
associated with agentivity, it has become more common to take a multiple-element
approach to this issue in recent years. Foley and Van Valin (1984:32) consider a
combination of animacy, volition and control to be the contributing factor to the agentive
interpretation of an "actor." Oosten (1980:482) proposes the most comprehensive view of
agentivity, arguing that four semantic properties-intentionality, volition, control, and
responsibility-combine to make an entity agentive.









(34) a. I walked along the river.

b. Tom runs five miles every day.

Agentivity also characterizes the subjects of causative transitive verbs. Returning to the

contrast between break and cut, it has been assumed in the literature that the impossibility

of cut in the ergative intransitive construction is due to its indispensable implication of a

volitional agent that takes control of the use of a sharp instrument (O'Grady 1980:63,

Kilby 1984:44, Haspelmath 1993:93-94, Lemmens 1998:37). In other words, the agent-

oriented verb cut is incompatible with ergative intransitive constructions in which, as

mentioned in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, the thematic roles of Agent and Cause are

suppressed and not in central focus. Such semantic constraints on the subjects of cut are

reflected in selectional restrictions on the choices of arguments as subjects. That is, the

ungrammaticality of *The lightning cut the clothesline is due to the fact that no natural

forces such as lightning can be viewed as being volitional (Levin and Rappaport Hovav

1995:103).

By contrast, agentivity is not necessarily an essential semantic property for break.

While the verb can take an agentive entity as subject in transitive constructions as in Tom

broke the vase, it is important to note that the event denoted by break can be brought

about in varying manners. This is illustrated by the fact that unlike cut, the transitive

ergative use of break takes non-agentive inanimate entities like an instrument and natural

force as subject (cf Langendoen 1970:72-3, Talmy 1976, 1985, Levin and Rappaport

Hovav 1995).8



8 Nishimura (1993:503) suggests the possibility of assigning the Agent role to the
instrumental subject.









(35) a. The ax broke the window.

b. The earthquake broke the window.

c. The falling stone broke the window.

Langacker (1991:332) points out that there are many other ergative verbs in English like

open and wake up that allow a wide range of causers or causing events as subjects. In

short, under the assumption that causative change-of-state verbs that undergo the ergative

alternation are lexically unspecified about agentivity, one might attribute the

unaltematability of cut to its entailment of a volitional agent as part of the inherent

meanings of the verb.

3.4.2.1 Kill verbs

While the concept of agentivity seems to account for the contrast between break

and cut in terms of alternatability in transitivity, the analysis based on agentivity poses

several problems. Firstly, agentivity does not necessarily determine correctly whether a

given change-of-state transitive verb ergativizes. Compare killwith break. Like the

transitive use of break, the verb kill contains CAUSE in its semantic representation and its

internal argument appears to undergo change of state.9 As with break, the verb occurs

with non-agentive as well as agentive causes.

(36) a. An arrow through the heart killed Max

b. Malaria killed Nigel. (Foley and Van Valin 1984:32)

Nevertheless, kill does not participate in the ergative alternation as shown below.

(37) a. *Max killed (due to an arrow through the heart).

b. *Nigel killed (due to Malaria).


9 Fontenelle and Vanandroye (1989:19) refer to as kill as a purely causative verb,
differentiating it from ergative verbs like break.









Instead, the inchoative meaning of death is expressed with the completely distinct lexical

item die or the verbal phrase pass away.

(38) a. Max died due to an arrow through the heart.

b. Nigel died/passed away with Malaria.

The peculiarity of kill in terms of the ergative alternation will be made more explicit

when compared to other verbs with similar meaning such as assassinate, murder,

slaughter, etc., which also fail to be used intransitively.

(39) a. The terrorist assassinated/murdered the senator.

b. *The senator assassinated/murdered.

(40) a. The terrorists slaughtered many civilians.

b. *Many civilians slaughtered.

The inability of the verbs in (39) and (40) to alternate in transitivity will be accounted for

by our preceding discussion on agentivity because this set of verbs apparently lexicalizes

agentivity. 10 This is readily illustrated by the fact that none of the verbs can take non-

agentive subjects. As mentioned above, the subject of kill can be an inanimate object or

natural force which, for lack of volition, could not be the subject of assassinate and

murder (cf. Fillmore 1968:28).



10 Intention is also an essential lexical semantic component of murder and assassinate.
That these verbs entail intention as an indispensable feature is shown by the fact that it is
redundant for them to have the phrase on purpose, whereas the verb kill can occur with
the phrase.
(i) a. #The man murdered the senator on purpose
b. #The man assassinated the senator on purpose
c. The man killed the senator on purpose
Lack of intention in the verb kill is further illustrated by the fact that the verb can occur
with the adverb phrase by accident, whereas assassinate and murder cannot.
(ii) a. The man killed his brother by accident.
b. *The man assassinated/murdered his brother by accident.









(41) a. *The explosion assassinated/murdered the senator.

(Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:102)

b. *The earthquake assassinated/murdered the senator.

(42) a. The explosion killed more than one hundred people.

b. The earthquake killed more than one hundred people.

The question that remains to be addressed, therefore, is whether it still is possible to

account for the unalternatability of kill without relying on agentivity.

Levin and Rappaport Hovav argue that transitive verbs that always require "an

animate intentional and volitional agent as subject" never detransitivize (1995:102).11

Such verbs include, other than assassinate and murder, verbs of creation like write and

build. In short, agentivity does account for the alternatability of certain transitive change-

of-state verbs. Nevertheless, given the non-alternating behavior of the non-agentive kill

there seems to be a need to reconsider the validity of adopting agentivity to the analysis

of English ergative pairs.

3.4.2.2 Destroy verbs

Another group of verbs that raise a question about viewing agentivity as a

contributing factor in verbs' non-alternatability are destroy verbs. Maruta (1998:94)

analyzes the verbs destroy and devastate, arguing that these verbs are similar to kill in

that while they can take non-agentive subjects like natural forces as subjects, they do not

alternatively occur transitively and intransitively.


11 By "volitional" or "intentional" it is meant that an agent is interpreted as "deliberately
performing an action which brings about a change of state in a patient" (Delancey
1984:5). The obligatory presence of the volitional agent as the causer of an event is also
considered an essential property which determines whether a given transitive event is
prototypical or not (Delancey 1985, Lakoff 1977, Hopper and Thompson 1980).









(43) a. The avalanche destroyed several houses.

b. *Several houses destroyed.

(44) a. Hurricanes devastated the region

b. *The region devastated.

Levin (1993a) suggests that an additional semantic property may provide an account for

such syntactic behaviors of destroy verbs. According to Levin, it is the degree of change

of state that results in the non-alternatability of the destroy verbs listed in (31). In other

words, destroy verbs imply that the Themes (house and region) of these verbs undergo a

complete demolition of their physical structures, entirely losing their original functions or

uses (Levin 1993a:239; cf Dixon 1991:112). This will be illustrated more clearly by the

awkwardness of sentence (45b), compared to (45a):

(45) a. I broke the glass, but I was able to drink some water with a remaining
piece.

b. #1 destroyed the glass, but I was able to drink some water with a
remaining piece.

Another way of demonstrating that the destroy verbs indicate the totality of destruction is

that they do not occur with the particle up, which, combined with deformation/separation

verbs, emphasizes the completeness of a change of state. In other words, it is redundant to

attach up to a verb which already means a complete destruction lexically (Jackendoff

1990:116, Kageyama 1996:222). For instance, the verb wreck and waste, which are

among the destroy verbs in Levin (1993a:239), does not occur with up.

(46) a. The earthquake wrecked up hundreds of old buildings.

b. *The war wasted up the country.









This is not the case with break, which does not inherently involve such totality of

destruction. Thus, the use of up with break as in Tom broke up the vase is grammatical.12

In short, the impossibility of destroy verbs to occur in ergative intransitive constructions

as in (43b) and (44b) above again suggests that agentivity associated with the subject of

the causative transitive is not the sole factor in determining the verb's alternatability.

To summarize, although change of state and agentivity are crucial semantic

properties that have much to do with the alterability of verbs, they do not provide an

adequate explanation about the two key semantic groups of verbs-cut and destroy

verbs-under consideration.

3.4.3 External vs. Internal Causation

We have observed that the two semantic properties-change of state and

agentivity-do not convincingly account for the alternatability of verbs in English. At the

very least, these semantic properties did not adequately account for the syntactic

behaviors exemplified by certain causative transitive verbs like kill and destroy. Given

such problems, another approach to the ergative alternation proposed in the literature

over the last two decades is to focus on the type of causation relevant to the realization of

an eventuality. More specifically, this approach suggests that causation is not a uniform

concept but rather characterized by its multifaceted properties. The crucial difference

between causation and agentivity is that the former places more emphasis on the

connection between agents/causers and caused events, as frequently discussed in the

causal chain model (cf Croft 1990).



12 In terms of aspect, destroy is classified into Accomplishment, while break is
Achievement (Brinton 1988:29, Smith 1991; for more discussion of aspectual
characteristics of Accomplishment and Achievement, see Chapter 5 below).









Smith (1978) recognizes two semantic features associated with ergative verbs,

namely 'independent activity' and 'external control. 13 In other words, Smith argues that

verbs that participate in the ergative alternation express activity or change of state that

can occur relatively independently but at the same time has the possibility of being

controlled by an external agent (Smith 1978:101-2; cf. Davidse 1992:109). For instance,

verbs like break and open alternate since the events denoted by these verbs can occur

independently or be externally controlled. By contrast, verbs like destroy or buildwhich

denote activities or changes of state that are controlled only by external agents do not

alternate in transitivity. Along the same line, verbs like shudder or laugh do not alternate

with transitive uses in that control over the se activities cannot be relinquished entirely to

external agents (Smith 1978:107; cf Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:90). In short,

Smith assumes that the alternation between an ergative intransitive and an ergative

transitive reflects the dual features ('independent activity' and 'external control')

associated with the ergative verbs.

Levin and Rappaport Hovav(1994, 1995) follow and expand on Smith's view of

change in relation to causation, proposing a distinction between external causation and

internal causation, which is nearly equivalent to Smith' s independent activity and

external control. In their terms, verbs which fail to undergo the ergative alternation

represent internally caused eventualities, which result either from the volition or will of

agents that perform activities like play and speak or from the inherent properties of the

arguments that undergo the events represented by verbs like blush and tremble. By



13 Independent activity might be identified with spontaneous event. For the correlation
between ergative intransitives and spontaneity, see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2 above.









contrast, verbs like break which participate in the ergative alternation describe

eventualities that are necessarily caused by an external cause, whether it is an agent, a

natural force, or an instrument (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:91-3).

One major difference between the contentions of Smith and those of Levin and

Rappaport Hovav has to do with how we perceive the eventuality denoted by the ergative

use of a verb. For instance, with the sentence The vase broke, Smith claims that the vase

can break spontaneously with no intervention of an outside cause. Levin and Rappaport

Hovav, on the other hand, argue that our real world knowledge tells us that the vase could

not break without an external cause (1995:93). In their views, even in sentences like the

following, the eventualities are perceived as being brought about by some external cause,

which Levin and Rappaport Hovav identify with the Theme arguments plate and door

themselves (cf Kageyama 1996).

(47) a. The plate broke by itself.

b. The door opened by itself. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:88)

I would argue that the existence of an external cause is highly unlikely in sentences like

(47). Rather, it seems more natural to assume that, as Smith argues, eventualities

represented by ergative verbs could occur independently or spontaneously. In short, I

would claim that Smith's dual semantic features of independent activity and external

control differentiate ergative verbs from non-alternating causative change-of-state of

verbs like cut and destroy more properly.

3.4.4 Onset Causation vs. Extended Causation

Shibatani (1973a) notes that two types of causation are observed cross-

linguistically. When causation serves as an initial impulse so that the event denoted by a

given verb follows, this type of causation is referred to as ballistic. On the other hand, if









causation is responsible not only for the instigation of the event but also for its entire

process, then the causation is referred to as controlled. Drawing on the English verbs

send and bring/take, Shibatani describes the former as an example of ballistic causation

and the latter as that of controlled causation. While Shibatani does not specifically

mention the two types of causation in relation to ergative alternation, his theory lays the

foundations for subsequent studies of ergative pairs along this line (cf. McCawley 1976,

Talmy 1985b).

Van Voorst (1993, 1995) and Kiparsky (1997) utilize the two types of causation

to account for the alternatability of verbs. When transitive verbs are available for the

ergative alternation, the external causers of the verbs are ballistic, a causation type

characterized by Talmy (1985b) as onset causation. Under the concept of onset causation,

the agents or external causers occurring with ergative transitives merely initiate events,

lacking full control of the events ensuing after the initiation 14 By contrast, when

transitive verbs fail to alternate with intransitive uses, the verbs' external causers are

likely to control the events that follow, the other causation type characterized as extended

causation (Talmy 1985b). Under the concept of extended causation, agents or external

causers continue to participate in the entire process of an eventuality. 15 Based on the two



14 Due to the nature of the causation, the agents or external causers may also be referred
to as "instigator" (Wilkins and Van Valin 1993).

15 Maruta (1998:100) schematizes the LCSs of onset causation and extended causation as
follows:
(i) a. [x ACT ON y] INITIATE [y... ] (x = Initiator)
b. [x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y...] (x = Extended Causer)
What characterizes Maruta's templates are the use of 'INITIATE' as the connector
between the two sub-events and the characterization of the external argument x as
'Initiator,' while the connector for non-alternating causative verbs is simply 'CAUSE.'









differing types of causation, Kiparsky (1997) analyzes the contrasting behaviors

exhibited by smear and splash (cf. Hale and Keyser 1993, 1997).

(48) a. Mary smeared paint on the wall.

b. #Paint smeared on the wall.

(49) a. Mary splashed paint on the wall.

b. Paint splashed on the wall. (Kiparsky 1997:494)

In Kiparsky' s terms, smear is grammatically anomalous in intransitive constructions in

that smear denotes "a process requiring the initiation and continuous participation of a

causing Agent" (1997:495), while splash does not entail such extended causation. 16

Kiparsky adds that the same analysis also applies to the lack of the intransitive use in

other verbs like shelve, paint, ring, put, push, and kick.

In light of the distinction between onset and extended causation, the two external

causation verbs break and cut seem to be distinguishable with respect to the availability

of the ergative alternation. That is, the event of breaking is seen as that of onset

causation, continuing independently or autonomously after the initial physical force by an

external agent or cause. The event of cutting, on the other hand, is seen as that of

extended causation since some external agent or instrument needs not only to initiate the

event but also to continue participating in the entire process of the event. The concept of

onset and extended causation might also explain the lack of the intransitive use of destroy

since the verb requires incessant intervention of an external agent or causer until the

completion of the event (cf Maruta 1998:100).



16 Hale and Keyser (1993, 1997) analyze smear and splash in terms of the lexical
licensing of manner component (cf Section 3.5.2).









3.5 Lexical Specification

In this section I propose that the notion of agentivity is still a key factor in

accounting for the altematability of verbs. Instead of limiting our attention to

decomposing agentivity into multiple semantic components (cf. Section 3.4.2.3),

however, I suggest that agentivity is a minimal unit simply meaning 'volition.' Based on

this view, I would argue that agentivity can be associated with a variety of inanimate

entities such as instruments as long as they are used by volitional agents (Levin and

Rappaport Hovav 1995). Such association enables agentive cut verbs, which inherently

entail the use of instruments, to take instruments as subjects. Consequently, I will propose

that the specification of an instrument or a means involved in the realization of an event

is another semantic factor in determining whether a given verb of change of state can

undergo the ergative alternation.

3.5.1 Lexicalization of Instrument

3.5.1.1 Case theory

It has been noticed in the literature that the verb cut lexicalizes the use of an

instrument ('cutting device') during the course of the event denoted by the verb (Guerssel

et al. 1985:51-2, Hale and Keyser 1987:5, Brousseau and Ritter 1991, Levin and

Rappaport Hovav 1992:137, 1995:107, Levin 1993a, 1993b, Rappaport Hovav and Levin

1998:100ff). Traditionally, the use of an instrument associated with verbs has been

considered an important component of thematic roles. In a framework of Case Grammar,

Fillmore (1968b) recognizes a need to include the case of Instrumental in addition to the

cases of Agent and Object when schematizing transitive event verbs like open.17


17 In more modem terminology, Instrumental, Agent, and Object are comparable to
instrument, agent, and patient/theme, respectively.









(50) open: + [_ (I) (A)]

In (50), it is crucial that Instrumental and Agent, which are in parentheses, are optional

cases. Consequently, the following constructions are made possible.

(51) a. John opened the door with a key. ([ O I A])

b. John opened the door. ([_ O A])

c. The key opened the door. ([ O I ])

d. The door opened. ([_ ])

One crucial point of Fillmore's schematization is that the absence of a case results in the

absence of the argument associated with the case and accordingly the absence of the

meaning associated with the argument as well. Thus, the absence of the Instrumental key

as in (51b) and (51d) makes it almost improbable for us to interpret the whole sentence as

involving the use of a key.

One problem arises when Fillmore's schematization is applied to verbs like cut. In

fact, Langendoen (1970:72) describes the basic case structure of cut as follows:

(52) cut: Patient, Result, Instrument, (Agent)

Notice that in (52) Instrument is an obligatory case. Since Langendoen appears to follow

Fillmore in assuming that obligatory case means obligatory syntactic realization, the case

frame in (52) postulates that sentences containing the verb cut need to occur with some

form of instrument overtly. Thus, in considering the sentences The boy cut the cloth i/ ih

the scissors and The scissors cut the cloth to be grammatical, Langendoen follows this

principle. However, whether deliberately or not, he fails to mention that a sentence like

The boy cut the cloth is also grammatical, although no instrument is syntactically









expressed. In short, Fillmore and Langendoen are of the opinion that there are no

ambiguous relations between case roles and their syntactic realizations of arguments.

3.5.1.2 Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS)

Instead of utilizing thematic roles, Guerssel et al. (1985) draw on the framework

of LCS, describing the indispensable association of an instrument with cut as follows:

(53) cut LCS: x produce CUT on y, by sharp edge coming
into contact with y
(Guerssel et al. 1985:51)

On their view, the use of a sharp instrument is posited as part of the inherent lexical

meanings of cut (See also Hale and Keyser 1986, 1987).18 In other words, even if a

cutting device does not syntactically occur with cut, the sentence implies underlyingly

that the event of cutting is caused by the use of a certain cutting device.

(54) a. Tom cut the cake in half.

b. I cut my face while I was shaving.

c. The phone wires were cut by the thieves.










18 In the schematization of cut, it is important to make a distinction between instruments
and natural forces. This may be illustrated by the fact that a cutting device can be the
subject of the verb cut, whereas natural forces cannot.
(i) a. The knife cut the bread.
b. *The lightning cut the clothesline. (Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995:103)
Levin and Rappaport Hovav assume that agentivity is still the key to the eligibility of a
syntactic subject of cut. In their term, the use of a cutting device like a knife is naturally
associated with a volitional agent who has control over it. Schlesinger (1995) attributes
the acceptability of the instrumental subject to the additional feature CAUSE associated
with INSTRUMENT.









While no instruments are overtly expressed in (54), each sentence implies the use of

some form of cutting device, such as a knife in (54a), a razor in (54b), and perhaps a pair

of scissors or a knife in (54c).19

On the other hand, the LCS of break does not contain such a delineation of a

cutting device (Guerssel et al. 1985:55):

(55) break LCS: x CAUSE (y come to be BROKEN)

Given the sentence Tom broke the vase, therefore, it is not obvious how Tom caused the

event; Tom could have broken the vase by hammering it or by knocking it off from a

table by accident, or perhaps he might have broken it by smashing it against the wall. The

crucial point to be made underlying the LCS in (55) is that in order for the event denoted

by break to take place the use of an instrument is not obligatory.

3.5.2 Specification of Cause or Means

As observed above, the key difference between Case Grammar and LCS

regarding the lexical representations of verbs is that LCS views the lexicalized semantic

features as being preserved throughout derivations. This position is more clearly

expressed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994, 1995) under the notion of specification

(cf Van Voorst 1995). It is noted that verbs sharing certain lexically specified properties

syntactically behave differently from those, even if they appear semantically close, that

lack such specified properties. For instance, as pointed out by Gropen et al. (1991), the

verbsfill and pour are semantically relatively similar in that both describe, roughly


19 Ravin (1990:214) maintains that in a sentence like the following, cut does not specify
the use of any instrument:
(i) The broken window cut John's finger (on the interpretation of "John
brushes his finger against the glass")
Ravin explains that unless any autonomous causative argument exercising the action of
cutting is specified the verb is not considered to entail the use of an instrument.









speaking, the act of putting substance into some sort of container. They are observed,

however, to behave contrastively in the following ways:

(56) a. fill the glass with water

b. *fill water into the glass

(57) a. *pour the glass with water

b. pour water into the glass (Gropen et al. 1991:155)

One explanation offered by Gropen et al. about the contrastive behaviors is thatpour

specifies the manner in which a substance is transferred, whilefill does not necessarily

entail such a specific manner involved in the act (Gropen et al. 1991:160-1).

Building on the concept of specification, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1994,

1995) explain the differing syntactic behavior of break and cut regarding the ergative

alternation. On their view, cut lexically specifies the use of a sharp instrument in its LCS

as shown in (53) above and its use should be implicitly, if not explicitly, presumed at all

subsequent levels of derivation. On the other hand, since break does not specify the use

of an instrument in the LCS, the manner in which the event of breaking occurs remains

unknown unless specified by some other means such as adjuncts. As mentioned in

Section 3.4.2 above, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) attribute the lack of

specification of a causer or a causing event for break to the fact that break can take a

range of subjects such as instruments and natural forces.

On the same principle, Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1992b:131) discuss the

distinction between wipe verbs and clear verbs. That is, wipe verbs such as erase, mop,

rinse, scour, vacuum, and wipe, which lexicalize a manner or an instrument component,

do not alternate with intransitive uses, whereas clear verbs such as clear, clean, and









empty, which do not lexicalize a manner or an instrument component, do occur in

intransitive construction. Similarly, from the perspective of manner-instrument Hale and

Keyser (1993:90, 1997:54) and Kiparsky (1997:494) account for the unalternatability of

smear-class verbs, which contrast with alternating splash-class verbs.

Given the view of specification, I argue that in considering the contrast between

break and cut the concept of agentivity is too broad and ambiguous for us to capture.

Instead, my proposal is that the concept of specification is more straightforward in

differentiating the two verbs semantically.20 I will demonstrate later in this chapter that

the lexical specification of means explains the altematability of many change-of-state

verbs not only in English but also in Japanese. The generalization to be drawn from the

arguments provided so far might be that lexical specification of an instrument or a means

plays a key role in determining the syntactic realization of the argument structure

associated with an event verb.


3.6 Conditions for Ergative Alternation: Japanese

In the previous sections, we have observed that verbs that participate in the

ergative alternation in English are semantically characterizable to a large extent. The

question to be addressed in the remainder of this chapter is whether the semantic analysis


20 The notion of semantic specification described above does not explain all alternating
phenomena. There are still several verbs which appear to be evidence against our
account. The verb kill, which has raised a problem with the analysis of agentivity, still
resists our analysis of semantic specification (Brousseau and Ritter 1991:56-67). That is,
the verb does not specify a means or an instrument lexically whereby the act of killing is
performed. For instance, when we say Tom killed the senator, it is simply impossible to
determine how Tom carried out the act unless provided with additional information
contextually. In this respect, kill is comparable to break, but it fails to undergo the
ergative alternation (see Section 3.4.2.1 above). I would argue that the verb kill is a
matter of lexical idiosyncrasy with regards to ergative alternation.









provided for the English ergative alternation may also account for the alternatability of

verbs in Japanese.

3.6.1 Change of State

Like in English, many verbs that participate in the ergative alternation in Japanese

involve change of state (Miyajima 1972, Nishio 1978, 1982, Hayatsu 1987, 1995,

Jacobsen 1992, Mitsui 1992, Mitsunobu 1992). For instance, it is observed that

Jacobsen's (1992) Class I verbs contain several verbs of physical change of state, which

correspond to Levin's (1993a) break class verbs.21

(58) break verbs (Levin 1993a) Class I (Jacobsen 1992)

TRANS INTRANS
break war- ware-
or- ore-
tear (off) yabur- yabure-
tigir- tigire-
sak- sake-
smash kudak- kudake-

Furthermore, a number of Japanese de-adjectival verb pairs such as hukamar- hukame-

'deepen' and katamar-/katame- 'harden,' which usually express a gradual change of

state, belong to Jacobsen' s Class III. In short, one may state that change of state is the

key semantic property of Japanese ergative pairs.

Hayatsu (1995) emphatically illustrates this point by comparing two semantically

similar verbs kawakas- and hos-. According to Hayatsu, both verbs are transitive and

generally understood to mean 'to dry.' While the English dry ergativizes, only kawakas-

does so in Japanese.


21 Teramura (1982:271ff) does not consider the verbs of this group ergative pairs. Instead,
he refers to them as zihatutai inchoativeve voice'), arguing that the intransitive members
of the verbs of this group are derived from the transitive bases mediated by the suffix -e
(e.g., ware- <- war- 'break').









(59) a. Tom dried his clothes in the sun.

b. His clothes dried in the sun.

(60) a. Taroo-wa huku-o kawakas-ita. (< kawakas + ta)
Taro-TOP clothes-ACC dry-PAST
'Taro dried his clothes'

b. Huku-ga kawai-ta. (< kawak- + ta)
clothes-NOM dry-PAST
'The clothes dried'

(61) a. Taroo-wa huku-o hos-ita.
Taro-TOP clothes-ACC hang to dry-PAST
'Taro hung his clothes out to dry'

b. *Huku-ga hosat-ta. (< hosar- + ta)
clothes-NOM hang out to dry-PAST
'The clothes hung out to dry'

Hayatsu points out that hos- lacks its intransitive counterpart since it does not inherently

entail the resultant state of dryness, whereas kawakas- does (1995:179-180). This will be

illustrated more clearly by the following examples:

(62) a. Taroo-wa huku-o hosi-te kawakas-ita.
Taro-TOP clothes-ACC hang-and let dry-PAST
'Taro hung his clothes and let them dry'

b. *Taroo-TOP huku-o kawakasi-te hos-ita.
Taro-TOP clothes-ACC letdry-and hang out-PAST
'Taro let his clothes dry and hung them out'

Thus, it will be more appropriate for hos- to be translated into 'hang out (to dry).' In

short, the differing syntactic behaviors demonstrated by kawakas- and hos- in (60) and

(61) seem to point to the significance of change of state in determining the altematability

of verbs in Japanese. Following the contrast between kawakas- and hos-, Hayatsu

(1995:182) lists Japanese verbs that alternate in transitivity, noting that many of them

involve certain change of state or position.










(63) ore- breaking "
kire- "get cut off, severed"
kuzure- "collapse"
tubure- "get crushed"
magar- "bendin"
koware- breaking "
yabure- "tearin"
ware- breaking "
tizim- "shrink"
nobi- "get extended"
hirogar- spreadingn out"
katamar- "hardenin"
nie- boiling "
yake- "burtin"
koge- "get scorched"
same- "cool"
kawak- "dryin"
nure- "get wet"
yogore-" get dirty"
somar- "get dyed"
kimar- "get decided"
sadamar- "get decided"
hazimar- "beginin"
tomar- "stopin"
okor- "happen"
kie- "go out"
horobi- "go to ruin"
tae- "die out"
agar- "rise"
nagare- "flow"
utur- "move"
oti- "fall"
ori- "get off'
korogar- "rollin"
sagar- "get lower"
sizum- "sinkintr"
tore- "get taken, harvested"
nuke- "come out"
hazure- "come off'
hagare- "peel"
hage- peelingn off'
hanare- "move away from"
hodoke- "come untied"
moge- "come off'
hair- "enter"
tuk- "adhere to"


or- "breaktr"
kir- "cut, sever"
kuzus- "demolish"
tubus- "crush"
mage- "bendtr"
kowas- "breaktr"
yabur- "teartr"
war- "breaktr"
tizime- "reduce"
nobas- "extend"
hiroge- spreaderr out"
katameru "hardernr"
nir- "boiltr"
yak- "burntr"
kogas- "scorch"
samas- "cool"
kawakas- "drytr"
nuras- "make wef'
yogos- "soil"
some- "dye"
kime- "decide"
sadame- "decide"
hazime- "begintr"
tome- "stoptr"
okos- "cause"
kes- "extinguish"
horobos- "destroy"
tayas- "exterminate"
age- "raise"
nagas- "wash away"
utus- "move"
otos- "drop"
oros- "let off'
korogas- "rolltr"
sager- "lower"
sizumer- "sinktr"
tor- "take, harvest"
nuk- "pull out"
hazus- "take off'
hagas- "peel"
hag- "peeltr off'
hanas- "separate from"
hodok- "untie"
mog- "pluck off'
ire- "put in"
tuke- "attach"