| { |
| "paper_id": "Y16-2001", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:47:35.530355Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "A \"Maximal Exclusion\" Approach to Structural Uncertainty in Dynamic Syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Tohru", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seraku", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "Hankuk University of Foreign Studies", |
| "location": {} |
| }, |
| "email": "seraku@hufs.ac.kr" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "Case\" and \"grammatical function\" are central to syntactic theories, but rigorous treatments of these notions in surface-oriented grammars like Dynamic Syntax (DS) are pending. Within DS, it is simply held that a case particle resolves structural uncertainty (i.e., unfixed node) in the course of incremental tree update. We model the relation between \"case\" and \"grammatical function\" with special reference to Japanese. In this language, the nominative case particle ga normally marks a \"subject\" NP, but it may mark an \"object\" NP. Moreover, ga may occur more than once within a single clause. We will address these issues by proposing the \"maximal exclusion\" approach to structural uncertainty.", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y16-2001", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Case\" and \"grammatical function\" are central to syntactic theories, but rigorous treatments of these notions in surface-oriented grammars like Dynamic Syntax (DS) are pending. Within DS, it is simply held that a case particle resolves structural uncertainty (i.e., unfixed node) in the course of incremental tree update. We model the relation between \"case\" and \"grammatical function\" with special reference to Japanese. In this language, the nominative case particle ga normally marks a \"subject\" NP, but it may mark an \"object\" NP. Moreover, ga may occur more than once within a single clause. We will address these issues by proposing the \"maximal exclusion\" approach to structural uncertainty.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "\"Case\" and \"grammatical function\" are central to any syntactic theories; a number of constructions exhibit unique case-marking patterns and linguistic generalisations are often stated with reference to grammatical function (Keenan and Comrie, 1979) . Rigorous accounts of these concepts, however, are pending in \"surface-oriented\" grammars such as Dynamic Syntax (DS) (Kempson et al., 2001) . The aim of this article is to clarify the relation between case and grammatical function in formal-grammar terms, with examples drawn from Japanese.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 223, |
| "end": 248, |
| "text": "(Keenan and Comrie, 1979)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 368, |
| "end": 390, |
| "text": "(Kempson et al., 2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As will be stated in \u00a72, the case-marking system of Japanese challenges surface-oriented grammars. In particular, DS, which explicates the mechanism whereby a string of words is parsed online and a structure is progressively built up, has not seriously tackled the relation between case and grammatical function (see \u00a73). In this article, we advance the DS formalism from the perspective of \"maximal exclusion\" so that it models the relation between case and grammatical function in Japanese (see \u00a74). We then apply this account to further data relating to \"Major Subject Constructions\" (see \u00a75).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this article, we construe case and grammatical function in line with Comrie (1989) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 72, |
| "end": 85, |
| "text": "Comrie (1989)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Firstly, \"case\" is a morphological category. In Japanese, a case particle is typically attached to a noun (or a nominalised element).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) Ken-ga ringo-o tabe-ta K-NOM apple-ACC eat-PAST 'Ken ate an apple.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (1), ga indicates that Ken bears a nominative case, while o indicates that ringo 'apple' bears an accusative case.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Secondly, \"grammatical function\" refers to a relation which an NP in a sentence has with respect to the predicate in the sentence. Examples include \"subject,\" \"object,\" and so on. These are abstract concepts, and they are identified based on syntactic tests in each language/dialect.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The focus of our enquiry is \"subject.\" Keenan (1975) offers a set of universal \"subject\"-properties, although \"subject\" is captured gradably depending upon properties observed. The standard tests for subjecthood in Japanese are as follows (Kishimoto, 2004; Tsujimura, 2013; Tsunoda, 2009) :", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 39, |
| "end": 52, |
| "text": "Keenan (1975)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 239, |
| "end": 256, |
| "text": "(Kishimoto, 2004;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 257, |
| "end": 273, |
| "text": "Tsujimura, 2013;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF32" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 274, |
| "end": 288, |
| "text": "Tsunoda, 2009)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF33" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 \u03b1 is a subject if it may be a target of a certain \"honorification\" operation. \u2022 \u03b1 is a subject if it may be an antecedent of the reflexive anaphor jibun 'self.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us illustrate the former property with (2).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2) sensei-ga ringo-o otabeninat-ta teacher-NOM apple-ACC eat.HON-PAST 'That teacher ate an apple.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (2), the honorific form otabeninat 'eat' elevates the referent of sensei 'teacher.' Sensei is thus said to be a subject of the predicate otabeninat.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For some frameworks, grammatical function is a primitive concept. In Lexical-Functional Grammar, SUB, OBJ, etc. are postulated as \"attributes\" in the attribute-value matrices (Dalrymple, 2001 ). On the other hand, Dynamic Syntax (DS) dispenses with such primitive concepts; grammatical functions are defined structurally, as in the grammar models that have been developed in Chomsky (1965 Chomsky ( , 1995 , etc. For instance, \"subject\" is structurally designated as follows: an element on the argument node which is immediately dominated by the root node is said to be a \"subject\" of the predicate in this structure.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 175, |
| "end": 191, |
| "text": "(Dalrymple, 2001", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 375, |
| "end": 388, |
| "text": "Chomsky (1965", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 389, |
| "end": 405, |
| "text": "Chomsky ( , 1995", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) Schematic tree-structure root argument (subject) predicate", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In DS, no serious attention has been paid to the issue of how case relates to grammatical function, 1 and it has been simply assumed that the nominative particle ga marks a subject NP (Cann, et al. 2005; Seraku, 2013) . This stipulation may hold of (1)-(2), but it is unsustainable due to the following facts (Kuno, 1973; NKK, 2009; Shibatani, 1978) :", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 100, |
| "end": 101, |
| "text": "1", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 184, |
| "end": 203, |
| "text": "(Cann, et al. 2005;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 204, |
| "end": 217, |
| "text": "Seraku, 2013)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 309, |
| "end": 321, |
| "text": "(Kuno, 1973;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 322, |
| "end": 332, |
| "text": "NKK, 2009;", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 333, |
| "end": 349, |
| "text": "Shibatani, 1978)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF30" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Ga may mark an object NP.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Ga may occur several times in a single clause.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 A subject NP may be marked with ni, a dative particle (see \u00a74.6).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "These properties are not found in all verbs; the gamarking of an object NP, for instance, is normally possible only with \"stative\" predicates (Koizumi, 2008; Kuno, 1973) . The first two properties are illustrated in (4). (See \u00a74- \u00a75 for further data.) (4) watashi-ga ringo-ga tabe-tai (koto) 2 I-NOM apple-NOM eat-want (COMP) 'I want to eat an apple.'", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 142, |
| "end": 157, |
| "text": "(Koizumi, 2008;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 158, |
| "end": 169, |
| "text": "Kuno, 1973)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF17" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This single clause has two occurrences of ga. 3 The second NP ringo 'apple' is not a subject because it lacks the \"subject-properties,\" unlike sensei in (2) (Koizumi, 2008: 142-5) . On the other hand, ringo in (4) is characterised as an object NP according to syntactic tests for objecthood (Kishimoto, 2004) . Therefore, the simple correspondence between ga and \"subject\" cannot deal with data like (4), as has been a residual issue within DS.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 46, |
| "end": 47, |
| "text": "3", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 157, |
| "end": 179, |
| "text": "(Koizumi, 2008: 142-5)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 291, |
| "end": 308, |
| "text": "(Kishimoto, 2004)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3 Dynamic Syntax (DS)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Case and Grammatical Function", |
| "sec_num": "2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "DS models the process whereby the parser takes a string of words and gradually builds up a semantic structure. This mapping is direct in that syntactic structure is not postulated at any level. Within DS, \"dynamic\" refers to \"online parsing,\" and \"syntax\" refers to an abstract system that maps a string onto a semantic structure in a progressive manner (Cann et al., 2005; Kempson et al., 2001 Kempson et al., , 2011 .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 354, |
| "end": 373, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 374, |
| "end": 394, |
| "text": "Kempson et al., 2001", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 395, |
| "end": 417, |
| "text": "Kempson et al., , 2011", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF12" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For an illustration, the parse of the whole string (5) creates the semantic structure (6). Each node conveys information about (i) semantic content such as Ken' and (ii) semantic type such as e (\"entity\" type). The node decorated with Ken' is at a \"subject\" position; a subject node is a type-e daughter of the root node in a propositional tree.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A tree is binary; a left-hand node is an argument node, and a right-hand node is a functor node. For instance, the right daughter of the root in (6) is a functor node, which takes the type-e content Ken' and returns the type-t content sleep'(Ken').", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A tree update starts with the AXIOM (7). At this initial stage, there is only a root node, and it is annotated with ?t. ?t is a \"requirement\" that this node will be decorated with a type-t content. The parser executes general and lexical actions to meet requirements until no outstanding requirements are left in the tree. General action. General actions are tree update actions whose applications are not triggered by the parse of a lexical item. If Ken-ga ne in (5) is parsed, it yields the semantic tree (8).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) Parsing Ken-ga ne ?t", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Ken' : e sleep' : e\u2192t", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As each daughter node is specified for content and type, the parser may perform functional application. This is not lexically triggered, and it is formalised as the general action ELIMINATION. The execution of this action outputs (6). (The tense suffix -ta is disregarded in this article.) Lexical action. Each lexical item encodes a set of actions for tree update. Consider (9). (9) ne-ta sleep-PAST 'Someone (or a salient person) slept.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Japanese is a \"pro-drop\" language; argument NPs may be covert as long as they are retrievable in context. It is then assumed in DS that the parse of a verb projects a propositional template. For instance, ne 'sleep' encodes a set of actions to project the propositional template (10). ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Basics", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Each node is assigned a label for a node position, with the \"tree-node\" predicate Tn which takes a numeral as argument (Cann et al., 2005 ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 119, |
| "end": 137, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structural Uncertainty", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(11) Node-Position Labelling Tn 0Tn 00Tn 01Tn 010Tn 011When a node is assigned a numeral \"\u03b1,\" its left daughter is assigned \"\u03b10\" and its right daughter \"\u03b11.\" Since the root receives \"0,\" its left daughter receives \"00\" and its right daughter \"01.\" Let us then introduce LOCAL *ADJUNCTION, a general action to posit a node whose position in a tree is initially uncertain and needs to be resolved within a local structure.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structural Uncertainty", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(12) LOCAL *ADJUNCTION ?t, Tn 0Ken' : e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn 0)In <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)), \"1*\" is an arbitrary succession of \"1\" (including none). <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) means: if you go up from an argument node by one node (and optionally keep going up through functor nodes), you will reach the root node, as marked with Tn(0) (Blackburn and Meyer-Viol, 1994) . In (12), the dashed line visually displays structural uncertainty. <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) indicates that this node is at some argument position within a local structure although the exact position is uncertain at this point. Structural uncertainty may be fixed in two ways: (i) the general action of UNIFICATION (see \u00a74.2) or (ii) lexical actions encoded in a case particle. As for (ii), it has previously been held that the parse of a case particle resolves an unfixed node (Cann et al., 2005; Seraku, 2013) . The nominative particle ga, for instance, has been assumed to resolve an unfixed node as a \"subject\" node. (This analysis is similar to the \"constructive case\" analysis within LFG (Nordlinger, 1998) .)", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 307, |
| "end": 339, |
| "text": "(Blackburn and Meyer-Viol, 1994)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 810, |
| "end": 829, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 830, |
| "end": 843, |
| "text": "Seraku, 2013)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1026, |
| "end": 1044, |
| "text": "(Nordlinger, 1998)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF26" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structural Uncertainty", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This past DS analysis of case particles, however, encounters the problem mentioned in the paragraph around (4). In the next section, we will abandon this previous view of case particles, and propose an alternative approach.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Structural Uncertainty", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It has been held in DS that a case particle uniquely determines a landing site for an unfixed node (Cann et al., 2005) . In this article, we propose that a case particle reduces the range of landing sites by maximally excluding potential sites modulo the limitations imposed by each case particle.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 99, |
| "end": 118, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Informal Sketch", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(13) Proposal: General Claim a. A case particle excludes all landing sites for an unfixed node but a few candidates. b. Such \"candidates\" differ depending on the type of a case particle.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Informal Sketch", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Thus, a case particle may not immediately resolve an unfixed node. If the number of potential landing sites is reduced to one, however, it will amount to immediate resolution. 13is consonant with the central DS view: a tree is gradually built up, with various constraints posited by general and lexical actions constraining the way the tree grows. Concerning (13)b, we assume (14) for ga.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Informal Sketch", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(14) Proposal: Nominative Particle Ga a. Ga excludes all but a subject node and an object node. b. If the above exclusion has already occurred, further exclusion occurs: exclude all but a subject node or an object node (not both).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Informal Sketch", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(14) will be illustrated in \u00a74.2- \u00a74.5 (and formalised in the Appendix). Further, other case particles than ga are briefly discussed in \u00a74.6.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Informal Sketch", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Suppose the parser processes the string (15). At the time of parsing Ken, the tree (16) has been built up. (Other Tn-statements than Tn(0) are omitted in this and subsequent tree displays.) <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) specifies the set of constraints (17).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(17) {<\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)), <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0)), <\u2191 011 >(Tn(0)) \u2026} Recall that <\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)) refers to a subject position, <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0)) refers to an object position, and so on. Thus, (17) indicates that an unfixed node may be fixed at any argument position within a local tree. The next element is ga. According to (14)a, ga excludes all but a subject and an object node.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(18) Parsing Ken-ga ?t, Tn 0Ken' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) \"(1)\" in <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) means that the presence of \"1\" is optional, as delineated in (19).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) {<\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)), <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0))}", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Unlike 17, (19) indicates that an unfixed node may be fixed at a subject or an object node (but not other nodes). In this way, the parse of ga tightens the constraint <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) to <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)). The rest of the process is as usual: the parse of ne 'sleep' yields the tree (20) (cf., (10)).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 11, |
| "end": 15, |
| "text": "(19)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(20) Parsing Ken-ga ne ?t, Tn 0U : e, <\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)) sleep' : e\u2192t Ken' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) The intransitive verb ne creates a subject node, which is marked with <\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)). UNIFICATION, then, merges this subject node with the unfixed node. (UNIFICATION is a general action to combine a description of an unfixed node with that of a fixed node of the same type; see \u00a73.2.) Ken' : e, <\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)) sleep' : e\u2192t ELIMINATION (i.e., functional application) outputs the final state; see (6) in \u00a73.1.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part I)", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us turn to example (22). The parse of tabe creates a subject node. This node is compatible with the constraint <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) of the unfixed node. Thus, UNIFICATION may be run, merging the description of the unfixed node with that of the subject node. After ELIMINATION is run, the final state emerges. ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part II)", |
| "sec_num": "4.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us then examine (26), repeated from (4).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(26) watashi-ga ringo-ga tabe-tai I-NOM apple-NOM eat-want 'I want to eat an apple.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The parse of watashi-ga is as usual, and the parse of the next item ringo 'apple' yields (27). (Sp' is informally used for the content of watashi 'I.') (27) Parsing watashi-ga ringo ?t, Tn(0) Sp' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) apple' : e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In (27), the exclusion stated in (14)a occurs. Thus, according to (14)b, the parser excludes all potential landing sites for an unfixed node but a subject or an object position. If the parser chooses to exclude all but an object position, <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0)) is posited at the unfixed node for ringo. That is, the unfixed node for ringo is resolved as the object node.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(28) Parsing watashi-ga ringo-ga ?t, Tn 0Sp' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) ?(e\u2192t) apple' : e, <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0))", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The remainder of the parse process is as outlined in the last subsection. At the stage (27), the parser could have excluded all but a subject position as a landing site for the unfixed node for ringo. If this exclusion happened, the unfixed node for watashi would be licensed at an object position, giving rise to the interpretation 'An apple wants to eat me.' This tree update itself is legitimate, but the resulting interpretation would be blocked on semantic grounds.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In this respect, noteworthy is (29). In parsing ga in Naomi-ga, if the parser chooses to put <\u2191 01 >(Tn(0)) at the unfixed node for Naomi, the node is resolved as the object node. This leads to the \"a\"-interpretation. If <\u2191 0 >(Tn(0)) is posited at the unfixed node for Naomi, the node is resolved as the subject node, and the \"b\"-reading arises.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part III)", |
| "sec_num": "4.4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The proposed account is still not complete. The gamarking of an object NP is usually allowed only by stative predicates (see \u00a72). Thus, (31), where kat 'buy' is an action verb, is ungrammatical.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part IV)", |
| "sec_num": "4.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(31) *Ken-ga ringo-ga kat-ta K-NOM apple-NOM buy-PAST Int. 'Ken bought an apple.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part IV)", |
| "sec_num": "4.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The account developed thus far does not rule (31) out because the possibility of the ga-marking of an object NP is dependent on the type of predicate.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part IV)", |
| "sec_num": "4.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We thus assume that if ga marks an object NP, this case-marking fact is recorded, which will be checked by a forthcoming predicate. In (31), when ringo-ga is parsed, it puts ?NMO at an object node.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part IV)", |
| "sec_num": "4.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(32) Parsing Ken-ga ringo-ga ?t, Tn 0Ken' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn 0 ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Nominative Particle (Part IV)", |
| "sec_num": "4.5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "According to our general proposal (13), a case particle excludes all landing sites for an unfixed node but a few candidates, and such candidates are encoded in each particle. Below, we touch on the accusative particle o and the dative particle ni. The accusative particle o typically marks an NP which bears the semantic role \"theme\"; see ringo 'apple' in (22). The accusative particle o may also mark an NP bearing the semantic role \"path\" (34) or \"departure site\" (35) (NKK, 2009: 67-70 ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 471, |
| "end": 488, |
| "text": "(NKK, 2009: 67-70", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Case Particles", |
| "sec_num": "4.6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(34) Ken-ga sono-yama-o koe-ta K-NOM that-mountain-ACC pass-PAST 'Ken passed that mountain.' (35) Ken-ga ie-o de-ta K-NOM house-ACC leave-PAST 'Ken left a house.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Case Particles", |
| "sec_num": "4.6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In the light of the \"double-o constraint\" (Harada, 1973) , Shibatani (1978: 289-92) shows that the omarked NPs as in (34)-(35) have the grammatical function of \"object.\" Setting aside complex issues, 4 we thus hold that o always marks an object NP. (36) amounts to immediately resolving an unfixed node as an object node. So, as far as o is concerned, our \"maximal exclusion\" approach converges with the \"unique-determination\" approach (Cann et al., 2005; Seraku, 2013) . The dative particle ni usually marks an indirectobject NP (37), but in some environments, ni may mark a subject NP (38). Two caveats are in order. First, the ni-marking of a subject NP is not possible with all predicates, and the possibility of such ni-marking must be encoded in each predicate (Shibatani, 1978: 224) . 5 Second, although ni appears in other contexts (NKK, 2009) , ni in these environments would be characterised as postpositions, such as ni 'at' and ni 'to.' In this section, we have re-considered the role of case particles in structure building from the angle of \"maximal exclusion.\" 6", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 42, |
| "end": 56, |
| "text": "(Harada, 1973)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 59, |
| "end": 83, |
| "text": "Shibatani (1978: 289-92)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 200, |
| "end": 201, |
| "text": "4", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 436, |
| "end": 455, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 456, |
| "end": 469, |
| "text": "Seraku, 2013)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF28" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 767, |
| "end": 789, |
| "text": "(Shibatani, 1978: 224)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 792, |
| "end": 793, |
| "text": "5", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 840, |
| "end": 851, |
| "text": "(NKK, 2009)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Other Case Particles", |
| "sec_num": "4.6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Turning back to multiple occurrences of ga, let us explore MSC (Major Subject Construction) of the type (40) (Kuroda, 1992: 248) . Noda (1996: 257-9) mentions other kinds of MSC, but (40) represents the most discussed type of MSC.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 109, |
| "end": 128, |
| "text": "(Kuroda, 1992: 248)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 131, |
| "end": 149, |
| "text": "Noda (1996: 257-9)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Further Issues", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(40) Ken-ga imouto-ga yasashii K-NOM younger.sister-NOM sweet 'Ken's younger sister is sweet.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Further Issues", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The first ga-marked item Ken, often called \"major subject,\" acts as a possessor NP of the second gamarked item imouto 'younger sister.' In fact, some scholars claim to derive (40) from (41), where no in Ken-no is a genitive case particle (e.g., Kuno's (1973: \u00a73) \"subjectivisation\").", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 245, |
| "end": 262, |
| "text": "Kuno's (1973: \u00a73)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Further Issues", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(41) Ken-no imouto-ga yasashii K-GEN younger.sister-NOM sweet 'Ken's younger sister is sweet.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Further Issues", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In DS, Nakamura et al. (2009) focusses on the type of MSC shown in (40). (They do not address the data in \u00a74.4- \u00a74.5.) Their analysis is as follows:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 7, |
| "end": 29, |
| "text": "Nakamura et al. (2009)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF23" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Previous DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Ga does not resolve structural uncertainty, but just lets the parser return to the root node. \u2022 Before a second ga-marked item is parsed, the general action of GENERALISED ADJUNCTION sets an unfixed ?t-node, under which a second ga-marked item is parsed. \u2022 A second ga-marked item is a relational noun which creates a complex structure, into which the unfixed node for the first ga-marked item is incorporated by means of UNIFICATION.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Previous DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In their analysis, while an unfixed node for the first ga-marked item requires that it be fixed in a local tree, an unfixed node introduced by GENERALISED ADJUNCTION requires that it be fixed anywhere in the whole tree. Presumably to avoid this problem, Nakamura et al. (2009: 114) resort to \"structural abduction\" (Cann et al., 2005: 256) . But such an abduction step cannot occur in their proposed tree, since it ends up identifying the unfixed node for the first ga-item with that for the second ga-item, leading to inconsistency of node descriptions. Thus, their analysis is formally illegitimate.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 254, |
| "end": 281, |
| "text": "Nakamura et al. (2009: 114)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 315, |
| "end": 339, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005: 256)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Previous DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Our alternative account holds that ga is ambiguous between ga (14) and ga for \"major subject\" which we will propose by utilising Seraku and Ohtani's (2016) U R(Ken', U) must be saturated with a semantic content in relation R to Ken. R is contextually specified as a \"possession\" relation, for example. The curved arrow represents a \"LINK\" relation (Cann et al., 2005: Ch. 3) . LINK connects two structures, given a shared term like Ken'. When the next item hon 'book' is parsed, the tree is updated into (44). For Ken-no, U R(Ken', U) is saturated pragmatically (rather than by the parse of hon 'book' as in (42)). Another notable point is that imouto 'younger sister' in (40) is a relational noun which takes an individual x and denotes the sister(s) of x. We view \"relational nouns\" broadly so as to include nouns for which a relation can be contextually set out.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 129, |
| "end": 155, |
| "text": "Seraku and Ohtani's (2016)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF29" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 348, |
| "end": 374, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005: Ch. 3)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(46) Ken-ga ie-ga goukada K-NOM house-NOM gorgeous 'Ken's house is gorgeous.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We will thus define the actions encoded in ga (for major subjects) by reflecting the following:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Further, a' SISTER(a', Ken') is composed reflecting the order in which Ken is first parsed and then imouto 'younger sister' follows. Consider (52).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 12, |
| "end": 28, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(52) * imouto-ga Ken-ga yasashii sister-NOM K-NOM sweet Int. 'Ken's younger sister is sweet.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(52) is ruled out since Ken cannot denote a relation, unlike imouto, which denotes the relation SISTER so that composite terms like a' SISTER(a', Ken') are created. As a residual issue, ga may be used as a genitive particle, but such examples are archaic (Frellesvig, 2011) . Although our treatment of ga (for major subjects) allows (53), it is not obvious if we should posit further constraints to block such examples. (It is also notable that in many Ryukyuan languages, the nominative particles have the genitive-marking function, too (Tohyama and Seraku, in press ).) (53) warera-ga michi we-GEN road 'Our road' (with an archaic flavour)", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 135, |
| "end": 151, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 255, |
| "end": 273, |
| "text": "(Frellesvig, 2011)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 538, |
| "end": 567, |
| "text": "(Tohyama and Seraku, in press", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Alternative DS Account", |
| "sec_num": "5.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "We have presented a maximal-exclusion approach to structural uncertainty.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is an open issue if this approach is applicable to data on languages other than Japanese (Koizumi, 2008: 142) . It would also be essential to explore if the proposed view of case may be incorporated into other \"realistic\" grammar models (Sag and Wasow, 2011) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 92, |
| "end": 112, |
| "text": "(Koizumi, 2008: 142)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 240, |
| "end": 261, |
| "text": "(Sag and Wasow, 2011)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF27" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "A lexical entry specifies a set of actions to be run in conditional format (Cann et al., 2005) . For space reasons, the entry for ga alone is presented here. IF e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) THEN IF <\u2191 01* ><\u2193 1*0 >(Tn(U), \u2203x.Tn(x), <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0))) THEN put(<\u2191 0 >(Tn(0))/<\u2191 01 >(Tn(0)), ?NMO) ELSE put(<\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0))) ELSE abort", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 75, |
| "end": 94, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Appendix. Entries for Case Particles", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "30th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 30)Seoul, Republic of Korea, October 28-30, 2016", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "An exception isNakamura et al. (2009), which will be surveyed in \u00a75. Kiaer (2014) also handles relevant data, but the formal details of her account are not clear.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Without koto, (4) would sound better with the topic particle wa in place of the first instance of ga due to \"exhaustivity\"(Kuno, 1973). Such meaning disappears in embedded clauses, and scholars thus often put koto at the end of sentence. For the interests of brevity, we do not follow this practice in the rest of this article.3 Ga in ringo-ga is interchangeable with the accusative particle o in (4). The interchangeability is affected by various factors such as \"style\" and \"transitivity\"(Iori, 1995; Noda, 1996: 264-5), with cross-speaker variations(Shibatani, 1978: 230-2).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "First, o may mark an adverbial element(Mihara, 1994). This use of o would be an instance of the postposition o. Second, o is said to appear in \"small clauses\" or \"ECM\" constructions, but their theoretical status is contentious(Kawai, 2008;Kuno, 1976).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The set of predicates allowing \"SUB-ni OBJ-ga\" is a proper subset of the set of predicates allowing \"SUB-ga OBJ-ga\"(Kuno, 1973: \u00a74). (\"SUB\" means a subject NP, and \"OBJ\" an object NP.) For predicates allowing the ni-marking of SUB, we assume: if ni excludes all but a subject node, the subject node is annotated with ?DMS (Dative Marking of Subject); cf., (33).6 Case particles also appear in head-internal relatives(Kuroda, 2005). Within DS, this construction has been analysed inSeraku (2013), and our account of ga, o, and ni is compatible with Seraku's analysis.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Formally, terms are expressed in the epsilon calculus: (\u03b5, x, book'(x)&poss'(x)(Ken')) for book'POSS(Ken', book') .", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Formally, (\u03b9, x, sister'(Ken')(x)). 9 Formally, (\u03b9, x, height'(\u03b9, y, sister'(Ken')(y))(x)).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This article largely benefitted from the comments provided by the three anonymous PACLIC referees, Ruth Kempson, and Akira Ohtani. This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2016.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 A post-ga NP must be overtly present.\u2022 A post-ga NP is a \"relational\" noun (at least, for the type of MSC illustrated in (40)).Our contention is that the parse of Ken-ga in (40) yields the tree (47).(47) Parsing Ken-ga ?t, Tn 0Ken' : e ?e, ?\u2203x.Fo(x R(x, Ken') ), <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) ?\u2203x.Fo(x R(x, Ken') ) requires that this node will be decorated with a content in relation R to Ken'. (Fo is a \"formula\" predicate (Cann et al., 2005) .) This requirement lacks a metavariable U, and data such as Ken-ga in (45) are ruled out. The requirement is fulfilled by the parse of imouto 'younger sister,' as shown in (48). a' SISTER(a', Ken') denotes an individual a' who is in a sister relation to Ken. 8(48) Parsing Ken-ga imouto ?t, Tn 0Ken' : e a' SISTER(a', Ken') : e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0))The rest of the parse process is as outlined in \u00a74.2. The final state is given in (49).(49) Parsing Ken-ga imouto-ga yasashii sweet'(a' SISTER(a', Ken') ) : t, Tn(0)Ken' : e a' SISTER(a', Ken') : e sweet' : e\u2192tNote that the tree update triggered by the parse of a major subject may occur more than once. For instance, the parse of Ken-ga imouto-ga se in (50) gives rise to (51), where b' HEIGHT(b', a') represents the height of the individual who is the sister of Ken. 9 (50) Ken-ga imouto-ga se-ga takai K-NOM sister-NOM height-NOM high 'Ken's younger sister's height is high.'(51) Parsing Ken-ga imouto-ga se ?t, Tn(0) b' HEIGHT(b', a') : e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0)) a' SISTER(a', Ken') : e Ken' : e", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 412, |
| "end": 431, |
| "text": "(Cann et al., 2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 614, |
| "end": 630, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 740, |
| "end": 756, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 954, |
| "end": 970, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1165, |
| "end": 1179, |
| "text": "HEIGHT(b', a')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1401, |
| "end": 1415, |
| "text": "HEIGHT(b', a')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1440, |
| "end": 1456, |
| "text": "SISTER(a', Ken')", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "annex", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Linguistics, logic and finite trees", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "P", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Blackburn", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Meyer-Viol", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "Logic Journal of the IGPL", |
| "volume": "2", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "3--29", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Blackburn, P. and Meyer-Viol, W. 1994. Linguistics, logic and finite trees. Logic Journal of the IGPL 2 (1), 3-29", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "The Dynamics of Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kempson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Marten", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "L", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cann, R., Kempson, R., and Marten, L. 2005. The Dynamics of Language. Oxford: Elsevier.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chomsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1965, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "Minimalist Program", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chomsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Chomsky, N. 1995. Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2 nd edn", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Comrie", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1989, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2 nd edn. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "Lexical Functional Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dalrymple", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dalrymple, M. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "A History of the Japanese Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Frellesvig", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Frellesvig, B. 2011. A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Counter equi-NP deletion", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S.-I", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Harada", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1973, |
| "venue": "Annual Bulletin Research Institute of Logopaedics and Phoniatrics", |
| "volume": "7", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "113--161", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Harada, S.-I. 1973. Counter equi-NP deletion. Annual Bulletin Research Institute of Logopaedics and Phoniatrics 7, 113-48.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "Ga shitai\" to \"o shitai", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Iori", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1995, |
| "venue": "Nihongo Kyoiku", |
| "volume": "86", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "52--64", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Iori, I. 1995. \"Ga shitai\" to \"o shitai.\" Nihongo Kyoiku 86, 52-64.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "Alleged small clauses in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kawai", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics", |
| "volume": "28", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "89--105", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kawai, M. 2008. Alleged small clauses in Japanese. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 28, 89-105.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "Towards a universal definition of \"subject", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Keenan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1975, |
| "venue": "Subject and Topic", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "303--336", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Keenan, E. 1975. Towards a universal definition of \"subject.\" In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 303-33.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Keenan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "B", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Comrie", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1977, |
| "venue": "Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "volume": "8", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "63--99", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Keenan, E. and Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1), 63-99.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kempson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "E", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gregoromichelaki", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kempson, R., Gregoromichelaki, E., and Howes, C. (eds.) 2011. The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Dynamic Syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kempson", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "W", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Meyer-Viol", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "D", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Gabbay", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., and Gabbay, D. 2001. Dynamic Syntax. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Pragmatic Syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "J", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kiaer", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2014, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kiaer, J. 2014. Pragmatic Syntax. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Transitivity of ergative-marking predicates in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kishimoto", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2004, |
| "venue": "Studies in Language", |
| "volume": "28", |
| "issue": "1", |
| "pages": "105--141", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kishimoto, H. 2004. Transitivity of ergative-marking predicates in Japanese. Studies in Language 28 (1), 105-36.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Nominative object", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Koizumi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "141--64", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Koizumi, M. 2008. Nominative object. In Miyagawa, S. and Saito, M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141-64.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF17": { |
| "ref_id": "b17", |
| "title": "The Structure of the Japanese Language", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuno", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1973, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF18": { |
| "ref_id": "b18", |
| "title": "Subject raising", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuno", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1976, |
| "venue": "Syntax and Semantics", |
| "volume": "5", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "17--41", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuno, S. 1976. Subject raising. In Shibatani, M. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, pp. 17-41.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF19": { |
| "ref_id": "b19", |
| "title": "What can Japanese say about government and binding?", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S.-Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kuroda", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1992, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuroda S.-Y. 1992. What can Japanese say about government and binding? In Kuroda, S.-Y. (ed.)", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF21": { |
| "ref_id": "b21", |
| "title": "Nihongo-kara Mita Seisei Bunpou. (Generative grammar from the viewpoint of Japanese) Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "S", |
| "middle": [ |
| "Y" |
| ], |
| "last": "Kuroda", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Kuroda, S. Y. 2005. Nihongo-kara Mita Seisei Bunpou. (Generative grammar from the viewpoint of Japanese) Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF22": { |
| "ref_id": "b22", |
| "title": "Nihongo-no Tougo Kouzou", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mihara", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1994, |
| "venue": "Syntactic structure of Japanese) Tokyo: Shohakusha", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Mihara, K. 1994. Nihongo-no Tougo Kouzou. (Syntactic structure of Japanese) Tokyo: Shohakusha.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF23": { |
| "ref_id": "b23", |
| "title": "Multiple subject construction in Japanese", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "H", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nakamura", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "K", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yoshimoto", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Y", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Mori", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kobayashi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2009, |
| "venue": "New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI 5447)", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "103--121", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nakamura, H., Yoshimoto, K., Mori, Y., and Kobayashi, M. 2009. Multiple subject construction in Japanese. In Hattori, H. et al. (eds.) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI 5447). Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 103-18.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF24": { |
| "ref_id": "b24", |
| "title": "Gendai Nihongo Bunpou, Vo. 2. (The grammar of modern Japanese", |
| "authors": [], |
| "year": 2009, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "NKK (Nihongo Kijyutsubunpou Kenkyuukai). 2009. Gendai Nihongo Bunpou, Vo. 2. (The grammar of modern Japanese) Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF25": { |
| "ref_id": "b25", |
| "title": "Wa\" to \"Ga", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Noda", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1996, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Noda, T. 1996. \"Wa\" to \"Ga.\" (\"Wa\" and \"ga\") Toyko: Kuroshio Publishers.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF26": { |
| "ref_id": "b26", |
| "title": "Constructive Case", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "R", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Nordlinger", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1998, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Nordlinger, R. 1998. Constructive Case. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF27": { |
| "ref_id": "b27", |
| "title": "Performance-compatible competence grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "I", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sag", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Wasow", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "Non-transformational Syntax", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "359--77", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Sag, I. and Wasow, T. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. In Borsley, R. and Borjars, K. (eds.) Non-transformational Syntax. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell, pp. 359-77.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF28": { |
| "ref_id": "b28", |
| "title": "Clefts, Relatives, and Language Dynamics", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seraku", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2013, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Seraku, T. 2013. Clefts, Relatives, and Language Dynamics. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF29": { |
| "ref_id": "b29", |
| "title": "The word-order flexibility in Japanese novels", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seraku", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "A", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ohtani", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2016, |
| "venue": "Computational and Cognitive Approaches to Narratology", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "213--257", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Seraku, T. and Ohtani, A. 2016. The word-order flexibility in Japanese novels. In Ogata, T. and Akimoto, T. (eds.) Computational and Cognitive Approaches to Narratology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 213-44.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF30": { |
| "ref_id": "b30", |
| "title": "Nihongo-no Bunseki. (The analysis of Japanese) Tokyo", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "M", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Shibatani", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1978, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Shibatani, M. 1978. Nihongo-no Bunseki. (The analysis of Japanese) Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Company.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF31": { |
| "ref_id": "b31", |
| "title": "Towards a description of the case system of Yoron Ryukyuan", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tohyama", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Seraku", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": null, |
| "venue": "International Journal of Okinawan Studies", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tohyama, N. and Seraku, T. in press. Towards a description of the case system of Yoron Ryukyuan. International Journal of Okinawan Studies.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF32": { |
| "ref_id": "b32", |
| "title": "An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, 3 rd edn", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "N", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tsujimura", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2013, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tsujimura, N. 2013. An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, 3 rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF33": { |
| "ref_id": "b33", |
| "title": "Sekai-no Gengo-to Nihongo, 2 nd edn", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "T", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tsunoda", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2009, |
| "venue": "The languages of the world and Japanese", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tsunoda, T. 2009. Sekai-no Gengo-to Nihongo, 2 nd edn. (The languages of the world and Japanese) Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Ken-ga ne-ta K-NOM sleep-PAST 'Ken slept.' (6) Final state (ignoring tense) sleep'(Ken') : t Ken' : e sleep' : e\u2192t" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF3": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Ken-ga ringo-o tabe-ta K-NOM apple-ACC eat-PAST 'Ken ate an apple.' After Ken-ga is processed (see (18)), the parse of ringo-o engenders (23). (The parse of o resolves an unfixed node at an object position; see \u00a74.6.) (23) Parsing Ken-ga ringo-o ?apple' : e eat' : e\u2192(e\u2192t)" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF5": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Ken-ga Naomi-ga sukida K-NOM N-NOM like a. 'Ken likes Naomi.' b. 'Naomi likes Ken.' The parse of Ken-ga Naomi outputs (30). (30) Parsing Ken-ga Naomi ?t, Tn(0)Ken' : e, <\u2191 0(1) >(Tn(0)) Naomi' : e, <\u2191 01* >(Tn(0))" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF6": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Proposal: Accusative Particle O O excludes all but an object node." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF7": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Ken-ga Naomi-ni ringo-o age-ta K-NOM N-DAT apple-ACC give-PAST 'Ken gave an apple to Naomi.' (38) Ken-ni eigo-ga wakaru K-DAT English-NOM understand 'Ken understands English.' From the \"maximal exclusion\" perspective, then, we assume (39). (39) Proposal: Dative Particle Ni a. Ni excludes all but a subject node and an Indirect Object (IO) node. b. If such exclusion has already been present, further exclusion occurs: exclude all but a subject node or an IO node (not both)." |
| }, |
| "FIGREF8": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Parsing Ken-no hon Ken' : e book' POSS(Ken', book') : e book' POSS(Ken', book') denotes a book which stands in a possession relation to Ken. 7 A metavariable U R(Ken', U) is used in (43) since Ken-no itself may denote an entity. (45) Ken-no/*-ga K-GEN/-NOM 'Ken's'" |
| }, |
| "TABREF3": { |
| "type_str": "table", |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "analysis of the genitive particle no. Let us illustrate the analysis of no with (42). The parse of Ken-no derives the tree state (43).", |
| "html": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>(42) Ken-no hon</td><td/></tr><tr><td>K-GEN book</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'Ken's book' ('a book which Ken possesses,'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'a book which Ken wrote,' etc.)</td></tr><tr><td>(43) Parsing Ken-no</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Ken' : e</td><td>U R(Ken', U) : e</td></tr></table>" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
