Syntactic predication in Japanese

Heycock, Caroline

doi:10.1007/bf01732503

Cited by 55 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(53) Heycock (1994; argues that the obligatory exhaustive focus reading of ga-subjects is a root phenomenon. Heycock (2008, 58) maintains that in unambiguously nonsubordinate clauses, the exhaustive focus reading of ga is forced on the subject of individual-level predicates as in (47b Similarly, an exhaustive focus reading is not forced on a subject in true factive complements like those in (57), and semi-factive complements like those in (58).…”

Section: Keisuke Yoshimotomentioning

confidence: 99%

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

Yoshimoto¹

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses syntactic conditions under which complement clauses constitute a phase in Japanese. Since CPs are assumed to be phasal (Chomsky 2000;, it is predicted by the Phase Impenetrability Condition that phrasal extraction out of a CP complement must transit through the edge of the complement, i.e., Spec CP . As Spec CP is an A-position and movement through anĀ-position must create a uniformĀ-chain, phrasal extraction out of a phasal complement is expected to create anĀ-chain. However, evidence from Japanese suggests that long distance A-scrambling is permissible out of some complement clauses that are headed by an overt complementizer (Uchibori 2000). It follows therefore that the category CP is not sufficient to characterize clausal phases. In search for an alternative definition of clausal phases, I argue that main clause phenomena such as thematic topics and exhaustive foci are allowed only in phasal complements in Japanese. Assuming that Top and Foc are licensed by Force (Haegeman 2006a), I propose that phasal complements project up to Force in their clausal left periphery, independently of a complementizer. I further argue that the correlation between phasehood and the clausal left periphery can be captured if we assume that uninterpretable topic and focus features must originate on the phase head Force.

show abstract

Section: Keisuke Yoshimotomentioning

confidence: 99%

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

Yoshimoto¹

2012

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kuroda (2005) and Portner (2004) Heycock (1994) accounts for the contrast by making an appeal to the concept of competition between a topic and a nominative. A nominative subject gets a focalized interpretation when it could have been marked with wa but isn't.…”

Section: Embedded Topics In Japanesementioning

confidence: 99%

Information structure as information-based partition

Tomioka¹

2008

Acta Linguistica Hungarica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as 'structure of information', some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word 'structure'. This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called 'structure'. The preliminary conclusion is that, although there are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.

show abstract

“…It might also be possible to relate the accusative major subject and the complement clause by some kind of predication rule (cf. Takezawa 1987;Heycock 1993), in which case it may not be necessary to posit pro in the complement clause. In the following subsections, I provide arguments in favor of the movement analysis in (42a) based on (i) the clausemate condition in the cleft construction and (ii) Proper Binding Condition effects.…”

Section: Evidence For Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 I also assume that (i) major subjects are thematically licensed in the Spec of PredP by predication (cf. Takezawa 1987;Heycock 1993) and (ii) tough-adjectives select a vP complement (Inoue 2004;Niinuma & Taguchi 2006).…”

Section: Major Subjects and Nominative Case-licensing Via Agreementioning

confidence: 99%

On the pseudo-small clause construction in Japanese: New evidence for A-movement out of a CP and its theoretical implications

Takahashi

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides new evidence for the availability A-movement out of a CP and considers its theoretical implications. The discussion concerns what I call the "pseudo"-small clause construction in Japanese, which has not received much attention in the literature. The pseudo-small clause construction shows a puzzling constraint on major subjects originating in complement clauses: the major subjects must receive accusative Case from a matrix predicate despite the availability of nominative Case within the complement clauses. To explain this constraint, it is proposed that (i) pseudo-small clauses are phasal CPs and (ii) the major subjects originating in the pseudo-small clause complements must undergo movement into a matrix theta-position, which takes place across the CP phase. It is also suggested that (i) Tense in Japanese moves to C, (ii) Standard Japanese has null complementizers, and (iii) the ban on A-movement out of a CP is explained in terms of the locality of Agree.

show abstract

Syntactic predication in Japanese

Cited by 55 publications

References 17 publications

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

The left periphery of CP phases in Japanese

Information structure as information-based partition

On the pseudo-small clause construction in Japanese: New evidence for A-movement out of a CP and its theoretical implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About