The Syntax of Subjects

Tateishi, Koichi

doi:10.1515/jjl-1991-0111

Cited by 7 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…I have adopted this claim from Saito (1989), Tateishi (1994), and Fukui (1993) and have given some further empirical support for it in section 2. If the claim is ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999 correct, it contradicts the intuition that optionality is always associated with a difference in meaning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…I propose that scrambling in Japanese in comparison to scrambling in German constitutes such a case. Previous literature suggests that the two movement operations might differ with respect to interpretability: On the one hand, Saito (1989), Tateishi (1994), andFukui (1993) express the opinion that scrambling in Japanese is semantically vacuous. On the other hand, Lenerz (1977), who credits Behaghel (1909) with the original observation, Kratzer (1989), Diesing (1992a), andMoltmann (1991) show that German scrambling affects interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Erasability and Interpretation

Sauerland

1999

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Erasability and Interpretation

Sauerland

1999

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Topics are located in TopP, housed in the CP domain, above the TP (Kishimoto, 2009;Kuroda, 1992Kuroda, , 2005). The nominative case particle appears in a TP-internal position (Tateishi, 1994;Ono, 2001;Ueda, 1993). This hierarchy is summarized in (11) below.…”

Section: Memory Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between syntax and discourse

Laleko

Polinsky

2016

LAB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the knowledge of topic and subject particles in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. We assume that topic marking is mediated at the syntaxinformation structure interface, while subject marking pertains to narrow syntax. In comparing phenomena mediated at different levels of linguistic organization, we provide evidence for the hypothesis that information structure-level phenomena present greater challenges for bilingual speakers than those mediated within syntax. While these results may be interpreted as evidence of generalized interface-related deficits, we show that such a global explanation is not supported.Instead, a more nuanced account is developed, based on the recognition of different types of topic (anaphoric, generic, and contrastive) and different types of subject (descriptive and exhaustive). Under the proposed account, the non-native speakers' deficits follow from three unrelated effects: the status of topic as an interface category, structural complexity, and the memory demands necessary for its interpretation in context. Introduction Interfaces: The integration problem1 This project was supported in part by grants from Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland and from NSF (SMA-1429961) to the second author. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. We would like to thank Sun-Hee Bae, Miwako Hisagi, Kenneth Mai, Hiroki Nomoto, Aika Taguchi, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this paper. All errors are our responsibility. 2Heritage language and second language (L2) acquisition represent two distinct pathways to adult bilingualism. They differ along a number of dimensions, including the specific circumstances of language exposure and the nature of competence deficits across different language modules. As early bilinguals, heritage speakers begin the acquisition of a socially non-dominant language in a family setting, and in this respect, their experience with the target language compares to that of early L1 learners, at least at the outset of the language acquisition process. The main difference is that heritage speakers' L1 language acquisition is subsequently interrupted by exposure to another language. Adult L2 learners, on the other hand, are late bilinguals whose exposure to the non-dominant language typically takes place in an instructed setting.Despite these differences in acquisition scenarios, both groups of speakers similarly fall short of exhibiting complete mastery of the target language. Even at the highest levels of proficiency, both populations remain in a state of near-native attainment, deviating from target native grammars represented by the monolingual baseline. In particular, early and late bilinguals (heritage speakers and L2 learners alike) have been reported to display deficits in the domain of inflectional morphology and narrow syntax, and both groups also seem to have difficulties with discourse-level phenome...

show abstract

“…Firstly, in both sentences, the second gaphrase serves as the subject of the lexical predicate, namely it seems to bear the external 1 There are two other types of multiple nominative constructions: one involves a stative predicate (Kuno, 1973;Kuroda, 1986;Saito, 1982;Takezawa, 1987; among others), illustrated in (i) (Takezawa (1987): 24), whereas the other involves a locative phrase and an existential predicate (Kuno, 1973;C. Takahashi, 1996;Tateishi, 1991;Ura, 2000; among others), shown in (ii) (Kuno (1973): 76). For reasons of space, I am unable to include these types in this paper, but the reader is referred to Vermeulen (2002), where they are discussed.…”

Section: Nominative Phrases In Japanesementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One striking difference is in the number of ga-phrases permitted in each construction (Tateishi, 1991) Kuno (1973): 71.…”

Section: (Ii)mentioning

confidence: 99%