Categorial Mismatch in a Multi-Modular Theory of

August 8, 2003

6

Categorial Mismatch in a Multi-Modular Theory of Grammar ∗ Etsuyo Yuasa and Elaine J. Francis

1

Introduction

Linguistic research has often concentrated on general phenomena, and although language has been known to be full of exceptional cases, such cases were typically either ignored or assumed to be lexical idiosyncrasies (Chomsky 1995: 235-236). Recently, some researchers have examined exceptional cases more closely and found that some of them are not entirely irregular (e.g., Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Culicover 1999, Culicover and Jackendoff 1997). For example, Culicover and Jackendoff 1997 discuss both the systematic and idiosyncratic properties of the pseudo-coordinate conditional (e.g., You drink another can of beer, and I am leaving), and Kay and Fillmore 1999 examine the case of the ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction (e.g., What is this scratch doing on the table?). This paper takes up another exceptional case, categorial mismatch, and claims that it shows interesting regularities that shed some light on the architecture of grammar and justify a multi-modular approach to grammar. The organization of this paper is as follows: in Section 1, we show the assumptions of the multi-modular approach to grammar made in this paper and ex∗ We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments we received on earlier versions of this chapter from Frederick Newmeyer, Nikolas Gisborne, Stephen Matthews, and two anonymous reviewers. We would also like to thank Laura Michaelis for her editorial advice. Please address any correspondence regarding this chapter to Etsuyo Yuasa ([email protected]).

Mismatch: Form–Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Elaine J. Francis and Laura A. Michaelis (eds.). c 2003, CSLI Publications. Copyright

179

August 8, 2003

180 / Etsuyo Yuasa and Elaine J. Francis

amine the nature and conditions of (level) mismatches that justify the autonomy of different components of grammar. In Sections 2 and 3, we present case studies of categorial mismatch from English and Japanese. Section 2 examines some peculiar distributional properties of quantificational nouns in English, while Section 3 discusses the problematic categorization of certain subordination markers in Japanese. We show how both of these cases can be analyzed as instances of categorial mismatch between syntax and semantics. In Section 4, we examine the implications of our analysis both for theories of syntactic categories and, more generally, for understanding the architecture of grammar.1 1.1 Multi-modular Approach to Grammar The multi-modular approach to grammar assumed in this paper views language as consisting of parallel autonomous components of grammar (Sadock 1991, Jackendoff 1997). Here, the term ‘component’ should be understood to be synonymous with the term ‘level’, proposed in Haider and Netter 1991. According to Haider and Netter, a level is defined by a set of objects and operations. One level is different from another level if the set of objects and operations defining the former level is different from that of the latter. A ‘stratum’, on the other hand, is one of the representations within a single level. Distinct strata within a single level share the same set of objects and operations. Among the many components or levels of grammar, we will focus on the semantic component and the syntactic component.2 The semantic component uses semantic primitives such as proposition (Prop), argument (Arg), predicate (F-n), modifier (M), and quantifier (Q1 ), and it deals with logical relations (e.g., predicate-argument relations, variable-binder relations, and operator relations) as well as the semantic content of expressions.3 The syntactic level is independently defined as the level of syntactic constituent structures and syntactic categories. Specifically, it employs primitives such as noun and verb, as well as phrasal categories such as NP, VP, and PP, and it includes information 1 Yuasa is primarily responsible for Sections 1, 3, and 4.2, while Francis is primarily responsible for Sections 2 and 4.1. 2 Autolexical Grammar, as proposed in Sadock 1991, and Representational Modularity, as described by Jackendoff 1997, share a modular view of grammar. However, there are some differences in specific instantiations of each component. While we believe that our analysis can be stated in either version of multi-modular grammar, we will use the notations of Sadock 1991 in this paper. However, for readability, our syntactic representations are slightly modified to appear in a more standard X-bar notation, similar to the level of ‘surface structure’ in McCawley 1988. 3 The number in the superscript indicates the number of arguments associated with a particular function.

August 8, 2003

Categorial Mismatch in a Multi-Modular Theory of Grammar / 181

such as the order of heads and non-heads, case-marking, and syntactic subcategorization (see Sadock, this volume, for further discussion). Many phenomena which have been considered to be syntactic (e.g., the Coordinate Structure Constraint, pronominal coreference) in the past are here considered to be semantic (Culicover and Jackendoff 1997); hence the syntactic level here is much shallower, and plays a less significant role than has often been assumed. One implication of a multi-modular approach to grammar is that structural or categorial information can be factored out into different kinds of information. For example, the properties of ‘object’ in English can at least be decomposed into the semantic properties of its relations with predicates (semantic object) and structural or distributional properties (syntactic object) as shown in (1) . (1) Multi-modular analysis of direct object in English a. syntax: object defined by post-verbal position b. semantics: object defined as the (internal) argument of a two-argument predicate (F-2) (2) Examples of object in English a. Prof. Williams teaches linguistics. b. Joan drinks coffee. c. My brother studies mathematics. When we only focus on unmarked cases like (2) where semantic objects appear in post-verbal position, it may be unclear why we would need to separate the syntactic information from the semantic information. In fact, Chomsky 1965, 1981 uses only the syntactic information and defines the direct object in English configurationally as shown in (3). (3) Configurational analysis of direct object in English (Chomsky 1965, 1981): NP immediately dominated by VP However, not all the items that occur in post-verbal position are the (internal) argument of a two-argument predicate. For example, although nominal predicates as shown in (4a) occur after the copular verb be, they are not the internal argument of be, and in fact they are not arguments at all.4 The differences between the direct object in (2) and 4 We are grateful to Frederick Newmeyer (p.c.) for suggesting this example. Following McCawley 1988, we assume that the copula “be” preceding a nominal predicate has no argument structure meaning and assigns no theta roles. The nominal predicate assigns a theta role to the subject NP, but being a predicate rather than an

August 8, 2003


nominal predicates can be shown by the fact that nominal predicates cannot be passivized (4b): (4)

a. b. c. d.

Mary is a professor. *A professor is been by Mary. Linguistics is taught by Prof. Williams. The coffee was drunk by Joan.

On a multi-modular account, these facts are represented in a simple and straightforward manner. The passive lexical rule applies to verbs that select an internal argument (4c-d).5 Since the verb be selects no internal argument, sentences like (4b) are unacceptable even though they are syntactically well-formed. If the different dimensions of the notion of object are not recognized as shown in (1), the semantic differences and the syntactic similarities between the objects in (2) and in (4a) will be hard to capture, and the unacceptability of sentences like (4b) will be less straightforward to explain. Many linguistic structures or categories have certain canonical associations of different kinds of information6 as in (1).7 We claim that when different representations in different levels have default associations or structural isomorphism, the alignment of properties makes up a prototype (Rosch 1978, McCawley 1988, Yuasa 1998, Francis 1999) of a particular linguistic entity. However, to the extent that each component is independent of the other components, the default correspondence can be violated, and mismatch cases such as in (4a) may result. 1.2

Mismatch Cases in a Multi-modular Approach to Grammar As discussed above, mismatch cases are cases involving categories or structures that deviate from the default correspondence of different kinds of information. Before we turn to the discussions of grammatical categories and categorial mismatch in Sections 2 and 3, let us examine the general nature of mismatch cases and how such cases relate to the autonomy of different components of grammar. argument, receives no theta role of its own. For more detailed discussion of nominal predicates, see Francis 1999. 5 See Sadock (this volume) for an explicit formulation of the passive lexical rule in Autolexical Grammar. 6 See Hudson (this volume) for more discussion of canonical or default associations of different kinds of information. 7 It may at first appear that encoding different kinds of information this way is redundant, and hence undesirable. However, Sadock (1991:12) and Jackendoff (1997:14) demonstrate that redundancy is desirable for both learnability and recall.

August 8, 2003


Croft 1995 investigates the issue of the autonomy of syntax in functional vs. formal approaches to grammar. Croft proposes the following three criteria for justifying an autonomous component of syntax: (5) Croft’s criteria for the autonomy of syntax a. At least some elements of syntax are arbitrary. (arbitrariness) b. The arbitrary elements participate in a system. (systematicity) c. That system is self-contained. (self-containedness) Yuasa 1998 extends (5) and proposes the following criteria, which apply not only to the autonomy of syntax but also to the autonomy of any level or component of grammar. (6) Criteria for the autonomy of different components of grammar a. At least some elements of a level neither straightforwardly correspond to nor reduce into any combination of elements of another level. (no one-to-one correspondence) b. The elements within each level participate in a system. (systematicity) c. That system is self-contained. (self-containedness) First, (6a) says that since Component A and Component B are independent of each other, some elements of Component A neither straightforwardly correspond to nor reduce into any combination of elements of Component B. Suppose that there is a structure or a category X that consists of the information x in component A and x in component B. In the above case, the prototypical direct object in English (X) is an association of the syntactic direct object (x) and the semantic object (x ) as shown in (1). In other words, the property of the syntactic object in (1a) corresponds to x in Component A, and the semantic properties in (1b) correspond to x in Component B. If the correspondences between the information x and x (e.g., the syntactic property of the direct object and the semantic property of the direct object) are always one-to-one, Component A (syntax) and Component B (semantics) are not autonomous, and the information of either of the components can be reduced to or predicted from the other in a straightforward manner.8 8 ‘Syntactocentric’(syntax-centered) approaches or ‘semanticocentric’ (semanticscentered) approaches may assume that linguistic investigation should focus only on cases like category/structure X and Y and ignore other cases that do not follow

August 8, 2003


Now suppose we have a prototypical structure or category X with properties x in Component A and x in Component B, as well as a prototypical structure or a category Y with the information y in the component A and y in the component B, as shown in (7):

(7)

a. category/structure X: b. category/structure Y:

Component A x y

Component B x y

Theoretically, the one-to-one correspondence between Component A and Component B can be violated in the following ways: (8) Possible deviations from (7)

a. category/structure Z: b. category/structure R: c. category/structure T:

Component A x x y

Component B x y x

In (8a), the information x in Component A is associated not with x (the prototypical case) but with a somewhat different set of information x . The information x no longer corresponds to x in a one-to-one fashion, clearly violating criterion (6a) (No one-to-one correspondence). However, cases like (8a) will not necessarily justify the autonomy of Components A and B with respect to criterion (6b) (Systematicity). For example, in the prototypical case, members of the category ‘adjective’ semantically denote a property, and syntactically they occur in the pre-nominal position as well as in the post-copular position in English. However, some adjectives are known to occur only in post-copular position (9d-d ) (Bolinger 1967). (9)

a. a b. b c. c d. d

The man was hungry. a hungry man The student was eager. an eager student This woman is smart. a smart woman The man is asleep. *an asleep man

the pattern of (7). See Section 4.1 for more detailed discussion of the problems of syntactocentric and semanticocentric approaches to grammatical categories.

August 8, 2003


Thus, the semantic information of these adjectives (which is perfectly ordinary) is not associated with all of the syntactic information of prototypical adjectives. Do adjectives like asleep then provide sufficient evidence for the autonomy of syntax and semantics? The answer is probably no. Adjectives like asleep can be just subcategories of adjectives that lack some of the prototypical syntactic properties. The existence of adjectives like asleep may provide evidence in favor of (6a) (No one-to-one correspondence), but such adjectives do not show the kind of systematicity (6b) necessary to justify autonomous components of syntax and semantics. A more significant deviation from the one-to-one correspondence in (7) is category/structure R shown in (8b) (Example (8c) is simply a variation of (8b) in which the associations of the properties are reversed). These are cases in which the properties of the categories/structures X and Y are mixed. In (8b) the information x of Component A is paired with the information y of Component B. The one-to-one correspondence in (7) is violated, and the information x and y participate in the systems of Components A and B through the categories/structures of X and Y (in addition to the category/structure R). We will show that our cases of categorial mismatch presented in Sections 3 and 4 are of this type. Specifically, in the two cases that we discuss, syntactic category information is associated with semantic information that would normally be associated with a different syntactic category. However, the information at each level still participates in the existing systems of the syntactic component and the semantic component. Although there are many ways for categories or structures to deviate from the prototypes, mismatch cases that justify the different components of grammar must be of this type. There is another criterion, Self-containedness (6c). Strictly speaking, the different components of a multi-modular grammar as assumed in this paper do not satisfy this third criterion, since different representations are often associated by default correspondences or isomorphism. Croft (1995) is also aware of the possibility of interrelation even among independent information systems; hence, he suggests the possibility of loosening the interpretation of the third criterion as follows: [I]t is generally taken that syntax is self-contained if at least statements of categories and rules of combinations do not make reference to nonsyntactic elements. (Croft 1995: 496)

We adopt this revision, and we will demonstrate how each component of grammar can be described in terms of its own primitives, categories, and rules.

August 8, 2003


To conclude this section, we hope to emphasize that mismatch cases that justify the autonomy of components of grammar are not mere idiosyncratic cases; and the cases of categorial mismatch that we will discuss below exemplify mismatch between syntax and semantics of the kind outlined in (8b). Crucial in this discussion is the criterion of Systematicity (6b), which, in accordance with Newmeyer (1998: 31), we take to be the primary criterion for justifying the autonomy of different components of grammar.

2

Quantifiers and Collective Nouns in English: A Multi-modular Approach

In this section9 , we investigate the distinctive distributional properties of a small set of English quantifiers. Here, we use the term ‘quantifier’ not in any technical sense as a kind of syntactic or semantic category within a particular theory, but rather in a broader sense, as a label to indicate any quantity-denoting linguistic elements that occur in argument expressions.10 Hence, the expressions three, several, most, majority (of ), loads (of ), and both all qualify as quantifiers in this sense. We focus in particular on the rather unusual case of quantificational nouns, such as lot, bunch, and couple, comparing and contrasting these nouns with more ordinary collective nouns, such as group and flock, as well as with semantically similar but non-nominal quantifiers, such as many and few (Sections 2.1-2.4). In Section 2.5, we propose that quantificational nouns are an instance of categorial mismatch between syntax and semantics. 2.1 Variation in the Syntactic Categorization of Quantifiers Croft 1991 observes that cross-linguistically, and often even within the same language, the syntactic categorization of quantifiers is variable; and quantifiers sometimes appear intermediate in category status. In English, quantifiers may be adjectives, nouns, or determiners, and their behavior is often idiosyncratic or peculiar with respect to any of these categories (Culicover 1999: 61-63). Most English quantifiers are similar to ordinary adjectives in that they precede the head noun of the noun phrase in which they occur. The most adjective-like quantifiers (e.g., 9 Many of the observations and arguments presented in this section are derived from discussions of quantificational nouns in Francis 1998 and Francis 1999, which build on ideas in Sadock 1990. 10 The narrower, technical sense of the term ’Quantifier’ (Q−1 ) in Autolexical Grammar (Sadock 1991: 25), which prototypically corresponds to the syntactic category of determiner, will figure in some of our diagrams. However, the quantificational nouns and adjectives discussed in this section will not be analyzed as Q−1 in this sense, but rather as nominal modifiers (M(CN)).

August 8, 2003


many, few, several, three) may be preceded by determiners, as in the phrase the few books that I own. The quantifier few may also be inflected like an adjective: fewer, fewest. These quantificational adjectives are restricted to the position immediately following the determiner; hence they have sometimes been classified as ‘postdeterminers’ (Berk 1999: 67). English quantifiers such as all, some, no, and most are less like ordinary adjectives, and display syntactic distributions more typical of the minor lexical class of determiners, which includes articles and demonstratives. For example, these quantifiers occur in specifier position within the noun phrase and therefore cannot co-occur with (other) determiners (*the no books, *these some people). In addition to quantificational adjectives and determiners, there is also a small group of quantificational nouns which includes the words bunch, lot, and couple. Unlike other English quantifiers, quantificational nouns do not function as modifiers or specifiers within the noun phrase, but rather appear to function as nouns that select PP complements. As we discuss in detail later in this section, however, quantificational nouns display some peculiar grammatical properties that distinguish them from other kinds of nouns and make them resemble non-nominal quantifiers. As we will see in the subsequent discussion, some of the variable grammatical properties of quantifiers can be directly attributed to their lexical semantic specifications. However, it is clear that the syntactic category of a quantifier is not predictable from semantics. Although many is nearly synonymous with (a) lot (of ), for example, the two quantifiers belong to different syntactic categories: The former is an adjective, and the latter is a noun. In the following sections, we will elaborate on these initial observations by examining the syntactic and semantic properties of three related sets of lexical items in English: (1) (many, few), (2) collective nouns (group, flock), and (3) quantificational nouns (lot, bunch). We show that quantificational nouns share the semantic properties of quantificational adjectives, but the syntactic properties of collective nouns. We then argue that quantificational nouns exemplify a straightforward case of syntax-semantics categorial mismatch, providing evidence in favor of a multi-modular theory of grammar. 2.2

Quantificational Adjectives as Relatively Prototypical Adjectives A small set of English quantifiers, including the words few, many, much, and little may be classified straightforwardly as adjectives and share most properties of prototypical gradable adjectives such as hot, large, and smart. Quantificational adjectives are syntactic modifiers within

August 8, 2003


the noun phrase and may co-occur with determiners, as in (10a-b). Their position within the noun phrase seems identical in most cases to that of ordinary adjectives, as in (10c-d). (10)

a. b. c. d.

This is one of the many problems with the proposal. He is one of the few people I know who would do that. This is one of the difficult problems with the proposal. He is one of the strange people I know who would do that.

However, note that quantificational nouns (similar to numerals) are restricted to the left-most adjective position, so that when they occur with other adjectives, they must be first (11a-b). Quantificational adjectives are also distinct from other adjectives in that they may occur in some of the same constructions as non-adjectival quantifiers such as all (11c-d).11 (11)

a. b. c. d.

He is one of the many strange people I know. *He is one of the strange many people I know. Many/all of the problems are solved. *Difficult of the problems are solved.

We shall assume that, regardless of their position in other constructions, quantificational adjectives occur in the same positions as ordinary adjectives when they modify a noun, as in (10a-b). Some quantificational adjectives are similar to ordinary adjectives not only in their syntactic position within the noun phrase but also in their semantic compatibility with degree expressions (unlike nongradable quantifiers such as all and some). For example, much like the adjective hot, the quantifier few has the productively derived comparative and superlative forms fewer and fewest, and can be modified by an intensifier, as in (12).12 (12) I’ve seen very few people so far, far fewer than I expected. Many, much and little appear different than few because they do not have productively derived comparative and superlative forms. However, like few, they are compatible with degree words, as in (13a-b): (13)

a. There aren’t very many mistakes, but there are still more than I expected.

11 We are grateful to Frederick Newmeyer (personal communication) for pointing this out. See also Culicover (1999: 62-63) for a breakdown of the distributional properties of various quantifiers and determiners. 12 We are considering few only in the sense of ‘hardly any,’ not in the sense of ‘a small number.’ Thus we are not considering the sense of few that obligatorily occurs with the indefinite article in expressions like a few dollars. This other sense of few in a few dollars is non-gradable (similar to several) and so does not readily combine with degree expressions: *a fewer dollars.

August 8, 2003


b. We’ve had very little rain this year – far less than I expected. The reason for this is that many, much, and little are semantically gradable like prototypical adjectives, but they are morphologically defective. The lack of productively derived comparative and superlative forms can then plausibly be attributed to blocking by suppletive forms: Many and much are associated with the suppletive forms more and most, while little is associated with less and least. Although as we have just shown, quantificational adjectives are gradable like ordinary adjectives, they are distinct from ordinary adjectives in their denotations. Quantificational adjectives, and quantifiers in general, denote an amount of something rather than an inherent property.13 Nevertheless, quantificational adjectives, like ordinary adjectives, are a kind of nominal modifier. In our semantic representation, we classify quantificational adjectives with the label M(CN),14 which means ‘semantic modifier of a common noun expression’ (where common noun expressions in semantics generally correspond to N-bars in syntax).15 The syntactic and semantic structure of quantificational adjectives is represented in the tree diagram in (14) below, which is given in Autolexical Grammar notation. The diagram shows that the NP the very few elephants displays parallel semantic and syntactic structures.

13 The

semantic non-prototypicality of quantificational adjectives as compared with ordinary adjectives (as defined in Section 2.5) makes quantificational adjectives a kind of semantic subcategory of ordinary adjectives, as discussed with respect to (8a) above (see Section 2.5). 14 Based on Sadock (1991: 25), we assume in semantics a modificational type that applies to arguments of type X and returns functions of the same type. Here, M(CN) means that a quantificational adjective is semantically a modificational type that applies to CN and returns functions of the same type, CN. 15 The semantic function of quantificational adjectives is not completely straightforward. Sadock 1990 represents quantifiers, including determiners such as this and the, as semantic functors bearing the label Q−1 and subcategorizing for common noun expressions (CN) to return argument expressions (Q). We think this kind of representation is appropriate for those quantifiers such as all, some, and no, which are associated with the category of determiner in syntax. However, we find the label M(CN) more appropriate for quantificational adjectives because they can co-occur with determiners (the many people) and in such cases apparently do not select for CN and return an argument expression (see Giusti 1997: 115).

August 8, 2003


(14) Autolexical representation of quantificational adjectives

NP N’

Syntax

AP

Det

Adv

A

the

very

few

Q-1

M(M(CN)) M(CN)

N’ elephants CN

M(CN) Semantics CN Q

2.3 Collective Nouns as Relatively Prototypical Nouns Collective nouns are nouns that denote a collection of individuals (group, flock), or a portion of a mass (pile, mound). Unlike quantificational adjectives, collective nouns are syntactic heads of noun phrases and like other nouns may be preceded by determiners (15a-c) and adjectives (15b).16 They take an optional PP complement (15a-c), and seem 16 Following Van Langendonck 1994 and Sadock 1991, and contra Hudson 1987, Abney (1987), and Hewson 1991, we assume that nouns, not determiners, are the syntactic heads of noun phrases because they seem to determine the external distribution of the phrase (Zwicky 1985). We do, however, agree with Hudson 1987 that determiners are semantic functors that subcategorize for common noun expressions, and this is reflected in our representation of determiners (Q−1 ) as semantic heads of

August 8, 2003


to occur in positions identical to the positions of other complementtaking head nouns, such as author and construction in (16a-b). (15)

a. Ask any group of ballerinas to do ten push-ups or three chin-ups and the results, considering the amount of physical training they have had, will be very disappointing. (Brown Corpus) b. They maintained a valuable collection of physical and chemical apparatus which was at Oersted’s disposal during and after his graduation. (Brown Corpus) c. There was, furthermore, the crowd of curious onlookers gathered in the street and a couple more cops to hold them at a decent distance. (Brown Corpus)

(16)

a. The author of the anonymous notes seemed to be allknowing. (Brown Corpus) b. About 26,500 miles of existing trails will be replaced in service by the construction of new roads. (Brown Corpus)

The denotation of collective nouns is intermediate between quantificational adjectives and prototypical object-denoting nouns, but their core semantic function (head of CN) is identical to that of prototypical nouns. Similar to quantificational adjectives, collective nouns denote a kind of aggregate. However, the aggregate is conceptualized as a unit consisting of particular entities rather than as simply an amount of something. Importantly, the conceptualization of collective nouns as units allows them to act as semantic heads of common noun expressions (CN), in effect identifying them with prototypical nouns at the level of combinatoric semantic structure we are concerned with here.17 Collective nouns (optionally) take complements identifying the content of the aggregate unit.18 In example (15a), the complement of ballerinas identifies the content of the aggregate unit denoted by the head noun group. argument expressions (Q) (Sadock 1991: 166). On this account, even ordinary noun phrases instantiate a kind of mismatch in headedness between syntax and semantics, thus contributing to the fact that both nouns and determiners show headlike properties. 17 Note that prototypical nouns such as book also denote units, although the units denoted by such nouns are simple rather than aggregate. The aggregate nature of collective nouns would need to be captured at a finer level of lexical semantic structure, such as Jackendoff’s (1997) Lexical Conceptual Structure. Elaborating on the contents of this level is, however, beyond the scope of the current chapter. 18 Following the conventions of Autolexical Grammar (Sadock 1990), common nouns are the semantic heads of common noun expressions (CN) in English (corresponding to N-bar in syntax) but not of entire argument expressions (Q or Arg) (corresponding to NP in syntax).

August 8, 2003


The syntactic and semantic structure of collective nouns is given in Autolexical notation in (17) below. As in the case of quantificational adjectives in (14), the syntactic and semantic structures of the NP in (17) are again mirror images of each other (with the minor exception of the preposition of, which is required in the syntax to introduce the complement of a noun but is semantically null). Thus, again, there are no significant mismatches between syntax and semantics. (17) Autolexical representation of collective nouns

NP N’

Syntax

N’ AP Det the Q-1

A

PP

N

large

group

M(CN)

of

tourists

CN-1

CN

CN

Semantics

CN Q

August 8, 2003


2.4 Quantificational Nouns: A Special Case Quantificational nouns such as lot, bunch, and couple function semantically as modifiers much like quantificational adjectives. Syntactically, however, they function as complement-taking nouns, much like collective nouns. In this section, we describe some of the unusual distributional and interpretive properties of these nouns. Quantificational nouns as in (18a-c) appear to occur in the same syntactic positions as collective nouns, as in (15a-c).19 They are typically positioned as the head of a binominal NP. Like collective nouns, quantificational nouns may co-occur with determiners (18a-c), adjectives (18c), and PP complements (18a-c). (18)

a. I know a lot of people who may watch the TV news in the evening but don’t spend the time to actually read a newspaper. (Switchboard corpus) b. And there were a bunch of kids, you know, and a bunch of schools. (Switchboard corpus) c. I guess, uh, Barry Manilow comes to mind for some reason there’s, there’s not a whole lot of his stuff that I’m real crazy about, but he does have some things. (Switchboard corpus)

Despite their syntactic similarity to collective nouns, quantificational nouns are just like quantificational adjectives with respect to semantics.20 Hence, the two kinds of nouns differ in that collective nouns (like prototypical nouns) are semantic heads of a common noun expression (CN), while quantificational nouns (like quantificational adjectives) are 19 Aarts (2001:264-266) argues that in fact the quantificational noun is not the head of the NP on the grounds that the PP complement fails the usual constituency tests (i-ii). However, the PP complements of ordinary collective nouns and some other complement-taking nouns fail the same constituency tests (iii-vi).

i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

*Of boys, we saw a lot. *It was of boys that we saw a lot. *Of boys, we saw a group. *It was of boys that we saw a group. *Of the book, we saw the author. *It was of the book that we saw the author.

We conjecture that the ungrammaticality of all of these sentences is motivated by a tight semantic dependency between the PP complement and the head noun. 20 As far as denotations are concerned, collective nouns and quantificational nouns are similar, as they are both conceptualized as a kind of aggregate. This similarity is highlighted by the fact that some English words are polysemous between quantificational and collective senses, reflecting the historical development of some quantificational nouns from collective nouns. For example the noun bunch has both a quantifier sense (a bunch of people) and a collective sense (two bunches of bananas).

August 8, 2003


semantic modifiers (M(CN)). This semantic difference results in both distributional and interpretive differences between expressions containing collective nouns and those containing quantificational nouns. First of all, we observe that the determiners and adjectives that accompany quantificational nouns such as lot serve different semantic functions than those that accompany collective nouns such as group and heap. (19)

a. He’s got a lot of friends, and he ought to come along and let us know if he wants our help. (Brown Corpus) b. uh, really haven’t had a whole lot of time to get out to see the movies lately. (Switchboard Corpus) c. Folklore is individually created art that a homogeneous group of people preserve, vary and recreate through oral transmission. (Brown Corpus)

In (19a), the determiner a seems to be semantically empty, functioning only to express singular morphosyntactic number in accordance with the singular noun lot. Consequently, (19a) cannot be paraphrased using the indefinite quantifier some, as in *He’s got some lot of friends (in contrast to (19c), which can be paraphrased as some homogeneous group of people). Similarly, the plural morphology on lots in (20a) is without semantic content, in contrast to the plural morphology on heaps in (20b): (20)

a. Well, they’re, it’s pretty typical, I mean, it’s a very, very middle class neighborhood. Uh, lots of, lots of young couples with, you know . . . (Switchboard corpus) b. There were several heaps of garbage on their front lawn.

In (20a), the plural morphology indicates more than one heap, but in (20b), the plural form lots seems to be simply a stylistic variant of the singular form a lot.21 The function of adjectives with quantificational nouns is also different than their function with collective nouns because nominal modifiers only allow modification by intensifiers, whereas collective nouns may be 21 There are some restrictions on the occurrence of the two variants: *lot of oranges, *whole lots of oranges (Newmeyer, personal communication). The singular form of lot cannot occur without a preceding indefinite article. This is a syntactic requirement derived from the more general requirement that bare singular nouns are disallowed in English in combination with the specific requirement that lot may only occur with the singular indefinite article and not any other determiners. The plural form lots must occur without an adjective such as whole. At present we have no general explanation for this restriction, but it may be historically related to the fact that the word whole meaning ‘entire’ is incompatible with a semantically plural noun.

August 8, 2003


modified by descriptive property words (Sadock 1990: 277). In (19b), the adjective whole functions as an intensifier, similar to very in very many, but in (19c), the adjective homogeneous denotes a property attributed to the group. As a consequence of the special semantic functions of quantificational nouns and the elements with which they co-occur, quantificational nouns are much more limited than ordinary nouns in terms of the range of adjectives and determiners they can combine with. They disallow most adjectives (21a), and apparently disallow all quantifiers and definite determiners (21a-c).22 As Sadock (1990: 277) points out, most adjectives do not have an intensifying meaning; therefore, only a limited number of intensifying adjectives like it whole, awful, tremendous, and big are semantically compatible with quantificational nouns. Quantifiers and definite determiners are similarly disallowed due to semantic incompatibility.23 Sadock (1990: 279) also observes that quantificational nouns do not serve as antecedents in one-pronominalization because they are not semantic heads of common noun expressions. In (21d), for example, one must be co-referential with Republican, not bunch of Republicans. (21)

a. a whole lot of people / *an entire lot of people / *a dangerous lot of people b. *a few lots of people / *several couples of days / *many bunches of people c. *the lotof people / ??that couple of days / *these bunches of orders d. Bill knows a bunch of Republicans, but Fred is actually friends with one.

In contrast, collectives are semantic heads of CN and so may combine with a broad range of elements expressing properties, quantities, and definiteness (22a-c), and they may serve as antecedents to onepronominals (22d). (22)

a. a large / angry / helpful / dangerous / entire group of people b. several flocks of birds / many collections of essays / any

22 The nouns bunch and lot have both quantificational and collective senses. It is the quantificational senses on which the judgments in (21a-c) are based. 23 It is not quite so obvious why definite determiners are disallowed, given that they can occur with quantificational adjectives (the many admirers). Following McCawley 1987, we can speculate that definite determiners are disallowed because they appear to specify the quantificational noun rather than the subordinate noun, thus invoking an irrelevant collective meaning of the noun and creating a phrase that is difficult to parse. The indefinite article, on the other hand, is sufficiently semantically bleached in these expressions not to create such an effect.

August 8, 2003


group of ballerinas c. the collection of essays / that flock of birds / these groups of people d. I bought a bunch of bananas, but Fred actually picked one off the tree. Quantificational nouns are also distinct from collective nouns in terms of their agreement properties. Normally, subject-verb agreement depends on the number of the head (topmost) noun of the subject noun phrase. However, quantificational nouns that are heads of subject NPs do not control subject-verb agreement. Contrary to the usual pattern, the number of the head noun of the prepositional object that is syntactically subordinate to the quantificational noun apparently triggers agreement (23a-b). In (23a), it is the plural noun people, not the singular noun lot, that controls plural agreement with the auxiliary verb were, and in (23b), the singular mass noun rust controls singular agreement, as confirmed by the fact that the agreement remains singular if we change a lot to lots. This distinguishes quantificational nouns from collective nouns, which can (but do not always) control subject-verb agreement. In (23c), the singular collective noun group triggers singular agreement. (23)

a. A lot of people were still thinking about Jack Nicklaus, the spectacular young amateur, who had a seventy . . . (Brown Corpus) b. If a lot of rust shows in the drain, use a good flushing cleaner. (Brown Corpus) c. A group of students is coming to visit.

The unusual agreement properties of quantificational nouns may be attributed to the fact that, as semantic modifiers, they do not possess inherent semantic number, and therefore the number specification of the subject noun phrase must be derived from the inherent number of the prepositional object. This is consistent with (20a), which shows that the morphosyntactic plural number of lots has no semantic correlate. It is interesting, however, that the presence of morphosyntactic number on the quantificational noun is not sufficient for controlling subjectverb agreement. As suggested by Sadock (1990: 280), this seems to be a case of purely semantic agreement, similar to the semantic agreement in a sentence such as The team are good this year. In sum, while the syntactic properties of quantificational nouns are the same as those of ordinary nouns, quantificational nouns function semantically as modifiers, a function which is highly non-prototypical of nouns. As modifiers, quantificational nouns lack intrinsic number,

August 8, 2003


accounting for their agreement properties, and may be modified only by degree words, accounting for their limitations in combining with adjectives and determiners. 2.5

Quantificational Nouns as a Case of Syntax-semantics Mismatch: A Multi-modular Analysis Following Francis 1999 and Sadock 1990, we propose that quantificational nouns exemplify a case of syntax-semantics categorial mismatch. Quantificational nouns are categorized as nouns in syntax but as modifiers in semantics. Quantificational nouns deviate from the default correspondence for the category ‘noun’ in a principled manner, and thus provide evidence in favor of a multi-modular approach to grammar. As indicated in (24) below, the syntactic category ‘noun’ is prototypically associated with the semantic category ‘CN’. (24) Default correspondence for ‘noun’ in English Syn: Sem:

[Noun] [CN, Arg]

Following Sadock (1990: 271-272), we employ the semantic label CN ‘common noun’ to indicate that prototypical common nouns denote a class of objects or entities (rather than a single property), and they are semantically well-suited to combine with determiners and other quantifiers.24 Nouns are also associated with semantic argument expressions (as opposed to modifiers or predicates) because their phrasal projection (NP) typically expresses an argument of a predicate (represented in Autolexical notation as Q or Arg). In contrast, the default correspondence for the category ‘adjective’ in (25) shows that syntactic adjectives are typically semantic modifiers within a common noun expression (Francis 1999, Sadock 1990). (25) Default correspondence for ‘adjective’ in English Syn: Sem:

[Adjective] [M(CN)]

Collective nouns and quantificational adjectives are prototypical of their respective categories according to the default correspondences 24 See Gupta 1980, Langacker 1987 and Wierzbicka 1986 for similar treatments of noun vs. adjective semantics. Note also that the semantic category CN is associated not just with common nouns but also with common nouns plus all their modifiers and complements. Thus, CN in semantics corresponds to both N and N-bar in syntax.

August 8, 2003


specified above: collective nouns are heads of common noun expressions, and quantificational adjectives are nominal modifiers. If one were to take a finer-grained view of the semantic prototypes as given in Croft 1991, however, one could argue that quantificational adjectives and collective nouns in fact deviate from the prototypes in some sense. For example, quantificational adjectives denote an amount rather than an inherent property of the noun they modify, and so do not qualify as ‘persistent’ properties in the sense of Croft 1991.25 Similarly, collective nouns fail to denote a category of particular objects or entities, but instead denote a more abstract aggregate category. In our framework, we might treat quantificational adjectives and collective nouns as semantic subcategories of adjectives and nouns in the sense of (8a) in Section 1 above. However, since both quantificational adjectives and collective nouns maintain the core syntactic and semantic functions for their category, they do not qualify as cross-modular mismatch cases in the sense of (8b-c). Quantificational nouns are a special case because they represent a cross-categorial mismatch in the sense of (8b-c). They are specified as nouns in syntax, but modifiers in semantics. Thus, in terms of semantics, quantificational nouns are more similar to prototypical adjectives than prototypical nouns. This kind of cross-categorial mismatch is principled in the sense that syntax and semantics appear to be operating relatively independently from each other according to separate principles. Quantificational nouns must participate in phrase-structure configurations suitable for nouns, thus explaining why they can co-occur with determiners, adjectives, plural marking, and PP complements, some of which serve no semantic function. However, quantificational nouns must also participate in semantic configurations suitable for modifiers, thus explaining the strict semantic limitations on the determiners and adjectives with which they may combine. It is this principled kind of mismatch that provides the strongest evidence in favor of a multi-modular approach to grammar, for only in such a case is it clear that syntax and semantics are operating according to different principles. The results of this case study are summarized below in (26-27). The syntactic and semantic structure of quantificational nouns given in Autolexical notation in (26) follows Sadock’s (1990: 276) mismatch analysis of quantificational nouns in most respects, but adopts a semantic 25 A persistent property is a property which is inherent to an entity and which exists for a long period of time. For example, the adjective tall in a tall person denotes a persistent property, while the adjective sick does not. Croft (1991: 65) argues that ‘persistence’ and ‘gradability’ are among the prototypical semantic properties associated with the category ‘adjective’.

August 8, 2003


analysis of quantificational nouns as modifiers of common noun expressions (M(CN)) (like quantificational adjectives) rather than as functors (Q−1 ) that combine with common noun expressions to return argument expressions (Q). Note that unlike in (14) and (17), the diagram in (26) does not show syntax and semantics as parallel structures, but rather it shows a significant mismatch between syntactic structure and semantic structure. In particular, observe that whole lot forms a semantic constituent modifying oranges, but does not form a syntactic constituent. In addition, the determiner a is semantically null and therefore is not linked to any information in the semantic representation. (26) Autolexical representation of quantificational nouns

NP N’ Syntax

N’ AP Det a

A whole

N lot

PP of oranges

M(M(CN)) M(CN)

M(CN) Semantics CN Q

CN

August 8, 2003


(27) Summary of syntax-semantics correspondences for English quantifiers and collective nouns

Syn: Sem:

3

Quantificational Adjectives (many, few)

Quantificational Nouns (lot, bunch)

Collective Nouns (group, heap)

Adjective Modifier

Noun Modifier

Noun Argument

Subordination Markers in Japanese: A Multi-modular Approach

In this section,26 we turn to a group of subordination markers in Japanese. Subordination markers normally take a sentence as their complement, and modify the main clause. There are numerous subordination markers in Japanese; but, in this section, we will focus on the ones shown in (28). These subordination markers are unique, since they have a curious combination of noun properties and properties of normal subordination markers.27 (28)

a. [Uchi-o de-ta totan-ni] ame-ga fut-te house-Acc leave-Past instance-at rain-Nom fall-Gerd ki-ta come-Past ‘It started raining right after/as soon as I left home.’ b. [Kimi-ga it-ta toori-ni] su-ru-yo you-Nom say-Past as do-Pres-SFP ‘I will do it as you said.’

26 This section draws on some of the data and arguments presented in Yuasa 1996, 1998. 27 The following abbreviations are used in the glosses:

Acc: Cont: Gen: Nom: Top:

Accusative Contrastive Genitive Nominative Topic

Cop: Gerd: Neg: Pot:

Copula Gerundive Negative Potential

Past: Past Pres: Present SFP: Sentence Final Particle

August 8, 2003


c. [Benkyoo si-nai kuse-ni] yoku deki-ru study do-Neg although well can do-Pres ‘Although she does not study, she does well at school.’ d. [Yot-ta ageku-ni] booryoku-o furut-ta kyaku get drunk-Past after violence-Acc use-Past customer ‘the customer who used violence after having gotten drunk’ After comparing the properties of these subordination markers with those of normal nouns and other subordination markers, we will propose that the subordination markers as shown in (28) are another instance of categorial mismatch in syntax and semantics (Yuasa 1996, 1998). 3.1

Variation and the Categorization of Japanese Subordination Markers There are not only many subordination markers but also many ways to mark subordination in Japanese. Besides the ones in (28), there are at least two other kinds of subordination markers. The group of subordination markers that we will call Group 1 subordination markers is shown in (29). They are called setsuzoku-joshi ‘subordinating conjunctions.’ Subordinate clauses are connected by these subordinating conjunctions (Martin 1975, Teramura 1993, among others) as in English subordinate clauses. (29)

a. Kare-wa [G1 waka-i keredo] yoku hatarak-u he-Top young-Pres although well work-Pres ‘Although he is young, he works hard.’ b. [G1 Benri da-kara] kore-o kai-masyoo convenient is-because this-Acc buy-shall ‘Because this is convenient, let’s buy this one.’

The other group of subordination markers, which we will call Group 2, has been analyzed as the combination of some kind of a noun and a postposition (Kuno 1973, Okutsu 1974, Martin 1975, Kamio 1983). (30)

a. [G2 Sono-hon-o yon-de i-ru uchi-ni] the-book-Acc read-Gerd be-Pres inside-at/while

August 8, 2003


ne-te shimat-ta fall asleep-Gerd have-Past ‘I had fallen asleep while I was reading the book.’ b. [G2 Uchi-ni i-ru toki-ni] odenwa kudasai home-at be-Pres time-at/when phone please ‘Please call me when I am home.’ In (30a), uchi literally means inside, and it can be used as a noun independently as in uchi to soto ‘inside and outside’. When uchi is combined with the locative marker ni, it turns into a complex subordination marker, and it literally means at the inside, which can be translated as while. Finally, the subordination markers of the kind shown in (28) will be labeled as Group 3 subordination markers. As discussed above, they have the mixed properties of normal subordination markers (Group 1 subordination markers) and nouns (Group 2 subordination markers). Several proposals have been suggested for the categorization of these different subordination markers. Yamada 1908 and Matsushita 1939 focused on the similarity between nouns that take a sentential complement (31) (Ide 1967: 42) and Group 2/3 subordination markers, and label all of these as special members of nouns or members of a category called formal nouns (See: Ide 1967 for a summary of these analyses). (31)

a. [[Kippu-no kire-te nai] kata]-wa ticket-Gen expire-and not have person-Top ari-mas-en-ka exist-Pol-Neg-? ‘Is there anyone whose ticket has not expired?’ b. [[Tabe-ta] mono]-made hakidashi-te shi-mat-ta eat-PAST thing-up to throw up have-Pol-Past ‘(S/he) threw up even the stuff that (s/he) had eaten.’

Formal nouns are defective nouns whose meanings have become abstract and have lost their original noun meaning. Since formal nouns do not have substantial meanings on their own, they always require sentential modifiers. For example, kata ‘person’ in (31a) takes a sentential complement specifying the kind of a person, and the lack of the

August 8, 2003


sentential complement makes the example ungrammatical as shown in (32). (32) Asoko-ni *kata-ga i-ru there-at person-Nom be-Pres ‘There is a person over there.’ Although the historical backgrounds of the items in (31) and Group 2/3 subordination markers are similar, Okutsu 1986 claims that Group 3 subordination markers should not be synchronically categorized with nouns but with Group 1 subordination markers (setsuzoku-joshi ‘subordinating conjunctions’). First, he points out that Group 3 subordination markers adverbially modify the main clause just like normal adverbs. Second, unlike normal nouns (33a) or complement taking nouns as in (33b), Group 1 and Group 3 subordinate clauses cannot be modified by adjectives or relative clauses (34-35). (33)

a. [Yoku hoe-ru [[ooki-i] inu]]-wa a lot bark-Pres big-Pres dog-Top kaet-te yowa-i (Okutsu 1986: 38) rather weak-Pres ‘A big dog that barks a lot is rather weak.’ b. [asoko-ni irassha-ru [[se-no taka-i] over there-at be-Pres height-Gen tall-Pres kata]]ga Tanaka-san des-u person-Nom Ms.Tanaka be-Pres (Okutsu 1986: 37) ‘The tall person over there is Ms. Tanaka.’

(34)

a. [G1 Benri da-kara] kore-o kai-masyoo convenient is-because this-Acc buy-shall ‘Because this is convenient, let’s buy this one.’ b. *[Koko-de tabe-ru [G1 zikan-ga nai-kara]] here eat-shall time-Nom not have-because

(35)

a. [G3 Uchi-o de-ta totan-ni] ame-ga house-Acc leave-Past instance-at rain-Nom

August 8, 2003


fut-te ki-ta fall-Gerd come-Past ‘It started raining right after/as soon as I left home.’ b. *[Ame-ga fu-te ki-ta [G3 uchi-o rain-Nom fall-Gerd come-Past house-Acc de-ta totan(-ni)]] leave-Past instance(-at) Although Yamada/Matsushita’s and Okutsu’s analyses both reveal interesting facts about Group 3 subordination markers, they can neither incorporate the findings of each other’s analyses nor explain the mixed properties. We will show below that Group 3 subordination markers provide another example of categorial mismatch in syntax and semantics, as they share syntactic properties with nouns and Group 2 subordination markers while sharing semantic properties with Group 1 subordination markers. 3.2

Group 1 Subordination Markers as Prototypical Subordinating Conjunctions Group 1 subordination markers, like English subordination markers, modify the main clause and take a sentence as their complement. Following (McCawley 1988), we assume Group 1 subordination markers are a kind of postposition (P). As shown in (36), the predicate in the subordinate clause takes the sentence-final form, and this contrasts Group 2 and Group 3 subordination markers (see Section 3.3). (36) [G1 Benri da-kara] kore-o kai-masyoo convenient is-because this-Acc buy-shall ‘Because this is convenient, let’s buy this one.’ Semantically, Group 1 subordination markers are predicates expressing relations between a main proposition and a subordinating proposition. Because of this semantic function, Group 1 subordinate clauses can neither be modified (34) nor be an argument of another predicate (37).

August 8, 2003


(37) *Sensei-ga [G1 kaze-o hii-ta kara]-o teacher-Nom cold-Acc catch-Past because-Acc shinji-te kure-na-katta believe-Gerd give-not-Past *‘(intended) The teacher did not believe [because/the reason I caught a cold].’ The Autolexical representation28 of Group 1 subordination markers is given in (38). (38) Autolexical representation of Group 1 subordination markers29 [G1 waka-i keredo] kare-ga yoku hatarak-u (koto) young-Pres although he-Nom well work-Pres the fact ‘Although he is young, he works hard.’

28 Following

Sadock (1991), we adopt a semantic category F that stands for a predicate combined with the full number of arguments that it subcategorizes for. Negative exponents show the number of arguments a predicate takes, hence F-1 is a singly unsaturated predicate, whereas F-2 is the class of two-place predicates. 29 In Yuasa (1998), the kara clause is analyzed as semantically modifying a speech act. However, the semantic locus of modification is ignored here.

August 8, 2003


S

[38]

S

Syntax

VP

PP S

NP

VP

P

keredo]

[G1waka-i

Prop

F-2

Adv

V

kare-ga

yoku

hatarak-u

Arg

M(F-1)

F-1

F-1

F-1 Semantics Prop

Prop

August 8, 2003


3.3

Group 2 Subordination Markers as Relatively Prototypical Nouns Although the complex subordination markers of Group 2 can also mark subordination, their properties are vastly different from those of Group 1 subordination markers. Essentially, the complex subordination markers consist of a noun and a postposition, and they share all the properties of a structure that contains a noun in a similar configuration. First, a subcategory of adjectives in Japanese called ‘nominal adjectives’ have to take the pre-nominal form when they precede a Group 2 subordination marker. Heiwa ‘peaceful’ and yutaka ‘affluent’ in (39) are nominal adjectives, and while they take the sentence-final form, -da, in sentence-final position (39a), they are in the pre-nominal form,na, before a noun (39b), the head noun of a relative clause (39c), the head noun of a noun complement construction (39d), or a Group 2 subordination marker (39e). (39)

a. Heiwa-*na/da. peaceful ‘It’s peaceful.’ b. [NP [heiwa-na/*da] kuni] peaceful country ‘a peaceful country’ c. [NP [S daremo-ga yutaka-na/*da] kuni] everybody-Nom affluent country ‘a country where everybody is affluent’ d. [NP [S daremo-ga yutaka-na/*da] koto] everybody-Nom affluent thing ‘the fact that everybody is affluent’ e. [G2 Kuni-ga heiwa-na/*da toki-ni] country-Nom peaceful time-at/when keizai-ga hanei su-ru economy-Nom prosperity do-Pres

August 8, 2003


‘The economy prospers when the country is peaceful.’ This contrasts with Group 1 subordination markers which occur with the sentence final form -da, as already shown in (36). Second, proforms such as are ‘that’, sore ‘it’, kore ‘this’, and dore ‘which’ also take the pre-nominal forms ano, sono, kono, dono before both nouns (40a) and Group 2 subordination markers (40b): (40)

a. [NP Ano/sono/kono/dono hana]-ga i-i? that/its/this/which flower-Nom good-Pres ‘That/The/This/Which flower is good?’ b. [G2 Sono toki-ni] sono-uta-ga hayat-ta its time-at the-song-Nom become.popular-Past ‘At that time the song was popular.’

Again, proforms cannot occur in the pre-nominal form before Group 1 subordination markers. In fact, proforms must be followed by a copula in the sentence-final form in this environment, as shown in (41). (41)

G1 *Sono/sore-da-kara]

its/it-is-because

Yamada-san-ni-wa mono-ga Mr. Yamamoto-to-Cont stuff-Nom

tanom-e-n-i ask-Pot-Neg-Pres ‘Because of that, we cannot ask Mr. Yamamoto.’ Third, in Japanese the nominative marker ga occurring in a clause can undergo an optional alternation with the genitive marker no, if the clause modifies a noun. Harada (1971) describes this alternation as the ga/no-conversion. It is exemplified in (42): (42) [NP [Skodomo-ga/no kai-ta] e] child-Nom/Gen paint-Past picture ‘the picture that a child painted’

August 8, 2003


The ga/no-conversion can be also observed with Group 2 subordination markers (43) but not with Group 1 subordination markers (44). (43) [G2 Chichi-ga/no uchi-ni i-ru toki-ni] father-Nom/Gen home-at be-Pres time-at/when odenwa kudasai phone please ‘Please call us when my father is home.’ (44) [G1 Kodomo-ga/*no byooki-da-kara] ik-e-na-i child-Nom/Gen sick-be-because go-can-Neg-Pres ‘I cannot go, because my child is sick.’ Group 2 subordination markers also have the semantic properties of nouns proposed in Section 2.5. First, although it is not clear whether the nominal part of Group 2 subordination markers (i.e., the noun part without the postposition, -ni) denotes a class of objects or entities as normal nouns do. These nouns can be subcategorized for by predicates such as raku(-da) ‘be relaxing’ (45), may occur with adjectives, shizukana ‘quiet’ (46a), or be modified by a relative clause, ichiban rirakkusu deki-ru ‘that I can best relax’ (46b). Hence, we claim that the nominal part of Group 2 subordination markers is the head of a CN in semantics. (45) [G2 Uchi-ni i-ru toki]-ga ichiban raku-da home-at be-Pres time-Nom best relaxing-Cop ‘The time when I am at home is the most relaxing.’ (46)

a. Shizuka-na [G2 hito-ga amari i-na-i quiet people-Nom that much be-Neg-Pres toki] time ‘the quiet time when not many people are around’ b. Ichiban rirakkusu deki-ru [G2 uchi-ni best relax can do-Pres home-at i-ru toki] be-Pres time

August 8, 2003


‘the time when I am at home that I can best relax’ As already shown in Section 3.2, Group 1 subordination markers that function as predicates in semantics can be neither modified by a relative clause nor subcategorized for by other predicates. Hence, we conclude that the nominal (non-postposition) part of Group 2 subordination markers is not a predicate but a type of common noun in semantics, and it is the postposition part of these complex subordination markers that actually expresses the relation between the main proposition and the subordinating proposition. The Autolexical representation of Group 2 subordination markers is given in (47). (47) Autolexical representation30 of Group 2 subordination markers31 [G2 Kimi-ga ik-u toki-ni] boku-ga ik-u you-Nom go-Pres time-at/when I-Nom go-Pres ‘I will go when you go.’

30 While the relative clause is semantically a proposition (Prop), it is also a CN modifier (M(CN)). We will tentatively adopt Prop/M(CN) to express the dual roles of relative clauses. 31 Technically speaking, toki is the head of CN and not CN itself. However, we will ignore the distinction between them in this representation.

August 8, 2003


S

[47]

PP

Syntax

P

NP N’

S

N’

S NP

NP

VP

[G2 Kimi-ga

ik-u toki- ni]

Prop/M(CN) Semantics

VP

N

CN

F-2

boku-ga

ik-u

Arg

F-1 Prop

CN

Arg F-1

Prop

August 8, 2003


3.4 Group 3 Subordination Markers: A Special Case Syntactically, Group 3 subordination markers behave just like nouns or Group 2 subordination markers. That is, Group 3 subordination markers require the pre-nominal form of nominal adjectives (48) and proforms (49). (48) Suzuki-san-wa [G3 koodoo-wa daitan-na/*da kuse-ni] Mr. Suzuki-Top action-Cont bold although ki-ga yowa-i disposition-Nom weak-Pres ‘Speaking of Mr. Suzuki, although he acts bold, he is fainthearted.’ (49) [G3 Sonototan-ni] ame-ga fut-te ki-ta its instance-at rain-Nom fall-Gerd come-Past ‘Right after that, it started raining.’ The ga/no-conversion is also observed with Group 3 subordination markers. (50) [G3 Kimi-ga/no it-ta toori-ni] su-ru-yo you-Nom/Gen say-past as do-Pres-SFP ‘I will do it as you said.’ Although Group 3 subordination markers formally behave like Group 2 subordination markers or nouns, the parallelism between nouns and Group 2 subordination markers or nouns and Group 3 subordination markers stops here. For example, they do not function as the semantic head of CN (51): (51)

a. *[G3 Kaminari-ga nat-ta totan]-ga thunder-Nom sound-Past instance-Nom ichiban osoroshikat-ta most fearful-past ‘(intended) Instance when it thundered was the most fearful.’

August 8, 2003


b. *[G3 Kimi-ga it-ta toori]-o you-Nom say-past as-Acc mooichido si-te mi-yoo once again do-Gerd try-shall ‘(intended) Let’s do as you said once again.’ Yamada 1908 and Matsushita 1939 claim that Group 3 subordination markers used to denote a class of objects or entities, but that they have undergone semantic change and now express relations. As a result of this semantic change, they cannot be subcategorized for by other predicates. As Okutsu 1986 pointed out, Group 3 subordinate clauses cannot be modified by a relative clause. This is shown in (52), repeated from (35): (52)

a. [G3 Uchi-o de-ta totan-ni] ame-ga house-Acc leave-Past instance-at rain-Nom fut-te ki-ta fall-Gerd come-Past ‘It started raining right after/as soon as I left home.’ b. *[Ame-ga fu-te ki-ta [G3 uchi-o de-ta rain-Nom fall-Gerd come-Past house-Acc leave-Past totan(-ni)]] instance(-at)

These semantic behaviors are parallel to that of Group 1 subordination markers, which, for example, cannot be subcategorized for by other predicates (37). At first glance, Group 3 subordination markers (e.g., totan-ni, toorini, ageku-ni) look similar morphologically to Group 2 subordination markers (e.g., uchi-ni, toki-ni), and the noun-like items such as totan or toori appear to be followed by the locative postposition -ni. However, unlike Group 2 subordination markers, the meanings of Group 3 subordination markers are not compositional, and they collectively function as predicates expressing a relation between a main proposition and a subordinating proposition in semantics. In this sense, Group 3 subordination markers such as totan-ni or toori-ni are much more like Group 1 subordination markers, which function as two-place predicates

August 8, 2003


in semantics.32 As Yamada 1908 and Matsushita 1939 suggested, Group 3 subordination markers clearly share properties with nouns or Group 2 subordination markers, and we have shown that Group 3 subordination markers behave like nouns in terms of the different forms of na-adjectives, ga-no conversion, and proforms. On the other hand, Group 3 subordination markers denote relations, they do not function as arguments of other predicates, and they do not allow modification by relative clauses (Okutsu 1986). These semantic properties are shared with Group 1 subordination markers. However, the approaches of Yamada/Matsushita and Okutsu capture only some of the properties of Group 3 subordination markers, thus failing to fully capture the mixed properties of subordinating conjunctions and nouns. 3.5

Group 3 Subordination Markers as a Case of Syntax-semantics Mismatch: A Multi-modular Analysis Following Yuasa 1996, 1998, we propose that Group 3 subordination markers are instances of categorial mismatch in syntax and semantics. Specifically, Group 3 subordination markers are predicates in semantics, but nouns in syntax. As discussed in Section 2.5, the prototypical category of ‘noun’ has the following default correspondence between syntax and semantics. (53) Default correspondence for ‘noun’ in Japanese Syn: Sem:

[Noun] [CN,Arg]

As in English, nouns are semantically the head of CNs, which denote a class of objects or entities, and they are associated with semantic arguments. The syntactic (and morphological) instantiation is language specific, and in Japanese nouns are syntactically required to occur with the pre-nominal form of nominal adjectives or proforms. The case alternation between the nominative marker and the genitive marker (the ga/no conversion) in a clause modifying a noun is also specified in syntax. Group 2 subordination markers are considered a subcategory of nouns. 32 As has been pointed out (Iida 1987, Koizumi and Sadakane 1995, Sells 1996), there are several functions of ni, such as the dative case marker, the postpositionni, the ni of ni insertion, and a form of the copula, and we will tentatively assume that ni after Group 2 subordination markers such as uchi- ni or toki- ni is a (locative) postposition. The important point here, however, is ni after Group 2 subordination markers is an independent postposition in semantics and an independent predicate in semantics, whereas ni in Group 3 subordination markers—such as totan-ni or toori-ni—functions as a predicate only as part of these subordination markers.

August 8, 2003


The default correspondence of Japanese prototypical subordinating conjunctions (Group 1 subordination markers) is given in (54). (54) Default correspondence for ‘subordinating conjunction’ in Japanese Syn: Sem:

[PP S ] [F-2] (two-place predicate)

Subordinating conjunctions or Group 1 subordination markers are syntactically and morphologically postpositions. In syntax, it is specified that they take a sentence as their complement. Semantically, they are two-place predicates, and express relations between a main proposition and a subordinating proposition. This default correspondence is almost the same as that of English subordinating conjunctions except that English subordinating conjunctions are prepositions due to the head-first nature of the phrase structure in English. Group 3 subordination markers conform to neither of the prototypes, but they are associated syntactically with the properties of prototypical nouns and semantically with the properties of prototypical subordinating conjunctions. Thus, Group 3 subordination markers are another instance of level mismatch in the sense of (8b-c). The results of this case study and the Autolexical representation of Group 3 subordination markers are given in (55) and (56). Specifically in (56), the Group 3 subordination marker kuse is syntactically an N modified by a sentence and followed by a postposition, while it is semantically a two-place predicate (F-2). (55) Summary of syntax-semantics correspondences for Japanese subordination markers Group 1 Group 3 Group 2 (kara, keredo) (totan, toori) (toki, uchi) Syn: Sem:

Postposition Predicate

Noun Predicate

Noun Argument

(56) Autolexical representation of Group 3 subordination markers [G3 Benkyoo si-nai kuse-ni] Taroo-ga deki-ru (koto) study do-Neg although Taro-Nom can do-Pres (fact) ‘Although he does not study, Taro does well at school.’

August 8, 2003


[56] S S Syntax

PP NP

P

NP

N’ N’

S

[G3Benkyoo

si-nai

Prop

kuse-ni]

F-2

F-1

VP

taroo-ga

Arg

F-1

Prop

Semantics Prop

deki-ru

August 8, 2003


4

Discussion

We have shown that English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers deviate from the prototypical properties of nouns in English or subordination markers in Japanese, but this can be expected if we assume that syntax and semantics are autonomous components of grammar. In this section, we will discuss the implications of our analyses of the seemingly idiosyncratic cases of English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers. In Section 4.1, we compare our approach to categorial mismatch with other approaches to categorization, and in Section 4.2 we discuss the broader implications of our analyses for the architecture of grammar. 4.1 Mismatch and the Nature of Syntactic Categories The two cases of categorial mismatch that we have discussed in this paper are readily accommodated within a multi-modular theory of grammar, but pose problems for more traditional approaches to syntactic categorization. Since Chomsky (1970), it has been commonly assumed that lexical categories are defined by syntactic features such as [+N -V] for ‘noun’ (Chomsky 1970, 1981). Such features are specified in the lexical entry of a word, and all words that share the same features belong to the same lexical category. This general idea of syntactic features works well enough for distinguishing among the major lexical categories of a language. However, it works less well for dealing with exceptional cases. The case of the English word asleep , discussed in Section 1, presents a problem for such a theory because the syntactic features that define the category ‘adjective’ (e.g., [+N, +V] in Chomsky’s approach) provide no way of identifying its defective distribution. That is, nothing about the syntactic features [+N +V] can tell us that the word asleep fails to occur in attributive position within an NP, thus making a phrase such as *an asleep baby ungrammatical. Such a problem is easily solved, however, if we allow for subcategorial features (Chomsky 1965: 82-83). For example, we could specify the additional syntactic feature [-A] (minus attributive) in the lexical entry of asleep to account for its defective distribution, in effect making asleep a member of a subcategory [-A] of the category ‘adjective’ Ordinary adjectives would then presumably be specified as [+A]). The cases of cross-categorial mismatch discussed in this paper present a more formidable challenge for syntactic feature-based approaches to categorization. It would of course be possible to treat the

August 8, 2003


defective distributions of English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers in a similar manner to the case of asleep, by specifying subcategorial features in the lexical entries. However, such an approach would miss out on some important generalizations. For the case of quantificational nouns, for example, we could specify the features [-D] (minus definite determiners), [-Agr] (minus agreement), and [-Q] (minus quantifiers) in the lexical entry of a word like lot, accounting for several of its defective properties. However, such an account fails to recognize the semantic systematicity of these defective properties, and, in effect, adds unnecessary complexity to the syntactic categorization of such words. All of the defective distributional properties discussed in Section 2.4 above are due to the fact that quantificational nouns are semantic modifiers. Our current account also explains the semantic parallels between quantificational nouns and quantificational adjectives. For example, the fact that quantificational nouns may only be modified by intensifying adjectives (a whole lot) is parallel to the fact that quantificational adjectives may only be modified by intensifying adverbs (very few). Thus, quantificational nouns participate in the same semantic system as other nominal modifiers. This important generalization is lost if we attribute the defective distributions of quantificational nouns to the existence of several apparently unrelated syntactic subcategory features.33 Cognitive and functional theorists have similarly criticized syntactic feature-based approaches to categorization, also in part on the grounds that semantic (or discourse) generalizations are lost (Langacker 1987, Wierzbicka 1986, 1995, Croft 1991, Hopper and Thompson 1984). While these theories may correctly account for many of the defective properties of English quantificational nouns and Japanese subordination markers in terms of semantics, they too miss out on some important facts and generalizations. For example, the cognitive theories of Langacker 1987 and Wierzbicka 1986, 1995 claim that lexical categories can be defined in terms of abstract semantic properties shared by all members of a category. For example, Langacker (1987: 58) proposes that all nouns share the semantic property of specifying a ‘region in some domain.’ However, we have seen that some nouns, such as those that occur in Japanese Group 3 subordination markers, apparently fail to conform to noun semantics but instead function semantically as relational predicates. In Langacker’s terms, the nouns in Group 3 subor33 Note, however, that a syntactic feature theorist is not obliged to ignore semantic constraints on distribution. For example, Newmeyer (1998, 2000) integrates a Chomskyan theory of syntactic categories with functional explanations for defective syntactic properties of certain category members.

August 8, 2003


dination markers express ‘atemporal relations’ (Langacker 1987: 71-72) rather than ‘regions in some domain.’ Such a case clearly poses problems for any theory that defines categories in terms of semantics alone. Either we must ignore the special semantic properties of Group 3 subordination markers, or we must deny that these subordination markers are nouns at all.34 The functionalist theories of Croft 1991 and Hopper and Thompson 1984 make the weaker claim that syntactic categories are prototypically associated with particular semantic or discourse functions, while acknowledging the existence of non-prototypical cases. They predict that, to the extent that the prototype is violated, defective grammatical behavior is likely to result. This prediction is clearly borne out by our two case studies. A prototype approach is thus preferable to the approach of Langacker or Wierzbicka because it accommodates cases of words that greatly deviate from the prototypical semantics of their category. This functionalist idea of ‘prototype’ is also similar to our notion of ‘prototype’ as a default correspondence among the different components of grammar, as discussed in Sections 2-3. However, there is one important difference. Functionalists deny that syntax and semantics form separate systems, and must therefore treat cases of categorial mismatch (at least in synchronic terms) simply as lexically idiosyncratic violations of the prototype. Thus, functionalist theories view cases of categorial mismatch as merely satisfying the no-one-to-one correspondence criterion (6a) of Section 1. However, they have no means of representing the systematicity of the separate systems of syntax and semantics (criterion (6b) of Section 1). In view of these other theories of categorization, we can see several advantages to a multi-modular approach to lexical categories. Similar to functionalist theories, our multi-modular approach acknowledges the significance of certain prototypical correspondences of information, while accounting for the defective distributions of words that violate the prototype for their category. In this sense, both functionalist theories and multi-modular theories of categorization are preferable to syntactic feature theories, which must posit otherwise unmotivated subcategorial features to account for the same facts. However, in contrast to functionalist theories, a multi-modular approach recognizes the autonomy of different components of grammar with respect to the criterion of Systematicity (6b). This notion of systematicity is important for 34 See Francis 1998 for a detailed development of this argument with respect to data from English.

August 8, 2003


capturing the fact that English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers participate as nouns within the system of permissible phrase-structure configurations—but as modifiers or predicates within the system of semantic relations. Without such a notion of systematicity within each component, it is difficult to account, for example, for the existence of meaningless determiners and plural marking on English quantificational nouns. Such meaningless elements are functional within the syntactic system, even though they are completely unnecessary within the semantic system. Finally, we note that a multi-modular approach to grammatical categories may be advantageous in accommodating the diachronic processes associated with grammaticalization. Both case studies discussed in this paper are cases in which semantic change has resulted in syntaxsemantics categorial mismatch. English quantificational nouns are historically derived from collective nouns (Francis 1999). Although their meanings have changed, they have retained the syntactic properties of nouns. Similarly, Japanese Group 3 subordination markers are historically derived from complex subordination markers consisting of a noun and a postposition, but the meanings of the original nouns have since become obscure, and they have taken on postposition-like relational meanings (Yuasa 1999). Despite this semantic change, Group 3 subordination markers retain the syntactic properties of nouns. Thus, the syntactic category specification for these words has remained stable while their semantic function has undergone change. This kind of change is to be expected if we recognize separate systems of syntax and semantics. 4.2 Mismatch and the Architecture of Grammar In Section 1, we have spelled out the assumptions of the multi-modular approach to grammar and illustrated how grammar is assumed to consist of parallel autonomous components. In this approach, the properties of a structure or category are factored out into different kinds of information, and while prototypes of a structure or a category have a certain alignment, the association of these properties is expected to be violated to the extent that each component is autonomous. In this paper, we first proposed that the properties of prototypical adjectives, nouns, and subordination markers are factored out into the syntactic information that includes the information of the occurrence of determiners, PP complements, the pre-nominal/sentence-final form, different case markers, and the semantic information of how predicates expressing relations or the head of argument expressions that denote a class of objects or entities relate to the other items in semantics. If we

August 8, 2003


only look at these prototypical cases, the association of the syntactic information and the semantic information is so straightforward that separation of the syntactic information from the semantic information looks trivial and redundant. However, the cases of English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers show that language sometimes allows the re-association of cross-categorial properties, and this raises the strong possibility that the different components such as syntax and semantics are autonomous. Only if we assume that the syntactic information and the semantic information described above exist independently in grammar can we understand why the syntactic properties of one category (noun) are associated with the semantic properties of another category (modifier or predicate). The regularity in these seemingly idiosyncratic cases is nicely captured as a natural consequence of the multi-modular architecture of grammar. For any mono-level approaches that try to reduce all the grammatical information into one dimension, the systematic properties of the English quantificational nouns and the Japanese subordination markers will be obscured, and these constructions will remain as mysteries or mere lexical idiosyncrasies. Finally, let us briefly touch upon the different types of mismatch that we discussed in Section 1.2 in relation to some of the possible limitations on level mismatch. Following the criteria for the autonomy of different components of grammar (6), we pointed out that the significant cases of deviations for the multi-modular approach were those of (8b-c) (repeated here as (57c-d)). Here, x and y are assumed to be the properties of Component A, and x and y the properties of Component B. These properties belong to Component A and B, because they participate in Component A and Component B through the prototypical categories or structures X and Y. If Component A and B are autonomous and independent of each other, these properties can be re-associated as in (57c-d), which are instances of level mismatch. (57) Component A a. category/structure X: x b. category/structure Y: y c. category/structure R: x d. category/structure T: y

Component B x y y x

(prototype) (prototype) (mismatch) (mismatch)

We have shown above that the English quantificational nouns have the syntactic properties of prototypical nouns, while they are seman-

August 8, 2003


tically modifiers. Group 3 subordination markers have the syntactic properties of prototypical nouns, while they semantically function as predicates. This means that quantificational nouns and Group 3 subordination markers are instances of level mismatch as shown in (58c) and (59c). (58) English a. Noun: b. Adjective: c. Quantificational noun: d. category/structure TE : (59) Japanese a. Noun: b. Subordinating conj.: c. Group 3: d. category/structure TJ :

Syntax x y x y

Semantics x y y x

Syntax x y x y

(prototype) (prototype) (mismatch) (mismatch) Semantics

x y y x

(prototype) (prototype) (mismatch) (mismatch)

If quantificational nouns and Group 3 subordination markers are as in (58c) and (59c), does that mean we should expect a category in English that has the syntactic properties of adjectives and the semantic properties of nouns (the opposite of quantificational nouns) (category/structure TE in (58d)), or a category in Japanese that has the syntactic properties of prototypical subordinating conjunctions and the semantic properties of prototypical nouns (the opposite of Group 3 subordination markers) (TJ in (59d))? As discussed in the previous section, both the English quantificational nouns and Group 3 subordination markers historically denoted a class of objects or entities, and the re-association of their noun properties in syntax with the semantic properties of prototypical adjectives or prototypical subordinating conjunctions may be attributed to the apparently unidirectional processes of grammaticalization whereby lexical categories such as nouns change into grammatical categories such as postpositions (Hopper and Traugott 1993). During grammaticalization, items typically undergo semantic change toward a more abstract or relational meaning (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 107, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994, Harris and Campbell 1995, Bresnan and Mchombo 1995). Furthermore, these items often retain formal properties characteristic of their original category (Bresnan 1995: 43).35 Should this be the case, we can explain why, while we have 35 Bresnan

1995 talks about the categorial properties of kuti clauses in Chichewa,

August 8, 2003


cases of English quantificational nouns (58c) or Group 3 subordination markers as in (59c), we seem not to have (58d) and (59d). Since nouns often undergo semantic change leaving the properties of syntax behind, we have cases such as the English quantificational nouns or Group 3 subordination markers. However, it is not common for quantifiers or subordination markers to undergo semantic change in the direction toward more concrete, prototypically noun-like meanings. Hence we are unlikely to find cases like (58d) and (59d). Since the multi-modular approach assumes the autonomy of different components of grammar, there can theoretically be different kinds of mismatch as in (8b-c). However, how and why mismatch occurs is also restricted by external factors such as the tendency for unidirectionality in grammaticalization. Might other limitations on mismatches exist, in addition to unidirectionality? Sadock and Schiller 1993 propose a grammar-internal constraint which they call the Generalized Interface Principle (GIP). This principle ensures that mismatches between modules (i.e., violations of the default correspondences) are no greater than is required to satisfy the lexical (or other) requirements of the elements in a sentence. For example, the syntactic and semantic structures in noun phrases such as a lot of oranges (see the diagram in 26 above) are associated as closely as possible while still accommodating the lexically specified mismatch of the quantificational noun lot. In a sense, the syntactic complementation structure [N [N PP]] ‘mimics’ the semantic modifierhead structure [CN [M(CN) CN]] by placing the word lot (the semantic modifier) before the word oranges (the semantic head), thus allowing a normal pattern of ordering and constituency for both the syntactic and the semantic components (see McCawley 1987 for discussion of similar cases of ‘syntactic mimicry’). Newmeyer 1998 proposes an essentially similar principle which he calls the PSCI— Pressure for Structure-Concept Iconicity. The PSCI differs from the GIP only in that the PSCI applies specifically to the syntax-semantics interface, whereas the GIP applies to associations between any two components of grammar. Newmeyer (1998: 129-130) suggests that the PSCI may be rooted in processing constraints that occur external to the grammar. He reasons that since the semantic interpretation of sentences is known to proceed on-line as syntactic constituents are encountered by the listener/reader, it should be easier to identify and interpret those constituents whose semantic and syntactic structures are closely aligned. Although this prediction is yet to and reports that kuti has mixed categorial properties of an infinitival verb and semantic properties of complementizer. It is pointed out that grammaticalization of verbs of saying turning into clausal complementizers is commonly observed.

August 8, 2003


be rigorously tested, Newmeyer suggests a potentially fruitful area for psycholinguistic research. Thus, mismatches may arise in processes of grammaticalization and semantic change, as in the two case studies reported here. Furthermore, mismatches may be constrained by a number of possible factors both internal and external to the grammar, including unidirectionality in grammaticalization, the GIP, and constraints on sentence processing. The details of how mismatches arise and how they are constrained are not yet fully known and await future linguistic and psycholinguistic research.

5

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have first examined the nature and conditions of (componential) mismatches that justify the autonomy of different components of grammar. Next, we presented two case studies from English and Japanese, and showed how they can be analyzed as instances of level mismatches. There are regularities in seemingly idiosyncratic cases such as the English quantificational nouns and Japanese Group 3 subordination markers that can be explained in a principled manner. These regularities within idiosyncrasies support a multi-modular approach to the architecture of grammar.

References Aarts, B. 1998. Binominal Noun Phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96:117-158. Aarts, B. 2001. English Syntax and Argumentation. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Publishers. Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Berk, L. M. 1999. English Syntax: From Word to Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication. Lingua 18:1-34. Bresnan, J. 1995. Categorial Mismatch. Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics, ed. A. Akinlabi, 19-46. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press. Bresnan, J. and S. Mchombo. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 181-254. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Language of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

August 8, 2003

References / 225 Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Roderick Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, 184221. Boston: Ginn. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Croft, W. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Croft, W. 1995. Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics. Language 71: 490532. Culicover, P. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff. 1997. Syntactic coordination despite semantic subordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 195-217. Culicover, P. and R. Jackendoff. 1999. The View From the Periphery: The English Comparative Correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543-572. Fillmore, C. J., P. Kay, and M. C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501538. Francis, E. J. 1998. When Form and Meaning Come Apart: Quantificational Nouns, Predicate Nominals, and Locative Subjects in English. CLS 34: Papers from the Main Session, ed. M. C. Gruber, D. Higgins, K. S. Olson, and T. Wysocki, 159-170. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Francis, E. J. 1999. Variation Within Lexical Categories. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Giusti, G. 1995. The Categorial Status of Determiners. The New Comparative Syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 95-123. London: Longman. Gupta, A. 1980. The Logic of Common Nouns. New Haven: Yale University Press. Harada, S. I. 1970. Ga-no Conversion and Idiolectal Variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyuu 60: 25-38. Harris, A. C. and L. Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hewson, J. 1991. Determiners as Heads. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 317-337. Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. 1984. The Discourse Basis For Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60:715-717. Hopper, P. J. and E. C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, R. 1987. Zwicky on Heads. Journal of Linguistics 23:109-132. Ide, I. 1967. Keishiki meishi toha nani ka. [The Nature of Formal Nouns]. Nihon no Bunpoo 3 [Grammar in Japan 3], ed. M. Tokieda, 37-52. Tokyo: Meijishoin.

August 8, 2003

226 / Etsuyo Yuasa and Elaine J. Francis Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Kamio, A. 1983. Meishi-ku no koozoo [The Structure of NP]. Nihongo no Kihon Koozoo [The Basic Structure of Japanese], ed. K. Inoue, 77-126. Tokyo: Sanseidoo. Kay, P. and C. J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ’What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language 75: 1-33. Kuno, S. 1970. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Langacker, R. 1987. Nouns and Verbs. Language 63:53-94. Martin, S. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Matsushita, D. 1930. Hyoojun Nihon Koogohoo [Standard Colloquial Japanese]. Tokyo: Chubunkan. McCawley, J. D. 1987. A Case of Syntactic Mimicry. Functionalism in Syntax, ed. R. Dirven and V. Frid, 459-470. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McCawley, J. D. 1988. Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCawley, J. D. 1993. Everything that Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know About Logic. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT Press. Newmeyer, F. J. 2000. The Discrete Nature of Syntactic Categories: Against a Prototype-based Account. Syntax and Semantics 32: The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, ed. R. D. Borsley, 221-250. San Diego: Academic Press. Okutsu, K. 1974. Seisei Nihon Bunpoo-ron: Meeshiku no Koozoo [Generative Theory of Japanese Grammar: The Structure of NP]. Tokyo: Taisyuukan. Okutsu, K. 1986. Iwayuru nihongo-joshi-no Kenkyuu [Study of so-called Japanese postpositions]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha. Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. Cognition and Categorization, ed. E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Sadock, J. M. 1990. Parts of Speech in Autolexical Syntax. BLS 16: General Session, ed. K. Hall, J.-P. Koenig, M. Meacham, S. Reinman, and L. A. Sutton, 269-281. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Sadock, J. M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sadock, J. M. and E. Schiller. 1993. The Generalized Interface Principle. CLS 29: Papers from the Main Session, ed. K. Beals, G. Cooke, D. Kathman, S. Kita, K.-E. McCullough, and D. Testen, 391-402. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Teramura, H. 1993. Teramura Hideo Ronbunsyuu 1: Nihongo Bunpoo-hen [Collection of Papers by Hideo Teramura 1: Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.

August 8, 2003

References / 227 Van Langendonck, W. 1994. Determiners as Heads?* Cognitive Linguistics 5(3): 243-259. Wierzbicka, A. 1986. What’s in a Noun (or: How do Nouns Differ in Meaning from Adjectives?) Studies in Language 10:353-389. Wierzbicka, A. 1995. Adjectives vs. Verbs: The Iconicity of Part-of-speech Membership. Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes, the Human Dimension, ed. M. E. Landsberg, 223-245. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Yamada, Y. 1908. Nihon Bunpoo-ron [Theory of Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Hoobun-kan Yuasa, E. 1996. Categorial Mismatches: An Autolexical Account of Formal Nouns in Japanese. CLS 32: Papers from the Main Session, ed. L. Dobrin, K. Singer, and L. McNair, 423-432. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Yuasa, E. 1998. Subordinate Clauses in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Yuasa, E. 1999. Categorial Mismatch: Subordination Markers in Japanese. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles. Zwicky, A. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21:1-30.