Topicalization and subjectivization in Japanese: Characterizational and identificational information

Topicalization and subjectivization in Japanese: Characterizational and identificational information

3 *I was waited for by Mary. (9b) I don’t like to be waited for. (10a) *The office was worked in. (lob) The bed was slept in. In other words, Takami ...
Download PDF
2MB Sizes 0 Downloads 44 Views
Report

3


Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

Topicalization and subjectivization in Japanese: Characterizational and identificational information* Ken-ichi Takam? *, Akio Kamiob o Department of English. Faculty of Humanities, Tokyo Metropolitan University, I-l Minami-Osawa, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-03, Japan h Department of English, Dokkyo University, I-1 Gakuen-cho, Soka. Saitama, 340 Japan

Received 13 October 1994, revised version 7 March 1996

Abstract This paper discusses two well-known constructions in Japanese, namely, topicalization and multiple subjectivization, as typically illustrated in the following two examples cited from Mikami (1960) and Kuno (1973): (1) zoo -wa hana -ga nagai. elephant-Top trunk -NOM is-long ‘Elephants have long trunks.’ (2) Bunmeikoku -ga dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. civilized countries -NOM male -NOM average life span -NOM is-short ‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short.’ We will argue that the acceptability of the constructions in question crucially depends on whether the topicalized or subjectivized NP is characterized by the rest of the sentence, and propose the Characterization Condition for the ‘Zoo-wa hana-ga nagui’ Construction (CC) and the Characterization Condition for Subjectivization (CCS). We will also argue that the phenomenon of subjectivization, which seems more complex than that of topicalization, is subject to the requirement that ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ in the structure [X-gu Y-gu Z-gu . . .] be identified by ‘X’ and ‘Y’, respectively, which we will call the Identifiability Condition for Subjectivization (ICS). It will also be argued that the cline of acceptability often observed in the subjectivization phenomenon can be accounted for by the interaction between the CCS and the ICS.

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +8 1 3 426 77 1111. We are deeply indebted to Karen Courtenay and John Maher for their invaluable and informative comments on both content and exposition of earlier versions of this paper. We are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers of Lingua and the editor, Teun Hoekstra, for their informative and constructive comments and suggestions.

*

0024-3841/96/$15.00 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PII SOO24-3841(96)00014-9

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

208

1. Introduction Mikami (1960), as is well known, has argued that the topic marker wa substitutes for, among other things, the possessive (genitive) marker no. Observe the following famous example (la), which is assumed to be derived from (1 b): nagai. -wa hana-ga (la) Zoo elephant-TOP trunk-NOM is-long ‘Elephants have long trunks.’ (lb) Zoo -no hana-ga nagai. -GEN

‘Elephants’ trunks are long.’ The pattern ‘X-)20 Y-ga . ..’ as in (1 b), however, is not always converted into the topicalized sentence pattern ‘X-wa Y-ga . . .‘. Compare the following pairs of examples: (2a) Taroo-no

atama-ga ii. head -NOM is-good (lit) ‘Taro’s head is good.’ (2b) Taroo-wa atama-ga ii. -GEN

-TOP

(3a)

(3b)

(4a)

(4b)

(5a)

(5b)

‘Taro is smart.’ Taroo-no batto-ga ii. -GEN bat -NOM is-good ‘Taro’s bat is good.’ ??Taroo -wa batto-ga ii. -TOP ‘Taro has a good bat. ’ Aomori -no ringo-ga oisii. -GEN apple-NOM is-delicious (lit.) ‘Aomori’s apples are delicious.’ Aomori-wa ringo-ga oisii. -TOP ‘Aomori produces delicious apples.’ -ga dokusin-da. Aomori-no ane older sister-NOM single -is ‘My older sister in Aomori is single.’ *Aomori-wa ane-ga dokusin-da. -TOP ‘My older sister in Aomori is single.’

Examples (2b) and (4b) are fully acceptable, while (3b) and (5b) are marginal or unacceptable. We will address in this paper why topicalization produces a differ-

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

209

ence in acceptability and under what conditions use of topicalization becomes felicitous.’ Another topic dealt with in this paper is multiple subjectivization in Japanese, as illustrated in the following typical examples (Kuno, 1973: 70-71):

(6a) Bunmeikoku

-no dansei -no heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. civilized countries-GEN male -GEN average life span-NOM is-short ‘It is the average life span of men of civilized countries that is short,’ Bunmeikoku-no dansei -ga heikin-zyumyoo-ga mizikai. (6b) -GEN

-NOM

-NOM

‘It is men of civilized countries that the average life span is short in.’ Bunmeikoku-ga dansei-no heikin-zyumyoo-ga mizikai. (6~) -NOM

-GEN

-NOM

‘It is in civilized countries that men’s average life span is short.’ (64 Bunmeikoku-ga dansei -ga heikin-zyumyoo-ga mizikai. -NOM

-NOM

-NOM

‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short. ‘2 In (6a) there is only one subject, bunmeikoku-no dansei-no heikin-zyumyoo ‘the average life span of men of civilized countries’. In (6b) bunmeikoku-no dansei ‘men of civilized countries’ is subjectivized, as shown by the nominative marker ga attached to it. In (6~) it is bunmeikoku ‘civilized countries’, not bunmeikoku-no dansei ‘men of civilized countries’, that is subjectivized. In (6d) not only bunmeikoku ‘civilized countries’ but also dansei ‘men’ is subjectivized. Examples (6b-d), with two or three subjects, are perfectly acceptable.

’ One may well argue here that the sentence pattern ‘X-wa Y-ga.. . ’ is derived not from the sentence ‘but from some other sentence pattern, as argued by Kitahara (1975) and pattern ‘X-no Y-ga...’ Shibatani (1978), or that it is not derived at all but is base-generated. We are not, however, concerned with the derivational process of the sentence pattern in question (which is a problem of syntax). What we are concerned with is why (2b) and (4b), for instance, are felicitous as examples of topicalization, while (3b) and (5b) are not (which we argue is a problem of language use, as shown below in the text). Note therefore that the acceptability or felicity of the examples in question is constant, irrespective of whether the topicalization pattern is base-generated or derived from some other sentence pattern. (The same ;pplies to another topic we are concerned with, i.e., subjectivization.) Note that (6a-d) have (multiple) subject-predicate structures, while the corresponding glosses have focus-presupposition (i.e., cleft) structures. This is because ga in these examples, particularly the one converted from no, represents exhaustive listing (X and only X . . .), not neutral description of actions or temporary states (Kuno, 1973). Compare the following, taken from Kuno (1973: 38): (ia) John-ga gakusei desu. (exhaustive listing) student is ‘(Of all the people under discussion) John (and only John) is a student.’ ‘It is John who is a student.’ (ib) Ame-ga hutte imasu. (neutral description) rain falling is-Polite ‘It is raining.’

210

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

The process of subjectivization observed above does not always produce acceptable sentences, however. Observe the following examples: (7a) Haha -no nakigara -ga heya ni anti-sarete iru. is mother-GEN dead body-NOM room in placed ‘It is my mother’s dead body that is placed in the room.’ (7b) *Haha-ga nakigara-ga heya ni anti-sarete iru. -NOM

-NOM

‘It is my mother’s dead body that is placed in the room.’ Subjectivization of haha ‘my mother’ in (7a) is impossible, as shown by the unacceptability of (7b). Observe further the following examples: -ga gaizin da. @a) Hitori musume-no kekkon -no aite one daughter-GEN marriage-GEN partner-NOM foreigner is ‘My only daughter is going to marry a foreigner.’ (8b) Hitori musume-ga kekkon-no aite-ga gaizin da. -GEN -NOM -NOM ‘My only daughter is going to marry a foreigner.’ (8~) ??Hitori musume-no kekkon-ga aite-ga gaizin da. -GEN

-NOM

-NOM

(lit.) ‘It is my only daughter’s marriage that her partner is a foreigner.’ (8d) ??Hitori musume-ga kekkon-ga aite-ga gaizin da. -NOM

-NOM

-NOM

‘It is my only daughter who is going to marry a foreigner.’ Hitori musume ‘my only daughter’ in (8a) can be subjectivized, as shown in (8b), whereas hitori musume-no kekkon ‘my only daughter’s marriage’ cannot, as shown in (8~). It is also impossible to subjectivize both hitori musume ‘my only daughter’ and kekkon ‘marriage’, as’shown in (8d). The issue we will address in this paper is why there is a clear difference in acceptability between (6b-d) and (8b) on the one hand and (7b) and @c,d) on the other, and under what conditions use of subjectivization becomes felicitous. It is important here at the outset of this paper to make clear how we consider the two problems we will address below. We take the position that the acceptability of topicalization and subjectivization that we will discuss below is a problem that belongs to the pragmatic or discourse component of language analysis, not to the grammatical or syntactic component. The former is a component that examines whether sentences (or utterances) that are generated as grammatical in the syntactic component are acceptable (or felicitous/appropriate) in the actual use of language (see Kuno, 1978: 305-307). Therefore the examples given above or those given below should be interpreted in terms of acceptability vs. unacceptability or felicity vs. infelicity, and not in terms of grammaticality vs. ungrammaticality or well-formedness vs. ill-formedness. Our examples are judged in

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (I 996) 207-235

211

terms of their potential use of ‘utterances’ (to which criteria of pragmatic appropriateness and discourse coherence are applied), and not as ‘sentences’ (whose well-formedness is specifiable according to the language system, independently of their use as text-sentences) (see Lyons, 1977). As a result of this, even unacceptable or infelicitous examples in isolation, such as (3b) and (5b), become acceptable or felicitous if placed in an appropriate context (see section 4), or if uttered in a situation in which special background information is shared between the speaker and the hearer. Further the acceptability of the examples we are concerned with is often a phenomenon of a continuum, not an all-or-nothing phenomenon (see (29a-d) and section 8). The discourse component seems to consist of a large number of conditions or principles, in which are included empathy hierarchies and principles of discourse deletion put forth by Kuno (1978, 1987), cooperative principles proposed by Grice (197.5), conditions on honorific use of language, limitations on human perception and memory, and so on and so forth. We take the position that the conditions we will propose below also belong to this pragmatic component, and maintain that they are felicity conditions on language use, which speakers of Japanese are expected to follow when they use the patterns of topicalization and subjectivization. Therefore it should be stressed here that the difference in acceptability between, say, (8b) and (SC) has nothing to do with syntax, and both sentences are ‘grammatical’ at the level of syntax because they both conform to the pattern of subjectivization. They are different only at the level of language use. Strictly speaking, this would lead us to use the crosshatch, rather than the asterisk and question marks, to indicate unacceptable or infelicitous examples, because such examples represent pragmatic or communicative deviancy. However, the use of only the crosshatch fails to differentiate varying degrees of acceptability. Therefore we use the asterisk, together with single and double question marks (?/??), to differentiate varying degrees of judgments, although they have nothing to do with the grammaticality of the sentences. This paper is organized in the following manner: as a prerequisite to the two topics in this paper, we will introduce in section 2 the Characterization Condition, originally proposed in Takami (1992) to account for English examples involving pseudopassives and tough-movement. In sections 3 and 4, we will discuss the sentence construction [X-wa Y-ga . ..I and argue that the acceptability of the construction is crucially dependent on the notion of characterization, employed in Takami’s Characterization Condition. In section 5 we will extend our discussion to the sentence constructions [X-wa Y-no Z-ga . . .] and [X-no Y-wa Z-ga . . .]. Turning to the topic of subjectivization, we will argue in section 6 that the notion of characterization also plays an important role in subjectivization. In section 7 we will make it clear that there are many instances of subjectivization which cannot be captured by the notion of characterization alone, and that such instances can be accounted for by recourse to another functional notion of ‘identification’, which was proposed in Takami (1992) to account for the phenomenon of preposition stranding in English. In section 8 we will demonstrate that a cline of acceptability often observed in subjectivization can be explained by the interaction of the two notions, characterization and identification. In section 9 we will present our conclusion.

212

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

2. Takami’s (1992) Characterization

Condition

Takami (1992) argues that the following contrast in the examples of pseudo-passives in English is also a phenomenon concerning language use, and therefore that it should be dealt with in terms of acceptability or felicity, and not in terms of grammaticality or well-formedness :

@a>*I was waited for by Mary. (9b) I don’t like to be waited for. (10a) *The office was worked in. (lob) The bed was slept in. In other words, Takami takes the position that the contrast between (9a) and (9b) or between (lOa) and (lob) is to be accounted for by constraints belonging to the pragmatic or discourse component of language analysis. This is because (i) as far as the syntax of pseudo-passives is concerned, all the examples in (9a,b) and (lOa,b) are ‘grammatical’, conforming to the sentence pattern of [NP + be + _ en + Preposition (+by NP)], (ii) even infelicitous examples become felicitous if placed in an appropriate context (see (12) and (13) below), or if uttered in a situation in which special background information is shared between the speaker and the hearer, and (iii) the acceptability of examples such as those given in (9) and (10) is often a phenomenon of a continuum (see Takami, 1992: 129-132). For these reasons Takami claims that the acceptability of examples such as those given above is to be considered in terms of their potential use as ‘utterances’, and not as ‘sentences’. Taking the position mentioned above, Takami (1992: 126) offers the following felicity condition for pseudo-passives to account for the difference in acceptability of the above examples: (11) Characterization Condition for Pseudo-Passives: Pseudo-passives are acceptable if and only if the subject is characterized by the rest of the utterance; namely, if the utterance as a whole serves as a characterization of the subject. The unacceptability of (9a) and the acceptability of (9b) follow directly from the Characterization Condition for Pseudo-Passives; in (9a) the single fact that Mary waited for me at a certain time does not say anything characteristic about me. Sentence (9b), on the other hand, clearly says what kind of person I am - I am a person who does not like to have someone wait for me if I am late. Similarly, in (10a) the fact that someone worked in an office does not describe what kind of office it is. But in (lob) the fact that the sheets on a bed are rumpled because someone has slept in the bed and no one has yet made it up, clearly describes what kind of bed it is at the given time. Example (10a) does not characterize the office at all, while (lob) does characterize the bed. Hence, the unacceptability of (9a) and (10a) and

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (I 996) 207-235

213

the acceptability of (9b) and (lob) are straightforwardly accounted for by condition (11).3 The Characterization Condition for Pseudo-Passives can further explain examples such as the following: (12a) (12b) (13a) (13b)

*The room was walked through by the boy. This room was walked through by the boy before he killed his mother. ?*This office has been called/phoned from. This office has been called/phoned from so many times that it was natural to assume that it was the source of the latest call. (( 13a,b) are from Quirk et al., 1985 : 1164)

(12a) and (13a), uttered in isolation, are unacceptable, but, as shown in (12b) and (13b), similar examples become acceptable with an enlarged context, which would indicate what kind of significance the referent of the subject has in the development of the story. In (12b), because of the nature of the event that is described by the before-clause, it is easy to assume that the room which the boy walked through is a room which is highly relevant to the murder, not just an uncharacterized room as in (12a). Hence it is possible to interpret the pseudo-passive example as one that characterizes the room. In (12a), on the other hand, in the absence of any context, it is difficult for the hearer to obtain any characterization of the room on the basis of the fact that the boy walked through the room, and hence it is next to impossible to interpret the example as one that characterizes the room. Thus the contrast between (12a) and (12b) can be accounted for by the Characterization Condition for Pseudo-Passives. The contrast between (13a) and (13b) is explainable in a similar fashion. Takami (1992) claims that the contrast shown in the following examples involving tough-movement is also a phenomenon of language use, not of language system, and therefore that it should be dealt with in terms of acceptability or felicity:

(144 (14b) (154 (15b)

*Friends are dangerous to meet in New York. New York is dangerous to meet friends in. *Coffee is pleasant to drink with John. John is pleasant to drink coffee with.

We note that (14a) and (15a) are unacceptable, while (14b) and (15b) are acceptable. To account for this difference, Takami (1992: 158) offers the following felicity condition, in a way similar to (11):

There are several notions that have been proposed in the literature to account for (pseudo-)passive sentences; Bolinger’s (1975) ‘affectedness’ or ‘true patient’, Tuyn’s (1970) ‘observable result’, and Cureton’s (1979) ‘quality of the object’. See Takami (1992) for discussion of these notions and their shortcomings.

214

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

(16) Characterization Condition for Tough-Movement: An utterance involving tough-movement is acceptable if and only if the subject is characterized by the rest of the utterance; namely, if the utterance as a whole serves as a characterization of the subject. In (14a) the statement that it is dangerous to meet friends in New York hardly serves as a characterization of friends in general. But the same statement clearly tells what kind of city New York is; New York is characterized by such a statement. Likewise, in (15a) coffee cannot be characterized by the statement that it is pleasant to drink coffee with John, but (15b) can be interpreted as a statement characterizing what kind of person John is. Hence the unacceptability of (14a) and (15a) and the acceptability of (14b) and (15b) follow from condition (16). The Characterization Condition for Tough-Movement can further account for the following pairs of examples, adapted from Takami (1992: 159, 161): (17a) (17b) (18a) (18b)

*Three o’clock is pleasant to drink tea at. Last night was difficult to sleep through. ??/*The buildings were impossible for John to walk in front of. The buildings were impossible for John to walk in front of because there was a temporary road block.

In (17a), the statement that it is pleasant to drink tea at three o’clock does not work as a characterization of three o’clock at all. On the other hand, the subject last night is clearly characterized in (17b) because we can infer from this example a certain characteristic about last night; that is, it was hot or noisy or uncomfortable for sleeping. In (18a), because of the absence of any context, it is difficult for the hearer to imagine what kind of building can be characterized by the fact that it was impossible for John to walk in front of the buildings, and hence it is next to impossible to interpret the sentence as one that characterizes the buildings. In (18b), on the other hand, the context represented by the because-clause gives good reason for the buildings to be fronted to the subject (topic) position, and the buildings can be interpreted, for example, as a place where the President would be coming so that a temporary road block was enforced. Hence it is possible to interpret the sentence as one that characterizes the buildings, and the acceptability results. It should be clear from the above observations that the notion of characterization is crucial in deciding the acceptability of English pseudo-passive and tough-movement examples. Here, let us put conditions (11) and (16) together, as shown in the following, and call it simply the Characterization Condition: ( 19) Characterization Condition: An utterance involving a pseudo-passive or tough-movement is acceptable if and only if the subject is characterized by the rest of the utterance; namely, if the utterance as a whole serves as a characterization of the subject. One may wonder here whether the notion of characterization is applicable only to the subject of pseudo-passive and tough-movement examples, or whether it is applic-

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

215

able to subjects in general. The following examples clearly show that not all subjects are characterized by the rest of the utterances: (20a) (20b) (20~) (20d)

I met John at the party last night. A stranger asked Mary the way to the post office. The dog barked at me. The stone she threw at me whizzed past my head.

The fact that I met John at the party last night and that a stranger asked Mary the way to the post office do not say anything characteristic about me or about the stranger, respectively. This also holds true of (20c,d). Note here that there is a striking difference in the status of subject between pseudo-passive and tough-movement examples on the one hand and examples (20a-d) on the other; in the former case, as is often referred to in generative grammar, the subject is derived through movement from the object or the prepositional object position in D-structure, while in the latter there is no movement involved (aside from the VP-internal subject hypothesis). By employing the pseudo-passive and tough-movement constructions, the speaker intentionally moves to the subject position an element that has originally been a non-subject. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that there is some pragmatic reason or motivation why the speaker employs these constructions rather than their corresponding active and ‘it is Adjective (easy, dificult, etc.) to VP’ constructions, and why the speaker places in the subject position an element that originally takes the non-subject position. We suggest that one reason for this is that the speaker attempts to characterize the derived subject by the rest of the utterance. Hence, these two constructions can be unified by the notion of characterization, though there are of course some constructional differences between them. It seems that the above argument can be confirmed by the following pairs of passive and the so-called middle constructions (see Keyser and Roeper, 1984, and Fagan, 1988) : (21a) (21b) (22a) (22b) (23a) (23b) (24a) (24b)

*London was visited by John yesterday. London is visited by millions of tourists every year. *The couple next door is known by John. The couple next door is known only by John. ((22a,b) are from Rice, 1987: 428429) *This book reads. This book reads easily. *Meat won’t cut. This meat won’t cut.

Ordinary passive sentences, in addition to pseudo-passive sentences, involve movement of subject, and in (21) and (22) the subjects London and the couple are moved from the thematic object position of the verbs visited and known. While the fact that John happened to visit London yesterday does not characterize the city, the fact that millions of tourists visit London every year does characterize the city; it is under-

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-23.5

216

stood, for instance, as a city having a lot of famous sightseeing spots. The same is the case with (22a,b); hence the difference in acceptability.4 It has often been argued that the middle construction as in (23) and (24) involves movement of the subject (Keyser and Roeper, 1984, but see Fagan, 1988). On this assumption, the difference in acceptability shown in (23) and (24) is attributable to the fact that this book is characterized by the statement that people can read the book easily, but not by the statement that they read it. The same applies to examples (24a,b). Hence it seems reasonable to argue that a condition based on the notion of characterization such as (19) can be generalized to cover all subjects derived through movement from nonsubject position.

3. An analysis of the zoo-wu hana-ga nagai construction Observe the following examples:

(254 zoo

Wb) WC) (254

-wa hana -ga nagai. (=(la)) elephant-TOP trunk-NOM is-long ‘Elephants have long trunks.’ Taroo-wa atama-ga ii. (=(2b)) -TOP head -NOM is-good ‘Taro is smart.’ -wa takasa-ga 4000-meetoru Ano yama meter that mountain-ToP height -NOM ‘That mountain is 4000 meters high.’ Aomori-wa ringo -ga oisii. (=(4b)) -TOP apple -NOM is-delicious ‘Aomori produces delicious apples.’

mo at-u. is

What we notice in observing these examples is that the topic of each example is characterized by the rest of the example. In (25a) elephants are characterized as animals having long trunks; in (25b) Taro is characterized as a smart person; in (25~) that mountain is characterized as a mountain that is 4000 meters high; in (25d) Aomori is characterized as a district producing delicious apples. In short, in the con-

4 There are of course passive examples that cannot be dealt with by the notion of characterization, as shown below: (ia) The page was turned by George. (1 b) *The comer was turned by George. (iia) I was approached by the stranger. (iib) *I was approached by the train. ((ia,b) and (iia,b) are from Bolinger, 1975: 72,68) The difference in acceptability shown in (i) and (ii) can be accounted for by the notion of ‘affectedness’ (Bolinger, 1975) or of ‘involvement’ (Kuno, 1983, 1989). Hence it can be concluded that a passive example is acceptable if the subject is characterized by the rest of the utterance or it is affected (or involved) by the action/state described by the utterance. For further details, see Takami (1992).

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

211

struction [X-wa Y-ga . . .], the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ’ describes one of X’s characteristics and serves as a characterization of X. To strengthen the above argument, let us define here the notion of characterization as in (26) and formulate the condition (27), which we call the Characterization Condition, or the CC, for short: (26) In the structure [X-wa Y-ga . ..I. ‘Y-ga . ..’ can characterize ‘X’ if and only if it allows at least one pragmatically natural property of X to be readily derived. (27) Characterization Condition for the Zoo-wa hana-ga nagai Construction: An utterance with the structure of [X-wu Y-ga . . .] is acceptable if and only if the topic ‘X’ is characterized by the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ‘. Going back to (25a) once again, the fact that elephants have long trunks can be readily interpreted as one of (intrinsic) properties of elephants. Similarly, in (25b) the fact that Taro is smart can be readily interpreted as one of his natural properties. Therefore, each of these facts serves as a characterization of elephants and of Taro, respectively. In the same manner, each of the facts that the mountain is 4000 meters high and that Aomori produces delicious apples is interpreted as an inherent property or attribute of the mountain and Aomori, respectively. Therefore the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ’ in (25a-d) serves as an intrinsic characterization of the topic ‘X-wa’, and the acceptability of (25a-d) results, in keeping with the Characterization Condition. Observe, on the other hand, the following examples: nagaku nyuuin site it-u. (28a) Yamada-san -wa okusan-ga Mr.-TOP wife -NOM long be-hospitalized ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife has been hospitalized for a long time.’ (28b) Yamada-san-wa okusan-ga furansu-zin da. is French ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is a Frenchwoman,’ seizi-ka da. (28~) Yamada-san-wa sofu -ga grandfather-NOM politician is ‘Mr. Yamada’s grandfather is a politician.’ (28d) Ano yama -wa humoto-ni tiisana onsen-ga aru. that mountain-Top foot-at small hot spring is ‘There is a small hot spring at the foot of the mountain.’ Examples (28a-d) are acceptable, though the predicate ‘Y-ga . ..’ does not serve as an intrinsic characterization of the topic ‘X-wa’, because in (28a), for instance, the fact that Mr. Yamada’s wife has been hospitalized for a long time is clearly not Mr. Yamada’s intrinsic property and is independent of him. The same holds true of (28b,c). In (28d) also, the fact that there is a small hot spring at the foot of the mountain, strictly speaking, has no direct bearing on the mountain. However, it is clearly recognized that the content of the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ’ in (28a-d) serves as information highly ‘relevant’ to the topic ‘X-wa’ in characterizing the latter. The fact of Mr. Yamada’s wife’s long hospitalization clearly affects him

218

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

in various ways, and distinguishes him from other people. In other words, the fact can be pragmatically interpreted as a natural property of Mr. Yamada, and serves as one of his characterizations. We call this type of characterization extrinsic charucterizution. In (28b), similarly, the fact that Mr. Yamada’s wife is a Frenchwoman is highly relevant or prominent information to characterize Mr. Yamada because the fact clearly distinguishes him from other people. Therefore it is regarded, pragmatically speaking, as one of his natural properties. The same applies to (2&d) as well; hence (28a-d) are acceptable, in keeping with the CC. The notion of ‘relevance’ or ‘salience’ plays an important role in deciding whether or not the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ’ serves as a pragmatically natural property of the topic ‘X-wu’. Compare (28a-d) with the following examples: (29a) ??Yamada-san-wa

okusan-ga kenkoo da. (cf. (28a)) healthy is ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is healthy.’ (29b) *Yamada-san-wa kinoo mikaketa hito -ga furansu-zin da. (cf. (28b)) person-NOM French is yesterday saw ‘The person who Mr. Yamada happened to see yesterday was a Frenchwoman.’ akubi-o sita. (cf. (2%)) (29~) *Yamada-san-wa sofu -ga kinoo grandfather-NOM yesterday yawn ‘Mr. Yamada’s grandfather yawned yesterday.’ (29d) ?I?? Ano yama -wa risu-ga kawaii. (cf. (28d)) that mountain -TOP squirrel is-cute ‘The squirrels in that mountain are cute.’ In (29a) the fact that Mr. Yamada’s wife is healthy, unlike the fact given in (28a), does not serve as relevant information in characterizing Mr. Yamada. This is because (i) it is independent of him, (ii) it does not affect him at all, and (iii) it does not serve to differentiate him from other people. This point is clearer in (29b), in which the fact that the person who Mr. Yamada happened to see yesterday was a Frenchwoman has no relevance to him. In other words, the fact serves as neither an intrinsic nor extrinsic property of Mr. Yamada, and fails to characterize him; hence unacceptability. The same holds of (29c,d). The reader must already be aware that the above discussion is reminiscent of Relevance Theory advanced by Sperber and Wilson (1986) in which a theory of ostensive-inferential communication is developed and the following definition of relevance, coupled with two extent-conditions, is given: (30) Relevance: An assumption is relevant in a context if and only if it has some contextual effect in that context. (Sperber and Wilson, 1986: 122) (3 1) Extent condition 1: An assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that its contextual effects in this context are large. (ibid.: 125)

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

219

(32) Extent condition 2: An assumption is relevant in a context to the extent that the effort required to process it in this context is small. (ibid.: 125) Relevance Theory, as is understood from (30)-(32), is a theory that assesses the contextual effect of an assumption in a given context, and not a theory that is directly responsible for the acceptability of given (simplex) utterances. However, if we extend the essence of the theory to the construction we are concerned with in this paper, and if we confine ourselves to considering whether the predicate ‘Yga . . . ’ has a contexual effect on the topic ‘X-wa’, the present discussion is clearly connected with Relevance Theory. Sperber and Wilson claim that contexual effects can be achieved through (i) contextual implication, (ii) strengthening, and (iii) contradiction (see also Blakemore, 1992). In other words, a piece of given information smoothly connects up with the given assumption or preceding information if they are related by one of these three relations. Extending this argument slightly to the present discussion, we can further say that the predicate ‘Y-ga . . .’ can achieve a contextual effect or smoothly connect up with the topic ‘X-wa’ if they are related by characterization. In (25) and (28) it can be said that the predicate ‘Y-ga . . . ’ has a contextual effect because it is connected with the topic ‘Xwa’ by serving as a characterization of the latter. Therefore the effort required to process the predicate with respect to the topic is small, and the sentences result in acceptability. On the other hand, in (29) the predicate neither achieves a contextual effect nor connects up with the topic, because the former does not serve as a characterization of the latter. Therefore the effort required to process the former (or the example as a whole) is large, and the unacceptability results. Hence the Characterization Condition (27) seems to be reducible to the essence of Relevance theory.5 Observe further the following unacceptable examples:

It may be alternatively argued that an utterance as a whole (which would correspond to an ‘assumption’ in Relevance Theory) has a contextual effect if it allows one to readily derive a pragmatically natural property of its topic. Observe, for example, the following contrast: (ia) Yamada-san-wa okusan-ga furansu-zin da. (=(28b)) French is ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is a Frenchwoman.’ (ib) *Yamada-san-wa kinoo mikaketa hito-ga furansu-zin da. (=(29b)) yesterday saw person-NOM French is ‘The person who Mr. Yamada happened to see yesterday was a Frenchwoman.’ Example (ia) readily allows the hearer to draw some pragmatically natural property of Mr. Yamada. That is, on hearing the example, we can immediately assume that Mr. Yamada’s wife is not Japanese, that he probably speaks French, that he may know French culture pretty well, and so on and so forth. These properties can be considered contextual effects, which are gamed at a small processing cost. Hence the acceptability of the example results. On the other hand, (ib) does not allow us to derive any property of Mr. Yamada or any contextual effects in the given context. Hence, the effort required to process the sentence in this context is large, and the unacceptability results.

220

K. Takami. A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

(33a) *Aomori -wa ane -ga dokusin-da (=(5b)) -TOP older sister -NOM single -is ‘My older sister in Aomori is single.’ (33b) *Osaka-wa aru tyuuka ryoori-ten-ga zensyoo-sita. -TOP a Chinese restaurant -NOM be-burned-down ‘A Chinese restaurant burned down in Osaka.’ The predicate ‘Y-~a . . . ’ in each of these examples is not interpreted as a natural property of the topic ‘X-wu’; in (33a) the fact that my older sister in Aomori is single has nothing to do with the properties of Aomori. Similarly in (33b) the fact that a Chinese restaurant in Osaka burned down does not describe any property of Osaka. Hence, the topic of (33a,b) is not characterized at all by the rest of the example, and the unacceptability results, violating the CC.

4. Dependence on context It is important to note that the acceptability of the construction in question is dependent on context; marginal sentences often become acceptable when put into appropriate contexts. Observe the following: (34) ??Taroo-wa

batto-ga ii. (=(3b)) bat 40~ is-good ‘Taro has a good bat.’ (35) [Taro, Ziro, Saburo, and Itiro all have bats, gloves, balls, and baseball uniforms for playing baseball. A person who has seen or known them says the following.] ii. . ..) Taroo-wa batto-ga ii. (Ziroo-wa guroobu-ga glove -NOM is-good ‘Taro has a good bat. (Ziro has a good glove. . ..)’ -TOP

Example (34). marginal or unacceptable in isolation, becomes felicitous when uttered in a context such as (35). The felicity of the example with such a context must be due to the fact that, given a set of people and a set of things that they have, each person is characterized by a statement referring to what he has. Taro, for instance, is distinguished from the other people by the thing he has, and is characterized as a person who has a good bat. We can say that, given a context such as (35), the effort required to process the utterance has become small because the predicate now serves as a characterization of the topic in this context. Hence the felicity of (35) is captured by the Characterization Condition. When example (34) is uttered out of the blue, it is almost impossible to come up with a context such as that given in (35), and therefore the example is marked infelicitous in violation of the CC. Similarly, observe the following discourse:

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

221

soo desu nanken-ka oo-kazi-ga atta -de sakuya (36) A: Kansai big fire-NOM broke out I hear Kansai district-at last night several ne. SF ‘I hear several big fires broke out in Kansai district last night.’ SF=Sentence-final Particle soo desu. Osaka-wa aru tyuuka ryoori-ten -ga B: Hai, sanken atta Chinese restaurant -NOM -TOP a yes three broke out I hear zensyoo-si, Kyoto-wa at-u Nara-wa o-tera-ga zensyoo-si, -TOP temple-NOM be-burned-down -TOP a be-burned-down soo desu. (cf. (33b)) ginkoo- ga zensyoo-sita bank -NOM be-burned-down I hear ‘Yes, I hear there were three. In Osaka a Chinese restaurant burned down, in Nara a temple burned down, and in Kyoto a bank burned down.’ Utterance (36B), given as a response to utterance (36A), seems to be much better than (33b).6 This must be due to the fact that, given a preceding context like (36A), speaker (36B) is expected to provide a list of names of Kansai district and a list of kinds of fires, and to match each of the name list with each of the fire list. Given in (36B) the small number of the names of Kansai district and the small number of fires that broke out there, a description of each fire can serve as a characterization of the place in which the fire happened. In this kind of a limited universe of discourse, Osaka, for instance, is characterized as a district in which a Chinese restaurant burned down. Hence the improved acceptability of (36B) is accounted for by the Characterization Condition. The observation made above concerning (34)-(36) is closely connected with what Kuno (1990) has made clear concerning the topicalization of nonsubject NPs in Japanese. Compare the following examples (see Kuno, 1990: 62). utatta. [contrastive] (37) Kono uta -wa Taroo-ga this song -TOP -NOM sang ‘This song, Taro sang.’ [There are a small number of songs under discussion.] (38) Kono uta -wa Taroo-ga utatta. Ano uta -wa Hanako-ga this song -TOP -NOM sang that song-Top -NOM utatta. [noncontrastive] sang ‘As for this song, Taro sang it. As for that song, Hanako sang it.’

6 The response given in (36B) would be even better if the postposition denoting place (i.e., de ‘at’) is inserted immediately after Osaka, Nara and Kyoto, as in the following: (i) A: Kansai-de sakuya nanken-ka oo-kazi-ga atta soo desu ne. B: Hai, sanken atta soo desu. Osaka-de-wa aru tyuuka ryoori-ten-ga zensyoo-si, Nara-de-wa otera-ga zensyoo-si, Kyoto-de-wa aru ginkoo-ga zensyoo-sita soo desu.

222

K. Takami. A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

&no uta ‘this song’ in (37), object of the sentence, is topicalized. Example (37) is highly contrastive, as witnessed by the fact that the example can be translated into English as ‘This song, Taro sang’, but not as ‘Speaking of this song, Taro sang it’. The fact that Taro, an ordinary person, sang the song hardly qualifies as a characterization of the song in the unlimited universe of discourse. However, as observed in (38), if there is only a small number of songs under discussion, then the fact that Taro sang a particular song distinguishes that song from those which others under discussion sang. In other words, Two-ga utatta ‘Taro sang (it)’ in the first utterance of (38) is a statement that characterizes the topic in the given limited universe of discourse, and the sense of contrastiveness disappears. Thus, it is clear that in a given limited universe of discourse it becomes easier for the topic of an utterance to be characterized by the rest of the utterance, and that this leads to the improvement of (35) and (36B).

5. ‘X-no Y-no Z-ga . ..’ pattern In the above section we have argued that the Characterization Condition plays a crucial role in deciding the acceptability of the ‘X-W Y-ga . . . ’ pattern. In this section we will briefly extend the above discussion to longer sentence patterns, that is, the ‘X-wa Y-no Z-ga . ..’ and X-no Y-wa Z-ga . ..’ patterns. Observe first the following example: (39) Bunmeikoku -no dansei-no heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. (=(6a)) civilized countries-cEN male -GEN average life SP~III-NOMis-short ‘It is the average life span of men of civilized countries that is short.’ Following Mikami (1960) (see also Kuno, 1973), the following two examples are derived from (39): (40a) Bunmeikoku-wa -TOP

dansei -no heikin-zyumyoo-ga -GEN

mizikai.

-NOM

‘In civilized countries the average life span of men is short.’ (40b) Bunmeikoku-no dansei-wa heikin-zyumyoo-ga mizikai. -GEN

-TOP

-NOM

‘Men of civilized countries have a short life span.’ Examples (40a,b) are perfectly acceptable, and we can attribute the acceptability of these examples to the fact that the statement that the average life span of men is short qualifies as a natural property of the topic bunmeikoku ‘civilized countries’ in (40a), and that the statement that the average life span is short also qualifies as a natural property of the topic bunmeikoku-no dunsei ‘men of civilized countries’ in (40b). Hence, the acceptability of (40a,b) can be accounted for by the Characterization Condition. Observe further the following sentences:

K. Takami. A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

223

1947-nen 7 -gatu 27-niti da. -no seinen-gappi ga (41a) Boku-no ane year month day is I -GEN older sister -GEN birthdate -NOM ‘It is my older sister’s birthdate that is July 27, 1947.’ (41b) *Boku-wa ane-no seinen-gappi-ga 1947-nen 7-gatu 27-niti da. -TOP -GEN -NOM ‘Speaking of myself, my older sister’s birthdate is July 27, 1947.’ (41~) Boku-no ane-wa seinen-gappi-ga 1947-nen 7-gatu 27-niti da. -NOM -GEN -TOP ‘Speaking of my older sister, her birthdate is July 27, 1947.’ Example (41b) is unacceptable, while (41~) is acceptable. This is because the fact that my older sister’s birthdate is July 27, 1947 is a natural property of my older sister’s, but not mine; hence the difference in acceptability. Even from the above brief observation it is clear that the topicalization in the ‘Xno Y-no Z-ga . . . ’ pattern also follows the Characterization Condition.

6. Characterization

Condition for Subjectivization

We now turn to our second topic, an analysis of subjectivization. (6b-d) once again, repeated here as (42a-c):

First, observe

(42a) Bunmeikoku -no dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. civilized countries-GEN male -NOM average life SP~~-NOMis-short ‘It is men of civilized countries that the average life span is short in.’ (42b) Bunmeikoku -ga dansei -no heikin-zyumyoo-ga mizikai. -NOM -GEN -NOM ‘It is in civilized countries that men’s average life span is short.’ (42~) Bunmeikoku-ga dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. -NOM -NOM -NOM ‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short.’ As with the topicalized NPs that we have discussed in sections 3-5, we notice that each of the subjectivized NPs in (42a-c) (i.e., bunmeikoku-no dansei, bunmeikoku) is characterized by the rest of the utterance. Observe, on the other hand, the following examples: (43a) Furansu-zin -no suugaku -no kyoosi-ga hitori it-u. French -GEN mathematics-GEN teacher-NOM one is ‘There is one French teacher of mathematics.’ (43b) *Furansu-zin-no suugaku-ga kyoosi-ga hitori iru. -NOM -GEN -NOM (43~) ??/*Furansu-zin-ga suugaku-no kyoosi -ga hitori iru. -NOM -GEN -NOM

K. Takami. A. Kamio

224

I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

(43d) *Furansu-zin -ga suugaku-ga kyoosi-ga hitori iru. -NOM -NOM -NOM The subjectivized furansu-zin-no suugaku *(lit.) mathematics of a Frenchman’ in (43b) is not characterized at all by the statement that there is one teacher. Furthermore, the subjectivizedfuransu-zin ‘a Frenchman’ in (43~) is not characterized by the rest of the sentence at all; the statement that there is one teacher of mathematics is totally irrelevant to a Frenchman, and the former does not qualify as a natural property of the latter. Hence, the unacceptability of (43bd) results. From the above observation we propose the following felicity condition for subjectivization: (44) Characterization Condition for Subjectivization: Subjectivization is acceptable if and only if the subjectivized subject is characterized by the rest of the utterance. Before proceeding further, it is important to note here that the original subject marked with ~a does not have to be characterized by the rest of the utterance. Observe the following examples: (45a) Taroo-ga akubi-o sita. -NOM yawned ‘Taro yawned.’ (45b) Taroo-ga nyuuin site it-u. -NOM be-hospitalized ‘Taro has been hospitalized.’ The fact that Taro has happened to yawn is such insignificant information that it can hardly differentiate him from other people: hence Taro is not characterized by the predicate in (45a). On the other hand, the fact that Taro has been hospitalized is significant enough to differentiate him from other people; hence Taro is interpreted as being characterized by the predicate in (45b). In spite of this difference, however, both (45a) and (45b) are acceptable, and this indicates that the original subject marked with ~a is not subject to the requirement of characterization. The Characterization Condition for Subjectivization (or the CCS, for short) can also account for the following contrast: (46a) Taroo-ga

zyuugatu-no kyuuzitu -ga ooi. October -GEN holiday -NOM is-many ‘It is Taro who has many holidays in October.’ -ga hare datta. (46b) ??/*Taroo-ga kekkon-siki-no yokuzitu -GEN the next day-NOM clear was -NOM wedding ‘The day after Taro’s wedding was clear.’ -NOM

While (46a) is acceptable, (46b) is unacceptable. In the former the subjectivized Turoo is characterized by the statement that he has many holidays in October, since

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-23.5

225

the statement is pragmatically interpreted as one of his natural properties and distinguishes him from other people. In the latter, on the other hand, the fact that the day after Taro’s wedding was clear is irrelevant to Taro’s characterization, and it cannot be interpreted as one of his natural properties. Hence the example is judged unacceptable, resulting in a violation of the CCS. Observe further the following example: (47) Tetugaku -senkou-sei -ga zyosei -ga syuusyoku -ga philosophy major student-NOM female -NOM finding employment -NOM muzukasii. difficult ‘Female students of philosophy in particular have difficulties in finding employment (after graduation).’ The statement that it is difficult to find employment for female students can be regarded as one of the characteristics of female students majoring in philosophy. Furthermore, the statement that it is difficult to find employment is regarded as a characterization of female students of philosophy. Hence, the acceptability of (47) results, together with that of (48a,b) below: (48a) Tetugaku-senkou-sei-ga

zyosei-no

-NOM

syuusyoku-ga

-GEN

muzukasii.

-NOM

‘Female students of philosophy in particular have difficulties employment (after graduation).’ (48b) Tetugaku-senkou-sei -no zyosei -ga syuusyoku -ga muzukasii. &EN

‘Female

students of philosophy employment (after graduation).’

-NOM

in finding

-NOM

in particular have difficulties

in finding

Our analysis has revealed that the Characterization Condition, originally proposed for constructions totally different from topicalization and subjectivization in an entirely different language, i.e., English, captures the essential property of acceptable examples in Japanese which involve topicalization in the ‘X-no Y-ga . . . ’ and X-no Y-no Z-ga . . . ’ patterns and subjectivization in the ‘X-no Y-no Z-ga . . . ’ pattern. These results may well be interpreted as showing the cross-linguistic validity of the notion embodied in the Characterization Condition and thus suggest further exploration into other constructions and other languages.7

’ Noting the following contrast, Saito (1982) independently observes that whether a ‘property statement’ about the subjectivized subject is expressed or not plays an important role in deciding the acceptability of subjectivization: (ia) John -ga musuko -ga gakusei desu. -NOM SOlI -NOM student is ‘John is such that his son is a student.’

226

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

7. A further analysis of subjectivization In the previous section we have demonstrated that the acceptability and unacceptability of subjectivization are explained by the Characterization Condition for Subjectivization. However, the problem of subjectivization seems more complex than that of topicalization because there are many sentences that cannot be dealt with by the CCS alone. Observe the following example: (49) ??Hitori musume -ga kekkon -ga aite -ga gaizin da. (=(8d)) one daughter -NOM marriage -NOM partner -NOM foreigner is ‘It is my only daughter who is going to marry a foreigner.’ In (49) the statement that my only daughter is going to marry a foreigner clearly serves as a natural property of my only daughter. Furthermore, the statement that her marriage partner is a foreigner can be regarded as a natural property of her marriage. In spite of this, (49) is unacceptable, and therefore it seems that the unacceptability of the example cannot be captured by the CCS alone. Similarly, observe the following example: sewa taihen da. (50) ? ? Sofu -ga -ga -ga nyuuin grandfather-NOM being hospitalized-NOM taking care Of -NOM terrible is ‘It is terrible to take care of my grandfather, who is in a hospital.’ Example (50) is marginal or unacceptable to most speakers. However, sofu ‘my grandfather’ is characterized by the statement that taking care of him in the hospital

(ib)

‘?*John-ga musuko-ga

odoroita. was surprised ‘John is such that his son was surprised.’ Observing that the main predicate of (ia) is stative, while that of (ib) is not, Saito (1982) argues that musuko-ga gakusei dew ‘(John’s) son is a student’ is interpreted as a property of John, while musukoga odoroita ‘(John’s) son was surprised’ is not. It is clear that our account based on the notion of (intrinsic/extrinsic) characterization, which is in turn based on the notion of a pragmatically natural property, overlaps with Saito’s account. However, there are at least two points that should be noted concerning Saito’s analysis. First, the acceptability of subjectivization is not dependent on the stativity/non-stativity of the main predicate, because sentence (ii), for instance, in which the main predicate is not stative, is perfectly acceptable, while sentence (iii), in which it is stative, unacceptable: (ii) John-ga musuko-ga zisatu-sita. -NOM son -NOM suicide-did ‘John is such that his son committed suicide.’ nomi-tagatte- iru. (iii) *John -ga musuko-ga mizu-0 -NOM SOll -NOM water-KC drink-want is ‘John is such that his son wants to drink water.’ Second, as we argue in section 7, the problem of subjectivization, unlike that of topicalization, cannot be captured by the notion of property or of characterization alone, and therefore there are unacceptable sentences even if they observe a condition based on the notion of property or of characterization. Hence it seems that Saito’s analysis of subjectivization based on the notion of property alone is still incomplete.

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

221

is terrible, and sofu-no nyuuin ‘my grandfather’s being in the hospital’ is also characterized by the statement that sewa-ga &hen-da ‘taking care (of him) is terrible’. Therefore, the CCS predicts (50) to be acceptable, contrary to fact. Another condition seems to be at work here which is closely related to what Takami (1992: ch. 3) has proposed in connection with the phenomenon of preposition stranding in NPs observed in English. Therefore, it will be helpful first to summarize Takami’s argument, as a prerequisite to a further condition on subjectivization. He has proposed the following condition: (5 1) Identifiubility Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs: Extraction of X from the structure [NP [rp P X]] is possible if and only if the head NP can be identified by the PP. (Takami, 1992: 66) With this condition in mind, let us observe the following contrast, taken from Takami ( 1992 : 64-66) : (52a) (52b) (52~) (53a) (53b) (53~)

What did John buy a book on (about)? Who did you see a picture of? Which book is Mary the author of? *What does Phineas know a girl behind? *What color hair did you see a student with? *Which country is Mary the author from?

It is commonly the case in our society that a book or picture is primarily identified by its content (or its author or its painter). Furthermore, an author is primarily identified by a book he or she has written. Therefore, in (52a-c) the wh-expressions, together with the prepositions, can function as identifications of the head NPs a book, a picture, and the author. Hence the acceptability results, in keeping with the Identifiability Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs. In (53a), on the other hand, the fact that a girl is behind something does not serve as an essential property identifying her. That is, where a girl happens to be at a given time cannot be considered as an intrinsic property of that girl. In (53b,c), likewise, it is difficult in normal circumstances to identify a student by the color of his/her hair, or to identify an author by the country he/she comes from. Hence the unacceptability of (53a-c) results, violating the Identifiability Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs. One might counter the above account by pointing out, for example, that we can sometimes identify someone by specifying the object behind which he or she is standing. For instance, one can answer the question ‘Who are you talking about? ’ by saying ‘The girl standing behind that blue car’. One might thus claim that the fact that someone is behind something can be used to identify that person. Similarly, one might enumerate possible situations in which a student is identified by his or her hair color and in which an author is identified by the country from which he or she comes. Objections like these are correct in a sense. We do seem to identify a person by his or her surroundings, hair color, or country of origin. Notice, however, that identification of the kind illustrated here can succeed only in a restricted situation. Thus,

228

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

we can identify a girl by pointing to the car behind which she is standing only if we are in a situation including the girl and the car. Moreover, the girl and the car must be clearly visible to the speaker and the hearer. Likewise, we can identify a student by his or her hair color only if we have a restricted set of students in mind. Furthermore, within such a set, no two students can have the same hair color. Otherwise this means of identification cannot work properly. On the other hand, identification of a book by its contents, of a picture by the person portrayed in it, or of an author by his or her books can succeed quite generally. In fact, it works even in a situation where there is no book or picture under discussion. Thus, even an uneducated person can identify Tolstoy if he or she is told that Tolstoy is the author of War and Peace, even in a situation in which nothing related to Tolstoy or his work can be seen or heard. Therefore, identification in the sense of our Identifiability Condition may be termed conceptual identification, whereas the kind of identification that has just been discussed in the possible objections above may be called practical identification. In the following, conceptual identification should be strictly distinguished from practical identification; we will be concerned solely with the former. As a further confirmation of the Identifiability Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs, let us observe the following pairs of examples:

Wd Which journal did you read a review in? Wb) *Which desk did you read a review on? (554 Which car do you like the gears in?

(55b) *Which car do you like the girl in? ((55a,b) are from Cattell, 1976: 42) We know as a matter of common knowledge that book reviews appear in certain journals and therefore it is perfectly possible to identify a review by the journal that it appears in, hence the acceptability of (54a). In contrast, a review that happens to be placed on a certain desk cannot be identified by the desk because there is no inherent connection between them. Hence the unacceptability of (54b). Similarly, gears are normally identified by the car that has them, while it would be extremely difficult to identify a girl by the car she happens to be in (in the sense of our conceptual identification). Hence the difference between (55a) and (55b) is explainable by the Identifiability Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs.~ Returning now to the main topic, observe (49) and (50) once again:

8 Erteschik-Shir (1981: 669) observes that example (55b) “is much improved if we imagine a society in which every car came with a girl and buyers chose cars partly on the basis of the girls in them”. It is readily understood in this highly hypothetical context that the car of which the girl is a part (and to which she belongs) can serve as an essential property identifying her, exactly as the gears are identified by the car. This would further support the Identifiability Condition for Preposition Stranding in NPs.

K. Takami. A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

229

da. (49) ? ? Hitori musume -ga kekkon -ga aite -ga gaizin one daughter -NOM marriage-NOM partner-NOM foreigner is ‘It is my only daughter who is going to marry a foreigner.’ sewa taihen da. (50) ? ? Sofu -ga nyuuin -ga -ga grandfather -NOM being hospitalized-NOM taking care of -NOM terrible is ‘It is terrible to take care of my grandfather, who is in a hospital.’ We notice that kekkon ‘marriage’ in (49) can be identified by hitori musume ‘my only daughter’, because a wedding is primarily identified by a bride and/or a bridegroom, and not by the date or location of the wedding. This is syntactically evidenced by the fact that the verb marry obligatorily takes a subject (and object), as in John and Mary married or John married Mary, but it only optionally takes adjuncts denoting time, place, and so on. Aite ‘partner’ in (49), on the other hand, is not primarily identified by an activity such as kekkon ‘marriage’, but by a person who takes part in the activity with someone else. (Notice, however, that the reverse identification is possible; a marriage can be identified by the partner(s), as has just been discussed.) This is witnessed by the fact that in the following elliptical sentences, 0 is understood as the speaker and/or hearer, and not as, say, kekkon ‘marriage’ or siai ‘match’ : (56a) 0 aite -ga Hanako-da. partner -NOM is ‘My partner is Hanako.’ zo. (56b) 0 aite-wa tuyoi -TOP is-strong SF ‘Your/Our opponent is strong.’ Example (49) observes the Characterization Condition for Subjectivization, and furthermore, kekkon ‘marriage’ can be identified by hitori musume ‘my only daughter’, as observed above. But aite ‘partner’ is not identified by kekkon, as also observed above. This seems to be the reason why (49) is marginal. This is supported by the following contrast in acceptability: (57a) Taroo-ga

aite -ga Hanako-da. is partner-NOM ‘It is Taro whose partner is Hanako.’ (57b) ?? Kekkon -ga aite -ga Hanako-da. marriage-NOM partner-NOM is ‘The marriage partner is Hanako.’ -NOM

Since aite ‘partner’ can be identified by Taroo, but not by kekkon ‘marriage’, (57a) is acceptable, while (57b) is marginal. Note here that the predicate aite-ga Hunakoda ‘The partner is Hanako’ qualifies as a characterization of both Turoo and kekkon ‘marriage’, and therefore there is no violation of the Characterization Condition for Subjectivization in (57a,b). In (50), similarly, nyuuin ‘being hospitalized’ is easily

230

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-23.5

identified by sofu ‘my grandfather’, since sofu-no nyuuin means that my grandfather was/is/will be hospitalized. On the other hand, swu ‘taking care’ is not identified by nyuuin ‘being hospitalized’, but by the person who is taken care of, as witnessed by the following contrast: (58a) *nyuuin-no sewa ‘taking care of someone who is hospitalized’ (58b) Taroo-no sewa ‘taking care of Taro’ Hence the marginality of (50) is attributable to the fact that Sewa ‘taking care’ is not identified by nyuuin ‘being hospitalized’. From the above observation we offer the following felicity condition, which we call the Identifiability Condition for Subjectivization, or the ICS, for short. (59) Identifiability Condition for Subjectivization: An utterance of the structure [X-ga Y-ga . . .] is acceptable if and only if the Y can be identified by the X. Examples (49) and (50), though observing the CCS, violate the ICS, and therefore marginality or unacceptability results. This means that subjectivization is allowed only when both the CCS and the ICS are observed. In this respect, we can say that subjectivization is subject to stricter constraints than topicalization, which we have discussed in sections 3-5. This seems to result from the fact that the topic marker wa indicates that the rest of a sentence tells something about the topic, while ga, in addition to this function, also indicates that the subjectivized subject represents exhaustive listing (X and only X). Observe, for example, the following pair of examples: -wa hana-ga (60a) Zoo nagai. (=( la)) elephant -TOP trunk-NOM k-long ‘Elephants have long trunks.’ (60b) Zoo-ga hana-ga nagai. -NOM

‘It is elephants that have long trunks.’ In (60a) hana-ga nagai serves as a characterization of elephants, and this is also the case with (60b). The latter sentence, however, conveys further the meaning that (of all the animals under discussion) it is only elephants that have long trunks. We suggest that this dual character that ga involves can be captured by a joint application of the CCS and the ICS; hence subjectivization seems to be more complex than topicalization. Note that the following acceptable example observes not only the CCS but also the ICS:

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

231

mizikai. (=(42c)) (61) Bunmeikoku -ga dansei -ga heikin-zyumyoo -ga civilized countries-NoM male -NOM average life SPLXII-NOMis-short ‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short.’ We have already seen at the beginning of section 6 that (61) observes the CCS. Moreover, dansei ‘men’ is identified by bunmeikoku ‘civilized countries’, and heikin-zyumyoo ‘average life span’ is identified by dansei ‘men’. Hence (61) observes the ICS as well, and the acceptability results.

8. The interaction between CCS and ICS It is important to note that the problem of subjectivization is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but a continuum. The acceptability of utterances under discussion varies from full acceptability through slight awkwardness, marginality, and unacceptability to total unintelligibility. It also often fluctuates depending on the speaker. It seems that this situation can be dealt with by the interaction of the CCS and the ICS. Let us observe the following examples and their respective diagrams showing whether the CCS and the ICS are satisfied. In the diagrams, ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’ stand for the first, second, and third subjects, respectively, in the structure [X-ga Y-ga Z-ga . ..I. (62)

(63a) (63b) (63~) (63d) (64)

(65a) (65b) (6%) (65d)

Bunmeikoku -ga dansei-ga heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. (=(61)) civilized countries-NOM male -NOM average life SPXI-NOM is-short ‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short. ’ CCS for X: OK CCS for Y: OK ICS for Y: OK ICS for Z: OK ? ? Hitori musume-ga -ga gaizin kekkon -ga aite da. (=(49)) one daughter-NOM marriage-NOM partner-NOM foreigner is ‘It is my only daughter who is going to marry a foreigner.’ CCS for X: OK CCS for Y: OK ICS for Y: OK ICS for Z: *

*Kono gyookai-ga 250cc-ga ootobai -ga yoku urete-iru. this industry-NOM -NOM motorcycle-NOM well sell ‘This industry’s 25Occ motorcycles sell well.’ (67a) CCS for X: OK (67b) CCS for Y: * (67~) ICS for Y: * (66)

232

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

(67d) ICS for Z: OK (68)

(69a) (69b) (69~) (69d) (70)

(71a) (71b) (71~) (71d)

** Sannin-ga dansei-ga gaadoman-ga sono kinko-o three -NOM men -NOM guard -NOM that safe-Act ‘Three male guards kept watch on the safe.’ CCS for X: * CCS for Y: * ICS for Y: * ICS for Z: OK

keibi sita. kept watch on

***Kyoto-ga oi -ga Taroo-ga Amerika e itta. -NOM nephew-NOM -NOM America to went ‘My nephew Taro, who lives in Kyoto, went to America.’ CCS for X: * CCS for Y: * ICS for Y: * ICS for Z: *

As we have seen in sections 6 and 7, example (62) satisfies all the necessary requirements, as represented in (63). Hence full acceptability results. In (64), as shown in section 7, the CCS is satisfied both for ‘X’ and for ‘Y’, and the ICS is satisfied for ‘Y’. However, the ICS is not satisfied for ‘Z’, since aite ‘partner’ is not conceptually identified by kekkon ‘marriage’. Hence marginality results. In (66), as shown in diagram (67) this industry is characterized by the statement that the 25Occ motorcycles it produces sell well, but 25Occ is not characterized by the statement that motorcycles sell well; Furthermore, 25Occ is not identified by this industry, but motorcycles are identified by 2.50~~. Hence example (66) satisfies two requirements, but violates the other two, and unacceptability results. Example (68) is worse than (66), and this is attributable to the fact that it satisfies only one requirement. Sannin ‘three people’ is not characterized by the statement that male guards kept watch on the safe, and sannin-no dansei ‘three men’ is not characterized by the statement that guards kept watch on the safe, either. Further, men are not identified by the number, but guards are identified by men. Therefore, (68) satisfies only one requirement, and total unacceptability results. Example (70) is totally unintelligible, and the worst among the five sentences given above. This is due to the fact that it satisfies none of the necessary requirements, as shown in (71). Kyoto is not characterized by the statement that my nephew Taro went to America, and Kyoto-no oi ‘my nephew living in Kyoto’ is not characterized by the statement that Taro went to America, either. Moreover, oi ‘nephew’ is not identified by a place such as Kyoto, since it is primarily identified by a possessor who has the nephew. Taro is also not identified by oi ‘nephew’, since proper nouns like Taro are already identified in the universe of discourse. Hence diagram (71) predicts that (70) will be totally unintelligible. The above illustration is just an attempt to deal with a continuum of acceptability observed in the phenomenon of subjectivization. Of course, we do not mean, for instance, that a sentence satisfying three requirments is always better than a sentence satisfying two requirements. We also do not fully understand whether the CCS

K. Takami, A. Kamio i Lingua 99 (I 996) 207-235

233

and the ICS work with the same strength. Therefore, much is left for future study, but it would be appropriate to say that the interaction of the CCS and the ICS can explain the fact that the problem under consideration is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.

9. Conclusion In this paper, we have discussed the phenomena of topicalization tivization in Japanese, as shown in the following examples:

and subjec-

nagai. (=( la)) (72) Zoo -wa hana -ga elephant-TOP trunk-NOM is-long ‘Elephants have long trunks.’ heikin-zyumyoo -ga mizikai. (=(6c)) (73) Bunmeikoku -ga dansei -ga civilized countries -NOM male -NOM average life SPEWNOM is-short ‘It is in civilized countries that men are such that their average life span is short.’ We have argued that the acceptability of these sentences is crucially dependent on whether the topicalized or subjectivized NP is characterized by the rest of the sentence, and have proposed the Characterization Condition for the ‘Zoo-wa hana-ga nagi’ construction (CC) and the Characterization Condition for Subjectivization (CCS). We have also argued that the phenomenon of subjectivization, which seems more complex than that of topicalization, is subject to the requirement that ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ in the structure [X-ga Y-ga Z-ga . . .] be identified by ‘X’ and ‘Y’, respectively, which we have called the Identifiability Condition for Subjectivization (ICS). It has also been argued that a cline of acceptability often observed in the subjectivization phenomenon can be accounted for by the interaction between the CCS and the ICS. The most significant result of this work, then, is that two conditions, i.e., the CC/CCS and the ICS, which were originally proposed to explain preposition stranding in English, turn out to apply to topicalization and subjectivization in Japanese, which would suggest that they have a cross-linguistic validity. It is important to note that our pragmatic knowledge or common sense plays an important role in deciding whether or not a given predicate provides a pragmatically natural property of the topic or the subjectivized subject. Observe the following pairs of examples: (74a) Y amada- san-wa okusan-ga bizin da. Mr.-TOP wife-NOM good-looking is ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is good-looking.’ da. (74b) Yamada-san-wa okusan-ga daigaku-kyoozyu university-professor is ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is a university professor.’

234

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

(75a) *Yamada-san-wa okusan-ga se-ga hikui. stature-NOM short ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is short.’ (75b) *Yamada-san-wa okusan-ga ki-ga yowai. mind-NOM weak ‘Mr. Yamada’s wife is timid.’ Examples (74a,b) are acceptable, while (75a,b) are marginal or unacceptable to most speakers. The reason must be that we consider the fact that Mr.Yamada’s wife is good-looking, or a university professor to be a piece of information which is helpful in characterizing Mr. Yamada, while we do not consider the information that his wife is short or timid to be helpful in this regard. Thus, what we need to investigate is what property or properties may be considered to characterize a given subject or topic. This is a very difficult empirical question, since investigating it would mean that we would have to go into the structure of our pragmatic knowledge. Obviously, this is far beyond the scope of this paper, which is an attempt to specify what characterizes the acceptability of the two Japanese constructions. The contrast seen in the above examples, however, suggests one line along which we might proceed in our exploration. That is, the examples in (74) describe something remarkable about Mr. Yamada’s wife, whereas those in (75) describe something quite ordinary or unremarkable about her. This suggests that information which attracts the hearer’s attention tends to constitute a characterization, while information that does not tends not to do so. Therefore it seems that something like the notion of newness or more important information (Kuno, 1983; Takami, 1992) may play a very significant role in defining the concept of characterization. Further investigation along this line seems promising and should be fruitful. References Blakemore, D., 1992. Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatic% Oxford: Blackwell. Bolinger, D., 1975. On the passive in English. LACUS 1, 57-80. Cattell, R., 1976. Constraints on movement rules. Language 52, 18-50. Cureton, R., 1979. The exception to passive in English: A pragmatic hypothesis. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 9, 39-53. Erteschik-Shir, N., 198 1. More on extractability from quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 665-670. Fagan, S., 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203. Grice, P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole, J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Keyser, S. and T. Roeper, 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381416. Kitahara, Y., 1975. Nihongo-no syugo-Mikami bunpoo-no sai-hyooka-no tameni [Subject in Japanese: For a reassessment of Mikami’s grammar] Gengo 4, 194-202. Kuno, S., 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kuno, S., 1978. Danwa no bunpoo (The grammar of discourse). Tokyo: Taishukan. Kuno, S., 1983. Principles of discourse deletion. Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Linguistics, 3Wll. Kuno, S., 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

K. Takami, A. Kamio I Lingua 99 (1996) 207-235

235

Kuno, S., 1989. Passive sentences. Manuscript, Harvard University. Kuno, S., 1990. Passivization and thematization. In: 0. Kamada, W. Jacobsen (eds.), On Japanese and how to teach it: In honor of Seiichi Makino, 43-66. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Lyons, J., 1977. Semantics, Vols. 1 and 2. London: Cambridge University Press. Mikami, A., 1960. Zoo-wa hana-ga nagai [Elephants have long trunks]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rice, S., 1987. Towards a transitive prototype: Evidence from atypical English passives. BLS 13. Saito, M., 1982. Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Unpublished manuscript, MIT. Shibatani, M., 1978. Nihongo-no bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taisyukan. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson, 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Takami, K., 1992. Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tuyn, H., 1970. Semantics and the notion of transitivity in passive construction. Studia Neophilologica 42, 60-7 1.