Achievement in Japanese — Theoretical Implications

Toshiyuki Ogihara University of Washington

ogihara@uw.edu Chronos 11 (17 June, 2014)

This handout and other papers: http://faculty.washington.edu/ogihara/

Basic Data

•  -te iru in Japanese seems to be ambiguous. (1) Achievement + teiru: progressive

kanojo-wa utat-te iru ‘She is singing’ she-top sing-te iru

(2) Process + teiru: resultative taore-te iru fall -te iru ‘being on the ground (after having fallen)’

2

Previous analyses

•  Ambiguity  thesis  —  an  obvious  possibility,  but  not  very  revealing  

•  Differences  in  the  lexical  seman>cs  of  verbs  in  Japanese  and  English  (Ogihara  2004)  

•  Gist:  Japanese  achievements  refer  to  states  that  result  from  a  change;  English  achievements  refer  to  preparatory  stage  that  lead  to  a  change  of  state  

3

Achievements

•  Jp:  taore  ‘fall’  indicates  |-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐|          the  state  of  being  flat  on  the  ground  

•  Eng:  fall  over  indicates  |-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐|                                      upright                                  on  the  ground  

te  iru/be  ing  indicate  being  in  the  middle  of  a  relevant  interval.  Major  difference  between  Jp  and  Eng.  

4

Activities/Accomplishments

•  Jp:  aruku  ‘walk’  indicates  |-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐|          the  process  of  walking  

•  Eng:  walk  indicates  |-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐|        the  process  of  walking              

te  iru/be  ing  indicate  being  in  the  middle  of  a  relevant  interval  No  difference  between  Jp  and  Eng  here.  

5

issues

•  One major issue here: intuitively, falling over = taore, and positing a lexical semantic difference is not intuitive.

•  Including the preparatory stage or the resultant state as part of the verb’s meaning is not optimal.

•  An alternative proposal will be presented in this talk.

6

Thematic roles

•  Jp -te iru: sensitive to thematic roles associated with the subject, not the duration (Okuda 1978, Kudo 1995, Shirai 2000)

•  on-going process interpretation: the subject is an agent/experiencer

•  Resultant state interpretation: the subject is a theme/undergoer

7

Kratzer (1996)

•  External argument is introduced by Voice (3) Mittie Agent feed the dog. ⟦feed the dog⟧ λxλe [feed(the dog)(e)] ⟦agent feed the dog⟧ λxλe [Agent(x)(e) & feed(the dog)(e)] ⟦Mittie agent feed the dog⟧ λe [Agent(Mittie)(e) & feed(the dog)(e)]

8

Parsons (1990)

•  thematic roles are relations between individuals and events/states; verbs are (simple) event predicates

(4) Brutus killed Caesar. (5) ∃e[Subj(e, b) & Obj(e,c) & killing(e)] •  Kratzer’s proposal adopts this re the

subject, but not re the object

9

Japanese data

•  Japanese allows almost all nominals to be dropped.

(6) A: Tabe-ta? B: Tabe-ta. eat-PAST eat-PAST

•  Perhaps nominals in Japanese are truly optional.

10

•  Some “case markers” in Japanese have variable semantics. Kuno (1973) among others

(7) A: Kimi, dare-ga sukina no? you who-NOM like-Q

B: Mary-ga suki-da. Mary-NOM like-PRES Who do you like? I like Mary.

(8) A: Ano otoko-o sukina hito iru-no? that man-ACC like person be-Q B: Mary-ga suki-da (yo). Mary-NOM like-PRES Is there someone who likes that guy? Mary likes him. Intuitively, the meaning of suki-da ‘like’ is invariable in (7) and (8).

11

Hypothesis

•  Relevant achievement verbs in English and Japanese have the same semantics.

•  All “nominal arguments” are introduced via independent “thematic roles” (or syntactic heads) in Japanese. Verbs denote (simple) predicates of events. This is a neo-Davidsonian proposal faithfully applied to Jp.

12

•  Intuition: We must show the difference in what is happening to the subject now.

•  Assume that a thematic role is a three-place relation involving a time, an eventuality, and an entity.

•  -te iru interacts with the subject thematic role

(9) Ki-ga taore-te iru tree-NOM fall-te iru. ∃t1∃e[now⊆ t1 & result(t1, e, the_tree) &

falling-over(e)] At the utterance time, the tree has a

resultant state of falling over. (resultant state interpretation)

13

•  Simple past/present tense sentences refer to events directly.

(10) Ki-ga taore-ta. ‘The tree fell over.’ ∃t1∃e[TIME(e) < now & result(t1, e,

the_tree) & fall_over (e)] The tree has a resultant state of e at the utterance time.

(11) Ki-ga taore-ru. ‘The tree falls/will fall over.’

∃t1∃e[TIME (e) > now & result(t1, e, the_tree) & fall_over (e)]

Note: TIME is a function from eventualities to times.

14

(12) Tom-ga hasit-te iru. Tom-NOM run-te iru

∃t1∃e[now⊆ t1 & agent(t1, e, Tom) & running(t2, e)] Tom is the agent of e at the utterance time.

(13) Tom-ga hasit-ta. Tom-NOM run-PAST

∃t1∃e[Time(e) < now & agent(t1, e, Tom) & running(t2, e)]

15

The net effect

•  The above proposal allows us to distinguish between activities/accomplishments and achievements in relation to -te iru without positing a semantic difference between fall over in English and taore in Japanese.

•  The proposal also allows us to see that simple past sentences in Jp and Eng receive the same interpretation.

16

Compositional Semantics

•  -te iru is interpreted as in 14: (14) λf<i,<e,t>> . λt . λe [now⊆t & f(t)(e)] •  Past tense is interpreted as in 15: (15)  λf<i,<e,t>> . λt . λe

[TIME(e) < now & f(t)(e)] •  (14) or (15) combines with a sentence

meaning of type <i,<e,t>>. •  Types: i = times, e = entities

17

Syntax

My proposal is like Kratzer’s only so far as severing the external argument from its verb. I “extend” Kratzer’s proposal in that even the internal argument is separated from its verb in the semantics.

As for the syntactic analysis, I merely propose that each thematic role introduces a nominal expression.

18

Syntax  

(16) [[[Ki-­‐ga]            [taore]]  te  iru]                tree-­‐nom  fall                  teiru  

(16) ⟦taore⟧ λe [falling_over (e)] ⟦ki-ga taore⟧ λt. λe [state (t, e, the_tree) & falling_over (e)]

⟦ki-ga taore teiru⟧ λt. λe [now⊆t & state (t, e, the_tree) & falling_over (e)]

19

English  

•  The  role  that  be  -­‐ing  is  similar  to  that  of  -­‐te  iru.  However,  some  nominals  bear  different  thema>c  roles  than  Japanese.  

(16)  The  tree  is  falling  over.  (17) ∃t1∃e[now⊆ t1 & theme(t1, e, the_tree) & falling-over(e)] The  tree  is  now  the  theme  of  an  event  of  falling  over.  (on-­‐going  process  interpreta>on)  

20

Further  mo>va>on  

•  Thema>c  roles  can  be  slightly  different  across  languages.  Ikegami  (1981),  etc.  

(18)  #  Mary  burned  the  firewood.  But  it  did  not  burn.  (19)    Al-­‐wa  takigi-­‐o                      moyasi-­‐ta  ga,                                Al-­‐top  firewood-­‐acc  burn-­‐past  but,                      moenakat-­‐ta.                    burn-­‐neg-­‐past              ‘Al  tried  to  burn  the  firewood.                But  it  did  not  catch  fire.’  We  can  say  that  there  is  a  subtle  but  important  difference  in  thema>c  roles  associated  with  the  object,  not  necessarily  that  burn  and  moyasu  have  different  seman>cs.  

21

References  

•  Dowty,  David  R.  1979.  Word  meaning  and  montague  grammar.  Dordrecht:  Kluwer.    

•  Kratzer,  Angelika.  1996.  Severing  the  external  argument  from  its  verb.  In  Phrase  structure  and  the  lexicon.  Ed.  J.  Rooryck  and  L.  Zaring.  109-­‐137.  Dordrecht:  Kluwer.  

•  Kudo,  M.  1995.  Asupekuto,  Tensu  Taikei  to  Tekusuto:  Gendai  Nihongo  no  Jikanno  Hyougen.  Hituzi  Syobo.  Tokyo.  

22

References  (2)  

•  Ogihara,  T.  1998.  ‘The  ambiguity  of  the  -­‐te  iru  form  in  Japanese’.  Journal  of  East  Asian  LinguisEcs  7:87–120.    

•  Okuda,  Y.  1978.  ‘Asupekuto  no  kenkyuu  o  megune  (1),  (2)  (on  the  study  of  aspect).’  Kyoiku  Kokugo  33–44:  14–27.    

•  Shirai,  Y.  2000.  ‘The  seman>cs  of  the  Japanese  imperfec>ve  -­‐teiru:  An  integra>ve  approach’.  Journal  of  Pragma>cs  32:327–361.    

23