意味構造を用いたテンス・アスペクトの包括的扱いについて

平 成

1

3

年 度

平 成

1

6

年 度

科学研究費補助金(基盤研究 (

C

)(

2

)

)

研究成果報告書

意味構造を用いたテンス・アスペクトの包括的扱いについて

(課題香号

13610675)

0871437996

2005

年(平成

1

7

年)

3

月

研究代表者

板東美智子

(滋賀大学教育学部助教授)

D

f7';'

ト

C{

~

平成

1

3

年度

平成

1

6

年度

科学研究費補助金(基盤研究

(

C

)(

2

)

)

研究成果報告書

意味構造を用いたテンス・アスペクトの包括的扱いについて

(課題番号

1

3

6

1

0

6

7

5

)

2

0

0

5

年(平成

1

7

年)

3

月

研究代表者

板東美智子

(滋賀大学教育学部助教授)

はしがき この報告書は、平成 13年 度 平 成 17年度の 4年間に交付された科学研究費補助金に よる基盤研究

(

C

)

(2)

r

意味構造を用いたテンス・アスペクトの包括的扱いについてJ(課 題 番 号 13610675)の研究成果をまとめたものである。

H

担 盤 研 究 代 表 者 板 東 美 智 子 (平成15年9月まで阿南工業高等専門学校一般教科助教授) (平成15年10月から滋賀大学教育学部助教授)[email protected]!!a.U.3c.in 交付を受けた研究経費 平 成13年 度 1，000，000円 平 成14年 度 500，000円 平 成15年 度 700，000円 平成16年 度 700，000円 総 計 2，900，000円 亜室盛塁 (1)学会誌等の論文、および、単行本の章の分担執筆 *印の論文は本報告書に収録のもの。 *Bando. MichikQ， "Causation and Tense Morpheme -tain Japanese，"Unpublished manuscript， March 25， 2005.(Part of this paper will be presented at The 14th_World Congress of Applied Linguistics AlLA 2

∞

5 at Madi回n，Wisconsin USA on July 28， 2005)

(Summary) This paper attemptsωsolve the two problems:(i)why some causative sentences imply its resultant caused subevent， while others does not necessarily; (ij)

according ωthe implication differences， why we judge the implication with the past tense.For the former problem， we classified causative verbs inωthree types and described each property. For the lat伽 problem，we described the function of the tense morpheme -taformally and proposed that-tahas fixed its reference time ωthe event time of the headed subevent.Then we showed the relationship between the function of -taand the implication differences of causatives.

*盛夏差畳王・八木文子・福津義巳、「時間表現に関するコミュニケーションギャップにつ いてj未刊行論文、滋賀大学教育学部・附属養護学校との共同研究、 2005年3月22日. (要旨) 附属養護学校中学部の国語の授業において、子どもたちが過去・現在・未来を 混在させながら表現していることが観察された。実験授業の会話分析をデータに、子ども たちは，その発達過程の中で何を手がかりに過去・現在・未来の時間表現を行っているの か，正しい時間表現ができるようになることの意義は何なのかを明らかにし、今後の国語 教育に役立つ支援策第一案を考察した。 松村宏美・藍亙蓋畳王、「他動詞「しめる Jの多義派生とレキシコンJ、『レキシコンフォー ラム 1

J

、影山太郎他編、ひつじ書房、 2005年4月発行(予定). (要旨)日本語文法学会第5回大会での発表論文「動詞「しめるJの多義性と概念、構造J を理論的に発展させたもの。特に、名詞句の特徴を、特質構造 CPustejovsky1995)を用 いて記述し、これにより、他動詞「締めるJ

r

絞めるJ

r

閉めるJの意味的連続性が動詞の 語集概念構造と目的語名詞句の特質構造の組み合わせから生じていることを形式的に示し、 レキシコンにおける「しめる Jの多義性派生のメカニズムを提案した。 *盛夏差宜王、「日本語心理動詞の四分類とアスベクチュアリテイj、『滋賀英文学会論集』、 第12号、滋賀大学英文学会、 pp.20-39、2004年1月. (要旨)本論は、まず、「経験者J主語の日本語心理動詞を、目的語位置に共起する「にJ 名詞句、「をJ名詞句の分布とその意味的特徴によって四分類した。次に、その助詞「にJ と「をJの分布と、動詞のアスペクトさらに文のアスベクテュアリティとの対応を観察し て、助詞の使い分けとアスペクトとの関連性を指摘した。最後に、共起する名詞句の特徴 によって同じ心理動詞でもアスペク卜が違ってくる現象から、レキシコンには実現可能な アスベクトの候補が記載されていることを仮定した。 *亙亙蓋笠王、「第6章日英語対比と文法指導一時間表現を中心に一J、『コミュニカティ ブな文法指導理論と実践』、太田垣正義編著、開文社、 pp.109-124、2003年3月. (要旨)学生が英文和訳や英作文をする場合、複文構造や仮定法になるとその時間表現に 混乱が見られることがある。彼らの誤答を分析し、原因は臼本語の助動詞「たjを単純に 過去形ととらえていることにあると指摘した。その観察をもとに、「たJの機能を「過去形j 11

「完了形J

r

仮定形Jに分類し、そこから、日英の複文構造の時制用法の違いや仮定法過去 形におけるリアリティ消失のための「たJ、などの説明を導入することを提案した。

(2) 口頭発表

Bando. MichikQ， "The Lexical Entry ofTense Morphemes inJapanese， " The 14th_World Congress of AppliedLinguisticsAlLA 2005， Madison， Wisconsin US，AJuly 28， 2005.(予 定)

(Summary) Japanese has explicit tensemorphemes: nonpast， -(r)u， and past， .ta. Besides their tense settingfunctions， theyhave another function ωrefer ωsome focus point of an event which a predicate denotes. This paper presents formally how such tensemorphemes which have complex functions are listed in mentall巴xicon

松村宏美・蓋亙蓋宜壬動詞「しめる」の多義性と概念構造J， 日本語文法学会第 5回大 会<パネノレセッション>

r

動 詞 の 多 義 性 ・ 同 義 性 と 構 文J， 発 表 論 文 集 ， 記 載 頁 (79・86)，2004年11月 初 日 ， 於 関 西 学 院 大 学 . (要旨)

r

締めるJ

r

絞めるJ

r

閉めるJの異なる漢字で表される他動詞「しめるJを多義語 として捉え、その意味的連続性が、動詞の語黍概念構造と目的語名詞句の意味的特徴の組 み合わせから生じていることを主張した。中級となる「締めるjの LCS には、「しめる対 象Jだけでなく「しめる場所Jも記載されていると仮定し、「場所Jに焦点が当たると「絞 めるJが派生され、 一方、「場所Jが「開口部Jになれば「閉めるJが派生されることを示 した。

Takagi， Sachiko and Michiko B且ndQ，"Who laughsatwhom on the Osaka stage?:A

pragmatic analysis ofhumor ina modern Japanese play，"13th_{World Congress of} Applied Linguistics， AILA 2002 Singapore， December， 2002.

(Summary) Humor has oftenbeen seenasa phenomenon involving disregard ofGrice's (1967) maxims. Another perspectiveis obviously intβntional violation oftheprincipleof relevance in Sperl】巴rand Wilson. (1986) We instead focus on humorous situation

where a personacts as ifhe/shecouldnot followtheprinciple of relevance， not just violateit intentionally. By analyzingwho referstowhich context.insuch a situation，

wealmωclarifya new phase ofhumor

目 次

Causa1ion and TenseMorphem巴 ーωinJapanesc

日本語心理動詞の四分類とアスベクチュアリティ 27

日英語対比と文法指導一時間表現を中心に一 45

C

a

u

s

a

t

i

o

n

and

T

e

n

s

e

Morphen1e

-

t

αin

J

a

p

a

n

e

s

e

*

p a . 、 E E d 円 し

ovda

占 比

u

b

m

仕 -K 甲 、 σb

M

m

u

山

o

u

e

D L U 州 暗 命

B

m

&

n

a

'h u

March 2

5

，

2005

1

Introduction

Japanese has explicit tense morphem白 nonpast

，

イ

r)u

，

and past

，

-tα. ¥Nhen an eveot or a state which the predicate indicales coincideswith or will occur after the time of speech act

，

we add

-

(

r

)

u

next

to thepredicate

，

出

in(la).When an event or a state occurs at a certaintime priorto the time of the speech act

，

we add -tanext tothepredicateヲas111

(1b) (1) a. Koori-ga toke-ru Ice-Nom melt-Nonpast 'The icemelts.' b.Koori-ga toke-ta. Ice-Nom m巴lt-Past 'The ice melted.'

I

t

seems that every phrasethath出 -taatits end shouldbe recognizedas the descri ption of past. For example.we cannot erase thefa，¥c he mn inthe example (2a). ln(2b)it impliesthat theicedisappears. Similarly

，

(2c)impliesthat the vasewas broken and (2d) the trash was burned.

(

2

)

a.Unergative int7.αηs山ve凹 rb Kare-ga eki-made hasit-ta He-Nom station-torun-Past 'He ran to the station.' .This papaer will be presenLed aL The 14th World Congressof Applied Linguistics at Madison. Wis -consinUSA on July28，2005.

z n v T ρ し U P し v u z e す ' u e t c d n ふ E U a E r u d u R U 1 e

ル同

町 泳 氾 ふ 1 ・ t E 仁 川 'e'ua?luvLrL 却 a 江 主 u g b 司 氏 p u ﹂ t n u ・ h u t c r 口 Y 1 0 0 下 寸 M A

noe--u

k

k

q

' h u c.Transitive verb: Kodomcトgakabin-o wat-ta. Child-Nom va.se-Acc break-pa.st 'The child broke the va.se.' d. Tr，αnsitive verb: Ozii-san-ga gomi-o moyasi-ta. Grandfather-Nom trash-Acc burn-Past 'My grandfather burned the tra.sh.'

I凶eresti時ly

，

however

，

we can read some causative sentences like (2d) to cancel the resultant caused event. Let us compare (2c) with (2d，)both of which have a causative transitive verb in (3) (3) a.勺(odomo-gakabir日 wat-ta ga kabin-wa ware-nal叫ーta. Child-Nom va.se-Acc break-Past but va.se-Nom break-not-pa.st 'The child broke the va.se but the vase was not broken.' b. Ozii-san-ga gomi-o moyasi-ta ga gomi-wa moe-nakat-ta. Grandfather-Nom trash-Acc burn-Pa.st but trash-Nom burn-not-past

'My grandfather burnt the tra.sh but the tra.sh wa.snot burned.' Some predicate has the both readings like (3a

，

b) if it occurs in a certain context. (4) a. Kensetugaisha-ga biru-o san zikan kowa.si-ta ga Construction company-Nom building-Acc three hours take down-Pa.st but biru-wa koware-nakat-ta. building-Nom be taken down-not-Past 'The construction company has taken down the buiding for three hours but the building wa.snot taken down.' b. *Kensetugaisha-ga biru-o san zikan de kowa.si-ta ga Constructioncompany-Nom building-Acc three hours-in take down-Past but biru-wa koware-nakat-ta. building-Nom be taken down-not-Past

'The construction company has taken down the buiding in three hours but the building was not taken down.'

円

ノ

f:"

Here we are confronted by two problems. The firstiswhy some causative sentences can， read to cancel their resultant caused event while others cannot. The secondiswhat part of an event/a state the morpheme

-

t

αdesc山 esas past actually. This papar attempts五rst to classify theJapanese causative transitive verbs and describe their semantic properties. Next we try todescribesemantic structures of the tense morphemes

，

イ

r

)

u

and

-

t

α

，

to show what knowledge Japanese speakershave about tense in the mentallexicon. Consequently

，

we will show how the tense of a transitive verb phrase is fixed

，

and offer one solution to the problem of the cancellation

In the next section

，

we will classify Japanese causative transitive verbs intofourgroups and describe their semantic properties; meanwhile

，

we will introduce the concept ofEvent

Heαdednessby Pust匂ovsky(1995)which plays an important rolein白fix幻(1叩i

3

丸，some previousresearchon

-

(

r

)

u

and

-

t

αwillbe introduced. Then we will present our formaldesc坤tionsof

イ

'

r

)

u

and

-

t

α. Section 4 deals with the relation between p出 ttense setting and the cancellation of implication. The lastsection contains the summary of the main points that have been made inthe previous sections.

2

C

l

a

s

s

i

f

i

c

a

t

i

o

n

of

J

apanese Causatives and t

h

e

i

r

Se-mantic Properties

There are some events whose resultant caused events can be cancelled. Such events are constructed by some causative transitive verbs

，

notby intransitive verbs. Here we are to classifyJapanese causative transitiveverbsand see their semantic properties

，

then point out what properties allowusthe cancellation. Kageyama (1996) divides transitive verbs into three types:(A)Lexicalcausatives: they are registered as a transitive verb in the lexiconas such;(B-a)Lexical derivatives:they are created at thelevelof lexicon with the form ofintransitiveV

+イ'

s

)

e

-

;

(B-b)Lexicalderivatives: they are created at thelevel oflexiconwith the form ofintransitiveV

+イ

's)as-/-os-;(B-c)Lexicalderivatives:they are created atthe leveloflexiconwith theform of transitive V

+イ

's)e-;(C-a)Syntactic derivatives: they are created at thelevelof syntax with theform ofunergativeV

+

-(s)ase-;(C-b)Syntacticderivatives:they are created at thelevelof syntax with the form of unaccusative V

+イ

s')ase-;(C

サ

Syntacticderivatives: they are created at thelevelof syntax with theform of transitive V

+イ

's)αse.The examples in (5)

，

(6)

，

and (7) show these three types respectively.

Type A:

(5)ωα-ru"break

，

"

yαbu刊 刊ear

，

"

ni-ru刊oil

，

"

ue-間 "plantfαtume刊 "gather

，

"

koro

-su "kill，"etc. Type B

円 ぺ

(6)a. tat-u-tat-e-ru"build

，

"

susum-u-susum-e-ru "advance

，

"

narab-u-narab-付 u"ar -range，"etc.

b.ηαr-u-nαr-αs-u"ring

，

"

tob-u-tob-ω-u"fiy

，

"

her-u-her-αs-u"reduce

，

"

kaωak -u-kaωαk・ω-u"dry

，

"

ugok-u-ugok-αs-u"move

，

"

murer-u-mur-as-u "steam

，

"

oki-ru-ok-os-u"raise

，

"

etc.

c. ki-ru-kトse-ru"dress，"mi・ru-mt・se-ru"show，"etc.

(Kageyama

，

1996

，

p. 195

，

partially modified) Type C:

(7) a. aruk-u一αruk-ase-ru"make

+

0

+

walk

，

"

hasir-u-hαsir-ase-ru"make

+

0

+

ru民 "nak-u-nak-αse-ru"make

+

0

+

cry

，

"

etc.

b. odorok-u-odorok-ase-ru"make

+

0

+

surprised

，

"

sin-u-sin-ase-ru "make

+

0

+

die，"etc.

c.yom-u-

ν

om-αse-ru"make

+

0

+

read...

，

"

ki-ru-ki-sase-ru"make

+

0

+

put

on...

，

"

katαme-ru-katαme-saseー 向"make

+

0

+

harden...

，

"

etc

As for derivatives

，

some of them have selectional restrictions on the subject. The V

+

イ

's)e-form of lexical derivatives like (6a) or (6c) restricts its subject to Agent

，

while the V

十イ

's)αs-/ーos・formlike (6b) can take both Agent and Event

(8) a. Daiku-san-gaj*Kare-no moti-ie-ganbou-ga ie-o tat-e-ta Carpenter-Nom/*His desire to have his own ho山e-Nomhouse-Acc build-Past

'Thecarpenter built the house. /*His desire to have his own house built the house.'

b. Titioya-gajDenwa-no beru-ga kodomかook-osi-ta.

Father-NomjTelephone ringing child-Acc wake up-Past

'Hisfather woke up the child

.

f

The telephone ringign woke up thechild.'

(Kageyama

，

1996

，

pp. 196-197) The V

+イ

s)αse-form of syntactic derivatives also can take both kinds of subjects.

(刊例9

幻

)

Hal功haωοy戸a-g肝ajKo

∞

u凶s叩oku-酔ga kμod白omcかトn山iseih叫¥1

Mo叫tl悶 -Nom

叫

jScho

∞

01regulation-Nom chi吋品lild-D叫at school u江山I

'Mothermade herchildwear the school uniform.jThe school regulation made the

childwear the school uniform.'

-Based on the classificationabove

，

let usexamine w hichsentence(s) containing three typesof verbs should imply the resultant causedevent. (10)a. Type A with Agent subject: 勺{odomcトgakabin-o wat-ta ga kabin-wa ware-nakat-ta. Child-Nom vase-Acc break-Past but vase-Nom break-not-past 'The child broke the vase but the vase was not broken.' b. Type A with Event subject: *Kyouhuu-ga kabin-o wat-ta ga kabin-wa ware-nakat-ta. Strong wind-Nom vase-Acc break-Past but vase-Nom break-not-past

'The strong wind broke the vase but the vasewas not broken.' (11)a.Type B-a with Agent subject:

*Daiku-san-ga ie-o tat-e-ta ga ie-wa tat-nakat-ta. Carpenter-Nom house-Acc build-Past but house-Nom build-not-Past 'Thecarpenter built the house but the house was not built.'

b. Type B-a with Event subject:日

(12)a.Type B-b with Agent subject:

Titioya-ga kodomo-o ok-os-i-ta ga kodomcトwaoki-nakat-ta. Father-Nom child-Acc wake up-Past but child-Nom wake up-not-Past 'Hisfather woke up the child but the child did not wake up.'

b. Type B-b with Event subject:

*Denwa-no beru-ga kodomcトo01

←

os-i-ta ga kodomcトwaoki-nakat-ta. Telephone ringing child-Acc wake up-Past but child-Nom wake up-not-Past 'Thetelephone ringing woke up the child but he did not wake up.' (13)a.Type B-c with Agent subject: *Hahaoya-ga kodomo-ni seihuku-o ki-se-ta ga Mother-Nom child-Dat school uniform-Acc put orトmade-Pastbut kodomo-wa seihuku-o ki-nakat-ta. child-Nom school uniform-Acc put on-not-Past 'Mothermade her child put on the school uniform but he did not put it on.' b. Type B-c with Event subject:日

(14) a. Type C-a with Agent subject:

?Tarcトga Hanako-o hasir-ase-ta ga Hanako-wa hasir-anakat-ta. TarcトNomHanako-Acc run-make-Past but Hanako-Nom cry-not-Past 'Taromade Hanako run but she did not run.'

-b. Type C-a with Event subject:

*Sono sigoto-ga Hanako-o hasir-ase-ta ga Hanako-wa hasir-anakat-ta. The work-Nom Hanako-Acc run-make-Past but Hanako-Nom run-not-Past

'The work made Hanako run but she did not run.' (15) a. Type C-b with Agent subject:

*Ken-ga Naomi-o odorok-ase-ta ga Naomi-wa odoroka-nakat-ta. Ken-Nom Naomi-Acc surprise-Past but Naomi-Nom surprised-not-Past

'Ken surprised Naomi but she was not surprised.' b. Type C-b with Event subject:

本Sonosiraseトga Nao- ロ註-0 odorokι←〈-ase-taga Nao口廿-wa odoroka.引 akatι-ta.

The news-Nom N、~aωOffilト-Acc sur戸pns臼e-Pa出.stbut Naωοm叩1討liト-小トNomsurprised-not-Past

'The news surprised Naomi but she was not surprised.' (16) a. Type C-c with Agent subject:

Hahaoya-ga kodomo-ni seihuku-o ki-sase-ta ga Mother-Nom child-Dat school uniform-Acc put on-make-Past but kodomo-wa seihuku-o ki-nakat-ta.

child-Nom school uniform-Acc put on-not-Past

'Mother made her child put on the school uniform but he did not put it on.' b. Type C-c with Event subject:

*Kousoku-ga kodomo-ni seihuku-o ki-sase-ta ga School regulation-Nom child-Dat school uniform-Acc put on-make-Past but kodomo-wa seihuku-o ki-nakat-ta.

child-Nom school uniform-Acc put on-not-Past

'The school regulation made the child put on the school uniform but he did not put it on.'

So far we have seen that the causative verb in the examples above whose resultant

caused eventscan be cancelled are these form of derivatives in the examples above: lexical derivatives of intransitive V

+

-(s)αs-/-os-form

，

eι moy-αs-u"burn

，

"

ok-os-u "wake up

，

"

odorok-as-u"surprise

，

"

and syntactic derivatives of transitive V

+イ

s)ase-form

，

e必 kμzト-s卯αS記e-ru"make

+

0

+

pu凶ton孔.….一

.

3

"

ν

抑om-ωsαe仔 - 叩"make

+

0

+

r閃eadι.….日."In addition to this

，

all these sentences have Agent subjects. Agent means someone who does something or

causessomething to happen intentionally. On the other hand

，

the sentences with lexical transitive verbs

，

eιωα-ru"break

，

"

lexical derivatives of intransitive V

+イ

s

)

e

-

form

，

eι t

αt-e-ru"build

，

"

and syntactic derivatives of V

+イ

's)ase-with Event subjects necessarily imply the resultant caused event.

I

t

is not clear whether the sentences with syntactic derivatives of intral

-not. Especially

，

the sentence withtheunaccusative V

+

-

(s)αse form

，

e.g.

，

odorok-ase -ru

，

seems ungrammatical when we read it without implying the resultant causedevent. One of the reasons for this is that thesubjectof odorok-"be surprised" is not Agent but Experiencer who has no intention. Kageyama (1996) describes thesemanticproperties of derivative su日xes

，

-

向)

e

and -(s) αs-メ~os- within thc framework of LexicalConceptualStructures (LCS) asfollows: (17) a.ート:x CONTROL [event

…

]

b. -as

チ

os-:[eventx ACT] CAUSE [event

…

]

(Kageyama

，

1996

，

p. 197) Both CONTROL and CAUSE functions mean causationand requre two arguments. The causationof CONTROL is directlycausedby thefirst argument x

，

while the causationof CAUSE is caused either by the first argumet x indirectly or the first s山eve凶 [eventx ACT].

With these f，おor口rmm訂叫a配e，we assume that w hen the自 凶 argumentof causation is salient (or

focused) and the second one stays in the background

，

the cancellation of the resultant caused event (or the second argument) can occur.

Here

，

we will introduce theconceptof Euent Heαdedness to formalize theconcept of 'backgrounding' and its notation from Pustejovsky(1995). (18a-l) are the illustrationsof the possible patterns of the Euent Heαdedness. (18) a.[eventel* <目 e2] -build b.[eventel< 0 : e2 *] -αrnue c.[eventelキ < 民 e2*]-giuE d.[eventel< 0 : e2 ] -UNDERSPECIFIED e.[eventel* 00: e2] -buy f.[eventel0民 e2本]-sell g.[eventel * 0民 e2本

]-m

αT叩 h.[eventel00: e2]-UNDERSPECIFIED i .[eventel *

<0

0: e2] -ωαlk j.[eventel

<0

目 e2*]一 切lkhome k.[eventel

*

<0

田町本]-?? 1 .[eventel

<

0匹 e2]-UNDERSPECIFIED

-

7

-(Pustejovsky

，

1995

，

p.73)

According to Pustejovsky(1995

，

pp.69-73)

，

<目 isthe relation of

“

exhaustive ordered part of，"where two subevents are temporally ordered such that the五rstprecedes the second

，

。

目

isthe relation of

“

exhaustive overlap part of

，

"

where two subevents ocuur simultaneously

，

and

<0

民 isthe relation of

“

exhaustive ordered overlap

，

"

where one event begins

，

and subsequently gives rise to another process which continues only while the

fi.rst event continues to hold. * designates the

“

head" event. Event heαdedness provides a way ofindicatinga type of foregrounding and backgrounding of event arguments. An event structure provides a configuration where events are not only ordered by temporal precedence

，

but also by relative proITUnence. Headedness is a property of all event sorts

，

but acts to distinguish the set of transitions

，

specifying what part of the matrix event is being focused by the lexical item in question.

Let us apply Event Headedness to Japanese causatives and consider how those verbs are written in lexicon. As we've already seen in the examples that the causations with Event subject cannot be cancelled their resultant caused events (or caused subevents)

，

we will only consider the causations with Agent subject仕omnow on.

First

，

inthe group of Type A:lexicalcausatives

，

ω αφ-叩 "br巴伺ak

九"

for example

，

implys its

resultant caused event e2. Then ithasitsheadedness on the caused s山ubev刊en叱a剖S出1n(ο19

幻

)

.

(

い

19

幻

)

[eventel

<0

"， e2*

1

-Lexical causative wa-ru

(

ド

ex

斗

)

ポ匂切[(.ピodomo-ずgα k αωbin-oω αat-t印αg α久

，

k αabin-ω a u川 rc-n α k加αat-t臼α

，

'The child broke the vase

，

but the vase was not broken.'

Next

，

on B-a: lexical derivative causatives of intransitive

，

V -(s)e-form in the group of Type B

，

when we consider tat-e-r1L刊uild

，

"

and tuk-e-ru "turn on

"

，

for example

，

tαt-e-ru implys its caused subevent

，

while tuk-e-ru does not necessarily imply the subevent.

(

2

0

)

a.[mnt el<民 e2*

1

-Lexical derivative

，

intransitive V -(s)e-form

，

t旬at-e-r叩u

(ex)切αiku-sαn-gaie-o tαt・e-taga

，

時 watata-nakαt・ta

，

'The carpenter built the

house

，

but the house was not built.'

b. [eventel本

<0

"， e2

1

-Lexical derivative

，

intransit附 V

イ

's)e-form

，

tukーかru

(ex) Denki-o tuk-e-tαga

，

tukα-nakαt-tα

，

'1 turned on thelight

，

but it did not come on.

In the group B七 lexicalderivatives of intransitive V-βjαs

チ

os-form

，

they seem to allow their caused subevents to be cancelld

，

as seen in moy-as-u "burn" and ok-os-u "wake up

，

"

for example. Thus

，

they have their Event Headedess on el・

(

2

1

)

a.[eventel本

<0

"， e2

1

-Lexical derivative

，

intransitive V

イ

"s)as-form

，

moy-αs-u (ex) Gomi・omoy-as-i-tαgα

，

moe-nakat-ta

，

'1 burned the trash

，

but the trash was

not burned.'

-b. [event el

*

<0

匝 e2

1

-Lexical derivative

，

intransitive V -os-form

，

ok-os-u

(ex)f{odomo-o ok-os-i-tαga

，

kodomo-wa oki-nαkat-ta

，

'1 woke up my child

，

but he did not wake up.'

1n the group B-c: lexical derivatives of transitiveV

イ

s

)

e

・form

，

the implications of their sentences also varYi ki-se-l'u implys itscausedsubevent

，

while mi-se-rudoes not necessarily.

1n other words

，

ki-se-l'u has the Event Heαdednesson the caused subevent e2

，

while mi-se-ru

has it on the causing subecent el・ (22)a. [event el<巨 e2本

1

-Lexical derivative

，

transitiveV -(s)e-form

，

ki-se-l'u (ex)切odomo-nih叫 ルoki-se-ta ga

，

kodomo・wαh吋 ルoki-nakαt-ta

，

'1dressed my child

，

but he did not put it on.' b. [event el本

<0

医 e2]-Lexical derivative

，

transitive V-(s)e-form

，

mi-se刊

(

い

ex

吋)

Uke制et印吋uLkeε-白demt必buμ昨7 t

“

α

，

'1showed my 1D at the front desk

，

but he did not see it.' Thirdly

，

let us consider the group of Type C

，

i.e.

，

syntactic derivative causatives. 1n the goup of C角 unergativeV-(s)aseform

，

hasir-ase-ru

，

for example

，

can cancel its caused subevent.

(23)[event elキ<9<e2 ] -Syntactic derivative

，

unergativeV -(s)αse-form

，

αr叫-ase刊

(ex)Sensei-gαseito-o hasir-αse-tαgα kare-ωαhαs%r-αnakαt-ta

，

'The teacher made the student run

，

but he did not run.'

1n the group of C-b

，

unaccusative V

イ

's)aseform

，

odorok-αse-ru

，

for example

，

is s田msto have its sentence imply the caused subevent. Here we put the sign of Event Headedness on the subevent

(24)[event el

<

0

<

<

e2勺-Syntacticderivative

，

unaccusativeV

イ

s)αse-form

，

odorok-ase-ru (ex)ポf{en-gaNαor恥 oodorok-ase-ta ga

，

Naωomt

.

ι

寸-u凶t

surprised

，

but she was not surprised.'

Finally

，

in the group of C-c

，

transitive V -(s)ase form

，

as ki-sase-叫 forexample

，

can cancel its caused subevent

，

it has the Event Heαdedness on the causing subevent

，

as in (25).

(25)[event el

*

<

c

x

e2 ]-Syntactic derivative

，

transitive V

イ

's)ase-form

，

ki-sase刊

(ex)J{odomo・nihuku-o ki・sase-tαga

，

kodomo-t叫 ん 吋tωk川 αkαt-tα

，

'1 made my child

put on his clothes

，

but he did not put them on.'

-We have observed the several tests of event cancellation on three types ofcausatives

，

and assumed their properties of Event Headedne88. Then the followingtendencies areobtained: (i) When we read some causative sentences without implying the resultant caused events

，

thesentences have to have Agent subject. (ii) The lexical cau凶 ivesdepend on eachin

he悶 ltsemantic properties for eventcancellation.(iii) The lexical derivativeca凶 ativesof

intransitive V

+

-(8)α8-/-08-form can cancel its resultant causcdevent.(iv) The lexical derivative causatives of intransitivejtransitive V

+イ

's

)

e

-

form may depend on some出 pec

-tualproperties foreventcancellation. The accomplishcausativeslike tat-e-ru"build"imply the resultantcausedevent

，

while the achievement causatives like tuk-e-ru"turnon" do not necessarily imply it. The aspectualtendency is a tentative assumption

，

soit needs more detailed investigation. (v) The syntactic derivative causatives of unergativejtransitive V

+

イ

"s)αseform can cancelits resultant causedevent.(vi) The syntactic derivative causatives of unaccu叫 iveV

+イ

's)αseform are hard to cancel its resultant causedevent.One of

thereason may lie in the embeded subjects; e.g

，

・

the embedded subject of Hahαoya-ga kodomo-ni huku-o ki-sαse-ruis kodomo. The kodomo is Agent who has intention tocause theeventki-ru.On the other hand

，

the embedded subject ofJ<en-ga Naomトoodorok-αse

-ru is Naomi. The Naomi is not Agent but Experiencer who has no intention to cause the eventodorok-u.We assume that this difference should infl.uence the implications of the syntactic causativesentences

，

but the assumption needs the further investication as well.

Generally speaking

，

when the Agent subject and one of the su他 国 イs')as-/-os-or -(s)ase-(or -(s)e-in some context) constitute the causation

，

they have tbe function of foregroundinga causingsubevent.

I

t

puts the property of headednesson thesubevent.

Lastly

，

it should be noticed in this section that whenever we judgetheimplication

，

we make thesentencep回 t.When thesentencebeing judged is nonp出 t

，

it is not clear whether

it implystheresultant caused event or not.Compare the nonp出tV -ruform with the p出t

V-tαform:

(26) a.? Asu kabin-o wa-ru ga kabin-wa ware-na-i.

Tomorrow vase-Acc break-Nonpast but vase-Nom break-not-nonpast '1will break the vase tomorrow

，

but it will not be broken.'

b.*Kinou kabin-o wat-ta ga kabin-wa ware-nakat-ta. Yesterday vase-Acc break-past but vase-Nom break-not-past '1brokethevase yesterday

，

but it was not broken.'

(27) a. ?Imakara gomi-o moy-出-u ga gomi-wa moe-na-i.

Now trash-Acc burn-nonpast but trash-Nom burn-not-nonpast

'I'm going to burn the trash

，

but they will not be burned.' b. Kinou gomi-o moy-as-i-ta ga gomi-wa moe-nakat-ta.

Yesterdaytrash-Accburn-past but trash burn-not-past '1burned the trash yesterday

，

but they was not burned.' n u 噌 E よ

As seenabove

，

the tense morpheme

-

t

αmakes the judgement clear.The morpheme

-

t

α must have something to do with the event cancellation.Ithas some function which relate tense with Event Headedness besides the function of fixing tense of a sentence to past. In the next section

，

we will introduce thefunctionsof

-

t

αwhich have been discussed in previous studies. Then we will propose another formal description of-tαw hich incorpotates the relationship between tense and Event Heαdedness.

3 The Representation of

-

t

α

All the predicates have their tense set

，

either with-(r)uor -tα

，

when they are used in the sentence-final position. From now on

，

we show the phrasal semantic structure and its fixed tense to use the basic concept of FEATURE STRUCTURE. Ittreats a lexicalcategory

出 acomplex of grammatical properties. A feature structure is a way of representing

grammatical information. Formally

，

a feature structure consists ofa specification ofa set

offeatures(which they wiU write in upper case)

，

each of which ispaired with a particular value. (Sag& Wasow

，

1999

，

p. 48) (28) FEATURE1 VALUE1 FEATURE2 VALUE2 FEATUREn VALUEn (Sag& Wasow

，

1999

，

p. 49) Tentatively

，

the phrasal semantic representation with fixed tense is shown in (29)

，

where CS means Conceptual Structure which representsthe phrasal conceptual meanings and TENSE of the CS is fixed出 past. 、E E E E E E E E E E E ﹂ + b p b a p

E

Q U

N

S

E

C

T

r E E E E E ' B Ea -L

、

l J Q d つ ん ， ， i

_、

However

，

we have assumed that・tαhasthefunctionof relating tense with Event

Head-ednessas well出 自xingtense出 pastin the previous section. Then we have to revise the featur~， TENSE

，

and itsvalue

，

past

，

more precisely.

3

.

1

Reichenbach

ヲ

sSequence of Tenses

Reid悶 lbach(1947) argues that three di百erentkinds of time existina sentence. He insists that the tenses determine time with reference to the time point of the act of speech

，

i.e.

，

of the token uttered. A closer analysis reveals that the time indication given by tenses is of a rather complex structure. We interpret sentences not with any point like past or t i 句 E A

nonp回tbut with some sequenc白 oftenses. He nominates three points of time within the

sequenceof tenses. Let us quote his definition of them:

Let uscallthe time point of thetokenthepoint of speech[hereafter ST]. Then the three indications

，

'before thepoint of sp田ch¥'simultaneouswith

the point of speech'

，

and 'after the point ofsp田ch'

，

furnish only thr田 tenses;

since the number of verbtensesis obviously greater

，

we need a more complex interpretation. From a sentence like‘Peterhad gone' we seethatthe time order expressed inthetense does notconcernone event

，

but two events

，

whose positionsaredetermined with r白pecttothe point of speech. We shallcall

these time points thepoint of the e町 川[hereafterET] and thepoint of reference

[hereafter RT]. ln theexample the point of the event is the time when Peter went; the point ofreferenceis a iime between this point and the point of speech. (Reichenbach

，

1947

，

p. 288) With the definitionsofthe sequence of tenses

，

he alsodemands a principle ofthe per -mαnence of the refe陀ncepoint

，

which is picked up as (30). (30) The permαnence of the reference point: . .. although the events referred to in the clauses may occupy different time points

，

the reference point [RT] should be the same for all clauses. . . (Reichen

A compound sentence can be the clearexample of hisconceptof thesequenceof tenses. The example (31) may be diagramed出 (32).

(31) 1 had mailed the letter when John came and told me the news.

(Reiche出ach

，

1947

，

p. 293) 1st clause: El

一

(32) 2nd clause: 3rd clause: Rl - S

R

2

，

E

2

S

R

3

，

E

3

- S

(Reichenbach

，

1947

，

p. 293) Here

，

the three reference points coincide.Itwould be incorrect to say'1had mailed the letter when John hascome';in such a combination the reference point would have been changed.

In thecaseof Japanese

，

the tense morphemes

，

-

(

r

)

u

and -tα

，

have the functiontofix the RT ofa sentence as well as the function of ET. 円 ノ 臼 噌 E よ

(33) Taroo-wa Hanako-ga yorokon-dei-ru to it-ta Taro-Topic Hanako-Nom be pleased-Stative-Nonpast that say-Past 'Taro said that Hanako was pleased.'

The morpheme -tαin the main clause

，

nαTOO-Wα. . . it・αt

，

indicates its ET is past

，

further

，

-TUin the embedded clause

，

Hαn，ako-ga YOTOkon-dei-Tu

，

indicat白 itsET is p出tin (33). At

the same time

，

the -ta in the main clause fixes its RT出 P出 tprior to the ST of (33). The

RT of the whole sentence is set出 P出 tby the -ta.The time sequence of (33) is shown in

(34).

the main clause: El' Rl S (34 )

the embedded clause: E2' R2 - S

From the example of (33)

，

出

Japanesetense morphemes

ー

，

ta

，

have the function to set the feature RT of the whole sentence

，

1 will accommodate the notion of RT in our feature structure instead of TENSE in (29).

3

.

2

Igarashi

&

Gunji's Temporal System i

n

Japanese

The morpheme -tαhas been reported to have several meanings and functions. Te釘ramura

(1984

吋

)

claωI汀Iπms and mood a出S 1凶n(ρ35c

斗

)

.

(35) a. Kinou ano hon-o yon-da ka. Yesterday that book-Acc read-Past Question 'Did you read that book yesterday?' b. Mou Ano hon-o yon-da ka. Already that book-Acc read-Perfect Question 'Have you already read that book?'

c. Anata okuni-wa doko desi-ta ka-ne

You your country-Nom where Copula-Mood Question-Particle 'Where did you say you are from?'

(Teramura

，

1984

，

pp. 319-320) To follow up each function of・tαfurtherwould take us beyond the scope of this paper

，

so 1 would like to restrict our attention to the function

，

tense

，

like (35a) for immediate relevance.

Ogihara (1999) claims that-tαin Japanese is a "relative tense" morpheme based on Comrie's (1976) suggestion; Tense relαtes the time of the situation Tefe1Ted to to some otheT time

，

山 山allyto the moment of speaking. っ d 可 E ム

Igarashiand Gunji (1998) claim that the semantic function ofa tense verbal istoset

thereference time. They describe the feature山 ructuresof

り

(

u(NONPAST) and ta

(PAST) to show how theirsemanticfunctions are registered as lexical items. The morpheme

(r)usets the reference time before or simultaneous with the view value (aspect)of the complement (Igarashi& Gunji

，

1998

，

p. 93，)as seen in (36). Here the view feature denotes the actual time period during which the describedeventis seen as happening by the language user.Itmay correspond to what has traditionally been called the eventtime (Reichenbach 1947) ... (Igarashi& Gunji

，

1998

，

p. 84) (36)

I

adjacent

I

ref-time ρ 、 ， ， E J 可 ZIBEl--J σ where p

:

:

;

σ

(Igarashi& Gunji

，

1998

，

p. 93) The morpheme tasetsthe reference time after the view value of the complement

，

as seen in (37). (37) b w r e ρ u ・ 2 且 U V r E E E E E E E S S E -﹄ rJE 、 4 L n e c a -胃 E l u . d a verb 可 E E E ' ' ' ' a ' E 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 ' tt ， J 、 巴 g J 、 ， E E E E E E E E a E J σ ref-time ρ where p

>

σ (Igarashi& Gunji

，

1998

，

p. 93) Adopting the insight that the間 nanticfunction of・tais to set the reference time(Igarashi

& Gunji

，

1998) or-tαis not the absolute tense but the relative tense marker (Ogihara

，

1999)

，

based on Reiche山ack'sthr田 temporalentities: ST

，

ET

，

and RT

，

we wiU consider our formal description of -tawhich corresponds to the irregular behavior ofcausativeswith respect to the implication relationship.

3

.

3

The Representation of Tense Morphemes

and Event Headed

・

n

e

s

s

1 will extend the notion of RT toexplainthe seemingly lexical idiosyncratic behavioras seenin (38a

，

b). 4 ‘ 市 a A

(38)a. Ken-ga Naomi-o watto-itte odo川←asi-taga

，

Ken-Nom Naomi-Acc with a sudden loud voice frighten-Past but Naomi-wa sukosimo odorok-anakat-ta.

Naomi-Nom not at all be frightened-not-Past

‘

Ken frightened Naomi witha sudden loud voice

，

but she was not frightenedat all. '

b.*Ken-ga Nωmi-o watto-itte odorok-ase-ta ga

，

Ken-Nom Naomi-Acc with a sudden loud voice frighten-makEトPastbut Naomi-wa sukosimo odorok-anakat-ta.

Naomi-Nom not at all be frightened-not-Past

'Ken made Naomi frightened with a sudden loud voice

，

but she was not frightened

at all.'

(Bando

，

1998

，

pp. 79-80

，

partially modified) Both predicates

，

odorok-asi-ta in (38a) and odorok-ase-tαin (38b)

，

seem to behave as

transitive verbs because they take a subjectand an object

，

but their implication rela -tionship is di百ere此 in(38a)

，

thegrammaticality shows that the first conjunct does not

necessarily imply the resultativestate

，

Naomi-ga odoroi-tα

，

'Naomi was frightened'

，

while in (38b)

，

the u時rammaticalityshows that the五rstconjunct must imply the resultativestate

What makes this difference? The solution seems to lie in the correlation between their lex -ical propertiesand in the RTs

，

sincetheir syntactic propertiesarethesame.Odorok-asi・αt

and odorok-αse-tαrepresent the same eventthat changes someone's unfrightened stateto a

frightenedstatein the past. Their lexical ETs are the same. However

，

itcouldbe analyzed

inthefollowing way: odorok-asi-hasa focus on the causingevent.On theotherhand

，

odorok-ase-has its focus on the causedevent.In other words

，

when we sayodorok-asi-ta

，

we only pay attentionto the act of frightening someone and we do not mind if theevent

actually happens. When we say odorok-ase-tα

，

we pay attention to the result of the fright -ening as well. The RT in Reichenback'ssequence01 tenses means the point to which the

speaker intends to refer.

I

t

must be possible that the RT also refers to Event Heαdedness of the sequence of an event which a predicate denotes. The RT of (38a) refers tothe

beginning of the past event

，

while the RT of (38b) refers to theend of the pastevent.In sum

，

the lexical properties of odorok-αsi-and odorok-ase-and the way their RTs are set

are the cause of the implication di百erence.

At which level does the morphological derivation of -(r)u or -ta take place insyntax?

The tests ofcoordinationin (39) will tell the level. Let us see the case of the tensesuffix

-

t

α.

(39) Akatyar可a yonaka-no denwa-no beru

ト叩-baby-Nom 口[ml凶dn山廿1ightι-Gentelephone-Gen ringi出ng-Datbe stむartledand cry-Past

'The baby was startledand cried atthe midnight telephone ringing.'

F h υ

唱_E

We cannot read the sentence (39) as if only nai-

，

‘cry' in the second conjunct bears the past tense. The su伍x・tain this case is attached to the complex VP: i.e.

，

the VP akatyαn

-gα odoroki-and αkαtyan-gαηαト togenerate the tense phrase (hereafter TP) node. The

word formationof odorok-u is not obtained at the lexicallev

e

¥

but at the syntactic level.

The tense morpheme -

り

(

u/-tahas a VP embedded.

Now

，

1

rcprescntthe feature sturcture of the nonpast morphcme

イ

r)uand the past event morpheme -tαas in(40) and (41)

，

respectiv

e

¥

y

可 t ' B t t ' a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t J 回 < 一

)

回

田 U h 1 E l d φ b 回 h F L V

T

川

E

E

何 回 国

円 、

u P A

M

O

S

T

C

C

R

r i -E P B E E E E E E E L U 、 ， ， r r r ' f 、 A U A U 1

The COMPS in(40) shows that

-

(

り

uhas the Conceptual Structure (CS) of VP in its directinternalargument position. The CS must unify the CS of VP with the tag回.The function of

イ

.r)uis to set the RT of the sentence to be after ET or simultaneous with ET. ﹃ B E e s -E E ' t a 1 ﹄ t l ， d 回 1 I > 、 、 B ， ， 回 国

)

t

本 a f t 、_{h u} 司_t a ・ 4 4 & 冒 LU 回 h c

T

川

E

E

何 回 回 F δ P A

M

O

S

T

C

C

R

﹁ E E E E E E E E E B E t B L α ' ' ι

、

l ' ' 唱 目 A d ι τ ， ， a a、

The COMPS and the CS in (41)indicatethe same as (40). The functionof・tais

，

on

the otherhand

，

to set the RT prior to ET. ln addition to the function

，

-tαhas one more function: when LCS of some lexical item has a headed subevent

，

the CS of a phrase fixes RT to theRT of the headed subevent of the phrase

，

which is indicated with the sign

，

(

*

)

，

in (41).

4 The S

u

f

f

i

x

a

t

i

o

n

of Causative Morphemes and

-

t

α

This section trysto formalizethe su伍xiationof causatives and -tαinSection4.1

，

lexical

derivative causatives and ・tαinSection 4.2， 組dsyntactic derivative causatives and -ta in

Section 4.3

，

dealingwith the implicationdefferences.We

，

however

，

could not formalize every typeofcausativ田 . Only the salient examples are discussed; namely

，

some lexical

causatives whose event cancellation is clealyjudged likeωα-ru

，

some lexicalderivative causativ田 ofV

イ

s)as-/-os-form likeok-os

，

・

and some syntactic derivative cau叫 lV田 of

V-(s)αse-form likeki-sαse-.The causatives

，

especially

，

V

イ

.s)e-form and psychological V -(s)aseform

，

areomitted

，

since the former varies aεcording to theimplication

，

出

m (42a

，

b). (42) a. Denki-o tuk-e-ta kedo de山 川atul

←

anakat-ta. Light turn on-Past but light come on-not-Past 'I turned on thelight

，

but it did not come 00.' に U 司_E よ

b.*Ie-o tat-e-ta kedo ie-wa tat-nakat-ta. House build-Past but house built-not-Past

'(Thecarpenter) built the house

，

but it was not built.'

The latter

，

psychological Y

イ

's)αse-form

，

behaves di百erentlyfrom the nonpsychological Y-(s)ase-form with respect of the implication

，

部

in(43a

，

b) (43) a. Ha!ωya-ga kodomo-ni seihukt同 ki-sase-ta ga Mother-Nom child-Dat uniform-Acc put on-make-Past but kodomo-wa seihuku-o ki-nakat-ta. child-Nom school uniform白Accput on-not-Past 'Mother made her child put on the school uniform but he did not put it on.' b.*Ken-ga Naomi-o odorok-ase-ta ga

，

Ken-Nom Naomi-Acc frighten-make-Past but Nωmi-wa odorok引 lakat-ta. Naomi-Nom be frightened-not-Past

'Ken made Naomi frightened

，

but she was not frightened.'

This papaer do白 notgo into details on these seemingly irregular causativ田， but they

are the subject to require another study.

4

.

1

Lexical Causatives and

-

t

α

The lexical causative wa-ru 'break' in the example (44) necessarily imply the resultant caused event. (44) Kodomcトgakabin-o wat-ta. Child-Nom vase-Acc break-Past 'Thechild broke the va

吋

，

*but the vase was not broken).' With the implication

，

we hypothesize the the lexical entry for ωα-(ru) is出 follows: (45) LCS of ωα

・

什

u

)

:

ARG-ST LCS LCS

(

[

]

:

回

， (

[

]

:

回

)

)

回

[

…

叫

CAUSE(

l

m

い

CT-ON(

日 ) ]

1 ET 回 ￨

[

ω [

い

e引付……叩ev刊町叩叫ee引叩enn叫ntBtBtB北ltBEC

∞

OME

口

BRO似 仰 叩KE刷E即N川附附叩(同凶剛回凶副)]

1

*

勺

)]

ET 囚 ￨ ET 囚 勺 t 可 E 4

The causative ωα

イ

ru)has CAUSE conceptual function and two arguments. CAUSE is a two-placefunctionwhose meaning is that an event causes the other event tohappen.The first eventiscalled 'causing subevent' or el

，

and thesecond 'caused subevent' or e2 and each LCS has itsET individually. The function ACT-ON in the causing subevent means thatit requiresAgent for the first argument田.回 isusually Theme which is to become broken. The caused subevent has heαdednessidiosyncratically

，

which isshown with the sign [ . .. e2・・

1

本in(45).

When wa

イ

ru)goes with the subject NP kodomo' and the object NP kabin'to be VP

，

the verb of the VP su伍xesthe tense morpheme -taof

(

4

6

)

.

(46)-ta:

[COMPS

一 ) 副 )

CS 田

RT 回 suchthat固 > 回

The description of

(

4

7

)

shows the Conceptual Structure (CS) of the sentenceJ( odomo-gα

kαbin-oωαt-tα.The function -ta setsitsRT to the ET ofthe headed subevent. In the case of wa-(ru)

，

itsheaded Sl仇 ventis e2

，

thenthe RT of-taselects the ET of e2

，

回

Consequently

，

the RT of the whole sentenceisalso set as to回. 玄 目

l

l

叫

m

u b L M

同

μ

J 問 削 T ノ k r

，

I

'

ω

ω

h 口 山 ， ， ・ 1

、﹃

4 4 W 川 町

ベ

O

j

l

_T

C

引

C

E

Q U A_凡 R U

U

M

北 A H ! e e

αCfw

固 い 囚 a 7 ι

ι

川 a 一九 Q U 中 よ Q U 中 i ω ー ド

C

E

C

E

サ 回

f

l

I

L

I

-n

ω

巾 。

L ん ﹁ L α n w u o m o

，

G O

K

P Y E -O Q U 円 U 可 t d 守 CS CS ET 囚 RT 回 suchthat固 > 回 The RT of

(

4

7

)

says that the caused subeventis fixed to p出t.Thus

，

we cannot read the sentence without the caused subevent.

4

.

2

Lexical Derivative Causatives and

-t

α

The lexicalderivative causatives of V

イ

s

)

a

s

チ

os・formallowboth Agent and Event for

its subject. However

，

eachimplicationdiffers; the V -(s)αs-/-os-form with Agent causer does not necessarilyimplyits resultant caused event

，

while the V

イ

s)αs

チ

osform with Event causer does. We assume thatthisdifference comes from the properties of Agent and Event. Agent causes another event with a certain action intentionally.Itis easy to be paied attention to the way it acts. Event

，

on the otherhand

，

usually causes another event

。 。

噌 E ム

indirectily

，

where there is no intention.Itis di伍cultto pay attention to the causing Event ignoring its caused result.

Let us see the example of V -(s)as-/-os-form with Agent subject五rst

，

seen in (48). (48) Titioya-ga kodomo-o ok-os-i-ta.

Father-Nom child-Acc wake up-Past

'His father woke up the child (

，

but he did not get u p).'

The stem of this form is an intransitive verb like oki-ru'get up.'Ithas no headedness registered since it has one argument and is impossible to decide which argument is fore -grounded and which is backgrounded. Kageyama (1996) pointed out that the stem verb of V

イ

s)as

チ

os-form is typically an unaccu叫 ive

，

whose change comes about spontaneously

The V

+イ

s)αs-/-os-derivation happened at the level of lexicon， then we hypothesize the following su伍xationrule in lexicon:

(49) The -(s) αsーメ~os- Su伍xationRule with Agent Causer:

[ARGST((Ul:回

) ) ) l

LCS 回[eventBECOME(回γ

・

・

)]

J

4

ARG-ST ([

:

J

田

，

([

:

J

回))

LCS 回[eventCONTROL(

[

m

川

C

叫

ω

T

-

川

，fiJ訓引回副副刊)] 川 ]] ET 回

l

m

[Le肝M叩 … 吋e刊v附e叩叩en巴n同町n泌tBtBtB叩tBECl削

∞

O側ω

町

M4

I

)

]

ET 囚 ￨

The lexical rule (49) derives the derivative causative form mophologically and seman-tically

，

it adds the Agent causer who triggers the other event to happen

，

but it does not always have concern with the resultant caused event. Thus

，

the rule indicates to put the headedness on the first argument el

・

The lexical entry of unaccusative oki-is as follows: (50) LCS of unaccusative okト:

ド

RG-ST

叩 ￨

_{vent BECOME A WAKE(}

_回)]

_I

_¥

1

I

LCS 回 levem. ~ 1<-1 ' - ' - ... ~... ¥ L:.J J J

1

)

]

I

ιI

囚 1" 1 When the -(s)αs-/-os-su伍xationrule of (49) is applied to (50)

，

the lexical derivative causative ok-os-is derived

，

as seen in (51). Q d -i

(51) LCS of derivativeok-os-with Agent Causer: ARG-ST

(

[

]

:

田

， (

[

]

:

回

)

)

LCS 回[eventCONTROL( [Les

い

CT-ON(

阿 川

ET 回 ￨ [LCSieventBECO山 W

川 回 )

1

1

_I

_]

₎

ET 回 ￨ At this point

，

ok-os-comes to be registered with theheadednesson el

・

Then

，

the derivativeok-os-takes itssubjectand object to be VP and the su伍xationwith-taoccurs. The description of

(

5

2

)

shows the CS ofthe sentenceofok-os-. * 11 1 I l l l -J 、 l E ' ﹃ E E E E E E E E ' 4 4 川 H I l l 、 、 . ， J 巴 O 白 V 川 a m m & b O J 川

区

-N

4

司

V J k m

m

-a T b E 凋 什 T A ， t， 、 ﹃ 4 4 ( 川

M

Y L f 円、ハ V

O

T

e

R C E に T A B U N 叫 叫 z : e e シ

α

﹁ 同 固 い 囚 0 1 1 1 -w v n α 川

S

T

S

T

o -H C E C E 小 田

r

i

l

l

-1

L

m 出

s

h

C

G 0 3 a 引 u d o ， ， b T F I O Q U ρ U 、 、 l ' q L に d ， ， ， ‘_、 CS CS 回 > 固 a 回 出 ' n c T 川

E

E

固 T

R

The first argument of CONTROL

，

e!， is forgrounded and the second argument e2 is

backgrounded

，

then it is possible to readthesentence without the caused subevent. Next

，

we have to consider theV-(s)as-/-os-form with Event subject. See theexample

(53).It implys the caused subevent inevitably (53) Denwa-no ben弓 a kodomo-o ok-os-i-ta.

Telephone ringing-Nom child-Acc wake up-Past

'The telephone ringing woke up thechild，(*buthe did not get叩).'

Here we hypothesize the other

イ

s')as-/-os・su伍xationrule which is applied to derive the

causative.In this case

，

the derived V

+イ

s)as-/-os-form selects the event subject and at

the same time

，

its second argument e2comes to haveheadedness.

(54) The

イ

's)as-/-os・Su伍xationRule with Event Causer: lARG-ST

山 ) ) )

LCS 回[eventBECOME(回r

・

・

)]

ハU つ L

叫

ARG-ST

(

[

]

:

田

，

([

]

:

回

)

)

LCS 回[eventCAUSE(

[ L C S ω e[

い

event D引L

い

何

川

刊m叩vent D…e叩 倒…nt D

ω

METHIN

伽刷叩)

]

ET 回

l

悶

I

い

e刷吋叩…叩event叩m町 附e町叩削en叫n札ltttBBBBEC

∞

O

側 叫

ωM

1

*

勺

)]

ET 囚 ￨ The rule is appled to the lexical entry ofoki-in (55) at the level of lexicon

，

then it derives ok-os-in (56). (55) LCS of unaccusativeoki-:

ド

RG-ST

叩

l

ntBECOME A WAI<E(

回

)

]

1 ¥ 1 1 LCS 回 levem.---.."4>-.--4...~ "'4'

.

.

.

-

-

，

~ J J

1

)

]

I

t;T 囚 1" 1 (56) LCS of derivativeok-os-with Event Causer: ARG-ST LCS

(

[

]

:

囚

， (

[

]

:

回

)

)

回[eventCAUSE(

l

L C S [Le引閃閃…叩event D叩m町 附e町叩削en沈，t DtD

ω

METHIN

附

G伽叩(打巴f佃副副凶且刷心叫)日] ET 固 ￨ [ L

e

s

い

[

e肝M閃 … 叩event叩m刊 附me町倒e

J

叫n、北t，tBBBE民C

∞

01恥 山 ，

1

*

勺

)

]

ET 囚

l

As the su伍x-tαdesignates its RT as the ET of the headed event

，

the RT of the whole sentence likeDenwα-no beru-ga kodomo・ook-os-tais回， as seen in (57). (57) CS ofDenwa-no beru-ga kodomo・ook-os-i-ta: CS 回[eventCAUSE( [ C S ω e[

い

me……肝L

い

v

川

v刊 叩 叩叩 倒eeennn叫nt Dt Dt Dt D

ω

METHI

悶附附([伽

恥 …m -山n

叫

ruu叫

吋

吋]')] ET 回 [ ~ωS

い

[

e肝e叫刊附叩叩v山…ee町叩訓e…叫nnn首，ttttBBEBB配EC01

∞

01山 W附A

川

K

1

*

勺切

)

]

]

ET 囚 ￨ CS CS ET 回 RT 回 suchthat回 > 回 The RT of the sentence (57) says that the caused subevent

，

the childωoke up

，

happened in the past

，

thus we cannot read it without the resultant caused event. 司_t ム ワ 臼

4

.

3

Syntactic Derivative Causatives and

-

t

α

The su伍xationof V

+イ

's)ase-occurs at the level of syntax

，

which means the CS of the sentence of V

イ

's)ase-form has an embedded stucture like (58)

(58) [event CAUSE([eventvstate ..

'

]

，

[

event CAUSE(...

，

••

.

)

]

)

]

The morpheme -(s)aseis added after the VP is derived at syntax. The sentence like S

+

0

1

+

O2

+

ki-sase-rucould be analyzed into S

+

[S'

+

0

+

ki-ru] sase-ru.Let us consider

(

5

9

)

，

for example.

(

5

9

)

Hahaoya-ga kodomcトniseil叫(U-O ki-sase-ta.

Mother-Nom child-Dat school uniform-Acc put on-make-Past

'Mother made her child put on the school unifor

叫

，

but he did not put it on).' The lexical entry of the morpheme of

イ

's)αse-is shown in

(

6

0

)

.

Itis added to the embedded phrase. Again we propose the two entries of -(s)asej

イ

's)αsewith Agent Causer and one with Event Causer.The former select Agent for its causing subevent

，

which is represented as ACT ON. The caused subevent of CAUSE only specify that it embeds another LCS which is represented as回.The sign T of the second argument of

イ

's)αse -indicates that is has the rninimally speci五edinformation. The argument unifies the LCS of

回 出longas

イ

's)aseembeds the LCS

，

which is indicated by the sign o. Like the

イ

's)αs-/-os -morpheme with Agent Causer

，

this has also specifies that it has headed event on the first argument of CAUSE

，

shown by

*

.

(

6

0

)

イ

's)αse-with Agent Causer: ARG-ST ([]:田，([COMPS(固)]:囚，固)) LCS 回[eventCAUSE(

l

C S 囚

い

CT刊 川OωN(囚匹副山山，ベ崎川川刷(佃刷刷酬回副副酬)リ川)] ET 回

l

c

s

ν ]

0 回 [ 囚 ]

I

I

]

)

ET 回 ￨

Once the

イ

's)ase-unifies the phrase kodomo-ga huku-o ki-

，

and takes NP hαhaoya for its subject

，

the phrase Hahaoyα-ga kodomo-ni huku-o ki-sase-is derived. The derived phrase then su伍xes-ta

，

as seen in(61). (61)CS of Hahaoya-gαkodomo-ni seihuku-o ki-sase-ta:

っ

“

q L

CS CS [event CAUSE( [ CS

囚

[eventACT叩 川OωN

仰 州

'

刷

ι

刊

回

副

副

刊

)

リ

円

]

]

ET 回

I

CS [eventCA USE( l C S [Le引M… 叩e叩m町vee叩 倒enn叫ntDtDtDO-SOMETHI

町

H

ET 回 lcsieventW

側 側

om

山

ihuku]')]

I

1

)

]

ET 巴

i

)

]

ET 図 RT

回

suchthat

回>回

As the representation of (61) shows

，

it has theheadednesson the first argument of the matrix CAUSE. In other words

，

the meaning [event ACT-ON([Hahaoya]'

，回)]

is for

-grounded and the RT of the whole sentence is set accordingtothe ET

，

回

，

indicating that it happened in the past. The secondargument ofthematrixCAUSE is backgrounded

，

thus we canread the sentence tocancelthe resultant caused subevent. Finally

，

let us see the latter type of

Y

イ

s)aseform:Y-(s)ase-with Event Causer

，

出

seen in (62).

(

何

62

幻

)

Kou山s叫O北k叶1 School regulation-Nom chil凶d-Da叫t school u叩l1江ll礼liお，forrロmrト-Acαcpu凶ton-make-Past 'Theschool regulation made the child put on七heschool uniおrm(

，

*buthe did not put it on).'

The lexical entry of

イ

s)ase-with Event Causer is di百erentfrom that of Agent Causer with respect of thefollowingpoints: (i) the first argument of CAUSE is not an intended

action

，

which is shown部 [eventvstateDO-SOMETHINGjBE(

田

，

(

回

)

)

]

.

It means that the

causer canbe either event or state. (ii) The Event Headedness is designated to the second argument of CAUSE.

(

6

3

)

イ

s)ase-with Event Causer: ARG-ST

(

[

]

:

囚

，

([COMPS(

固)

]

:

囚

，

回

)

)

LCS 回[eventCAUSE( l C S [Le

…

…

v刊m叩……e倒叩…n叫 川 山 色nW山Vs同凶山t恰eD

ω

METHI

叩

叩

E

h

町町

(

佃

也

刷

田

匹

副

，

ベ

(

佃

刷

刷

剛

回

副

副

叫

)

日

川

)

リ

l

ET 回

I

C

S

W I o

回 [ 囚 ]

1

₁

_*

_]

₎

ET 回

l

The representation of the sentence of (64) indicates thatkousoku 'school regulation' does notact on kodomo 'child'directly; it is thecausewhich makes thechild's wearing state happen 円 δ つ 白

(64) CS off{ousoku-gαkodomo-ni seihuku-o ki-sase-ta: CPS [eventCAUSE(

[

C

S

回[e町附叩ve町叩enn

、

t

B

ET 回 ￨ CS [eventCAUSE(

I

CS [eventDO-SOMETHING(

回

)

]

1

I

ET 回 ￨

l J 1 ￨ * ) l

_{CS [cvcntWEAR([kodomo}

_，

_'

_l

_{[seihuku]')]1}

I

]

)

ET 回 ￨ ET 回 RT 回 suchthat回 > 回 As the RT of the sentence is set for回 wbichis tbe ET of the second argument of the matrix CAUSE

，

we cannot read it without implying the caused subevent.

5 Conclusion

This paper h出 attemptsto solve the two problems; (i) why some causative sentences imply its res山ul比ta叫tivecaused s刊u凶lb児ee刊ve瓜n whileothers does not necessarily. (ii) according to the implication differences

，

why we judge the implication with the past tense.

Withr白pectto the problems

，

we have shown mainly the two points: for the first problem (i)

，

we have classified causative verbs into three types: lexical cau叫 ives

，

lexical derivative

causatives

，

and syntactic derivative causatives. Then the following tendencies are obtained: (a) When we read some causative sentence without implying the resultant caused events

，

the sentences have to have Agent subject. (b) The lexical causativ，田 dependon each in -herent semantic properties for event cancellation. (c) The lexical derivative causatives of intransitive V

+イ

's)as-/ーos-form can cancel its resultant caused event. (d) The lexical

derivative causatives of intransitive/t即 lsitiveV

+イ

s'

)

e

-

form may depend on some aspec -tual properti田 forevent cancellation. (e) The syntactic derivative causativ回 ofunerga -tive/transitive V

+イ

's)αseform can cancel its re叫 tantcaused event. (f) The syntactic derivative causatives of unaccu叫 iveV

+イ

's)aseform are hard to cancel its resultant

caused event.

For the second problem (ii)

，

we have formally described the tense morpheme

-

t

αto show the function and meaning precisely. We proposed that-tαhas fixed its reference time to the event time of the headed subevent

，

based on the concept of Reichenback (1947) and the f，おorma叫Ii均za叫ti山onof Ig町ara泊s油hiand Gu山叩n州1

described how the su伍xationof V

イ

's)as-j-os-taand V-(s)ase-tαat the lexical level and syntactic level occurs respectively and then showed the relationship betw田 nthe function

of -ta and the implication differences of causatives.

4

n L

Reference

Bando

，

Michiko. 1998. Semantic Structures of Psychological Predicates: With Special Ref -erence to Japanese Psychological Verbs. Ph.D.thesis

，

Osaka University.

Igarashi

，

Yoshiyuki and Takao Gunji. 1998. The Temporal System in Japanese. In Topics in Constraint-Based Grammar of Japanese

，

eds.Takao Gunji and Koiti Hasida

，

81-97. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jackendoff

，

Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge

，

Mass.: The MIT Press. Kageyama

，

Taro. 1996. Doushi lmiron (Verb Semantics). Kuroshio.

Kageyama

，

Taro. 1999. Word Formation. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics

，

ed. Natsuko Tsujimura

，

297-325. Blackwell.

Levin

，

Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge

，

Mass.: The MIT Press.

Ogihara

，

Toshiyuki. 1999. Tense and Aspect. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics

，

ed. Natsuko Tsujimura

，

326-348. Blackwell.

Pustejovsky

，

James. 1996. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge

，

Mass.: The MIT Press. Reichenbach

，

Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. Sag

，

Ivan A & Thomas Wasow. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. CSLI

Publications.

Teramu日，Hideo. 1984. NihongcトnoSintakkusu to lmi II (Japanese Syntax and Semantics

11). Kuroshio.

Tsujimura

，

Natsuko. 1999. Lexical Semantics. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics

，

ed. Natsuko Tsujimura

，

349-377.Blackwell. F h d n L