Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T12:27:03.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicate union and the syntax of Japanese passives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1997

STANLEY DUBINSKY
STANLEY DUBINSKY
Affiliation:
Author's address: Linguistics Program, The University of South Carolina, Columbia Campus, Columbia, SC 29208, U.S.A. E-mail: dubinsky@sc.edu University of South Carolina
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper presents a relational account of the Japanese constructions that are commonly referred to as ‘passives’. They are shown to all be multipredicate, monoclausal constructions, with the differences between them primarily attributable to optionality in the lexical argument structure of the ‘passive’ predicate. The proposed analysis explains the differences between passives and causatives, despite their sometimes identical case-marking. Further, evidence from the interaction of unaccusative verbs and passive is shown to lead to a formal revision of the 1-Advancement Exclusiveness law. Finally, the differences between Japanese and Korean with respect to passives is reduced to a simple lexical difference between the two languages.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 1 - 37
Copyright
1997 Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

The overall shape of this analysis is drawn from my dissertation (Dubinsky 1985a), and I am indebted to Carol Rosen, my dissertation director, for her advice, inspiration and encouragement then and since, to Bill Davies for his input into that process and continued involvement, and to Masayoshi Shibatani for enlightening me about many aspects of Japanese passives and Japanese syntax in general. In the course of revising this document, I have received invaluable comments and suggestions from Sam Bayer, Matthew Dryer, Shoko Hamano, Ho Han, Tomiko Okazaki Hansen, Susumu Kuno, Shige-Yuki Kuroda, Paul Postal, and two anonymous referees for Journal of Linguistics. My gratitude to these individuals is not meant to attribute to them any responsibility for the ideas expressed here, for which I alone am accountable.