|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT. This paper examines a group of constructions in Japanese that have been associated with the notion of NOMINAL APPOSITION. The relation between two NPs linked by the particle -no is the focus of this study. The construction [NP1-no NP2] is examined against a set of syntactic and semantic conditions. Based on criteria proposed in the literature and on the semantic and syntactic traits observed in the data, I will conclude that [NP1-no NP2] is best analyzed as subordination where [NP1-no] is a relative clause. A survey of other constructions involving two contiguous NPs suggests that an appositive relation is found in [NP1 NP2] where the two NPs are coreferent.
INTRODUCTION. (1) Although a substantial amount of literature on apposition in English exists, appositive-like constructions in Japanese have not been studied in detail. (2) Moreover, whether appositives make up a unique class that is sufficiently different from both subordination and coordination is still an open question.
Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985) characterize apposition as 'primarily, and typically, a relation between noun phrases' and state that the minimum requirement for a structure to qualify as apposition
is that the two appositives are 'identical in reference' or at least that 'the reference of one must be included in the reference of the other' (pp. 1301-2). The former requirement is exemplified in 1 a and the latter in 2a.
(1) a. Anna, my best friend, was here last night
b. Anna was here last night
c. My best friend was here last night
(2) a. A neighbor, Fred Brick, is on the telephone
b. A neighbor is on the telephone
c. Fred Brick is on the telephone
In 1a Anna refers to the same person as my best friend while in 2a Fred Brick is one of the persons who can be identified as a neighbor. The minimal requirement as stated above matches the native speaker's intuition that the two items in apposition are equivalent in a most general sense. Quirk et al. (1985:1320) then offer the three-part set of conditions of FULL APPOSITION shown in 3. (3)
(3) a. Each of the appositives can be separately omitted without affecting the acceptability of the sentence.
b. Each fulfills the same syntactic function in the resultant sentences.
c. It can be assumed that there is no difference between the original sentence and either of the resultant sentences in extralinguistic reference.
Condition 3a refers to syntactic well-formedness whereas 3c addresses semantic equivalence. Since the omission condition 3a is met as a consequence of sameness of syntactic function described in 3b, 3a and 3b could be conflated into one condition of syntactic equivalence ensuring that each of the two apposed elements function independently in the absence of the other as in 1b,c and 2b,c. Thus, 3a-c are superseded by Burton-Roberts' reformulation of the conditions for apposition (1975:405, 1994:185), given in 4.
(4) a. Elements in apposition should converge in extralinguistic reference (1994); the NPs must be coreferential (1975).
b. [Elements in apposition] should be capable of being understood as having the same syntactic function with respect to the same other element in sentence structure.
Conditions 4a and 4b effectively rule out coordination and subordination respectively. Condition 4b refers to the syntactic equivalence applied to the original sentence that contains the apposition as well as to the two independent sentences that result from omitting one of the apposed elements. As expected, both la and 2a meet both the syntactic and the referential conditions. Note that although NP1 in 2a has an indefinite article, it satisfies 4a since the NP a neighbor has the same specific extralinguistic referent as Fred Brick, a definite NP. (4) This is what is called an INDEFINITE WITH SEMANTIC DEFINITENESS (Burton-Roberts 1975) or a REFERENTIAL INDEFINITE (Tawa 1993). (5)
When two NPs meet the two conditions, 'any sentence containing an apposition of sentence constituents can be expanded into an apposition of full sentences without change of meaning' (Burton-Roberts 1994:185) as shown in 5 and 6. A paraphrase of 5a such as that in 6 constitutes a diagnostic for the notion of apposition as defined above.
(5) a. I wasn't even introduced to Professor Xerxes, the man who first had the idea
b. I wasn't even introduced to Professor Xerxes
c. I wasn't even introduced to the man who first had the idea
(6) I wasn't even introduced to Professor Xerxes, (that is (to say),) I wasn't even introduced to the man who first had the idea
Similarly, the two NPs in apposition can occur in a direct paraphrase of the form [NP1-that is- NP2] as in 7.
(7) a. An upholsterer, Mr. Pontefract, called today
b. An upholsterer, that's to say, Mr. Pontefract, called today (Burton-Roberts 1975:414)
I adopt the criteria in 4a,b as the basic definition of apposition and use the paraphrasing of full sentences (e.g. 6) and of the two NPs (e.g. 7), using apposition markers ('that is (to say)') to confirm that the NPs in the target sentence are in apposition. (6)
1. APPOSITION IN JAPANESE. An appositive relation in Japanese (dookaku) is often defined as one between two contiguous words or phrases in a sentence that have the same grammatical function (Infoseek Maruti Jisyo 2004) or equal capacity (Kindaichi, Kindaichi, Kenbo, Shibata & Yamada 1972). Although these dictionary entries may not represent all views of traditional Japanese grammarians, they sum up the generally accepted notion of apposition that is similar to that of appositive-like structures in English. This resemblance is mentioned in the introduction to Acuna Farina's (1996:14) extensive study of apposition in English, in which it is stated that 'According to this traditional conception, apposition tends to be viewed as a noun phrase that is placed alongside another noun phrase, to which it is in some sense equivalent'. While linguistic studies focusing on the notion of apposition in Japanese are scarce, some relevant observations are found in studies on the structure of noun phrases (Kamio 1983), multiple -ga structure (Kuno 1973), and on the acquisition of-no (Sode & Chino 2001). (7)
In discussing [NP-no] phrases such as Sooridaizin-no Ikeda-si ga sinda 'Mr. Ikeda, the prime minister, died', Kuno (1973:73-4) stated that -no in this example is the attributive form of the copula da and that this sort of -no is excluded from the so-called GA/NO CONVERSION common to superficially similar structures, such as Kono kurasu-no dansei-ga yoku dekiru [right arrow] Kono kurasu-ga dansei-ga yoku dekiru 'This class's boys do well [right arrow] It is this class that the boys do well in'. Kuno ' observes that this and other instances of -no in non-restrictive modifier phrases fail to alternate with subject marker -ga. This type of NP is discussed in Section 2 of this paper. Kamio (1983) discusses noun phrases of the structure NP[S'[S-toiu] N], such as Imooto-ga byooki-ni natta-toiu hanasi 'The rumor that the sister became ill' in which the modifier phrase [S-toiu] contains no gap corresponding to the head noun. Kamio refers to the modifier as an APPOSITIVE PHRASE or CONTENT PHRASE (dookakusetsu / naiyoosetsu). [NP-toiu NP], a similar construction with an NP in the place of S, is the topic of Section 3.
Sode and Chino (2001) report on the order of acquisition of APPOSITIVE -NO (with reference to both the restrictive and non-restrictive [NP-no]) as contrasted with the possessive -no. They conclude that it is the clausal nature of the appositive -no phrase that accounts for the relative lateness of acquisition. This conclusion concurs with the view that functional categories such as S (IP) are acquired later than lexical categories such as P (Postposition) (Radford 1990). This paper focuses on nominal appositives consisting of two contiguous NPs, for which the label dookaku 'appositive' is commonly used. Nominal appositives can be subdivided into five constructions, according to the relation between the two NPs and the presence or absence of elements linking the two NPs, as in 8a-e.
(8) a. [NPI-no NP2] Nihonzin-no Tanaka-san-wa misosiru-ga suki da Japanese-COP Tanaka-Mr.-TOP miso.soup-NOM like COP 'Mr. Tanaka, a Japanese, likes miso soup' b. [NP1-NP2] Syuto Wasinton DC-ni-wa mittu-no kuukoo-ga aru capital Washington DC-at-TOP three-of airports-NOM are 'There are three airports in Washington DC, the capital' c. [NP1-NP2] (where NP1 is a pronoun) Wareware syoohisya-wa motto benkyoo si-nakute-wa ikenai We consumers-TOP more study do-NEG-TOP bad 'We consumers should educate ourselves more' d. [NP1-NP2] (where NP1 has an exemplifier suffix) Tanaka-giin-ra sanseiha-ga kisyakaiken-o Tanaka-congressman-EXEMP supporters-NOM press.conference-ACC hirai-ta hold-PST 'Congressman Tanaka and the others, (that is,) the supporters, held a press conference' e. [NP1-toiu NP2] / [NP1-no NP2] Seekatu hozyohi-toiu/-no meemoku-de itiman-en-ga living subsidy-called/-of pretext-at ten.thousand-yen-NOM siharaw-are-ta pay-PASS-PST 'Ten thousand yen were paid under the pretext that it is subsidy for living expenses'
In 8a and 8e the particle -no or the phrase -toiu 'called' link the two NPs respectively. No overt element links the NPs in 8b, 8c, and 8d although sometimes a clear pause separates the two NPs in 8b, expressed as a comma when written. The first NP of Types 8c and 8d share the characteristic of plurality: In 8c, NP1 is a plural pronoun while in 8d, NP1 is collective. By studying the properties of these appositive-like constructions and using conditions 4a,b, we can sort out the appositives from modification structures.
2. [NP1-NO NP2]. -No in [NP1-no NP2] is the attributive form of the copula da. (8) This is suggested by the semantics and by the fact that this type of-no can be replaced by -dearu,...
|
