1 Masayoshi Shibatani 2

3 8 Nominalization

4

5 I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. 6

7 (Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken”)

8

9 10 1 Introduction 11

12 Studies on nominalization, in both Western and Eastern grammatical traditions, have

13 largely concentrated on lexical nominalizations, neglecting grammatical nominaliza-

14 tions, despite their theoretical importance and far-reaching implications to the

15 descriptive practice.1 This imbalance is due to the fact that while lexical nominal- 16 izations (e.g. English sing-er) typically involve distinct morphology and their lexical 17 status as nouns is relatively clear-cut, grammatical nominalizations (e.g. [I know] 18 that John recklessly shoots trespassers; [I saw] John shoot trespassers; John’s recklessly 19 shooting trespassers [angered the entire community]; To shoot trespassers [is unaccept- 20 able]) vary considerably in form, some of which displaying structural properties

21 similar to clauses, and their nominal status is less fully realized compared to lexical 22 nominalizations (e.g. a/the shooting [of trespassers]; those terrible shootings [of 23 trespassers], but not *a/*the shooting trespassers [is unacceptable]).2 24 The Japanese grammatical tradition is no exception to this general trend. In the

25 context of Japanese there have been two historical developments that have con-

26 tributed to the failure to properly recognize grammatical nominalizations and their

27 roles in grammar. One is a terminological issue, which nonetheless has had a pro-

28 found effect on the thinking of Japanese grammarians. One of the major functions

29 of grammatical nominalizations is that of modifying a noun. Because of this, the 30 monk-scholar Tōjō Gimon (1785–1843) named a nominalized verbal form Rentaigen3 31 (adnominal word). This term has gained wide currency in the name of Rentaikei 32 (adnominal form), used today in the paradigms of verb conjugation, where the nomi- 33 nalized form is recognized as a conjugated verbal form along with finite (Shūshikei) 34 and other forms. The term Rentaikei and placing Rentai forms in the verb paradigm 35 have led many grammarians to believe that these forms in both Classical4 and

36 37 1 This chapter is a vastly expanded version of an earlier paper, which will appear as Shibatani 38 (2018a). This version contains a shorter description of lexical nominalizations and several new sections and subsections on grammatical nominalizations, which are the main topic of this version. 39 2 See Lees (1965) for early, but still the most comprehensive treatment of English nominalizations. 40 3 Japanese grammatical terms all have an initial letter capitalized in this article. 41 4 Pre-Modern forms of Japanese, such as Old Japanese, Early and Late Middle Japanese, are collec- 42 tively referred to as Classical Japanese in this chapter.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-009

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 271) 272 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 Modern Japanese are simply conjugated forms of verbs associated with the function

2 of noun modification rather than distinct grammatical nominalization structures

3 with different usage patterns, one of which is modification of a noun.

4 The other confounding issue has to do with a formal distinction between a finite

5 verb form and its nominalized counterpart. In Old Japanese, there was a formal dis- 6 tinction for many verbs between a finite verb form (Shūshikei) and its nominalized 7 counterpart labeled as Rentaigen by TŌJŌ. These two forms, however, began to merge 8 in the eighth century and the merger of the two was largely completed by the middle

9 of the sixteenth century, when nominalized structures supplanted finite sentences.

10 This process, known as insubordination/desubordination in the current literature, 11 obliterated the historical formal distinction between Shūshikei, e.g. ot-u ‘fall.PRS’, 12 and Rentaikei forms, e.g. otu-ru ‘falling’, resulting in single modern forms based 13 on the latter, e.g. oti-ru ‘fall-PRS/falling’. This loss of the formal distinction between 14 finite and nominalized forms of verbs has led many grammarians to believe that

15 grammatical nominalizations are just regular clauses, rather than independent struc-

16 tures or constructions with functions and syntactic properties distinct from those of

17 clauses and sentences.

18 The two issues touched on here are, of course, related. The lack of formal dis-

19 tinction between finite verb forms and their nominalized counterparts in Modern

20 Japanese and maintaining the label for the latter suggesting a modification function

21 have had a profound effect on generations of Japanese grammarians. Had TŌJŌ

22 given a more neutral term to what we consider to be grammatical nominalizations, 23 such as Juntaigen (quasi-nominal), the term coined by YAMADA Yoshio (see below), 24 and had grammarians paid more attention to grammatical functions, both semantic

25 and syntactic, than just to formal appearances of linguistic structures, which may

26 vary over time and from one language to another, Japanese grammar would have

27 had a countenance quite different from what it is purported to be.

28 This paper is organized as follows. After a brief introduction to the process of

29 nominalization in the next section, where nominalization is defined as a metonymic

30 process of deriving new nominal expressions, section 3 discusses lexical nominaliza-

31 tions as a way to set the stage for the discussions of grammatical nominalizations,

32 the main concerns of this paper. This section first sets the record straight that

33 nominalization applies to nouns as well, contrary to the received wisdom on the

34 possible inputs to this process, and then delineates the range of concepts that

35 derived nominalizations are associated with via metonymic extensions. Section 4

36 starts a long discussion of grammatical nominalizations. Verbal-based nominaliza-

37 tions are discussed in section 4.2 beginning with a critical appraisal of the seminal

38 study on this topic by Yamada (1908), followed by a discussion on event nominali-

39 zations (section 4.2.1) and on argument nominalizations (section 4.2.2). Section 4.2.3

40 discusses two major uses of grammatical nominalizations, namely an NP-use and a

41 modification-use. Major claims advanced in these sections are that there are nothing

42 like relative clauses apart from these uses of nominalizations. So-called restrictive

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 272) Nominalization 273

1 relative clauses are a modification-use of argument nominalizations, and so-called

2 internally-headed relative clauses are event nominalizations in NP-use. These claims

3 lead to the view that so-called relative clauses are not really clauses, let alone

4 sentences. Section 4.2.4 clarifies the differences among nominalizations, clauses, and

5 sentences in terms of the different functions they play. Section 4.2.5 discusses the 6 role of so-called Juntaijoshi (nominalization particle). Contrary to the wide-held 7 belief that the Juntaijoshi no is a nominalizing particle or nominalizer, we claim that 8 it is actually a marker of the NP-use of nominalizations and that nominalization 9 itself obtains independently from the Juntaijoshi. 10 Section 4.3 argues for nominal-based nominalizations and reanalyzes so-called

11 genitive/possessive constructions as a modification-use of N-based nominalizations, 12 marked by the so-called genitive particle no in central dialects. Section 5 discusses 13 the historical development of Juntaijoshi from the so-called genitive particle, which 14 we reanalyze as a nominalizer for N-based nominalization. Data from peripheral

15 Japanese dialects are drawn in support of the radical proposal for reanalyzing so-called

16 possessive constructions as a modification-use of N-based nominalizations, just as

17 so-called relative clauses are reanalyzed as a modification-use of V-based argument

18 nominalizations in earlier sections. Sections 6 and 7 take stock of our proposals and

19 analyses by re-examining two popular approaches to related phenomena, namely 20 so-called ga/no conversion and the characterization of two types of noun modifica- 21 tion in terms of the Uchi no kankei (internal relation) and Soto no kankei (external 22 relation) by TERAMURA Hideo. It is shown that the relevant phenomena go far

23 beyond the range of the observations and analyses offered in these past efforts. It is 24 shown that the no-marking of noun modifiers goes well beyond the realm of ga/no 25 conversion and that our distinction between restrictive modification and identifying

26 modification by both V-based and N-based nominalizations cuts across different

27 types of modification constructions.

28

29 30 2 What is nominalization? 31

32 Nominalization is a metonymic process that yields constructions, including both words 33 and phrasal units, associated with a denotation comprised of substantive or entity 34 concepts that are metonymically evoked by the nominalization structures, such as 35 events, facts, propositions, and resultant products (event nominalizations), and event 36 participants (argument nominalizations) or other concepts closely associated with the 37 base forms. As products, nominalizations are like nouns by virtue of their associa- 38 tion with an entity-concept denotation, a property that provides a basis for the 39 referential function of a noun phrase headed by such nominalizations.5 Verbs and 40

41 5 Denotation refers to the relationship between a linguistic form and concepts, both entity- and 42 relational-concepts, connected with it, while reference is the denotation-mediated relationship between a nominal linguistic form and a real (or imaginary) world entity.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 273) 274 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 verb phrases, on the other hand, are associated with relational concepts (time-stable 2 or transient properties pertaining to an entity) and play a predication function in a 3 clause by ascribing a relational concept to the referent of a subject noun phrase.

4 They differ crucially from nouns and nominalizations in not denoting things and

5 thing-like entity-concepts and thereby in being unable to play a referential function.

6 A single metonymic expression may denote a variety of entity concepts that are

7 closely associated with the concepts denoted by the original words or larger structures,

8 and it is the speech context that determines and selects the denotation most relevant

9 to the context per Gricean maxims of conversation, one of which (the Maxim of

10 Relevance) requires speakers to be contextually relevant at the time of the utterance. 11 For example, the United States may metonymically denote a variety of entities closely 12 associated with the country by this name, but only a contextually relevant interpreta-

13 tion would be intended by the speaker and would be chosen by the hearer – e.g. the 14 sitting US president in the United States decided to attack the Islamic State’s forces 15 inside Syria, or a US women’s soccer team in the United States defeated China 1–0 16 to advance to the semifinals of the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Likewise, the 17 lexical nominalization half-pounder, based on the noun half-pound and is used in 18 an expression like Give me a half-pounder, may denote a hamburger in a fast-food 19 restaurant, or a can of tobacco in a smoke shop. While many lexical nominalizations,

20 listed as nouns in the lexicon, tend to have more uniform denotations, grammatical

21 nominalizations, which are created for the nonce, do not have fixed denotations, and

22 speech context plays an important role in determining and selecting the denotation

23 most consistent with the context.6

24

25 26 3 Lexical nominalizations 27

28 Since this volume is mainly concerned with syntactic phenomena, we will not dwell 29 on lexical nominalizations, which fall in the domain of word formation.7 However, 30 at least a couple of topics need to be addressed as a way to motivate our analysis 31 of grammatical nominalizations below. One is the scope of nominalization processes, 32 the issue centering on the question of possible inputs to nominalization processes. 33

34 6 Fillmore’s (1976, 1982) Frame Semantics is an attempt to harness metonymic patterns underlying 35 the understanding of word meaning in a larger framework that aims to represent a speaker/hearer’s 36 relevant encyclopedic knowledge mobilized in successful communication. Keith Alan (2001: 251)

37 characterizes a semantic frame as consisting of “characteristic features, attributes, and functions of a denotatum, and 38 its characteristic interactions with things necessarily or typically associated with it” (emphasis added). A similar effort is seen in Langacker’s (1987) Cognitive Linguistics 39 framework in terms of the notions of “profiling” and “reference point”. See sections 6 and 7 for 40 further discussions on the mechanisms of metonymy. 41 7 See Shibatani (2017) for discussions of lexical nominalizations and their theoretical implications, 42 including critiques of earlier treatments of them.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 274) Nominalization 275

1 The other topic has to do with the range of meaning extension effected by nominali-

2 zation as a metonymy-based derivational process.

3

4 5 3.1 Scope of nominalization 6 Perhaps influenced by the term “nominalization”, which suggests turning something 7 into a new state, many researchers believe that nominalization is restricted to 8 derivations that turn verbal inputs into nominal outputs. Payne (1997: 223) tells us 9 that “. . . operations that allow a verb to function as a noun . . . are called 10 nominali- , and can be described with a simple formula: V → N.” In a more recent 11 zations study, Malchukov (2004: 6) characterizes it as a transcategorial operation, noting 12 that “’nominalization’ actually conflate[s] two properties: “deverbalization . . . and 13 substantivization (acquisition of noun-properties)”. While recognizing nominaliza- 14 tions based on nominal inputs, Comrie and Thompson (1997/2007) give short shrift 15 to such cases by allocating only one page and a few additional lines in their 47– 16 page discussions on lexical nominalization. A similar bias toward verbal-based nom- 17 inalization is also clearly seen in all the papers collected in Yap, Grunow-Hårsta, and 18 Wrona (2011). 19 It is unclear why these researchers have decided to focus more on verbal-based 20 nominalization, when even in such a well-known language as English exhibits a 21 case where a nominalizer that applies to verbal inputs also takes nominal inputs. 22 The case in point involves the so-called agentive suffix- , deriving verbal-based 23 er forms such as > , > , which, everyone would agree, is a clear 24 play player sing singer case of lexical nominalization. But this process takes a wide range of nominal inputs, 25 as demonstrated by , , fi , , , , the 26 villager New Yorker left elder knuckleballer tenner 49ers aforementioned , , , ,etc.Whilemany 27 half-pounder three-wheeler rear-ender backhander of these are not strictly agentive, they denote entities that are closely associated 28 with the meaning of the base forms. Whether a derived form denotes an agent 29 or non-agentive entity simply depends on the nature of the base form; verb-based 30 nominalizations denote an entity most closely associated with activities, namely an 31 agent, whereas nominal-based ones denote other types of entities metonymically 32 evoked in close association with the denotations of the base nouns, such as the 33 people associated with specific locations one way or another, and those entities 34 associated with a specific quantity, time, or manner. 35 This is certainly not limited to English. Parkatêjê, a Je language in northern 36 Brazil, has the agentive suffix- , which nominalizes verb roots (e.g. ‘sing’ > 37 katê krere ‘singer’; ‘write’ > ‘writer’). But this suffix productively 38 krere-katê jakre jakre-katê applies to animal names as well, producing forms like ‘animal’ > 39 pryre pryre-katê ‘(animal) hunter’, ‘jaguar’ > ‘jaguar hunter’, and ‘tapir’ > 40 rop rop-katê kukryt kukryt- ‘tapir hunter’. Yagua in northeast Amazonia has nominalizing classifiers that 41 katê

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 275) 276 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 apply not only to verbal roots but also to adjectival as well as nominal roots (e.g. 2 tiryóó̹-̹jay (sleep-CLF.PELT) ‘sleeping mat’, jąąmu-daisiy (big-CLF.THIN.POLE) ‘big 3 blowgun, pole’, nǫǫnoo-jąą́(light-CLF.LIQUID) ‘kerosene’) (Payne 1985). The Salish 4 language Halkomelem has similar nominalizing classifiers that also apply to verbal, 5 adjectival, and nominal roots (e.g. ʔitǝt=ǝ’wtxw (sleep=CLF.HOUSE) ‘hotel, bedroom’, 6 q’aq’iy=e’wtxw (sick=CLF.HOUSE), ‘hospital’, tel=e’wtxw (money=CLF.HOUSE) ‘bank’). 7 (Gerdts and Hinkson 2004)

8 Japanese is no exception to this possibility of applying a nominalizing morphology 9 to nouns as well. Sino-Japanese suffixes such as -sya,-syu,-si, and -ka,asin 10 syusseki-sya ‘attendee’, kussaku-syu ‘driller’, soozyuu-si ‘operator’, and katudoo-ka 11 ‘activist’, derive nouns denoting agent specialists from verbal nouns, which are

12 nouns denoting activities by themselves and which form verbs in combination with 13 the verb suru ‘do’; e.g. syusseki ‘attending/attendance’ and syusseki-suru ‘to attend’. 14 The change from verbal noun to noun is arguably a case of category change,

15 although verbal nouns form a subcategory of nouns. But these noun-deriving forma- 16 tives, like the English suffixes -er and -ist, may also attach to simple nouns yielding 17 new nouns, such as higai-sya ‘victim’, uyoku-syu ‘right-fielder’, eiyoo-si ‘nutritionist’, 18 and syoosetu-ka ‘novelist’. 19 The Tagalog locative-focus suffix -an productively derives verbal-based locative 20 grammatical nominalizations that denote a place where some action takes place.

21 This suffix also attaches to nouns and yields new nouns (lexical nominalizations)

22 denoting locations that the referents of the base nouns are conventionally associated

23 with (Schachter and Otanes 1972/1983: 98ff).

24 25 (1) ang [kain-an ng=lalaki] 26 TOP eat-LF GEN=man 27 ‘where the man eats’ 28

29 (2) aklat ‘book’ > aklat-an ‘library’ 30 halaman ‘plant’ > halaman-an ‘garden’ 31 tarangka ‘lock’ > tarangka-han ‘gate’ 32 33 These Tagalog forms point out two crucial facts for our analysis of nominalization: 34 (i) that nominalization processes may also apply to non-verbal forms, especially to 35 nouns, and (ii) that the four types of nominalizations – namely, lexical and gram- 36 matical nominalization, on the one hand, and verbal-based and nominal-based 37 nominalization, on the other – constitute a unitary phenomenon that needs to be 38 treated in a comprehensive manner. The following discussions corroborate these 39 points, especially the point that verbal-based nominalization and nominal-based 40 nominalization are intimately connected and that the latter also plays a vital role in 41 grammar. 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 276) Nominalization 277

1 3.2 Meaning types of lexical nominalizations 2

3 Metonymy is a powerful cognitive process that allows a variety of form-concept

4 connections, increasing the expressive power of a language with limited resources.

5 It takes advantage of our knowledge that many things in the world occur in close

6 association. Verbal-based nominalization evokes various concepts intimately related

7 to what the verbal bases denote, namely states, processes, activities, attendant pro-

8 tagonists such as agents and patients, resultant products, as well as instruments

9 and locations constantly associated with particular activities. While some lexical

10 nominalizations involve morphology that delimits the range of meanings associated

11 with the derived nominals, as in the case of the English suffix-er and the Sino-

12 Japanese formatives seen above, some others may form nominalizations with a

13 greater range of meanings. Of the Japanese lexical nominalizations, stem nominali- 8 14 zations, involving -i/-Ø suffixes , display a diverse array of meaning patterns on their

15 own but more typically in forming compounds with another nominal element. How-

16 ever, the form-meaning connections are not random and are metonymically bound

17 such that some meaning patterns are more consistently observed while others are

18 not.

19 For example, stem nominalizations based on change-of-state process verb roots

20 denote resultant states and products closely associated with the change-of-state

21 event, as in [kumor-] > [kumor-i] ‘clouded state’, [usu-[gumor-i]] ‘lightly clouded

22 state’, [kor-] > [kor-i] ‘stiffness’, [kata-[kor-i]] ‘shoulder stiffness’, but never activities

23 or agents, because these are beyond the range of metonymically evocable concepts

24 associated with simple processes. Action-process verb roots such as age- ‘fry’ and

25 hos- ‘dry’, on the other hand, may produce forms that denote either activities or resul-

26 tant products, as in [age-Ø] ‘thin fried tofu’, [kara-[age-Ø]] ‘frying with light coating’

27 or ‘fried stuff with light coating’, and [itiya-[bos-i]] ‘drying overnight (in the air)’

28 or [itiya-[bos-i]] ‘stuff dried overnight (in the air)’. What follows summarizes major 9 29 form-meaning patterns that stem nominalizations display.

30

31 (3) a. Process/Activity: nagare ‘flowing’, suberi ‘sliding’, ugoki ‘movement’,

32 oyogi ‘swimming’, ake-sime ‘opening and closing’, mawasi-yomi (rounding-

33 reading) ‘reading by circulating reading materials in a group’, yama-nobori

34 ‘mountain climbing’, hito-gorosi (person-killing) ‘manslaughter’

35

36

37 8 These nominalizations, often labeled ‘infinitive’, involve the suffix -i attaching to a consonant- ending root/stem (e.g. > ‘dancing/dance’), and to a vowel-ending root/stem (e.g. 38 odor- odor-i -Ø kake- > kake ‘betting’). Besides the term ‘infinitive’, ‘participle’ used in European linguistics also 39 refers to grammatical nominalizations. 40 9 It would be interesting to ask whether all these meaning patterns have independently developed 41 or some have secondarily developed on the basis of some other patterns.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 277) 278 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 b. State/Characteristic person: hare ‘fine weather condition’, yuu-yake (evening- 2 burning) ‘evening glow’, zikan-gire ‘time expiration’, ame-agari (rain- 3 stopping) ‘after the rain’, hanasi-zuki (talk-liking) ‘a talkative person’, 4 Tookyoo-umare ‘a Tokyo-born’ 5 6 c. Agent/Natural force: suri ‘pick pocket’, tasuke ‘helper,’ hito-gorosi ‘killer’, 7 uso-tuki (lie-telling) ‘liar’, arasi ‘storm’, hubuki ‘snow storm’ 8 d. Instrument/Chemical agent: hasami ‘scissors’, hakari ‘scale’, nezi-mawasi 9 ‘screw driver’, tume-kiri ‘nail cutter’, ha-migaki ‘tooth paste’, simi-nuki 10 ‘stain remover’ 11 12 e. Patient: yatoi ‘employee’, tukai ‘errand runner’, tumami ‘what is picked/hors 13 d’oeuvre’, tukuri ‘prepared raw fish/sashimi’, ture ‘one taken along/companion’ 14 f. Resultant product: koori ‘ice’, yogore ‘stain’, age ‘thin fried-tofu’, kangae 15 ‘thought’, kasi ‘loan’, sirase ‘message’, sasayaki ‘a whisper’, saezuri ‘a chirp’ 16 17 g. Location: hanare ‘detached room/house’, nagasi ‘sink’, watasi ‘landing pier’, 18 mono-hosi ‘cloth-drying place’, mono-oki (thing-placing) ‘place to keep stuff’ 19 h. Game name: ‘kite flying’, ‘playing Japanese cards’, 20 tako-age karuta-tori ‘rope skipping’ 21 nawa-tobi 22 i. Sports technique: seoi-nage (Jūdō), oosoto-gari (Jūdō), uwate-nage (Sumō), 23 osi-dasi (Sumō) 24

25 One characteristic that distinguishes lexical nominalizations of the type seen above

26 and grammatical nominalizations, to be discussed presently, is that the former,

27 being lexical processes, have irregular gaps in the meaning patterns. While many 28 based on action verb roots allow both activity and agent/instrument readings (suri 29 ‘pickpocketing/pickpocket’, hito-gorosi ‘manslaughter/killer’, simi-nuki ‘stain removing/ 30 stain remover’), many other similar forms have only one reading. Forms like yama- 31 nobori ‘mountain climbing’, uo-turi ‘fish catching’, and sumi yaki ‘charcoal-making’ 32 only denote activities, whereas uta-utai (song-singing) ‘singer’, e-kaki (picture- 33 drawing) ‘painter’, and sumoo-tori (sumo-taking) ‘sumo-wrestler’ name only agents 34 and not activities such that while yama-nobori-suru ‘do mountain-climbing’ is possible, 35 *uta-utai-suru ‘do song-singing’ is not. Grammatical nominalizations differ from lexical 36 nominalizations in that they are created for the nonce. Accordingly, their meanings

37 tend to be compositional. However, the meanings of grammatical nominalizations,

38 which show a great deal of overlap in the patterns of lexical nominalizations seen

39 in (2), tend to be vaguer than lexical nominalizations.

40 Shibatani (2017) analyzes stem nominalizations as sublexical structures/construc-

41 tions that may form nouns by themselves or only in combination with another 42 nominal. The former are freestanding stem nominalizations (e.g. asobi ‘playing’,

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 278) Nominalization 279

1 nagare ‘flowing/stream’) that function as nouns by themselves. They achieve a

2 noun status in the manner of [[asob-i]NMLZ]N and [[nagare-Ø]NMLZ]N, distinguishing

3 themselves from underived ones such as [yama]N ‘mountain’ and [inu]N ‘dog’. There 4 are numerous stem nominalizations that only function as compound formatives and

5 that do not acquire a noun status by themselves. For example, neither of the com- 6 ponents of the compounds ake-sime ‘opening and closing’ and kaki-oki (writing- 7 putting) ‘a memo left behind’ occur as freestanding nouns, and their status remains

8 sublexical. The relevant compounds thus involve two nominalized compound forma- 10 9 tives in the manner of [[ake-Ø]NMLZ-[sime-Ø]NMLZ]VN and [[kak-i]NMLZ-[ok-i]NMLZ]VN. We 10 shall now turn to the discussions of grammatical nominalizations that are larger in

11 size than lexical nominalizations but that also function as nominalization structures

12 and are hence representable as [. . .]NMLZ, which play different grammatical functions 13 as in the case of lexical nominalizations.

14

15 16 4 Grammatical nominalizations 17

18 Like bound compound formatives, grammatical nominalizations are not subject 19 to part-of-speech classification, contrary to the term Meishika (noun-forming) used 20 in the literature11. Similar to lexical nominalization, grammatical nominalization pro- 21 duces structures that denote metonymically evoked entity (thing and thing-like) 22 concepts. Because of this entity-denoting function, shared by all nominal forms, 23 grammatical nominalizations head an NP, the most telling syntactic property of 24 nominals. In addition, they may function as a modifier in an NP, or they play an 25 adverbial function, typically in combination with an adverbial particle (see below). 26 These are all uses of grammatical nominalizations, not what grammatical nominali- 27 zations are per se, as we shall see below. 28

29 30 10 These are similar to Sino-Japanese compound formatives, such as doku ‘alone/single’ and ritu 31 ‘stand’ in [[doku]?-[ritu]?]VN ‘independence’, which do not occur as independent nouns or verbs, but which recur widely as compound formatives. 32 11 The term “part of speech” refers to WORD categories and do not apply to roots, affixes, and 33 phrasal structures, which are not words. One may classify different roots as “verb roots”, “adjective 34 roots”, and suffixes as “causative suffix” and “passive suffix”, etc. depending on their morphological 35 and functional status, but verb roots, for example, need to be clearly distinguished from verbs. Verb 36 roots become verbs when they are inflected for tense or mood, as in yorokob-u/yorokon-da ‘rejoice-

37 PRS/rejoice-PST’ and yorokob-e ‘rejoice-IMP’, and they become nouns when they undergo the stem nominalization discussed here, as in yorokob-i ‘pleasure’, when they have a word status as in this 38 example. Similarly, adjective roots are not adjectives by themselves; they become adjectival predicates 39 when they form words with the -i tense suffix (e.g. tuyo-i ‘be strong’), nouns when suffixed by -sa 40 (tuyo-sa ‘strength’), or adverbs when suffixed by -ku (tuyo-ku ‘strongly’). In this way, Japanese 41 inflecting roots are “precategorical” in the sense that their part of speech is not predetermined.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 279) 280 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 4.1 Stem nominalizations as grammatical nominalizations 2

3 Before turning to the discussions of the prevalent types of grammatical nominaliza-

4 tions, let us briefly look at some phenomena that suggest that stem nominalization

5 mentioned above may have been a productive grammatical nominalization process

6 in the past.

7 Japanese has an evidential marker, soo, which marks information obtained typi-

8 cally based on visible evidence about certain states and properties. It attaches to

9 adjectival nouns such as the native word siawase ‘happiness’ and the Sino-Japanese

10 form kenkoo ‘health’, which, like other nouns, require the copula da for predica- 12 11 tion. Adjective roots denoting states and properties also take soo as in (5b):

12

13 (4) a. Takasi wa siawase da.

14 TOP happy COP

15 ‘Takashi is happy.’

16 b. 17 Takasi wa siawase=soo da. happy=EVID 18

19 ‘Takashi looks happy.’

20

21 (5) a. Takasi wa kasiko-i.

22 TOP smart-PRS

23 ‘Takashi is smart.’

24 25 b. Takasi wa kasiko-Ø=soo da. 26 smart-NMLZR-EVID COP (NMLZR = nominalizer) 27 ‘Takashi looks smart.’ 28 29 It is not clear whether the adjective root kasiko- ‘smart’ in Modern Japanese as seen 30 in (5b) is inherently nominal or has been nominalized via stem nominalization. 31 Since all adjective roots end in a vowel, Ø-stem nominalization would apply produc- 32 ing the form identical with the root form.13 We tentatively assume that adjective 33 roots undergo Ø-stem nominalization, as indicated in the gloss for (5b). Either 34 way, they follow the pattern of adjectival nouns, suggesting that the soo evidential 35 attaches to nominals denoting property concepts, or conversely, what can be marked 36 by the soo evidential is nominal. 37 38 12 We divide the class of Keiyōdōsi (adjectival verb) in Japanese school grammar into two classes; 39 adjectival nouns (siawase ‘happiness’, kenkoo ‘health’) may function as a noun, and take the copula in predication function and or in modification function; ( 40 da na no nominal adjectives kirei ‘pretty’, zyuudai ‘important’) do not function as a noun, and take da in prediction function and na 41 exclusively in modification function. 42 13 Frellesvig (2010: 79) states, without offering evidence, that Old Japanese “[a]djectives are nominal roots or stems”.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 280) Nominalization 281

1 Now, this soo evidential also attaches to verbal-based stem nominalizations. For 2 example,

3 4 (6) [Ame ga kyuuni huridas-i]=soo da. 5 rain NOM suddenly fall.start-NMLZR=EVID COP 6 ‘It appears that rain will start falling suddenly.’ 7 8 When verbal-based nominalizations are involved, the soo evidential points to a cir- 9 cumstance with some visible sign of the imminent occurrence of a process or action. 10 Our point here is that this kind of i-/Ø-nominalizations are not words but have struc- 11 tures like a VP or a clause, indicating that the stem nominalization also produces 12 grammatical nominalizations with structures larger than words. This is also seen 13 with the desiderative predicates derived via suffixation of -ta, which conjugate like 14 adjectives (e.g. yomi-ta-i ‘want to read’). 15 16 (7) Takasi ga [hon o yomi-ta-Ø]=soo ni siteiru. 17 NOM book ACC read-DES-NMLZR=EVID PRT is.doing 18 ‘Takashi looks like wanting to read a book.’ 19 20 Grammatical nominalizations derived by the stem nominalization also have an 21 adverbial use in combination with the particle ni, occurring in a position where an 22 NP headed by a verbal noun occurs: 23

24 (8) a. Takasi wa [siryoo no [syuusyuu]VN]NP ni tosyokan ni itta. 25 TOP material GEN collecting PRT library to went 26 ‘Takashi went to the library for collecting material.’ 27 28 b. Takasi wa [hon o yom-i] ni tosyokan ni itta.14 29 read-NMLZR 30 ‘Takashi went to the library for reading books.’ 31 32 While these usage patterns of the relevant nominalization structures are highly pro- 33 ductive in Modern Japanese, they are atypical as nominalizations in that they do not 34 head an argument NP, nor do they modify a noun like more typical grammatical 35 nominalizations to be discussed next.15 But the usage patterns seen above suggest 36

37

38 14 This is what Yamada (1908) calls “purposive grammatical nominalization” (see below). This type of stem nominalizations when marked by the conjunctive particle , as found in ex- 39 15 =te pressions like [hon o yon]=de kaetta ‘having read a book, (I) returned home’, historically arising from 40 the form [hon o yom-i]=te, can head a topic NP, as in [kono hon o yon]=de wa ikemasen ‘(you) should 41 not read this book’, or can modify a noun in the manner of a regular noun, as in [tosyokan de hon o 42 yon=de] no kaeri ‘a return home having read a book at the library’ (cf. [eiga] no kaeri ‘(lit.) movie’s return home/a return home after the movie’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 281) 282 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 that stem nominalization may once have been a productive process that has become

2 a more restrictive lexical process in recent history. Just as with the Tagalog case

3 mentioned earlier, Japanese also shows that lexical and grammatical nominaliza-

4 tions may overlap in morphological marking suggesting that the two are similar

5 phenomena.

6

7 8 4.2 Verbal-based grammatical nominalizations 9 YAMADA Yoshio (1873–1958) was perhaps the first to study Japanese grammatical 10 nominalizations in some detail. But his seminal study has not received the critical 11 appraisal it deserves, nor has any attempt to extend his work beyond its limitations 12 succeeded in drawing the far-reaching theoretical implications that a proper analysis 13 of grammatical nominalizations is bound to make. In his monumental ō 14 Nihonbunp ron [Theory of Japanese grammar] (1908), Yamada recognized the following types of 15 grammatical nominalizations, which he termed (quasi-nominal) after the 16 Juntaigen term (nominal). 17 Taigen

18 (9) a. True grammatical nominalization 19 16 20 [Yorokobu] wa yoku, [ikaru] wa asi.

21 rejoicing TOP good getting.angry TOP bad

22 ‘Rejoicing is good, and getting angry is bad.’

23

24 b. Abbreviated grammatical nominalization 25 [Ikareru] wa kare ni site, [yorokobu] wa ware nari. 26 angry.one TOP he COP do-GER rejoicing.one TOP I COP 27 ‘The angry one is he, and the one rejoicing is I.’ 28 29 c. Clausal grammatical nominalization 30 [Hito no yorokobu] o mireba uresi. 31 person GEN rejoicing ACC when.seeing delighted 32 ‘When (I) see people rejoicing, I feel delighted.’ 33

34 d. Purposive grammatical nominalization (cf. (8b)) 35

36 [Hana o mi] ni iku.

37 flower ACC seeing PRT go

38 ‘(I) will go to see flowers.’

39

40

41 16 Yamada’s examples are in Classical Japanese form.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 282) Nominalization 283

1 Despite his definition of grammatical nominalizations as “the adnominal forms of

2 conjugating words [verbs and adjectives] used in the nominal status” (p. 707), the

3 revered guru of modern Japanese grammatical studies fails to grasp the true nature

4 of what he terms “abbreviated grammatical nominalizations” illustrated in (9b). 5 Likely influenced by the term Rentaikei (adnominal form), Yamada describes these 6 nominalizations as involving

7 “conjugating words [e.g. ‘angry (one)’] . What is 8 ikareru that modify substantive concepts modified here, however, has been absorbed in the conjugating words and cannot be recognized 9 in external form. In order to understand these, hito [person], mono [person], mono [thing], etc. 10 must be added after the relevant conjugating words.” (ibid., my translation; emphasis added) 11 12 This interpretation is curious in view of the fact that the same verbal-based forms 13 yorokobu ‘being glad/one who is glad’ is seen in what Yamada calls “true grammatical 14 nominalizations” in (9a) and “clausal grammatical nominalizations” in (9c), where he 15 apparently would not consider those forms to be modifying a substantive concept. 16 When Yamada defined grammatical nominalizations as words “conjugated” in 17 the so-called adnominal form that function like nominals, he seems to have had in 18 mind the syntactic properties of these forms, such as their functioning as sentence 19 subjects and objects, rather than the more basic meaning function that all nominals 20 bear, namely the function of denoting substantive concepts. Had Yamada taken this 21 fundamental function of nominals more seriously, he would have analyzed forms 22 such as ikareru ‘angry one’ and yorokobu ‘one who is glad’ in (9b) as directly bearing 23 the nominal, entity-denoting function, denoting entities that are metonymically evoked 24 by these forms – a person who is being angry and one who is glad, in this case. 25 While inventing the new term Juntaigen, Yamada still falls victim of the traditional 26 term Rentaikei reflecting an adnominal modification function. Had he considered 27 the Rentaikei as representing a derivation, rather than a verbal conjugation, that 28 yields nominalization structures with a nominal denotation function, he would 29 have had a more straightforward analysis that connects the meaning function of 30 nominalizations to their syntactic functions consistent with how nouns in general 31 function in grammar. In other words, it is the sharing of the function of denoting 32 substantive concepts that makes nominalizations and nouns pattern syntactically 33 alike. 34 The essential difference between Yamada’s true nominalizations (9a) and abbre- 35 viated nominalizations (9b) is, then, whether the structure denotes an event – or a 36 state-of-affairs more broadly – or denotes more concrete substantive entities. What 37 Yamada calls “clausal nominalizations” in (9c) are also event nominalizations with 38 a modifier, which specifies an event participant in this case (see section 6 for dis- 39 cussions on the differences between clauses and sentences, on the one hand, and 40 nominalizations, on the other). 41

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 283) 284 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 4.2.1 Event nominalizations 2

3 Grammatical nominalizations denote either abstract concepts like events (processes

4 and activities) and those related to them such as facts and propositions, as well as

5 times, places, and reasons, or concrete substantives such as event protagonists func-

6 tioning as an agent or patient as well as resultant objects, just as lexical nominaliza-

7 tions denote these in a more codified manner.

8 Event nominalizations have clause-like internal structures, often with a full

9 array of NP arguments overtly expressed. They have, however, external syntagmatic

10 properties like nouns in that they head an NP, playing both syntactic and referential

11 functions of arguments of a clause. Bear in mind that grammatical categories are

12 determined on the basis of external properties, not by internal properties, meaning

13 that even if a structure is clause-like internally, it does not follow that the structure

14 in question is a clause (see below). Event nominalizations denote the following

15 kinds of concepts:

16

17 (10) a. State-of-affairs/Circumstance 18 [Haha ga you]17 no o itumo mitemasita kara . . . 19 mother NOM getting.drunk PRT ACC always watched because 20 ‘Because I always watched my mother getting drunk . . .’ 21

22 b. Fact 23 Masako wa [otto ni sonna onna ga ita] no 24 TOP husband LOC such woman NOM existing PRT 25 o sitta. 26 ACC learned 27 ‘Masako learned that (her) husband had such a woman.’ 28 29 c. Time, place, reason/cause 30 (i) [Masako ga Hukuoka ni tonde itta] no ga sigatu no 31 Masako NOM Fukuoka to fly.GER went PRT NOM April GEN 32

33 zyuuni niti, . . . twelve day 34

35 ‘(lit.) That Hanako went flying to Fukuoka was April 21, . . .’

36

37

38 17 By bracketing as [haha ga you] as in this example and the others below, we are indicating the 39 basic nominalization structures, which take the particle no only in their NP-use in central dialects, 40 including Tokyo Japanese (see below). The structure containing no can be represented as [[haha ga

41 you]NMLZ] no]NMLZ′.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 284) Nominalization 285

1 (ii) [Watasi ga umareta] no wa Saitama – sono inaka mati 2 I NOM was.born PRT TOP that rural town 3 ni aru syakuya datta. 4 in exist rental.house was 5 ‘Where I was born was a rental house in a rural town in Saitama.’ 6

7 (iii) [Hotyoo ga hayai] no wa kanzyooteki ni natte iru

8 step NOM quick PRT TOP emotional to become be 9 kara daroo. 10 from COP.CONJEC 11 ‘(The reason) why (her) steps are quick is perhaps because (she) has 12 become emotional.’ 13 d. Event participant 14

15 (i) Hora, [sensei ga izen kingyo no e o kaita] no

16 look teacher NOM before gold.fish GEN picture ACC drew PRT 17 ga aru desyoo. 18 NOM exsist COP.CNJ 19 ‘(Lit.) Look; there is that the teacher drew a picture of a gold fish 20 sometime ago, isn’t there?’/‘Look; there’s a picture of a gold fish that 21 the teacher drew some time ago isn’t there?’ 22 (ii) [ ] 23 Suberi no warui hikido ga oto o tateru no sliding GEN bad sliding.door NOM sound ACC emit PRT 24

25 o kiite, . . .

26 ACC hear.GER

27 ‘Upon hearing the bad sliding door make sounds. . .’

28 e. Resultant product 29 (i) [Sobo no katte iru zyuusimatu ga saezuru] no o 30 grand.mother GEN keep society.finch NOM chirp PRT ACC 31

32 kiita.

33 heard

34 ‘(I) heard the society finch chirp that (my) grandmother keeps.’

35 (ii) Ogata wa waratte [syuumai ni kiiroi karasi o 36 Ogata TOP smile.GER dumpling to yellow mustard ACC 37 tappuri nutta] no o, ikioiyoku kuti no naka ni 38 amply smeared PRT ACC vigorously mouth GEN inside to 39

40 hoori konda.

41 throw pushed

42 ‘Ogata smiled and shoved into his mouth a dumpling smeared full of mustered.’

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 285) 286 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 These constructions are interesting in that the bracketed nominalization structures

2 are syntactic arguments, but they do not represent the semantic arguments of the

3 main clause predicates in a direct manner like simple noun phrase arguments. For

4 example, what Masako learned in (10b) is a fact, and what was heard in (10e.i) was

5 the chirping sounds of the society finch, but these are not given as NP arguments

6 [zizitu] ‘fact’ and [zyuusimatu no saezuri] ‘chirping sounds of the society finch’ in

7 the relevant structures.

8 In some circles (e.g. Keenan 1985; Kuroda 1992), constructions like (10d) are 9 analyzed as internally-headed relative clauses, assuming (i) that these are relative 10 clauses, and (ii) that a head nominal exists within relative clauses unlike regular

11 relative clause constructions, where a head exists externally in the main clause. A

12 problem with the first assumption is that it is not at all obvious that these structures

13 have the function of relative clauses, which is either to restrict the denotation of the

14 head noun (restrictive relatives) or to identify the head noun in terms of the denota-

15 tion of a modifying nominalization structure (non-restrictive relatives). The second

16 assumption that in these structures an argument internal to the “relative clause” is

17 the argument of the main-clause predicate is also problematic. Such an assumption

18 does not extend to other constructions without an external head like (10e), where

19 there is no NP within the “relative clause” that can serve as a main-clause argument.

20 The nominalization structures in (10a–c) also lack an internal argument that can

21 serve as a head, as seen in a comparison between them and the synonymous con-

22 structions below, where an NP argument of the main clause predicates is explicitly

23 coded:

24

25 (11) a. [Haha ga you] zyookyoo o itumo mitemasita kara . . .

26 mother NOM getting.drunk scene ACC always watched because

27 ‘Because I always watched the scene that my mother was getting drunk . . .’

28 b. [ ] 29 Masako wa otto ni sonna onna ga ita zizitu TOP husband LOC such woman NOM existing fact 30 31 o sitta. 32 ACC learned 33 ‘Masako learned the fact that (her) husband had such a woman.’ 34

35 c. [Watasi ga umareta] basyo wa Saitama – sono inaka mati

36 I NOM was.born place top that rural town 37 ni aru syakuya datta. 38 in exist rental.house was 39 ‘The place where I was born was a rental house in a rural town in Saitama.’ 40

41 Whatever analysis is offered to these cases, the proposal to analyze forms like (10d)

42 as internally-headed relative clauses divides the phenomenon into two or more

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 286) Nominalization 287

1 sub-phenomena, while the metonymy-based analysis treats it uniformly. All these

2 constructions contain nominalization structures that, like lexical nominalizations

3 discussed earlier, metonymically evoke concepts such as situations associated with

4 events, circumstantial matters like time, location, and reason for an event, event

5 participants, as well as resultant products closely associated with an event. In these

6 constructions, nominalization structures function as syntactic arguments as a sub-

7 ject or object precisely because they evoke and stand for thing-like entities just like

8 nouns do. The metonymic relation seen here between the nominalization structures 9 and what they stand for parallels the ordinary metonymic patterns such as huro ga 10 waita (bath NOM has.boiled) “the bath has boiled (= the bath is ready)” and Bētōben 11 o kiku “listen to Beethoven”, where the metonymically evoked entities, not what the 12 syntactic arguments literally denote, serve as the semantic arguments of the verbs.

13 Note, at this juncture, that nominalization is not a morphological concept or

14 process. Accordingly, nominalization structures are not necessarily associated with

15 a morphological marker, though many are. The English nominalization process

16 known as “conversion” does not involve a morphological marker ([cook]V > [cook]N). 17 One type of the English “factive nominals” typically take that as a marker, but 18 may not in some contexts; I know [John is honest]NMLZ. In Chinese, while argument 19 nominalizations (see next subsection) involve a morphological marker, event nomi-

20 nalizations may not ([tā dă rén]NMLZ shì bú duì=de ‘[(that) he hits people] is not 21 right’). While in many languages verbs undergo a morphological alteration under

22 nominalization, in both English and Chinese verbal forms in nominalizations are

23 no different from finite verb forms.18 These structures are recognized as nominaliza-

24 tions not because of morphological properties but because of their nominal denota-

25 tions and external syntagmatic properties that may be morphologically indicated in

26 some other languages.

27 In our analysis nominalization structures analyzed and labeled as [. . .]NMLZ are 28 grammatical constructions of various sizes in the sense of Construction Grammar.

29 Grammars contain various constructions that are smaller or larger in size than words

30 that are not categorizable as words such as Noun or Verb or phrasal units such as

31 NP or VP, though they may function as constituents of these units. For example, the

32 conjoined structures [$10 to Pat] and [$5 to Kim], as well as the entire coordinate 33 structure [$10 to Pat and $5 to Kim] in I gave $10 to Pat and $5 to Kim are neither 34 NPs nor any other known phrasal categories because they are not constituents

35

36 In the case of Japanese, there is the possibility of analyzing the verbal-based nominalizations of 37 18 the type seen in this section as involving nominalized verb forms (so-called Rentaikei) that are iden- 38 tical in form to the finite verb forms (Shūshikei) due to a historical process merging the two. This is 39 the position taken by Japanese school grammar that recognizes separate Rentaikei and Shūshikei 40 forms though they are identical in form, except for the copula da accompanying an adjectival noun 41 and a nominal adjective in a predicative function.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 287) 288 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 in other contexts. Similarly, extremely expensive and in bad taste in This dress is 2 extremely expensive and in bad taste is a grammatical construction that functions 3 as a predicative complement like an adjectival phrase (extremely expensive) and a 4 prepositional phrase (in bad taste), but it is neither an AP nor a PP. A view that 5 grammatical units must be morphemes, words, or familiar phrasal categories such

6 as NP and VP is based on limited observation of possible grammatical constructions.

7 The field has learned that N and NP alone did not provide enough nominal categories

8 to handle some known facts, which motivated the recognition of an intermediate

9 nominal category N′. We are arguing in this paper that it is high time we recognized

10 the nominalization structure [. . .]NMLZ on account of its nominal semantic and 11 syntactic properties. These points are further demonstrated in a clearer manner by 12 another type of grammatical nominalizations that we call argument nominalization, 13 to which we now turn.

14

15 16 4.2.2 Argument nominalizations 17

18 Event nominalizations may evoke event participants, as seen in (10d). When the

19 structure contains two NP arguments, a possible ambiguity arises regarding which

20 of the arguments is the intended denotation, as in the following type of example

21 attributed to S.-Y. Kuroda:

22 23 (12) Gakusei wa [sihuku ga doroboo o oikakete iru] no 24 student TOP plainclothes.police NOM thief ACC chasing PRT 25 o tukamaete, nezihuseta. 26 ACC catching tackled.down 27 ‘(Lit.) The student caught and tackled down that a plainclothes police was 28 chasing a thief.’ 29 30 This sentence can be disambiguated by leaving empty an argument position within 31 the nominalization structure, as below: 32

33 (13) a. Gakusei wa [Ø doroboo o oikakete iru] no o tukamaete, nezihuseta. 34 ‘The student caught and tackled down the one that was chasing a thief.’ 35 36 b. Gakusei wa [sihuku ga Ø oikakete iru] no o tukamaete, nezihuseta. 37 ‘The student caught and tackled down the one that a plainclothes police

38 was chasing.’

39

40 Unlike the event nominalizations discussed in the preceding subsection, which may

41 evoke a variety of concepts metonymically related to the basic events denoted by the

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 288) Nominalization 289

1 structures, these nominalizations are dedicated to denoting event participants,

2 whose semantic roles are indicated by the position of a gap. The subject argument

3 nominalization has a gap in subject position, as in (13a), and the nominalization

4 structure as a whole denotes an entity acting as an agentive participant. The object

5 argument nominalization, on the other hand, contains a gap in object position and

6 denotes a patientive participant, as in (13b). Again, the entire nominalization struc- 7 tures marked by the particle no function as syntactic objects of the main-clause 8 verbs. They can bear these grammatical functions precisely because they denote

9 substantive concepts just like any noun.

10 As in other cases of metonymy, the actual denotation/reference of an argument

11 nominalization is determined by context, as in (14) below, where there are two argu- 12 ment nominalizations, zyukusita (no) and katamena (no), which can potentially refer 13 to a variety of ripe things (e.g. mangoes, bananas, tomatoes) and things that are

14 slightly hard (mangoes, avocados, pasta), respectively. The context and the Gricean

15 Maxim of Relevance, however, tell us that the author is referring to the mountain

16 persimmons given to him.

17 18 (14) Yama no mura no Natanosyoo ni tyuuzai siteita toki, 19 mountain GEN village GEN LOC residence was.doing time 20 yama-gaki ga dekiru to, mura no ie kara 21 mountain-persimmon NOM bear.fruit when village GEN house from 22 moratta koto wa aru. Keredomo, zyukusita no o sonomama 23 received NMLZ TOP exist however ripen(ones) PRT ACC as.is 24

25 kuu ka sukosi katame-na no wa, kawa o muite hosi-gaki eat INT a.little hard(ones) PRT TOP skin ACC peel dried-persimmon 26 27 ni suru ka datta. (MIZUKAMI Tsutomu, Kokyō) 28 DAT do INT was 29 ‘During my residency at a police substation in Natanoshō, a mountain village, 30 when the season of mountain persimmon arrived, I indeed received some from 31 villagers. However, I ate ripen ones as they are, or slightly hard ones, I peeled 32 them and made dried persimmons.’ 33 34 Because these nominalizations in central dialects of Japanese, including Tokyo 35 Japanese, are marked by the particle no, and because their interpretations depend 36 on context, Kinsui (1995) and some others treat this particle as a pronominal no, 37 which heads a nominalization and which functions as an anaphor. Such an analysis, 38 however, does not extend to comparable nominalization structures in some other 39 dialects that have not developed a particle similar to no. Observe the following 40 from the Izumo dialect in Western Japan. 41

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 289) 290 Masayoshi Shibatani

19 1 (15) a. [Okke na]NMLZ wa umai. (Izumo dialect) 2 big COP TOP tasty 3 ‘A/the big one is tasty.’ 4

5 a′.[Ooki na]NMLZ no wa umai. (Central dialect)

6 big COP PRT TOP tasty

7 ‘A/the big one is tasty.’

8 b. [ ] 20 (Izumo dialect) 9 Kono yaita NMLZ o gosinahai. this grilled ACC give.me 10

11 ‘Give me this grilled one, please.’

12 b′. Kono [yaita]NMLZ no o kudasai. (Central dialect) 13 this grilled PRT ACC give.me 14 ‘Give me this grilled one, please.’ 15

16 Notice that these Izumo forms without receive exactly the same referential inter- 17 no pretations appropriate to the context as the -marked central dialect forms, indi- 18 no cating that actually does not play a role in determining reference in argument 19 no nominalization. In other words, there is nothing like a pronominal in Japanese. 20 no Another very popular analysis of these argument nominalizations is deriving 21 them from relative clause constructions, which are said to undergo deletion of their 22 head nouns when their identity is obvious from the context. For example, (16b) 23 would be derived from (16a) in this analysis. 24

25 (16) a. [[ ] ] 26 Kono yaita sakana o kudasai/gosinahai. this grilled fish ACC please.give.me 27

28 ‘Give me this grilled fish, please.’

29 b. Kono [[yaita](no)] o kudasai/gosinahai. 30 PRT 31 ‘Give me this grilled one, please.’ 32

33 The problem here is that a full deletion account must refer to context anyway; i.e. 34 when does the deletion apply? Our point is that, if we have to refer to context, let 35 the context and the Gricean Cooperative Principle do the whole work of determining 36

37

38 19 These nominalizations, like regular nouns, can also be modified by nouns; [[sakana no [okke 39 na]NMLZ]NP ga tureta ‘(lit.) A big one of fish got caught’, [[sakana no [yaita]NMLZ]NP o gosinahai ‘(lit.)

40 Give me a grilled one of fish, please’. Cf. [[sakana no [nimono]N]NP ‘(lit.) cooked food of fish/cooked

41 fish’, [[nasu no [tukemono]N]NP ‘(lit.) pickles of eggplants/pickled eggplants’. See section 6 on the true role of the nominalization particle seen here. 42 20 no

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 290) Nominalization 291

1 the reference of an argument nominalization without resorting to a pronominal no, 2 which doesn’t work in the case of the Izumo dialect anyway, or positing an un-

3 expressed head noun, a practice that goes against Occam’s razor.

4

5 6 4.2.3 Structures and their use 7

8 Grammatical structures, whether words or units larger in size than words, function

9 differently depending on their uses. Nominals, including nominalizations, have two

10 major uses, an NP-use and a modification-use. Observe these two uses of the noun 11 inu ‘dog’. 12

13 (17) a. NP-use/Referential function

14 [[Inu]N]NP wa tyuuzitu na doobutu da. 15 dog TOP loyal animal COP 16 ‘Dogs are loyal animals.’ 17

18 b. Modification-use/Restrictive function21

19 [[inu]N [koya]N]N (noun compound) (cf. tori-goya 'chicken coops') 20 dog shack 21 ‘kennel’ 22

23 In (17a) the noun [inu]N heads an NP and has a referential function at the NP level, 24 referring to a type of animal in the real world. In (17b) the same noun functions as a 25 modifier of the head noun, restricting the denotation of the latter to its subset. The 26 important point here is that a structure does not change its grammatical category 27 under different uses. In particular, nouns do not become adjectives even when they 28 play a modification function.22 29 Nominalizations, qua quasi-nominals, behave like regular nouns in allowing both 30 NP- and modification-use. The examples in the preceding subsections all demonstrate 31 the NP-use of grammatical nominalizations, where they have a referential function as 32 the head of an NP.The following examples show the parallelism observed in the usage 33 pattern between a regular noun ((17a)–(17b)) and an argument nominalization. 34

35

36 Japanese nouns do not syntactically modify nouns directly (but see section 7), as in English, which 37 21 allows non-compound, syntactic modification by nouns, as in [[cotton]N [shirt]N]NP and [[car]N 38 [smell]N]NP, or by NPs, as in [[Egyptian]A [cotton]N]NP [shirt]N]NP and [[new]A [car]N]NP [smell]N]NP. 39 22 If the noun car in a car smell has turned to an adjective, we would expect it to be modified by an 40 adverb, e.g. newly. It is modified by an adjective as a new car smell, indicating that car remains a 41 noun in its modification-use.

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 291) 292 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 (18) a. NP-use/Referential function

2 [[[Hanako ga Ø katte-kita]NMLZ no]NMLZ]NP o minnade tabeta. 3 NOM buying-came PRT ACC by.everyone ate 4 ‘(Lit.) We ate all together what Hanako bought and came.’ 5 6 b. Modification-use/Restrictive function 7 [[Hanako ga Ø katte kita]NMLZ ringo]NP o minnade tabeta. 8 apple 9 ‘(Lit.) We ate all together the apples that Hanako bought and came.’ 10 11 So-called relative clauses (e.g. (18b)) involve two nominal structures, both with an 12 entity denoting function, whereby a modifying nominalization denotes a subset of 13 the denotation of the head noun. In this way, a construction with a restrictive func- 14 tion is characterized by a modifying structure that specifies a subset of the denota- 15 tion of the head noun. Our analysis of so-called relative clauses is largely consistent 16 with the treatment of restrictive relative clauses in Formal Semantics, which would 17 analyze a structure like apples that Hanako bought as denoting the intersection of the 18 two sets of objects specified as {x | x are apples} and {x | Hanako bought x}. The only 19 difference is that we would define the second set in terms of the entities that 20 are evoked by the nominalization structure, namely as {x | x is what is denoted 21 23 by [. . .]NMLZ}. 22 Event nominalizations also permit two uses: 23

24 (19) a. NP-use/Referential function

25 [[[Takasi ga kekkonsite ita]NMLZ no]NMLZ′]NP o daremo 26 NOM had.been.married PRT ACC even.a.single.person 27 siranakatta. 28 did.not.know 29 ‘No one knew that Takashi had been married.’ 30 31 b. Modification-use/Identification function 32 [[Takasi ga kekkonsite ita]NMLZ [zizitu]N]NP o daremo siranakatta. 33 fact 34 ‘No one knew the fact that Takashi had been married.’ 35 36 Example (19b) involves a nominalization as a modifier that identifies the head noun 37 as one that the nominalization structure denotes, namely the fact that Takashi had 38 been married. 39

40 23 Our generalized formulation covers restrictive modification by both an argument nominalization, 41 which has a gap in an argument position, and an event nominalization, which does not have a gap in 42 an argument position, as well as by nominal-based nominalizations discussed subsequently beginning section 4.3. See section 7 for further discussions on restrictive and identifying modification.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 292) Nominalization 293

1 Yamada (1908: 1461–62) correctly recognizes the two uses of nominalizations

2 shown in (18) and (19), but he then curiously suggests that these nominalizations

3 become special types of clause, as if nominalizations somehow turn into clauses

4 under the two uses. He tells us that the nominalizations in an NP-use can be called 5 Juntaiku (nominalization clause), and those in a modification-use Rentaiku (adnominal 6 clause). Yamada’s move is in line with the Western grammatical tradition that identifies

7 the nominalization structure in (18b) as a relative CLAUSE and (19b) as a content

8 CLAUSE. Our analysis, however, reveals that there exist nothing like relative clauses

9 and content clauses apart from a modification-use of argument and event nominali-

10 zations, respectively. Indeed, there is nothing that indicates that these nominaliza-

11 tion structures turn into clauses under the two uses for them.

12 13 4.2.4 Clauses, sentences, and nominalizations 14

15 Those who identify so-called relative clauses and complement or subordinate clauses 24 16 as clauses (or even as sentences) fail to make a clear distinction between internal

17 and external properties of grammatical constructions, and to properly understand

18 how structures are defined and categorized. Many grammatical nominalizations

19 have verbal syntax structure-internally. For example, the English event nominaliza-

20 tion [that [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] contains a finite verb that agrees with

21 the subject, an adverb that modifies the verb, and the verb shoots is followed by

22 a direct object in exactly the same way as in the sentence John recklessly shoots

23 trespassers. However, these verbal properties are structure internal, while the category

24 of a structure is determined by its semantic and external morphosyntactic properties.

25 Lexical nominalizations like (We built that) building,(Those terrible) shootings (are

26 deplorable) are categorized as nouns on the account of their property of denot-

27 ing things, such as physical objects and abstract entities like events and facts,

28 which are correlated with their external morphosyntactic properties of inflecting

29 for plurality, standing in argument positions, and being modified by a determiner

30 and adjective, etc. Specifically, we would not categorize them as verbs even though

31 they internally contain the verb roots build and shoot, as in [[[build]V-ing]NMLZ]N

32 and [[[shoot]V-ing]NMLZ]N. On the other hand, we would categorize forms like

33 [[[sing]V-er]NMLZ]N and [[[left field]N-er]NMLZ]N similarly as noun despite the difference

34 in the internal properties, because their external properties are exactly alike. The

35 structure [that [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] in an expression like [That John

36 recklessly shoots trespassers] is well known denotes an abstract entity of fact, like

37

38 Comrie and Horie (1995) tell us that relative clauses are no different from ordinary sentences with 39 24 an anaphoric gap, without taking seriously the crucial fact that while anaphoric gaps can be filled 40 (somewhat redundantly) by a pronoun, RC gaps cannot be in Japanese and other languages. Nevis, 41 Pesetsky, and Rodrigues (2009) tell us that “[a] verb may merge with a sentence,asinMary thinks 42 [that the world is round]” (p. 366; emphasis added), while they think elsewhere (p. 363) that the similar structure [that a boat is coming] is a clause in Y said that a boat is coming.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 293) 294 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 a noun fact denotes an abstract entity concept. It also has an important external 2 syntactic property of heading a subject or object NP, a major hallmark of nominals.

3 The reason why nominalizations behave syntactically like nouns is because they

4 denote substantive concepts like nouns. Clauses and sentences perform functions

5 different from the entity-denoting function. Clauses complete a predication by ascrib-

6 ing verbal relational concepts to the referent of a subject nominal. The structure

7 [John recklessly shoots trespassers] as a clause ascribes the verbal property of [reck-

8 lessly shoot trespassers] to the referent of the subject [John]. Sentences, on the other

9 hand, perform different kinds of speech acts such as asserting that the predication

10 made by a clause is true (declarative sentences), questioning whether or not the

11 predication is true (yes-no questions), ordering (imperative sentences), etc. The struc-

12 ture [John recklessly shoots trespassers] is a sentence when it is used in making

13 an assertion about the clausal predication, i.e. when the speaker, by uttering the

14 phonetic content of the structure, performs the speech act of declaring that the

15 predication made in the clause is true. Notice that predication and assertion are

16 two different types of speech acts, which can be clearly separated in yes-no ques-

17 tions. In asking “Does John recklessly shoot trespassers?”, the speaker makes a

18 predication but he does not assert its truth; instead, he asks the hearer to either

19 assert or negate the truth of this predication.

20 The structure [(that) [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] as a nominalization,

21 on the other hand, bears a function different from the clausal or sentential use of

22 this structure. Nominalization structures neither predicate nor assert. Instead, they 23 presuppose propositions such as John recklessly shoot trespassers and John shot 24 something (for the nominalization in I saw [what John shot]). How one arrives at 25 these presuppositions from the nominalization structures is an interesting question.

26 But grammatical nominalizations generally contain enough materials, as in the

27 examples given here, from which one can construct associated presuppositions.

28 Instead of speech acts of predication and assertion (or some other speech acts),

29 nominalization structures have a function of denoting substantive concepts, as

30 repeatedly noted above. Being nominal, nominalizations may head an NP and func-

31 tion as arguments of clauses and sentences. They do not stand alone like sentences

32 in their capacity as nominal structures. However, nominalizations may become used

33 as sentences when they perform speech acts, such as the expressive act of evincing

34 the speaker’s psychological stance or attitude toward the state of affairs denoted

35 (e.g. an expression of lamentation or surprise).25 Conversely, sentences/clauses do

36 not function as NP arguments. The only case in which they function as arguments 37 is when it is used as a direct quotation, as in John said/wrote/boasted, “I am the 38

39 25 Notice that nouns also function as a sentence (so-called one-word sentences) when it is used to perform a speech act, as in the act of warning in an utterance like “Fire!”. It is believed that the 40 replacement of Japanese sentences ending in the Shūshikei form of a verb by the nominalization 41 structures in the history of Japanese started out with this kind of use of nominalizations as sentences. 42 Cf. the famous example of this from the Tale of Genji: Suzume no ko o Inuki ga nigasi-turu ‘Inuki let my baby sparrow escape (shucks!)’, which ends in the nominalized form of the perfective suffix.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 294) Nominalization 295

1 greatest of all!”. In this way, grammatical constructions – sublexical morphemes, words, 2 as well as larger phrasal units – are defined in terms of their functions and morpho-

3 syntactic properties, not by morphology or formal similarities to other structures.

4 5 4.2.5 Nominalization particle no26 6 The grammar of nominalizations in most modern Japanese dialects has evolved from 7 that of Classical Japanese via two prominent historical changes. One is the merger of 8 nominalized verbal forms and their finite counterparts, as already discussed. The 9 other is the rise of so-called (nominalization particle) starting in the late 10 Juntaijoshi sixteenth century in the case of central dialects, which began to use the particle 11 no to mark one use of grammatical nominalizations. Many other, but not all, dialects 12 have also developed similar particles for this function; or in Kyūshū, or in 13 to tu so ho Yamaguchi prefecture, in Hokuriku (Toyama and Ishikawa prefectures) and Kōchi 14 ga prefecture in Shikoku, the compound form in Niigata prefecture, and its 15 ga-n yazu variants in Akita, etc. While the term itself is non-committal to its function, 16 Juntaijoshi many scholars consider these particles to be nominalizing particles or nominalizers 17 that create nominalization structures (Horie 2008, Frellesvig 2010, etc.). That these 18 particles are actually independent from the nominalizing process is clearly seen from 19 the data in those dialects that have not developed such particles, as in the Izumo 20 dialect seen above (see (15)), where nominalizations occur without a particle. 21 There is one verbal form in many varieties of Modern Japanese that distinguishes 22 between the finite and the nominalized form. It is the copula that supports predi- 23 da cation by a nominal adjective or adjectival noun, whose finite form is and whose 24 da nominalized form is . Observe the following, where we can clearly see that the 25 na nominalization structure in (20c) obtains independently from the particle : 26 no

27 (20) a. Ano hana wa kirei da. 28 that flower TOP pretty COP 29 ‘That flower is pretty.’ 30

31 b. Ano [kirei na]NMLZ no o katte. (NP-use) 32 COP PRT ACC buy.GER 33 ‘Buy (me) that pretty one.’ 34 c. Ano [kirei na]NMLZ hana o katte. (Modification-use) 35 ‘Buy (me) that pretty flower.’ 36

37 Beside , there are many other particles that mark the NP-use of nominalizations including 38 26 no koto, yatu, kata, and so-called Keishiki meishi (formal noun). This chapter focuses on the most 39 versatile marker no, which marks both event and argument nominalizations. The other markers are 40 limited in their use, either to event or argument nominalizations, and have additional functions such 41 as marking the semantics of event nominalization (as in the case of toki ‘time’, tokoro ‘place’, wake 42 reason’, etc.) or indicating the speaker’s attitude toward the denotations of argument nominaliza- tions (cf. the difference among aruite iru no ‘one walking’ (plain), aruite iru kata (honorific), and aruite iru yatu (rough/derogative).

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 295) 296 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 The usage pattern of nominalizations above shows that the so-called Juntaijoshi 2 occurs only when nominalizations are used as NP-heads, as in (20b), and that it

3 is not really a nominalizing particle.27 Its true function is to mark the referential 4 use of nominalizations as the heads of NPs. The historical fact that this no first 5 developed in the NP-use of argument nominalizations corroborates this conclusion.

6 Argument nominalizations tend to denote concrete things that play a referential

7 function in discourse more readily than abstract concepts such as events and facts

8 that event nominalizations denote.28

9 A tantalizing question now emerges regarding the connections between the 10 markers of NP-use of nominalizations, Juntaijoshi, across different dialects (no/n, 11 ga, ga-n, to/tu, so/ho) and the so-called genitive particles found in possessive con- 12 structions, e.g. Takasi no hon ‘Takashi’s book’ ore-n ti ‘my house’ in modern central 13 dialects, nusi ga musuko ‘your son’ in the Kumamoto dialect, and Classical Japanese 14 forms Hitomaro ga uta ‘Hitomaro’s poems’ and oki tu siranami ‘white waves of the 15 open sea’.29 The exploration of this question will lead us to recognize another type

16 of nominalization, namely nominal-based nominalizations, which would obviate the

17 need for the so-called genitive particles and which would answer the question posed

18 above.

19

20 21 4.3 Nominal-based grammatical nominalizations 22 The genitive case, with which the so-called possessive particle in Japanese is 23 no identified, is an odd case since grammatical cases, such as nominative and locative, 24 in general, express grammatical or semantic relations between an NP and the verb 25 of a sentence.30 The constructions containing -mediated NPs are also problematic 26 no

27 A true nominalizing particle/nominalizer occurs in both NP- and modification-use. Compare the 28 27 occurrence of no in (20b–c) and that of the Mandarin Chinese nominalizing particle de, which occurs 29 in all the contexts in which an argument nominalization is used, e.g. [Ø zài nàr diào yú]=de (shì Xiăo 30 Wáng)] ‘The one fishing over there (is Little Wang)’ (NP-use) and [Ø zài nàr diào yú]=de hái-zi (shì 31 Xiăo Wáng)] ‘The child who is fishing over there (is Little Wang)’ (modification-use). 32 28 There is a cross-dialectal pattern that matches this historical development of the marker of the NP-use of grammatical nominalization. In central dialects, marks only the NP-use of argument 33 yatu nominalization (e.g. boku ga katta yatu ‘the one that I bought’), but in Akita dialects, the cognate 34 forms yazu, yazi, yati, yeti, azi, zi mark the NP-use of both argument and event nominalizations. Cf. 35 dekkee yazi hosi ‘(I) want a big one’, kono kasa ore yazi da ‘This umbrella is mine’, Taroo kuru yazi 36 mattera ‘(I) am waiting for Taro to arrive’ (from author’s field notes on the Akita dialect spoken in 37 Tsunodate City dated June 8, 2014). See Shibatani and Shigeno (2013) on the spread of Juntaijoshi.

38 29 See the similar connection in the Mandarin Chinese nominalizer de seen in footnote 27 and the marker of a possessive construction, e.g. ŏ ū ‘my book’. Matisoff (1972) was among the early 39 w de sh researchers who had noticed this connection in Mandarin, Japanese, and Lahu, though he had no 40 explanation for it. 41 30 Vocative is another such case that does not express the NP-verb relationship. See Teramura 42 (1999) on further discussions on this point.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 296) Nominalization 297

1 because the meaning relationships between the two NP constituents vary consider- 2 ably, as can be seen in Takesi no hon ‘Takeshi’s book’, Hanako no syasin ‘Hanako’s 3 photo’, Koronbusu no sin-tairiku no hakken ‘the discovery of a new continent by 4 Columbus’, niwa no ki ‘a garden tree’, kinu no syatu ‘a silk shirt’, Hanako no nasu 5 no tukemono ‘Hanako’s eggplant pickles’, etc. Do we have a single no here, and 6 what is the role of one or possibly more than one no involved here in determining 7 these varied meanings? We explore these problems in terms of a nominalization

8 process, the one that applies to a nominal structure yielding another nominal struc-

9 ture whose meanings are metonymically motivated as in the case of verbal-based

10 nominalizations studied above. In an introductory section of this article, we have

11 seen that lexical nominalizations apply to nouns as well. Once this possibility is

12 duly recognized, it should come as no surprise that grammatical nominalization

13 may also apply to nominal structures. Our proposal below is to reanalyze the expres- 14 sions of so-called genitive case (such as his, John’s and Takesi no) as nominal-based 15 grammatical nominalizations and altogether do away with the genitive case, or the 16 category of Zokkaku joshi (genitive particle) in Japanese (and elsewhere). 17 Let us first observe how the two instances of the expression Kawabata no is 18 understood below:

19 20 (21) Sono koro, bungaku syoonen no31 muzyakisa de, syoosetuka nizyuunin 21 that time literary boy GEN innocence at writer twenty.CLF 22 gurai no zyuusyo o Bungaku-nenkan de sirabe, 23 about GEN address ACC literary-yearbook in check 24 nengazyoo o, dasita koto ga attaga tosi ga 25 new.year.greeting.card ACC mailed that NOM was.but year NOM 26

27 akete henzi ga kita no wa, Kawabata Yasunari to dawn.GER reply NOM came PRT TOP Kawabata Yasunari and 28 29 Konuma Tan dake datta. Kawabata no wa hondana ni 30 Konuma Tan only was Kawabata GEN TOP bookcase on 31 kazari, Konuma no wa mune ni daite neta. 32 decorate.GER Konuma GEN TOP bosom in hold.GEN slept 33 “At that time, out of the innocence of a literary youth, (I) found out the 34 addresses of about twenty writers, and sent new year’s greeting cards. At 35 the New Year’s start, the ones from whom replies came were only Kawabata 36 Yasunari and Konuma Tan. Kawabata’s was displayed on the bookshelf and 37 Konuma’s was held to my bosom while (I) slept.” 38 (KUZE Mitsuhiko Hito koishikute – yohaku no ōijūshoroku) 39

40 31 Despite our new analysis of this type of no as nominalizer, we continue to gloss it as GEN for the 41 sake of simplicity. Likewise, we continue to gloss the Juntaijoshi no as PRT (particle). 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:13) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 297) 298 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 (22) Zannen nangara Tookyoo Jihen no Yukiguni ga 2 unfortunately though Tokyo Incidents GEN Yukiguni NOM 3 Kawabata no o isikisite tukurareta toyuu meikakuna bunsyoo 4 Kawabata GEN ACC consciously was.made that clear sentences 5 o mita koto ga nai no desu ga, hon yondete kyoku 6 ACC saw that NOM not PRT COP NOM book reading.GER music 7

8 kikuto, Kawabata no Yukiguni no koto sika omoemasen. listen.to Kawabata GEN Yukiguni GEN thing only cannot.think 9 10 “Unfortunately (I) have not seen any piece of clear writing that Yukiguni of the 11 Tokyo Incidents [a vocal group] was composed with a conscious awareness of 12 Kawabata’s, but when I read the book and listen (to the music) carefully, I can 13 only think of Kawabata’s Yukiguni.” (http://bungeiclub.exblog.jp/) 14 The expression Kawabata no in these excerpts does not denote/refer to the author 15 named Kawabata. Furthermore, what the expression denotes and refers to differ 16 between the two contexts. In the first passage, Kawabata no is understood to be 17 denoting things connected to the author Kawabata Yasunari, and the context suggests 18 that the expression is used to refer specifically to the New Year’s greeting card or the 19 reply connected to Kawabata, namely the one connected in terms of the authorship 20 and its product. In the second passage, the same expression is used to refer to 21 Kawabata’s novel Yukiguni (Snow country). It is clear from this that a form such as 22 Kawabata no functions in exactly the same way as many of the regular metonymic 23 expressions and verbal-based grammatical nominalizations, denoting a variety of 24 things that have intimate connections with the literal denotations of the base forms, 25 out of which the denotation most relevant to the context is chosen.32 26 Instead of viewing constructions like Kawabata no as arising from deletion of 27 the head noun (Kawabata no henzi → Kawabata no) or positing a pronominal no,33 28 we are proposing to analyze no seen here (or so-called genitive forms in general) as 29 a nominalizer that turns a nominal expression into another with a new denotation, 30 the one essentially denoting entities that are in close association with the denotation 31 of the nominal base-form. The notion of possession associated with the genitive 32 case form is a prominent instance of the denotation property of the nominal-based 33 nominalization, as seen in the use of John’s in This toy is John’s or John’s is more 34 expensive than Bill’s toy. These examples and the following Japanese examples 35 show that nominal-based grammatical nominalizations also have two major uses, 36 like verbal-based grammatical nominalizations. 37

38 32 Cf. Matsushita (1930: 246): “When one says Zibun no wa nai ga hito no ga aru ‘Mine does not exist 39 but others’ exists’ in Tokyo speech, zibun no ‘mine’ and hito no ‘others’ mean ‘my thing’ and ‘others’ 40 thing’ and they are “nominal re-nouns” (名詞性再名詞) [nominal-based nominalizations?].” (my 41 translation) 42 33 See 4.2.2 for an argument against such an analysis.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 298) Nominalization 299

1 (23) a. NP-use

2 Ano sakuhin wa [[Kawabata no]NMLZ]NP o manete iru. 3 that work TOP Kawabata NMLZR ACC imitate be 4 ‘That work imitates Kawabata’s.’ 5

6 b. Modification-use

7 [[Kawabata no]NMLZ sakuhin]NP 8 Kawabata NMLZR work 9 ‘Kawabata’s work’ 10 11 Notice that unlike the marker of an NP-use of verbal-based nominalizations (the 12 Juntaiijoshi no) discussed in section 4.2.5, the nominalizing no discussed here 13 occurs in all contexts of use, in both NP- and modification-use, just like the 14 nominalizing particle de in Chinese (see footnote 27). Understanding the rise of the 15 marker for the NP-use of nominalizations – how it is connected to the nominalizing 16 no (and ga), and how its marking pattern develops – is essential in seeing that 17 our analysis of the genitive as a nominal-based nominalization is also supported by 18 morphological evidence.34 19

20

21 22 5 From the nominalizers no/ga to the Juntaijoshi 23

24 It is well known that in Classical Japanese there were two particles, no and ga,

25 which, according to our analysis, functioned as nominalizers for nominals. NP- and

26 modification-uses of the structures nominalized by these particles are shown below:

27

28 (24) NP-use 29 a. Kususi wa tune no mo aredo marahito no ima no 30 medicine.man TOP past GEN also exist.but visitor GEN present GEN 31 yakusi tootokarikemu medasikarikeri. 32 Bhaisajyaguru noble worthy.of.praise 33 ‘As for medicine men, there are ones from the past, but the presently 34 visiting Bhaisajyaguru is noble and worthy of praise.’ (Bussokuseki no uta) 35 36 b. Kara no mo Yamato no mo kakikegasi 37 Chinese GEN also Japanese GEN also write.away

38 ‘having written away Chinese ones as well as Japanese ones’ 39 (Genji Monogatari ・Aoi) 40

41 34 Chinese and some other languages (e.g. Nepali) show a more direct connection between nominal- 42 based nominalizations (wŏ de shū ‘my book’) and verbal-based nominalizations, both of which involve the same nominalizer de. Cf. the de marking in verbal-based nominalizations in footnote 27.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 299) 300 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 c. Kono uta wa aru hito no iwaku Kakinomoto 2 this poem TOP certain person GEN say Kakinomoto 3 Hitomaro ga nari. 4 Hitomaro GEN COP 5 ‘This poem, a certain person says, is Kakinomoto Hitomaro’s.’ 6 (Kokin Wakashū, Vol. 13) 7 (25) Modification-use 8

9 a. Huzi no takane

10 Fuji GEN high.peak 11 ‘Mt. Fuji’s high peak’ (Man’yōshū) 12 b. aru hito no ke no ana 13 certain person GEN hair GEN hole 14 ‘a certain man’s hair’s hole’ ( ) 15 Taketori Monogatari 16 c. Onore ga gei no masaritaru koto o yorokobu 17 self NOM ability GEN superior that ACC be.glad 18 ‘be glad about one’s ability being superior’ (Tsurezuregusa) 19

20 d. Kono uta wa aru hito no iwaku Kakinomoto

21 this poem TOP certain person GEN say Kakinomoto 22 Hitomaro ga uta nari. 23 Hitomaro GEN poem COP 24 ‘This poem, a certain man says, is Kakinomoto Hitomaro’s poem.’ 25 (Kokin Wakashū, Vol. 9) 26

27 As early as the tenth century, these nominalizing particles have been used to mark

28 the NP-use of nominal-based nominalizations, and have gradually established them- 29 selves as obligatory markers (Juntaijoshi), as attested in the following examples. 30 (26) Marking of NP-use of nominal-based nominalizations 31 a. [ ] 32 Hitozuma to wa ga no hutatu omouni hanarekosi man’s.wife and I GEN PRT two think leave.behind 33

34 sode wa awaremasereru.

35 sleeve TOP exceedingly.sad

36 ‘As I think about both a man’s wife and mine, the sleeves left behind are 37 exceedingly sad.’ (Yoshitadashū, 10th C) 38 b. Kokin no tyooka, [Ise ga] no ga sugurete omosirosi to yuu nari. 39 Kokin GEN long.poem Ise GEN PRT NOM very interesting that say EVI 40 ‘Of the long poems of Kokin, Ise’s are said to be very interesting.’ 41 (Jiteiki 17th C) 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 300) Nominalization 301

1 c. Kore syooben wa sukunoo temo, [kotitora ga] no wa, 2 this.one urine TOP little though I GEN PRT TOP 3 siromono ga eiwai. 4 thing NOM good.FP 5 ‘This one, though pee is little, mine is a good thing.’ 6 (Tōkaidōchū Hizakurige 19th C) 7 8 Notice that the no marking the bracketed N-based nominalizations above only occurs 9 when these nominalizations are used as an NP-head at this stage.35 10 As for modern dialects, Matsushita (1930: 246) notes the following forms,36 11

12 (27) a. [zibun no] no (Tōkaidō area)

13 self GEN PRT

14 ‘mine’

15 b. [zibun ga] no (Tōhoku) 16 self GEN PRT 17 ‘mine’ 18 19 c. [zibun no] ga (Shikoku) 20 self GEN PRT 21 ‘mine’ 22 23 and then remarks that “in Shikoku ga becomes a formal noun [Juntaijoshi]. With 24 this, it can be conjectured that the [Juntaijoshi] no developed out of the [genitive/ 25 nominalizing particle] no.” 26 A fuller picture of the use of N-based nominalizations in the Tosa dialect in

27 Shikoku is as in (28). What is crucial to our claim that these forms are nominaliza-

28 tions is the fact that exactly the same marking pattern obtains in the use of verbal-

29 based nominalizations, as a comparison between (28) and (29) below shows.

30 37 31 (28) Tosa dialect (Kōchi Pref. Shikoku; Field notes)

32 (Nominal-based nominalization)

33 a. [[watasi no]NMLZ kasa]NP wa kore ya kendo (Modification-use) 34 I GEN umbrella TOP this COP while 35 ‘While my umbrella is this,’ 36

37 35 There are modern dialects, like the Toba dialect in the Mie prefecture, in which the marking 38 pattern here has spread to the modification context (e.g. [Takeo ga no] hon] ‘Takeo’s book’). See

39 Shibatani and Shigeno (2014) on the cyclic development of the marking pattern in the two use contexts in Ryukyuan languages. 40 36 See Shibatani and Nitta (forthcoming) for a fuller picture of the dialectal forms and patterns of 41 nominalization markers. 42 37 The parallel pattern in the use of ga as the marker of NP-use of nominal based nominalizations is also seen in Hokuriku (Ishikawa and Toyama Prefectures).

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 301) 302 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 b. [[sensei no]NMLZ ga]NMLZ′]NP wa atti no ga ze. (NP-use) 2 teacher GEN PRT TOP that GEN PRT FP 3 ‘the teacher’s is that one.’ 4 5 (29) Tosa dialect (Verbal-based nominalization) 6 a. [[asoko ni tattyuu]NMLZ kodomo]NP (Modification-use) 7 there at standing child 8 ‘child who is standing there’ 9

10 b. [[[Asoko ni tattyuu]NMLZ ga]NMLZ′]]NP wa uti no ko da. (NP-use) 11 there at standing PRT TOP house GEN child COP 12 ‘The one standing there is our child.’ 13 14 Exactly the same parallel pattern between N-based and V-based nominalizations 15 is seen in other dialects that have fully developed a marker for the NP-use of nomi- 16 nalizations as in the above Tosa pattern and the pattern, seen below, involving to, 17 believed to be related to the old genitive/nominalizing particle tu. 18

19 (30) Hakata dialect (Fukuoka Pref., Kyushu; courtesy of Takanori Hirano) 20 (Nominal-based nominalization) 21

22 a. [[ore no]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use)

23 I GEN book

24 ‘my book’

25 b. [[ ] ] ] ]] (NP-use) 26 Sore, ore n/no NMLZ to NMLZ′ NP bai. that I GEN/GEN PRT FP 27

28 ‘That (one), it’s mine.’

29

30 (31) Hakata dialect (Verbal-based nominalization)

31 a. [[anko ga haittoo]NMLZ moti]NP (Modification-use) 32 bean.paste NOM contain rice.cake 33 ‘the rice cake that contains bean paste’ 34

35 b. Moti wa [[anko ga haittoo]NMLZ to]NMLZ′]NP ga yoka. (NP-use)

36 rice.cake TOP bean.paste NOM contain PRT NOM good

37 ‘As for the rice cake, the one that contains bean paste is good.’

38 39 The historical evidence (see (26a)) indicates that the development of Juntaijoshi as 40 markers of the NP-use of nominalizations in central dialects started out with mark-

41 ing N-based grammatical nominalizations as early as the tenth century. Marking of

42 V-based grammatical nominalizations in NP-use started only in the late sixteenth

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 302) Nominalization 303

1 century. But our point is that the fact of the spread of the marking pattern from

2 one type of construction to another is strong evidence that the two are of the same

3 general type, namely a family of nominalization constructions in our case.38 4 What about the Tokyo Japanese pattern, where a Juntaijoshi seems missing in 5 the NP-use of N-based nominalization, as observed in (32b) below?

6

7 (32) Tokyo Japanese

8 (Nominal-based nominalization)

9 a. [[Takao no]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use) 10 Takao GEN book 11 ‘Takao’s book’ 12

13 b. [[Takao no]NMLZ]NP wa are da. (NP-use) 14 TOP that COP 15 ‘Takao’s is that one.’ 16 17 (33) (Verbal-based nominalization) 18 a. [[Takao ga katta]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use) 19 Takao NOM bought book 20 ‘the book which Takao bought’ 21

22 b. [[Takao ga katta]NMLZ no]NMLZ′]NP wa are da. (NP-use) 23 PRT TOP that COP 24 ‘What Takao bought is that one.’ 25 26 Recall what Matsushita (1930: 246) had to say about the relevant form in the vicinity 27 of the Tōkaidō (cf. 27a). That is, Tokyo Japanese may have also involved Juntaijoshi 28 no,asTakesi no no in the pattern of (32b) in an earlier stage. Indeed, we find quite a 29 few such examples in the memoire of NATSUME Sōseki by his wife.39 30

31

32 38 This historical development pattern, the spread of Juntaijoshi from nominal-based to verbal- 33 based nominalizations, is also seen as a synchronic pattern. Thus in northern Ryukyuan dialects of 34 Okinawan Island marks the NP-use of nominal-based nominalization with mun, but it has not spread 35 to verbal-based nominalizations yet. Southern Ryukyuan dialects, on the other hand, have extended

36 the marking pattern to verbal-based nominalizations. See Shibatani and Shigeno (2013) on this and other points about the development of in Ryukyuan languages. 37 Juntaijoshi 39 NATSUME Kyōko (1877–1963) was born in Hiroshima but presumably grew up in Tokyo, where 38 her father was a senior official of the Upper House of the Imperial Diet. MATSUOKA Yuzuru (1891– 39 1969), a writer and Sōseki’s son-in-law, who transcribed and edited Sōseki no omoide (Sōseki 40 memoire), was born in Niigata but spent his adult life in Tokyo. The page numbers after the examples 41 are from the Bunshun Bunko version of Natsume Sōseki no omoide (1994), which is a reproduction of 42 the original version published by Kaizōsha in 1928.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 303) 304 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 (34) Sōseki no omoide (Sōseki memoire) 2 a. boosi nasi de wa to yuu node, tomokaku itizi sinogi ni 3 hat without at TOP that say because anyway temporarily 4 [Natume no] no o kabutte okaeri o negau 5 Natsume GEN PRT ACC wear.GER going.home ACC ask 6 (p. 157) 7 koto ni simasita that at did 8

9 ‘because (he) said (it wouldn’t do) without a hat, I asked (him) to go home

10 wearing Natsume’s temporarily.’

11

12 b. [anata no] no wa osieru yori sikaru hoo ga ooi (p. 367)

13 you GEN PRT TOP teach than scold side NOM more

14 ‘Yours is more on the side of scolding than teaching.’

15 16 c. [watasi no] no to ii, Nakamura-san no baai to ii (p. 384) 17 I GEN PRT that say Nakamura-Mr GEN case that say 18 ‘speaking of mine, (and) speaking of Mr. Nakamura’s case’ 19 20 d. [mae no] no wa Natume ga kononde kaita ku nano 21 former GEN PRT TOP Natsume NOM fondly wrote poem because 22 de (p. 388) 23 COP.GER 24 ‘Because the former was one that Natsume wrote fondly’ 25

26 It is thus highly likely that the Tokyo dialect also once had the [[Takesi no]NMLZ- 27 no]NMLZ′]NP pattern when an N-based nominalization headed an NP. This form then 28 got reduced to the modern form as seen in (32b) due perhaps to avoiding a no-no 29 doubling.40 Here again we can clearly see that the nominalizing particle no and the 30 Juntaijoshi no are different – the latter only occurring in the context of an NP-use of 31 nominalization –, though the two are clearly related historically. 32

33

34 35 6 Beyond the “genitive subject” and ga/no 36 conversion 37 38 Besides the use in so-called possessive constructions seen above, where the head 39 noun is a noun (phrase), nominal-based nominalizations marked by no (and ga in 40

41

42 40 Cf. Osaka forms: [[boku no]NMLZ hon]NP ‘my book’, [[boku no]NMLZ-n]NMLZ′]NP ‘mine’; [[boku ga koota]NMLZ hon]NP ‘the book which I bought’, [[boku ga koota]NMLZ-n]NMLZ′]NP ‘(that) which I bought’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 304) Nominalization 305

1 Classical Japanese) co-occurs with a non-finite verbal form, as in the following

2 example from Old Japanese, cited in Frellesvig (2010: 127):

3 4 (35) [sawarabi no moye-duru] paru ni41 5 fern GEN sprout-emerge.ADN spring DAT 6 ‘in the spring when fern sprouts’ 7 8 The modifying structure above has the same properties (a nominalized/adnominal 9 verbal form and a no-marked noun phrase) as what Yamada (1908) called “clausal 10 nominalization” below: 11 12 (36) [Hito no yorokobu] o mireba uresi. 13 person GEN rejoicing ACC when.seeing delighted 14 ‘When (I) see people rejoicing, I feel delighted.’ 15 16 This type of construction persists in Modern Japanese, where we observe the pattern 17 known as ga/no conversion in the literature. 18

19 (37) a. [warabi no moe-deru] haru 20 fern GEN sprout-emerge spring 21 ‘fern sprouting spring’ 22 23 b. [warabi ga moe-deru] haru 24 NOM 25 ‘spring when fern sprouts’ 26 27 The usual understanding of these forms, subscribed to by Frellesvig and many spe- 28 cialists of Japanese historical linguistics, including Yamada (1908) and more recently 29 Kinsui et al. (2011), is that in Classical Japanese the genitive particle (our nominalizer) 30 marked the subject of these non-finite structures. On the other hand, many who deal 31 with Modern Japanese consider (37a) to have resulted from particle conversion that 32 optionally turns the subject marking ga into no in non-finite structures.42 Either 33 treatment views the no seen in these structures as a subject. A major puzzle in this 34 kind of analysis is why the genitive/nominalizer particle marks a subject of what is 35 considered to be a clause, when the other use of it is to mark what modifies a noun, 36 as in the so-called possessive construction. 37 The problem in these traditional analyses lies in their assumption that the rele- 38 vant non-finite structures are clauses. The no-marked NPs in them are considered 39

40 41 Both transliterations and glosses are Frellesvig’s. 41 42 See Chapter 18 of this volume for more recent views, in which ga- and no-marking are treated by 42 different mechanisms than an optional particle conversion.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 305) 306 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 syntactic subjects, likely because clauses supposedly have subjects. But no evidence

2 (or a definition for the clause) has been offered that the relevant structures are 3 clauses and/or that the no-marked NPs in them are syntactic subjects. The strongest 4 motivation for the traditional views appears to be semantic; namely, the relevant 5 no-marked NPs denote entities functioning as a protagonist (an agentive participant, 6 a patientive participant, etc.) of the state of affairs denoted by the relevant non-finite

7 structures, just as grammatical subjects do. But that is not enough to establish the 8 subjecthood of no-marked NPs, because the same kind of interpretation obtains in 9 constructions like obaatyan no unten ‘Grandma’s driving’ and kodomo no seityoo 10 ‘the child’s growth’, which certainly are not clauses.43 11 There are two additional structures that contain no-marked NPs similar to the 12 ones being considered here that go beyond the notion of genitive subject or the 13 situations that ga/no conversion covers. These are illustrated below, where no-marked 14 NP appears to correspond to an o-marked object noun phrase. 15 16 (38) a. [nasu o nita] no o tabeta 17 eggplant ACC PRT ACC ate 18 ‘ate the cooked stuff resulting from cooking eggplants’ 19

20 b. [nasu no nita] no o tabeta

21 GEN

22 ‘ate the cooked stuff, which was an eggplant’

23 24 (39) a. yamabato wa [mame o maku] syun o yoku 25 mountain.dove TOP bean ACC sow high.season ACC well 26 kokoroete ite. . . 27 understand be.GER 28 ‘the mountain doves, knowing well the best time of the season for sowing 29 beans, . . .’ 30 31 b. yamabato wa [mame no maku] syun o yoku kokoroete ite. . . 32 GEN 33 ‘the mountain doves, knowing well the best time of the season for sowing 34 beans, . . .’ (MIZKUKAMI Tsutomu Tsuchi o kuu hibi, 1982) 35 36 (40) a. [yuki o kabutta] Takayama-renpoo ga kasukani mieta 37 snow ACC covered Takayama-range NOM vaguely visible 38 ‘the Takayama-range, which was covered by the snow, was vaguely visible’ 39

40

41 43 There is a proposal for analyzing so-called possessor NPs of possessive constructions as subjects. 42 We reject such a proposal (see Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng 2014).

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 306) Nominalization 307

1 b. [yuki no kabutta] Takayama-renpoo ga kasukani mieta 2 GEN 3 ‘the Takayama-range, which was covered by the snow, was vaguely visible’ 4 (MIYAMOTO Teru Ten no yakyoku, 2005) 5

6 Expressions such as [mizu no maku] oto ‘the sound of the spraying of water’ have

7 been noticed before but have been thought to be sporadic in their occurrence, as

8 earlier studies on this topic generally maintain that o does not convert to no (Harada

9 1971, Shibatani 1975, and others). As it turns out, very many similar expressions turn

10 up in Google searches, often even with two no-marked NPs, as in (43).

11 (41) a. [piano no hiku] no ga zyoozu desu 12 piano GEN play PRT NOM good COP 13 ‘good at playing the piano’ 14 (https://www.sendai-sensei.com/. . ./) 15 16 b. [mizu no maku] no taihen dayoo 17 water GEN spray PRT hard COP.FP 18 ‘It is tough to spray water.’ 19 (ex14.vip2ch.com/test/read.cgi/news4ssnip/1369153804) 20 c. yaku mae ni [kinako no mabusu] no mo osusume 21 bake before at soy.flour GEN cover PRT also recommending 22 ‘it is recommended also to cover with soy flour before baking’ 23 (https://twitter.com/_kaze_mama_2/status/7146057464706662400) 24 25 d. [kami-no-ke no arau] no mo zyuuyoo dakedo 26 head.hair GEN wash PRT also important COP.though 27 ‘important to also to wash the hair, but’ 28 (detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp › ... ›) 29 e. [kao no siranai] no ga hosyoo ni tatte ita. 30 face GEN know.NEG PRT NOM guard as stand was 31 ‘one, whose face (I) didn’t know, was standing on guard 32 (www.scn-net.ne.jp/~grakam/dairen-horyo.htm) 33 34 (42) a. [piano no hiku] hito 35 piano GEN play person 36 ‘person who plays the piano’ 37 (www.seiwa-gakki.co.jp/services/services index/) 38

39 b. [kinako no mabusita] ohagi

40 soy.flour GEN covered bean.cake

41 ‘bean cake that (one) has covered with soy flour’

42 (http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/okaru100/diary/200503200000/)

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 307) 308 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 c. [wadaiko no tataku] doosa 2 Japanese.drum GEN beat motion 3 ‘motion of the beating of the Japanese drum’ 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkXI01qkFY) 5

6 d. [kimono no tatamu] hoohoo

7 kimono GEN fold method

8 ‘the method of folding Japanese kimono’

9 (ameblo.jp/4daime-you/entry-11955123479.html)

10 e. [ ] 11 kao no siranai aite to tanosiku kaiwa site. . . face GEN know.NEG partner with happily conversation do.GER 12

13 ‘happily having a conversation with a partner whose face (I) didn’t know’

14 (www.beittikva.net/2012/06/post.html)

15

16 (43) a. [Umai hito no taiko no tataku] no wa zutto mitete

17 skillful person GEN drum GEN beat PRT TOP continuously see.GER 18 mo akinai desu. 19 even bored.NEG COP 20 ‘(you) won’t be bored even if you continuously looked at a skillful person’s 21 beating of the drum.’ 22 (hatotetsu.blog89.fc2.com/blog-entry-619.html) 23

24 b. [Sensei no piano no hiku] oto o yoku kikoo ne.

25 teacher GEN piano GEN play sound ACC well listen FP

26 ‘Let’s listen to the sound of the teacher’s playing of the piano’

27 (tanosii-piano-lesson.seesaa.net/article/274792769.html)

28 c. [ ] 29 sokudoku o syuutoku sita hito no hon no yomu hayasa rapid.reading ACC mastering did person GEN book GEN read speed 30

31 ‘the speed of the person who has mastered rapid reading read a book’

32 (ameblo.jp/renn0120/entry-11935933238.html)

33 d. [baatyan no kuruma no unten-suru] supiido 34 grandma GEN car GEN driving-do speed 35 ‘the speed of the grandma’s driving of a car’ 36 (https://twitter.com/zyousouaruaru) 37

38 e. [otto no sake no nomu] ryoo 39 husband GEN wine GEN drink amount 40 ‘the amount of the husband’s drinking of Japanese wine’ 41 (suzukey.com/QandA/view.php?question_id=11146215246) 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 308) Nominalization 309

1 While speakers’ reactions to these forms may vary, from “acceptable” to “dubious”,

2 the high frequency of occurrence of the structural patterns above can no longer be

3 brushed aside as sporadic if one’s goal is a descriptively adequate account. Now, are 4 we to recognize no-marked objects or o/no conversion? But then we would fail to 5 capture the semantic parallelism between these forms and noun-headed expressions

6 like the ones below, which illustrate a more well-established noun modification

7 pattern than those in (43).

8 9 (44) a. [baatyan no kuruma no unten] (cf. 43d) 10 grandma GEN car GEN driving 11 ‘Grandma’s driving of a car’ 12

13 b. [Koronbusu no sin-tairiku no hakken]

14 Columbus GEN new-continent GEN discovery

15 ‘Columbus’s discovery of a new continent’

16 c. [ ] 17 Yamanaka hakusi no Nooberusyoo no zyusyoo Yamanaka doctor GEN Nobel.prize GEN receiving 18

19 ‘Dr. Yamanaka’s receiving of a Nobel prize’

20

21 In fact, it is a parallelism like this that has led some to consider that these nominal 44 22 structures also have subjects (and objects?) .Aneffort to capture cross-constructional

23 meaning similarities of this kind is laudable. However, the range of semantic relations

24 seen in the relevant constructions far exceeds what can be captured in terms of

25 the syntactic arguments of subject and object. Besides those relations paralleling

26 what can be expressed by syntactic adjuncts, as in (45), there are many no-marked

27 modifiers, as in (46), that cannot be understood in terms of clausal arguments or

28 adjuncts in a natural way.

29

30 (45) hana (e) no mizuyari ‘water-giving to flower’, sima (de) no kurasi ‘living on the

31 island’, satoo (de) no azituke ‘seasoning with sugar’, Hiroko (kara) no tegami

32 ‘letter from Hanako’

33 (46) ringo no kago ‘basket for apples’, kodomo no byooin ‘child’s hospital’, eigo no 34 kyookasyo ‘textbook for English’, sakura no kisetu ‘cherry (-blossom) season’, 35 sakura no meisyo ‘famous spot for cherries’, hana-mi no kyaku ‘flower-viewing 36 visitors’, huyu no kooto ‘winter coat’, Huransu no wain ‘wine made in France’, 37 nikai no kyaku ‘customers upstairs’, nyuusi no benkyoo ‘study for an entrance 38 exam’, kenkoo no hiketu ‘secret for health’ 39

40 41 44 See footnote 43. 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 309) 310 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 The nominalization analysis of no proposed here aspires to account for the meanings 2 of all these no-marked NPs uniformly as a function of the nominalization process 3 producing NP-no structures that denote various entities and state of affairs with 4 which base NPs hold a metonymic relation. But let us first look at the structural

5 patterns of the modification constructions headed by a grammatical nominalization.

6 First, notice that V-based grammatical nominalizations come in a range of syntactic

7 complexity ranging from ones based on a V alone, those corresponding to a VP, and

8 those corresponding to a clause, as below:

9

10 (47) a. Watasi wa [yomu]NMLZ no o yameta. 11 I TOP read PRT ACC stopped 12 ‘I stopped reading.’ 13

14 b. Watasi wa [hon o yomu]NMLZ no o yameta. 15 book 16 ‘I stoped reading books.’ 17

18 c. Watasi wa [Kenzi ga hon o yomu]NMLZ no o zitto mimamotta. 19 Kenji NOM PRT ACC steadily watched 20 ‘I steadily watched Kenji read a book.’ 21

22 Of these, (47a) allows modification by NP-no in the manner of (41)–(42) above. While 23 the question of why NP-no modifiers corresponding in meaning to the ga-marked 24 subjects of intransitive clauses (e.g., kodomo-tati no hasiru (no)) are found more 25 frequently and sound more natural than any of the forms in (41)–(42) must be 26 answered,45 they undoubtedly take after those headed by lexical nouns such as 27 [sin-tairiku no hakken] ‘a discovery of the new continent’ and [kodomo no situke] 28 ‘disciplining of a child’. We are claiming that this analogy is made possible because 29 the forms in (41)–(42) all have grammatical nominalizations [hiku]NMLZ ‘playing’, 30 [maku]NMLZ ‘spraying’, etc. as their heads. Further modification of such forms by 31 another NP-no appears also possible, as attested by the examples in (43). This 32 pattern is something unexpected in the past studies since it has generally been 33 believed that the nominalization structure [hon o yomu]NMLZ (no/hito) seen in (47b) 34 cannot be modified by NP-no in Modern Japanese (Harada 1971, Shibatani 1975, and 35 others). Again, this wide-spread belief is contradicted by some sporadic examples in 36 literary works and by much more abundant data from Google searches. Observe the 37 following: 38

39 45 It appears that the ease of modification by NP-no follows the following pattern: intransitive patient- 40 ive (ke no mizikai (inu) ‘(the dog) that has short hair) ≥ intransitive agentive (kodomo no hasiru (sugata) 41 ‘(the figure) of the child running) >> transitive patientive (mizu no maku (oto) ‘(the sound) of spraying 42 water >> transitive agentive (kodomo no mizu no maku (oto) ‘(the sound) of a child spraying water’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 310) Nominalization 311

1 (48) a. kono myoo na otokoo wa. . . bonyari [boku no 2 this strange COP.MNLZ man TOP absentmindedly I GEN 3 sake o nomu] no o nagamete iru. 4 wine ACC drink PRT ACC look.GER be 5 ‘This strange man is absentmindedly watching me drink Japanese wine.’ 6 (AKUTAGAWA Ryūnosuke Mensua Zoili 1917) 7

8 b. Watasi wa soremade [akasia no hana o tukete iru] tokoro

9 I TOP until.then acacia GEN flower ACC put.on be PRT 10 o mita koto ga nai. 11 ACC saw that NOM non-existent 12 (Lit.) ‘To me that I saw acacias’ putting on flowers is non-existent until 13 then.’/ ‘I had not seen acacias having flowers until then.’ 14 (HORI Tatsuo Utsukushii Mura 1934) 15

16 b. Sinsuke wa atama no naka de [Tae no zibun o miru]

17 Shinsuke TOP head GEN inside at Tae GEN self ACC see 18 hyoozyoo o omoi-egaita. 19 expression ACC visualized 20 ‘Shinsuke, in his head, visualized the expression of Tae’s looking at 21 himself (Shinsuke).’ (ITSUKI Hiroshi Seishun no mon 1970) 22

23 c. [Kodaira-sensei no mizu o maku] oto sika kikoenai.

24 Kodaira-teacher GEN water ACC spray sound only saudible.NEG

25 ‘Nothing but the sound of Teacher Kodaira spraying water is audible’ 26 (https://twitter.com/nabe_ashikusa/status/561155811892662273)

27 d. [ ] 46 28 okami-san no obi o simeru sugata ga dandan mistress-Miss GEN belt ACC tighten figure NOM gradually 29

30 sama ni natte kiteiru.

31 shape.up become coming

32 ‘the figure of the mistress’s tightening of a Japanese belt gradually took 33 shape’ (fakikaku.com/paststage/2002-10-fresh/diary-7.htm)

34 e. [ ] 35 nizyuu-dai no koro no watasi no hon o yomu ryoo twenties GEN time GEN I GEN book ACC read amount 36

37 ‘the quantity of books I read when I was in the twenties’

38 (yukari-akiyama.com/career/2657)

39

40 46 This could be construed as [okami-san no [obi o simeru sugata]. But [okami-san no obi o simeru] 41 oto seems equally good, which is difficult to construe as [okami san no [obi o simeru oto]. 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 311) 312 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 Let us now turn to the semantics of the NP-no modifiers. The problem boils down to 2 the question of how to capture the semantic parallelism observed between the two

3 constructions below:

4

5 (49) a. [[kodomo no][kakekko]N]N′ 6 child GEN running 7 ‘the running of the child’ 8

9 b. [[kodomo no][hasiru]NMLZ]NMLZ′ (no)

10 run (PRT)

11 ‘the child’s running’

12 13 The nominalization analysis we are proposing for the so-called genitive NP-no treats 14 such a structure as a nominal that denotes concrete thing-like entities (a toy, a

15 person, etc.) or abstract states of affairs (running, reading a book, etc.) with which

16 the denotation of the base NP is metonymically associated (e.g. for being the owner

17 of an object, for being related as a sibling to a person, or being an agentive protagonist

18 of a state of affairs, being a patientive protagonist of a state of affairs). These specific

19 metonymic relations are based on culturally sanctioned general metonymy schema 20 of the type such as OWNER FOR GOODS (e.g. asoko no nikuya wa oisii ‘that meat 21 ship is delicious’, kono hon wa Haruo no da ‘this book is Haruo’s’), EVENT FOR 22 PROTAGONIST (hito-gorosi ‘killer’, hi-yatoi ‘laborer employed daily’, hasitte iru 23 (no) ‘one running’), EVENT FOR RESULT (tataki ‘chopped up sashimi’, sakana o 24 ageta (no) ‘fish fry’), etc. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Thus, [kodomo no]NMLZ in 25 both constructions in (49) in principle allow many interpretations that are metonym-

26 ically sanctioned. Of all the possible interpretations, the ones that denote a subset of

27 the head nominal would be chosen in the case of modification structures. In (49a),

28 the head nominal denotes a running activity. Accordingly, its modifier [kodomo no]

29 must denote a state of affairs in which the denotation of the base NP [kodomo] is

30 involved as its agentive protagonist. 31 Instead of accounting for the agentive nature of the NP-no modifier [kodomo no] 32 of (49b) in term of the syntactic subjecthood, we apply the same analysis we have

33 offered for (49a). The event nominalization [[hasiru]NMLZ (no)] denotes activities; 34 accordingly, the modifier [kodomo no] must denote an activity that specifies a subset

35 of the denotation of the head nominal, namely an activity in which the denotation of

36 the base NP [kodomo] is involved as an agentive protagonist. The same account can

37 be offered to the pairs below:

38

39 (50) a. [[Koronbusu no]NMLZ [[sin-tairiku no]NMLZ [hakken]N]N′]N′

40 Columbus GEN new-continent GEN discovery

41 ‘Columbus’s discovery of a new continent’

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 312) Nominalization 313

1 b. [[umai hito no]NMLZ [[taiko no]NMLZ [tataku]NMLZ]NMLZ′]NMLZ′ (no) (cf. 43a) 2 skillful person GEN drum GEN beating (PRT)

3 ‘a skillful person’s beating of the drum’

4

5 The head noun [hakken] ‘discovery’ in (50a) denotes an event in which an agent 6 and a patient are involved. As such, it allows modification by a structure denoting

7 an event in which either an agent or a patient is involved. The nominalization 8 [sin-tairiku no] (new continent NMLZR) may denote an event in which the base NP

9 [sin-tairiku] is involved as a patientive protagonist, and thus it can modify the head

10 noun [hakken]. The resulting structure [[sin-tairiku no] [hakken]] also denotes an

11 event in which an agentive protagonist is involved. The nominalization [Koronbusu

12 no] may denote an event in which Columbus is involved as an agentive participant, 13 and thus it can modify the structure [[sin-tairiku no] [hakken]]. The same process

14 yields a similar interpretation for (50b).47 15 We believe that the same account can be offered for other kinds of semantic rela- 16 tions that NP-no and the head nominal may have as in (45) and (46). For example, 17 [[ringo no] [kago]] ‘a basket for apples’ contains a nominalization [ringo no] that

18 may denote an object with which the denotation of the base NP [ringo] ‘apple’ holds

19 a GOODS FOR CONTAINER48 metonymic relationship. The container that holds this

20 relationship with apples can certainly specify a subset of the denotation of [kago]

21 ‘basket’, allowing the entire [[ringo no] kago]] to have the reading ‘a basket for 22 apples’. Similarly, the nominalization [Huransu no] ‘France’s’ may denote products

23 based on the PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT schema. Accordingly, it can modify the 24 head noun [wain] ‘wine’, since the former can specify a subset of the denotation of

25 the latter. In the next, final section of this paper, we shall explicate the notion of 26 modification, which we tried to illustrate above in terms of the subset relationship

27 between two denotations.

28

29 30 7 Beyond the (internal relation) and 31 Uchi no kankei 32 Soto no kankei (external relation) 33

34 Among the literature on Japanese noun-modification constructions, Teramura (1999: 35 157–320) is one of the most influential, in which he distinguishes two types of modi-

36 fication patterns. Teramura attempts to explicate the difference between so-called 37 restrictive relative clauses and content clauses in terms of the relationship that the

38

39 47 See Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) for the reason why the order [sin-tairiku no 40 [Koronbusu no hakken]] with the intended reading does not obtain. 41 48 Cf. Aka wain o go hon watte simatta (red wine ACC five CLF break.GER ended up) ‘I ended up 42 breaking five red wine’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 313) 314 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 head noun holds with regard to the modifying structure. The head noun of a relative

2 clause, as in (51a) below, is generally believed to be related to an NP position (indi-

3 cated by the gap marker) of the modifying structure. Teramura characterizes such a 4 relationship as Uchi no kankei (internal relation). 5 6 (51) a. [Takao ga Ø katatta] zizitu o daremo siranakatta. 7 Takao NOM talk.about fact ACC no.one knew 8 ‘No one knew the fact [which Takao talked about Ø].’ 9

10 b. [Takao ga kekkon site ita] zizitu o daremo siranakatta.

11 marry do.GER was fact

12 ‘No one knew the fact [that Takao had been married].’

13

14 In the case of so-called content clauses such as (51b), the head noun is not related to

15 any syntactic position of the content clause. Accordingly, Teramura considers this 16 type of modification construction as exhibiting a Soto no kankei (external relation). 17 Teramura (1999: 195–198) tries to explicate the difference between these two

18 types of modification by using the examples similar to the following pair.

19 20 (52) a. [sanma o yaku] otoko (ga iru) 21 saury ACC grill man NOM exist 22 ‘(there is) a man who grills a saury’ 23

24 b. [sanma o yaku] nioi (ga suru)

25 smell NOM do

26 ‘(there is) a smell of grilling of a saury’

27

28 Teramura (1999: 196) tells us that (52a) obtains by transposing the subject NP of the

29 underlying clause into the head position of the relative clause.

30 31 (53) otoko ga sanma o yaku 32 man NOM saury ACC grill

33 ‘A man grills a saury’ 34 → sanma o yaku otoko 35 ‘a man who grills a saury’ 36

37 In the case of a construction exhibiting an external relation, the head noun and the

38 modifying structure are connected in terms of the content-filling function of the

39 latter. According to Teramura (1999: 196–197), the entire sentence structure of (52b)

40 “contains two descriptive contents” as in (54), and what the modification structure 41 such as the one in (52b) does is to fill the content of the head noun nioi ‘smell’ by 42 its descriptive content, (54b).

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 314) Nominalization 315

1 (54) a. (aru) nioi ga suru 2 (certain) smell NOM do

3 ‘There is a (certain) smell.’

4 b. 5 sanma o yaku saury ACC grill 6 ‘grill a saury’ 7

8 In Teramura’s (1999) own words: 9

10 in the “external relation” the modifying part expresses the content of the head noun or at least 11 has some relevance to its content, in opposition to the “internal relation”, where, though the 12 modifying part “specifies” the head noun, it has nothing to do with its content. That is, in an 13 adnominal modification structure that coheres in terms of “internal relation”, the modifying

14 part semantically modifies the head noun no more than “adjunctively”, but in [the structure unified by] the “external relation”, [the modifying part] semantically modifies the head in a 15 “content-filling” manner. (195; my translation) 16 17 Teramura’s distinction between these two types of noun modification constructions 18 corresponds to the modification-uses of two types of nominalizations in our frame- 19 work. Structures holding the internal relation represent a modification-use of argu- 20 ment nominalizations, which have an obligatory gap (e.g. [Ø sanma o yaku]NMLZ (no) 21 ‘(one) who grills a saury’), which evokes a protagonist of an event, while the ones 22 characterized as holding an external relation by Teramura instantiate a modifica- 23 tion-use of event nominalizations without an obligatory gap (e.g. [otoko ga sanma o 24 yaku]NMLZ (no) ‘that a man grills a saury’), which may evoke a resultant product (e.g. 25 a smell of a burning fish) as an intended denotation. 26 Teramura’seffort to distinguish the two types of modification observed in (51) 27 and (52), falls far short of its intended goal. First of all, the notion of the “content- 28 filling” function is problematic. It is not entirely clear what is meant by saying that 29 the descriptive content of the structure (54b) sanma o yaku ‘grilling of a saury fish’ 30 fills the content of the head noun nioi ‘smell’ in (52b). When one utters (52b), is he 31 smelling the state of affairs of grilling of a saury fish? Can one smell a state of affairs 32 itself? The problem becomes clearer if we look at another of Teramura’s examples 33 illustrating the “external relation”. 34

35 (55) a. [ki no eda ga reiki de oreru] oto o kiita. 36 tree GEN branch NOM cold.air with break sound ACC heard 37 ‘I heard the sound of the tree branch breaking due to the cold air.’ 38

39 b. [ki no eda ga reiki de oreru] no o kiita. 40 PRT 41 ‘I heard the tree branch break due to the cold air.’ 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 315) 316 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 What the one uttering (55a) heard was not the descriptive content of the modifying

2 structure, “the tree breaks due to the cold air” or “the tree’s breaking due to the cold

3 air”, as it is the case when one says: “I heard John say the tree breaks due to the

4 cold air”. Compare (55a) and (55b), where the latter describes a situation of some-

5 one’s hearing the sound resulting from a branch-breaking event. As is clear from

6 our earlier discussions, this is a case of the resultative nominalization that metonym-

7 ically denotes a product resulting from an event. The modification structure in (55a)

8 uses this resultative nominalization structure as a modifier, which identifies the head

9 noun as the sound resulting from the event denoted by the nominalization structure

10 (see Teramura (1999: 297). That is, (55a) identifies the denotation of the head noun

11 with that resulting from the tree-breaking event. Likewise, what the one uttering

12 (52b) smelled was the smell identified as that resulting from the grilling of a saury

13 fish.

14 Teramura’s mistake was to stick to the traditional understanding of the relevant

15 construction as the “content clause”. What Japanese data show is that this type of

16 construction abounds in Japanese and that they go far beyond the typical content

17 clauses in English, demanding an analysis that goes beyond the notion of content-

18 filling, which we consider unsatisfactory even for English. Teramura really should

19 have pursued the other line of explanation that he suggests in the above quotation,

20 namely “in the ‘external relation’ the modifying part expresses [a state of affairs

21 that] . . . has some relevance to” the content of the head noun, and should have ex-

22 plicated in what way the modifying nominalization structure is relevant in qualify-

23 ing the denotation of the head noun, as we have done above.

24 Teramura’s understanding of restrictive relative clauses is also problematic since

25 the head noun of such relative clauses should not be directly identified with any

26 of the arguments in the modifying structure as Teramura’s account in (53) has it.

27 In our analysis, both restrictive and non-restrictive types of modification involve

28 grammatical nominalizations, but the manners in which the modifying nominaliza-

29 tion structure qualifies the denotation of the head noun are different between the

30 two. The head noun of a restrictive relative clause specifies the domain of modifica-

31 tion independently from any element of the modifying structure. The larger domain

32 denoting a set of entities specified by the head noun is then restricted to some sub-

33 set by the denotation of an entity metonymically evoked by the modifying structure.

34 The denotation of the whole restrictive relative clause structure is the intersection of

35 two nominal denotations, one specified by the head noun and the other that restricts

36 this domain to its subset, as in the manner of (56a), where { } represents the meto-

37 nymically evoked entities.

38

39

40

41

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 316) Nominalization 317

1 (56) a.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Figure 1: Restrictive Modification 12 49 13 b. sanma o yaku {smell} = nioi (ga suru) (cf. 52b) 14

15 In non-restrictive modification, on the other hand, the denotation of the modifying

16 nominalization structure identifies that of the head nominal, as in the manner of

17 (56b).

18 Teramura’s (1999) ultimate goal appears to come to an understanding of the

19 difference between restrictive modification (56a) and non-restrictive, identifying

20 modification (56b) in terms of the distinction between the “internal relation” and

21 the “external relation”. If so, this enterprise fails because there is no one-to-one

22 correspondence between the two. That is, structures holding an internal relation

23 according to Teramura can also be used as identifying modifiers, and those holding

24 an external relation can also be used as restrictive modifiers, as shown below:

25 26 (57) a. [kono [[sanma o yaku] otoko]] ga Hiroko no titioya sa. 27 this saury ACC grill man NOM Hiroko GEN father FP 28 ‘This man who grills a saury is Hiroko’s father, you know.’ 29 30 b. [[sanma o yaku] nioi] ga itiban kirai na nioi da. 31 smell NOM most disliked COP smell COP 32 ‘the smell of grilling a saury is the smell most disliked’ 33 34 Sentence (57a) might be describing a film-watching event, where the speaker points 35 to the man grilling a saury fish and tells the hearer that this man turns out to be the 36 heroine Hiroko’s father. In this context, the structure holding an internal relation 37

38 49 Cf. Watasi ga kuruu no wa sumibide tyiboon suteeki ga yakeru no o kagu toki da (taizooo. 39 tumblr.com/post/55712025) ‘When I go crazy is when I smell a T-bone steak burning on charcoal 40 fire.’ Compared to the visual and auditory senses, the olfactory sense appears more difficult to per- 41 ceive and makes it more resistant to a metonymic construal. Cf. I saw John sneak out of the house, I 42 heard John sing in the shower vs. *I smelled John grill a steak in the kitchen.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 14:59) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 317) 318 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 with the head nominal according to Teramura does not have a restricting function

2 since there could be a single man in the scene of the film. A possibility like this is

3 well known from studies on English, which allows the same modifying structure in 4 either a restrictive or an identifying function; e.g. The boys who were given surprise 5 prizes were all overjoyed; The boys, who were given surprise prizes, were all over- 6 joyed. While these two types of constructions, known as restrictive relative and non- 7 restrictive relative, differ in both speech and written form, our claim is that both use

8 the same argument nominalization as a modifier.

9 Sentence (57b), as an utterance in a situation where various kinds of smell are

10 discussed, illustrates the possibility that a modifying structure holding an external

11 relation according to Teramura can also be used in a restrictive function. 12 As his discussion of Jespersen’s example The industrious Japanese will conquer in 13 the long run shows, Teramura (1999: 254) is well aware that a distinction between 14 restrictive and non-restrictive modification obtains where the contrastive notion

15 of “external relation” and “internal relation” presumably does not apply. Indeed, the

16 restrictive/non-restrictive distinction does not correlate with structural differences of

17 the modifying structure, captured either in terms of argument nominalizations vs.

18 event nominalizations, as in our framework, or in terms of Teramura’s distinction

19 between internal and external relation. The distinction lies on the nature of the

20 denotational/referential status of the head noun. As noted above, restrictive modifi-

21 cation obtains when the head noun is construed to be denoting a set of entities (a

22 group of individual Japanese people) and when some members of this larger set are

23 singled out as a subset by the denotation of a modifying structure (the industrious

24 ones). The entire modification structure of this type denotes the intersection of the

25 two nominal denotations (see Figure 1 in page 317).

26 Non-restrictive, identifying modification, on the other hand, involves a head

27 noun that denotes or refers to a unique entity, such as a class of things (a class

28 of dogs, a class of people named Japanese), a singular object (e.g. the sun, Tokyo), 29 or something made specific by context, as in [naganen hito ni kawarete kita] inu 30 ‘the dog, which has been kept by people over a long period’,[Taroo ga sunde iru] 31 Tookyoo ‘Tokyo, where Taro lives’, and [boku ga kinoo kata] kono hon ‘this book, 32 which I bought yesterday’. In identifying modification, the denotation of a modifier

33 identifies that of the head noun in terms of an alternative way of identifying it, and

34 it is this alternative description that provides additional information about the head

35 noun. We recognize two types of identification. One is identification under strict 36 identity (e.g. [Taroo ga sunde iru] Tookyoo ‘Tokyo, where Taro lives’) and the other 37 by type identity (e.g. [boku ga kinoo kata] kono hon ‘this book, which I bought 38 yesterday’. In both these cases we are identifying a unique denotation of the head

39 noun, either in terms of strict identity of “A (head) is B” or type identity of “A

40 (head) is a kind/an instance of B”.

41 As we have seen, modifiers of different structural configurations (argument nomi-

42 nalizations with a gap, event nominalizations without a gap) may function in both

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 318) Nominalization 319

1 restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying modification. The same applies to the modi- 2 fication by nominal-based nominalizations in the form of NP-no discussed earlier in 3 the preceding section and illustrated below:

4 5 (58) a. Hanako no tukemono 6 Hanako GEN pickles 7 ‘Hanako’s pickles’ 8

9 b. Hanako no tuketa (no)

10 pickled PRT

11 ‘Hanako’s pickled stuff’

12 13 (59) a. nasu no tukemono 14 eggplant GEN pickles 15 ‘pickles of the eggplant kind’ 16

17 b. nasu no tuketa (no)

18 pickled PRT

19 ‘pickled stuff of the eggplant kind’

20

21 Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) distinguished two types of genitive or

22 “possessive” construction, identifying the type in (59) as “appositive” tacitly on 23 account that while nasu no tukemono/tuketa no o tabe ta ‘ate pickles/picked stuff of 24 the eggplant kind” entails nasu o tabeta ‘ate (some) eggplant’, while no such entail- 25 ment obtains in the case of forms in (58). Herein lies the distinction between the two

26 forms pointed out earlier and repeated below:

27 28 (60) a. [nasu o nita] no o tabeta 29 eggplant ACC cooked PRT ACC ate 30 ‘(I) ate what came out of cooking eggplants.’ 31

32 b. [nasu no nita] no o tabeta

33 GEN

34 ‘(I) ate what came out of cooking, which were eggplants.’

35

36 (60a) is a resultative nominalization based on a VP structure and it does not specifi-

37 cally say that the resultant products were (still) eggplants – it may be in shape unfit

38 to be described as a kind of eggplants. (60b), on the other hand, identifies that the

39 resultant products were (a kind of) eggplants. The contrast is seen more clearly in

40 the following pair.

41

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 319) 320 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 (61) a. [koppu o konagona ni kowasita] no ga yuka ni otite ita. 2 cup ACC in.minute.pieces to broke PRT NOM floor on fallen was 3 ‘what became of breaking a cup into small pieces was fallen on the floor’ 4 b. *[ ] .50 5 koppu no konagona ni kowasita no ga yuka ni otite ita GEN 6

7 ‘what became of breaking (something) into small pieces, which was a cup,

8 was fallen on the floor’

9 Structure (61b) is not possible since what has been shattered into small pieces can 10 no longer be identified as a cup. 11 The meaning difference between the forms in (58) and (59), which Shibatani, 12 Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) tried to capture in terms of the appositive/non- 13 appositive distinction should be attributed to the two nominalizing ’s included 14 no in these forms. The nominalizer in forms like 15 no Hanako no tukemono/tuketano ‘Hanako’s pickles/picked stuff’ is the “regular” genitive/possessive , based on 16 no various kinds of metonymy schemas such as OWNER FOR GOODS, AUTHOR FOR 17 PRODUCT, THEME FOR REPRESENTATION (e.g. ‘painting of Mt. Fuji), 18 Huji-san no e the PLACE FOR THING ( ‘a tree in the garden’, ‘the 19 niwa no ki nikai no okyakusan customers on the second floor’), etc. The one found in forms like 20 nasu no tukemono/ ‘pickles/picked stuff of the eggplant kind’, on the other hand, appears to be 21 tuketano analyzable as a nominalized form of the copula that supports predication by a 22 da noun. This would capture the meaning relationship between the forms in (59) and 23 the nominal predications below: 24

25 (62) a. Kono tukemono wa nasu da. 26 this pickle TOP eggplant COP 27 ‘This pickle is an eggplant.’ 28 29 b. Kono nuka de tuketa no wa nasu da. 30 this rice.bran in pickled PRT 31 ‘this stuff (I) pickled in rice-bran is an eggplant’ 32 33 The meaning of a nominalization by the copulative no would be something like 34 “NP de aru mono” (a thing/person that is NP or “that which/one who is NP”). This 35 is more clearly discernible in an NP-use of such a form, as below, where [nasu no] 36 is analyzed as a case of subject nominalization involving a nominalized copula 37 form:51 38

39 Compare (60b) and [ ] ‘cleanly polished 40 50 koppu no kireini migaita no ga teeburu no ue ni atta things, which were cups, were placed on the table.’ 41 51 Compare these with the other copulative nominalization na, related to the copula da supporting 42 predication by a adjectival noun or a nominal adjective; kono hana wa kirei da ‘this flower is pretty’: [Ø kirei na] hana ‘pretty flower’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 320) Nominalization 321

1 (63) a. Tukemono wa [[Ø nasu no]NMLZ]NP ga yoi. 2 pickles TOP eggplant COP.NMLZ NOM good 3 ‘As for pickles, that which are eggplants are good.’ 4 52 5 b. Tukemon wa [[[Ø nasubi no]NMLZ] to]NMLZ′]]NP ga yoka. (Hakata dialect)

6 PRT

7 ‘As for pickles, that which are eggplants are good.’

8 9 The analysis above converting the copula da into no is viable for Modern Japanese, 10 which has the copula. However, it does not work for Classical Japanese. The forms of

11 Japanese subsumed under the rubric of Classical Japanese in this chapter did not 12 have a copula or copula sentences like those in (62)53, yet, no-marked modifiers like 13 the ones discussed here abound in those varieties of Japanese, as we will see below. 14 It is thus necessary to recognize another type of nominalization effected by no, 15 which yields forms with the meaning of “that which/who is NP”. But what kind of

16 nominalization is it? 17 The recent research in natural language semantics (e.g. Carlson 1977 and Kratzer 18 1995 inter alia) recognizes that NP’s refer to an entity in terms of its different aspects, 19 ranging from an abstract generic sense referring to a class of objects to a variety of

20 concrete senses pointing to specific manifestations of the object in time and space. 21 An NP with a common noun like nasu ‘eggplant’, thus, may refer to a class of plant, 22 as in Nasu wa nasu-ka no syokubutu da ‘The eggplant is a plant of the solanaceae 23 family’, but also to any concrete manifestations of this plant, as in Kono nasu ni-hon 24 kudasai ‘Give me two (long) pieces of eggplant’, which, for example, can be referring 25 to two eggplant seedlings in a nursery or two eggplant fruits in a produce market. 26 Kono nasu wa umai ne ‘This eggplant is tasty, isn’tit?’ can be referring to an uncooked 27 eggplant fruit or any variety of its form in various uses, such as the one cooked,

28 fried, barbecued, or pickled. That NPs may refer to these concrete objects existing

29 in space at a given time is indicated by the use of classifiers that refer to concrete 30 shape. The above example, Kono nasu ni-hon kudasai ‘Give me two (long) pieces of 31 eggplant’, would be appropriate when the objects referred to come in an elongate

32 shape, as in the plant form or as long-shaped eggplant fruits or eggplant products 33 in an elongate shape. The sentence is not usable if we want two pieces of fried egg- 34 plant tempura in a round flat shape, for which we must use the default classifier tu, 35 as in huta-tu ‘two pieces’, or the one for flat objects, as ni-mai ‘two flat pieces’. 36

37

38 52 The abbreviated version [[nasubi-n]to] is more frequently heard. 39 53 What best corresponds to the modern copulative predication seen in (62) in Classical Japanese 40 takes nari, the so-called dantei ‘assertive’ auxiliary in the traditional grammar, whose nominalized 41 (Rentai) form is naru (cf. Ono ga mi wa . . . tuki no miyako no hito nari ‘My body is a person of the 42 capital of the moon’ Taketori monogatari).

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 321) 322 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 If we assume, similarly to Carlson (1977), that common nouns denote entities

2 conceptualized in terms of their general characteristics and properties apart from

3 their specific instances or concrete manifestations in time and space, we need to

4 posit an operation relating the general meaning to the concrete meanings denoting

5 specific instances of the entity in question. In Carlson’s framework, nouns denote

6 “individuals”, a collection of kinds and objects, which are related to concrete

7 denotations of entities in time and space (“stages”) via a relation R (standing for

8 “realize”). In a metonymic analysis, the function of Calrson’s R can be achieved by

9 recognizing a conceptual metonymy such as THE ABSTRACT FOR THE CONCRETE. 10 Observe: Kotosi wa suugaku ga muzukasi katta ‘As for this year, the math was 11 difficult”, where, the nouns kotosi ‘this year’ and suugaku ‘mathematics’ denoting 12 abstract concepts are used to refer to concrete entities, this year’s entrance exam

13 and the math problems. As these examples show, nouns can be metonymically 14 used as they are. The appositive no seen in nasu no tukemono/tuketano ‘pickles/ 15 pickled stuff of the eggplant kind” is a grammatical device (a nominalizer) effecting

16 the schema THE ABSTRACT FOR THE CONCRETE, which turns a noun (or noun 17 phrase) such as nasu ‘egplant’ into a construction nasu no, which then stands for 18 concrete manifestations of eggplants in terms of the meaning “that which/who is

19 an NP”.

20 Because of the various conceptual metonymies available, many expressions 21 involving no are ambiguous, as in the case of Hanako no syasin ‘Hanako’s photo’. 22 Similarly, forms like bengosi no ozisan can be ambiguous allowing either the apposi- 23 tive no reading just discussed, ‘an/the uncle, who is lawyer’, and non-appositive 24 readings such as ‘a/the lawyer’s uncle’. Like the other kinds of modifiers discussed 25 in this chapter, an appositive no modifier can be used in both restrictive and non- 26 restrictive function, though the latter use seems more widely witnessed than the

27 former. A speaker may identify his only uncle as an entity instantiating the concept 28 begosi (‘(one) who is a lawyer’) by saying bengosi no ozisan ‘the uncle, who is a 29 lawyer’ or ‘the uncle of the lawyer kind’. If a brother and a sister are debating which 30 of their three uncles is their favorite and say Boku wa bengosi no ozisan ga itiban 31 sukida ‘I like the lawyer uncle the best’; Watasi wa isya no ozisan yo ‘(Lit.) I am the 32 doctor uncle’, they are using the appositive no as a restrictive modifier.54 33 In the Japanese linguistics literature, modification structures involving a nomi-

34 nalized head are generally ill-understood, largely due to an inadequate understand-

35 ing of the nature of grammatical nominalizations. For example, Ishigaki (1955: 220–

36 221), an influential work in this area, comments that in his example, reproduced as

37

38 54 When an individual-level predicate like suki da ‘like’ is involved, the entailment associated with 39 the appositive no must be qualified. For example, bengosi no ozisan ga sukida ‘(I) like the lawyer 40 uncle’ does not entail bengosi ga suki da ‘(I) like lawyers’. It, however, entails ‘(I) like at least one 41 lawyer’. Even this limited entailment does not obtain in the case of the non-appositive no: Kodomo 42 no ega suki da ‘(I) like children’s paintings’ does not entail ‘(I) like at least one child’.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 322) Nominalization 323

1 (64) below, what semantically connects with the predicate is tomo ‘friend’ and the 2 sentence as a whole means “entertain a friend”. The nominalization [enpoo yori

3 tazunetaru] ‘one having visited from afar’ (in Classical Japanese form) is said to 4 modify the noun tomo. 5 6 (64) [[tomo no] enpoo yori tazunetaru] o motenasu 7 friend GEN far.away from have.visited ACC entertain 8 ‘entertain the one who has visited from afar, who is a friend’ 9 10 The understanding that the verbal-based nominalization [enpoo yori tazunetaru] 11 functions as a modifier is reminiscent of Yamada’s (1908) understanding of what he 12 called abbreviated grammatical nominalizations (see section 4.2) and is again likely 13 influenced by the term Rentaikei (adnominal form), in which this form ends. While 14 Ishigaki identifies the modification pattern involved in (64) as appositive, he is mis- 15 taken in the identification of the head and the modifier. A similar error is committed 16 by Kuroda (1992), who recognizes a left-headed modification pattern, aberrant for 17 head-final Japanese, for the following: 18 19 (65) Taroo wa [[ringo no] tukue no ue ni aru] no o totte. . . 20 Taro TOP apple GEN desk GEN TOP on exist PRT ACC take.GER 21 ‘Taro took what existed on top of the table, which was an apple, and. . .’ 22 23 The errors by both Ishigaki and Kuroda were caused by their lack of a proper 24 understanding of the nature of both grammatical nominalizations and the appositive 25 nominalizer no, the latter of which has a special entailment such that [[ringo no] 26 tukue no ue ni aru] no o totta ‘(I) took what was on the table, which was an apple’ 27 entails ringo o totta ‘(I) took an apple’. This entailment gives the impression that 28 tomo (no) ‘who is a friend’ and ringo (no) ‘that which is an apple’ in (64) and (65), 29 respectively are functioning as a syntactic head. Our analysis treats structures like 30 (64) and (65) similarly to the simpler modification pattern involving the appositive 31 no, such as [[nasu no] tukemono] ‘eggplant pickles’, discussed above, [[ebi no] 32 tenpura] ‘prawn tempura’, [[onna no] sensei] ‘woman teacher’, etc., where the head 33 nominal is consistently on the right-hand side, although these all have the same 34 kind of entailment as Ishigaki’s and Kuroda’s example. The heads in (64) and (65) 35 are [enpoo yori tazunetaru]NMLZ ‘one who has visited from afar’ and [[tukue no ue 36 ni aru]NMLZ no]NMLZ′ ‘what is on the table’, respectively, which are modified by the 37 appositive-no nominalizations, [tomo no] and [ringo no], in exactly the same way 38 as in [[onna no] sensei] ‘woman teacher’. These constructions can be either identify- 39 ing or restrictive. In the identifying modification interpretations, the modifiers iden- 40 tify the head nouns in the following manner, where the arrowhead indicates the 41 direction of identification: 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 323) 324 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 (66) MODIFIER HEAD

2 a. [tomo no]NMLZ => [enpoo yori tazunetaru]NMLZ 3 {one who is a friend} {one who has visited from afar} 4 b. [ringo no] => [tukue no ue ni aru] (no) 5 NMLZ NMLZ {that which is an apple} {what is on the table} 6

7 c. [onna no]NMLZ => [sensei]N ‘teacher’ 8 {one who is a woman} 9 10 Modification structures involving a nominalized head and an appositive-no 11 modifier like the ones discussed here abound in the literary works from the Heian 12 period, as seen in the following passages from the Ise monogatari (Tales of Ise) 13 quoted by Frellesvig (210: 326)55: 14 15 (67) a. [[siro-ki tori no pasi to asi to aka-ki] 16 white-ACOP.ADN bird GEN beak and feet and red-ACOP.ADN 17 sigi no opokisa naru] midu no upe ni asobitutu iwo 18 snipe GEN size COP.ADN water GEN TOP DAT frolic.CONT fish 19 wo kupu 20 ACC eat.CONCL 21 ‘A white bird which has a red beak and feet and is the size of a snipe was 22 eating fish while frolicking on the water.’ ( 9) 23 Ise monogatari

24 b. [kiku no pana no uturop-eru] wo worite 25 chrysanthemum GEN flower GEN fade.STAT.ADN ACC break.GER 26 ‘picking some faded chrysanthemum’ (Ise monogatari 18) 27

28 Many literary commentators56 on Japanese classical literature advise us to interpret 29 passages like these the way they are translated into English above; namely to interpret 30 the non-boldfaced genitive marked NPs as the heads of the relevant constructions 31 and the boldfaced verbal-based nominalizations, glossed ADN (adnominal), as their 32 modifiers.57 But some others are more cautious and are consistent with our analysis 33 in considering the V-based nominalizations to be nominal heads, which are modified 34 by the N-based nominalizations marked the appositive no. For example, the com- 35 mentators of the Ise monogatari collected in the volume nine of the Iwanami Nihon 36 Koten Bungaku Taikei (Compendium of Japanese Classic Literature) explicitly note 37

38

39 55 The transliterations, glosses, and translations are Frellesvig’s. 40 56 Keita Kitayama Genji monogatari no gohō (Tokyo: Tōkōshoin 1951). 41 57 Kinsui et al. (2011:138) also think that [pati to asi to akaki] modifies [siroki tori] in (66a).

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 324) Nominalization 325

1 that pasi to asi to aka-ki in (67a) is to be understood as (siroi tori no) kutibasi to asi to 2 no akai mono “a thing whose beak and feet are red” and that uturoperu wo in (67b) 3 means iro aseteiruno o “that which has lost its color ACC”.58 4 The contexts in which these passages are used also suggest that these verbal-

5 based nominalizations are, indeed, the heads of the relevant constructions. With

6 regard to (67a), it is not the sighting of a white bird, which is not rare, but it was

7 the sighting of a rarer kind whose beak and feet were red that prompted the traveler

8 to ask for its name. The two poems that follow (67b) dwell on the state of chrysan- 9 themums that have lost their color, indicating that uturoperu ‘that which has lost its 10 color’ was the center of attention. One would have to ask why the author (Ariwara 11 no Narihira?) of the Ise monogatari used these constructions the way they are as 12 in (67) when the constructions matching the English translations were readily 13 available, namely [[pasi to asi to akaki] siroki tori] ‘a white bird which has a red 14 beak and red feet’ and [[uturoperu] kiku no pana] ‘a chrysanthemum flower which 15 has lost its color’.

16 Let us finally ask why noun modifiers, whether based on verbs or nouns, must

17 be nominalized in their modification function. This question can be answered easily 18 in the case of the non-appositive no nominalization. In either restrictive or identifica- 19 tion function, the head noun must be either restricted or identified by the same kind

20 of denotations as that of the head noun. Under the normal relative clause analysis,

21 the notion of restrictive modification, for example, would be difficult to define if

22 so-called relative clauses were believed to be clauses representing a predication

23 relation between a subject and a verb. Under the nominalization analysis of “relative

24 clauses”, what a verbal-based nominalization denotes is a set of entity (thing and

25 thing-like) concepts (e.g., [Hanako ga katta] (no) ‘things/what Hanako bought’),

26 which can straightforwardly specify a subset of the entity denotation of the head

27 nominal (e.g., [ringo] ‘apple’). Japanese adjectives must be nominalized when they 28 modify, as clearly seen in Classical Japanese forms such as [aka-ki ringo] ‘red apple’ 29 and [tuyo-ki hito] ‘strong person’.59 Their modern counterparts, [aka-i ringo] and 30 [tuyo-i hito], can be analyzed as containing the modern nominalized forms of adjec- 31 tival roots (cf. [[aka-i] no] ‘red one’ and [[tuyo-i] no] ‘strong one’ in the NP-use),

32 similar to verbal-based nominalizations, whose endings are the same as finite forms

33 in Modern Japanese. The reason why adjectives must be in nominalized form in their

34 modification function is now easy to understand.60

35 The need for nominalization of modifying nouns for restrictive modification is

36 equally easy to understand in our analysis. In the modification structure like [[Hanako]

37

38

39 58 Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei Vol 9 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 1957) p. 117, p. 122. 40 59 Cf. ungrammatical *[aka-si ringo] and *[tuyo-si hito] with the finite forms of these adjectives. 41 60 See the concluding section about the ramifications of this in other languages. 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 325) 326 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 kaban], for example, the denotation of [Hanako], namely a woman by that name,

2 cannot specify a subset of the denotation of the noun [kaban] ‘bag’ because the

3 two sets of denotation do not intersect. The nominalization [Hanako no], on the

4 other hand, denotes entities to which Hanako might be related as their owner.

5 Because [Hanako no] now denotes things, it can specify a subset of the things

6 denoted by [kaban]. Accordingly, the structure [[Hanako no] kaban] satisfies the

7 semantic requirement for restrictive modification. Similar reasoning applies to other

8 constructions such as the noun-headed one [[kodomo-tati no] kakekko] ‘the running

9 of the children’ and the nominalization-headed one [[kodomo-tati no] hasiru] (no)

10 ‘the running of the children’, where the modifying nominalizations denote activities

11 in which the children are involved as protagonists, which then can specify a subset

12 of the running activities denoted by the head nominals. 13 The reason why the appositive-no nominalization must apply can also be under- 14 stood along the similar line, once we assume, as we did earlier, that nouns denote

15 “individuals” defined in terms of general characteristics/properties pertaining given 16 entities. The appositive-no nominalization convert the individual level denotations to 17 stage-level denotations, brining the denotations to the level appropriate for restrict-

18 ing or identifying purposes. 19 An interesting phenomenon related to the use of the appositive-no nominaliza- 20 tion is that nouns can modify without undergoing this nominalization process in

21 many, but not all, cases. For example, while *[[bengosi] ozisan] (for ‘lawyer uncle’)

22 is definitely bad, both [[nasu no] nita] (no) ‘cooked stuff of the eggplant kind’ and 23 [[nasu] nita] (no) are possible. Some of the ones without no call for a slight pause 24 as in [[Nihon no syuto] Tookyoo] ‘Tokyo, Japan’s capital’ [[Nooberu-syoo sakka] Ooe

25 Kenzaburoo]] ‘KenzaburōŌe, a Nobel laureate author’, similar to the English counter-

26 parts, where the order of the modifier and the head is reversed. The range of juxta- 27 position constructions without no far exceeds those relatable to the ones mediated 28 by no like the examples seen here. They also vary considerably in the semantic rela- 29 tions holding between the modifier nominal and the head nominal, even including 30 ones commuting to restrictive modification constructions with no, but whose func- 31 tion does not seem entirely identical with restrictive modification, e.g. [[seikai no

32 oomono] (no) toozyoo] ‘the appearance of a political big shot’.61 How these juxta-

33 position constructions are related to the types involving N-based nominalizations

34 discussed above is an interesting and important question that needs to be explored

35 further (cf. Kobayashi (1966), and Mano (2016) for initial attempts).

36

37

38

39 61 Some of these may derive from abbreviation of clausal expressions; e.g. [Seikai no oomono ga 40 tuini toozyoo] ‘a political big shot finally appears’ > [seikai no oomono tuini toozyoo], the latter of 41 which has no no-mediated counterpart, *[seikai no oomono no] tuini toozyoo].

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 326) Nominalization 327

1 8 Conclusions and future prospects 2 3 Despite its importance in both grammar descriptions and theoretical studies, there 4 has been a general neglect in the study of nominalizations, especially grammatical 5 nominalizations, in the field. A consequence of this neglect has been widespread 6 misunderstanding of the true nature of so-called subordinate clauses in general 7 and so-called relative clauses, in particular, which have long been analyzed in a 8 wrong-headed way. The treatment of the nominalizations in NP-use as headless rela- 9 tive clauses (Andrews 2007, etc.) or as nominalizations derived from relative clauses 10 is putting the cart before the horse.62 Comrie and Thompson (2007: 378), among 11 others, recognize a connection between nominalizations and relative clauses, but 12 they describe it as “a somewhat more rare function of nominalization: as a relative 13 clause modifying a head noun”, despite the fact that such a connection is found 14 even in English, which uses wh-forms to mark argument nominalizations, as in 15 Figure 2.63 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 Figure 2: Two uses/functions of English argument nominalization 28

29 There is even more striking similarity between Japanese and English. Both have 30 developed a special marker for an NP-use of nominalization, no in central dialects 31 of Japanese, as discussed above, and English one, as used for argument nominaliza- 32 tions in NP-use; cf. You should marry [who [Ø loves you]] and You should marry one 33 [who [Ø loves you]]. 34 As shown above, both historical and dialectal, as well as crosslinguistic perspec- 35 tives play very vital roles in reaching deeper understandings of various aspects of 36 grammatical structures. For example, studies of Middle English, where the NP-use 37

38 62 Sneddon (1996: 300) remarks about Indonesian nominalizations thus: “Nominalization occurs when 39 the head noun [of a relative clause] is elipted [. . .] The yang [nominalization] phrase then functions 40 like a noun.” 41 63 See Shibatani (2009) for a crosslinguistic survey of the extensive use of nominalizations as modi- 42 fiers in relative constructions.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 327) 328 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 of grammatical nominalizations did not need the one marker, and of the transition 2 from Middle English to Modern English, and those dealing with dialectal data

3 displaying usage patterns different from the mainstream dialects, such as the East 4 Anglia use of what-nominalization as a modifier (e.g. Gemma screamed at the man 5 [what crashed into our car], would open up the horizon for a comprehensive under- 6 standing not attainable in a narrow investigation focused on synchronic data from

7 a mainstream dialect. We have also mentioned the importance of the descriptive

8 practice of addressing the actual use of grammatical structures rather than relying

9 on native-speaker intuition, which may not reflect actual usage patterns found in

10 natural data.

11 We argued at length that so-called relative clauses are neither clauses/sentences

12 nor independent structures apart from a use of nominalizations as modifiers. The 13 same applies to so-called content clauses that identify head nouns (the fact [that 14 John is already married]). Treating these as clauses or sentences, as in past studies, 15 fails to distinguish between internal and external properties of grammatical structures.

16 Structure-internal similarities do not guarantee that we are dealing with similar

17 grammatical structures, whose category status must be determined on the basis of

18 their functions and external morphological and syntagmatic properties. Sentences,

19 clauses, and nominalizations differ in both function and external properties, as

20 described in section 5. There are other structures than these nominalizations that

21 require further investigation from a functional perspective, such as those clause- 22 looking structures used as adverbial modifiers (e.g. before/after/since [John arrived 23 here]or[Kenzi ga kuru] ya inaya ‘as soon as Kenji has arrived’ and [Kenzi ga kure-ba] 24 ‘if Kenji comes’ in Modern Japanese), as well as those non-finite structures permitting 25 no-marked modifiers, as in the Classical Japanese form kimi no imasi-seba ‘if my lord 26 had still be here’.

27 Our radical proposal to reanalyze the so-called genitive case as a nominal-based

28 nominalization finds support in many languages other than Japanese, such as Lahu

29 and other Tibeto-Burman languages, Chinese, Nepali, and Modern Hebrew, where

30 both N-based and V-based nominalizations have the same morphological marking,

31 or in languages such as Korean and Telugu, where the NP-use of both N-based and

32 V-based nominalizations involve the same marker, as in Japanese. Our analysis solves

33 the longstanding mystery why so-called genitive cases are similar to nominalization/

34 relative clause markers in one way or another in the world’s languages (cf. Aristar

35 1991).

36 We suggested that a noun modifier must be nominal based on our understand-

37 ing of what restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying modification amounts to. 38 The modification-use of adjectival roots in Classical Japanese, which requires the -ki 39 derived nominal forms as in [tuyo-ki] hito ‘a strong person’, corroborates this. This 40 raises an interesting issue about the nature of modification by adjectives in other

41 languages, the understanding of which has been a challenge. One proposal has 42 been that a phrase like a strong man involves a secondary predication such as a man is strong, but there is little evidence for it other than that the phrase has such

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 328) Nominalization 329

1 an entailment. In the case of Indo-European languages, a closer affinity between

2 nouns and adjectives allows a possibility that adjectival modification turns out to

3 be a case of modification by a noun, or a nominalized form of an adjective. The 4 Sanskrit form śukla:m ‘white’ in saḥ śukla:m ga:m a:nayati (he white cow brings) 5 ‘He brings a white cow’, is like a noun taking noun inflections just like the head 6 noun ga:m ‘cow.FEM.SG.ACC’.64 It also has an NP-use, like any other nouns, as in 7 saḥ śukla:m a:nayati ‘He brings a white (one).’ 8 A similar pattern is seen in modern European languages, most clearly in

9 Romance languages that permit the usage pattern paralleling the Sanskrit case; e.g. 10 Portuguese um carro azul (ART car blue) ‘a blue car’: Eu quero um azul ‘I want a blue 11 (one)’. What about English then? Are adjectival modifiers really nouns or nominali-

12 zations in English as well? Do they have an NP-use like Sanskrit and Portuguese?

13 Well, as seen in the translations of these Sanskrit and Portuguese examples, English 14 requires the one-marking in the NP-use of these “adjectives”. But we noted above 15 that the one-marking is almost obligatorily required in the NP-use of verbal-based 16 nominalizations in Modern English. The parallelism is clear between the pattern 17 Marry a man [who you love] (modification-use): Marry one [who you love] (NP-use) 18 and a blue car (modification-use): a blue one (NP-use). Investigations of languages 19 in which adjectives form a robust independent lexical category would yield interest-

20 ing results.

21 In the introduction of this chapter we promised that Japanese grammar would

22 look quite different from what we had known once a proper understanding of the

23 nature of nominalization has been attained. We hope that the lengthy discussions

24 above have lived up to this promise. These concluding remarks above suggest that

25 the same point perhaps applies to the grammars of other languages as well.65

26

27 28 Acknowledgments 29

30 I am grateful to John Haig and Wesley Jacobsen, who read an earlier version of this 31 chapter and provided highly useful comments, which prompted me to further clarify 32 my ideas about the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying 33 modification discussed in sections 7. The preparation of this work was supported in 34 part by a grant from the Osaka University International Joint Research Promotion 35 Program. Parts of this chapter were presented to the workshops (July and December, 36 2016) of the NINJAL project on noun modifying constructions. 37

38 This is normally treated as agreement between the head noun and the dependent modifier. Our 39 64 understanding of restrictive modification in the previous section readily explains why the modifier 40 must agree with the head noun. But the agreement analysis does not extend to the case of an NP- 41 use of the “agreeing” form, as in he brings a white (one), unless gratuitous deletion of a head noun is 42 posited. 65 See Shibatani (2009) and Shibatani (2018b) on crosslinguistic patterns of nominalizations.

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 329) 330 Masayoshi Shibatani

1 References 2 3 Alan, Keith. 2001. Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 4 Andrews, Avery. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and linguistic – 5 description, 206 236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aristar, Anthony. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation to the origin 6 of linguistic universals. Language 67. 1–33. 7 Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Ph.D. 8 dissertation. 9 Comrie, Bernard and Kaoru Horie. 1995. Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer

10 evidence. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse Grammar ,65–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11 and Typology: Papers in Honor of John W.M. Verhaar Comrie, Bernard and Sandra Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) 12 Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 3, 334–381.Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 13 versity Press. 14 Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. “Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York 15 Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech. – 16 Volume 280: 20 32. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm,111–137. Seoul: Hanshin 17 Publishing Co. 18 Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19 Gerts, Donna B. and Mercedes O. Hinkson. 2014. Salish numeral classifiers; e lexical means to a 20 grammatical end. Language Typology and Universals 57. 247–279. 21 Harada, S.-I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38. Horie, Kaoru. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive 22 study. In María José López-Couso and Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: 23 New perspectives, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 24 Ishigaki, Kenji. 1955. Joshi no rekishiteki kenkyū (A historical study of particles). Tokyo: Iwanami 25 Shoten. 26 Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic – 27 description, 141 170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kinsui, Satoshi, Yoshiyuki Takayama, Tomohide Kinuhata, and Tomoko Okazaki. 2011. Bunpōshi 28 [Historical grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. 29 Kobayashi, Yukie. 1966. Dōkakuo megutte [On the appositive]. Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Nihongo 30 Kyōiku Sentā Ronshū 22. 31 Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Gregory N. Carlson and Francis

32 J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuroda, S-Y. 1992. . Dordrecht: Kluwer. 33 Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers Lees, Robert. 1963. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton. 34 Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford: 35 Stanford University Press. 36 Mano, Miho. 2016. Nihongo dōkaku meishiku ni tsuite no ichi kōsatsu-koyūmeishi ga fukumareru 37 baai [A note on Japanese appositive noun phrases-Cases containing proper nouns]. In Fukuda ō – 38 Yoshiichiro and Hajime Tateishi (eds.), Meishirui no Bunp ,21 40. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Matisoff, James. 1972b. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John Kimball (ed.), 39 Syntax and semantics, Volume 1, 237–58. New York & London: Seminar Press. 40 Matsushita, Daizaburo. 1930. Kaisen Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō. [Revised Standard Japanese Grammar]. 41 Tokyo: Chūbunkan. 42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 330) Nominalization 331

1 Nevis, A., D. Pesetsky, and C. Rodrigues. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85:

2 355–404. Payne, Doris. 1985. Aspects of the Grammar of Yagua: A Typological perspective. UCLA Ph.D. thesis. 3 Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge 4 University Press. 5 Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fé T. 1972/1983. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of 6 California Press. 7 Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1975. Perceptual strategies and the phenomena of particle conversion in – 8 Japanese. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, 469 480. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of 9 relativization. In Talmy Givón and Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, 10 acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 11 Shibatani, Masayoshi and Hiromi Shigeno. 2013. Amami nominalizations. International Journal of 12 Okinawan Studies 4(1). 107–138.

13 Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2018a. Nominalization. In Yoko Hasegawa (ed.), Handbook of Japanese linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14 Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2018b. Nominalization in crosslinguistic perspective. In Prashant Pardeshi 15 and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Handbook ofJjapanese contrastive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter 16 Mouton. 17 Shibatani, Masayoshi, Sung Yeo Chung, and Bayaerduleng. 2014. Genitive modifiers: Ga/no conver- 18 sion revisited. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22. 355–394.

19 Shibatani, Masayoshi and Tetsuo Nitta. Forthcoming. Nominalization: A cross-dialectal perspective. In Nobuko Kibe, Tetsuo Nitta and Kan Sasaki (eds.), Handbook of Japanese dialects. Berlin: De 20 Gruyter Mouton. 21 Sneddon, James. 1966. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. 22 Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta and Janick Wrona. 2011. Nominalization strategies in Asian 23 languages. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta and Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in

24 Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yamada, Yoshio. 1908. Nihon bunpōron [Theory of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Hōbunkan. 25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

(Unicode 9 16/8/17 13:14) WDG-New (170mmÂ240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 271–332 1823 Shibatani_08_Shibatani (p. 331)