FOCUS STRUCTURE AND MORPHOSYNTAX IN JAPANESE: WA AND GA, AND WORD ORDER FLEXIBILITY by MITSUAKI SHIMOJO August 1, 1995 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the State University of New York at Buffalo in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Copyright by Mitsuaki Shimojo 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notes on Transcriptions ______________________________________________________________________iv Acknowledgments ______________________________________________________________________ ______ vi Abstract ______________________________________________________________________ ___________________ viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Objectives and Outline of the Thesis _______________________________________________ 1 1.2. Activation and Focus: Theoretical Background ___________________________________ 4 Chapter 2: Wa and Ga: Activation and Focus 2.1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ _____ 13 2.2. Morphosyntactic Characteristics of Japanese with Reference to Wa and Ga___ 14 2.3. Previous Approaches to Functions of Wa And Ga 2.3.1. Contrast between Wa and Ga ______________________________________________ 18 2.3.2. Distinct Functions of Wa? __________________________________________________ 24 2.3.3. Functions of Ga _____________________________________________________________ 28 2.4. Wa and Ga in Mini-discourse 2.4.1. Contrast between Wa and Ga ______________________________________________ 30 2.4.2. Wa and WH Phrase _________________________________________________________ 45 2.4.3. Reexamining Thematic and Contrastive Wa ______________________________ 50 2.5. Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ ______ 53 Chapter 3: Wa and Ga: Quantitative Analysis of Conversational Japanese 3.1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ _____ 61 3.2. Quantitative Analysis Methodology ________________________________________________ 62 3.3. Wa and Ga in Matrix Clauses: Measurement Results ____________________________ 69 3.3.1. RD for Wa-marked Subjects and Wa-marked Non-subjects___________ 70 3.3.2. RD for Wa/ga-marked Subjects ____________________________________________ 71 3.3.3. RD for Predicates ____________________________________________________________ 73 3.3.4. Discussion ____________________________________________________________________ 79 3.4. Wa And Ga in Embedded Clauses: Measurement Results _______________________ 81 3.4.1. RD for Wa-marked Subjects and Wa-marked Non-subjects___________ 82 3.4.2. RD for Wa/ga-marked Subjects ____________________________________________ 84 3.4.3. RD for Predicates ___________________________________________________________ 86 3.4.4. Discussion ____________________________________________________________________ 88 3.4.5. Use of Wa and Ga and Embedded Clause Types ________________________ 91 3.5. Wa-marked Elements of RD 20+ and NPM _______________________________________ 95 3.5.1. Activation and Accessible to Activation ___________________________________ 96 3.5.2. Structural Consideration for Wa-marked Elements ______________________ 100 3.6. Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ ______ 101 Chapter 4: Postposing: Activation And Focus 4.1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ _____ 107 4.2. Word Order Variation and Postposing in Japanese _______________________________ 108 4.3. Previous Approaches to Postposing in Japanese 4.3.1. Constraints on Postposing __________________________________________________ 113 4.3.2. Discourse Functions of Postposing ________________________________________ 119 4.4. Postposing in Mini-discourse _______________________________________________________ 124 4.5. Postposing: Quantitative Analysis of Conversational Japanese_________________134 4.5.1. Quantitative Analysis Methodology _______________________________________ 135 4.5.2. Measurement Results _______________________________________________________ 136 4.5.3. Postverbal Elements of RD NPM __________________________________________ 138 4.5.4. Discussion ____________________________________________________________ ________ 141 4.5.5. Wa and Ga in Postposing Construction ___________________________________ 143 4.6. Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ ______ 148 Chapter 5: Wa and Ga, and Focus Structure in Role and Reference Grammar 5.1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ _____ 152 5.2. Basic Concepts in RRG ______________________________________________________________ 152 5.3. Information Structure and Focus Domain __________________________________________ 158 5.4. Wa and Ga in RRG 5.4.1. Hasegawa's Analysis _______________________________________________________ 162 5.4.2. Scope of the IF Operator and Constituent Projection ____________________ 165 5.4.3. Focus Domain ________________________________________________________________178 5.4.4. Wa/ga and Focus Structure in Complex Sentences ______________________ 181 Chapter 6: Word Order Flexibility and Focus Structure in Role and Reference Grammar 6.1. Introduction ______________________________________________________________________ ______ 203 6.2. Word Order Flexibility and the Layered Structure in RRG ______________________ 204 6.3. Postposing and Focus Domains _____________________________________________________ 224 6.4. Postposing in Complex Sentences 6.4.1. Acceptability of Postposing and Matrixhood of Subordinate Clause__ 231 6.4.2. Acceptability of Postposing and Focus on Subordinate Clause________238 6.5. Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ _______ 244 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks _____________________________________________________________ 247 References ______________________________________________________________________ ________________ 257 NOTES ON TRANSCRIPTIONS Japanese transliteration in given using romanization known as Kunrei-siki 'Official System', except for the following changes: Chi is used for ti, tsu for tu, sha, shu, sho for sya, syu, syo respectively, and cha, chu, cho for tya, tyu, tyo respectively. Ti is used instead of chi in foreign loan words since it is not palatalized. Long vowels are indicated by two vowel symbols in a row, instead of using a circumflex. Proper nouns in the made-up examples are spelled as in English and not given in the English gloss. For proper nouns in the conversation data, I used either pseudonyms or random initials. In citing example sentences throughout this thesis, I may change the Romanization and the English gloss for grammatical morphemes in order to keep the orthography and the grammatical labels consistent; otherwise, I do not make any change in the original, including the grammaticality judgment by the author. The post-nominal particles wa and ga are not glossed in the sentence examples since their functions are discussed throughout this thesis. A sentence-final question mark [?] in sentence examples indicates a rising interrogative contour, which makes the sentence a question without the sentence-final question particle ka. In the transcription of the conversation data, a slash [/] indicates a recognizable pause between sentence elements. However, the clause unit boundary for the purpose of the Referential Distance measurement is indicated by the numbered line break, not by the slash, if there are more than one clause unit in the example. Speakers in conversation are identified by capitalized letters, e.g. A, B, C..., if there are more than one speaker in the conversational context. The order of utterances is shown by the numerals, e.g. 1, 2, 3...; therefore, A1 indicates the first utterance (unit) of speaker A and A2 the second utterance of the same speaker, i.e. speaker A. Variants of a single sentence are indicated by small letters, e.g. a, b, c... An asterisk [*] indicates that the sentence is clearly ungrammatical, and the symbol [#] shows that the sentence is grammatical but it is clearly inappropriate in the discourse context in question. A question mark [?] is used to indicate the awkwardness of the sentence due to either grammatical constraints or discourse-pragmatic constraints. Following abbreviations are used throughout this thesis. ADJ Adjective NPM No Previous Mention ADV Adverb NUC Nucleus AFD Actual Focus Domain OBJ Object/Object Marker AP Adjectival Phrase PAS Passive ARG Argument PFD Potential Focus Domain CL Numeral Classifier PM Previously Mentioned CMPL Complementizer PoCS Postcore Slot COND Conditional POT Potential CONJ Conjunction PP Prepositional/Postpositional Phrase CONS Concessive PrCS Precore Slot COP Copula PRED Predicate DAT Dative/Dative Marker PrFD Primary Focus Domain DEF Definite PRO Pronoun FP Final Particle PST Past Tense/Perfective Aspect GEN Genitive Q Question Marker HON Honorific QT Quotative Marker HOR Hortative RD Referential Distance IF Illocutionary Force RDP Right-detached Position IMP Imperative RE Resultative LDP Left-detached Position REF Referring Element LS Logical Structure S Sentence NEG Negative SFD Secondary Focus Domain N Noun SUB Subject NOM Nominalizer TNT Tentative NP Noun Phrase V Verb ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., who has served as chair of my committee, for his insightful advice and constant encouragement at every stage of this dissertation. Without his patience