Browsing Coyote Papers by Authors
A Dual Function of tokoro in the CENP ConstructionHosoi, Hironobu; McGill University (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle, 2000)In this paper, I will discuss the semantics of the Japanese so-called "Counter-Equi NP" (henceforth, CENP) Construction, given in (I). (1) CENP Construction Keisatsu-wa [ doroboo-ga nige-ru ]-tokoro-o tsukamae-ta. police-TOP burglar-NOM escape-PRES-occasion-ACC arrest-PAST 'The police arrested a burglar on the occasion during which he/she was escaping.' The CENP construction is similar to the so-called "internally headed relative clause" (henceforth, IHRC) construction, given in (2), in that, in the CENP construction, an NP within the embedded tokoro-clause is interpreted as an argument of the matrix verb. (2) IHRC Construction Keisatsu-wa [ doroboo-ga nige-ru ]-no-o tsukamae-ta. police-TOP burglar-NOM escape- PRES-NO-ACC arrest-PAST 'The police arrested a burglar on the occasion during which he/she was escaping.' In both (1) and (2), the embedded subject doroboo 'burglar' is interpreted as an object of the matrix verb tsukamaer 'arrest'. In this paper, I argue that the noun tokoro semantically has a dual function. To be more specific, it is a generalized quantifier over an entity and at the same time an event when it combines with the tokoro-clause, adopting Srivastav's (1991) generalized quantifier approach to Hindi correlatives.
Reconstruction and Linearity in Long-Distance Cleft ConstructionsTanaka, Hidekazu; Kizu, Mika; University of British Columbia; McGill University; University of Durham (University of Arizona Linguistics Circle, 2000)This paper is concerned with cleft constructions and reconstruction effects in English and Japanese. Japanese cleft constructions involve two different syntactic dependencies, movement and deletion. This assumption explains facts that have not been reported in the literature. The reflexive pronoun in (la) and the reciprocal pronoun in (lb) in the focus phrase can be bound either by the higher subject or by the lower subject in the presupposition. In clear contrast, the lower subject in Japanese cleft constructions cannot bind anaphors in the focus phrase. In (2), only the higher subject can bind the anaphors in the focus phrase. What explains the contrast between (1) and (2)? We argue that an operator in Japanese moves from the position adjoined to the lower clause (tk in (3)), not from the thematic gap position (ek). It is shown that the dependency (ii) in (3) stems from movement, and (i) from deletion. Since Opk (or the focus phrase associated with it) reconstructs only to the position of tk, the anaphor can only be bound by the higher subject, Sallyi-Nom.