LINGUIST List 20.2497
Tue Jul 14 2009
Diss: Semantics/Syntax: Sugita: 'Japanese -TE IRU and -TE ARU: The...'
Editor for this issue: Di Wdzenczny
<dilinguistlist.org>
1. Mamori
Sugita,
Japanese -TE IRU and -TE ARU: The aspectual implications of the stage-level and individual-level distinction
Message 1: Japanese -TE IRU and -TE ARU: The aspectual implications of the stage-level and individual-level distinction
Date: 13-Jul-2009
From: Mamori Sugita <mamori.sugitagmail.com>
Subject: Japanese -TE IRU and -TE ARU: The aspectual implications of the stage-level and individual-level distinction
E-mail this message to a friend
Institution: City University of New York
Program: Linguistics Program
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2009
Author: Mamori Sugita
Dissertation Title: Japanese -TE IRU and -TE ARU: The aspectual implications of the stage-level and individual-level distinction
Linguistic Field(s):
Semantics
Syntax
Subject Language(s): Japanese (jpn)
Dissertation Director:
William McClure
Robert Fiengo
Marcel den Dikken
Dissertation Abstract:
This dissertation investigates semantic and syntactic properties of theforms -te iru and -te aru in Japanese, as well as pragmatic effects ofstatements with these forms.
With an activity verb in the -te iru form, progressive, experiential, andhabitual readings are available. With an achievement verb in the -te iruform, perfective, experiential, and habitual readings are available. Iaddress specifically the difference between perfective and experientialreadings. After reviewing the literature, where it seems that thedistinction is not clear, I give a series of empirical tests and argue thatexperiential sentences exhibit properties of individual-level predicates,while perfective (as well as progressive) sentences exhibit properties ofstage-level predicates.
There are two types of -te aru sentences, intransitivizing andnon-intransitivizing -te aru, both of which have been claimed to yieldperfective readings. However, I argue that all -te aru sentences areexperiential and exhibit properties that parallel individual-level predicates.
Formally, I propose that progressive and perfective -te iru are representedas sets of events with a requirement that the event be realized. Incontrast, I propose that experiential -te iru and -te aru are representedas sets of individuals with a requirement that the event be realized. Therelative scope difference of the event and individual variables in thesemantic representation reflects the stage-level and individual-leveldistinction. Progressive and perfective -te iru denote properties ofevents, while experiential -te iru and -te aru denote properties ofindividuals.
The stage-level/individual-level distinction is also reflected in theproposed syntax. Progressive and perfective -te iru sentences have raisingstructures, while experiential -te iru and -te aru sentences have controlstructures. The scope of the event and individual arguments in thesemantics of -te iru and -te aru is reflected in the position of theirsubjects in syntax.
Lastly, I argue that habitual -te iru sentences parallel experiential -teiru sentences in that they also exhibit properties of individual-levelpredicates.
|