Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:08:14.136Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical V-V compounds in Japanese: Lexicon Vs. syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Kazuhiko Fukushima
Kazuhiko Fukushima*
Affiliation:
Kansai Gaidai University
*
Kansai Gaidai University, 16-1 Nakamiya Higashino-cho, Hirakata, Osaka 573-1001, Japan [kaz@kansaigaidai.ac.jp]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the central issues in morphology/morphosyntax has been the locus of the mechanisms responsible for word formation. LEXICALISM claims that the mechanisms employed for word formation are distinct from those found in other domains (e.g. syntax). I examine in this article so-called ‘lexical’ V-V compound formation in Japanese from a lexicalist point of view and show that it is indeed LEXICAL (some claim that it is syntactic). Though Japanese V-V compounds have been studied extensively, a principled and unified account has not been proposed due to their complexities, especially one that deals with the question of how arguments of component verbs are to be synthesized into a single argument structure. The current proposal embodies the notion of THEMATIC PROTO-ROLE and devises semantically driven argument matching giving rise to an argument structure of a V-V compound as a whole. In such a process, syntactic apparatuses or grammatical relations per se play no central role.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 568 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb construction. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 513–53.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1998. Comments on the paper by Sadock. In Lapointe, et al., 188–212.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1988. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology 1988. 45–65.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Youngju. 2005. Extended parallel morphology for Korean V-e V compounds. Japanese/Korean linguistics 13, ed. by Matsuko Endo Hudson, Sun-Ah Jun, and Peter Sells. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 461–97.Google Scholar
Davis, Anthony. 2001. Linking by types in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1984. Syntactic affixation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1990. VP-embedding control structures in Japanese. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Farrell, Patrick, and Mejías-Bikandi, Errapel, 163–82. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1992. Subcategorization, feature structures and honorification in Japanese. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics 22, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1998. Negation in the lexicon, not in NegP. Chicago Linguistic Society 34. 171–84.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1999a. Bound morphemes, coordination, and bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 35. 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1999b. A lexical comment on a syntactic topic. In Levine & Green, 199–222.Google Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2002. Competence and performance revisited: The implications of social role terms in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 34. 939–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2003. Verb-raising and numeral classifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bedfellows. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12. 313–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2004. Conspiracy of form and function for optimization of language change. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. Rescuing lexical integrity with a monostratal grammar: Sized inalienable possession in Japanese and bracketing paradox. Chicago Linguistic Society 40, to appear.Google Scholar
Gamerschlag, Thomas. 2002. Complex predicate formation and argument structure of Japanese V-V compounds. Japanese/Korean linguistics 10, ed. by Akatsuka, Noriko, Strauss, Susan, and Comrie, Bernard, 532–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goh, Gwang-Yoon. 1998. Relative obliqueness and subcategorization inheritance in Old English preposition-verb compound verbs. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 51. 59–93.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao. 1999. On the lexicalist treatment of Japanese causatives. In Levine & Green, 117–60.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao, and Hasida, Koiti. 1998. Introduction. Topics in constraint-based grammar of Japanese, ed. by Gunji, Takao and Hasida, Koiti, 1–14. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic structure. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor ofSylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harada, Shinichi. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 7. 113–47. Tokyo: Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1999. Seisei Nihongo-gaku nyuumon [Introduction to generative Japanese linguistics]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2000. Resultatives and language variations: Result phrase and VV compounds. Japanese/Korean linguistics 9, ed. by Nakayama, Mineharu and Quinn, Charles J. Jr., 269–82. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Himeno, Masako. 1999. Hukugoodooshi-no kozo-to imiyoohoo [Structure and semantic usage of compound verbs]. Tokyo: Hitsuji.Google Scholar
Ito, Takane, and Sugioka, Yoko. 2002. Go-no shikumi-to gokeisei [Mechanisms of words and word formation]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, W. M. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo-to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hitsuji.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Kim, Byong-Kwon. 1993. The structure and the argument-linking convention of V-V compounds in Korean. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 5. 180–92.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William, and Dowty, David. 1988. Towards a nongrammatical account of thematic roles. Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, ed. by Wilkins, Wendy, 62–73. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane; and Farrell, Patrick (eds.) 1998. Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert, and Green, Georgia (eds.) 1999. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 177–207.10.1007/BF00208523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1993. Structural head and aspectuality. Language 69. 480–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yafei. 1998. Chinese resultative constructions and the uniformity of theta assignment hypothesis. New approaches to Chinese word formation, ed. by Packard, Jerome L., 285–310. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. Argument linking and compounding in English. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 251–86.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher, Sag, Ivan; and Iida, Masayo. 1999. The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In Levine & Green, 37–79.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘word’. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1998. Nihongo-no goiteki fukugoo dooshi-niokeru dooshi-no kumiawase [Combinations of verbs in lexical compounds in Japanese]. Gengo Kenkyuu 114. 37–83.Google Scholar
Nihon Kokugo Daijiten [Large-scale dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2000–2002. Tokyo: Shogakkan.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998a. The morphosyntax and morphophonology of Japanese predicates. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998b. V-V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. 175–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, and Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 2002. The double-o constraint in Japanese. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, ms.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1992. Syntactic compounds in Greek. Linguistics and Philosophy 15. 289–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1988. Compound syntax and head movement. Yearbook of Morphology 1. 187–228.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Siegel, Muffy. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 199–260.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerold. 1998. On the autonomy of compounding morphology. In Lapointe, et al., 161–87.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2000. Predicate raising and theta relations. Proceedings of Seoul International Conference on Language and Computation 2000, 85–113. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexicalist perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 277–325.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Kageyama, Taro. 1988. Word formation in a modular theory of grammar. Language 64. 451–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirniotopoulos, Jane, and Joseph, Brian D.. 1998. Incorporation and compounding in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 34. 447–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1993. Review of Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory, by Rochelle Lieber. Language 69. 580–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sugioka, Yoko. 1984. Interaction of derivational morphology and syntax in Japanese and English. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Tagashira, Yoshiko, and Hoff, Jean. 1986. Handbook of Japanese compound verbs. Tokyo: Hokuseido.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 245–74.Google Scholar
Yi, Eun-Young. 1996. Verb compound and the serial verb construction in Korean. Morphosyntax in generative grammar, ed. by Ahn, Hee-Don, Kang, Myung-Yoon, Kim, Yong-Suk, and Lee, Sook-Hee, 445–63. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing.Google Scholar