HPSG Analysis of Topicalization and Contrastivization
by HASHIMOTO Chikara
Constructions exhibiting unbounded dependency, such as topicalization
and relativization, have often been analyzed as containing syntactic
a gap. This paper shows that adopting Shirai and Gunji (1998) proposal
on relativization, it is possible to analyze topicalization and
contrastivization in Japanese without syntactic gaps. In addition, the
analysis presented in this paper is able to account for the following
differences between the two constructions:
My assumptions and proposals are as follows:
- Topic wa phrases are prohibited from appearing in a
relative clause whereas contrastive wa phrases are not.
- Topic constructions allow a resumptive pronoun to appear in an
whereas contrastive constructions do not.
- So-called reconstruction effects are observed only in topic
constructions, but not in contrastive constructions.
- Arguments of a predicate are raised by the tense morpheme which
the predicate attaches to. (Shirai and Gunji, 1998)
- Raised arguments don't appear in the argument structure of the
raising verb. (Uda, 1996)
- Syntactic-semantic structure is not affected by
scrambling. (Gunji, 1999)
- Topic wa phrases are licensed by being semantically bound
by the tense morpheme which is assertive form.
- Contrastive wa phrases are analyzed as phonological variants
of ordinary arguments.
Back to TALKS top page (English)
Back to TALKS Japanese page
Backto SILS top page