Startseite Japanese pronoun hon-nin
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Japanese pronoun hon-nin

  • Yuji Hatakeyama EMAIL logo , Kensuke Honda und Kosuke Tanaka
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 13. April 2018
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This paper investigates the Japanese pronoun hon-nin, which has so far been paid little attention to, and proposes the binding condition to the effect that hon-nin must not be bound by the subject NP. We further show that the Japanese reflexive zibun and the Japanese pronoun hon-nin show complementary distribution just as the English reflexive (himself, etc.) and the English pronoun (him, etc.) do so.

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to anonymous JJL reviewers and the editor for their many constructive comments and suggestions. Their constructive criticism has been especially important in improving the quality of this paper. Remaining inadequacies are of course our own.

References

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Suche in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Suche in Google Scholar

Howard, Irwin & Agnes M. Niyekawa-Howard. 1976. Passivization. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, 201–237. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368835_006Suche in Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Shin Nihonbunpō Kenkyū [New studies in Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Suche in Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1999. Ronrikōzō to Bunpōriron [Logical structure and grammatical theory]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2014. Enpashī to soshikōka [Empathy and blocking effects]. Gengo Kenkyū 146. 109–133.Suche in Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke & Yasuo Ishii. 2003. Eigo-kara Nihongo-o Miru [Japanese through English]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Suche in Google Scholar

Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 69–118.10.1007/BF00129574Suche in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Semantics of Japanese causation. Foundations of Language 9. 327–373.Suche in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions, 1–40. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368842Suche in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface Cases. Language 53. 789–809.10.2307/412912Suche in Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo-no Bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Suche in Google Scholar

Washio, Ryuichi. 1989–1990. The Japanese passive. The Linguistic Review 6. 227–263.10.1515/tlir.1987.6.3.227Suche in Google Scholar

Appendix: Subjectivity

Some data requires further explanation. Observe the following sentences:

(A1)
a.
Johni-gahon-nini-noishi-dekin’enshi-ta.
John-nom   hiswill-onstopsmoke-pst

‘John himself decided to quit smoking.’

b.
Johni-gahon-nini-nokuti-karasoohanashi-ta.
John-nomhismouth-fromsosay-pst

‘John himself said so.’

In (A1), hon-nin refers to the subject John, which c-commands it. Thus, both sentences in (A1), though acceptable, violate the binding condition (8). It should be noted, however, that zibun is also possible in (A1), as in (A2):

(A2)
  1. Johni-ga zibuni-no ishi-de kin’enshi-ta. [cf. (A1a)]

  2. Johni-ga zibuni-no kuti-kara soo hanashi-ta. [cf. (A1b)]

However, (A1) using hon-nin and (A2) using zibun seem to be different in terms of subjectivity: (A1) is less subjective than (A2). There are two pieces of supporting evidence. First, the antecedent of hon-nin is restricted to the third person, whereas that of zibun is not. Observe the following contrast (cf. (A1)):

(A3)
a
{*Watashii/*Anatai/Johni}-gahon-nini-noishi-de
IYouJohn-nom*my/*your/hiswill-on
kin’enshi-ta.
stopsmoke-pst
b.
{Watashii/Anatai/Johni}-gazibuni-noishi-dekin’enshi-ta.
IYouJohn-nomself’swill-onstopsmoke-pst

Hon-nin does not, in particular, take as its antecedent the first person (Watashi), which is the pronoun with the most subjective character. This fact thus shows that hon-nin is less subjective than zibun, which can take the first person as its antecedent. Second, sentences using hon-nin become more acceptable with the aid of the modal verbs like rasii/sooda ‘seem’.

(A4)
Johni-gahon-nini-noishi-dekin’enshi-tarasii/sooda.[cf. (A1a)]
John-nomhiswill-onstopsmoke-pstseem

‘It seems that John himself decided to quit smoking.’

This can be also captured in terms of subjectivity. Rasii/Sooda in (A4) are the modal verbs which introduce another person’s opinion. In other words, sentences with them are uttered less subjectively (i.e., more objectively). Accordingly, hon-nin, which is also less subjective, is often used with them. [8]

Viewed in this light, it seems reasonable to suppose that sentences like (A1), though not allowed syntactically due to the binding condition (8), can be made acceptable by some pragmatic (or semantic) factor like subjectivity. If this is on the right track, some kind of “coercion” could occur in certain conditions, which could cancel the syntactic condition. We leave this issue to future research.

Published Online: 2018-04-13
Published in Print: 2018-04-25

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 20.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jjl-2018-0004/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen