The purpose of this dissertation is to reconsider reflexives in Japanese through the following three steps: (a) separation of genuine reflexive elements from elements that are confounded as reflexives, (b) classification of reflexive anaphors into subtypes based on their semantic difference, and (c) classification of predicates that occur with anaphors.
Many researchers have worked on the reflexive element zibun (self), but Japanese has other reflexive elements as well. These elements including zibun have not only the reflexive anaphor usage but also other ones. All the instances are, however, often lumped together under one category: reflexive. I distinguish genuine reflexive anaphors in Japanese from elements that are confounded as reflexive elements, by scrutinizing their syntactic and semantic properties and behavioral differences.
Further, I claim that reflexive anaphors are classified into two subtypes as Pure reflexive anaphors and Near reflexive anaphors (Lidz, 1996, 2001a,b) based on their semantic property. Observing several languages from different language families, I propose that there is a parametric variation with respect to the two-type distinction of reflexive anaphors among languages. In languages like Japanese, anaphors in the form of affix are Pure reflexive anaphors, while non-affixal anaphors are Near reflexive anaphors. On the other hand, in languages like Dutch, the morphological composition (complexity) of anaphor corresponds to the two-type anaphor distinction. What yields this variation is also discussed.
In considering reflexives, it is important to know the nature of reflexive anaphors, but it is also essential to understand the nature of predicates that occur with an anaphor. One of the unsolved questions in the research of reflexives in Japanese is that the anaphor zibun cannot take a local antecedent when it occurs with a certain type of verb, although anaphors should be locally bound. Several studies have demonstrated that the availability of local binding of an anaphor depends on the property of its co-occuring predicate (Reinhart and Reuland, 1993, Bergeton, 2004, among others). Discussing how the type of reflexive and the type of predicate relate, I propose a way to categorize predicates in Japanese into subtypes based on the analysis in Bergeton (2004). By going through the three steps, I give an answer to the unsolved question.
|Commitee:||Bleam, Tonia, Lasnik, Howard, Lidz, Jeffrey, Ramsey, Samuel Robert|
|School:||University of Maryland, College Park|
|School Location:||United States -- Maryland|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/06, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Crosslinguistic variation, Japanese, Predicate classification, Pure-/near-reflexivity, Reflexive anaphor|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be