Mongolian (the Khalkha dialect) has three past tense suffixes which are added to the finite verb at the end of a sentence. The traditional works, such as Poppe (1951, 1970), Luvsanjav et al. (1976), Vietze (1978), Ozawa (1978) and Kuribayashi (1992), have explained the meanings of the suffixes., in terms of the assumption that there are striking differences among them. All these explanations certainly account for some aspects of these suffixes but fail to offer a comprehensive view on the whole matter. The purpose of this paper is to find out where the meaning differences come from, by reexamining available data as strictly as possible.
Section 1 introduces the main points at issue in the past studies. In section 2 we observe the environments in which the three suffixes occur, and determine that their basic meaning is past time reference. Section 3 deals with the idiosyncratic meaning of each suffix. It turns out that the differences between the suffixes in meaning are derived from the present time orientation of the reference domain. Section 4 concludes that the three past tense suffixes, operating interactively, construct the past time reference system as a continuum extending from the past time to the future time.

View full abstract

The aim of this article is to shed some light on the tense effect on LF movement of wh-in-situ in Hindi-Urdu. Although these languages lack syntactic wh-movement, wh-interrogatives are not allowed to appear in tensed islands, while they are allowed in untensed ones. This is contrary to what is generally known about wh-in-situ in English, which does not obey Subjacency. This tense effect is provided with a desirable account on the basis of Generalized Binding theory and by assuming a parameter of Hindi-Urdu that tensed C qualifies as a SUBJECT. A wh-trace (an A'-anaphor) must be A'-bound by its antecedent in its binding domain, which is tensed CP, not tenseless CP. When the specifier position of tensed CP is occupied by some element such as a relative pronoun and the antecedent of a trace is not allowed to occur in the clause, the trace is not A'-bound in its domain, violating Condition (A) of generalized binding. Hence interrogatives are excluded from tensed relative and adjunct clauses, resulting in the tense effect. Our analysis also accounts for the fact that wh-in-situ is insensitive to other island conditions and lacks subject-object asymmetries. We also show that the Empty Category Principle and Subjacency at LF do not provide a satisfactory account for the tense effect.

View full abstract

This paper argues that basic dimension adjectives are divided into two classes according to whether they refer to “object” or “place”. The former are systematized according to the feature of the shape of the object, and the latter the relation of the place to its surroundings.
There are conceptually six dimension categories of objects. We will use the following signs analogized to phonetic signs: [A] stands for the volume of a box, [I] the length of a rod, [U] the thickness of a board, [E] the extension of a board, [O] the thickness of a rod, and [_??_] the width of a belt.
The six categories have the following system and hierarchy which are based on the developement of visual perceptions and oppositions between categories: (As to the length of sides, let longest_??_intermediate_??_shortest).[P] → [Q] means that if a language contains words /Q/ (=a pair of antonyms), it must also contain words /P/. (The kernal meaning of words /p/ (/Q/) is [P] ([Q]).) Some dialects in Kyusyu have only /A/ /I/ /U/, which correspond to [A•E•0•_??_], [I], [U] respectively. Standard Japanese has /A/ / I / /U/ /0/ corresponding to [A•E], [I] [U], [O•_??_] respectively.

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract

The aim of this paper is to reexamine, from the radical pragmatic point of view, the theoretical domains in which the phenomena of the scope, focus and presupposition of questions in Japanese should be described. Although a large number of studies have been conducted on these phenomena, most of them characterize them in syntactic terms.
I define the term “interrogative sentence” to refer to a type of sentence, and “question” to refer to a kind of (verbal or non-verbal) action. Given these definitions, my claim is as follows: Interrogative sentences should be described in syntax, and questions in pragmatics.
Through examining what this claim entails, we find that, contrary to some prior studies (e.g. Kuno 1983; Takubo 1985), there is no direct evidence to support that the syntactic scope of questions exists, and furthermore, that the facts which these researchers used as evidence for the existence of the syntactic scope can be accounted for by making a clear distinction between “grammaticality” and “acceptability”. It is, therefore, concluded that the syntactic scope of questions does not exist.
This approach is superior to the prior approach in the following two respects: First, by not accepting the existence of the scope with respect to questions, two exceptions to the scope restriction, WH-words and MC focus, cease to be exceptions. Secondly, the approach taken here suggests a possibility of describing such pragmatic phenomena as the focus and the presupposition of questions in purely pragmatic terms.

View full abstract