On the Two Contracted Forms of the Japanese Copula: Da and the Zero Form
Mioko Miyama (University of Tokyo)
Phenomena
The Japanese copula has two present tense forms, dearu and da, as in (1).
(1)

Taro-waisya

dearu/da.

Taro-Top

doctoris

Da is the morphologically contracted form of dearu (Nishiyama (1999)).
I propose that the zero form of the copula is another morphologically contracted form of dearu. In what follows,a piece of evidence for this is provided: the distribution of da and the zero form. An empirically adequate
descriptive generalization about the distribution of da has never been provided in previous literature. A complete
picture can be drawn by taking into account the zero form. Dearu can contract iff (i) it is not used adnominally, and(ii) it is used in indicative clauses.
Nishiyama (1999) points out that da cannot appear if an element intervenes between de and aru. See (2).
(2)

Yoru-gasizuka-de-mo-aru/*da-mo (aru)night-Nom quiet-de-even-aru/da-even‘The night is even quiet.’(Nishiyama (1999: 186))

However, many environments disallow da even if de and aru are adjacent. For example, in complements of modals
such as rasii/mitaida ‘seems’ (3) and in clefts (4), da cannot appear.
(3)(4)

Taro-wagakusei dearu/*da/

rasii/mitaida.

Taro-Top

student

isseems

Taro-gagakusei dearu/*da/*

no-wa

kyuzitudake da.

Taro-Nom

student

C-Top

holidays

only isis(Narahara (2002: 157))

There are restrictions on the distribution of da other than adjacency.

A New Generalization
The distribution of the contracted and the non-contracted forms are summarized in the table.
CopulaNon-contracted form

Adjectival predicate

Contracted formdearudana-i or -kuaru

Main clauses

OKOKOK*-i

Subordinate interrogative clauses

OKOKOK*-iConditional clauses + to ‘if’OKOK**-i

Adverbial clauses + kara ‘because’OKOK

*

*

-i

Complement of rasii ‘seem’

OK

*

OK

*

-i

Relative clauses

OK

*

OK

*

-i

Complement of bekida ‘should’

OK

*

*

*-kuaru

Subordinate clauses + yoo(-ni)

OK

*

*

*-kuaru

Cleft constructions

OK**

OK-iNo da constructions

OK

*

*

OK-i

Adverbial clauses + node ‘because’OK**

OK-iEnvironments

We can naturally draw an interesting descriptive generalization about the distribution of the contracted forms of thecopula. The environments are classified in two ways; whether dearu can be replaced with na and whether theadjectival predicate takes the form -i or -kuaru (for example, Taro-wa yasasi-i ‘Taro is kind’ and Taro-wa
yasasi-kuaru bekida ‘Taro should be kind’). The result is shown in the right hand of the table.
We observe from the table that neither da nor the zero form can appear in the environments where na canappear or where the adjectival predicate takes the form -kuaru. The following new descriptive generalization thus isdrawn.
(5)

Dearu can contract either into da or into the zero form iff(i) dearu cannot be replaced with na, and(ii) the adjectival predicate takes the form -i.

Analysis
I treat the environments where the adjectival predicate takes the form -i as indicative clauses, following
Watanabe (in press). Na is the adnominal form of dearu (although it is questionable whether the na form of thecopula which appears in the environments in question is the adnominal form; the apparently “nominal-like” no inclefts, no da constructions, and node ‘because’ actually seems to be a Complementizer. If so, the fact that the copulaappears in its “adnominal” form when a Complementizer follows it is puzzling. The status of the na form is to beinvestigated in future research.). The descriptive generalization is restated:(6)

Dearu can contract iff(i) it is not used adnominally, and(ii) it is used in indicative clauses.

The contracted form cannot appear in the environments where na can appear because da and the zero form arethe sentence-final forms. The reason why the contracted forms can appear only in indicative clauses is explained
straightforwardly if we assume the structure (7) (Nishiyama (1999) and Watanabe (in press)) for dearu.
(7)

TPNP

T
vP

PredP
NP

Pred

Tv

-uardeI propose that dearu contracts with an element in the CP structure, which exists only in indicative clauses. Thecopula thus cannot contract in subjunctive clauses, which have a smaller structure than indicative clauses, or inclefts, for example, which have a structure only up to FinP (Hiraiwa & Ishihara (2002)).
The contraction to da is attributable to optional Fusion as Nishiyama (1999) proposes. The item da may be deleted afterinsertion due to a phonological operation. The copula is covert in this case.
In sum, the idea that both da and the zero form are the morphologically contracted forms of the copula enables
us to draw an empirically adequate descriptive generalization about the distribution of the contracted forms of thecopula.
References: [1] Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and ‘No Da’Construction in Japanese,” MITWPL 43, 35-54. [2] Narahara, Tomiko (2002) The Japanese Copula: Forms andFunctions. [3] Nishiyama, Kunio (1999) “Adjectives and the Copulas in Japanese,” JEAL 8, 183-222. [4] Watanabe,Akira (in press) “Measure Phrase Modification in the Extended Projection of Adjectives,” Proceedings ofJapanese/Korean Linguistics 20.