Bull. Kochi Gakuen College. 37 : 35－42（2007）

On the Morphological Restriction in the Japanese Subject Honorifics ＊Fumikazu NIINUMA１）
Abstract
The purpose of this squib is to show that a certain instance of the morphologicalrestriction between the honorific passive morpheme -rare and the potential morpheme -rare can be derived from the phonological principle, which is found in various languages. In recent years, it has been shown in the literature that somecombinations of syntactic constituents and morphemes are constrained by the phonological principle, often called as Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). In this paper, I examine two forms of subject honorifics in Japanese: the subject honorific (SH)form o-V-ni naru, such as o-nomi-ni naru, and the honorific passive (HP) form, such as
nom-are-ru, and demonstrate that the morphological restriction cannot be attributed tosyntactic or semantic violations. Finally, I briefly observe the cooccurrence restriction between HP and the passive morpheme -rare. I show that the same morphological restriction can be seen, and thus the restriction can be captured by thephonological principle.

１．Introduction
It has been noted that there is a principle across languages that adjacent identicalelements is prohibited. In the literature, the principle has been called the obligatory
contour principle, the OCP (Leben (1973), Goldsmith (1976), McCarthy (1986)). The
effects of this principle not only can be observed in autosegmental phonology andfeature geometry (Leben (1973), Goldsmith (1976), McCarthy (1986), Myers (1987), Yip(1988), Pierrehumbert (1993), among many others) but also can be found in morphology (Menn and MacWhinney (1984), Mohanan (1994), Golston (1995), Yip (1995, 1998),^Brentari (1998), Tang (2000) among many others). Furthermore, Boskovic (2002) argues
that the same effects can be found in PF, observing that in multiple wh-fronting
languages such as Romanian and Bulgarian, the lower copy of the wh-phrase can bepronounced because of the constraint that the two homophonous elements cannot beadjacent. Based on this, Niinuma and Maki (2004) propose that the same analysis canbe extended to case particles in Japanese, arguing that the pronominal no in Japanese is deleted when it is adjacent to the genitive no.
In this squib, we observe a new set of data in which the potential morpheme -rare１）Departmentof Early Childhood Education and Care, Kochi Gakuen College, 292-26, Asahi-Tenjin-cho, Kochi, 780-0955. niinuma＠kochi-gc. ac. jp－ 35 －高 知 学 園 短 期 大 学 紀 要

第 37 号

cannot cooccur with the honorific passive (HP) -rare in Japanese, arguing that theprinciple can account for them. Thus, it constitutes additional evidence that theprinciple that can be seen in various languages is applicable to Japanese morphology.
The organization of this squib will be as follows. In the next section, I will present a new set of data that shows the cooccurrence restriction in the Japanese subject
honorifics. In section 3, I will show that the principle can explain the cooccurrence
restriction observed in section 2. In section 4, I will further show that the principle will
prevent the cooccurrence of HP from having the passive -rare next to it. Section 5 will
be a summary of this squib.
２．DataIn this section, I focus on the two types of subject honorific forms, which are
exemplified in (1) : １(1)a. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-oo-yomi ni nar-ta

book-Acc

read-SH-past‘Prof. Tanaka read the book’
b. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-oyom-are-ta

book-Acc

read-HP-past‘Prof. Tanaka read the book’
Note that these sentences above have the same meaning, and the subject can beregarded as a‘socially superior to the speaker’(SSS) (Harada (1976)). Thus, we would
expect that these forms behave the same way syntactically and these forms areinterchangeable.
The following sentences show that the subject honorific form o-V-ni nar (SH,hereafter) can cooccur with the potential -rare. ２(2)a. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okai-ta

book-Acc

write-past‘Prof. Tanaka wrote the book’
b. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okak-e-ta

book-Acc

write-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’c. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-oo-kaki-ni nar-e-ta

book-Acc

write-SH-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
Let us now consider how the potential -rare can interact with HP.３
(3)a. Tanaka sensee-gahon-okak-(ar)-e-ta－ 36 －

On the Morphological Restriction in the Japanese Subject Honorifics

Prof. Tanaka-Nom

book-Acc

write-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
b. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okak-are-ta

book-Acc

write-HP-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
c. ＊Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-o

kak-e-rare-ta

book-Acc

write-can-HP-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
d. ＊Tanaka sensee-gaProf. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okak-are-(ra)-re-ta

book-Acc

write-HP-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
The unacceptable sentences in (3c) and (3d) indicate that the honorific passive -rarecannot cooccur with the potential morpheme -rare. Notice that this cooccurrence
restriction is not due to semantics, since it is possible to say 'Prof. Tanaka can write
the book' with SH, as in (2c).
To sum up, the position where the potential -rare can appear with the subject honorific sentences is so restricted, in that the potential -rare must attach to nar in the１

SH subject honorific morpheme (o-V-ni nar), HP=honorific passive (rare). I assume that o- and -ni
nar in SH are a circumfix. See Niinuma and Maki (2005, 2006a) for the detailed discussion.

２Kikuchi (1994) notes that the potential morpheme -rare must attach to SH. (i) shows that the potential morpheme cannot attach to V in SH, and thus the sentence is not acceptable.
＊(i)

Tanaka sensee-ga

hon-oo-kak-e ni nar-u

Prof. Tanaka-Nom

book-Acc

write-can-SH-pres'Prof. Tanaka can write the book'３

The potential rare and HP are homophonous. However, in modern Japanese, ra in the potential rare
can be optionally dropped, as demonstrated in (i)(i)

a. John-ga

sakana-otabe-rare-ru

John-Nom fish-Acc

eat-can-pres'John can eat fish'b. John-ga

sakana-oJohn-Nom fish-Acc

tabe-re-ru
eat-can-pres

On the contrary, ra in the honorific passive -rare cannot be omitted :(ii)

a. Tanaka sensen-ga sakana-otabe-rare-ta

Prof. Tanaka-Nom fish-Acc

eat-HP-past'Prof. Tanaka ate fish'b. Tanaka sensee-ga sakana-otabe-re-ta

Prof. Tanaka-Nom fish-Acc

eat-HP-past－ 37 －高 知 学 園 短 期 大 学 紀 要

第 37 号o-V-ni naru form. Furthermore, HP cannot cooccur with the potential -rare. This showsthat there is a clearly difference between SH and HP.
３．Two Occurrences of -Rare
In the previous section, I have presented the data that the potential -rare cannot
cooccur with HP in Japanese. The question is why they are not acceptable. The relevant examples are repeated below :(4)a. ＊Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okak-e-rare-ta

book-Acc

write-can-HP-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
b. ＊Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-okak-are-(ra)re-ta

book-Acc

write-SH-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
Note that it is not the case that the potentials cannot cooccur with the subject
honorific forms in Japanese, because the sentence becomes acceptable if SH, insteadof HP, is used in the sentence.
(5)

a. Tanaka sensee-ga
Prof. Tanaka-Nom

hon-oo-kaki-ni nar-e-ta

book-Acc

write-SH-can-past‘Prof. Tanaka could write the book’
b. Yamada sensee-ga
Prof. Yamada-Nom

sono hito-ni（yotte）
that person-byo-nagur-are-ni nat-ta.
hit-passive-SH-past‘Prof. Yamada was hit by that person.’
Therefore, the unacceptability of the sentences in (4) cannot be attributed to thesemantic conditions.
It seems that syntactic analysis cannot account for the unacceptability of (4), either. It has been often noted that the potential -rare appears above vP in Japanese (seeKoizumi (1994, 1998), Niinuma (2000), Takano (2003), among others). Furthermore, Niinuma and Maki (2006b) argue that HP is located at T in Japanese, and that thestructure for (4a) is possible under our analysis. Thus, it is expected to be acceptable, contrary to fact.
(6)[TP[vP

potential] HP]

I propose that the sentences in (4) are not acceptable because of the principle thatthe two homophonous elements cannot be adjacent. For instance, in multiple whfronting languages, such as Romanian and Bulgarian, it is not the case that all wh－ 38 －

On the Morphological Restriction in the Japanese Subject Honorifics

phrases are fronted, as illustrated in (7). Assuming the phonological condition that two^

homophonous elements must not be adjacent, Boskovic (2002) argues that one whelement must be pronounced in a lower position in order to avoid forming a sequence of homophonous elements.
(7)

a. Ce
Whatprecedece?

precedeswhat‘What precedes what?’
(8)

b. Ce

ceprecede?

a. Kakvo

obuslavlja kakvo?

Whatconditions what

‘What conditions what?’b. ＊Kakvo

kakvo

obuslavlja?
^(Boskovic (2002))
The same analysis can be applied to the sentences in (4) above. The unacceptability of the sentences in (4) is attributed to the fact that the phonetically identical elements are next to each other. In the case of HP, in order to avoid the sequence of
homophonous -rare, the different subject honorific form, namely, SH, must be used. If
this is on the right track, it constitutes additional evidence for the universal constraint that two homophonous elements must not be adjacent.
４．Passive -Rare
Shibatani (1976) notes that not only the deep subjects, but also the derived subjects can license subject honorification, as shown in (9) :(9)Yamada sensee-ga

sono hito-ni（yotte）

Prof. Yamada-Nomthat person-byo-nagur-are-ni nat-ta.
hit-passive-SH-past‘Prof. Yamada was hit by that person.’(Shibatani (1976))
This sentence in (9) is very important, since it tells us that the passive -rare canoccur with SH.
The question that immediately arises is whether HP can also cooccur with thepassive -rare. The following examples illustrate that they cannot appear in the samesentence :(10)

a.＊Yamada sensee-ga
Prof. Yamada-Nom

sono hito-ni（yotte）
that person-bynagur-are-rare-ta.
－ 39 －高 知 学 園 短 期 大 学 紀 要

第 37 号

hit-passive-HP-past‘Prof. Yamada was hit by that person.’b.＊Yamada sensee-ga
Prof. Yamada-Nom

sono hito-ni（yotte）
that person-bynagur-are-rare-ta.
hit-HP-passive-past‘Prof. Yamada was hit by that person.’This unacceptability is not due to semantics either, since the sentence becomes acceptable if we replace HP with SH.
The distribution of the passive -rare also illustrates that there is a clear contrast
between the subject honorific forms. It would be surprising if we consider that theproperties of SH and those of HP are identical.
The unacceptability of (10) is also accounted for by the principle that the two homophonous elements cannot be adjacent, as discussed in the previous section. As in
the case of the potential -rare, in order to avoid forming the sequence of two phonetically identical elements, SH must be used, instead of HP.
５．Conclusion
The purpose of this squib was to consider the cooccurrence restriction of the potential -rare with the honorific passive -rare. I have proposed that the potential -rare
and the honorific passive -rare cannot cooccur in the same sentence, since the principle circumvents forming the sequence of two phonetically identical elements. I havealso shown that the same analysis can be extended to the sentences in (10). Thisfinding implies that the morphological restriction in Japanese is constrained by theprinciple observed across languages, and thus we do not need to assume a language-specific rule to prevent it.
It is well-known that there are four different usages of -rare in Japanese : honorific,potential, passive, and spontaneous. In this squib, I have only observed that thecooccurrence restriction of honorific with potential and passive. It would be moreinteresting to consider whether the same principle can be applicable to other cases,
such as potential and passive, potential and spontaneous, etc. It seems to me that theuniversal principle is also applied to the following sentences.
(11)

a. ＊Taro-ga
Taro-Nomsono hito-ni（yotte）
that person-bynagur-are-(ra)-re-ta.
hit-passive-can-past‘Taro can be hit by that person.’b. ＊Taro-ga
Taro-Nomsono hito-ni（yotte）
that person-bynagur-are-(ra)-e-rare-ta.
－ 40 －On the Morphological Restriction in the Japanese Subject Honorifics

hit-can-passive-past‘Taro was hit by that person.’Obviously, the detailed investigation of the cooccurrence restriction of the four usages of the morpheme -rare in Japanese will be necessary. However, it will not be
surprising if the universal principle can give a reason for the unacceptability of other combinations of the morpheme -rare.
Acknowledgements＊I would like to thank Hideki Maki, Shigeki Taguchi, and two anonymous review-ers for the valuable comments and suggestions of this earlier paper. This research isin part supported by the Grant in Aid of Scientific research from the Ministry ofCulture and Education Young Scientists (B) #18720113 to Kochi Gakuen College.
References^^

Boskovic , Zeljko. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351-383
Brentari, Diane. (1998). Comments on the paper by Yip. In Morphology and its Relation to Syntax and Phonology, Steve G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, and Patrick M.
Farrell(eds.), 247-258. Stanford : CSLI.
Goldsmith, John. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,MIT.
Golston, Chris. (1995). Syntax outranks phonology : evidence from Ancient Greek.
Phonology 12.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. (1994). Nominative objects : the role of TP in Japanese. MITworking papers in Linguistics 24, 211-230.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. (1998). Remarks on nominative objects. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16, 39-66.
Leben, William. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,MIT.
McCarthy, John. (1986). OCP effects : gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207-263.
Menn Lise, and MacWhinney, Brian. (1984). The repeated morph constraint : toward anexplanation. Language 60, 519-541.
Mohanan, Tara. (1994). Case OCP : a constraint on word order in Hindi. In Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages, Miriam Butt, Tracy
Holloway King, and Gillian Ramchand (eds.), 185-216. Stanford : CSLI.
Myers, Scott. (1987). Tone and the structure of words in Shona. Doctoral dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Niinuma, Fumikazu. (2000). Nominative objects and overt A-movement in Japanese.
Proceedings of ESCOL '99, 149-160.
－ 41 －高 知 学 園 短 期 大 学 紀 要

第 37 号

Niinuma, Fumikazu, and Yuko Maki. (2004). Repair strategies in PF : No-deletion inJapanese noun phrases. Konan Eibungaku 18, 51-69.
Niinuma, Fumikazu, and Hideki Maki. (2005). The morphological structure of subject
honorification o-X ni naru in Japanese. Bulletin of Kochi Gakuen College 36, 1-15.
Niinuma, Fumikazu, and Hideki Maki. (2006a). A Note on the Subject Honorific Formo-X ni naru in Japanese. Ms. Kochi Gakuen College and Gifu University.
Niinuma, Fumikazu, and Hideki Maki (2006b). The syntax of the Japanese subject
honorifics, Paper to be presented at 133rd Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1977). Nihongo no bunseki. Tokyo. Taishuukan.
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. (1981). Morphological haplology. Language 57, 791-817.
Takano, Yuji. (2003). Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions : A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21.4 : 779-834.
Tang, Sze-Wing. (2000). Identity avoidance and constraint interaction : the case ofCantonese. Linguistics 38-1, 33-61.
Yip, Moira.(1988). The obligatory contour principle and phonological rules : a loss ofidentity. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 65-100.
Yip, Moira. (1995). Repetition and its avoidance : the case of Javanese. In Arizona
Phonology Conference 5 : Features in Optimality Theory, Keiichiro Suzuki and Dirk
Elzinga (eds.), 238-262. Tucson : University of Arizona.
Yip, Moira. (1998). Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Morphology andits Relation to Syntax and Phonology, Steve G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, andPatrick M. Farrell (eds.), 216-246, Stanford : CLSI.
（2006年９月28日受付；2006年11月10日受理）－ 42 －