The ELSJ 4th International Spring Forum (April 23-24, 2011, Shizuoka University)
Poster presentation

Fake past and a case marking constraint in Japanese potential constructions
Akiko Kobayashi
Shimane University
1. O-ga conversion and fake past (-ta of discovery)
The object DP in Japanese potential constructions (PCs) is marked either with accusative -oor nominative -ga. This case alternation is observed either in present or past PCs.
(1) Taroo-wa (kodomo-no koro) huransugo{-o/ -ga} hanas-e{ru/ ta}.
Taroo-Top (child-Gen time) French{-Acc/-Nom} speak-can {Pres/ Past}‘Taro {can/ could} speak French (when he was a child).’
It has been known that several factors affect PCs to favor one case over the other (e.g. Kuno1973). Here I present one factor that has gone unnoticed before:(2) Ga-marking is obligatory when a modal particle known as hakken-no -ta ‘-ta ofdiscovery’ appears in a PC.
A relevant example is given in (3).
(3) Nanto, Taroo-wa huransugo{?*-o/ -ga} hanas-eta nda.
wow Taro-Top French{-Acc/-Nom} speak-can ta Modal‘Wow, (I didn’t know) Taro can speak French.’
The speaker may utter (3) when s/he sees Taro speaking French at the speech time. -Ta in thiscase obviously does not express pastness, but the sense of discovery. Notice that o-marking on
the object is not allowed in (3).
The aim of this presentation is to account for why (2) is the case. The discussion structureof the presentation is as follows:
Ga-PCs involve
aboutness predication. (§2)

Aboutness predicatesmust be stative. (§3)

MINOR PREMISE (I):
Ga-PCs are stative.

MAJOR PREMISE:-Ta of discovery appears onlyin stative sentences. (§4)

CONCLUSION (I):-Ta of discovery can appear
in ga-PCs.

MINOR PREMISE (II):O-PCs are [-stative].
(§5)

CONCLUSION (II):-Ta of discovery cannot
appear in o-PCs.

Ga-marking is obligatory when -ta of discovery appears in a PC. (=(2))

2. Ga-PCs involve aboutness predication.
Takano (2003) suggests that the ga-marked object in a ga-PC is not an argument of the stem
verb but is related to the stem verb phrase by aboutness.
(4) [TP [vP2 DPi-Nom [VP2DPj-ga[vP1 PROi [VP1 proj V] v] can] v] T]

aboutness
We see evidence for Takano’s analysis in the presentation.
3. Aboutness predicates must be [+stative].
According to Mihara and Hiraiwa (2006), aboutness predication is also involved in multiple-1-

nominative constructions (MNCs) and perception verb constructions (PVCs).
(5) a. Taroo-ga se-gatakai.
[MNC]
Taro-Nom height-Nom tall
‘It is Taro that is tall.’b. Watasi-wa Hanako-otensai da-to omot ta. [PVC]
I-TopHanako-Acc genius be-that think Past
‘I thought that Hanako was a genius.’
Researchers on either type of constructions have suggested the following semantic constraint(e.g. Heycock and Doron 2003 for MNCs; Harada 2002 for PVCs):(6) Aboutness predicates must be stative.
Assuming that (6) is a general constraint, it follows that the stem verb phrase in ga-PCs,
which is identified as an aboutness predicate in section 2, should be made stative somehow. In
the presentation I also provide evidence that potential morpheme does not affect the stativityof the predicate phrase with which it associates, which, combined with (6), leads to thefollowing conclusion:(7) Ga-PCs are stative.
4. -Ta of discovery appears only in [+stative] sentences.
Researchers have observed that -ta of discovery appears only in stative sentences (e.g.
Masuoka 2000, Kudo 2001). Relevant examples are shown below:(8) a. A, at ta.
oh, be ta‘Oh, here it is.’b. (The speaker discovers it is raining at the speech time;)
Are, ame-ga hut te i ta noka/ * hut ta noka.
oh, rain-Nom fall Prg ta Modal/ fall ta Modal‘Oh, (I didn’t know) it is raining.’
The conclusions we have reached in sections 2 to 4 are as follows:(9) a. Sections 2 and 3: Ga-PCs are stative.
b. Section 4: -Ta of discovery appears only in stative sentences.
Given (9a) and (9b), it follows that -ta of discovery can appear in ga-PCs.
5. O-PCs are [-stative].
Let us then consider the compatibility between -ta of discovery and o-PCs. Recall thataboutness predication is not involved in o-PCs and that potential morpheme does not affectstativity. The [-stative] feature of the stem verb hence percolates up and makes o-PCs[-stative]. Consequently, -ta of discovery cannot appear in o-PCs.
Putting them all together, the observed fact (2) follows, as demonstrated in the discussion
structure in section 1.
References
Harada, Naomi. 2002. Licensing PF-visible formal features: A linear algorithm andCase-related phenomena in PF. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Heycock, Caroline and Edit Doron. 2003. Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyu 123: 95-135.
Kudo, Mayumi. 2001. Jutsugo-no imi ruikei-to asupekuto, tensu, muudo [Semantic typologyof predicates and aspect/ tense/ mood]. Gengo (December): 40-47.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mihara, Ken-ichi and Ken Hiraiwa. 2006. Shin nihongo-no toogo koozoo [The new syntacticstructures in Japanese]. Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Takano, Yuji. 2003. Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: Aprolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 779-834.
-2-