Table of Contents

Acknowledgements............................................................................................ v

Introduction. ...................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1 The Problems, the Scope, and the Data.................................... 7
1.1. An Overview
7
1.2. The Problems
7
1.3. The Scope
91.4. The Data11   1.4.1.  The “Corpus-Based” Research and the Shortcomings of“Corpus-Driven” Research12   1.4.2. The Quantitative and Qualitative Investigation14   1.4.3. Corpora15    1.4.3.1. Synchronic Corpora
16    1.4.3.2. Diachronic Corpora
16   1.4.4. The Informant Survey
17
1.5. Concluding Remarks
18vii

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 7

12.1.31 2:15:01 PMviii

Chapter 2 A Review of the Previous Literature ...................................... 19
2.1. An Overview
192.2.  Three Approaches to the Study on the That-Complement and theZero That-Complement21   2.2.1. Quantitative Approaches from the Register Perspective21    2.2.1.1. McDavid (1964)21    2.2.1.2. Elsness (1984) and Yaguchi and Iyeiri (2007)22    2.2.1.3. Biber et al. (1999)25   2.2.2. Qualitative Approaches from the Semantic Perspective26    2.2.2.1. Storms (1966)26    2.2.2.2. Bolinger (1972)28    2.2.2.3. Ohye (1988) and Nawa (2006)31    2.2.2.4. Yaguchi (2001)35   2.2.3.  Diachronic Approaches from the Grammaticalization
Perspective39    2.2.3.1. Thompson and Mulac (1991)41    2.2.3.2. Palander-Collin (1997)42    2.2.3.3. Akimoto (2002)
46
2.3. Concluding Remarks
48

Chapter 3 Semantic Features and Syntactic Forms ................................ 49
3.1. An Overview
49
3.2.  How the Semantic Features of Verbs Determine Whether toTake [PC]50   3.2.1. [PC]s and Their Functions50   3.2.2. The Relationship between the “Assertive(ness)” and [PC]52
3.3. Concluding Remarks
57

Chapter 4 The Peculiarity of MSVs and Their Taking [ZERO] ........... 61
4.1. An Overview
61
4.2. Previous Studies on MSVs and Their Problems
62   4.2.1. Syntactic Features of MSVs
62    4.2.1.1. MSVs and [THAT]62    4.2.1.2. MSVs and [ZERO]
64

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 8

12.1.31 2:15:01 PM

Table of Contents   4.2.2. Semantic Features of MSVs    4.2.2.1. The “Assertive” Characteristics of MSVs
     4.2.2.1.1. The Acceptability of [PC] Formed from MSVs
     4.2.2.1.2. MSVs Not Followed by a Gerund    4.2.2.2. The “Non-Assertive” Characteristics of MSVs
     4.2.2.2.1.  The Semantic Changes of MSVs in Passive
Transformation     4.2.2.2.2. The Function of MSVs as Performative Verbs
     4.2.2.2.3. The Scope of the Clause Influenced by Negation   4.2.3. The Summary of Problems and Research Questions
4.3. The Descriptive Research on MSVs   4.3.1. The Quantitative Research on MSVs   4.3.2. The Qualitative Research on MSVs   4.3.3. The Informant Survey   4.3.4. Summary of the Research
4.4. The Diachronic Research and Analogy   4.4.1. The Diachronic Research   4.4.2.  A Summary of the Assumed Syntactic and Semantic
Interaction in the Development of MSVs
4.5. Concluding Remarks

ix

65
65
65
65
66
66
67
68
69
69
69
72
73
75
75
76
77
79

Chapter 5 The Semantic Difference between [THAT] and [ZERO] in
Wish and Hope . ......................................................................... 81
5.1. An Overview
815.2. Previous Studies on the Verbs Wish and Hope82   5.2.1. The Characteristics of the Verbs Wish and Hope82    5.2.1.1.  The Semantic and Syntactic Characteristics of Wish82    5.2.1.2. Several Usage of the Verb Wish83    5.2.1.3. The Semantic and Syntactic Characteristics of Hope84    5.2.1.4. Further Usage of the Verb Hope85   5.2.2.  Previous Studies concerning [THAT] and [ZERO] in Relation
to Wish and Hope86    5.2.2.1. Watanabe (1976)87    5.2.2.2. Ohye (1988)88    5.2.2.3. Konishi (1980)89

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 9

12.1.31 2:15:01 PMx    5.2.2.4. Nawa (2006)   5.2.3. A Summary and Research Questions
5.3. An Investigation into Wish and Hope   5.3.1. The Quantitative Research    5.3.1.1. The Findings for the Verb Wish    5.3.1.2. The Findings for the Verb Hope    5.3.1.3. Assertive(ness) vs Non-Assertive(ness)   5.3.2. The Qualitative Research    5.3.2.1. The Verb Wish    5.3.2.2. The Verb Hope   5.3.3. The Informant Survey
5.4. Diachronic Studies and the Interaction between Wish and Hope5.5. Concluding Remarks

899091919193969798
100
101
104
106

Chapter 6 A Comparison between Doubt and Suspect with [THAT] and[ZERO] ..................................................................................... 107
6.1. An Overview
107
6.2. Previous Studies109   6.2.1.  The Relationship between Complementizers and TheirMeanings
109   6.2.2. Previous Studies on the Verb Doubt
110    6.2.2.1.  The Relationship between Complementizers and theMeanings of the Verb Doubt
110    6.2.2.2. A Syntactic Restriction of Doubt
113   6.2.3. Previous Studies on the Verb Suspect113   6.2.4. The Research Questions
1146.3. An Investigation into the Verbs Doubt and Suspect115   6.3.1. The Quantitative Research115    6.3.1.1.  The Registers and the Complementizers of the VerbDoubt115    6.3.1.2.  The Syntactic Factors Determining When Suspect Takes[THAT] and Its Complementizers
116   6.3.2. The Qualitative Research118    6.3.2.1.  The Verb Doubt and Its Meaning When It Is Used in
Each Form118

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 10

12.1.31 2:15:01 PM

Table of Contentsxi    6.3.2.2.  The Verb Suspect and Its Meaning When It Is Used inEach Form120
6.4. The Informant Survey122   6.4.1. The Questionnaire for the Verb Doubt and Its Results122   6.4.2. The Questionnaire for the Verb Suspect and Its Results124   6.4.3. A Summary of the Research
126
6.5. The Diachronic Approach and Analogy126   6.5.1. The Two Basic Senses of the Verb Doubt and Their Blending 127   6.5.2.  The Verb Doubt with [THAT]/[ZERO] and the Semantic
Difference When It Is Used in Each Form
129
6.6. Concluding Remarks
132

Chapter 7

 he Relationship between Forms and Meanings in the OtherTSemantic Classifications ......................................................... 135
7.1. An Overview
1357.2. Previous Studies136   7.2.1. The Quantitative Research and Its Decisive Defects137   7.2.2. The Qualitative Research and Its Decisive Defects138   7.2.3.  The Methodology with Special Reference to the Five Verbs:
Guess, Think, Say, Insist, and Know140    7.2.3.1. The Methodology Adopted in This Chapter140    7.2.3.2.  A Special Focus on the Five Verbs: Guess, Think, Say,Insist, and Know
141
7.3. An Investigation of Data142   7.3.1. The Quantitative Research142   7.3.2. The Qualitative Research146    7.3.2.1. The Verb Guess146    7.3.2.2. The Verb Think148    7.3.2.3. The Verb Say
150    7.3.2.4. The Verb Insist152    7.3.2.5. The Verb Know153   7.3.3. A Summary of This Section155
7.4. The Informant Survey
156
7.5. Concluding Remarks
160

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 11

12.1.31 2:15:01 PM

xii

Chapter 8 Conclusion ................................................................................ 163
8.1. An Overview
163
8.2. Summary of the Present Studies
163
8.3. Further Studies
168
8.4.  Findings in This Study and Contribution to English Educationin Japan
169
8.5. Concluding Remarks
171

Appendices . ................................................................................................... 173

References ...................................................................................................... 183
Index . ............................................................................................................. 191

Semantic-Syntactic Study.indd 1212.1.31 2:15:01 PM