Prashant Pardeshi and Taro Kageyama (eds.) (2018)
Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguitics,
pp. 173-192. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
1

Atsuhiko Kato

2

5 Entailed and intended results in Japaneseand Burmese accomplishment verbs

3
4
5
6
7

1 Introduction

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Vendler (1967) categorized the meanings expressed by English verbs into the four
categories of activities, accomplishments, achievements, and states, depending on
their temporal characteristics. This categorization can be applied to a variety oflanguages, but caution should be paid to the fact that semantically similar verbs indiﬀerent languages may belong to diﬀerent categories. For example, the English verb
know is a state verb but the Japanese verb considered to correspond to it lexically,siru, is an achievement verb meaning ‘get to know’ and must have -te iru showing
the result of change attached in order to express a current state. In the same way,
the meanings of verbs in diﬀerent languages considered to belong to the same category may show diﬀering behaviors. For example, the English accomplishment verb
kill cannot be used in a sentence like (1).
(1)

*I killed him, but he didn’t die.

Since kill entails that a causative action by the agent causes the event of ‘dying’ on
the part of the patient, aﬃrming the action of “killing” in the ﬁrst conjunct and denying the event of “dying” in the second conjunct is logically contradictory. However, according to Tai (1984), no semantic contradiction arises in the following sentence in Chinese (notation follows Tai).
(2)

29

Zhangsan sha-le Lisi liangci, Lisi dou mei si.
Lit. ‘Zhangsan killed Lisi twice, but he didn’t die.’

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

According to Tai (1984), since the Chinese verb shā ‘kill’ does not entail the result“die”, (2) is not contradictory. As is apparent from a comparison of English kill andChinese shā, even verbs that lexically correspond across languages can show diﬀeringsemantic and syntactic behaviors. Based on examples like (2), Tai (1984) claims that
Chinese does not have accomplishment verbs, but Liu (2006: 14–17) argues to thecontrary that Chinese does have accomplishment verbs. This chapter will advanceits arguments on the premise that shā ‘kill’ is an accomplishment verb.
The same phenomenon as was seen in Chinese is also observed in Burmese.

39
40
41
42

(3)

t ̪ù
mâhlâ=ɡò t ̪aʔ=tɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂3sg PN=KO
kill=REAL this=though‘He killed Ma Hla. But Ma Hla didn’t die.’

mâhlâ
PN

mă-t ̪è=bú.
NEG-die=NEG

DOI 10.1515/9781614514077-006(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 173)

174

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Atsuhiko Kato

Example (3) is a single utterance from a single speaker and is composed of one
clause meaning that ‘he killed Ma Hla’ and the second that ‘Ma Hla did not die’.
The Burmese example in (3) resembles the English example in (1) syntactically, but,
as with the Chinese example (2), semantically there is no logical contradiction.
Although not to the same extent as Chinese or Burmese, a similar phenomenon
has been noted in Japanese language research. In particular, Ikegami (1981: 249–
283) claims that, in contrast to English, which is a suru-type (DO-type) languagewith a strong goal orientation and does not allow expressions like (1), Japanese is anaru-type (BECOME-type) language with weak goal orientation and, because of thischaracteristic, forms sentences like (4) without semantic contradiction.

11
12
13
14

(4)

Moyasi-ta
keredo,moe-nakat-ta.
burn(vt)-PST although burn(vi)-NEG-PST‘(I) burned (it), but (it) didn’t burn.’

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Example (4) is a single sentence from a single speaker and, while using the causative transitive verb moyasu in the ﬁrst clause, uses the negated form of the intransitive verb moeru in the second clause. As will be argued later, what is intended in thissentence is the description of a situation in which “I lit the target object (patient) on
ﬁre but it did not burn suﬃciently (to the extent I intended).” In other words, someaction was taken toward the patient and as a result a change in the patient did
occur, but it did not reach the intended state. Tsujimura (2003) calls this phenomenon“event cancellation”, but since the event of igniting does take place, this terminology
is misleading. A better term might be “result cancellation” or “result suspension”.
This phenomenon does not, however, occur as freely as Ikegami (1981) supposes.
As Miyajima (1985) pointed out, the acceptability varies considerably depending on
the speciﬁc verb or context and by speaker.
To sum up the observations above, Japanese appears to be located somewhere
between English and Chinese with regard to the phenomenon of “result cancellation(suspension)” of accomplishment verbs. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the
essential nature of this phenomenon in Japanese through comparison with Burmese.
Section 2, after ﬁrst outlining general characteristics of Burmese, will describe result
cancellation with accomplishment verbs in Burmese. Next, Section 3 will review theimportant previous research on Japanese and Section 4 will consider in detail factorsthat make this phenomenon possible in Japanese. In Section 5 it will be argued thatthe result of an accomplishment verb in Burmese is an “intended result” and Section
6 will suggest directions for further research on similar phenomena in the languagesof East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.

39
40
41
42

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 174)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2 Result cancellation with accomplishment verbs
in Burmese
Previous research describing the possibility of result cancellation with accomplishment
verbs in Burmese is, to the best of my knowledge, limited to Thin Aye Aye Ko (2002)
and Kato (2015). Thin Aye Aye Ko (2002) was the ﬁrst to mention this phenomenon in
Burmese, but stopped with simply indicating the existence of the phenomenon. Kato
(2015) tested whether or not cancellation of attainment of a result was possible witha variety of verbs in Burmese and argued with regard to the use of volitional verbs in
Burmese that reaching the end point of an event was not entailed. Kato (2015) also
treats the phenomenon of denial of the realization of an action itself, as in ‘I stood.
But I could not stand’, but, for the sake of comparison with Japanese, this chapter
will deal only with sentences including accomplishment verbs.
Burmese is an analytic, SOV language belonging to the Tibeto-Burman group of
the Sino-Tibetan language family. Following the verb at the end of the sentence is an
obligatory particle that Okell (1969) calls a “verb-sentence marker” that expresses
modality, including realis versus irrealis. The semantic/grammatical role of a nounin the sentence is also expressed by a following particle. As shown in (5) and (6),the subject of both transitive and intransitive sentences is marked by the particle=kâ/=ɡâ and the direct object of a transitive sentence is marked by the particle=kò/=ɡò.1 On this point, Burmese can be said to be a nominative-accusative language.
Since the particles on the subject and object are not obligatory, they are enclosed inparentheses.
(5)ŋà(=ɡâ) thàiɴ=dɛ̀.
1sg=KA sit.down=REAL‘I sat down.’(6)ŋà(=ɡâ) ʔɛ́ dì t ̪ăyɛʔt ̪í(=ɡò)
1sg=KA that mango=KO‘I ate that mango.’

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

175

sá=dɛ̀.
eat=REAL

An important semantic factor in the classiﬁcation of Burmese verbs is volitionality.
Based on volitionality, all Burmese verbs can be classiﬁed as either volitional verbs
or as non-volitional verbs (Kato 2010, 2015). Volitional verbs depict events accompanied by volition and non-volitional verbs those not accompanied by volition.

38
39
40
41
42

1 With many of the Burmese particles that begin with a voiceless consonant, the ﬁrst consonant(aside from consonants that follow a glottal stop) is replaced by its voiced counterpart. Particles=kâ/=ɡâ and =kò/=ɡò are such examples. In this chapter, whenever such particles are cited, both
voiceless and voiced forms are shown before and after slashes respectively.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 175)

176

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Atsuhiko KatoThis is a fundamental division of Burmese verbs. For example, since mê ‘forget’ is a
non-volitional verb, the sentence mê=dɛ̀ (forget=REAL) ‘(I) forgot (it)’ always shows
non-volitional forgetting and cannot be used to express a situation of forgetting on
purpose. In order to express forgetting on purpose, a speaker must use the auxiliaryverb =laiʔ, which expresses intention, and say mê=laiʔ=tɛ̀. Conversely, the sentencekàiɴ=dɛ̀ (touch=REAL) ‘(I) touched (it)’ using the volitional verb kàiɴ ‘touch, hold’
can only be used to describe a situation in which the touching is intentional. In
order to express a situation in which someone unconsciously touched something,an auxiliary verb expressing inadvertency, =mî is used, as in kàiɴ=mî=dɛ̀.
According to Tsujimura (2003), the phenomenon of the cancellation of the meaning of a result that accomplishment verbs should have is archetypically observed inJapanese with transitive-intransitive verb pairs that are morphologically related, likethe moyasu-moeru pair in (4). Japanese is rich in this kind of transitive-intransitive
pairs, including such verbs as oru – oreru ‘break vt/vi’, kiru – kireru ‘cut/be cut’,yaku – yakeru ‘bake/be baked’, otosu – ochiru ‘drop/fall’, tomeru – tomaru ‘stop
vt/vi’, kesu – kieru ‘extinguish/be extinguished’, kowasu – kowareru ‘crush/ be
crushed’, nagasu – nagareru ‘wash away/ﬂow’, ireru – hairu ‘insert/enter’ (Hayatsu
1989; Kageyama and Jacobsen [eds.] 2017). As shown by Cornyn and McDavid (1943)
and Okell (1969: 205-208), Burmese also has a considerable number of morphologically related transitive-intransitive pairs. Cornyn and McDavid list over 70 such pairs.
In the case of Burmese, since there are cases like chauʔ ‘frighten’ and cauʔ ‘fear’ inwhich both are transitive, rather than referring to the pairs as transitive-intransitive,
it would be more accurate to call the opposition “causative” versus “non-causative”.
Some representative examples are given in Table 1.

25
26

Table 1: Morphological pairs of causative and non-causative verbs in Burmese

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Causative(transitive)

Non-causative(intransitive)

châ
chauʔ
chɛʔ
chó
hlɛ́
hmyîɴ
hnó
kaʔ
khauʔ
peiʔ
phwîɴ
phyɛʔ

‘drop’‘frighten’‘cook’‘bend, break (as a stick)’‘knock down’‘elevate’‘awaken’‘attach, stick’‘fold’‘close’‘open’‘break’

câ
cauʔ
cɛʔ
có
lɛ́
myîɴ
nó
kaʔ
kauʔ
peiʔ
pwîɴ
pyɛʔ

‘drop’‘fear, to be afraid’‘get cooked’‘get bent’‘fall down’‘high’‘wake up’‘get attached’‘get crooked’‘close ’‘open’‘get broken’

39
40
41
42

As shown in Table 1, the causative versus non-causative verb opposition is commonly expressed by aspiration or non-aspiration of the initial consonant (e.g. /ch/

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 176)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

177

vs. /c/, /kh/ vs/ /k/) or by non-voicing versus voicing of the initial consonant (e.g.
/hl/ vs. /l/, /hm/ vs. /m/). However, there are also cases of both verbs taking thesame form, as in kaʔ ‘attach; be attached’ and peiʔ ‘close; close by itself’. In addition, there are cases like ɕô ‘burn’/ làuɴ ‘get burnt’, t ̪aʔ ‘kill’ / t ̪è ‘die’, and hláɴ‘dry’/ chauʔ ‘get dry’ in which the semantically contrasting verbs are realized inmorphologically unrelated forms. In all cases, however, the causative verbs all sharethe characteristic of being volitional verbs while the non-causative verbs are all nonvolitional verbs.
It is possible to freely form sentences like (7) through (14) using the causativeand non-causative verbs pairs in Burmese. In the ﬁrst clause of each of these examples, the causative verb indicates some speciﬁc action while the non-causative verbof the second clause, uttered by the same speaker, denies achievement of the resulting state that the semantic structure of the causative verb should contain.2 Thispattern is possible with no problems even in cases like kaʔ ‘attach, get attached’
where the causative and non-causative verbs share the same form.

16
17

(7)

mí ɕô=dɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂ﬁre burn(vt)=REAL this=though‘(I) burnt (it), but (it) didn’t burn.’mă-làuɴ=bú.
NEG-burn(vi)=NEG(8)t ̪û=ɡòt ̪aʔ=tɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂
3sg=KO kill=REAL this=though‘(I) killed him, but (he) didn’t die.’mă-t ̪è=bú.
NEG-die=NEG(9)

châ=dɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-câ=bú.
drop(vt)=REAL this=though NEG-drop(vi)=NEG‘(I) dropped (the cup), but (it) didn’t drop.’(10)

chó=dɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-có=bú.
bend(vt)=REAL this=though NEG-bend(vi)=NEG‘(I) bent (a stick), but (it) didn’t bend.’(11)hlɛ́ =dɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-lɛ́ =bú.
knock.down=REAL this=though NEG-fall.down=NEG‘(I) knocked down (the tree), but (it) didn’t fall down.’(12)phwîɴ=dɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-pwîɴ=bú.
open(vt)=REAL this=though NEG-open(vi)=NEG‘(I) opened (the window), but (it) didn’t open.’

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

2 In Burmese, when the main clause verb is negated, the verb will be preﬁxed with mă- and befollowed by the clitic =phú/=bú.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 177)

178

1

Atsuhiko Kato

(13)phyɛʔ=tɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-pyɛʔ=phú.
destroy=REAL this=though NEG-break(vi)=NEG‘(I) destroyed (the machine), but (it) didn’t get destroyed.’(14)kaʔ=tɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-kaʔ=phú.
attach=REAL this=though NEG-attached=NEG‘(I) attached (the sticker), but (it) didn’t get attached.’

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

What should be noted here is that this sort of statement negating achievement of a
resulting state is indisputably acceptable for any speaker. This contrasts with thecase of the relevant phenomenon in Japanese, to be described in the next section,
for which the degree of acceptability varies depending both on the speaker and on
the particular verb. On this point, Japanese and Burmese diﬀer greatly.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3 Result cancellation in Japanese
The phenomenon of cancellation of the resulting state of accomplishment verbs
in Japanese was pointed out by Ikegami (1981, 1985) and has also been discussed
by Miyajima (1985), Kageyama (1996), Alam Sasaki (2001)3, Tsujimura (2003). Sato(2005), Ezure (2006), and Aoki and Nakatani (2013a, b), among others.
Besides moyasu ‘burn (vt)’ – moeru ‘burn (vi)’ in example (4) above, Ikegami(1981: 266) also gave examples using verbs like wakasu ‘boil (vt)’ – waku ‘boil (vi)’,
and ukaberu ‘ﬂoat (vt)’ – ukabu ‘ﬂoat (vi)’.
(15)

Wakasi-ta
keredo,wak-anakat-ta.
boil (vt)-PST although boil (vi)-NEG-PST‘(I) boiled (it), but (it) didn’t boil.’(16)

Hune oukabe-ta
keredo,ukab-anakat-ta.
boat ACC ﬂoat (vt)-PST although ﬂoat (vi)-NEG-PST‘(I) ﬂoated the boat, but (it) didn’t ﬂoat.’

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

As Ikegami (1981:266) points out, the English equivalents to these sentences areunacceptable.

37
38
39
40
41
42

3 Alam Sasaki (2001) discussed the negatability of the result using sentences including the pattern~te mo . . . ~nakatta [~GER even . . . ~NEG.PST] ‘Even though (I) ~ed, (it) didn’t ~’ as in, for example,
Moyasite mo moenakatta ‘Even though (I) burned (it), (it) didn’t burn.’ Since the inﬂectional ending–te (the so-called “conjunctive form”) does not necessarily entail the completion of an event, thepattern ~te mo . . . ~nakatta should not be used as a test of negatability of the result.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 178)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1

(17)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

*I burned it, but it didn’t burn.

b.

*I boiled it, but it didn’t boil.

c.

*I ﬂoated the boat, but it didn’t ﬂoat.

Ikegami also provides (18) with korosu ‘kill’ as an example in which cancellation of a
result is not acceptable. It was already shown in (1) in the introduction that the
English equivalent is also unacceptable.
(18) *Kare okorosi-ta keredo,
sin-anakat-ta.
he
ACC kill-PST although die-NEG-PST
Lit. ‘(I) killed him, but (he) didn’t die.’
According to the observations in Ikegami (1981), the possibility of result cancellation
being acceptable is generally higher in Japanese compared to English.
A variety of theoretical analyses have been presented regarding the reasons thiskind of result cancellation is possible in Japanese and conditions under which it
occurs. Kageyama (1996: 275–291) explains the phenomenon by means of the Lexical
Conceptual Structure of accomplishment verbs. Accomplishment verbs like korosu‘kill’ or moyasu ‘burn (vt)’, can be represented with the LCS shown in (19). Here,ACT ON corresponds to the causing activity part. CAUSE shows that the event on
the right is brought about by that activity. BE AT shows the ﬁnal state.
(19)

ACTIVITY _________> CHANGE ___> RESULT[x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y BECOME [y BE AT-z]]

25
26

a.

179

Presenting the ﬁgure in (20) Kageyama proposed to account for the diﬀerences
between English, Japanese, and Chinese as follows: In English, the vantage point is
at the ACT ON, that is, at the activity. In Japanese, the vantage point is at the
BECOME and in Chinese it is placed at the BE AT. In the ﬁgure, the “∙” shows the
positioning of the vantage point.
(20)

Viewpoints and language types (Kageyama 1996)[x ACT ON y] CAUSE [y BECOME [y BE AT-z]]
English• ___________________________________>
Japanese <______________________ • ____________>
Chinese<___________________________________ •According to Kageyama (1996), the reason why denying a result is diﬃcult in English
but possible in Japanese is due to the diﬀerence in vantage point. In a language like
English that places the vantage point with the activity, the result is visible from theactivity and negation of the result is impossible. On the other hand, in Japanese,(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 179)

180

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Atsuhiko Kato

since the view point is placed on the resulting event, the result is not visible fromthe activity. This he claims, is why the phenomenon is possible. In Chinese, since
the vantage point is further to the right than in Japanese, negation of the result iseasier than in Japanese.
Tsujimura (2003) argued that Japanese lexical causative verbs were underspeciﬁed for telicity and that the telic interpretation arises through conversational
implicature. According to her, since the result realization is an implicature, theresult can be denied.
Sato (2005:99–113) argued that when a verb that includes both an activity anda result in semantic structure expresses only the activity through the operation ofmetonymy, this phenomenon becomes possible. Ezure (2006) claims that this phenomenon becomes possible when the activity part of an accomplishment undergoes afocusing operation. Furthermore, Aoki and Nakatani (2013a, b) reject Tsujimura’s
theory that Japanese lexical causative verbs are underspeciﬁed for telicity and claimthat the strength of the process component in the semantics of the verb increases theacceptability of result cancellation.
Whatever the reason this phenomenon is possible in Japanese may be, there is
one important thing to keep in mind. That is the fact that the acceptability of cancellation of the result of an accomplishment verb varies greatly by depending on the
speaker. This problem is taken up in the next section.

21
22
23
24
25

4 Various factors making result cancellation
possible

26
27
28
29

This section will attempt to clarify the character of the phenomenon by which
the result of an accomplishment verb can be cancelled by comparing Japanese andBurmese.

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

4.1 Speakers who do not allow result cancellation
In contrast to Burmese, in which result cancellation is possible with no problem, as
shown in (7) through (14), there are many speakers who do not allow result cancellation in Japanese. Miyajima (1985) conducted an extremely important survey regarding
this phenomenon. He presented 19 sentences including result cancellation to speakers
and had them rate the acceptability of the sentences on a three-point scale: “Natural”,“Somewhat unnatural but usable”, and “Completely unnatural”. Below are two of
the sentences used in Miyajima’s survey.

41
42(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 180)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1

(21)

Kinoeda omoyasi-ta
keredo,moe-nakat-ta.
branchACC burn(vt)-PST although burn(vi)-NEG-PST‘(I) burned a branch, but (it) didn’t burn.’(22)

Taroo wa
Ziroo okorosi-ta
Taro
TOP Jiro
ACC kill-PST‘Taro killed Jiro, but Jiro didn’t die.’

2
3

181

4
5
6
7

keredo,although

Ziroo
Jiro

wa
TOP

sin-anakat-ta.
die-NEG-PST

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

According to Miyajima (1985), of the 100 people in his Group A, 30 rated (21) as“Natural”, 48 as “Somewhat unnatural but usable”, and 22 rated it as “Completely
unnatural”. On the other hand, (22) was rated “Natural” by 7 people, “Somewhat
unnatural but usable” by 18 people and “Completely unnatural” by 75 people. Thatis, regarding sentence (21), which is similar to the example (4) that Ikegami (1985)
considered acceptable, 70 people out of 100 felt the sentence to be unnatural to agreater or lesser degree. Conversely, sentence (22), which is similar to the unacceptable (18), was judged to be “usable” by 25 out of 100 people.
That is to say, whether this phenomenon is acceptable or not varies greatly
by speaker. Moreover, there are always some speakers who consider the sentence
to be unacceptable no matter what verb is used. The sentence judged “Completely
unacceptable” by the most speakers was (22). Even the sentence that had the fewest“Completely unacceptable” ratings, given as (23) below, and which was rated“Natural” by 65 people and “Somewhat unnatural but usable” by 24 people, stillhad 11 people rate it as “Completely unnatural”.

24
25
26
27

(23)

Suika
o
hiyasi-ta
keredo,tumetaku
watermelon ACC cool(vt)-PST although cool‘(I) cooled a watermelon, but (it) didn’t become cool.’

nar-anakat-ta.
become-NEG-PST

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

The situation in Japanese shows a striking contrast with that in Burmese in which (7)through (14) were considered acceptable by all speakers. Accordingly, this phenomenon should not be thought of in Japanese in terms of a binary choice of acceptable
or not acceptable. Rather, the phenomenon must be treated by taking each sentence
as being of a higher or lower degree of acceptability. In order to ﬁnd the reasonsfor the diﬀerence in acceptability in Burmese and Japanese, it is necessary to lookclosely at diﬀerences in the semantics of the two languages.

36
37
38
39

4.2 Semantic diﬀerences between result cancellation in
Burmese and in Japanese

40
41
42

First, compare Burmese (3) and Japanese (22), both of which use the verb for ‘kill’.
Sentence (3), t ̪ù mâhlâ=ɡò t ̪aʔ=tɛ̀. dà=bèmɛ̂ mâhlâ mă-t ̪è=bú ‘He killed Ma Hla. But(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 181)

182

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

Atsuhiko Kato

Ma Hla didn’t die’, is usable to express the following situations: (A) “He intended tokill Ma Hla and stabbed Ma Hla with a knife. However, she did not die.” Or it caneven be used to express a situation in which the action did not reach the target: (B)“He intended to kill Ma Hla and tried to stab her with a knife. However, since theknife he stabbed at her with did not reach Ma Hla, she did not die.” On the other
hand, most of the speakers who considered (22), Taroo wa Ziroo o korosi-ta keredo,
Ziroo wa sin-anakat-ta ‘Taro killed Jiro, but Jiro didn’t die’, natural were probably
thinking of a situation like, for example, the following: (C) “Taro intended to kill
Jiro and stabbed Jiro with a knife. Since Jiro lay motionless, Taro thought Jiro had
died. However, Jiro’s life was miraculously saved.”
The diﬀerence between Burmese and Japanese is clear here. In the case of
Burmese, the actor knows that Ma Hla is not dead. In the Japanese case, however,cancellation is possible in the case where the actor believes the patient to be dead.
The reason the majority of people consider (22) unnatural can be thought to be that
it is diﬃcult for a situation to arise in which one who can be thought to have diedcomes back to life. The Burmese example (3) can also be used to express situation(C), but the important point is that it can also be used to express situations (A) and (B).
Next, compare Burmese (7) and Japanese (21), both of which use verbs meaning‘burn’. (7), mí ɕô=dɛ̀. dà=bèmɛ̂ mă-làuɴ=bú ‘(I) burnt (it), but (it) didn’t burn’, can beused to express the following situation: (D) “I lit a match, intending to burn a tree
branch. I applied the ﬂame to the branch, but because the branch was wet, it did notburn at all.” Or, it can be used for (E) “I lit a match intending to burn a tree branch. I
applied the ﬂame to the branch, but the wind blew and the ﬂame went out, so thebranch didn’t burn.”
In contrast, speakers who judged (21) acceptable were probably thinking ofa situation like: (F) “I lit the tree branch on ﬁre. The branch burned a little, but
the wind blew up and the ﬁre went out. Therefore, the branch did not burn up
completely.”
The diﬀerence between Burmese and Japanese is clear in this case as well. In thesituations described by Burmese (7), the tree branch did not catch ﬁre right from thestart. Japanese (21), however, expresses a situation in which the branch partiallyburned but did burn up completely. People who could think of such a situation
probably felt (21) to be natural. Since the event of “burning partially” and the eventof “burning up completely” are diﬀerent events, denying the latter does not mean
denying the former. Burmese (7) can also express the situation in (F), but the factthat it can express (D) and (E) is what is important.

37
38
39
40
41
42

4.3 Incomplete realization of the result
In Section 4.2, it was observed that, in contrast to Burmese accomplishment verbs
for which a reading was possible in which the change event has not taken place at(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:44) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 182)

183

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

all, in Japanese, the change event has arisen and the result of the change is in an
incomplete form. This is a big diﬀerence between Japanese and Burmese. Let us try
looking more closely at Japanese, based on this diﬀerence.
The survey in Miyajima (1985) is suggestive with regard to this phenomenon.
Based on the survey described earlier, Miyajima assigned points measuring theacceptability of result cancellation depending on the verb. He assigned 1 point for a“Natural” response, 0.5 points for a “Somewhat unnatural but usable” response, and0 points for a “Completely unnatural” response and calculated a score for each verb,
with 100 points as the highest possible total. The results are given below. Verbs
in Miyajima’s sample that cannot be considered accomplishment verbs have been
omitted.

12
13

(24)

14
15
16

korosu ‘kill’ (17.0), otosu ‘drop’ (22.0), kowasu ‘break’ (24.0), nuku ‘pull out’
(26.5), akeru ‘open’ (31.5), wakasu ‘boil’ (34.5), hirogeru ‘widen’ (36.0), ireru‘put in’ (45.3), ugokasu ‘move’ (46.0), yowameru ‘weaken’ (46.0), moyasu‘burn’ (53.0), kawakasu ‘dry’ (56.5), hiyasu ‘cool’ (66.0)

17
18

Dividing the results in (24) into 10 point groups, gives the table in (25).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(25)
10–19

20–29

30–39

40–49

50–59

60–

korosu ‘kill’ nuku ‘pull out’, hirogeru ‘widen’, yowameru
kawakasu ‘dry’, hiyasu ‘cool’kowasu ‘break’, wakasu ‘boil’,‘weaken’,moyasu ‘burn’
otosu ‘drop’
akeru ‘open’ugokasu ‘move’,ireru ‘put in’

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

The verbs on the right, hiyasu ‘to cool’, kawakasu ‘dry’, moyasu ‘burn’ have resultsthat have a scalar structure (See Hay, Kennedy and Levin 1999; Kennedy and McNally
1999, 2005; and Tsujimura 2001 concerning “scalar structure”). Taking hiyasu ‘to cool’as an example, the result contained in its semantic structure, “a cooled state”, canhave diﬀerent levels, such as “very cool” or “less cool”. For that reason, the “cooled
state” can have a temporal span and one can say, for example, gohunkan hiyasita‘(I) cooled (it) for ﬁve minutes.’ The verbs kawakasu ‘dry’ and moyasu ‘burn’ arethe same: gohunkan kawakasita ‘(I) dried (it) for ﬁve minutes’; gohunkan moyasita‘(I) burned (it) for ﬁve minutes.’
On the other hand, the verbs on the left side, korosu ‘kill’, otosu ‘drop’, kowasu‘break’, and nuku ‘pull out’, for example, do not have a scalar structure. For example,
the “state of being dead” does not have stages of “very dead” or “less dead”. Becauseof this characteristic, the “state of being dead” cannot have a temporal span and one
cannot say *gohunkan korosita ‘(I) killed (him) for ﬁve minutes.’ The verbs otosu ‘drop’,kowasu ‘break’, and nuku ‘pull out’ are the same: *gohunkan otosita ‘(I) dropped (it)(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 183)

184

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Atsuhiko Kato

for ﬁve minutes’; *gohunkan kowasita ‘(I) broke (it) for ﬁve minutes’; *gohunkan
nuita ‘(I) pulled (it) out for ﬁve minutes.’
When a result shown by a verb has a scalar structure, it is easy for a speaker toimagine a situation in which the level of the result actually achieved does not reachthe level expected. If achieving the expected level is termed “complete realization”
and not achieving that level is “incomplete realization”, it is easy to imagine in thecase of a scalar structure that a “complete realization” not being achieved and theactivity ending with an “incomplete realization”. On the other hand, if the event
does not have a scalar structure, there is only one result and it is diﬃcult for a
speaker to imagine both a “complete realization” and an “incomplete realization”.
As a result, we can probably say that when it is easy to get an interpretation of“X happened incompletely, but X did not happen completely”, it is easy to accept
result cancellation. Since “X happened completely” does not imply “X happened
incompletely”, no contradiction arises in negating “X happened completely”. That areading of incomplete realization is involved in the acceptability of result cancellation has not been pointed out in previous research.
There are certainly speakers of Japanese who, like Burmese speakers, uponhearing the sentences of (21) and (22), think of a situation in which the event does
not happen at all. However, that such speakers are a minority is shown by the factthat in Miyajima’s survey there were not many who judged the sentences “Natural”.
The preceding discussion can be summarized as follows: Since a result is realized,even though it may be an “incomplete realization”, for many Japanese speakers, anaccomplishment verb entails a result.

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

4.4 Result defocusing by adverbial elements
As seen in Section 4.3, an “incomplete realization of the result” interpretation increases the acceptability of result cancellation in Japanese. However, there are times
when Japanese speakers express a situation in which no result arises at all, just as in
Burmese. These are cases in which adverbial elements appear modifying the verb.
According to the results of the survey in Miyajima (1985), (27), which includes
the adverb issyookenmei ‘as hard as (I) can’, is more acceptable than (26), which
does not. (26) was judged “Natural” by 11 people, “Somewhat unnatural but usable”
by 22, and “Completely unnatural” by 66 people, but (27) was judged “Natural” by 31,“Somewhat unnatural but usable” by 36, and “Completely unnatural” by 33, showing an increase in the number of “Natural” and “Somewhat unnatural but usable”
judgments.
(26) Kakinomiootosi-ta
keredo,oti-nakat-ta.
persimmon ACC drop(vt)-PST although drop(vi)-NEG-PST(I) dropped the persimmon, but (it) didn’t drop.’(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 184)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3

185

(27) Issyookenmei kakinomiootosi-ta
keredooti-nakat-ta.
very.hard
persimmon ACC drop(vt)-PST although drop(vi)-NEG-PST‘(I) dropped the persimmon very hard, but (it) didn’t drop.’

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Since it is diﬃcult to think of the event expressed by otiru ‘fall’ as occurring incompletely, it is diﬃcult to explain the improved acceptability of (27) from the point ofview of incomplete realization of the result. Miyajima (1985) considers the cause to
be placement by the adverb issyookenmei of focus on the action. I would also liketo consider this to be the cause. Since issyookenmei is an adverb that semantically
only modiﬁes the activity portion, it places focus on the action. The result portion isprobably defocused as a result. Other adverbial elements that cause defocusing of
the result include, in addition to issyookenmei ‘as hard as (I) can’, kossori ‘stealthily’,
osoruosoru ‘timidly’, sinken ni ‘earnestly’, isoide ‘quickly’, and tikara o komete ‘putting
one’s strength into’.
However, the fact cannot be ignored that on Miyajima’s survey over 30% of
those surveyed judged (27) to be “Completely unnatural”. Accordingly, as a factor
increasing the acceptability of result cancellation, “defocusing of the result by anadverbial element” is weaker than “incomplete realization of the result”. In addition,
the appearance of an element, the adverbial element, other than the verb is needed.
“Defocusing of the result by an adverbial element” can, therefore, be considered asecondary factor. The primary factor increasing the acceptability of result cancellation should be considered to be “incomplete realization of the result”.

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

4.5 Validity of previous research
The arguments of Sections 4.3 and 4.4 indicated that it is necessary to recognize two
factors that increase the acceptability of result cancellation in Japanese: (i) an
incomplete result realization interpretation, and (ii) defocusing of the result by anadverbial element. Of these, (i) is the primary factor. The diﬀerence between English
and Japanese pointed out in Ikegami (1981, 1985) can be reduced to the fact that inJapanese there are conditions like (i) and (ii) that increase the acceptability of result
cancellation while there are no such conditions in English.
Let us consider here the validity of previous research concerning factors thatmake result cancellation possible in Japanese. Kageyama (1996) held that it is because
in Japanese the vantage point was placed with BECOME in Lexical Conceptual Structure in contrast to English where it is placed with ACT ON that the acceptability of
result cancellation is higher. However, this alone cannot explain the fact that acceptability varies depending on the verb. Tsujimura (2003) says that Japanese lexicalcausative verbs are underspeciﬁed for telicity. However, since, as described above,for many Japanese speakers accomplishment verbs entail a result, this explanation

42(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 185)

186

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Atsuhiko Kato

is invalid. The metonymy explanation in Sato (2005:99–113) and the focusing operation explanation of Ezure (2006) are related to the result defocusing describedabove, but these cannot explain the variability in acceptability depending on
the verb found in the survey data from Miyajima (1985) and shown in the table in(25). Aoki and Nakatani (2013a, b) attempt to explain the phenomenon using thestrength of the processing component. In other words, this is an attempt to explain
the phenomenon by the strength of the activity portion of an accomplishment verb,
but, as argued in Section 4.4, the question of the acceptability of result cancellation
should rather be explained with attention to the result portion.
Most of previous research attempted to explain the acceptability of result
cancellation in Japanese from a single point of view. However, (i) is a factor thatbears on the semantics of the result portion and (ii) is a factor that reduces theprominence of the result itself, so it is probably impossible to combine these two
into a single point of view.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

5 Intended results
The results expressed by accomplishment verbs in Burmese can always be cancelled.
It could perhaps be thought that Burmese simply lacks accomplishment verbs andthat what appear to be accomplishment verbs are actually activity verbs. However, I
believe that there are accomplishment verbs in Burmese. The ﬁrst reason for this belief
is that, if a sentence like (28) below is not followed by a sentence cancelling theresult, the sentence is interpreted as meaning “he is dead”.
(28)

28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Secondly, if the existence of accomplishment verbs is not recognized, it becomes
impossible to explain why (29) is completely acceptable but (30) is less so.
(29)t ̪aʔ=phô tănàyì
cà=dɛ̀.
kill=toone.hour last=REAL‘It took one hour to kill (him).’(30)?pyé=bô tănàyì
cà=dɛ̀.
run=toone.hour last=REAL
Literal translation: ‘It took one hour to run.’

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

t ̪û=ɡòt ̪aʔ=tɛ̀.
3sg=KO kill=REAL‘(I) killed him.’

The diﬀerence in acceptability between (29) and (30) can be attributed to the factthat t ̪aʔ ‘kill’ is an accomplishment verb and pyé ‘run’ an activity verb. Therefore,(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 186)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

187

Burmese must be considered to have accomplishment verbs including a result partin their lexical semantic structure.
Then, how should the fact that Burmese accomplishment verbs allow result
cancellation be explained? The author believes that the result of accomplishment
verbs in Burmese should be included in the lexical semantic structure as “what is
intended by the actor”. Since the result is completely something the actor intends
and is something that is in the actor’s mind, it can be cancelled. The fact that, inthe absence of a following cancellation clause, (28) is interpreted as meaning “he isdead” is probably a pragmatic interpretation. The reasons for considering this to bea pragmatic rather than semantic problem are described below.
In order to clearly show the result of a causative action in Burmese, sentencesusing the subordinate clause marker =ʔàuɴ ‘until; so as to’ like the following arecommonly used.

14
15

(31)

t ̪û=ɡòt ̪è=ʔàuɴt ̪aʔ=tɛ̀.
3sg=KO die=until kill=REAL
Literal translation: ‘(I) killed him until (he) died.’
Free translation: ‘(I) killed him.’(32)

câ=ʔàuɴchâ=dɛ̀.
drop(vi)=until drop(vt)=REAL
Literal translation: ‘(I) dropped (it) until (it) dropped.’
Free translation: ‘(I) dropped (it).’(33)

pyɛʔ=ʔàuɴphyɛʔ=tɛ̀.
break(vi)=until break(vt)=REAL
Literal translation: ‘(I) broke (it) so that (it) broke.’Free translation: ‘(I) broke (it).’

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

These may appear somewhat odd. Taking (31) as an example, since the actor carries
out an activity with the presumption of the result “(he) is dead’, it could be thoughtthat there is no need to use a subordinate clause to express “until (he) died”. Thatis, the sentence appears to be a tautology. However, this expression is natural in
Burmese.
What is important is that, if one cancels the results of (31) through (33), as in(34), the acceptability decreases.

37
38
39
40

(34) *t ̪û=ɡòt ̪è=ʔàuɴt ̪aʔ=tɛ̀.
dà=bèmɛ̂mă-t ̪è=bú.
3sg=KO die=until kill=REAL this=though NEG-die=NEG
Lit. ‘(I) killed him until (he) died. But (he) didn’t die.’41
42

That is, the result is entailed with addition of the subordinate clause formed with=ʔàuɴ. This fact is evidence that the subordinate clause is used to show that the(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 187)

188

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Atsuhiko Kato

intended result is actually realized. Since Burmese accomplishment verbs do notentail their result, a subordinate clause formed with =ʔàuɴ is used when the speaker
wishes to clearly state that the result occurred. If Burmese accomplishment verbs
semantically entailed their results, a construction like this would probably not benecessary.
Tai (1984: 291) points out that, in a resultative expression in Chinese like shā-sǐ(kill-die) ‘kill’, the resultative complement (sǐ ‘die’ in this example) has the functionof showing that the result was realized. Burmese does not have serial verb constructions with a causative meaning like shā-sǐ formed on the pattern “transitive verb +intransitive verb”. This is due to the fact that, as pointed out in Sawada (1988), theverbs in a serial verb construction in Burmese must share a common subject argument. An example like the following is therefore ungrammatical (See Vittrant 2006
regarding general characteristics of Burmese serial verb constructions).

14
15
16
17

(35)

*t ̪û=ɡò t ̪aʔ t ̪è=dɛ̀.
3sg=KO kill die=REAL
Intended meaning: ‘(I) killed him.’

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In the sense that they entail the result, the subordinate clauses formed with =ʔàuɴin (31) through (33) can be said to have the same kind of function as resultativecomplements in Chinese. Although they use diﬀerent means, both languages haveconstructions to clearly show the realization of results.
Recall here the proposal in Tsujimura (2003) for Japanese. Tsujimura proposedthat lexical causative verbs in Japanese are underspeciﬁed for telicity and that atelic interpretation results from conversational implicature. This explanation can bethought to apply, not to Japanese, but to Burmese. As argued in Section 4.3, since
many Japanese speakers ﬁnd accomplishment verbs to entail results, it is diﬃcult
to consider them to be underspeciﬁed for telicity.

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

6 Conclusion
Burmese is a language in which the cancellation of accomplishment verb results iscompletely acceptable. It is safe to say that there are no speakers who do not allow
result cancellation. On the other hand, there are many speakers of Japanese who do
not allow result cancellation in Japanese and Japanese and Burmese diﬀer greatly
on this point.
Since the result of an accomplishment verb is not entailed in Burmese, cancellation is allowed. The reason that results are not entailed in Burmese is that the results
expressed by the verb are ones that are intended by the actor. I would like to leave
the problem of how the intended result of an accomplishment verb in Burmese(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 188)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

189

should be represented in semantic structure for researchers working in the various
linguistic theories. In Japanese, on the other hand, the results of accomplishment
verbs should basically be considered to be entailed. For precisely this reason, quite
a few speakers do not allow cancellation of results. However, acceptability of cancellation does increase under the inﬂuence of some factors. The two factors are: (i) aninterpretation of incomplete realization of the result, and (ii) defocusing of the result
by adverbial elements. Of these, (i) is the primary factor. The results of accomplishment verbs are entailed in English as in Japanese, but English lacks conditions like(i) and (ii).
Finally, I would like to mention other languages. The phenomenon of result
cancellation discussed above has been reported in such languages as Chinese (Tai
1984), Hindi (Singh 1991), Tamil (Talmy 1991), and Mon (Jenny 2005), in addition
to Burmese and Japanese. According to the observations in Kato (1996), result
cancellation is also possible in Pwo Karen, a language neighboring Burmese, as
shown in (36)

16
17

(36)

18
19

jə
mà
θî
ʔəwê. lānâɴθí
1sg CAUS die 3sgbut‘I killed him. But he didn’t die.

θî
die

ʔé.
not

20
21
22

According to Phan Thi My Loan (p.c.), result cancellation is also possible inVietnamese, as shown in (37).

23
24

(37)

25
26

Tôi đã
giết nó. Nhưng nó
1sg PST kill 3sg but
3sg‘I killed him. But he hasn’t died.’chưa
not.yet

chết.
die

27
28
29

On the other hand, according to Marasri Miyamoto (p.c.), Thai does not allow result
cancellation, as shown below.

30
31

(38)

32
33

*phǒm khâa kháw. tɛ̀ɛ kháw mây taay.
1sg
kill
3sg
but 3sg
not die
Intended meaning: ‘I killed him. But he didn’t die.’

34
35
36

However, Thepkanjana and Uehara (2009: 605; 2010: 299) point out that result
cancellation is possible in Thai in a serial verb construction, as shown below.4

37
38
39
40

(39)

tamrùat khâa phûuráay mây taay.
policekill
criminal
not die‘The police tried to kill the criminal but he/she was not dead.’41
42

4 Marasri Miyamoto (p.c.) reports ﬁnding this sentence of low acceptability. There appears to besome individual variation in acceptability judgments.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 189)

190

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Atsuhiko Kato

The phenomenon of result cancellation with accomplishment verbs appears to be
widely distributed among the languages of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South
Asia. I would like to suggest, therefore, that this may be an areal feature. However,as indicated in this chapter, the actual situation expressed by result cancellation
may vary depending on the language. I would like to emphasize, then, that it is not
simply whether or not this phenomenon exists, but attention must also be paid tosemantic diﬀerences.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Acknowledgments
This chapter was translated from Japanese by John Haig. I thank U Shwe Pyi Soe,
Daw Htet Htet, and Ma Thu Thu Nwe Aye who helped me as native speakers of
Burmese by judging the acceptability of Burmese sentences. Thanks are also dueto the two editors of this volume as well as to an anonymous reviewer for helpfulcomments to improve the draft.

18
19
20

Additional abbreviations

21
22
23
24
25

KA – case particle =kâ/=ɡâ ‘agent (subject)/source’; KO – case particle =kò/=ɡò‘patient/theme/recipient/goal’; LO – subordinate clause marker =lô; PI – particle=pì/=bì indicating a perfect-like meaning; PN – personal name; vi – intransitive
verb; vt – transitive verb; 1sg – ﬁrst person singular; 3sg – third person singular

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

References
Alam Sasaki, Yukiko. 2001. “Moyashita keredo moenakatta” no wa naze?: “Yowai tasseidōshi” to“tsuyoi” tasseidōshi. In Masahiko Minami and Yukiko Alam Sasaki (eds.), Gengogaku to nihongokyōiku II [Linguistics and Japanese language teaching II], 57–74. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Aoki, Natsuno and Kentaro Nakatani. 2013a. Process, telicity, and event cancellability in Japanese: aquestionnaire study. Papers from the Thirtieth Conference November 10–11, 2012 and from theFifth International Spring Forum April 21–22, 2012 of the English Linguistic Society of Japan,
257–263.
Aoki, Natsuno and Kentaro Nakatani. 2013b. Jishō kyanseru kanōsei ni tsuite no shitsumonshi
chōsa: sono shōsai dēta [A questionnaire study on event cancellability: its data in detail].
Kōnandaigaku Kiyō Bungakuhen (The Journal of Konan University: Faculty of Letters) 163. 41–57.
Cornyn William S. and Raven I. McDavid, Jr. 1943. Causatives in Burmese. Studies in Linguistics
1(18). 1–6.
Ezure, Kazuaki. 2006. “Moyashitemo moenakatta”: jishō mukōka ni kansuru nichieigo taishōkenkyū[A comparative study of event cancellation in English and Japanese]. Kanagawakenritsu Gaigotankidaigaku Kiyō Sōgōhen (Bulletin of Kanagawa Prefectural College of Foreign Studies) 29.
23–36.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 190)

Entailed and intended results in Japanese and Burmese accomplishment verbs

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

191

Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in“degree achievements”. In Tanya Mathews and Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9, 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Hayatsu, Emiko. 1989. Yūtsui tadōshi to mutsui tadōshi no chigai ni tsuite: imiteki na tokuchō ochūshin ni [On the semantic diﬀerence between paired and unpaired transitive verbs in Japanese].
Gengo Kenkyū (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 95. 231–256.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1981. “Suru” to “naru” no gengogaku: Gengo to bunka no taiporojī e no shiron.
Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Ikegami, Yoshihiko. 1985. ‘Activity’ – ‘accomplishment’ – ‘achievement’ – A language that can’t
say ‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Adam Makkai and Alan K. Melby(eds.), Linguistics and philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells, 265–304. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jenny, Mathias. 2005. The verb system of Mon. Zurich: Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine
Sprachwissenschaft.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Dōshi imiron: Gengo to ninchi no setten [Verb semantics: The interface of
language and cognition]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
Kageyama, Taro and Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.). 2017. Transitivity and valency alternations: Studies
on Japanese and beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 1996. Pōkarengo (tōbu hōgen) no dōshirenzoku ni okeru shudōshi ni tsuite [On headverbs of serial verb constructions in Pwo Karen]. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Societyof Japan) 113. 31–61.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2010. Birumago no ‘ue’ o arawasu meishi no kōchishiteki yōhō ni tsuite [On the
postposition-like usage of a Burmese noun that means ‘on’]. Journal of the Research Institutefor World Languages, Osaka University 4. 31–54.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 2015. Birumago no jishōkyanseru [Event cancellation in Burmese]. EX ORIENTE 22. 1–
36. Osaka University.
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 1999. From event structure to scale structure: Degree
modiﬁcation in deverbal adjectives. In Tanya Mathews and Devon Strolovitch (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9, 163–180. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Kennedy, Christopher and Luise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modiﬁcation, and thesemantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381.
Liu, Ch’i-wen. 2006. Chūgokugo no asupekuto to modaritī. Osaka: Osakadaigaku Shuppan.
Miyajima, Tatsuo. 1985. “Doa o aketa ga, akanakatta”: dōshi no imi ni okeru <kekkasei>. Keiryo
Kokugogaku [Mathematical Linguistics] 14(8). 335–353.
Okell, John. 1969. A reference grammar of colloquial Burmese. London: Oxford University Press.
Satō, Takuzō. 2005. Jidōshibun to tadōshibun no imiron. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.
Sawada, Hideo. 1988. Gendai Birumago ni okeru dōshihairetsu no ruikei ni tsuite. Gengogaku
Kenkyu 7. 73–110. Kyoto University.
Singh, Mona. 1991. The perfective paradox: or how to eat your cake and have it too. Proceedings of
the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 469–479.
Tai, James H-Y. 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler’s four categories. Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, Chicago Linguistic Society, 289–296. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: A typology of event conﬂation. Proceedings of theSeventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 480–519. Berkeley Linguistics
Society.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn and Satoshi Uehara. 2009. Resultative constructions with “implied-result”
and “entailed-result” verbs in Thai and English: a contrastive study. Linguistics 47(3). 589–618.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn and Satoshi Uehara. 2010. Syntactic and semantic discrepancies among theverbs for ‘kill’ in English, Chinese and Thai. Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Language,
Information and Computation, 291–300. Tohoku University.

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192

1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 191)

192

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Atsuhiko KatoThin Aye Aye Ko. 2002. Gendai kōgo Birumago ni okeru goikōzō to imitokuchō: Birumago to Nihongo
no taishō no kanten kara. Kobe: Kobe University dissertation.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2001. Degree words and scalar structure in Japanese. Lingua 111. 29–52.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2003. Event cancellation and telicity. In William McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 12, 388–399. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Vendler. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Vittrant. 2006. Les constructions des verbes en série: Une autre approche du syntagme verbal enbirman. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 101(1). 305–368.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

(Unicode 9 13/11/17 12:45) WDG-New (170mm240mm) DGMetaSerifScience (OpenType) pp. 173–192 1859 Pardeshi_05_Kato (p. 192)