Manuscript Version, Published in Word Structure 7 (2014), 55-87

[manuscript version, published in Word Structure 7 (2014), 55-87]

Complex negative adjectives in Japanese: The relation between syntactic and morphological constructions[1]

Hideki Kishimoto and Geert Booij

Abstract

Japanese has a fairly large set of complex adjectives formed by combining a noun with the adjective nai ‘null, empty’. The complex negative adjectives have the remarkable property that they allow nominative case marking to appear inside them optionally. We argue that these complex negative adjectives can be classified into three classes, and that the differences in their syntactic behaviour can be accounted for by positing three distinct morpho-syntactic configurations (ranging from a fully phrasal structure to a complex word involving morphological compounding).Some, though not all, complex negative adjectives with case marking show a behaviour which suggests that they constitute single lexical units, while at the same time their components are susceptible to syntactic operations that normally do not apply to the internal structure of words. The data on the Japanese complex adjectives illustratethat adjectives formed via quasi-noun incorporation do not constitute words in a strict morphological sense, in that the entire complexes behave as lexical units, while their components remain visible syntactically.

1 Introduction

In many languages, nouns are combined with predicates to give complex predicates—the grammatical process often referred to as noun incorporation. More often than not, the resulting predicates are verbs, but they can also be adjectives. In Japanese, both types are possible. Complex verbs can be created by combining nouns (more specifically, verbal nouns) with the verb suru ‘do’ (Kageyama 1982, 1999). In a similar vein, complex adjectives can be formed by combining nouns with the adjective nai ‘null’. The complex adjectives are of particular interest, because they show varying degrees of cohesion. We will argue that the ambiguous properties of some complex negative adjectives that seem to blur the boundary between syntax and morphology can be optimally characterized by positing a quasi-incorporation structure in which two head elements are compounded in such a way that they remain visible syntactically.

Japanese has several types of complex adjectival expressions where a noun is combined with an adjective (Namiki 1988, Yumoto 1990, 2008). Among them, there is a fairly large inventory of complex adjectives consisting of a noun plus the adjective nai ‘null, empty’ (Kudo 2000, Fukushima 1998). The following examples illustrate the morphological form of the complex adjectives.[2]

(1) (a) otonage(-ga)-na-i (b) darasi(-ga)-na-i

adult(-nom)-null-pres tidiness(-nom)-null-pres

‘childish’ ‘untidy’

The complex adjectives in (1) show a peculiar morphological property, in the sense that nominative case marking can be placed optionally inside the complex form (without affecting the core meaning of the whole).[3]This means that in combining a noun with the negative adjective nai, two structural options are available—a morphological compound structure without case marking, and a structure with case marking. They do not differ in their semantics, but they do differ in their degree of cohesion and syntactic flexibility.The forms without case marking represent single-word NA adjectives. On the other hand, when nominative case marking appears inside the complex form, the noun part looks like an argument syntactically separate from the adjectival head nai, but this is not necessarily the case, as we will discuss below.

Complex nai-adjectives with case-marked nouns can be classified into three classes (Classes I, II, and III), depending on the degree of cohesion in their constituency. We propose that complex negative adjectives with case-marked nouns occur in three distinct configurations. Specifically, Class I adjectives are shown to have phrasal status in the syntax, their components being transparent to the syntax. Class II adjectives represent a case of quasi-noun incorporation, where the sequence involves syntactic compounding (Booij 2010: Chapter 4). Class III adjectives are a case of morphological compounding with a frozen case marker (comparable to the compound-internal linking elements found in various Indo-European languages). It is seen that Class II adjectives show partial sensitivity to syntactic operations due to their being created via quasi-noun incorporation. The facts of the complex adjectives provide insight into the nature of the syntax-morphology demarcation, in particular, into the issue of lexical integrity (or lexical atomicity) (Lapointe 1980, Di Sciullo and Williams 1987, Bresnan and Mchombo 1995, Booij 2009).

The subsequent discussion proceeds as follows. In Section 2, after introducing a tripartite classification of complex adjectives consisting of a noun plus the adjective nai (the Classes I, II and III), some notable features of the complex adjectives are discussed. In Section 3, we illustrate how the complex negative adjectives show distinct behaviour depending on the class they belong to, and we show how this differential behaviour can be derived from the different structures we assign to the complex negative adjectives. Section 4 provides a summary of our findings.

2 Three classes of complex negative adjectives

In Construction Morphology (Booij 2010), and, more generally, in Construction Grammar, complex predicates are analyzed as constructions, that is, pairings of form and meaning. In this framework, complex phrasal units are seen as syntactic constructs, instantiations of phrasal constructions. On the other hand, single-word entities are regarded as morphological constructs. These constructs are stored in the lexicon, and the correspondence between form and meaning is defined by means of constructional schemas. Such schemas define the general properties of both syntactic and morphological constructs. Thus, the notion ‘constructional schema’ as implemented in Construction Grammar is instrumental in analyzing Japanese complex adjectives, because it can do justice to their various degrees of flexibility, which seem to blur the boundary between syntax and morphology. At the same time, this notion allows us to account for the fact that the use of constructions may depend on the presence of specific words, since some constructions are constructional idioms, with lexically specified slots. This is the case for the complex negative adjectives discussed here, as the use of their constructional frames depends on the presence of the negative adjective nai. By appealing to the notion ‘constructional idiom’, we can maintain the boundary between phrasal and morphological entities, but can still handle certain puzzling properties that crosscut syntax and morphology. In the following discussion, we will discuss certain properties of complex negative adjectives, and illustrate how they can be analyzed in the framework of Construction Morphology, with a view to providing a better understanding of the morphology-syntax interface.

The complex nai-adjectives under investigation have surface morphological forms in which the noun part appears with or without case marking. The complex adjectives have varying degrees of cohesion when the nouns appear with case marking. According to the degree of cohesion of the noun+nai sequence, the complex negative adjectives are divided into the following three classes, which can be ordered on a scale of morphological (and corresponding semantic) transparency, with Class I adjectives being the most transparent ones, and Class III adjectives being the least transparent ones.[4]

(2) (a) Class I:

yurugi(-ga)-na-i [shake-nom-null-pres] ‘unshakable’

atogusare(-ga)-na-i [later.concern-nom-null-pres] ‘without later trouble’

nukari(-ga)-na-i [fault-nom-null-pres] ‘shrewd’

abunage(-ga)-na-i [danger-nom-null-pres] ‘safe, without danger’

sonsyoku(-ga)-na-i [inferiority-nom-null-pres] ‘comparable’

(b) Class II:

sikata(-ga)-na-i [doing.way-nom-null-pres] ‘unavoidable’

moosiwake(-ga)-na-i [excuse-nom-null-pres] ‘inexcusable’

darasi(-ga)-na-i [tidiness-nom-null-pres] ‘untidy’

{tawai/ta’ai}(-ga)-na-i [{solidity/solidity}-nom-null-pres] ‘silly, trivial’

otonage(-ga)-na-i [adult-nom-null-pres] ‘childish’

hugai(-ga)-na-i [viscera.worth-nom-null-pres] ‘shiftless’

toritome(-ga)-na-i [stop-nom-null-pres] ‘rambling’

moosibun(-ga)-na-i [remark-nom-null-pres] ‘perfect’

itaike(-ga)-na-i [gulity-nom-null-pres] ‘young, little’

kitan(-ga)-na-i [restraint-nom-null-pres] ‘candid, frank’

itasikata(-ga)-na-i [doing.way-nom-null-pres] ‘cannot help’

yondokoro(-ga)-na-i [source-nom-null-pres] ‘unavoidable’

syoo-ga-na-i [doing.way-nom-null-pres] ‘cannot help’

syoo-mo-na-i [doing.way-also-null-pres] ‘trivial’

doo-siyoo-mo-na-i [how-doing.way-also-null-pres] ‘no way of doing’

tohoo-mo-na-i [means-also-null-pres]‘extraordinary’

totetu-mo-na-i [reason-also-null-pres] ‘incredible’

nanige-na-i [intention-null-pres] ‘casual’

sarige-na-i [so.looking-null-pres] ‘casual’

The complex adjectives are idiomatic, in the sense that the entire sequencesare taken to carry idiosyncraticmeanings, which are conventionalized. In fact, the complex adjectives where the nouns are case-marked are sometimes referred to as “idiomatic adjectives” (Nishio 1985). The nouns appearing in the complex adjectives havegeneric interpretations. The component nouns have a tendency to lose transparency in meaning progressively from Class I to Class III, which can be seen by looking at the meanings of negative predicates in each class, listed in (3a-c).

It is important to note that the three classes of complex negative adjectives share the property that the combination of N and nai denotes a name-worthy state of affairs. The complex adjectives at issue carry conventionalized meanings. This suggests that the N + nai sequences are stored in the lexicon, and the following general schema can be posited for these complex adjectives.

(3) [ [N x ]i (-nom) [A na ] ]j ↔ [ WITHOUT SEMi]j

The meanings of the entire expressions differ depending on the nature of the nouns, but the schema characterizes the core meaning obtained for the complex adjectives. The schema shows that the entire adjective is taken to specify the reverse or negative state of affairs denoted by its component noun. For instance, if the noun abunage ‘danger’ is combined with nai, the entire complex abunage(-ga)-nai means ‘without danger’. Owing to their idiomaticity, the N+nai sequences of complex negative adjectives should be regarded as idioms stored in the lexicon.[5]

As we will discuss at length below, the complex adjectives show a number of behavioural differences depending on the class they belong to. We will show how the distinct behaviour can be accounted for by differences in their structure. With regard to the structures of these complex adjectives, we suggest that the combination of N(-nom) + A can receive three different structural interpretations (see Booij 2010: Chapter 7), as in (4).

(4) (a) [AP [NP N0-nom ] A0 ] [A0 N A ] (Class I)

(b) [A0 N0-nom A0 ] [A0 N A ] (Class II)

Class I adjectives which have their nouns case-marked are APs consisting of an NP plus the head A0, where the noun part has phrasal status. Class II adjectives with case-marked nouns have the structure of syntactic compounds, as a consequence of quasi-noun incorporation, i.e. the N-A sequence is analyzed as having the structure [A0 N0-nom A0], where the case-marked N0 is adjoined to A0. Class III adjectives with case-marked nouns involve morphological compounding, with the structure [A0 N-nomA], where the compound N-A as a whole is inserted into A0 position. As indicated in (4), the alternative forms without case marking are always available for Class I and II adjectives, which behave as single words, (and there are a few of such adjectives in the Class III, too).When the nominative case marker nom is absent, thenai-adjectives are all NA morphological compounds, where the entire sequence is inserted into the A0 position, as in [A0N A].

Note that case-marked complex negative adjectives can be assumed to originate from periphrastic structures where the component noun and nai are separate syntactically, even when they may now serve as single lexical entities with no syntactic transparency, perhaps by virtue of lexicalization. This is precisely because (nominative) case marking, which appears with the component noun, is licensed at the level of syntax (Takezawa 1987). Complex words are often analyzed as being formed by lexical rules in the lexicon (i.e. word formation rules), but the case-marked complex adjectives should have phrasal origins.

Importantly,the Class II adjectives formed via quasi-noun incorporation do not constitute words in a strict morphological sense; the entire complexes behave as lexical units, while their components are visible syntactically, as opposed to full-blown noun incorporation, which gives rise to morphological compounds(see Booij 2010: Chapter 4). In Class II adjectives, the case-marked component noun undergoes quasi-incorporation tocombine with the adjective nai, but the grammatical process does not give rise to morphological compounds, i.e. the quasi-noun incorporation structuredoes not count as form a single morphological word. This is because, in quasi-noun incorporation, N0 is adjoined to A0, and this operation creates a syntactic compound structure where both the component noun and naiappear in two distinct head positions.

As mentioned above, the nouns appearing in the complex adjectives have a tendency to lose transparency in meaning progressively from Class I to Class III. The differences in their syntactic behaviour are correlated with their degree of idiomaticity, and thus illustrate the transition process from a phrasal expression to a single lexical item (Brinton and Traugott 2005, Los et al. 2012). We claim that the distinct syntactic configurations proposed above bring about the differences in the negative adjectives’ susceptibility to syntactic operations. In effect, the three classes of complex negative adjectives display a cluster of properties that can be best described in terms of the structural differences (ranging from a structure having a phrasal syntax to a single complex word involving morphological compounding), as depicted in (4).

Note, in this connection, that all variants of Class III adjectives are morphological compounds, i.e. single-word adjectives, whichare not susceptible to rules invoking case-marking change (such as nominative-genitive conversion and mo-replacement; see section 2.2), as we will discuss below.Nevertheless, we can readily see from (2c)that the inventory of Class III adjectives consists ofthree distinct forms that are found in Class I and II adjectives (i.e. N-nomnai, N-mo nai, and N-nai). Sincenai-adjectives with nominative case marking, as well as nai-adjectives with the particle mo(derived via mo-replacement),should come from periphrastic forms, the fact suggests that the phrasal constructs of nai-adjectives, regardless of their forms, may develop into morphological constructs (i.e. single-word nai-adjectives), as a consequence of lexicalization (leading to the creation of a single word from a complex expression).[6]

At this point, it should be mentioned that the negative expression nai can be used as a grammatical word—the functional negator—or an adjective (Kishimoto 2007, 2008). The expression nai can also be used as the negative form of the verb aru ‘be’, which expresses a possessive/existential meaning. Superficially, clauses headed by complex negative adjectives bear resemblance to clauses headed by the negative possessive/existential nai. Nevertheless, the complex negative adjective clauses differ from negated possessive/existential clauses, because the positive counterparts of the adjectival clauses cannot be derived by replacing nai with aru, as shown in (5).

(5) (a) Karera-ga yuuki-ga {na-i/ar-u}.

they-nom courage-nom {neg-pres/have-pres}

‘They {do not have/have} courage.’ (Possessive/Existential)

(b) John-no sinnen-ga yurugi-ga {na-i/*ar-u}.

John-gen confidence shake-nom {null-pres/have-pres}

‘John’s confidence is {unshakable/shakable(?)}.’ (Adjective: Class I)

Mary-gen attitude-nom adult-nom {null-pres/have-pres}

‘Mary’s attitude is {childish/adult-like(?)}.’ (Adjective: Class II)

(d) Ano-ziko-ga syoo-ga-{na-i/*ar-u}.

that-accident-nom doing.way-nom-{null-pres/have-pres}

‘That accident is {unavoidable/avoidable(?)}.’ (Adjective: Class III)

Needless to say, the affirmative forms are not available for the clauses headed by complex adjectives without overt case marking on the nouns, either. This is shown in (6).

(6) (a) John-no sinnen-ga {yurugi-na-i/*yurugi-ar-u}.

John-gen confidence {shake-null-pres/shake-have-pres}

‘John’s confidence is {unshakable/shakable (?)}.’ (Adjective: Class I)

(b) Mary-no taido-ga {otonage-na-i/*otonage-ar-u}.

Mary-gen attitude-nom {adult-null-pres/adult-have-pres}

‘Mary’s attitude is {childish/adult-like (?)}.’ (Adjective: Class II)

such attitude-nom {so.looking-null-pres/so.looking-have-pres}

‘Such an attitude is {casual/formal(?)}.’ (Adjective: Class III)

Even though the complex adjective clauses often carry meanings similar to those expressed by the possessive/existential clauses, the two types of clauses behave differently, and hence they need to be distinguished.[7]

The three classes of complex adjectives with the noun+nai sequence display a number of behavioural differences, if their component nouns are case-marked. The complex adjectives show different degrees of susceptibility to grammatical processes at the syntax level, which include rearrangements of constituents like substitution/replacement and modification via adjunction (with or without movement), as well as generation of syntactic scope. There are both data distinguishing Class I from Class II/III adjectives, and data distinguishing Class I/II adjectives from Class III adjectives.It is argued that the syntactic aspects of behavioural differences observed for the case-marked complex adjectives can be optimally characterized by means of the structures depicted in (4). In the subsections that follow, we will take a look at a number of indications for the structural differences among the three classes of complex adjectives.

2.1 Properties distinguishing between Class I and Class II/III adjectives

Class I adjectives differ from Class II and III adjectives with regard to adverb insertion, the addition of a prenominal modifier, the nominative-dative alternation, and negative polarity item (NPI) licensing. In this section, we will illustrate how the three classes of complex adjectives behave differently.

To begin, one difference that distinguishes Class I adjectives from the two other classes of complex adjectives concerns adverb insertion. Class I adjectives allow an adverb to appear after the component noun marked with nominative case, but this possibility is excluded when no case marking appears on the noun.