| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,610,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,400,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2007: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
This study has made clear the mechanisms which determine the syntactic feature and the semantic structure of the derived words, in particular, the verbs, adjectives and adjectival nominals that are formed through compounding as well as affixation and conversion in English and Japanese and demonstrated the differences between the two languages as well as those among the syntactic categories.
First, as to the verb formation based on a verb, English makes use of a variety of affixation while Japanese is productive in V-V compounding, and besides the morphological differences, there are differences due to the components where they are formed; English affixation occurs exclusively in the lexicon while Japanese V-V compounding can occur both in the lexicon and the syntax. I proposed the theory that explains these differences under the hypothesis of modularity in word formation, whirh was put forth inYumoto (2005).
Secondly, I took up the conversion between a noun and a verb in English, and pro
… More
posed an analysis by means of the Qualia Structure a In Pustejovsky (1995). I assumed that theb Qualia Structure of a base noun should provide the information that would inspire the Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) to derive a verb, which would explain the differences in productivity; that is, the nouns that are the names of an instrument have the telic role represented in terms of the LCS so that they derive the verbs most productively without any morphological marker. This analysis was published inYumoto (2007) ((8) in the list).
Thirdly, I investigated into the Japanese compound adjectives and adjectival nominals that include the subject of the base. This combination is not accepted in English as is generalized as the First Order Projection Principle by Selkirk (1982). Furthermore, it remained unsolved why the incorporation of the subject into a word can result in a compound that retains the function as a predicator. I proposed the analyses that would explain this problem as well as the differences between English and Jananese one of which was presented in Yumoto (2007) ((9) in the list).
To summarize, this study has shown a variety of word formations that are regulated by different modules of grammar which strongly supports the modularity of word formation. English and Japanese make use of different mechanisms of naming new things, events and property, and the principles of the module that regulate each mechanism would properly explain the syntactic feature of a derived word as well as the range of possible words in each language. Less
|
