Compound verbs in Japanese: Types and Constraints

Compound verbs in Japanese:
Types and Constraints
Yo Matsumoto
Kobe University
yomatsum@lit.kobe-u.ac.jp

outline
Basic properties of compound verbs in Japanese
Constraints on lexical compound verbs
previous solutions: general constraints
proposal: constraints at multiple levels
general and type-level constraints
individual-level, knowledge-based constraints

Basic properties
a sequence of two verbs as one word
two major types: syntactic and lexical
• syntactic: yomi-hazimeru (read-begin)
‘begin to read’
• lexical: osi-taosu (push-topple) ‘topple
by pushing, push down’

Kare-wa hon-o yomi-hazime-ta
He-Top book-Acc read-begin-Pst
‘He began to read a book.’
Kare-wa hei-o osi-taosi-ta.
He-Top fence-Acc push-topple-Pst
‘He pushed down the fence.’

comparison with -te complexes
V1s in compounds end in the Renyookei
form; different from -te complexes
compound:
saka-o
slope-Acc
kake-agat-ta
run-go.up-Pst
-te complex
saka-o
slope-Acc
kakete it-ta
run-TE go-Pst

“lexical integrity”
Unlike -te complexes, nothing can be
inserted between V1 and V2 in compounds
saka-o kakete-wa it-ta ga...
slope-Acc run-TE-Cont go-Pst but
‘Though he ran (up) the slope, ...’
*saka-o kake-wa agat-ta ga...
slope-Acc run-Con go.up-Pst but
‘Though he ran up the slope, ...’

lexical integrity of syntactic
compounds
V-te iru (progressive) vs V-hazimeru
Kare-wa hon-o yonde-wa i-ta ga...
he-Top book-Acc read-TE-Cont be-Pst but
‘Though he was reading a book, ...
*Kare-wa hon-o yomi-wa hazime-ta ga...
he-Top book-Acc read-Cont began but

syntactic and lexical compounds
[Kare-wa [ ___ hon-o yomi]-hazime-ta]
he-Top book-Acc read-begin-Pst
‘He began to read a book.’
[Kare-wa hei-o osi-taosi-ta]
he-Top fence-Acc push-topple-Pst
‘He pushed the fence down.’

More on lexical compound verbs
1157 entries in Tagashira & Hoff;
2936 in Iwanami Goitaikei;
probably lots more (Who knows?)
productive (in some types): new
combination is possible
“fixed” combinations involving archaic
verbs are found

Major types
Co-actions naki-sakebu (cry-shout) ‘cry out’
Means osi-taosu (push-topple) ‘push down’
Manner kake-agaru (run-go.up) ‘run up’
Cause
yake-sinu (be.burned-die) ‘die from
being burned’
Background tabe-nokosu (eat-leave.unconsumed)
‘leave unconsumed in the act of eating’

Note: inchoative/causative pairs
koware(-ru)
kowas(-u)
taore(-ru)
taos(-u)
ak(-u)
ake(-ru)
‘be.destroyed, break(intr.)’
‘destroy, break (trans.)’
‘fall over’
‘topple’
‘open (intransitive)’
‘open (transitive)’

comparison with English
Susan pushed the door {open/down}.
Compounds lexically convey meanings
which are conveyed through verb +
particle/resultative constructions in
English
Japanese osi-akeru/osi-taosu involve
transitive akeru ‘open’ and taosu ‘topple’
as the head verb and in this respect
different from English counterparts.

Comparison with Chinese
Ta tui-dao-le dashu
he push-fall.down Prf big.tree
‘He pushed down a big tree.’
Unlike Chinese, Japanese has transitive
taosu ‘topple’ as V2; the subject of V1
and V2 are shared in Japanese, but not in
Chinese.

Question
Though productive, not all combinations are
possible; 2,353 verbs would produce more
than 5,500,000 combinations in theory.
How are the combinations of lexical V-V
compound verbs constrained?
Subevents are integrated into one (complex)
event --> may suggest possible patterns in
which complex conceptual materials are
integrated into one whole in language.

Previous accounts:
General solutions (only)
transitivity match (traditional)
“transitivity harmony” (Kageyama 1993)
subject sharing (Yumoto 1996, 2005,
Matsumoto 1998)

Transitivity Match
Transitive + Transitive
tataki-kowasu (strike-destroy)
Intransitive + Intransitive
kake-agaru (run-go.up)
*Transitive + Intransitive
*tataki-kowareru (strike-be.destroyed)
*Intransitive + Transitive
*kake-ageru (run-make.go.up)

ut...
Some transitive-intransitive combinations
are found
moti-aruku (have-walk) ‘carry around’

transitivity harmony
Two types of intransitive verbs
• unaccusative (roughly, nonagentive changeof-state
verbs)
• unergative (roughly, agentive action verbs)
New combinatory generalizations (Kageyama 1993)
OK: Transitive/unergative + Transitive/unergative
OK: Unaccusative + Unaccusative
bad: *Transitive/unegative + Unaccusative
Issue of aruki-tsukareru (walk-get.tired) solved!

ut...
Some unergative-unaccusative pairs are
found in certain semantic types
(Matsumoto 1996)
aruki-tukareru (walk-get.tired) ‘get tired
from walking’

subject sharing
Subjects of V1 and V2 must be the same
entity (Yumoto 1996, Matsumoto 1998)
aruki-tukareru (walk-get.tired): subject
shared
*tataki-kowareru (strike-be.destroyed):
subject unshared

V-V Nouns
V-V nouns do not respect Subject-sharing
(Matsumoto 1998)
V: omoi-dasu (think-make.go.out) ‘recall’
N: omoi-de (think-go.out) ‘remembrance’

But...
Subject-sharing alone is too general and
says too little.
tataki-kowareru (strike-be.destroyed)
would be OK in the reading where the
striker is destroyed.
Such compounds are ruled out because
of queer semantics, but queerness must
be separately accounted for.

General solutions II
semantic constraints based on time and
causation (Matsumoto 1996: Ch. 10)
Subevents of a complex event
(represented by V1 and V2) must be
temporally coextensive or causally
related

But...
Such constraints may be a necessary
condition for a complex event to be
expressed in a single verb, they are too
general to restrict possible lexical
compounds.
kake-agaru ‘run-go.up’
*tati-yomu ‘stand-read’
cf. tati-yomi suru (stand-read do)

The inadequacy of these general
approaches was that they looked for
general constraints without considering
properties of different types of
compounds

Solution
While general constraints do exist,
specific constraints on different types of
lexical compounds must be recognized;
some even at the level of individual
items, too.
--> Constraints are stated at multiple
levels of generality (cf. Booij 2010,
Goldberg 1995)

V1-V2
general
constraints
V1cause-V2
V1means-V2
V1manner-V2
type-level
constraints
tataki-kowasu
osi-taosu
individuallevel
constraints

Type-level constraints
Lexical compounds must be interpreted in
a restricted set of semantic schemas. If they
do not match any of such schemas, they are
ruled out as “impossible compounds.”

major schemas
Co-actions (Pair compounds in M96)
Means
Manner
Cause
Background (Not found in M96)

Note: representing verb semantics
Bill broke the vase.
[x CAUSES [Y BECOME Z]]
CAUSATION
CHANGE
(STATE,
LOCATION)

Co-action compounding
hikari-kagayaku (shine-shine.brightly) ‘shine brightly’
naki-sakebu (cry-shout) ‘cry out’
tobi-haneru (jump-leap) ‘jump up’
V1 and V2 represent actions
Actions of V1 and V2 must be the same action
(described in different ways)
V1 and V2 share their actors.

Co-action schema
V1
V2
action
identity

Means compounding
tataki-kowasu (strike-destroy) ‘destroy by striking’
keri-ageru (kick-make.go.up) ‘kick up (in the air)’
very productive
V2 represents causation + change of state
V1 represents action
V1 is the means by which V2 is performed
V1 and V2 share their subjects, and usually
their objects

V1
V2
Means

Cause compounding
obore-sinu (be.drowned-die) ‘be drowned (to
death)’
aruki-tukareru (walk-get.tired) ‘get tired from
walking’
V2 must be nonagentive
V1 can be agantive or nonagentive (in
violation of transitivity harmony)
Undergoers/actors of V1 must be
identical with the undergoer of V2

Cause schema
V1
V2
process-type neutral

Manner compounding
kake-oriru (run-go.down) ‘run down’
mai-agaru (dance-go.up) ‘soar up’
V1 represents an action
V2 represents motion (or similar activity)
V1 represents the manner in which V2 is
carried out.

Manner schema
motion
Manner
action

nonexisting schemas
Non-subject-sharing
Nonsubject-sharing cause-result schema
Subject-sharing
• sequential actions
• circumstantial situations

schema excluded in Japanese
V1
V2
cf. tui-dao (push-fall) in Chinese

*tataki-kowareru (strike-be.destroyed)
*tataki-sinu (strike-die)
There are restricted exceptions. They are not
the direct results of compounding but are
derived from the means compounds.
uti-agaru (hit-go.up) ‘go up due to shooting’
< uti-ageru (hit-make.go.up) ‘shoot ... up’

Subj-sharing cases excluded
Circumstantial situations
V-V nouns + suru permitted
tati-guwi suru (stand-eat do) ‘eat while
stading’
tati-yomi suru (stand-read do) ‘read while
standing’
V-V verbs are excluded
*tati-kuwu (stand-eat), *tati-yomu (stand-read)

Subj-sharing cases excluded
sequential actions
hiki-nige suru (hit-flee do) ‘hit and run’
*hiki-nigeru (hit-flee)
multiple (repeated) actions
agari-sagari suru (go.up-go.down) ‘go up and
down repeatedly’,
iki-ki suru (go-come do) ‘come and go
repeatedly’
*agari-sagaru, *iki-kuru

subject-sharing
as a general schema
subject sharing is a property of a “superschema,”
i.e., a generalization of all
major permitted compounding schemas.
Not all subject-sharing schemas are
permitted in compounds (hence we need
a list of permitted ones), but all major
schemas permitted involve subjectsharing
(hence we need a generalization).

Subj-sharing schema
V2
V1

constraints at the level of
individual compounds
semantic congruency
Each compound must have a meaning
which is congruent with our general
knowledge concerning what typically or
conventionally happen in the world.
lexical economy
Each lexical compound must have a reason
for existence in light of lexical economy.

congruency
Congruency involves world knowledge
(Fillmore’s “frame”)
Each verb has a background information
concerning the likely causes and results
of the process or the manners/means by
which the process may be executed.

For example, a causative verb like break has
a set of background information on how
the change may be achieved; breaking can
be achieved by actions involving forceful
contact (e.g., hitting) but not by
nonforceful contact (e.g., licking).
Each compound meaning is checked against
such background knowledge. Incongruence
results in incongruent compounds.

incongruent compounds
• tataki-kowasu (strike-destroy) ‘strike to
pieces’ vs. *name-kowasu (lick-destroy)
• aruki-tukareru (walk-get.tired) vs. *arukisinu
(walk-die)
Our mental database says that one is likely
to be tired after walking, but one does not
usually die from it.

Change in our knowledge may lead to
new compounding possibilities.
• name-otosu (lick-make.fall) ‘make ... fall
off by licking’ may become acceptable
after acquiring the knowledge of horse
mothers licking dirty objects off their
foals’ skins.

lexical economy
The principle of lexical economy rules out
complex forms as unnecessary if they are
synonymous with irregular/simpler forms
(cf. *goed (=went), *pale red (≒pink)).
Compounds are blocked by (functionally)
synonymous simple verbs or “more fixed”
compound verbs.
*kake-hairu (run-enter) cf. kake-komu
*aruki-agaru (walk-go.up) cf. agaru

In conclusion
Japanese lexical compounds do provide
interesting data for the linguistic
patterns of packaging complex meanings
into one whole.
Constraints need to be stated at
different levels of generality in
morphology.

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
(Kageyama, Taro). 1993.
Matsumoto,Yo. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese:A Syntactic and
Semantic Study of the Notion 'Word'. Stanford: CSLI Publications,
Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
(Matsumoto, Yo). 1998.
114: 37~83
Tagashira, Yoshiko, and Jean Hoff. 1986. Handbook of Japanese Compound
Verbs. Tokyo: Hokuseido.
(Yumoto, Yoko). 1996.
105-118.
(Yumoto, Yoko). 2005. ―