Kazuki KUWABARA - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Kazuki KUWABARA
English linguistics, 1990
The present paper is about the syntactic positions in which topicalized constituents can occur. W... more The present paper is about the syntactic positions in which topicalized constituents can occur. Within the Government and Binding Theory, it seems to be commonly accepted that all topic constituents are in the position adjoined to CP. However, there is no rational evidence that a topicalized constituent must occupy this position, if the topmost CP can be left empty. In this paper, it is argued that a topic constituent may be in either a CPadjoined or an IP-adjoined position, depending upon the structure of the main clause. Thus, it is shown that neither Chomsky's 1977 nor Baltin's 1982 analysis of Topicalization is adequate in that a topic constituent is restricted to a unique position.*
English linguistics, 2018
* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I wo... more * I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Daniel Jackson for suggesting stylistic improvements. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own.
English linguistics, 2003
Lingua, 2013
Abstract This article concerns the cartography of the left periphery in Japanese, in particular, ... more Abstract This article concerns the cartography of the left periphery in Japanese, in particular, the distribution of complementizers ka and no that are typically found in questions. I explore the hypothesis that these complementizers are manifestations of distinct functional heads in the C system. In particular, I show that ka instantiates Force, whereas no instantiates Fin(iteness) in Rizzi's (1997) split C system, that does not express the specification of illocutionary force. Once the positional distinction is made between these complementizers, an interesting generalization emerges that no is obligatory in some yes-no questions and questions with reason wh-adjuncts. I argue that the seemingly peculiar interactions between interrogatives and the complementizer with no illocutionary force can be successfully elucidated by adopting the analyses based on the fine structure of CP ( Rizzi, 1997 , Rizzi, 2001 ). It is shown that the focus in yes-no questions and wh-phrases are licensed by Foc and Force, respectively, which gives rise to the asymmetry between yes-no questions and wh-questions regarding the choice of complementizers. Reason wh-adjuncts naze/nani-o, as opposed to other wh-phrases, require the complementizer no. I suggest that Rizzi's (2001) proposal for positing a special head “Int(errogative)” for ‘why’ can be extended to account for this interaction of naze/nani-o with the complementizer no.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 1990
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 2003
The invention concerns Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) which are equipped with video conferencin... more The invention concerns Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) which are equipped with video conferencing capability. The ATM allows a customer to undertake numerous different types of transactions, such as withdrawing cash, checking a balance, applying for a loan, obtaining interest rate quotations, and so on. If a customer needs assistance with a transaction, the invention (a) identifies the transaction, without intervention of the customer, (b) selects a consultant who is expert in the type of transaction identified, and (c) establishes a video conference with the selected consultant.
* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I wo... more * I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Daniel Jackson for suggesting stylistic improvements. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own.
English linguistics, 1990
The present paper is about the syntactic positions in which topicalized constituents can occur. W... more The present paper is about the syntactic positions in which topicalized constituents can occur. Within the Government and Binding Theory, it seems to be commonly accepted that all topic constituents are in the position adjoined to CP. However, there is no rational evidence that a topicalized constituent must occupy this position, if the topmost CP can be left empty. In this paper, it is argued that a topic constituent may be in either a CPadjoined or an IP-adjoined position, depending upon the structure of the main clause. Thus, it is shown that neither Chomsky's 1977 nor Baltin's 1982 analysis of Topicalization is adequate in that a topic constituent is restricted to a unique position.*
English linguistics, 2018
* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I wo... more * I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Daniel Jackson for suggesting stylistic improvements. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own.
English linguistics, 2003
Lingua, 2013
Abstract This article concerns the cartography of the left periphery in Japanese, in particular, ... more Abstract This article concerns the cartography of the left periphery in Japanese, in particular, the distribution of complementizers ka and no that are typically found in questions. I explore the hypothesis that these complementizers are manifestations of distinct functional heads in the C system. In particular, I show that ka instantiates Force, whereas no instantiates Fin(iteness) in Rizzi's (1997) split C system, that does not express the specification of illocutionary force. Once the positional distinction is made between these complementizers, an interesting generalization emerges that no is obligatory in some yes-no questions and questions with reason wh-adjuncts. I argue that the seemingly peculiar interactions between interrogatives and the complementizer with no illocutionary force can be successfully elucidated by adopting the analyses based on the fine structure of CP ( Rizzi, 1997 , Rizzi, 2001 ). It is shown that the focus in yes-no questions and wh-phrases are licensed by Foc and Force, respectively, which gives rise to the asymmetry between yes-no questions and wh-questions regarding the choice of complementizers. Reason wh-adjuncts naze/nani-o, as opposed to other wh-phrases, require the complementizer no. I suggest that Rizzi's (2001) proposal for positing a special head “Int(errogative)” for ‘why’ can be extended to account for this interaction of naze/nani-o with the complementizer no.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 1990
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, 2003
The invention concerns Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) which are equipped with video conferencin... more The invention concerns Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) which are equipped with video conferencing capability. The ATM allows a customer to undertake numerous different types of transactions, such as withdrawing cash, checking a balance, applying for a loan, obtaining interest rate quotations, and so on. If a customer needs assistance with a transaction, the invention (a) identifies the transaction, without intervention of the customer, (b) selects a consultant who is expert in the type of transaction identified, and (c) establishes a video conference with the selected consultant.
* I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I wo... more * I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Daniel Jackson for suggesting stylistic improvements. Needless to say, all remaining errors are my own.