1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Japanese has two types of double nominative constructions — the first exemplified by sentences such as Taroo ga otoosan ga sinda “Taro — (his) father has died,” and the second by sentences such as Taroo ga eigo ga yoku dekiru “Taro can (speak) English well.” Kuno (1973a, b) claimed that the first is a double-subject construction, while the second is a subject–object construction. This analysis has recently been challenged by Shibatani (2001a, b, c), who claims that these double-nominative constructions are both double-subject constructions. This paper presents arguments against Shibatani’s double-subject analysis, and in support of the “Ga for Object Marking” analysis for the second construction.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.29.2.02kun
2005-01-01
2019-12-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.29.2.02kun
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error