Mechanism of Naming in Japanese andEnglish : Differences in Constraints on Possille Words

本文通过对英、日两种语言中动词、形容词和形容词性名词的合成、词缀和转换等句法特征和语义结构的分析，揭示了英、日两种语言中动词、形容词和形容词性名词的句法特征和语义结构的形成机制，并论证了英、日两种语言中动词和形容词性名词的句法特征和语义结构的差异。英语中词缀的使用形式多样，日语中动-动复合式的使用形式多样，除了形态上的差异外，还存在着构成成分上的差异;英语中词缀只出现在词汇中，而日语中动-动复合式既可以出现在词汇中，也可以出现在句法中。其次，本文以Yumoto（2005）提出的“whirh”为假设，提出了英语中名词和动词之间的转换，并对英语中名词和动词之间的转换进行了分析。 关于我们 Pustejovsky（1995）提出了一个分析的质量结构。我认为，一个基本名词的质结构应该提供的信息，将启发词汇概念结构（LCS）派生一个动词，这将解释生产力的差异;也就是说，名词是一个工具的名称有目的的作用表示的LCS，使他们派生的动词最富有成效的没有任何形态标记。这一分析发表在Yumoto（2007）（（8）中）。第三，考察了日语复合形容词和形容词性名词中含有主语的基础。这种组合在英语中不被接受，因为塞尔柯克（1982）将其推广为一阶投影原理。此外，为什么将主语并入一个词中会产生一个复合词，而复合词又保留了谓语的功能，这个问题仍然没有解决。我提出的分析，将解释这个问题，以及英语和日语之间的差异，其中之一是在Yumoto（2007）（（9）在列表中）。总之，这项研究表明，各种各样的构词法，由不同的语法模块，这有力地支持了构词的模块性调节。英语和日语使用不同的命名机制来命名新事物、事件和财产，而规范每种机制的模块原则将适当地解释派生词的句法特征以及每种语言中可能出现的词的范围。少

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