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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
