Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of accusative-quotative constructions in Japanese

This dissertation is a data-driven exploration of the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of the Japanese accusative-quotative construction (also known as the "subject to object raising" construction, or "exceptional case marking" construction (ECM), or "prolepsis" construction). An example: Hanako wa Tarou o baka da to omotte iru 'Hanako believes Tarou to be an idiot'. The construction is a special type of propositional attitude statement. The possibility of more than one context of interpretation operating in the construal of such statements is a key to understanding the epistemic specificity that these constructions exhibit. Accusative subjects are interpreted as specific with respect to the beliefs of the agent of attitude. This reduces to syntax in the fact that unambiguously non-specific noun phrases cannot appear as accusative subjects. This is one aspect of a semantic and pragmatic constraint formulated to cover the following observation: Accusative-quotative constructions cannot embed predications denoting existential assertions as evaluated under the domain of the belief operator generated by the matrix verb.;Falling out of the constraint are a variety of syntactic facts, among which are: the lack of certain scope ambiguities involving existential quantification, the inadmissability of weak cardinal floating quantifiers hosted by accusative subjects, the impossibility of embedding specificational pseudoclefts in accusative-quotative complements, and the inadmissability of wh-accusative subjects construed with questions embedded in accusative-quotative complements. Furthermore, many apparent restrictions on the types of predicates allowed in the complements of accusative-quotative constructions can also be seen as falling out of the semantic/pragmatic constraint as it applies to assertions about eventualities: Predications with past or future tense reference and predications referring to events or temporary states depend on eventualities for their interpretations. Such predications can only be licensed in accusative-quotative complements through either generic quantification over eventualities or through supplying a discourse antecedent eventuality in the context, which removes the need for existential quantification over eventualities.;One simple semantic/pragmatic constraint provides a unified and more observationally adequate account than analyses that refer to the distinction between tensed and un-tensed predicates, or between stage-level and individual-level predicates, or between thetic and categorical judgments, or between referentially transparent and opaque contexts.;Scope ambiguity between an accusative subject and an internal argument of the complement is attested (provided neither element involves existential quantitification), suggesting that "reconstruction" does occur. This supports a raising analysis over a prolepsis analysis. The accusative subject is never the thematic argument of the matrix verb in the accusative-quotative construction. Contributions are also made to the project of identifying a natural class of accusative-quotative verbs (which includes some factive verbs): In contexts independent of the accusative-quotative construction, all verbs in the class must be able to select clausal complements, and all must be able to assign accusative case. That verbs generally selecting eventuality-dependent complements (e.g., kitai suru 'expect'; oboeru 'remember'; mitukeru 'find', etc.) do not support the construction is indirect evidence of the operation of the semantic/pragmatic constraint.