1. 2 1993 2001 2 1 2 1 2 1 99
2009. 1982 250 251 1991 112 115 1988 75 2004 132 2006 73 3 100
3 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.. 3.1 1991 2002 2004 3 4 101
2009 3 4 4 5 1 5 6 1 102
5 6 3.2 2 7 8 2 X Y Z Z X 103
2009 7 8 4.3 9 10 9 10 4.3 1993 55 3 0 104
0 1978 11 11 3. 4.1 105
2009 1993 12 13 12 13 4.2 4.1 106
14 15 16 17 18 19 14 19 17 107
2009 20 22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 6 20 22 20 22 2006 4 7 21 108
1988 75 76 22 22 4.4 23 24 3 109
2009 3 4.3 25 26 27 28 29 110
30 31 32 25 32 8 9 1998 118 25 32 25 26 27 10 28 29 111
2009 30 32 30 32 4.4 4.3 33 34 33 34 112
33 34 2006 6 2000 33 35 35 36 37 36 37 113
2009 36 37 38 39 40 41 PTA 114
38 41 38 41 4.5 2004 134 42 43 44 45 12 115
2009 42 45 46 47 46 47 40 48 50 48 49 50 1000 116
48 50 42 47 48 50 4.6 117
2009. 1 2 3 4 5 118
6 1 2006 2 2 4 3 2006 4 119
2009 20042003 5 1978 620 4.5 71990 389 390 825 27 i ii 9 i ii 10 i 120
1993 29 4 51 57 1978 1983 2006 5 1 14 1980 63 25 40 2008 2003 1 32 1 140 145 1998 V 27 9 115 120 1982 2006 15 1 20 1990 2 20001051 10 1991 1988 2004 2000 6 55 67 2002 48 263 276 2006 45 73 85 121
2009 The Conditions for the Compatibility between the Te-morau Benefactive and the Non Adversative Passive Construction in Japanese SUJIWARODOM Sirilak This paper examines correlations between the te-morau benefactive construction and the non adversative passive construction in Japanese by focusing on syntactic and semantic properties such as matrix subjects, embedded verbs, agent features concerning an animate or inanimate and speaker s subjectivity and objectivity. We point out both the similarities and differences in which these two constructions seem to share and also analyze the conditions in which they transform into one another. To conclude the results of the analysis, it is show that the passive sentence which has been recognized as corresponding to te-morau benefactive construction is the direct passive and possessor passive, carrying implication of its subject receives benefit, i.e., non-adversative passive. The crucial condition for compatibility is the embedded verbs which required verbs to describe the beneficial state of affairs for the matrix subject. The verbs which can be available both with these two construction that make them interchangeable are restricted. It is also found that although the non-adversative passive carry the implication of receiving the flavor of agent s action, it is not always a substitute for the te-morau benefactive construction because of the restrictions of the matrix subject and agent features. The matrix subject and agent in the passive can be inanimate, while the human agent is obligatory in the te-morau benefactive construction. Thus compatibility between these two constructions is found in only the case that both the matrix subject and the agent are the human. However since speaker s subjectivity, in general these two constructions are interchangeable in the case that the matrix subject is the speaker. The distinguished difference between these two constructions is the beneficiary interpretation. The te-morau benefactive construction denote only the 122
meaning of receiving the flavor of agent s action, but it also express gratitude to the agent as a benefactor for his kindness, whereas the passive describes the receiving of actions as the facts in an objective view. 2 123