text:
Argument Realization and Case in Japanese
Summary and Keywords
Japanese is a language where the grammatical status of arguments and adjuncts is marked exclusively by postnominal case markers, and various argument realization patterns can be assessed by their case marking. Since Japanese is categorized as a language of the nominative-accusative type typologically, the unmarked case-marking frame obtained for transitive predicates of the non-stative (or eventive) type is 'nominative-accusative'. Nevertheless, transitive predicates falling into the stative class often have other case-marking alignments, such as 'nominative-nominative' and 'dative-nominative'. Consequently, Japanese provides much more varying argument realization patterns than those expected from its typological character as a nominative-accusative language.
In point of fact, argument marking can actually be much more elastic and variable, the variations being motivated by several linguistic factors. Arguments often have the option of receiving either syntactic or semantic case, with no difference in the logical or cognitive meaning (as in plural agent and source agent alternations) or depending on the meanings their predicate carry (as in locative alternation). The type of case marking that is not normally available in main clauses can sometimes be obtained in embedded contexts (i.e., in exceptional case marking and small-clause constructions). In complex predicates, including causative and indirect passive predicates, arguments are case-marked differently from their base clauses by virtue of suffixation, and their case patterns follow the mono-clausal case array, despite the fact that they have multi-clausal structures.
Various case marking options are also made available for arguments by grammatical operations. Some processes instantiate a change on the grammatical relations and case marking of arguments with no affixation or embedding. Japanese has the grammatical process of subjectivization, creating extra (non-thematic) major subjects, many of which are identified as instances of 'possessor raising' (or argument ascension). There is another type of grammatical process, which reduces the number of arguments by virtue of incorporating a noun into the predicate, as found in the light verb constructions with suru 'do' and the complex adjective constructions formed on the negative adjective nai 'non-existent.'
Keywords: Japanese, case marker, argument, transitivity, nominative-accusative language
1. Japanese as a Nominative-Accusative Language
Natural language makes use of syntactic forms consisting of predicates and arguments to express various semantic relations; even a very simple sentence like John runs comprises a predicate (run) and its argument (John). This coding system of natural language, governed by certain strict grammatical rules, allows the speaker to express any concept or thought in the form of sentences, and at the same time, allows the meanings expressed by the sentences to be understood by the hearer in a consistent and efficient manner.
Nevertheless, the actual coding frames utilized to specify the grammatical relations of arguments vary quite widely, affected by a number of linguistic factors. Arguments are realized in a wide variety of ways even if they bear essentially the same semantic relations to the predicate. Although the grammatical relations of arguments are signaled solely by case marking in Japanese, some intricate behaviors of argument marking are observed, which give clues to uncovering common linguistic features and linguistic universals, and provide data contributing to theories of argument realization (cf. Levin, 1993; Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 2005).
In Japanese, there are at least three types of argument alternation. One type of alternation is trigged purely on the basis of meanings expressed in clauses (e.g., the plural agent and the source agent alternations). A second type of argument alternation is triggered by adding a suffix or an auxiliary—deriving a complex clause from a simple base clause (e.g., causative, indirect passive, and tough-adjective constructions) or by embedding a clause under another predicate (e.g., exceptional case marking constructions). Finally, there is a type of alternation, made available by syntactically motivated operations, which changes the syntactic status of arguments (with no suffixation on the predicate) (e.g., subjectivization and noun incorporation).
This article reports and illustrates a number of representative cases of argument alternations observed in Japanese, which are of relevance to linguistic research falling under the rubric of 'argument realization', and it elucidates their unique features, as well as properties that are commonly found cross-linguistically.
1.1. Case Markers in Japanese
Japanese is a nominative-accusative language of the agglutinating type, with the basic word order of SOV (subject–object–verb). Japanese does not implement person/number/gender agreement marking on verbs (except an optional honorific marking on verbs that can be seen as a kind of agreement). In addition, word order is not a good indicator of the grammatical relations of arguments, owing to the fact that the language has a re-ordering operation called 'scrambling,' which induces a change in the order of arguments without any change in logical meanings. Thus, in Japanese, postnominal case markers are virtually the sole reliable means to detect the grammatical status of arguments, as well as adjuncts. In discussing argument realizations in Japanese, it is essential to consider how arguments are morphologically marked, because postnominal case markers provide a reliable way to assess the grammatical status of arguments.
Despite the fact that postnominal case marking plays a pivotal role in coding the grammatical relations of arguments, Japanese has only a small number of simple postnominal particles (plus some complex postpositions, perhaps, formed as a result of grammaticalization). Postnominal case markers can be divided into two groups, more or less reflecting the argument or adjunct distinction of nominals. One group of postnominal case markers, which includes nominative ga, accusative o, and dative ni, is often labeled as 'structural case marker' or 'syntactic case marker'; the other group, which includes markers kara 'from,' made 'up to,' and the like, is referred to as 'postposition' or 'semantic case marker'.
While nominals with syntactic case markers (nominative, accusative, dative) are often amenable to syntactic operations affecting their grammatical relations (such as passivization and causativization), nominals with semantic case markers are not. As noted, these properties are closely correlated with the distinction between argument and adjunct. (Nevertheless, in traditional Japanese grammar, no grammatical distinction of structural case versus semantic case has been posited.) There are many different argument realization patterns observed in Japanese, which are regulated by a number of grammatical rules. Some representative cases will be highlighted in the subsequent discussions.
1.2. Case-Marking Patterns in Basic Clauses
The first discussion centers on the basic patterns of argument realizations in Japanese. Since Japanese belongs to the nominative-accusative language type, it is a general rule that the subject of a transitive verb is treated in the same way as the subject of an intransitive verb, and differently from the direct object of a transitive verb in terms of their case marking.
In transitive clauses, the subject is marked with nominative case and the object with accusative case. In intransitive clauses, the sole argument (i.e., the subject) of the verb is marked with nominative case.
Japanese has ditransitive predicates (selecting three arguments), which take a 'nominative-dative-accusative' case-marking pattern, as (3) shows.
Ditransitive predicates most typically describe either a change of possession (e.g., ataeru 'give') or a change of location (e.g., okuru 'send') (Kishimoto, 2001b). Thus, the dative argument of a ditransitive verb, which functions as an indirect object syntactically, is identified as a recipient or goal.
Transitive predicates selecting subject and object take a nominative-accusative case-marking pattern as an unmarked option, as in illustrated in (2b), but this is by no means the only case pattern available for transitive predicates. Transitive stative predicates often allow variable case-marking patterns. For example, derived transitive stative predicates like uta-e-ru 'can sing' (suffixed with the potential marker -e 'can'), as well as a small set of simple stative verbs like wakaru 'understand,' allow their subjects to carry either dative or nominative case (Kuno, 1973; Shibatani, 1978, 2001, and others).
When the subject is marked with nominative case, as in (4a), the object can be marked with either accusative or nominative case. When the subject is marked with dative case, as in (4b), the object can only be marked with nominative case. The unavailability of accusative case marking on the object in (4b) is often attributed to the so-called nominative-case constraint—the requirement that a finite clause must have at least one nominative argument (Shibatani, 1978).
In (2) and (4), the arguments appearing in the initial position (in unmarked word order) are construed as subjects. This fact can be confirmed by appeal to reflexivization—a major subject diagnostic available in Japanese. In the examples in (5), the reflexive zibun 'self' invariably takes the initial argument as its antecedent, despite a difference in surface case marking, suggesting that this argument serves as a subject.
The same results are obtained by another subject diagnostic test of subject honorfication. In the examples in (6), the initial arguments are targeted for subject honorification, whether they are marked with nominative or dative case (Harada, 1976; Hasegawa, 2006).
The examples in (6) also show that the initial argument assumes the grammatical function of subject syntactically. The data illustrate that the grammatical relation of the initial arguments in (4) is unvarying regardless of whether they are marked with dative or nominative case.
The facts of potential predicates make it clear that the morphological marking of subjects is not limited to nominative case, but can be dative case, which means that Japanese has so-called dative-subject constructions, which are attested cross-linguistically, in particular, in Asian languages (see e.g., Bhaskararao & Subbarao, 2004). One of the typological issues surrounding the dative-subject construction is how dative case marking on subjects is conditioned. It is generally observed that subjects can be assigned dative case marking when they are construed as experiencers or possessors, and this holds in Japanese, too. In addition, it is often claimed that the semantic meaning of 'stativity' plays a crucial role in sanctioning variable case-markings in Japanese (e.g., Koizumi, 2008; Kuno, 1973; Tada, 1992).
While, in Japanese, the subjects of transitive stative predicates are often allowed to bear dative case, it is also true that some transitive non-stative predicates allow the non-canonical dative-nominative case-marking pattern (Kishimoto, 2005). For instance, the verb umareru 'be born' can be used as a transitive predicate taking a subject.
In (7), the initial dative argument serves as the subject of the clause. This fact can be confirmed by looking at the examples in (8), which involve reflexivization and subject honorification.
The examples show that the initial dative argument counts as the target of reflexivization and subject honorification. Umareru is a non-stative verb. Nevertheless, when this verb is used as a transitive verb, it takes a dative-nominative case-marking pattern, and the initial dative argument serves as a subject.
It is also worth noting that the verb umareru can have an intransitive use, in which case the sole nominative argument serves as a subject, as exemplified by the fact that reflexive zibun can take the nominative argument as its antecedent.
By contrast, when used as a transitive verb, umareru does not allow its nominative argument to serve as the antecedent of zibun, as (9b) shows. The nominative object of a transitive stative predicate like sikareru 'can scold' displays exactly the same behavior in this respect, as (10) illustrates.
It should be clear then that the nominative argument of the transtive umareru does not behave as a subject. The data illustrate that certain transitive non-stative (or eventive) predicates allow the initial dative argument to serve as a subject, and makes the case-marking pattern of dative-nominative available.
Finally, adjuncts typically bear oblique marking; that is, they occur with semantic case markers. Semantic case markers show the same behavior as syntactic case markers in morphological terms, in that they occur after the host nominals. The following examples illustrate how adjuncts are marked.
Caution needs to be exercised with regard to the distinction of argument versus adjunct, because most, if not all, basic case markers are polysemous or homonymous. Thus, the same morphological marker can sometimes signal different grammatical relations of arguments and adjuncts—ni can be used in a number of different ways, such as dative, locative, directional, and goal markers.
Not surprisingly, in Japanese, just like other nominative-accusative languages, nominative case is identified as the most prominent structural case marking. This characterization of prominent case is largely motivated by the fact that in Japanese, the subject, which is required in virtually any kind of finite clause, is typically marked with nominative case.
1.3. Oblique Subjects
Japanese can implement a number of argument alternations, which are reflected on the case marking of arguments. One interesting case is found in subject-marking alternations, which can be implemented when certain semantic conditions are met. In Japanese, subjects in unmarked cases appear with nominative case, but dative case appears on the subjects of certain transitive predicates, most typically transitive potential predicates. Japanese also allow subjects to bear case marking other than nominative and dative marking.
More specifically, in Japanese, a semantic case marker is allowed to occur on subjects (by replacing nominative case) if certain semantic conditions are met (Inoue, 1998; Kishimoto, 2005, 2010; Nitta, 1997). There are at least two kinds of subject case alternations (referred to here as the source subject alternation and the plural agent alternation).
In the source agent alternation, subjects may be assigned ablative kara 'from,' in lieu of nominative ga when they are thematically conceived of as representing an agentive source, a starting point (either physically or metaphorically), as in (12a). In the plural agent alternation, the instrumental (or possibly, the locative) de may be substituted for nominative ga on agentive subjects when they refer to a group of people, as in (12b) (Kishimoto, 2005; Takubo, 2010). The oblique kara and de are both semantic case markers used for designating certain specific semantic relations. Importantly, both plural agent and source agent alternations are genuinely motivated on semantic grounds, and do not trigger any morphological change on the predicates.
One important feature of the case-marking alternations at issue is that the initial oblique arguments count as subjects syntactically regardless of whether they are marked with kara or de, as seen from the fact that subject-oriented reflexive zibun 'self' can take them as its antecedents.
In Japanese, finite clauses are, more often than not, required to include a nominative argument in them, but the oblique-subject constructions need not comprise any nominative argument, suggesting that they are exempt from the nominative-case constraint. Remarkably, Japanese allows structural case markers on subjects to be replaced by semantic case markers rather freely when certain semantic conditions are satisfied, which does not seem to be commonly found in other languages, including English.
It is occasionally reported that the assignment of non-canonical case marking (other than nominative and dative marking) to subjects is possible in other languages (e.g., Verma & Mohanan, 1990). The important fact regarding the Japanese cases is that, when subjects bear semantic case markers, there is a direct relationship between their marking and their thematic interpretations. This suggests that these alternations are motivated solely on semantic grounds, and thus provide data that allow us to assess how argument realizations are regulated in the mapping from lexical-semantic representations to syntactic structures (Levin & Rappaport Hovav, 2005).
1.4. ECM and Small-Clause Constructions
In Japanese, some case markings that are not available in basic clauses are found in certain embedded contexts. In the exceptional case marking (ECM) construction in (14a) and the small-clause construction in (14b), the embedded subject receives accusative case marking.
The type of case marking found in (14) is not possible with subjects that appear in simple clauses (or in matrix clauses). Notably, the Japanese ECM construction allows the complementizer to 'that' to appear in the subordinate clause, although it behaves as a non-finite clause syntactically. (The fact that the ECM construction comprises the complementizer to is peculiar, because this kind of complementizer is normally not found in ECM constructions in other languages.) In the small-clause construction, the embedded predicate appears in the adverbial form (without tense). Verbs that can take ECM complements include omou 'think,' sinziru 'believe,' and katei-suru 'assume,' and verbs that can select small-clause complements include omou 'think' and suru 'make.'
In both ECM and small-clause constructions, the matrix predicate can be assumed to license the accusative case marking on the embedded subjects, given that the accusative-marked arguments in these constructions can be promoted to subjects when direct passivization applies to the upper matrix predicate, as shown in (15).
The accusative case marking on the embedded subjects is naturally expected, however, because the verb omou can take an accusative object.
This fact suggests that in both ECM and small-clause constructions, the predicate in the matrix clause serves as the licenser of accusative case marking. Then, the data in (15) and (16) point to the conclusion that when a stative predicate like kawaii 'cute' is embedded under a predicate like omou 'think,' the upper predicate assigns accusative case marking to the subject of the embedded predicate.
1.5. Locative Alternation
Just like many other languages in the world, Japanese can instantiate locative alternation—one type of cross-linguistically observed case marking alternation applying to basic clauses. In Japanese, verbs that induce locative alternation express the meanings of 'filling' or 'spreading,' as in mitasu 'fill,' nuru 'paint,' tirakasu 'scatter,' and kazaru 'decorate.' The examples in (17) illustrate the two case frames available for the verb nuru 'painting.'
In the material-object variant in (17a), the theme receives accusative marking while the location is marked with locative ni. In the location-object variant in (17b), the location is marked with accusative case, and the theme with instrumental de. Verbs with the meaning of 'removal' display a different case-marking pattern.
In the material-object in (18a), the theme is marked with accusative case and the source with ablative kara 'from.' In the location-object variant in (18b), the source is marked with accusative case, but the theme must be left unexpressed in the absence of an oblique marker that can be used for marking this argument (Kageyama, 1981).
Importantly, the material-object variant in (17a) takes the case frame found with verbs of motion, and the location-object variant in (17b) has the case frame taken typically by verbs of change of state. This fact suggests that locative alternation verbs display two distinct argument realization patterns owing to the distinct meanings they carry (Kishimoto, 2001a). The adequacy of this view is confirmed by the examples in (19), where the locative alternation verb nuru 'paint' is compounded with another verb.
In the first place, the second verb tukeru 'attach,' which signifies a directional movement, eliminates from the first verb nuru 'paint' the component of lexical meaning indicating a change of state. Consequently, only the locative-object variant is allowed for the compound verb nuri-tukeru 'paint-attach.' In the second place, if ageru 'up, finish,' which denotes a completion of action, is compounded with nuru 'paint,' it serves to eliminate the motion meaning from the first verb nuru. Due to the elimination of the motion meaning, only the material-object variant is available for the compound verb nuri-ageru 'paint-up.'
The data in (19) show that compounding of a locative alternation verb with another verb results in impeding the locative alternation. Since the possibility of locative alternation changes according to what meaning the predicate carries, locative alternation must be conditioned on semantic grounds (cf. Okutsu, 1981). Locative alternation provides a testing ground for the long-standing issue of how arguments are morphologically coded according to the meaning expressed by the verb—that is, the issue of whether there are semantic factors that affect the case marking of arguments (e.g., Jackendoff, 1990). In particular, the facts of Japanese compound verbs that can invoke locative alternation make it clear that the ambiguity of verbs is an important factor governing the possibility of this type of argument alternation.
2. Complex Predicates
Japanese has agglutinative morphology. Owing to the morphological characteristics of the language, many predicative elements occurring after main predicates count as bound morphemes that need to be merged into their host morphologically. By virtue of the fact that multiple predicative heads are coalesced into one morphological entity, very large multiply-headed complex predicates, which are morphologically single units, are easily formed in Japanese.
The complex predicate in (20) is comprised of five predicative elements followed by the tense marker -ta. The entire complex predicate forms a morphologically tight unit, despite the fact that it comprises a number of embedded clauses syntactically.
Complex predicates constitute a unitary complex morphologically, and often display a discrepancy between the morphological and syntactic structures. In point of fact, it is often pointed out (e.g., Matsumoto, 1996) that complex predicate constructions display mono-clausal properties in some respects, but have bi-clausal properties in other respects. Japanese also has periphrastic verb constructions where verbs do not form morphologically tight units. In these constructions, some argument realization patterns, different from those found in the base clauses, are derived by virtue of the addition of auxiliary elements. Some representative cases of complex predicate formation, including causative and indirect passive formation, tough-constructions, and periphrastic resultative constructions, will be discussed.
2.1. Causativization
Complex causative verbs are formed by agglutinating the causative -(s)ase to verbal predicates. Causativization brings about the effect that a causer argument is added to the base clause. The causative constructions display mono-clausal case-marking patterns, despite the fact that they have bi-clausal structures syntactically. Semantically, causative sentences can indicate directive causation and manipulative causation (Shibatani, 1976). This semantic distinction is manifested in the case marking of the causee argument when the main verb is intransitive.
In the directive causative (21a), the causee is marked with dative ni, and in the manipulative causative (21b), it is marked with accusative o. When the main verb is transitive, the semantic distinction of directive versus manipulative causation is not reflected in the surface case marking, since the causee is invariably marked with dative case regardless of whether it expresses manipulative or directive causation.
In (22), the expected accusative marking does not appear on the cause, even when the sentence expresses manipulative causation. The exclusion of the accusative case on the causee with the causativized transitive verb is attributed to the so-called 'double-o constraint', requiring that a single clause cannot have two or more o-marked arguments (see e.g., Harada, 1973; Inoue, 1976; Shibatani, 1978).
The causative constructions have complex syntactic structures, which can be easily seen from the fact that the dative as well as the nominative argument can serve as the antecedent of subject-oriented reflexive zibun 'self,' as in (23).
Since the target of reflexive zibun is limited to subjects, the fact indicates that the dative-marked causee does not have the status of adjunct, but serves as an argument (i.e., it retains the status as the subject of the embedded predicate). This fact suggests that a causative sentence should have a syntactic structure where the causative verb takes a complement clause, despite the fact that it has a mono-clausal case array.
2.2. Passivization
Passive constructions are formed by adding the passive morpheme -(r)are to the main verb. Japanese has two distinct types of passives: direct passive and indirect passive. In direct passive clauses, the erstwhile subject is demoted to an adjunct, while its original object being promoted to subject, as illustrated in (24).
In direct passive sentences, the agent argument is optionally realized, because it serves as an adjunct syntactically. When realized, it is marked with the dative ni, the ablative kara 'from,' or the postposition niyotte 'by' (see e.g., Kuroda, 1979; Masuoka, 1987).
By contrast, when an indirect passive clause is formed, a new subject that signifies an affected experiencer is added, with a concomitant change of the nominative marking on the original subject to the dative ni, as shown in (25).
The indirect passive is sometimes referred to as adversative passive as well, owing to an adversative meaning associated with the clause (see Hoshi, 1999).
The two types of passive clauses show some behavioral differences (Howard & Niyekawa-Howard, 1976; Kuno, 1973; Kuroda, 1965). While only the nominative argument can be the antecedent of subject-oriented reflexive zibun 'self' in the direct passive clause, the dative as well as the nominative argument can serve as the antecedent of zibun in the indirect passive clause.
The indirect passive, as opposed to the direct passive, allows two distinct arguments to serve as the antecedent of reflexive zibun. This shows that the thematic subject of the main verb is not demoted to an adjunct by indirect passivization. Given that reflexivization has subject orientation, the data suggest that the indirect passive clauses should have bi-clausal structures despite their mono-clausal case morphology.
2.3. Tough-Constructions
Tough-constructions, which are formed by embedding a verb under a so-called tough-adjective (e.g., -zurai 'hard,' -nikui 'difficult,' -yasui 'easy'), provide another case illustrating an apparent discrepancy between morphology and syntax. In Japanese, tough-predicates, just like passive and causative predicates, form complex predicates that display mono-clausal frames in case-marking terms.
In the tough-clauses comprising a transitive verb, the subject may be marked with nominative ga, dative ni, or nitotte. (When the subject is not marked with nominative case, the object must appear in the nominative case, because of the nominative-case constraint.) Syntactically, the initial experiencer argument counts as the subject, regardless of its case marking, as the subject-oriented zibun can take this argument as its antecedent, as (28) shows.
The two types of tough-sentences convey different meanings. When the tough-clause takes a non-stative case-marking pattern, as in (27a), a tendency or a dispositional meaning is expressed. When the clause takes a stative case-marking pattern, as in (27b), it expresses the sense of the subject's control (Inoue, 1978).
2.4. Resultative Constructions
Japanese has periphrastic verb constructions, where the verbs do not form morphologically tight units. Periphrastic resultative constructions are formed by making use of the auxiliary verb aru 'be,' in combination with the main verb taking the gerundive (-te) form. The resultative constructions have bi-clausal structures syntactically, but display mono-clausal behavior in case-marking terms.
Japanese has two types of resultative constructions—one is a transitivity-maintaining type, and the other, an intransitivizing type (Masuoka, 1987). In the transitivity-maintaining type, a clause is simply embedded under the verb aru, as in (29a), and in the intransitivity type, the case-marking pattern changes, as in (29b).
In the intransitivizing type of the resultative construction in (29b), the main predicate is transitive, but the construction assumes a passive-like function, promoting a theme (i.e., an object) to the subject while defocusing an agent. In this resultative construction, the existence of an agent is clearly implied, because it signifies that an action has been taken for some specific purpose (Matsumoto, 1990; Teramura, 1984). Nonetheless, the resultative construction in (29b), unlike the direct passive construction, never allows the overt realization of an agent syntactically.
Another difference that distinguishes the resultative constructions from direct passive clauses lies in the fact that the subject of the periphrastic resultative construction need not be an argument of the verb embedded directly under aru.
In (30a), the theme argument marked in the nominative case counts as the object of the verb yomu 'read,' which appears in the complement clause selected by yuu 'say.' (30a) looks like a direct passive clause that promotes an object to the subject of the clause. Nevertheless, it is not possible to construe (30a) as invoking passivization, because direct passivization applying to the verb yuu 'say' cannot promote the object of yomu to the subject, as seen in (30b).
3. Grammatically Derived Argument Alternations
Japanese has a number of grammatical processes that change the transitivity of clauses without effecting any morphological changes on the predicates. These are the syntactic operations that invoke changes the number of arguments available in the clause, as well as their syntactic status. Since the meanings of the constructions do not change regardless of whether the operations apply, they are not semantically motivated. In Japanese, there are both grammatical operations increasing the number of arguments and grammatical operations reducing the number of arguments.
One argument-increasing operation is called subjectivization in the literature on Japanese (Kuno, 1973). Many instances of subjectivization can be regarded as involving argument ascension (or possessor raising), which have been observed in many typological studies and analyzed in various theoretical frameworks (including generative grammar). Japanese implements another type of grammatical operation, which is often referred to as noun incorporation. This grammatical process reduces the number of arguments available in the clause, and is also widely attested across languages. In Japanese, noun incorporation takes place in the light verb constructions with verbal nouns combined with suru 'do' and complex negative predicates formed on nai 'non-existent,' suggesting that noun incorporation is most typically instantiated when the predicate is semantically light.
3.1. Subjectivization and Possessor Raising
While predicates in most cases determine the number of arguments available for the clauses, there are cases where the clauses comprise more arguments than are required by the predicates. In Japanese, non-thematic arguments can be added to the clause by way of so-called subjectivization (Kuno, 1973). The added arguments receive structural case marking, most typically, nominative case, but count as non-thematic, since they are not selected by the predicates.
Specifically, in Japanese, a multiple nominative construction can be created by subjectivization, where two or more nominative-marked arguments occur in a single clause. In the two sentences in (31), non-thematic arguments appear in the initial position, marked in the nominative case.
The type of construction found in (31) is often referred to as the 'major subject' construction, since the initial nominative phrase is not a thematic argument (i.e., the major subject), which is generally assumed to be licensed a part-whole relation (or an "aboutness" relation) to the argument on its right.
The two sentences in (31) are often claimed to derive from (32a) and (32b), via the rule of subjectivization, which changes a genitive or a locative phrase into a nominative phrase.
When subjectivization applies to the genitive argument in (32a), the multiple nominative-subject sentence in (31a) is derived. If this rule applies to the initial locative argument in (32b), (31b) is derived. In (31a), the possessor argument is extracted from the thematic subject on its right and is rendered into a verbal argument. Thus, the grammatical process of subjectivization deriving (31a) from (32a) may be construed as an instance of 'possessor raising', which is commonly found across languages.
Notably, subjectivization can be applied iteratively in a single clause, as long as the added nominative argument is licensed with an "aboutness" relation to the argument on its right, as seen in (33a).
Subjectivization has the effect of creating an extra (major) subject argument, because the thematic subject retains its subject status even when an extra possessor or locative argument is marked with nominative case by this rule (Kuno, 1973, 1976). Arguably, the iteration of the operation is possible here, because the added argument serves as an adjunct in syntactic terms.
Two remarks are in order. First, non-thematic arguments added by means of subjectiziation are often marked with nominative case, the original case marker being removed, as seen in (31). Nevertheless, there are cases where the original semantic case marker on nominals is retained even after subjectivization.
In (34b), derived from (34a), the extra argument carries the ablative kara alongside the nominative ga, illustrating one peculiar property of the multiple nominative construction.
Second, the grammatical operation of rendering a genitive argument into a clausal argument is not limited to the multiple nominative construction. This grammatical operation can sometimes create non-subject arguments, marked in the dative case, as seen in (35).
In (35b), the argument corresponding to the genitive argument in (35a) is marked with dative case. Since the cognitive meaning expressed by the two variants is the same, and since the dative argument is not selected by the predicate tame ni naru 'be beneficial,' it must be the case that the dative argument is created by argument ascension (or possessor raising). Although this fact has not been much discussed in the literature, it is in fact quite easy to find many more cases of argument ascension like (35b), suggesting that Japanese should be a language that makes fairly extensive use of argument-ascension operations (Kishimoto, 2013, 2014).
3.2. The Light Verb Construction
The light verb construction is formed by combining the light verb suru 'do' with a noun with an argument structure—the so-called verbal noun (VN) (e.g., benkyoo 'study,' hyooka 'evaluation,' zyogen 'advice'). The Japanese light verb construction can have two variants; one variant in which the verb suru takes a VN as its complement marked with accusative case, and the other where the VN is directly combined with suru, as illustrated in (36).
In (36), the main predicative content of the construction comes from the VN that carries its own argument structure, and the verb suru 'do' appears to have little semantic content. Thus, the construction in (36a), comprised of a verbal noun and suru, is often considered as the Japanese counterpart of a light verb construction (like John took a look at the book).
In the variant of the light verb construction in (36b), the VN-suru form is identified as forming a compound word, while the VN o suru form in (36a) is a periphrastic phrase comprising two separate elements. This fact suggests that the compound form of the light verb construction be derived as a consequence of noun incorporation. As often discussed in the typological literature (e.g., Baker, 1988), in constructions where incorporation is applicable, two variants are usually found—one that represents a pre-incorporation structure, and the other that is derived by applying incorporation. This generalization holds true of Japanese, since two variants are available in the light verb construction, as in (36a) and (36b).
Note further that the two types of light verb forms give rise to a difference in acceptability when a VN expands to a phrase.
As shown by the ungrammaticality of (37b), the noun phrase suugaku no benkyoo [math GEN study] 'a study of mathematics' cannot be directly combined with the light verb suru. But no problem arises when the same phrase appears in the accusative case, as in (37a). While this fact suggests the word status of a compound VN-suru form, the fact of kata-nominalization in (38) points to the opposite conclusion (Kageyama, 1993; Kishimoto, 2006).
When the VN-o suru form is nominalized with the suffixation of the -kaka affix, the accusative marker is replaced by the genitive marker, as in (38a). On the other hand, the nominalized VN-suru form is not acceptable, as shown in (38b). The unavailability of the nominalized compound V-suru form in (38b) suggests that the VN and suru be first generated as syntactically independent elements. If this is the case, it follows that the VN-suru form in (36b) is created syntactically by incorporating the VN to suru.
In the light verb construction with a verbal noun of the transitive type, it is often the case that either the verbal noun or its argument is marked with accusative, as (39a) and (39b) exemplify.
The light verb suru 'do' allows either ensoo 'play' or beetooben 'the Beethoven' to be marked with accusative case, as in (39a) and (39b), but not both, as in (39c). The variant in (39c) is excluded in violation of the 'double-o constraint,' requiring that a single clause cannot have more than one o-marked argument.
3.3. The Complex Adjective Construction
The complex adjective construction with the negative adjective nai 'non-existent, null' also invokes noun incorporation that reduces the number of arguments selected by the predicate. The complex negative adjective construction is derived by combining the base adjective nai with a certain class of nouns (e.g., abunage 'danger,' nukari 'fault,' atogusare 'later concern') in two different ways, as seen by the fact that the noun part of the complex adjective can appear with or without nominative case marking.
The adjectival base nai 'non-existent, null' has the same morphological form as the negative marker nai 'not.' The syntactic status of these two expressions differs, however, in that no positive counterpart can be derived by replacing the adjective nai with aru, unlike the negative marker nai. Accordingly, the complex negative predicate yurugi (ga) nai [shaking (NOM) null] 'unshakable' does not have an affirmative form, as shown by the unavailability of the expression *yurugi (ga) aru [shaking (NOM) have] 'shaky (?).'
The two variants of the complex adjective have the same core meaning, but differ as to whether the noun part can expand to a phrase. When the noun is marked with nominative case, it is possible to accommodate a modifying expression, but when the noun appears without case marking, noun modification is not allowed.
The data show that when the component noun is case-marked, the complex adjective has a structure where the noun stands as an independent phrase located outside the adjective nai. On the other hand, when the noun appears without nominative case marking, the entire expression behaves as a compound whose internal structure is invisible to the syntax. This fact suggests that the variant without case marking on a noun is derived via incorporating the noun into the adjective base nai, and thus, the complex adjective formation can be construed as involving noun incorporation.
Note further that, when used in isolation, the adjective nai behaves as a predicate that takes either a dative-nominative or a nominative-nominative case-marking pattern. Thus, the subjects of complex negative adjectives may bear either dative or nominative case marking, when the component noun of the nai-adjective bears nominative case marking, as (42a) illustrates.
Nevertheless, nominative case marking is the only possibility of subject marking when the adjective base nai is combined with the component noun without nominative case marking, as shown in (42b).
When the component noun is not case-marked, as in (42b), the dative marking on the subject is excluded. This follows from the nominative-case constraint requiring that there be at least one nominative argument in a finite clause. If the noun is incorporated to nai, it loses the status of an independent argument. In this case, the complex adjective counts as intransitive, so that the subject can only be marked with nominative case. (Note that the grammatical process of noun incorporation induces a transitivity-reducing effect and differs from the phenomenon referred to as 'case marker drop' observed in colloquial speech, where no such effect is observed.)
4. Motivations for Argument Alternations
In Japanese, transitive non-stative predicates have the case-marking frame of nominative-accusative, but transitive stative predicates often have other case alignments, such as nominative-nominative and dative-nominative. Besides, Japanese have other patterns of argument realizations, which, in many cases, involve argument alternations. In Japanese, there are at least three types of argument alternation. One type of alternation is trigged purely on the basis of meanings expressed in clauses. The second type of alternation is triggered by adding suffixes and auxiliary elements, deriving complex clauses from simple ones. The third type of alternation only induces changes on the syntactic status of arguments (without changing the clause type).
In the type of argument realization triggered purely on semantic grounds, it is often the case that arguments receive either a syntactic or semantic case marker. This type of argument alternation can take place with no essential semantic difference in meaning (as in the plural agent alternation and the source-agent alternations). There are also cases where case-marking alternations are conditioned by the meanings of their predicates, although the predicate forms are not altered (as in locative alternation).
When alternations are invoked with the addition of verbal suffixes, complex predicates (counting as single morphological units) are derived (e.g., passive, causative, and tough-constructions). In complex predicate constructions, argument marking follows the mono-clausal case array, even when they have multi-clausal clause syntactic structures. Their case-marking patterns are thus often different from those regulated by the base predicates. There are cases where argument realization patterns are altered by adding an auxiliary verb to derive a complex clause (e.g., peripheral resultative constructions), as well as cases where arguments receive different case marking by virtue of embedding a clause under another predicate (e.g., ECM and small-clause constructions).
Variable case marking options are also made available by purely syntactically grammatical operations. Japanese has the grammatical process of subjectivization (many instances of which can be conceived of as involving possessor raising), creating extra (non-thematic) major subjects, as well as the grammatical operation of noun incorporation that reduces the number of arguments, as found in the light verb construction with suru 'do' and the complex adjective construction with the negative adjective nai 'non-existent.' Subjectivization and noun incorporation alter the argument realization patterns by increasing or decreasing the number of arguments available in the clauses with no suffixation (and also without changing the meanings of the predicates).
5. Critical Analysis of Scholarship
Japanese is one of the most extensively studied languages, and a very large body of work on Japanese grammar is available, many of which fall within the rubric of argument realization research. In Japanese linguistics, there is a long-standing domestic tradition called Kokugogaku (literally, national language study). In the 1970s, a different trend of grammatical research on Japanese grammar emerged, influenced by Western linguistic tradition—the mainstream research conducted along this line is couched by the framework of generative grammar and hence is often referred to as "Japanese generative grammar."
In both traditional Kokugogaku and Japanese generative grammar, there have been controversies over the status of subjects. In the domestic tradition of Kokugogaku, some studies focus on the grammatical relations of arguments with nominative case marking, and their analyses are largely based on morphological criteria. Since nominative case is a typical marker of subjects, grammatical studies in Kokugogaku tradition often take arguments to be realized subjects when marked with nominative case, explicitly or implicitly (e.g., Hashimoto, 1969; Suzuki, 1975, 1992; Onoe, 1997–1998; Niwa, 2004). There are also grammatical studies that do not assign special status to subjects (e.g., Watanabe, 1971) or deny the relevance of the notion of subject to Japanese grammar (e.g., Mikami, 1953; Kitahara, 1981). With the advent of Japanese generative grammar from the late 1960s to the 1970s, distributional criteria are often used to identify the grammatical relations of arguments, leading to the discovery that objects, as well as subjects, can be marked with nominative case (e.g., Kuno, 1973; Kuroda, 1978; Takezawa, 1987).
The treatment of case marking has undergone changes along the development of modern linguistic theories. This trend has been reflected in studies on argument realizations in Japanese, which have been conducted on diverse linguistic phenomena. From the 1970s to the 1980s, the passive and causative constructions, as well as the tough-constructions, whose predicates form morphologically tight units, were much debated within the framework of Japanese generative grammar (e.g., Kuno, 1973; Inoue, 1976; Kuroda, 1987; Shibatani, 1976, 1978; Sugioka, 1986; Terada, 1990; Kitagawa, 1994). In addition, there are topics, such as passivization (e.g., Washio, 1989–1990; Hoshi, 1994; Ishizuka, 2012), the ECM constructions (e.g., Kuno, 1976; Tanaka, 2002), the potential constructions (Takano, 2003; Bobaljik & Wurmbrand, 2007) and subjectivization (or possessor raising) (e.g., Kuno, 1973; Kishimoto, 2013), that have inspired Japanese linguists' continuing interests for decades. Furthermore, in recent years, the topics of argument realizations are expanded over a quite wide range of constructions, including the small-clause constructions (e.g., Kikuchi & Takahashi, 1991; Takezawa, 1998), compound verbs (e.g., Kageyama, 1993; Yumoto, 2005), the light verb constructions (e.g., Grimshaw & Mester, 1988; Saito & Hoshi, 2000), and adjectival predicates instantiating noun incorporation (e.g., Kageyama, 1993; Kishimoto & Booij, 2014). Needless to say, how case marking is morphologically realized on arguments is one of the major concerns in all of the grammatical studies on argument realizations in Japanese.
Further Reading
Hinds, J., & Howard, I. (Eds.). (1978). Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2016). Valency and case alternations in Japanese. In T. Kageyama & W. Jacobsen (Eds.), Transitivity and valency alternation: Studies on Japanese and beyond, 125–154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H., Kageyama, T., & Sasaki, K. (2015). Valency classes in Japanese. In B. Comrie & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Valency classes: A comparative handbook, Vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia (pp. 765–805). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Martin, S. E. (1975). A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Find this resource:
Masukoka, T. (2000). Nihongo bunpō no shosō [Aspects of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Miyagawa, S., & Saito, M. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Shibatani, M. (Ed.). (1976). Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Shibatani, M. (1990). Languages of Japan. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Tsujimura, N. (Ed.). (1999). The handbook of Japanese linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Find this resource:
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Bhaskararao, P., & Subbarao, K. V. (Eds.). (2004). Non-nominative subjects (2 vols.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:
Bobaljik, J., & Wurmbrand, S. (2007). Complex predicates, aspect, and anti-reconstruction. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16, 27–42.Find this resource:
Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 205–232.Find this resource:
Hashimoto, S. (1969). Joshi-jodōshi no kenkyū [Studies on particles and auxiliary verbs]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Find this resource:
Harada, S. I. (1973). Counter-equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 7, 113–147. University of Tokyo.Find this resource:
Harada, S. I. (1976). Honorifics. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 499–561). New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Hasegawa, N. (2006). Honorifics. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax 2 (pp. 493–543). Oxford: Blackwell.Find this resource:
Hoshi, H. (1994). Theta-role assignment, passivization, and excorporation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 3, 147–148.Find this resource:
Hoshi, H. (1999). Passives. In N. Tsujimura (Ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 191–235). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Find this resource:
Howard, I., & Niyekawa-Howard, A. (1976). Passivization. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 201–237). New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Inoue, K. (1976). Henkei bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.Find this resource:
Inoue, K. (1978). 'Tough sentences' in Japanese. In J. Hinds & I. Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics (pp. 122–154). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Find this resource:
Inoue, K. (1998). Sentences without nominative subjects in Japanese. Center of excellence research report (2A): Researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language, 1–34. Kanda University of International Studies.Find this resource:
Ishizuka, T. (2012). The passive in Japanese: A cartographic minimalist approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Kageyama, T. (1981). The role of thematic relations in the spray paint hypallage. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 7, 35–64.Find this resource:
Kageyama, T. (1993). Bunpō to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Find this resource:
Kikuchi, A., & Takahashi, D. (1991). Agreement and small clauses. In H. Nakajima & S. Tonoike (Eds.), Topics in small clauses (pp. 75–105). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Kitahara, Y. (1981). Nihongo no bunpō [Japanese grammar]. Tyoko: Chuō Kōron-sha.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2001a). Locative alternation in Japanese: A case study in the interaction between syntax and lexical semantics. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 17, 59–81.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2001b). The role of lexical meanings in argument encoding: Double object verbs in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu, 120, 35–65.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2005). Tōgokōzō to bunpōkankei [Syntactic structures and grammatical relations]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2006). Japanese syntactic nominalization and VP-internal syntax. Lingua, 116, 771–810.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2010). Subjects and constituent structure in Japanese. Linguistics, 48, 629–670.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2012). Subject honorification and the position of subjects in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21, 1–41.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2013). Covert possessor raising in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31, 161–205.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H. (2014). Dative/genitive subjects in Japanese: A comparative perspective. In M. Saito (Ed.), Japanese syntax in comparative perspective (pp. 228–274). New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Kishimoto, H., & Booij, G. (2014). Complex negative adjectives in Japanese: The relation between syntactic and morphological constructions. Word Structure, 7, 55–87.Find this resource:
Kitagawa, Y. (1994). Subjects in Japanese and English. New York: Garland.Find this resource:
Kitahara, Y. (1981). Nihongo no bunpō [Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Chuō Kōron.Find this resource:
Koizumi, M. (2008). Nominative object. In S. Miyagawa & M. Saito (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 141–164). New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject raising. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar (pp. 17–49). New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language (PhD diss.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978). Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter Equi in Japanese (A preliminary survey). In J. Hinds & I. Howard (Eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics (pp. 30–51). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Find this resource:
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1979). On Japanese passives. In G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi, & M. Muraki (Eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue (pp. 305–347). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Find this resource:
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1987). Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In T. Imai & M. Saito (Eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics (pp. 229–271). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.Find this resource:
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Masuoka, T. (1987). Meidai no bunpō: Nihongo bunpō josetsu [The grammar of proposition: Prolegomena to Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Matsumoto, Y. (1990). Constraints on the 'intransitivizing' resultative -te aru construction in Japanese. In H. Hoji (Ed.), Japanese and Korean linguistics (pp. 269–283). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:
Matsumoto, Y. (1996). Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion 'word'. Stanford, CA: CSLI and Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Mikami, A. (1953). Gendai gohō josetsu [Prolegomena to modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Tōe Shoin.Find this resource:
Nitta, Yoshio. (1997). Nihongo bunpō kenkyū josetsu [Prolegomena to the study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Niwa, T. (2004). Shugo to daimokugo [Subject and topic]. In O. Keisuke (Ed.), Asakura nihongo kooza 6: Bunpō II [Asakura Japanese lectures: Grammar II] (pp. 255–278). Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.Find this resource:
Okutsu, K. (1981). Idō-henka-dōshibun [Sentences with motion-change verbs]. Kokugogaku, 127, 21–32.Find this resource:
Onoe, K. (1997–1998). Bunpō o kangaeru: Shugo 1–4 [Thinking about grammar: Subjects 1–4]. Nihongogaku, 16(11), 91–97; 16(12), 88–94; 17(1), 87–94; 17(4), 96–103.Find this resource:
Saito, M., & Hoshi, H. (2000). Japanese light verb constructions and the minimalist program. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 261–295). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:
Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press.Find this resource:
Shibatani, M. (1978). Nihongo no bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.Find this resource:
Shibatani, M. (2001). Non-canonical constructions in Japanese. In A. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 307–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:
Sugioka, Y. (1986). Interaction of derivational morphology and syntax in Japanese and English. New York: Garland.Find this resource:
Suzuki, S. (1975). Shugoron no mondaiten [Problems on subjects]. Gengo, 4(3), 20–27.Find this resource:
Suzuki, S. (1992). Shugoron o megut-te [Issues surrounding subjects]. In Gengogaku Kenkyūkai (Ed.), Kotoba no kagaku 5 [Speech sciences 5] (pp. 71–108). Tokyo: Mugi Shobo.Find this resource:
Tada, H. (1992). Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.Find this resource:
Takano, Y. (2003). Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 779–834.Find this resource:
Takezawa, K. (1987). A configurational approach to case marking in Japanese (PhD diss.), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Find this resource:
Takezawa, K. (1998). Part I: Kaku no yakuwari to kōzō [The role of case and structure]. In K. Takezawa & J. Whitman, Kaku to gojun to tōgo-kōzō [Case, word order and syntactic structures] (pp. 1–102). Tokyo: Kenkyūsha.Find this resource:
Takubo, Y. (2010). Nihongo no kōzō [The structure of Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Tanaka, H. (2002). Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 637–652.Find this resource:
Terada, M. (1990). Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese (PhD diss.), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Find this resource:
Teramura, H. (1984). Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Syntax and meaning of Japanese II]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Find this resource:
Washio, R. (1989–1990). The Japanese passive. The Linguistic Review, 6, 227–263.Find this resource:
Verma, M. K., & Mohanan, K. P. (Eds.). (1990). Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Find this resource:
Watanabe, M. (1971). Kokugo kōbun ron. Tokyo: Haniwa Shobō [On Japanese grammatical constructions].Find this resource:
Yumoto, Y. (2005). Fukugō-dōshi hasei-dōshi no imi to tōgo [The meaning and the syntax of compound and derivational verbs]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Find this resource:


text:
Indian Gaming: Background
Casinos run by Native Americans occupy a special place in the overall casino and gambling industry; because Indian reservations are considered independent nations, gambling is mostly unrestricted. Gaming is also a major source of desperately needed revenue for tribes struggling economically.
The industry's campaign contributions increased nearly tenfold during the past decade, from $4.3 million during the 2000 campaign cycle to more than $14 million during the 2014 cycle. Individuals -- and a handful of PACs -- associated with Indian gaming tend to support Democratic candidates at the federal level; Democrats consistently receive more than two-thirds of the contributions that these interests give to candidates and parties, though that trend is on the decline in most recent cycles. While Democrats received 66 percent of contributions in 2012, they received 57 percent in 2014.
The National Indian Gaming Commission -- the federal agency that oversees Indian gaming -- was lobbied by 22 tribes or tribal confederations in 2015. The industry spent nearly $26 million on federal lobbying efforts that year, with the Gila River Indian Community -- located south of Phoenix, Ariz. -- coming in as the top spender at more than $2.9 million.
In 2005 and 2006 the industry became embroiled in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Abramoff, a lobbyist whose clients included a number of Indians tribes, was eventually convicted of conspiracy and fraud -- including defrauding tribes of millions of dollars in bogus fees. He was eventually sentenced to prison along with other lobbyists and congressional aides in one of the biggest lobbying scandals in history. In 2008, the semi-independent Office of Congressional Ethics was created in light of Abramoff's sentencing.
Abramoff moved to a halfway house in 2010 and in 2011 he released a memoir of his lobbying adventures called Capitol Punishment.
Lobbying expenditures by these interests shot up in 2012, partially due to a fight between the Gila River Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation over a bill called Keep the Promise. The controversial measure would have prevented the O'Odham tribe from building a casino on land it owned in Phoenix, Ariz. The Gila Community supported the bill, wanting to limit its competition in Arizona.
That battle reflects the growing tension surrounding casino development in the U.S. Thought to be "recession proof" -- even though the two largest casinos in the Western hemisphere found themselves in a great deal of debt after the recession -- casinos are on the rise nationally, bringing with them thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for state coffers. In 2013, American Gaming reported that national commercial casinos were seeing their "second-largest national gross gaming revenues ever." Opponents who consider gambling morally corrupting or who have witnessed some of the uglier sides of casino development put up a fierce fight to keep them from spreading, and especially to keep them from metropolitan areas.
-- Alex Glorioso
Updated March 2016
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Tree sculptures, made from junk and trash, decorate a lawn on a busy street in Manila.
The huge works of art were created by university students in honor of Earth Day. They used everything from plastic bottles, used Starbucks cups, old bicycles and discarded CDs to make the sculptures. The students designed the trees to send a message about how much waste people generate.
With the sources of their artwork in mind, here's some food for thought:
- An estimated eight out of 10 plastic water bottles end up in landfills.
- Starbucks offers 10 cents off any drink if you bring in your own mug.
- Want to get rid of your bike? Consider donating it!
- Done with an old CD or DVD? See above.
NewsChannel contributed to this article.


text:
October 16, 2006
On a chilly Saturday morning, eight Lafayette-area Wabash alumni and two family members arrived at the Habitat for Humanity offices for a morning of hard work. They got just that.
While Dave Schrader '82 went to pick up the two-man auger, five alumni headed over to a completed site to reinforce a retaining wall with mulch. John Blair '54 took charge of ensuring an even distribution as Andy Dziubinskyj '71, Andrew McGlothlen '05, Joe Motuliak '05 and Ralph Rohrer '74 filled wheelbarrows with mulch.
See photo album from the Lafayette mens' work by clicking here.
Lou Fenoglio '81, his daughter Jenna Fenoglio and Dave Knott '69 headed over to prepare the primary site for construction of a privacy fence with the aid of Schrader. The team split between painting the fencing and preparing the fence line. When both teams reunited at the primary site, they finished the placement of the 11 posts in spite of some rather impressive rocks that inhibited the auger and inspired an impromptu ode to glacial till not unlike a certain Joyce Kilmer poem.
The following day, the Lafayette alumni hosted a Monon Blood Drive, inviting area DePauw alumni to join them for a little competition. Jan Koehler, mother of Clay Koehler '08, arranged a space in Colombian Park, and seven Wabash alumni and parents showed up to donate as well as three DePauw alumni.
DePauw alumna Beverly Bryan was impressed by the organization and vowed to develop an alumni association for DePauw in Lafayette in order to increase competition next year for a project everyone hopes will continue to grow.
By the end of the weekend, a total of ten Wabash alumni, three parents and two family members came together for the benefit of the Lafayette community.


text:
Press Release Submission with seo content
Presupuesto ₹1500-12500 INR
Writing content on 1 politician and submit news to high pr press release sites. I want best in content writing and press release knowladge
10 freelancers están ofertando el promedio de ₹7550 para este trabajo
GOOD DAY! We fully understand that you're in need of a dependable freelancer who can write professional, SEO-friendly, and 100% unique press releases. Wordchain is a reliable team of experienced writers and editors Más
Hello, We are a leading and experienced Web Solutions Company that offers the best Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and SMO services with the best price. Relevant Skills and Experience 1. Keyword Analysis 2. Competito Más
I am pretty much skill in content writing .I like to complete the project within the mentioned time very aesthetically . Relevant Skills and Experience Though I am an engineer .I have some courses on SEO and content Más


text:
Dear Amy: I am a young professional, and I am having a difficult time balancing my long-term romantic relationship and the close relationship I have with my family.
Both relationships demand a lot of time, and planning a weekend gives me a headache because everyone feels entitled to my time!
I try to arrange my weekends so no one feels excluded, but I ultimately feel guilty no matter what I do. At least one of these relationships will certainly suffer (if it hasn't already). How should I handle this without really hurting someone?
— Weekend Woes
Dear Woes: This issue will revisit you throughout your life, especially if you choose to have children, creating more relationships that you must manage. The primary relationship is the one you have with yourself, and until you value your lifelong friendship with yours truly, you will never be able to balance the ancillary relationships in your life.
So put yourself first. You will have to train yourself to value your own time, and then you'll have to retrain everyone in your life to respect your choices.
You will need to learn to say a firm, friendly and confident "no thank you" to time demands that you can't (or don't want to) fulfill. If you are respectful and consistent, you won't be hurting anyone; if you continue to turn yourself inside out to please and accommodate everyone else in your life, you will hurt yourself.
Dear Amy: I have been in a serious relationship with my girlfriend for over a year now. Our relationship has been very strong because we seem so good for each other.
My girlfriend revealed that several months ago, she had a conversation with an ex. It was not sexual, but he was a big part of her life for a long time, and she felt the need to have a conversation with him regarding her feelings.
I don't like that she waited several months to reveal this. I had made it clear that I wish to know about any dealings with him, and she lied to me for months through omission.
Since the time she came clean, I have lost some trust. I looked through her phone several times to see if they have been continuing their conversations. She occasionally looks through my phone too, and I don't have a problem with that because I have nothing to hide.
I saw there was a text conversation between them recently. It was platonic but she hadn't mentioned it to me. I now realize she feels my looking through her phone is a violation of privacy (even though she looks at mine). I respect this and won't do it again.
There is now an underlying resentment on both sides. I would hate to see what is an otherwise wonderful relationship be ruined because of this. How can I help resolve this in a healthy way?
— Insecure
Dear Insecure: Honesty, disclosure and transparency are important, but you need to decide: Is any contact with this ex a deal breaker, even if you know your girlfriend is not reviving a relationship with him? If so, you b etter make it crystal clear to her.
And if the relationship is over, then how many conversations must they have before they run out of things to say to each other? She needs to disclose her intentions.
You must then do a very challenging thing: Choose to trust. Tell your girlfriend, "It's obvious that your contact with him hurts me. I'd like you to keep that in mind." After that, stay out of each other's phones. With no evidence of cheating, this surveillance seems more like a trigger than a cure.
Dear Amy: Your answer to "Divorced Dad" was off base. Dad did not give up his obligations to his children just because he divorced their mom. When "grandma" dies, he should be available to emotionally support his kids. Everyone is "uncomfortable" at a funeral, so it is not a reason to skip the event.
— Son of a Divorced Dad
Dear Son: I appreciate your perspective — and correction. Thank you.


text:
CONMEBOL will use two-leg format for Copa Libertadores final
CONMEBOL on Tuesday reversed its decision to play the Copa Libertadores final as one single match in a neutral stadium and announced it will continue with the existing format of home and away legs in the stadiums of each finalist.
CONMEBOL had on Monday officially announced planned expansion for the Copa Libertadores tournament, with two more qualifying spots awarded to Brazil and one more apiece to Argentina, Colombia and Chile to bring the South American club competition to 44 teams.
South American...


text:
BAGHDAD (AP) — Prisoners seized weapons and clashed with security guards in an hourslong standoff that killed 12 people, including 10 guards, and allowed dozens of al-Qaida-linked inmates to escape before ending Friday in Saddam Hussein's hometown, Iraqi officials said.
The security breach drew sharp criticism of Iraqi security forces, which have been unable to stabilize the country almost a year after U.S. troops withdrew. Officials said that reinforcements had to be sent from Baghdad to help put down the riot and prisoners burned all the prison records, complicating efforts to track down those still on the run.
The riot erupted on Thursday night when several inmates at the Tasfirat prison in Tikrit, 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Baghdad, broke into a storage room, grabbed weapons being kept there and overpowered the guards, according to a spokesman for Salahuddin province where the city is located. Read More


text:
The majestic Lake Singkarak (Danau Singkarak) is an enormous crater lake set within a dramatic volcanic landscape. Spread over two districts; Solok and Tanah Datar, the lake is a massive 1000 hectares. It is the widest lake in Sumatra and the second biggest lake on the island, after Lake Toba. A world of silent calm, breathtaking vistas and spectacular views awaits here. Here you can embrace the remote natural beauty that Indonesia is so famous for.
Locally Lake Singkarak is famous for its Bilih fish which is a species of fish that only lives in this lake. This fish is especially unique as it can't survive anywhere but Lake Singkarak, not even in an aquarium.


text:
Camping.se uses cookies for statistics, marketing purposes and to give you the best experience when using our website. Here you can read more about how we handle cookies
Klinta Camping is a 4-star campsite with cottages in a scenic setting in Köpingsvik on sunny Öland. Klinta Camping is an ideal base for excursions to all of the islands tourist attractions, which offer everything you need for a great holiday. Klinta Camping is situated on the west coast of Öland by one of the islands best beaches for swimming. Guaranteed shallow waters and a wonderful, sandy beach. Klinta Camping has approx 350 camping pitches. Many of these have electricity and water and wastewater hook-ups. There are two modern service buildings on-site. We also offer 5 different types of cottages.All pitches and cottages are bookable.Quizz, Children activities, Musicenentertainment etc in July. Boules, tennis, basketball, football, volleyball etc. Sauna and bicycle hire. Close to minigolf and adventure golf.Family pets are welcome at Klinta Camping.Welcome to Klinta Camping!Best RegardsCicci & Henrik with staff
Holiday together with other families or just the two of you?
With us you have the option of choosing just the right size cottages to suit your needs: large, medium or small. Our largest cottage offers plenty of space for up to 12 people and the smaller are suitable for 4 people. The majority of our cottages have been renovated over the last few years. All cottages are located within walking distance of the lovely beach and have a furnished private patio. Pets are welcome in most of our cottages.
Adapted for disabled people
Dogs welcome
Baby changing room
Fully licensed restaurant
Beach and bathing
Convenience store
Supervised children's activities
Credit cards accepted
Wi-Fi/Wireless Internet
Open full service
Number of pitches 350
Number of cottages 24
Seasonal pitches 70
Klinta Camping has lots for caravans, motorhomes and tents, with or without electricity. The camping area has been divided into six smaller sections, which creates a pleasant seclusion despite close proximity to everything. The electrical cabinets are EU-compatible so you need an EU-adapter in order to use the electrical cabinet. You can buy adapters in the reception area.
There are several different types of cottages here. Everything from more basic overnight cottages without shower and WC to fully equipped self-catering cottages. All cottages have a terrace of their own with outdoor furniture, and by every cottage there is space for a car. The cottages are within walking distance of the shore, playground, reception area and more. During peak season the cottages are rented only by the week.
Ball games
Children's play room
Bicycle hire
Pinball/video games
Canoe hire
Assembly hall
Beach for dogs
Shower for dogs
Washing machine
Drying facilities
Waste disposal site for fixed tanks
Microwave oven
Klinta Camping
Klinta Bodars väg 20, 387 52 Köpingsvik
Telephone: 0485-721 56
Site no.: H31
Area: Öland
Campsite's website
Send email
© Camping.se. Made in Sweden.


text:
About Queen Elizabeth National Park
Approximately 1,978 sq km, spanning the districts of Kasese, Kamwenge, Bushenyi and Rukungiri, the Queen Elizabeth National Park is located in western Uganda.
The park stretches from Lake George in the northeast to Lake Edward in the southwest. It also includes the Kazinga Channel that connects the two lakes.
Named after Queen Elizabeth II, the park was established in 1954. Known for its wildlife, the animal population recovered after many animals were killed in the Uganda-Tanzania War. Today a thriving population of hippopotamuses, elephants, leopards, lions and chimpanzees call the park home.
The land around Ishasha in Rukungiri District is known for its tree-climbing lions. These lions are also proud owners of black manes; a feature unique to the lions in this area.
The park has its fair share of volcanic features, comprising volcanic cones and deep craters, many with crater lakes like Lake Katwe.
The Maramagambo Forest is inside Queen Elizabeth National Park. Kigezi Game Reserve runs along the park's border, as well as Kyambura Game Reserve and Kibale National Park in Uganda, and the Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The park borders Kigezi and Kyambura Game Reserves, Kibale National Park, and the Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Queen Elizabeth National Park Budget Travel Highlights:• Game viewing • Bird watching • Lake Katwe crater lake • Maramagambo Forest
Queen Elizabeth National Park Budget TravelQueen Elizabeth National Park, also known as QENP, is situated in Uganda.
Queen Elizabeth National Park budget travel is one of the most popular tour options in Uganda, and is a highly recommended stopover.
Queen Elizabeth National Park Budget Safaris
Queen Elizabeth National Park budget safaris have a number of lodgings available, including camping - making it great for budget travel.Game to be seen in the park includes hippopotamuses, elephants, leopards, lions and chimpanzees, as well as some 500 species of bird.
Other attractions in the park include a range of crater lakes, including Lake Katwe, as well as as the beautiful Maramagambo Forest.
Safety Tips
• Keep valuables out of sight and secure in a moneybag under your shirt
• Avoid travel to areas near borders of Sudan, DRC or other areas
• Avoid traveling to northern Uganda, where the Lord's Resistance Army is in occupation
WildlifeThere are a variety of designated tracks for safari vehicles throughout the grassland plains which support a variety of animals. Predators which can be seen roaming the plains include lions, leopards, side stripped jackal and spotted hyena… among others, of course.
A variety of Antelope species are present within the park. These include the kob, bush buck, topi and water buck. If you venture out to mweya peninsular are you have a good chance of spotting buffaloes, elephants, warthogs and hippos. A selection of primate species also call the park home, some of these being, chimpanzees, red-tailed monkeys, the blue monkey, black and white colobus monkey and olive baboons. The Ishasha secton of the park is well-known for its tree climbing lions and is also known for being the place where the world's highest concentration of hippos are.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
The highlight of my trip had to be Gweru in Zimbabwe, it was my idea of paradise. So much to do there with the animals and the location of it was just beautiful!
— Anne B (27) from Ireland
The trip was great! A very relaxed ride in a mokoro, followed by camping in the Okavango Delta and watching the animals on the islands was awesome!
— Michael & Silke from Germany
I loved every millisecond of the entire trip... Guess what I did in Swakopmund? I skydived out of a plane - woohoo was that AWESOME :-)
— JoJo E (61) from Switzerland
Finally home and had a great time…. I loved the shark diving, Sossusvlei and Himba people. Saw Lions, a Leopard, Elephants, Giraffes, everything really! Thanks for…
— John E from Canada
I did not believe in god till i visited Chobe National Park.
— Juca from Uruguay
Do this on the Cape Town to Nairobi with Gorilla Trek.Tours with Gorilla Trekking in Uganda
Do this on the 14-day Kruger and Mozambique Safari.Tours with Kruger National Park Game Drive
Do this on the Best of South West Africa.Tours with Okavango Delta Mokoro Excursion
Do this on the Best of East Africa.Tours with Serengeti National Park Excursion
Do this on the Best of South West Africa.Tours with Victoria Falls Flight of Angels
Do this on the Best of South West Africa.Tours with White Water Rafting on the Zambezi River
Visit Etosha National Park on the Best of NamibiaTours through Etosha National Park
Visit Okavango Delta on the Best of South West AfricaTours through Okavango Delta
Visit Serengeti National Park on the Best of East AfricaTours through Serengeti National Park
Visit Victoria Falls on the Best of South West AfricaTours through Victoria Falls
Visit Zanzibar Island on the cape town to darTours through Zanzibar Island


text:
S Broadway St
W Co Rd 75 E0750 Rd
E Coffe e Cree k Rd
E0870 Rd
Fairway Dr
Allen Rd
Buffalo Ridge Rd
Plum Grove
Shelby Way
Mineral Well Cir
Country Vw
Kiawah Cir
Cedar Creek Ct
Shelby Cir
W U niversity Av e
W Carol Dr
Co Rd 74
Sandy's Cir
Stone Gate Dr
Silver Spur Ct
Melody Ct
E Oak Pl
Griffin Blvd
Wood Way
Veneterra Vw
Merlot Cir
Cedar Ridge Dr
Irvine Ct
Cedar Cir
Justin Rd
Dunes Cir
7th St
Cedar Ave
Ashe Spring Dr
Bord St
Shogun Dr
Ken's Cir
Larry Ln
Rosebrier Ct
Nelson Pl
Maria Cir
Oak Vw
Sooner Ct
Red Bank Rd
E Triplett Rd
Laurie Ct
Quo Vadis Cir
Constable Dr
Woodchuck Ct
Lemon Rd
E Arcadia Dr
Red Fox
Lost Frontier Rd
Shannon Cir
Thunder Dr
Mission Hills Dr
Jacqua Ln
Lancaster Ct
Fletc her Dr
West Rd NE
S Oklahoma
Renee Dr
Nickel Dr
Stone Point Cir
Ston e Gate Dr
Sooner Cir
Roller Coaster
Woodbury Pl
Agnew Dr
Short St
Black Jack Cir
Shelly Cir
Bunting Ct
Pine Cir
Terrill Way
Oak Park
Twin Cedar Ln
Holly Ct
Deer Creek Hollow
Ladgra Ln
Tobin Ln
Walker Dr
E Arthur
S Locust St
Old Creek Rd
1st St
Longview Ct
Deer Springs Cir
W S impson Rd
Goodnight Trl
Wildwood Rd
Maple Ln
York Dr
Chariot Cir
Joy Rd
Whipple's Dr
Johndoll Dr
Tall Oaks Dr
Collier Rd
E Cedar Ridge Rd
Timber Trl
Burt Ests
S Julie Way
Saber Ln
Simpson Rd
Williams Rd
Bogey Dr
N 1st St
Noe Pl
Treestump Ct
Hackberry Trl
NW 194th Ter
Lone Hawk Trl
Woods Rd
Preakness Path
E Barbara Dr
Cedar Dr
Rhett Ln
Oak Hollow Rd
Edge Rd
Colby Ct
Gospel Rd
Ruth Ln
Waterloo Falls Rd
Lynn St
Summer Hill Ln
Fogarty St
N2989 Rd
Midwest Blvd
Quail Run
Citation Dr
E Oaks Dr
Cross St
Park Rd
Masters Dr
Dalewood Dr
Scarlet Cir
Traditions Blvd
Karen Dr
Post Oak Rd
London Cir
Prairie Ln
Tiffany Ln
White Pine Cir,
Cooper Cir
Last Change Rd
Redman Rd
Gold Post Rd
Bip Pkwy
Savoy Cir
Henke Dr
Glen Brook Ln
Bandit Pt
S Kelly St
W Cooksey Rd
Wolf Creek Ln
W Camp Dr
Winterwood Dr
Cade Ln
Jeffrey Ln
Stone Valley Cir
Valley Creek Cir
Riverside C ir
Sundance Dr
Pecan Grove Pl
Bull Run
Oakridge Rd
Skunk Hollow
E Blue Ridge Rd
Kelly Dr
Ken Dr
Bozeman Trl
Rupe Dr
Burck Dr
194th St
Carolina Ct
Waggoner Dr
Tranquil Pasture Ln
Lariat Trl
Meadow Hill Dr
Hucklebay Rd
Green Gable Rd
Stone Gate Way
Pittman Ct
Pine View Ter
Brooks Rd
Fox St
Billy Pl
Humming bird Ln
S 16th St
Family Cir
W Lincoln Ave
Whitaker Ln
S Daisy Ln
Dewberry Dr
Canyon Rd
Fawn Trl
Anderson Rd
Lynda Ln
N3250 Rd
Hillto p Ln
Elf Ln
Becky Ln
Bell Dr
Laquinta Dr
Barrington Ln
Gloria Pl
Mart in Dr
Venado Valley Rd
Cedar Ln
Treviso Trl
(Unnamed Drive)
Rory Ln
Coffey Ridge Rd
Lo Ln
Gina Ct
Kim Cir
4th St
Crestmere Ln
Cottonwood Ter
E Ridgeview Dr
Poineer Way
Miranda Dr
Stone Hill Dr
Hilltop Rd
Forest Fox Rd
Dodd D r
Linda Ln
Stone Ridge Dr
Sterling Dr
Janson Dr
Acorn Dr
Apache Way
Northridge Run
Owl Rd
Brad ford Farms Ln
Sticks Trl
Big Cedar Dr
Donna Ave
Hardwick Rd
N Bluestem
Dakota Ln
Canyon Oak Dr
Oak Crest Dr
Silver Dr
Cove Dr
Riverside Pl
Garden Vis
Briarwood Ln
Jon St
E Jed Dr
S Lincoln
Shady Creek Cir
Case Ln
Acorn Ter
N 3175 Rd
Twin Ridge Dr
N Buffalo Ave
Ethel St
Penn Place Dr
E Julie Way
Thousand Oaks Dr
Reihs Ln
Wagon Rd
Cottonwood Hills Rd
Turkey Trl
Sycamore Ln
Casa Blanca
Spring Creek Ct
Deer Hollow Dr
Glen Hollow Rd
S Sagittarius Dr
Meadow Brook Ln
N Sharon Gale Dr
Tulip Trl
Tracy Trl
Bluebird Ln
Brookside Dr
Forest Creek Dr
N2986 Rd
Prairie View Rd
S Sharon Gale Dr
Rock Hollow Dr
Red Hawk
Battle Ave
Preserve Pl
Minnie Rose St
Jones Rd
Crossfield Dr
Dr Tom Rd
Rainbow Circle Dr
Edwards Dr
S Ridgeview Dr
Orchard Hill Dr
Glyna Ln
Karl St
W Burns Rd
Covell Rd
Cedaroak Rdge
Cedar Valley Ln
W Ridgecrest Dr
Wishon Dr
N3230 Rd
Circle Dr
Briarwood Cir
Olde School Rd
NW 199th St
Eric Ln
Dena Dr
Emily Way
6th St
Broken Arrow
Coyote Dr
Big W Ranch Rd
Primrose Ln
Weathers Rd
Wilbur Way
Red River Xing
Tang le w ood Dr
E0890 Rd
Fallbrook Ave
NE 209th St
E Orbit Dr
S Arcadia Ln
E0782 Rd
E Bo nd St
Sand Plum Cir
Prair ie R un
Eastwood Dr
Cleek Ct
Cotton tail Trl
David Payne Rd
Valley Dr
West Dr
E Lake Dr
Wildmeadow D r
York Rd
Main St
Ppawnee Creek Rd
N Mid Iron Way
Railroad Ave
Zella Way
Summit Oak
Crusader Ave
Dell Drivve
Silver Field Ln
E0860 Rd
Daisy Ln
Whisper Glen
Long Trl
Homestead Trl
Adams Pl
Sheila Dr
Rickasha Dr
Stagmoor Rd
Castle Dr
Birch St
Pleasant Ridge Rd
E Country Oaks Rd
Harmony Ln
NW 196th St
Winding Lake Dr
S Sarah Rd
Harrier Hawk
Bobcat Dr
New Canaan Rd
N3187 Rd
Clark Rd
Georgetowne Rd
Provencia Rd
Canyon Crest Dr
Gebron Dr
Smoky Hill Trl
Robin Rd
Staci Ln
Kellner Dr
Lake Dr
Blackjack Ln
Brayhill Rd
Cedar Ridge Dr
Hillview Dr
Shiloh Valley Rd
Twin Spires Trl
Elgie Dr
S Waterloo Valley Dr
Bobby Ln
Covey Run Ln
Lesl ie Dr
Black Oak Rd
Oak Ridge Rd
E Cr est Ln
Barrett Ln
Birch Ln
NW 197th St
Big Ced ar Ave
Deer Ln
Hudson Ln
Huntsman Rd
Redbud Canyon Trl
Kings Row
Twin Ridge Rd
Wild Plum Ct
Ruby's Rd
Yonder Hills Rd
Belcaro Dr
Naomi Dr
Whispering Hills
Redbud Ln
Brookside Ave
Candlewood Dr
Wellington Way
Duxsford Ct
Wright Way
Morningside Rd
B ent Tree Dr
Heidi Rd
Gatlin Rd
Twelve Oaks
Madia Ridge
Military Ave
University Ave
Skyline Blvd
Bear Creek Trl
P ulse Dr
Asheton Ct
NW 222nd St
Lakeview Ter
Cedar Farm Rd
Lakecrest Ct
Horseshoe Rd
Buena Vista Ave
Murray Dr
Patricia Dr
Circle Glen
N Ellison Rd
N Noble Dr
Olde No rth Pl
SW 21st St
E Pleasant Hill Dr
Lake Shore Dr
Base Dr
Evergreen Ave
Meridian St
Hawk Crest Ln
Iron Mound Dr
Blue Sage Rd
Miles Dr
Wake Fores t Rd
Stevens Rd
Cherokee Rd
Deerwood Trl
NW 195th St
N3184 Rd
N Timberwood Dr
Horseshoe Ln
N Main St
Industrial Rd
Raspberry Trl
Coffee Creek Ln
Bent Cedar Trl
Smoking Oak Ln
Territory Ridge
Adams Dr
N3186 Rd
Lisa Ln
Sportsman Dr
Kyle Dr
Meadows Ln
R Rd
Willow Springs Dr
Scurlock Dr
Hawk Ln
Wolf Lake Dr
Eastwood Dr
Flint Ridge Rd
Mark Waner Dr
Duffys Way
Sunny Acres Ln
Chris Madsen Rd
E Oak Cliff Dr
N3175 Rd
Trails West Rd
Amanda Ln
Darril Rd
Sorentino Dr
NE 215th St
Freedom Rd
Ranchview Ln
Prairie Dog Dr
Hillcrest Ln
Sweet Water Dr
Pebble Creek Blvd
Country Club Ter
River Downs Dr
Kevins Way
Keller Dr
Peppers Ranch Dr
Village Pkwy
Crest Ridge Dr
Ridgecrest Rd
Lake Vista Dr
Valley Ridge Dr
Terra Vita Dr
D ais ey Ln
Martinique Dr
Redbud Creek Dr
Red Fox Rd
Balmoral Dr
Wynstone Dr
Comanche Dr
R ush Creek Rd
Palermo Dr
Williams Dr
Melody Dr
Myrtle Ave
Aaron Way
Lakeview Dr
Oak Springs St
Chapco Dr
Fox Hole
Hunt Ln
N Taurus Dr
Darci Ln
Rolling Meadows Dr
Aspen Way
Taurus Dr
Ryan Way
Jarrell Ln
Gwendolyn Ln
Bassett Rd
S Logan Ave
Pheasant Crest Rd
Pheasant Pointe Dr
Cardinal Ridge Dr
Mircale Way
S ky Ridge Dr Meadowlark Ter
Bart Dr
N 3rd St
Michael Rd
Bond St
Timberdale Dr
Trout Dr
Weathers Brook
N Eighty Acres Rd
N Covey Run Ln
Post Oak Ln
Harvestyme Ln
Antler Farms Dr
NE 243rd S t
Butte Rd
Hesston St
Deer Xing
Deer Creek Dr
Hillcrest Dr
Cole Dr
la Belle Rue
Northwoods Rd
N Woods Rd
Cedar Meadow Ln
E0795 Rd
N Broadway St
Wheatley Way
Whisper Oak Dr
Dripping Springs Dr
E0810 Rd
Shadow Lake Dr
W Lak ewood Dr
Copper Hill Dr
Valley View Ln
Whispering Oak Dr
Shady Dr
Huckleberry Row
A tc hley Dr
Waterloo R d
S Pine
Holiday Rd
Covell Ln
Wolf Creek Rd
Tall Oaks Trl
O'Neal Ln
Tangle Vine Dr
Sandy Ln
Secrest Rd
Trails North Rd
Lindsay Ln
Blue Fox Dr
Oakwood Dr
Niblick Way
Copper Rock Dr
Lindberg Ln
Lakeroad Dr
Morning Star
el Zorro
Sherwood Ln
Riverview Rd
Elk Aly
Wildwood Rd
Valley View Rd
Blanch Ln
Hamilton Dr
Graces Ter
Ridge Dr
Commerce Blvd
Hollie Chappell Dr
Pleasant Oaks Dr
Glenn Dr
Cedar Ridge Rd
N Cedar Ridge Rd
Bryant Ln
N Briarwood Dr
Sharpe Rd
Lazy E Dr
W Cleveland Ave
Bob White Dr
Red Cedar Rd
Manchester Ave
Rising Dr
Midwest Ln
Pawnee Xing
Venezia Ln
Shelby Ln
Mint Julep Ln
Summit Lake Blvd
Hunters Path
S Horseshoe Dr
Kellogg Dr
Long Branch Ln
Vista Hill Dr
Sim pson Ln
Ma tt Dr
Mission Rd
W Prairie Grove Rd
Rambling Rd
del Simmons Dr
Meadow Vw
Jennifer Ln
Armadillo Dr
Hidden Hills Dr
Pittman Ave
NW 215th St
N Burns Rd
N Horseshoe Dr
Coyote Run
Bois D'Arc Blvd
Big Gully Ln
Ridgecrest Dr
Blackberry Rd
Frisco Bridge Blvd
Ray Pl
Kelly Lakes Dr
Wagonwheel Rd
Paradise Ln
N Kelley Ave
Harvey Rd
McKenzie Rd
S Kelly Ave
Short Dr
Impressive Rd
Panther Run Rd
N Division St
N 5th St
N Wentz St
NW 210th St
W Sorghum Mill Rd
Jaxton Rd
Settlers Xing
Bass Rd
Vail Dr
Billy Dr
N3095 Rd
Old Timbers Dr
E Redbud Ln
Cooper Dr
Blue S pruce Rd
Mockingbird Ln
Sunny B rook Dr
Timber Ridge Dr
Ward Rd
Hunters Creek Rd
Post Rd
Santa Fe Trl
County Line Rd Ok lahoma 109
Wilson Dr
Kittyhawk Ln
Loveland Cir
Galvin Dr
Cedar Valley Manor
Collage Av e
Country Home Dr
Liberty Dr
Sky Ridge Dr
Charis Rd
Camp Rd
Ranch Dr
Arrowhead Dr
N2985 Rd
N Huffines Rd
Tumbleweed Trl
Lakewood Dr
Card inal
Silver Crest Dr
N 19th St
Squirrel Rd
Southbend Rd
N Covey Run Dr
S Arcadia Dr
Hanging Tree Rd
Arbor Valley Dr
Hidden Run Rd
Falcon Dr
Oak Bend Dr
E College Ave
W Colman Rd
Valley Creek Rd
Redmont Trce
Terry Ln
Terry Ln NE
Tamora Rd
Cottonwood Dr
Fost er Rd
W Mission Springs Dr
Pioneer Lake Dr
Forrest Hill Rd
E0820 Rd
Prairie Gr ove Rd
Oak Hill Rd
E Industrial
Shepherd Ridge
N Walnut St
Airport Rd
N Ash St
Prairie Dr
Bogie Rd
N Oak St
Mission Ridge Rd
Covell Village Dr
Stone Brg
N2960 Rd
Cimarron Manor
Dilip Rd
Dilip Dr
Brookside St
Brookhaven Dr
N Blvd
W Oklahoma Ave
Hickory Ridge Rd
Wentz St
Beemer Rd
Holiday Dr
Horse Shoe Bend
E Cleveland Ave
Sun Valley Dr
Cornforth Rd
Whitehouse Rd
E Uni versity Ave
Cedar Trl
Oak Forest Rd
Mill Creek Rd
Canaan Creek Rd
Arrowhead St
Canyon Rd
Buffalo Hill
Jesse James Dr
Lakeridge Dr
Summit Dr
Cottonwood Dr
Garden Way
Thomas Dr
St Croix Dr
SW 19th St
E Valley Rd
Leas e Rd
Sportsman Rd
E Oklahoma Ave
206th Vi lla gio D r
Forrest Hill
N Coltrane
Prairie Grove Rd
Cox Canyon Dr
Riva Dr
E Vilas Ave
N3130 Rd
N3115 Rd
N 21st St
Country Club Dr
N Academy Rd
Koerner Rd
S Lakewood Dr
Green Oa ks Way
N Western Ave
Coyote Cir
Simpson Rd
E0830 Rd
Hickory Hills Rd
E0855 Rd
Sorghum Mll Rd
College Ave
Co Rd 75
Marie Ln
5369-1 Rd E0805 Rd
W C harter Oak Rd
University Rd
S Broadway
E Harris on Ave
N Peebly Rd
Oak Valley Dr
E0880 Rd
E0760 Rd Co Rd 76
W Coleman Rd
Azalea Rd
University Ave
N Pennsylvania Ave
S Broadway Rd
Irvine Dr
N Hogan Ave
Industrial Blvd
N Choctaw Rd
N Macarthur Ave Macarthur Ave
S Air Depot
N3160 Rd
S Air Depot Rd
E0780 Rd
Sorg hum Mill Rd
N 14th St
Meridian Rd
S 14th St
Deer Creek Rd
W Dreesen Rd
Silver Oaks Dr
W Cimarron Blvd
E0770 Rd
Me sa Trl
E Springer Ave
Bobwhite Trl
E Linc oln Ave
Quo Vadis Dr
Division St
N Division
Choctaw Rd
D3143 Rd
D3083 Rd
Shady Oaks Way
E Charter Oa k Rd
W Washingt on Ave
W Warner Ave
E Simmons Rd
NE 220th St
W Man s ur Ave
E 0790 Rd
W Lake Rd
S Pine St
E Grant Ave
Hiwasse Rd
S Division St
N 7th St
E Perkins Ave
Thompson Trial
N Santa Fe
Shortgrass Rd
N Douglas Blvd
E Indust rial Rd W Industrial Rd
Forres t Hills Seward
Browne Ave
N3220 Rd
Backhous Rd
S Kelley St
E Noble Ave
S Macarthur Blvd
E Cooksey Rd
N2970 Rd
Davis Rd
N Henney Rd
N3220 Rd Choctaw Rd
N Sooner Rd
S Bryant Rd
N3060 Rd
N3075 Rd
E Roller Coaster Rd
Broadway N3100 Rd
N Bryant Rd N3110 Rd
Co-Line Rd
E0865 Rd
Coffee Creek
Noble Ave
College Ave
NE 206th St 206th St
NE 234th S t
Forres t Hi lls Rd
N Meridian Ave
E Coleman Rd E Sim pson Rd
E0770 Rd Cooksey Rd
E Forrest Hills Rd
Madden Rd
E0760 Rd
Azalea NE
S Henney Rd N3210 Rd
N3165 Rd Bland Rd
Pine St
E0800 Rd
Industrial Rd
N Broadway
N3200 Rd
N Boulevard St
E Lakewood Dr
E Camp Dr
Waterloo Rd
Triple Xxx Rd
W Forrest Hills Rd American States Rd
E Covell Rd
N3190 Rd
W Simpson Rd
N3010 Rd
N Rockwell Ave
W Noble Ave
W Coffee C reek Rd
E0840 Rd
Academy Rd
Co Rd 76
N Triple Xxx Rd N Triple X Rd
Azalea St
Hiwassee Rd
N2980 Rd
N May Ave
S Rockwell Ave
County Line Rd N2990 Rd
Counsel Rd N3000 Rd
N3030 Rd
Portland Ave N3040 Rd
Peebly Rd
Arrowhea d NE
S Academy Rd
Apache NE
W Blind Lemon Rd
N Pine St
E0880 Rd
Ash NE
E College Ave
N3170 Rd
Moff at NE
N Westminster Rd N3180 Rd
Wate rloo Rd
S Santa Fe Ave
S May Ave
N3150 N Midwest Blvd
E0860 Rd
E0850 Rd
E0830 Rd
S Pine St
Roller Coaster Rd Trip lett Rd E0820 Rd
N Euclid St
W Covell Rd
N2990 Rd
S Post Rd
E0760 R d E Co R d 76
Coltrane Rd
S Phillips Rd
Morgan Rd NE
Seward Rd Forres t Hills Rd
E0780 Rd
N Anderson Rd
S Eastern Rd
N Luther Rd
N Indian Meridian RdN Indian Meridian
Henney Rd
N Anderson Rd
N Westminister Rd
N Westminster Rd
N Post Rd
N Douglas Blvd
N Midwest Blvd
N Air Depot Blvd
N Sooner Rd
N Coltrane Rd
N Bryant Ave
N Kelly Ave
N Santa Fe Ave
N Western Ave
N Post Rd
N Pennsylvania Ave
W Simmons Rd
N May Ave
E Prairie Grove Rd
W Industrial Rd
N Portland Ave
N Macarthur Blvd
S Coltrane Rd
S Kelley Ave
N Council Rd
N3250 Rd Peebly Rd
Twin L akes Rd Cooksey Rd
County Line Rd NE N County Line Rd County Line Rd
N3240 Rd Triple X Rd
Sara Rd NE
S Hiwassee Rd N3200
N Hiwassee Rd
N Camp Russell Rd
Luther Rd
E Cha rter Oak Rd
NW 248th St
E Seward Rd
W Simmons Rd
E S eward Rd E0840 Rd
S Western Ave
Mac Arthur Blvd Macarthur Blvd
W Forre st H ills Rd
N3190 Rd
S Camp Russell Rd S Midwest Blvd
S Douglas Blvd
E0750 Rd E Co Rd 75
E S immons Rd
N2980 Rd
S Santa Fe Santa Fe
Rockwell Ave
S Anderson Rd
W Camp Dr
E Covell Rd
W Lakewood Dr
Univ ersity Ave
Waterloo Rd
Meridian Ave
S Westminster Blvd
NE 248th S t
Covell Rd NW 206th St
Luther Rd N3260 Rd
N2960 Rd
W Prairie Grove Rd
W College Ave
S Sooner Rd
W Triplett Rd W Roller Coaster Rd
Sorghum Mill Rd W51 00
N3230 Rd
Council Rd
NW 220 th St Coffee Creek Rd
N W 234th St 234th St E Sorghum Mill Rd
E Waterloo Rd
W Charter Oak
N2970 Rd
W0760 Rd W Co Rd 76
W Seward Rd
W Waterloo Rd
S Portland Ave
NE 22 0th St
S Pennsylvania Ave
House District 31
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Road
Service Drive
Private Road
( ( Bike Path
!! 2 - 5,000
!! 5,001 - 10,000
!! 10,001 - 25,000
!! 25,001 - 50,000
!! 50,001 - 579,999
House Districts
Oklahoma House GIS Office: June, 2011
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
Notice: NM Tech's Property Office Moving LocationsNM Tech's Property Office is moving to the West end of the Facilities Management Building (ground floor room 120C, D & E). The phone numbers and email address for the property office remain the same.
Phone Number Email Address
Paul Malone Jr. – 5835 email@example.com
Jason VanHouter – 6953 email@example.com
Randy Valles – 5453 firstname.lastname@example.com
Fax Number – 575-835-5578
Property personnel are available to support the surplus yard for deliveries and access. To get access or assistance for the surplus yard please call 575-835-5453.
This move should be completed by COB June 7, 2011.


text:
Latta, Harris, Hanon & Penningroth, LLP
Certified Public Accountants
1201 North Ave.
Tipton, IA 52772
Phone: 319-886-2187
Fax: 319-886-6497
e-mail: email@example.com
September 20, 2000
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20549-0609
Re: SEC Proposal to Limit Scope of CPA Services
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In regards to the SEC proposal to limit CPA services, we strongly urge that the proposed rules not be approved.
Our firm provides a wide range of valuable services to a client base that is primarily agriculture-related. As you may well know, the vast majority of farmers are struggling to stay afloat and with this proposal you would again be dealing them another deadly blow. They rely heavily on information that is obtained from these services to make the necessary decisions pertaining to their farming operation. Every service from bookkeeping to financial planning is most important to them.
My understanding of the effect of the proposal is that CPA's will not be able to offer non-audit services to audit clients. Agriculture audit clients would be forced to select two CPA firms in lieu of one. Because of the inherent inefficiencies involved with dealing with two firms, it is predictable that the total costs to the client will go up, while the quality of services will go down.
We feel that you should strongly reconsider this proposal and the definite negative effects to the farm economy.
Thank you,
Larry Hanon, CPA
Latta, Harris, Hanon & Penningroth, LLP
Certified Public Accountants
Tipton, Iowa


text:
Art Nouveau
Art Nouveau (French for 'new art') is an international style of art, architecture and design that peaked in popularity at the beginning of the 20th century (1880-1914) and is characterised by highly-stylised, flowing, curvilinear designs often incorporating floral and other plant-inspired motifs. The name 'Art Nouveau' derived from the name of a shop in Paris, Maison de l'Art Nouveau, at the time run by Siegfried Bing, that showcased objects that followed this approach to design.
Antique Jewelry Exchange carries a wide variety of art nouveau jewelry, including booches, pendants, pins, diamond rings, cuff links and more.


text:
Backup and Backup Retention Policy
Register Backup and Backup Retention Policy - After you complete the form below, you will be directed to a page that will allow you to download the Table of Contents and selected pages of the Backup and Backup Retention Policy.
Please note that you are required to enter your e-mail address, your first name, and your last name. You will receive a copy of our next newsletter and at that time you will have an option to opt out of any future mailings from us.
By your completing this form you agree to honor our copyright and to receive at least one of our newsletters.
Required *


text:
The Supreme Court has dismissed the federal challenge to Proposition 8, the voter-approved same-sex marriage ban passed by California voters in November 2008.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that supporters have no standing to bring the case. The majority are Chief Justice John Roberts with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia. "It was an unusual lineup, with the conservative Scalia providing the decisive fifth vote for the majority while the liberal Sotomayor joined three conservatives in dissent," notes the San Francisco Chronicle.
From the opinion: "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."
The decision means allowing the lower court rulings upholding Prop 8's unconstitutionality will stand. Same-sex marriages will soon resume in California.
Both of today's decisions were exactly what many observers (and myself) predicted. It's been an incredible day for equality. Yessss!