の ⋆ こと ⋆ というの ⋆ ということ Used as Complementizers


I'm trying to figure out differences in meaning in nuance among all the ways
to express X that Y.

As in:

> こんなによく遅刻をする **というの** は問題ですよ。
>
> "It's a problem **that** you're late this often," or " **That** you're late
> this often is a problem."
>
> 彼女が金を貸してくれた **ということ** は私は彼に信用されているということだ。
>
> "The most interesting thing was **that** the main character was the
> criminal," or " **That** the main character was the criminal was the most
> interesting thing."

My questions:

  * Do [these](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1396/38808) guidelines for choosing の/こと apply to the use of ということ and というの? If so, those guidelines don't seem to be followed in a lot of the example sentences I've read.
  * Am I overcomplicating this? I've read and heard suggestions it's as simple as: の and こと both correspond to "that" when used as complementizers, and the preceding という just [serves to highlight or foreground](https://artshumanitieshawaii.org/assets/wang%2C-yan---when-and-why-to-add-to-iu.pdf) the clause appearing before it. [This answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12611/38808) seems to jive with that interpretation.
  * Building off the previous question, and at the risk of sounding like I'm requesting the shameful "word-for-word translation" -- could it be as simple as, こと and の (with their respective restrictions as nominalizers) correspond to "that," and という+nominalizer corresponds roughly to "the fact that"? As in: こんなによく遅刻をする **こと** は... would mean **that** you are late this often..." and こんなによく遅刻をする **ということ** は... would mean **the fact that** you are late this often..." Is this correct?
  * Ultimately, what I'm trying to figure out is the differences in usage/meaning/nuance in the following sentences:

> こんなによく遅刻をする **というの** は問題です。
>
> こんなによく遅刻をする **の** は問題です。
>
> こんなによく遅刻をする **ということ** は問題です。
>
> こんなによく遅刻をする **こと** は問題です。

I know there must be a few dozen explanations on the internet, including a lot
on stackexchange, but they often don't agree or they only cover phrases like
"so that means..." rather than complementizers.

The most thorough explanation I've found is in the _Dictionary of Intermediate
Japanese Grammar_.

The way they it treat it is sort of convoluted, though.

Excerpt:

[code]

    S to iu koto wa is used when the speaker / writer views the content of S at a
    conceptual leve!・ Specifically, S to iu koto wa is used (1)when S is unlikely
    or impossible (e.g・,KS(A) and Ex.(a)), or (2) when the speaker / writer
    concludes or attempts to conclude s.t. from S (e.g., KS(B) and (C), and
    Exs.(b)-(g))・
    First, S koto cannot be used when S is unlikely to happen. In this case, S to
    iu koto is used, as in [1].
    [1]a.彼がこの集まりに来ない｛という/*0 ｝ことは考えられない。
    (=KS(A))
    b.これだけ丁寧に説明すれば,分からない｛という/*0! ことはあ
    り得ない。(=Ex.(a))
    Third, if S represents something likely to happen, both S koto and S to iu
    koto are acceptable, as in [4], In this case the speaker / writer may view the
    situation at either a concrete level or a conceptual level.
    [4] 彼がこの集まりに来ない｛0/という｝ことは雜かだ。
    (It is certain that he will not come to this meeting.)
    
[/code]

I didn't see an explanation of exactly what the authors mean by "conceptual"
and "concrete," and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding section for というの
used to mean "that" or "the fact that."

Other explanations seem to disagree with the DIJG.

Interestingly, I've seen a number of questions on hinative about
の/こと/というの/ということ used as complementizers, and a lot of the native answers are
literally just "こと is natural." I feel like that has to be worth considering
if it's straight from native speakers, but I wonder if it might fall short
when you're trying to enable yourself to use Japanese for professional
purposes in professional settings.

And then [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/34042/38808) answer from
a native here on stackexchange suggests it's the other way around.

My current theory is that out of the examples above, こんなによく遅刻をする **というの**
は問題です sounds most natural/is most grammatical because the addressee being late
and that being a problem occur in concert (の) and because という foregrounds the
phrase it nominalizes, which seems in keeping with the speaker's intent.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.




> Do these guidelines for choosing の/こと apply to the use of ということ and というの? If
> so, those guidelines don't seem to be followed in a lot of the example
> sentences I've read.

In the sense that you should keep collocation with predicates, basically yes.
In the sense that you can add という, no.

> Am I overcomplicating this? I've read and heard suggestions it's as simple
> as: の and こと both correspond to "that" when used as complementizers, and the
> preceding という just serves to highlight or foreground the clause appearing
> before it. This answer seems to jive with that interpretation.

Technically yes, but practically, there's preference in usage depending on
collocation.

  * 教えること：(1) things to teach (2) teaching / (the fact) that you teach

As long as the latter usage, it's semantically the same as 教えるということ. This is
because the structure of AというB is interpreted as apposition. In this sense,
you can say "technically yes". However, you practically don't really apply it
to individual instances like こんなによく遅刻をするということ unless the predicate is the kind
of …ということだ or …というわけだ meaning "(clause) means (clause)" or "you can infer that
... from the fact that ...".

> And then this answer from a native here on stackexchange suggests it's the
> other way around.

You are applying it to a collocation with a different predicate.

> こんなによく遅刻をするというのは問題です

This という seems a filler. In other words, it's more wordy than
こんなによく遅刻をするのは問題です, which is the most plain and straightforward.

> こんなによく遅刻をするということは問題です

As I said above, this could be a bit awkward, but we may say it nevertheless.

> こんなによく遅刻をすることは問題です

This feels a bit more serious than 遅刻するのは for some reason.

> S to iu koto wa is used when the speaker / writer views the content of S at
> a conceptual leve!

This seems to some extent reasonable.

> [1]a.彼がこの集まりに来ない｛という/*0 ｝ことは考えられない。

I disagree. φ seems fine to me.

> これだけ丁寧に説明すれば,分からない｛という/*0! ことはありえない

This is reasonable. φ seems to mean "there can't be anything unintelligible".
Technically, という version can mean that too, though.

