<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P86-1031">
  <Title>A PROPERTY-SHARING CONSTRAINT IN CENTERING</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="203" end_page="205" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. The speaker identification constraint
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="203" end_page="205" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1. Ident
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Although correct in most cases, the Centering Constraint as stated in (9) is systematically violated by a certain group of counterexamples in Japanese. This has to do with what Kuno calls empathy, a grammatical feature especially prominent in Japanese, defined as follows: (22) Empathy (Kuno &amp; Kaburagi 1977:628) Empathy is the speaker's identification, with varying degrees, with a person who participates in the event that he describes in a sentence.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> I will call it the speaker identification, or simply, /dent/ficat/on. 17 When the main predicate of an utterance selects one of its arguments for the identifu:ation locus (henceforth Ident), the speaker automatically identifies (with varying degrees) with the viewpoint of its referent (usually human). The unmarked Ident is the SUBJECT, but some verbs have nonSUBJECT Ident. For instance, among giving/receiving verbs, ageru 'give' and morau 'receive' have SUBJECT Ident, while kureru 'give' has OBJECI'2 Ident, Is and for going/coming verbs, /ku 'go' has SUBJECT Ident while kuru 'come' has nonSUBJECT Ident. Each Ident feature is carried over in a complex predicate made with one of these verbs as the &amp;quot;higher&amp;quot; predicate (e.g., V.kureru 'give the favor of V-ing' Ident=nonSUBJ).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Counterexamples to the constraint stated in (9) are cases with verbs of nonSUBJECT Ident: IT&amp;quot;Identification&amp;quot; is a better term than &amp;quot;empathy&amp;quot; in conveying the lack of speaker's emotional involvement and, moreover, it was used in the original definition of empathy in (22). The basic characterization of this notion is fully credited to Kuno and Kaburagi, however.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> lSOBJECT2 is the indirect or second object.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  \[strong preference: The lady gave favors to Masao\] &lt;zero-SUB J=: lady, zero-OBJ2=: Masao&gt; The preferred reading of (23)-3 shows that the zero-Ident-OBJ2 is preferred over the zero-nonIdent-SUBJ for carrying over the Cb previously realized with a zero-Ident-SUBJ. In other words, when Ident and SUBJECT are split, Ident overrides SUBJECT as the stronger shared property for the zero pronominals that retain the same Cb across adjacent utterances.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Based on the interpretation of various SUBJ/Ident combinations (see Kameyama 1985 Ch.2 for more details), the constraint is restated as follows: 19 (24) Centering Constraint \[Japanese\] (final version) Two zero pronominals that retain the same Cb in adjacent utterances should share one of the following properties (in descending order of preference): 1) Ident-SUBJECT, 2) ldent alone, 3) SUBJECT alone, 4) nonldent.nonSUBJECT.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> The resulting constraint substantiates the role of the zero pronominal in the context of centering in Japanese discourse. The constraint in English need not incorporate the Ident property, however. According to Kuno &amp; Kaburagi (ibid.), there is only a handful of verbs with SUBJECT Ident (e.g., marry, meet, run into, hear from, receive from) and only one with nonSUBJECT Ident (come up to), none of which propagate with an operation like the Japanese complex verb formation. Moreover, even using these verbs, the Ident effect on pronoun interpretation is not at all clear in English. 2deg The lack (or dispensability) of the speaker identification constraint does not mean that English centering is less constrained, because English pronouns are inherently more constrained than Japanese zero pronominals by the presence of grammatical fealaLres, gender, number, and person. We can view the Ident feature of Japanese zero pronominals as a way to make up for the lack of gender/number/person information available in overt pronouns. The SUBJECT constraint stated in (16), which is simply a subpart of the constraint in Japanese, thus remains adequate in English.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 3.2. Perception verbs: possible link to Ident Perception verbs like see/hear, look~sound, etc. anchor the speaker's perspective just like Japanese Ident verbs.  3. She sounded depressed.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8">  \[preference: Bella sounded depressed (to Maria)\] Equivalent sequences in Japanese give rise to the same interpretation, that is, the single pronominal element in the third utterance picks out the previous non-Cb. This exceptional case can be explained if verbs like look and sound are used to describe states perceived from the viewpoint of the individual the speaker currently 'identifies with'. As a consequence, the SUBJECT referent of such a description is typically other than the one currently identical with. By making the previous Cb &amp;quot;the individual the speaker currently identifies with&amp;quot;, the preferred readings of (25)-3 and (26)-3 can be explained. This indicates that the speaker's viewpoint is closely related to the Cb whether or not there is an ldent-based constraint in 19Implicit here are two weakest properties to be shared: 5) nonldent alone and 6) nonSUBJECT alone. These were left out because of the scarcity of actual instances in discourse. I found, however, that exactly the same scale of shared properties accounts for the possibility of the /ntra-sentential zero pronominal binding in Japanese, and that the full scale of six properties is actually needed for it  The third utterance should read &amp;quot;Peter came up to John&amp;quot; if Ident overrides SUBJ. More speakers gave the reverse interpretation, however, showing the preference for the SUBJ-SUBJ coreference.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9">  the language.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> Although there is a close relationship between Ident and these perception reports, the 'grammatical' status of the latter is not very clear. In particular, it is questionable whether the effect of perception verbs should be differentiated from commonsense-based interpretations as in the following example: Sam hit Bill on the head. He hit him back on the chin. It is an area open for more detailed studies in the future.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>