C. Fillmore's Theory of Case Grammar : Theoretical Relation with Japanese 'Cases'

C. Fillmore put as a base of his case grammar a semantic case developing formula, C → K+NP or C → NP+K, from which individual cases, both grammatical and semantic, were derived. Though the case features settled in it remains controversial in a sense, the theory developed a kind of drastic way of deriving semantically required cases from the features attached to NP's. The theory of case grammar enables us to generalize and explain many syntactic phenomena, particularly semantic implications in syntactic structures, under a coherent theory. There, however, remain some uncertain points in details. (1) As to the case formula, the "case" seems to stand for either "C" or "K" As "C" eventually mcludes "K" and NP, it sometimes causes a mixed idea of the case features and selectional restriction between the feature and the head NP. (2) Some of the cases do not seem to have a concrete base for realization because the function of such cases as DATIVE, BENEFACTIVE, EXPERIENCER, etc., based on figurative (if typical) meanings of corresponding traditional cases. (3) LOCATIVE, TIME and PATH often include problems related to "One sentence, one case principle". (4) A preposition in English, which serves as the case form in the case developing formula, cannot sometimes be decided uniquely, which indicates a divergence of the case indicating function and the practical use of a preposition. (5) Some points as to the three principles on distribution of the cases, the number and the definition of case features, etc. still remain unestablished. Semantic approach inevitably includes some kinds of ambiguities in setting semantic elements. Fillmore's case grammar has undergone numbers of modifications, but the major principles have not been denied yet. Instead, they still retain universal adaptability to various languages despite terminological disunity. In terms of applying the principles of Fillmore's case grammar to analyses of the Japanese language, it provided with a seemingly well fitted theoretical base. Fillmore's formula for the cases fits well to the Japanese counterparts as are seen in the formal and functional similarities between Japanese case indicating particles, "kaku joshi", and the notational element of 'K'. But, the formula involves a double meaning of the case: the case form and the semantic case feature. As Japanese has no distinction between formal and semantic case indicators, it is impossible to derive one from the other. Fillmore gives a suggestion for analyzing the double subject construction in Japanese in terms of internal relation between inalienable Nps, owing to Frei's theory. True his analysis works well locally, but it does not make a general principle for the Japanese double subject construction. It includes wider semantic phenomena than the relation between inalienable NPs. His analysis on interchangeable nature between DATIVE and the possessor of a body part in LOCATIVE will help provide an analytical base for subjectivalization of Japanese 'posses-sor' separated from the body part.