Locality and Information Structure: A cartographic approach to Japanese (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 116)

Locality and Information Structure Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA...

Author: Yoshio Endo

39 downloads 853 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Locality and Information Structure

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors Werner Abraham

University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Christer Platzack

Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

Harvard University University of Venice

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg

University of Lund

Cambridge University McGill University

University of Aarhus University of Groningen

Volume 116 Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese Yoshio Endo

Locality and Information Structure A cartographic approach to Japanese

Yoshio Endo Yokohama National University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Locality and information structure : a cartographic approach to Japanese / Yoshio Endo. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 116) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Japanese language--Syntax. PL613.E53

2007

495.6/5--dc22

2007037270

isbn 978 90 272 3380 6 (Hb; alk. paper) © 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

List of Abbreviations

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Generative grammar 1.2 Architecture of generative grammar 1.3 Cartography of syntactic structures 1.4 The syntax of information structure: Left periphery 1.5 Locality 1.6 Intersection between locality and information structure 1.7 Japanese from the cartographic perspective 1.8 Organization CHAPTER 2 Evolution of Relativized Minimality 2.1 The original RM: Rizzi (1997) 2.2 Challenge from Kuno and Takami (1997) 2.3 Refinements: Cinque (1990), Roberts (2001) and Starke (2001) 2.4 The new Relativized Minimality: Feature-based RM 2.5 Further refinements 2.6 Cases where X0-elements intervene for A’-chains 2.7 Deriving the coordinate structure constraint 2.8 Negative islands in Japanese: Argument vs. adjunct asymmetry 2.9 Conclusion CHAPTER 3 Topic and Quantifier-Induced Blocking Effects 3.1 Previous studies of quantifier-induced blocking effects 3.2 Quantifier-induced blocking effects in Japanese/Korean 3.3 Two approaches to quantifier-induced blocking effects 3.4 Comparison: A view from D-linking 3.4.1 Beck and Kim (1997) and Tanaka (2003) 3.4.2 Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004) 3.5 Remaining problems: An asymmetry in RM 3.6 Conclusion Appendix: A brief history of Japanese intervention effects

viii

x

1 1 2 4 5 6 11 12 18

19 19 21 23 25 28 33 34 38 43

44 44 45 48 49 49 53 56 61 61

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4 Are Topics Special? 4.1 Issue: Are topics special? 4.2 Basic properties of backward binding 4.3 Japanese backward binding 4.4 Topic-induced RM effects in Tsez 4.5 Favoring one of the two ideas of Rizzi (2004) 4.6 Topic feature transmission from the CP zone 4.7 Refinements 4.8 Topicality in backward binding 4.9 Conclusion

65 65 68 69 78 79 83 84 88 92

CHAPTER 5 Focus and Case 5.1 An extra Case particle induces new focus interpretation 5.2 Gricean nature of focus: A representational approach 5.3 Implications from Chierchia (2004) 5.4 Another argument for representational approaches 5.5 Conclusion

94 94 103 105 106 108

CHAPTER 6 Focus and Nominative Adverbials 6.1 Japanese nominative adverbials and Italian preposed adverbials 6.2 Digression: RM-free nature of scrambling 6.3 Conditional topics: Tateishi (1991) 6.4 Conclusion

110 110 116 120 124

CHAPTER 7 Ditransitives 7.1 Syntactic structures of ditransitives 7.2 RM in morpho-syntax: First Sister Principle 7.3 Idioms 7.4 Digression: Rendaku 7.5 Locality in picture nouns 7.6 Conclusion

125 125 130 137 150 155 159

CHAPTER 8 On the Nature of the Subject Position 8.1 Background 8.2 Scrambling into the CP zone

160 160 163

CONTENTS vii

8.3

What satisfies the EPP? 8.3.1 An implication for Cardinaletti (2004) and Rizzi (2006a) 8.3.2 What X0 satisfies the EPP? Sentence final particles 8.4 Discussion 8.5 Person restrictions 8.6 Subject/object asymmetries: Case particle drop 8.7 Concluding remarks

168 170 175 186 193 198 202

CHAPTER 9 Informant Surveys 9.1 Adverbials and Relativized Minimality 9.1.1 General properties of Japanese adverbials 9.1.2 Problems 9.1.3 Adverbials and information structure 9.2 The categorical status of nominative adverbials 9.3 Conclusion

204 204 204 210 213 214 216

CHAPTER 10 Concluding Remarks 10.1 Summary 10.2 Prospect: Eliminating Spell-Out

218 218 220

References

222

Subject Index

233

Preface

Several aspects of this book make it unique and go beyond earlier works. First, this book is currently the only systematic exploration of Japanese syntax within the cartographic approach that pays special attention to the locality effects induced by discourse-based features such as topic and focus. Second, unlike previous works on Japanese generative syntax, the research reported in this book is based partially on informant surveys, including the distribution of adverbials and the categorical status of the nominative Case particle on adverbials, as well as an exhaustive survey of ditransitive predicates in terms of word formation and idioms in Koujien, one of the largest Japanese dictionaries. Third, a systematic study of the nature of clause-final particles in Japanese syntax, which has previously only been explored in the framework of discourse analysis, is presented. The following provides an overview of the content of the book. Chapter 1 introduces some basic notions to be exploited in the rest of the book along with some relevant fundamental properties of Japanese. Chapter 2 discusses negative islands, mainly in English, to review the historical development of Relativized Minimality (RM). Chapter 3 examines some quantifiers that block wh-movement in Japanese. Chapter 4 takes up the issue, raised in Rizzi (2004), of why topics are special with respect to RM in Italian and provides a piece of evidence from Japanese backward binding in favor of one possible solution. Chapter 5 turns attention to a case where the suffixation of an extra Case particle induces a new semantic effect of focus interpretation that blocks wh-movement. Chapter 6 explores the nature of suffixation of the nominative Case particle ga to an adverbial, which creates a new focus interpretation and blocks overt movement. In chapter 7, we look at locality seen in the dative construction and the double object construction in English and Japanese from the perspective of morpho-syntax. Chapter 8 examines the nature of the subject position, and clause-final particles are discussed. Chapter 9 presents some results from the informant surveys that I conducted to support some of the points made in the previous chapters. Chapter 10 concludes our discussion. This book is a revised version of my Ph.D. dissertation, where all chapters have undergone a number of revisions. The original dissertation was written while I was a graduate student at the University of Geneva and a visiting scholar at MIT. In the course of writing this book, I have benefited a lot from various people. First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Luigi Rizzi for giving me a chance to write my dissertation under his supervision. His insightful comments broadened my perspective on theoretical linguistics, which I hope is reflected in this book. My deep appreciation goes to my other dissertation committee members. Ur Shlonsky always helped me sharpen my ideas by asking the right questions and pointing out possible flaws in my argumentation. Shigeru Miyagawa taught me many things through his lectures, discussion, and collaboration, for which I am very grateful. In addition to my committee members, I am grateful to the following linguists in Geneva: Christopher Laenzlinger, Jacques Moeschler, Genoveva Puskas, and Gabriela Soare for discussing some of the topics of the book with me.

PREFACE

ix

Some parts of my dissertation were written during my stay at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT in 2005, which was funded by a fellowship from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, to which I am grateful. Regular appointments with Noam Chomsky were some of my most precious and exciting moments. Also fruitful were informal discussions with Guglielmo Cinque, Morris Halle, James Huang, Shinichiro Ishihara, Alec Marantz, Norvin Richards, Koichi Takezawa, and Dong-Whee Yang. Many thanks go to Cedric Boeckx for discussing some of my premature ideas and for recommending publication of my dissertation. In the linguistics community in Japan, I am grateful to Roger Martin and Christopher Tancredi for proofreading an earlier version of this book. As my dissertation evolved into a book, I received helpful suggestions about organization from Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen, to whom I am very grateful. Kees Vaes from John Benjamins helped me a lot with the layout. I am also grateful to Lora Beth Bolton for proofreading an earlier version of this book. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents, Tadao and Sadako Endo, for moral support. Tokyo, Japan Yoshio Endo June 2007

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A Abs Acc Agr AgrP AN AP Asp ATB ATQ CAUS CL CSC Cop CP D Dat DEP D-link DO DP ECP Emp EPP Erg Fin FinP Foc Gen Ger Infl IO IP LCA LF MC Mod

Adjective Mod* Absolutive ModP Accusative MP Agreement N Agreement Phrase Neg Adjectival Noun NegP Adjective Phrase NIB Aspect Nom Across-the-board NPI Anti Topic Quantifier O Causative Op Classifier P Coordinate Structure Constraint PF Copula Poss Complementizer Phrase PP Determiner Pred Dative PredP De-emphasis Phrase Pres Discourse-link Prog Direct Object Prt Determiner Phrase Q Empty Category Principle QP Emphasis Quant Extended Projection Principle Qβ Ergative RM Finite S Finite Phrase SC Focus SFP Genitive SubjP Gerund Sg Inflection T Indirect Object Top Inflection Phrase TP Linear Correspondence Axiom V Logical Form VP Minimal Configuration Modal

Modifier Modifier Phrase Mood Phrase Noun Negation Negative Phrase Negation Induced Barrier Nominative Negative Polarity Item Object Operator Preposition/Postposition Phonetic Form Possessor Pre/Postpositional Phrase Predicate Predicate Phrase Present Progressive Particle Question Particle Quantifier Phrase Quantifier Specific Quantifier Relativized Minimality Subject Small Clause Sentence Final Particle Subject Phrase Singular Tense Topic Tense Phrase Verb Verb Phrase

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

This book is a study of locality within the framework of the cartography of syntactic structures, initiated jointly by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, in which crucial reference is made to notions revolving around information structure. Information structure is a term first introduced by Halliday (1967) to account for the distinctions of focus, presupposition, and propositional attitude toward entities in the discourse conveyed by phrasal intonation. It is mainly concerned with context-based information such as topic/old information versus focus/new information. Although the definition of these notions has been the topic of much research, I will not provide a comprehensive review of the previous research on these notions (see Erteschik-Shir (2007) for such an attempt). Instead, this book is mainly concerned with exploring the syntax of information structure from the cartographic view, in particular, issues relating to locality. Although the main focus is on Japanese syntax, the implications of the analyses are investigated in a broader comparative perspective. In this chapter, I will introduce some basic notions to be utilized in the rest of the book along with some relevant fundamental properties of Japanese. 1. 1

Generative grammar

The cartographic project is grounded in the framework of generative grammar. Generative grammar explores the nature of the “Language Faculty,” the species-specific capacity possessed by individual speakers to acquire and use a natural language (Chomsky 1959). From this perspective, language is a natural object, a component of the human mind that is physically represented in the brain. In this sense, linguistics is a branch of cognitive science, whose ultimate goal is to characterize a central component of human nature in the mind/brain. Acquiring the tacit knowledge of a particular language like French, English, Japanese, or any other language is made possible by the Language Faculty of the mind/brain, whose initial state is called Universal Grammar (UG). UG is a theory of invariance, guided by what Chomsky (2001:2) calls the Uniformity Principle: In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages to be uniform, with variety restricted to easily detectable properties of utterances. As soon as some grammatical property is attributed to UG, we want to know if the property holds

2

LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE

universally in other languages. The research presented in this book follows this spirit, investigating UG from the perspective of comparative syntax.

1. 2

Architecture of generative grammar

Sentences are made up of a potentially infinite number of distinct phrases. This implies that there is a grouping operation that combines at least two elements, an operation that Chomsky (2005) calls Merge. Imposing no upper bound on the number of applications of Merge yields recursion, as a result of which sentences can be potentially infinite. By Merge, two syntactic elements are combined, and one of the elements determines the syntactic status of the resulting unit, which is called the label. For instance, if we want to create a unit made up of three elements such as red umbrella stands, we need two steps: First, we put two elements together; the second step is to take the group just formed and join the third element to it. Let us see how this procedure works by looking at the structural ambiguity of red umbrella stands. One structure represents the meaning (i) “stands for red umbrellas,” and the other represents the meaning (ii) “umbrella stands that are red in color.” This ambiguity may be attributed to the difference in which elements are first combined. The first option is to combine umbrella and stand first to project stand as shown in (1a). The second option is to combine red and umbrella first to project umbrella, as shown in (1b). In step 2, a third element (red in (1a) and stand in (1b)) is joined to the already constructed element (umbrella stand (1a) and red umbrella (1b)): (1)

a.

stand stand

b.

stand

step 1: {umbrella, stand} → step 2: {red {umbrella, stand} } stand umbrella

umbrella

step 1: {red, umbrella}→ step 2: {{red, umbrella} stand} When a phrase grows large enough, an operation called ‘Spell-Out’ splits the formed syntactic unit into the phonological component and the semantic component. The relevant units are called ‘phases,’ the details of which do not concern us in this book.

INTRODUCTION

(2) Merge

LF Spell-Out PF (semantic component) (phonological component) For the case at hand, in the phrase red umbrella stand, the scope of red is determined in the semantic component, where the word red takes scope over an element within its c-command domain (A c-commands B when the first branching node that dominates A also dominates B). With the syntactic unit {red {umbrella, stand}}, red takes scope over umbrella stand, giving rise to the interpretation of umbrella stands that are red in color, while in the syntactic unit {{red, umbrella} stand}, red takes scope over umbrella, yielding the interpretation of stands for red umbrellas. The phonological impact of this ambiguous phrase is impressive and quite visible in Japanese, since the first word-initial, voiceless consonant of the right-branching member is optionally turned into a voiced consonant, which is called sequential voicing or Rendaku: (3)

a. {aka {kasa, tate/date}} {red {umbrella, stand} } voiced b.

{{aka, kasa/gasa} tate/date} {{red, umbrella} stand}, voiced voiced See Chapter 7 for more discussion of Rendaku. Let us look at a larger unit. Suppose that recursive application of Merge gives rise to a basic thematic structure of the following sort: (4)

[vP John v [VP bought red umbrellas] ] (Agent) (Theme)

Here, the internal argument DP, red umbrellas, is base-generated within VP and is interpreted as carrying the Theme role of the buying action denoted by the predicate in

3


4

this configuration; the external argument DP, John, on the other hand, is base-generated in the specifier of the little v outside VP, being interpreted as carrying the Agent role of the buying action. The status of the Goal role in ditransitive predicates like give is controversial. In Chapter 7, we will see how and in what configuration DP receives the Goal role in ditransitives. Above vP are various functional projections, which are the focus of investigation within the cartographic project, as we will see in the next section.

1. 3

Cartography of syntactic structures

Cartographic approaches to syntactic structures aim at drawing a map, as detailed as possible, of the functional (or grammatical) structure of the clause and of its major phrases. The underlying assumption of this project is that all languages share the same functional categories and the same principles of phrase and clause composition, although they may differ in the movements they admit and in the projections that are overtly realized (Cinque 2006: 4-5). A very clear illustration can be made by considering the position of adverbials. For instance, certain low adverbs typically intervene between the verb and the direct object in French and other Romance languages as in (5a), while they appear between the subject and the inflected verb in English as in (5b): (5)

a.

b.

Jean voit souvent Jean see often ‘John often sees Mary’ John often sees Mary

Marie Marie

(French)

(English)

According to the Uniformity Principle, the adverb occupies the same position in both languages and what can vary is the position of the verb in a constant structural configuration. That is, on the standard assumption that the sentence has T(ense) between the subject and the predicate VP, in languages like French, the verb moves to T across the adverb in French, while in English, it remains in its base position (Emonds 1978, Pollock 1989) or undergoes short movement to a low functional head (Johnson 1991). (6)

a.

T [TP Jean [TP Jean voit+T

[souvent voit Marie] [souvent Marie]

(French)

b.

[TP John

[often

(English)

T

sees

Mary]

INTRODUCTION

A major development of this line of research is attested in Cinque’s (1999) systematic analysis of adverbial positions, leading to a strict universal hierarchy, which matches the universal hierarchy of functional heads expressing properties of tense, mood, aspect, voice, etc. The following is what Cinque proposes for the functional heads above vP. (7)

[frankly Modspeechact [fortunately Modevaluative [allegedly Modevidential [probably Modepistemic [once T(Past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Modirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive(I) [often Aspfrequentative(I) [intentionally Modvolitional [quickly Aspcelerative [already T(Anterior) [no longer Aspterminative [still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect() [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly Aspdurative [characteristically() Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospective [completely Aspcompletive(I) [tutto AspPICCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative(II) [again Asprepetitive(II) [ often Aspfrequentative(II) [completely AspSgCompletive(II) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Cinque’s results show that although languages vary in the morphological marking of temporal, aspectual, and modal properties on the verb, the rich clausal structure expressing such properties and hosting adverbial positions is uniform in this domain. Above these functional projections comes TP or the Subject Phrase (cf. Rizzi 2006a) that hosts the subject, as we saw with the English and French examples (cf. Chapter 8 for the nature of the Subject Phrase).

1. 4

The syntax of information structure: Left periphery

An analogous analysis is made by Rizzi (1997, 2004) in his exploration of the left periphery of the clause (CP zone). The left periphery usually encodes information structures such as topic, focus, etc. The general tendency of information structure is that the word order of old or topical information and new or focused information are fixed and show some pattern. A clear case is noted by Rizzi with the following Italian example: (8)

Credo che ieri QUESTO a Gianni avreste dovuto dirgli believe that yesterday THIS to Gianni have should said Top Foc Top ‘I believe that yesterday THIS to Gianni you should have said’

Here, topical elements (Top) and a focalized element (Foc) appear in the following pattern: (9)

…Top…Foc…Top*…

5


6

The difference between topic and focus is based on the following distinctions: (i) a topic can involve a resumptive clitic; (ii) a topic does not give rise to weak crossover effects; (iii) bare quantificational elements like no one, all, etc., cannot serve as topics in the clitic left dislocation construction; (iv) the number of peripheral topics is unlimited, but there can only be one fronted focus (cf. Rizzi 1997). The question arises as to how the linear order of topical and focalized elements is to be explained. There are two possibilities: (10)

a. b.

A focalized element is adjoined before or after a topical element by some rule on the left periphery. Focalized elements and topical elements are found in the dedicated specifier position of a functional head in the CP zone.

The cartographic approach takes the second option. That is, movement of topical and focalized elements (Criterial Goal) is triggered by the satisfaction of a feature requirement of a functional head (Criterial Probe) in the left periphery (Rizzi 2006b). According to this idea, a topical and a focalized element must end up in the specifier of the relevant functional head in the left periphery; therefore, the linear order of topical and focalized elements of the CP zone is fixed. In this sense, the pattern of Italian topical and focalized elements is derived from the architecture of left peripheral functional categories in the CP zone. Note that the cartographic approach assumes syntactic operations for discourse-related materials such as topic and focus, implying that discourse-related materials may actively enter into syntactic computations and should be sensitive to syntactic principles like locality principles. In this book, we will see exactly this point by discussing various discourse-related facts in Japanese from comparative perspectives. In this sense, the results of the cartographic study of topical and focalized elements provide an empirical and theoretical basis for drawing a typology of positions that the study of locality builds upon; at the same time, selective locality effects can provide evidence for identifying various discourse-related positions in the CP zone, as noted by Rizzi (2004: 224). Before we look at Japanese, let us examine some basic properties of locality.

1. 5

Locality

Natural language may express unbounded expressions by the recursive application of syntactic operations. This point may be illustrated by a relative clause of the following kind: (11)

The dog that kissed the cat that saw the rat that liked the boy …

INTRODUCTION

7

Syntactic operations, however, apply within certain domains of locality. Thus, we may not move a syntactic element out of only one relative clause, which is sometimes characterized by the rubric “Subjacency” (Chomsky 1977): (12)

*How have you found [DP someone [CP who would fix the car t]]

Here, the bracketed DP-CP pair counts as the barrier that blocks locality between the sentence-initial wh-element how and its original position marked by the trace t. Since the inception of generative grammar, the nature of the relevant locality principles has been one of the central topics of investigation. There are two ways to approach locality: asymmetrical approaches and symmetrical approaches. The asymmetrical approaches assume certain structural boundaries count as barriers for syntactic elements X and Y. The Subjacency case we saw immediately above is a case in point. The symmetrical approaches, in contrast, take an intervening element of a designated kind to count as a blocker for a local relation. The Specified Subject Condition for Binding is a direct illustration of this point: (13)

a. b.

John likes [DP Bill’s story about himself] (Chomsky 1995: 102) John likes [DP a story about himself]

In (13a), the anaphor himself may not take John as its antecedent in the presence of the closer potential antecedent Bill. In other words, the locality between John and himself is blocked by the intervener Bill. Note that the bracketed DP boundary itself does not count as the relevant barrier for this anaphoric relation, as shown by the grammaticality of (13b). Instead, anaphors must be in a minimal configuration with the antecedent, where minimality is relativized to the nature of the structural relation to be established. Rizzi (1990) maximizes the role of intervention within symmetrical approaches as follows: (i) Heads generally cannot move across other heads; (ii) Arguments may not skip another argument position (A-position); (iii) Wh-movement may not target a non-argument position (A’-position) by skipping another element in the A’-position of the relevant type: (14)

a. b. c.

*Have they could t left *John seems it is likely t to win *How do you wonder who kissed Mary t

In (14a), the head could blocks locality between the sentence-initial head have and its original position marked by its trace; in (14b), the argument it in the A-position blocks locality between the sentence-initial John in the A-position and its original position

8


marked by its trace; in (14c), who in the A’-position blocks locality between the sentence-initial how in the A’- position and its original position marked by t. To summarize the symmetrical approach, in the following configuration, locality between X and Y is blocked by Z of the same type as X: (15)

…X…Z…Y…

In contrast, in an asymmetrical approach, a head Z may block the locality of phrases X and Y. The that-trace effect illustrates the point, where the head of CP that may block locality between the sentence initial wh-phrase who and its original position marked by the trace t in (16). (16)

Who do you believe [CP that [TP t kissed Mary]]

According to the symmetrical approach, although a head Z blocks the locality of heads X and Y, a head does not block locality between non-heads X and Y at all in the that-trace example we saw above; the symmetrical approaches assume that some other mechanism is operative to account for that-trace effects (see Rizzi (1990) and Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006) for such attempts). The locality principle that we explore in this book is the symmetrical approach, which is called Relativized Minimality (RM). RM takes the relevant intervener to be relativized to the nature of the structural relation to be established. The main intuition behind RM, which was first proposed by Rizzi (1990), is that an element may not establish a local relation with another position across an element of the same type. (see the next chapter for a more accurate characterization of RM). As Rizzi (2004: 224) suggests, RM can be considered as an economy principle in that it severely limits the portion of structure within which a given local relation is computed: Elements trying to enter into a local relation are short-sighted, so to speak, in that they can only see as far as the first potential bearer of the relevant relation. To see this point clearly, let me use a metaphor. Suppose you are walking to the post office to mail your letter. On the way, you happen to see a mailbox. One of the most natural actions you would take here would be to stop there to mail your letter without bothering to move further to the post office. This is because to stop and mail the letter on the way is the more economical choice than doing the same mailing action by walking farther to the post office. Let us examine the empirical coverage of symmetrical approaches and asymmetrical approaches to make their difference clear. As we saw earlier, syntactic operations are amenable to various constraints. Ross (1968) is the first systematic study to enumerate a catalogue of domains from which movement is prohibited, which he calls islands. According to asymmetrical approaches such as Chomsky (1986) and Cinque (1990), syntactic elements are not movable from a domain that is not selected by a lexical

INTRODUCTION

category, which is called a barrier. Huang’s (1982) Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) is a direct demonstration of this point: (17)

a. b.

*Which books did [talking about t] become difficult *To whom did you leave [without speaking t] (Cinque 1990: 1)

In (17a), movement of the wh-element which books from the subject is prohibited, and in (17b), movement of the wh-element to whom from an adverbial element is also prohibited. In other cases such as wh-islands, a node dominating a wh-element in the specifier of CP counts as a barrier indirectly through inheritance of a lower element TP that is not selected by a lexical category. (18)

*How did they ask you [CP who [TP behaved t] ]

(Cinque 1990: 1)

Symmetrical approaches, such as Rizzi’s (1990) RM, make a more modest attempt at finding a novel pattern out of some islands, which are sometimes called weak islands, including wh-islands and negative islands, etc. Let us consider a case of negative islands of the following sort: (19)

*How didn’t you behave t

(Cinque 1990:1)

Here, the wh-element how may not move across the negation. Recall the intuition behind symmetrical approaches like Rizzi’s RM is that a syntactic element may not move across another syntactic element of the same syntactic type. Are negation and a wh-element such as how of the same type? This brings us to the question of what counts as the relevant syntactic type. There are some variants for the calculation of the relevant syntactic type: (i) structural types and (ii) feature types. Rizzi (1990) pursues the structural type view; i.e., it resorts to structural positions like head, A-position, and A’-position to identify what counts as the relevant intervener. According to this view, heads cannot move across other heads, arguments may not skip another A-position, A’-movement may not target the specifier of an A’-position by skipping another element in the A’-position. For negative islands, Rizzi (1990) assumes that negation is located in the specifier of NegP (A’-position) and thus blocks movement of how across it into the higher specifier of CP. Rizzi (2004) explores a different view, according to which the relevant intervener is calculated based on feature types. According to this view, a syntactic element may not move across another syntactic element of the same feature class. Keeping things at an intuitive level for the moment, the point is that Rizzi groups together elements that apparently do not seem to be of the same type in the calculation of the intervener for

9

10


locality. For the case at hand, a wh-element and negation are grouped together as the same feature class, and thus a wh-element may not move across negation by RM. Rizzi’s (2004) proposal, then, is that elements of an apparently different type can be grouped together into the same class (see also Starke 2001). According to this view, the intuitive content of RM is that an element of one feature class may not move across another element of the same feature class; conversely, an element may skip another element so long as they belong to different feature classes. The following is the relevant list of classes that is defined by features as proposed by Rizzi (2004): (20)

a. b. c. d.

Argumental: person, number, gender, case Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure, focus ... Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg, frequentative, celerative, measure, manner, ... Topic

Thus, in the case of the negative islands we saw above, the wh-element how may not skip the negation not because they belong to the same feature class: the quantificational class. Note that the sentence is grammatical in the absence of negation as follows: (21)

How did you behave t

Here, the wh-element how of the quantificational class may skip the subject you of the argumental class because they belong to different feature classes and do not interfere with each other. In the same way, in the case of wh-islands, a wh-element how may not skip another wh-element who of the same quantificational class. (22)

*How do you wonder [who kissed Mary t]

We have seen that there are two types of blockers for movement operations: the Subjacency-type blocker and the wh-island-type blocker. The first type includes subject islands and complex NP islands, which are sometimes referred to as strong islands because they induce a strong deviancy and affect both arguments and adjuncts. The second type includes wh-islands and negative islands, which are sometimes called weak islands because their blocking power is relatively mild and they typically affect adjuncts but not arguments. To make this distinction clear, let me use a metaphor again. Suppose you are walking toward the post office to buy stamps. You happen to see a stranger who is moving in the same direction. When you and the stranger turn the corner, both of you are stopped because there is a new building recently built and you cannot go further. In this case, the new building has the blocking power to stop both you (adjunct) and the stranger (argument) from moving further. This is the barrier seen in strong islands

INTRODUCTION

11

operative for both arguments and adjuncts. As for weak islands, imagine the same scenario as the one above. Before you turn the corner, you are stopped because you see a friend of yours. But the stranger goes on without being stopped because your friend is not a friend of the stranger. Here, the stopping/blocking power of your friend is relativized with respect to the property of the moving objects: you (adjunct) or the stranger (argument). 1. 6

Intersection between locality and information structure

The list in (20) is interesting from the viewpoint of information structure, since topic and focus are classified into different feature classes. Let us see this point by looking at a counterexample to the original formulation of RM noted by Kuno and Takami (1997). (23)

With which of his dates didn’t he have a good time (Kuno and Takami 1997: 564)

This sentence is most naturally interpreted if the content of the wh-element is already at issue in the conversation. Suppose that we are talking about John, who we know always has good time with his dates, say, Jane, Nancy, and Mary. But we hear that he had a bad time with one of them last week. In this discourse, we may question the identity of the date with whom John had a bad time last week by using the sentence above. In this situation, the negative island effect can be voided. Why is this so? There seem to be at least two possible ways to address this problem. One is through the binding strategy, taken by Rizzi (1990), and the other is by the cartographic approach explored in Rizzi (2001b, 2004). Let us first consider the binding strategy. Rizzi (1990) suggests that argument wh-elements are free from RM effects, as illustrated below. Here, the wh-element what binds the trace marked as t. (24)

What do you not believe he weighed t

This sentence can be answered “potatoes,” meaning that the argument wh-element what can skip the negation not. Since there is no possible potential intervening binder in (24), the wh-element and its trace can be connected through the binding strategy. However, the same analysis cannot be applied to (23), since, as Rizzi (1990) notes, binding is generally restricted to DPs, and the wh-element with which of his dates is a PP, not a DP. Thus, the binding strategy is not available to salvage this sentence. Fortunately, the cartographic approach, explored by Rizzi (2001b, 2004), does not suffer from this problem. As we saw earlier, the wh-element in (23) is interpreted as a topic in conversation and may target the specifier of the Topic Phrase (TopP) in the CP

12


zone. Since the topic class is distinct from the quantificational class, to which negation belongs, the wh-element of the topic class may skip negation of the quantificational class. 1. 7

Japanese from the cartographic perspective

In this book, special attention is paid to Japanese syntax to explore the nature of the left peripheries and locality. Before going directly into the technical discussions, let me introduce some of the basic properties of Japanese that will be relevant in the discussion to follow. First, the basic word order of Japanese is SOV, and the head always comes last (i.e., it is a strictly head-final language), as illustrated below: (25)

John-ga tosyokan-de John-Nom library-in ‘John read books in the library’

hon-o book-Acc

yonda read

Here, the direct object ‘book’ precedes the verb ‘read.’ As usually attested in head-final languages, a postposition, not a preposition, is used in Japanese. Thus, the locative adverbial expression ‘in the library’ is expressed above using the postposition de ‘in.’ Note also that Japanese expresses grammatical relations by suffixing a Case particle to the arguments. In the sentence above, the subject ‘John’ is suffixed by the nominative Case particle ga and the direct object ‘book’ is suffixed by the accusative Case particle o. Case particles are sometimes optional, but optional Case particles may create new semantic effects and count as relevant interveners for locality principles, as I will discuss in chapters 5 and 6. The basic word order of the two internal arguments of ditransitive predicates is controversial, as will be discussed in chapter 7. Second, Japanese has many types of particles, in addition to Case particles. For instance, there are several particles in Japanese that may suffix to a predicate to take scope over the entire clause or suffix to an element to create adverbials. Let us consider the first case. Particles like wa/ze may suffix to a predicate taking scope over the whole sentence. To see the function of sentence-final particles, consider the following: (26)

a.

b.

John-ga John-Nom ‘John went’ John-ga John-Nom ‘John went’

itta went itta-wa/ze went-Prt

INTRODUCTION

13

These two sentences differ minimally in that in (26b) the predicate ‘went’ is suffixed by the particle wa/ze. The particle wa signals that the speaker is female while the particle ze signals that the speaker is male. A comparative consideration is relevant here. Consider the following French sentences: (27)

a.

b.

Il est séduit he is attracted ‘He is attracted’ Elle est séduite she is attracted ‘She is attracted’

In (27b), agreement is established between the participial ending morpheme e and the feminine subject. Japanese sentence-final particles may do a similar job: The morpheme wa agrees with the feminine speaker, while the masculine particle ze agrees with the male speaker. Such clause-final particles also interact with syntactic operations in Japanese. This is shown by a particle like ne. As I will demonstrate in chapter 8, some clause-final particles may play a role in satisfying the Extended Projection Principle (EPP): the syntactic requirement that a clause have a structurally realized subject. Some clause-final particles may satisfy the EPP, which allows the subject to remain in the “base” vP-internal position. Recent cross-linguistic studies have shown that the EPP is typically satisfied by a nominal element. In fact, the Japanese sentence-final particle ne, as opposed to wa/ze, has a nominal feature, as evidenced by the fact that it may select a nominal complementizer no, as shown below. (28)

a.

b.

John-ga John-Nom ‘John came’ John-ga John-Nom ‘John came’

kita came

no C

ne Prt

kita came

no C

(*wa/ze) (*Prt)

Let us next consider particles to form adverbials. In Japanese, there are several ways to form adverbials. One way revolves around a category called adjectival nouns, which look like nouns but have the categorical status of adjectives (cf. Baker (2003), Miyagawa (1987) and Ohkado (1991) for the nature of adjectival nouns). An adjectival noun can be converted into a manner adverbial or celerative adverbial by suffixing the particle ni to it (see Nishiyama (1999) for discussion). I call such adverbials ‘low adverbials’:

14


(29)

mazime-ni serious-Prt ‘seriously’

kenage-ni admirable-Prt ‘admirably’

syooziki-ni honest-Prt ‘honestly’

Another type of adverbial in Japanese can be created when the adverbials in (29) are followed by the particle mo, as shown below: (30)

mazime-ni-mo serious-Prt-Prt ‘seriously’

kenage-ni-mo admirable-Prt-Prt ‘admirably’

syooziki-ni-mo honest-Prt-Prt ‘honestly’

Adverbials derived in this way, which I call ‘middle adverbials’ (cf. chapter 9 for high adverbials), are typically interpreted as subject-oriented (Jackendoff 1972). Subjectoriented adverbials express root modality involving a subject’s volition, obligation, and ability. Cinque (1999) classifies such adverbials as root modals and argues that they appear higher than manner/celerative adverbials. In fact, when the low adverbial and the middle adverbial appear next to each other, the higher one must precede the lower one, showing that the first type is structurally higher than the second type in the syntactic tree, as illustrated in (31a-b) below; when both types are present, the low adverbial may not be fronted over the middle adverbial, while the middle adverbial may be fronted without crossing the lower adverbial, as illustrated in (31c-d). (31)

a.

b.

c.

John-wa John-Top

syooziki-ni-mo mazime-ni hirotta okane-o honestly seriously found money-Acc (middle) (low) kooban-ni todoketa to.the.police brought ‘John honestly brought the money he found to the police seriously’ *John-wa mazime-ni syooziki-ni-mo hirotta okane-o John-Top seriously honestly found money-Acc (low) (middle) kooban-ni todoketa to.the.police brought ‘John honestly brought the money he found to the police seriously’ *Mazime-ni John-wa syooziki-ni-mo hirotta okane-o seriously John-Top honestly found money-Acc (low) (high) kooban-ni todoketa to.the.police brought ‘John honestly brought the money he found to the police seriously’

INTRODUCTION

d.

15

Syooziki-ni-mo John-wa mazime-ni hirotta okane-o honestly John-Top seriously found money-Acc (middle) (low) kooban-ni todoketa to.the.police brought ‘John honestly brought the money he found to the police seriously’

From this pattern, we may identify a structural asymmetry of the middle adverbials and the low adverbials when they are read without special intonation patterns. What is crucial here is that this structural asymmetry is reflected by different morphemes suffixed to these different types of adverbials, which may be thought to occupy or are related to the relevant functional head in Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy we saw above. We will discuss the nature of adverbials in Japanese in chapter 9. Third, Japanese is a so-called free-word-order language. Thus, even though the basic word order is SOV, the word order where the object precedes the subject is also possible. During the 1970s, it was generally assumed that Japanese had a “flat” structure. For instance, Hale (1982) proposes that there are two types of languages, configurational and non-configurational, and that Japanese is an example of the latter. Hale notes the fact that in a non-configurational language, word order is not rigid and objects may freely precede the subject. He claims that this is because the “flat” phrase structure of a nonconfigurational language like Japanese lacks a VP, hence S and O are equal in status. In the 1980s, however, a series of studies proposed that Japanese is just as configurational as any of the other so-called configurational languages like English. One of the arguments is based on pronominal co-reference. Compare the following: (32)

a. b. c.

Johni thinks that hei will be chosen *Hei thinks that Johni will be chosen After hei came in, Johni sat on the stool

In (32a), the intended co-reference between John and he is possible, but it is not possible in (32b). Although what is problematic in (32b) is that the pronoun precedes its antecedent, (32c) shows that it is fine for the pronoun to precede its antecedent. This paradigm follows from Binding Condition C, according to which the pronoun may not c-command its antecedent. In (32b), not in (32a) or (32c), the pronoun he c-commands the antecedent John. With this in mind, let’s consider the following, discussed by Hoji (1985), Saito (1983), and Miyagawa (1989): (33)

a.

Johni-no sensei-ga John-Gen teacher-Nom ‘Johni’s teacher scolded himi’

karei-o he-Acc

hihansita scolded

16


b. c.

[John’s teacher him scolded] [John’s teacher [VP him scolded]

(non-configurational structure) (configurational structure)

In (33a), the intended co-reference between John and kare ‘he’ is possible. The non-configurational structure in (33b) incorrectly blocks this intended co-reference, since ‘him’ c-commands ‘John.’ In contrast, the configurational structure in (33c) allows the intended co-reference, since ‘him’ does not c-command ‘John.’ Based on this fact and others, the current standard assumption is that Japanese phrase structure is configurational, and free word order in Japanese (SOV and OSV) is derived by movement (i.e., “scrambling”) of the object over the subject. But how can an argument skip another argument in apparent violation of RM? We will discuss this point in chapters 6 and 8. Although word order is relatively free in Japanese, wh-elements need not move overtly to the clause-initial position in Japanese, unlike in English. However, whelements in situ are sensitive to syntactic constraints, as illustrated in (34) below. (34)

??Mary-wa [John-ni ittai nani-o ageta hito-ni] Mary-Top John-Dat the.hell what-Acc gave person-Dat atta no? met Q ‘What the hell did Mary meet the person who gave to John?’ (Pesetsky 1987: 111; cf. Lasnik and Saito 1992)

Here, the wh-element nani ‘what’ inside the bracketed relative clause immediately precedes the verb katta ‘bought’ in situ and is associated with the Q-particle no marker over the relative clause. This sentence is degraded by violation of Subjacency. Because Subjacency is a constraint on overt syntax, Watanabe (1992a, b) assumes that an empty operator moves out of a wh-element in overt syntax. In chapter 5, we will discuss a case where an optional Case particle creates a new semantic effect of focus, which blocks empty operator movement out of a wh-element in situ. Fourth, Japanese is a discourse-prominent language, where the subject and the direct object need not be overt so long as they are clear from discourse. Another interesting aspect of the discourse-prominence of Japanese is seen in the discourse-particle wa, which is typically suffixed to the topic element of a sentence.1 For example, consider the following sentences:

1

Note that, although homophonous, the topic particle wa is different from the feminine clause final particle wa that we saw earlier; the clause final particle is suffixed to a tensed predicate while the topic particle is mainly suffixed to arguments and sometimes to an infinitival predicate.

INTRODUCTION

(35)

a.

b.

c.

17

Mukasi aru mura-ni oziisan-ga once.upon.a.time certain village-at old.man-Nom sunde-imasita live-polite ‘Once upon a time, there lived an old man in a village’ Aruhi oziisan-wa yama-ni inu-o tureteiki-masita one.day old.man-Top mountain-to dog-Acc brought-polite ‘One day, the old man brought his dog to the mountain’ Inu-wa totyuude tukareta-node tatidomari-masita dog-Top on.the.way got.tired-because stopped-polite ‘Because the dog got tired, it stopped walking on the way’

Here, in (35a), an old man is first introduced in the story, and the phrase oziisan ‘old man’ is suffixed by the nominative Case particle ga. In (35b), the same phrase is suffixed by the particle wa, since it is old information at this point. In the same way, the direct object inu ‘dog,’ introduced and marked with the accusative Case particle o in (38b), is suffixed by the particle wa in (35c). The topic particle in Japanese may sometimes be dropped when it serves a scene-setting function. This is similar to a hanging topic in Italian. Recall that there are several topic positions in the left periphery: (36)

…Top…Foc…Top*…

Here, we see two topics. Benincà and Poletto (2004) argue that these two topic positions are syntactically distinct: hanging topic and left dislocation. For instance, hanging topics always require resumptive pronouns that agree with them in number and gender, but not Case, while left dislocations only require a resumptive pronoun when they correspond to direct or partitive objects. Hanging topics, which are argued to appear in the higher of the two topic positions in (36), share properties with Japanese scene-setting adverbials with the topic particle dropped. In chapter 4, we will see that low topics show locality effects at LF, and in chapter 5, we will show that Japanese high topics without a particle are similar to Italian hanging topics. The discourse particle wa is not a mere marker to signal old information but interacts with syntactic operations. First, universal quantifiers like daremo and minna are different with respect to their ability to be suffixed by this particle wa, as shown below: (37)

*daremo-wa everyone-Top ‘everyone’

minna-wa everyone-Top ‘everyone’

18


As we will see in chapter 3, this difference is correlated with the blocking effects of wh-movement. Thus, in Japanese, some discourse-related elements actively participate in syntactic operations. We will see that this particle plays a crucial role in exploring the nature of locality in chapters 3 and 4. To summarize so far, Japanese has the following properties: (38)

1. 8

a. b. c. d.

basic word order: SOV (head-final) grammatical function: by particles (sometimes optional) word order variation: relatively free by scrambling discourse prominent: the particle wa marks the topic

Organization

The rest of this book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses negative islands, mainly in English, to review the historical development of RM in an accurate manner. Chapter 3 examines some quantifiers that block wh-movement in Japanese. Chapter 4 takes up the issue, raised in Rizzi (2004), of why topics are special with respect to RM in Italian and provides a piece of evidence from Japanese backward binding in favor of one possible solution. Chapter 5 turns our attention to a case where suffixation of an extra Case particle induces a new semantic effect of focus interpretation, which correlatively blocks wh-movement, suggesting the Gricean nature of this effect of focus interpretation. It will be shown that the relevant properties favor representational approaches to the blocking effects like Rizzi (2004, 2006a). Chapter 6 explores the nature of the suffixation of the nominative Case particle ga to an adverbial, which creates a new focus interpretation and blocks overt movement. In chapter 7, we will look at locality seen in the dative construction and the double object construction in English and Japanese from the perspective of morpho-syntax. Chapter 8 discusses the nature of the subject position. After we examine the subject position from the perspective of scrambling, I will argue that the EPP may be satisfied by a discourse-related X0-element in the CP zone. Chapter 9 presents results of the informant surveys that I conducted to support some of the points made in the previous chapters. Chapter 10 concludes our discussion.

CHAPTER 2 Evolution of Relativized Minimality

In this chapter, we will see a more in-depth historical development of Relativized Minimality (RM) by concentrating on negative islands. This chapter is organized along the following lines. In section 1, I will introduce the original formulation of RM presented by Rizzi (1990). In section 2, we will see some problems posed for the original RM. In section 3, some important refinements of RM are introduced. With the refinements in mind, sections 4-6 will examine the latest version of RM based on feature classes. We will see that negation needs to belong to the quantificational class and the modifier class to block movement of modifiers and quantificational elements. In section 7, I will suggest that this multiple affiliation strategy can be exploited to derive the coordinate structure constraint. Section 8 is devoted to the examination of negative islands in Japanese. Section 9 concludes our discussion in this chapter.

2. 1

The original RM: Rizzi (1990)

To the best of my knowledge, Ross (1983) was the first generative linguist to give a detailed description of negative islands, according to which an adjunct, as opposed to an argument, cannot move across negation, as illustrated below: (1)

a. b.

Bill is here, which they (don’t) know t Bill is here, as they (*don’t) know t

Rizzi (1990, 1992) proposes to derive this negative island effect from RM. According to the original version of RM, there are two ways to connect an operator-variable pair: binding and antecedent-government. In (1a), the operator which and its variable t are connected through binding, which is defined as follows: (2)

X binds Y iff (i) X c-commands Y; (ii) X and Y have the same referential index. (Rizzi 1990: 87)

20


Here, the referential index may only be assigned to an element associated with a referential theta role assigned by a predicate. In (1a), the trace t is assigned a referential theta role from the predicate know; hence, it can be connected to the c-commanding operator which with the same referential index through binding. In contrast, the sentence in (1b) has a trace of as which is not assigned a referential theta role from the predicate; hence, the trace must be connected to its operator through antecedent-government, which is defined as in (3-5) below. (3)

(4)

(5)

X W-antecedent-governs Y (W={A, A’, X0}) iff (i) X and Y are nondistinct; (ii) X c-commands Y; (iii) No barrier intervenes; (iv) Relativized Minimality is respected. (cf. Rizzi 1990: 25, 92) Relativized Minimality In the configuration […X…Z…Y…], Xα-governs (i.e. head-governs or antecedent governs) Y only if there is no Z such that a. Z is a typical potentialα-governor for Y; b. Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X. If Z is a typical potential antecedent governor for Y, Y in an A’-chain, then Z is an A’-specifier c-commanding Y.

According to this machinery, antecedent government fails in the sentence in (1b), since the negative expression not is a typical potential antecedent governor occupying the A’-position (the specifier of NegP), which blocks antecedent-government between the operator as and its trace due to RM; the operator and its variable are not connected, in violation of Full Interpretation, and thus the sentence is ruled out. This approach relies on the idea that a negative element not occupies an A’-position, not an X0-position. This point is shown by the fact that an intervening negation does not block an X0-chain (cf. Rizzi 1990, Emonds 1978, Holmberg and Platzack 1988): (6)

a. b. c.

They Ils ne they Jan John

have [not t left] mangent [pas t ] eat not köpte inte boken bought not books

(English) (French) (Swedish)

Here, the negative expressions not, pas, and inte in the specifier of NegP do not block X0-chains created by a head (have, mangent ‘eat’, and köpte ‘bought’), in keeping with RM, which regulates only the same structural type elements.

EVOLUTION OF RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY

21

As is clear from this account, the original RM is based on types of syntactic positions like A-specifier, A’-specifier, and head positions. Thus, antecedent government from an A-position is blocked by an intervening A-specifier, as in the case of super-raising examples such as John seems it is likely to win; antecedent government from an A’-position is blocked by an intervening A’-specifier as in the case of wh-islands, illustrated by how do you wonder which problem to solve?; and antecedent government from a head position is blocked by an intervening head, as in Head Movement Constraint (HMC) violations such as have they could left?1

2. 2

Challenge from Kuno and Takami (1997)

Kuno and Takami (1997) (henceforth, K&T) challenge the original RM by advancing various counterexamples. Their counterexamples can be classified into several types. The first type is related to selected PPs, which sometimes show negative-island effects, as shown below: (7)

a. b.

In which room didn’t they put a copy of the Bible ??/*In which filing cabinet didn’t he put the document (K&T 1997: 557)

Here, the predicate put assigns a referential theta role (i.e., goal role) to a selected PP. Based on this fact, K&T claim that RM wrongly predicts that it is possible to extract these PPs from negative islands. To account for the asymmetry above with respect to negative islands, K&T first note the ambiguity of the affirmative sentences corresponding to the sentences in (7). (8)

a. b.

They didn’t put a copy of the Bible in room 325 He didn’t put the document in the filing cabinet

Here, the sentence in (8a) is ambiguous between the interpretation in which the PP in room 325 is the focus of negation and the interpretation where it is not, though the latter interpretation would be predominant. In contrast, the sentence in (8b) is unambiguous, only allowing for the interpretation whereby the PP in the filing cabinet is construed as 1 One may wonder why super-raising cannot be saved by the binding strategy. Rizzi (1990: 93-4) suggests a possibility to define the theta-criterion in terms of chain, which is in turn defined in terms of antecedent-government. According to this idea, the theta-role assigned to the tail of the A-chain (trace) fails to be transmitted to the head of the chain (John) by the intervening A-element (it) due to RM.

22


the focus of negation. With this distinction in mind, K&T advance the functional constraint in (9) below. (9)

Ban on Extraction of the Focus of Negation An element that is the focus of negation cannot be extracted out of the scope (i.e., the c-command domain) of {Neg, xneg}, where xneg is a member of the class of semantically negative elements {not, little, only, few, hardly, …}.

According to this constraint, the ungrammaticality in the sentence in (7b) comes from the fact that the obligatorily focalized element is moved across the negative element didn’t. This constraint is silent about the PP in the sentence in (7a), since the PP is not the focus of negation; hence, the sentence is ruled in. The second type of counterexample raised by K&T involves cases where even a selected DP shows a negative island effect, as illustrated below: (10)

a. b.

*How much money didn’t he earn How much money wasn’t he willing to contribute

Again, this contrast seems problematic to the original RM approach, since argument extraction is systematically allowed by the binding strategy. To explain this contrast, K&T propose the following: (11)

Ban on Questions that Solicit Uninformative Answers Don’t ask negative questions that solicit pragmatically useless answers. N.B. An answer to a negative question is pragmatically useful (a) if it is indicative of the nature of the answer to the corresponding positive question; or (b) if the class of all correct answers to the negative question constitutes a pragmatically useful notion.

In the sentence in (10a), there can be indefinitely many correct answers and no useful purpose is accomplished by soliciting one such answer, because it would say little about how much the person under discussion earned. Thus, the sentence in (10a) sounds odd due to the Ban on Questions that Solicit Uninformative Answers. In contrast, in (10b), it is easy to assume that a fundraiser asked the person under discussion to donate a particular sum of money but that he was unwilling to do so. The question asks what that particular sum was, to which a pragmatically useful answer can be given (K&T 1997: 572). Thus, the sentence in (10b) sounds fine.


23

Let us consider K&T’s third type of counterexamples to RM: Adjuncts sometimes do not show a negative island effect, as attested below: (12)

a. b.

With which of your tools couldn’t you repair the clock With which of his dates didn’t he have a good time (K&T 1997: 564)

Because only arguments escape negative island violation through binding, the adjunct wh-movement above may not be rescued by the binding strategy, and the sentences are wrongly ruled out by RM. K&T attribute the acceptability seen above to the fact that the adjunct PPs are outside the focus of negation. They note that the expression which suggests that the wh-element is not focalized here. In fact, Rizzi (1990, 1994) notices this type of counterexample, suggesting that it involves discourse-linking (D-linking), where a quantified expression is D-linked when its variable has a range fixed in the previous discourse (cf. Comorovski (1989) and Pesetsky (1987) for D-linking). To sum up, RM is challenged by some counterexamples that involve discourse-related factors like focus and pragmatic factors. In the following section, we will see some attempts at refining the original RM.

2. 3

Refinements: Cinque (1990), Roberts (2001), and Starke (2001)

Cinque (1990), Roberts (2001), and Starke (2001) propose some important refinements to the original RM. Cinque suggests that the binding strategy is only available for those wh-elements when the interlocutor has in mind some entity as the referent of the wh-phrase. Cinque executes this idea by limiting the assignment of referential indices just to wh-phrases that are used referentially; only those wh-elements may enter into binding relations through the referential indices. According to this idea, a wh-argument like which book can escape negative islands through binding by the assignment of a referential index. Along the same line, Starke suggests some refinements of the feature-system of the moved elements. He takes RM as an anti-identity condition on feature classes, not on features themselves, according to which, a certain feature of a feature class cannot cross a member of the same class. To illustrate his point, consider a quantifier (Quant) such as a wh-expression, which is taken to be a member of the quantificational feature class; this element cannot skip another element of the same quantificational feature class like negation.

24


(13)

(Quant-class element) (Quant-class element) ??/*In which filing cabinet didn’t he put the document ×

Quant, however, may be turned into its subclass by inheriting all the properties of Quant and adding an additional feature β, creating what he calls a specific quantifier. (14) Quantifier (Quant), … , Argumental,

Topic, …

Specific Quantifier (Quant β)

Thus, a specific quantifier (Quant β) is a subset of a quantifier (Quant) with an extra feature β. This subclass formation strategy for Quant is available so long as we have a reason to believe that there exists some entity that the interlocutor has in mind as the referent of Quant, which Starke calls existential presupposition. As an example, Starke (2001) notes a case where the adjunct how, which is usually sensitive to negative islands, can successfully move out of a negative island: (15)

How didn’t he want to eat the dish; with a fork or with Chinese sticks

Here, the negation didn’t is a quantificational class element, and the RM violation can be escaped by the quantifier how carrying an extra feature β that makes it presuppositional (cf. Starke (2001) for a more precise discussion of the notion of specificity). RM violations under this proposal can be schematized as follows. (16)

a.

Quant … Quant … Quant ×

b.

Quant β… Quant … Quant β

c.

Quant … Quant β… Quant ×

In (16a), a typical RM configuration, Quant cannot skip an identical element Quant. In (16b), the specific quantifier (Quant β) may skip its superset (Quant) without violating the anti-identity condition of RM, where β has a chance to skip a non-identical Quant. Note, however, that the opposite does not hold: in (16c), a quantifier (Quant) cannot skip


25

its subset (Quant β), where the quantifier (Quant) always crosses an identical element (Quant). This state of affairs might be easier to understand with the aid of the following metaphor: Imagine a detective story in which the suspect, Mr. Quant, tries to escape from the detective who has Mr. Quant’s picture. Mr. Quant can escape from the detective by wearing a mask (β), but Mr. Quant’s attempt to escape is blocked when the detective has a picture of Mr. Quant wearing a mask (Quant β) as well as his picture without wearing a mask (Quant). Another refinement of the original RM has been made by Roberts (2001), who suggests RM is induced when an element of the same feature class intervenes between a moved element and its trace, where the relevant feature can be associated both with heads and with XPs. Later, we will see various empirical consequences in support of this idea. To summarize, we have seen some refinements for RM: (i) RM is an anti-identity condition on feature classes; (ii) the subclass formation strategy makes it possible for a moved element to escape RM when it moves over an element of the same feature class.

2. 4

The new Relativized Minimality: Feature-based RM

With the above refinements in mind, we will examine how RM has evolved into its latest realization (Rizzi 2001b, 2004). Now that notions like government are no longer available in the modern technology (cf. Chomsky 1995 and his subsequent works), Rizzi shows from the modern perspective that RM can be formulated without the notion of government. Rizzi first proposes that local relations must be satisfied in a minimal configuration, the smallest configuration in which they can be satisfied, which is defined as follows: (17)

Y is in a Minimal Configuration (MC) with X iff there is no Z such that (i) Z is of the same structural type as X, and (ii) Z intervenes between X and Y.

Here, “structural type” refers to either heads or specifiers, the latter being further classified into the following feature classes: (18)

a. b. c. d.


26


Thus, in the following configuration, locality holds between X and Y (i.e., they are in the Minimal Configuration) unless some Z intervenes between X and Y, where Z is of the same feature class as X, Z c-commands Y, and Z does not c-command X:2 (19)

... X ... Z ... Y ...

This locality principle holds for chains at LF, where chain is defined as follows. (20)

(A1,....An) is a chain iff, for 1 < i < n; (i) Ai = Ai+1; (ii) Ai c-commands Ai+1; (iii) Ai+1 is in a Minimal Configuration with Ai.

Thus, the chain relation fails if a position of the same feature class as the target position intervenes; the failure of a connection between X and Y violates Full Interpretation, and the sentence is ruled out (cf. Rizzi 1986).3 With this latest revision of RM in mind, let us consider how the counterexamples put forth by K&T can be handled. Recall K&T’s first type of counterexamples, repeated below: (7)

a. b.

In which room didn’t they put a copy of the Bible ??/*In which filing cabinet didn’t he put the document

Here, as K&T note, the obligatorily focalized PP in which filing cabinet in (7b) is sensitive to negative islands, whereas the non-obligatorily focalized PP in which room in (7a) is not. Consider the former case first: Why is it that the obligatorily focalized element may not escape negative islands? The feature-based RM provides a natural answer. 2

Thus, in the feature-based RM, the argument(A)/non-argument(A’)-distinction is irrelevant. Rizzi (2004:232-233) notes some empirical reasons to eliminate the A/A’-distinction. First, he notes the fact that only adverbs of the quantificational class count as relevant interveners for wh-movement. Given Cinque’s (1999) argument that all adverbs are uniformly licensed in the specifier of some functional head, the distinction between adverbs of quantification and others with respect to RM is hard to make based on an A/A’-distinction. Second, left-dislocated elements cause only a mild deviancy for extraction of both arguments and adjuncts in Italian. Since left-dislocated elements occupy a specifier position (Rizzi 1997), the relevant distinction cannot be made with respect to RM solely on the basis of an A/A’-distinction. 3 A chain is defined by the following elementary syntactic properties: (a) identity, (b) prominence, as defined by c-command, (c) locality, RM. See Rizzi (2004) for further discussion.


27

Following much work in syntax and semantics, Rizzi (2004) takes focus as a form of quantification (cf. Rooth 1992, Rizzi 1997 and references quoted therein), and so it belongs to the quantificational class. Given this natural assumption, the obligatorily focalized element in which filing cabinet may not skip a negative expression didn’t of the same quantificational class due to the feature-based RM, as depicted below. (21)

…Neg (=quantificational class) ×

…

wh (=quantificational class)…

Now let us turn to the latter case: Why is it that a manner adjunct wh-element may escape RM, especially when the range of the variable is pre-established in previous discourse, as in (7a) (cf. Comorowski 1989). One way to deal with such cases would be by the subclass formation strategy (Starke 2001), according to which an element of the quantificational class may be turned into its subclass by adding an extra feature, as shown in (22). (22) Quantifier (Quant), … , Argumental,

Topic, …

Specific Quantifier (Quant β)

The specific quantifier (Quant β) and negation (Quant) are not identical, and thus the anti-identity condition on the feature-based RM is not violated. (23)

In which room (= Quant β)

didn’t they put a copy of the Bible (=Quant)

Rizzi (2001a) claims this type of wh-element targets TopP to form a topic chain, which, I suggest, is made possible by carrying the extra feature β. Negation does not count as the relevant intervener here because it is a different feature class element from a topic class element. To summarize, we have seen that apparent counterexamples to the original RM can be handled by defining RM as an anti-identity condition in terms of feature classes. In the following section, we will suggest further refinements. Before turning to this task, let me comment on other counterexamples posed by K&T, especially the case which is claimed to be dealt with by the ‘Ban on Questions that Solicit

28


Uninformative Answers.’ In fact, it is not clear to me that such cases should be considered true counterexamples to RM. The reason is the following. Syntax and pragmatics are autonomous components, and RM is a principle responsible for narrow syntactic computations; any syntactically well-formed sentences, including those that are ruled in by RM, may well become anomalous for various pragmatic reasons. Since Rizzi’s RM and K&T’s pragmatic principle proceed along parallel tracks, they do not interfere with each other. In this sense, I suggest that K&T’s ‘Ban on Questions that Solicit Uninformative Answers’ may be regarded as merely a supplement to RM, not as a competing theory.

2. 5

Further refinements

In this section, we will consider some further possible refinements to the feature-based RM. Let me start with the observation made in Rizzi (2004) that negation may not be crossed by an adverb as in (24a) below or by a focalized adverb as in (24b) in Italian. Here, negation non ‘not’ blocks preposing of the adverb rapidamente ‘rapidly’ of the modifier class in (24a) and preposing of a focalized adverb of the quantificational class in (24b). (24)

a.

b.

Rapidamente, i tecnici (*non) hanno risolto il problema rapidly the technician (not) have solved the problem ‘Rapidly, the technicians have (not) solved the problem’ RAPIDAMENTE i tecnici (*non) hanno risolto il problema RAPIDLY the technician (not) have solved the problem ‘RAPIDLY the technicians have (not) solved the problem’

To deal with this case, Rizzi considers negation to belong to both the modifier class and the quantificational class at the same time, which can be depicted graphically as follows: (25) Argumental Class, Quantificational Class, Modifier Class, Topic Class Negation = Quantificational Class + Modifier Class

In a sense, this is an instance of multiple inheritance in the sense of Rumbaugh et al. (1991), according to which a class may have more than one superclass and inherit


29

features from all parents. For instance, an amphibious vehicle inherits features from a land vehicle and a water vehicle, as follows: (26)

Vehicle Land Vehicle Car

Water Vehicle

Amphibious Vehicle

Boat

According to this view, the modifier class part of negation blocks adverb preposing of the same modifier class in (24a), and the quantificational class part of negation blocks focalized adverb preposing of the quantificational class in (24b). Interestingly, negation does not block preposing of the same adverb when it has been mentioned in the immediately preceding discourse context, as illustrated below: (27)

Tutti speravano che il primo problema si potesse everybody hoped that the first problem itself can risolvere rapidamente, ma… solve rapidly but ‘Everybody hoped that the first problem would be solved rapidly, but …’ Rapidamente, non lo abbiamo risolto rapidly not it have solved ‘Rapidly, we didn’t solve it’

Rizzi suggests that in this context, the sentence-initial adverb rapidamente ‘rapidly’ mentioned in the previous discourse may target TopP to create a topic chain and the negation non of a different feature class does not count as the relevant intervener with respect to RM. This state of affairs may be expressed by assuming that the feature bundle of the adverb mentioned in the previous discourse carries the extra feature [+topic], as follows. (28)

rapidamente […, topic, …]

This feature serves as the criterial goal to be attracted from the criterial probe of the head of TopP in the CP zone.

30


(29) …[TopP … Neg… [Adv rapidamente] … ] … […, topic, …] (topic chain) Here, the adverb may skip negation without violating RM, since negation of the quantificational class does not count as a relevant intervener for the topic chain of a different class created by this movement. The next case involves comparative considerations. Earlier, we saw a case where a wh-element may escape an RM effect as follows. (30)

With which of these tools is it not likely that I can repair the clock

We considered Rizzi’s idea that such a wh-element targets TopP, which, I suggested, is made possible by a wh-element carrying an extra feature β. At this point, one may wonder exactly what this extra feature β is. Comparative consideration is relevant here. The corresponding Japanese wh-element may be suffixed by the conditional topic particle nara, as in (31) below. Here, the particle nara is suffixed to the wh-element ‘with which tools.’ Based on this fact, we may conjecture that the topic particle nara might be an overt realization of the extra feature β. (31)

with which tools = dono which

doogu-de tool-with

nara Top

The conditional topic particle nara serves as a device to push a wh-element into a D-linked interpretation, as follows: (32)

a.

b.

Kimi-wa [CP John-ga dono doogu-de sono kuruma-o you-Top John-Nom which tool-with the.car-Acc naoseru-to] omowa-nai-no? can.fix-Comp think-Neg-Q ‘With which tools don’t you think that John can fix the car?’ ? ?nani-de/nani-de-nara Kimi-wa [CP John-ga you-Top John-Nom what-with/what-with-Top sono kuruma-o naoseru-to] omowa- nai-no? the.car-Acc can.fix-Comp think-Neg-Q ‘With what don’t you think that John can fix the car?’

In (32a), the D-linked wh-expression ‘with which tools’ can easily escape negative islands. In contrast, the wh-element ‘with what’ in (32b) is ambiguous between D-linked


31

and non-D-linked readings, where the non-D-linked reading seems to be preferred in view of the apparent difficulty in escaping the negative island. Interestingly, suffixation of the conditional topic particle nara to this wh-element disambiguates it into the D-linked reading, making it possible to escape negative islands.4 This pattern leads us to the conjecture that the topic particle nara might be an overt realization of the extra feature β that serves as a device to escape weak islands (Starke 2001) and the content of this extra feature is a topic feature that makes it possible for a D-linked element to escape RM effects by targeting TopP. 5 At this point, one may naturally wonder if every kind of wh-element may escape negative islands by incorporating a topic-related feature. To examine this point, let us consider the following contrast noted by Rizzi (2004:230): (33)

a.

b.

?Quanti problemi non sai come risolvere t ? how.many problems not you how solve ‘How many problems don’t you know how to solve?’ *Quanti soldi non sai come guadagnare t ? how.much money not know how earn ‘How much money don’t you know how to make?’

According to Rizzi, (33a) may well be a request for information on the cardinality of a certain set of problems identified in previous discourse. On that interpretation, extraction is marginally possible out of negative islands. But it is harder to imagine a context in which (33b) may be a question about specific sums of money, since a wh-phrase like ‘how much money’ normally does not involve any contextually 4 The D-linked interpretation is canceled by an anti-D-linked item such as ittai ‘the hell.’ Interestingly, this anti-D-linked item cannot be suffixed to quantificational elements with the conditional topic particle nara as in ?? ittai dare-nara ‘the.hell who-Top.’ 5 The particle nara is a conditional topic and requires some modal in the consequent clause. See 6.3 for a detailed discussion of some other conditional topics. See also Jacobsen (1992) and Haiman (1978, 1986) for the relation between topics and conditionals. The particle nara may not be suffixed to naze ‘why,’ whereas it may be marginally suffixed to dono yooni ‘how,’ as shown below:

(i) nani-(de)-nara ‘what-(with)-Top,’ dare-(to)-nara ‘who-(with)-Top’; (ii) doko-(ni)-nara ‘where-(to)-Top,’ dono yoo-?(ni)-nara ‘what way-(in)-Top,’ (iii) ??doo-nara ‘how-Top,’ *naze-nara ‘why-Top’ Incidentally, there are several topic particles in Japanese as discussed by Noda (1996). This suggests a finer typology of TopPs in the CP zone, along the line of Benincà and Poletto (2004) and Rizzi (1997).

32


pre-established sets of sums. So, unless very special contextual conditions are set up to make a specific interpretation plausible by talking about particular sums of money that may be needed for different purposes, extraction is banned in (33b). This suggests that there is some constraint on wh-elements carrying a discourse-related feature. 6 Thus, a wh-element like why would not carry a discourse-related feature to escape negative islands. In fact, the conditional topic particle nara in Japanese may not suffix to the wh-element naze ‘why’ at all and can only marginally suffix to doo ‘how’; in this sense, ‘why’ may be considered to resist having a topic feature and might be called an ‘anti-topic item.’ Thus, the availability of a discourse-related feature seems to be encoded in wh-elements. That is, the lexical semantics of wh-elements generally would tell us whether a wh-element may escape negative islands or not, which is explicitly spelled out by the availability of suffixing the topic particle nara in Japanese; it might not be surprising that we see a gray zone in Rizzi’s example above and the availability of suffixing the topic particle to doo ‘how,’ where judgments would vary across speakers, as is often attested in native speakers’ judgments about subtle lexical semantics (see footnotes 4 and 5 for concrete examples). 7 To summarize this section, we have seen that (i) negation belongs to the quantificational class and the modifier class and (ii) a D-linked wh-element may escape 6

At this point, one may wonder if argumental wh-elements would be sensitive to negative islands when they are not interpreted as D-linked by being suffixed by in the world/the hell (cf. Pesetsky 1987). The expectation seems to be fulfilled by the following contrast: (i) (ii)

Which professor didn’t you invite for the party ??Who the hell/in the world didn’t you invite for the party

The sentence in (ii) seems to be acceptable only as a rhetorical question meaning that ‘You invited everybody!’ I am grateful to Roger Martin (personal communication) for discussing this point. 7 A non-trivial question arises in the sharp contrast noted by Rizzi (1990), where a single wh-element of the complement of the predicate weigh behaves differently with respect to RM. (i)

a. b.

What do you believe he weighed (last week) What do you not believe he weighed (last week)

Here, (ia) allows both ‘potatoes’ and ‘200 pounds’ as possible answers; the sentence in (ib), in contrast, naturally allows only the first answer. My suggestion concerning this paradigm is that the English wh-element what is lexically ambiguous and that these two different lexical items are merely spelled out in the same form. The plausibility of this idea is suggested by the fact that the corresponding Japanese translations require distinct wh-elements for the two cases: dono kurai ‘how much’ and nani-o ‘what-Acc.’


33

RM effects by forming a topic chain, which is made possible by carrying an extra feature, and this feature is spelled out as a topic-related particle in Japanese. In the following section, we will make a further refinement of the feature-based RM. Cases where X0-elements intervene for A’-chains

2. 6

In this section, I would like to discuss another counterexample put forth by K&T and suggest a possible solution by exploring the possibility of eliminating the distinction between ‘specifier’ and ‘head’ in RM. K&T advance the following negative islands: (34)

a. b.

*Bill is here, as you have forgotten *Bill is here, as you are unaware of

Here, we see a negative island effect, although there is no A’-element that counts as the relevant intervener for the A’-chain. As K&T note, there is negation at a deep level, which is found in the verb forgotten and the predicate unaware. How can we account for this? One way to capture this idea is to follow Starke (2001), according to whom the notion ‘specifier’ is eliminated and is considered to be a projecting head. Then, we can let X0-elements count as the relevant interveners for A’-chains as long as they belong to the same feature class. A less radical view is developed by Roberts (2001), who suggests that RM is induced when an element of the same feature class intervenes between a moved element and its trace, where the relevant feature can be associated both with heads and with XPs. For instance, a head with the feature [operator] may not skip another head with this feature specification, but may skip a head without it in Breton: (35) …head … head… vs. …head…head… [Op] [Op] [Op] × If RM is concerned with feature classes and does not distinguish between heads and XPs, X0-elements like forgotten and unaware with a negative feature may count as relevant interveners for operator movement because the negative feature belongs to the same quantificational feature class as the target (operator/as) and fits into the basic configuration of the intervener Z for X (the head of the A’-chain) and Y (the tail of the A’-chain), where Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X, as follows:

34


[Quant-class] (36) …head … ×

[Quant-class] wh-phrase…

In chapter 5, I will show an independent piece of evidence that points in the same direction, namely that X0-elements such as focalizing Case particles count as interveners for A’-chains in Japanese. I will also show that the behavior of some other X0-elements, such as manner-of-speaking verbs in English, leads to the same conclusion: (37)

*How quickly did you shout that [John kissed Mary ×

]

This can be explained by the feature-based RM if it is assumed that the manner of speaking verb shout has a focus feature of the quantificational feature class and counts as an intervener for the focus-chain above. To summarize this section, I have suggested a solution to the problem posed by T&K by eliminating the distinction between specifier and head with respect to RM and assuming that X0-elements count as interveners for A’-chains if they belong to the same feature class as the target.

2. 7

Deriving the coordinate structure constraint

In the previous section, we saw Rizzi’s (2004) idea that negation belongs to the modifier class and the quantificational class. In this section, I will show that his multiple affiliation strategy can be exploited to derive the coordinate structure constraint (CSC), at least partially. Ross proposes the CSC as an island prohibiting extraction out of a coordinate structure, including extraction of one of the coordinate phrases itself: (38)

a. b.

*Who did you see Mary and ??What did you go to the store and buy

However, as Ross himself notes, there are numerous cases where expected CSC effects fail to be observed. The relevant examples are given below, where the first and the second conjuncts are linked to each other by some special meanings noted in parenthesis:


(39)

a. b. c.

35

Here’s the whisky that I went to the store and bought (Ross 1968) (sequential event reading) What herbs can you eat and not get cancer (Johannessen 1998) (cause-effect reading) What kind of cancer can you eat herbs and not get (Lakoff 1986) (and-still reading)

Intuitively, the CSC is obeyed when two VPs express separate events. To put it in a more formal style, coordinate structure sentences are sensitive to the CSC when the conjuncts are characterized by a Boolean algebra. A Boolean algebra involves various operations to separate entities which as a result of the operations give rise to the same value or result whichever order the elements are operated on: (40)

Boolean algebra a・b = b・a (commutative law) e.g. 2¯3 = 3¯2 = 6 (a・b)・c = a・(b・c) (associative law) e.g. (2¯3) ¯4 =2 ¯ (3¯4) = 24

Thus, regardless of whether 3 is multiplied by 2 or 2 is multiplied by 3, we get the same value 6 by the commutative law. Correspondingly, John likes Mary and hates Nancy is logically equivalent to John hates Nancy and likes Mary. In contrast, John can eat the herbs and not get cancer is not logically equivalent to John can not get cancer and eat the herbs. This is because the two sentences are linked by the “and still” relation, and thus the word order is relevant. It is in this sort of non-Boolean environment where CSC effects can be avoided. So we have the following generalization: (41)

Generalization: The CSC is obeyed when sentences are characterized by a Boolean algebra.

Note that whenever the operator both is prefixed to the first conjunct, each conjunct can host a different temporal expression, and the conjuncts can be permuted according to the commutative law in (40), as seen in (41a) below: (42)

a. b. cf.

I both went to the store at 6 and bought the whisky at 7 =I both bought the whisky at 7 and went to the store at 6 *What did you both go to the store and buy Can you both eat herbs and not get cancer

36


In this Boolean environment, extraction is barred out of a conjunct, as shown in (42b).8 Based on this fact, we can conjecture that whenever a sentence is characterized by a Boolean algebra, it is always prefixed by the operator both or its silent counterpart: (43)

Generalization (English): The CSC is obeyed when sentences may have both.

Note that this is exactly the RM configuration: (44)

…X…Z…Y…

The locality of X and Y is blocked by Z where Z is of the same structural type as X. In the case at hand, X and Y form an operator chain by wh-movement, and Z is both. Assuming that every coordinate structure has the operator both in Boolean environments, whether pronounced or silent, a CSC violation has the following configuration: (45)

…Opi…both…ti… [Op]

Here, the chain of the quantificational class is blocked by both of the same quantificational class in violation of the feature-based RM. Comparative considerations are relevant at this point. Whenever a Boolean interpretation (= separate event reading) is forced in Japanese, every coordinate needs to be suffixed by the focus particle mo: (46)

a.

b.

John-mo Mary-mo John-Foc Mary-Foc ‘Both John and Mary came’ John-wa kooen-ni iki-mo gohan-o John-Top park-to go-Foc rice-Acc ‘John both went to the park and ate rice’

kita came tabe-mo eat-Foc

sita did

In such Boolean environments, a wh-element in situ as in the following coordinate structure gives rise to ungrammaticality:

8

The same Boolean nature may be attested in French coordinate structures when conjuncts involve negation. See Moeschler (2006) and de Saussure (2000) on this point.


(47)

a.

b.

*John-mo dare-mo kita no? John-Foc who-Foc came Q ‘Who did both John and came?’ *John-wa kooen-ni iki-mo nani-o tabe-mo John-Top park-to go-Foc what-Acc eat-Foc ‘What did John both go to the park and eat?’

37

sita no? did Q

Assuming again with Watanabe (1992a, b) that an empty operator moves from a wh-element in situ, this creates an RM violation configuration: (48)

…Op…[…]-Foc and [… t wh-element …]-Foc…

Here, an empty operator forms a chain of the quantificational class, and the focus particle mo of the same quantificational class counts as the relevant intervener. At this point, one may wonder what happens to A-movement. As is well known, the CSC restricts A-movement as well. My conjecture is that the operator both is another instance of the multiple affiliation strategy in the sense of Rizzi (2004); i.e., both belongs to the quantificational class and the argumental class at the same time. Thus, assuming again that both, whether it is visible or invisible, is present in A-movement sentences, its argumental class part blocks A-movement across it due to the feature-based RM. The argumental nature of both would be independently motivated by the fact that it can occupy the argument position as follows: (49)

a. b.

Both went to the movie John criticized both

Let me finally touch upon an interesting issue raised by Luigi Rizzi (personal communication): How does this idea deal with ATB cases such as the sentence in (49a), which has the configuration in (50b)?: (50)

a. b.

Who did you see and greet …whi…[…ti…] and […ti…]…

Here, no ungrammaticality arises by one wh-element moving from both of the conjuncts. From our perspective, the question may be rephrased as follows: Why does both (pronounced or silent) not block this ATB movement? (51)

…whi…(both) […ti…] and […ti…]…

38


Why is ATB immune from the CSC in the first place? Let us assume the idea suggested by Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) that a wh-element first undergoes rightward movement outside the domain of both, as below: (52)

…[both […ti…] and […ti…] ] whi…

From this right periphery, wh-movement may take place without violating RM. There are several possible explanations for why rightward movement may skip both here: (i) with Chomsky (2001), we may assume that the traces of rightward movement are not visible and do not count in the computation of locality; or (ii) only whole chains, not just a part of the chains, are relevant for the calculation of locality, as claimed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006). This configuration reminds us of right-node raising (RNR) configurations, where the shared wh-element is RNRed. Based on the fact that an RNRed element is always focalized (for instance, a pronoun may not be RNRed unless focalized), we may suggest that the RNRed wh-element is base-generated in the lower FocP in the sense of Belletti (2004). Assuming that the lower FocP is outside the scope of both, we may derive the fact that ATB is always immune from the CSC from RM.9 Finally, let us consider why a D-linked wh-element may not escape the CSC, unlike a D-linked element that may escape wh-island effects. One of the possibilities is to assume that the Boolean operator both belongs to the topic class as well as to the quantificational class and the argumental class, as suggested by the fact that the Boolean operator both has a partitive use like both of the students. Here, the content of a partitive phrase is assumed to be a topic in the conversation. Then, following Rizzi (2001a) in taking a D-linked wh-element to target TopP to create a topic chain, the topic feature of the Boolean operator both, overt or covert, counts as the relevant intervener for the topic chain created by a D-linked wh-element.

2. 8

Negative islands in Japanese: Argument vs. adjunct asymmetry

In this section, we will see some curious instances of wh-phrases in Japanese, (e.g. that a wh-element nani ‘what’ may be interpreted as ‘why’ in some environments) and show negative island effects. 9

We may tentatively assume that the base position is filled by pro and is bound by an RNRed element. An alternative derivation would be to move a shared element outside the scope of both by Collins’ (2005) ‘smuggling,’ according to which an element moves to a local position of an intervener. From this position, wh-movement may take place without crossing both, as suggested by Ur Shlonsky (personal communication).


39

Kurafuji (1996) describes a variety of Japanese predicates in which the following generalization holds: The accusative wh-element nani-o ‘what-Acc’ is naturally interpreted as ‘why’ exactly with the class of predicates which have an external argument. That is, unergative and transitive predicates, as opposed to passive and unaccusative predicates, may appear with the accusative wh-element interpreted as why: (53)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Karera-wa nani-o sawai-dei-ru no? they-Top what-Acc clamor-Prog-Pres Q ‘Why are they clamoring?’ (unergative) John-wa nani-o henna uta bakari utat-tei-ru no no? John-Top what-Acc funny song only sing-Prog-Pres Q ‘Why is John singing only funny songs?’ (transitive) *Nani-ga henna uta bakari utaw-are-tei-ru no? what-Nom funny song only sing-Pass-Prog-Pres Q ‘Why have only funny songs been sung?’ (passive) *Nani-o syottyuu tokee-ga koware-ru no? what-Acc often watch-Nom break-Pres Q ‘Why does the watch get broken so often? (unaccusative)

Here, the transitive predicate sawai ‘clamor’ in (53a) and the unergative predicate utaw ‘sing’ in (53b) allow the accusative wh-element nani-o ‘what-Acc’ to be interpreted as ‘why,’ while the passive predicate utaw-are ‘sung’ in (53c) and the unaccusative predicate koware ‘break’ in (53d) do not. As Kurafuji notes, similar use of the accusative wh-element interpreted as ‘why’ is attested for transitive and unergative predicates in Modern Greek and Russian, as illustrated in (54) below. (54)

a.

Ti trehi etsi aftos?10 what runs so he ‘Why is he running like this?’

10

(Modern Greek)

Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) pointed out to me that a similar contrast is attested in Italian, as follows: (i)

(ii)

Cosa (*non) ridi? what (*not) (you) laugh ‘Why do you (*not) laugh?’ Percé (non) ridi? why (not) laugh ‘Why do you (not) laugh?’

40


b.

c.

d.

Ti katigori sinehia ti Maria? what he-accuses constantly the Mary ‘Why does he constantly accuse Mary?’ Chto ty smejoshsja? what you laugh ‘Why do you laugh?’ Chto ty napisal eto pis’mo?11 what you wrote this letter ‘Why do you write this letter?’

(Russian)

This state of affairs can be described very naturally by Burzio’s generalization, which expresses the correlation between an external argument and a structural accusative Case: Unergative and transitive predicates host an external argument and may check structural accusative Case; in contrast, passives and unaccusatives do not host an external argument or license structural accusative Case (cf. Chomsky 1995 for the use of vP to express this correlation). (55)

external argument transitive/unergative predicate … accusative Case

In view of the fact that Burzio’s generalization does not hold for inherent Case, we find the following generalization: The accusative wh-phrase nani-o ‘what-Acc’ is suffixed with the structural Case particle o and is licensed within vP below NegP. Because this type of accusative wh-phrase, interpreted as why, is in the scope of negation, we expect it to be sensitive to negative islands. The expectation is fulfilled as in (56) below. In (56a), the accusative wh-phrase nani-o ‘what-Acc’ appears in a negative island 11

Kurafuji (1996:85) notes that the accusative wh-phrase interpreted as ‘why’ is sensitive to the complex NP constraint (CNPC): (i)

John-wa [asoko-de nani-o sawai-dei-ru] hito-tati-o John-Top there-at what-Acc clamor-Prog-Pres man-Pl-Acc keebetusi-tei-ru no? despise-Prog-Pre Q ‘Why is John despising men [who are clamoring there t]?’

Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) notes that the adjunct naze ‘why’ is also sensitive to the CNPC. In view of the fact that Subjacency does not constrain LF-movement (Huang 1982), the above fact suggests that the wh-movement is overt syntactic movement.


41

created by the negative expression na ‘not’ and the sentence is ungrammatical as reported by Kurafuji. (56)

a.

b.

*Karera-wa nani-o sawai-dei-na-i no? they-Top what-Acc clamor-Prog-Neg-Pres Q ‘Why aren’t they clamoring?’ no? Karera-wa naze sawai-dei-na-i they-Top why clamor-Prog-Neg-Pres Q ‘Why aren’t they clamoring?’

The ungrammaticality of (56a) does not stem from some semantic incompatibility between a reason wh-phrase and a negative expression, as evidenced by the sentence in (56b), where the accusative wh-phrase is replaced by naze ‘why’ yet the sentence is perfect (and this shows that naze ‘why’ can be generated outside negation; see Rizzi (1990) for the view that why is base-generated in CP). Why is the accusative wh-phrase interpreted as ‘why’? I suggest that the accusative wh-phrase cannot be interpreted as an argument because the predicate has no theta-role to assign to this element. This leaves the accusative wh-element in question to be interpreted as an adjunct: when (time), where (location), how (manner), or why (reason). Kratzer (1995) claims that temporal and locational expressions are spatio-temporal arguments. This leaves us with how and why as pure adjuncts. Recall that the Japanese topic particle nara can marginally be suffixed to doo ‘how’ to be interpreted as D-linked, but not to naze ‘why.’ Then, we end up with ‘why’ as the only pure adjunct. Thus, the pure adjunct ‘what-Acc’ can only be interpreted as ‘why’ for theta-theoretic reasons.12 The case of accusative wh-elements interpreted as ‘why’ is in sharp contrast with the case of accusative wh-phrases interpreted as ‘what’ in that the latter can escape negative islands, as seen below. (57)

Karera-wa nani-o they-Top what-Acc ‘What don’t they eat?’

tabe-na-i no? eat-Neg-Pres Q

Here, the sentence can only be interpreted as asking to pick out a member of the class of entities that are already familiar or prominent in the previous discourse. This state of affairs can be described very naturally within our assumptions: Negative islands can be

12

With respect to wh-movement, Starke (2001) makes a distinction between when/where and why/how in terms of Case (cf. Huang 1982).

42


escaped by the subclass formation strategy through the interpretation of a wh-element as specific, as depicted below. (58)

….Neg … wh …. [quantificational] [quantificational] [β]

Here, the addition of the extra feature [β] creates a specific quantifier targeting TopP and allows the wh-element to skip the negative expression, without violating the anti-identity condition of RM. In contrast, the extra feature [β] does not seem to be available for the accusative wh-element interpreted as ‘why,’ as evidenced by the following facts: (i) the topic particle nara cannot be suffixed to an accusative wh-element interpreted as ‘why,’ while such a suffixation is possible for a wh-element interpreted as ‘what’ (=59a-b below); (ii) sentences with an accusative wh-phrase interpreted as ‘why’ cannot ask for one out of a number of reasons that are familiar or prominent from the previous discourse, while such an interpretation is possible for a sentence with the accusative wh-phrase interpreted as ‘what’ (=60a-b):13 (59)

a.

b.

(60)

a.

b.

13

Karera-wa nani-nara tabe-ru no? they-Top what-Top eat -Pres Q ‘What do they eat?’ *Karera-wa nani-nara sawai-dei-ru no? they-Top what Top clamor-Prog-Pres Q ‘Why are they clamoring?’ tabe-ru Sono 3-tu-no-uti karera-wa nani-o the.3-things.among they-Top what-Acc eat–Pres ‘Among the three things, what do they eat?’ *Sono 3-tu-no-riyuu-no-uti, karera-wa nani-o among.the 3.reasons they-Top what-Acc sawai-dei-ru no? clamor-Prog-Pres Q ‘Among the three reasons, why are they clamoring?’

no? Q

The accusative Case particle o is suppressed when the topic particle is suffixed.


43

Thus, the subclass formation strategy would not be available for the accusative wh-phrase interpreted as ‘why.’ To sum up this subsection, we have seen that the accusative wh-phrases interpreted as ‘why’ are sensitive to negative islands and their behavior supports the subclass formation strategy.

2. 9

Conclusion

In this chapter, we discussed the nature of RM. The upshot of the new feature-based RM is the following: (i) RM is an anti-identity condition of feature classes; (ii) the feature-system allows for recombination through the subclass formation strategy and the multiple affiliation strategy. We have also seen a further possible refinement of RM: the elimination of the distinction between heads and specifiers with respect to RM.

CHAPTER 3 Topic and Quantifier-Induced Blocking Effects

In this chapter, I will discuss some blocking effects induced by certain types of quantifier in the following configuration: (1)

… Quant … wh… ×

This chapter is organized as follows. In section 1, I will introduce the general pattern of quantifier-induced blocking effects and then add Japanese/Korean cases to this paradigm. Section 2 discusses two types of quantifiers in Japanese/Korean based on RM. Section 3 introduces two recent approaches to quantifier-induced blocking effects. Section 4 compares our approach with these two recent approaches. Sections 5-6 touch upon some remaining problems for RM. Section 7 concludes our discussion.

3. 1

Previous studies of quantifier-induced blocking effects

In the previous literature, there is a consensus about what types of quantifiers block wh-movement. Starting with de Swart (1992), followed by Szabolcsi and Zwarts (1993), Honcoop (1998), Butler and Mathieu (2004), and most recently Beck (1996, 2006), the class of interveners has been found to be semantically coherent. For example, disjunctions and plain indefinites do not join the ranks of universals and only-phrases in causing intervention effects. East Asian languages like Japanese and Korean make a finer distinction. Thus, the Japanese universal quantifier daremo ‘everyone’ blocks wh-movement, while the universal quantifier subete-no gakusei ‘all students’ does not (Lee and Tomioka 2001, Tomioka 2004). Tomioka (2004) and Lee and Tomioka (2001) note that interveners in Japanese and Korean do not constitute a semantically coherent set. Instead, they observe that what interveners all have in common is their inability to topicalize; i.e., they cannot be suffixed by the topic particle wa in Japanese or (n)un in Korean. Lee and Tomioka call these expressions ‘Anti-Topic Items,’ which I will refer to as Anti-Topic Quantifiers (ATQs).

TOPIC AND QUANTIFIER-INDUCED BLOCKING EFFECTS

3. 2

45

Quantifier-induced blocking effects in Japanese/Korean

The following is a list of ATQs in Japanese and Korean, where suffixation of the topic particles wa in Japanese and nun in Korean is systematically impossible with the ATQs:1 (2)

Anti-Topic Quantifiers (ATQs) (from Lee and Tomioka 2001; Tomoika 2004) (Japanese) (Korean) a. *daremo-wa *amuto-nun anyone-Top anyone-Top b. *daremo-wa *nwukwuna-nun everyone-Top everyone-Top c. *dareka-wa *nwukwunka-nun someone-Top someone-Top d. *[John-ka Bill]-wa *[John-ina Bill]-un John-or Bill-Top John-or Bill-Top e. *John-mo-wa *John-to num John-also-Top John-also Top

One of the most striking properties of the ATQs is that they block wh-movement, as illustrated in (3a-b) below:

1

There is a subtle difference in meaning between the topic-compatible quantifiers and ATQs with respect to distributivity (thanks to Genoveva Puskas for raising this issue). Brisson (1996: 20) observes that a collective adverb like together is not compatible with a distributive quantifier like each, as shown below: (i)

*Jane and Sarah each left together

I feel a subtle difference with the corresponding Jaoanese topic-compatible quantifiers and ATQs: The ATQ daremo sounds a little strange while the topiccompatible quantifier minna sounds fine. This suggests that ATQs, as opposed to topic-compatible quantifiers, have distributivity. (ii)

a.

b.

Minna-ga issyoni all-Nom together ‘All built a house together’ ??Daremo-ga issyoni all-Nom together ‘All built a house together’

ie-o house-Acc

tateta built

ie-o house-Acc

tateta built

46


(3)

a.

b.

c.

??Daremo-ga nani-o yonda no? (Tomioka 2004) all-Nom what-Acc read Q ‘What did all read?’ ??Dareka-ga nani-o yonda no? someone what-Acc read Q ‘What did someone read?’ Subeteno/hotondono gakusee-ga nani-o yonda no? all/most student-Nom what-Acc read Q ‘What did all/almost all students read?’

In (3a-b), the ATQs daremo ‘all’ and dareka ‘someone’ show a blocking effect for the following wh-element nani ‘what,’ in contrast to the quantifiers subete-no ‘all’ and hotondono ‘most’ in (3c), which may be suffixed by the topic particle wa in Japanese (=topic-compatible quantifiers) and show no blocking effect. My analysis of this asymmetry is to assimilate this pattern to partial wh-movement in French (see Miyagawa and Endo (2004) for an alternative approach, which is found in the appendix to this chapter). The first relevant point involves the fact that wh-elements in situ obey Subjacency in Japanese. As is well known, Subjacency constrains overt syntactic movement, but not LF movement (Huang 1982, 1981/2). Based on this fact, Watanabe (1992a, b) claims that there is empty operator movement out of an in-situ wh-element in overt syntax, as follows: (4)

…[Op wh…]…

Adopting this view, the quantifier-induced blocking effects under discussion can be depicted as follows: (5)

… quantifier … [Op…wh…]… ×

Here, a part of the bracketed wh-phrase (that is, the empty operator Op of the quantificational class) moves out of the in-situ wh-element and crosses a quantifier of the same quantificational class. Here, the feature-based RM is violated in this configuration, and thus the sentence is ruled out. This configuration is essentially the same as partial wh-movement in French, discussed by Obenauer (1976, 1984) and Rizzi (1990):


(6)

a.

b.

[Combien] a-t-il consulté [ t de how many did he consult of ‘How many did he consult of books?’ × *[Combien] a-t-il beaucoup consulté [ t de how many did he a lot consult of ‘How many did he a lot consult of books?’

47

livres]? books’

livres]? books

In (6a), only the specifier of DP is moved into the sentence-initial position. In (6b), this partial wh-movement is blocked by the adverb of quantification beaucoup ‘a lot’ of the same quantificational class, in violation of the feature-based RM. The parallelism between French and Japanese becomes clear, as depicted below: (7)

Wh … operator … [DP… t… NP…]… … [DP… t… NP…]… Op … ATQ

(French) (Japanese)

In French, the A’-chain formed by an overt wh-element is disrupted by an intervening operator of the same quantificational class; in Japanese, the A’-chain formed by the empty operator is blocked by an ATQ of the same quantificational class. Both are ruled out by the feature-based RM. Let us next consider why topic-compatible quantifiers (cf. 3c) show no blocking effect for the following wh-element. Here, the relevant fact is that topic-compatible quantifiers may be suffixed by a topic particle in Japanese/Korean. Based on this fact, we may assume that a topic-compatible quantifier may form a topic chain in LF. Because the topic chain (the topic class) and the focus chain created by empty operator movement (the quantificational class) are of different feature classes, no feature-based RM is attested. Let me examine an alternative possibility, which is to take advantage of a recent analysis of wh-elements in situ by Hagstrom (1998) and Takahashi (2002). (Thanks to Shigeru Miyagawa and Ur Shlonsky for reminding me of this possibility.) They note the historical fact that the Q-marker ka in Modern Japanese was suffixed to a wh-element in Old Japanese, arguing that Modern Japanese involves head movement of this Q-particle from a wh-element to the CP zone. We may consider this particle movement to be sensitive to the feature-based RM, which is only attested when a Q particle of the quantificational class crosses another quantificational element; RM violations may be circumvented when the head carries an extra discourse-related feature distinct from the intervener. In the following chapters, we will see many cases in which X0-elements like Case particles may induce blocking effects for wh-elements in situ. This interplay reminds us of Roberts’ (2001) idea of not discriminating heads and specifiers with respect

48


to RM. For instance, RM is only induced when a head is skipped by another head of the same feature class in Breton. If our suggestion based on Hagstrom and Takahashi is on the right track, it lends support to Roberts’ idea from Japanese. What remains unclear at this point is exactly what kind of feature the head Q-morpheme ka carries in the quantificational feature class to induce a feature-based RM effect. Without any good way to show this point, I have to leave this question for my future research agenda. To summarize this section, we have seen that quantifier-induced blocking effects are given a natural account by the feature-based RM; an RM violation can be avoided by a topic-compatible quantifier of a different feature class.

3. 3

Two approaches to quantifier-induced blocking effects

In this section, I will compare our RM-based approach with two recent major approaches to quantifier-induced blocking effects with special reference to Negative Polarity Items (NPIs). The two major approaches to quantifier-induced blocking effects are Tanaka’s (2003) crossing dependency approach and Beck and Kim’s (1997) barrier approach. Tanaka (2003) argues for a crossing constraint, according to which the path created by an NPI and its licensor Neg cannot cross the path created by a wh-element and the associated Q marker, as follows: (8)

Daremo nani-o (keisatu-ni) (NPI) (wh)

todoke-na-katta (Neg)

no (Q)

Here, the path between the NPI daremo ‘anyone’ and its associated negative element na ‘not’ and the path between the wh-element nani ‘what’ and its licensor no ‘Q’ involves a crossed dependency, and thus the structure is ruled out. Beck and Kim (1997) propose a Negation Induced Barrier (NIB), according to which the first branching node that dominates a negative quantifier, its restriction, and its nuclear scope forms a barrier for LF wh-movement. When LF movement takes place crossing this barrier, the structure is ruled out by the Minimal Negative Structure Constraint, which is defined below: (9)

Minimal Negative Structure Constraint If an LF trace β is dominated by an NIB α, then the binder of β must also be dominated by α.


49

In a nutshell, their claim is that a syntactic domain formed by an NPI and negation forms a barrier for LF movement, and a wh-element in situ cannot take scope outside of the barrier in LF. The effect of this constraint is illustrated by the following example: (10)

[Daremo nani-o (keisatu-ni) NPI what-Acc (police-Dat) ‘What did nobody bring to the police?’

todoke-na]-katta no? bring-Neg-Past Q

Here, the bracketed NIB is a barrier and blocks movement of the wh-element nani ‘what’ out of this barrier. Note that these two approaches share common properties of moving an element of one feature class over another element of the same feature class, which invites us to pursue an analysis based on the feature-based RM. The question is whether there is any empirical evidence that favors one of these approaches over the others. In the following section, I will discuss such a case by looking at D-linking.

3. 4 3. 4. 1

Comparison: A view from D-linking Beck and Kim (1997) and Tanaka (2003)

Let us see how our approach makes different predictions from the other two approaches. The first prediction concerns D-linking (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for bringing this topic to my attention ). As Miyagawa (2006: 620) clearly states, some Japanese wh-elements receive a kind of partitive interpretation when they have moved over another wh-expression. Thus, in a sentence like nani-o dare-ga katta no ‘who bought what?’, the scrambled wh-expression nani ‘what’ is most naturally interpreted as ‘among the things we are talking about.’ I follow Miyagawa in assuming that this partitive interpretation is a manifestation of what Pesetsky (1987) has called D-linking. Miyagawa’s idea seems to be in line with Rizzi’s (2004: 230-231) observation that the partitive wh-expression qaunti dei soldi che ti servo ‘how much of the money that you need’ may escape negative islands more easily than the non-partitive wh-element quanti soldi ‘how much money.’ With this notion of D-linking in mind, let us consider the following configuration. According to Rizzi (2001a), when a wh-element is D-linked, it may form a topic chain. In the Japanese case at hand, an empty operator targets TopP, as follows: (11)

…[Top … NPI … [empty operator wh ]… (topic chain: topic class)

50


Here, the empty operator is of the topic class and thus may move over the NPI of a different quantificational class without inducing a violation of the feature-based RM. In this case, the wh-element may be suffixed by the discourse-related particle wa, and the wh-element is interpreted as ‘among the things we are talking about,’ as follows: (12)

Daremo dono hito (dake)-wa syootai NPI which person (only)-Top invite ‘Which person does nobody want to invite?’

sitaku-nai-no? want.to-Neg-Q

Here, we see a detectable improvement with this D-linked wh-element.2 How would the two major approaches deal with this D-linking paradigm? The ban against crossing dependencies by Tanaka (2003) makes a wrong prediction here, since there is a crossed dependency in the D-linked case as well: (13) NPI…D-linked wh…Neg… Q

Here, the path between the NPI and negation on the one hand, and the path between the D-linked wh-element and its licensor Q on the other, form a crossing dependency and thus Tanaka’s approach predicts that D-linking cases should also be impossible. He could claim that D-linking does not involve movement but rather binding. But the possibility of D-linking and that of binding do not seem to co-vary. For instance, Starke (2001) notes that manner adjuncts like how can be D-linked to escape negative islands: (14)

How didn’t he want to eat the dish; with a fork or with Chinese sticks

This is in contrast with the observation made by Larson and Yamakido (2001), where a manner expression cannot enter into binding, as shown by the sentence in (15d) below:

2

Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) raises an interesting issue in regards to D-linking. In French, the specifier of a DP like combien ‘how much’ resists D-linking. If Japanese and French are parallel in involving an operator movement from the specifier of DP, it is natural to ask why an empty operator may be D-linked in Japanese. Watanabe (1992a, b) suggests there is an LF movement involved from the same DP that involves empty operator movement. If we assume that this LF operation is responsible for D-linking in Japanese, we may keep the parallelism between Japanese and French. In the Japanese case at hand, we may assume that the focus chain created by an empty operator in overt syntax is reanalyzed into a topic chain due to the LF movement of the associated DP (restriction) into TopP.


(15)

a. b. c. d.

That place, I saw there That day, I was sick, then *That reason, I left therefore *That way, I spoke so/thus

51

(Larson and Yamakido 2001)

The same holds for Japanese. Murasugi (1991) shows that a manner-related phrase cannot enter into a binding relation in topicalization, as shown by (16d) below: (16)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Sono kyoositu-wa Mary-ga siken-o uketa that classroom-Top Mary-Nom exam-Acc took ‘As for that classroom, Mary took an exam there’ Sono hi-wa Mary-ga siken-o uketa that day-Top Mary-Nom exam-Acc took ‘As for that day, Mary took an exam then’ *Sono riyuu-wa Mary-ga kubi-ni natta That reason-Top Mary-Nom was.fired ‘As for that reason, Mary was fired’ *Sono hoohoo-wa Mary-ga teiri-o syoomeesita that way-Top Mary-Nom theorem-Acc proved ‘As for that way, Mary proved a theorem in that manner’

This suggests that the ability to D-link and the availability of a binding strategy do not co-vary. From this, appealing to a binding strategy to save the D-linking case above is dubious for the case under discussion. Similar remarks apply to the barrier-based approach of Beck and Kim (1997), who examine the following configuration: (17)

[NPI…D-linked wh … Neg] … Q

Here, the bracketed portion forms a barrier for wh-movement. If a D-linked wh-element moves, the barrier is crossed. Given the assumption that feature-movement is not senstive to barriers (Chomsky 1995, Pesetsky 2000), one might try to rescue the structure above by postulating feature-movement from the wh-element. I have no way to test this possibility. Let us compare the approaches from another perspective. Baker (1970) observes that a displaced wh-element is frozen at the displaced position based on the following example: (18)

Who wonders where we bought what

52


Here, the intermediate wh-element where is frozen in the embedded CP and cannot take matrix scope. The situation is similar in Japanese. Tanaka (2003) observes that long-distance scrambling of a wh-element across an NPI yields ungrammaticality: (19) … Wh-Acc… [NPI-Nom …[CP DP-Nom …t…Q]…Neg… ]… ×

Here, a wh-element takes scope in the displaced position, which Tanaka uses as evidence for his crossed dependency approach. The following is the relevant example:

(20)

*Nani-o [dare-mo [John-ga katta ka] sira-na-katta what-Acc NPI-Nom [John-Nom bought Q know-Neg-Past ‘Nobody knew what John bought’

As Tanaka (1999) correctly points out, Beck and Kim’s negation barrier approach cannot deal with this case. I repeat the definition of Negation Induced Barrier below: (21)

(22)

Negation Induced Barrier (NIB) The first node that dominates a negative quantifier, its restriction, and its nuclear scope is an NIB. Minimal Negative Structure Constraint If an LF trace β is dominated by an NIB α, then the binder of β must also be dominated by α.

Beck and Kim assume that a wh-element scrambled out of the domain of its scope marker is undone at LF. If so, the sentence in (20) will involve the following configuration: (23) … [(wh) …

NPI … wh …Q …Neg…]… (NIB) (undone)

Here, the wh-element and its scope position (the specifier of CP) are dominated by the underlined NIB, hence the sentence is ruled in, contrary to fact. This mysterious paradigm naturally follows from our RM-based approach. As we will see in chapters 6 and 8, scrambling of a wh-element targets FocP unless D-linked, as shown below:


53

(24) … [FocP …[NPI…[TP… wh…] …Neg…]… × (focus chain)

Here, a wh-element of the quantificational class skips the NPI of the same quantificational class, in violation of the feature-based RM. To summarize, I have shown that feature-based RM has the widest empirical coverage of blocking effects induced by NPIs among the three major approaches examined.

3. 4. 2

Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004)

At the beginning of this chapter, we saw that there are two types of quantifiers in Japanese/Korean: topic-compatible quantifiers and anti-topic quantifiers (ATQs). Based on this distinction, Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004) pursue a pragmatic approach to the blocking effects created by these quantifiers, according to which an ATQ sounds bad simply because it occupies the sentence-initial topic position. Unfortunately, the purely pragmatic approach ultimately does not go through. Miyagawa (2005) and Miyagawa and Endo (2004) note that Tomioka’s ATQ sentence improves when the wh-expression it contains is D-linked. Let us consider some real sentences. Based on the observation made by Nishigauchi and Uchibori (1991) and Nishigauchi and Ishii (2003) that a wh-element involving ‘amount’ tends to be non-D-linked (cf. Rizzi 2004), while phrases like dono ‘which’ facilitate a D-linked reading, Miyagawa and Endo note the contrast in (25) below. In (25a), the anti-topic negative polarity item daremo ‘anyone’ may be followed by the D-linked wh-expression dono hon ‘which book. In contrast, it is difficult to interpret a wh-element involving ‘amount’ like how many as D-linked. This is especially so when a wh-element is floated from its host. The non-D-linked wh-element nansatu ‘how many’ in (25b) may not follow the NPI daremo ‘anyone.’ Lee and Tomioka make no distinction between the two examples in this paradigm. (25)

a.

b.

Daremo dono hon-o kawa-nakat-ta anyone which book-Acc buy-Neg-Past ‘Which book did no one buy?’ *Daremo hon-o nansatu kawa-nakat-ta anyone book-Acc how.many buy-Neg-Past ‘How many books did no one buy?’

no? Q no? Q

54


One of the strongest arguments for pursuing the pragmatic approach put forth by Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004) is their observation that the intervention effects disappear or weaken in the embedded clause, as follows: (26)

John-wa [daremo nani-o John-Top anyone what-Acc ‘John asked what no one bought’

kawa-nakat-ta]-ka kiita buy-Neg-Past Q asked

Lee and Tomioka claim that the ATQ is no longer found in the sentence-initial topic position here, and thus the sentence improves. Miyagawa and Endo, however, cast doubt on the embedding effects, since the sentence degrades again when the relevant wh-element is forced to be non-D-linked: (27)

??John-wa [daremo hon-o nansatu kawa-nakat-ta]-ka kiita John-Top anyone book–Acc how.many buy-Neg-Past Q asked ‘John asked how many books no one bought’

Here, the amount-related wh-element nansatu ‘how many’ is difficult to interpret as D-linked (cf. Rizzi (2004) for the same effect in Italian). With this type of non-D-linked wh-element, the sentence degrades. This suggests that the problem is not entirely pragmatic in nature. How, then, can the embedded paradigm be dealt with? My suggestion is to resort to RM. To see the point, let us first note an interesting fact that individual-level predicates require that the subject be suffixed with the topic particle wa in a matrix clause in Japanese as in (28a) below, but the same topic particle may not appear in an embedded clause as in (28b).3 In (28a), the subject John of the individual-level predicate syooziki ‘honest’ must be suffixed with the topic particle wa, and cannot have the nominative Case particle ga. The situation is reversed in the embedded clause in (28b), where the same subject needs to be suffixed by the nominative Case and does not allow the topic particle. (28)

a.

b.

3

John-wa/??ga syooziki-da John-Top/??Nom honest-Cop ‘John is honest’ John-??wa/ga syooziki-na koto John- Top/Nom honest-Cop fact ‘the fact that John is honest’

In a sense, this is not an accurate description, since the particle wa may appear on the embedded subject if it is contrastively focused.


55

From this pattern, I suggest that there is no TopP to license a topic element in the embedded clause.4 Then, both topic-compatible quantifiers and ATQs are identified as quantificational class elements in the embedded clause. With this background in mind, let us consider how a D-linked wh-element may survive and undergo movement over an ATQ and topic-compatible quantifier out of the embedded clause. Following Rizzi (2001a), let us assume that a D-linked wh-element may target TopP to form a topic chain. The topic chain does not violate the feature-based RM, since the skipped quantifier, whether it is an ATQ or a topic-compatible quantifier, is uniformly identified as a distinct quantificational class element in the embedded clause.5 To summarize, our idea can be expressed visually as follows:6 (29)

… [TopP

… quantifier … [quantificational class] topic chain [topic class]

[Op D-linked wh-element]…

Here, an empty operator moved out of a D-linked wh-element reaches TopP in the matrix clause to form a topic chain. The skipped quantifier of the quantificational class does not count as a relevant intervener for the topic chain, since the topic class and the quantificational class are distinct with respect to the feature-based RM. For this reason, no feature-based RM effect is attested in the embedded clause.7 The next question concerns non-D-linked cases. Why does a quantifier count as a relevant intervener when a wh-element is not D-linked? My suggestion is as follows. Non-D-linked wh-elements target FocP to form a focus chain. The focus chain violates the feature-based RM, since the skipped quantifier, whether it is an ATQ or a 4

See Rizzi (1997) for the discourse-related elements in the embedded clause. Ur Shlonsky (personal communication) suggests another possibility: There is an escape hatch that may be exploited only by a D-linked wh-element in the embedded clause. Only a D-linked empty operator may move via this escape hatch. This empty operator movement out of a D-linked wh-element (topic class) does not violate the feature-based RM either, since the skipped quantifier, whether it is an anti-topic quantifier or a topic-compatible quantifier, is uniformly identified as a distinct quantificational class element in the embedded clause. 6 If this is a universal tendency, we expect that a non-D-linked expression like the hell or in the world may not appear easily in the embedded clause: 5

(i)

John wondered who the hell/in the world Mary kissed

7 Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) points out that this approach might capture Pesetsky’s (2000) observation that there are no superiority effects with D-linked wh-phrases.

56


topic-compatible quantifier, is uniformly identified as the same quantificational class element in the embedded clause. This is how we may derive the fact that a non-D-linked wh-element may not appear in the embedded clause.8

3. 5

Remaining problems: An asymmetry in RM

In this section, we will see remaining problems revolving around an asymmetry seen in RM configurations. In the previous chapters, we saw Rizzi’s (2004) observation that discourse-related manipulation of a fronted adverbial voids RM effects. Interestingly, however, even when a potential intervener (=one type of adverb) turns into (i) a quantificational class element by focalization or (ii) a topic class element by being mentioned in the previous discourse, the lower adverb may not skip it. To see the point, consider the following paradigm (thanks to Christopher Laenzlinger and Roger Martin for help with French and English data). Here, the contrast in (30a-b) shows that the higher adverb récemment ‘recentlty’ may not be crossed by the lower adverb tranquillement ‘quietly.’ Such a reverse linear order is made possible by focalizing the lower adverb due to the feature-based RM, as in (30c-e). In (30c-d), the displaced lower adverb TRANQUILLEMENT ‘QUIETLY’ forms a focus-chain, which is of a distinct class from that of the intervening higher adverb récemment ‘recently’. Similarly, in (30e), the moved lower adverb rapidement ‘rapidly’ is already mentioned by A, and the appearance of the same adverb in B’s response makes it a topic class element and may form a topic chain. This topic chain may be interrupted by the higher adverb probablement ‘probably’ of a different modifier class. What is crucial is the case in (30f-g), where we see no improvement when the higher skipped adverb RECEMMENT ‘recently’ is focalized as in (30f) or when the higher adverb probablement ‘probably’ is mentioned by A to form a topic class element and is crossed by the lower adverb rapidement ‘rapidly.’ (30)

a.

Jean a récemment lu tranquillement Jean has recently read quietly ‘Jean has recently quietly read this book’

ce this

livre book

8 Let us consider the non-D-linked case under Shlonsky’s suggestion in footnote 5: Empty operator movement out of a wh-element from the embedded clause is available only through an escape hatch that may be exploited only by a D-linked element in the embedded clause. According to this approach, an empty operator may not pass through the escape hatch for D-linked elements, and then a non-D-linked wh-element may not take scope in the higher clause without violating a locality principle like Subjacency.


b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

9

57

*/?? Tranquillement Jean a récemment lu le livre Quietly Jean has recently read the book ‘*/??Quietly Jean has recently read the book’ TRANQUILLEMENT Jean a récemment lu le livre QUIETLY Jean has recenlty read the book ‘QUIETLY Jean has recently read the book’ C’est TRANQUILLEMENT que Jean a récemment lu le livre it.is QUIETLY that Jean has recently read the book ‘It is quietly that Jean has recently read the book’ A: Je crois que les techniciens ont rapidement résolu I believe that the technicians have rapidly solved les deux problèmes both problems ‘I believe that the technicians have rapidly solved both problems’ B: Tu as tort, rapidement les techniciens ont you are wrong rapidly the techinicians have probablement résolu le premier problème, pas le deuxième probably solved the first problem, not the second ‘You are wrong; rapidly, the technicians have probably solved the first problem, but not the second’ *Tranquillement Jean a RECEMMENT lu ce livre quietly Jean has RECENTLY read this book ‘Quietly Jean has RECENTLY read this book’ A:Je crois que les techniciens ont probablement résolu I believe that the technicians have probably solved les deux problèmes both problems ‘I believe that the technicians have rapidly solved both problems’ B: *Tu as tort, rapidement les techniciens ont you are wrong rapidly the technicians have probablement résolu le premier problème, pas le deuxième probably solved the first problems not the second ‘*You are wrong; rapidly, the technicians have probably solved the first problem, but not the second’ 9

The same seems to hold for Romanian, as pointed out to me by Gabriel Soara.

58


The generalization is that discourse-related manipulation of the lower “moved” elements (focalization, second mention) enables them to escape RM, while the same manipulation of the higher “moved over” elements does not void RM effects in English/French-type languages. This generalization follows in this way: The skipped higher adverbs of English/French-type languages carry the feature [+modifier] and [+focus]/[topic] at the same time. One of the features [+modifier] is sufficient to prevent a lower adverb with the same modifier feature from moving over it since it acts as an intervener.10 That is, an element with richer feature specifications blocks movement of an element with poorer feature specifications, as pointed out to me by Luigi Rizzi (personal communication). In contrast, when the lower adverbial carries an extra discourse-related feature like [topic/focus], it forms a topic/focus chain by being probed by Top/Foc, which allows it to ignore the potential intervener of the modifier class; the topic chain and the focus chain are different from the modifier with respect to the feature-based RM. The situation is quite different in Japanese/Korean-type languages, which have two types of quantifiers: topic-compatible quantifiers and ATQs, some of which are repeated below: (31)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

10

*daremo-wa anyone-Top ‘everyone’ *daremo-wa everyone-Top ‘everyone’ *dareka-wa someone-Top ‘someone’ subete-no gakusee-wa all-Gen student-Top ‘all students’ hotondo-no hito -wa most-Gen person-Top ‘most persons’

(anti-topic quantifiers)

(topic-compatible quantifiers)

Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) raises an interesting issue of how this idea can be expressed representationally. Although speculative, English/French-type languages might form a modifier-chain and a topic/focus-chain in parallel, and one of the chains induces RM (cf. Chomsky (2005) for the idea that multiple chains may be created in LF in parallel).


59

Recall that topic-compatible quantifiers carry the features [+topic] and [+quantificational] at the same time, but this richer feature specification does not block wh-movement of a wh-element that follows it, as depicted below. (32)

…topic-compatible quantifiers…wh-element… [+quantificational, +topic]

If Japanese/Korean-type languages were the same as English/French-type languages with respect to RM, we would wrongly expect that one of the features [+quantificational] carried by the topic-compatible quantifiers would be sufficient to block empty operator movement of the same quantificational class over it, as shown below. (33)

…topic-compatible quantifiers [+quantificational, +topic]

Op wh-element… [+quantificational]

Thus refinements are required to deal with this difference between Japanese/Korean-type and English/French-type languages with respect to RM. The refinement that I would like to suggest is related to the possibility of discourserelated chain formation at LF. As we will see in chapter 4, elements with the feature [+topic] may form a chain targeting TopP at LF in Japanese. With this property in mind, I would like to suggest that a topic-compatible quantifier carries a discourse-related feature such as [+topic] and may form a topic chain at LF as in (34a) below. According to this idea, empty operator movement from a wh-element in situ gives rise to the following representation in (34b): (34)

a. …[TopP….[…topic-compatible quantifiers… topic chain b. …[FocP…[TopP…[topic-compatible quantifier…[Op wh-element… topic-chain focus-chain

Here, the topic chain of the topic class does not count as a relevant intervener for the focus chain of the quantificational class with respect to the feature-based RM, since the two chains are of different feature classes. For this reason, topic-compatible quantifiers do not block wh-movement in Japanese. (Note also that this blocking effect may be formulated representationally, not derivationally.)

60


This type of chain formation strategy at LF would not be available for non-discourse-prominent languages such as English and French; i.e., English and French would not allow a discourse-related chain to be created at LF even when an element carries discourse-related features such as [+focus] and [+topic] by being focalized or mentioned in the previous discourse. For this reason, an element with discourse-related features such as [+focus] and [+topic] has a strong blocking effect for movement across it with respect to RM, as repeated below: (30)

f.

g.

ce livre *Tranquillement Jean a RECEMMENT lu quietly Jean has RECENTLY read this book ‘Quietly Jean has RECENTLY read this book’ A:Je crois que les techniciens ont probablement résolu I believe that the technicians have probably solved les deux problèmes. both problems ‘I believe that the technicians have rapidly solved both problems’ B: *Tu as tort, rapidement les techniciens ont you are wrong rapidly the technicians have probablement résolu le premier problème, pas le deuxième probably solved the first problems not the second ‘*You are wrong; rapidly, the technicians have probably solved the first problem, but not the second’

Here, the richer feature specification (+modifier/+topic/focus) of the higher adverbs RECEMMENT ‘RECENTLY’ in (30a) and probablement ‘probably’ in (30b) counts as a relevant intervener for the chain created by the lower adverbs tranquillement ‘quietly’ and rapidement ‘rapidly’ with the poorer feature specification (+modifier): (35)

…adverb … [+modifier, +topic/focus] ×

adverb [+modifier]

To summarize, I have suggested a different mode of chain formation at LF in English/French-type languages and Japanese/Korean-type languages. Non-discourseprominent languages such as English and French do not form a discourse-related chain at LF, and the richer feature specification has a strong blocking power for a moving element with the poorer feature specification across it. In contrast, discourse-prominent languages such as Japanese and Korean may exploit the chain formation strategy at LF for an element


61

with a discourse-related feature, where RM violations can be escaped to the extent that the discourse-related chain formed at LF is of a different class element from the chain formed across it.

3. 6

Conclusion

To conclude this chapter, we have seen that in Japanese/Korean, topic-compatible quantifiers may target TopP to form a topic chain and make it possible for a wh-element to escape RM violations. Additionally, some new facts involving D-linking have been presented to show the superiority of our RM-based approach to other major recent approaches. Let me finally touch upon scrambling of a wh-element over another wh-element. Miyagawa (2006) notes that it is possible to interpret a scrambled wh-element as giving rise to a pair-list interpretation; i.e., the scrambled ‘what’ refers to a presupposed set of objects. In our terms, such a D-linked interpretation of the scrambled wh-element is due to RM (cf. Rizzi 2001a), where the high wh-element does not count as a relevant intervener for the topic chain because it is of a different quantificational class. Hagstrom (1998) notes that a single-pair interpretation is only available for a low wh-element when it does not move over a high wh-element; i.e., a single pair reading is forced when a low wh-element scrambles over a high wh-element. Miyagawa, however, observes that a single-pair interpretation is only available when the moving wh-element carries a focus stress. Diesing (1992) argues that focus stress on an element lowers it within VP at LF. Therefore, Miyagawa’s observation may be attributed to the fact that the focused low wh-element appears in the original VP-internal position.

Appendix

A brief history of Japanese intervention effects

In this appendix, we will briefly give a historical review of quantifier-induced blocking effects.

(A) Hoji (1985) Hoji (1985) is one of the earliest Japanese linguists to discover quantifier-induced blocking effects. He proposes an LF constraint against a representation of the following sort:

62


(36)

*QP i QP j t j t i , where each member c-commands the member to its right. (cf. Hoji 1985: 262)

Hoji assumes that QR is an adjunction operation to S (TP), and LF-wh-movement targets S’ (CP). Thus, when a subject quantifier such as daremo ‘everyone’ precedes an object wh-expression like nani ‘what,’ as in (37a) below, an illicit LF representation is always created, as depicted in (37b): (37)

a.

b.

*Daremo-ga nani-o katta-no? everyone-Nom what-Acc bought-Q ‘What did everyone buy?’ *[ CP [TP every …. what…

In a nutshell, Hoji’s proposal is that the S-structure c-command relations between quantifiers, including wh-expressions, must be preserved at LF, at least in Japanese. As expected, scrambling of a wh-expression in front of the quantifier in overt syntax voids the intervention effects as illustrated in (38a) below, since S-structure c-command relations are not reversed at LF, as shown graphically in (38b).

(38)

a.

b.

Nani-o daremo-ga katta-no? what-Acc everyone-Nom bought-Q ‘What did everyone buy?’ [CP [TP what every… (scrambling)

Here, the overt syntactic relation between the wh-expression and the quantifier is not reversed, and the sentence sounds fine.

(B) Takahashi (1990) Takahashi (1990) expands the class of interveners to include Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) like sika ‘except,’ as illustrated below:


(39)

*Taroo-sika nani-o Taroo-except what-Acc ‘What did only Taro buy?’

kawa-nakat-ta buy-Neg-Past

63

no? Q

Here again, the intervention effect induced by the NPI Taroo-sika ‘Taro-except’ is escaped by scrambling the wh-expression nani ‘what’ to the left of the NPI, as shown below. (40) Nani-o Taroo-sika kawa-nakat-ta no? what-Acc Taroo-except buy-Neg-Past Q ‘What did only Taro buy?’ Beck and Kim (1997) identify similar phenomena in Korean.

(C) Beck and Kim (1997) Beck and Kim (1997) propose a Negative Intervention Barrier (NIB), according to which the first branching node that dominates a negative quantifier, its restriction, and its nuclear scope forms a barrier for LF wh-movement. When LF movement takes place crossing this barrier, the structure is ruled out by the Minimal Negative Structure Constraint.

(D) Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004) Lee and Tomioka (2001) and Tomioka (2004) pursue a pragmatic approach to the blocking effects created by quantifiers, according to which an anti-topic quantifier sounds bad simply because it occupies the sentence-initial topic position.

(E) Pesetsky (2000) Pesetsky (2000) reviews intervention effects seen in various types of languages, including Japanese, and proposes that a semantic restriction of a quantifier, including a wh-element, may not be separated from that quantifier by a scope-bearing element.

64


(F) Tanaka (2003) Tanaka (2003) argues for a crossing constraint, according to which the path created by an NPI and its licensor Neg cannot cross the path created by a wh-element and the associated Q marker.

(G) Miyagawa and Endo (2004) Miyagawa and Endo (2004) attribute intervention effects to Pesetsky’s (2000) constraint that a semantic restriction on a quantifier may not be separated from that quantifier by a scope-bearing element. Miyagawa and Endo assume Watanabe’s (1992a, b) approach to wh-in-situ, according to which there is a phonologically empty wh-operator that moves to the specifier of CP in Japanese. This leaves the restriction in situ, which is pronounced by a wh-phrase such as nani ‘what,’ resulting in the configuration: ...Op i …Quant…[t i what]…. Here, the semantic restriction on a quantifier (‘what’) is separated from that quantifier (empty operator) by a scope-bearing element (Quant), violating Pesetsky’s constraint. As for D-linked wh-elements, Miyagawa and Endo claim that with a D-linked interpretation a wh-element has its restriction high in the structure so that the Quant does not 12 intervene between the quantifier ‘what’ and its restriction.

(H) Grohmann (2006) Grohmann (2006) notes the Japanese facts observed by Lee and Tomioka we mentioned above and recasts Beck’s German data from discourse perspectives. The important observation is that some low adverbials in German like gerne ‘with pleasure,’ komplett ‘completely,’ sorgfältig ‘carefully,’ etc., may not appear between two wh-elements, and intervening quantifiers like wenige ‘few,’ höchstens ‘at-most three,’ mehr als ‘more than three,’ etc., correlatively may not appear between the same wh-elements. Based on this correlation and his assumption that wh-elements occupy the specifier of Top, Grohmann claims that intervention effects created by intervening quantifiers stem from the fact that these quantifiers are not topicalizable.

12

Watanabe (1992a,b) suggests that after the wh-operator moves overtly, the remaining restriction moves covertly to join the operator. Miyagawa and Endo suggest that the movement of the restriction is optional: If the restriction moves, it results in a D-linked chain; if not, the chain is non-D-linked.

CHAPTER 4 Are Topics Special?

In this chapter, I will discuss the nature of the Topic Phrase (TopP). Recently, Rizzi (2004) made an interesting point to the effect that topics are special with respect to RM in Italian. He suggests two possibilities to derive this special character of topics in Italian. After reviewing his two ideas, I will provide a piece of evidence from Japanese backward binding in favor of one of his ideas. This chapter is organized along the following lines. Section 1 introduces some special properties of topics in Italian noted by Rizzi (2004). In section 2, I will provide a piece of evidence in favor of one of his ideas by looking at Japanese backward binding sentences, which are parallel to English/Italian inverse copula sentences, French partial whmovement, and Hungarian A’-movement inside DP. Section 3 reinforces our conclusion by looking at long-distance agreement in Tsez. Section 4 takes up the issue that topics are special with respect to RM. Section 5 discusses some issues about the special status of topics in Italian and favors one of the ideas presented by Rizzi (2004) from Japanese. Section 6 suggests that a feature is transmitted from the CP zone in Japanese. Section 7 is provides some refinements of our idea. Section 8 demonstrates the relevance of topicality in backward binding sentences. Section 9 concludes our discussion.

4. 1

Issue: Are topics special?

Rizzi (2004) notes some interesting special properties of topics in Italian. Let me start with a brief summary of his points. According to the feature-based RM, an element cannot be skipped over by another element of the same feature class. Since topics form a separate class from other A’-dependencies, we do not find locality interactions with other types of A’-dependencies. The point is illustrated by the following examples in Italian: (1)

a.

?Non so a chi pensi che, tuo fratello, not know to whom think that your brother lo potremmo affidare him could entrust ‘I don’t know to whom you think that, your brother, we could entrust’

66


b.

?Non so come pensi che, tuo fratello, not know how think that your brother lo potremmo convincere him could convince ‘I don’t know how you think that, your brother, we could convince him’

Here, wh-elements (the quantificational class) are shown to be freely extractable across topics (topicalized element of the topic class) in Italian. If topics form an autonomous class with the other types of chain dependencies, we would expect intervening topics to show minimality effects for topic chains. The prediction is not borne out, however. As the following examples show, adverbial topics of different kinds are freely extractable across other topics in Italian. (2)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Rapidamente, penso che, questo problema, rapidly think that this problem non lo possiate risolvere not it could solve ‘Rapidly, I think that, this problem, you could not solve it’ In questo modo, credo che, il problema, lo risolverete senz’altro in this way believe that the problem it solve for sure ‘In this way, I believe that, the problem, you will solve it for sure’ In questo modo, credo che, senza troppe difficoltà, in this way believe that without too.many difficulties potreste risolvere il problema could solve the problem ‘In this way, I believe that, without too many difficulties, you could solve the problem’ L’anno prossimo, penso che, le elezioni, le vincerà the.year next think that the election them will.win un altro candidato another candidate ‘Next year, I think that, the elections, another candidate will win them’

To make sense of this paradigm, Rizzi suggests two possible ways of addressing the special properties of topics. One is to relate the lack of minimality effects to the recursion of topics. Based on the fact that it is possible to have any number of topics per clause in Italian as illustrated in (3) below, Rizzi suggests that a moving topic may find an intermediate landing site (multiple specifier) close enough to the intervening topic to

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

67

escape the minimality effect via some notion of ‘equi-distance,’ in the sense of Chomsky (1995): (3)

L’anno prossimo, in questo modo, le elezioni, next year in this way the election senza trope difficoltà, a Gianni potreste fargliele vincere without too. many difficulties to Gianni could make win ‘Next year, in this way, the elections, without difficulties, (to) Gianni, you could make (to) him win them’

The second possibility that Rizzi suggests is to think of topics as defined in a purely negative way with respect to the feature class system, such as [-argumental, -quantificational]. According to this view, topics have none of the properties expressed by the feature system to identify major position types, which RM is sensitive to. Thus, topics are silent about RM in Italian. Rizzi correctly predicts that if a language lacks the possibility of allowing multiple topics per clause, then intervening topics should give rise to minimality effects in that language because no topic escape hatch could be provided through equi-distance. I will show that Japanese is essentially such a case. My point is as follows: (4)

a.

b.

The Japanese multiple nominative construction cannot be turned into a multiple topic structure (although multiple occurrences of topic are possible by exploiting various topic positions in the CP zone). Backward binding is made possible by a topic antecedent moving to TopP at LF. This LF movement is blocked by another topic element. This blocking effect should be escaped if an intervening topic can be exploited as the escape hatch for topic movement. Thus Japanese has no multiple specifier escape hatch, and therefore, topics in Japanese exhibit RM effects.

If the negative value is the only source of the special status of topics with respect to RM, the properties above are not expected. Therefore, I will suggest that Rizzi’s first conjecture is correct. In the following section, we will examine topic-induced blocking effects in Japanese after we see some basic properties of backward binding from the previous literature.


68

4. 2

Basic properties of backward binding

Belletti and Rizzi (1981) note that backward binding is possible with psych-predicates, as illustrated below: (5)

Pictures of herself worried Mary

Here, the antecedent Mary in the direct object position may bind the anaphor herself inside the subject. This apparently violates Binding Condition A: the antecedent fails to c-command the anaphor in the same clause in (5). To solve this problem, Belletti and Rizzi propose a thematic hierarchy according to which the Experiencer is higher than the Theme. The thematic hierarchy requires the following D-structure configuration for the backward binding case in (5), where the antecedent Mary (Experiencer) is base-generated in a position c-commanding the anaphor himself (Theme) before the Theme ‘pictures of herself’ raises to the specifier of TP. (6)

[TP

[VP Mary [ pictures of herself]]] (Experiencer) (Theme)

Here, Binding Condition A is satisfied at D-structure. Belletti and Rizzi assume that Binding Condition A applies derivationally; i.e., it may apply at any point in the derivation. A somewhat different approach is pursued in Fujita (1993) and Koizumi (1995), where it is proposed that the direct object (antecedent) raises to AgrOP in LF and chain-binds the VP-internal subject that contains an anaphor.

(7)

[AgrOP Mary [VP [ pictures of herself] chain-bind

[V

(Mary)]]

Problematic for both analyses is a case like the following, where the antecedent does not seem to c-command the anaphor at any point of the derivation: (8)

Pictures of himself made [DP John’s head] ache

Here, the antecedent John is embedded inside a DP and cannot c-command the anaphor himself in the base position or at S-structure. A similar fact is noted by Campbell and Martin (1989) and Stowell (1986), who note a sentence like the following:

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

(9)

69

Pictures of herself gave Mary a headache

Here, the anaphor herself does not seem to be c-commanded by the antecedent Mary at any point in the narrow syntactic derivation. They attribute the possibility of backward binding to the possibility that the Experiencer raises to the second subject position to bind the anaphor at LF. Unfortunately, no independent motivation is presented for the second subject position, as I will try to make clear in the following section. (10)

4. 3

[

[pictures of herself gave Mary a headache

Japanese backward binding

Japanese has backward binding sentences involving the anaphor zibun ‘self.’ The properties of this anaphor have been discussed by many linguists, and it is not my main concern to advance a comprehensive evaluation of the numerous works on this topic here (see 4.8 for some discussion of other properties of the anaphor zibun ‘self’) or to fully describe all the various cases of zibun ‘self’ binding. Rather, I will focus my attention on the blocking effects witnessed in the backward binding constructions. Let us consider a concrete example from Miyake (1996), who observes that a part of the small clause (SC) predicate ‘Mr. Yamada’ can bind the anaphor zibun ‘self’ inside the subject of (11). (11)

[SC [Zibun-no kodomo-ga] [Yamada-san-no self-Gen child-Nom Mr.Yamada-Gen (subject) (predicate) Lit. ‘Child of himself is Mr. Yamada’s pride’ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

hokori] ]-da pride Cop

Here, the anaphor zibun ‘self’ contained in the subject does not seem to be c-commanded by its antecedent at any level of representation, since the antecedent Yamada-san ‘Mr. Yamada’ is contained in the bracketed small clause predicate.1 Let me first clarify the syntax of this type of small clause and next discuss some important properties of this backward binding sentence. First, this type of small clause is parallel to the small clause discussed by Moro (2000) in English and Italian, which has the following configuration in (12a) below. Moro 1

This type of backward binding is generally attested when the predicate of the small clause is a psychological predicate.

70


claims that in this small clause structure, the subject DP and the predicate (Pred) are symmetrical in that they stand in the sister relation; the small clause cannot be linearized as it stands by Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), according to which only anti-symmetrical structures can be linearized: an asymmetrically c-commanding element precedes an asymmetrically c-commanded element.

(12)

a. b. c. d.

e.

…copula [DP Pred]… The picture is the cause of the riot The cause of the riot is the picture Queste foto del muro sono la causa della rivolta the picture of wall is the cause of the riot ‘The picture of the wall is the cause of the riot’ La causa della rivolta sono queste foto del muro. the cause of the riot is the picture of wall ‘The cause of the riot is the picture of the wall’

(English) (Italian)

The LCA is satisfied by moving either the subject or the predicate out of the symmetric small clause structure, as illustrated in (12b-e). The Japanese small clauses under discussion have the same configuration. What is interesting is that a displaced element may be suffixed by the topic particle wa, as shown in (13) below. 2 (13)

a.

b.

2

John-wa [ chairman]-da (John=subject) John-Top chairman Cop ‘John is the chairman’ Chairman-wa [John ]-da (chairman = predicate) chairman-Top John Cop ‘The chairman is John’

Based on the fact that a sentence-initial topic-marked DP is not subject to syntactic islands, Saito (1985) and Hoji (1985) argue that the topic construction involves binding of an empty argument pro instead of movement of the topic phrase from an argument position. There is an interesting twist here. When the subject moves out, it may also be suffixed by the nominative Case particle, which is obligatorily interpreted as focus. In contrast, the predicate cannot be suffixed by the nominative Case particle at all. A possible interpretation of this state of affairs is to follow Cardinaletti (2004) in postulating two positions for the subject: SubjP and AgrP, where the predicate targets SubjP, not AgrP. Thus, the predicate might not be suffixed by a Case particle that is licensed only by AgrP. I am grateful to Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) for suggesting this possibility.

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

71

In the backward binding sentence in (11), an LCA-violation can be escaped by any one of the following three strategies, depicted below: (i) moving the subject of the small clause (=14); (ii) moving the predicate of the small clause (=15); and, most crucially, (iii) moving a part of the small clause, i.e., the possessor (antecedent) part (=16). (14)

[SC DP(=containing anaphor)-Top

(15)

[SC DP (=containing anaphor)

[DP-Poss (=antecedent) Pred-Top]… Cop

(16)

[SC DP (=containing anaphor)-Nom

[DP (=antecedent)-Top Pred]…

[DP-Poss(=antecedent) Pred]…

Cop

Cop

The three patterns are illustrated below, where the backward binding sentence in (11) corresponds to (17a) with the nominative Case particle ga, not the topic particle wa, suffixed to the displaced subject:4

(17)

a.

b.

(subject extracted) Zibun-no musuko-wa/ga [ SC Yamada-san-no hokori]-da self-Ge son-Top/Nom Mr.Yamada-Gen pride Cop Lit. ‘Child of himself is Mr. Yamada’s pride’ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’ (predicate extracted) ]-da Yamada-san-no hokori-wa [SC zibun-no musuko Mr. Yamada-Gen pride-Top self-Gen son Cop Lit. ‘Mr. Yamada’s pride is his son’ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

4

Backward binding is not possible when the subject is suffixed by the topic particle in (17a), as I will show below. There is an independent piece of evidence that the possessor element raises high from DP (Ogawa 2001). Based on Miyagawa’s (1989) observation that a floating numeral quantifier (NFQ) must be c-commanded by the antecedent it modifies and quantifies over, Kikuchi (1994) and Ogawa (2001) claim that the possessor raises high to have a mutual c-command relation with an NFQ out of DP at LF in light of the following data: (i)

Tomodati-no ude-ga 3-bon oreta friend-Poss arm-Nom 3-CL broke ‘The arm of my three friends broke’

72


c.

(possessor extracted) Yamada-san-wa [SC zibun-no musuko-ga [ Mr. Yamada-Top self-Gen son-Nom Lit. ‘As for Mr. Yamada, his son is his pride’ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

hokori] ]-da pride Cop

The lexical items of the three types of sentences share the same thematic relations. According to Baker’s (1988) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH), identical thematic relationships of items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure. Given the UTAH, the possessive DP of (17c) is extracted from the small clause predicate, where the antecedent ‘Mr. Yamada’ c-commands the anaphor. I will show that such a configuration is created by LF movement of the possessor (antecedent) in the backward binding sentence in (11). Before showing this point, let me note some important properties of the sub-extraction configuration in (17c).

(18)

DP-Top(=antecedent)…[SC DP (=containing anaphor)-Nom (subject)

[ t Pred]… (predicate)

First, this sub-extraction is essentially parallel to Hungarian A’-movement inside the DP (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for drawing my attention to the Hungarian data), as illustrated below: (19)

a.

b.

a Mari-φ vendég-e-φ the Mary-Nom guest-Poss-3sg ‘Mary’s guest’ Mary-nak a vendég-eφ Mary-Dat the guest-Poss-3sg ‘Mary’s guest’

According to Szabolcsi (1983), in (19a), the head noun vendég ‘guest’ agrees in person and gender with the possessor Mari, while in (19b), the possessor appears before the head noun and is marked for the dative Case with nak. Szabolcsi proposes that the possessor has moved to the specifier of DP in (19b). In Japanese, the possessor in (18) appears before the subject and is suffixed by the topic particle: (20)

a.

[DP possessor-Dative…[NP… t…]…]…

(Hungarian)

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

b.

[TopP possessor-Top…[NP…t…]…]…

73

(Japanese)

In Hungarian, A’-movement targets the specifier of DP in (20a), while in Japanese, A’-movement targets the specifier of TopP in the CP zone in (20b). This sub-extraction into the CP zone is also parallel to partial wh-movement in French, as illustrated in (21a-b): (21)

a.

b.

c.

[Combien de livres] a-t-il consulté t ? how.many of books did he consult ‘How many books did he consult?’ Combien a-t-il consulté [ t de livres]? how.many did he consult of books ‘How many did he consult of books?’ *Combien a-t-il beaucoup consulté [ t de livres]? how.many did he a lot consult of books ‘How many did a lot he consult of books?’

In (21b), ‘how many’ is extracted out of the DP into the specifier of FocP. The parallelism between Japanese and French sub-extraction is reinforced by the fact that French partial wh-movement is blocked by an operator of the same quantificational class, as shown in (21c). Here, partial wh-movement is blocked by the quantificational adverb beaucoup ‘a lot.’ In parallel to this, the Japanese sub-extraction sentence at hand is blocked by a topic element as shown in (21a) below. (21’)

a. *…S(=containing anaphor)-Top…[Poss (=antecedent)…]… × b. ??Yamada-san-wa zibun-no musuko-wa [ hokori]-da pride] Cop Mr. Yamada-Top self-Gen kid-Top [ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

Here, a part of the bracketed predicate (‘Mr. Yamada’) is extracted to target TopP and blocked by a higher topic element (‘self’s kid’) by the feature-based RM; the subject (‘self’s kid’) must be interpreted as focus, if it is to be acceptable at all. Thus, the Japanese and French constructions at issue are parallel to each other with respect to RM, as depicted below: (22)

Whi…operator… [DP…t i… NP… ]… DPi…Subj-Top…[Pred…t i… NP…]…

(French RM effects) (Japanese RM effects)

74


The French case involves partial wh-movement out of the DP, which is blocked by an operator of the same quantificational class; the Japanese backward binding case involves movement of a topic class element out of a predicate and is blocked by the higher topic class element. In both cases, movement is blocked by the feature-based RM, where the locality between X and Y is blocked by an occurrence of Z of the same feature class below: (23)

a. b. c. d.


Thus, the minimum difference here is that the movement is blocked in Japanese by a topic class element, while the movement is blocked in French by a quantificational class element. Let us look at the derivation of the backward binding sentence in (11) that concerns us here. In the previous chapter, we saw that a DP has the option to incorporate a discourse-related feature like [+topic] in the lexical item: (24)

…lexical item […, topic, …]

Based on the fact that a raised element may be suffixed by the topic particle wa, I suggest that in a parallel backward binding sentence, the possessor antecedent may carry the feature [+topic]; this topic feature (Criterial Goal) may be attracted by the head of TopP (Criterial Probe) in the CP zone at LF:

(25) …Top…DP-Nom… [SC [Mr. Yamada ]] Pred ] (Criterial Probe) (Criterial Goal) This is in line with Ura’s (1996) analysis of multiple nominative constructions in Japanese and Korean, according to which the possessor of an inalienable noun is generated with nominative Case and attracted by T after the inalienable noun enters into a Case-feature checking relation with T. In the backward binding sentence under discussion, the possessor enters into a criterial relation with Top, not with T. From the raised position in the CP zone, the possessor antecedent may bind the antecedent within the subject at LF.

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

(25’)

75

… [TopP [Yamada-san ] … [anaphor… bind

To summarize so far, we have seen that backward binding is made possible by the possessor antecedent raising out of a small clause predicate to TopP in LF, just like partial wh-movement in French involves movement of the specifier into FocP in overt syntax. This approach makes some predictions. First, recall that possessor raising is blocked by an intervening topic element due to the feature-based RM in overt syntax. If the backward binding sentences under discussion involve the same raising operation targeting TopP at LF, backward binding should be blocked by a higher topic element, due to RM. The prediction is borne out by the following sentence, where the subject is suffixed by the topic particle wa, and the backward binding interpretation is no longer available:

(26)

* Zibun-no musuko-wa [Yamada-san-no hokori ]-da self-Gen child-Top Mr. Yamada-Gen pride Cop Lit. ‘As for self’s child, he is Mr. Yamada’s pride’ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

Here, LF movement of a topic element (‘Mr. Yamada’) is blocked by a higher topic element. Note that this shows that LF-movement of the possessor cannot utilize a higher topic element as an escape hatch (multiple specifier) to move into a higher TopP. This is in contrast to Italian, in which a higher topic item can be exploited as an escape hatch to move into a higher topic position.5 This is a very important fact for our concerns in this chapter. Recall our main question has been whether a topic can be exploited as an escape hatch to void minimality effects in Japanese. If LF movement of the antecedent possessor above could exploit the multiple specifier of a higher topic element as an escape hatch, the topic element should not give rise to minimality effects. The unacceptability above strongly suggests that the intervening topic element is giving rise to a minimality effect in Japanese precisely because no topic is available as an escape hatch through equi-distance in Japanese. This favors one of Rizzi’s ideas about why topics look special in showing no minimality effects in Italian. The apparent absence of minimality effects in Italian seems 5

Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) raises the issue of why a certain element may move to TopP in LF instead of being base-generated in the specifier of TopP in overt syntax and in LF. It seems that the LF operation would be motivated to create a new semantic effect of topic interpretation in TopP in addition to the semantic effect it has by being generated in the base position.

76


to be because of the availability of a higher topic element as an escape hatch. A topic element may perhaps exploit the multiple specifier of TopP to move to a higher TopP. Because Japanese does not have this option, minimality effects are expected. If the second possibility that Rizzi raises were correct (i.e., topics involve negative specification of [-argumental, -quantificational]), we would not expect blocking effects in Japanese. We will discuss this point in detail in the following section. Let me demonstrate here the generality of the topic-induced RM effects at LF by examining another topic-related sentence: (27)

10-nen mae-(wa) zibun-no musuko-ga [Yamada-san-no hokori] 10-years ago-(Top) self-Top son-Nom Mr.Yamada-Gen pride datta Cop ‘Mr. Yamada was proud of his son ten years ago’

Here, the sentence-initial element ‘10 years ago’ may optionally be suffixed by the topic particle wa. Because this element is sentence-initial and can be higher than the landing site of the LF topic movement, it does not affect the possibility of backward binding. The situation is different when ‘10 years ago’ appears in a lower position: (28)

Zibun-no musuko-ga 10-nen mae-(*wa) [Yamda-san-no hokori] self-Gen son-Nom 10-years ago-(Top) Mr. Yamada-Gen pride data Cop ‘Mr. Yamada was proud of his son 10 years ago’

Here, the element ‘10 years ago’ appears in a position lower than the subject that contains an anaphor. In order for the possessor antecedent (‘Mr. Yamada’) to bind the anaphor (‘self'), it must move across the expression ‘10 years ago’ at LF. When ‘10 years ago’ is not suffixed by the topic particle, backward binding is possible, but backward binding is impossible when the expression ‘10 years ago’ is suffixed by the topic particle wa. This naturally follows under our account, according to which the sentence at issue has the following configuration: (29)

[TopP…[DP …anaphor…]…10 years ago-Top…[[ Mr.Yamada]-Gen Pred

× Here, the possessor antecedent must move across the expression ‘10 years ago’ suffixed by the topic particle and the subject that contains an anaphor in order to make backward

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

77

binding possible, but the topic chain is necessarily interrupted by another topic element ‘10 years ago’ suffixed by the topic particle, violating the feature-based RM. If backward binding is blocked by another topic element, it is predicted that the sentence should be improved by substituting the topic particle with a focus particle, since topic and focus are from different classes of elements with respect to RM. The prediction seems to be borne out. When we replace the topic particle suffixed to ‘10 years ago’ in (28) with the focus particle mo ‘also,’ backward binding becomes possible, as in (30b) below. (30)

a. … [TopP…[XP…]-Focus … [antecedent… (topic chain) b.

[Zibun-no musuko] -ga 10-nen-mae-mo self-Gen son Nom 10-years-ago-also hokori] da

[Yamada-san -no Mr. Yamada-Gen

pride Cop ‘Mr. Yamada was proud of his son also 10 years ago’

In (30b), the element ‘10 years ago’ is suffixed by the focus particle mo ‘also’ of a quantificational class element. If the underlined possessor antecedent forms a topic-chain at LF, the element ‘10 years ago’ of a different class should not count as a relevant intervener, as depicted in (30a). The prediction is borne out. A significant improvement is attested in (30b). To summarize, we have seen that Japanese backward binding involves movement of the possessor antecedent into TopP at LF and is blocked by a subject of the same topic class; this is parallel to French partial wh-movement, where movement of a quantificational class element is blocked by an operator of the same quantificational class by the feature-based RM. This topic-induced blocking effect in Japanese arises because TopP does not have the option to use a higher topic element as an escape hatch, perhaps because no multiple specifier is available for TopP in Japanese. In contrast, multiple specifiers are available for TopPs in Italian, and no minimality effect arises by exploiting one of the multiple specifiers of TopP to move to a higher TopP. In the following section, I will show that the same type of topic-related minimality effect is attested in other languages to reinforce my suggestion.

78


4. 4

Topic-induced RM effects in Tsez

In the previous section, we suggested that the backward binding blocking effect is reduced to the feature-based RM, where the relevant intervener is a topic class element. An immediate question arises here: does the topic feature induce RM in other languages? The answer seems to be in the affirmative. A very clear case is provided by Tsez, a language spoken in the northern Caucasus. In this language, overt long-distance agreement with topic items is blocked by a topic-marked element. Let us see the point by starting with some elementary properties of long-distance agreement in this language. In Tsez, verbs may agree long distance with a topic absolutive argument as in (31b) below, where agreement is shown in boldface: (31)

a.

b.

enir [už-ā magalu b-āc’ru-łi] mother-DAT boy bread.III.Abs eat-PrtPRT-NMLZ.IV r-iyxo IV-know-PRES ‘The mother knows the boy ate the bread’ enir [už-i magalu ø- āy-ru-łi] mother-Dat boy.I.Abs I-arrive-Prs-NMLZø -iy-xo I-know-PRES ‘The mother knows the boy arrived’

According to Polinsky and Potsdam (2001), such a long-distance agreement is blocked by an extra-topic item of the following sort: (i) a topicalized adverb (=32a) and (ii) a topic-marked argument (=32b), where the blockers are underlined:6 7 (32)

6

a.

už-ā magalu eni-r [ ħuł mother-Dat yesterday boy-Erg bread.III.Abs b-āc’-ru-łi] r/*b-iy-xo III-eat-PrsPrt-NMLZ IV/*III-know-Pres ‘The mother knows the boy ate bread yesterday’

They show that Tsez fronting is a movement operation since it is sensitive to islands like the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC). The CSC holds for the Japanese translation of the sentence at issue as well. 7 In Tsez, overt wh-fronting must precede a topic element. Polinsky and Potsdam identify two projections in the CP zone. They also assume that the topic and wh features can be strong or weak. When strong, a topic or wh-element is attracted to its specifier in overt syntax; when weak, a topic element or a wh-element is attracted (I think this is incomplete).

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

b.

79

eni-r [aħ-ā čanaqan-go-gon ziya mother-Dat shepherd-Erg hunter-Poss.-Top cow.III.Abs bišłzosi-li] r/*b-iy-xo feed-Caus-PrsPrt-NMNLZ IV IV/*III-know-Pres ‘The mother knows that the hunter, the shepherd made (him) feed the cow’8

Thus, we see an overt reflex of topic-induced blocking effects. Polinsky and Potsdam interpret these extra-topic items as blockers for an agreed-upon item to undergo LF movement to have a local relation with the agreement trigger (V):

(33)

LF-movement [TopP specifier [Top’ Top0 [IP S O V ] ] ] ] agreement

V

To summarize, Tsez has long-distance agreement, which is made possible by the agreed-upon item undergoing LF movement to the local position of the agreement trigger. This topic-related LF movement is blocked by a closer topic item. The paradigm in Tsez is parallel to, and can be assimilated to, backward binding in Japanese, where a higher topic item makes backward binding impossible. In both languages, the antecedent (Japanese) or agreed-upon items (Tsez) undergo LF movement, and this LF movement is blocked by a topic-element due to the feature-based RM.

4. 5

Favoring one of the two ideas of Rizzi (2004)

Recall here the asymmetry that topic elements show with respect to RM in Italian. Rizzi notes that adverbials can skip a topic element, as shown below. (34)

8

a. Rapidamente, penso che, questo problema, non lo possiate risolvere rapidly think that this problem not it could solve ‘Rapidly, I think that, this problem, you could not solve it’ b. In questo modo, credo che, il problema, lo risolverete senz’altro in this way believe that the problem it will.solve for sure ‘In this way, I believe that, the problem, you will solve it for sure’

They also note that topicless thetic sentences cannot enter into long-distance agreement relations.

80


c. In questo modo, credo che, senza troppe difficoltà, potreste in this way believe that without too.many difficulties could risolvere il problema solve the problem ‘In this way, I believe that, without too many difficulties, you could solve the problem’ Here, various adverbials like ‘rapidly,’ ‘next year,’ etc., may skip a topicalized element like ‘this problem’ without inducing RM effects. Thus, topicalized elements in Italian do not show feature-based RM in a straightforward manner. Rizzi suggests two possible explanations for this fact: Possibility A: A moving adverbial can exploit one of the topic elements as an escape hatch. According to this idea, a moving adverbial may find an intermediate landing site close enough to the intervening topic to circumvent the minimality effect via some notion of ‘equi-distance,’ in the sense of Chomsky (1995). The second possibility is the following: Possibility B: Topics are negatively specified. According to this idea, RM effects are triggered by the “sameness” of structural type expressed by a “positive” feature specification, where the members of argumental, quantificational, and modifier classes are assumed to be positively specified with respect to the defining feature +/-Arg, +/-Mod, +/-Q, while topic class is defined in a purely negative way with respect to this system. The Japanese backward binding case seems to favor the first possibility. Recall the following configuration of backward binding sentences: × (35)

a. *[TopP … Subj(=containing anaphor)-Top…[Poss(=antecedent)…] b.

bind *Yamada-san-wa

zibun-no musuko-wa [ Mr. Yamada-Top self’s kid-Top [ ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

hokori]-da pride] Cop

Here, backward binding is made possible by the antecedent (‘Mr. Yamada’) targeting TopP and so c-commanding the anaphor (‘self’) at LF; this backward binding is blocked by an intervening topic element. If a topic element is negatively specified with respect to

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

81

an intervener (Possibility B), the blocking effect above is mysterious.9 In contrast, Possibility A has a chance to make sense of the backward binding paradigm above, and the parameter witnessed here would be the availability of multiple specifiers forTopP, available in Italian but not in Japanese.10 Rizzi (2004) suggests that if a language lacks the possibility of allowing multiple topics per clause, then intervening topics should give rise to minimality effects in this language because no topic escape hatch could be provided through equidistance. Japanese seems to be such a case. Consider the following examples of the multiple nominative construction: (36)

a.

b. c.

Nihon-ga zyosee-ga zyumyoo-ga nagai Japan-Nom female-Nom life.span-Nom is.long ‘The life-span of the Japanese female is long’ Nihon-wa zyosee-ga zyumyoo-ga nagai Japan-Top female-Nom life.span-Nom is.long ??Nihon-wa zyosee-wa zyumyoo-ga nagai11 Japan-Top female-Top life.span-Nom is.long

The sentence in (36a) is a typical multiple nominative Case sentence, suggesting that Japanese allows multiple specifiers for nominative phrases licensed by T. In (36b), only the first nominative element is suffixed by the topic particle, where the nominative Case is suppressed; in (36c), two nominative elements are suffixed by the topic particle, resulting in ungrammaticality. This suggests that Japanese TopP does not allow for multiple specifiers. A note of caution is in order here. The sentence in (36c) is not ungrammatical in a strict sense, since it is acceptable when the second wa-marked element is interpreted as contrastive focus, which would be licensed by FocP, not TopP. Note, however, that two wa-marked topic elements may appear in a single clause in Japanese as long as they are licensed in different TopPs. For instance, a scene-setting element and a thematic topic element may appear in the same sentence with each being suffixed by the topic particle wa, as follows: 9

The second possibility has to assume a parametric variation between Italian and Japanese; in Japanese but not in Italian, the topic is positively specified with respect to feature composition. It is not clear to me how Japanese/Italian kids could learn this parametric variation. 10 This does not mean that Japanese has a negative value for multiple specifiers for all functional categories. For instance, Japanese allows for a multiple specifier for T, allowing for multiple nominatives, as we will see below. 11 The second DP suffixed by the topic particle is necessarily identified as identificational focus and receives an exhaustive reading. If a topic interpretation is forced, the example is unacceptable as marked.

82


(37)

Kyoo-wa gogo Mary-wa hima sooda13 Today-Top in.the.afternoon Mary-Top free seem ‘Today Mary seems free/has nothing to do in the afternoon’

Here, the sentence-initial scene-setting element ‘today’ is suffixed by the topic particle wa and is followed by the argument ‘Mary’ suffixed by the same topic particle wa. This word order is consistent with the claim made by Benincà and Poletto (2004), according to which a scene-setting element is hosted in a higher functional category than other types of topical elements in the CP zone. The relative height of a scene-setting element and the topic argument can be confirmed by the fact that permutation of these two topic-marked elements gives rise to a bizarre sentence: (38)

??Mary-wa gogo kyoo-wa hima sooda Mary-Top in.the.afternoon today-Top free seem ‘Today Mary seems to be free in the afternoon’

This sentence is only acceptable when the scene-setting element ‘today’ is interpreted with contrastive focus.14 This is again consistent with the hierarchy we are assuming, according to which one of the TopPs is higher than FocP: (39) Force

Top* Int

Top* Focus

Mod*

Top*

Fin

IP

To summarize, we have seen that Japanese backward binding, multiple nominative Case construction, and Tsez long-distance agreement conspire to suggest that the special status of topics (in Italian) with respect to RM is due to the availability of multiple specifiers for Italian, not the negative featural value assigned to topic elements.

13 Miyake claims that backward binding is impossible when the subject is suffixed by the topic particle wa because the antecedent possessor and the topic subject suffixed by the topic particle wa compete for a single topic position in LF. Although Miyake is working in a single CP structure, his claim seems to be right in this respect. Note, however, that his claim makes a wrong prediction for this case, where two topic elements appear. 14 This shows that the particle wa may mark a scene-setting topic, a regular argumental topic, etc. This multiplicity might indicate that there are several instances of the homophonous wa, as Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) points out. Kuno (1973a, b) notes that two occurrences of the particle wa may be distinguished by stress pattern, which is not always clear, as Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) points out. I agree with his intuition.

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

4. 6

83

Topic feature transmission from the CP zone

In this section, I would like to note an important implication of our approach to backward binding, which involves the property of the anaphor zibun ‘self.’ A close examination of this anaphor suggests that the topic feature in the CP zone may be transmitted to the head of TP, as suggested by Chomsky (2005). The antecedent of the anaphor zibun ‘self’ is said to be subject-oriented. Thus, the anaphor requires the subject for its antecedent, unlike its English counterpart, as seen below (cf. Hofmann (1993) and Shibatani (1977) for this point): (40)

a. b.

John talked to Mike about himself (himself =John or Mike) Taroo-wa Hanako-ni zibun-no koto-o hanasita Taro-Top Hanako-Dat self-Gen matter-Acc talked ‘Taro talked to Hanako about himself’ (zibun=Taro, not Hanako)

In the English sentence in (40a), the anaphor himself may take the subject John or the (indirect) object Mike as its antecedent, while in the corresponding Japanese sentence in (39b), the anaphor zibun ‘self’ can only take the subject Taro, not the (indirect) object Hanako, as its antecedent. With this subject-orientation of zibun ‘self’ in mind, consider the following configuration of the backward binding sentence at hand:

(41)

[TopP … [SC Subj(=containing anaphor)-Nom…[Poss(=antecedent)…] …] bind

Here, the antecedent originates in the position embedded inside the small clause predicate and terminates in the specifier of TopP, both of which are clearly not subject positions like the specifier of SubjP or TP. Thus, the problem is that the raised DP does not seem to be a possible binder of the subject-oriented anaphor. This problem can be solved by adopting ideas from Chomsky (2005), according to which a feature in the CP zone may be transmitted into the head of TP to satisfy the EPP. According to this idea, the Top feature originating in the CP zone can be found in the head of TP to satisfy the EPP, and attracts the antecedent to its specifier in LF:

(42)

[TopP

[topic] …

[TP … [SC …anaphor …[Poss(=antecedent)…]


84

In this configuration, the subject stays in situ within vP. Thus, the topical antecedent may move into the specifier of TP to be probed by the topic feature at LF, from which it can bind a subject-oriented anaphor zibun ‘self.’ This approach is in line with Miyagawa’s (2004) super-features approach, according to which phi-features and discourse-related features are considered two sides of the same coin with respect to the EPP. According to his analysis, a discourse-related focus feature may be transmitted from the CP zone to the head of TP to attract a nominal element in order to satisfy the EPP. My suggestion is that a topic feature may also be transmitted to the head of TP to satisfy the EPP. Here, the EPP is satisfied by the topic feature without attracting anything in overt syntax (cf. chapter 8 for an alternative idea by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006), according to which the EPP may be satisfied by a local head-to-head relation without attracting anything). This idea makes a prediction: In the backward binding configuration under discussion, the subject stays within vP and should be in the scope of negation of NegP above vP. The prediction seems to be borne out: (43)

Subete-no zibun-no kodomo-ga Yamada-san-no hokori-de-nai all-Gen self-Gen kid-Nom Mr.Yamada-Gen pride-Cop-Neg ‘Mr. Yamada is not proud of all of his kids’ (Neg > All, All > Neg)

Here, the quantified subject ‘all of his kids’ may be inside the scope of negation. The narrow scope of the subject is not expected if the subject always raises to the specifier of TP by A-movement, since A-movement may not reconstruct and should not be within the scope of negation.

4. 7

Refinements

In this chapter, we have seen a number of cases in which a topic-related element such as the subject DP suffixed by the topic particle wa counts as an intervener when another topic element moves over it. Note that for our approach to backward binding to go through, it is necessary to establish that the sentence-initial topic subject occupies the lower TopP and that a part of the predicate (antecedent) targets the higher TopP at LF to induce RM effects, as depicted below: (44)

Force Top* Foc Top* Fin … Subject-Top

×

[IP

…

[DP

Poss…N]…

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

85

To show this point, I will proceed along the following path: (i) I will first show that the subject suffixed by the topic particle wa is in the CP zone; (ii) I will next provide pieces of evidence that the topic subject DP occupies the lower TopP; and (iii) the possessor DP occupies the higher TopP.

Point 1: (I) Wa (=Top) is in the CP zone Let me start my discussion with point (i) that the DP suffixed by the topic particle wa appears in the CP zone by looking at the following: (45)

hon-o John-ga/wa John-Nom/Top book-Acc ‘John bought books’

kat-ta buy-Past

Here, the subject John may be suffixed by the nominative Case particle ga or the topic particle wa. Kishimoto (2006) provides a way to test whether the nominative Casemarked subject and the topic-marked subject appear in the CP zone or not, which is related to the scope of the focus particle dake ‘only.’ This focus particle may attach to various syntactic elements, including T, as seen below:15 (46)

John-ga/wa hon-o kat-ta-dake John-Nom book-Acc buy-Past-only ‘John only bought books’

da Cop

Here, the focus particle dake ‘only’ may be associated with any element in TP. Thus, when ‘only’ is associated with the direct object ‘book,’ the sentence means that ‘John read only books’; when ‘only’ is associated with the nominative subject John-ga ‘John-Nom,’ the sentence means that ‘only John bought books.’ Thus, the focus particle may take scope over the first maximum projection containing it. Kishimoto’s implementation is to let the focus particle dake ‘only’ undergo QR to the first maximum projection containing it at LF:

15

One may wonder about the status of the sentence-final element da. This element appears when a tensed predicate is suffixed by a focus particle. Thus, the sentence roughly corresponds to a cleft sentence like ‘it is that …’ in English and est-ce que in French. I am grateful to Luigi Rizzi for reminding me of this point.

86


(47) YP

XP

XP X-only

XP YP

only X-(only)

With this property in mind, let us ask whether a subject suffixed by the topic particle wa can be in the scope of ‘only’; that is, whether the subject DP-wa can be associated with ‘only’ yielding the interpretation ‘only DP-wa …’ in (46). The answer is negative. Note that it is not the case that the topic particle wa is inherently incompatible with the focus particle dake ‘only,’ since both can appear simultaneously as in John-dake-wa ‘John-only-Top.’ From this fact, Kishimoto concludes that the DP suffixed by the topic particle wa is outside TP, i.e., in the CP zone.

Point 2:

Subject is in the lowest TopP

Now that we have a good reason to believe that the DP suffixed by the topic particle wa is in the CP zone, let us next confirm that several TopP positions are available in the CP zone in Japanese. First, consider the following example, where a direct object is scrambled over a wa-marked subject: (48)

John-wa Hon-o book-Acc John-Top ‘John bought books’

katta bought

Here, the direct object hon-o ‘book-Acc’ skips the subject ‘John’ suffixed by the topic particle wa in the CP zone, which means that scrambling may target some position in the CP zone. But the scrambled object must be interpreted as focus when the subject is interpreted as topic. According to the architecture of the CP zone, this fact means that the subject targets the lowest TopP and the scrambled direct object ‘book’ targets FocP: (49)

Force

Top* Int

Top*

Focus

O

Mod*

Top*

Fin

IP

S

Thus, the term ‘scrambling’ is a little misleading in this context; what is happening here is focus-movement, which is widely attested in various languages, as Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) points out.

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

87

Point 3: The antecedent is in the higher TopP With this property in mind, we will next see some facts suggesting that the antecedent may occupy the higher TopP position in the backward binding sentences under discussion. To show this point, the following example is relevant, in which the subject contains an anaphor and is suffixed by a contrastively focalizing particle WA. (50)

zibun-no kodomo-WA [Yamada-san-no 10-nen mae-(wa) 10-years ago-(Top) self-Gen child-contrast Mr. Yamada -Gen hokori] datta pride Cop ‘10 years ago, Mr. Yamada was proud of his son, not others’

Following Rizzi (1997), I assume that a contrastively focalized element targets FocP. Then, the possessor antecedent preceding the subject in FocP must occupy the higher TopP position in LF to bind an anaphor inside the contrastively focalized element in the following configuration: (51)

Force

Top* Int Top* Mr. Yamada-Top

Focus Mod* self’s child-Top (contrastive focus)

Top*

Fin

IP

To summarize so far, we have seen: (i) that there are several TopP positions available in the CP zone in Japanese, (ii) the subject occupies the lowest TopP, and (iii) that the antecedent of the backward binding sentence may target the higher TopP position.16 Collapsing the paradigms we have seen, we get the following architecture: (52) Force Top* Int

Top* Focus Mod* Top* Fin (scene-setting) (Poss-raising) (focalized subject) (topic subject)

IP

16 Benincà and Poletto (2004) suggest the existence of the highest topic position for the hanging topic, which serves a scene-setting function. In fact, the scene-setting adjunct suffixed by the topic-particle wa may also appear on the left in multiple topic sentences:

(i)

Zimoto-de-wa Yamada-san-wa zibun-no kodomo-wa [ hokori]-da hometown-in-Top Mr.Yamada-Top self-Gen child-Top pride]-Cop ‘In the hometown, Mr. Yamada is proud of his son, not others’ sons’


88

Here, we see that backward binding is made possible by raising the possessor antecedent to target the higher TopP.17 To summarize the whole section, we have seen that: (i) there are several TopP positions available in Japanese; (ii) the subject may occupy the lowest TopP positions when suffixed by the topic particle wa; (iii) the antecedent possessor targets a higher TopP to bind an anaphor inside the subject; and (iv) movement of the possessor antecedent over the topic subject violates RM since Japanese does not utilize the multiple specifier strategy that would allow a topic element to be skipped, unlike Italian TopPs.

4. 8

Topicality in backward binding

In this section, I will discuss topicality of the antecedent in the backward binding sentences that concern us in this chapter.

Argument 1—Anti-topic quantifiers vs. topic-compatible quantifiers As we saw earlier, Tomioka (2004) classifies quantifiers into two types in Japanese: topic-compatible quantifiers like subeteno (gakusei) ‘all (students)’ and anti-topic quantifiers like daremo ‘everyone.’ Topic-compatible quantifiers may be suffixed by the topic particle wa, while anti-topic quantifiers resist suffixation of the topic particle wa. Given this bifurcation of quantifiers in Japanese, it is predicted that the possessor of the backward binding configuration cannot be an anti-topic quantifier. The reason is that anti-topic quantifiers lack topicality and may not undergo LF-topicalization to bind an anaphor. This prediction is borne out as seen below. In (53a), the anti-topic quantifier daremo ‘everyone’ cannot appear in the possessor position of the backward binding sentence that concerns us here. In contrast, in (53b), the topic-compatible quantifier subeteno ‘all’ may appear in the possessor position of the backward binding

17

If topicalization targets the CP zone, it is an A’-movement operation and hence we expect weak cross over (WCO) effects to be attested, contrary to fact. (ii)

Zibun-no kodomo-ga [dare-no self-Gen child-Nom who-Gen ‘Who is proud of his son?’

hokori]-desu pride polite

ka? Q

Here, no WCO effect is attested. This problem is not so serious in view of the fact that referential elements induce weak crossover effects only very mildly (Lasnik and Stowell 1991), as suggested to me by Ur Shlonsky and Luigi Rizzi.

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

89

configuration, since it is compatible with topicality and can undergo LF topicalization to bind an anaphor. (53)

a.

b.

*Zibun-no kodomo-ga [daremo-no hokori]-da self-Gen child-Nom everyone-Gen pride Cop ‘Everyone is proud of his son’ Zibun-no kodomo-ga [subete-no oya-no hokori]-da self-Gen child-Nom all-Gen parent-Gen pride Cop ‘Every parent is proud of his son’

A similar observation is made by Kishimoto (2006), where it is noted that the anti-topic quantifier daremo cannot be suffixed by the focus particle dake ‘only.’

Argument 2—Indefinites Nishigauchi and Ishii (2003: 46) note that an indefinite noun like hito ‘person’ is lacking in descriptive content and may not be used to pick up a referent in the previous discourse. I find that the indefinite hito ‘people’ in the subject position cannot be suffixed by the topic particle wa, unless its descriptive content is made rich enough with the help of modifiers like ookuno ‘many’ or hotondono ‘most,’ as shown in (53a) below. (54)

a.

b.

* (Ookuno/Hotondo-no) hito-wa syooziki-da * (many/most-Gen) person-Top honest-Cop ‘(Many/Most) people are honest’ Zibun-no kodomo-ga [*(ookuno/hotondo-no) hito-no self-Gen child-Nom (many/most-Gen people-Gen hokori]-da pride Cop ‘*(Many/Most) people are proud of his son’

Correlatively, this indefinite allows for backward binding only when the indefinite is identified as a topic with the help of modifiers like ookuno ‘many’ or hotondono ‘most,’ as shown in (54b) above. Incidentally, Takami (1995: 307) notes the contrast below to show the relevance of topicality in backward binding in English. (55)

a. b.

A picture of himself in the magazine shocked the movie star ?/??A picture of himself in the magazine shocked a movie star/someone

90


Argument 3—Experiencers, contrastive focus, and genericity As we saw earlier, backward binding in the sentences under discussion is possible with an antecedent that bears the Experiencer role. Why is this so? It seems that the answer has something to do with the nature of the anaphor zibun ‘self.’ Since Kuno (1973a, b, 1987) (cf. Tenny (2006) for the most recent discussion), it is known that the anaphor zibun ‘self’ is logophoric in nature, and this anaphor requires a sentient being or person who experiences a psychological state (experiencer) for its antecedent, which is known to be topic-like in nature. Let me next discuss some of the facts that suggest the relevance of topicality in backward binding. First, when the subject is marked by the topic particle wa, instead of the nominative Case particle ga, backward binding becomes impossible, as shown below: (56)

??Zibun-no musuko-wa [Yamada-san-no self-Gen son-Top Mr. Yamada-Gen ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son’

hokori]-da pride Cop

We attributed this to the feature-based RM. Recall here that the particle wa may be interpreted as focus as well: (57)

Zoo-wa hana-WA nagai elephant-Top trunk-Contrast is.long ‘The elephant’s trunk is long’

(hana=focus/*topic)

Here, the second wa-marked phrase is interpreted as contrastive focus, signaled as WA. If the contrastive focus particle WA is licensed in FocP, it is predicted that backward binding should become possible without violating RM in the following sentence: (58)

(Mary-no kodomo-denaku) zibun-no musuko-WA [Yamadano hokori]-da Mary-Gen not.son self-Gen son-Contrast Mr.Y-Gen pride Cop ‘Mr. Yamada is proud of his son, not Mary’s son’

Here, the contrastive focus particle WA is suffixed to the subject, which does not count as a relevant intervener for LF topicalization, as depicted below:

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

(59) [TopP (antecedent) … [FocP … [DP…self…]-WA

91

possessor antecedent…

(focus chain) (topic chain)

When a contrastive focus WA forms a focus chain targeting FocP, it is crossed by the antecedent at LF. But topic and focus belong to different classes, and thus feature-based RM is not violated. This suggests the relevance of topicality of the antecedent in backward binding. 19 Let us finally consider the predicate restriction of topicalization. Topicalization, especially possessor raising, is usually restricted to stative sentences in Japanese, and an episodic sentence is usually not acceptable as a possessor raising sentence, as seen below: (60)

a.

*[Mary-no oya]-ga John-o Mary-Gen parent-Nom John-Acc ‘Mary’s parents worried John’

nayamaseta worried

b.

John-o nayamaseta *Mary-wa [ oya]-ga Mary-Top parent-Nom John-Acc worried ‘As for Mary, her parents worried John’

19

Rizzi (1997) shows that multiple topics are possible in Italian. It seems that multiple topics are possible when one of them is an adjunct in Japanese, as illustrated below: (i)

Kinoo-wa yesterday ‘Yesterday, (ii) ??Hon-wa book-Top ‘The book,

John-wa Mary-ni hon-o ageta John-Top Mary-Dat book-Acc gave John gave a book to Mary’ John-wa Mary-ni ageta John-Top Mary-Dat gave John gave to Mary’

Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) suggests that the same constraint might be operative in English as well: (iii) (iv)

Yesterday, the book, John gave to Mary ??The book, to Mary, John gave yesterday

In contrast, these corresponding sentences are all grammatical in Italian, and the topicalized word order is also irrelevant. This suggests that the number of topics is parameterized and can be learned in the course of language acquisition. This makes sense in the case of a language like Gunbe, where only one element may be focalized and only one element may be topicalized. See Aboh (2003) on this point.


92

Given this restriction for topicalization, we expect that LF-topicalization should also be impossible in non-stative sentences. Therefore, it is predicted that backward binding should correlatively become impossible. This is because the antecedent possessor cannot undergo LF topicalization to a higher position to bind the anaphor in the non-stative sentences. The prediction is borne out as shown below: (61)

??Zibun-no musuko-ga Yamada-san-o nayamase-ta self-Gen son-Nom Mr.Yamada-Acc annoy-Past ‘His own son annoyed Mr. Yamada’

My informants report that the anaphor ‘self’ may only refer to the speaker, not to ‘Mr.Yamada’ here. We predict that the sentence above will become acceptable when it is put into a generic context. Because generic sentences are stative in nature, topicalization correlatively becomes possible. If topicalization may take place in LF, the raised possessor should be able to bind an anaphor from the raised position. To test this prediction, we can create a generic sentence out of the above-mentioned episodic sentence by changing the past tense into the present tense, along with the addition of an adverb of quantification that binds the tense variable and gives rise to a generic interpretation of the sentence. With this generic sentence, backward binding becomes possible, as shown below. Here, the antecedent Yamada-san ‘Mr. Yamada’ can enter into backward binding with the anaphor zibun ‘self.’ (62)

Itumo zibun-no musuko-ga Yamada-san-o nayamase-ru always self-Gen son-Nom Mr. Yamada-Acc annoy-Pres ‘His son always annoys Mr. Yamada’

To summarize this section, we saw topicality of the antecedent in the backward binding sentences that concern us in this chapter based on (i) the distinction between anti-topic quantifiers and topic-compatible quantifiers; (ii) the lack of topicality of the indefinite noun hito ‘people’; (iii) the lack of topicality seen in contrastive focus particles; and (iv) topicality attested in generic sentences.

4. 9

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have seen a number of cases in which a topic-related element such as the subject DP suffixed by the topic particle wa counts as an intervener when another topic element moves over it. This fact, we suggest, favors one of the ideas about the special status of topics in Italian developed by Rizzi (2004): The multiple specifier

ARE TOPICS SPECIAL?

93

strategy of TopP allows a topic element to be moved over without violating RM. This state of affairs is contrasted with Japanese, which does not allow multiple specifiers for TopP, and thus a topic element counts as a relevant intervener when another topic element moves over it.

CHAPTER 5 Focus and Case

In this chapter, we will turn our attention to focus-related blocking effects induced by an optional Case particle as in the following configuration: (1)

…[CP…wh…]-(Case particle)…Q…

Here, an optional Case particle is suffixed to the embedded CP, giving rise to a new semantic effect of focus interpretation, and correlatively blocking wh-movement across the CP. Through an investigation of this construction, we will see that blocking effects are characterized representationally, not derivationally. This chapter is organized along the following lines. Section 1 discusses a case where suffixation of an extra Case particle induces a new semantic effect of focus interpretation, which correlatively blocks wh-movement. Section 2 suggests the Gricean nature of the new semantic effect of focus interpretation. Section 3 takes up Chierchia’s (2004) idea that pragmatic computations and syntactic derivations proceed in parallel and favors representational approaches to the blocking effects like Rizzi (2004, 2006a). Section 4 concludes our discussion.

5. 1

An extra Case particle induces new focus interpretation

In this section, I will discuss the nature of an optional Case particle suffixed to the embedded clause in Japanese. It will be shown that it creates a new semantic effect and correlatively induces some blocking effects. We will see that there is no optionality here, suggesting that language is economically designed. Let me start with the scope fact noted by Watanabe (1992a, b), who observes that a wh-phrase in the embedded clause may marginally take matrix scope over the Q-marker ka:

FOCUS AND CASE

(2)

95

John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka] sirabe-teiru-no? John-Top Mary-Nom what-Acc bought Q investigate-Prog-Q a. ‘Is John investigating what Mary bought?’ b. ‘What is John investigating whether Mary bought?’1

Here, the wh-expression nani ‘what’ may easily be interpreted as taking narrow scope with respect to the Q marker ka in the embedded clause, where the sentence is a yes/no question as paraphrased in (2a) above; the sentence may also marginally take wide scope with respect to the Q-marker no in the matrix clause, where the sentence is a wh-question as paraphrased in (2b). Kobayashi (2000), however, found that the matrix scope of the wh-expression in this configuration becomes totally impossible when the accusative Case particle o is suffixed to the embedded clause, as shown below.2 (3)

John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka]-o sirabe-teiru-no? John-Top Mary-Nom what-Acc bought Q-Acc investigate-Prog-Q a. ‘Is John investigating what Mary bought?’ b. *‘What is John investigating whether Mary bought?’

Here, the wh-expression nani ‘what’ may only be interpreted as part of a matrix yes/no question and cannot take the matrix scope shown in (3b). Kobayashi correctly observes that this blocking effect which is induced by an extra Case particle correlates

1

Here, the argument wh-expression is used to show the blocking effects induced by an optional Case particle. An adjunct wh-expression in an embedded clause cannot take matrix scope over the Q-morpheme found in the embedded clause in the first place. 2 Unlike in modern Japanese, in Old Japanese the sole function of the accusative Case particle o was exclamation or emphasis. This o could attach to any segment of a sentence, including the following from Hashimoto (1969): naru (i) Imo ga ie mo tugite mimasi o, Yamato sweetheart Gen house continually want.to.see EMP, Yamato in Oosima no ne ni ie mo aramasi o Oosima Gen top in house hope.to.stand EMP ‘To be able to see continually the surrounding in (?) my love's house, oh, might my house stand on the top of Oshima in Yamato’ From this fact, one may argue, as Vermeulen (2005) does, that the accusative Case particle in Modern Japanese is a focus marker. But this does not seem to be the case. See chapter 9 for criticism of Vermeulen’s claim in this respect.

96


with the semantic effect of focalizing the embedded clause.3 Here, we have to make a clear distinction between the case at hand and one where a Case particle is optionally suffixed to DP. In the latter instance, a Case particle is necessary to satisfy the Case filter and pronunciation of the particle is optional; in contrast, the case under discussion in this chapter involves a CP that does not require a Case particle to satisfy the Case filter and the extra Case particle is required only to create a new semantic effect.4 The focalizing nature of the extra Case particle o is confirmed by the fact that when the matrix predicate is suffixed by the negative morpheme na, the embedded CP is most naturally interpreted as focus of negation. Thus, an extra Case particle plays a crucial role in changing information structure. Guéron (1981: 93) notes a similar blocking effect in English and French. Consider first the following English example: (4)

How many people did you only choose

Here, the focus particle only, which takes scope over VP, blocks the chain connection between how and its original position. The following French examples make a similar point: (5)

a.

b.

Je ne demande que trois volontaires I only asked three volunteers ‘I only asked for three volunteers’ *Combien ne demandes-tu que t de volontaires? how.many only asked you of volunteers ‘How many volunteers did you ask for?’

According to Guéron (1981: 94), in (5b), the focus expression ne-que ‘only’ blocks the chain connection between the partial wh-element combien ‘how many’ and its trace 3

Kobayashi attributes the impossibility of the matrix scope reading of the wh-element in situ to Chomsky’s (1995) defective intervention effects. 4 One may argue that CP does not receive Case. This is true in English when the embedded CP is headed by that, as shown by the fact that it cannot be the complement of a preposition except for the idiomatic expression in that. However, CPs headed by a wh-phrase may appear relatively easily in the complement of a preposition. The same holds for the Japanese case at hand; CPs headed by the declarative complementizer to may not be suffixed by a Case particle, as illustrated below: (i) Watasi-wa [John-ga kuru I-Top John-Nom come ‘I think that John will come’

to-(*o)] C-(*Acc)

omot-teiru think-Asp

FOCUS AND CASE

97

marked by [e]. Thus, English and French are parallel with respect to blocking effects, where locality is disrupted by a focus expression of the same quantificational class, as shown in (6). In these configurations, an operator blocks a chain connection between a displaced quantificational expression and its original position, which may be attributed to the feature-based RM. (6)

a. b.

…whi….focus element…[…ti…]… …whi… focus element…[…ti…restriction…]…

(English) (French)

I will assimilate the Japanese case at hand to the English/French paradigm. To see the point, let us reconsider the configuration of the Japanese example under discussion: (7)

…[CP…wh…]-(Case)… (focus)

Here, a new semantic effect of focus is created by an extra Case particle, and this focalizing Case particle correlatively blocks wh-movement inside the CP, just like English and Italian focalizing particles do. Before looking more closely at the blocking effect induced by a Case particle, let us examine where the new focus interpretation comes from. We can view this new semantic effect as an instance of the economy principle (i.e., a null form (CP without a Case particle) is more economical and is preferred, and the less economical option of pronouncing a Case particle is motivated by a new semantic effect). In fact, the connection between optional pronunciation of a lexical item and the associated new semantic effect is already discussed by Progovac (1999) in connection with English sentences involving coordinate structures such as the following: (8)

a. b.

John, Maria, and Peter will bring a bottle of wine John and Maria and Peter will bring a bottle of wine

Here, as opposed to (8a), optional pronunciation of the extra coordinator and in (8b) creates a new multiple event reading; i.e., John, Maria, and Peter will bring a bottle of wine separately. Based on such facts, Progovac (1999: 145) proposes the following economy principle: (9)

Merging a silent category is less costly than merging a pronounced category.

According to this principle, a sentence with an extra pronunciation of and is more costly, i.e., less economical, than one with a silent and and has to pay a “semantic cost.”

98


Progovac takes the “semantic cost” to be the yielding of a multiple-event reading that is not available in the corresponding sentence with an unpronounced coordinator. This shows that language is economically designed, there is no optionality of pronouncing a coordinator, and the apparently optional pronunciation always gives rise to a new semantic effect (cf. Fox (1995, 2000) for optional operations and semantic effects). This seems to be a part of a more general class of phenomena. In the early study of generative grammar, the Avoid Pronoun Principle was discussed in a similar context. That is, a null pronoun is preferred to an overt pronoun when the option is available (see Rizzi (2002) for an overview of this point). I would like to assimilate the extra Case particle in Japanese to this paradigm. That is, I will suggest that an embedded CP may be suffixed by a Case particle: (10)

CP (-Case particle)

If this Case particle is pronounced, a new semantic cost needs to be paid, where the new semantic cost is the focus interpretation that we saw above. Here, a note of caution is in order about focus interpretation. There are two types of focus: identificational focus and informational focus. According Kiss (1998: 245), the function of identificational focus is to exhaustively pick a subset out of a set of contextually given elements for which a predicate applies. In contrast, the function of informational focus is to emphasize an entity in the discourse. The new semantic effect induced by a new Case particle seems to be informational focus, since the sentence can be uttered out of the blue. In what follows, I will use the term ‘focus’ in the sense of ‘informational focus’ (see Rizzi (2004) for highlighting interpretation, which might be similar to informational focus). Going back to the origin of the focus interpretation induced by an additional Case particle, one may naturally wonder why the additional semantic cost is focus and not topic, for instance. My suggestion is that this is due to economy reasons: Japanese has the designated topic particle wa but has no particle for informational focus. For this reason, a topic particle is a default and hence more economical option for achieving topic interpretations. In the absence of an informational focus particle, Japanese needs to resort to the economy principle to create an informational focus interpretation. My point can be summarized below: (11)

An extra Case particle may carry an (informational) focus feature.

In fact, the connection between an extra Case particle and a new semantic effect of focus has been observed by traditional Japanese grammarians like Masuoka (1997). As shown below, predicates in the matrix clause may suffix various types of Case particles to

FOCUS AND CASE

99

the embedded clause. Each time a Case particle is optionally pronounced, a new interpretation of focus or emphasis arises for the embedded CP. (12)

a.

b.

John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka]-(ni) John-Top Mary-Nom what-Acc bought Q (Dat) kyoomi-o motta-no? interest-Acc had Q i. ‘Did John take interest in what Mary bought?’ ii. *‘What did John take interest in whether Mary bought?’ [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka]-(ga) hanmee-sita-no? Mary-Nom what-Acc bought Q-(Nom) reveal-did-Q i. ‘Did it get revealed what Mary bought?’ ii. *‘What did it get revealed whether Mary bought?’ (cf. Kobayashi 2000: 194-5)5

Let us next turn to the blocking effects induced by an optional Case particle. As we saw earlier, each time an optional Case particle is pronounced, it gives rise to a new semantic effect of focus, and this focalizing Case particle induces a blocking effect for a wh-element inside CP. (13) …[…wh…]-Case particle… × I continue to assume Watanabe’s (1992a, b) analysis whereby Japanese in-situ wh-phrases involve empty operator movement and therefore observe Subjacency: (14) …[…Op wh…]-(Case particle)… [focus] ×

5

As Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) points out, optional Case particles may be suffixed to the embedded interrogative CP, but not to the embedded declarative CP. Why is this so? This asymmetry seems to stem from the nominal character of the embedded interrogative CP. Ross (1973) expresses this asymmetry by what he calls ‘nouniness’; i.e., embedded interrogative CPs pattern more like nominal expressions than like interrogative declarative CPs with respect to several tests. The embedded declarative CP would perhaps resist an optional Case particle by Stowell’s (1981) Case Resistance Principle, and the nominal character of the embedded interrogative CP might be immune to this principle.

100


The next question is how to implement the blocking effect. One possibility is that a focalizing Case particle creates a focus operator in the specifier through spec-head agreement: (15) [XP

Op [CP…wh…]-(Case particle)] (focus) (focus)

Given this structure, empty operator movement is blocked by a focus operator of the same quantificational class, as follows: (16) [XP Op [CP…Op wh…]-(Case particle)] (focus) (focus) × This is a typical configuration of the feature-based RM. Thus, to escape RM violations, an optional particle may not be pronounced. The other possibility is to let an X0-element like a Case particle count as the relevant intervener for A’-chains, as we suggested in chapter 2. Then, the focalizing Case particle with the focus feature counts as the relevant intervener for the focus chain created by empty operator movement of the same quantificational class. Thus, the sentence is ruled out by the feature-based RM. To repeat the argument for the second idea, we may re-examine the following negative islands noted by Kuno and Takami (1997): (17)

a. b.

*Bill is here, as you have forgotten *Bill is here, as you are unaware of

Here, a negative island effect is attested, although there is no A’-element that counts as the relevant intervener for the A’-chain. As K&T (1997: 574) note, “there is negation at a very deep level” of representation, which may be attributed to the verb forgotten and the predicate unaware. This problem is given a simple solution by letting an X0-element count as the relevant intervener for the A’-chain. Thus, either an X0-element or an XP may equally count as an intervener for an A’-chain as long as it belongs to the same feature class as the A’-chain according to the feature-based RM. This idea is in line with Roberts (2001), who suggests RM is induced when a chain is interrupted by an element of the same feature class as the crossing element, where the relevant feature can be associated both with heads and with specifiers (XPs). For instance, he observes that a head with the feature [+operator] may skip a head with the feature

FOCUS AND CASE

101

[-operator] but may not skip another head with the feature [+operator] in Breton. If RM is concerned with feature classes and does not distinguish between heads (X0) and specifiers (XPs), the relevant intervener for A’-chains is defined purely in terms of the feature class. For the case at hand, an X0-element like a focalizing Case particle or a negative predicate may count as the relevant intervener for an operator movement because it belongs to the same quantificational feature class as the target and fits into the basic configuration for the intervener Z in …X…Z…Y…, where Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X. To summarize what we have covered so far, in the examples above, the predicate forget with a negative feature or a focalizing Case particle is classified as belonging to the quantificational class and fits into the configuration of the feature-based RM. A second case that points to the same conclusion is that of verbs of manner of speaking, such as the following: (18)

How quickly did you shout that [John kissed Mary t]

Here, wh-movement of how quickly is blocked by the manner-of-speaking verb shout. To account for this blocking effect, Erteschik-Shir and Lappin (1979: 443-444) identify the notion ‘dominance’ inherent in verbs of manner of speaking: (19)

A constituent C of a sentence S is dominant in S if and only if the speaker intends to direct the attention of his hearer to the intension of C by uttering S.

One way to find a dominant constituent X is to set up a discourse situation in which Speaker A utters the sentence being tested and Speaker B responds by means of a sentence in which X is assigned a truth, probability, or even a truth value. Sentences with verbs of manner of speaking show deviance in this context as shown in (21b) below: (20)

a. b.

Speaker A: John said that Mary kissed Bill Speaker B: That’s a lie; she didn’t Speaker A: John mumbled that Mary kissed Bill Speaker B: ??That’s a lie; she didn’t

Intuitively, a manner-of-speaking verb is focused or foregrounded in the sentence, and its complement CP is backgrounded. Therefore, we might assign the feature [focus] to manner-of-speaking verbs, and this feature on an X0-element may count as the relevant intervener for an A’-chain of the same quantificational class, as depicted below.

102


(21)

…how quickly…shout…(how quickly)… [focus] ×

The focus feature on verbs of manner of speaking can be confirmed by the fact that it serves as a focus of negation, as follows: (22)

John didn’t shout that Mary kissed Mike

Here, the verb shout can be the focus of negation; i.e., it may mean ‘John whispered, not shouted, that Mary kissed Mike.’ To summarize, a wh-in-situ in the embedded clause may not take the matrix scope when the CP is suffixed by an optional Case particle. The optional pronunciation of a Case particle has to pay a semantic cost, and the semantic cost is informational focus interpretations. Once the Case particle is focalized, it counts as the relevant intervener for the creation of an A’-chain through empty operator movement; the sentence is ruled out by the feature-based RM, since focus and the empty operator belong to the same quantificational class. To look at the state of affairs from a comparative perspective, we get the following paradigm: (23)

a. b. c.

whi….focus element …[…ti…]… whi…focus element…[…ti…restriction…]… Op…[…wh…]-Case-particle(=focus)…

(English) (French) (Japanese)

By forgetting the linear order and concentrating on the hierarchy, we see locality is blocked by the same quantificational class element in English, French, and Japanese; the minimal difference is that a focus interpretation arises by an optional pronunciation of a Case particle in Japanese, in the same manner as optional pronunciation of an extra coordinator creates a multiple event reading in English. A prediction can be made with respect to this approach. Given our story, we expect that a D-linked wh-element in situ may escape the blocking effect; i.e., a D-linked wh-element may carry an empty operator of the topic class, and the focus feature created by an extra Case particle does not count as the relevant intervener for the topic chain created by empty operator movement. (24)

…[ [CP…Op D-linked wh-element]-Case] (Topic-class) (focus: Quant-class)

FOCUS AND CASE

103

Our expectation seems to be fulfilled: (25)

John-wa [Mary-ga dono hon-o katta ka]-o John-Top Mary-Nom which book-Acc bought Q Acc sirabe-teiru-no? investigate-Prog-Q ‘Which book is John investigating whether Mary bought?’

Although the judgment is subtle, this sentence sounds better than one with a non-D-linked wh-phrase in situ.

5. 2

The Gricean nature of focus: A representational approach

We have seen examples where an extra Case particle creates a focus interpretation due to an economy principle and blocks wh-movement by the feature-based RM. It is worth noting that the focus interpretation induced by an extra Case particle is Gricean in nature.6 In this section, we will discuss this point, which leads to the conclusion that the blocking effect we are looking at can only be characterized representationally not derivationally. To see the point, recall the multiple event reading in English coordinate structures, which is induced by pronouncing the extra coordinator and.7 That is, the hearer, in the face of an extra occurrence of and, assumes that the speaker intends to produce enough semantic effect to make it worth the hearer’s processing efforts; i.e., the multiple event reading is made possible by this process. This is essentially in line with Sperber and Wilson’s (1986: 267) ‘presumption of optimal relevance’ in relevance theory: The set of assumptions which the communicator intends to make manifest to the addressee is relevant enough to make it worth the while to process the ostensive stimulus. At this point, one may wonder if this multiple event reading caused by the extra coordinator and is really Gricean in nature, since we can reasonably argue that an optional operation has a new semantic effect in overt syntax, and the new semantic effect of focus is the relevant intervener for wh-elements in situ.8 Note that under the pragmatic 6

See Belletti (2004: 25-26) for a similar approach to focus: a Lexical Array bigger in size is to be chosen only if this choice has a reflex on the outcome (cf. Chomsky 2000). 7 This is reminiscent of the neo-Gricean Maxim of Quantity in Relevance Theory (see Sperber and Wilson (1986) for a general discussion and Rizzi 2002 for the Gricean nature of the Avoid Pronoun Principle). 8 An alternative view is that an extra Case particle induces a semantic effect that has interpretation in the semantic component. I am grateful to Ur Shlonsky (personal communication) for suggesting this idea.

104


approach to the multiple event readings caused by an extra and, we expect that the interpretation may be canceled; i.e., the hearer, in the face of an extra occurrence of and, assumes that the speaker intends to produce enough semantic effect to make it worth the hearer’s processing efforts, i.e., a multiple event reading. Such expectations by the hearer can be cancelled in the course of pragmatic reasoning, since the hearer can always have “second thoughts” in the course of pragmatic reasoning. This flexibility in interpretation is not expected under the syntactic approach, since syntactic derivations do not permit such “second thoughts.” In fact, given an appropriate context, the multiple event reading caused by an extra and seems to be cancelable for many speakers. The same holds for pronunciation of an extra Case particle, which creates a new semantic effect of focus, as we saw earlier. In the face of an extra Case particle, the speaker intends to produce enough semantic effects to make it worth the hearer’s processing efforts. Where is the new semantic feature of focus assigned? If we consider seriously the Gricean nature of the new semantic effect induced by pronouncing an extra item, a natural place for the focus feature to be assigned would be at the interface of the pragmatic component. This implies that the blocking effect we are looking at may only be expressed representationally through chains. That is, after empty operator movement forms a focus chain, a focus feature is assigned to an extra Case particle. This focalized item counts as a relevant intervener for the focus chain of the following configuration, which is created only at the interface of the pragmatic component:9 (26)

…X…Z…Y…, where X is the head of the focus chain and Z is the extra Case particle, which c-commands Z and does not c-command X.

Because the relevant intervener of the focus feature arises after overt syntactic movement, the blocking effect at issue may only be formulated as a representational constraint, not as a derivational constraint (cf. Rizzi 2004, 2006a). Thus, the intervention effect in this chapter may only be characterized in a pragmatic component. However, it might sound strange that a syntactic constraint like RM is operative after a syntactic derivation is handed over to the pragmatic component; otherwise, the pragmatic component has to give back a syntactic representation after the extra Case particle is marked as [+focus].

9

What is presupposed here is that there is a syntax-pragmatics interface, rather than that pragmatics interfaces with semantics. The obvious alternative is to have syntax interface with semantics and to have semantics interface with pragmatics. I amgrateful to Christopher Tancredi for helpful discussion on this point.

FOCUS AND CASE

5. 3

105

Implications from Chierchia (2004)

Fortunately, a new idea has recently been advanced by Chierchia (2004) that makes our story more plausible (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for reminding me of this point). Based on data pointing to the fact that the VP receives pragmatic calculations before the subject enters into computations, Chierchia claims that pragmatic principles apply phrase by phrase, in sharp contrast with traditional ideas. Chierchia suggests that pragmatic computations and grammar-driven ones are “interspersed.” This idea allows pragmatic computations to interact with syntactic derivations in the course of derivation. For our case at hand, an optional Case particle in the embedded clause may acquire the mark [+focus] by pragmatic principles in the course of derivation. The derivation proceeds as follows: When the derivation reaches the matrix vP, an extra Case particle may be licensed by the head of vP and pragmatic computations may mark it as [+focus]; this [+focus] counts as the relevant intervener when an operator moves across it. At this point, one may argue that the intervention effect we are looking at is regulated derivationally, as opposed to what we have suggested, since the blocking effect arises in the course of derivation. But a closer examination of the derivation shows that this is not the case; i.e., the blocking effects at issue must be regulated representationally. To see the reason, assume with Chomsky (1995) that long-distance A’-movement exploits vP as an escape hatch. In the case at hand, an empty operator from the embedded clause targets the specifier of vP in the matrix clause. Assuming with Chierchia (2004) that pragmatic calculations may take place phrase by phrase exactly at this stage of derivation (=vP), an optional accusative Case particle of the embedded clause may be marked as [+focus] as soon as it is licensed by the head of vP. Here, the timing of (i) the appearance of the new semantic effect of focus and (ii) the empty operator movement across it are at the same phase level (=vP). The problem is that this timing is too permissive; i.e., according to the strictly derivational view, an empty operator may move to the specifier of vP before the head of vP licenses an extra Case particle and pragmatic computation marks it as [+focus]. This derivation wrongly allows RM to be avoided. From this, we suggest that the blocking effects under discussion are to be formulated representationally, not derivationally; i.e., only at the final stage of derivation do we obtain a desirable representation in which the chain created by empty operator movement is interrupted by an extra Case particle marked as [+focus] of the same quantificational class in violation of the feature-based RM (cf. Rizzi 2004). To summarize, we have seen that an optional Case particle is marked as [+focus] by pragmatic computations and counts as the relevant intervener for an empty operator movement. The relevant intervention effects have been shown to be adequately dealt with representationally by utilizing the notion of chain.

106


Before closing this section, let me note another possibility to deal with the blocking effect caused by an optional Case particle suffixed to the embedded CP (thanks to Noam Chomsky for helpful discussion on this point). The embedded CP receives a new semantic effect of focus interpretation by an optional Case particle. If this focalized embedded CP forms a focus chain in LF, the wh-movement inside the embedded clause is blocked. This is because there is only one FocP in the CP zone and the focalized embedded CP and the wh-element inside the embedded CP compete for the single FocP position.

5. 4

Another argument for representational approaches

So far, we have argued for representational approaches by looking at some blocking effects induced by an extra Case particle in Japanese. In this section, I will advance another argument for the representational approach through the Condition on Extraction Domain (CED). Huang (1982) proposes the CED as a condition against extraction out of a projection that is not selected, which can be formulated derivationally or representationally. The derivational approach says that wh-movement may not take place out of adjuncts in the course of derivation. Rizzi (2001a) suggests an alternative approach to the CED, as a condition on representation. In this section, I will provide a piece of evidence in favor of the representational approach to the CED. The relevant facts concern ‘aboutness’ sentences in Japanese. One of the striking properties of aboutness sentences is that a topic element is base-generated at the sentence-initial position and serves a scene-setting function (cf. Benicà and Poletto (2004) for scene-setting elements). (27)

Nihon-wa dansei-ga tanmei desu Japan-Top male-Nom short-lived polite ‘In Japan, the male is short-lived’

Here, the sentence-initial element ‘Japan’ has no grammatical relation with the predicate ‘short-lived’ and serves as the topic of the rest of the sentence; i.e., the sentence is about Japan. This type of scene-setting topic element does not show island effects and allows for resumptive pronouns; hence, it is base-generated in the sentence-initial position (cf. Kuno 1973a, b; Saito 1985; Hoji 1985). One of the distinguishing properties of base-generated elements is that they allow the deletion of a particle, as shown below, where # indicates a deletion site (cf. Masunaga 1988). When P deletion takes place, it accompanies a pause, just like ‘hanging topics’ in Italian:

FOCUS AND CASE

(28)

107

Nihon-# dansei-ga tanmei desu Japan male-Nom short-lived polite ‘In Japan, the male is short-lived’

Note that non-scene-setting/non-topical adjunct PPs may also occupy the sentence-initial position but do not allow for deletion of a postposition: (29)

Ryoote-de gakusee-ga booru-o both-hand-with students-Nom ball-Acc ‘Students received a ball with both hands’

uketotta received

Here, the sentence-initial PP adjunct ryoote-de ‘with both hands’ is derived by movement, as we see from the fact that sentence-initial PP adjuncts are sensitive to islands and disallow resumptive pronouns (cf. Saito 1985, Hoji 1985). The sentence-initial PP is not interpreted as a scene-setting topic; i.e., the sentence is not about both hands. Correlatively, the adjunct does not allow for deletion of the postposition de ‘with’ as follows: (30)

*Ryoote-# gakusei-ga booru-o both-hand-# students-Nom ball-Acc ‘Students received a ball with both hands’

uketotta received

Why is this so? That is, why is only a scene-setting base-generated XP allowed to undergo particle deletion? My suggestion is that the impossibility of P-deletion is due to the representational CED. The reason is as follows. Let us assume with Chomsky (1995) and Rizzi (2001a) that deletion induces complementary deletion at LF. In the case at hand, P-deletion induces deletion of its complement DP; this forms a chain between the deletion sites, as follows. barrier (31) … hand-P … subject …. [PP hand-P]… φ

φ (chain)

Note that the chain above crosses an adjunct PP barrier in violation of the CED, according to which no element may cross an adjunct. This may only be expressed

108


representationally, since the CED violation is created only after complementary deletion takes place at LF, not in the course of derivation. Representational approaches to the CED correctly predict that P-deletion is possible with scene-setting/topical temporal and locative PPs, as follows. (32)

a.

b.

Sono mise-de/# gakusei-ga yoku hon-o kai masu that store-with/# student-Nom often book-Acc buy polite ‘Students often buy books at the store’ Kono zikantai-ni/# gakusei-ga yoku hon-o kai masu this time-at/# student-Nom often book-Acc buy polite ‘Students often buy books at this time’

Here, the sentence is about ‘this store’ in (32a) and about ‘this time’ in (32b). Recall that scene-setting elements are base-generated in sentence-initial position. From the cartographic point of view, these scene-setting PPs are base-generated in the CP zone (cf. Benincà and Poletto 2004). Then, P-deletion of the PPs does not violate the representational CED, as follows: (33)

…[scene-setting element-(P)…[TP…

Here, the P-deletion does not induce deletion of its complement within TP, since the scene-setting PP is base-generated in the CP zone and does not leave behind its copy in TP. Thus, there is no barrier crossed for the scene-setting PPs with no violation of the CED. To sum up, we have seen that scene-setting PPs may undergo P-deletion without violating the CED. In contrast, a non-scene-setting PP induces a representational CED violation when its P is deleted. Our approach favors the representational approach to the CED. 5. 5

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have seen a case where an optional Case particle gives rise to a new semantic effect of informational focus and blocks a wh-element in situ from undergoing wh-movement by RM. I also suggested that the Gricean nature of the focus interpretation favors the representational approach to the blocking effects: an optional Case particle is marked as [+focus] by pragmatic computations and counts as the relevant intervener for an empty operator movement. To escape blocking effects, the X0-element needs to be silent so that no new semantic effects are created. We have also seen that scene-setting PPs may undergo P-deletion without violating the CED. In contrast, a non-scene-setting

FOCUS AND CASE

109

PP induces a representational CED violation when its P is deleted. Our approach favors the representational approach to the CED.

CHAPTER 6 Focus and Nominative Adverbials

In this chapter, we will examine the following configuration: (1)

… […adverbial…]-nominative Case particle … XP… ×

Here, suffixation of the nominative Case particle ga to an adverbial creates a new (informational) focus interpretation, and overt movement over it is blocked. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces some properties of the construction in (1), comparing it with preposed adverbials in Italian as discussed by Cinque (1990). Section 2 takes up the RM-free nature of Japanese scrambling and suggests that the property can be derived by manipulating feature systems. Section 3 reinforces our idea by looking at another case with a similar effect. Section 4 concludes our discussion.

6. 1

Japanese nominative adverbials and Italian preposed adverbials

In Japanese, locative/temporal adverbials are normally suffixed by the postposition de as in (2a) below but may be optionally suffixed by the nominative Case particle ga, where the postposition is suppressed as in (2b): (2)

a.

b.

Ano mise-de gakusee-ga hon-o that store-at student-Nom book-Acc ‘Students often buy books at that store’ Ano mise-ga gakusee-ga hon-o that store-Nom student-Nom book-Acc ‘Students often buy books at that store’

yoku kau often buy yoku kau often buy

I will call the adverbial suffixed by the nominative Case particle a ‘nominative adverbial.’

FOCUS AND NOMINATIVE ADVERBIALS

111

Nominative adverbials have the following properties:1 (3)

a. b. c.

Nominative adverbials appear in sentence-initial position. The nominative Case particle on an adverbial creates a new semantic effect of focus. Scrambling may not cross over a nominative adverbial.

The first property resembles a sentence-initial temporal adverbial seen in the English sentence in (4a) below: (4)

a. b.

In 1821, Napoleon died Napoleon died in 1821

According to Kuno (1975), (4a) says something about the year 1821; it says that something notable happened that year, namely, Napoleon’s death. In contrast, (4b) says something about Napoleon, namely, that his death occurred in 1821. Cinque (1990: 89-94) notes a similar construction in Italian, which he calls ‘fronted adverbials.’ (5)

a.

b.

In quale citta del sud ognuno di loro è nato? in which city of south everyone of them was born ‘In which southern city was every one of them born?’ In una città del sud ognuno di loro è nato in a city of south everyone of them was born ‘In a southern city every one of them was born’

In contrast to the wh-element ‘in which southern city’ in (5a), the fronted adverbial ‘in a southern city’ in (5b) may not be interpreted in the scope of the quantified subject ‘every one of them.’ Based on this lack of reconstruction effects, Cinque proposes to base-generate a fronted adverbial like (5b) above in the sentence-initial position. The same holds for Japanese nominative adverbials, which must appear in the sentence-initial position. I would like to assimilate Japanese nominative adverbials to Italian fronted 1

Vermeulen (2005) analyzes nominative adverbials as PPs suffixed by the particle ga. She motivates this idea by the fact that the postposition de ‘at’ can appear without being suppressed when it is not immediately followed by the particle ga: mise-de-dake-ga… (i) [kono this store-at-only-Nom ‘Only at this store, …’

See Yang (2005) for discussion of a similar construction in Korean.

112


adverbials. What distinguishes Japanese from Italian is that Japanese nominative adverbials are interpreted as focus, while Italian fronted adverbials are interpreted as topic. The question is why the nominative adverbial has to appear sentence-initially and needs to be base-generated outside VP (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for raising this issue). I would like to look for the answer to this question by partially assimilating the nominative adverbial construction in Japanese to the locative inversion construction in English. As is well known, locative inversion sentences are generally restricted to unaccusative predicates and cannot involve unergative predicates unless the subject is heavy (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995: 221): (6)

a. b. cf.

Into the room walked Robin carefully *In the room slept Robin fitfully In the room slept fitfully the students in the class who had heard about the social psych experiment that we were about to perpetrate (Culicover and Levine 2001)

Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006) suggest that the locative and the subject are selected by the same unaccusative predicate and thus are equidistant from T; in contrast, with unergatives, the subject is in the specifier of vP and is higher than locatives. Rizzi and Shlonsky assume that the locative belongs to the same phi-feature class (the argumental class) as the subject; hence, with unergative predicate sentences, the locative may not move across the subject to enter into the locative inversion construction, due to the feature-based RM.2

2

The categorical status of nominative adverbials is controversial, as we will see in chapter 9. The DP associated with a numeral floating quantifier may not be a PP (Miyagawa 1989), and Vermeulen shows that a numeral floating quantifier may not be associated with a nominative adverbial. The situation seems to be different for locative inversion sentences in Japanese, since a nominative adverbial may be associated with a numeral floating quantifier, as follows: (i)

Kassooro-ni 3-tu hikooki-ga tyakurikusita runway-to 3-NQ plane-Nom landed ‘On the runway landed three planes’

Here, the locative expression kassoro-ni ‘on the runway’ is modified by the numeral floating quantifier 3-tu ‘3-NFQ.’ Miyagawa (1989) shows that the host of floating numeral quantifiers must be a DP, not a PP. The acceptability of the sentence above suggests that the locative above is a DP of a phi-feature class element, as suggested by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006).


113

I would like to suggest a similar approach to the nominative adverbial construction in Japanese; i.e., a nominative adverbial is base-generated in sentence-initial position due to feature-based RM. In view of the fact that nominative adverbials are suffixed by the nominative Case particle ga, which normally suffixes to the subject, we may conjecture that Japanese nominative adverbials belong to the phi-feature class (the argumental class) as well as to the modifier class, just like English locatives in locative inversion sentences. Under this assumption, nominative adverbials may not be base-generated below the subject to move to the sentence-initial position, due to the feature-based RM. Therefore, nominative adverbials must be base-generated sentence-initially above the subject to escape RM. Recall that in English, locative inversion is possible with unergative predicates when the subject is heavy. Rizzi and Shlonsky suggest that the subject undergoes rightward movement to form a chain, and the locative may move by skipping only a part of the chain created by rightward movement of the subject without violating RM. Assuming that Japanese has no rightward movement because of the choice of a head-final parameter, nominative adverbials may not exploit the English-type rightward movement strategy of the subject; instead, nominative adverbials are base-generated sentence-initially to avoid RM (see Endo (1996) for right dislocation in Japanese). As for preposed adverbials in Italian, I suggest a similar story; although Italian allows for post-verbal subjects, the post-verbal subject is base-generated (Rizzi 1990) without undergoing rightward movement. Then, assuming that Italian fronted adverbials belong to the phi-feature class (the argumental class) as well as to the modifier class, they may not originate in a position lower than the subject; otherwise, RM is violated. Instead, Italian fronted adverbials are base-generated in the sentence-initial position so as not to violate RM. Our analysis of nominative adverbials crucially depends on the idea that they belong to the phi-feature class (the argumental class), as well as to the modifier class. The assertion that nominative adverbials belong to the argumental class may be motivated by the fact that the subject may not move across a nominative adverbial just as the locative of the English locative inversion of unergatives may not, as in (7) below. (7)

× hon-o yoku kau *Gakusee-ga ano mise-ga student-Nom that store-Nom book-Acc often buy ‘Students often buy books at that store’

Here, the subject gakusei-ga ‘student-Nom’ has moved across the nominative adverbial kono mise-ga ‘this store-Nom,’ and the sentence is ungrammatical.The ungrammaticality does not seem to be semantic or pragmatic in nature, since the same nominative adverbial

114


may be moved over when it is suffixed by a normal postposition like de ‘at,’ but not when it is marked with the nominative Case particle ga, as in (8) below. Here, the adverbial kono mise ‘this store’ is suffixed by the postposition de ‘at’ and may be crossed by the subject gakusei-ga ‘student-Nom.’ 4 This suggests that the impossibility of scrambling over a nominative adverbial is not semantic or pragmatic in nature. (8)

Gakusee-ga ano mise-de hon-o yoku kau student-Nom that store-at book-Acc often buy ‘Students often buy books at this store’

Why can the subject not be placed in front of a nominative adverbial? My suggestion is to resort to the feature-based RM. Recall our assumption that nominative adverbials belong to the argumental class as well as the quantificational class and the modifier class. This argumental feature of nominative adverbials blocks movement of the subject of the same argumental class due to the feature-based RM. (9)

…[nominative adverbial] … argument… (argumental class) (argumental class) ×

This is in line with Rizzi’s (2004) idea that an element with richer feature specifications blocks movement of an element with poorer feature specifications (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for reminding me of this point). 4 Scrambling is also impossible with the direct object over a nominative adverbial, as shown below:

(i)

Hon-o ano mise-ga gakusei-ga book-Acc that store-Nom student-Nom ‘Students often buy books at that store’

yoku often

kau buy

Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) points out that scrambling of the direct object seems to be possible when the direct object is richer in semantic content, as illustrated below: (ii)

Takai uisukii-o ano mise-ga kyaku-ga yoku expensive whisky-Acc that bar-Nom guest-Nom often ‘Guests often order expensive whisky in that bar’

tyuumonsuru order

This sentence seems to me to be possible only when there is a pause after the sentence-initial element ‘expensive whisky,’ suggesting that it is base-generated in situ without involving movement.


115

In contrast, a pure adverbial suffixed by a postposition belongs to the modifier class and thus may be jumped over by the subject of a different argumental class element, as follows: (10)

…[adverbial-postposition] … argument … (modifier class) (argumental class)

So far, we have seen several reasons to believe that nominative adverbials belong to the argumental class and the modifier class at the same time. But why is an extra Case particle suffixed to a nominative adverbial in the first place? My suggestion is that it is required to induce a new semantic effect of focus, a strategy that we saw independently available earlier in chapter 5, where we saw that an extra Case particle is suffixed to an embedded clause and induces a focus effect. Still another question is why the extra Case particle is nominative and not, say, dative. My conjecture is that this is because nominative adverbials are base-generated in the domain of TP. We saw earlier that nominative adverbials appear higher than the subject due to RM; we may consider this higher position to be in the domain of TP, because T checks nominative Case, and the nominative Case particle ga seems to be an optimal choice for nominative adverbials.5 Our analysis of nominative adverbials is motivated by several facts. Vermeulen (2005) observes that nominative adverbials may not be associated with a numeral floating quantifier, as follows: (11)

*(Ano) mise-ga 2tu gakusee-ga hon-o (that) store-Nom 2-CL student-Nom book-Acc yoku kau often buy ‘It is at those two stores that students often buy books’

Here, the numeral 2tu may not be associated with the nominative adverbial mise ‘the store.’ Miyagawa (1989) notes that numeral floating quantifiers in Japanese may not be associated with a nominal expression when the nominal expression has an extraprojection like PP. With nominative adverbials, the extra nominative Case particle ga appears outside the nominal expression along with a new semantic effect of focus, as follows:

5

The standard analysis of nominative Case since Takezawa (1987) is that it is licensed by Tense, an analysis which is followed by Tateishi (1991) and most recently by Vermeulen (2005).

116


(12)

[XP

[this store] -Nom] (focus)

Here, the higher layer XP is projected, and this higher layer is headed by the extra Case particle ga which gives rise to the new semantic effect of focus. This higher layer blocks the nominal element ‘this store’ from being associated with a floating numeral quantifier. Vermeulen (2005), in contrast, attributes the ungrammaticality above to a hidden postposition (see chapter 9 for criticism of this idea). A note of caution is in order here. Miyagawa (1989) correctly observes that the nominative Case particle ga suffixed to the subject does not block association with a numeral floating quantifier in Japanese. The difference between the subject and the nominative adverbial is that a focus feature is attached to the Case particle in nominative adverbials. Let us assume that the nominative Case particle ga heads its own projection (Tateishi 1991) and that the projection disappears at LF, since it plays no role at that level. This may happen when the nominative Case particle is suffixed to the subject, since it plays no role at LF; hence, the nominal expression, i.e., the subject, may be associated with a numeral floating quantifier without an intervener. The situation is totally different with nominative adverbials, where the nominative Case particle ga carries the discourse-related feature [focus]. Because discourse-related features do play a role in LF, the higher layer projection headed by the nominative Case particle may not disappear there. Then, the higher layer serves as a blocking projection that disrupts the association between a nominal element in the nominative adverbial and the associated numeral floating quantifier. To summarize so far, we have seen the following points: (i) a nominative adverbial is base-generated sentence-initially due to feature-based RM; (ii) an extra nominative Case particle induces a focus effect; and (iii) the nominative Case particle ga is chosen, because nominative adverbials appear in the domain of T, where nominative Case is checked. I suggested a similar analysis for Italian; i.e., fronted adverbials appear in the sentence-initial position due to RM.

6. 2

Digression: RM-free nature of scrambling

In the previous section, we saw that the subject may not move over a nominative adverbial due to feature-based RM, just like English locatives may not skip the subject when the predicate is unergative. We attributed this to the fact that the locatives in Japanese nominative adverbials and English locatives in locative inversion belong to the argumental class and thus may not cross a subject of the same argumental class due to the feature-based RM.


117

At this point, one may naturally wonder why the direct object may skip the subject in Japanese by scrambling in spite of the fact that the subject and object apparently belong to the same argumental phi-feature class. In this section, we will examine why scrambling may apparently violate RM in Japanese in the first place and then consider why scrambling may not move over a nominative adverbial in Japanese.7 Let us begin by comparing Japanese scrambling with English topicalization. In English, topicalization may not skip over another topic expression. This is derived from the feature-based RM; an element of the topic class may not move over an element of the same topic class: (13)

a. b.

??That booki, to Maryj, John handed ti tj ??To Maryj, that booki, John handed ti tj

(Lasnik and Saito 1992)

In contrast, Japanese scrambling seems to be free from RM, since scrambling can skip another scrambled phrase, as follows: (14)

a.

b.

John-nii sono hon-oj Bill-ga Mary-ga ti tj watasita John-Dat that book-Acc Bill-Nom Mary-Nom handed to itta C said (Saito and Fukui 1998) ‘Bill said that Mary handed that book to John’ Sono hon-oj John-nii Bill-ga Mary-ga ti tj that book-Acc John-Dat Bill-Nom Mary-Nom watasita to itta handed C said

There are at least two ways to derive the fact that the direct object may skip the subject. Miyagawa (2001) proposes to derive this fact through verb raising to T. By this V-to-T raising, the direct object and the subject become equidistant from T, and thus the subject or the direct object may be attracted by T, as shown in (15a) below: equidistant

(15)

7

a.

[TP

[vP subject …object …V] …T…]

Miyagawa (2001) also attempts to derive the RM-free nature of scrambling. See Chapter 8 for discussion.

118


b.

[FP

F … [TP subject object … [vP

…

…

equidistant

Another way to derive the RM-free nature of scrambling is available by exploiting Rizzi’s (2004) idea that a topic element in Italian may skip another topic element by exploiting multiple specifiers of the head of TopP. When a topic element is moved to the specifier of another topic element, the two topic elements are equidistant from the higher head of TopP, which the moved topic element may target. Extending this idea to Japanese scrambling, we may consider that the direct object in Japanese exploits multiple specifiers of T. According to this view, the subject and the direct object are equidistant from the head that motivates scrambling, as shown in (15b) above. Still another possibility is to pursue an idea pointed out to me by Luigi Rizzi (personal communication), according to which an element apparently scrambling over another element of the same feature class in fact carries a richer feature specification. This idea is in line with the recent idea developed by Miyagawa (1997, 2006), according to which scrambling involves some discourse-related factors. For instance, Miyagawa (1997: 3) characterizes the function of a scrambled element as a focus, by which he means a phrase that requires some sort of emphasis. A similar view is developed in Ishii (2001). The situation seems to be similar to topicalization in Catalan. According to Vallduví (1992: 109-10, 1993), in Catalan, only elements that are not the topic of the previous sentence are topicalized. Such “new” topics are called switch topic or shifted topic. Svenonius (2004) makes a similar point in German, where a fronted element, even if it is indefinite and has not been mentioned in the previous discourse, redirects the emphasis of the discourse. If this type of discourse-related factor is encoded by some discourse-related feature being attached to a scrambled element, the feature-based RM may be successfully escaped when the direct object skips the subject in Japanese. This is because the subject and the object do not share identical features and do not violate the anti-identity condition of RM (cf. the subclass formation strategy in chapter 2). With these possibilities in mind, let us consider why nominative adverbials may not be skipped by the subject through the V-to-T raising strategy or the multiple specifier strategy. There are two possible answers to this question (thanks to Luigi Rizzi for helpful discussion on this point). One possibility is to pay attention to the fact that nominative adverbials always receive a focus interpretation. This fact suggests that nominative adverbials occur in the specifier of FocP, where V-to-T raising does not help arguments like the subject and nominative adverbials to be equidistant from T, as shown below.


119

(16) …[FocP nominative adverbial…[TP subject/object …[vP….V….]… T…]…]… not equidistant In connection to this, Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) raises an interesting issue. Since scrambling can optionally involve A’-movement, it is not clear why scrambling of the direct object or the subject may not jump over a nominative adverbial by this A’-movement strategy. An answer to this question is available by employing the multiple specifier strategy that we saw earlier. Note the fact that there is no multiple focus available in general, which means that the head of FocP has no option to host multiple specifiers. Then, for such movement to be possible, the direct object or the subject must directly skip a nominative adverbial without passing through an escape hatch. This derivation violates the feature-based RM. Recall that nominative adverbials belong to the argumental class as well as to the modifier class; scrambling of the direct object or the subject over a nominative adverbial necessarily violates the feature-based RM by skipping an element of the same argumental feature class, as shown below. (17)

…[FocP nominative adverbial…[TP…subject…direct object… [argumental class] [argumental class] ×

This type of A’-scrambling raises an interesting issue about the optionality of scrambling. According to our approach, A’-scrambling is a feature-driven movement operation and targets the specifier of some designated head in the CP zone. In fact, Miyagawa (2006) shows that when a wh-element is scrambled over another wh-element, the most natural way to interpret the sentence is as presupposing a set of entities for the scrambled element to quantify over. In our terms, this preposed element targets TopP. Miyagawa further notes that scrambling of a non-wh-element may change the focus-potential of a sentence for Russian (Bailyn 2001), Korean (Yang 2004), Dutch (Neeleman and Reinhart 1998), and Japanese (Ishihara 2001, 2003). This suggests that scrambling of a non-wh-element may target FocP. In this sense, there is no optionality involved in scrambling, which always creates a new semantic or discourse effect. To summarize, we have considered the RM-free nature of (i) A-scrambling and (ii) A’-scrambling. In the first case, we considered Miyagawa’s (2001) idea about V-to-T raising and Rizzi’s (2004) idea about multiple specifiers; in the second case, we examined Miyagawa’s (2006) approach, in which scrambling may change the focus potential of a sentence. In our terms, A’-scrambling is made possible by targeting the specifier of a functional head in the CP zone.

120


6. 3

Conditional topics: Tateishi (1991)

In this section, we will see another case where an additional Case particle gives rise to a new semantic effect and where scrambling is blocked. The examples involve what Tateishi (1991) calls conditional topics. Let me first summarize some important properties of conditional topics from Tateishi (1991). First, conditional topic sentences have the configuration in (18a): (18)

a. b.

[relative clause]-Top, matrix clause yomi-tai] hito]-wa [DP [IP Sinbun-o newspaper-Acc read-want.to person-Top arimasu there.is.polite ‘If you want to read a newspaper, here is one’

koko-ni here-D

As illustrated in (18b), the sentence-initial relative clause is suffixed by the topic particle wa and is followed by the matrix clause. Here, the sentence-initial relative clause suffixed by the topic particle is interpreted as conditional, meaning ‘if you want to read a newspaper.’ Second, a conditional topic is half-vocative and half-conditional: “the conditional topic takes the content of the relative clause in the topic as the condition for the statement in the sentence, and is addressed to the group of people denoted by the topic DP” (Tateishi 1991: 131). Thus, Tateishi notes that the more accurate translation of the sentence above is “Hey, pay attention, those of you who want to read a newspaper. If you really want to read a newspaper, here is one.” Third, conditional topics show the following blocking effects: (19)

Scrambling may not skip the conditional topic.

The following example illustrates this point:

(20)

*Koko-ni [DP [IP sinbun-o yomi-tai] hito]-wa here-Dat newspaper-Acc read-want.to people-Top ari-masu there.is-Polite ‘If you want to read a newspaper, here is one’


121

Here, the expression koko ‘here’ is moved from the matrix sentence. As Tateishi correctly observes, the ungrammaticality is not due to a semantic anomaly since scrambling is possible to the sentence-initial position when the conditional expression mosi … kereba ‘if’ is used, as illustrated below: (21)

yomi-ta] kereba] Koko-ni [CP mosi [DP [IP sinbun-o here-Dat if newspaper-Acc read-want.to if arimasu (yo) there.is.polite (Prt) ‘If you want to read a newspaper, here is one’

Where do these blocking effects of conditional topics come from? Tateishi’s proposal is the following: (22)

The conditional topic is in CP, so scrambling over the conditional topic requires adjunction to CP, which is barred.

Tateishi works within the Barriers framework (Chomsky 1986), and it is not clear whether his assumptions are still valid in the modern framework. Without entering into a comparison of the old and new frameworks, let me advance an alternative account. First, it is necessary to treat the term ‘conditional topic’ carefully. Is a conditional topic really interpreted as a topic? Kuroda (1986) classifies conditional topics as distinct from other topic constructions and suggests that they do not receive a topic interpretation at all. I agree with Kuroda’s intuition. This intuition can be confirmed by Rizzi’s (2006a) idea of topics. According to Rizzi, topics are defined as [+D-linked, +aboutness], but the conditional topic does not necessarily involve D-linking, as the paraphrase we saw earlier suggests to us, and as can be seen in the fact that they can be used out of the blue; recall Tateishi’s paraphrase, “Hey, pay attention, those of you who want to read a newspaper. If you really want to read a newspaper, here is one.” It seems to me that the semantic effect of the conditional topic is rather informational focus or highlighting/emphasis, just like the nominative adverbial. The parallelism between the conditional topic and the nominative adverbial is reinforced by the fact that a conditional topic element has an alternative Case pattern, i.e., no pronunciation of the particle wa. (23)

[[Sinbun-o yomi-tai] hito]# koko-ni arimasu (yo) newspaper-Acc read-want people here-Dat there be-Polite (Prt) ‘Hey, pay attention, those of you who want to read a newspaper, here’s one’

122


Here, without pronouncing the particle (#), I do not find informational focus or highlighting effects. This fact suggests that optional particle suffixation of the particle wa changes the information structure just as the optional nominative Case particle does with nominative adverbial sentences, where the new semantic effect is informational focus. With this idea in mind, let us consider the blocking effect of conditional topics. My suggestion is the same as for the case of nominative adverbials. Assuming that conditional topics undergo movement to FocP in overt syntax, we obtain the following configuration. (24)

Force

Top* Int

Top* Focus Mod* [conditional topic ]

Top*

Fin

IP

Here, the conditional topic lands in the specifier of FocP. Thus, we may understand why scrambling may not move over a conditional topic; conditional topics belong to the argumental and quantificational classes and block scrambling over it due to RM. Let me finally touch upon some implications of our approach. Tateishi (1994) also observes that LF movement is impossible over conditional topics: (25)

*Sinbun-o yomi-tai hito-wa doko-ni newspaper-Acc read-want people-Top where-Dat arimasu ka? there.is.polite Q ‘If we want to read a newspaper, where can we find one?’

Tateishi attributes this to the fact that LF wh-movement and the conditional topic compete for the same functional projection, where he assumes the old framework in which there is only one position available in the CP zone. We can exploit this idea in our framework, since there is only one FocP in the CP zone. Alternatively, we may attribute the ungrammaticality to the form of the chain. Recall that an extra particle wa creates a new semantic effect of focus at the pragmatic interface, and then the focus element counts as a relevant intervener for the wh-element in the following way. Assuming again with Watanabe (1992a,b) that an empty operator moves in overt syntax out of a wh-element in situ, we have the following configuration for the sentence above: (26)

… [conditional topic] …. (focus=quantificational class)

[Op…wh…]… (quantificational class)

×

Here, empty operator movement creates a focus-chain, which is of the same quantificational class as the intervener and thus violates the feature-based RM. This is


123

why a conditional topic counts as an intervener for the wh-element in situ. Note that this state of affairs may only be expressed as a representational constraint on chains on the assumption that an informational focus is created at the pragmatic interface (cf. chapter 5). This approach makes a prediction about D-linking: The sentence should sound fine if we put it into a context that would make D-linking pragmatically plausible. The reason is that by D-linking, the empty operator may form a topic chain of the topic class, where the focus element of a different quantificational class does not count as an intervener. The following is a relevant context: Suppose a group of Japanese tourists are in a train station in Geneva, with some of them on their way to Paris and the others on their way to Milan. Suppose further that unfortunately, none of the tourists has a good command of French, but that fortunately, they see a Japanese railway man approaching them. This seems to be a nice situation for them to ask a D-linked question like the following, ‘If we want to go to Paris, which train should we take? And if we want to go to Milan, which train should we take?’8 (27)

Pari-ni iki-tai hito-wa dono ressya-ni Paris-to want.to.go people-Top which train-Dat noru beki desu-ka? take should polite-Q ‘If we want to go to Paris, which train should we take?’ Sosite, mirano-ni iki-tai hito-wa dono ressya-ni and Milan-to want.to.go people-Top which train-Dat noru beki desu-ka? take should polite-Q ‘If we want to go to Milan, which train should we take?’

As predicted, this is a natural Japanese sentence in the context above. The sentence has the following configuration: 8

Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) correctly points out that the sentence in (25) also sounds acceptable when it is modified to contain a transitive predicate like dono basyo-o sagasu beki desu-ka ‘which section should I look for.’

(i) *Sinbun-o

yomi-tai hito-wa dono basyo-o newspaper-Acc read-want people-Top which place-Acc desu ka? polite Q ‘If we want to read a newspaper, which place should I look for?’

I agree with his judgment.

sagasu beki look.for should

124


(28)

… [conditional topic] (quantificational) ×

….

[Op…wh…]… (topic)

Here, the conditional topic does not count as a relevant intervener for the topic chain created by the D-linked empty operator, since the conditional topic (quantificational class) and the D-linked empty operator (topic class) are of different feature classes; hence, no feature-based RM violation occurs here. To summarize, we have seen that the conditional topic cannot be jumped over by scrambling because it violates the feature-based RM.

6. 4

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have seen some properties of nominative adverbials and conditional topics in Japanese by comparing them with preposed adverbials in Italian. We have seen the following points: (i) a nominative adverbial is base-generated sentence-initially due to feature-based RM; (ii) an extra nominative Case particle induces a focus effect by the economy principle; and (iii) nominative Case is chosen, because a nominative adverbial appears in the domain of T, where nominative Case is checked. I suggested a similar story for Italian; i.e., fronted adverbials appear in the sentence-initial position due to RM. At the same time, we have also seen some properties of scrambling, especially the cases where scrambling may not jump over a nominative adverbial and a conditional topic. We have attributed the impossibility to the feature-based RM, by exploiting the analysis of locative inversion developed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006).

CHAPTER 7 Ditransitives

In this chapter, I will explore locality in the vP zone with special reference to the dative construction and the double object construction in English and Japanese. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses the syntax of ditransitives with reference to the Applicative Phrase functional category by comparing English and Japanese. Section 2 examines a recent view of ditransitives from the perspective of morpho-syntax. We will see an asymmetry between the indirect object and the direct object with respect to word formation, which I will attribute to RM. Section 3 reinforces our idea by looking at idioms. Section 4 touches on a related issue with respect to morpho-phonemics. Section 5 examines locality in A-movement with special attention to picture nouns. Section 6 concludes our discussion.

7. 1

Syntactic structures of ditransitives

There are various proposals for the double object construction and the dative object construction. One of the earliest influential analyses of ditransitive sentences is found in Kayne (1984), according to which the indirect object (IO) and direct object (DO) form a small clause for the double object construction as in (1a) below, while the direct object and the verb (V) form a constituent for the dative construction, as in (1b). (1)

a.

b.

V’

VP V’

V

IO

DO

V

PP DO

P

IO

Since Larson (1988), the standard analysis of ditransitives is the structure in which IO asymmetrically c-commands DO for the double object construction as in (2a) below, while DO asymmetrically c-commands IO for the dative construction, as in (2b).

126 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE (2)

a.

b.

V

IO

DO

V

DO

P

IO

These structures are motivated by the distribution of (i) anaphor binding, (ii) quantifier binding, (iii) weak crossover, and (iv) superiority, as illustrated in (3)-(6) below (cf. Aoun and Li 1993: 30-31). To take an example from the anaphor binding paradigm, in (3a), the anaphor herself should be c-commanded by the antecedent Mary to satisfy Binding Condition A. In contrast, to satisfy Binding Condition C, the R-expression Mary may not be c-commanded by the co-referential element herself. To satisfy the two conditions at the same time, we need to posit a structure in which the indirect object asymmetrically c-commands the direct object for the double object construction, as depicted in (2a) above. In the corresponding dative construction, the direct object c-commands the indirect object, while the indirect object does not c-command the direct object, suggesting the structure in (2b) above. (3)

a. b.

(4)

a. b.

(5)

a. b.

(6)

a. b.

I showed Mary herself (anaphor binding) *I showed herself Mary I showed Mary to herself *I showed herself to Mary I gave every workeri’s mother hisi paycheck (quantifier binding) *I gave hisi mother every worker’si paycheck I gave everyi check to itsi owner ??I gave hisi check to every owneri Which mani did you send hisi check (weak crossover) *Whosei pay did you send hisi mother Which checki did you send to itsi owner *Which workeri did you send hisi check to Who did you give which check (superiority) *Which paycheck did you give whom Which check did you send to whom *Whom did you send which check to

In Japanese, ditransitive predicates may have the following two patterns: (7)

a. b.

S – IO – DO – V S – DO – IO – V

DITRANSITIVES

127

The minimum difference from English is that the Case particles suffixed to IO and DO are invariant, i.e., the dative Case particle ni for the indirect object and the accusative Case particle o for the direct object in both patterns. Hoji (1985) is the first systematic study of Japanese ditransitive sentences. Based on various syntactic tests, he concludes that IO is higher than DO in the IO-DO-V word order. For instance, he notes that a weak crossover effect is attested with ditransitive sentences when the IO contains a pronoun co-indexed with the DO, as shown in (8) below. (8)

nanij-o okuri-kaesita no *John-wa [ [ti tj okutta] hitoi-ni] John-Top sent person-Dat what-Acc returned Q ‘What did John return to the person who sent’ S IO DO V

If IO is higher than DO as depicted below, the ungrammaticality above follows from weak crossover, since the lower DO (‘what’) cannot c-command the IO containing its trace. In addition, LF wh-movement of DO cannot help it to bind a variable in IO, since DO ends up in an A’-position, and a variable must be bound by an antecedent from an A-position. (9) IO

DO

V

In the corresponding DO-IO order, the weak crossover effect disappears, since the higher DO (‘what’) c-commands the IO containing its variable. Based on quantifier scope facts, Hoji showed that the DO-IO-V word order is created through scrambling of DO over IO, as depicted below: (10)

DO

IO

(DO)

V

Quantifier scope shows the following pattern: (11)

a. b.

S - IO (someone) - DO (everything) - V (some > every, *every >some) S - DO (everything) - IO (someone) - V (some > every, every >some)

128 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Here, in the IO-DO word order, IO always takes wide scope over DO, while in the DO-IO word order, DO and IO are scopally ambiguous. This follows by assuming that IO asymmetrically c-commands DO; hence, IO must take scope over DO. In the DO-IO word order, the base structure has IO asymmetrically c-commanding DO, where IO takes scope over DO. When DO is scrambled over IO, DO can take scope over IO, hence the ambiguity. Examples are given below: (12)

a.

b.

Taroo-ga dareka-ni dono nimotu-mo okutta Taro-Nom someone-Dat every package sent ‘Taro sent someone every package’ (every >some, * some>every) Taroo-ga dono nimotu-mo dareka-ni okutta Taro-Nom every package someone-Dat sent ‘Taro sent someone every package’ (every >some, some>every)

Recently, an interesting parallelism between English and Japanese was pursued by Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004). They first note the following English pattern from Bresnan (1982) and Pesetsky (1995): (13)

a. b.

John sent the boarder/*border a package IO[+/*-animate] DO John sent a package to the border/boarder DO IO [+/-animate]

In the double object construction, the IO must be animate, while in the dative construction, the IO may be animate or inanimate. Thus, in the IO-DO word order, the IO is [+animate], while in the DO-IO word order, IO is a P followed by a [+/-animate] DP. Miyagawa (1997) shows that Japanese and English are parallel with respect to the categorical status of IO. In the DO-IO word order, IO is a PP, while in the IO-DO word order, IO is a DP. This point is made by the distribution of floating numeral quantifiers, which can associate (by predication) with DP, but not with PP. In the IO-DO-V word order, the IO can be associated with a floating numeral quantifier because it is a DP, whereas the IO of the DO-IO-V word order cannot be associated with a floating numeral quantifier because it is a PP: (14)

a.

John-ga gakusei-ni 3-nin pizza-o John-Nom student-Dat 3-CL pizza-Acc ‘John gave three students pizza’

ageta gave

DITRANSITIVES

b.

*John-ga pizza-o gakusei-ni 3-nin John-Nom pizza-Acc student-Dat 3-CL ‘John gave three students pizza’

129

ageta gave

In (14a), the floating numeral quantifier 3-nin ‘3-CL’ is associated with the IO gakusei ‘student’ followed by the Case particle ni, where it is possible for the association to mean ‘three students.’ In contrast, in (14b), the same floating numeral quantifier is intended as associated with the IO gakusei ‘student’ followed by the postposition ni, but the association fails. Thus, the word order of the IO and DO and the associated categorical status are parallel in English and Japanese, as depicted below: (15)

V-IO-DO V-DO-IO DP[+animate] PP[+/-animate] IO-DO-V DO-IO-V DP PP

(English) (Japanese)

Miyagawa and Tsujioka take this parallelism one step further. They argue that English and Japanese have the same structure for the double object construction. Recall that the IO of the IO-DO word order is [+animate], while the IO of DO-IO is [+/-animate] in English: (16)

a. b.

John sent the boarder/*border a package. [+animate/*-animate] John sent a package to the border/boarder. [+animate/-animate]

Building on the analysis of Bantu languages by Marantz (1993), Miyagawa and Tsujioka claim that the IO of the English double object construction and the [+animate] IO of the IO-DO word order in Japanese are high goals, which are hosted by the specifier of the functional head, the Applicative (Appl) head, which selects an argument that is [+animate]: ApplP

(17) VP Mary send [+animate] applicative head

a package

130 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE In contrast, the IO of the DO-IO word order in Japanese is in the lower VP, as follows. (18) a package

Mary P [+/-animate]

send

To motivate this difference, Miyagawa and Tsujioka advance new data of the following sort, where the DO-IO word order gives rise to a scope ambiguity so long as IO is [-animate]. (19)

a.

b.

Taroo-ga dokoka-no basyo-ni dono nimotu-mo okutta Taro-Nom some-Gen place-to every package sent ‘Taro sent every package to some place’ (every>some, some>every) Taroo-ga dono nimotu-mo dokoka-no basyo-ni okutta Taro-Nom every package some-Gen place-to sent ‘Taro sent every package to some place’ (every >some, some>every)

In (19a), the [-animate] IO of the IO-DO word order is derived from scrambling IO over DO, which creates ambiguity. An interesting example is (19b), where the DO-IO word order is scopally ambiguous when the IO is [-animate]. Following Marantz (1993) in assuming that QR may target either of the quantifiers so long as they are in the same VP, Miyagawa and Tsujioka attribute the ambiguity to the fact that the low IO and DO are in the same lower VP.

7. 2

RM in morpho-syntax: First Sister Principle

In this section, we will see that the two structures of ditransitives in (17) and (18) are reflected in morpho-syntactic operations, and there is an asymmetry that can be attributed to RM. The relevant operation is the First Sister Principle (FSP), proposed by Roeper and Siegel (1978). The FSP is a constraint on deverbal compound formation, which requires locality between a predicate and its argument. Consider the following sentence:

DITRANSITIVES

131

(20) Harvard criticized MIT In this configuration, the internal argument MIT may incorporate into the predicate criticize to form the compound MIT-criticism, while the external argument Harvard cannot incorporate into the same predicate to form the compound Harvard-criticism (see Baker (2001: 90-97) for the generality of this constraint and Kageyama (1993, 1996) for its applicability to Japanese compounds). The same applies to Japanese ditransitive predicates. Let me summarize the basic structures with ditransitive predicates. In (21a), the [+animate] IO appears in the specifier of the higher Applicative Phrase (ApplP) in the IO-DO word order, whereas in (21b) the IO is within the same VP in the DO-IO word order. Miyagawa and Tsujioka refer to the first IO as the ‘high goal’ and the second IO as the ‘low goal.’1 (21)

a. b. c.

…[ApplP

IO (high goal) Appl….[VP [+animate] …[ApplP … [VP DO IO (low goal) [+/-animate] …[X [ Z Y]]…

DO

V

V]

Notice here that the structure in (21a) has the typical RM configuration in (21c), where locality between X and Y is blocked by Z. In the ditransitive case in (21a), locality between V and the high goal is blocked by the applicative head; in contrast, in (21b), we find locality between the low goal and V by the mutual c-command relation. It is predicted that the ditransitive predicate may form a compound with the low goal since they are local and there is no intervener; the same predicate, however, should not enter into compound-formation with its high goal by RM, since Appl intervenes. intervener (22)

1

a. …[ApplP IO (=DP) Appl (head)….[VP DO V ]]… non-local

As Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) suggests, refinements are required in the VP, where ternary branching is stipulated. If we assume some binary branching structure for VP, we need two structures, one where the IO is closer to V and one where the DO is closer. This duality, however, is dubious in view of Baker’s UTAH. Thus, it seems that finer-grained theta roles would be involved in the VP structure.

132 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE b.

…[VP

DO IO (=PP)

V]

local Let us examine some examples gathered from various resources. First, although there are many compounds formed by a DO and a ditransitive predicate, I found no examples consisting of a high goal and a ditransitive predicate, except for makaseru ‘leave’ and tanomu ‘ask’: (23)

a. b. c. d.

nimotu-okuri ‘package-sending’ syoohin-hensoo ‘merchandize-return’ daikin-henkin ‘money-return’ seikatuhi-sookin ‘money.for.living-sending’

*gakusee-okuri ‘student-sending’ *gakusee-hensoo ‘student-return’ *gakusei-henkin ‘student-return’ *kodomo-sookin ‘child-sending’

Here, each pair consists of (i) a legal DO-ditransitive predicate and (ii) an illegal high goal-ditransitive predicate. This pattern is in sharp contrast with the case of a low goal ([-animate]) and a ditransitive predicate. Unlike the high goal, I found many compounds with this pattern, as follows: (24) Sookan-suru: X-o amerika-ni sookan-suru ‘deport X to America’ => amerika-sookan; Haiti-suru: X-o amerika-ni haiti-suru ‘arrange X to America’ => amerika-haiti; Haken-suru: X-o amerika-ni haken-suru ‘dispatch X to America => amerika-haken; Yusyutu-suru: X-o kaigai-ni yusyutu-suru ‘export X abroad’=> kaigai-yusyutu; Henkan-suru: X-o anarogu-ni henkan suru ‘convert X into analog’=> anarogu-henkan; Kookan-suru: X-o sinpin-ni kookan suru ‘change X into a brand-new item’ => sinpin-kookan; Nyuuryoku-suru: X-o pasokon-ni nyuuryoku suru ‘input X to a computer’ => pasokon-nyuuryoku; Ninmee-suru: X-o butyoo-ni ninmee suru ‘appoint to the post of the general manager => butyoo-ninmee; Nin’yoo-suru: X-o honkan-ni nin’yoo suru ‘appoint X to the regular post’ => honkan-nin’yoo; Noosyuku suru: X-o 1/2-ni noosyuku suru ‘concentrate X into 1/2’=> 1/2-noosyuku

DITRANSITIVES

133

All of these predicates involve verbal nouns accompanied by the light verb suru, which I found to be the greatest in number (see Grimshaw and Mester 1988 on verbal nouns in Japanese). Although verbal nouns are predominant in compounds, compounds are not restricted to verbal nouns. As shown below, the [-animate] low goal of various semantic classes may enter into compound formation with ditransitive predicates. I found that there are only a few ditransitive predicates whose low goal expresses body part and time. (25) a. Resultant state: Toziru: X-o hukuro-ni toziru ‘bind X into cover’=> hukuro-tozi; Kasaneru: kimono-o 2-mai-ni kasaneru ‘wear a suit of two garments over one another’=> 2-mai-gasane; Orosu: sakana-o 3-mai-ni orosu ‘grate fish into 3-pieces’ =>3-mai-orosi; Hukikaeru: X-o nihongo-ni hukikaeru ‘dub X into Japanese’ => nihongo-hukikae; Hon’yaku-suru: X-o nihongo-ni hon’yaku-suru ‘translate X into Japanese’=> nihongo-hon’yaku; Matomeru: X-o hitotu-ni matomeru ‘bring X together’ =>hito-matome; Wakeru: kami-o 73(siti-san)-ni wakeru ‘divide hair into 7-3’=>7-3(sitisan)-wake b. Time: Mawasu: X-o yokuzitu-ni mawasu ‘postpone X to the next day’=> yokuzitsu-mawasi c. Body part: Ateru: X-o mimi-ni ateru ‘put X to one’s ears’=> mimi-ate; Narasu: X-o te-ni narasu ‘accustom X to the hand’=te-narasi d. Idioms: Nagasu: X-o sima-ni nagasu ‘exile X to an island’=>sima-nagasi; Ageru: X-o tana-ni ageru ‘raise shelf to X’=>tana-age; Nagasu: X-o siti-ni-nagasu ‘have X’s pawn forfeited => siti-nagasi e. Location/Goal Ireru: kuruma-o syako-ni ireru ‘put/park a car into the garage’ => syako-ire; Utu: ball-o kabe-ni utu ‘hit a ball (especially a tennis ball) against the wall’ => kabe-uti; Kakeru: X-o kabe-ni kakeru ‘hang X on the wall’ =>kabe-kake; Nobasu: X-o saki-ni nobasu ‘delay X’=> saki-nobobasi; Henkan-suru: X-o hongoku-ni henkan suru ‘return X (the colony) to its mother country’ =>hongoku-henkan;

134 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Hoosoo-suru: X-o zenkoku-ni hoosoo suru ‘broadcast X to all parts of the country’ => zenkoku-hoosoo; Hitasu: X-o mizu-ni hitasu ‘soak X in water’ => mizu-bitasi; Maku: X-o uti(gawa)-ni maku ‘roll X inside’=>uti-maki; Mookeru : X-o kokoro-ni mookeru ‘install X in the mind’ => kokoro-mooke; Moru: X-o tyawan-ni moru ‘pile up X in a cup’ =>tyawan-mori Annai suru: X-o syatyoositu-ni annai suru ‘lead X to the president’s room’ =>syatyoositu-annai; Okuru: X-o kangoku-ni okuru: ‘send X to prison’=>kangoku-okuri; Ateru: X-o mato-ni ateru ‘shoot X at the target’=>mato-ate; Ueru: X-o hati-ni ueru ‘plant X in a pot’=>hati-ue (26) f. Others Azukeru: X-o iintyoo-ni azukeru ‘entrust X to the chairman/have the chairman decide X’=> iintyoo-azuke; Kiroku suru: X-o giziroku-ni kiroku-suru ‘record X in the minutes of the proceedings’=>giziroku-kiroku; Orikomu: X-o sinbun-ni orikomu ‘insert bills into newspapers’ =>sinbun-orikomi; Taosu: X-o yoko-ni taosu ‘push X on its side’=>yoko-daosi Note that some of the second members of the compounds have undergone Rendaku or sequential voicing, according to which a voiceless consonant is turned into a voiced consonant, such as the final example ‘taosi Æ daosi’ (see 7.4 for Rendaku). Other examples are given below: (27) 2-mai-gasane ‘wear a suit of two garments over one another’ As we will see in 7.4, Rendaku is generally possible with a modification relation pair, but not with a predicate-argument pair. Then, we can conjecture the following: (28)

(At least some) low goals are adjuncts.

If we make this assumption, we can keep a binary branching structure for ditransitives, especially for the ‘DO-IO-V’ word order case. (29)

…[DO [adjunct + V]]

DITRANSITIVES

135

That is, an adjunct can be optionally generated in the sister position to V, the internal argument being generated in its specifier position (cf. Larson (1988), (1989) and Pesetsky (1995) for such a view). In this configuration, the low goal and V may form a compound; in contrast, because adjuncts are optional, in the absence of an adjunct, the DO can be base-generated in the sister position of V. In this configuration, V and DO can form a compound by the FSP. Because we may find exceptional behavior in compound formation, I will show a number of cases where V and IO may form compounds. I conducted a search for IO-V compounds and DO-V compounds involving ditransitive predicates appearing in one of the biggest Japanese dictionaries Koujien. The results are shown below. The ratio of IO-V compounds to DO-V compounds is eleven to twenty-nine. Here, we see an asymmetry, but it does not seem that a ratio of eleven to twenty-nine can be reasonably considered as an exceptional pattern. The immediate question is where the asymmetry between the IO-DO-V pattern and the DO-IO-V pattern comes from, which I have to leave as a future research topic. IO-V compounds in Koujien tana-age ‘raise shelf to X’ iintyoo-azuke ‘entrust X to the chairman/have the chairman decide X’ mimi-ate ‘put X to one’s ears’ mato-ate ‘shoot X at the target’ syatyoositu-annai ‘lead X to the president’s room’ syako-ire ‘put/park a car in the garage’ ryoomen-insatu ‘print X on both sides’ kabe-uti ‘hit a ball (especially a tennis ball) against the wall’ kangoku-okuri ‘send X to prison’ sinbun-orikomi ‘insert bills in newspapers’ kabe-kake ‘hang X on the wall’ 2mai-gasane ‘wear a suit of two garments over one another’ giziroku-kiroku ‘record X in the minutes of the proceedings’ sinpin-kookan ‘change X into a brand-new item’ amerika-sookan ‘deport X to America’ iti-tizime ‘bring X together’ yoko-daosi ‘push X on its side’ kami-danomi ‘pray to God for help with X’ hukuro-tozi ‘bind X into a cover’

136 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE sima-nagasi ‘exile X to an island’ siti-nagasi ‘have X’s pawn forfeited’ te-narasi ‘accustom X to the hand’ pasokon-nyuuryoku ‘input X’ butyoo-ninmei ‘appoint to the post of the general manager’ honkan-ninyoo ‘appoint X to the regular post’ 1/2-noosyuku ‘concentrate X into 1/2’ saki-nobasi ‘delay X’ amerika-haiti ‘arrange X to America’ amerika-haken ‘dispatch X to America’ mizu-bitasi ‘soak X in water’ nihongo-hukikae ‘dub X into Japanese’ anarogu-henkan ‘convert X into analog’ hongoku-henkan ‘return X (the colony) to its mother country’ zenkoku-hoosoo ‘broadcast X to all parts of the country’ nihongo-honyaku ‘translate X into Japanese’ uti-maki ‘roll X inside’ yokuzitu-mawasi ‘postpone X to the next day’ kokoro-mooke ‘install X in the mind’ tyawan-mori ‘pile up X in a cup’ kaigai-yusyutu ‘export X abroad’ 73-wake ‘divide hair into 7-3’ DO-V compounds (partial) siro-akewatasi ‘deliver the castle up to X’ mono-ii ‘protest against X’ sitai-iki ‘throw a body away to X’ hana-ike ‘arrange flowers to X’ gyoomu-itaku ‘entrust service to X’ honsya-iten ‘move the main office to X’ kanzyoo-inyuu ‘feel identification with X’ syorui-ire ‘replace a document to somewhere’ mono-ire ‘get something into X’ mozi-insatu ‘print letters on X’

DITRANSITIVES

137

ryuugakusee-ukeire ‘welcome students from abroad to X’ roketto-utiage ‘launch a rocket for X’ kui-uti ‘ram a post into X’ hana-uri ‘sell a flower to X’ saabisu-uwanose ‘include a service charge with X’ siai-enki ‘postpone the game for X’ mono-oki ‘put something on X’ ni-orosi ‘unload cargo onto X’

7. 3

Idioms

Locality between the low goal and V can also be seen in the fact that they can form idioms. Based on Larson’s (1988) claim that idioms are possible only with local elements, Miyagawa and Tsujioka put forth a few idioms consisting of the low goal and V. One possible objection to this claim is that these idioms are exceptional cases. To refute this objection, I have conducted an exhaustive search for IO-V idioms and DO-V idioms constructed out of ditransitive predicates from one of the biggest Japanese dictionaries Koujien. The results are shown below, where an exhaustive list for IO-V idioms is given. The ratio of IO-V idioms to DO-V idioms is 47 to 168. Although we see an asymmetry here again, it does not seem that a ratio of 47 to 168 can be considered as an exceptional case. IO-V idioms in Koujien Kare-wa atarasii he-Top new ‘He got a new watch’ *...te-ni tokei-o ireta

tokei-o watch-Acc

Kare-wa sono uwasa-o he-Top the rumor-Acc ‘He told Mary the rumor’ *...mimi-ni uwasa-o ireta Kare-wa yuuzin-no supiiti-o he-Top friend-Gen speech-Acc ‘He memorized a speech for his friend’ *…atama-ni supiiti-o ireta

te-ni hand-Dat

ireta enter

Mearii-no mimi-ni Mary-Gen ear-Dat

atama-ni ireta head-Dat enter

ireta enter

138 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Taroo-wa Hanako-no-koto-o Taro-Top Hanako-Gen-matter-Acc ‘Taro liked Hanako’ *…ki-ni Hanako-no koto-o itta

ki-ni heart-Dat

itta entered

Kare-wa sono utukusii huukee-o he-Top the beautiful landscape-Acc ‘He imaged the beautiful landscape’ *...kokoro-ni huukee-o ukabeta...

kokoro-ni heart-Dat

ukabeta float

Kare-wa sono he-Top the ‘ He pawned the watch’ *...siti-ni tokee-o oita...

siti-ni pledge-Dat

oita put

tokee-o watch-Acc

Watasi-wa sono koto-o I-Top the matter-Acc ‘I kept the matter to myself’ *…hara-ni sono koto-o osameta

hara-ni stomach-Dat

Watasi-wa sono mati-o I-Top the town-Acc ‘I imagined the town’ ??…mune-ni sono mati-o omoiegaita

mune-ni heart-Dat

Kare-wa sono ko-o tesio-ni he-Top the child-Acc salt-Dat ‘He brought up the child with great care’ *…tesio-ni sono ko-o kakete… Kare-wa sono koto-o he-Top the.matter-Acc ‘He considered it’ *…ki-ni sono koto-o kakerta…

kake-te put-Ger

osameta kept

omoiegaita imagined

sodateta brought up

ki-ni heart-Dat

kaketa put

Sensei-wa koohosya-o hurui-ni Teacher-Top candidate-Acc sieve-Dat ‘The teacher screened the candidates’ *…hurui-ni koohoyha-o kaketa…

kaketa put

DITRANSITIVES

Sono koto-o sonna-ni the matter-Acc so much ‘Don’t worry about the matter so much’ * kokoro-ni sono koto-o kakeruna

kokoro-ni kakeru-na heart-Dat put don’t

Sono kookee-wa kokoro-ni The sight-Top my heart-Dat ‘The sight is engraved in my memory’ ?…kokoro-ni sono kookee-wa kizamikomare…

kizamikomare-te iru engrave-Gerund is

Taroo-wa sore-o on-ni Taro-Top that-Acc favor-Dat ‘Taroo emphasized the favor he has done’ *…on-ni sore-o kiseta…

kiseta make.wear

Watasi-wa issyoo I-Top forever ‘I will be forever grateful to you’ *…on-ni sore-o kimasu

on-ni gratefulness-Dat

Taroo-wa amerika-o Taro-Top America-Acc ‘Taro left America’ *…ato-ni amerika-o sita…’

139

sore-o it-Acc

ato-ni behind-Dat

kimasu wear

sita did

Taroo-wa kanozyoo-no hanasi-o unomi-ni Taro-Top her story-Acc swallow-Dat ‘Taro swallowed her story’ *…unomi-ni kanojo-no hanasi-o sita…’

sita did

Watasi-wa me-o sara-noyoo-ni site I-Top eye-Acc dish-like do-Ger ‘I watched it carefully’ *…sara-noyooni me-o site…

sore-o it-Acc

mita watched

Watasi-wa huto I-Top suddenly ‘I suddenly looked at it’ *…me-ni sore-o sita

sita did

sore-o it-Acc

me-ni eye-Dat

140 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Watasi -wa huto sore-o I-Top suddenly it-Acc ‘I suddenly heard about it’ *…mimi-ni sore-o sita… Kare-wa huto he-Top suddenly ‘Taro suddenly spoke about it’ *…kuchi-ni sore-o sita…

mimi-ni ear-Dat

sore-o it-Acc

Watasi -wa kare-e-no I-Top he-toward-Gen ‘I do not worry about it’ *…ki-ni kare-e-no hihan-o sinai

sita did

kuti-ni mouse-Dat

hihan-o criticism-Acc

sita did

ki-ni heart-Dat

si-nai do-Neg

Kare-wa taikin-o hutokoro-ni sita he-Top easy.money-Acc inside.his.pocket-Dat did ‘He got easy money’ *…hutokoro-ni taikin-o s sita… Taroo-wa eigo-o Taro-Top English-Acc ‘Taro mastered English’ *…mono-ni eigo-o sita

mono-ni thing-Dat

sita did

Taroo-wa sono otoko-no namae-o Taro-Top the man’s name-Acc ‘The man’s name was on the tip of Taro’s tongue’ *…kuti-ni sono otoko-no namae-o dasi…

kuti-ni mouth-Dat

Taroo-wa kare-no kotoba-o kokoro-ni Taro-Top his word mind-Dat ‘Taro kept in mind what he said’ ??…kokoro-ni kare-no kotoba-o tometa…

tometa kept

Watasi-wa sensei-no kotoba-o I-Top teacher’s word ‘I took my teacher’s warning to heart’ *…kimo-ni sensei-no kotoba-o meezita

kimo-ni heart-Dat

dasi-takatta put-wanted.to

meezita took

DITRANSITIVES

Watasi-wa sono ken-o watasidake-no I-Top the matter-Acc my.only-Gen ‘I decided to keep the matter to myself’ *…mune-ni sono ken-o tatandeoku… Watasi -wa sono koto-o mizu-ni I-Top the.matter-Acc water-Dat ‘I forgave and forgot the matter’ *…mizu-ni sono koto-o nagasita

mune-ni heart-Dat

141

tatande-okimasu keep-decided

nagasita flushed

Watasi -wa sono koto-o naki-ni I-Top the.matter-Acc nothing-Dat ‘I regarded the matter as if it did not exist’ *…naki-ni sono koto-o nasita

nasita did

(archaic)

Yamada-sensei-wa sono mondai-o sozyoo-ni noseta Prof. Yamada-Top the.problem-Acc chopping.board-Dat placed ‘Prof. Yamada took up the problem for discussion’ *…sozyoo-ni sono mondai-o noseta Kare-wa sore-o teguruma-ni nose teiru he-Top that-Acc handcart-Dat put Asp ‘He regards that as important’ *…teguruma-ni sore-o nose teiru

(archaic)

Yamada-sensei-wa ronbun-o matome te ita/zyoosi-ni Prof. Yamada-Top papers-Acc collect and board-Dat ‘Prof. Yamada collected his papers and published them as a book’ *…ita-ni sono hon-o noseta

noseta placed

Watasi -wa sono uwasa-o mimi-ni I-Top the rumor-Acc ear-Dat ‘I heard about the rumor’ *…mimi-ni sono uwasa-o hasanda…

hasanda pick.up

142 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Kare-wa sono syoozyo-e-no omoi-o mune-ni himeta-mama he-Top the girl-for love-Acc heart-Dat lock-with kono ti-o satta this town left ‘He left the town with his love for the girl locked up in his heart’ ??…mune-ni syoozyo-e-no omoi-o himeta… Kare-wa kikai-o boo-ni hutta he-Top chance-Acc stick-Dat swing ‘He missed the chance’ *‘…boo-ni kikai-o hutta Kare-wa hanasi-o he-Top story-Acc ‘He mystified the talk’ *…kemuri-ni hanasi-o maita

kemuri-ni smoke-Dat

maita roll

Hanako-wa kimono-o Hanako-Top kimono-Acc ‘Hanako wore a kimono’ *…mi-ni kimono-o matotta…

mi-ni body-Dat

matotta wore.

Kare-wa kanozyo-o tenouti-ni he-Top she-Acc inside.hand-Dat ‘He coaxed her in his ability’ ??tenouti-ni kanozyo-o marumekonda

marumekonda coax

Kare-wa senmonka-o mukoo-ni he-Top expert-Acc the.other.side-Dat zisetu-o too-sootosita his.opinion-Acc pass-tried ‘He tried to pass his opinion off as (that of an) expert’ *…mukoo-ni senmonka-o mawasu Taroo-wa tukue-o butai-ni Taro-Top desk-Acc stage-Dat ‘Taro assumed the desk to be a stage’ *…butai-ni tukue-o mitateru…

mitateta assume

mawas-ite turn-Ger

DITRANSITIVES

Kare-wa boku-no sippai-o oome-ni he-Nom my mistake-Acc big.eye-Dat ‘He was good enough to overlook my mistake’ *…oome-ni boku-no sippai-o mite… Watasi-wa sore-o I-Top that-Acc ‘I controlled it at my will’ *…syoozyoo-ni sore-o meguraseru

syoozyoo-ni palm-Dat

143

mite kureta look gave

meguraseta turned

Kare-wa keturon-o zikai-ni motikosita he-Top decision-Acc next time-Dat put off ‘He put off the decision till next time’ *…zikai-ni ketsuron-o motikosu… Kare-wa boku-no koto-o he-Top I-Gen matter-Acc ‘He has a grudge against me’ *…ne-ni boku-no koto-o motte iru Subete-o hakusi-ni modos-ite all-Acc white-paper-Dat return-Ger ‘Let’s make a new start’ *…hakusi-ni subete-o modosi-te… Kare-wa sono koto-o he-Top the matter-Acc ‘He worried about the matter’ *…ki-ni sono koto-o yanda…

ne-ni motte iru root-Dat have Asp

yarinao soo make.a.new.start

ki-ni heart-Dat

yanda worry

DO-V idioms (partial) Kare-wa kyuubyoo-de butai-ni ana-o aketa he-Top sudden.sickness-by stage-Dat hole-Acc opened ‘He absented himself from the stage and made a vacancy for the character in the story’ *…ana-o butai-ni aketa

144 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Kare-wa seizi-ni he-Top government-Dat ‘He set a new tone in government’ *…kazaana-o seizi-ni aketa

kazaana-o air.hole-Acc

aketa opened

Kare-wa sono mandai-ni rati-o he-Top the.difficult.problem fence-Acc ‘He went ahead with the difficult problem’ *…rati-o sono nandai-ni aketa

aketa opened

Kare-wa kyuukyuutaiin-ni inoti-o he-Top rescue.party-Dat life-Acc ‘He left his life in the hands of the rescue party’ ?…inoti-o kyuukyuutaiin-ni azuketa

azuketa left

Kare-wa syatyoo-ni he-Top boss-Dat ‘He left the problem up to his boss’ *…geta-o syatyo-ni azuketa

geta-o geta.sandals-Acc

azuketa left

Kare-wa sono seenen-ni he-Top the.young.man-Dat ‘He demoralized the young man’ *…hiyamizu-o seenen-ni abiseta

hiyamizu-o cold.water-Acc

abiseta showered

Watasi-wa kare-ni I-Top he-Dat ‘I humored him’ *…tyoosi-o kare-ni awaseta

tyoosi-o sound-Acc

awaseta fitted

Kare-wa kanozyo-ni he-Top her-Dat ‘He told her insincere words’ *…ura-o kanozyo-ni itta Kare-wa zibun-no he-Top self-Gen ‘He excused himself for his failure’ *…wabi-o jibun-no sippai-ni itta

ura-o reverse-Acc

sippai-ni failure-Dat

itta said

wabi-o itta excuse-Acc said

DITRANSITIVES

Kare-wa sono mondai-ni omoi-o itasita he-Top the.problem-Dat thought-Acc did ‘He was wondering about the problem’ *…omoi-o sono mondai-ni itasita Kare-wa kami-ni tosi-o inotta he-Top God-Dat year-Acc prayed ‘He prayed to God for a fruitful year’ *…tosi-o kami-ni inotta Kare-wa yuuzin-no ie-ni he-Top friend’s.house-Dat ‘He went into his friend’s house’ *…asi-o yuuzin-no ie-ni ireta

asi-o leg-Acc

Kare-wa sono seito-ni he-Top the.student-Dat ‘He treated the student with favor’ *…kata-o sono seito-ni ireta

kata-o shoulder-Acc

Kare-wa sono suieesensyu-ni he-Top the.swimmer-Dat ‘He cheered up the swimmer’ *…katu-o sono seieisensyu-ni ireta Kare-wa sono siai-ni kiai-o he-Top the.match-Dat drive-Acc ‘He concentrated his mind on the match’ *…kiai-o sono siai-ni ireta Kare-wa piano-no rensyuu-ni he-Top piano-for practice-Dat ‘He practiced on the piano actively’ *…ki-o piano-no rensyu-ni ireta Kare-wa giron-ni he-Top discussion-Dat ‘He burst into the discussion’ *…kuti-o giron-ni ireta

kuti-o mouth-Acc

ireta put

ireta put

katu-o boost-Acc

ireta put

ireta put

ki-o mind-Acc

ireta put

ireta put

145

146 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Kare-wa kitte-syuusyuu-ni he-Top collecting.stamps-Dat ‘He was absorbed in collecting stamps’ *…kokoro-o kitte-syuusyu-ni ireta Kare-wa sono zigyoo-ni he-Top the.project-Dat ‘He worked on the project in earnest’ *…kosi-o sono zigyoo-ni ireta

kokoro-o mind-Acc

kosi-o waist-Acc

ireta put

ireta put

Kare-wa teki-ni saguri-o ireta he-Top enemy-Dat feeler-Acc put ‘He put out some feelers about his enemy’ *…saguri-o teki-ni ireta Yamada-sensei-wa sono genkoo-ni Prof.Yamada-Top the.manuscript-Dat ‘Prof. Yamada corrected the manuscript’ *…syu-o sono genkoo-ni ireta Kare-wa syoobai-ni he-Top business-Dat ‘He worked hard in his business’ *…seko-o syoobai-ni ireta

syu-o vermilion-Acc

seko-o sake.cup-Acc

Kare-wa sinzin-yoosee-ni he-Top training.freshman-Dat ‘He put stress on training freshmen’ *…tikara-o sinzin-yoosee-ni ireta

ireta put

tikara-o power-Acc

Kare-wa tyootyoo-no hatugen-ni tyatya-o he-Top mayor’s words-Dat obstacle-Acc ‘He ridiculed the mayor for his words and interrupted his speech’ *…tyatya-o tyootyo-no hatugen-ni ireta Kare-wa bonsai-ni he-Top pot.plant-Dat ‘He looked after his potted plant’ *…te-o bonsai-ni ireta

te-o hand-Acc

ireta point

ireta put

ireta put

ireta put

DITRANSITIVES

147

Kare-wa syootensyu-ni niti-o ireta he-Top storekeeper-Dat nagging-Acc put ‘He accused the storekeeper falsely of carelessness and sponged some goods from him’ *…niti-o syootensyu-ni ireta Kanozyo-wa kesyoo-ni she-Top makeup-Dat ‘She made up her face closely’ *…nen-o kesyou-ni ireta

nen-o attention-Acc

ireta put

Kare-wa ribon-ni he-Top ribbon-Dat ‘He cut a ribbon’ ?…hasami-o ribon-ni ireta

hasami-o scissors-Acc

ireta put

Kare-wa zibun-no heta-na sakubun-ni hude-o he-Top his unskilled composition-Dat brush-Acc ‘He corrected his unskilled composition’ *…hude-o zibun-no heta-na sakubun-ni ireta Kare-wa sigoto-ni he-Top work-Dat ‘He worked with diligence’ *…mi-o sono sigoto-ni ireta

mi-o body-Acc

ireta put

Kare-wa kaisya-no keiri-ni mesu-o he-Top company-Gen accounting-Dat surgical.knife-Acc ‘He brought the accounting of his company to light’ *…mesu-o kaisya-no keiri-ni ireta Kare-wa namakemono-no seito-ni he-Top lazy student-Dat ‘He trained the lazy student’ *…yaki-o namakemono-no seito-ni ireta Kanozyo-wa karera-no giron-ni she-Top their discussion-Dat ‘She burst into their discussion’ *…kutibasi-o karera-no giron-ni ireta

ireta put

ireta put

yaki-o ireta stimulus-Acc put

kutibasi-o bill-Acc

ireta put

148 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Watasi-wa kare-no settoku-ni kokoro-o I-Top his.persuasion-Dat mind-Acc ‘I was impressed by his persuasion’ *…kokoro-o kare-no settoku-ni ugokasareta

ugokasareta be.moved

Kare-wa afurika-ni he-Top Africa-Dat ‘He died in Africa’ ??…hone-o afurika-ni uzumeta

uzumeta buried

hone-o bone-Acc

Watasi-wa kare-no kotoba-ni I-Top his word-Dat ‘I gave him a nod and agreed with his words’ ?...aizuti-o kare-no kotoba-ni utta Kare-wa uriya-ni he-Top house.for.sale-Dat ‘He put a deposit on a house for sale’ *…tetuke-o uriya-ni utta

aizuti-o utta nod-Acc hit

tetuke-o deposit-Acc

utta hit

Kare-wa Minsyutoo-kara Zimintoo-ni he-Top the Democratic Party of Japan-from the Liberal Democratic Party-Dat negaeri-o utta turning.side.to.side-Acc hit ‘He left the Democratic Party of Japan and went over to the Liberal Democratic Party’ *…negaeri-o Zimin-too-ni utta Kare-wa kanozyo-no he-Top her ‘He held her idea in (great) esteem’ *…hiza-o kanojzy-no kangae-ni utta

kangae-ni idea-Dat

Kare-wa inaka-no seikatu-ni he-Top country life-Dat ‘He gave up his country life’ *…piriodo-o inaka-no seikatu-ni uttta

hiza-o utta knee-Acc hit

piriodo-o period-Acc

utta pointed

DITRANSITIVES

Kare-wa kanozyo-no yasasisa-ni he-Top her kindness-Dat ‘He was greatly touched by her kindness’ *…mune-o kanozyo-no yasasisa-ni utareta Kare-wa sono naifu-ni he-Top the.knife-Dat ‘He carved his name on the knife’ *…mei-o sono naifu-ni utta Kanozyo-wa watasi-kara she-Top I-from ‘She left me for Tom’ ?…kokoro-o tomu-ni utusita

mune-o heart-Acc

mei-o his.name-Acc

tomu-ni Tom-Dat

utareta hit.Pass

utta pointed

kokoro-o mind-Acc

Kare-wa sono otoko-ni on-o he-Top the man-Dat obligation-Acc ‘He was obliging to the man expecting his thanks’ ?…on-o sono otoko-ni utta

utusita moved

utta sold

Kare-wa seikai-ni kao-o utta he-Top political.world-Dat face-Acc sold ‘He put his best face to the political world’ *…kao-o seikai-ni utta Kare-wa ani-ni kenka-o utta he-Top brother-Dat quarrel-Acc sold ‘He picked a quarrel with his brother’ *…kenka-o ani-ni utta Kanozyo-wa sono sinsi-ni she-Top the.gentleman-Dat ‘She threw herself at the gentleman’ *…kobi-o sono sinsi-ni utta

kobi-o coquetry-Acc

Kare-wa zibun-no tumi-nituite keikan-ni he-Top his. guilty-about policeman-Dat ‘He confessed his guilt to the policeman’ *…kuti-o keikan-ni watta

149

utta sold

kuti-o watta mouth-Acc broke

150 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE To summarize so far, we have seen that a high goal and a ditransitive predicate cannot form a compound due to the lack of locality, which I attributed to RM at the morpho-syntactic level. At the same time, we also saw cases where the low goal and a predicate form idioms, while no idioms are attested with the high goal and a predicate.

7. 4

Digression: Rendaku

In 7.2, we saw some of the compounds formed out of the V-IO pair undergoing sequential voicing or Rendaku. Based on the fact that Rendaku is not generally seen in compounds formed by a predicate-argument pair (cf. Ito and Mester 1986, 2004; Endo 2006), we have suggested that some IOs might be adjuncts. In this section, we will note some RM-effects in Rendaku (thanks to Alec Marantz, Morris Halle, Ur Shlonsky, and Michael Wagner for discussing an earlier version of the idea). The discussion has some implications for the debate on locality between representational approaches and derivational approaches. Chomsky (1995: 311) proposes to capture the same intuition as RM by what he calls the Minimal Link Condition (MLC): K attracts a only if there is no b, b closer to K than a, such that K attracts b. The MLC is built into a specific syntactic computation of the operation Attract that operates in the course of derivation. As Rizzi (2004: 227-228) notes, however, Chomsky’s approach is too selective, since RM effects are not restricted to syntactic operations but are also found in phonological operations. The RM-effects we will look at in morphophonemics support representational approaches, since the operation of Attract is not relevant. We saw earlier the intuition behind locality expressed by RM in the following configuration: (30) X

Y

Z

Here, X and Y cannot have a local relation when Z intervenes. As we saw in chapter 1, we can see the locality in morphology by looking at the ambiguity of the compound red umbrella stand. This compound is structurally ambiguous, as follows: (31)

a.

b. red umbrella stand

red umbrella stand

In the configuration (31a), red cannot modify umbrella, since red and umbrella are not local. Note that it is not the case that the combination of red and umbrella is inappropriate

DITRANSITIVES

151

semantically since red can modify umbrella in the configuration (31b), where umbrella and red are in a local relation. In the study of morpho-phonemics in Japanese, it is well known that a configuration like (32a) below cannot trigger a rule application of sequential voicing or Rendaku for umbrella (see Otsu (1980); Ito and Mester (1986), (2004)), where * means Rendaku is not possible and ‘ok’ means Rendaku is possible (see Napoli and Nespor (1976) for a similar constraint in Italian consonant lengthening). (32)

a.

b.

red umbrella stand * ok

red umbrella stand ok ok

The generalization is that Rendaku is only possible with a projecting element. I would like to derive this generalization by RM. The real Japanese example is illustrated below: (33)

a.

b. aka kasa *g

tate d

aka

kasa g

tate d

Sequential voicing or Rendaku is a rule that turns an initial voiceless obstruent of the second member of a compound into a voiced consonant. In (33a), the first word aka ‘red’ cannot trigger the voicing rule on the second word kasa ‘umbrella.’ Let us see how the constraint on Rendaku is derived from RM. First, Rendaku applies only to compounds with a modification relation, which is executed by Pair Merge (Chomsky 2005), according to which a modifier and a modifiee are combined to create a larger unit by projecting a modifiee. This contrasts with Set Merge, according to which a predicate-argument pair is combined to create a bigger unit by projecting a predicate. Thus, the configuration in (33b) is created as follows. First, aka ‘red’ and kasa ‘umbrella’ are combined to create a bigger unit by projecting kasa ‘umbrella’: (34) kasa ‘umbrella’ aka ‘red’

kasa ‘umbrella’

152 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE Here, the rule of Rendaku of the following sort applies: (35)

Adjoin [+voi] to the projecting element (Ito and Mester 1986).2

The feature [+voi] triggers voicing of the consonant, creating the following representation: gasa ‘umbrella’

(36)

aka‘red’ [+voi] kasa ‘umbrella’ g Next, tate ‘stand’ is combined with ‘red umbrella’ to create a still larger unit by projecting the modifiee tate ‘stand’: (37)

tate ‘stand’ gasa ‘umbrella’ aka‘red’

gasa ‘umbrella’

tate ‘stand’

Here, Rendaku applies to adjoin [+voi] to the projecting element tate ‘stand’ to create the following representation: date ‘stand’

(38) gasa ‘umbrella’ aka‘red’

gasa ‘umbrella’

[+voi]tate ‘stand’ d

At this point, one may naturally wonder where the feature [+voi] comes from. We may consider the first obstruent consonant of the second member of a compound to be always underspecified with respect to the feature [voi] and to take the minus value by last resort, 2

In general, the application of Rendaku is optional. So the rule of adjoining [+voi] applies optionally. Rendaku is also not seen in dvandva compounds with coordinate structures, which would be derived by assuming that coordinators, not conjuncts, are projecting heads in coordinate structrures.

DITRANSITIVES

153

as suggested to me by Ur Shlonsky (personal communication). Then, we can assume a rule of the following sort: (39)

The value [+voi] of the first member of a compound probes into the c-commanding member of a compound to assign its value [+voi] to a segment that is underspecified.

Let us next see the other configuration in (33a). The first step is to combine kasa ‘umbrella’ and tate ‘stand’ to create a bigger unit by projecting tate ‘stand’: (40)

tate ‘stand’ kasa ‘umbrella’ tate ‘stand’

Here, Rendaku turns the representation above into the following: (41)

date ‘stand’ kasa ‘red’

tate ‘stand’ d

The next step is to combine this unit with aka ‘red’ to create a still larger unit by projecting tate ‘stand’: (42)

date ‘stand’ date ‘stand’

aka ‘red’ *kasa ‘umbrella’ tate ‘stand’ d Here, the question is why the first word aka ‘red’ cannot trigger the Rendaku rule for the second word kasa ‘umbrella.’ My suggestion is that this is due to RM, of the following configuration:

154 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE (43) X

Z

Y

According to RM, locality between X and Y is blocked by Z, which c-commands Y and does not c-command X. In the compound case in (41), the intervener is the third element tate ‘stand,’ which c-commands kasa ‘umbrella’ but does not c-command aka ‘red.’ date ‘stand’

(44)

date ‘stand’ aka‘red’

*kasa ‘umbrella’

date ‘stand’ *aka+gagi red key

Recall here the rule in (39): The value [+voi] of the first member of a compound probes into the c-commanding member of a compound to assign its value [+voi] to a segment that is underspecified. Then, the illegal form characterized by Layman’s law in (45) follows from RM in a broad sense, since there is a closer [+voi] of the same feature class in the second member of the compound. Note that the closer second member of a compound does not assign the value [+voi] to the underspecified word-initial consonant, since the valuation [+voi] can only be made by a c-commanding word. To summarize, we have seen some RM-effects in Rendaku, which supports representational approaches.

DITRANSITIVES

7. 5

155

Locality in picture nouns

In this section, we will expand our views to cases of picture nouns that may have the Case pattern of ditransitives in Japanese. Let me start by reviewing general properties of picture nouns in English. Chomsky (1977: 113-114) discusses picture nouns of the following sort: (46)

a. b.

John took a picture of Mary John destroyed a picture of Nixon

Based on observations made by Bach and Horn (1977), Chomsky notes that the sentence in (46a) above is structurally ambiguous in having the following two structures: (47)

a.

b.

[ take [a picture [ of Mary]]

[ take [a picture] of Mary]

Although these two structures would perhaps not be transformationally related, the structure of (47b) looks as if it has undergone what we might call ‘objectivization,’ since the complement of the picture noun is the sister of V. The structural ambiguity above may be confirmed by substitution. The structure in (47a) does not allow substitution of the picture noun with the pronoun it leaving behind the PP, since the picture noun and the following PP form a constituent. In contrast, it-substitution is allowed with the structure in (47b), since the picture noun and the following PP do not form a constituent, as shown below: (48) [ take [ a picture [ of Mary]]

[ take [ a picture] of Mary]

*it

it

In the case of the destroy-type sentence in (46b), it is not structurally ambiguous, having no objectivization structure, as shown by the it-substitution test below: (49)

a. b.

*John destroyed it about Nixon

[ destroy [ a picture [ of Mary]]

156 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE With this structural ambiguity in mind, Chomsky notes that take-type predicates allow A’-movement out of a noun phrase without violating Subjacency: (50)

a. b.

Who did John take a picture of

[ take [DP a picture] of who]

Here, the wh-element may freely move since it does not cross a DP barrier. In contrast, the destroy-type predicate does not allow for wh-movement due to Subjacency. Here, wh-movement is impossible, since it has to cross a DP barrier. (51)

a. b.

??Who did John destroy a picture of?

[ destroy [DP a picture [of who]] × In a similar way, the take-type sentence allows for A-movement of a picture noun, while the destroy-type sentence does not: (52)

a. b.

A book was taken about Nixon by John *A book was destroyed about Nixon by John

Japanese picture nouns are interesting in that the structural ambiguity is spelled out in Case particles. When English allows for wh-movement out of a picture noun of the take-type, the corresponding wh-expression can be suffixed by the genitive Case particle no as in (53a) below, or, more importantly, by the accusative Case particle o, as seen in (53b) (cf. Endo (1995) and Ogawa (2001) on this point): (53)

a.

b.

Mary-no syasin-o totta Mary-Gen picture-Acc took ‘I took pictures of Mary’ Mary-o syasin-ni totta Mary-Acc picture-Dat took ‘I took a picture of Mary’

DITRANSITIVES

157

Here, we see the pattern of Case particles that is parallel to the dative construction in English: accusative-dative-V. In cases where English does not allow for wh-movement out of a picture noun, as with the destroy-type, the corresponding wh-expression cannot be suffixed by the accusative Case particle o, as seen in (54b) below: (54)

a.

b.

John-no syasin-o yabuita John-Gen picture-Acc destroyed ‘Someone destroyed John’s picture’ *John-o syasin-ni yabuita John-Acc picture-Dat destroyed ‘Someone destroyed John’s picture’

Does the picture noun have a syntactic structure that is parallel to the English dative construction? The answer seems to be in the affirmative. The fact is that a picture noun and its complement cannot undergo word order permutation, and this suggests that it has a binary branching structure, as follows:

(55)

a.

× ??Syasin-ni John-o totta picture-Dat John-Acc took ‘I took a picture of John’

b. John-o syasin-ni totta John-Acc picture-Dat took DO IO V Here, we see the structure in which the DO is higher than the IO, which is parallel to the English dative construction. The awkwardness of word order permutation does not mean that the string ‘DP-Dat V’ has undergone restructuring into ‘DP-Acc [V DP-Dat V]’ (see Rizzi (1982) for restructuring). The reason is that the string ‘DP-Dat V’ can be disrupted by an adverbial or a floating numeral quantifier and furthermore, a picture can be relativized, as follows: (56)

a.

John-o syasin-ni subayaku totta John-Acc picture-Dat quickly took ‘I took a picture of John quickly’

(adverbial)

158 LOCALITY AND INFORMATION STRUCTURE b.

c.

John-o syasin-ni 3-mai totta John-Acc picture-Dat 3-NQ took ‘I took three pictures of John’ John-o totta syasin John-Acc took picture ‘the picture that I took of John’

(floating quantifier)

(relativization)

Why is word-order permutation disallowed with take-type predicates as in (55)? Saito (1992) shows that short scrambling has A-movement properties. Given this idea, the impossibility of word order permutation follows from the feature-based RM. As depicted below, short scrambling of a picture noun is blocked by the intervening complement of the picture noun of the same argumental feature class: (57) ??syasin-ni John-o picture-Dat John-Acc ×

totta took

From this pattern in Japanese, I suggest a more articulated binary branching structure for take-type sentences that is parallel to the English dative construction as follows: (58) John picture take With this binary structure in mind, let us consider A-movement in picture noun sentences. The complement of a picture noun has no intervener as follows: (59) DP-Acc

picture

V

Hence, the complement of a picture noun can undergo A-movement, as illustrated below: (60)

John-ga syasin-ni tor-are-ta John-Nom picture-Dat take-Pass-Past ‘John was taken a picture of’

DITRANSITIVES

159

Here, the complement of the picture noun John has undergone A-movement (passivization), as can be seen with the nominative Case marking ga. Note that this A-movement pattern is on a par with its English counterpart. (61)

John was taken pictures of

This means that we can postulate a more refined binary branching structure for the English counterpart: (62) take a picture of Mary To summarize, we have seen that picture nouns in Japanese have Case particles that are parallel to ditransitives. In addition, the picture nouns have the same configuration as the English dative construction. We have also shown that the behaviors of picture nouns in English and Japanese are on a par with respect to RM, where an element of the argumental-class cannot skip another element of the same argumental class.

7. 6

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have seen ditransitives in Japanese and English. We have shown that the IO-DO word order is parallel to the double object construction in English. This construction has a functional projection, Applicative Phrase (cf. Jeong 2007), whose head counts as the intervener for the compound formation of the ditransitive predicate and the high goal ([+animate] IO), while the low goal ([-animate] IO) and the ditransitive predicate have no intervener and thus can form a compound. We have seen Miyagawa and Tsujioka’s view that the base word order DO-IO-V is available since IO and V may form idioms and undergo word formation. Because we may find exceptional behavior in compound formation and idioms, we have shown a number of cases where V and IO may form compounds and idioms. I conducted a search to pick out and count the number of IO-V idioms/compounds and DO-V idioms/compounds involving a ditransitive predicate appearing in one of the biggest Japanese dictionaries, Koujien.

CHAPTER 8 On the Nature of the Subject Position

In this chapter, I will discuss the nature of the subject position. Since Chomsky (1981), it has been assumed that clauses must have subjects. This idea is encapsulated in the Extended Projection Principle (EPP). Rizzi (2006a) argues that the EPP is a manifestation of the criterial position of the Subject Phrase (SubjP), whose head attracts a nominal expression and determines the Subject-Predicate articulation (cf. Cardinaletti 2004). The standard view is that the EPP position is occupied by the thematic subject, not by other elements like the direct object. Miyagawa (2001) challenges this view by showing that the direct object may occupy the EPP position by scrambling. Miyagawa (2001) also challenges the view that scrambling is a semantically vacuous IP-adjunction operation (Saito 1989) and claims that it can be driven by focus (cf. Miyagawa (2006) for further extension of this view). In this chapter, I will examine such views by looking at the pattern of focus- and topic-related materials, where it is suggested that the EPP may be satisfied by a discourse-related element in the CP zone. I will also argue that the EPP may be satisfied by an X0-element in the CP zone. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 offers some basic background for this chapter. Section 2 shows that scrambling can be focus-driven when suffixed by a focus particle. Sections 3-5 examine what types of elements may satisfy the EPP and in what configuration the EPP is satisfied. Section 6 discusses a subject/object asymmetry with respect to Case particle drop from a cartographic perspective. Section 7 concludes our discussion.

8. 1

Background

One of the striking properties of scrambling is that it is not subject to locality. That is, the direct object can move over the subject without incurring RM effects, as shown in (1) below, which is taken from Miyagawa (2001). In (1b), we see the direct object ‘pizza’ move over the subject ‘all’ without violating RM. (1)

a.

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All did not eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta eat-Neg-Past

ON THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT POSITION

b.

Pizza-o zen’in-ga pizza-Acc all-Nom

161

tabe-na-katta ate-Neg-Past

Miyagawa (2001) tries to make sense of the locality-free nature of scrambling by arguing that Japanese V raises to T making V’s argument equi-distant from T (cf. Chomsky 1995 for equi-distance), and thus T’s EPP feature can attract any phrase that agrees with the verbal complex (T+V). To motivate this idea, Miyagawa pays close attention to the following scope fact (cf. Kato 1988): (2)

a.

b.

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All did not eat pizza’ Pizza-o zen’in-ga pizza-Acc all-Nom ‘All did not eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta eat-Neg-Past (All > Neg, *Neg > All) tabe-na-katta eat-Neg-Past (All > Neg, Neg > All)

This paradigm shows the following points: (3)

In the SOV word order, the quantified subject takes wide scope with respect to negation. In the OSV word order, the quantified subject may take narrow scope with respect to negation.1

1

In the SOV word order, the quantified subject may not have narrow scope with respect to negation because A-movement does not reconstruct into the original vPinternal position. The asymmetry of the reconstruction of A- vs. A’-movement is widely attested, for instance, in the following English binding properties from Abel (2003): (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

*John said that Sue likes pictures of himself Which pictures of himself did John say that Sue likes *Mary seems to John to like pictures of himself *Which pictures of himself does Mary seem to John to like? Which pictures of himself does it seem to John that Mary likes.

There are many attempts to derive this A vs. A’ asymmetry with respect to reconstruction. Whatever principle is pursued, we need a principle that entails that the final position, which Rizzi (2006a, b) calls the criterial position, is a position where a moved phrase is frozen and further movement is impossible. From this principle, it follows that every intermediate position is a possible landing site and some constraint is further imposed on this principle.


162

Miyagawa’s claim is that in the OSV word order, the direct object may target the specifier of TP to satisfy the EPP, and thus the quantified subject remains in vP in the scope of negation. This state of affairs can be shown graphically as follows: (4)

a.

when the subject is in situ, inside the scope of Neg: [TP

b.

…

[NegP

[vP

subject ...

when the subject is moved outside the scope Neg: [TP subject ... [NegP

[vP

(subject) ...

Given this idea, it is predicted that when V is blocked from raising to T, the direct object cannot be attracted to the specifier of TP; in such an environment, the subject is forced to move into the specifier of TP for EPP reasons. This situation can be attested in infinitival forms, like English VP preposing: (5)

They say that John ate sushi, and eat sushi he did

The corresponding Japanese construction differs minimally from its English counterpart in requiring suffixation of a focus particle to V: (6)

Pizza-o tabe-sae zen’in-ga si-na-katta pizza-Acc eat-even all-Nom did-Neg-Past Lit. ‘Eat pizza, all did not do’ (All > Neg, *Neg > All)

Suffixation of the focus particle ‘even’ to V blocks V-to-T raising. The direct object cannot be equi-distant from the subject, and thus, it cannot be attracted to the specifier of TP; instead, it adjoins to TP, and the subject moves to the specifier of TP outside the scope of negation (see Yamashita (2007) and Kishimoto (2006) for criticism of Miyagawa’s approach. See Ishihara (2003) for intonational factors in the interpretation when a quantifier is in the scope of negation).2

2

Yamashita’s (2007) point is that a focus particle on the verb independently prevents the subject from taking narrow scope with respect to negation, a fact that can be reproduced in English as follows: (i) Everyone didn’t even take the test Here, the presence of the focus particle even makes the quantified subject take wide scope with respect to negation.


163

What is the driving force of scrambling? Miyagawa (2005) claims that focus can be the driving force in a discourse-prominent language like Japanese, as opposed to phi-features that play this role in English-type languages. Thus, languages are parameterized with respect to what triggers movement to the subject position. According to this view, focus and phi-features are two sides of the same coin, what he calls super-features, signaled as FS (cf. Chomsky 2005). To summarize, Miyagawa claims that V-to-T raising allows the direct object to move to the specifier of TP, skipping over the subject, without violating RM; the driving force of scrambling is a focus feature (see 6.2 for the RM-free nature of scrambling).3

8. 2

Scrambling into the CP zone

In this section, I would like to show that scrambling can be focus-driven, as Miyagawa (2001) claims, but that focus-driven scrambling targets FocP, not the EPP position. I will show this point by looking at the behavior of a scrambled element suffixed by a contrastive particle WA. Note that I do not intend to claim that scrambling is only focus-driven. Let me start with Hoji’s (1985) observation of the following points: (7) (8)

A scrambled element suffixed by a contrastive WA cannot be associated with a gap inside a complex NP (Subjacency). A scrambled element suffixed by a contrastive WA creates a gap that cannot be realized as a resumptive pronoun (anti-resumptive pronoun).

These properties imply that contrastive WA involves syntactic movement and does not involve base-generation of the element suffixed by this particle.4 Let’s look at a concrete example of contrastive WA in (9) below. Here, the direct object hon ‘book’ is suffixed by the contrastive focus particle WA and is moved into the sentence-initial position.

Kishimoto’s point is that the subject quantifier zen’in ‘all’ may be in the scope of negation in the SOV word order when it is suffixed by the focalized particle WA. 3 We assume that A-movement does not reconstruct (cf. Chomsky 1995, Lasnik 1999, and Hornstein 1998 for some discussion on this point). 4 This state of affairs is contrasted with DPs suffixed by the non-contrastive topic particle wa. A sentence-initial DP suffixed by the non-contrastive topic particle wa can be associated with a gap inside a complex NP (no Subjacency) (Saito 1985), and the gap can be realized as a resumptive pronoun (cf. Kuno 1973a, b). In this sense, the DP suffixed by the non-contrastive wa is like a hanging topic in Italian. See Cinque (1990) and Rizzi (1990) for some discussion of this point.

164


(9)

Hon-WA book-contrast ‘John bought BOOKS’

John-ga John-Nom

kat-ta buy-Past

What is the landing site of the contrastively focalized WA-element? Kishimoto (2006) comes up with a way to discern the answer to this question: the scope of the focus particle dake ‘only.’ This focus particle may attach to T, as seen below: (10)

John-ga/wa hon-o kat-ta-dake da John-Nom book-Acc buy-Past-only Cop ‘John only bought books’

Here, the focus particle dake ‘only’ may be associated with any element XP in TP yielding an ‘only XP’ Interpretation. Thus, when it is associated with the direct object hon ‘book,’ the sentence means ‘John bought only books.’ Based on the fact that ‘only’ can focalize the subject suffixed by the nominative ga but cannot focalize the subject with the topic particle wa, Kishimoto advances the following generalization: (11)

A sentence-final focus particle may focalize elements inside TP, but not elements outside TP.

Kishimoto tries to derive this generalization in the following way: The sentence-final particle adjoined to T is adjoined to TP by QR at LF; the c-command domain of the focus particle at LF is its scope domain: (12)

TP XP

TP T-only

TP XP (scope)

only

T-(only)

For our purposes, the descriptive generalization in (11) suffices. With this generalization in mind, let us ask whether a contrastively focalized WA-phrase appears within TP or outside TP. The relevant sentence is (13) below. (13)

Hon-WA John-ga kat-ta-dake da book-Contrast John-Nom buy-Past-only Cop ‘John only bought BOOKS’


165

Here, the contrastively focalized WA phrase cannot be within the scope of ‘only’; i.e., this sentence cannot be interpreted as ‘John bought only books,’ suggesting the point in (14): (14)

A scrambled element suffixed by the contrastively focalizing particle WA is in the CP zone.

Note that it is not the case that the particle wa is inherently incompatible with the focus particle dake ‘only,’ since both wa and ‘only’ can appear simultaneously as in John-dake-wa ‘John-only-Top,’ as Kishimoto notes. Which position in the CP zone does the contrastively focalized WA target? In view of the fact that it involves contrastive focus and given Rizzi’s (1997) suggestion, I suggest it targets FocP.5 To summarize so far, we have seen the following points: (15)

(i) (ii)

A scrambled direct object suffixed by the contrastive focus particle WA is derived by movement. This WA-marked element targets FocP in the CP zone.

This is not a new idea. Miyagawa (1997) and Yanagida (1996) already show that a DP suffixed by the contrastively focalizing particle WA cannot stay in the direct object position and must precede a manner adverbial: (16)

a.

b.

??John-ga isoide John-Nom quickly ‘John ate PIZZA quickly’ John-ga pizza-WA John-Nom pizza-contrast ‘John ate PIZZA quickly’

pizza-WA pizza-contrast isoide quickly

tabeta ate tabeta ate

Based on this fact, Miyagawa suggests that there is a focus position in the middle field. What I am suggesting is that scrambling over the subject may target another focus position, i.e., FocP in the CP zone.6 This provides a piece of evidence in favor of the view that scrambling is focus driven. Given this analysis, it is predicted that scrambling of a contrastively focalized direct object does not satisfy the EPP on T, since it targets FocP, not the EPP position; therefore, 5

Incidentally, the narrow-scope reading of a quantified subject with respect to negation seems to be most natural when the scrambled direct object is indefinite, like pizza-o ‘pizza-Acc,’ in contrast to a definite object, like sono pizza-o ‘the pizza-Acc.’ 6 The same point might be made with a scrambled phrase like hon-o-dake ‘book-Acc-only.’

166


the subject has to move into the specifier of TP to satisfy the EPP. This means that the subject should not take narrow scope with respect to negation, since A-movement does not reconstruct. The following is the relevant example: (17)

Pizza-WA zen’in-ga tabe-na-katta pizza-Contrast all-Nom eat-Neg-Past ‘All didn’t eat PIZZA’ (All > Neg, (?)?Neg > All)

Unfortunately, the judgment is not very clear here, but it is somewhat difficult for the subject to take narrow scope with respect to negation. Based on this fact, one might suggest that scrambling into the CP zone may not satisfy the EPP. Note, however, that this does not necessarily mean that a discourse-related element in the CP zone does not satisfy the EPP. In fact, in the following section, I will demonstrate that discourse-related non-thematic XPs suffixed by the topic particle found in the CP zone may satisfy the EPP. Another prediction is related to RM. In chapter 5, we saw an RM configuration of the following kind: (18)

…[CP…wh…]-focus… ×

Here, wh-movement targeting FocP is blocked by another focalizing particle suffixed to the CP. We expect the same effect with the contrastively focalized WA-element in the following configuration: (19)

…[CP…XP-WA…]-focus… ×

Here, a contrastively focalized WA-element undergoes scrambling out of the embedded CP suffixed by another focalizing particle. If the contrastive focus WA-element targets FocP, we expect RM effects. The following are the relevant examples: (20)

a.

??Sono hon-WAi [kimi-wa [ John-ga ti katta ka]-o the book-contrast you-Top John-Nom bought Q-Acc tazuneta no? asked Q ‘Did you ask whether John bought the BOOK?’


b.

167

??Sono hon-WA i [kimi-wa [John-ga ti katta ka]-sae the book-contrast you-Top John-Nom bought Q even tazuneta no? asked Q ‘Did you ask even whether John bought the BOOK?’

The sentence in (20a) involves an extra Case particle suffixed to the embedded CP, which induces a new semantic effect of focus. The argument extraction of the contrastive WA-element is degraded, but the degradation is not very strong. Similarly, a similar unacceptability is felt when the embedded clause is suffixed by the focus particle ‘even,’ as in (20b). Interestingly, these sentences sound completely ungrammatical when the contrastively focalized element is attached to an adjunct like ‘with that method’ as seen below: (21)

a.

b.

[kimi-wa [ John-ga ti *Sono hoohoo-de-WA i that method-with-contrast you-Top John-Nom tokee-o naosita ka]-o tazuneta no? watch-Acc fixed Q-Acc asked Q ‘Did you ask whether John fixed the watch with that METHOD?’ *Sono hoohoo-de-WA i [kimi-wa [John-ga ti that method-with-contrast you-Top John-Nom tokee-o naosita ka]-sae tazuneta no? watch-Acc fixed Q-even asked Q ‘Did you ask whether John fixed the watch with that METHOD?’

Here, an extra Case particle suffixation and an overt focus particle yield complete ungrammaticality in the context of weak islands. As Rizzi (1990, 2004) notes, argument/adjunct asymmetries that arise in the context of weak islands are taken as a “signature” of an RM-related phenomena. Let us examine whether or not scrambling may target the CP zone from another perspective. Baker (1970) observes that wh-movement in overt syntax is frozen in place, as in the sentence in (22a) below. Here, the wh-element where in the embedded CP must take scope in its overt position; it cannot take scope in some other position by way of an LF operation. (22)

a.

Who wonders where we bought what

(Baker 1970)


168

b.

Nani-o Tarooi-wa [Hanako-ga ti katta ka] what-Acc Taro-Top Hanako-Nom bought Q siritagatteiru no? want.to.know Q ‘What does Taro want to know Hanako bought?’ ‘*Does Taro want to know what Hanako bought?’

Takahashi (1993) claims that a similar situation is found with Japanese scrambling as in (22b), where long-distance scrambling of the wh-element nani ‘what’ takes scope in its displaced position when the matrix has the Q marker no; it cannot be interpreted in the original position. Takahashi’s judgment regarding such sentences, however, has been challenged by many people who allow the embedded scope reading in (22b) (cf. Nishigauchi and Ishii 2003, for instance). I agree that the scrambled wh-element need not take scope in its displaced position. But if we suffix a contrastively focalizing WA particle to the wh-element, my informants tend to only allow the wh-phrase to take scope in the displaced position in a sentence like (23) below. (23)

Nani-WAi Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga ti katta ka] siritagatteiru no?7 what-Acc Taro-Top Hanako-Nom bought Q want.to.know Q ‘What does Taro want to know Hanako bought?’ ‘*Does Taro want to know what Hanako bought?’

From this fact, it seems safe to conclude that scrambling of at least some focalized elements can target the CP zone. I take this movement to target FocP. To summarize, we have seen some facts suggesting that scrambling can target the CP zone, especially when a scrambled element is suffixed by the contrastively focalizing WA particle.

8. 3

What satisfies the EPP?

This section discusses the issue of what satisfies the EPP. Let me start by discussing the recent view proposed by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998). They propose that languages may differ with respect to how the EPP is satisfied: Languages like English and French satisfy the EPP by an XP, typically DP, occupying the specifier of TP, while languages like Greek and Spanish may satisfy the same requirement by an X0-element 7

This sentence sounds awkward to some speakers. I am grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) on this point. It is not clear to me where the awkwardness comes from.


169

occupying the head position of TP, where the nominal feature suffixed to the verb plays a crucial role in satisfying the EPP. Their claim can be schematically shown as follows: (24)

EPP

satisfied by an XP satisfied by a head

(English, French) (Greek, Spanish)

I suggest that this parameter should be refined such that a discourse-prominent language like Japanese may satisfy the EPP by a non-thematic XP when suffixed by a topic particle. It will also be shown that the EPP may be satisfied by discourse-related X0-particles in Japanese. My suggestion is shown below: (25)

by a head by an XP

discourse-related head (Japanese) non-discourse-related head (Greek, Spanish) topic-marked XP (Japanese) nominal XP (Greek, Spanish, English, French)

To summarize so far, the pattern of how the EPP is satisfied can be schematized in the following way:

(26) EPP/Subject Criterion

by XP by head

topic-marked XP (Japanese) nominal XP (Greek, Spanish, English, French) discourse-related head (Japanese) non-discourse-related head (Greek, Spanish)

Here, one should ask what is meant by the term ‘discourse-prominent languages.’ By this term, I refer to those languages with relatively rich resources related to discourse-related materials/features that may be utilized to drive syntactic computations. For instance, the EPP can be satisfied by a discourse-related phrase corresponding to therefore in Icelandic (cf. Makita 2005): (27)

Ƿessvegna hafa ekki verið margir nemendur hér therefore have not been many students here ‘Therefore, not many students have been here’ (Wurmbrand 2004: 14; Koeneman and Neeleman 1998: 25)

The following sentence makes the same point, where ‘last year’ satisfies the EPP.


170

(28)

ĺ frra luku Ϸrír studentar víst öllum prófunum last year finished three students apparently all the exams ‘Three students apparently finished all the exams last year’ (Bobaljik and Thráinsson 1998: 57)

To summarize, our refinements can be expressed by the chart in (29). I will demonstrate the need for these refinements mainly by examining Japanese, since its discourse-related properties and the nature of particles have not been discussed much in the existing literature. (29) Languages What satisfies the EPP discourse-related XP DP discourse-related head non-discourse-related head

Japanese

yes yes yes no

Modern English

Icelandic

no yes no no

yes yes no no

Spanish Greek no yes no yes

What is the criterion to see whether the subject satisfies the EPP? I will follow Miyagawa (2001) in assuming that when the EPP is satisfied not by the subject but by some other element, the subject remains within vP; hence, it is in the scope of negation. Or, looking at things from the other direction, we can say that when the subject is in the scope of negation, it must be located within vP; hence, it does not satisfy the EPP.

8. 3. 1

An implication for Cardinaletti (2004) and Rizzi (2006a)

In this section, I will show that what are sometimes called aboutness expressions may satisfy the EPP. Following Cardinaletti (2004), Rizzi (2006a) claims that the EPP is a manifestation of the Subject Criterion, according to which a functional head Subject (Subj), distinct from and higher than T, must be locally c-commanded by an element (a specifier or a head) bearing some formal feature like a phi-feature. By drawing a parallel with topic-comment and focus-presupposition oppositions, Rizzi (2006a:122) further notes a relation between the subject and the topic: “… subject and topic have something in common: some kind of predication is involved in both cases, a process selecting an argument as the starting point of the event description, and expressing the event as somehow involving that argument.” Following rather standard terminology, we will refer


171

to this relation as ‘aboutness.’” He then makes the distinction between the subject and the topic by a binary feature:9 (30)

Top: +aboutness +D-linking

Subj: +aboutness -D-linking

The aboutness relation is widely attested in Japanese and can be seen in particular with topic-marked DPs in sentence-initial position, where the topic element has no grammatical relation with the predicate; rather, the topic element and the rest of the sentence are linked by a predication relation. The interpretation of an aboutness sentence is one of a typical topic-comment structure, where the sentence-initial element serves as a topic and the rest of the sentence serves as a comment about the topic element. If Rizzi is correct in saying that SubjP is not associated with D-linking but is associated with aboutness, we expect that some non-thematic element without D-linking properties may satisfy the EPP. I will discuss such cases in this section. As a candidate for a non-thematic element without D-linking properties, I exploit the noun that Nishigauchi and Ishii (2003) discusses: hito ‘human.’ The noun hito ‘human’ is lacking in descriptive content, and it is hard for it to be presuppositional or D-linked without some descriptive adjective or the definite expression sono ‘the’ modifying it. Our expectation is that the bare noun hito ‘human’ may satisfy the EPP through an aboutness relation, enabling the thematic subject to stay within vP in the scope of negation. The following are some relevant examples:

9

In this connection, it is interesting to note that some Japanese connective expressions are suffixed by the topic particle wa even when the event to be described is not about the argument and the whole sentence is new information. (i)

(ii)

Zitu-wa/kyoo-wa, ziko-ga atte, … actually/yesterday-Top accident-Nom there.was… ‘Actually/yesterday, there was an accident, …’ Kore-kara-(wa) man’ichi ziko-ga attemo, from now-(Top) in.the.off.chance accident-Nom happened ‘From now on, in the off chance that an accident happened, …’

This use of the topic particle suggests that when Japanese speakers choose not to present an event as being about a certain argument (presentational sentences), the topic particle is blindly introduced as a formal element to fit into the topic-comment structure.

172


(31)

a.

b.

c.

Hito-wa subete-no mono-ga taisetude-na-i (desyoo) people-Top all-Gen thing-Nom important-Neg-Pres (Mood) ‘As for people, all things would not be not important’ (All > Neg, Neg > all) Hito-wa subete-no sedai-ga genkide-na-i (desyoo) people-Top all-Gen generation-Nom vital-Neg-Pres (Mood) ‘As for people, every generation would not be vital’ (All > Neg, Neg > all) (Imano zidai,) hito-wa subete-no zikan-ga tanosiku-na-i (these days) people-Top all-Gen time enjoyable-Neg-Pres (desyoo) (Mood) ‘These days, as for people, every moment would not be enjoyable’ (All > Neg, Neg > all)

Here, the sentence-initial aboutness phrase ‘as for people’ suffixed by the particle wa in (31a-c) is not D-linked, not referring to any specific individual. I find that the quantified subject may take narrow scope quite easily with the help of this sentence-initial aboutness phrase; the narrow scope reading of the subject becomes quite difficult without this aboutness phrase. This suggests that the wa-marked item may satisfy the EPP, especially when the XP is not D-linked. Since the connection between a particle and an aboutness sentence, especially the case where a [-D-linking] element is suffixed by an aboutness particle, has not drawn much attention in generative grammar, it is worthwhile to discuss more cases. Onoue (2004: 273-4) observes that there are many topic-related particles other than wa in Japanese, including nara (conditional topic), tara ‘speaking of,’ tte ‘talking about,’ and desuga (concessive topic). These topic markers may serve as the starting point of the event description, not as the subject of a clause. In this sense, we should perhaps call these particles ‘aboutness particles.’ When these particles suffix to a noun without any specific event/entity, the subject may have narrow scope with respect to negation, as follows. (32)

a.

Ling Lunch-nara, zen’in-ga beeguru-o tabe- mas-en (yo) Ling-lunch-Prt all-Nom bagel-Acc eat-Polite-Neg (Prt) ‘At Ling Lunch, all did not eat bagels’ (All > Neg, Neg > all)


b.

c.

173

Ling Lunch-tte, zen’in-ga beeguru -o tabe-nai (yo ne)?10 Ling-lunch-Prt all-Nom bagel-Acc eat-Neg (Prt) ‘At Ling Lunch, all do not eat bagels, do they?’ (All > Neg, Neg > all) Ling Lunch desu-ga, zen’in-ga beeguru -o tabe-nai Ling Lunch Cop-Nom all-Nom bagel-Acc eat-Neg (desyoo) (Mood) ‘At Ling Lunch, all will not eat bagels’ (All > Neg, Neg > all)

This suggests that a non-thematic XP without D-linking properties may satisfy the EPP when suffixed by some aboutness particle. The same seems to hold for scene-setting adjuncts: (33)

a.

b.

Kyoo-*(wa) kore-de yosi-to siyoo Today-*(Top) this-till make.it.ok ‘Today, let’s make it ok with this’ Kyoo-*(wa) kore-de osimaini siyoo Today-*(Top) this-with call it a day ‘Today, let’s call it a day’

Here, the sentence-final expressions yosi to siyoo ‘make it ok’ and osimaini siyoo ‘call it a day’ require the presence of a scene-setting temporal expression suffixed by the particle wa. In these sentences, the quantified subject takes narrow scope with respect to negation, as illustrated below:11 (34)

10

a.

uke-naku-temo yosi to siyoo Kyoo-wa zen’in-ga tesuto-o today-Top all-Nom exam-Acc t take-Neg-even.if make.it.ok ‘Let us make it ok even if all students do not take an exam today’ (Neg > all)

For some speakers, narrow scope of the subject with respect to negation becomes easier in interrogative sentences and tag questions. 11 Noda (1996: 222) enumerates adverbials which can host the discourse-related particle wa and those that cannot. Noda (1996: 225) also enumerates those clause-subordinators which can host the discourse-related particle wa and those that cannot.

174


b.

Kyoo-wa zen’in-ga tesuto-o uke-naku-temo kore-de today-Top all-Nom exam-Acc take-Neg-even.if this-with osimaini siyoo call.it.a.day ‘Let us call it a day even if all students do not take an exam today’ (Neg > all)

Here, I find it difficult for the subject zen’in ‘all’ to be interpreted as taking wide scope with respect to negation. Note, however, that scene-setting elements are usually found in the CP zone (cf. Benincà and Poletto 2004). Why can scene-setting elements satisfy the EPP? One possibility is to follow Rizzi and Shlonsky (2005) and assume that a feature in the CP zone has a local relation with SubjP and can satisfy the EPP; consequently, the subject stays in vP within the scope of negation. Alternatively, we may assume with Chomsky (2005) that a feature in the CP zone may optionally be transmitted to T and the EPP is satisfied by the XP suffixed by the discourse particle wa in TP. But we have already seen that an XP suffixed by the discourse particle wa is always outside the scope of TP. This fact seems to favor the approach by Rizzi and Shlonsky, where no actual feature transmission is made to attract a nominal element to satisfy the EPP. Let us next examine a prediction made by adverbials. One interesting case is subject-oriented adverbials in Japanese, which cannot be suffixed by an aboutness particle: (35)

mazimenimo-(*wa) seriously-(*Top) ‘seriously’

If we tie together the availability of aboutness particles and the satisfiability of the EPP, it is predicted that subject-oriented adverbials may not satisfy the EPP and the quantified subject that follows it will only be able to take wide scope with respect to negation. The following is a relevant example: (36)

Fumazimenimo zen’in-ga pizza-o tabe-na-katta non-seriously all-Nom pizza-Acc eat-Neg-Past Lit. ‘Non-seriously all don’t eat pizza’ (*Neg > All, All > Neg)

Here, the narrow scope interpretation of the subject ‘all’ is quite difficult with respect to negation. This state of affairs is in sharp contrast with manner adverbials, which can be suffixed by the particle wa, a landmark of entering into the aboutness relation.


(37)

175

mazimeni-wa seriously-Top ‘seriously’

It seems quite difficult to think that a manner adverbial can be D-linked and that a manner adverbial suffixed by the particle wa can be uttered out of the blue. Such adverbials sound like the starting point of the event description. If so, we might expect that the sentence-initial manner adverbial may satisfy the EPP and the quantified subject may take narrow scope with respect to negation. The prediction seems to be borne out: (38)

Mazime-ni zen’in-ga pizza-o tabe-na-katta seriously all-Nom pizza-Acc eat-Neg-Past ‘All did not eat pizza seriously’ (Neg > All, All > Neg)

Here, the subject ‘all’ can take narrow scope with respect to negation. To sum up so far, we have seen that an XP other than the thematic subject may satisfy the EPP, which is usually correlated with the possibility of suffixing an aboutness particle.

8. 3. 2

What X0 satisfies the EPP? Sentence-final particles

In this section, I will show that some X0-element may satisfy the EPP in Japanese by looking at sentence-final particles (thanks to Jacques Moeschler and Shigeru Miyagawa for helpful discussion on this topic). One of the characteristics of sentence-final particles in Japanese is related to discourse-related notions like ‘speaker’ and ‘hearer.’12 Let me characterize sentence-final particles from a comparative perspective. Consider first the fact that past participles in French show gender agreement by adding the morpheme e, as follows: 12

Sentence-final particles typically appear in the matrix clause only though they can also marginally appear in the embedded clause of some bridge verbs, especially verbs of saying. A similar restriction is seen for some Italian dialects. Benincà and Poletto (2004) note that an adverbial and the direct object cannot be found in the first position of the embedded clause with a non-bridge verb. I would like to take a similar approach to sentence-final particles in Japanese. The embedded sentence-final particles are illicit because non-bridge verbs select a defective CP layer, where a projection to host a sentence-final particle is truncated. This means that a sentence-final particle is found in high positions in the CP zone and undergoes truncation in a non-bridge verb complement. I am grateful to Ur Shlonsky (personal communication) for helpful discussion on this point.

176


(39)

a.

b.

Il est séduit he is attracted ‘He is attracted’ Elle est séduite she is attracted ‘She is attracted’

Here, agreement is established between the participial-ending morpheme and the subject in (39b). Japanese sentence-final particles may do a similar job: A feminine speaker adds the morpheme wa, as follows: (40)

a.

b.

John-ga itta John-Nom went ‘John went’ John-ga itta wa John-Nom went Prt ‘John went’

Here, agreement is seen between the verbal-ending morpheme and the speaker. Tenny (2006) claims that information revolving around the speaker and the hearer is found in some designated position in the CP zone. From this perspective, we can paraphrase the state of affairs above as follows:13 (41)

A non-discourse-prominent language like French establishes agreement in the TP zone through the phi-features, while a discourse-prominent language like Japanese establishes agreement in the CP zone through discourse-related features like speaker/hearer.

In the rest of this section, I will first discuss some properties of a number of sentence-final particles in Japanese and then show that some of these particles may play a role in satisfying the EPP.

13

Sentence-final particles have been drawing much attention in the generative syntax literature. Speas and Tenny (2003), for instance, discuss sentence-final particles in Navajo from the perspective of evidentiality, and Tenny (2006) looks at some sentence-final particles in Japanese from the same perspective.


A

177

WA

The sentence-final particle wa is homophonous with the topic particle wa, but it must be emphasized that they are different grammatical categories. The sentence-final particle wa shows the following properties: (i) it is suffixed to tense, not to DP; (ii) it shows that the speaker is female (or pretends to be female); (iii) it implies that the social status of the speaker is equal to or lower than that of the addressee (Uyeno 1971). These points are illustrated below: (42)

Sentaku-o suru washing-Acc do ‘I’ll do the washing’

wa Prt

Here, the sentence-final particle wa is suffixed to the sentence, which ends with the present tense verb suru ‘do,’ and the sentence implies that the speaker is female (see Tsujimura (1996: 375-6) on this point). It can also be used by a male speaker to sound mild or soft (or when “pretending” to be female, trying to take on a feminine quality, etc.), and in this sense, the particle wa might be identified as a mood marker, as Ur Shlonsky (personal communication) suggests. Note that the subject can be non-first person, like John, as seen below. (43)

John-ga sentaku-o si John-Nom washing-Acc do ‘John is doing the washing’

teiru Prog

wa Prt

Here, John is the subject of the predicate sentaku-o si ‘do the washing.’ This suggests that sentence-final particles can also be considered as performative verbs in the sense of Generative Semantics. Thus, the sentence above can be represented as I mildly insist that John should do the washing. In the cartographic perspective, one might suggest that the particle wa heads a functional head of some kind. Note that the particle wa is related to an interpretation something like I am speaking in a feminine manner/mood, where the assertion is ‘in view of the speaker’s hearsay evidence’ and the presupposition is that the speaker has the Speech Act of the female manner for the proposition. Based on this fact, I suggest that the particle wa is associated with the Speech-Act Phrase as follows: (44)

…[Speech-Act Phrase wa …

Let us finally look at the sentence-final particle wa from the perspective of the EPP. A natural question to ask here is whether the sentence-final particle wa can be utilized as a


178

resource to drive overt syntactic operations, or, more specifically, whether it can satisfy the EPP. According to Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), some verbal agreement morphemes in Greek and Spanish may satisfy the EPP by moving to the head of TP. In view of this fact, one might conjecture that the particle wa could play the same role, since it is suffixed to the verb in the SOV word order and has an agreement relation with the speaker. Unfortunately, the sentence-final particle wa does not seem to serve as a resource to drive syntactic computations. This is shown by the following sentence: (45)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o All-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All did not eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta eat-Neg-Past

wa Prt (All>Neg, *Neg>All)

Here, the quantified subject zen’in ‘all-Nom’ may only take wide scope with respect to negation. This suggests that the sentence-final particle wa does not satisfy the EPP, and thus the subject zen’in ‘all’ has to move into the specifier of TP for EPP reasons, ending up outside the scope of negation. In this way, wa is contrasted with the sentence-final particle sa, which I will discuss next.14

B

SA

The sentence-final particle sa is used to report familiarity by the speaker about the proposition, implying that the sentence should be taken as a matter of course.15 According to Uyeno (1971), the meaning of the particle sa is to be contrasted with the 14 Here, one might conjecture that the sentence-final particle wa attracts negation to C, as we will see in the subjunctive clause. I am grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) for suggesting this point. 15 One of the criteria that measure the degree of confidence is the (non-) co-occurrence with a modal expression like daroo ‘suppose.’ Particles which co-occur with this modal imply a low degree of confidence. One of the criteria to see the degree of speaker-orientation is whether the speaker provides new information or an idea of his/her own (speaker-oriented) or makes comments on the addressee’s previous utterance (addressee-oriented). To give an example, a sentence of the following sort is felicitous as a discourse-initial utterance and thus is speaker-oriented:

(i)

Oi, mite-goran, asita-mo yuki –ga hey look-IMP tomorrow-too snow-Nom ‘Hey, look! It will snow tomorrow, too’

furu yo/*sa fall Prt

Here, the discourse-initial sentence may not co-occur with the speaker-oriented particle sa, but it can with the addressee-oriented particle yo.


179

meaning of the particles yoo ‘appear,’ rasii ‘seem,’ and soo ‘hear,’ which are used when the speaker’s judgment is made based on appearance. The particle sa, in contrast, is used when the speaker’s judgment is made based on his own supposition. The speaker’s supposition is taken to be discourse-familiar, and thus, we cannot start a discourse with a sentence with the particle sa, as illustrated by the following contrast. (46)

a.

b.

Kore nani? / ??Kore nani this what this what ‘What is this?’ *Doo suru sa? how do Prt ‘How are you going to do?’

sa? Prt

The phrase nani ‘what’ in (46a) can only be interpreted as presupposing some discourse-salient entity. This is more prominent with a D-linked expression like dore ‘which.’ A wh-expression like how is not easily D-linked and thus sounds odd when used together with the sentence-final particle sa, as seen in (46b). Attributing the observation to Robin Lakoff (personal communication), Uyeno notes a similar effect with English modals like be going to, as opposed to will. (47)

a. b.

I’ll buy some roses I am going to buy some roses

Suppose a person goes to the florist to buy some flowers. After taking a look around the store, he might say the sentence in (47a) to the clerk. On the other hand, if he had an idea of buying some roses ahead of time, he would be more likely to say the sentence in (47b). Considering the particle sa from the cartographic viewpoint, I suggest that the particle is identified as the head of an epistemic modal phrase. Cinque (1999) uses this phrase to license adverbs like obviously and apparently, which express the speaker’s degree of certainty about a proposition. We can consider the particle sa as an overt realization of the head of an epistemic modal phrase in the sense that the particle expresses the speaker’s high degree of certainty about a proposition. Finally, let us consider whether or not the sentence-final particle sa can serve as a resource to drive syntactic computations. Unlike the particle wa in the previous section, the particle sa allows the quantified subject ‘all’ to take narrow scope with respect to negation, as illustrated below: (48)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All would not eat pizza’

tabe-nai eat-Neg

sa Prt (All > Neg, Neg > all)

180


Here, the quantified subject zen’in ‘all’ can take narrow scope with respect to the negation nai ‘not.’ This fact suggests that the sentence-final particle sa may serve as a resource to satisfy the EPP, just like verbal agreement morphemes in Greek and Spanish. What is the difference then, between the EPP-satisfying particle sa and the non-EPP-satisfying particle wa? At this point, I tentatively suggest that the feature ‘familiarity’ plays a role here.

C

YO

The clause-final particle yo implies the speaker’s emphasis in giving a piece of information to the addressee. Kuroda (1972: 383) describes the use of the particle yo as a reportive style, where the narrator of a proposition is typically the speaker and may or may not be overtly expressed in a clause. Matsuoka (2003) characterizes the particle yo as a modal expression. To see her point, consider the following: (49)

Genki-ga nai yooda-(*yo) spirit-Nom Neg look (*Prt) ‘You do not look fine’

What is described here is a situation in which one does not look fine that cannot be accessed by people other than the speaker. In this situation, the use of the particle yo sounds odd. This suggests that the particle yo is used to make an evaluation about a proposition from the speaker’s point of view. Thus, the proposition is only accessible to the speaker. This idea is further confirmed by another observation by Matsuoka, who notes that the particle yo is also inappropriate as an answer to the question ‘What is your name?’ (50)

A:

B:

O-namae-wa? polite-name-Top ‘Can I have your name?’ *Yamada-desu-(*yo) Yamada-is-(*Prt) ‘(My name is) Yamada’

There is no room for the speaker to make an evaluation about the identity of him- or her-self (except perhaps in rare situations where he/she notices that he/she is suffering from some memory problem, which is why the sentence above sounds strange, as if the speaker is thought to be forgetful about his/her identity). What is unique about the particle


181

yo is that the addressee must be familiar to the speaker. Thus, the conversation above sounds inappropriate when speaker A is a policeman stopping B, who looks suspicious. The situation might be related to English modals. Aboh (2006) compares Saramaccan with English with respect to modal particles. In English, the use of should indicates that the “speaker admits the possibility that the event may not take place … or that the obligation may not be fulfilled, while the use of must may indicate the speaker’s involvement or views to the fulfillment of the action (Palmer 1979).” This difference is illustrated below: (51)

a. b.

He should come, but he won’t *He must come, but he won’t

Aboh notes that this difference corresponds to abi-fu versus fu in Saramaccan particles in the CP zone. In Japanese, this type of strong commitment is expressed by yo: (52)

??Taroo-wa iku-yo, ika-naikamosirenaikedo Taro-Top go-Prt go-won’t ‘Taro should go, but he won’t’

Here, the speaker’s involvement in the fulfillment of Taro’s action is expressed in the first sentence, and the same involvement is denied in the second sentence, which gives rise to an anomaly, perhaps in the same way as the Saramaccan case above. Based on these facts, I suggest the Evaluative Modal Phrase (EModP) for the projection to head the particle yo in the CP zone as follows (cf. Tenny (2006), who notes that the particle yo implies a sense of the speaker saying, “I am telling you,” and proposes to identify it as the head of a projection Speech Act Phrase). (53)

…[Evaluative Modal Phrase

yo …

Turning to the syntactic side, we saw earlier that the particle yo implies that the speaker is well aware of the truth of the utterance. With this familiarity feature of yo, one may naturally expect it to satisfy the EPP, just like the particle sa. The following is a relevant example: (54)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All would not eat pizza’

tabe-nai eat-Neg

yo Prt (Neg>All, All>Neg)

Here, the sentence-final particle yo allows the quantified subject zen’in ‘all’ to take narrow scope with respect to negation. This fact suggests that the sentence-final particle

182


yo may satisfy the EPP, and, as a result, the subject stays in vP within the scope of negation. 17

D

NE

The sentence-final particle ne has the variants nee, na, and naa. The semantic import of these particles is to signal the expression of weak confirmation by the speaker about the proposition, which is somewhat like what we see with English tag-questions. Thus, using the particle ne, the speaker expects to get from the addressee a response of agreement with the speaker’s supposition as to the given statement. 19 However, this does not necessarily mean that an addressee is present, since the particle na can be used in a monologue. Let us consider the sentences in (55) below. The sentences in (55a, c) with na have a more informal tone than the sentences with the particle ne in (55b, d) and can be used as a monologue. We can identify this distinction by prefixing an interjective like oi ‘hey,’ which can only be felicitously used when the addressee is present. (55)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Dekake-ta na leave-past Prt ‘He/she left, didn’t he’ Dekake-ta ne leave-past Prt ‘He/she left, didn’t he’ Subarasii na(a) wonderful Prt ‘(My,) this is wonderful’ Subarasii ne(e) wonderful Prt ‘(My,) this is wonderful, isn’t it’

17

When a focus adverbial like masaka appears in sentence-initial position, the subject may take narrow scope with respect to negation quite easily. See footnote 20 on this point. 19 The particle ne can also be suffixed to any XP, which is usually seen in children’s speech. This use reminds us of the English expression ‘you know.’ See 8.4 for more discussion on this point. (i) Boku-ne kinoo-ne kooen-de-ne okaasanto-ne I-Prt yesterday-Prt in.the.park-Prt with.mother-Prt ‘I played in the park with my mother yesterday’

asonda played

yo Prt


183

The subtle difference between the particles ne and nee can be made clear by the presence/absence of definiteness. Thus, consider the following sentence from Uyeno (1971), where a physician examines a patient and is asking where in the body the patient feels pain. (56)

Koko-ga itami-masu ne/*nee (as an utterance of the physician)20 this part-Nom ache-polite Prt ‘This part aches’

Needless to say, the physician cannot experience the patient’s pain. Thus, in such a situation, the particle nee can only be used by the patient, whereas the short form ne can be naturally used by the physician based on his/her knowledge. The particle na is similar to the particle ne in that the speaker makes a confirmation about the content of the proposition based on some evidence. This point can be made clear by looking at the following sentence with and without the particle na from Uyeno (1971) again: (57)

Kazi da (na/naa) fire Cop (Prt) ‘(I guess) it is a fire’

Without the particle na, this is a neutral statement reporting the fact that a house is on fire. On the other hand, in the presence of the particle na, the sentence implies that the speaker has some evidence for the proposition such as the fire siren. Here, evidence can be roughly divided into two types, direct evidence and indirect experience. Cinque (1999) incorporates the category ‘evidential’ to host certain types of adverbs like allegedly and reportedly. These adverbs express the indirect evidence. The particle na is doing a similar job in (57). From this fact, I suggest that the particle na is used as an evidential marker. When we change the particle na into naa, the sentence implies that the speaker already knows as a fact that a house is on fire. Our analysis of the particle ne as an evidentiality marker can be supported from a cross-linguistic perspective. Cinque (1999:54) claims that the relative order of the relevant functional heads is the following: (58) 20

…Speech-Act > Evaluative > Evidential >…

The situation might be a little more complicated. When the physician is very sympathetic to the patient, he/she can use the long form nee after hearing the patient say ‘I feel pain here.’ Here, the sentence implies a strong empathy on the part of the physician toward the patient.

184


Recall from the previous sections that the particles wa and yo appear in the Speech-Act Phrase and Evaluative Modal Phrase respectively. If the particle ne is associated with the head of the Evidential Modal Phrase, we expect that the particles under discussion can only be ordered as wa (speech-act) > yo (evaluative) > ne (evidential). In fact, this is the only linear order for the combination of the particles wa, yo, and ne in Japanese. In this sense, our analysis supports Cinque’s universal hierarchy. Finally, let us consider whether or not the sentence-final particle ne(e) serves as a resource for overt syntactic computations. In the preceding sections, we saw that sentence-final particles implying familiarity can satisfy the EPP. In this section, we have seen the particles ne(e) and na(a) to imply direct and indirect evidence. Here, nothing is implied about the familiarity of a proposition by the speaker. Then, we might expect that these particles may not satisfy the EPP. Let us test this point by looking at the familiar scope of negation: (59)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All do not eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta-na/ne eat-Neg-Prt (All >Neg, Neg >All)

Here, the quantified subject zen’in ‘all’ can take narrow scope with respect to the negation nai. The judgment seems to become clear when the particle ne is preceded by the formal nominal morpheme no, as we will see below. This suggests that the sentence-final particles naa/nee may satisfy the EPP and that the familiarity about a proposition by the speaker is not always necessary to satisfy the EPP.21

E

Zo

The sentence-final particle zo implies the speaker’s attitude or strong insistence in stating a proposition. The particle zo is similar to the particle yo in expressing the speaker’s mild insistence, but these two particles are different in several respects. First, they are different in terms of social status. Notice first of all that the formal/polite masu form following the verb is felicitous only when the speaker is socially lower than the addressee. As we see below, this formal masu form sounds quite odd with the sentence-final particle zo, unlike yo:

21

It seems that the combination of the two particles yo and ne as in yo-ne may satisfy the EPP more clearly in that the narrow scope of the quantified subject zen’in ‘all’ is easier to get.


(60)

185

?Taroo, ki-o tuke-nai-to kega-o si masu zo Taroo if.you.are.not careful injury-Acc get polite Prt ‘Taro, if you are not careful, you will be injured’

From this, we can suggest that the social status encoded by the particle zo is speaker > addressee. This means that the sentence with zo is used to address a person who is socially lower than the speaker. This gives rise to the flavor that a sentence with zo sounds stronger and less modest than a sentence with the particle yo. The particle zo has the variant ze, which is used almost exclusively by male speakers, which is why ze is sometimes called a masculine particle. This is similar to the feminine particle wa we saw earlier. Thus, we may consider the particles wa and ze to be associated with the head of the Speech-Act Phrase. These particles share one syntactic property with respect to the EPP. The masculine particle ze cannot satisfy the EPP, just like the particle wa, as illustrated below: (61)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All do not eat pizza’

tabe-nai-ze/zo eat-Neg-Prt (All >Neg, *Neg >All)

Here, the quantified subject zen’in ‘all’ cannot take narrow scope with respect to negation. This means that the masculine particle ze cannot satisfy the EPP on T, just like the feminine particle wa. This is the end of the discussion of the various types of sentence-final particles in Japanese. We have seen that some sentence-final particles may satisfy the EPP in Japanese. What we have not touched upon is the question particles no and ka. These particles are put at the end of the sentence to signal that the sentence is interrogative. What is interesting about these particles from the syntactic perspective is that the EPP can be satisfied by these Q-particles. The examples are given below: (62)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o All-Nom pizza-Acc ‘Didn’t all eat pizza?’

tabe-na-katta-no/ka? eat-Neg-Past-Q

This sentence allows the quantified subject to have narrow scope with respect to negation. This might suggest that these Q-particles may play a role in satisfying the EPP/Subject Criterion in Japanese. I will discuss this point in 8.4. To summarize, from the perspective of the cartography of syntactic structures, we can identify (i) what type of functional head each particle is associated with, and (ii) whether or not each particle satisfies the EPP, as summarized in (63) below.


186

(63) WA(female) ZE (male)

Functional head

Force

Speech Act Phrase

Declarative (to)

24

Fin(Modal) rasii ‘appear’ daroo ‘suppose’

EPP

daroo ‘suppose’

YES

NO

ZO (neutral) SA

Epistemic Modal Phrase

NE (indirect) NA (indirect) NEE (direct) NAA (direct) YO KA/NO

8. 4

Evidential Modal Phrase Evaluative Modal Phrase Question

Declarative, Echo-Q, wh-Q (preceded by the nominal no) any type except Exclamative

Declarative

any modals (daroo ‘appear’ rasii ‘suppose’ soo ‘I hear’) any modals

Interrogative

any modal

YES

YES YES

Discussion

Sentence-final particles are allowed to have the combinations in (64) below, which is from Uyeno:25

24 Focus adverbials like masaka may also affect the EPP. This adverbial expression emphasizes or focalizes the negative implications in a sentence. When this adverbial expression appears in the sentence-initial position, the subject may take narrow scope with respect to negation quite easily, as follows.

(i)

25

Masaka zen’in-ga pizza-o emphasis all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All do not eat pizza’

tabe-na-i eat-Neg-Pres

yo Prt

(Neg > All)

Kamio (1997) makes a distinction between ne and yo from the perspective of information territory. He claims that the particle yo implies that the information is not within the addressee’s territory, while the particle ne implies that the information is within the addressee’s territory.


(64)

(wa) (yo)

(sa)

187

(ne)/(ne(e))

(na)/(na(a)

(zo) (ze) Here, we notice the fact that the later particles tend to satisfy the EPP, as Luigi Rizzi (personal communication) points out. 26 Let us now consider the exact mechanism to satisfy the EPP. In the previous section, we have seen that the clause-final particles yo, ne, ka, and sa may satisfy the EPP, as opposed to other clause-final particles like wa and ze/zo. I have suggested that some of these clause-final particles share the property of signaling the familiarity of the proposition denoted by the clause these particles suffix to. Luigi Rizzi (personal 26

T here is another sentence-final particle that seems to satisfy the EPP. The particle no, which is homophonous with the question marker, may convey the sense that the sentence it is suffixed to is the reason for doing or having done some action, as illustrated below: (i)

Issyookenmee benkyoosita no hard studied Prt kara tuginosi siken-ga aru next day exam-Nom there.is because ‘I studied hard because there would be an exam the next day’

Because the sentence particle no suffix indicates a reason, it may not be uttered out of the blue, as shown below: (ii)

??Tinamini/Tokorode issyookenmee benkyoosita incidentally/by.the.way hard studied ‘Incidentally/By the way, I studied hard today’

no Prt

This particle seems to satisfy the EPP, and thus the quantified subject may take narrow scope with respect to negation, as shown below, although the judgment is not very clear here: (iii)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Noｍ pizza-Acc ‘All did not eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta ate-Neg-Past

no Prt

(all > Neg, Neg > all)

This particle may perhaps be the overt realization of the nominal Fin head as we will see in the following section. The Q-morpheme no might also be analyzed in the same way.

188


communication), however, points out that the general pattern in satisfying the EPP is found in the nominal feature rather than the familiarity feature. The plausibility of his idea can be seen by the fact that those clause-final particles that can satisfy the EPP may be preceded by the nominal morpheme no, as in (65a), which traditional Japanese generative grammarians sometimes analyze as a nominal complementizer (cf. Inoue 1976), and the fact that these particles may suffix to DP, as in (65b): (65)

a.

cf.

b.

cf.

John-ga ki-ta John-Nom come-Past ‘John came’ *John-ga ki-ta John-Nom come-Past ‘John came’ John-yo/ne/sa John-Prt ‘John’ *John-wa/ze/zo John-Nom-Prt ‘John’

no yo/ne/sa nominal C Prt no nominal C

wa/ze/zo Prt

The problem is how to implement the idea that a nominal feature of the clause-final particles satisfies the EPP. My proposal is to assimilate the Japanese case at hand to the paradigm of the que-qui alternation in French. As is well-known since Kayne’s (1989) influential work, wh-movement in French requires the alternation of the complementizer from que into qui when the subject is moved from the embedded clause, as illustrated below: (66)

L’homme qui/*que t est the man C has ‘the man who has come …’

venu… come

Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006) attribute this alternation to the EPP. According to them, the complementizer qui is the complex form of que + i, where the morpheme i is a variant of the French expletive il (see Taraldsen 2001, see also Pesetsky 1982). Here, the fine-grained phrase structure in the CP zone comes into play. As we saw earlier, the left periphery has the following articulated structure: (67)

Force Top* Int Top* Foc Mod* Top*

Fin

At the bottom of this structure, we see Fin, which is the functional head of the Finiteness of a clause. Rizzi and Shlonsky analyze the French morpheme i as the overt realization of


189

the nominal Fin head, which satisfies the EPP in their terms below Fin by having a head-head relation with the head of SubjP, as shown below: (68)

…Fin… Subj… [N]

Here, the nominal feature [N] of the Fin head is not interpretable and thus needs to be licensed by some other element. In the French case, this licensing can be achieved by the subject operator Op passing through the specifier of FinP on its way to the specifier of ForceP. (69)

[ForceP Op…[FinP (Op) Fin…SubjP…

Rizzi and Shlonsky (2005, 2006) suggest that satisfaction of the EPP by the nominal Fin head can also be done by a locative element with a phi-feature in locative-inversion sentences such as Down the stairs fell the baby. Returning to the Japanese case, I would like to suggest that the so-called nominal complementizer no is parallel to the French expletive il in satisfying the EPP; i.e., the nominal morpheme no is an optional overt realization of the nominal Fin head and satisfies the EPP through a head-head relation with the functional head of SubjP. Like the French que-qui case we saw above, the nominal Fin head per se is not interpretable and needs a licenser in its local domain. How can this be done? My suggestion is that a nominal clause-final particle such as ne and yo may do this job. According to Cinque’s hierarchy, these particles are located below TP like the functional head for modals. Aboh (2006) shows that modal particles appear in the CP zone in Saramaccan and Gunbe. Based on this fact, I suggest that clause-final particles move into the local domain of the nominal Fin head, where they may license the nominal Fin head through a head-head relation (thanks to Luigi Rizzi and Ur Shlonsky for helpful discussion on this point):27 (70)

…Fin … Subj…yo, ne, sa

27 Our idea of sentence final particle movement might be supported by the fact that a wh-elements suffixed by a particle like sa/ne must appear in front of a topic element, which is found in the CP zone:

(i)

Nani-o-sa/ne John-wa what-Acc-Prt John-Top ‘What did John eat?’

(*nani-o-sa/ne) (*what-Acc)

tabeta-no? ate-Q

190


Other particles like wa and ze/zo cannot play a role in satisfying the EPP in the same way, since they lack the nominal feature to license the nominal Fin head as we saw earlier. The next question to ask is how to derive the correct word order. Notice that Japanese is an SOV language and movement of a clause-final particle to the local domain of the Fin head gives rise to the following word order: (71)

…clause-final particle…nominal Fin…clause…

The correct word order is the following: (72)

…clause…clause-final particle…nominal Fin…

How can we derive this word order? In fact, Kayne (1994) already provides us with an answer to this question in terms of the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), according to which the Japanese SOV word order is derived from a universal base SVO word order by movement of O over V. Thus, (72) is derived in the following way: (i) the matrix clause first moves to the specifier of the nominal Fin head, and (ii) the complex “clause + nominal Fin head” moves across the nominal clause-final particle, as follows:

(73)

(ii) …clause-final particle…[clausei …nominal Fin] …ti … (i)

To sum up so far, we have suggested that in discourse-prominent languages, the nominal Fin head, which is optionally realized as no, may satisfy the EPP or the Subject Criterion and some nominal sentence-final particles license this nominal Fin head by moving into its local domain. Let us next examine how the correct linear order is derived with sentences suffixed by several sentence-final particles (SFPs) such as V-SFP1-SFP2-SFP3. I assume Cinque’s (1999) idea that the linear order of suffixes reflects the order that the suffixes are picked up in syntactic derivations by the Mirror Principle (Baker 1985). According to the Mirror Principle, the sequence V-SFP1-SFP2 means that SFP2 is higher than SFP1. The problem is how to resolve the tension between the surface order and the base-order. My suggestion is that the correct word order is derived by the snow-balling derivation exploited in Cinque (2004), whose insight originates in Kayne (1994). To see the basic idea behind the snow-balling derivation, consider the string in (74a) below:


(74)

a. b.

191

[A [B [C…]]], where A asymmetrically c-commands BC, and B asymmetrically c-commands C. B => [ [C…] B ] A [A [ C…]

From the linear order of ABC in (74a), we can derive the opposite linear order of CBA by the derivation in (74b). First, the constituent [C…] moves over B into the specifier of B or the specifier of a higher projection to yield: [C…] B. Next, the entire constituent [C…B…] moves to the specifier of or over A to yield [[C…] B] A. According to this snowballing derivation, sentences suffixed by several clause-final particles are derived in the following way: (75)

Surface order: TP-SFP1-SFP2-SFP3 (SFP=sentence-final particle) Base order: SFP3-SFP2-SFP1-TP Derivation: SFP3-SFP2-SFP1-[TP] (move TP over SFP1) → SFP3-SFP2- [TP -SFP1] (move TP-SFP1 over SFP2) → SFP3-[TP-SFP1-SFP2] (move TP-SFP1-SFP2 over SFP3) → TP-SFP1-SFP2-SFP3

This idea is supported by the combination of particles and sentence types. Some particles may be preceded by some modals in the clause. The restriction can be expressed visually as follows: (76)

wa sa ne yo ze zo I interpret this selective restriction of modals by sentence-final particles in the following way: A particle having no restriction means that the particle is higher than any other modals and takes scope over all the types of modals; that a particle cannot take some modals means that the particle is lower than the modals and cannot take scope over them. The relative height of the modals and particles can be expressed in the following way: (77)

rasii ‘appear’ daroo ‘suppose’ yoo ‘appear’ soo ‘I hear’

rasii ‘appear’ > wa, zo > daroo ‘suppose’ > sa, ze > soo ‘I hear’> yoo ‘appear’ > yo(o) > ne(e)/na(a) (lexical gap: *rasii-sa)

This hierarchical relation fits perfectly with Cinque’s functional heads to license adverbs:

192


(78)

Speech Act > Evaluative> Evidential28 wa sa, yo ne

Let us finally consider Miyagawa’s (2001) argument that the subject in the SOV word order may not take scope over negation, since the subject moves to the specifier of TP to satisfy the EPP and the subject is outside the scope of negation. (79)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘All didn’t eat pizza’

tabe-na-katta eat-Neg-Past (All > Neg, *Neg > All)

However, the narrow scope of the subject with respect to negation becomes available if the sentence is made into a subordinate clause by suffixing the particle ra ‘if’: (80)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o all-Nom pizza-Acc ‘If all didn’t eat pizza, …’

tabe-na-katta-ra … eat-Neg-Past-if (All > Neg, Neg > All)

It does not seem that the irrealis expressed by ra ‘if’ is relevant here, since in a realis context like the following, the narrow scope of the subject over negation seems to be equally possible: (81)

Zen’in-ga pizza-o tabe-na-katta node … All-Nom pizza-Acc eat-Neg-Past because ‘Because all didn’t eat pizza, …’ (All > Neg, Neg > All)

It seems that the presence of a CP node is the critical factor for satisfying the EPP. This is compatible with our idea that an EPP-related feature is located in the CP zone. Note also that this is in line with Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) view of the EPP, where the EPP is a parameterized requirement that a functional head F have a filled specifier, as opposed to Chomsky (1995), where the EPP is formulated as the requirement that a DP must occupy a specific position such as the specifier of IP or AgrSP. To summarize this section, we have seen that the nominal Fin in tandem with a nominal sentence-final particle may satisfy the EPP in Japanese.

22

The combinations of the particles ‘wa-sa’ and ‘sa-yo’ are impossible. It is not clear to me where this comes from.


8. 5

193

Person restrictions

In this section, we will look at some possible combinations of sentence-final particles and suggest that some particles require a specific person specification like first person for the subject. This issue is sometimes addressed in the study of ‘person restriction’ or ‘person agreement’ (cf. Azuma (1997) and Nitta (1987) for person restriction). Maruyama (1999) notes that sentence-final particles can be divided into two groups: one group allows multiple occurrences of particles in a single clause, whereas the other group allows for only one occurrence of a particle in a single clause. Maruyama claims that the first group is ordered in a certain way that can be characterized in discourse terms. He notes that speaker-related particles come first and addressee-related particles follow, as follows: (82)

speaker-oriented

strong

addressee-oriented

sa

yo

ne

viewpoint

wa

(yes)

yes

yes

the speaker

zo

no

(yes)

no

the speaker

ze

no

(yes)

no

the speaker

confidence

weak

My first suggestion is to use the binary specification [+/- speaker, +/- addressee] for person agreement, where [+speaker] means that the subject of a sentence may be realized as the speaker watasi/ore ‘I,’ and [-speaker] means that the subject may not be the speaker; [+addressee] signals that the subject can be materialized as the addressee kimi/anata ‘you,’ etc. 30

30 Speas and Tenny (2003) also posit functional heads for sentence-final particles in various languages. They claim that such morphemes spell out agreement relations between the discourse and the world(s) in which the sentence is to be interpreted. To be more specific, they claim that such morphemes specify the modal base in the sense of Kratzer (1981). The modal base is a function that assigns to every possible world a certain set of propositions ‘in which’ the modal judgment is made. In the case of evidentials, the evidential morpheme specifies the worlds that are relevant for evaluating a given proposition. This point is explicitly made by Izvorski (1997), where the assertion is claimed to be ‘in view of the speaker’s knowledge’ and the presupposition is that the speaker has indirect evidence for the proposition.


194

This binary specification allows us to see how each particle is classified with respect to the speaker/addressee, as shown below: 32 (83)

a. b.

[-addressee, +speaker] = yo, wa, zo/ze [+addressee, +speaker] = ne, na, sa

Next, the binary specification enables us to capture the possible combination and linear order of particles; i.e., [-addressee, +speaker] may only precede [+addressee, +speaker], as depicted below: (84)

[-addressee, +speaker]

[+addressee, +speaker]

yo wa

ne sa na

With this background in mind, let us see which particles allow and disallow the speaker and the addressee as the subject of the sentence, as well as some possible combinations of sentence-final particles and their restriction with respect to the speaker and the addressee. (A) Wa: [-addressee, + speaker] a. Watasi iku wa I go Prt ‘I will go’ b. *Anata iku wa you go Prt ‘You will go’

32 Harley and Ritter (2002) claim that person features are not primitives but are configurationally defined in terms of [+/-speaker] and [+/-discourse], as shown below. According to this view, the speaker is the most prominent participant in the discourse.

(i)

Referring expression ／＼ Participant individuation ／＼ Speaker Addressee


(B) Yo: [-addressee, + speaker] a. Watasi iku yo I go Prt ‘I will go’ b. *Kimi iku yo you go Prt ‘You will go’ (C) Sa: [+addressee, + speaker] a. Watasi (mo) iku sa I (also) go Prt ‘I will also go’ b. Kimi (datte) iku sa you (also) go Prt ‘You will also go’ (D) Ne: [+addressee, + speaker] a. Watasi iku ne I go Prt ‘I will go’ b. Kimi iku ne you go Prt ‘You will go’ (E) Na: [+addressee, - speaker] a. *Watasi iku na I go Prt ‘I will go’ b. Kimi iku na you go Prt ‘You will go’ (F) Zo: [-addressee, + speaker] a. Ore iku zo I go Prt ‘I will go’ b. *Omae iku zo you-Top go Prt ‘You will go’

195

196


(G) Ze: [-addressee, +speaker] a. Ore iku ze I-Top go Prt ‘I will go’ b. *Omae iku ze you go Prt ‘You will go’ Multiple Sentence-Final Particles (H) Wa Yo:[-addressee, +speaker] (Wa: [-addressee, +speaker], Yo: [-addressee, +speaker]) a. Watasi-wa iku wa yo I go Prt Prt ‘I will go’ b. *Anata iku wa yo you go Prt Prt ‘You will go’ (I) Wa Ne:[+addressee, +speaker] (Wa:[-addressee, +speaker], Ne: [+addressee, +speaker]) a. Watasi iku wa ne I go Prt Prt ‘I will go’ b. Anata iku wa ne you go Prt Prt ‘You will go’ (J) Yo Ne: [+addressee, -speaker] (Yo: [-addressee +speaker], Ne: [+addressee +speaker]) a. *Watasi iku yo ne I go Prt Prt ‘I will go’ b. Kimi iku yo ne you-Top go Prt Prt ‘You will go’


197

(K) Yo Na: [+addressee, -speaker] (Yo: [-addressee, +speaker], Na: [+addressee, -speaker]) a. *Ore iku yo na I go Prt Prt ‘I will go’ b. Kimi iku yo na you-Top go Prt Prt ‘You will sing’ (L) Wa Yo Ne: [-addressee, -speaker] (Wa Yo: [-addressee, +speaker]Ne: [+addressee, +speaker]]) a. *Watasi-wa iku wa yo ne I-Top go Prt Prt Prt ‘I will go’ b. Anata iku wa yo ne you go Prt Prt Prt ‘You will go’33 Now that we have seen some of the descriptive power of the binary specification of discourse particles, let us consider a rule stating how some possible combinations of particles determine whether the subject can be realized as the first person or the second person. My suggestion is reminiscent of a morphological rule, i.e., the right-hand head rule: When two particles are combined, the binary specification on the right-hand side wins. This state of affairs can be graphically shown in (85) below. In (85a), we see that the particle yo does not allow for the addressee to be the subject of the sentence. In (85b), another particle na is combined, where the newly combined right-hand particle decides whether the subject may be realized as the addressee. Here, the right-hand member’s property percolates up and allows the subject to be the addressee.

25 This binary specification also allows us to tell which particle may co-occur with some discourse-related adverbials. For instance, consider an adverbial like satewa; this adverbial is used when the speaker realizes the truth of a matter and may only occur with a particle with the features [+addressee, +speaker]. In contrast, an adverbial like saa is used to encourage someone (including the speaker) to do something. This particle may only occur with the clause-final particles specified as [+addressee, +speaker].

198


(85) a. [-addressee, +speaker] label I pro *you b.

V yo [-addressee, +speaker]

label [+addressee, -speaker] label *I you

pro

V

yo naa [-addressee, +speaker] [+addressee, -speaker]

The reader can confirm the validity of this right-headedness by looking through the examples we saw earlier. What I would like to emphasize here is the fact that sentence-final particles have syntactic structures.34 To sum up, we have seen that sentence-final particles have hierarchical structures and their possible combinations and various person restrictions are calculated based on their syntactic structures and their binary features.

8. 6

Subject/object asymmetries: Case particle drop

In this section, I will discuss subject versus object asymmetries with respect to Case particle drop. I will discuss this topic from the new perspective proposed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2005). Rizzi and Shlonsky propose a new way of looking at how the classical ECP can be dealt with. Consider the following that-trace effect: (86)

a. b.

Whoi do you think that Mike kissed ti *Whoi do you think that ti kissed Mary

Rizzi and Shlonsky claim that the subject is licensed by entering into a spec-head relation in the Subject Phrase (SubjP). Once the subject is moved into this position, it is frozen in 34 The right-hand head rule does not appear to work here with the combination of the particles yo-ne. I have no explanation for this fact.


199

place by Criterial Freezing. In (86b), the wh-expression who has moved into the specifier of SubjP in the embedded clause and is frozen in place. This is why further movement of the subject into the matrix clause is impossible. In (86a), on the other hand, the direct object wh-expression who does not enter into a spec-head relation, because there is no Object Criterion. This is why it can move into the matrix clause. I will show that a similar criterial effect is attested with Japanese Case particles and sentence-final particles, which ultimately motivates our claim that some sentence-final particles may play a role in satisfying the EPP in Japanese. Let me review the previous studies of the so-called Case particle drop phenomenon.35

(A) Kuno (1973a) Kuno (1973a) observes subject/object asymmetries with respect to Case particle drop. The general pattern is that the accusative Case particle o may easily be dropped from the object, whereas it is difficult to drop the nominative Case particle ga from the subject, as illustrated below: (87)

a.

b.

Nani-(o) yond iru no? what-Acc read Prog Q ‘What (are you) reading?’ Dare-*(ga) kita no? who-*(Nom) came Q ‘Who came?’

(B) Saito (1983) Saito (1983) claims that the subject/object asymmetry seen above stems from the Empty Category Principle (ECP), which states that an empty category must be properly governed. He identifies a dropped Case particle as an empty category that is subject to the ECP. The empty category found in the direct object position (dropped Case particle) is properly governed by the verb, while the empty category found in the subject position (in the specifier of TP) is not properly governed by anything, and thus Case particle drop is prohibited for the subject.

35

I am grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa for drawing my attention to this topic.

200


(C) Masunaga (1988) Masunaga (1988: 148) argues against Saito’s ECP approach by observing the fact that a Case particle attached to the subject can drop when the verb is followed by a sentence-final particle like yo, as illustrated below. (88)

Burond-no otokonoko-(ga) blond-Gen boy-(Nom) ‘A blond boy hit Taro’

Taroo-o Taro-Acc

nagutta hit

yo Prt

Incorporating Susumu Kuno’s (personal communication) suggestion that a sentence-final particle focalizes the verb, Masunaga makes the following claim from a functional perspective: (89)

Case particle drop is only possible when the theme is de-emphasized or not focused.

Thus, in the sentence in (88), the sentence-final particle yo emphasizes the preceding verb and correlatively de-emphasizes the subject, which makes it possible for its nominative Case particle ga to drop. Masunaga’s point is that a DP without a Case particle is interpreted as de-emphasized and that this is correlated with sentence-final particles.

(D) Fukuda (1993) By exploiting Masunaga’s observation, Fukuda (1993) revives Saito’s ECP-based approach. Fukuda’s claims can be summarized below: (90)

a. b.

The empty category created by Case particle drop is subject to the ECP. The sentence-final particle is found in the CP zone and from there properly governs the empty category created by Case particle drop from the subject.

Fukuda further notes the fact that the direct object wh-expression without a Case particle cannot undergo scrambling over the subject. (91)

Dare-*(o) dare-ga who-*(Acc) who-Nom ‘Who hit who?’

nagutta no? hit Q


201

Following Katada (1991), Fukuda (1993) assumes that a wh-phrase remains in the scrambled position to take scope, while a non-wh-element has no reason to take scope at the scrambled position and is undone to the position where it originates. Then, he attributes the fact above to the ECP; in the scrambled position, the wh-phrase cannot satisfy the ECP, since nothing properly governs the empty category for the Case position in the displaced position. A scrambled non-wh DP, on the other hand, is undone to its original position and can be properly head-governed by the verb.36 Saito (1985) claims that even a non-wh-element without a Case particle may not undergo scrambling. I agree with his judgment: both wh-elements and non-wh-elements may not undergo scrambling when they are not suffixed by a Case particle. With these previous studies in mind, I will show that the cartographic approach, especially Criterial Freezing as pursued by Rizzi (2006a, b) and Rizzi and Shlonsky (2005), has a better chance to deal with Case particle drop in a satisfactory way. I would like to pursue a Criterial Freezing approach for the Case particle drop phenomena to motivate my claim that some sentence-final particles may play a role in satisfying the EPP/Subject Criterion in Japanese. Recall first Masunaga/Kuno’s functional idea that some sentence-final particles are correlated with Case particle drop and the interpretation of de-emphasis. From the cartographic perspective, I postulate a designated functional projection responsible for the interpretation of de-emphasis, De-Emphasis Phrase (DEP), in the CP zone. I assume that movement into this position is possible in overt and covert syntax. Then, the various properties revolving around Case particle drop mentioned above can be derived in the following way. (I) Subject/object asymmetry: The subject does not allow the nominative Case particle ga to be dropped. This is because the subject moves to the specifier of SubjP and is frozen in place by Criterial Freezing. However, a DP without a Case particle needs to move into the DEP to receive a required interpretation of de-emphasis. The subject cannot satisfy this requirement because it is frozen in SubjP. (II) Sentence-final particles and Case particle drop: When a sentence-final particle is present, the subject may drop its Case particle. Recall our suggestion that a relevant 36 Kanno (2000) looks at Case particle drop from the perspective of second language acquisition. She conducted an experimental study of non-native speakers learning Japanese as a second language in Hawaii. Her findings can be summarized as follows: (i) second language learners of Japanese detect the subject/object asymmetry with respect to Case particle drop; (ii) second language learners find the sequence ‘wh-# DP-Acc V particle’ worse than the sequence ‘DP-Nom wh-Acc V-particle.’

202


feature for the EPP can be satisfied by the nominal Fin head in tandem with licensing nominal clause-final particles. Thus, in the presence of certain sentence-final particles, the subject may stay in-situ without running afoul of the Subject Criterion. Then, the subject without a Case particle may target the specifier of DEP for de-emphasis interpretation. To sum up, we have seen that the criterial freezing approach enables us to capture the core properties of the Case particle drop phenomena and the associated sentence-final particles. What is crucial is the fact that the subject may drop its Case particle when a sentence-final particle is present. Our reasoning is that the EPP may be satisfied by the nominal Fin head in tandem with licensing clause-final particles through a local relation with the head of SubjP from the CP zone; hence, the subject remains in situ without entering into the criterial configuration, which enables it to move into DEP to receive a required interpretation of de-emphasis. 38

8. 7

Concluding remarks

In this chapter, we have seen that the EPP or the Subject Criterion may be satisfied not only by a DP but also by some non-thematic elements with discourse-related properties in a discourse-prominent language like Japanese. In addition, we have seen that X0elements may play a role in satisfying the EPP, especially discourse-related nominal sentence-final particles in a discourse-prominent language like Japanese. We suggested that the nominal Fin head is instrumental in satisfying the EPP in Japanese. Our study supports the view taken by Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998) that the EPP is parameterized and can be satisfied by X0 or XP. Our study makes a contribution in refining their X0/XP distinctions from the perspective of a discourse-prominent language. Japanese and Spanish/Greek are different in that the EPP is obligatorily satisfied by some nominal morpheme suffixed to V in the second language group, while the EPP is satisfied only optionally by the nominal Fin head when it is licensed by a nominal clause-final particle. We have also examined how the EPP may be satisfied: (i) the EPP is satisfied by a nominal Fin head having a local head-to-head relation with the head of SubjP; (ii) the uninterpretable nominal Fin head is licensed by a nominal sentence-final particle moving to its local domain. At this point, one may wonder how our view deals with the fact that a quantified subject may take wide scope. If the sentence-final particle satisfies the EPP, the quantified subject should always remain within vP within the scope of negation. Then, the quantified subject should always take narrow scope with respect to negation, but the fact 30 One of the consequences of our approach is seen in the fact that those clause-final particles that may satisfy the EPP do not allow the subject to drop its Case particle easily.


203

is that the quantified subject may take wide scope as well. Shigeru Miyagawa (personal communication) suggests that the wide scope of the quantified subject may be attributed to QR; this QR operation to take wide scope is necessary in any event, since even the quantified object may take wide scope in spite of the fact that it is structurally always below negation. Thus, the wide scope interpretation of a quantified object strongly suggests that the source of the wide scope interpretation is always available through QR. Alternatively, we may conjecture that the nominal Fin head only optionally satisfies the EPP in Japanese. According to this view, the quantified subject takes wide scope when the EPP is not satisfied by the nominal Fin head. Finally, let us consider an alternative approach to sentence-final particles. Noam Chomsky (personal communication) suggests that it is possible to think that there is only one C position and that the various particles are realizations of features spreading up from this single position. Here, the linear order restriction may stem from an arrangement of independently required cognitive systems. One possible disadvantage is the fact that each sentence-final particle has syntactic structures as we saw in 8.5, where the rightmost particle determines the person feature of the subject like ‘I,’ ‘you,’ etc. This is exactly the same property created by external Merge: When A and B are concatenated, A or B projects. Based on this observation, I suggested above that each rightmost clause-final particle serves as a head. If this idea is on the right track, each sentence-final particle heads its own projection. Needless to say, it is possible to argue against this idea by saying that each particle is an overt realization of the features found in the single C that spread up in the CP zone and the feature is responsible for the identification of the subject. Even if this idea is pursued, we need some ‘structure’ in the CP zone, where the rightmost element determines the person feature of the subject. In addition, there is a serious redundancy to the effect that the structure created by this feature-spreading has exactly the same property of external Merge. Such a redundancy does not seem to arise, however, within the cartographic approach to the CP zone.

CHAPTER 9 Informant Surveys

In this chapter, I will present some results of the informant surveys that I conducted to support some of the points made in the previous chapters. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 discusses the distribution of adverbials in Japanese examined in chapter 1. Section 2 takes up the issue of the categorical status of nominative adverbials that was discussed in chapter 6. Section 3 concludes our discussion.

9. 1

Adverbials and Relativized Minimality

In this section, I will discuss the distribution of Japanese adverbials based on Rizzi’s (2004) idea that adverbials with topic or focus interpretation target TopP and FocP respectively. It will be shown that the linear order restriction is partially affected by a semantic or cognitive constraint (cf. Ernst 2002) but is generally sensitive to RM.

9. 1. 1

General properties of Japanese adverbials

Let me start by reviewing the basic properties of the formation of adverbials in Japanese. As we saw in chapter 1, there are several ways to create adverbials. One way revolves around a category of adjectival nouns. An adjectival noun can be converted into a manner adverbial or celerative adverbial by suffixing the particle ni to it. I will call these low adverbials: (1)

mazime-ni serious-Prt ‘seriously’

kenage-ni admirable-Prt ‘admirably’

syooziki-ni honest-Prt ‘honestly’

There is another way to create a different type of adverbial in Japanese, where the manner/celerative adverbial in (1) is followed by the particle mo as in (2) below. I will call these middle adverbials. Adverbials derived in this way are typically interpreted as subject-oriented (Jackendoff 1972).

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(2)

mazime-ni-mo serious-Prt-Prt ‘seriously’

kenage-ni-mo admirable-Prt-Prt ‘admirably’

205

syooziki-ni-mo honest-Prt-Prt ‘honestly’

Let us see some basic properties of these adverbials. First, when the middle adverbial and the low adverbial are next to each other, the former must precede the latter, showing that the first type is structurally higher than the second type in the syntactic tree, as illustrated in (3a-b) below. Second, the low adverbial and the middle adverbial may be independently fronted to sentence-initial position for prominence in the sense of Rizzi (2004), as illustrated in (3c-d) below. Third, when both types are present, the low adverbial may not be fronted over the middle adverbial, as illustrated in (3e): (3)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Taroo-wa Taro-Top

syooziki-ni-mo sugu-ni hirotta okane-o honestly quickly found money-Acc (middle) (low) kooban-ni todoketa police-to brought ‘Taro honestly brought the money he found to the police quickly’ * Taroo-wa sugu-ni syooziki-ni-mo hirotta okane-o Taro-Top quickly honestly found money-Acc (low) (middle) kooban-ni todoketa police-to brought ‘Taro honestly brought the money he found to the police quickly’ Syooziki-ni-mo Taroo-wa hirotta okane-o kooban-ni honestly Taro-Top found money-Acc police-to (middle) todoketa brought ‘Taro honestly brought the money he found to the police’ Sugu-ni Taroo-wa hirotta okane-o kooban-ni quickly Taro-Top found money-Acc police-to (low) todoketa brought ‘Taro brought the money to the police quickly’

206


e.

*Sugu-ni Taroo-wa syooziki-ni-mo quickly Taro-Top honestly (low) (middle) hirotta okane-o kooban-ni todoketa found money-Acc police-to brought ‘Taro honestly brought the money he found to the police quickly’

From this pattern, we may identify a structural asymmetry between the middle adverbials and the low adverbials when they are read without special intonation patterns. Rizzi (2004) notes that such linear order restrictions may be relaxed when a low adverbial is mentioned in the previous discourse in Italian. The same holds for the two types of adverbials in Japanese, as illustrated in (4) below. (4)

todoketa sugu-ni hirotta okane-o kooban-ni quickly found money-Acc police-to brought (low) ‘Taro brought the money he found to the police quickly’ B: Sugu-ni Hanako-wa syooziki-ni-mo kara-no saifu-o kooban-ni quickly Hanako-Top honestly empty purse-Acc to.the.police (low) (middle) todoketa brought ‘Hanako honestly brought an empty purse to the police quickly’

A: Taroo-wa Taro-Top

Here, the previously mentioned low adverbial sugu-ni ‘quickly’ targets TopP to form a topic chain, where the middle adverbial of a different modifier class element does not count as a relevant intervener, as depicted in (5). (5)

… [TopP

… middle adverbial … (modifier class)

low adverbial … (topic class)

The same effect is not attested when the middle, subject-oriented adverbial is already mentioned in the immediate discourse and the lower celerative adverbial skips over it, as illustrated below.

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(6)

207

A: Taroo-wa syooziki-ni-mo hirotta okane-o kooban-ni Taro-Top honestly found money-Acc police-to (middle) todoketa brought ‘Taro honestly brought the money he found to the police’ B: ??Sugu-ni Hanako-wa syooziki-ni-mo quickly Hanako-Top honestly (low) (middle) kara-no saifu-o kooban-ni todoketa empty-Gen purse-Acc police-to brought ‘Hanako honestly brought an empty purse to the police quickly’

Here, the middle adverbial syooziki-ni-mo ‘honestly’ in the second sentence is mentioned in the immediate discourse. Note that this middle adverbial does count as a relevant intervener for the chain created by the low adverbial. This is because the middle adverbial belongs to the topic as well as the modifier class, and the modifier class part prevents the low adverbial from moving across it as follows. (7)

… Adv … Adv… [+topic] [+modifier] [+modifier] ×

Let us next look at the syntactic positioning of adverbials with respect to negation. The low adverbial may be in the scope of negation, while the middle adverbials may not, as illustrated in (8a-b) below. Because adverbials generally do not move around unless triggered by feature-checking operations (cf. Cinque 1999), there must be two positions for the low adverbials: One below negation, and the other above negation. (8)

a.

b.

Taroo-wa mazime-ni-mo asoba-na-katta Taro-Top seriously play-Neg-Past ‘Taro seriously didn’t play’ (*Neg>Adv, AdvAdv, AdvNeg, Neg>cleverly)

As Guglielmo Cinque (personal communication) pointed out to me, the low adverbials might in fact be ambiguous between low adverbial and the middle adverbial readings. If so, it is predicted that they would differ in meaning below and above negation. The low adverbials are clearly interpreted as manner adverbials when they are in the scope of negation. In contrast, the same adverbial seems to be interpreted as subject-oriented when it is outside the scope of negation. This point can be made clear by using an adverbial like kasikoku ‘cleverly,’ which is potentially ambiguous and may be interpreted as a subject-oriented or manner adverbial (cf. Cinque 1999), as shown in (8c). When this adverbial takes wide scope over negation, it clearly has a subject-oriented meaning; i.e., John was clever not to have done his homework. On the other hand, when the adverbial takes narrow scope with respect to negation, it has only a manner reading; i.e., John did his homework, but he did not do it in a clever manner. From this pattern, we can establish a hierarchy among the low manner adverbials, the middle subject-oriented adverbials and negation, as follows: (9)

subject-oriented (middle) adverbial > negation > manner (low) adverbial

Both types seem to belong to the same modifier class in the sense of Rizzi (2004), and thus the lower manner adverbial may not precede the higher subject-oriented adverbial due to RM. Another structural asymmetry is attested for a different type of adverbials, those created out of a sentence by attaching the noun koto ‘fact’ followed by the morpheme ni, as in (10). I will call this type of adverbial a ‘high’ adverbial. (10)

odoroita-koto-ni surprising-fact-Prt ‘surprisingly’

zan’nenna-koto-ni unfortunate-fact-Prt ‘unfortunately’

koounna-koto-ni lucky-fact-Prt ‘luckily’

This class of adverbials typically expresses epistemic modality involving the speaker’s knowledge or opinion about a proposition and may be classified as speaker-oriented (cf. Jackendoff 1972). Cinque (1999) proposes that speaker-oriented adverbials should be licensed by the functional head Modepistemic. This type of adverbial may precede but cannot follow the subject-oriented adverbials or the celerative/manner adverbials we saw above, as follows:

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(11)

a.

b.

c.

d.

209

Natuyasumi-ni Taroo-wa odoroita-koto-ni summer-vacation-in Taro-Top surprisingly (high) mazime-ni-mo benkyoosita diligently studied (middle) ‘In summer vacation, surprisingly, Taro diligently studied’ mazime-ni-mo *Natuyasumi-ni Taroo-wa summer-vacation-in Taro-Top diligently (middle) odoroita-koto-ni benkyoosita surprisingly studid (high) ‘In summer vacation, surprisingly, Taro diligently studied’ Natuyasumi-ni Taroo-wa odoroita-koto-ni mazime-ni summer-vacation-in Taro-Top surprisingly diligently benkyoosita (high) (low) studied ‘Surprisingly, in summer vacation, Taro studied diligently’ *Natuyasumi-ni Taroo-wa mazime-ni odoroita-koto-ni summer-vacation-in Taro-Top diligently surprisingly (low) (high) benkyoosita studied ‘In summer vacation, surprisingly, Taro studied diligently’ 2

2

The noun koto ‘fact’ lacks semantic content and looks a little like the English expletive it. The similarity between the noun koto ‘fact’ and expletive it is further attested by considering factive predicates. In Japanese, factive predicates select a CP complement obligatorily followed by the noun koto ‘fact’ and the accusative Case particle o, as illustrated below. (i) John-wa [pro sake-o nomi-sugi-ta] John-Top sake-Acc drink-over-Past ‘John regrets that he drank sake too much’

koto-o kookaisi-ta fact-Acc regret-Past

English factive predicates also select an expletive it in the complement. (ii) John regretted it that he drank sake too much I am grateful Ur Shlonksy (personal communication) for helpful discussion on this point.


210

This suggests that the functional head Modepistemic for speaker-oriented adverbials is higher than the functional head for subject-oriented adverbials and belongs to the same modifier class as manner adverbials (Aspcelerative) and subject-oriented adverbials (Moodroot) with respect to RM (cf. Cinque 1999: 55). To sum up so far, we have seen that there are several types of adverbials in Japanese, one of which is below negation (low adverbials) and another of which is above negation (middle adverbials), both of which are in turn lower than speaker-oriented adverbials. All of the adverbials can be fronted for prominence in the sense of Rizzi (2004), but a lower adverbial may not be fronted over a higher adverbial, due to the feature-based RM.

9. 1. 2

Problems

A closer examination of the distribution of the three types of adverbials we saw above reveals that things are more complicated than they appear. First, people generally do not like two adverbials to appear next to each other. Second, the linear order restriction seems to become slightly weaker or relaxed when the adverbials are not next to each other. Noam Chomsky (personal communication) suggested that the linear order restriction might be relaxed when adverbials are not next to each other.3 So, I conducted an informant study, in which I asked ten native speakers of Japanese, all of whom are undergraduate students at Yokohama National University, about the acceptability of sentences in which the three types of adverbials we saw above appear in a single sentence. The three adverbials used were the high adverbial odoroita-koto-ni ‘surprisingly,’ the middle adverbial mazime-ni-mo ‘diligently,’ and the low adverbial sugu-ni ‘quickly.’ The following is the result, where the high adverbial, the middle adverbial, and the low adverbial are abbreviated as ‘H,’ ‘M,’ and ‘L,’ respectively, and the number in parenthesis represents the number of informants (out of ten) who accepted the sentence pattern. (12)

S - H - M - L - O -V (5)4

Five informants out of ten accepted the above sentence pattern, which is in contrast to the following pattern:

3 Perhaps, the idea behind his remarks would be that the linear order restriction might be at least partially constrained by some cognitive constraint. 4 The actual token sentence was the following:

(i) Taroo-wa hirotta okane-o kooban-ni Taro-Top he.found money-Acc police.station-to ‘Taro brought the money he found to the police’

todoketa brought

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(13)

211

H - S -M - O - L - V (8)

Here, eight informants out of ten accepted this pattern. This suggests that many people do not like adverbials appearing next to each other in a single clause. This suggests that the linear order restriction is partially affected by some cognitive or semantic constraint that resists some linear combinations of two adverbials appearing next to each other. But this does not necessarily mean that the linear order restriction is not constrained by RM. To examine this point, I asked about the acceptability of various patterns where adverbials are not next to each other. The first is the following: (14)

M - S - H – O - L - V (6)

Here, the middle adverbial appears in a position higher than the high adverbial, and six informants accepted the sentence. This suggests that RM effects are weak when the middle adverbial moves over the high adverbial, at least for naive informants (non-linguists). The following is another case where the low adverbial appears higher than the middle adverbial: (15) H - S - L - O - M - V (7) Here, we see that approximately the same number of informants accepted the sentence, irrespective of whether the low adverbial moves over the middle adverbial. This state of affairs is contrasted with the case where the low adverbial jumps over the high adverbial. Informants reported that sentences are more degraded when the low adverbial jumps over the high adverbial, as in the following: (16) L - S - H - O - M - V (3) Here, only three informants accepted the sentence. Interestingly, the same number of informants accepted the sentence pattern where the middle adverbial also moves over the high adverbial, as follows: (17) M - S - L - O - H - V (3) From this fact, the general pattern seems to be that a clear RM effect is attested when the low adverbial moves over the high adverbial. This strongly suggests that RM is operative in the linear order restriction of adverbials in Japanese. Mysteriously, no informants reported acceptability for the case of the mirror image of H-M-L; i.e., when the adverbials are ordered as L-M-H, as follows:


212

(18)

L - S - M - O - H -V (0)

I have no explanation of this fact. To summarize so far, we see the following general pattern: (19)

(i) (ii)

A mild deviancy is felt when a low/middle adverbial moves over a middle/high adverbial respectively. A stronger deviancy obtains when a low adverbial moves over a high adverbial.

This tendency is also seen in the case in which adverbials are next to each other; i.e., informants find sentences are mildly degraded when the low adverbial skips the middle adverbial. (20)

S - H - L - M - O - V (4)

Here, we see four informants accepted the sentence, compared with the case where the H-M-L pattern is not affected, which five informants accepted. The strength of unacceptability increases when the high adverbial is skipped by the low adverbial, as follows: (21)

S - L - M - H - O - V (2) S - M - L - H - O - V (2)

Here again, we see the strong RM effect attested when a low adverbial jumps over a high adverbial, which is about equally as strong as the case where the adverbials are not next to each other; only three informants accepted that sentence pattern when the low adverbial skips the high adverbial.5 To summarize, the general pattern is that non-linguists feel only a mild deviancy when the low/middle adverbial skips the middle/high adverbial; stronger unacceptability is detected when a high adverbial is crossed over by a low adverbial. This tendency is attested in cases where adverbials are partially adjacent to each other; i.e., when two adverbials are next to each other, and one other adverbial is separated from them, as follows:

5

Only one informant accepted a case where a low adverbial moves over both a high adverbial and a middle adverbial: (i)

S- L- H- M- O- V (1)

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(22)

213

S - H - O - M - L - V (4)6

Here, four informants accepted the sentence pattern, which is closer to the five informants who accepted adverbials next to each other than the eight informants who accepted adverbials not next to each other. This suggests that only one adjacent adverbial string makes the sentence degraded. The following is the pattern in which the linear order restriction is not obeyed, where the low adverbial moves over the high adverbial. Only one informant accepted the sentence. Here again, the fact that the middle adverbial moves over the high adverbial does not seem to make any difference: (23)

S - L - O - M - H - V (1) S - M - O - L - H - V (1)

This point can be confirmed by the fact that the middle adverbial may move over the high adverbial relatively easily: (24)

S - M - O - H - L - V (5) M - S - O - H - L - V (6)

Here, we see that the middle adverbial relatively easily moves over the high adverbial, and the adjacency of the high adverbial and the low adverbial does not seem to give rise to strong deviancy.

9. 1. 3

Adverbials and information structure

We have seen that the morphemes exploited for adverbial formation are related to the functional heads that host adverbials (Cinque 1999). Through informant surveys of the word order of these adverbials, we have seen that RM effects are attested in general. Even when some informants detect no RM effects, I found that they read the displaced adverbials with the intonation pattern seen in topic and focus. This seems to support Rizzi’s (2004) idea that RM-free facts arise when the displaced element belongs to a different feature class, especially discourse-related features.

6

Mysteriously, as many as four informants accepted the sentence where the low adverbial jumps over the high adverbial when not adjacent to the high adverbial: (i)

S- L- O- H- M- V (4)

214


The result of our informant surveys on adverbials can be summarized as follows:

(25)

9. 2

weak RM effect:

H

M

L

strong RM effect:

H

M

L

amelioration of RM effect by (i) anti-adjacency: H (S)

M (O)

L

(ii) discourse feature (=[+D]): H

M[+D]

L[+D]

The categorical status of nominative adverbials

In chapter 6, we examined nominative adverbials, where the particle ga is suffixed to a locative adverbial. Vermeulen (2005) states that the particle ga of the nominative adverbial is a focus marker suffixed to a PP, in which P is not pronounced. In this section, I would like to show that the particle ga of the nominative adverbial is a nominative Case particle suffixed to DP. To show the categorical status of the particle ga in nominative adverbials, I conducted an informant survey. The informant survey is related to a rule from a traditional Japanese grammar book according to which the structural Case particle of a DP must be deleted when the DP is clefted; however, when a PP is clefted, deletion of the postposition heading it is optional (cf. Hasegawa 1999: 48): (26)

a. b.

[TP]-wa [DP-(*Case)]-da TP-Top DP-(*Case) Cop [TP]-wa [DP-(P)]-da TP-Top DP-(P) Cop

Thus, when the subject is clefted, its Case particle ga has to be dropped as in (27a), whereas an adverbial PP may leave its postposition undeleted, as in (27b).

INFORMANT SURVEYS

(27)

a.

b.

c.

Pizza-o tabeta-no-wa John-(*ga) da pizza-Acc ate-N-Top John-(*Nom) Cop ‘It is John who ate pizza’ John-ga asonda-no-wa kooen-(de) John-Nom played-N-Top park-(in) ‘It is in the park that John played’ Gakusee-ga yoku hon-o kau-no-wa student-Nom often book-Acc buy-N-Top kono mise-(ga) da this store-(Nom) Cop ‘It is at this store that students often buy books’

215

da Cop

After confirming that the distinction between (27a) and (27b) is clear, I asked thirty-two informants whether the nominative adverbial in (27c) patterned with the DP (=27a) or PP (=27b). The informants’ general reaction was that in the focus of the cleft sentence, the presence of the particle ga gives a bad result for the DP and the nominative adverbials, as follows. Group A: 15 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (27c) as being as bad as (27a) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group B: 13 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (27c) as worse than (27a) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group C: 3 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (27c) as bad, but better than (27a) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group D: 1 informant confessed that the judgment is not clear. Although the strength of ungrammaticality varies from speaker to speaker, there is a sharp contrast between nominative adverbials and PPs for the case in point: Nominative adverbials pattern with DPs, not with PPs. At present, it is not clear to me why nominative adverbials sound better or worse than the DP suffixed by the nominative Case particle for some informants. The same informants were asked a different kind of question based on another traditional grammatical rule according to which a focus particle can be suffixed to a PP, but not to a DP with a structural Case particle (Hasegawa 1999: 48): (28)

DP-P-focus particle DP-(*Case)-focus particle

This rule can be illustrated by the following sentences, where the focus particle sae ‘even’ can be suffixed to a PP headed by the postposition de ‘at’ as in (29a), but not to a DP with the nominative Case particle ga as in (29b):


216

(29)

a.

b.

c.

Ronbun-o kissaten-de-sae kaita paper-Acc coffee.shop-at-even wrote ‘I wrote a paper even at a coffee-shop’ *Neko-ga-sae okiteiru cat-Nom-even is.awake ‘Even a cat is awake’ Kono mise-ga-(sae) gakusei-ga yoku hon-o kau this store-Nom-(even) student-Nom often book-Acc buy ‘Even at this store, students often buy books’

After confirming that the informants can detect the difference between (29a) and (29b), they were asked to judge whether nominative adverbials pattern with DPs or with PPs with respect to the focus particle suffixation. The result is shown below. My informants generally agreed that the main dividing line is between nominative adverbials and DPs with a Case particle, on the one hand, and PPs on the other. Group A: 21 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (29c) to be as bad as (29b) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group B: 7 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (29c) as worse than (29b) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group C: 3 informants judged the nominative adverbial in (29c) as bad, but better than (29b) with the nominative Case particle ga; Group D: 1 informant confessed that the judgment is not clear. Again, I have no idea why nominative adverbials sound better or worse than the DP suffixed by the nominative Case particle for some informants. In conclusion, various considerations have led us to single out the focus marker analysis of the particle ga as the source of important inadequacies of the nominative adverbials. Tests like clefting and focus particle attachment provide us with a relatively stable result: Nominative adverbials pattern with DPs suffixed by the nominative Case particle.

9. 3

Conclusion

In this chapter, we saw the results of informant surveys that were conducted to support some of the points made in previous chapters. The first half of this chapter has shown that RM effects are generally attested in the word order of various adverbials. Although some informants detect no RM effects with adverbials, especially when adverbials are not adjacent to each other, they read the displaced adverbials with the intonation pattern seen

INFORMANT SURVEYS

217

in topic and focus. This seems to support Rizzi’s (2004) idea that RM-free facts arise when the displaced element belongs to a different feature class, especially discourserelated features. The second half of this chapter examined the categorical status of nominative adverbials. Through several tests, we saw that nominative adverbials pattern with DPs suffixed by the nominative Case particle, as analyzed in chapter 6.

CHAPTER 10 Concluding Remarks

10. 1

Summary

To summarize the main points of this book, we have seen the following points: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

The feature-based approach to RM (Rizzi 2004) is motivated by explicit discourse-related particles in Japanese. In particular, intervention effects induced by some quantifiers are most naturally captured based on discourse-related features, such as topic. The RM-free nature of topics in Italian follows from the multiple specifier strategy of TopP in Italian, whereas the absence of this strategy in Japanese makes a topic element an intervener for another topic element. Japanese topic/focus constructions provide evidence for Roberts’ (2001) view that RM needs to be revised in such a way as to eliminate the distinction between heads and specifiers. The hierarchical order of Japanese clause-final particles provides independent evidence for Cinque’s (1999) hierarchy, where the lower nominal clause-final particles may play a crucial role in satisfying the EPP through the nominal Fin head. New facts from compounds favor Miyagawa’s (1997) view of the base structure of ditransitive predicates; i.e., both the IO-DO and DO-IO word orders are basic. In addition, we have supplemented Miyagawa and Tsujioka’s (2004) observation about IO-V idioms by conducting an exhaustive survey. An optional Case particle creates a new semantic effect of focus, in line with a natural economy principle, and induces RM effects.

In the course of discussion, we have suggested that applicability of feature-based RM is much wider than has previously been thought. First, we have seen that the coordinate structure constraint can be derived at least partially from feature-based RM, especially by analyzing a Boolean operator as belonging to multiple feature classes.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

219

Second, we have suggested adverbial formation in Japanese is amenable to Cinque’s idea that different functional heads of adverbials license matching adverbials in their specifiers. We have seen that the morphemes exploited for adverbial formation are related to the functional heads that host adverbials. Through informant surveys of the word order of these adverbials, we have seen that RM effects are attested. Even when some informants detected no RM effects, I found that they read the displaced adverbials with the intonation pattern seen with topic and focus. This seems to support Rizzi’s (2004) idea that RM-free facts arise when the displaced element belongs to a different feature class, especially discourse-related features. Third, the RM-free nature of scrambling has been examined along the same lines. That is, rich discourse-related manipulation of scrambled elements makes it possible for the moving element to belong to a different feature class and escape RM-effects. Now, I would like to mention some of the theoretical implications of my study. We saw RM-effects in the realms of morphononemics and compound formation. This fact has implications for the debate on locality between representational approaches and derivational approaches. Chomsky (1995: 311) proposes to capture the same intuition as RM by what he calls the Minimal Link Condition (MLC): K attracts a only if there is no b, b closer to K than a, such that K attracts b. The MLC is built into a specific syntactic computation of the operation Attract that operates in the course of derivation. As Rizzi (2004: 227-228) notes, however, Chomsky’s approach is too selective, since RM effects are not restricted to syntactic operations but are also found in phonological operations. The RM effects we found in morphophonemics and compound formation support representational approaches, since the operation of Attract is not relevant to the RM effects of the morphophonemic and morphological operations. Another theoretical implication concerns the fact that the CP zone plays a role in the satisfaction of the EPP. The EPP has several variants: (i) all clauses have to have a subject position (Chomsky 1981); (ii) a DP occupies a specific position, such as the specifier of AgrSP or of IP (Chomsky 1995); (iii) the EPP is involved not just in IP but also in CP, giving rise to V2 (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Our discussion that the EPP involves operations in the CP zone favors the third view. There are some open questions. The RM-free nature of a moved element has sometimes been attributed to the fact that it carries an extra feature. On the other hand, a richer feature specification of the skipped element has a stronger blocking power for elements with poorer feature specification. As evidence for this view, we have seen that an intervening element has a strong blocking effect when it has a discourse-related feature; i.e., even when the intervening element is D-linked, RM effects do not disappear.

220

CONCLUDING REMARKS

However, there is a tension. We have also seen that one type of quantifier in Japanese does not give rise to an RM effect for a moved element when it carries a discourse-related feature. These problems await further research (cf. 3.6 for possible solutions).

10. 2

Prospect: Eliminating Spell-Out

Finally, let me touch upon some implications of this book for the architecture of grammar. In chapter 1, we adopted the standard assumption that the syntactic component is connected to the phonological component and semantic component. Recently, Chomsky (2000) and Uriagereka (1999) explore a dynamic system in which syntactic information is conveyed to the interfaces in an interactive fashion, which is called the Multiple Spell-Out model. According to this model, semantic and phonological interpretations need not operate on the final phrase structure representation but are computed derivationally, where the internal structure of the spelled-out element is forgotten after it undergoes Spell-Out. This dynamic model is supported by computational efficiency and uniformity; for instance, it eliminates the redundancy of the same cycle possessed by the five generative systems: cycles (i) to form D-structure; (ii) from D-structure to S-structure; (iii) from S-structure to LF; (iv) from LF to the semantic component; and (v) from S-structure to the phonological component. One problem for such a model is raised by the fact that interfaces need to examine the internal content of full representations for some grammatical processes, as noted by Boeckx (2003). For instance, he mentions the fact that the semantic component needs to see multiple spelled-out chunks for pronominal binding. Although it might be easy to deal with such facts in some fashion (for instance by recombination of the spelled-out chunks, as Chomsky suggests in his LSA Summer Institute 2005 class lecture), Boeckx questions why recombination occurs in the first place and suggests eliminating Spell-Out entirely. According to Boeckx, what is referred to as Spell-Out is actually the result of invasive interfaces. According to this view, external sensori-motor and conceptual-intentional systems look into narrow syntax and pick and choose what they want. Recall here that one of the major points made in this book is related to facts that can only be dealt with representationally, not derivationally. One of the arguments, for instance, is that blocking effects are dynamically created through interaction between the syntactic component and the pragmatic component, as we saw in chapter 5. Another fact is that a special intonation pattern makes it possible for the quantified subject to stay in vP to satisfy the EPP as we saw in chapter 8. Such facts and others developed in this book are in line with the new Spell-Out-free model, where external systems may invade and look into the narrow syntax in an interactive fashion. Although the exact mechanisms of such invasive operations need to be clarified, I believe

CONCLUDING REMARKS

221

that some of the arguments made in favor of representational approaches in this book will have an important impact on the explorations of new minimalist approaches in the future

REFERENCES

Abel, Klaus. 2003. Successive-cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Aboh, Enoch. 2003. Morpho-syntax of head-complement sequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aboh, Enoch. 2006. Review article: Zygmunt Frajzyngier, A grammar of Lele. Lingua 116: 487-505. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parameterizing Agr: Word order, V-movement, and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:491-539. Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey, Li. 1993. Syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Azuma, Hiroko. 1997. Nihongo niokeru ninshoo to muudo no itchi [Person and mood agreement in Japanese]. Nanzan Kokubun Ronshu 21, 7-25, Nanzan University. Bach, Emmon and George Horn. 1977. Remarks on ‘Conditions on transformation.’ Linguistic Inquiry 7: 265-299. Bailyn, John Frederick. 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 635-658. Baker, Carl Lee. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197-219. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books. Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics 24: 23-44. Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14:1-56. Beck, Sigrid and Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On wh and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339-384. Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspect of the low IP area. In The structure of CP and IP, L. Rizzi (ed), 16-51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1981. Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352. Benincà, Paola and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP, L. Rizzi (ed), 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bobaljik, Jonathan David and Höskuldur Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1: 37-71. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Eliminating Spell-Out. Linguistic Analysis 33: 3-4, 414-425.

REFERENCES 223

Brisson, Christine. 1996. Distributivity, asymmetry and both. In Proceedings of NELS 26, 17-30. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Butler, Alastair and Eric Mathieu. 2004. The syntax and semantics of split constructions: A comparative study. London: Macmillan. Campbell, Martin and Jack Martin. 1989. Sensation predicates and the syntax of stativity. In Proceedings of WCCFL 8, 44-55. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of CP and IP, L. Rizzi (ed), 115-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatic interface. In Structures and beyond, A. Belletti (ed), 39-103. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. A view of B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior 1957. Language 35: 260-58. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds), 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michael and J. Uriagereka (eds), 89-155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language. M. Kenstowicz (ed), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Ms., MIT. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collins, Christopher. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2): 81-120. Comorovski, Ileana. 1989. Discourse-linking and the wh-island constraint. In Proceedings of NELS 19, 207-222. Culicover, Peter and Robert Levine. 2001. Stylistic inversion in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 283-310. de Saussure, Louis. 2000. Pragmatique temporelle des énoncés négatifs. PhD Dissertation. University of Geneva.

224

REFERENCES

de Swart, Henriëtte. 1992. Intervention effects, monotonicity, and scope. In Proceedings of SALT 2, 387-406. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verb complex V’-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151-175. Endo, Yoshio. 1995. Extraction, negation and quantification. In Minimalism in linguistic theory, S. Haraguchi and M. Funaki (eds), 53-66. Tokyo: Hituzi-syobo. Endo, Yoshio. 1996. Right dislocation. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 1-20. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Endo, Yoshio. 2006. A Study of the Cartography of the Japanese Syntactic Structures. PhD Dissertation, University of Geneva. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Shalom Lappin. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6:41-85. Fox, Danny. 1995. Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics 3: 283-341. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fukuda, Minoru. 1993. Head government and case marker drop in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 24.1. Fujita, Koji. 1993. Object movement and binding in LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24:381-388. Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. 1988. Light verbs and theta-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19:205-233. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2006. Top issues in questions: topic-topicalization-topicalizability. In Wh-movement: Moving on, L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds), 249-288. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Guéron, Jacqueline. 1981. Logical operators, complete constituents, and extraction transformation. In Levels of syntactic representation, R. May and J. Koster (eds), 43-86. Dordrecht: Foris. Hagstrom, Paul Alan. 1998. Decomposing questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564-89. Haiman, John. 1986. Constraints on the form and meaning of the protasis. In On conditionals, E. Traugott, A. Meulen, J. Reilly and C. Ferguson (eds), 215-228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hale, Kenneth. 1982. Preliminary remarks on non-configurationality. In Proceedings of NELS 12, 86-96. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244. Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482-526.

REFERENCES 225

Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1999. Seisei nihongogaku nyuumon [Introduction to Japanese generative grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Hashimoto, Shinkichi. 1969. Joshi, jodooshi no kenkyuu [A study of particles and auxiliary verbs].Tokyo: Iwanami. Hofmann, Thomas. 1993. Realms of meaning. London: Longman. Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Holmberg, Anders and Christer Platzack. 1988. On the role of inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 42: 25-43. Honcoop, Martin. 1998. Dynamic excursions on weak islands. PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden. Hornstein, Norbert. 1998. Movement and chains. Syntax 1: 99-127. Huang, James. 1981/2. Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369-416. Huang, James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkeibunpoo to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2001. Stress, focus and scrambling in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39: 142-175. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Ishii, Yasuo. 2001. Presuppositional effects of scrambling reconsidered. Paper presented at COE International Symposium, Kanda University of Foreign Studies. Ito, Junko and Armin Mester. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17:49-73. Ito, Junko and Armin Mester. 2004. Japanese morphophonemics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Izvorski, William. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Paper presented at SALT 12. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretations in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Jacobsen, Wesley. 1992. Are conditionals topics? The Japanese case. In The joy of grammar: Festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, B. Diane, G. Larson and L. Macleod (eds), 131-160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jeong, Youngmi (2007) Applicatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577-636.

226

REFERENCES

Jónsson, Johannes. 1996. Clausal architecture and Case in Icelandic. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Doosi imiron [The semantics of verbs]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kanno, Kazue. 2000. Daini gengo kara mita gengo seitokusei [The innateness of language from the L2 point of view]. In Kokoro no seitokusei [The Innateness of the mind], M. Imai (ed.), 1-20. Tokyo: Kyooritu Syuppan. Kato, Yasuhiko. 1988. Negation and the discourse dependent property of relative scope in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica 23-4: 31-37. Katada, Fusa. 1991. The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 287-313. Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of past participle agreement in Romance. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, P. Benincà (ed), 85-103. Dordrecht: Foris. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kikuchi, Akira. 1994. Extraction from Japanese. In Current topics in English and Japanese. M. Nakamura (ed), 79-104. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2006. Japanese as a topic-movement language. Scientific Approaches to Language 5: 85-105. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Informational focus and identificational focus. Language 74: 245-273. Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In The structure of language, J. Katz and J. Fodor (eds), 246-323. New York: Prentice Hall. Kobayashi, Akiko. 2000. The third position for a wh-phrase. Linguistic Analysis 30: 177-215. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist Syntax. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Koeneman, Olaf and Ad Neeleman. 1998. Tramsitive expletive constructions in flexible syntax. Ms., Utrecht University and University College London. Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics. H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds), 38-74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage/individual-level predicates. In Generic book. G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds), 125-175. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1973a. The structure of Japanese. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1973b. Nihon bunpoo kenkyuu [A study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan. Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Conditions on verb phrase deletion. Foundations of Language 58: 117-143.

REFERENCES 227

Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Kuno, Susumu and Ken’ichi Takami. 1997. Remarks on negative islands. Linguistic Inquiry 28:553-567. Kurafuji, Takeo. 1996. Unambiguous checking. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26: 81-96. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1973. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In Festschrift for Morris Halle, S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds), 377-391. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1986. Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese linguistics, T. Imai and M. Saito (eds), 233-271. Dordrecht: Foris. Lakoff, George. (1986) Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In Proceedings of CLS 22/2: 152-67. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391. Larson, Richard. 1989. Light-predicate raising. MIT lexicon project working papers 27. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass. Larson, Richard and Hiroko Yamakido. 2001. A new form of nominal ellipsis in Japanese. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistics 11. Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, S. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds), 68-96. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Moveα: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard and Timothy Stowell. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687-720. Lee, Kisuk and Satoshi Tomioka. 2001. LF blocking effects are topic effects. Paper presented at WCCFL 20. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusatives: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Makita, Yuka. 2005. What satisfies the EPP? Ms., MIT and Chubu University. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object construction. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, S. Mchombo (ed), 113-150. Stanford: SCLI. Maruyama, Yasuo. 1999. Classifications of final particles of Japanese sentences and examination of their co-occurrence. Gengo to Bunka [Language and Culture] 11:107-122, Bunkyo University. Masunaga, Kiyoko. 1988. Case deletion and discourse context. In Papers from the second international workshop on Japanese syntax, W. Poser (ed), 145-156. Stanford: CSLI. Masuoka, Takashi. 1997. Hukubun [Complex sentences]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Syuppan.

228

REFERENCES

Matsuoka, Miyuki 2003. Danwaba niokeru shuujoshi yo no kinoo [The function of yo in discourse]. Kotoba to Bunka [Language and Culture] 4: 53-69, Nagoya University. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Lexical categories in Japanese. Lingua 73: 29-51. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and Case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1-25. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1998. Wh-chains and quantifier induced barriers. Ms., MIT. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 293-338. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. On the EPP. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 201-236. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005. Class lecture. MIT. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. On the “undoing” property of scrambling: A reply to Bošković. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 604-624. Miyagawa, Shigeru and Taeko Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1-38. Miyagawa, Shigeru and Yoshio Endo. 2004. Intervention effects are not pragmatic. Ms., MIT and Yokohama National University. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1996. Nihongo no shudaisosei no shoogoo to kukoozoo [The structure and checking of Japanese topic feature]. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyu [Modern Japanese Research]. 3: 17-34, Osaka University. Moeschler, Jacques. 2006. Négation, polarité, asymétrie et événements. Langages 162: 90-106. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Locative/temporal vs. reason/manner phrases. Papers in English Linguistics and Literature 33:153-170. Kinjo Gakuin University. Napoli, Donna and Marina Nespor. 1976. The syntax of raddopiamento sintattico. Ms., Swarthmore College and University of Ferrara. Neeleman, Ad and Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), 309-335. Stanford: CSLI. Nishigauchi, Taisuke and Yasuo Ishii. 2003. Eigo kara nihongo o miru [Viewing Japanese from English]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Nishigauchi, Taisuke and Asako Uchibori. 1991. Japanese bare NPs and syntax-semantics correspondence. Ms., Osaka University. Nishiyama, Kunio. 1999. Adjectives and the copulas in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 183-222. Nitta, Yoshio. 1987. Nihongo no modality to ninsho [Modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Publishers.

REFERENCES 229

Noda, Hisasi. 1996. Wa to Ga [Wa and Ga]. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Obenauer, Hans. 1976. Etudes de syntaxe interrogative du francais. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Obenauer, Hans. 1984. On the identification of empty categories. Linguistic Review 4(2): 153-202. Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2001. Stage/individual-level distinction and (in)alienable possession. Language 77 (1): 1-25. Ohkado, Masayuki. 1991. On the status of adjectival nouns in Japanese. Lingua 83: 67-82. Onoue, Keisuke. 2004. Shugo to jutsugo o meguru bunpoo [Grammar of the subject and predicate]. In Asakura nihongo kouza 6, Keisuke Onoue (ed), 1-57. Tokyo: Asakura Syoten. Otsu, Yukio. 1980. Some aspects of Rendaku in Japanese and related problems. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 207-236. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Palmer, Frank Robert. 1979. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman. Pesetsky, David. 1982. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review 1, 297-343. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (In)definiteness, E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds), 98-239. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583-646. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Progovac, Ljiljiana. 1999. Events and economy of coordination. Syntax 2: 141-159. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On chain formation. In Syntax and semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics, H. Borer (ed), 65-95. New York: Academic Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 1992. Argument/adjunct (a)symmetries. In Proceedings of NELS 22, 365-381. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, L. Haegeman (ed), 281-338. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001a. Reconstruction, weak island sensitivity, and agreement. In Semantic interfaces, C. Cechetto, G. Chierchia and M.T. Guasti (eds), 145-176. Stanford: CSLI. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001b. Relativized Minimality effects. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds), 145-176. Oxford: Blackwell. Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. Editor’s introduction. In Noam Chomsky (2002) On nature and language, 1-44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

230

REFERENCES

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond, A. Belletti (ed), 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006a. On the form of chains: criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, L. Cheng and N. Corver (eds), 97-134. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006b. Criterial freezing, EPP, and asymmetry. Paper presented at Edge in syntax, Cyprus. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2005. Strategies of subject extraction. Ms., University of Siena and University of Geneva. To appear in Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, Hans M. Gartner and U. Sauerland (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: English locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of interpretation, Frascarelli, M. (ed), pp. 341-361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Roberts, Ian. 2001. Head movement. In The handbook of syntactic theory, M. Baltin and Christopher Collins (eds), 113-147. Oxford: Blackwell. Roeper, Thomas and Muffy Siegel. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199-260. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116. Ross, John Robert. 1968. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Ross, John Robert. 1973. Nouniness. In Three dimensions of linguistic theory, O. Fujimura (ed). 137-257. Tokyo:TEC. Ross, John Robert. 1983. Inner islands. In Proceedings of BLS 10, 258-265. Rumbaugh, James, Michael Blaha, William Premerlani, Frederick Eddy and William Lorensen. 1991. Object-oriented modeling and design. New York: Prentice-Hall. Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, 247-259. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, M. Baltin and A. Kroch (ed). 192-200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69-118. Saito, Mamoru and Naoki Fukui. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439-474. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface case. Language 53: 789-809.

REFERENCES 231

Speas, Peggy and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Ms., University of Massachusetts and Carnegie Mellon University. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality. PhD Dissertation, University of Geneva. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Stowell, Timothy. 1986. Psych-movement in the mapping from D-structure to Logical Form. Paper presented at GLOW 9. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Subjects, expletives and the EPP, P. Svenonius (ed), 201-42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102. Szabolcsi, Anna and Frans Zwarts. 1993. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1: 235-284. Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure and the ECP. English Linguistics 7: 120-146. Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 655-678. Takahashi, Daiko. 2002. Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 575-615. Takami, Ken'ichi. 1995. Backward binding and empathy. In Proceedings of Sophia Linguistics Society 10, 299-335. Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A configurational approach to Case-marking in Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2003. Remarks on Beck’s effects: Linearity in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 34:314-323. Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1999. LF wh-islands and the minimal scope principle. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 17: 655-678. Taraldsen, Knut. 1978. Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, A. Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), 163-182. New York: Oxford University Press. Tateishi, Koichi. 1991. The Syntax of ‘subjects.’ Stanford: CSLI. Tenny, Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencer, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245-288. Tomioka, Satoshi. 2004. Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean wh-interrogatives. Ms., University of Delaware. To appear in Journal of Pragmatics. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1996. Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

232

REFERENCES

Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), 251-282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Uyeno, Tazuko. 1971. A study of Japanese modality—A performative analysis of Japanese particles. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan. Vallduvi, Enric. 1992. The dynamics of information packaging. Ms., University of Edinburgh. Vallduví, Enric. 1993. The information component. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Vermeulen, Reiko. 2005. Possessive and adjunct multiple nominative construction in Japanese. Lingua 115: 1329-1363. Watanabe, Akira. 1992a. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255-291. Watanabe, Akira. 1992b. Wh-in-situ, subjacency and chain-formation. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17. Cambridge, Mass. MITWPL. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. Licensing Case. Ms., University of Connecticut. Yamashita, Hideaki. 2007. Mechanisms of syntactic relations in Universal Grammar: What can Japanese say about Agree and Move. PhD Dissertation, Yokohama National University. Yanagida, Yuko. 1996. Deriving surface word order in discourse configurational languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 283-302. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Yang, Dong-Whee. 2004. Scrambling, interpretive complex, and cyclic spell-out. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, Mass. Yang, Dong-Whee. 2005. Multiple Case construction and secondary agree. Ms., MIT.

Subject Index Aboutness 106, 121, 170-175 Applicative 129, 131 Adjectival noun 13, 204 Adverb/adverbial celerative 5, 13-14, 204-208 collective 45n evidential 5 informant survey 204-215 information structure 213-214 manner 13, 165, 174, 204, 208-210 nominative 110-116, 113-119, 214-216 preposing 110-120 speaker-oriented 208-210 subject-oriented 14,83-84, 174 204, 206,208 Argument A-position 7, 9, 21, 127 A’-position 7-9, 20-21, 127 Argumental 10, 37-38, 67, 76, 80, 112-110, 122, 158-159 Asymmetrical approach 7-8 ATB 37-38 Ban on Extraction of the Focus of Negation 22 Ban on Questions that Solicit Uninformative Answers 22, 27-28 Barrier 7-10, 20, 48-49, 51-52, 107-108, 156 Binding backward 67-77, 80-92 Condition A 68, 126 Condition C 15, 126 topicality 88-92 Burzio’s generalization 40 Boolean algebra 35-38 Cartography 1, 4-6 Case extra 94-98, 102-106, 115-116, 167 particle 12, 16-17, 41, 54, 90, 94-105, 110-116 particle drop 198-201 Chain focus 34, 47, 53-56, 58-59, 9, 100, 104, 106, 122 topic 27, 30, 38, 47, 49, 55-59, 77, 91, 102, 123-124, 206

Compound 130-137 Configurational 15-16 Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) 9, 106-108 Coordinate structure constraint (CSC) 34-38, 78n Criteria goal/probe 6, 29, 74 Crossing constraint 48-50 Discourse link (D-linking) 23, 30-31, 38, 41, 49-55, 102, 121-124,171-179, 219 prominent 16, 60, 163, 169, 176, 190 De-emphasis 201-202 Economy principle 8, 97-98, 103 Empty operator movement 16, 37, 46-50, 55-56, 59, 99-105, 123-124 Empty Category Principle (ECP) 198-200 Equi-distance 67, 75, 161-162 Evidential 5, 55, 176n, 183-186, 191, 193n Extended Projection Principle (EPP) 13, 83-84, 160-180, 187-192 aboutness 170-175 Icelandic 169-170 nominal Fin 189-192 sentence final particle 177-190 Feature class 9-11, 23-34, 47-49, 65 74, 100-101, 112-113, 117-119, 124, 154, 158, 213 super 84 transmission 83, 174 Focus informational 98, 102, 108, 121-123 identificational 81n, 98 Gricean nature 103-104 First Sister Principle (FSP) 130 Functional head 4-6, 15, 119, 129, 170,177, 183, 186-189, 191-193, 210, 213, 219 Generative grammar 1 Head final 18 Head movement constraint 21 Idiom 130-150

234

SUBJECT INDEX

Individual-level predicate 54 Information new 1, 171n, 178n old 1, 17 structure 1, 5, 11, 213 Island 8-11, 103-107, 167 negative 9-11, 19-42, 50, 100 strong 10 weak 10, 167 wh 9-10, 21, 38 Label 2, 198 Language Faculty 1 Left periphery 5-6, 17, 188 Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) 70-71, 190 Locality asymmetrical approach 7-10 symmetric approach 7-10 Locative inversion 112-113, 116, 189 Minimal Configuration (MC) 7, 25-26 Modal epistemic 179, 186, 208 evaluative 181-183, 186, 192 evidential 183, 186 root 14 Negation Induced Barrier (NIB) 48-52 Negative polarity item 48, 53 Nominative adverbial 110-119 categorical status 215-217 properties 111 Nominal complementizer 188-189 Particle Case 12, 16-17, 41, 54, 90, 94-105, 110-116 epistemic 179, 186, 208 evaluative 181-183, 186, 192 evidential 183, 186 female 12, 177 male 12-13, 184 sentence final 12-13, 177-185, 194-198, 200-202 Person restriction 194-199 Picture noun 155-159 Postposition 12, 107, 110, 114-115, 214 Pragmatic computation 105

Quantifier anti-topic 44-45, 53-58, distributivity 45 floating 112n, 115-116, 128-129, 157-158 specific 24-25, 27, 42 topic-compatible 45n, 46-48, 53-55, 58-60, 88-89, 92 Relativized Minimality (RM) asymmetry 56-61 feature-based 25-28 free 116-120, 163-164, 213 original 7, 19-21 Rendaku 3, 134, 150-154 Representational approach 59, 103-108, 123, 159, 219-221 Right node raising 38 Scene setting 17, 81-82, 87, 106-108, 173-174 Scope 3, 12, 22, 38, 48-49, 52, 56n, 84-86, 94-96,102,111, 127-128, 130, 161-168, 170-186, 191-192, 202-203, 208 Scrambling 16, 52, 86,116-124, 130, 158, 161, 163-168, 200 Small clause 69-72, 83, 125 Snow-balling derivation 190 Specified Subject Condition 7 Speech act 177, 181, 183-184, 191 Spell-Out 2, 220 Subjacency 7, 10, 16, 40, 46, 56n, 99, 156, 163 Subject orientation 14, 83-84, 174 phrase 160, 198 Tense 4, 16n, 92, 177 That-trace effect 8, 198 Theta role 20-21, 41 Topic chain 27, 29-30, 38, 47, 49, 55-56, 58,-59, 66, 77, 91, 102, 123-124, 206 conditional 30-32, 120-124 hanging 17, 87n, 106, 163n new 118 shifted 118

SUBJECT INDEX

Topicalization 51, 88-92, 117-118 Transmission 83-84, 174 Unaccusative 39-40, 112 Unergative 39-40, 112-113 Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) 72 Uniformity Principle 1, 4 Universal Grammar (UG) 1 Verbs of manner of speaking 34, 101-102 Wh-island 9-10, 21 , 38 Wh-movement 7, 17, 23, 36, 38, 44-48, 51, 59, 62, 73-77, 97, 101, 103, 106, 119, 122, 127,156-157, 166-167, 188

235

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 118 Jäger, Agnes: History of German Negation. x, 351 pp. Expected January 2008 117 Haugen, Jason D.: Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. xv, 250 pp. Expected January 2008 116 Endo, Yoshio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x, 235 pp. 115 Putnam, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. ix, 217 pp. Expected October 2007 114 Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp. 113 Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. vi, 458 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 112 Axel, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond. 2007. xii, 364 pp. 111 Eguren, Luis and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax–semantics interface. xii, 236 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. vi, 439 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. v, 241 pp. + index. Expected November 2007 107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp.

86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54

Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. Fuss, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. Dikken, Marcel den and Christina M. Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. Fuss, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom).

53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp.

Locality and Information Structure: A cartographic approach to Japanese (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 116)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Agreement Systems (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 92)

On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Syntax of Jamaican Creole: A Cartographic Perspective (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Locality and Information Structure: A cartographic approach to Japanese (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 116)

Argument Structure (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Experimental Pragmatics Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Multiple Wh-Fronting (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Parentheticals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 106)

Phase Theory (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Causatives in Minimalism (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Structure of Stative Verbs (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Agreement Systems (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, Volume 92)

On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Theoretical Approaches to Universals (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Syntax of Jamaican Creole: A Cartographic Perspective (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Balkan Syntax and Semantics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Adverbials and the Phase Model (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, 177)

Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Scrambling and the Survive Principle (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Syntatic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Continuity and Change in Grammar (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Quantifier Scope in German (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Emergence of Order in Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Grammaticalization As Economy (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today, LA 71)

The Copy Theory of Movement (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Linguistics Enterprise: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

The Grammar of Focus (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

Recommend Documents