Subjects in Japanese and English [Reprint ed.] 1138393673, 9781138393677

Table of contents :
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
I. Introduction
1.1. Government and Binding Theory
1.2. Outline
1.3. Background Assumptions
Footnotes to Chapter I
II. Complex Predicates in Japanese
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Lexical Derivation
2.3. Affix Raising Hypothesis
2.4. Further Motivations for the Affix Raising Hypothesis
2.5. Arguments against Lexical Derivation
Footnotes to Chapter II
III. Deriving Subjects
3.1. Subjects in Japanese
3.2. Subjects in English
3.3. Summary
Footnotes to Chapter III
IV. Binding Theory
4.1. Introduction
4.2. SUBJECTS
4.3. Case Marking and Binding
4.4. Further Implications and Problems: An Initial Sketch
4.5. Concluding Remarks
Footnotes to Chapter IV
Appendix: zibun
Bibliography
Additional Footnotes

Citation preview

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: JAPANESE LINGUISTICS

Volume 2

SUBJECTS IN JAPANESE AND ENGLISH

SUBJECTS IN JAPANESE AND ENGLISH

YOSHIHISA KITAGAWA

I~~~o~:~!n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published in 1994 by Garland Publishing, Inc. This edition first published in 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1994 Yoshihisa Kitagawa All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: ISBN: ISBN: ISBN:

978-1-138-36949-8 978-0-429-40043-8 978-1-138-39367-7 978-0-429-40138-1

(Set) (Set) (ebk) (Volume 2) (hbk) (Volume 2) (ebk)

Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

SUBJECTS IN JAPANESE AND ENGLISH

YOSHIHISA KITAGAWA

GARLAND

PUBLISHING,

NEW YORK

&

LONDON/

1994

INc.

Copyright© 1994 by Yoshihisa Kitagawa All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, 1953Subjects in Japanese and English/ Yoshihisa Kitagawa. p. cm. - (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics) Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral-University of Massachusetts), 1986. ISBN 0-8153-1685-2 1. Grammar, Comparative and general-Topic and comment. 2. Japanese language-Topic and comment. 3. English languageTopic and comment. 4. Government-binding theory (Linguistics) I. Title. IL Series. P298.K58 1994 495.6'5-dc:20 93-38246 CIP

Printed on acid-free, 250-year-life paper Manufactured in the United States of America

To Isoko

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ••.••.•...........•.••..••.•.•....•.•. xiii LIST OF 'rABLES . • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . • • . . . . • • . • . • . • . xvii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS • . . • • • . • • • . • . . • . • . . . . . . • • • • . • • • . xix I.

INTRODUCTION

1

Government and Binding Theory .•.••...•.. outline . •. . . •. . •. . . ••. . . ••. . ••. . . •. . . ••• Background Assumptions •.••.•...•.•.•.•.• Footnotes to Chapter I . •. . •. •. . . •. . •. ••. ••. •• II.

1.1.

1

1. 2. 1.3.

9

COMPLEXPREDICATES IN JAPANESE

16 17

Introduction . ••. •. •. •. . ••. •. . . . . . . •. . . . . Lexical Derivation ••••••••. •. •. . •. •. . •. • Affix Raising Hypothesis ....••...•••••.• 2.4. Further Motivations for the Affix Raising Hypothesis ••. ••. •. . . . . •. . •••. ••. 2.5. Arguments against Lexical Derivation Footnotes to Chapter II . . . • . • • • • . • . • . . . . • .. . . •

116 184 204

DERIVING SUBJECTS

220

Subjects in Japanese ...•.•••.•••...••.•. Subjects in English . • . • • • . • . . • • • • .. •• . • . Summary . • . • . . • . . . . . . • • • • . . • . . . . • • • • • • . . . Footnotes to Chapter III ..••.....•••..••.•.•.

220 231 264 266

2. 1. 2. 2. 2.3.

III.

3

3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

IV. BINDING THEORY

17 33 53

273

Introduction . . . •. . . •. •. . . •. . ••. •. •. . •. •. SUBJECTS • . • . • • . • • . . . . • • • . • • • • • . • . • . . . . . . 4.3. Case Marking and Binding .••.•••.••...•.. 4.4. Further Implications and Problems: An Initial Sketch •••••. ••. . . •. •. ••. . ••. . 4.5. Concluding Remarks •. ••••. . . . . •. ••. ••. . •. Footnotes to Chapter IV ..••••..••.•••••.•...• 4. 1.

273

4 •2 •

275

289 350 365 366

APPENDIX: zibun

377

BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

ADDITIONALFOOTNOTES

399

vii

PREFACE

This work is a virtually unchanged reproduction of my doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Linguistics of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in August 1986. Apart from the addition of new footnotes*, a few lines in the acknowledgments, and typo-graphical corrections, the present version is identical to the original dissertation. In the spring of 1989, I started preparing a revised version of Chapter 2 of the original work for publication. While the project proceeded much more slowly than expected, it has undergone what I believe to be a remarkable qualitative and quantitative progress. In the meantime, the field of generative syntax faced a new challenge when Chomsky (1992) proposed the "minimalist design" of a linguistic theory, which advocates a shift of our attention from D-structure (and S-structure) to the representations and computations (= derivations) at the "Interface levels" (= LF- and PF-components). With the claim that "interface conditions" are the only truly relevant external conditions on representations and derivations, Chomsky abandoned the idea that the D-structure is the "pure thematic representation" and the portion of the Projection Principle that imposed uniformity of thematic marking on the representations at all syntactic levels. The plausibility of this new view of linguistic theory is yet to be fully examined. It has, however, certainly provided me with a fresh angle from which I can reinterpret and reevaluate what I attempted to make clear in the original work. Partly due to the availability of this new and exciting view of linguistic theory, and partly due to the fact that it has become increasingly clear that the final product of my "revision" project will end up being rather distant from what was originally planned, and finally because certain other portions of the original work would not have a chance to be brought to light, I have decided to have the original work published virtually as is, in hopes of having the "revised version" published as an independent piece of work. Chapter 2 of the present work offers what I now call the 'Excorporation Approach' to complex predicates. It first offers three different phonological arguments for deriving morphologically complex predicates in Japanese, like 'Verb-sase (CAUSATIVE),' 'Verb-rare (PASSIVE),' and 'Verb-ta (DESIDERATIVE),' in the Lexicon. To the best of my knowledge, these arguments have not yet been seriously challenged to date, apart from concern for the plausibility of level-ordering assumptions in general. It is worthwhile emphasizing here that each of the three arguments is distinct, involving theoretical assumptions *Additional Footnotes the text as [AFN #].

start

on p. ix

399,

and they

are marked

in

varying from level-ordering Obligatory Contour Principle.

to underspecification

and the

The chapter then offers two major arguments for motivating the LF-application of 'Excorporation,' a type of Move a. First, examination of scope- and locality-related phenomena such as adverbial interpretation (2.3.5.3) and binding (4.3.10) will lead us to reach a seemingly paradoxical conclusion that both syntactically simplex and syntactically complex representations must be made available at the interface level of the conceptualintentional nature. That is, morphologically complex predicates in Japanese must undergo logical computation(= syntactic derivation within the LF component). Combined with perhaps an optimal hypothesis that no rule application and licensing of linguistic expressions against principles need to be extrinsically ordered within a single component, the Excorporation Approach is argued to offer an optimal solution to such a paradox. Second, the chapter closely examines three cases of "morphology-syntax mismatches," involving negative polarity, honorification and reciprocalization, respectively. The conclusion is drawn there that Excorporation, which can correctly perform the required "non-string-vacuous" reordering of morphemes at the logical interface, must be chosen over approaches that adopt mechanisms like "reanalysis" or "coanalysis," whose syntactic effects are necessarily string vacuous. Chapter 3 offers what now is often identified as the Internal Subject Hypothesis (ISH). The particular version of ISH proposed in this work is clearly distinguished from other similar proposals in two respects. First, while what has been labelled as ISH is usually regarded as a hypothesis concerning phrase structures at the level of D-structure, it is claimed in this work that ISH should be regarded as a hypothesis concerning the relation between a predicate and its external argument at the interface level, i.e., in the LF component. Second, it is also argued for that English has a "purely" head-initial interface representations in such a way that the instantiation of a two-place relation involves VOS (or AOS) order (or more precisely, a representation like [vp [v• VO] S J or [AP

[A•

A O ] S ] )•

Chapter 4 explores a theory of binding under ISH. The main proposal there is that the binding category for anaphors and pronouns is correctly defined only when we take into consideration the abstract Case assignment of these items couched in ISH. we may perhaps characterize this proposal as an intermediate step in the process of redefining Chomsky's (1986) "Least Complete Functional Complex" in terms of the notion "discharge/saturation" of all the selectional features of the head predicate governing the anaphors and pronouns including X

abstract Case as well for further discussion

as thematic roles. on this approach.

See Kitagawa

(1991)

The strongest objection made since to the above proposals was that the two major theoretical claims offered - Excorporation and the Internal Subject Hypothesis - were so exotic that some of the major hypotheses which had been "standardly" adopted in the Principles and Parameters framework must be abandoned. Some of these hypotheses were: (i) that D-structure is a "pure" thematic representation, (ii) that the Projection Principle is inviolable, and (iii) that the theory of predication requires a subject(= an external argument) of a predicate to be syntactically realized "external" to a predicate phrase. The concluding remarks of the present work (4.5), in fact, end with a suggestion challenging the hypothesis in (i). The dilemma concerning the hypothesis (ii) was also discussed in 2.3.3., though I was not courageous enough to challenge the Projection Principle when I wrote it. (Later in Kitagawa (1990), I finally decided to bite the bullet and offered an argument against the Projection Principle in the process of motivating what I called "Antiscrambling.") Kitagawa (1989) offers, under ISH, a sketch of a view alternative to (iii). rn that work, it is pointed out that 'predication' should not be viewed as a primitive notion but can and should be regarded as a derivative notion which arises as a special case of 'property assignment' in the semantic interpretation. As stated above, I expect to publish in the I cast the Excorporation and attempt to extend it supporting the proposals

am currently

preparing a book, which I non-too-distant future. In that work, Approach in the Minimalist Hypothesis, to broader empirical phenomena, thereby in the original work as well.

I would like to thank here Jorge Hankamer, the editor of this series, for providing me with an opportunity to publish the present work.

Rochester, New York July, 1993

xi

References

in

Preface:

Chomsky, N. (1986)

Knowledge

of Language,

Chomsky, N. ( 1992) MIT Occasional

"A Minimalist Program Papers in Linguistics

Praeger. for l,

Linguistic 1-68.

Theory,"

Kitagawa, Y. (1989) "Deriving and Copying Predication," Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the NorthEastern Linguistic Society, 279-300. Kitagawa, Y. (1990) "Anti-scrambling," ms., University of Rochester.(The materials in this work had been presented previously in The workshop on Japanese Syntax and Universal Grammar on Issues Pertaining to Movement (The Ohio State University: March 1989) and Tilburg Workshop on Scrambling (Tilburg University: October 1990).) Kitagawa, Y. (1991) "Binding under the Internal Subject Hypothesis," in Nakajima, H. ed., Trends in Linguistics State-of-the-Art Reports 16: Current English Linguistics Japan, Mouton de Gruyter.

xii

in

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I have found myself one Starting with the members of express my gratitude here to into such an enjoyable one. that is because you are such

of the luckiest graduate students. my thesis committee, let me the people who have turned my life (If I forget to mention your name, a natural part of my life.)

David Pesetsky, my thesis advisor and best friend, has provided me with what I have needed most as a graduate student. I would like to express my deepest gratitude for his kindhearted assistance and friendship. I have no hesitation to admit that no single page of this thesis escapes his influence. I simply wish I had the capability to make better use of it. EmmonBach has shown to me one very respectable way of living as a scholar. I am grateful to him for letting me know, in a very pleasant way, how much I do not know about language and linguistics. It was a very fortunate accident that I had a chance to experience Edwin Williams' "Introduction to Transformational Syntax" for six hours a week in my first graduate year at UMass. Ever since, he has continually provoked my interest in linguistics. One big advantage talented and ambitious

I have had at UMass is to have two Japanese linguists on the same campus.

From the very beginning of my graduate life at UMass, Nobuko Hasegawa has always guided me in the right direction, academically and personally, with very useful suggestions. I have also greatly benefited from the hours of discussion (and eating) with Hajime Hoji. Improvements to this thesis as well as my awareness as a linguist owe much to him. Many other people in my department the ideas in this thesis.

have helped

me develop

Barbara Partee has provided me with many valuable on the main ideas of Chapter Two.

comments

Lisa Selkirk and Scott Myers have kindly read the section on phonology and provided me with important conunents as well as encouragement. I would also like to thank Junko Ito for her useful advice for the phonology section. I have had a chance to obtain pitch track diagrams of crucial examples, thanks to the assistance of John McCarthy and Scott Myers.

xiii

There are two fellow students to whom I would express special thanks --- Kiyoshi Kurata and Dave the reader will notice, some of the most important this thesis have been developed from their written discussions I have had with them.

like to Lebeaux. As arguments in works or the

Thanks are also due to those who provided me with interesting discussions as well as native judgments, especially Steve Berman, T. Daniel Seely, Kenichi Mihara and Koichi Tateishi. I am extremely job of proofreading.

grateful

to Steve

Berman for

his

excellent

Let me also thank the following people outside UMass for useful comments and suggestions: Mamoru Saito, Susumu Kuno, Sige-Yuki Kuroda, Diana Archangeli, Eduardo Raposo and Mlirvet Enc;. people

I would also like and organization:

to express

my gratitude

to the

following

To the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International providing me with an opportunity to launch.my graduate in the United States.

for studies

To Lyn Frazier, Roger Higgins, Angelika Kratzer, Muysken, Alan Prince, Tom Roeper, and Tim Stowel for discussions and classes at UMass.

Pieter stimulating

easier

To Lynne Ballard and Kathy Adamczyk for at UMass (and showing me how to spell

making my life "Mick.ey Mouse").

To Kazuko Inoue, Masatake Muraki and Kazuko Harada, teachers in Japan, for the introduction to theoretical linguistics and warm encouragement thereafter. advice

To Heizo Nakajima and Chisato when I needed it most.

twenty

To Masataka Tasaki years ago.

To "Pat" my family.

and "Trudy"

for

Kitagawa

arousing

Layton

for

my interest their

To Norimasa and Kikuyo Yoshida for assistance through my graduate years. To our parents Toshiko Uetake for

for

hospitality

for

generous

Isomatsu and Hanako Kitagawa, their love and encouragement. xiv

thoughtful

in language

kind

their

their

my

and Kenji

and

their

To my late grandparents Kazumi and Yaeko Kinoshita for devotion to me. How I wish my Ph.D. were in time.

Finally, I would bottom of my heart for Together with our son that there is at least will never) screw(ed)

like her Jun, one up.

to thank my wife Isoko from the love and patience in all these years. she has always let me know for sure thing in my life that I have not (and

xv

LIS'f OF TABLES

1. 2. 3.

4.

s.

Pitch Pitch Pitch Pitch Pitch

track track track track track

diagram diagram diagram diagram diagram

of of of of of

........... ............... ......... ..........

umi-de oyog-u nom-ita-i o-nomi-ni-nar-u o-nom-ase-ni-nar-u imoya-ni nar-u

xvii

49 50 197 198 199

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACC COND .CONTR DAT

accusative conditional contrastive dative .DES desiderative DIST distributive GEN/gen genitive gerundive GER HON honorific nominalizer NML NOM/nom nominative PASS passive present PRES PROG progressive Q question marker TOP/top topic REC(IP) reciprocal

xix

I

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

Government

1. 1.

Throughout conducted Theory features

this

within

(EST).

the

and Binding

thesis,

our investigation

framework

Government

by Chomsky (1981)

will

of the Extended

More specifically,

of the

Theory

we will

and Binding

and elaborated

Standard

assume the

Theory

thereafter

be

sketched

basic out

in various

works. In particular,

we will

grammar as schematized

assume the

in (1) below:

Lexicon

(1)

model of core

Base

\ II I

'

D-structure I

I

: ----

Syntactic

Move-alpha

t

S-structure PF Move-alpha----/ Phonetic

different

by a single stages

\

;

rule,

of derivation.

of this levels

\ ----

LF Move-alpha

~

Form (PF)

One characteristic between

I

Logical

Form (LF)

model is that of representation

Move-alpha,

via

For example, 1

various

the

mapping

is carried

out

intermediate

Move-alpha

may map the

2

S-structure

representation

representation (2c):

(2d)

via

pre-LF

[e·

who,

[et,

says

(s·

what2

[e·

pre-LF:

everyday c. pre-LF:

[.,, • wha~

(2b)

and

are

the

(G) Criterion,

the

of Binding introduce relevant

which

the

and the

content

to someone

t2

ti

so111e

Phonology

I I

Surface In the

above

Structure

mentioned

Shibatani.

{1978),

discovered

that

works,

especially

many interesting suggest

involve

complementation

semantic

interpretation

that

is

semantic

the

at the

Kuroda

causative

syntactic

relevant.

(1965a)

facts

were

constructions level

where

and

21 In

(7)

below,

summarized:

some of these

(We will

arguments

below

spell

when they

out

arguments the

become

are

details

of these

relevant

to

our

discussion.)

(7)

(i)

The subject-oriented (self), may refer to subject) or a causee (Kuroda (1965a))

(ii)

The pro-VP soo-s (do so) may refer to either "matrix" VP headed by sa.se or a "complement" VP. (Shibatani (1973))e

{iii)

Some adverbs may ambiguously modify "matrix" verb sase or a "complement" {Shibatani (Ibid.)}

Thus,

the

rather

deep

natural

conducted

has

complex

simplex

hand,

that

pointed

out

native

surface

McCawley's

analysis.)

assumed

to

apply

natural

move to

to

exhibit

Since the

surface

like

(1968)

of Japanese

have

of the

V-sase

form

connee~ion,

and Hayata

phonological

an analysis, Verb

Theory.

a summary

structure,

Raising

the

causatives

same accent

for all

of

In this

the

2.2.3.

come up with rule

predicate

a

was a

Standard

speakers

by Mccawley

(See

analysis

word.

either verb.

{2i-ii)

of the

a complex

predicates

predicates.

transformational

of the

framework

a single

been

that

the

other

intuition

constitutes

complementation

consequence

within

On the clear

structure

reflexive pronoun zibun either a causer(= matrix (= complement subject).

(1971)

pattern

as

of rules

it

it

were

was again

in which agglutinates

a

a

a

22

two independent single

verb

deep structure

In short, especially

arguments

(2ii)

within

for

Verb Raising

the

are

the

quite

a

Approach,

insightful

theoretical

presented

we have

from a historical

any reason

why this

framework adapted theory

structure.

into

and

framework

of the

Theory.

Although above

(V and sase)

surface

and (2iv),

straightforward Standard

at the

V-sase

verbs

of the

analysis

Standard

incorporates

representation. possibility

2.1.2.

and discuss

The idea complementation

Theory.

framework,

below,

for

we will

exist

to the

example,

take

be

into

the

of

up this

it.

Approach

that

Japanese

causatives

has been challenged

as well

as other

complex

lexicon

by means of a morphological

6

not

Form as a level

who independently

Approach.

does

Approach

It may, in principle,

Miyagawa ( 1980),

Let us refer

there

must be confined

Logical

In 2.4.

Lexical

Verb Raising

perspective,

to any theoretical that

the

to this

line

predicates,

involve

by Farmer proposed

syntactic (1980)

and

that

"V-sa:se

are derived

in the

rule

of investigation

",

of affixation. as the

"Lexical"

23 2.1.2.1.

Theoretical The Lexical

Japanese

Background Approach

to the

is an extension

of the

(Chomsky (1970)),

which

morphology

lexicon.

backdrop

to the to the

theory

work mentioned

from English,

such works {1975)

convincingly the

that

idiosyncratic

many ways, grammar. by the

Williams

{1973),

that

based

followed upon data (1974),

to name only is not merely items

autonomous support

by Pesetsky

(1981a),

development

Siegel

of lexical

structured

presented

rapid

Mostly

lexicon

view has derived

analyses

(1981),

the

theoretical

lexicon

{1976},

properties

a highly This

above.

and Aronoff

argue

is the

as Halle

derivational

important

of the

in

Hy_pothesis

the

Another

up Chomsky's

Jackendoff

all

Approach

of the

predicates

Lexicalist

confines

Lexical

and organization

complex

a few, a list

but

is,

component

of

in of

and been extended (1979),

Kiparsky

(1982),

thus,

considers

Lieber

Selkirk

(1982),

among others. The Lexical like

sase

{CAUSE), rare

be derivational derivational stem.

morphology

the

lexical

into item,

and lets attach

the

causative

be inserted

coherent

(PASSIVE) arid ta

suffixes,

Accordingly,

example, will

Approach,

derived

the

the

(DESIDERATIVE) to

productive

them to a verbal complex

predicates,

expression

tabe-sase,

a syntactic

structure

as in (8) below:

morphemes

rules root

or for

(eat-CAUSE) as a single

of

24

(8)

Hanako ga kodomo ni NOM child DAT sweets 'Hanako's

making/letting

Both Farmer (or flat) Hale

without

of Japanese

has pointed

base-generation

assuming

that

to the

there

NP to maintain

structure

this

analysis

syntactic

any special

sweets'

a non-configurational

word order

now exists

eat

phrase

out that

of a free

recourse

child

and Miyagawa adopt

analysis

(1980)

the

o [v tabe-sase] ACC eat-CAUSE

allows

the

as in (9) below

rule

of scrambling,

no necessity

relation

as in (8).

with

for the

the

object

verb.

vm•>
"'accident-al ===>accidental-ity ,. "" photograph photograph-y ===> ,. limit ===>limit-ation

a.

(1)

processes

lexicon.

(noun-forming)

-al,

placement in

in the

was made by Siegel

affixation

do not or

as

captured.

issue

cyclic

affixation) ordered

known

be systematically

progress

(1974),

--

1

1

accident

1

b.

1

2

C.

Class

II

hand,

play

suffixes no role l.

(2)

use

b.

decide has

phonological can

and

in the

assignment

of

on the

-euse-less ===>useless-ness ===>decid-ed ===>decided-ness 1

proposed rules

straightforwardly

of morphemes

-ness

-less,

l.

a.

1

Siegel

like

trigger

that as

1

if

well

we level-order

some of the

as morphological

capture particular

the

fact sets

that

processes, certain

of phonological

we classes

I

36 rules.

For

accounted

example,

for

(3)

the

bythe

I:

-it:y,

II:

Level

following

-less,

affixation by the

II)

(Class

and

II
Cyclic

of the

absence

Class

In short,

these

ordering

the

can

-ed

-ness,

of

(2} above

and

level-ordering:•

-at:ion

-y,

processes existence

Class

(4)

(1)

phonological process

-al,

The proposed

of

in

morph logical process

Level

in

facts

phonology.

has

Kiparsky

properties

guided

relevant

to

(1985)

here

to

by the

respect the

to

exhibit the

portion

mode of

us:,..,.

Lexical phonology is word-bound, post-lexical phonology may take domain. Lexical phonology phonolgy.

Mohanan

phonology

with

summarize

elaborated

(1982),

and post-lexical

us

been

and Mohanan been

in

precedes

whereas a phrase

post-lexical

as

a

37 (iii)

Lexical phonology may exhibit sensitivity to morphological information, whereas post-lexical phonology may not.

The difference

of domains

((4ii)}

from

order

follow

introduced

in

phonology

takes

Chapter

before

and

that

(2}

The other results first

presence

It

second to

access

to

inaccessible

as

in

precedes

well

as

ordered

English

( (4iii)).

as

observed

stress

particular

to

argued,

which

rules. to

on the

The

be a result other

of morphological-sensitivity for

lexical

structure,

particular

morphemes

hand,

is

phonology

including (cf.

(1)

assignment.

the

be considered

been

in

morphemes,

exceptions

One

to

have

idiosyncratic

Pesetsky

(1979),

(1982)).

There lexical

to

has

possibility

of

(l}

phonology

of morphemes

can

word-internal

information Mohanan

type

the

of PF (See

lexical

we have

post-lexical

exhibits

of

level-ordering.

related

that

phonology

to

sensitivity

the

grammar

of morphological

respect

of

that

level

relative

two types

a class

sensitivity

in the type

least

with

is

core

be word-bound

lexical to

above

the

of

we assume

model,

must

at

sensitivity

if

and the

phonology.

are

sensitivity

of

it

post-lexical There

at

In this

Hence,

a model

One,

place

One} .

syntax.

is

Chapter

((4i))

level

seems the to

to

be no consensus

internal further

brackets morphological

as to of words

where

in

become

and phonological

each

38

processes.

It

however, (or

that

such

erased)

at

From this, have

to

that

become

of the

last

post-lexical

either

lexical

level.

phonology

structures, of

inaccessible

hence type

cannot exhibits

mentioned

argument

is

comes

well-known

adjectives

tense

the

from

attached

etc.).

adjectives are

that

lexical

the

the

systematically

morphemes

(1968),

for

derivation

investigation

differ to

them

As illustrated

have

an accent

accompanied

accompanied

accent

of of

by a pres.ent

by a past

exhibit

tense

(5)

accents

tense

mora)

a.

tabe'-ru

(eat-PRES)

b.

siro'-i

(white-PRES)

a.

ta'be-ta

(eat-PAST)

b.

si'ro-katta

(white-PAST)

accent,

of verbs on the

(1961),

Mccawley

below,

stem-final

morpheme,

a stem-penultimate

(M' = accented

depending

(Chew

in on the

patterns

verbs mora

on the as

other in

and

1~

morpheme.

(6):

no

above.

and adjectives.

It

(6)

end

sensitiveity

predicates

in verbs

(5)

the

assumption,

Accentuation

complex

they

at

stable

brackets

word-internal

The first

they

be a quite

internal

follows

morphological

and

to

least

it

access

2.2.2.

seems

when

When hand,

39

In order Chew (Ibid.) present

Rule,

which

has

the

and their

(7)

assignment

adjectives

rules need

underlying

(i)

effect

(1977),

not

between

stipulate

and i do,

do not,

the

other

tense

Attraction

underlyingly

hand,

in

below,

be specified

accent:

(6),

right.

on the (7)

and

the

past

the

Accent

shifting

toward

(5)

that

but

trigger

of

one mora

Haraguchi

contrast

(Ibid.) ru

and katta

accent

accent

the

morphemes

ta

specified

capture

and Mccawley

tense

morphemes

to

proposes

assuming with

the

that

the

verbs

location

of

17

V ===> V' /

i

wtawm]

Ad.;t]

[+Acct] (ii)

V===>V'/

;where

Q = the maximal V = vowel,

[+Acct] The application

accented

indicates. the

Here past

conjugational

tense

Let

morpheme

The verbal something

tense

like

sequence

rules

is

adjectives

+Q~,.,_,]

segments,

ending

but

like us

restricted

is

Q

also

concentrate of

version

of

(7i-ii)

condition to

include

[+Accnt] not

some other

here,

ease

below:

meant

to

(GERUNDIVE) and kereba

telkute

for

(8i-ii)

of

as the

variable

endings

(CONDITIONAL). past

the

.. t .. m] [+Acct]

= Accented.

of these

underlyingly

only

___ CoV

however,

on the

exposition.

(cf.

will Clark

presumably (1983))

look

40

(8)

(i)

===> v• I

V

f!ilt. ..

ru

rn]

v .. r--1::1]

[+Acct] V ===> V' I ___ Co (V}

( ii)

+ Q v ....-~, ]1"'

...... ,.,]

[+Acct] The basic be that

intuition

an accent

adjectives

tense

(ta/katta)

belong

see

tense

comparable

to

---

level-ordering

been

(1983) in

different this

(or

pointed

present lexical

and

rules

tense

allows in

(7)

to

and

rules but

here,

assignment

postulate

a

(independently)

by

"present-past

above

is

can

that

the

a lexical

be accent process,

morphemes

are

introduced

Clark

further

points

out

us to

simplify

(8)

they

in English.

by assuming

past

McCawley's

stress

the

observed

attraction)

in

and morphology

earlier that

the

endings

endings

cyclic

Siegel

(1984)

levels.

level-ordering

assignment

out

if

What we observe

affixes

captured accent

tense

involving led

the

to

both

forms,

Both

of phonology

accentuation

straightforwardly

the

present

seems

of

tense

words,

endings.

that

and Kurata

past

words.

of derivational

has

not

derived

that

a case

mora

conjugated

but

an interdependency

in English

that

their

the

rules

penultimate

in other

past

the

quite

assignment

the

see

is

asymmetry"

all

(ru/i)

accents

then,

It

in

analyses,

manipulating do not

to

Haraguchi's

on the

endings

and Haraguchi's

Clark

falls

and verbs

present

behind

the

by eliminating

and in

that

accent (7ii)

and

41 (8ii).

The simplified

rule

will

presumably

look

like

(9)

below:

(9)

Penultiaate

Accent

V ===> V' /

Placeaent

C('.) V

Vwi--t.:,

Rule:

/'l~d

,.j ]

[+Acct] (10)

below

is

a simplified

version

of the

level-ordering

in

question: (10}

morphological process

Level

i:

-ruli

Level

j;

-talkatta

If

this right

and

past

the

lexicon.

track, tense

Assignment as

however,

(9) its

approach

we are

morphemes tense

morphemes

types

of tense

syntactic

tense

Assignment

accentuation

conclude

(9)

present

to

a relevant

stem

Penultimate

Accent

approach

either:

(i)

to

are

introduced

morphemes morphemes

the

are This

taking would

that stem

present in the

introduced attached is

one, tense

lexicon, or

but

(ii)

that

in syntax, to

a possible

in

a derived

force

in syntax,

are

on

both

post-lexically, This

is

that

attached

that

attached

operation.

to

to

are

insist

applies

assume

are

led

morphemes

domain.

to

Accent

(PAST)

One may still

present

===> Penult

(PRES)

level-ordering

the

word

phonological process

the but

stem

but

past both only

by some

highly

dubious

42

move to

take,

syntactic

however,

functions

One might

of present

also

asymmetry

"extratonal"

status

in

Archangeli (11)

and

consider both

(12)

b.

ta'be-(ta)

{eat-PAST)

a.

siro"-i

(white-PRES)

b.

si'ro-(katta)

(white-PAST) indeed

adjectival

tense

= High

Tone,

a.

Mmu-i

(sleepy-PRES)

b.

~mu-katta

(sleepy-PAST)

At first the

(_=Low

20

below

sight,

(13a)

contradictory

(sleepy) accentedness

is

and

conclusion

both

unaccented

of the

(13b)

and

mora mu in

the

us to mora

in

phonology:

morpheme

the katta

Tone)

to

provide

adjectival

accented. (13b),

As illustrated

motivates

appear

that

an

penultimate

in post-lexical

(eat-PRES)

of the

1 ~

permits

on the

tabe"-ru

(13)

the

morphemes

a.

extratonality

(13)

placed

morphemes.

by positing

assumption

forms

in

for

(1984)).

this

is

and past

The contrast

(PAST):

account

tense

similar

tense

accentuation

past

below,

accent

present

(11)

for

to

and Pulleyblank

(12)

that

in

the

and past

attempt

present-past

(cf.

when we consider

us with stem

The seeming

however,

can be

nemu

43 accounted from

for

the

if

hand,

cannot (14)

of such

suggests

a contrast

that

be considered

to

the

lime-ru

(stop-PRES)

b.

lime-ta

(stop-PAST)

between

forces

reject

present-past

low tone

(13b) the

asymmetry

in

{14)

verbal

below,

tense

on the

morpheme

ta

and

(14b},

in

extratonality of

other

approach

accentuation

words, to

observed

the

in

(11)

and

above. We thus

assume

that

adjectival With

adopt tense

level-ordering

morphemes

stems this

the

in the

attached

lexicon.

conclusion

to

and

verbal

in mind,

us now turn

a.

tabe-sase'-ru

(eat-CAUSE-PRES)

b.

tabe-sa'se-ta

(eat-CAUSE-PAST)

a.

tabe-sase-rare'-ru

(eat-CAUSE-PASS-PRES)

b.

tabe-sase-ra're-ta

(eat-CAUSE-PASS-PAST)

(16a)

not

only

carry

an accent

Mccawley

let

(15)

sase

on their

inside final

to

the

(1968)):

(CAUSE) and rare appear

and

21

paradigm

Crucially,

(cf.

are

approach,

following

(16)

arises

be extratonal:

a.

us to

following

of katta.

The contrast

(12)

immediately

extratonality

The lack other

the

(PASSIVE)

the

tense

mora due

in

morpheme to

the

(15a) ru

and but

application

also

44 of

the

lexical

counts

ru

logical

as the

have

tense

final

we can

morpheme the

already

familiar

lexicon

to

us

are

as Level

simplex

assumed

suffixes

to

Level

i

-ru.l

Level

J:

with

tense

2.2.3.

morphemes

In this phonological tensed

verb

to

lexical

the

(15)

accent

U 6)

and

placement This

introduced

(1984)):z

Penultimate Assignment

===>

that are

for

if

in the 2

Accent (9)

complex

derived

predicates

in the

together

lexicon.

23

Spread subsection,

argument of

lexicon.

phonological process

conclude

Voicing

when

(PAST)

-talkatta

We thus

sase

stem

accounted

(Kurata

(CAUSE) (PASSIVE) ( PRES)

-sase -rare

i :

be that

predicates.

be

morphological process

(17)

verbal

straightforwardly

also i

the

in in

The only

to

in the

predicates

which

word.

seems to

introduced

from

placement,

derived

then,

asymmetry

be also

and rare

of the

attached

complex

a present-past

can

is

accent

draw,

been ru

exhibit

asymmetry

mora

already

Second,

sase

of penultimate

conclusion

and rare the

rule

the

we will for

form

derivation

the

present

lexical

V-ta

(PAST).

of

complex

another

derivation It

will

predicates.

of again

a lead

us

45 Observe, triggered

first,

by the

the

phonological

suffixation

change

of Level_;

in

(18)

morphemes

below and

ta

te:

(18)

a.

tob + ta ===> jump PAST

b.

tob

+ te

GER

In addition

to

footnote

12,

involved

in the

Spread

and

the

Consonant

there

are

as

and Mester

24

-ta:

tob-ta

Voi Spr:

tob-da

C Assim:

tod-da

Coda Nas:

ton-da

as

in

(18)

consonant trigger

us here

concentrate

following

above, but

Voicing

to

not

also

verbs

Spread,

verbs

only

verbs ending

as

examples

on Voicing

---

ending in

illustrated

in

Voicing

in

( 19)

Spread,

and

made by Ito ending

in

processes

illustrated

observation

In contrast

(Ibid.).

of these

(1986)):

discussed

phonological

Coda Nasalization,

(19)

the

Assimilation

two other

derivation

(Ito

present

ton-de

===>

below

Let

ton-da

and Mester

a voiced in

a voiceless

a sonorant in

obstruent

(20)

fail

to

below:

2

a

46

(20)

===>but-ta

a.

but-ta hit-PAST

b.

tabe-ta eat

c.

tor-ta take

===>tot-ta

d.

kaw-ta buy

===>kat-ta

===>tabe-ta

Adopting

the

theory

of underspecification

(1982)),

Ito

and Mester

especially

the

hypothesis

that

redundant

and

for

obstruents)

[-voi]

during

the

account

contrast

cyclic

are but It

rules.

words,

Voicing

Spread

as have

an autosegmental a chance

to

rule apply

stem-final

sonorants

associated

with

time (21)

by a default Voicing

I\

X

X

as of

even in these

[ +voi],

which

rule

in the

Spread:

[+voi]

not

phonology

this

(18)

features

default

that

for

bentween

post-cyclic

(Kiparsky

in

lexical in

and

with

for

present

underlyingly

filled been

(21)

claimed,

exmaples provided

post-lexical

or

since are

in

other

formalized

phonology,

not for

the

sonorants

in by

below

(20b-d),

is

(20b-d),

([+voi]

are has

contrast,

does

not

the yet the

first

phonology:

47 There

is

Voicing tense

reason,

Spread morpheme

(18) the

good

above, verbal

applies

we may again stem

in the

One final complex

predicates

(want).

Observe

indicates (22)

that

Voicing

conclude

argument

first

assume since

the

Spread,

that

it

that

as

is

past seen

in

attached

to

26

(want)

ta

~e-ta-i want-PRES then,

verbal following

root

a.

lexical

derivation

desiderative

contrast is

ta

(want)

is

suffixed

like

tabe

(eat}

(1983),

as high

tones,

and no•

as

(eat-want-PRES)

H

nom-ita-i

H

H

which

(drink-want-PRES)

to

28

an

(drink}.

we represent

I

b.

-ta

below,

{22)

I

H

suffix

in

27

tabe-ta-i

of

accented:

that

Pulleyblank

""non-linearly"" below:

the the

the

b.

accents

for

concerns

~ke-ru open-PRES

accented

(23)

to

Then,

lexicon.

a.

Suppose,

(23)

lexically.

may undergo

ta

words,

Downdrift

2.2.4.

Here,

in other

illustrated

underlying in

48 The resulting

representation,

Obligatory prohibits

then,

Contour

Principle

a sequence

of

will

(Leben

identical

violate

(1973}),

the

which

elements

in the

melodic

tier. In order there

exists

which

applies

at

(25)

a.

problem,

rule

least

of

tone

in Level

let

us

deletion (cf.

i

assume as

that

in

Archangeli

(24), and

Deletion:

=== •

H H ... rule

this

(1984)):

Tone

This

solve

a cyclic

Pulleyblank (24)

to

will

g H ...

provide

derivations

as

in

(25)

below:

===> tabe-ta

tabe-ta I

I

H

b.

H

H

===> tabe-ta-gar2

tabe-ta-gar I I

9

I I

H H That confirmed (want)

this

the

light

Kawakami

(1973)

containing

two

uninterrupted

(cf.

is

when we examine in

undergo

approach

the

of

the

observes

that

accented

items the

downdrift,

as

(1968}

right

accent

so-called

manner,

McCawley

on the

track

patterns

downdrift when is

second illustrated

and Haraguchi

phenomena.

in the

be

of V-ta

a phrasal

read of

can

expression

a fast, two

in (1977)):

(26)

accents below

will

49

u'mi-de + oyo'g-u ===> sea L0C swam-PRES

(26)

This

intuition

in Table the

pitch

can

1 below:

umi-de

be confirmed (The

was computed

oyog-u

by the

speech

pitch

track

was digitized

within

at

an AMDF pitch

diagram

10 kHz,

tracker

at

and 200

Hz.)

240

2:;o 220

210 200

190 180 170 160

150 140 130 120 110 1 00

~\ umi -dt

ovt,g-u

t,:. '

90

80 123456

1

0

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

1

2

3

4

'

/ 0

,. .J

/\ .._ Table

1.

Crucially, which

Pitch

track

however,

involve

diagram the

an accented

complex verbal

of u'mi-de

oyo'g-u

predicates root

in

and ta

{23) (want),

above, do

50

not

undergo

accent (27)

This

downdrift

pattern,

as

a.

tabe-ta-i

b.

nom-i-ta-i

intuition

in Table

is

but in

(27)

exhibit

a lexical

penultimate-

below:

confirmed

by the

pitch

track

diagram

2 below:

200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120

\ noa i-t.a-i

II0 I 00

~

90

80

1234567891

Table This

2. means

!2345678921

Pitch that

(drink-want-PRES), (28)

below

track the

diagram complex

for

when downdrift

2

3

4

5

70 6

of no'm-ita'-i predicate

example, takes

is

noa-ita-i

not

place:

represented

as

in

51 (28)

nom-ita-i 'I

H

H

Whether (Haraguchi

downdrift

(1977))

implementation considered is

or

rule to

and

in

syntax,

V-ta

the

examples

the

(27)

two (23)

accents,

for

the

domain between

lexical which

two high

therefore, the

be

its

an approach

together

leaving

must

The contrast

i.e.,

put

it since

(26)).

Under

are,

downdrift,

a phonetic

(1980)),

argues

are

They

undergo

(cf.

(want).

like

of

process

post-lexically,

then,

V-ta

post-lexically.

to

place

above,

of

a result

phrasal

(27)

derivation

is

a phonological

(Pierrehumbert

take

unquestionably

(26)

is

for

the

tones,

in

first

time

incorrectly contrast

derives

predicted

between

(26)

and

unexplained. On the

other

incorporating

a lexical

will

be e:xpected,

lose

one

hence

2.2.5.

of

will

the

lexicon.

high

in the tonal

since

be unable

the

tones to

lexical-derivation

deletion complex

during

undergo

rule,

this

predicates the

in

lexical

downdrift

approach contrast (23a-b)

derivation,

post-lexically.

Summary In this

prediates

hand,

section,

including

we have complex

concluded

predicates

that are

all

derived

tensed in the

52 Follwoing argued of

that

tensed

the

the

morphemes

that is

the

inside

the

triggered

predicate accented

seen

morpheme

items

suffix

ta

that

morpheme

not

only

affected

ta

appear

by

by the

lexical

concluded

contrast

can

derived

in the

deleted

by a cyclic

may undergo

that

they

(want)

lexicon, rule is

one

of tone a summary

in

stem

out

(want)

is

of

high

the

the

undergoes that

this

assumed

to

tones

is

deletion. of

and

never

pointed

the

the

containing

tabe-ta-i)

V-ta

of

a complex

verbal

We have

where

motivated

downdrift,

{e.g.,

if

introduction

expressions

of an accented

be explained

The following

is

phrasal

process.

post-lexical

lexical

(want)

ta

While

consisting

level-ordering:

we have

we have

accented

are

seen

spread.

(PASSIVE)

also

we have

tense

voicing

past

levels.

work,

past

by

introduced.

of downdrift.

this

but

for

and the

(1986)

of

Assignment

lexically

accounted ruli

of the light

accentuation

lexical

Mester's

morphemes

desiderative

light two

and

we first

in the

in different

(CAUSE) and rare

Accent

(1983),

best

morphemes

in the

tense

Finally, the

tense

cf ru/i-suffixation,

also

Clark

is

introduction

sase

Penultimate process

adjectives

on Ito

motivated Since

and

asymmetry

talkatta

lexical

also

are

and

present

Drawing

(1984)

present-past

verbs

ordering tense

Kurata

proposed

be

53 (28) Level

Level

If it

will

Verb

i :

phonological process

-sase (CAUSE) -rare (PASIVE) -ta (want) -ru (PRES) -i (PRES)

Penultimate Accent Assignment (0} Tone Deletion (24)

our

conclusion

force

us to

section

virtually

in which

has all

complex

any validity,

versions

of

predicates

Affix

Raising

the

are

Hypothesis

Initial

Sketch

We have

concluded

in 2.2.

that

lexicon.

Within

the

model

( ( 1) below),

this

means

that

derived

in the adopted

Verb

Raising

contradictory construction.

Approach sets

not

an available

in

(2)

below.

complex

to

These predicate

option facts

complex

account

of properties

In particular,

is

the

reject

(21)

Spread

in syntax.

2.3.1.

the

Voicing

===> Coda Nasalization

in this

Approach,

2.3.

have

==>

-ta (PAST) -te (GER) -katta (PAST)

_i :

Raising

derived

morphological process

for

of the

of grammar we cannot the

us td

require

construction.

are we adopt

two

causative

D-structure for

predicates

complementation

account

structural

for

the

facts

complexity

in

54 (1)

+

D-structure : ----

Syntactic

Move-alpha

t

S-structure

I PF Move-alpha

----

Phonetic {2)

Form

\ --·--

;

LF Move-alpha

'It

(PF)

Logical

Form

The subject-oriented reflexive pronoun zibun (self) may refer to either a causer(= matrix subject) or a causee (= complement subject). (Kuroda (1965a))

(ii)

The pro-VP soo-s (do so) may refer to either "matrix" VP headed by sase or a "complement" VP. (Shibatani (1973))

(iii)

Some adverbs may ambiguously modify "matrix" verb sase or a "complement" (Shibatani (Ibid.)}

the

(1980)

and Farmer

syntactically

simplex

containing

a complex

throughout

the

capture

the

predicate

derivation.

facts

in

{1980}

take

in terms

of

this

We will

propose

that

S-structure Logical the

a complex

may be mapped Form.

syntactic

In particular, rule

predicate onto

of Move-alpha

we will

a simplex construction

a complex our

the

do not

syntactic

however,

of

they

a

granted

simplex

remain

thesis,

representation

for

must

In this

assumption.

it

representation

As a consequence,

(2)

either verb.

D-structure

complementation.

to

(LF)

( i)

Miyagawa that

\

/

structure

analysis at

LF.

makes

deny syntactic at at an appeal

Move-alpha

55 raises

both

complex

inflectional

predicates

and derivational

to

yield

to

illustrate

affixes

a syntactically

out

of

complex

structure. Let Hypothesis

us begin

by presenting

representations in ( 3}

(3)

below:""

a.

of the

our

typical

(schematized)

complex

predicate

0

S-str-uctur-e:

rrn-M I \ I'"-'"

NP-ga NP-ni

I \

rm-d

I \

NP-o

Imin

I \ I

\

V

I \ V V

b.

I ru PRES

I I

tabe eat

sase CAUSE

S-str-uctur-e:

I \

NP,. -ga

rm-d

I \ I \ NP-o

l"''n

I \ I A I \

V tabe eat

"Affix

\

A ta want

I i PRES

Raising" S-structure

constructions

as

56

In 2.2.

above,

accompanied

we have

by a tense

When we consider

the

in Japanese,

assumption

that

is

the

inserted

(I'"'n),

as

X-bar

Theory

constituent

in

that

(cf.

(1978),

Hale

(1980),

the

entire

and

syntactic

category

of

corresponds

Chomsky

32

To these applies

and

complex

predicates,

in

of the the

(3a-b)

of

the

natural (headed category

basic

by INFL

claim

of the

a non-terminal of

its

(1976),

Stowell also

is

head Jackendoff

(1981),

etc.),

quite

, 3 3

S-structure

brings

a quite

Emonds

(1980),

lexicon.

character

to ,that

(1970),

Farmer

in the

predicate

item Given

labelling

straightforward.

complex

(3b).

predicate

derived

becomes

a lexical

in syntax item

is

head-final it

31

the

lexical

a complex

morpheme

as

(3a)

that

general

morphology

INFL)

seen

the as

representations, affixes illustrated

one

Move-alpha

by one

out

of

in

and

(5)

(4)

the below:

34

57

(4)

a.

S-structure:

Pre-LF:

b.

Irn-1-l:

I

ym.-.w.

Iffl&\H

I

I \

NP-ga

NP-ni

I

\

I

rm-d

I \

\

I

==:::>

\

V

I ru

PRES

sase CAUSE

lF:

c.

rrr1,.a).t

I \ I

\

I \ \

NP-ga

ru

\

I \ I

\

I \ \

NP-ni

\

I

NP-o

I \

vn1-d

I

Imi,,

I

tabe eat

\

I \

I \

V

U!.

\

NP-ni

\

V I \

I•n::l.n I I

\

NP-ga

Im-d

NP-o

I

\

I \

I \

I

I \

\

Vmi,, I

I

tabe

I \ I

\

NP-o

V""· .-,

I \ I

V

\

V

I

I

tabe

sase

=====>

58

(5)

a.

Pre-LF:

b.

S-structure:

rn1..aH

I \

I

In,ollllx

I \ I

\

NP, -ga

I

rm-••

I \

\ I I

\

NP,-ga

\

I \ I

i. An1-c;:I

I \

\ I

I

I \

\

NP-o

I \

===>

l'"""

I

I \

\

A

I \

A

I

I I

I

i PRES

ta want

l'"-H

I I

I \

NP,-ga

I \

\

\ i

\ I \

I

\ I I

I \ I

ta

\

e1

\

I \

I

NP-o

\

NP-o

\

yn1;Ln I

I

tabe

A"'•,.,

I \

I

LF:

C.

I I V

V tabe eat

\

\ A

I I

I I

tabe

ta

===>

59 An important

feature

LF representatins ·(V"'"''"') to such

in

complements

hand,

other

the

S-structure

at

facts

in other

in this

analysis.

words, This

reported

constitutes

in

a single

moment,

we have

support

this

not

intuition.

D-structure

through

Isomorphy

Constraint exist

1.

a complex

of

from

word,

although,

S-structure

to

any principle

at

the

with

Bracketing A further

this to

status"

since that

from

from there

the does

requires

application peculiar

to

Paradoxes important

of

Move-alpha

the

analysis

point to of

to

affixes complex

be noted is

the

predicate

otherwise.

2.3.2.

PF

complex

PF results

of grammar

to

evidence

word

1. 3. 3.),

in

as

D-structure

a complex

"coherent

((23)

predicate

that

that

other

predicates

above

also

of

on the

compatible

Note

account

maps

complex

any direct

of

On the

quite

presented

inheritance

to

is

surface

predicate's

seem

2.1.

of

inherited

result

our

no effect

of

resulting complement

analysis

properties

is

in

below.

in this

The coherence

the

role

have

the

The emergence

presented

should

that

do contain

(want).

raising it

is

a crucial

phonetic

PF.

a word,

intuition

and

play

LF,

and

determined

(5)

affix

onto

phonological

(4)

will

and since

analysis

(CAUSE) and ta

sase

(2 i-iii)

of this

is

that

the

by no means

predicates

but

should

not

60

be considered

as

grammar.

motivation

Its

a general

known as

"bracketing

Williams

(1981a)). The Affix

stems

from

in English exhibit

option comes

Raising

Pesetsky

(1985),

and Russian.

(6)

a.

un [N analyze-able-ity)

b.

[ un [,. analyze-able

word-internal 1 (+)

(6a)

is

adjective proposed

bracketing

like

(1974),

with

paradoxes various

English

those

in

is (6)

problems known to

below:

and

of

Level

rather

affixes,

than

the

(6a),

affixes,

comes on the

since

by Pesetsky

in

2 (#)

When it

motivated,

] ) ity

level-ordering

structure

above).

properties

to

problems

(Ibid.))

a well-established

2.2.1.

Siegel

example,

paradoxes

Siegel

Level

morphological

who dealt For

in the

(cf.

Approach

(cf.

the

from

paradoxes··

bracketing

Here,

available

to

a noun. is

illustrated

requires

and un-

-ity

being

respectively the

other prefix

in English

(See

categorial hand, un-

The Affix in

(6b)

selectional rather

selects Raising (7)

below:

than

an Analysis

61 a.

(7)

S-structure:

LF:

b.

N

I \

N

.A

I \

I \

un#

N

un#

A

I \ A

+ity_

I \

+ity

V +able

===>

I \

I I

V +able

analyze

I

I

analyze Pesetsky's

claims

of

lexical

items

is

checked

only

violation

of

application

here

at

of

(ii)

as

categorial

(e.g., that

in

selection

un-:

the

(7a)

+[

__

A])

potential

triggers

classical

the

lexical

of

Principle,

hence

realized

throughout

the

level

of

syntactic

lexical only

that

of

LF.

only

the

are

those

properties

into

on the

and other

This

allows

constituents

to

to are

properties

the

(i.e.,

are

Projection

in the

at

all

properties

checked

categorial

be altered

The

obligatorily

C-selectional

hand, the

two

theta-marking

derivation LF).

theory

properties.

subject

a syntactic

(i)

this

theta-marking

items

S-structure items,

frames ---

in

First,

Cc-selectional)

moreover,

properties

lexical

(1982).

properties

selectional

D-structure,

mentioned

subcategorization

argues,

of

subcategorization

by Pesetsky

categorial

theory

affixes

and

c-selection

proposed

independent and

LF,

that

of Move-alpha.

been

divides

(i)

including

The theory has

are:

only

at

specification course

of

a

62 derivation.

Pesetsky

in Russian

---

po-phrases,

certain

such

and motivates

this

morphology,

and

affix

c-selectional

affix

as

raising

Kitagawa

(1986a),

following

cases:

( 8)

a.

the

b.

(9)

a.

[N oo-guti ()0

'open Here,

the

(waist) bracketing

one's

word-bound

==> g_osi, in

(8a)

to (7)

triggered

by

a simple

for

which

solution.

discussed

In

the

kagame ]

oneself' ]

[ ,,,,. guti

is

in

paradoxes

I have

o kagame

ake

0

big-mouth

b.

analysis

ACC bend

bend

'lightly

provides

o

[v, .. gosi

ko

this

introduced

bracketing

example,

little-waist

extends

quantifier

cher::king.

approach

[N ko-gosi)

examples

some puzzling

by Move-alpha

shows

for

as

specification,

these

analysis

raising

well

----

categorial

further

property

Japanese the

proposes

in which

etc.

involving

(1985)

phrases

distributive

by explaining

asymmetries Pesetsky

above,

of

analysis

quantifier

phrases,

of negation",

an alteration

subjer::t-object phrases.

various

numeral

"genitive

requiring

the

provides

ACC open 0

ake

mouth

] wide'

process !£..uti

and

of

(mouth) (9a)

but

rendaku

==> the

g_uti)

voicing"""' motivates

interpretation

(k.os i the of

the

63 prefixes

ko-

(little)

suggests

the

bracketing

application

of

affix

explain

why such

becomes

possible:~

(10)

and oo-

(big)

in

{8b)

raising

at

adverbial

and

(9b).

LF as

modifiers With

in

of

the

below,

(10}

interpretation

the

we can

affixes

6

b.

S-struct\JJ'.'.!;l_;_

a.

as verbal

VP I\ ~ \ :

VP

I\

VP.

ko

I NP-o

\

/\

I NP-o

V

\ V

I

I

===>

N

I\

I Ii'

N gosi

Furthermore,

(11)

as

expressions

acceptable

in these

*kanozyo-no her 'her

b.

*boku-no my

that

upon the

this

application

(11} below,

in

may never

examples

the

an

provide

by themselves: ko little

little

'my big Based

illustrated

interpretation

a,

kagame

gosi

\

ko

nominal

N

kagame

waki armpit

armpit'

oo big

guti mouth

mouth'

observation, of

it Move-alpha

has

also

been

in these

suggested examples

is

64 triggered

by the

{1986b)),

which

Principle

of Full

requires

every

Interpretation

entity

at

LF to

(Chomsky be

interpreted. Lebeaux

(1984b)

nominalization the

distinction

deverbal for

in

between

nominalizing

affix

below:

(12)

destruction

I

result

reflects

(12)-(14) the

this

an interesting

nominals

the

extends

approach way.

and

LF,

action

as

I \

Det

illustrated

nominal

]

\ N'"''"'' (no

I V I I

destruct

I \

\

N I I

tion

affix

of

in attachment

I I

the

that

readings

38

[ result

English

He argues

a difference at

to

movement)

in

sites

65

(13)

the

destruction

a.

of the

city

[ action b.

Nm~H

I \

I

Det

\

I

\

I

\

N

destruct

(14)

the

/

enemy's

I

I

I

NP \

ym•"

:

\

/ _____ \ the city

destruction

tion

of the

\

NP

/

\

\ __ \ the city

destruct/

/

city

Nrr,..aH

a.

Nmin

I \

/

tion

\

===)

\

:

I /

\

:

I \

the

\

\ Nm&d

I I

I \ V

I \

Det

I \ / I Nm•n

[ action

nominal]

b.

I \ NP

I

I

I

\

I

I \

\

Nn1:tr1

I V

the

analysis

application

N

I tion

of Move-alpha

and

\ \

city

____ \ I e's

I

I

I \

:liQn

\

I

\ NP

I

\

device

predicates

we have

an affix

In this

thesis,

assume:

(i}

is

we will that

both

\

I

\

I the

city

adopted

in Japanese,

Nn•:i.r,

vm&»d

destruct

\

to

I NP I \

I I

\

I

of complex

\

yrn:i.1··1

a grammatical

well-motivated. (1982,1985),

the

\ NP

I the In short,

/

\

I I

destruct

===>

\

I \ \

\

I \

Nrt1Glld

/ ____\ the e's

I \

vm&a.H

\

\

]

Nfl1-H,

Nm4.;u::1

the

nominal

for

namely,

independently follow

Pesetsky

syntactic

and

the

\

66 morphological else,

c-selection

and

(ii)

that

trigger

the

affix

2.3.3.

C-selection In order

2.3.1.

concerning (CAUSE), tense

rare

First,

(15)

properties

our

make the predicate

(PASSIVE),

ta

analysis

gar

(display)

and

as

in Japanese in

(15)

rare

(PASSIVE):

+[V

c.

ta

d.

gar

e.

ru/ta

f.

i/katta

(want}:

morphological

(PRES/PAST): (PRES/PAST): as

the

of these

formal

checked

at

that LF,

]

+[V

]

+[A

]

F'or

be attached

position

+[A

representation

morphemes.

(CAUSE) must the

]

+[V

(display):

these

have

C-Seiection:

b.

are

the

below:

+[V

properties

proposals sase

(CAUSE):

adopted

LF

in

suffixes

(want),

morphemes

properties

we have

at

forming

sase

sase

checked

presented

following

a.

"boundness',"

nowhere

in Japanese.

rlorphological

We propose

that

complete

these

c-selectional

LF but

by Move-alpha.

complex

morphemes

at

and 8-marking

we will

the

checked

c-selectional raising

to

above,

are

it

of

example,

to all follows

the

( 15a)

a verbal

states

stem.

c-selectional that

a complex

Since

67 predicate must of

containing

be analyzed

the

as

Four

adverbial exactly

at

below,

scopes

and

like

S-structure

and

of

LF.

Later

see

that

in

in this

analysis.

below

a pre-LF

suffixes

item

binding

(16)

the

lexical

we will

as predicted

representation

more

a single

representations

Chapter

(16)

one or

in at

in this the

complex

(=(4a)

in

(15)

least

one

section

facts

concerning

predicates

We thus above)

and

as

are have

a

both

an

representation:·

S-structure/Pre-LF,: Irn""'H

I

I \

\

NP-ga

l"'"'"

I \

I

\

NP-ni

Ifflllf.t'd

I \

I

\

NP-o

l"'" ...

I \ I

\

V

I \

V

V

I

I

c-selectional (17)

the

tense

morphemes

properties

Syntactic

a.

ru/ta:

b.

i/katta:

ru PRES

sase CAUSE

tabe eat Second,

I

as

summarized

C-Selection:

+[

ymMH

+[

A"'-"

have

__

]

syntactic

in

(17)

below:

in

68 Our claim

here,

in other

ru,

for

example,

of

a verb

just

projection

of

c-selectional

syntactically

a noun

means

of affix

(18)

b.

the

of

(18)

example

projection

a maximal Again,

LF trigger

below

morpheme

a maximal

NP).

at

in the

tense

selects

an object checked

derivation

that

verb

(i.e.,

of Move-alpha the

is

selects

as a transitive

properties

application motivate

words,

(16).

from

(16)

the We now above

by

have

the

raising: Pre-LF

:

2

Inh,ax

I \

I

\

r,

rrni.

I \

I

I I

\

NP-ga

ru

\

I \ I NP-n i

\ V'"''""' I \ I \

NP-o

V'"~n

I V

I \

\

V

I

' tabe Finally, Q-marking

the

properties

various as

sase derivational summarized

suffixes below:

69 ( 19)

0-•arking

a.

sase

(CAUSE):

( AG [ ET

]]

b.

rare

(PASSIVE}:

[ EX ( ET

]]"'"'

C.

ta

[ EX [ ET

)]

d.

gar

(want):

(AG= Extending

Thus, (18) (21)

(display):

Pesetsky's as

EXPERIENCER,

claims,

in

(20)

below

(Chomsky

0-Criterion

]]

[ AG/EX [ ET

AGENT, EX=

G-Criterion (20)

Properties:

ET=

we will also

EVENT-TYPE40

assume

that

triggers

the

affix

raising:

(1982)):

( i)

Each term of LF' ( = each G-role uniquely.

(ii)

Each G-role determined by lexical properties a head is uniquely assigned to an argumentat

the in

LF representation order

to

a.

satisfy

in the

argument)

(21a)

below

is

is

assigned

derived

0-Criterion:

b.

LF:

li

I \ I

\

A

I \

V tabe eat

V

I NP-o

\

I \

I

I \ V - A I

i

I

PRES

tabe

ta

ta want

LF:

c.

1'""..,,..

I \ I

I \

I NP,-ga

\

\

i

\ I \

I

\ An1:Lr·1

I

I \

I

I

\

e,

\

I NP-o First,

when the

out of the

I"'-~

ta

I \

\

ym,lo··,

tabe adjectival

in (23a),

tense

morpheme

an intermediate

i

(PRES)

strueture

moves as

in

73

(24)

below

derives

(Williams

(1981),

(24)

Am•H

by way of the Lieber

head

feature

that

the

percolation

(1981)):

\f'"'""'

I

NP / Am•d

NP/ \

Am~..

NP

I t

A'"i,.,

I \ V

A

I

We are

I

tabe

ta

assuming,

percolation

(1982),

other at

we are

rather

only

of grammar

when

does

leave

require

two more

adjunction derived i

of the Pi''-"

automatically

property

of Note

between

in

this that

morphology

we are and

analyses,

(24),

because

leaves

a

by

in other

then,

tense Note

once

morpheme

required

words,

no principles

will

operations.

{24}.

follows

is

movement

presence.

structural

in

Pesetsky

that

a trace

its

adjectival

node

following

presence

In our

head-feature

representation.

(1985),

its

not

seem to

with

here,

Pesetsky

The representation (23b)

syntactic

each

of grammar.

movement

words,

assuming

than

behind

principles affix

in

applies

Also,

trace

I

I

be mapped One is

morpheme that

this

we stipulate

i

the

the

(PRES)

landing

to

to

site

the for

c-selectional

( [A'"'"'" ___]) ..""'

assuming

one crucial

syntax:

only

difference

in morphology

does

the

74 application rise

to

item,

of Move-alpha percolation

as

as

of the

illustrated

in

an adjunction

head

(25)

features

process from

the

give moved

below:

XP

(25) X

I

\

yp

I

\

/ ____ \

I I I I I

I

'------• The other (26)

below,

N"'"

nodes

(26)

mechanism

which in

( 24):

X

y

has

involved

an effect (cf.

is of

a convention

eliminating

Lasnik-Kupin

one

as

in

of

the

(1977))

X

===>

y

y

The mapping similarly

via

of

(23b)

onto

an intermediate

(27)

I \

I

\

81

\

I

NP-o

I \

\

V"'' •··, vnJ.1··1 I

I

tabe

(23c) structure

proceeds as

in

quite (27)

below:

75 2.3.5.

Complementation In this

following the

in the

subsection,

arguments

causative

Affix

we will

for

the

Raising

describe

syntactic

construction

fit

Approach how the

complementation

into

the

Affix

in

Raising

Approach. (28)

(i)

The subject-oriented reflexive pronoun zibun (self) may refer to either a causer(= matrix subject) or a causee (= complement subject). ( Kuroda ( 1965a))

(ii)

The pro-VP soo-s (do so) may refer to either "matrix" VP headed by sase or a "complement" VP. ( Shibatani ( 1973})

(iii)

Some adverbs may ambiguously modify "matrix" verb sase or a "complement" (Shibatani (Ibid.))

a

g;:ibun

2. 3. 5. 1.

Let

us start

of the

reflexive

Unlike

the

bound

across

a subject

with

clause

boundaries

its

it

be possible

antecedent.

ambiguously

either

but

subject

or more

matrix

crucially,

of zibun

in

(Kuroda

must

If

43

in general

subject a surface

some cases.

to

take

sentence goes,

we exPect

be bound

or the

complement

non-subject This

binding

may be

zibun

argument zibun

the (1965)).

a causative

the

an embedded

by the

upon

in English,

complementaion, for

based

(self)

zibun

anaphors

involves

an antecedent

argument

reflexive

as

---

the

pronoun

truly to

either verb.

a

prediction

can is

be

76

borne

out,

as

(29a)

and the

(29)

a.

the

contrast

causative

Taroo1

between sentence

ga Hanaker~ NOM

the

simplex

(29b}

below

o zibun,/-~ ACC self

sentence illustrates:

no heya ni GEN room to

ire-ta let=in-PAST 'Taro b.

let

Taroo,.

Hanako

into

his

room.'

ga Hanak0:;;, o zibun1,'2 NOM ACC self

no heya ni GEN room to

hai r-ase -ta enter-CAUSE-PAST 'Taro Thus, status

binding of

made/let of zibun

a causative

NP denoting

the

Hanako provides sentence

causee

enter

his/her

an argument or

as a subject

at

least at

room.' for for

some

the

complex

analyzing

level

of

representation. In the this below:

fact

with

Affix the

Raising

Approach,

LF complementation

we will of

account

V"'·~··' as

in

for ( 30)

an

77 (30)

LF: l"'""•'

I

I \

ym.~x

\

1m·l,,

I \ I

I I

ta

\

NP1--ga

\ yn11,wt;j

I \

I I

I \

\ \

NP:z--o

sase \

I \ I

\ ynf:L1··1

I /\

I

I

\

I

/ ..

This the

account Verb

I' hair enter

\ \

I \ _________ \ zibun

l. /2

crucially

Raising

••

differs

Approach

from

in at

the

least

account

offered

in

two different

aspects. First, at

D-structure.

independent Second, than

INFL or

Accordingly, i.e.,

complementation

subject,

exists

In 2.3.5.3. motivation the

for

this

complement

COMP (i.e., what

and

functions

i.s identified

the

is

at 2.4.2.

LF rather

than

below,

we will

see

analysis. a projection

complement as the as the

is

antecedent outermost

of not

V rather Sor

S').

of zibun, argument

of

78 the

verbs

of

Stowell

(NP,

sa5e

(1981,

One clear pointed

out

Approach,

lack

( 5)

conditioned

to

complements

in the

never

to

complex

predicate place,

2.3.5.2.

of

tense for

in

other

this

In the

by the

postulation

This

applied

of

hand,

500

5

a matter

(

a pro-VP.

on the

other

Hasegawa questioning

the

that

complex

of

Aux must

be

but

eomplements.

the

complements

problem

automatically

will

of

construction,

sentential

been

sentential

are

If

we

in the

non-sentential

in the disappear.

44

the

--

can

Shibatani_'s

also

be

argument

do so) .

Hinds

(1980),

analysis

pro-form

controversy.

hand,

counterarguments.

(28ii)

the

of

is

5

to

has

Raising

however,

construction

to

What exactly been

rule,

predicate

The V"'"~ complementation

involving

lines

s

~00

directly

the

this

Verb

complement

apply

complex

like

in the

2. 1. ) .

instances

on the

along

an analysis

(1980).

obligatorily

other

assume,

first

of

accounted

{cf.

{NPc., o),

1983).

by Hasegawa

is

Deletion

and hair

advantage

the

predicates

ga}

Nakau

(1973),

question in turn,

validity In this

Inoue the

Hinds' thesis,

so)

(1973) (1976)

validity

supports of

(do

s

500

to

claims

that

(among

others),

of this

Nakau's and

refers

claim.

claim,

Inoue's

we will

not

commit

has soo

79

ourselves is

to

still

to

point have

Shibatani

this out

a.

that

a means

soo

s turns

capture

the

in our

the

Taroo

The sole

if to

( ( 28ii))

Observe (31}

issue.

Affix

purpose out

of this

to

facts

be a pro-VP,

observed

Raising

section

by

Approach.

following

examples

(cf.

ga [v,~ sara NOM dish

o arat ACC wash

] ta no wa PAST NOMNLTOP

matigai--nai sure

ga, Ziroo NOM

we

ga soo NOM so

Nakau

si-ta do-PAST

( 1973)):

keiseki trace

wa TOP

nai does=not=exist 'Taro has no trace b.

'?*Taroo

for sure done that ,Jiro has

ga [v» NOM

a.

Taroo

but

there

is

) ta no wa PAST NOMNLTOP

ga koppu NOM glass

o

soo

ACC so

si-ta do-PAST

wa nai TOP does=not=exist

'Taro has no trace ( 32)

o arat ACC wash

ga, Ziroo NOM

matigai·-nai sure keiseki trace

sara dish

the dishes, done so.'

for sure done that Jiro has

ga [v,, NOM

wa tasika TOP sure

sensei teacher

da roo is perhaps

the dishes, but there done so to glasses.'

ni soodan-si ] DAT consult=with ga, Ziroo NOM

ga 500 NOM so

is

ta no PAS'f NOMNL si-ta do-PAST

to wa omo-e-na-i COMP TOP think-cannot 'It is perhaps the teacher, done so.'

true that Taro has consulted with but I cannot imagine that ,Jira has

80

?*Taroo

b.

wa tasika TOP sure

da roo is perhaps

oya

ni

soo

parent

DAT so

'It is perhaps the teacher, done so with (33)

a.

Taroo

ga

suguni soon koto fact

ta no PAST NOMNL

ga NOM

to wa omo-e-na--i COMP TOP think-cannot

true that Taro has consulted with but I cannot imagine that Jira has his parents.' to nige J ta koto with flee PAST fact ga, but

Ziroo

ga 500 NOM so

wa TOP

-ta do-PAST

5i

wa dare-ni-mo-sirare-nakatta TOP no=one=came=to=know

?*Taroo

has learned soon that lover. No one noticed, so. '

ga [vr NOM

suguni soon

'Everyone with his Jiro did The awkwardness pro-verb

form s:oo

as VP as

its

s:

(do so)

readings in

ga hitori NOM alone

( 31b),

wa TOP de

with

wa dare-ni-mo-sirare--nakatta TOP no=one=came=to=know

b--examples

antecedent.

ACC clean)

Ziroo

Taro ran away however, that ta koto PAST fact

has learned soon that lover. No one noticed, so alone.'

of the

resulting

to nige] with flee ga, but

koto fact

5i

so

koibito lover

sirewatat-ta spread

-ta do-PAST

500

dish

i -ta do-PAST

5

sirewatat--ta spread

'Everyone with his Jira did

of the

ga, Ziroo NOM

koibito lover

[v,•

NOM

b.

ni soodan-si J DAT consult=with

ga [v,~ sensei NOM teacher

takes

This

here

is

predicted

what

is

normally

proposal

*koppu

*oya ni

Taro ran away however, that

o 5ara sen5ei

a

labeled

derives

the

o araw

(glass

ni

if

soodan·-s

anomaly ACC

81 (parent

DAT teacher

>l,K

I \

NP-ga

I

1n1:l.-·1 I

I

ym~d

I

\

ta

\

yrnon\H

vrni.f""1

I \ NP-o

V"""'"'

2-_ase

;:\

: :

/ / NP-ni

\

\

Adv

V"''" I

I

hair Suppose,

as has

applies

only

to

c-selectional property least

ta

b.

sase

licensing in

us

at

a time.

of ta

{CAUSE) as

sase

in

and

represented as

+[

(ii)

as

co-indexation

in

(56)

and

and the

this

that

are

there

arise

distinct in

from

at the

(53b-c):

(17a))

(=

( = ( 19a))

there

exists

below,

licensing of the

(57):

G-marking

below,

LF, as in (55)

that

the

exemplified

Vm••>< __ ]

(i)

Move-alpha

Given

[ AG ( ET __ ] ]

here: at

(54)

that

LF that as

{CAUSE): assume

(PAST)

at

(want):

condition

general,

modifiee

assumed,

representation,

a.

Let

item

representations

S-structure (54)

one

been

property of

two

usually

is

modifier

for

a modifiers

formally and

the

96 (55)

Hodifier

Licensing

Conditior,:

Each modifier(= non-argument and non-head) must be licensed at LF by being head-governed by a modifiee.

a.

(56)

N""~,.

I

I I

I

\

Adv1.

\ Amir,,. I

I

I

more

I

\

\

I

I

\

I

\

I

I

Nn1-d...,.

I

\

\

AP1

AP:c.,

Nrn:i.n;;:>

NmJ.n:J. I I

intelligent

(57)

\

I

\

~

AmMH

b.

\

more

people

intelligent

people

VP

V

I

I

o, i r·1

\

\ Adv1

1

I

I

I•

I

slowly

walk Note

that

in

for

and more

intelligent

(N"''-n)

and

is

of

one

terms

(56b),

of

example,

are

ir,telligent

the the

licensed

in

notion

modifier

by the

(N"'"""),

people

cases

the

which

phrases

modifiees

respectively.

head-government

'"non-maximal

i,eople

This

defined

projection"'

in

([-max])

is

relevant. The specific

licensing instantiation

Interpretation licensing

may take

accounted

All

of

(FI).

in particular, (53).

condition

place

before the for

facts quite

the

Let

47

or

(55)

probably

Principle us

after

of

further

anywhere

in

the

straightforwardly.

in

(48)

only

one

Full

assume

Move-alpha

summarized

is

that

mapping raises can

this to sase

now be

LF -in

97 Let

us begin

with

the

ambiguity

in

(49a)

(repeated

below): (49)

a.

Taroo

ga Hanako

o heya ni ACC room into

NOM

damatte

silectly

hai r-ase -ta enter-CAUSE-PAST 'Taro

made Hanako

b.

Taroo

ga damatte

c.

damatte

Taroo.

The Affix

Raising

representations licensed in

(58)

and

(58)

o heya

ni

hair-ase-ta

ga Hanako

o heya

ni

hair-ase-ta

provides

either

of which as

below:

Im•N

I

I

\

\ I(TJ;L1·1

I \ NP-ga NP-o

.ta

V"'--"

I \ vm•~d

;;\ I ; \ I NP-ni

;

\

Adv1 V"'.. ~,.

I \ V

'

V,

I

hair

room .silently'

Hanako

a modifiee,

(59)

the

Analysis in

by

enter

sase,.

illustrated

two distinct the

adverbial by the

LF may be

coindexation

98

( 59)

I'"•"'

I

\

I I \

NP--ga

\

vm-d t~

I

\

I

\

ym4lA.x

NP-o

I \

Jrn:l1,

yo1.:l1··1

vm=d §ll,§~

/:\

:

/ NP-ni

/

\

:

\

Adv,,,, V"''-"., I

I

hair2

In sase.

(58),

the

a

In

4

by the

adverb (59),

verbal

projection

of

the

"scope"

ambiguity

of

(61)

availability below:

licensed

on the

other

hair

(enter).

stem

V"'""'"'} the

the

is

licenser of the

adverbial of

by the hand,

the

suffix

adverb

(We may call

in each licensed

scope

causative

in

two possible

is

licensed

the

maximal

representation adverbial.

(49a)

can

derivations

(i.e., }

Thus,

the

be ascribed

to

as

in

(60)

and

99 (60)

Scope:

Matrix a.

S-str/Pre-LF,:

b.

Pre-LF~,:

l""~H

I \ NP-ga

l"'~"

I \

Irni

I"'-"'

NP-o

NP-ga

;:\

: :

/ / NP-ni

\

NP-o

\

Adv

I \

/

I \ I

\

ym:l. r-.

I \ V V

I I I

ta

I I

PAST

hair enter

sase CAUSE LF:

C.

I

\

I NP-ga

I \

\ ym,~d

I I

ymMK

NP-o

I \

ta

\ \

vm-d

;:\

/ : \ / : \ NP--ni Adv, V"''" I I

hair

vm~d

I \

===>

l"'i..,

/

NP-ni

1----.

I I

ta

vm=d

I:\

: :

===>

\ \

Adv, V"'1 "1 I \ V V, I I

hair

sase,

100

(61)

Lower

a.

Scope: b.

S-str/Pre-LF,:

Pr

e-LF,.,: If01'11.H

I \

NP-ga

I

rm~d

\

I

\ lrn:l

I \ NP-o

/ \

I"'"'"'

/l\

/

I

:

NP-ga

\

Adv

NP-ni

NP-o

\ I

Vm.,,,.,~:,J

/i\

I \ V V hair enter

/

\

I

I

t~

I \

I \ y,n;l 1··,

I

ym.. d

===:>

I"''''

rt

I

NP-ni

:

===:> \

\

Adv

V"''"

I \

I

I

V

ta

V

PAST hair

sase CAUSE

sase

LF:

c.

I \ NP-ga

ta

V"'"'''

I

\

I

\

y,n.;1',..,;

yrn :l

1··1

I \ NP-o

V'""'''

/l\

/

/ NP-ni

: :

§lase

\ \

Adv., V"''-",., I I

hair.-,,

Note

that

the

licensing

hair

does

not

take

place

of the in

modifier

(60c}

because

by the the

verbal adverbial

root

101

has

already

licensor

been

coindexed in the

(sase)

The ambiguity similar

way,

(62)

or

by hair

Matrix

Scope:

a.

(49b)

can

as

in

a different stage

above

derivations

The adver-b

illustr-ate.

in (62b)

earlier

in

as the

with

(63c):

(62)

and

(63)

either

a below

by sase

as

49

Pre-LF.,: r•na,,(

I"''"'

I

I \

NP-ga

derivation. in quite

licensed

b.

S-str/Pre-LF,:

of the arises

in be

legitimate

\

I

l'"'~d

;:\

\

Im:i.

r-1

/ : \ / : \ Adv NP-o I"'-ci

I \ NP-ga

===>

I \ NP-ni

rrn:I.

V

I

I \

V

i-l

ta

: :

===>

\ \

NP-o

vm-d

I \

\ I

V

/ /

Adv,

I \

V"'~''

;:\

U.n>.n

NP-ni

1'

ta

V I I

I

I

hair

].

I \

sase

hair

sase,

102 LF:

C.

IH1 I"' 1 n

\

I

sase

hair

sase

103 LF:

C.

1,u..... H:

I

I

\

V'" .. "'

\

I \ NP-ga

V"'~""

I

I

\

V"'~,,,

\

V"''"'

/:\ /

: \

:

/

.s_a:;;~

\ V'°"""'

Adv2 NP-o

I \ °V'"'""-

NP-ni

'

' hair,,, Thus, (49a) the

and Affix

Licensing

the (49b)

distinct

can

Raising Condition

How can then?

ambiguity

the

The affix

of

adverbial

interpretation

be straightforwardly

Approach (55} lack raising

LF representations,

of

accounted

when we incorporate holding

at

ambiguity in

in for

the

in

Modifier

LF. in

(49c)

also

as

illustrated

(49c)

explained,

provides in

two (64)

below:

104

(64)

Pre-LF,.z:

b.

S-str/Pre-LF,:

a.

I'I1,!','iH

I \

/:\ / /

: :

I

\

\

\

Adv NP-ga

I""•~•

NP-o

/

Irm1tto

NP-ni

I \

I

/:\

: :

/

I \

I

\

NP-ga

l"''•··,

ym-d

NP-o

\

V

\

I \

I \ I

ta

NP-ni

I

V

V

ta PAST

I I

hair enter

V'"'-~,

I \

I \ V

I \

V,

I I

hair

sase

sase.

CAUSE LF:

c.

Ifn~H

I \ I

\ I I

/:\ /

I

:

ta

\

\

Adv,.,, NP-ga

vm=d

I I \ NP-o

I

\

\

vm~d~~;;;e,.z

I \

NP-ni

V"''"' hair

Unlike

in

crucially verbal precisely

the

other

two

not

have

does root

hair

because

(enter) it

cases,

however,

a chance in

appears

this to

to

be

the

licensed

sentence. the

left

adverbial

of

by the

This

is

the

matrix

105 subject the

(NP-ga)

same

Recall

in

or higher

that

sase

external

thematic

that

the

adverb

sase

even

in

Analysis in

of

The facts

assign

From this, the

of

it

adverbial

from

the

Affix

Modifier

at

its follows

complement

V"'-~

of embedded

concerning

of

predicate,

as

scope

in

Raising

Licensing

exactly (i)

((15}),

crucially

and

Condition

stages

at

lexical least

affix

grammar

Our observation

in

(48)

in the

of

the

on the

basis complex

of

complex

at

LF due

of various

creates

complementation it.

concerning

·adverbial

construction

will

to

some other

alternative

predicate

in

predicates

causative reject

LF.

properties

require

above

to

follwoing

representation

raising

of

another

are,

one

Llf when principles

interpretation

interpretation

c-selectional (ii}

syntactic mapping

unity

in

the

of the

as we predict the

requires

a complex

adverbial

morphological

suffixes

analysis

a simplex

be retained

analyses

to

complex

at different

words,

us with

NP-ga

i.e.,

appears.

the

by the

this

both

assumptions:

at

out

naturally

that

representation

the

lack

NP-ga

govern

outside

moves

the

as/than

((54b)).

AG

located

sase

construction,

above.

presence

to

must

follows

Notice

must

{cause)

supplemented

(55)

other

level

is

Thus,

also

(bar}

role

after

(64c}.

(48c}

a right-branching

construction

provide

in ,Japanese.

106 First, the

we now have

original

version

some

of

its

variants.

verb

raising

applies

representation

of

complementation ambiguity

is

If at the

(49a)

will

raising

Complementation

of

in

"extra

(66)

disregarding

left

For without

tense

also

of

of to

for

only

but

also

example,

that

remains

to

involve

of derivation,·

scope

reject

in

PAS

rejected.

phrase

any as

the

the

a

Japanese

reject

will

adverbs

reason,

and

also

it

of

same

union are

the

sinee

the

2.2.) to

not

syntactic

matrix

causatives

here

the

clause

analysis and

Approach for

exactly

a reason

rejeet

unexplained,

how the

have

NP" analysis

that

rest

(cf.

below,

Raising

predicate

Approach

non-configurational

to

assumes,

the be

syntax

We now a.lso

as

one

P1'' and

there.

in

reason

Verb

complex

no explanation

made possible

verb

of the

throughout

in

provide

another

strueture

version

(67):

of

the

(We are

simplicity.)

(66) a.

damatte

Taroo

ga

silently 'Silently, b.

Hanako

NOM

Taro

made/let

o heya ni ACC room into Hanako

into

the

hair-ase-·ta enter-CAUSE-PAST room.'

y,u,;·o\l-S

~ NP-o

Adv,. NP-ga

NP--ni

V

;\*",

~

V,. Adv., NP-ga

NP-o

NP--ni

V"'"-n:;;, sase I I

hair

sase,

hair:,,

107 (67) Taroo

a.

ga damatte NOM silectly

n i /o DAT/ACC

Hanako,.

heya ni room .into

hair-ase-ta enter-CAUSE-PAST 'Taro

made Hanako

enter

the

room silently'

. ym·•vs

b.

;:\ /

NP-ga

;:\

:

\

:

/

Adv V""~"-'

NP-ga

\

Adv V"'""a

I \

I

\

NP:i.-ni/o

I

vm~d

I \

NP,. -ni/6

\ ym~•01

I

I \

\

I NP-ni

I \

ym,,.

I \

I \

ee1. V"'"'"' sase

I \

V

V

\

NP-ni

I I

hair

V'"i'"' I

sase

I

hair In the

non-configurational

incorrectly (=

predicted

(49c))

since

exhibits

the

hair

(enter)

in

(67b), ·predicted

an.additional scope

matrix

NP (NP-ni/o)

the

head-governed derivation.

the

it like

be

of

licensed

harid,

a sentence

particle

o

it

would

(ACC))

the

adverb, by sase

presence

in the

matrix

precludes

the

by the

verbal

head

at

hair

(==

exhibits

since

NP

extra

be

(67a)

adverb,

be

(66a}

In the

like

the

would

either

derivation.

other

that

(66b),

a sentence

to

in the

on the

in

interpretation

a chance

Case

matrix

being

of

even

ambiguous has

incorrectly with

that

adverb

(CAUSE) or analysis

analysis

(49b)

only

of

the

the extra

adverb any

stage

from of

108

2.3.6.

Order In all

of Affix

the derivations

we have crucially out of the outermost verified

involving

assumed that

complex predicate

(66) daaatte

silently

of this

(68)

of the

(=

derivation

as in

which exhibits

hair-ase-ta enter-CAUSE-PAST

the

room.'

Pre-Lf..,.:

b.

Im•w

V,,,•H

1:, : :

with the

can be

(49c)),

Hanako enter

S-str/Pre-LF&:

/

an affix

adverbial:

Taro made/let

/

above,

assumption

Taroo ga Hanako o heya ni NOM ACC room into

'Silently, a.

raises

a hypothetical

a sentence

scope

raising

one by one starting

when we consider

only matrix

affix

Move-alpha

The importance

affix.

(69) below for

(69)

Raising

I \ I

\

1,11.aN

\

Adv NP-ga I'""" ..

/l\

I \ NP-o Jm•d

===>

l \ NP-ni I'" ..r, I \

I

\.

V

I \ V

I

hair enter

I

Adv

/

/

: :

\

\

\ ym.:1rt

~

NP-o

I \

I'"•"'

I \

NP-ni

ta

PAST sase CAUSE

1,n1.,,

I \

; V

===>

NP-ga I"'•"'

V I

I

hair

I I

I

ta

109 LF:

C.

l'Tl•TaH

/ \

/

y,n_;.;

\ In-1:l-.

1·"1

/ \

I /

\

/:\ : \

I Adv,

:t.i;i

sase

\ NP-ga NP-o

V"'""K

I \ vm~,d

I \ NP-ni

V"''-~,. I

I

hair,

In

(69),

Move-alpha

before

it

result,

raises it

raises the

yields is

(enter).

The correct

incorrectly

be guaranteed

asked,

then,

specified

or

outermost

inner

suffix

suffix

i:a

an LF representation

adverbial

must

the

licensed ordering

whether

follows

such

from

which root

affix·-raising,

an order

more

As a

in

verbal

An important

somehow.

is

of

(PAST).

(69c}, by the

(CAUSE)

sase

general

hair

therefore,

question

must

the

to

be

be extrinsically

properties

of the

grammar. In the 0-Criterion NP-ga

as

case to

rule

an argument

of sase

(cf.

in

representation.

this

of

(73a)

(68), out

we can

the

LF representation

remains below}

make an appeal

G-less, is

not

(69c),

and the

assigned

to

to

agent any

the since 9-role

argument

110

There

is

G-Criterion raising.

one case,

cannot

rule

Consider,

for

however, out

in which

the

even

incorrect

example,

the

order

a sentence

of

like

affix

(70)

below: (70)

If

Taroo

ga tomodati NOM friend

'Taro

was made to

Move-alpha

"peels"

one by one

from

representation correct

drink the

the as

ni uisukii by whiskey

in

tense

for

(71)

a.

in,

(71c),

interpretation

whiskey

affixes

outside

of

o nom-ase-rare-ta ACC drink-CAUS-PASS-PAST

off

the

we will

which (70):

by his

friend.' complex

obtain

corresponds (Let

predicate

an LF to

us again

the

disregard

simplicity.) S-str

/Pre-LF

1 :

b.

Pre-LF,.,:

V""~x

NP1-ga

I \

NP-ni

I \

ym~d

I \

NP,. -ga

ym...w

\

I

I \

\

V""~'"'

I \

NP-o

Vm.Li,

I \

V I \ V

V""""

I

V

V rare PASS nom sase drink CAUSE

NP-ni

I

I\

V""' ...

===>

\

rare ymo,d

I \ I \

NP-o

y ...,....

I \

V

V

nom sase

111 LF:

C.

V"'"~x

/ \ NP:,. -·.ga

V"'"""'

\

/

\

/

\

/

/

\

NP-ni

rare

V"'.. "' / \ / \ ynna\H

y,n:L

'""

I \ /

\

e:1.

§~.§.@ yrnli.l'cl

I \

NP-o

y ...,.,.,

nom

If, rare

on the

hand,

(PASSIVE) out

we will ( 72)

other

obtain a.

Move-alpha

of the

the

complex

NP-ni

order,

(72c)below:

I \ NP,-ga V'""""' I \

vm=d

/ \

in this

b.

V"""'

NP,-ga

(CAUSE) and

sase

predicate

LF representation

S-stFIPre-LFi:

I \

raises

ym~d

I

\

I \ I\

I \

NP-o

V V

NP-ni

V.,.,.,.,

I \

I \

I

:

..

: PASS nom sase drink CAUSE

y,nw.•d

I \

V

V rare

~

\

I \ NP-o

V"'''

1

I \ V V nom rare

===>

112

LF:

c.

I \ NP,-ga

V"'""0

I I

I \

NP-ni

I

\

I

I

sase \ V'"""'

I

\

I

I

I \

\

\

\

ra_re

I \ NP-o

V""'"'

nom This

representation

interpretation drinking

corresponds "Taroi

whiskey".

This

the

G-Criterior'l

involved

there

and the

(73)

as

in

(73)

from

with

his,

to

the

properties

arguments of sase

and

J

[ AG [ ET

b.

rare:

[ EX [ ET

It

therefore

the

from

however,

respect

Q-marking

sase:

formation

suffer

LF-representation,

a.

reflect

incorrect

below:

LF complementation must

the

made a friend

satisfies

rare

to

the of the

comparison

seems

to

in the order complex of

be the

complex

of

the

case predicate

morphemes

predicate (71)

and

that

order

of

construction involved

involved, (72}

the

above.

as

in the can

be seen

113

This

generalization

Baker

( 1985)

below:

labels

(See The

(74)

also

is

reminiscent

the

"Mirror

Muysken

Hirror

in

its

effects

Pdnciple",

stated

if

process),

syntactic

derivations complex

+

at

] rare==>

...

below

as

(75)

1he

us

LF (e.g.,

Mirror

provided

must

lmage

here

by the the

of affix

raising(=

between in

(74)

is

morphological

(e.g.,

nom

reflected

==>

one.

the

order

+ sase

=:::>

application

of

nom

in the

==> .. We, thus,

]),

and

an inversed

in Japanese,

] rare

~

nom-sase

obtain

{75}

Derivations:

that

Affix

(75)

is

Raising

a principle

morphological

a restatement

from

q1iestion as

reflect

inversely versa).

by (74)

relevant

be stipulated

(=

generalization:

captured

Again, (75)

] sase

derivations (and vice

emphasize

order

reflect

affixation

nom-sase-rare

a descriptive

generalization view

inversely

nom

the

of

structure

derivations

Syntactic derivations Let

stated

is

order

relation

predicate

rare)

Move-alpha

and the

of morphological noma;,e

the

process)

syntactic

In the

(74)

Principle:

we compare

morphological

in

(1979).)

Morphological derivations must directly syntactic derivations (and vice versa). Actually,

of what

the

of the

new point

of

Hypothesis. to

be asked

is

of grammar

whether or

114

whether

(75)

Our proposal

follows

from

other

is

(75)

follows

that

assumption

that

accessible

to

percolated

up to)

case,

its

from

predicate for

property

syntax

head

that

(drink).

lexical

the

head

node

V"''-', (drink)

is

a quite

simple

reflected

in the

In the

G-Criterion

(PASSIVE),

but

difference

features

{Williams

grammar.

information

node, 0

the

on (or

unmarked

case

of the

(drink-CAUSE-PASSIVE) the

This

from

which

morpherne.e

example,

of

morphological

is

the

of rare

only

1w11

only

nom-(s}ase-rare

below,

1w111

the

aspects

are

not

see

that

because,

percolated

up to

Lieber

(CAUSE} in

(1981)). {76),

in the

(76)

0-marking

of sase

arises

(1981),

and sase

can

complex

(CAUSE) or

in general, the

lexical

The predicates

however,

are

non-heads: (76) V

I

I \ \ V

I \ I

V

nom drink After

rare

predicate, complex "see"

rare

V PASSIVE

sase CAUSE

{PASSIVE) however,

predicate, the

\

0--marking

is sase

as

in

raised

out

of

the

complex

(CAUSE) becomes

the

(77)

syntax

property

below, of sase

and

re-f lected

head

of the can

or, the

now

115 ( 77}

V""'''

I \

I V

\

nom As a result,

V

sase affix

raising

the

G-Criterion.

This

can

be correctly

captured

the

first

morpheme

reflected

on the

applies

to

way,

the ---

lexical

node

a head

item

to

Image

Derivations

last

morpheme

syntax,

due

to

explains

in

triggered

Mirror

to

perhaps

is

the

accesible

This

percolation.

of sase

its the

head

vacuous

attached

is

properties feature

why affix

a string

satisfy

raising fashion

in most

cases. In 2.4.2. Mirror

Image

below, Principle.

however,

there

exists

a marked

option

of

exceptional

2.3.7.

see

As will good

some

exceptions

be pointed

reason

for

non-string-vacuous

out

the

to there,

grammar

affix

the

to

raising

permit in such

cases.

Summary

To summarize affix and

we will

raising the

is

this triggered

G-Criterion.

purely

syntactic

complex at

LF.

analysis

we have

by the

Affix

lexically-derived complementation

section,

checking

Raising

that

of

causes

predicates In effect,

proposed

to

c-selection

the

involve

we have

permits

that

us

come up with to

reconcile

a two

116 contradictory

observations

---

are

that

they

checked

the

scopes

morphological

with

Licensing

It the

rule

Affix

mysterious

complex out

follows has only

from the a limited

information,

namely,

of morphemes

percolated

2.4.

Further

complex

Affix

the

access it

predicate

rather

than

in the

complex

suffixes

Modifier

a strightforward

concerning

relevant

is

assumption,

adverbial Finally,

order that

it

of affix

a syntactic

to morphological look

at those

properties

lexical

node.

for

Affix

Raising

construction

predicate

to

up to the

Approach:

a lexical

lexicon

construction.

may only

to motivating

Raising

of

and the

us with

assumption

Motivations

We now turn by the

that

this

involve unity

of the

facts

predicate

the

from the

Approach

provide

they

that

shown that

Raising

will

of otherwise

has been pointed

claimed

c-selection

has been

Condition,

in the

raising

also

predicates

and that

must be inherited

at LF.

combined

account

We have

predicates

LF, since

complex

lexically-derived

complementation. complex

concerning

the

Approach

the

following

(i)

complementation

is

representation, construction

found

claims

made in the

in a syntactic (ii) is

complementation found

at

the

level

117

of

Form rather

Logical

mentation by the

in the

lexicon,

the

at

affix

as

affixes

are

be explained as

will

are

in

is

in the

predicate

for

various

claim

will

negative,

honorific

interpreted

in the

by the

complex

domain

(1)

derived

derived

in

non-string-vacuous

schematized

comple-

LF.

The third

sometimes

(iii)

be supported

a scope

that

via

at

predicates

force.

when we observe

LF,

raising

claims

serve

and

construction

complementation

can

reciprocal can

predicate

two

that

D-structure,

complex

quantificational

supported

affix

the

first

construction

that

of

that

observation

with

complex

application Given

than

items be also and

a fashion

movement

of

an

below:

(1)

/\

/

I

\

B

c,n.-M

I \

(C = negative, we turn

first

make clear

scope

of

quantifiers

honorific to

these

how and where to

C'":I. r,

I \

[ A

/\ \ [ A B C ]

Before

I \

===>

or

reciprocal

arguments, in the

be determined.

C ] suffix)

however, grammar

we will

we assume

the

118

2.4.1.

Scope Determination May (1977)

proposes

representations

that

the

of quantified

LF-representations Raising

at LF

by the

S-structure

sentences

are

application

(QR), an instance

mapped onto

of Quantifier

of Move-alpha,

as illustrated

in

(2) below: (2)

a.

S-str:

b.

LF:

[.,,

QR Chomsky-adjoins

S-structure leaving.

a quantified

constituents a coindexed

adjunction

site

Higginbotham include

ever-yone1

at

in a sense,

of quantified

to S but

in Fiengo it

like

input

and

The function

of QR,

a syntactic

to the

semantic

structural

overlap

(2b)

and an S-structure

above

as in (3) below,

some arguements

for

quantification,

as summarized

(3)

[,:,,-

Nhoi

the

expressions.

Nh-oonstruction

this

phrase,

has been extended

to be deriving

can be the

out the

quantifier

( In May ( 1977),

VP and NP as well.}

interpretation

J]

to one of the

that

and May (1985),

that

S-str/LF:

he saw ti

behind.

was limited

representation

LF-representation

[.,,

phrase

may be considered

Pointing

he saw everyone]

dominating

trace

(1980) least

[a

May (1977,

"LF-movement"

(,_~

J]

an

1985) provides

approach

below: he saw t,.

between

to

to

119 First, uniform

this

definition

quantifiers ---

of

in

any

terms

is

B's

is

as

in

defined

for

the

to

both

syntactic

c-commanded potential

Reinhart

Ac-commands A dominates

B, and A does

not

"downgrading"

movement,

non-c-commanded

proscribed the

scope

(Fiengo wh-construction

of someone

uniformly

in

lower

accounted

S-str/LF:

first

for.

*[et,

branching dominate

"c-command" or

"c-command"

node

which is

May {1981)), (5)

below

and

believes

in

Compare

wondered

{5)

yields

a

assumed

to

the

ill-formedness

the

lack

(6a)

and

who,

[a·

dominating

B.

anteczedent,

than

and

(1976))

by its (1977),

of

The notion

(cf.

if

and

a (B = quantifier

by

scope.

the

a simple

notion

C-Command:

B iff

offer

wh-expressions

2

trace

(5)

of

us

(4):~

Second,

of

allows

"scope"

LF constituent

1o1h-phrase)

( 4)

analysis

of

can

be

the

be

(6b):

[e Bill

was

lying]]]

(6) a.

S-str:

b.

LF:

(5

*[,_, t,

Third, "weak

both

crossover"

captured the

someone

variable

if

believes

believes

wh-

and

effect.

we assume left

Bill

[.,, soaeone, quantified This

that

[e

weak

by wh-movement

is

lying]]

[.,, Bill

sentences

uniformity crossover and QR is

can is

is

lying

exhibit

]]] the

now be caused

construed

when at

LF

120

as the

antecedent

as illustrated (7)

(8)

of a pronoun in (7b)

S-str:

:t:who1 did his1

b.

LF:

%(,,.,·

a.

S-str:

*his1

b,

LF:

*[.,, everyone,

exhibit lacks

mother

subject the

English

case,

in the

2

mother

mother

(Saito

phrases

see t,.

[v,-

saw t:c ] ) ]

)]]

in this

in

(9)

a "zero"

uniformly

a language

and Hoji

that

wh-phrases

language

(cf.

Huang

assimilated

and

Hoji

(1983),

including

can be completely

represents

[v,-

sentences

in Japanese,

as illustrated

examples

c-command,

see ti

[.,, his1

quantified

phenomena

not

saw everyone,

also

to LF-movement

(1982)},

mother

wh-movement

If all

below:e

and quantified

wh-

S-structure

it does

who, [., did his,

weak crossover

(1985)).

are

and (8b)

a.

Interestingly,

that

below:

(10)

pronoun

to the (pro

(Kuroda

(1965a)).)

(9)

a. S-str:

*[~·

e~, hitome one=glance

[Nr•

[vr-

dare,. who

o ACC

sukininat-ta came=to=like

'*Who, did the person him,. come to like?' b. LF:

%(.,, ·

dare,

[VF· t,

(Hoji

(1985,

o

[N,.. ez

sukininat-ta 51))

pro,

that

hi tome ) no ]

pro,

hito~ J ga person NOM

mi-ta saw ] no ] Q

took

a glance

mi-ta

at

hit0:;., ] ga

121 (10)

a.

S-str:

*[~-

[Nr•

e,.,

hitome one=glance

[v~• daremo1

pro,

o sukininat-ta ACC came=to=like

everyone

'*The person that took to like everyone1.' b.

LF:

hito2] Having Approach working at

to

ga [vP

recognized

adjoined

the

of Logical

to

a constituent

coindexed

trace

behind,

assume,

Form,

as

] of the

in other

illustrated

b.

(11)

below:

·A

I \ B

===>

I \

C

C

I \

/ \

t,

QP

at

, the

LF.

constituent

lower

is

a

B

(e.g.

that,

A I \ Qp,

I \

the

words,

leaving in

QR

our

phrase

it,

came

mi-ta

pro,

a quantified

A

him,

as one of

I \

Moreover,

at

content

dominating

a.

( 11)

hitome

it

ga NOM

]]

sukininat-ta]

we adopt

We will

level

t1

a:;,

hito.,,] person

a glance

empirical

quantification,

hypotheses.

the

o [NP

daremo,

*[a-

mi-ta saw

A

in

to

which

( 11 b) ) becomes

the

QP is

the

scope

adjoined of that

QP

122

Relative

2.4.2.

In this quantified

subsection,

we will

expressions

predicate This

Scope

forming

suffixes

observation

predicates

take

will

do take

scope like

lead

observe

syntactic

narrower ta

us to

that

some

than

{want)

conclude

complements

the

complex

and sase

(CAUSE).

that

complex

at

the

the

level

of

LF.

In fact, examples

it

like

quantifier

(12a)

seems

(CAUSE),

sase

(12) a.

is

watasi I made until

not

too

and

to

( 12b)

take

watasi I

below,

scope

to

come up with

in which

narrower

than

a universal ta

(want)

wa top

disateisyon dissertation

ga owat-tara nom end-COND

to sleep until is finished.'

ga rusu-no-aida nom absent=while

wa top

ko-sase-~asu come-CAUSE-PRES

every=day

every=day

noon every day (WANT> V)

uti-no my

kara since

yome daughter=in=law

the

day)

for

example, seems

complement

the

to take

verb

universal scope

below

ni DAT

ansin-site-kudasai feel=easy=please

'Don't worry. I will make my daughter-in-law everyday while I am away.' (CAUSE > V}

(every

hiru noon

mainiti

netei-ta-i sleeping-want-PRES

~ainiti

In (12a),

and

respectively:

'I now have a desire when my dissertation b.

difficult

quantifier ta

come

mainiti

(want},

?ui-tei (s1ee.p:..,-.SJ, What takes

place

modifying every

123 day,

in other

but

that

what

"(s)he

takes

come"

words,

remoteJy

sleeps

place

rather

ta

(want)

attested

these

"for

the

speaker

of

Bill

intends

Similarly

in

the

desire" (12b),

daughter-in-law

to

domain

(CAUSE) is how more

with

the

in regard

us begin

feels

make her

to

do that

(I)

a scope

and sase

Let

"for

speaker

place'".

Ambiguity

interacts

suffixes

noon". is

when we examine

expression

"the

day

The presence like

that

until

a distant

Scope

2.4.2.1.

not

every

than

from

is

with

to

below even

than

suffixes clearly

quantified

predicates

scope

an English

more one

complex their

the

containing

properties.

sentence,

as

in

(13)

below: (13} Arguing

against

[+/-specific], analysis (1976, as

in

the and

to

Bach

p.379) (14)

to

[ a auseum

postulation attributing

(1968}

reports

below:a

visit

3

of the the

and Mccawley the

scope

][everyday].

feature

original

observation

{1970),

ambiguity

Karttunen

in this

sentence

and

124 (14)

a.

Bill

intends

visits b.

every

Bill

>

our

discussion,

between

the

quantifier

(14a) of the

(14b),

Consider below,

do a museum visit

the

and

the

in other

is

of

a scope

The ambiguity

intend.

arises

complex

and okur-ita-i

wa kono TOP this

dokokano

somewhere 'I

want

to

to

universal

due

sentences predicates

as

in

to

(present-want-PRES),

natu [ mainiti ] summer every=day

hakubutukan museum go to

(15)

ik-(Uta-i

(15}

watasi I

relevant ambiguity

and the

presence

words,

quite

respectively.

a.

day.

the

domain between presence

of intend.

contain

(go-want-PRES}

V)

every

of scope

quantifier

now Japanese

which

(14b)

presence

predicate

complement

>E >

he

E)

indicates the

be some museum that

( INTEND

(14a)

existential

than and

>

since

here

narrower

to

V

between

there

day.

intends

( INTEND

The contrast

that

e ] ik-i ta-i to go-want-PRES

some museum every

day.'

and

(16)

125 wasi I

b.

wa nanazyussai TOP 70=years=old

kinen-ni-naru commemorative

no tanzyoobi GEN birthday

mono thing

ni ( nanika on something

o ] [ magotati ACC grandchildren

no daremo GEN everyone

ni ] to

okur-i ta --i present-want-PRES 'I want to present something commemorative one of my grandchildren on my seventieth

These in

sentences

(16}

and

(14a-b} (16}

(17)

below,

least

which

the is

ambiguity

completely

as

indicated

comparable

to

54

I desire that there be some museum that every day. (WANT> E > V}

b.

I want to do a museum visit (WANT> V > E)

a.

I desire that there be some common commemorative item, which all my grandchildren will receive. (WANT> E > V)

b.

I desire receive

ta

examples, ta

and

ambiguity,

the

ambiguities

(want)

have

which

(want)

at

--

i.e.,

A complex

(21)

every

I visit

day.

that each of my grandchildren will some commemorative item. (WANT> V > E)

then, that

determined

(20)

at

a.

require

than

(17)

above:

Crucially,

these

exhibit

to every birthday.'

can

the

be the the

the

level

predicate below

also

as described

domain scopes

exhibits (22)

and

of a scope

narrower

of quantifiers

a similar (23):

(15)

in

sase

and

(14)

constituent

of Logical

containing

in

in

a complement

level at

observed

are

Form. (cause) scope

as

in

(20)

watasi

wa konya TOP tonight

I

hakubutukan museum to

dokokar,o

somewhere

'By persuading some museum (21)

Tanaka

settokusi persuade

him every

wa sono TOP that

mosikuwa or

yuukensya-·tati voters

no

'Tanaka receive ( 22)

(23}

I will

tonight, day. ' no

make

him

seki:~yoo-de

o ][

syusseki-si-te-iru attending

ACC

ni I gooin-ni DAT forcibly

daremo

tumori -de·· i ru have:::i.ntention

is planning to make cash or gift cards

every attending at the banquet.'

voter

I will brjng about a sit.uation s.L. there some museum that he visits every day. ( CAUSE > E > V }

b.

I will make him ( CAUSE > V > E)

a.

Tanaka is planning to give s.t. every attending voter either .cash or g Ht cards.

b.

Tanaka is planning s.t. each attending cash or gift cards.

quantifiers derivational

with is

our

syntactic

do

assumption

determined

affixes

visit

i:POLITE::PRES

GEN everyone

uket,or·-ase ·-ru receive-CAUSE-PRES

kare he

7 :ika-ase-·rnasu

e

enkai banquet

syoohinken gift~card

te and

like

a museum

visit,

0very

day.

rise to a situation will uniformly receive ( CAUSJ,: > OR > V)

to give ri.s0 to a :c;ituation voter will receive either (CADS~> V > OR) that

the

scope

of

at

1,1,·, we may

conclude

ta

(want)

;a~e

complementation

be

and at

the

lr~vel

that

t,be

(cHuse) 1Jf LJ:t 7

•

127 This Approach

conclusion

will

complex

predicates

to

Our observations might

also

above

as

a scope

hand,

of

domain

given

the

PAS,

phenomena

2.4.

1.

sentences

seems

to

Approach.

Therefore,

if

we can

and

complex

complementation, of

syntactic

PAS becomes

a null

Scope

2.4.2.2.

Carlson expressions that

one

comparison Such

of

(1985)

the

the

suffix.

On the

quantifiers to

like

weak

of

for

even

the

interaction

in terms suggested

rather

every,

crossover

analysis

capture

just

other

than

of

in the

PAS of

syntactic

above,

the

use

complementation

hypothesis.~~

Ambiguity

(II}

provides

and different-

same

of

PAS function

be called

complementation

quantifiers

embedded

predicates

as we have

of

(1980).

in terms

a syntactic

quantified

quantifiers

scope

respect

above),

PAS

the

between with

the

by Farmer

approach

than

parallelism

(cf.

reject

the

letting

narrower

to

proposed

in this

and wh-expressions

some

us

concerning

be captured

complementation

lead

uses

between

an $-internal

furthermore,

requires

distributive

NP as

of two

these or

more

comparison the

an interesting in English."'"" expressions elements by same

presence

a "licenser"

study

of within

of the

He observes involves

within

implicit

a sentence.

or different, a plural a certain

or local

of

128 domain."' examples (24)

These

7

in

a.

observations

(24)

Bob

and

and

(25)

can

(e.g., Bob attends Philosophy 799.) b.

illustrated

classes.

different

Biology

The same salesman subscriptions:.

sold

101 and

me these

Two mer, who belonged

met me at

the

train

to the station.

(e.g., Two Democrats station.) (Carlson (25)

a.

The

(1985,

two

men wanted them/:t:different

The contrast locality

(Ibid., between

condition

Quite as well, onazi

to see dogs]

(24a-c) on the

parallel

with (same)_.,.,.

the

[ Jill's

and

train

pictures

(25a-b)

licensing

of

on movement paradigms expressions

Observe

the

illustrates

of same

NP, which

Condition

the

party

4))

by a plural/distributive Subjacency

subscription sold me this

saw [ a woman who fed men ]ee

gorillas

The

(Carlson

magazine

political

same

met me at

attends

2))

them/:t:different b.

Alice

two

(e.g., Salesman Jones sold me this to Consumer Report and Jones, too, subscription to Cosmopolitan.) c.

by the

below: attend

Alice

be

is

can

of

the

(1973)).

be obtained

tiga(w}u

contrast

and different

reminiscent

(Chomsky

the

(different) between

in Japanese and {26a-b)

and

129 (27a-b)

as well

as the

contrast

between

(28a-b)

and (29)

below; (26) a.

hutar-i

no

two

GEN passerby

tuukoonin

ga [ tigau doroboo] NOM different thief

o ACC

mokugekisi-ta witnessed 'Two passersby b.

aru a

witnessed

tuukoonin passerby

siteiru in

different

ga [ tigau NOM different

hutar-i

no

two

GEN thief

'Some passerby into different

dor-oboo

witnessed houses.'

ie house

thieves.' ni into

sinobikomoo-togoing=to=sneak=

] o mokugekisi-ta ACC witnessed two thieves

that

were

sneaking

{27) a.

'Ji:hutar- i

two

no

tuukoonin

GEN passerby

ga [ tigau NOM different

sinobikom-oo-to-siteiru going=to=sneak=in '*Two passersby into different b.

?~utar-

two ie house

i

no

tuukoonin

GEN thief ni into

witnessed houses.'

ie house

ni into

aru doroboo] a thief

o mokugekisi-ta ACC witnessed

some thief

who was sneaking

ga [ aru doroboo NOM a thief

sinobikom-oo-to-siteiru going=to=sneak=in

ga tigau NOMdifferent

tokoro] occasion

o ACC

mokugekisi-ta witnessed 'Two passersby witnessed different houses.'

some thief's

sneaking

into

130

(28) a.

wa [ onazi TOP same

watasi-tati

we

kanpoo-yaku Chinese-medicine 'We bought

kusuri-uri medicine=peddler

kara from

]

o kat-ta ACC bought

Chinese

medicine

from

the

same medici.ne

peddler.' b.

watasi

mura village

wa [ onazi TOP same

I

kara from

kara] from

kusuri-uri

medicine=peddler

kita hutari came two

kanpoo-yaku Chinese=medicene

'I bought Chinese medicine from who came from the same town.'

(29)

wa [ onazi TOP same

:twatasi-tati

we

kusuri-uri medicine=peddler

GEN o

kat-ta

ACC bought

two medicine=peddlers

mura village

kara] from

no

kara kita aru from came a

kanpoo-yaku Chinese=medicine

o

kat-ta

ACC bought

'*We bought Chinese medicine from some medicine peddler who came from the same town.' We will local

domain

licensed.

(30)

here

what

the

S-internal

we will

turn

made by Carlson,

discussion

example

pursue

in which Instead,

observation our

not

in John

on complex (30}

exactly

constitutes

oomparison to

which

another is

is

interesting

directly

predicates.

the

Observe

relevant

to

now the

below:

and Bill

With the

S-internal

exhibits

two distinct

want

to

live

comparison, readings.

in di-f-ferer,t di-f-ferent

On one

cities

reading,

cities. in John

(30) and

1-31

each

Bill

Boston,

has

a particular

respectively),

and

that

city.

On the

Bill

has

any particular

to

live

other

in a city

Following two

readings

as

illustrated

reading

and a.

( 31.)

[ different

1 i ve

b.

and

1 i ve

of these

NP containing

readings, scope

in

other

of different

wide

scope

wider

than

reading the

nor

John

person

live

wants

in.

in which

call

them

a wide

the

scope

respectively: cities)

and Bill2

: [ PR any two non-identical

Scope

(

Bill2

Nant

t

[ different

cities):

cities,

[

PR two particular

representations,

NP ---

licensing by John

t

in

each

and

LF representations,

reading,

[ John

live

neither

but

does

to

an analysis

and

New York

wants

two distinct

cities,

Nat·roN

[ John

In each

(

in t,

in mind,

below,

(e.g.,

however,

adopt

scope

Scope

mind

person

us

(31)

a narrow

1../i de

person

reading,

assigned in

each

other

let

are

in

city

the

Carlson,

city

and

a constituent in

Bill

(31.b). words,

LF-movement

relative

to

involves

the

predicate

want

the

as

predicate

in

in the

in terms

scope

the

and PRO controlled

(31a)

captured

the

containing

The difference is

adjoins

of

the the

want-

of different (31.a),

two

whereas

being the

132

narrow

scope

narrower

reading

than

involves

wan-t as

A point

in

of particular

interest

of the

narrow

will

to us:

(i)

suggest

below

domain

of di-f-ferent,

contains

a plural

Recall desiderative which

this

conclusion ambiguity,

scope

reading,

of same

is

examples ore I

hatarak-ita-i work-want-PRES 'My elder places.'

brother

scope

and

presence

and

in this is

{33)

borne

scope

that

a complement

that

a similar

of the

narrow

I want

complex out,

predicate as

s yokuba

workplace

to

at

counterparts

illustrated

de at

(koto) (fact) and

the

of quantifiers.

below:

ga ti gau NOM different

it

(31b)).

above

when Japanese

used

since

of

in

Bill

the

domain

licenser

domain

prediction

to an iki and e. brother

as the

we may expect

are

(32)

function

takes

the

(30), an LF

in 2.4.2.1.

may be observed

in

in

as the

scope

especially

This

being

is

exists

in.Japanese

correct,

us here

this

by John

as the

and different

construction.

{ 32)

that

conclusion ta

functions

scope

by the

(ii)

NP functioning

suffix

to

there can

and

now our

of dif-feren-t

reading

which

(PRO controlled

different

LF,

scope that

wan-t,

scope

(31b).

availability

constituent

the

work

at

different

If

133 (33)

kanozyo she

to and

boku ga onazi I NOM same

hair-ita-i enter-want-PRES 'She

The availability examples expression added

of the

can

the

same

scope

before

in these

that

(wherever

iikara

college.'

reading

when we observe

dokodemo

immediately

into

narrow

be confirmed

like

college

(koto) (fact)

I want to get

and

ni into

daigaku

it

{different)

tigau

an may be)

can

be

and onazi

(same). Note scope

that,

reading

in the of

representation (34)

Crucially, a scope

ore

to

e,~ t

1

tigau

narrower

motivation

to

Notice reading

(32),

like

LF:

de

as

proposed

within control in 2.3.1.

(at

(want).

the the

narrow

an LF

We thus

licensing

NP (e.,

above.

workplaces)

takes

to

have

(want)

of

a narrow

of ta

at

(want}

at

LF. scope

on t:igau the

(:-34}} below of ta

another

ta

motivates

comlement

structure

[vm~>-


Scope:

ONLYx, x=beer, b.

LoNer

Roughly, the

the

"Only

admit him,

such that

other

hand,

brought

about

or

informally,

not

more drink

its

it

existence

is

causative the

construction

desiderative

out here to

construction,

as to

can the

for

in

drinks

on Taro

a "I

whiskey

to

{46b},

reading

"I

only

beer,"

so that

he would

is

worth

It

represented

option

regarded

the

about

informally,

gave

Taro

beer.""'"'

reading

pointed

The observation

that

an eye

than

the

is

Whoever

into

marked

clearly

or more

translatable such

into

I brought

The representation

other that

it,"

x)])

translatable

me."

"I kept

be a secondary,

although

not

is

beer,

Taroo.

a situation

here

to

drinks

to

is

anything

mentioning to

Taro

is

x))]

[ DRINK (Taroo,

(46a)

respect

beer

it

in

with

I gave

however,

on the

ONLYx, x=beer

that

DRINK (Taroo,

(CAUSE > ONLY)

representation

reading

situation

[ CAUSE (I,

Scope:

CAUSE (I,

CAUSE)

also as

(46b)

seems

reading,

once

many speakers, a possible

them. be extended

two passive as

in

from

the

constructions

(47)-(49)

below:

and

140

(47)

Indirect

Passive:

Hanako

wa Taroo TOP

ni asi by foot

o wazato-sika ACC deliberately-but

hum-are-na-katta step=on-PASSIVE-NEG-PAST 'Hanako Taro.'

(48)

had her

foot

Direct

Passive:

Hanako

wa Taroo TOP

stepped

on only

intentionally

by

ni wazato-sika by deliberately-but

butukar-are-na-katta bump-PASSIVE-NEG-PAST 'Hanako

(49)

was bumped

into

only

intentionally

by Taro.'

Desiderative:

ano that

ban night

kare he

wa mezurasiku TOP unusually

biiru-sika beer-but

norn-ita-gar-ana-katta drink-want-display-PAST 'That night, beer.'

All

these

examples

represented, (ONLY), {50)

he unusually

exhibit

again,

as

in

Indirect

a similar

as a scope

(50)-(52)

showed

his

desire

·ambiguity

ambiguity

only

which

involving

below:"""'

Passive;

a.

ONLYx, x=deliberately STEP-ON (Taroo, foot),

b.

RECEIVE (Hanako, [STEP-ON (Taroo,

[RECEIVE (Hanako, x)]

ONLYx, x=deliberately foot, x)])

for

can be

sika

na

141

(51)

Direct

(52)

Passive:

a.

ONLYx, x=deliberately BUMP (Taroo, e,), x}]

b.

RECEIVE (Hanako,, [BUMP ( Taroo, e,.,

[RECEIVE (Hanak.o,,

ONLYx, x~deliberately x)])

Desiderative:

a.

ONLYx, x=beer [DISPLAY (Taroo, DRINK ( e,, x)))]

WANT(e1,

b.

DISPLAY (Taroo,, DRINK (e,, x))])

[WANT(e,,

If provide

the

ambiguity

us with

motivate

the

ONLYx, x=beer

just

described

some interesting

Affix

Raising

is

real,

problems,

Analysis

it

will

and will

of the

(ONLY)

sika-na

construction. The first (44)

(repeated

shown the

in

locality

(44)

(44)

below)

(46)

polarity

to

question

items. is

the

ano that

to root

ban night

be asked

is

scope

over

and at

the

take

below) by the

(Notice

attached verbal

can

repeated imposed

to

that

the no111

licensing the

causative (drink).

watasi I

how sika sase

condition

morpheme

morpheme

sase

nom-ase-na-katta drink-CAUSE-NEG-PAST 'That

night,

I made Taroo

drink

only

beer.'

satisfy

of negative

negative

ni biiru-sika DAT beer-but

in

(CAUSE} (as

same time

)

wa Taroo TOP

na

na

rather

in than

142 ( 46)

a.

11atr ix

ONLYx, x=beer, b.

Lower

In the answer

(53)

to below

[ CAUSE (I, (CAUSE>

Scope:

CAUSE(I,

Raising

question

representation

Approach,

(Here,

obtained

we begin

after

x))]

[ DRINK (Taroo,

raising

x)])

we can provide

by postulating

(44):

for

DRINK (Taroo,

ONLY)

ONLYx, x=beer

Affix

this

> CAUSE}

(ONLY

Scope:

the with of

an

derivation the the

in

pre-LF tense

morpheme.)

(53)

a.

b.

Pre-LF,:

Pre-LF2: Jrn-J.t

I

I

\

I

\

A"1"""M: 1m:1.1,

I

I \

\

NP-ga

I

i

A'"~"' PRES

I

I \

I

\ \

101:l, ,, I

I

\

i

\

NP-ni

===>

I \ NP-sika

\

I

I 1

\

I \ Amt.••

NP-ni

I

\

I \ I \ V A I \ V V

NEG nom

sase

I

ym-d

I \

NP-sika,

\

V'"'"

I \ V

V

nom sase

143 c.

LF:

I

I

\

A"•->e.

I

Jrn.t.

r,

\

I

\

i A,n:t.r1 I

I \ I

\

I

\

na1

V"'-"" \ I \

NP-ga

I

y,n.r.aM:

vn1.t.n

I \ I

\

NP-ni

sase V""""''

I \ I

\ yrn:i.1,

nom Here,

the

two

instances

straightforwardly. morpheme

raises the

First,

of the

syntactic

complex

sase

In

licensed

by the

coindexation

(53c),

thus,

Move-alpha

of the

(53a),

the

by na under

can

representation (ONLY) higher

in

there.

(46a}, sase

proceed the

(NEG),

to

V'""'"' _

]).

na

complex

The resulting

which

(CAUSE}.

its

Then, to

polarity

it

satisfy

item

as

sika

indicated

LF representation

underlie

exhibits

outermost satisfy

predicate

negative

to

quite

raises

head-government,

be considered

than

raising

property(+[

{CAUSE) out

G-Criterion.

affix

predicate,

c-selectional

may be

na

of

the the

semantic

scope

of sika

144 The second scope the

reading third

of sika

question

Notice whatever offer

any

(54)

if

Affix

morpheme

(55)

a.

as these

the

ni

bow the

possible

reading

to

Approach,

has

as

already

in

been

Pre-LF

(55)

a complement below

questions,

the

at

does

since

not na

sase-na

lower

scope

of

represented below: in

and

4

nom]

raised

LF

at

(Again,

the

(55a).)

b.

,. :

(44),

of

may be syntactically

a derivation

in

marked.

(54)

in

lower

is

complement:b

biiru-sika

Raising

(46b)

is

postulation

within

In the

tense

becomes

answer

wa ( Taroo

we assume

ever

representation

located

in

be asked

mere

watasi

na as

sika

of

to

why this

the

immediate not

na

is

that

level

(NEG) is

question

Pre-LF,,,: Ifll~I-C

I

\

I

I

\

Am,!M,H

I

\

i Am=d PRES

I

I

\

1·1

i

V"'""''

NP-ga

I \ I \

I

\

I A'"'

1

n

I \

NP-ni

A

I \ V

V

r,ai

NEG nom drink

\

sasg_

I \ \

V

\

N"-d

I \

I

\

I

===>

Am@,d

NP-s ika

1cui

I \

I \ NP-ni

\

vrn,1/f\X

I \ NP-ga

\

I 1m:t.n

sase CAUSE

NP-sika,

I

\ An,:tn

I \

V

A I I

nom

na.1.

145 LF:

C.

I

I

I \

I

\

\

\

NP-ga

I

i V"''"'"'

\

I

\

I \

I

\

sase

I \ NP-sika,

I

\

n.!!•

V'""-"

nom Again,

the

under has

negative

head-government moved

out

derivation that na

in

(53)

---

is

in 6

in

licensed

the

tense

however,

this

affix

raising

of sase

by na morpheme

reversed

(CAUSE) first,

LF' representation scope

lower

(46b),

thus,

than can

to then

(55c),

in sase,

The

also

receive

in

e

Non-string-vacuous

The question derivation

the

(ONLY) takes

basis.

after

of

raising

representation

syntactic

order

is

sika

Crucially,

the

above

r,a

2.4.3.1.3.

the

(55a).

The result

sika

semantic

in

item

immediately

involves

(NEG).

which

its

polarity

to

be raised

(55)

should

Affix

Raising

here, ever

of

course,

be allowed

is in

the

whether

146 grammar,

given

Derivations

its

(75)

deviation in

The answer

from

seems

to

be

in the

following

have

own 8-marking

property,

in morphology

is

features as the to

head

provide

morpheme

Selkirk's Lieber's

basis

features all

are

(56)

and

only

the

head

V

V

up to

{1981a) has

in which

various

among more

than

one

affix

node

for

the

the

lexical

illustrated

[+Plural/3

in

inflectional

(56a)

other

and yield

properties With representation

but sake

Person]

illustrated these

V

A

I \ V V na NEG 'I

just

non-head in

made

percolation

interact

sase CAUSE [+8]

with

of the

each

8-marking

(56b).

assumptions (55a)

of

Arn:1.,'"' [+8]

b.

Person]

we have

the

must

below:

v..., [ +Tense]

assumptions

fails

proposed

I \

~.f

well

and

been

tabe eat

The two

as

morpheme

I \ I \

of

non-head

of Williams'

Vm•n [+Tense/+Plural/3

a.

percolation

the

conventions

distributed

as

if

not

(1982)).

languages

agreement,

the

from

when we

(NEG) does

na

(ii)

allowed

percolation

be percolated

correct

if

(Selkirk

of

Image

affirmative

(i)

modification

(1981}

on the

assumptions:

them

Mirror

2.3.6.

make the its

the

(repeated

in mind, below):

recall

now the

pre-LF

147 (55)

a.

Pre-LF,:

I

\

I

\

A'"-H

I \

I

NP-ga

\

Jrn:t.11

i A"'~d PRES

I \

I

\

NP-ni

A"'-

0

'

I \

I

NP-sika,

\ A"''.,

I V

[ +[

v--M -- ]/[

+9

] ]

\

I

\ A

I \ na,. NEG sase +[vm-CAUSE

V

V

nom drink

--

]

[+9]

There this

are

two principles

representation

e-Criterion.

of grammar

---

c-selection

Move-alpha,

violations

of grammatical

may affect

only

grammar will, in seen

one

chooses then,

(53)

percolated morpheme

raise

above,

above,

to

up to na,

as

at

the the

remedy

only lexical

illustrated

for

and

such

that

the

striaghtforward,

c-selectional node in

hand, the It

derivation as we have

properties

A"''·"

(55a)

potential

checking.

providing

in

the

other

Suppose

c-selectional

quite

be satisfied

on the

a time.

(NEG) first, is

to

checking

principles,

satisfy

which

since

the

item

na

yet

is

above.

that

of the

head

148 Suppose, to

satisfy

will

on the

the

provide

Selkirk's

us with

the

Percolation

be possible,

its

own G-marking

access

to

the

of sase

of the

0-Criterion

option,

in

property

the

since

it

deviates

which

move should

the

lexical

(NEG) lacks

na

may have

non-head

node.

sase

Therefore,

by a potential

There

probably

derivation

in

from

holds

Given

therefore,

of

the

in the

chooses

presumably,

(55).

morpheme

Syntax,

the

grammar

choice,

this

head

there.

regard

(55)

Mirror

violatioh

is

a reason,

as

a marked

Image

majority

of

cases

involving

raising. Thus,

the

crucial

predicate

allowing

V-sase-na

(V-CAUSE-NEG)

like

0-marking

permitted

in

Let general contained application other

difference

non-string-vacuous and

properties

the

former,

way.

our

We assume a complex

that,

imposes

the

raising

predicate

is

that

the

here

subject

The lsomorphy a restriction

it

percolation morpheme

is

latter.

in principle, is

like

rejectng

non-head

in the

proposal

predicate

of Move-alpha. hand,

from

a complex

affix

a complex

b1.1t not

us recapitulate

in

between

(Y-CAUSE-PASSIVE)

V-sase-rare

of the

the

derivation

may be triggered

to

Derivations,

This

property.

up to

the

first.

the

0-marking

raising

that

Conventions, since

(CAUSE) percolated

however,

hand,

G-Criterion

also

affix

other

in

a more

any

affix

to

the

Constraint,

on this

syntactic

on

149 rule

such

that

grammatical

it

principles

particular

affix,

properties

are

some

applies

would

by syntax.

Selkirk's

to

the

head

features

to

the

lexical

of

to

the

morpheme

lacks

of the

but Thus,

to

capt,ure

the the

represented but lower

also

to

scope

it

up to

the

scope

percolate

node

ambiguity

of sika

semantic

provide

a reason

us to

predict and

reading

represented

are

unmarked allows

na

the by

only

(ONLY) in

marked (46b).

both

case.

us not

representations for

when

Selkirk's

the

Approach

up

permits

non-string-vacuous)

Raising

two

priority

string-vacuous)

constitutes

its

detected

lexical

allows

affix(=

affixes(=

Affix

to

a

creating

gives

also

features.

therefore,

former

by the

2.4.3.1.4.

status

(46), of the

66

Alternatives

There that

the

node,

predicate

of

when

principles

However,

those

head

of non-head

only

lexical

of Raising

convention

percolate

convention,

possible,

the

a complex

(X"'''').

features

raising

triggered

percolation

node

raising

is

arise.

of grammatical

non-head

that

otherwise

up to

violation

percolation

when some violation

therefore; percolated

potential

head

only

exist

at

may be proposed

Approach

in

examples

like

least as

accounting (44}

and

two different

an alternative for (45)

the

ambiguity

(repeated

syntactic to

the

Affix

detected below):

analyses Raising in the

150

ano that

(44)

ban night

wa Taroo TOP

watasi I

ni biiru-sika DAT beer-but

nom-ase-na-katta drink-CAUSE-NEG-PAST

(45)

I made/let

'That

night,

Rupan Lupin

wa tesita TOP follower

Taroo

drink

only

beer.'

steal

only

the

scope

ambiguity

ni hooseki-sika DAT jewelry-but

nusum-ase-na-katta steal-CAUSE-NEG-PAST 'Lupin made/let jewelry.' Let

us examine

In the is

(44)

to

them first

the

here.

to

be ambiguously at

followers

alternative,

ascribed

element

his

the

possibility

analyzed relevant

the

for

either level

as

the

in

sika-phrase

a matrix

or

of representation,

complement as

in

{57)

below: {57)

a.

Matrix

Scope:

ano ban [ e, b.

watasi

Lower

this

wa Tarooi

ni

[ei

biiru-sika

sase-katta analysis,

made possible

in the

scope

will

reading

biiru:"-sika

Scope:

nom-ana] to

ni

e" nom ] ase-na-katta

ano ban watasi

According

wa Taroo,.

the

matrix

scope

of sika

representation

(57a),

while

the

be made possible

by the

application

na

is

lower of

151 the

Negative

soon

Raising

to

(57b),

as will

be described

further

below. We reject

account

for

below

and

this

the

matrix

also

in

clearly

located

between

an internal

on the

scope

(47}

but

within

argument

and the

this

approach

NP" analysis

of

causatives

must

be analyzed

this

analysis,

to

---

be a matrix

however,

on the

sitting

ni DAT

] sase-na-katta

CAUSE-NEG-PAST the

messenger

deliver

on the

causee

Taroo

element. basis

is

predicate:

relies

the

(58}

tukaino-mono messenger

made/let

crucially

cannot

sika-phrase

lower

todoke deliver

'Nobunaga deliberately only a letter.'

it

complement,

[Vm-K

tegami-sika ni DAT letter-but

Also,

the

the

that

(ONLY) in

na

in which

wa wazato TOP deliberately

Hideyosi Hideyoshi

grounds

of sika

above,

nowhere

Nobunaga Nobunaga

(58)

approach

"extra

ni

We have

of

in

(57a)

rejected

adverbial

interpretation. The second in

(44)

Negative

in

terms

Lakoff McGloin below:

of

the

captures rule

called

the Negative

scope

ambiguity

Raising

(or

Transportation). Negative

early

alternative

studies (1969}, (1972,

Raising,

a device

of English

originally

(Fillmore

etc.),

has

1976),

based

been

(1963),

extended

upon

proposed

sentences

to

Klima

(1964),

Japanese like

in

(59b)

by

152

(59)

a.

watasi I

wa sono TOP that

wa tittomo TOP at=all

e picture

okasiku-na-i funny-NEG-PRES

to omo-u CCOMP think-PRES 'I b.

think

watasi I

that

picture

wa sono TOP that

is

not

e picture

funny

at

wa tittomo TOP at=all

all.'

okasi-i funny-PRES

to omow--ana-i COMP think-NEG-PRES 'I

don't

think

( McGloin Here, to

(59b)

(59a),

is

( 1976,

claimed

the

licensed

by the

examples

these

like

raising

This

including

is "verbs

(think)

(McGloin

polarity

item

itself,

in other

complement

possible underlying

of sika by the

been

triggered

out

all.'

to

the

Negative

of

to

in

(repeated

(44)

application

to

assume

of

in

(60):

take

67

clause.

and the

kangaer

negative

of the

negative

place

in the

applies. that

the

below)

of Negative

in

verbs

(think)

omoN

Raising

item

complement class

claimed

move is

clause.

be made possible

determination

are

all)

matrix

The licensing scope

(at

polarity

of the

like

words,

representation

at

equivalent"

the

by a sinall

(Ibid.)).

na

in

claimed

of thinking··

before

funny

tittomo

negative

negative

One possible reading

item

morpheme

has

and also

is

"semantically

an embedded

of the

raising

be

polarity

negative of

picture

385)) to

negative

The licensing

the

that

lower is

Raising

scope

made to

the

by

153

(44)

ano that

ban night

watasi I

wa Taroo TOP

ni biiru-sika DAT beer-but

nom-ase-na~katta drink-CAUSE-NEG-PAST 'That (60)

ano

I made Taroo drink

night, ban

watasi

nom-(a}na Again, the

the

scope

place

of in

to sase (61)

biiru-sika

negative

Raising

polarity

item

sika

are

claimed

to

negative (and

in this

case

and take

Verb

applies.

the the

(61a)

the

of the

Negative

Exactly

drop)

of

determination

as well)

licensing

ni

beer.'

] sase-katta

licensing

before

Raising

wa [ Taroo

only

same negative \

below

may be offered

account

polarity

item

the

to

itteki

1110 (even

by the

negative

morpheme

watasi I

wa kare TOP he

ni osake-o DAT liquor-ACC

a

attached

»a

{CAUSE): a.

ano that

ban night

itteki-1110

a~drop-even 'That drop b.

nom-ase-r,a-katta drink-CAUSE-NEG-PAST

night, I did of liquor.'

ano ban watasi nom-ana

However,

not

make/let

wa [ kare

ni

him drink

osake-o

even

a

itteki-mo

] sase-katta

there

extension

of the

predicate

construction.

is

Negative

good

reason

Raising The crucial

to

question

Approach

to

observation

such the

an

complex comes

from

154 the

comparison

below, (62)

of

(44)

and (61)

above

with

(62)

and (63)

respectively. *watasi I

wa [ ano TOP that

ban night

kare he

wa biiru-sika TOP beer-but

non-da] drink-PAST

to omow-ana-i COMP think-NEG-PRES '*I (63)

do not

*watasi I

think

that

wa [ ano TOP that

non-da ] drink-PAST

respectively,

ban night

but

beer

kare wa osake he TOP 1 iquor

that

night.'

o it:teki-mo ACC a=drop-even

to omow-ana--i COMP think-NEG-PRES

'I do not think that night.' Compare further

he drank

(62)

that

he drank

and (63)

to confirm

the

with

even

(64)

ill-formed

a drop

of liquor

and (65), status

of the

former: (64)

watasi I

wa [ ano TOP that

nom-ana-katta] drink-NEG-PAST 'I (65)

think

watasi I

ban night

wa biiru-sika TOP beer-but

to omo-u COMP think-PRES

that

he drank

wa [ ano TOP that

ban night

nom-ana-katta] drink-NEG-PAST

kare he

nothing kare he

but

beer

wa osake TOP liquor

that

night.'

o itt:eki-•o ACC a=drop-even

to omo-u COMP think--PRES

'I think tha~ he did that night. '

not

drink

even

a drop

of liquor

155 It

is

clear

here

that,

of Negative

Raising

Note,

then,

that,

truly

extendable

(think)

to

(60)

Raising

tenseless.

For

motivated

Negative the

whether

responsible

like

its

were 01110N

we would

sase,

application

in

Raising,

(cf.

Approach

is

also

blocked

time

in

above,

assume

complement

which

similar

clearly

to

is

originally example

(66}

tensed.

ga sukosi-1110 NOM at=all

matigattei-ta wrong-PAST

] to COMP

hito person not

Negative

adopted the

satisfies

when the

in the

think

in

vs.

(63)), in

Negative

the

it (44}.

his

does

judgment

is

motivated

not

seem to

Recall

reasons

in this

(44)

that

Transportation

many different

na

possible

not

only

is

ambiguity

Furthermore, how sika

is

(59b)

clause

(59b)

the

seen

it

or

who does at all'

or not

for

already

same

of thinking

no handan GEN ,judgment

independently

the

verbs

instance,

'the person was wrong

explain

be blocked. Approach

may apply

omow-ana-i think-NEG-PRES

Raising

application

Raising

that

complement

( kare he

have

must

the

(61a).

Negative

Thus,

(65)

morpheme

that

incidentally,

(66)

and

reason,

Negative

the

causative

Note,

below,

whatever

(64)

the

if

predict

and

that

to

from

the

incorrectly

for

to

also

reject

be

that the

we Verb

alternative. Raising

Approach

can take

scope

locality

imposed

over

does sase

by the

not and

at

156

licensing see

condition

in 2.4.3.2.

cases

to which

solution

without

Raising

Approach

2.4.3.2.

of negative

and 2.4.3.3. the·Affix

Raising

has

nothing

items.

there

also

Approach

to

As we will are

offers

cost,

but

offer.

00

the

other

a simple Negative

Honorification

properties

a.

teacher

*aitu ga that=brat 'That

a.

gakusei-tati students

basic

language),

a type

of

o -kake-ni-nat-ta ACC dial {HON)-PAST

made a telephone denwa tel.

brat

the

69

ga denwa NOM telephone

Sensei

'Our

illustrate

( respect

in Japanese:

Teacher

b.

paradigms

of sor,kei-qo

honorification

(68)

below,

any additional

The following

(67)

polarity

call.'

o o-kake-ni-"-nat-ta ACC dial (HON)-PAST

made a telephone ga ( Sensei NOM Teacher

call.' ga sonnani NOM that=much

o-okori-ni-nar-u] to omottei-na-katta get=angry (HON)-PRES COMP didn't=think 'The students did not would get angry like b.

~ensei

Teacher

expect that.'

ga ( gakusei-tati NOM students

that

the

not expect like that.

teacher

ga sonnani NOM that=much

o--okori-r,i-nar--u J to omottei-na-katta get=angry (HON-PRES COMP didn't=think 'The teacher did would get angry

(koto) (fact)

that '

the

(koto) (fact) students

157 c.

ga [ gakusei-tati NOM students

Se:nsei

Teacher

ga sonnani NOM that=much

to o-omoi-:n i-rra,.- -ana-katta COMP didn't=think (HON} 'The teacher did would get angry (69)

a.

Teacher 'Our b.

*sono that

First,

as

o-V-ni-nar as

helped

otoko guy

ga Sensei NOM Teacher

guy helped

(67a-b) must

"'a person

be

such

(69a-b)

licensing

illustrate,

must

be the

tion

has

"'subject"'

led

"'subject

Harada

of to

Again,

with

in the

capture

these

generalizations

coindexation,

as

the

as well

a sentence.

The type

form

refers

as

Third,

licenser

this

the

to

(SSS) .. (e.g.,

clause-bound.

Affix

in

Raising

(67b) as

of o-V-1,i-rrar last

generaliza-

of honorification

(71)

below:

(70)

of

represented 7 ~

below

Approach,

in terms

head-government"' in

(1976}

speaker

(68a-c)

an LF derivation

provided

under

Harada

of

as

71

(67a))

'"licensing

as

verbs

SSS as the

label

honorification"'.

o o-tasuke-:ni-:nat-ta ACC help (HON)-PAST

to

is

the

guy.'

by what

Second,

students

teacher.'

superior

70

the

honorified

licensed

socially

illustrate,

our

that

o o-tasuke-rri-:nat-ta ACC help (HON)-PAST

that

illustrate,

(Teacher)).

Se:nsei

otoko guy

teacher

'That

{koto) (fact)

not expect like that.'

ga sono NOM that

Serrsei

okor-u] get=angry

the

(for we can

notion in terms

of

158

a.

(70)

Pre-LF.e:

b.

S-str/Pre-LF,:

I'n~·-,-.;

I

I \ I

Sensei Teacher

Im=d / \

I

\

denwa tel.

In,:I,.~.

I

\

V

I \

V

I

===>

I \

I

I

ta

\

Senseh

I \

I

I

\

denwa

I \ V V I \ V 0 nar

I

I

V

ta PAST

I \ j2l nar

I \ 9J V ni

I \ 9J

\ Jn1.i.11

I \

V

\

I

\

V ni I

I

o

= null

(9J (71)

Subject

.category,

the

(70b),

head-governs well-formedness

the

of

complex

"cyclicity any

consists

verb

(67a) this

predicate

of.

cost.

o-kake-ni.-r,ar

SSS Sensei

must

(dial

(Teacher},

(HON))

hence

the

above. licensing

analysis

construction,

of honorification"'

additional

Conditior,:

X"'-~" ] )

subject

When we extend to

37)

verb of the form o-V-nt-r,ar a subject SSS at LF. 73

honorified the

footnote

Licensing

= { N"';"",

( subject In

See

Honorification

An honorified head-govern

kake

o

kake call

We will

it

of honorifics can

capture

observed

by Harada,

see

this

what

the

without

"cyclicity"

159 First, (72)

a.

observe

the

examples

Kootyoo-sensei Principal keisatu police

in

below:

ga syukutyoku-no NOM on=night=duty

yoomuin janitor

o o-yob-ase-ni-nat-ta ACC call-CAUSE (HON)-PAST

'The principal made/let call the police.' b.

(72)

syukutyoku-no on=night=duty

yoomuin janitor

yoomuin--situ night-duty=room

the

(koto) (fact)

janitor

on night

de sibaraku at a==while

the

is

honorified,

place

representation morpheme c-selectional

and In the

(Teacher). may take

entire

ta

complex it

Affix

quite

(koto) (fact)

predicate

74

by the

Raising

Approach,

below, is

property

raised ( +[

which to

principal a while.'

causer

we obtain satisfy

V'""'"" __ ] ) :

SSS Sensei

this

in the

licensing pre-LF

after its

take

(call-CAUSE)

yob-ase

licensed

straightforwardly

(73) (PAST)

is

DAT

o-yasumi-ni-nar-ase rest (HON)-CAUSE

'The janitor on night duty let the a rest in the night-duty room for (72a),

duty

ni

ga Kootyoo-sensei NOM Principal

-te sasiage-ta -GER respectfully=give-PAST

In

ni DAT

the

syntactic

tense

160

Pre-LF:

(73)

I{Tloh\l-l_

the

in

raibarusis-ase-aw

its

licensed

(young

i

derivation

deviation the

string

is

root

made the another of

affix

two case raising

no) waruguti GEN slander

o ACC

( koto) (fact} speak

i]l

of

supporting at

L:W . .,.,

the

each

other.'

non-string-vacuous

182

Summary

2.4.4.

'I'o sum up the that

the

is

level

reported

of to

the

scope

of

(ii)

that

the

exhibit

the

scope

higher

We have

supported honorification require

lower

the

it

argued

the

narrower

construction

affix

claim

as

the

been

negative which

schematized

in

by the

has

concerning

and

suffixes.

derived

reciprocalization,

an LF derivation

represent such

than and

LF complementation

This

at

(same)

onazi.

of

is

raising.

observations and

suffixes,

that

the

place

certain

scope

scope

that

predicate

takes

that

(j)

of)

readings

first,

observations

expressions

than

predicate

by

and

complex--predicate-forming

also

of

complex

are:

(ambiguity

exhibit and

application

claim

argued,

the

The relevant

quantifier-like

(different}

complex

Form. this

tiga.iv

in

in nature,

support

some

we have

involved

syntactic

Logical

quantifiers

the

section,

complementation

construction the

entire

polarity,

sometimes

(102)

in

(=(1)

above):

(102)

I\ I

\ B

I cir,.,;,,H

I \

crn·l•"l

I \

I\ \ [ A B C (C-== negative,

I \

===>

l honorific

or

A

C

J

reciprocal

suffix)

183 Let the

Verb

non-ad

us emphasize Haising

hoc

Approach

account

for

non-string-vacuous construction

will

also

(1984b),

as

an alternative

and

the

as other

in

can which

complex

dealt

with

us to

reject

causatives

In this

presumably

above

of the

force

Japanese

example,

highly

phenomena,

we have

to

for

is

discussed

these

Approach

{98),

it

unlikely offer

that any

require

a

predicate

LF'.

The phenomena

Hypothesis.

that

reanalysis at

subsections

here

(103)

to

the

Affix

the

assigned below

last

by Williams

Raising

causative

and

one

three

Coanalysis

construction

two simultaneous ---

morphological

the

proposed

approach, is

in the

syntactic

syntactic

(lower

analyses, (upper

half)

half):

------

s

(103)

VP

v~

NP 'I Tanaka-ga

~

NP I

I

hutari-ni NP

l

I

I

I

I

V

af

af

l--Y VP

\

raibarusis-ase-at-ta I

NP

I\

l

I

wakai

V

I \

V

184 The representation

in

explain

how the

becomes

possible

cannot

handle

( 10:3),

however,

reciprocalization in any

example

does

in the (98),

not

"complement"

precisely

non-string-vacuous

al low us to

because

it

morphology-syntax

mismatches.

2.5.

Kuroda lexical

(1981)

derivation

argument

(1)

Arguments

proceeds (i)

{ii)

(iii)

(iv)

offers of as

some

"V + in

(1)

Lexical

Derivation

conterarguments The

sase".

logic

to of

his

the main

below:

If any syntactically-inserted item intervenes between the two morphemes making up a complex predicate, the latter must also have been syntactically rather than lexically derived. The negative morpheme na, various supplementary particles (huku-zyosi) such as t>Ja ( CONTR), sae (even) and dake (only), the desiderative morpheme ta, and honorific marker o , , , ni r,ar are syntactically introduced. The items mentioned between a verb and predicate.

in sase

Therefore, V-sase must than lexically derived.

Some of the

in (2)-(5}

against

below.

relevant

examples

(ii) that

may intervene make up a complex

be syntactically

from

Kuroda

rather

are

cited

185

(2)

watasi

wa top

I

Taroo

' I wi 11 make

watasi

a.

( 3)

will

watasi

b.

'I

c.

Taro

not

ni LI o yomi-~a DAT LI ACC read.-CONTR

make/let

Taro

wa Taroo

will

watasi

o suw-anaku--sase-ru ACC inhale-NEG-Cause-PRES

smoke. '

wa Taroo top

I 'I

ni tabako DAT cigarette

ni

make/let

at

read

LI o yorni-sae even

Taro

wa Taroo

least

even

read

LI.' sase-ru

LI.'

LI o yomi-dake

ni

sase-ru CAUSE-PRES

sase-ru

or,ly

'I

(4)

watasi I 'I

( 5}

wa top

will

make/let Taroo

ni

Taro

only

ni t.abako DAT cigarette

make Taro

o-yasumi rest

nari

LI.'

read

o sui·-taku-sase-ru ACC smoke-want-Cause-PRES

feel

like

smoking.'

ta-i want

dake extent

o

-yasumi rest

ni

o-oki-sita leave

hoo option

ga ii-no-de-wa-nai-desu nom may=be=good

'Is it not wants?'

better

to

In Naku

will

is

morpheme between traditional

(2),

na,

pro

intervenes

(a)naku

a renyoo

let

(sequential·-verbal}

and -a-

is

a consonant-ending grammar

an augment verbal

of ,Japanese,

rest

r,ar-ase te CAUSE and ka Q

as much as

V and sase,

between form

of the

morpheme stem

pro

negative

inserted

In the

and na.

an adjective

82

is

said

to

186

take

a rer,yoo

form

when

it

is

followed

by a yooqer,

(verb

or

adjective). In

(3a-c),

inter·vene

supplementary

between

In between

( 4),

and ta

( 5),

also)

is

might

the

r en yoo

to

this

form

may intervene

of

(repeated

Let

us begin

with

as

Negative

to

in

(6b)

the

causative Let

us

Argument.

Intervention

In

Argument, (1-ii)

and

(liji).

Intervention himself

may be analyzed 64

found

derived.

premises

expression

below:

V

fact

Morpheme

Kuroda

verbal

below),

its

in

I have

that

Susumu

predicate.

"Intervention" the

validity

(and

argument

be lexically

as the

to

complex

conclusion

reject

observation of the

the

the

Our objection

string

honorified

cannot

Intervening

the

to

attributes

V and sase

empirical

we will

83

2. 5.1.

in the

argument

follows,

Kuroda

between

one

predicates

(l-iii).

also

its

which

only

lead

questioning

with

in

intervenes

{want)

complex

what

in

nar

This

refer

and dake

sae,

V and sase.

ni

which

wa,

sase.

( W1lnt)

ta

Finally, Kuno,

V and

particles

Argument makes:

in the not

the

example only

starts

as

surface

(2) in

(6a)

but

187

(2)

watasi I 'I

(6)

In

wa top

will

make

ni tabako DAT cigarette

Taro

not

a.

suw-anaku-sase inhale-NEG-CAUSE

b.

[

(6b),

is

but

selects

to

to

the

consonant it

of

Argument,

since

the

(6a).

The surface

words,

gives

to

to

intervene

complex the

predicate.

"Surface

to

this

this

eausative

Let

us

careful

expression

the

initial

ambiguity

indeed

Intervention

of

in

(6b}

in

that

the

(2)

rather

(6),

morpheme

in

than

other

allegedly does

verb

and

sase

to

the

analysis.

refer

enough

to

He argues

counterpart discrepancy

(inhale-NEG).

expression

described

the

in turn

not

that

make up a in

(6)

as

Analysis.

possibility.

non-causative that

is

verbal

a possibility

Identity"

Kuroda

the

be an instance

between

which

surface

negative

negative

Deletion,

this

well-formed

"syntactically-inserted" actually

Consonant

ambiguity

rise

(do),

undermines

may now be considered

the

suw-ar,afn.1

If

significantly

to

verbs

drops.)

sase

directly

containing

application in

exists,

not

irregular

a complement

( < s-sase)

] s-·ase do-CAUSE

attached an

o suw-anaku--sase-ru ACC inhale-NEG-Cause-PRES

smoke.'

suw-·anaku

...

sase

morpheme

(Due

Taroo

of is

in

(2)

that

(2),

good

prepare

is

enough

eannot

(7)

a counterargument below,

a

ungrammatical, to

show that

be analyzed

as

and the in

(6b).

188 (7)

Taroo

ga tabako nom cigarette

'Taro

tries

The judgment

not

here,

I find

claims. grammatical sentence a sentence

sound

still

with

as

in

(8)

( 10)

more

a punctual

'Taro

tried

hard

I

as

(which

Na

often

and

a little

The makes

improves

more

context,

o suw-anaku si ta ACC smoke~NEG do-PAST

smoke.' form

"renyoo

for

(10)

to

Kuroda

(2).

as

in .Japanese), and

as

instence,

82)

marker

tense

not

clearcut

for

tabako cigarette

that

option

as

footnote

natural·

tutomete effortfully

ore

(7),

a topic

wa top

in

in

with

Taroo

illustrated

not

(cf.

below:

an available

is

awkward

also

su-ru do-PRES

smoke.'

example

(8)

Observe

suw-ar,aku

however,

improves

more

to

the

and

o

ACC smoke-NEG

adjectives

+

{do)"

s

is

in general,

clearly

as

below:

ga tyotto nom little

yasasiku gentle

su--ru do-PRES

to and

sugu moment

tukeagariyagatte puffed=up 'The moment of it!' The negative respect morphemes

I show my gentleness,

morpheme

to

conjugation, i

na

behaves taking

(PRES) and katta

as the

(PAST).

you take

an adjective adjectival 'I'here

advantage

with tense

is

nothing

189

remarkable,

therefore,

expression

Analysis

follows,

(6)

in

be an available surface

by further

in

from

the

properties

of

+

{do)"

s

support

as

a possible

of

the

in

(8)

as

the

demonstrating

for

the

Surface

comparison

above.

Surface

Identity

(6b)

that analysis

of

should the

of the

Identity

(6)

Analysis

categorial

selectional

and rare.

sase

To begin

possibility

question.

Our argument comes

we will

option

string

the

form)

(=-renyoo

"r,aku

In what

about

with,

let

us take

a look

at

the

following

paradigm: ( 11)

( 12)

a.

suw--are inhale-PASSIVE

( < suw + rare}

b.

suw-ase CAUSE

(< suw + sase)

a.

*yasasi-rare gentle-PASS

b.

*yasasi-sase CAUSE

Whatever

analysis

contrast

between

accounted in

terms

paying (V)

and

for. of

the

attention yasasi

of

complex

(lla-b)

and

predicates (12a-b}

One possibility selectional to {A).

the

is properties

categorial

In any

of the

one may adopt, must

to

the

be somehow

capture of raFe

distinetion approaches

the and

contrast sase,

between

suw

we have

dealt

190

with

above,

rare

and sase If

the

contrast

can

select

morphologically

we adopt

predict

the

below:

(Recall

such

contrast

the

by saying

only

a selectional

between

that

be captured

a verb.

account,

{ 11a-b)

negative

that

above

we can and

morpheme

na

also

( 13a--b) is

an

adjective.) {13)

a.

*suw-ana-rare inhale-NEG--PASS

b.

*suw-ana-sase NEG-CAUSE

Crucially, between ( 12) and

(15}

( 14)

and sase,

rare

and

however,

( 13)

above

an unexpected

discrepancy

when we ehange into

a

ren

the

(-ku.)

yoo

arises

cid,jectives form,

as

in

in ( 14)

below:

a.

*yasasiku.-rare gentle-PASS

b.

yasasiku-sase CAUSE

( 15)

a.

*suw-anaku.--rare inhale-NEG-PASS

b.

suw-anaku.-sase CAUSE

Note

that

that

between

to

ascribe

mere

lack

the

contrast (15a)

the of

and

between (15b)

ill-formedness a renyoo

form

(14a} suggests of

and that

( 12a--b)

in these

(14b) it and

examples.

as well is

as

a mistake

{ 13a--b)

to

the

191 One possible say

that

it

selects

must

the

account,

this

between

and

that

when sase

be

in

a renyoo ( ( 12b))

*yasasi-sase

between

((l5h)),

to

account,

that

must

would

examination

however,

would

crucial

a renyoo

form

to

the

turn

predicate,

as

that

*suw-ana-sase

be

left

but

sase

of

retain

both

rare

a verb.

but

also

to

a complement

in

and

a.

[

. ..

yasasiku] gentle

b.

[

...

yasas

iku

{ 17)

rare

when

selects (16)

in

the

original

and sase There

are

here.

an adjective

adjective

paradigms

to

but

involved

only

the

us

nothing

observations not

of

allow

we assumed select

First,

{16)

adjective

is

an adjective,

stated

contrast

careful

morphologically

in

In

contrast

for.

in which

directly

this or

a verb.

and suw-ana/f{!-sase

(14)-(15),

with

a verb

{ ( 14b}),

A more

which

the

yasasiku-sase

unaccounted

for

be additionally

Otherwise,

({13b})

two

only

an adjective,

form.

account

either

selects

rare

however,

and

selects

sase

whereas

way to

the

becomes it

is

attached

not

verbs

(do),

irregular containing

compatible

an adjectival

below:

s-are do--PASS

1 s-ase

(< yasasiku

s-rare)

(< yasasiku

s--sase)

do--CAUSE

(17)

a.

[

. ..

suw--anaku inhale-NEG

l

b.

[

...

suw-anaku

] s --ase

s--are do--PASS do--CAUSE

{ < suw--anaku

s--rare)

( < suw-·anaku

s-sase)

192

Second., are

the

surface

ident.ical

with

respectively, rule

of

then,

the

existenee

of

the

well-formed

{yasasiku·-;PAST examples markers complex

we have ni

nar

predicates

dealt seem

with

above,

to

be truly

here.

These

the

194 examples, other

therefore,

examples

derivation

to

of

Recall assumption

seem the

that

(or

introduced(=

premise

assumption

not

also

by the

in

2. 4. :3. 2.

alternative

view

seen

than

lexical

the Affix

above.

in question

The strongest (1976)

the

is

1.ransformationally)

basis

observation This,

cyclically. for

on the

that however,

transformational effect8"

Raising

Analysis, follows,

of honorificat.ion,

that

does

status

"cyclicity

In what

for

can

of

be

as we have we will it

is

pursue

basically

an a

process.

lexical

We make the honorification:

(21)

Harada's

since

the

argument

marker

(1 ii)).

argue

honorification

his

precisely

proceeds

necessarily

captured

more

is

honorification

bases

honorific

syntactically

this

against

relevant

predicates.

Kuroda the

be much more

argument

complex that

to

Subject (i)

following

proposals

concerning

subject

80

Honorification:

Subject honorification of o- and the suffixation verbal root or stem in

involves the prefixation of --ni and -nar to 06 the lexicon.

(ii)

These affixation processes take place at the same level as other complex predicate forming affixation (i.e., at Level i, cf. 2.?.2.) in the lexicon.

(iii)

An honorified verb must be limmsed at LF by head-governing an SSS (= Subject Honorification Licensing Condition (71) in 2.4.3.2.)

a

195 (iv)

One of the "accented", high tone, (See 2.2.4.

honorific markers, nar, is i.e., it has an underlying as indicated below: above.)

floating

/nar/ H

As we have 0,ondition allow

(2liii)

us

to

The predict

account

2.4.3.2.

the

intervene

the

there

is

above

as well

are

nothing

a complex

to

ones

about in

o --nom i.---n1 -n ar --u

a.

o -··norn:i ---ni --n ar --ase~-ru

drink b.

(21ii)

CAUSE

o--nom-ase-n i -nar drink-CAfJSE

--u

as

Approach

in

allows

t,he

(22)-·(25)

ni

long

satisfied,

a verbal

drink (2:3)

Raising

markers

are

analysis: (22)

in

predicate

((21i))

attached

the

licensing

effects

honorific

remarkable as

Affix

cyclicity

proposed

constraints they

the

the

more.

right-end in

above,

with

level-·ordering

that

as

for

and

seleetional long

in

combined

honorification

freely

seen

root

or

their

i.e.,

as

1 ike

in

may

as

stem.

examples below

nar

us. to

this

Thus, ( 20a-b)

196 ( 24)

(25)

nom--r,i -n ar i -ta--gar--u drink want-display

a.

0 ·

b.

o--nomi-ta-gari --n i -r,ar -u drink-want-display

a.

o--nom-rd-nar--ase--ta-gar-u drink CAUSE-want--display

0

o--nom-ase-n i -nar i -ta-gar--u drink-CAUSE want-display

. b.

o--noro-ase--ta-gari-r,i -nar-u drink-CAUSE-want--display

c.

Second. the to

the

accentedness account

leve]-ordering of

for

different

accent

(26)-(28)

below:

the

the

in

honorific

fact

that

pattern

the

Q-·nomi-ni-na_:i:::-___M drink

(27)

Q-nom-ase-n i-nai::_-::}J. CAUSE

( 28)

imOY

o-yame-ni-nar-sase ll

o yame-ni-nar-a'se-ta H

This verbs

also

argues

as proposed 1''inal ly,

combined

with

causatives verbs (33)

for

in is

the

in the

the

will

derivation

of honorified

(21ii).

Lexical

Analysis

Surface allow

(32a-c)

lexical

Identity

us to

below

are

of honorification Analysis

predict well-formed,

that

of all

the

whereas

negated honorified that

in

not:

(32) a. Ser,sei Teacher

wa top

o-·suw-ase--1,

smoke-·CAUSE 'Our teacher eorridor.'

gakusei student 1

ni rooka DAT corridor

de tabako in cigarette

·-r,at -ta

PAST made/let

the

students

smoke

in the

o ACC

202

b.

Sensei

Teacher

wa gakusei,1. top student

suw-anaku smoke-NEG

C.

ni [ e,. kyoositu DAT classroom

teacher made/let classroom.'

isya doctor

no keikoku GEN warnings

t,be

doctor's

>l

sa'se-ta

===>tabe-sa'se-ta

eat-CAUSE-PAST

It is quite difficult to maintain this analysis, however, since the accent on sase is most likely to originate in the verbal root tabe in (i). The lack of an accent in (iia) below, which contains an unaccented verbal root (cf. (iib)), confirms this point: (ii)

a.

ll,ke-sase-ru

(open-CAUSE-PRES)

b.

ll,ke-ru

(open-PRES)

24. Coda geminate this rule of voiced of a nasal as in (i}

Nasalization changes the first member of a voiced into a nasal. As pointed out by Ito and Mester, is responsible not only for the surface absence geminates in Japanese but also for the sequence and a voiced obstruent in Intensive Infixation below:

208

(i)

a.

yokotobi

b.

togaru

25. See Ito consonan-ts.

and

===> yokottobi :::==> -tongaru (1986)

Mester

'stepping

aside'

'sharpen' for

a treatment

of nasal

26. Ito and Mester also argue that the cyclic application of Voicing Spread within nominal compounds makes it possible to eliminate Otsu's (1980) Right Branch Condition on Rendaku voicing in Japanese. Thjs also suggests that Voicing Spread is a lexical process.

27. We assume that underlying and all verbs in .Japanese are high tones.

accents for most adjectives represented as "floating"

Despite the popular assumption, we must specify the location of underlying accent for at least those adjectives which always exhjbit a stem-final accent, as in (i) below: ( i)

a.

s1.1rudo' -i sharp-PRES

b.

surudo'-katta PAS'f

(ii)

a.

kawai'-i cute

b.

kawai'

(iii)

a.

mizika'-i short

b.

mizika'-katta

(iv)

a.

kitana'-i dirty

b.

ki tana'

this

The desiderative class:

suffix

(v)

a.

yame-ta'-i quit-want-PRES

b.

yame-ta'-katta

ta

-katta

also

--katta seems

to

belong

to

PAST

Following Pulleyblank (1983), we will accents of these adjectives are represented high tones on the final mora, as in (vi): (vi)

a.

surudo H

b.

ta H

assume that as prelinked

the

209 28. An augment consonant-ending

29. The contrast is accented:

( i)

morpheme -iis inserted verb and an adjective. in

below

(i)

a.

kanasi-i sad-PRES

b.

}rnnasi-ga_r-u display-PRES

30. It argument

will e

be made clear below should be assumed :for

31.

For

example:

( i)

a.

siryo (N) + huka thought deep

b.

awa (N) + tat (V) suds stand

C.

suggests

yasasi gentle

(cf.

Sugioka (A)

between that

a

-qar

(display}

why a phonetically (3b) but not for

empty (3a}.

(1984))

==>

siryo-buka-i thoughtful-PRES

==> awa--dat-u

(A)

(V)

foam-PRES

(A) + sa (N-Affix) ness

=~> yasasi-sa

(N)

gentleness

32. Kratzer (1984) proposes that a finite sentence in German is the maximal projection of a predicate of the V-INFL. She further makes an interesting distinction between finite and non-finite sentences.

form

33. For the arguments that phrase structure in Japanese is configurational, see the works cited in 2. 1.2. 1. above. We will also provide further motivation for such a configurational analysis in 2.:3.5.3. below with respect to adverbial interpretation. 34. See 2.4.3. below for a slight modification and cases involving non-string-vacuous affix raising. 35. This rule voices the member in a morphologically and Ito and Mester (1986)

initial obstruent derived word. for the details

of the second See Otsu (1980) of this rule.

36. Note that the bracketing paradox here cannot be handled by the "redefinition of relatedness" in Williams' (1981} sense, since this process is restricted to heads.

210 fl here indicates that the prefix ko belongs to a "null category class" (Lieber (1981, p .. 50)). We assume that this makes it possible for the categorial feature [+VJ to percolate up from the VP in (10b). See 2.3.4. and _2.4.3. for related discussions.

37.

38. Lebeaux proposes that the nominal derivational affixes in general subcategorize for a level-neutral projection, e.g., y.,r.,,_,, rather t;ban a category of any specific "bar-level" like V"''", V"'.,"' or V'"'~H. He also proposes certain modification of the 9--Cri terion. See Lebeaux (1984b) for details. 39. Following Kuroda { 1965a), I am assuming here "uniform" analysis of direct and indirect passives. 2.3.5.3. below for a brief discussion in the light adverbial interpretation.

a See of

40. This is meant to be the thematic representation of the notion "event-type", which is expressible informally in (i) below for the sentence (ii):

( i} )\.e (ii)

[ eat

Hanako

We will Three.

(e}

& Agent

ga susi nom

(e, h) & Theme

{e, s}

]

o tabe-ta ACC eat-PAST

provide a syntactic See also Williams

basis (1984b)

41. See Bresnan ( 1978, 1982), among others, for a different 42. See Pesetsky (1982) c-selection is derivative.

for

for for

Bach view. the

this claim in Chapter a similar claim. (1983)

claim

that

and Abe ( 1985), even

43. Although the subject antecedent condition is not exceptionless (cf. Miyagawa (1980), C. Kitagawa (1981)), is probabaly safe to say that it is a valid descriptive generalization for the core cases of the binding of zibim. See 4.3.2. 1. below for more details of zibun.

44. ( i)

Hasegawa (1980) below, in which

as

proposes an alternative analysis (CAUSE) takes a VP-complement:

5,H;:e

like

it

211

s

( i}

I NP-ga

/ll\

\

VP

Aux

; j \ \ tal I

I

\

NP-ni

VP

I NP-o

I

\

V

l

\ sase V

l

tabe eat This analysis, however, has some problems. For example, whether the NP-ni in ( i} is G-marked by sa.se or tabe (eat), violation of the G-Criterion seems to be unavoidable, since NP-ni is analyzed as the internal argument of sase and the external argument of tabe at the same time, in the sense of Williams (1981b). Since {i) is assumed to be a D-structure representation, our arguments in 2.2. for the lexical derivation of complex predicates also run counter to Miyara ni-causative without tense

it.

(1981) also claims that the complement in the (but not in the o--causative) is a clause and COMP, which he labels as "S' ".

45. The parallelism between (39a-b} and (40a-b) supports Kuroda's (1965) claim that direct and indirect passives uniformly involve syntactic complementation, contra N. McCawley (1972b) and Kuno (1973}. See Howard and Niyekawa--Howard ( 1976} for a nice summary of discussion. 46. Abe (1985) regards unambiguous, and offers categorial grammar.

the adverbial an analysis

in (49b) as within a version

of

47. We have already seen above that the Affix Raising Approach incorporating FI will provide us with a simple account of the bracketing paradox in Japanese ({8}-(9)). 48. We will assume that the indexing on V""·'' percolates down to its head item .cease (cf. Williams (198la)).

212 49. Although the adverb could be immediately dominated by the Im.-,, node in (62a) and (63a), it will not affect our arguments. Rather, what is truly at stake is that the linear position of the adverb in this sentence allows it to be dominated by the lower V"''•"< node in {63c) after sase moves out of the complex predicate. In the other examples below as wel 1, we wi 11 be concerned only with the adverbial appearing in the relevant position in a tree.

50. This is one (1984a) "Atomicity sentence grammar 51. than

interpretation of Willimas' Thesis" in syntax, which disallows rules to refer to the interior of words.

In May ( 1985, 34), Reinhart's definition

Aoun and Sport iche' s ( l.983) of "c-command" is used.

rather

52. See Postal (1971}, Wasow (1974), Chomsky (1976), Reinhart, (1976), Koopman and Sportiche (1982), Higginbotham (1983}, Safir (1984), Saito and Hoji (1983), among others, for discussions of "crossover" phenomena.

53. The example will concentrate in (14}.

(13) here,

is more than two-ways ambiguous. however, on the readings indicated

We

54.

I believe that the reading in (16a) is available independent t::lf the specificity of dokokar,o haku.butukar. (somewhere museum), hence represents the scope relation indicated there. Hoji (1985), on the other hand, claims that quantified adverbs in Japanese never exhibit scope ambiguities. If this claim is correct, we cannot rely on the exmaple (15a). The example (15b}, which involves scrambling of quantified arguments, however, still demonstrates the point at issue. 55. As we will discuss also have scopes relative significant problem for

56.

See

also

Haik

(1985)

in

Chapter Three, quantifiers may to Aux. This also poses a the PAS Approach to quantification. and

referenees

eited

there.

57. To be more precise, Carlson considers that a plural/distributive NP is only one instantiation of eventuality", which is the crucial licensing factor.

"plural

58. * here is meant to indicate intended S-internal comparison.

of

59. Betuno (distinct/another) similar behavior.

the also

unavailability seems

to

exhibit

a

the

213 See McGloin (1976}, Muraki (1978}, Kuno (1983}, etc., and references cited there for a more extensive study of negation in .Japanese. 60.

See also Ladusaw others, for discussions treatments of negative 61. See McGloin (1972, counts as the legitimate negative polarity items

{1979} and Linebarger of semantic versus polarity items.

(1980), syntactic

1976) for discussion negative environment in Japanese.

among

as to what to license

62. The scope ambiguity of sika na exists independent of the lexical ambiguity of sase (CAUSE) between "coercive" and "permissive" readings. This point can be verified when we turn to other complex predicate constructions directly below. Mccawley and Momoi {1986) make a similar observation concerning the --te construction. In the semantic representations in {50)-(52): (i) I am rather loosely mixing arguments and adverbs, {ii) I have translated the passive morpheme rare into "RJWEIVE", fol lowing Makino ( 1973), and .(iii) the control property between arguments is indicated by the coindexat;ion. 63.

64.

to

We will deal with two this problem in 2.4.3.1.4.

alternative below.

syntactic

approaches

65. After na {NEG) is raised out of (55b), it also has a choice of adjoining to the V"'"'" headed by sase (CAUSE). This choice, however, will lead us to an LF representation identical to (53c), hence does not add anything new to our analysis.

A simi]ar marked application of affix raising as in (i) below would yield a representation in which the g-Criterion is violated. We thus correctly predict that the verb may not take scope over tense here: 66.

214 r,fl,'M.J..(

( i}

V"'-"

I

I \ I

\

NP-ga

I

I \

NP-o

\

I \

\

I

I"'''' I \ V

\

I

Im._,,_,

\

I

I

\ I"'~"'

NP-ga

===>

I

I \

NP-o

I

\

tabe eat

I"'~ ...

l

I

ru

ru PRES

67. McGloin also proposes such an extension. Her analysis is more complicated, involving the lowering of sika-na as an underlying predicate in an abstract logical structure.

68. One potential problem to the Affix Raising Approach is that the example {49) {repeated below) is only two-ways, not three-ways, ambiguous despite the fact that it involves two derivational suffixes ta (want) and gar (display) (49)

ano that

ban night

kare he

wa mezurasiku TOP unusually

biiru-sika beer-but

nom-ita-gar-ana-katta drink-want-display-PAST 'That night, beer.' In particular, below: (i)

it

he unusually lacks

the

reading

WANT (Taroo,, ONLYx, x=beer DRINK (e,, x) )] }

In fact, predicate multiple raising

showed

his

desire

represented

only as

for

(i)

[DISPLAY (e,,

more generally, a multiply--suffjxed involving sika r,a is predicted to scope ambiguity, if non-·string-vacuous is freely permitted.

complex exhibit a affix

Recall, however, that we have adopted a position such that non-string-vacuous affix raising is regulated by Selkirk's percolation convention. The affix raising as in (ii) and (iii) below, therefore, can be blocked due to the presence of the Q-marking properties of the suffixes to the right of the moved suffixes:

215 (iii) ( iv)

... ..

69. 70. this

==>

tabe-sa:,;e--ta--gar--ana

I am grateful my attention. nar

=====->.•.

nom-ti}ta--gar-ana

to

Hajime

A phonological into r,at before We will thesis.

Hoji

bringing

honorification

(1982)

for

some

J

tabe--ta--gar-ana

rule of Consonant another consonant.

disregard

71. See Saito generalization.

for

] ta

nom-gar-ana

exceptions

this

issue

Assimilation See 2. 2. of

adjectives to

sase

into

changes above. in

this

72_ I am assuming here that honorified verbs, tensed or untensed, are derived in the lexicon. This assumption is in line with the conclusion in 2.2. above. We will further argue for the lexical derivation of honorified verbs in 2.5. below.

Following Harada {1976), we tentatively assume that an honorified verb has an internal structure as indicated in (70b)_ AnoU1er good possibility is to assume that it involves nominalization by a phonetically-null suffix (indicated bye), as illustrated in (i) below: y,n:t.,,

( i)

I \

N I \

V

l 0 nar I \ l / N ni 0 / \ l V N o l kake e call N

73. To be more precise, we should probably consider that the coindexation at LF serves only as a basis for the licensing of honorificat.ion which takes place in a later level of representation. In other words, the notion SSS probably becomes relevant in a more semantic and/or pragmatic interpretation of honorified expressions. We will continue to assume (71), however, for simplicity.

216

74. The example (72b} becomes somewhat awkward without sasiage-ta (respectfully=give-PAST}. It seems to be generally disallowed to license a surface honorified verb with an SSS, and at, the same time make this SSS causee of causation without indicating deference on the part of the causer. Pragmatically, this constraint makes sense. 75. The term ''dialect" here is not intended to represent variety of a language in different geographical areas or social groups. Perhaps, a more precise labeling of what will be dealing with is "groups of idiolects". We will continue to use the term "dialer,t", however, for ease of reference.

a we

76. As has been pointed out to me by Hajime Hoji (personal communication), we also predict that the speakers of Dialect B disallow the lower scope reading of sika na (( 46b)) for the example ( 44). (Recall that this reading is made possible by non-string-vacuous affix raising, as illustrated in (55) above.) I have been unable to attest this prediction.

77. One potential problem the example like (i) below, first person pronoun watasi (i)

~atasi I

ga Sensei NOM Teacher

here is the ill-formedness in which the causer is (~):

ni bansyaku-made DAT daily=drink-even

o-yame-sase-ni-nat -ta stop-CAUSE (HON)-PAST 'I Note that presented

(koto) (fact)

made my teacher

quit

this sentence above.

cannot

One possibility is that special in that the sentence honorified verb head-governs into

I am grateful my attention.

to

of the

Susumu

his be

daily

drink

ruled

out

at in

dinner.'

our

analysis

the first person subject is becomes ungrammatical if an it at any stage of derivation. Kuno

78. For some reason, neither indirect exhibit a similar maked interpretation verbal root:

for

bringing

this

issue

nor direct. passives with the honorified

217 (i)

*aitu that~brat

wa Sensei TOP Teacher

o-home-rare-r, praise-PASSIVE 'That (ii)

brat

*aitu, that=brat 'That

had

his

*aitu that=brat

o

ACC

work praised

wa

Sensei

ni •• by

'l'OP Teacher brat

sakuhin

by work

i-nat -ta (HON)-PAST

was punched

Observe, however, that root cannot be licensed (cf. (72b)): {iii)

ni

by our

-nagur--are--n punch-PASSIVE

o

by our

t,eacher.

even the surface in the passive

wa Sensei TOP Teacher

teacher.'

ni sakuhin by work

i -nat-ta

(HON)-PAST

'

honorified examples

verbal

o ACC

o-home4•i-nar-are-ta praise (HON)-PASSIVE-PAST 'That (iv)

brat

*aitu, that=brat 'That

had

his

work

wa Sensei TOP Teacher brat

praised

ni e, by

was punched

by Our teacher.'

o-naguri-ni-nar -are-ta punch (HON)-PASSIVE-PAST

by our

teaeher.'

Although Susumu Kuno (personal communication) has provided me with ( v) below as a counterexample, t,his example seems to involve honorification of an adjective rather than a verb (cf. o-genki-ni-nar 'become high-spirited'): (v)

Sensei Teacher

ni hara by belly

no soko-made GEN bottom-even

o-m.itoosi--ni-nar-are-te see=througb (HON)-PASSIVE-GER

79.

another

'I must surrender, you, my teacher.'

having

Aga1n, Consonant eonsonant.

Assimilation

wa tamarimasen TOP intolerable

my real

intention

changes

aN to

read at

by before

218 80. Again, we predict, but have been unable that those who do not accept the honorification predicates will disallow the reciprocalization predicates as well.

81. While it is relatively examples, at least indirect similar marked interpretation illustrated by (i) below:

{i)

kokono this

kenkas ] -are--a t -te quarrel-CAUSE-RECIP-and 'The landlord here tenants' quarreling

attest, of complex of eomplex

harder to find relevant passives seem to allow a of reciprocalized verbs,

wa f hutari··no TOP two

zinusi-·san landlord

to

kosakur,ir,

tenant=farmer

as ni by

oozyoos i tei ru in=trouble is

suffering with each

from other.

two

of his

82. Following Kuroda, we regard (2) as a basically grammatical sentence although it is slightly awkward some reason. See Kuroda for discussion.

for

83. As has been pointed out to me by David Pesetsky (personal communication}, the validity of (1-i) is not so clearcut, either. Some of the verb-particle constructions in English, for example, may count as lexically-·derived expressions with an intervening lexical item:

(i)

a.

turn

the

b.

look

it

84. Kuno (1980) examples similar 85. Again, verbs.

light

on

up

also makes to (3a-c).

we are

this

concentrating

observation on the

concerning

honorification

of

86. The interdependence among the three instances of affixation (o-, -ni and -nar) should probably be captured in terms of the morphological licensing condition for the suffix naF as in (i) below, extending the notion "head-government" from syntax to morphology: ( i)

-nar

must

head •-•govern

o - and

-n i .

219 87. Presumably, honorification than a verb: ( i)

(i) below is ill-formed because marker is attached to an adjective

the rather

>l-t

I NP--ga

I \

I

\

\ i PRES

Am•d

I \ NP-ni

A'"''1 I I

kuwas.i knowledgeable Our proposal T-subjects

is, are

in other derived

words,

at

that,

in Japanese,

the

base-generated

LF from

I-subjects. One immediate particularly from

the

for

motivation the

for

postulation

simplification

it

this of

brings

T-subjects

to

the

to now in the

literature

of Government

the

of

and that

of

Objects

are

been

9-marking treated

objects

separately.

government

by a lexical

head

projection.

Subjects,

on the

9-marked

by VP.

within other

analysis, at

Theta and

9-marked

hand,

comes

Theory.

Up

Binding

subjects

its

LF,

have

Theory, always

under

maximal are

assumed

to

be

223 Several dichotomy that

attempts

of

the

0-marking.

requires

Hasegawa

(1981),

been

does

l'fuile will

G-marked

will

these

under above,

either

such

"NP

can

exactly

the offer

same

story

has be

relation

the

question,

objects

can

in under

may also

Category

Principle

Chomsky Empty

Analysis

Theory

above,

out

we will

to

argue

with

the

be the that

an analysis

of LF representations

be motivated

(1981),

(ECP)

as

Lasnik

Category

A nonpronominal governed at LF.

in the stated and

in Saito

light (5)

of

in the

Empty

below

(1984),

etc.)

Principle:

empty

category

as

head-government

may turn

in English

Analysis

Theta

(2)

be

there.

Japanese

a.

It

perhaps

T-subject

that,

below,

holds

of

of the

whichever

In 3.2.

The T-subject

(5)

and the

be 9-marked

by V"'"-"' or V"'~"', G-assigner.

out

a simplification

ga"

{1981),

structural

not

Given

Notice

to

( 1984)).

subjects

government.

correct

(cf.

both

be made possible.

T-subject

will

if

the

argued

etc.).

by VP can

{Travis are

been

(Marantz

(1981),

if

this

assigned

G-marker

even

approaches

has

G-role

9-marking

hold

justify

it

Sportiche

that

not

be simpler

(2)

example,

be the

Aoun and out

made to

of the

by "predication"

"government"

in

For

VP to

pointed

mediated

it

been

"compositionality"

subjects

also

have

must

be properly

we

224

b. Proper

properly

A

(i) or (ii)

It Saito

Government:

governs

is

A

a lexical

has

been

(Ibid.

contrast

to

the

that

interpreted

as

in

made by Huang

the

(1982)

wa [ dare TOP who

sirabeteiru investigating

that

Japanese

permits

Since due

dare

to

the

Chinese

governor,

and in

The crucial

below

observation

and

may

be

was originally

Chinese.) qa

nani

katta ACC bought

ka ] COMP[+WH]

o

NOM what

no

person x suoh that what x bought (6)

can the

be

ga

[.,.-

katta

ka

]]

sirabeteiru

S-bar

revenue

as

(7)

office

suggests

is

that

LF representation:

zeimusyo

(who NOM) cannot

intervening

the

interpreted

following

dare,

ga

and Lasnik like

(6)

node

Q

who is the investigating

The fact

(1982)

and French. in

concerning

Government)

and no NP or S' two (Antecedent

English

(This

(Lexical

be a proper

sentence

(7):

B and

languages

to

like

zeimusyo revenue=office

[.,.

!NFL in

languages is

LF:

X0

by Huang

be stipulated

observation

(8)

category

proposed

) that

must

(7)

governs

A

A is coindexed with B, intervenes between the Government)

Japanese

(6)

B if

wa [,~- nani:;,

o

t2

[,.,.

t,.

its

trace

no]] antecedent

nodes,

it

govern has

been

concluded

225 that

this

trace

stipulation Chinese

must

that counts

In the other

T-subject

as

the

within

its

extra

is

significant

of

interact "Major

initial

with

subject"

ga-marked (the

ga

of

subject:

(9)

to

followed

Yamadas

ga

Ya111ada-san

in

(6).

The

verbal

is.

theory

to

head

This

is

a

of government.

analysis

"major

can

subjects"

be in

ECP.

refers

NP(s)

Ya111ada-sar,

a major

how the

on the

necessary

by the

of this

the 1

the and

above,

object

the

confirmation

Japanese

(2) is

as the of

when we examine

in

governed

just

obtained

Japanese

of ECP violations

simplification

A piece

as

assumption

lexically

projection,

like

hence

governor.

Analysis

absence

there

governed,

languages

a 1,~xical

no such

for

lexically

INFL in

T-subject

hand,

account

be

one

(or

more)

by another

N0M) in

go-tyoonan

NOMH0N-eldest=son

sentence-

full

(9)

below

is

ga

daigaku

NOMcollege

clause. an example

ni DAT

gookakus-are-ta pass-H0N--PAST 'Yamada-san's examination Since

the

verb

predicate

and

a-selects

vm~M,

with

the

eldest son passed for a college.'

the

derivation

the

gookakus

tense

morpheme

Affix at

(pass)

Raising

LF as

in

ra

the

in

entrance

O:J> is

(PAST} syntactically

Approach

(10}

a two-place

below:

will 2

provide

us

226 ( 10)

S-str/Pre-LF,:

a.

Pre-LF-.,:

b.

I'n•H

1u1.;'11.M

I \

I \ Yamada-san

ga

Yamada-san

I""'"''

I \ gotyoonan

ga

ga

===>

l""""'

I'"-"'

I

\

I

\

l'"t. ,..,

I \ daigaku

!"'',.,

ni

I I

ta

I \ V I I

I

I

I

gookakus

I \ daigaku

ni

V"''-" I I

ta

gookakus Notice

that,

T-subject

by the

Yamadas

T-subject

of

verb

but

NOM) is

not.

a complex

just

as the

does

(Lasnik

out

Saito

major

(10b),

One possible then,

is

will of

the

from

that

the

LF-extraction ---

for

a violation

as

ga

prediction

that

an adjunct

(1984)),

lexically

Yamada-sar,

domains

yield

the

NOM) is subject

of certain

NP ---

extraction and

the

makes,

subject

representation

(HON-eldest=son

ga

Analysis

of a major out

pre-LF

gotyoonan

governed (the

in the

the

example,

ECP,

of the

same domains

illustrated

in

(11)

· below: (11)

*anata you o

wa ["',.. [,.~ kare TOP he zyukennasaru (HON)

ACC apply

This

otumori intention

oti--ta ] fail-PAST

e,

desu is

daigaku, college

ka? Q

'*Why, are you applying to the college which.-. failed to get in e,,, t, ?' prediction seems to be borne out --- for many

speakers, unless

ga naze NOM why

(12c) it

is

below

uttered

is

significantly

as an echo

question:

worse

than

he

(12a-b)

J

227 (12)

a.

mo (N,~ [ r.m,.N Yamada--san also

watasi I

gookakusare pass

e1

gotyoonan eldest=son

NOM

J daigaku,.

]-ta

[vm-x

ga

] o zyukensuru ACC apply=to

PAST college

ga

NOM

tumori intention

desu is 'I also eldest b.

anata you

intend to apply son got in.' wa [NP

to

the

college

Yamada-san

[ ,..,_,,

ga

TOP

(vm«>
-
< impossible "for anyone but after all these years, it not~ any more. analysis

(s)he

will

PF.

at

Williams

conclude

a.

extraposed

the

],

a deletion

(1976)),

:following

suggest

ago,

probably

in the

also

obligatorily

empty)

that

such

light

of

of this

be led If

one

(1977)),

of

to

conclude

on the

ym,ax

semantics.

construction

adopts

constituency

The LF constituency also

is

[-.,......,. bother

hia

Sag

the

---

J; with this will !ii again.

beat

constituency

will

(or

Ten years

adopts

analysis

clause

to

rooa

never

to

If

first

A"'=x

below

clause:

this

it

repeated

and

deleted

second a.

(17a-b)

of Vm-x in the

part in

in

such

an interpretive other

holds seems

that

at

to

Observe

hand,

(s)he

LF.

receive

first

support

the

examples: will

,7ohn

talk

to

whi.Qb usually

rtary,

makes

her

happy. b.

As David to

me,

sentence

was talking to of upcoming trouble.

Bill

Pesetsky each but

relative the

(personal

mi.ctl

usually

communication)

pronoun sentence

rtary,

in

(60)

takes

minus

tense

and

is

the

has

pointed

not

the

aspect

out

entire as

sign

its

262 antecedent. clearly

The possibility suggests

particular

event

event-type, (or

It provide

that

a sentence

(cf.

Davidson

which

a set

can

of

events).

seems

to

us with

ascertain

of

which

an interpretation,

(61)

below:

may denote

not

only

a

but

also

an

(1976=1967))

the

a syntactic

such

an interpretation

be characterized

us that

exactly

such

as

Subject analysis

constituent namely,

Raising in at

the

a generic

event

Approach

which

can

we can

LF corresponds

V'"~H,

as

of the

to

illustrated

in

LF:

(61)

I \

John:1.

rmwn::1

I \ I

\

1,n:i. r1

?"e.M

I \ I

\

I \ I

\

Vn "-n

to

us

I I

talk Note

the

subject,

crucial which

consisting sense).

role

played

by the

trace

us

obtain

a constituent

permits

of the

subject

there

seems

to

and VP (in

the

raised

traditional

29

Thus, assuming

the

to

LF constituency

exist of

a good

semantic

V"'·~~ containing

basis a

for

263 T-subject, not.

whether

T-subject

is

phonetically

empty

or

30

Finally, V"'"',., seems Observe,

to

in

(62)

let

(63)

(64}

the

get

will

secret

'We got

caught. hit

'A problem

the

in the

constituency light

"sentential"

of

of

idioms.

idioms

from

of

the

bag.

be revealed.

'

' the

fan.

started.'

idioms,

alternate

also

out

will

fell.

The shit

that

below:

The axe

In these

out

so-called

(62)-(64)

The cat 'The

us point

be motivated

first,

English

can

this

not

only

rather

tense

but

also

aspects

illustrated

in

freely,

as

the

doesn't

and modals

(65)-(67)

below:,

(65)

Make sure

(66)

The axe will

(67)

When those guys hit the fan.

These

facts

idiom

in these

sentence plus

VP".

that

suggest

minus

cat

fall

to

get

out

of the

bag.

someday. arrive,

the

us that

examples an auxiliary

is

not

shit

what the

element",

will

truly entire i.e.,

really

makes sentence "the

up an but subject

"the

264

Again, supply

the

a syntactic

Vmm,,

as

(68)

The shit1

With

Subject

in

crucial

use

assimilating

below:"'

1

of

(70)

How much advantage,

We thus

have

postulating are

seems

seen

another as

V'"-"

the

have

did

he

piece

i.e.,

the

]

trace,

we are,

like

gotten

out

t,.

[ take

at at

the

LF (cf.

in

and

(69)

of the

of you

of motivation

presumably

a

(70)

bag

]

]?

for

level

where

idioms

Pesetsky

'5:Z

In this "I-subject" "subject"

Chapter, and

English, Subject

we have

as

in Japanese, affix

Summary

"T-subject"

defined

by way of

the

idioms,

t,.

fan

cases

to

3. 3.

that,

the

a constituent

interpreted

( 1985)).

hit

1

properly

below:

to

[ t

The cat,.

can

such

a coindexed

(68)

( 69)

for

(68)

INFL [vm"'"

sense,

Approach

constituency

illustrated

the

Raising

as the

[ N""

0

I-subjects Raising

at

the

notions

subcategories

of

X"'""" ].

',

T-subjects raising

introduced

are the

are

derived

at

S-structure.

It

derived

level from

has

been

from

of LF, T-subjects In either

argued

I-subjects

whereas,

in

by. way of case,

the

265 formal

grammatical

Mov~-alpha, principles

device

whose

application

of grammar

Isomorphy

Constraint.

the

trace

of

role

in

retaining

of

Logical

the

Form.

that

is

require It

fulfills

has

triggered

so,

in

also

raised

subject

the

constituency

this

task if

and

accordance

been

in English of the

is

pointed

only

with out

plays V"'.. ,.. at

if the

that

a crucial the

level

266

Footnotes

1.

This

name

2.

Let

us here

is

due

to

to

Chapter

(1984}.

Kuroda

disregard

the

III

honorification

of the

verb.

3. Although we will deal mostly with verbal predicates below, we believe that a similar analysis can be offered for nominal and adjectival predicates as we 11.

4. From now on, English" strictly

5.

It is adjunction

the expression refers to this

quite possible rather than

"Subject process.

that this substitution.

Raising

process

6. One possibility is that affix raising English. The presence of various auxiliary however, makes it difficult to pursue this

in

involves applies even elements, line.

in

7. See Lasnik and Saito (1984) for the arguments that intermediate traces are subject to the ECP. We assume that the presence of the I-subject trace (t') here is required a.t LF to supply Ca.se to the cha.in. 8. Kitagawa (1984) further agreement-requiring property that (7) not to be considered

proposes that the of INFL be parametrized, absolutely universal.

hence

9. We are using the terms '"extra.position" and "extraposed clause" simply to indicate the position of a sentential subject, without adopting the analysis involving rightward movement. It should also be emphasized here that we are dealing strictly with the extraposition of sentential subjects, not other elements such as relative clauses, appositive clauses, result clauses and PPs. 10. Another candidate for the construction involves an empty pronominal anaphor (PRO) base-generated T-subject, as in (i) below: (i)

*it,.

INFL [-.-...-~

love

you PRO,

in question as a

]

We will assume that such sentences will be ruled out due to the anomalous interpretation of PRO resulting from the obligatory coindexation between PRO behaving as an anaphor and the pleonastic it. We will deal with the control of PRO in Chapter Four.

267 11. The contrast following analysis sentences) : D-:str

( i)

in (14) also forces us to reject the for (14b) (and other regular English

IS-str

ILF;

Pf:

VP \

IP

I

\

INFL

===>

VP

;:\ I

/

I

:

\

\

CP V-.lli.El, NP

\

CP

;:

NP

V

In this analysis, the coreference between Rosa and her would incorrectly be predicted to be impossible, since the sentential subject containing Rosa (CP) remains in the syntactic domain of the object NP (her) at every syntactic level. 12. Koster (1978) also proposes the base-generation extraposed clauses, but without assuming intraposition. See below for his analysis of sentential I-subjects.

of

13. This observation led Rosenbaum (1967) to consider that the application of Extraposition is obligatory in the embedded context. There seems, in fact, to be a rather clear dialectal split here --- while one group of speakers find (18b) only slightly awkward, another group of speakers find it much less acceptable. Even the latter group of speakers find it, however, much better than the examples (18c-d). I am grateful to David Pesetsky for providing me with this information.

14. This assumption is by no means riovel, but has been often proposed in the literature. See, for example, Rosenbaum (1967) and Emonds (1970, 1976). ·

15. In this regard, the PP-subject as in (i) below (Stowell (1981, 225)) may be regarded as a type of nominal expression: (i)

[ Under

The contrast {ii)

the in

stars] (ii)

is

a nice

place

supports

this

idea:

a.

?I consider [ under place to sleep.

b.

*It seems place to

[ under sleep.

the the

stars] stars]

to

to to

be

sleep.

be a wonderful a wonderful

268 Note

that

the

PP-subject

requires

Case.

16. Suppose, on the contrary, that the Extension of the Projection Principle ((7)) has triggered the Subject Raising of the sentential T-subject in (25a} and (26a). assuming that no pleonastic element has been base-generated in the D-structure I-subject positon. Since the moved T-subject is a non-nominal clause, however, it can neither carry the Case assigned by the INFL nor can it supply relevant numbe.r and person features to the INFL to satisfy (7). Thus, {25a) and (25b) can be ruled out even under this assumption.

17. It seems also possible to ascribe the ill-forrnedness of the double extraposition construction as illustrated (i) below to the selectional. properties of the predicate there such that it must select a nominal subject: (i)

a.

That John has blood on his (that} Mary is innocent.

b.

*It proves that John

hands

proves

(that) Mary is innocent has blood on his hands.

(Emonds (1970, 1976), who ascribes obse~vations to Edward Klima)

the

18. Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1971, 346) consider that extraposition is optional for factive predicates, but obligatory for non-factive predicates, based upon the contrast· between ( i-b) and (ii-b) below: (i)

Factive

a.

It makes __sense our base111ent.

to

b.

That

p~rcupines

there

a~e

to

Non-t-active

a. b.

It ir,

seems our

also

me that

there in

are

our

porcupines

basement

me.

Predicate:

to

me that

there

are

porcupines

bas:ement.

*That there are §.~~ms to me.

They

is

Predicate:

~ensi;;t ( ii)

in

consider

porcupi11es

that

in

gerundive

our

basement

subjects

may be

in

269 selected contrast (iii)

only by factive in (iii) below: a.

Factive His

b.

based

upon

the

Predicate:

beinq

found

Nor,--factive Wis

predicates,

guilty

is

tragic.

Predicate:

being

-found

guilty

seems.

Note that what their claims amount to is the generalization that sentential I-subjects are always interpreted as factive, whereas sentential T-subjects be interpreted as either .factive or non-factive. can (iv)

In the Subject Raising capture this generalization a.

Nominal

clauses

b.

Non-nominal factive or

are

may

Approach to extraposition, by assuming (iv) below: interpreted

clauses are non-factive.

only

interpreted

as as

we

factive. either

We analyze the sentential subjects in (i-a), (ii-a} and (ii-b) as non-nominal clauses and those in (i-b}, (iii-a) and (iii--b) as nominal clauses. The well-formedness of ( i-a), ( i-b} (ii-a), ( iii-a) and the position of their sentential subjects are straightforwardly accounted for the light of the Case Filter.

in

The ill-formed status of the example (ii-b), on the other hand, can be accounted for in the way analogous to our account of (25a) and (26a) in the text. ((iii-b) is basically an identical sentence to (26b).) As the examples in (23) illustrate, are exceptions to Kiparsky and Kiparsky's That is, some sentential I-subjects are non-factive. 19. Koster the examples Rosenbaum's observations. speakers find (l.8c-d}, just have roughly

however, there generalizations. interpreted as

(1978} (and Stowell (1981) -- see below) labels in (29)-(31) as ungrammatical (*), following (1967) and Emonds' (1970} original However, as we have pointed out above, most these examples much more tolerable than as (18b) is. Thus, we assume that (29)-(31) the same status as ( 18b).

270 20. Another candidate for the explanation is the difficulty of parsing. Note that the intraposed sentential subject in {18b), for example, is highly likely to be processed as the complement of the matrix verb cor,si.der in the initial parsing of this sentence.

21. Our analysis also differs crucially from Emonds' {1970) intraposition analysis, which involves replacement of it in the I-subject position with the sentential T-subject only when the two items are coindexed. 22. there

Stowell (1978) construction

also offers in English.

a similar

analysis

23. That reluctantly is a VP-adverb rather than S-adverb can be demonstrated by the interpretation following sentences involving VP-deletion:

(i)

John reluctantly (*reluctantly)

(ii)

did

tjohn reluctantly enthusiastically.

(iii)

John and and Bill

for

the

an of

the

came to the 0, too.

party,

and

Bill

came

party,

but

Bill

did

same

city,

to

Mary reluctantly and Susan did

the

moved 0 also.

to

the

0

In (i), the repetition of reluctantly in the second clause makes the sentence unacceptable. In (ii), the presence of enthusiastically, an adverb incompatible with reluctantly, in the second clause makes the sentence unacceptable. In {iii), the narrow scope reading of same is possible also for the second clause. Both these facts s1Jggest that reluctantly in the antecedent clause is interpreted as part of the VP. See Thomason and Stalnaker (1973} :(or further arguments.

24.

See

2.3.5.3.

for

the

determination

of

adverbial

scope.

25. Edwin Williams (personal communication} out to me that a similar scope ambiguity can a sentence involving a modal as in (i) below:

has pointed be detected

(i)

gangsters.

Starsky

We will

deal

and with

Hutch modals

must

arrest

directly

different

below.

26. In order to account for the facts in (43), Carlson makes an appeal to the Derived VP Rule proposed by Partee (1975). In the Subject Raising Approach, we can subsume

in

271 this translation rule under the more general process of Move-alpha. Put into different words, this approach lets Move-alpha fulfill the Lambda-abstraction in syntax. The coindexation between the raised subject and its trace, then, may be considered to carry out the task of Lambda-conversion. 27.

offered

An almost identical argument by Sportiche ( 1986).

28. Onepossibility (49) is mapped onto (i) below:

(i)

a.

Higher

b.

Lower

Scope:

[ Im

must

.. H

is that either

has

been

independently

the S-structure representation of the two LF representations

in

Scope:

[ Ym=x

someone

1

[ vm

.. >
J:each other

(1)

a.

They1

believe

[{that)

} will

{

win

they,_ each

b.

They,

believe

a.

TheY1 e:xpected

other1

[ {

} to

have

>lreach

(2)

[Mary to

like

won J

other

{

}J the rt,. each

b.

They,_ expected

[PR01 to

273

1 ike

{

other,.

}]

]

274

This in that

approach,

the

however,

binding

theory

independent

and

principle)

"Nominative

Case"

(in

The first unattractive

the

claim with

pronominals.

1

we will

follow

version

of the

notion

it

attempt

(NIC and

to

SSC)

eliminating proposal

Japanese also

and

be pointed

conditions

is

the

the

theory

subject other

unify

words,

the of

reference

out

another

two

this

approach.

direction, to

the

subject

and

the

of

and

In and

the

extended

validity

of the We then

binding

conditions

"head-government", "SUBJECT"

upon

course

the

or

data

"subject". from

of discussion,

unification

of the

it

subject,

by a predicate. of motivation

i.e.,

We will for

into the

provide, the

will

binding

when we incorporate

V"'·~•-•-internal

piece

of

on Portuguese.

either

to

anaphors

reduced

types

only

was made by

as a type of

based

this

this

NIC was reduced

is

"Case"

totally

theory

opposite

mostly

In the that

the

notions

we question

to

made possible notion

to

challenge the

be mostly

English.

unsatisfactory,

eliminate

binding

First,

drawing

head-governed

the

SSC that

the

will

work,

to

in terms

the

binding

we will

NIC.

"SUBJECT",

to

the

exactly

is

refer

AGR functions

respect

chapter,

that

This

that

In this

propose

will

attempt

In that

("SUBJECT")

fact,

serious

from

somewhat

unrelated

"subject".

(1981).

SSC, with

must

and

feature

Chomsky

is

two

in

275 hypotheses Affix

argued

Raising

Raising will

for

binding

the

previous

chapters,

i.e.,

for

Japanese

and the

Subject

Hypothesis

Hypothesis allow

in

for

us to

under

English,

straightforwardly

the

notion

notion

that

AGR ("agreement finite

to

binding.

nominal

clause,

phenomena

of

in terms

of

and

features") may function

AGR, rather assigning

than property the

a subject

is

assumed

structural

indeed

are

of the

for

structural

assumed

unlikely

to

to form

a clear

is

correlation

INFL of

with

respect AGR is

as

an

the

binding

subjects that

Case

identified

One important therefore,

the

approach

Nominative INFL is

are

subjects.

exists

both

in this

or the

two

highly

approach,

as

assumption

that

element

essential

Tense

latter

class

in this

is

([+NOM])

hence

there

it

either

in nature,

fulfilled

as

just

the

in

may function

pronominals,

sense,

SUB,JECT, since

with

it

hence

upon

contained

an opacity-creating

and

In this

conditions

depends

More precisely,

anaphors

may.

binding

crucially

in character,

antecedent

that

the

SUBJECTS

of the

"SUBJECT"

the

of

capture

they

AGR as a "SUBJECT"

The unification the

that

"government".

4. 2.

4. 2. 1.

demonstrating

the

to

as

be non-nominal a natural task

to

be

demonstrate between

AGR

a

276 and

referential

Tense

and

opacity,

independent

assigning

since

property

from

one

rely

on English

AGR, Tense {[+Norn])

another

in the to

other

do show such

independent

{1980),

by George

naturally that

what

led

became

idea

calling this it

that it

the

"somewhat

with

that opacity

it

to to

supply

is

a mistake

by showing

even

opacity. "missing

in Portuguese.

regard

Such

AGR rather

(1986a)

been

theory.

opacity,

to

While provide

AGR must not below,

argument".

(1981)

{p.176).

desirable that

than

discards

creates

In 4.2.2.

AGR as

show that

binding

assumption"

basis

to

to

binder

is

and

by Chomsky

approach

it

to

As has

Chomsky

by

binding. is

binding.

a potential

this

for it

present

Portuguese)

Turkish)

was adopted

work,

on the

presented

{from

reasonable,

create

been

that

artificial

an empirical

considered attempt

is

for

claim

recent

Turkish, AGR is

domains

claim

"SUBJECT"

AGR as

conclusion

to

we cannot

Inflected

in

have

{from

opaque

them

this

In a more the

{1978)

opacity

above,

be dissociated

a dissociation:

{1980)

Case

of English,

and gerunds

are

creates

mentioned in

of

Nominative

proposal.

Some data

and Kornfilt

the

clause

Zubizarreta

constructions

Tense

existence

!NFL cannot

this

Portuguese

of Tense.

Rouveret

in

evaluate

in

hand,

and

finite

infinitives

data

the

[+N0M].

However,

these

of

we will

We will

responsible

claim for

the

be

277 4.2.2.

Opacity

in Portuguese""

Inflected

4.2.2.1.

Infinitivals

As illustrated infinitivals

in Portuguese

agreement ( 1)

a.

by (1a-b)

without 0 the

exhibit

any ten'se

Jol!o Joao

disse told

below,

inflected

overt

subject-verb

morpheme.

para for

[ tu nao :saires you=NOM not to=leave=2=SG

casa ] house 'Joao b.

0 the

told ,Joao Joao

esse that

as

in general inflected ( 2)

Based

leave

home. '

[ tu teres you=NOM to=have=2=SG

gasto spent

regrets

you t.o have

illustrated

may not

in

appear

(2)

spent

below,

in the

that

money.'

a lexical

subject

anaphor

position

of an

infinitival.

*Eles they

lamentam regret

esse that

dinheiro] money

upon

this

( 1980; 1982),

than

lamenta regrets

to

dinheiro] money

'Jol!o Moreover,

you not

tense

fact,

[ um ao outro each other

Rouveret

among others, that

makes

the

(1980)

c.onclude subject

terem to=have=3=PL

gasto spent

and Zubizarreta that

position

it

is .of

AGR rather an embedded

de of

278 sentence

inaccessible

from

the

matrix

with

of

inflected

respect

to

binding. A closer

examination

however,

immediately

it

be significant

might

infinitival

is

in

opacity,

Nominative the

remainder

Rouveret of

accessible

from

4.2.2.3.

below,

Portuguese [+Norn].

our

prediction.

4.2.2.2.

general

section,

the

Anaphors our

properties the

pronoun

si

in

(3)

and

behaves

as

an anaphor

to

be dissociated will

permit

present

will

be

binding.

In

in European both

us to

Tense

evaluate

in Portuguese

of

anaphors

with

In

predict,

from

with

(4)

this

subject

discussion

"strong"

for

a construction

construction

us start

of

present

INFL.

naturally

respect

Tense

of

when AGR is

embedded with

AGR can

argue

we will

is

by the

([+Nom])

that

the

matrix

we will

This

The behavior

claim,

still

AGR nor

created

I will

inflected

There

neither is

property

in the Case.

that

opacity

[+Nom],

Lexical Let

that

possibility:

subject

Zubizarreta,

in which

and

words,

this

and

the

Nominative

assigning

With

independently

the

other

of this

possibility. contra

with

but

Case

a different

that

marked

a possibility, creates

suggests

infinitiva1s,

lexical

(=non-clitic) below respect

clearly to

an examination

of

in Portuguese. reflexive indicates

Principle

that A of

it the

279

Binding

Theory

both

"local"

( 3),

and

(3)

a.

(Binding ( in the

relevant

"ob 1 igatory", Os the

Os the

as

alunos, students

'The b.

Theory

like

alunos,. students

gostam like

a.

*Eu gosto I like· like

(5)

a.

Os the 'The

b.

Os the

like

( 4).

themselves.' [ que that

os the

professores2 teachers

that

the

teachers

like

dos of=the the

alunos. students

students.'

de si. 3 of himself/themselves

is

with

the

same when this

a preposition

esquizofreni.cos, schizophrenics schizophrenics esquizofrenicos, schizophrenics

sonham dream

in

in

himself/themselves.'

The situation contracted

illustrated

suppose

'Themselves

is

as

' gostam like

lltSi

'I

sense),

is

de si.,,, .. , ] 'of themselves

themselves

b.

binding

de si ,.. of themselves

supoem suppose

'The students themselves. (4)

Its

illustrated

gostam like

students

(A)).

sempre always

like sonham dream always supoem suppose

com

sempre always dream

(with)

pronoun (and

of themselves.' os the

paranoicos,.-, paranoiacs

(prqp;r-io) that

go}:"'

consigo,. with=themselves

[ que that

consigo~/*1 with=themselves

'The schizophrenics suppose always dream of themselves.'

reflexive

the

paranoiacs

]"'

280 U111ao

used

(each

outro

usually in

reflexive

interpretation,

ll111 ao

pronoun it

is

order

to

to

way,

it

to

the

Binding

the

may be used

also

behaves

Theory

(A):

Ele he

supele [ supposes

que that

eles,. they

b.

*Eles they

supelem suppose

[ que that

ele he

4.2.2.3.

Gerundive Having

the

construction

our

argument.

subject-verb

are

are

pronouns from

possible

with

as

gostam like gosta likes

pronoun.

an anaphor

When with

um do outro, each other u111 do

outro

each

] ]

other

Infinitivals

examined

lexical

anaphors,

in Portuguese The examples agreement

that (7)

without

and

let

is

directly

(8)

either

_us now turn

below

tense

Eu sonhei I dream 'I

(8)

contigo with=you=ACC

saw you stealing

Eu deparei I found a the 'I

a at

show or a nominative

roubares stealing=2=SG

chickens

contigo with=you=ACC

a at

in my dream.' beijares kissing=2=SG

professora teacher=F found

you kissing

the

teacher.'

to

relevant

subject: (7)

the

as a reciprocal

of a reflexive

a.

(6)

forms

reciprocal

of which

independent

this

various

weak reflexive

both

used

its

disambiguate

however,

outro,

by itself

respect

and

as a supplement

(clitics)

si.

other)

galinhas chickens

to

281 In both a

(7)

(at)

and

and

(somewhat

rarely

by those

Note

the

native

of

both

with

constr1Jction

in

a

constituents modified

demonstrate

(7)

gerundive

a

(but I will

infinitival'". subject

in the

show that

a

is

a

argument, (two

by a gerundive

infinitival).

construction

indeed

i.e.,

S'

rather

complement

predicate),

our

as

(8).

a three-place

that

used

a nominative

we must

PP-S'

is

Portuguese).

and

our

a preposition

Portuguese

infinitival

to

of NP-S', of

and

of

(uninflected)

a "gerundive

further,

appropriate

a sequence

Brazilian

tense

proceeding

of

of European

as

infinitivals

complement

noun

who speak

lack

which

variation

speakers

construction

Before

than

free

this

gerundive

a combination

infinitival,

colloquial)

by the

to

we have

an inflected

gerund

refer

(8),

is

or NP (a head We can S'

with

the

following

facts. First,

just

construction, gerundive

as

as

by J o1fo Peres

.)

a.

in

(9a)

infinitival

construct.ion

(9}

as NP can

in

Ele he

nao not

0

que that

the

'He didn't a well.'

below,

{GI) ( 9b) .

deparou found ele he

be focused

find

also

(This

has

foi was

with

be focused been

com uma mina mine with a

a gold

a pseudocleft

a complement

can

deparou found

in

pointed

in this out

to

me

de outro, of gold

[NP" uma mina

mine.

a

a

mine

de Agua ] of water

What he found

was

282 b.

Ele he

n§:o deparou not found

galinhas, chickens [a,

contigo with=you=ACC que that

0

the

ele he a at

contigo with=you=ACC

a at

deparou found

roubares stealing=2=SG foi was

comeres eating=2=SG

galinhas chickens

]

'He didn't find you stealing chickens. found was you eating chickens.' This

shows

single

that

the

pseudocleft

(persuade), sequence

point

which NP-S'

question

(as

focused,

as

is

i 11-formed:

in

its

makes

(10a)

compare

up a

a the

predicate

predicate)

the

Maria Maria

either

NP-S'

pseudocleft

a to

ser be

with

persuadir

or S'

when the

below,

(9a-b)

complement

First,

nfio persuadiu not persuaded

pelo by=the

as

a three-place

is

a alone

complement construction

examinada examined

especialista, specialist,

'He didn't persuade by the specialist,' a.

clearer, involving

may take

predicate).

Ele he

even

constructions

a two-place

(10)

in

constituent. To make the

the

complement

What he

*o the [e·

que that

ele he

PRO a to

Maria

to

persuadiu persuaded

ser be

examinada examined

'what he persuaded by the doctor. '

be examined foi was

[NP a Maria] the Maria

pelo by=the

was Maria

to

me'dico] doctor be examined

(as

283 b.

o the

que that

ele he

persuadiu persuaded

fosse be-SUBJUNCTIVE

examinada examined

'what he persuaded by the doctor. ' c.

?o the

que that

ele he

examinada examined

and

a single

(10c),

persudiu persi.1aded

pelo by=the

acceptable, for

other

although

some reason.

( lOa) and

on the

(10c)

one hand

(lOb-c)

on the

infinitival

Maria

S'

hand,

Thus,

the

is

the

Maria Maria Maria

is

be examined foi was

[a·

a to

ser be

be examined

focused

as

construction

slightly

less

than

between

should

that

the

be analyzed

in

(10b)

becomes perfect

{9b)

well-formedness

suggest

construction

medico] doctor

was to

contrast

and the

other,

a · the

a Maria the Maria

medico] doctor

constituent

on the

pelo by=the

was that

'what he persuaded by the doctor. ' When only

foi [.,,. que was that

and

of both

( 9b)

gerundive as' a single

constituent. Second, construction would

as shown

be a mistake

containing modifier

a proper

to

noun in

head

(11)

analyze

a gerundive of the

can be a subject

infinitival N.

below, the

in this

suggesting

whole as the

that

complement restrictive

it as an NP

284

(11)

Eu deparei I found

com with

Pedro

e

Pedro

and Maria

11aria

a at

roubarem stealing=3=PL

galinhas chickens 'I

found

Pedro

Finally,

the

active-passive against

and Maria "'cognitive

pairs

all

the

stealing

in

NP-S',

(12)

chickens.

'

synonymy"" of the and

PP-S',

(13)

below

also

and NP analyses

argues

of this

construction. (12)

a.

Eu sonhei I dreamed

com with

os the

alunos students

a at

roubarem stealing=3=PL

stealing

chickens

galinhas chickens 'I b.

saw the students in my dream. '

Eu sonhei I dreamed pelos by=the 'I

(13)

a.

saw chickens in my dream. '

as the

galinhas chickens

a at

serem being=3=PL

roubadas stolen

alunos students

Eu deparei I found

'I

com with

com with

being os the

stolen alunos students

by the a at

students

beijarem kissing=3=PL

professoras teachers found

the

students

kissing

the

teachers.'

285 b.

Eu deparei I found beijadas kissed

com with

as the

pelos by=the

professor.as teachers=F

(14)

now (12a-b) a.

Joao Joao

a the

Maria Maria

',Joao b.

with

(14a-b)

o the

the

persuadiu persuaded

especialista specialist

specialist a the

Maria Maria

(Quicoli

slight

(1976),

complement pair

is

sharp

with

the

(1965,

with

{persuade)

persuadir

contrast

below. a to

to a to

examinar examine

examine

ser be

Maria.'

examinada examined

especialista specialist

active-passive

different

kissed

to

whose

Chomsky

being

'Joao persuaded Maria by the specialist.'

since

predicate

persuadiu persuaded

Joao Joao

0 the

(13a-b)

persuaded

pelo by=the

Again,

and

the

0

serem being=3=PL

alunos students

'I found the teachers by the students.'

Compare

a at

22)

for

structures

"cognitively in

the

(14)

is

a three-place

of NP and S',

consists

pairs

modification)

in

a classical to

be examined

the

non-synonymous" (12)

and

argument

complement

(13). for

of expect

in (See assigning and

per5uade.)

Thus, infinitival

it

seems

plausible

as

a clausal

to

complement

analyze

a gerundive

of a predicate.

286

4.2.2.4.

AGRas a SUBJECT

Against

We now are and

(16)

below,

prediction

that

an-opaque

domain

(15)

Eles1 they

ready which

to present will

the

allow

us to

AGR independent with

sonharam dreamed

of

respect [ax

crucial

to

data

evaluate

in

(15)

our

[+Nom] does

not

create

binding.

consigo, with=themselves

a at

roubarem stealing=3=PL

galinhas] chickens 'They saw themselves in their dream.' (16)

Eles, they as the

found

clear

infinitival.

(17)

a at

beijarem kissing=3=PL

presence

Eles, they

the

an embedded

sonharam dreamed

[a,

the

anaphor

may be bound

Exactly with

kissing

a reflexive

infinitival the

observed

consigo, with=themselves

themselves

examples,

gerundive despite

chickens

professoras] teachers

'They In these

[a,

deram found

stealing

as the

by the

of agreement same binding reciprocal um cos

each

outro

other

teachers.'

matrix

stealing

subject

in the

gerundive

property

can be

subject: 1

a at

galinhas] chickens 'They saw each other in their dreams.'

subject

chickens

roubarem stealing=3=PL

of a

287 (18)

Eles,. they as the

deram found

[ox

um

found

each

Compare

(15)-(18)

involve

complementation

infinitival,

outro,.

a at

other

beijarem kiss ing=3=PL

J

professoras teachers

'They

com

each

other

above

kissing

with of

the

(19a)

and

a tensed

teachers.' (19b)

clause

below,

which

and an inflected

respectively. si

themselves (19)

*Eles they

a.

sonharam dreamed

( que that

{

} u111 ao

each tinham had

roubado stolen

outro

other

J

galinhas chickens si

themselves

b.

*Eles they

lamentam regret

[ {

}

each terem to=have=3=PL In both

(19a)

subject

position

These

facts

responsible absence

position

(19b), cannot

strongly for

in If

and

the

outro

u111 ao

other

gasto spent

esse that

the

anaphor

be bound

suggest

that

dinheiro money in the

by the it

J

embedded

matrix

is

not

presence

of opacity

in

a lexical

anaphor

in the

subject.

AGR that {19a-b)

is and

its

( 15) --( 18).

we replace of the

gerundive

infinitival

with

subject a pronoun,

it

is

288

disjoint

in

reference

illustrated (20)

in

(20)

Eles, they

a.

sonharam dreamed

saw them

Eles1 they

deram found

in fact,

given

the

found is

Binding

the

correlation and

rather

than

a at

chickens

in their

eles:i.::,,,. ... 1

with

them

our

following

the

kissing what

(B).

our

roubarem stealing=3=PL

a at

dream.'

beijarem kissing=3=PL

chart, the

the

hypothesis

predicts,

of Portuguese,

we can

which

suggests

referential

Nominative

teachers.'

0

analyses

Case

the

opacity assigning

of property

come

direct an embedded of

INFL

AGR: 7 Tns

Clause

+

AGR NOM Anaphoric Binding

+

+

-t

-t

Infinitival

+

Gerundive

Infinitival

+

with

'"SUBJECT" approach

respect to

to the

Pronominal Binding

+

Inflected

Thus,

as

them

eles,u-,

c:om

them

(21) Finite

com with

stealing

[ax

Theory

between

clause

[.,,,

exactly

Summarizing up with

subject,

professoras] teachers

'They This,

matrix

]

'They

as the

the

below:

galinhas chickens

b.

from

+

Portuguese,

binding

theory,

we reject which

the crucially

289 assumes for

that

AGR functions

a SUBJECT and

Case

4.3.

Case

Island

and

The Portuguese section

certainly

re-examine

the

we have

opacity

~inding

of

Subject

examined

us with

possibility in terms

and

V"'•"··Internal

facts provide

the

(1) below

Marking

a good

accounting

of the

NIC:

a.

They1

believe

(that)

[,..

in

the

previous

motivation for

itft'each

ot:her

to go home] attention {ii)

Eduardo the Eles, they

Raposo, on the other hand, brought into following counterexample from Portuguese: [,~ · que that

desejam wish

ele5:;;,,,

.. ,

my

sejam

they-NOM be-SUBJUNCTIVE

inteligentes] inte 11 igent 'They In the receives subject.

8. to

want

them

to

be

intelligent.'

subjunctive complement here, the subject pronoun Nominative Case but cannot be bound by the matrix See Meireles and Raposo (1984) for discussions.

As for Turkish, ours, examining

Yazar-lar, author-PL

Enc (1985) -reaches a similar the following paradigm:

(~, • birbir

each

ler i -nin,. other-GEN

aptal stupid

conclusion

ol-dug-un ]-u be-GER-3SG-ACC

san-iyor--du think-PROG-PAST 'The (ii)

authors

thought

ligminal

Adam-lar, man-PL 'The

(iii)

'The

other

stupid.'

Suhlectt:

each

ler i -nin,. other-GEN

each

other's

ev-in ]-i house-3SG-ACC

houses.

begen-iyor like-PROG

'

S (Nomin~llY!LSIJhJfil;ll:

Tensed

*Cocuk-lar child-PL

(Genitive

[N,~ birbir

men 1 ike

each

[,s • birbir

children

each think

ler i

other-NON each

other

git-ti ] san-iyor go-PAST think-PROG left.'

368 Tensed

(iv)

Cocuk-lar, child-PL 'The

S w/ ECM (Accusative [,,.. birbirlerin-iz each other-ACC

children

think

each

other

Subject): git-ti ] san-i:yor go-PAST think-PROG left.'

Notice that the binding of the reciprocal subject by a higher subject is prohibited when and only when the complement involves Nominative Case marking of the subject, as in (iii}. En9 ascribes the ill-formedness of George and Kornfilt's (1981} examples like (v) below to incorrect number agreement rather than opacity of the complement, stating that "although the reciprocal agrees with its antecedent in person, it behaves like a third person singular for the purpose of case assignment and agreement -- [ emphasis by Y.K.] (p.17)": *Yazar-lar,. author-PL

( v)

[ •.,.

birbir

each

i9-tik-lerin ]-i drink-GER-3PL-ACC 'The

authors

thought

She presents a well-formed for this claim: Yazar-lar,. author-PL

(vi)

Notice number for

the

authors

thought

viski-yi whisky-ACC

san-iyor-lar think-PROG-3PL each

other

example

drank

(vi}

[,,,- birbirleri-nin, each other-3SG=GEN

i9-tig-in ]-i drink-GER-3SG-ACC 'The

ler i -nin,. other-3SG=GEN

the

below

whisky.' as

evidence

viski-yi whisky-ACC

san-iyor-lar think-PROG-3PL each

other

that (vi) differs from (v) on the verb of the gerund. Kornfilt ( 1984), on the other SUBJECT approach, providing

drank

only

with

the

whisky.

respect

to

' the

hand, further argues some new obserbvations.

We will deal with pronominal coreference in Turkish in 4.4. below. See also Cole and Hermon (1979) for an argument that opacity for binding is created by [+Norn] also in Imbabura Quecha, Ancash Quechua and Modern Greek.

369 9.

Chomsky

(i)

Nominative

(1980,

A nominative

containing

13)

Island

S.

defines

the

NIC as

follows:

Condition:

anaphor

in

S cannot

be free

in S'

10. In the Japanese examples below, we will often embed a sentence into an NP headed by koto (fact), in order to make its nominative marked subject sound natural. Such a sentence will be translated, however, as.if it were used independently.

11. Although it is much less colloquial,. seems to behave as a pure anaphor.

or,ore

(self)

also

12. As for the status of zibun, we will tentatively adopt the following pi::,sition, which was suggested by Fukui {1984, Appendix p.7) as a possible alternative to his claim. Zibun is specified with the features [pronominal] and [anaphor] disjunctively rather than conjunctively, i.e., as [+pronominal or +anaphor]. With this hypothesis, we predict, first, that zibun as a pronominal may be bound from outside the local domain (in the relevant sense), for example, by the matrix subject Taroo in (9) above. Moreover, we predict that zibur, as an anaphor may also be bound within such a local domain without giving rise to disjoint reference, for example, by the embedded subject Hanako in (9).

Sportiche (1986} claims that the pronominal function of zilnm must further be restricted to that of bound pronouns, since zibun must be eventually bound even when is functioning as a pronominal. We will leave the further pursuit of this topic for future reserach. 13. Chomsky ( 1986a) introduces to account for the possibility the Nominative subject position, examine this approach in 4.3.6. 14. this

Hasegawa (to empty element

it

a notion ..BT-compatibility" of having a pronominal in among others. We will below.

appear), on the as a variable,

contrary, following

analyzes Huang (1984).

15. Yang {1983) tries to solve the dilemma by giving up the synthesis of the principles A and B of the Binding Theory. This assumption, however, forces us not only to call the near complementarity of anaphors and pronominals

370

accidental, but also to give up predicting the distribution of PRO without a stipulation {since we must give up the PRO Theorem}. His Reciprocal-Binding Principle, moreover, is problematic, since it crucially depends upon the assumption that AGR functions as a SUBJECT. 16. VOS}

This presumably order in derived

is the source of the nominals in English.

SVO (rather

than

17. Chomsky (1986a) proposes a Case theory in which a nominal head assigns ·~inherent" Case (which is lexical in our sense) to its complement. Even in this theory, however, contextual Case marking seems to be necessary for the base-generated specifier NPs, which cannot receive lexical Case from the head if we t·ake seriously his claim that inherent Case marking is "uniformly to the right" (p.193) in English.

18.

Ga is

assumed

to

delete

when

it

is

followed

by no.

19. "0/rw conversion" is .disallowed even when the object NP is scrambled, as illustrated in the derivation (i) below: ( i)

a.

["',.. [,,, e,c hon o kai ta ] hi t0:., ] book ACC Wt:'ote person

'the b. c.

[NF"[...,

*[N1°

0

hon,

person hon, r,o

who wrote

o [,,, e:" t, ace [N,··

[.,,

e., t,

::::::::;,

a book'

kaita kaita

]]

hit0:,,] ])

hit0:.,,

::::::::>

]

gen This suggests that the prohibition against Case conflict must be imposed on a chain. In ( i), the chain {hon, t} has Case conflict between the genitive no and the abstract Case "Accusative".

20. Saito (1985) claims creates a subject-object and scrambling. 21. with 4.4.

This is further below.

not, in fact, restrictions

that this asymmetry

dichotomy of Case also in Case marker drop

entirely imposed

true. We will deal on anaphoric binding in

22. It may also be possible projection of a lexical Case

to consider that assigner becomes

the maximal a barrier for

371 the

assignee

of

such

Case,

with

respect

to

binding.

23. We assume here that Case marking in Japanese utilizes Selkirk's Percolation Conventions. We must leave the pursuit of this topic, however, for future research.

There is a dialectal judgment. We will briefly 4.3.9. below.

variation concerning this deal with this variation

25. Recall, possession

discussion

24.

however, in

LF:

,John,

*[,

LF:

[2

as

27. We wi 11 deal in 4. 4. 1. below:

(i)

for

himself,

to

be

intelligent

whom] to

with

They, thought on sale.

28. The following notions proposed

as

for

appeared

( i)

that

say

John

say

t., Mary

that

that

t,

as

in

Mary

intelligent

another

such

( [ pictures

case, of

each

other,

of the

( i)

below, ]

were

relevant

Agreemer.t:

Governing A

js

the and (iii)

be

did

saved by LF··pied is still

]-INFL

are the definitions by Chomsky {1981):

AGR is coindexed (ii)

inalienable

unlikely that (52a) is below, since (ii) below

appeared {ii)

of

3. 1.

26. It is highly piping as in (i) ill-formed: { i)

our

in

with

the

NP it

governs.

Category:

a governing category for B if minimal category containing B, a SUB,JECT accessible to B.

and only if A is a governor of B,

Accessibility:

A is

accessible

to

B if

and

only

if

Bis

in the

372 c-command domain index of A would condition. (iv)

i-Nithin-i *[ .....

of A and assignment not violate the the

to B of i-within-i

the

Condition: A

••• ],

where

A and

13 bear

the

same

index.

29. The account of long-distance binding in terms of the i-within-i condition is also based upon the mixture of referential coindexation (in binding) and non-referential coindexation (in agreement). The validity of such a mixture, however, is not at all clear. (This potential problem is also pointed out by Nakajima (1986).)

Note also that the coindexation in agreement takes place between a maximal phrase (NP) and an item within the lexical head (AGR), while coindexation in binding in general takes place between two maximal phrases (NPs). This is another difference between the two types of coindexation. 30. The NIC as proposed in Chomsky (1980) also successfully accounts for the contrast between (53) and (55), on the one hand, and the lack of anaphor-pronominal complementarity in (53} and (54), on the other. As has already been pointed out above, however, the adoption of NIC without modification would preclude us from obtaining a unified theory of binding, in which SSC and NIC are reduced to a single condition.

31. Chomsky (1986a,1986b), for example, assumes verb consider in English has an option of taking complement, which is transparent to government. allows ECM, as illustrated in (i) below: (i)

I consi,ier

[,.,., him

to

that the an IP This

be a genius]

32. We are assuming here that scrambling involves operator-variable binding. See Saito and Hoji (1983), (f985), and Saito (1985) for arguments for the variable status of the traces left behind by scrambling. 33. See Saito {1985, Chapter Three) the principle (78) in the account of asymmetry in scrambling. of

One possible alternative "binding category" {28) as

is to in (i)

for the

the crucial subject-object

modify below:

the

Hoji

use

definition

of

373

(i)

The binding B's lexical

anaphor

category of Case marker

IB is the containing

maximal

e;

projection where~=

of an

or a pronominal.

As illustrated below in the derivation of the embedded IP in (76b), the scrambled phrase will not be ccmtained in the V"'-,. at LF after affix raising has taken plane. Thus, (i) will allow the anaphor to lack a binding category, as desired. (ii)

a.

b.

D-structure

S-structure

I

\

I I

I

\

I

\

\ I"'"""

Hanako-ga

\

I Hanako--ga

\ Im-d

I \

I

\

zibunzisin-o self

r,n:1. ,·1

=::::::)

\

V

seme

I

V

ru

seme

lrn...ao.,-,;

I

I

\

\ I

===>

\

I

I

I \

\

1,n:t..n

\

Hanako-ga

\

v,n-.i..

I \ I

t,.

\

I

LF

c.

I

I \

I \ I

t,

I \

\ vrn:ln

seme

\

I

.ru

374 34. An interesting fact pointed out to me Kurata (personal communication) is that the (76b} and (77b} above may be bound not only subject but also by the embedded subject. (1974} for analogous facts concerning zibun.)

Let us also add Accusative pronominals bindable by the matrix obligatorily disjoint subject, as illustrated (i}

a.

Taroo, Taroo

wa top

our own observation here that, when are scrambled, they are not only subject (as predicted) but also in reference with the embedded in (i} below: Ziroo,:o ACC Ziroo

ka,,-e,.,,-.,

ga t semeru nom blame

o

him

never

Butyoo dpt=head

thought

that

to Katyoo1 and sect=chief

bukatatic.,, followers

ga t semeru blame nom

Jiro wa top

would ka,,-el'a,.,,-a,

they

daroo likely

blame kitto ACC surely

o

to omotteita COMP think

'The department head and the section that their men would probably blame Although to be a Engdahl (1984), pursuit

to COMP

omottemominakatta never=thought

'Taro him.' b.

wa top

also by Kiyoshi anaphors in by the matrix (See Muraki

chief them."

thought

we will not go into the details here, this seems case involving "reconstruction" discussed by {1980), van Riemsdijk and Williams {1981), Barss Hoji (1985) and many others. I must leave the of this topic, however, to future research.

35. There is a well-known dialectal variation concerning the possibility of anaphoric and pronominal binding in (81). Many speakers find the anaphoric binding indicated there acceptable although it is less than perfect (e.g., Chomsky ( 1986)). Other speakers, on the other hand, find it unacceptable (e.g., Chomsky (1973), Postal (1974)). See Nakajima (1986) for an interesting discussion.

36. The situation in Japanese:

seems

to

be the

same with

ga

{

postpositions

otagai,_ ( i)

(.._,,,,.,H Taroo

to

Hanako,

[,"r

karera*,

} k.ara ]

375 rB.b1;retaa Jove:clett,er 'Taro and other.' 37. Even be stated a similar transparency

o uketot ]-ta ACC reeejve-PAST Hanako

received

(koto) (fact)

a love

letter

from

each

if it turns out that the Binding Theory (C) must in terms of c-command rather than max-government, conclusion can be drawn concerning the of PP nodes in the upward node-·counting.

36. While we adopt the analysis are at least two other possibilities mind to deal with the same facts approach.

sketched out above, that come into in the Lexical Case

there Island

First, it might be possible to assume that the object of a preposition is "compositionally" Case-marked by the preposition and a higher predicate (V in (81) and {83), and Nin (84)). This may possibly be done in a parallel way to the "compositional G-role assignment" of prepositional objects sugge·sted by Hagit Borer (as cited by Stowell (1981)). Second, it might also be possible to assume that the Case in question actually comes from the higher predicates, and the prepositions are merely the "realizers" of Case, along the line of the Case theory proposed by Chomsky ( 1986a).

In either analysis, it follows is the vm~u in (81) and (83),

Island

that and

t,he Lexical the N"'•~U in

Case

( 84).

39. Saito (1985) points causatives with respect Double--,:, ConstraintJ, 40. Williams (1985), proposal, providing ( i)

yesterday's

Not.ice

at,tempt

that

the genitive Nonetheless, appeared in this position (ii) below: PRO, attempt

type Theory

of paradox in (B) and the

on the other hand, argues· against this the example (i) below, among others:

yesterday.

{ii)

out a different to the Binding

PR01

to

leave

position in (i) is plugged up by (i) is interpreted as if PRO and controled another PRO, as in to

leave

376

41. Alternatively which PRO does not (i)

They1

told

to (6b), appear:

[ stories

we may adopt about

them,

(i)

below,

in

]

42. It has also been claimed'by Saito (1982) and Kuroda (1983) that the nominative position in Japanese allows PRO.. ,-t,, unlike the Accusative position.

43. must

The two instances be coreferential.

( i)

PRO...,.,~ sakinzureba forestall-COND 'First

See

come,

Lebeaux

first

(1984a)

44. Hasegawa generalizations

of PRO.. r-,, in {9) (if A similar case is:

(to in

PRO.-,-b hito person

they

exist)

o seisu ACC control

served.'

for

a relevant

appear) points (21) and (22)

discussion. out that the hold also in Japanese.

45. Following Manzini (1983), we assume that the choice between subject and object control in (24) and (25) is determined outside the realm of binding. 46. One exception to in indirect questions,

(i)

He always

I must exactly

leave it control

knows

this as what

prediction is in (i) below: PRO.rb

to

do.

for future reserach to into indirect questions

47. On the same grounds, we can possibly below, in whioh the Subject Raising has the PRO T-subject: ( i)

*It (it=

may

[vm ... x

love

pleonastic)

you PRO ]

a PROar-b reading

figure our is done. eliminate failed to

how (i) apply

to

Appendix

In 4.3.2.1., Fukui's

(1984)

rather

than

we have proposal

as the

property

of zibun,

regarding

as

a pure

point

pronominal

anaphor

is

behaves

more

basis

provided like

antecedents, Gakutyoo1 President

for

not

by the

fact

when they

the

out

a problem

we

pronominal

in

pointed

out

an anaphor-, by Fukui

taking

{Ibid.,24):

kokusosita ACC sued

self-PL

not

complication

consider,

that

dean

even

for

comes anaphors

"non-locally"

from

that

377

ga NOM

] to tugeta COMP told some student

this

argument,

Lebeaux's

may take bound(=

it

in some cases,

...., o

zibun-tati,

are

that,

as a pure

zibun

ga Gakubutyoo--.,, ni [ aru gakusei nom Dean DAT some student

One poss.ible

observation

for

what

([-anaphor,

than

'*The president told the themselves yesterday.'

does

a pronominal

introduce

regarding

a pronominal as

kinoo yesterday

Fukui

and

).

One strong

( 1)

later

(1984}

is

us briefly

argument

and

Ueda's (self)

zibun

Let

strongest

zibun

+pronominal]

split

that

an anaphor.

conceive

introduced

split

from

sued

which

(1984a) antecedents

outside

the

378

minimal (cf.

NP or S}.

Bouchard

(2)

a.

John,.

proposed

turns

be considered plural

told

Mary,., about

John, told Mary,,, that themselves1..-~, ] inside

Even if the binding

with

(2b)

below

(1982}):

*[

b.

Compare (2a)

dichotomy

themselves,

[ there ]

were

between

however,

to have pronominal

properties,

"local-binding"

split

antecedents

in Lebeaux's

sense,

[ pictures

local-

out to be correct,

form can take

...,,, ] of

and non-local must still

zibun

since

even under

its the

as illustrated

in (3)

below:

(3)

[ Taroo,. ga imooto.. nom younger=sister zibuntati,

...2

selves 'Together with themselves.' Pursuing pronominal,

Fukui

embedded subject absolutely (p.38)", (B):

further

to issyoni and together

o urikonda J ACC tried=to=sell his

younger

the

sister,

Taro advertised

idea

that

zibun

is a pure

and Ueda call

the

binding

of zibun

in a sentence

impossible, respectively,

very

like

(4} below

weak (p.

blaming

it

23)"

on the

"if

by the

not

and "marked binding

theory

379

(4)

Taroo1

ga [ Hanako., nom

omottemominakatta never=thought 'Taro never herself/him.' Since simplex

enter

into

the

binding

subject,

(5)

that

is

Ueda rules.

(6)

out a.

the

'Taro

zibun

being

not

an A-bar

incompatible and function

in a nominal

Fukui,

subject

does

be A-bar-bound

for

ga [ zibun1/2 nom self

know that

also

examples

?Taroo,

matrix

position,

is

in

by the

as

in

complement

no okane] o gen money ] ACC

o siranai ACC don't=know

not

(1984)

that~

however,

even

blame

in an A~position:

] koto fact

'Taro does money.'

to wa COMP top

same restriction

subject

since

wa [ Hanako.. top

otosita dropped

claims

must

pronoun,

which

the

would

of pronominals,

zibun

may be bound,

Taroo1

find

explanation,

claim

below

not

Hanako

a complement

This

his

that

he further

as a resumptive {5)

does

unlike

position. with

thought

Fukui

o seme-ru] ACC blame-PRES

(koto) (fact)

sentences,

position,

ga zibun1/2 nom self

assumes as

ga zibun, nom self killed

Hanako

in

that (6)

dropped

.the

Binding

below:

o korosita ACC killed

himself.'

his/her

(koto) (fact)

Theory

(B)

380

?Taroo,

b.

zibun

ga

nagutta ACC hit

'Taro

hit

?Taroo,.

C.

Since

similar

acceptable,

examples

also

(7)

a.

Taroo, 'Taro

b.

c.

from the Binding

completely

zibun, nom self

zibun, nom self

ga

of (6a-c)

the

(koto) (fact) ,

ituwatta ACC deceived to himself. urikonda ACC tried=to=sel , himself. 0

above

however,

(koto) 1 (fact)

since

the

is of much different

caused

This point

somewhat

unacceptable

denoting

(koto) (fact)

0

is questionable,

ungrammaticality

by comparing

of a verb

Binding

activity:

semeta ACC blamed

ga

(B).

from the

himself.'

advertised

Theory

is exempt

0

was dishonest

analysis

is a pure

"physical"

zibun, nom self

Taroo,

awkwardness

than

(which

is an object

ga

Taroo,

'Taro This

it

below are perfectly

zibun

analysis)

blamed

'Taro

that

in case rather

(koto) (fact)

0 ketta ACC kicked

in (7a-c)

in his

(B) just

an "abstract"

'

himself.'

kicked

Ueda claims

pronominal Theory

himself.

ga zibun, nom self

'Taro

(koto) (fact)

0

1

nom self

by the

(Ba-c)

violation

can be clearly

awkward (6a-c) below,

nature

with

of the illustrated

the

each of which

381

involves

the

disjoint

(he)

or a zero

(8)

a.

reference

of an overt

pronominal

kare

pronominal: kare1

ga { him

**Taroo1

} o korosita

(koto)

pro1

b.

kare 1

ga { him

**Taroo,

} o nagutta

(koto)

pro1 kare,

c.

**Taroo,.

ga { him

} o ketta

(koto)

pro1

This

conclusion (self)

zibunzisin

seen,

can be confirmed

behave

and mizukara

as pure

anaphors)

by th~ (self) sound

fact

that

(which,

even

as we have

awkward in this

position: {9)

a.

?Tarooa 'Taro

b.

?Taroo,. 'Taro

c.

killed

ACC killed

kicked

While

it

is used

a clause-mate

nagutta

0

ACC punched

{koto) {fact)

,

himself.

'Taro

(koto) (fact)

himself.'

ga zibunzisin1/mizukara, nom self hit

korosita

0

'?Taroo,. ga zibunzisin,/mizukara, nom self

to expressing it

ga zibunzisin1/mizukara1 nom self

ketta

0

ACC kicked

(koto} (fact)

himself.'

seems to be true an "abstract

to express subject,

that

zibun

is more attuned

self",

there

are

a "physical

self"

but may be bound by

as in (lOa-c)

below:

cases

in which

382 (10)

a.

Taroo,

sono nom that

'Taro b.

shot

Taroo;

stabbed

naihu knife

himself

Thus,

it

self

(6a-c)

to

exact

mysterious, idiosyncratic

is

a violation cause it

for seems lexical

self

{koto) (fact)

pistol.'

de with

zibun,

with

that

o sasita ACC stabbed

self

nodewanaikato maybe

pinching

probably

that

o utta ACC shot

zibun,

(koto) (fact)

knife.' Taroo,. Taroo

wa top

o tunettemita ACC tried=pinching

zibun,

'He tried dreaming.'

de with

with

yumedemo miteiru dream watching tyotto a=little

the

himself

ga sono nom that

'Taro c.

pisutoru pistol

ga

himself,

wrong

to

of the this

wondering

ascribe Binding

awkwardness

to be rather meanings

the Theory still

clearly of the

verbs

whether

he was

awkwardness (B).

of

Although

remains related involved

to

the there.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe,

Y. (1982) "On the Representation of Argument Structure, .. in Pustejovsky, J. and P. Sells eds., Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of 1:he Harth-Eastern Linguistic Society, 1-15.

Abe,

Y. ( 1985) A Theory of Categorial Morphology ar,d Agglutination in Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Allen,

M. ( 1978) dissertation,

Aoun,

J. {1984) "Generalized Binding in Chinese," Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting Horth-Eastern Linguistic Society.

Aoun,

lforphoiogical University

Investigations, of Connecticut,

J. and D. Sportiche (1983) Governmnet," The Linguistic

M.

(1976)

MIT Press,

E. (1968) "Nouns and Harms eds., Universals Rinehart and Winston,

Bach,

E. ( 1971a) 2., 153-166.

"Questions,"

E.

"Syntax Round

Bach,

22nd

( 1971b) Annual

"Extratonality Institute

Uard Forn1atio11 in Genera1:ive Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bach,

Noun Phrases," in Linguistic New York. Linguistic

since Table,

Alii~cts," Georgetown

Bach,

E. { 1983) "On the Relationship and Phrase•-grammar," Natural Theory 1.1., 65-89.

Baker,

M. {1985) Explanation,"

Battin,

M. (1978) Toward Doctoral dissertation, Technology.

"The Mirror Lir,guistic

~f .the

"On the Formal Theory Re,,ieN 2. 3., 211-236.

Archangeli, D. and D. Pulleyblank ( 1984) Japanese Accent" ms., Massachusetts Technology. Aronoff,

Doctoral Storrs.

of and

of

Grammar,

in Bach, Theory,

E. an R. Holt,

Inquiry

in R. O'Brien University.

ed.,

between Word-grammar Language and Lir,quistic

Principle Inquiry

and Morphosyntactic 16. 3., 373-415.

a Theory

of Movement Rules, Massachusetts Institute

383

of

384 Baltin,

M. (1982) "A Landing Site Rules," Lir,guistic Inquiry

Barss,

A. ( 1984) "Chain Binding," Institute of Technology.

Bedell,

G. in

( 1972)

Syntax

Bloomfield, L. London.

"On no,"

3:

Studies

(1933)

Massachusetts

George

Language,

H. (1986) 375-416.

"I-subjects,"

Bresnan,

J. (1978) "A Realistic in M. Halle et al. eds., Reality,

ms.,

in Bedell, G. ed., UCLA Papers in East Asian Syntax.

Borer,

Psychological

Theory of Movement 13. 1, pp. 1-38.

Allen

Linguistic

and Unwin, 17.3.,

Inquiry

Transformational Linguistic

Grammar,"

Theory

MIT Press,

and

Cambridge,

Massachusetts. Bresnan,

J. ( 1982) "Control and Linguistic Inquiry 13.3.,

Burzio,

L.

( 1981)

Intransitive

Auxiliaries,

Institute Burzio,

L.

of

(1986)

Carlson, for Chew,

Verbs

Italian

Syntax:

Italian

Massachesetts

A Govern;i,ent

and

Binding

Dordrecht.

G. (1985) "Same and Different: Syntax and Semantics," ms.,

J. (1961) Colloquial

and

Doctoral dissertation, Technology.

Reidel,

Approach,

Complementation," 343-434.

Some Consequences University of Iowa.

Transf"onr,ational Analysis o-f l'todern Japanese, Doctoral dissertation, Yale

University. Chomsky, N. Press,

(1965) Aspects of The Theory Cambridge, Massachusetts.

of

Syntax,

MIT

Chomsky, N. (1970) "Remarks on Nominalization," in R. ,Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum eds. , Read in gs in Transformational Grammar, Blaisdell, Waltham, Massachesetts. Chomsky, S.

N. (1973) "Conditions on Transformations," in Anderson and P. Kiparsky eds., A Festschriit -for Horris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

385 Chomsky, N. (1976) "Conditions on Rules Linguistic A~alysis2, 303-351. Chomsky, N. 1-46.

( 1980)

Chomsky, N. Foris,

(1981) Lectures Dordrecht.

"On Binding,"

of

Grammar,"

linguistic

and

or, Government

Binding,

Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Chomsky, N. Origin,

(1986a} f(nowledge and Use, Praeger,

Chomsky, N. (1986b) Massachusett.

Barriers,

11. 1.,

Inquiry

o-f Language New York.

--

MIT Press,

of

It:s

the

Nature,,

Cambridge,

Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968) The Sound English, Harper and Row, New York.

Pattern

of

Clark,

M. ( 1983) University

Cole,

P. and G. Hermon ( 1981) Evidence from Quechua,·• 1-:30.

Cole,

P. and G. Harmon (1979) "Complement Structure and Islandhood in EST: A Crosslinguistic Study," in Clyne et al., eds., Papers from the Fifteent:h Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.

"Japanese as a Tone Language," of New Hampshire, Durham. "Subjecthood Linguistic

Contreras, H. (to appear) "Small A. Hurtado ed., Lir,guistic Reidel.

Clauses Theory

and Inquiry

in and

ms., Islandhood: 12.1.,

Spanish," Spanish

in Syn-tax,

Davidson, D. (1976=1967) "The Logical Form of Action Sentences," in Davidson, D. and G. Harman eds., Logic o-t- Gra111111ar, Dickenson, 235-245. Emonds,

Emends,

J. (1970) Root and S-tructure-Preserving Trans-formations, Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology.

The

Massachusetts

J. (1976) A Transforma-tior,al Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Trans-for111atior,5, Academic Press, New York.

386

En,;, M. (1985) University Engdahl,

"Agreement and Governing of Southern California.

Categories,"

ms.,

E.

(1980) The Syntax and Semantics of Questions Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

in

Swedish,

Fabb, Farmer,

Doctoral Institute of Technology.

(1984) Syntactic Affixation, dissertation, Massachesetts N.

A. (1980) On the Interaction Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology.

of

lt'iengo,

R. (1977) 8,

Fiengo,

On the

Trace

Morphology

and

Massachusetts

Syntax,

Theory,

Linguistic

Inquiry

35-61.

R. and J. Linguistic

Higginbotham Analysis

7,

(1980)

"Opacity

in NP,"

395-421.

Fillmore, C. { 1963) Transformations

"The Position of Embedding in a Grammar," Hord 19, 208-231.

Fillmore,

"Case

C. ( 1968)

Linguistic

Theory,

for Case," Unii•ersals in Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

New

York. Freidin,

R.

(1978)

Linguistic

"Cyclicity and the Theory 9.4., pp. 519-549.

of Grammar,"

Inquiry,

Fukui,

N. (1984} '"Studies 6n Japanese Anaphora I: the Adjunct Subject Hypothesis and 'zibun', .. ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

George,

L. and J. Kornfilt (1981) "Finiteness and Boundness in Turkish, .. in F. W. Heny ed., Binding and Filtering, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gruber,

J. {1976) Studies in Lexical North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Ha'ik,

I.

(1985)

dissertation, Hale,

The

Syntax

Relations,

o-f Operators,

Massachusetts

Institute

Doctoral of Technology.

K. (1980) "Remarks on Japanese Phrase Structure: Comments on the Papers on Japanese Syntax," in Y. Otsu and A. Farmer eds., HlT Uorking Papers in Linguistics: Linguistics,

Theoretical

Massachusetts

Issues

in

Institute

Japanese

of Technology.

387 Hale,

Halle, Halle, Harada, Harada,

K. (1983) "Warlpiri Non-configurational Linguistic

Theory,

M. { 1973) Formation,"

"Prolegomena

"Segmental

( 1976) "Honorifics," Generative Grammar~ Press, New York.

S.

I. (1977) 6, 11-12. S.

Autos:egmer,

"Nihongo

of

the

North-Eastern

N.

( 1980)

Linguistic

Hasegawa,

Binding

"The

N.

(1981) A Lexical on the Role of dissertation, University

{ 1971)

"Nihongo

B. (1981) University

Higginbotham, J. Nominals,"

Club.

(1983)

"Logical Inquiry

An

Tokyo.

to

Davidson,

in

l-1eetirig

D. and

Japanese," Theory

so-called

with

'zero

pronouns'

Re~,iew.

Onkeiron," University Theory

Linguistic

Japa11ese:

Doctoral Washington.

of

Linguistics

da,"

Kaitakusha,

Interpretive Subject,

A Netrical

5,

Gra111111ar, Dickenson

Linguistic

Onsei-zyoohoo-syori,

Hayes,

of'

Refer

of

"On the

M. ed., Se~antics

wa Hituyoo

VP Constituent 6.2., 115-130.

Analysis

Hasegawa, N. (to appear) in ,Japanese," The

and

Twelfth Annual Society.

F'orm, " in Logi,;:

Idiolectal 60.

Shibatani,

Henkei

rkir,g in ,1apanese

Papers in linguistics,

Linguistics:

Theoretical

Massachusetts

Issues

Institute

of

Technology. Oyakawa,

T. (1975)

"On the 67,

Gengokenkyuu

Partee_,

Japanese

sika

nai

construction,"

1-20.

B. ( 1975) "Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar," linguistic Inquiry 6.2, 203-300.

Pesetsky, D. (1979) Theory," ms.,

"Russian Morphology and Lexical Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Pesetsky, D. {1982) dissertation,

Paths

Massachusetts

Institute

Pesetsky,

"Morphology

and Logical

D. ( 1985)

linguistic

Picallo,

lr,quiry

16. 2.,

Form, "

193--246.

M. C. ( 1984) "The Infl Node and the Null Subject Parameter," linguistic Inquiry 15. 1., 75-102.

Pierrehumbert, English

J.

Phonolgy and Phonetics Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology.

(1980)

The

Postal,

P. (1971) Winston.

Cross-Over

Postal,

P. (1974) Massacuhusetts.

Or, Ra.ising,

A. Inquiry

o-f

Intonation,

Massachusetts

Prince,

Doctoral of Technology.

Categories,

and

Pheno11>ena, Holt MIT Press,

(1983) "'Relating to the 14.1., pp. 19-100.

Rinehart

and

Cambridge,

Grid, .. Linqui:stic

Pull~yblank, D. ( 1983) Tone ir, Le.,dcal Phonology, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Quicoli,

A. C. (1976) "On Portuguese Impersonal Verbs," J. Schmidt-Radefeldt ed., Readings in Portuguese Linguistics, North-Holland.

in

395 Quine,

W. __( 1950) i,/ord Ma:;i'sachusetts.

Reinhart,

T. Doctoral

MIT Press,

( 1976) 'I'he Syntactic Domain dissert:atxon, Massachusetts

•rechnology_ L. (1982) Dordrecht.

Rizzi,

Obje,::J.,

and

Issues

in

Italian

Cambridge,

of

A.

Rouveret,

(1980)

Recherce5

"Sur

Linguistiques

Predicate _Cambridge,

Syntactic Form of Massaches_etts

la

Notion 9.

de

Predication, Institute

Proposition

Safir,

Safir,

J. (1985) "Autolexical Syntax: A Proposal Treatment of Noun Incorporation and Similar Phenomena," Natural language and linguistic 3.4., 379--439. K. (1982) Syntactic Chains £-ffect, Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Technology.

K. Inquiry

Sag, Saito,

( 1982)

ms.,

"Case Marking Massachusetts

M. ( 1983a} "Case M. Barlow, et al.

:for

the

Theory

Deniniteness

Binding,"

I. (1976) Ueletion and Loqical" Form. dissertation, Massachesetts Institute M.

and Jr,quiry

Massachesetts

( 1984) "Multiple Variable 15.4., 603-638.

Study," Saito,

the

and

of

Finie,"

Rouveret, A. and J. -R. Vergnaud ( 1980) "Specifying Reference to the Subjeet: French Causatives Conditions on Representations," l.inquistic 11. 1., 97-202. Sadock,

of

Foris,

Syntax,

Rosenbaum, P. (1967) 7hP Grammar of English Complement Coristructioris, MIT Press, Massachusetts. Rothstein, S. (1983) 1he Doctoral dissertation, Technology.

Anaphora, Institute·

in

clapanese: Institute

and Government eds., HCCfl. 2.

in

Linguistic

Doctoral of Technology. A Priliminary of Technology. Japanese,"

in

396 Saito,

M. (1983b) "Comments on the Papers on Generative Syntax," Y. Otsu et al., eds., Studie;,; ir, fienerat1ve Grammar 7rend,;

and Language Acquisition: Li,,quist ics, International

University,

Some Asymmetries Impli,::at·ions,

Theoretical

Massachusetts Saito,

on

Institute

in Japane;,;e and 1heir Do,:.;toral dissertation, of Technology_

M. and H. Hoji (1983) "Weak Crossover and in Japanese," Natural Language and Linguis-t 1. 2. , 245-259. E.

• f •apir,

Recent

Christian

Tokyo.

M. (1985)

Saito,

A Report

i1,

( 1921)

Harcourt

Language,

Brace

and

Move-alpha ic

} heory

World,

New

York. Selkirk,

E. (1982) The Syntax Cambridge_, Massachusetts.

Shibatani, M. (1973} Causativization," 327-373.

o1

"Semantics

of

foundatior,s

Shibatan:i, M. (1974) "Case Marking Rejoinder," Papers h, ;,apar,ese 23:3-240. Shibatani, ed.,

(1976}

M.

Siegel,

b,

D. (1974) dissertation,

Spotiche, D. Syntax, Institute

MUST)

b.

It is mandatory that we appoint in our group to clean the room.

(at

least) one person (MUST> 3)

402 (iii)

Everyone

must leave

by 10.

(iv)

a.

Everyone has his or her own reason by 10. (V > MUST)

b.

No one is allowed to stay the building regulation).

to have to leave

here after 10 (eg., (MUST> V)

due to

14. To be precise, the NIC as formulated by Chomsky (1980) does not say anything about pronominal binding. What I refer to here as the NIC, therefore, is in fact an extended version of the NIC, which covers pronominal binding as well. See the original Footnote 9 of this chapter. 15.

Again,

see what is

stated

in Additional

Footnote

14.

16. Further investigation of various nominal proforms has now led me to conclude that i;u::o rather than kare 'he' should be regarded as a pure pronomina in Japanese. Accordingly, each occurrence of kare in subsequent examples should be replaced by pro. See Kuroda (1965), Fiengo and Haruna (1987), and Hoji (1989), among others, for relevant discussion.

17. Some of Chomsky's (1986a, 171-172) original claims related to the BT-compatibility approach, in fact, need to be revised. First, Chomsky's original definition of governing category should be rewritten in such a way that the expression "there is an indexing j BT-compatible with" is replaced by "there can be an indexing j BT-compatible with". This revision is necessary to prohibit pronominal binding in sentences like (i a-b):

(i)

*John1 thinks [ that Bill2 hates him2 J *John1 accepted [ Bill2's criticism of him2

a. b.

Note that compatible

the lower indexing.

CFCs in

(i a-b)

actually

do lack BT-

Second, Chomsky assumes that AGR can be regarded as capable of making available BT-compatible indexing for anaphors (p. 172), perhaps in order to label the root sentences in (ii a-b) below as governing categories ("auxiliary hypothesis" on root sentences: Chomsky (1981, 219-220)): (ii)

a. b.

Notice, as the

*[ Each other ate the apples *[ [ For each other1 to win] them1) J. however, governing

that the category

]. would be unfortunate

(for

lower Sin our (53) cannot be regarded despite the presence of AGR.

403

Note, for instance, that exceptional Case marking requires adjacency between the matrix verb(= Case assigner) and the complement subject (= assignee): 18.

(i)

a.

(ii)

b. a. b.

We definitely expect him to *We expect definitely him to I sincerely believe him to *I believe sincerely him to

return by tomorrow. return by tomorrow. be innocent. be innocent.

19, We, in fact, cannot come up with relevant examples to test pronominal binding in (71) any longer if the newly adopted assumption in Additional Footnote 16 above is correct. The contrast in (71) between kare o 'he ACC' and kare ga 'he nom' also remains unaccounted for. See Hoji (To appear) for much relevant discussion. 20. Note that adverbial expressions can intervene between the matrix verb and the complementizer for as in (i) below, which suggests that reanalysis of the verb and prepositional complementizer is not what is responsible for the Case marking of the complement subject:

(1) They would prefer

very much for

John to win.

404

References

in Additional

Footnotes:

Bresnan, J. (1982) "Passive in Lexical Theory," in J. Bresnan ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 3-86, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press. Di Sciullo, A.-M. and E. Williams (1987) On the Definition Word, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.

of

Fiengo, R. and M. Hardna (1987) "Parameters in Binding Theory - Some Suggestions Based on an Analysis of Japanese," in T. Imai and M. Saito eds., Issues in Japanese Linguitics, Foris Publication, Dordrecht. Hoji,

H. (To appear) Theories of Anaphora Japanese Syntax, MIT Press.

Jordan, E. H. and M. Noda (1987) Japanese: Part 1, Yale University Press. Kitagawa, Y. ands. ms., University at San Diego.

and Aspects The Spoken

of Language

-Y. Kuroda (1992) "Passive in Japanese," of Rochester and University of California