Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, Hisashi Noda (Eds.

)
Handbook of Japanese Syntax
Handbooks of Japanese
Language and Linguistics

Edited by
Masayoshi Shibatani
Taro Kageyama

Volume 4
Handbook of Japanese
Syntax

Edited by
Masayoshi Shibatani
Shigeru Miyagawa
Hisashi Noda
ISBN 978-1-61451-767-2
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-661-3
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0100-5
ISSN 2199-2851

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

6 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany

www.degruyter.com
Preface
The project of compiling a series of comprehensive handbooks covering major fields
of Japanese linguistics started in 2011, when Masayoshi Shibatani received a commis-
sion to edit such volumes as series editor from De Gruyter Mouton. As the planning
progressed, with the volume titles selected and the volume editors assigned, the
enormity of the task demanded the addition of a series co-editor. Taro Kageyama,
Director-General of the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics
(NINJAL), was invited to join the project as a series co-editor. His participation in
the project opened the way to make it a joint venture between NINJAL and De
Gruyter Mouton. We are pleased to present the Handbooks of Japanese Language
and Linguistics (HJLL) as the first materialization of the agreement of academic coop-
eration concluded between NINJAL and De Gruyter Mouton.
The HJLL Series is composed of twelve volumes, primarily focusing on Japanese
but including volumes on the Ryukyuan and Ainu languages, which are also spoken
in Japan, as well as some chapters on Japanese Sign Language in the applied lin-
guistics volume.
– Volume 1: Handbook of Japanese Historical Linguistics
– Volume 2: Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology
– Volume 3: Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation
– Volume 4: Handbook of Japanese Syntax
– Volume 5: Handbook of Japanese Semantics and Pragmatics
– Volume 6: Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics
– Volume 7: Handbook of Japanese Dialects
– Volume 8: Handbook of Japanese Sociolinguistics
– Volume 9: Handbook of Japanese Psycholinguistics
– Volume 10: Handbook of Japanese Applied Linguistics
– Volume 11: Handbook of the Ryukyuan Languages
– Volume 12: Handbook of the Ainu Language

Surpassing all currently available reference works on Japanese in both scope and
depth, the HJLL series provides a comprehensive survey of nearly the entire field of
Japanese linguistics. Each volume includes a balanced selection of articles contrib-
uted by established linguists from Japan as well as from outside Japan and is criti-
cally edited by volume editors who are leading researchers in their individual fields.
Each article reviews milestone achievements in the field, provides an overview of the
state of the art, and points to future directions of research. The twelve titles are thus
expected individually and collectively to contribute not only to the enhancement of
studies on Japanese on the global level but also to the opening up of new perspec-
tives for general linguistic research from both empirical and theoretical standpoints.
The HJLL project has been made possible by the active and substantial partici-
pation of numerous people including the volume editors and authors of individual
vi Preface

chapters. We would like to acknowledge with gratitude the generous support, both
financial and logistic, given to this project by NINJAL. We are also grateful to John
Haig (retired professor of Japanese linguistics, the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa),
serving as copy-editor for the series. In the future, more publications are expected to
ensue from the NINJAL-Mouton academic cooperation.

Masayoshi Shibatani, Deedee McMurtry Professor of Humanities and Professor of

Linguistics, Rice University/Professor Emeritus, Kobe University
Taro Kageyama, Director-General, National Institute for Japanese Language and Lin-
guistics (NINJAL)/Professor Emeritus, Kwansei Gakuin University
Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama
Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese
Language and Linguistics
Comprising twelve substantial volumes, the Handbooks of Japanese Language and
Linguistics (HJLL) series provides a comprehensive survey of practically all the major
research areas of Japanese linguistics on an unprecedented scale, together with sur-
veys of the endangered languages spoken in Japan, Ryukyuan and Ainu. What fol-
lows are introductions to the individual handbooks, to the general conventions
adopted in this series, and the minimum essentials of contemporary Standard
Japanese. Fuller descriptions of the languages of Japan, Japanese grammar, and the
history of the Japanese language are available in such general references as Martin
(1975), Shibatani (1990), and Frellesvig (2010).

1 Geography, Population, and Languages of Japan

Japan is situated in the most populous region of the world – Asia, where roughly
one half of the world population of seven billion speak a variety of languages,
many of which occupy the top tier of the ranking of the native-speaker population
numbers. Japanese is spoken by more than 128 million people (as of 2013), who live
mostly in Japan but also in Japanese emigrant communities around the world, most
notably Hawaii, Brazil and Peru. In terms of the number of native speakers, Japanese
ranks ninth among the world’s languages. Due partly to its rich and long literary his-
tory, Japanese is one of the most intensely studied languages in the world and has
received scrutiny under both the domestic grammatical tradition and those developed
outside Japan such as the Chinese philological tradition, European structural lin-
guistics, and generative grammar developed in America. The Handbooks of Japanese
Language and Linguistics intend to capture the achievements garnered over the years
through analyses of a wide variety of phenomena in a variety of theoretical frame-
works.
As seen in Map 1, where Japan is shown graphically superimposed on Continental
Europe, the Japanese archipelago has a vast latitudinal extension of approximately
3,000 kilometers ranging from the northernmost island, roughly corresponding to
Stockholm, Sweden, to the southernmost island, roughly corresponding to Sevilla,
Spain.
Contrary to popular assumption, Japanese is not the only language native to
Japan. The northernmost and southernmost areas of the Japanese archipelago are in-
habited by people whose native languages are arguably distinct from Japanese. The
southernmost sea area in Okinawa Prefecture is dotted with numerous small islands
viii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

Map 1: Japan as overlaid on Europe

Source: Shinji Sanada. 2007. Hōgen wa kimochi o tsutaeru [Dialects convey your heart].
Tokyo: Iwanami, p. 68.

where Ryukyuan languages are spoken. Until recent years, Japanese scholars tended
to treat Ryukyuan language groups as dialects of Japanese based on fairly transparent
correspondences in sounds and grammatical categories between mainland Japanese
and Ryukyuan, although the two languages are mutually unintelligible. Another rea-
son that Ryukyuan languages have been treated as Japanese dialects is that Ryukyuan
islands and Japan form a single nation. In terms of nationhood, however, Ryukyu was
an independent kingdom until the beginning of the seventeenth century, when it was
forcibly annexed to the feudal domain of Satsuma in southern Kyushu.
A more recent trend is to treat Ryukyuan as forming a branch of its own with the
status of a sister language to Japanese, following the earlier proposals by Chamberlain
(1895) and Miller (1971). Many scholars specializing in Ryukyuan today even confer
language status to different language groups within Ryukyuan, such as Amami lan-
guage, Okinawan language, Miyako language, etc., which are grammatically distinct
to the extent of making them mutually unintelligible. The prevailing view now has
Japanese and Ryukyuan forming the Japonic family as daughter languages of
Proto-Japonic. HJLL follows this recent trend of recognizing Ryukyuan as a sister
language to Japanese and devotes one full volume to it. The Handbook of the Ryu-
kyuan Languages provides the most up-to-date answers pertaining to Ryukyuan
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics ix

language structures and use, and the ways in which these languages relate to Ryu-
kyuan society and history. Like all the other handbooks in the series, each chapter
delineates the boundaries and the research history of the field it addresses, com-
prises the most important and representative information on the state of research,
and spells out future research desiderata. This volume also includes a comprehensive
bibliography of Ryukyuan linguistics.
The situation with Ainu, another language indigenous to Japan, is much less
clear as far as its genealogy goes. Various suggestions have been made relating
Ainu to Paleo-Asiatic, Ural-Altaic, and Malayo-Polynesian or to such individual lan-
guages as Gilyak and Eskimo, besides the obvious candidate of Japanese as its sister
language. The general consensus, however, points to the view that Ainu is related to
Japanese quite indirectly, if at all, via the Altaic family with its Japanese-Korean sub-
branch (see Miller 1971; Shibatani 1990: 5–7 for an overview). Because Ainu has had
northern Japan as its homeland and because HJLL is also concerned with various as-
pects of Japanese linguistics scholarship in general, we have decided to include a
volume devoted to Ainu in this series. The Handbook of the Ainu Language out-
lines the history and current state of the Ainu language, offers a comprehensive sur-
vey of Ainu linguistics, describes major Ainu dialects in Hokkaido and Sakhalin, and
devotes a full section to studies dealing with typological characteristics of the Ainu
language such as polysynthesis and incorporation, person marking, plural verb
forms, and aspect and evidentials.

2 History
Japan’s rich and long literary history dates back to the seventh century, when the
Japanese learned to use Chinese characters in writing Japanese. Because of the
availability of abundant philological materials, the history of the Japanese language
has been one of the most intensely pursued fields in Japanese linguistics. While sev-
eral different divisions of Japanese language history have been proposed, Frellesvig
(2010) proposes the following four linguistic periods, each embracing the main polit-
ical epochs in Japanese history.

1. Old Japanese 700–800 (Nara period, 712–794)

2. Early Middle Japanese 800–1200 (Heian period, 794–1185)
3. Late Middle Japanese 1200–1600 (Kamakura period, 1185–1333;
Muromachi period, 1333–1573)
4. Modern Japanese 1600– (Edo, 1603–1868; Meiji, 1868–1912;
Taishō, 1912–1926; Shōwa, 1926–1989;
Heisei, 1989–)
x Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

This division reflects a major gulf between Pre-modern and Modern Japanese caused
by some radical changes in linguistic structure during the Late Middle Japanese
period. Modern Japanese is often further subdivided into Early Modern (Edo, 1603–
1868), Modern (Meiji, 1868–1912; Taishō, 1912–1926), and Present-day Japanese
(Shōwa, 1926–1989; Heisei, 1989–).
The Handbook of Japanese Historical Linguistics will present the latest research
on better studied topics, such as segmental phonology, accent, morphology, and some
salient syntactic phenomena such as focus constructions. It will also introduce areas
of study that have traditionally been underrepresented, ranging from syntax and
Sinico-Japanese (kanbun) materials to historical pragmatics, and demonstrate how
they contribute to a fuller understanding of the overall history of Japanese, as well
as outlining larger-scale tendencies and directions in changes that have taken place
within the language over its attested history. Major issues in the reconstruction of
prehistoric Japanese and in the individual historical periods from Old Japanese to
Modern Japanese are discussed including writing and the materials for historical
studies, influences of Sinico-Japanese on Japanese, the histories of different vocabu-
lary strata, the history of honorifics and polite language, generative diachronic syn-
tax, and the development of case marking.

3 Geographic and Social Variations

Because of the wide geographical spread of the Japanese archipelago from north to
south, characterized by high mountain ranges, deep valleys, and wide rivers as well
as numerous islands, Japanese has developed a multitude of dialects, many of
which differ from each other in a way more or less like current descendants of the
Romance language family. Like the historical studies, the research tradition of dialect
studies has a unique place in Japanese linguistics, which has also attracted a large
number of students, amateur collectors of dialect forms as well as professional lin-
guists. The Handbook of Japanese Dialects surveys the historical backdrop of the
theoretical frameworks of contemporary studies in Japanese geolinguistics and in-
cludes analyses of prominent research topics in cross-dialectal perspectives, such
as accentual systems, honorifics, verbs of giving, and nominalizations. The volume
also devotes large space to sketch grammars of dialects from the northern island of
Hokkaido to the southern island of Kyushu, allowing a panoramic view of the differ-
ences and similarities in the representative dialects throughout Japan.
Besides the physical setting fostering geographic variations, Japanese society
has experienced several types of social structure over the years, starting from the
time of the nobility and court life of the Old and Early Middle Japanese periods,
through the caste structure of the feudalistic Late Middle and Early Modern Japanese
periods, to the modern democratic society in the Modern and Present-day Japanese
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xi

periods. These different social structures spawned a variety of social dialects including
power- and gender-based varieties of Japanese. The Handbook of Japanese Socio-
linguistics examines a wide array of sociolinguistic topics ranging from the history
of Japanese sociolinguistics, including foreign influences and internal innovations,
to the central topics of variations due to social stratification, gender differences,
and discourse genre. Specific topics include honorifics and women’s speech, critical
discourse analysis, pragmatics of political discourse, contact-induced change, emerg-
ing new dialects, Japanese language varieties outside Japan, and language policy.

4 Lexicon and Phonology

The literary history of Japan began with early contacts with China. Chinese appar-
ently began to enrich the Japanese lexicon in even pre-historic periods, when such
deeply assimilated words as uma ‘horse’ and ume ‘plum’ are believed to have entered
the language. Starting in the middle of the sixth century, when Buddhism reached
Japan, Chinese, at different periods and from different dialect regions, has continu-
ously contributed to Japanese in an immeasurable way affecting all aspects of gram-
mar, but most notably the lexicon and the phonological structure, which have sus-
tained further and continuous influences from European languages from the late
Edo period on. Through these foreign contacts, Japanese has developed a complex
vocabulary system that is composed of four lexical strata, each with unique lexical,
phonological, and grammatical properties: native Japanese, mimetic, Sino-Japanese,
and foreign (especially English).
The Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation presents a compre-
hensive survey of the Japanese lexicon, word formation processes, and other lexical
matters seen in the four lexical strata of contemporary Japanese. The agglutinative
character of the language, coupled with the intricate system of vocabulary strata,
makes it possible for compounding, derivation, conversion, and inflection to be
closely intertwined with syntactic structure, giving rise to theoretically intriguing in-
teractions of word formation processes and syntax that are not easily found in inflec-
tional, isolating, or polysynthetic types of languages. The theoretically oriented
studies associated with these topics are complemented by those oriented toward lex-
ical semantics, which also bring to light theoretically challenging issues involving
the morphology-syntax interface.
The four lexical strata characterizing the Japanese lexicon are also relevant to
Japanese phonology as each stratum has some characteristic sounds and sound
combinations not seen in the other strata. The Handbook of Japanese Phonetics
and Phonology describes and analyzes the basic phonetic and phonological struc-
tures of modern Japanese with main focus on standard Tokyo Japanese, relegating
the topics of dialect phonetics and phonology to the Handbook of Japanese Dialects.
xii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

The handbook includes several chapters dealing with phonological processes unique
to the Sino-Japanese and foreign strata as well as to the mimetic stratum. Other topics
include word tone/accent, mora-timing, sequential voicing (rendaku), consonant
geminates, vowel devoicing and diphthongs, and the appearance of new consonant
phonemes. Also discussed are phonetic and phonological processes within and
beyond the word such as rhythm, intonation, and the syntax-phonology interface, as
well as issues bearing on other subfields of linguistics such as historical and corpus
linguistics, L1 phonology, and L2 research.

5 Syntax and Semantics

Chinese loans have also affected Japanese syntax, though the extent is unclear to
which they affected Japanese semantics beyond the level of lexical semantics. In
particular, Chinese loans form two distinct lexical categories in Japanese – verbal
nouns, forming a subcategory of the noun class, and adjectival nouns (keiyō dōshi),
which are treated as forming major lexical categories, along with noun, verb, and
adjective classes, by those who recognize this as an independent category. The former
denote verbal actions, and, unlike regular nouns denoting objects and thing-like en-
tities, they can function as verbs by combining with the light verb suru, which is ob-
viously related to the verb suru ‘do’. The nominal-verbal Janus character of verbal
nouns results in two widely observed syntactic patterns that are virtually synony-
mous in meaning; e.g., benkyoo-suru (studying-DO) ‘to study’ and benkyoo o suru
(studying ACC do) ‘do studying’. As described in the Handbook of Japanese Lexicon
and Word Formation, the lexical category of adjectival noun has been a perennial
problem in the analysis of Japanese parts of speech. The property-concept words, e.g.,
kirei ‘pretty’, kenkoo ‘health/healthy’, falling in this class do not inflect by themselves
unlike native Japanese adjectives and, like nouns, require the inflecting copula da in
the predication function – hence the label of adjectival noun for this class. However,
many of them cannot head noun phrases – the hallmark of the nominal class – and
some of them even yield nouns via -sa nominalization, which is not possible with
regular nouns.
The Lexicon-Word Formation handbook and the Handbook of Japanese Syntax
make up twin volumes because many chapters in the former deal with syntactic phe-
nomena, as the brief discussion above on the two Sino-Japanese lexical categories
clearly indicates. The syntax handbook covers a vast landscape of Japanese syntax
from three theoretical perspectives: (1) traditional Japanese grammar, known as
kokugogaku (lit. national-language study), (2) the functional approach, and (3) the
generative grammar framework. Broad issues analyzed include sentence types and
their interactions with grammatical verbal categories, grammatical relations (topic,
subject, etc.), transitivity, nominalization, grammaticalization, voice (passives and
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xiii

causatives), word order (subject, scrambling, numeral quantifier, configurationality),

case marking (ga/no conversion, morphology and syntax), modification (adjectives,
relative clause), and structure and interpretation (modality, negation, prosody, ellipsis).
These topics have been pursued vigorously over many years under different theoretical
persuasions and have had important roles in the development of general linguistic
theory. For example, the long sustained studies on the grammatical of subject and
topic in Japanese have had significant impacts on the study of grammatical relations
in European as well as Austronesian languages. In the study of word order, the anal-
ysis of Japanese numeral quantifiers is used as one of the leading pieces of evidence
for the existence of a movement rule in human language. Under case marking, the
way subjects are case-marked in Japanese has played a central role in the study of
case marking in the Altaic language family. Recent studies of nominalizations have
been central to the analysis of their modification and referential functions in a wide
variety of languages from around the globe with far-reaching implications to past
studies of such phenomena as parts of speech, (numeral) classifiers, and relative
clauses. And the study of how in Japanese prosody plays a crucial role in interpreta-
tion has become the basis of some important recent developments in the study of
wh-questions.
The Handbook of Japanese Semantics and Pragmatics presents a collection of
studies on linguistic meaning in Japanese, either as conventionally encoded in lin-
guistic form (the field of semantics) or as generated by the interaction of form with
context (the field of pragmatics). The studies are organized around a model that has
long currency in traditional Japanese grammar, whereby the linguistic clause con-
sists of a multiply nested structure centered in a propositional core of objective
meaning around which forms are deployed that express progressively more subjec-
tive meaning as one moves away from the core toward the periphery of the clause.
Following this model, the topics treated in this volume range from aspects of mean-
ing associated with the propositional core, including elements of meaning struc-
tured in lexical units (lexical semantics), all the way to aspects of meaning that are
highly subjective, being most grounded in the context of the speaker. In between
these two poles of the semantics-pragmatics continuum are elements of meaning
that are defined at the level of propositions as a whole or between different proposi-
tions (propositional logic) and forms that situate propositions in time as events and
those situating events in reality including non-actual worlds, e.g., those hoped for
(desiderative meaning), denied (negation), hypothesized (conditional meaning), or
viewed as ethically or epistemologically possible or necessary (epistemic and deontic
modality). Located yet closer to the periphery of the Japanese clause are a rich array of
devices for marking propositions according to the degree to which the speaker is com-
mitted to their veracity, including means that mark differing perceptual and cognitive
modalities and those for distinguishing information variously presupposed.
These studies in Japanese syntax and semantics are augmented by cross-linguistic
studies that examine various topics in these fields from the perspectives of language
xiv Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

universals and the comparative study of Japanese and another language. The Hand-
book of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics sets as its primary goal uncovering prin-
cipled similarities and differences between Japanese and other languages around
the globe and thereby shedding new light on the universal and language-particular
properties of Japanese. Topics ranging from inalienable possession to numeral clas-
sifiers, from spatial deixis to motion typology, and from nominalization to subordi-
nation, as well as topics closely related to these phenomena are studied in the typo-
logical universals framework. Then various aspects of Japanese such as resultative-
progressive polysemy, entailment of event realization, internal-state predicates, topic
constructions, and interrogative pronouns, are compared and contrasted with indi-
vidual languages including Ainu, Koryak, Chinese, Korean, Newar, Thai, Burmese,
Tagalog, Kapampangan, Lamaholot, Romanian, French, Spanish, German, English,
Swahili, Sidaama, and Mayan languages.

6 Psycholinguistics and Applied Linguistics

HJLL includes two volumes containing topics related to wider application of Japanese
linguistics and to those endeavors seeking grammar-external evidence for the psycho-
neurological reality of the structure and organization of grammar. By incorporating
the recent progress in the study of the cognitive processes and brain mechanisms
underlying language use, language acquisition, and language disorder, the Hand-
book of Japanese Psycholinguistics discusses the mechanisms of language acquisi-
tion and language processing. In particular, the volume seeks answers to the ques-
tion of how Japanese is learned/acquired as a first or second language, and pursues
the question of how we comprehend and produce Japanese sentences. The chapters
in the acquisition section allow readers to acquaint themselves with issues pertain-
ing to the question of how grammatical features (including pragmatic and discourse
features) are acquired and how our brain develops in the language domain, with
respect to both language-particular and universal features. Specific topics dealt
with include Japanese children’s perceptual development, the conceptual and gram-
matical development of nouns, Japanese specific language impairment, narrative
development in the L1 cognitive system, L2 Japanese acquisition and its relation to
L1 acquisition. The language processing section focuses on both L1 and L2 Japanese
processing and covers topics such as the role of prosodic information in production/
comprehension, the processing of complex grammatical structures such as relative
clauses, the processing issues related to variable word order, and lexical and sentence
processing in L2 by speakers of a different native language.
The Handbook of Japanese Applied Linguistics complements the Psycholin-
guistics volume by examining language acquisition from broader sociocultural per-
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xv

spectives, i.e., language as a means of communication and social behavioral system,

emphasizing pragmatic development as central to both L1 and L2 acquisition and
overall language/human development. Topics approached from these perspectives
include the role of caregiver’s speech in early language development, literacy acqui-
sition, and acquisition of writing skills. Closely related to L1 and L2 acquisition/
development are studies of bilingualism/multilingualism and the teaching and
learning of foreign languages, including Japanese as a second language, where topics
discussed include cross-lingual transfer from L1 to L2, learning errors, and proficiency
assessment of second language acquisition. Chapters dealing with topics more
squarely falling in the domain of applied linguistics cover the issues in corpus/
computational linguistics (including discussions on CHILDES for Japanese and the
KY corpus widely-used in research on Japanese as a second language), clinical lin-
guistics (including discussions on language development in children with hearing
impairment and other language disorders, with Down syndrome, or autism), and
translation and interpretation. Technically speaking, Japanese Sign Language is not
a variety of Japanese. However, in view of the importance of this language in Japanese
society and because of the rapid progress in sign language research in Japan and
abroad and what it has to offer to the general theory of language, chapters dealing
with Japanese Sign Language are also included in this volume.

7 Grammatical Sketch of Standard Japanese

The following pages offer a brief overview of Japanese grammar as an aid for a quick
grasp of the structure of Japanese that may prove useful in studying individual, the-
matically organized handbooks of this series. One of the difficult problems in pre-
senting non-European language materials using familiar technical terms derived
from the European grammatical tradition concerns mismatches between what the
glosses may imply and what grammatical categories they are used to denote in the
description. We will try to illustrate this problem below as a way of warning not to
take all the glosses at their face value. But first some remarks are in order about the
conventions of transcription of Japanese, glossing of examples, and their translations
used in this series.

7.1 Writing, alphabetic transcription, and pronunciation

Customarily, Japanese is written by using a mixture of Chinese characters (for con-
tent words), hiragana (for function words such as particles, suffixes and inflectional
endings), katakana (for foreign loans and mimetics), and sometimes Roman alphabet.
xvi Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

Because Japanese had no indigenous writing system, it developed two phonogram

systems of representing a phonological unit of “mora”, namely hiragana and kata-
kana, by simplifying or abbreviating (parts of) Chinese characters. Hiragana and
katakana syllabaries are shown in Table 1, together with the alphabetic transcriptions
adopted in the HJLL series.

Table 1: Alphabetic transcriptions adopted in HJLL

transcription a ka sa ta na ha ma ya ra wa n

hiragana あ か さ た な は ま や ら わ ん

katakana ア カ サ タ ナ ハ マ ヤ ラ ワ ン

transcription i ki si ti ni hi mi – ri –

hiragana い き し ち に ひ み – り –

katakana イ キ シ チ ニ ヒ ミ – リ –

transcription u ku su tu nu hu mu yu ru –

hiragana う く す つ ぬ ふ む ゆ る –

katakana ウ ク ス ツ ヌ フ ム ユ ル –

transcription e ke se te ne he me – re –

hiragana え け せ て ね へ め – れ –

katakana エ ケ セ テ ネ ヘ メ – レ –

transcription o ko so to no ho mo yo ro o

hiragana お こ そ と の ほ も よ ろ を

katakana オ コ ソ ト ノ ホ モ ヨ ロ ヲ

Because of phonological change, the columns indicated by strikethroughs have no

letters in contemporary Japanese, although they were filled in with special letters
in classical Japanese. If all the strikethroughs were filled, the chart will contain 50
letters for each of hiragana and katakana, so the syllabary chart is traditionally
called Gojū-on zu (chart of 50 sounds). To these should be added the letter ん or ン
representing a moraic nasal [N], on the rightmost column.
The “50-sound chart”, however, does not exhaust the hiragana and katakana
letters actually employed in Japanese, because the basic consonant sounds (k, s, t, h)
have variants. The sound represented by the letter h is historically related to the
sound represented by p, and these voiceless obstruents (k, s, t, and p) have their
respective voiced counterparts (g, z, d, and b). Table 2 shows letters for these conso-
nants followed by five vowels.
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xvii

Table 2: Letters for voiced obstruents and bilabial [p]

transcription ga za da ba pa

hiragana が ざ だ ば ぱ

katakana ガ ザ ダ バ パ

transcription gi zi zi bi pi

hiragana ぎ じ ぢ び ぴ

katakana ギ ジ ヂ ビ ピ

transcription gu zu zu bu pu

hiragana ぐ ず づ ぶ ぷ

katakana グ ズ ヅ ブ プ

transcription ge ze de be pe

hiragana げ ぜ で べ ぺ

katakana ゲ ゼ デ ベ ペ

transcription go zo do bo po

hiragana ご ぞ ど ぼ ぽ

katakana ゴ ゾ ド ボ ポ

It is important to note that Tables 1 and 2 show the conventional letters and
alphabetical transcription adopted by the HJLL series; they are not intended to repre-
sent the actual pronunciations of Japanese vowels and consonants. For example,
among the vowels, the sound represented as “u” is pronounced as [ɯ] with un-
rounded lips. Consonants may change articulation according to the following vowels.
Romanization of these has been controversial with several competing proposals.
There are two Romanization systems widely used in Japan. One known as the
Hepburn system is more widely used in public places throughout Japan such as train
stations, street signs, as well as in some textbooks for learners of Japanese. This sys-
tem is ostensibly easier for foreigners familiar with the English spelling system. The
Kunreishiki (the cabinet ordinance system) is phonemic in nature and is used by
many professional linguists. The essential differences between the two Romanization
systems center on palatalized and affricate consonants, as shown in Table 3 below
by some representative syllables for which two Romanization renditions differ:
xviii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

Table 3: Two systems of Romanization

Hiragana IPA Hepburn Kunreishiki

し [ʃi] shi si

しゃ [ʃa] sha sya

しゅ [ʃɯ] shu syu

しょ [ʃo] sho syo

じ and ぢ [ʤi] ji zi

じゃ [ʤa] ja zya

じゅ [ʤɯ] ju zyu

じょ [ʤo] jo zyo

ち [tʃi] chi ti

ちゃ [tʃa] cha tya

ちゅ [tʃɯ] chu tyu

ちょ [tʃo] cho tyo

つ [tsɯ] tsu tu

づ and ず [dzɯ] zu zu

ふ [ɸɯ] fu hu

Except for the volumes on Ryukyuan, Ainu, and Japanese dialects, whose phonetics
differ from Standard Japanese, HJLL adopts the Kunreishiki system for rendering
cited Japanese words and sentences but uses the Hepburn system for rendering con-
ventional forms such as proper nouns and technical linguistic terms in the text and
in the translations of examples.
The cited Japanese sentences in HJLL look as below, where the first line translit-
erates a Japanese sentence in Kunreishiki Romanization, the second line contains
interlinear glosses largely following the Leipzig abbreviation convention, and the
third line is a free translation of the example sentence.

(1) Taroo wa Ziroo to Tookyoo e it-te kutusita o kat-ta.

Taro TOP Jiro COM Tokyo ALL go-GER sock ACC buy-PST
‘Taro went to Tokyo with Jiro and bought socks.’

The orthographic convention of rendering Japanese is to represent a sentence with

an uninterrupted sequence of Sino-Japanese characters and katakana or hiragana
syllabaries without a space for word segmentation, as in 太郎 は次 郎と 東 京へ 行っ
て靴 下を買 った for (1). In line with the general rules of Romanization adopted in
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xix

books and articles dealing with Japanese, however, HJLL transliterates example sen-
tences by separating word units by spaces. The example in (1) thus has 10 words.
Moreover, as in it-te (go-GERUNDIVE) and kat-ta (buy-PAST) in (1), word-internal
morphemes are separated by a hyphen whenever necessary, although this practice
is not adopted consistently in all of the HJLL volumes. Special attention should be
paid to particles like wa (topic), to ‘with’ and e ‘to, toward’, which, in the HJLL rep-
resentation, are separated from the preceding noun or noun phrase by a space (see
section 7.3). Remember that case and other kinds of particles, though spaced, form
phrasal units with their preceding nouns.

7.2 Word order

As seen in (1), Japanese is a verb-final, dependent-marking agglutinative language. It
is basically an SOV language, which marks the nominal dependent arguments by
particles (wa, to, e, and o above), and whose predicative component consists of a
verbal-stem, a variety of suffixes, auxiliary verbs, and semi-independent predicate
extenders pertaining to the speech act of predication (see section 7.6). While a verb
is rigidly fixed in sentence final position, the order of subject and object arguments
may vary depending on pragmatic factors such as emphasis, background informa-
tion, and cohesion. Thus, sentence (2a) with the unmarked order below, in principle,
may vary in multiple ways as shown by some possibilities in (2b)–(2d).

(2) a. Taroo ga Hanako ni Ziroo o syookai-si-ta.

Taro NOM Hanako DAT Jiro ACC introducing-do-PST
‘Taro introduced Jiro to Hanako.’
b. Taroo ga Ziroo o Hanako ni syookai-si-ta.
c. Hanako ni Taroo ga Ziroo o syookai-si-ta.
d. Ziroo o Taroo ga Hanako ni syookai-si-ta.

Adverbs, likewise, can be rather freely placed, though each type of adverbs has
its basic position.

(3) a. Saiwainimo Hanako ga gohan o tai-te kure-te i-ta.

luckily Hanako NOM rice ACC cook-GER GIVE-GER BE-PST
‘Luckily Hanako had done the favor of cooking the rice (for us).’
b. Hanako ga saiwainimo gohan o tai-te kure-te i-ta.
c. Hanako ga gohan o saiwainimo tai-te kure-te i-ta.

Notice that while the verbal complex in the sentence above is not as tightly organized
as a complex involving suffixes, a sentence adverb cannot be placed within the verbal
complex, showing that the sequence of tai-te kure-te i-ta forms a tighter constituent,
xx Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

which, however, permits insertion of the topic particle wa after each of the gerundive
forms. (See section 7.4 below on the nature of gerundive forms in Japanese.)
As the normal position of sentence adverbs is sentence initial, manner and
resultative adverbs have an iconically-motivated position, namely before and after
the object noun phrase, respectively, as below, though again these adverbs may
move around with varying degrees of naturalness:

(4) Hanako ga isoide gohan o tai-te kure-ta.

Hanako NOM hurriedly rice ACC cook-GER GIVE-PST
‘Hanako did the favor of cooking the rice hurriedly (for us).’

(5) Hanako ga gohan o yawarakaku tai-te kure-ta.

Hanako NOM rice ACC softly cook-GER GIVE-PST
‘Hanako did the favor of cooking the rice soft (for us).’

The fact that an object noun phrase can be easily separated from the verb, as in (2b.d),
and that adverbs can freely intervene between an object and a verb, as in (5), has
raised the question whether Japanese has a verb phrase consisting of a verb and an
object noun phrase as a tightly integrated constituent parallel to the VP in English
(cf. *cook hurriedly the rice – the asterisk marks ungrammatical forms).

7.3 NP structure
Noun phrases, when they occur as arguments or adjuncts, are marked by case parti-
cles or postpositions that are placed after their host nouns. Because case markers can
be set off by a pause, a filler, or even longer parenthetic material, it is clear that they
are unlike declensional affixes in inflectional languages like German or Russian. Their
exact status, however, is controversial; some researchers regard them as clitics and
others as (non-independent) words.
Elaboration of Japanese noun phrases is done by prenominal modifiers such as
a demonstrative, a genitive noun phrase, or an adjective, as below, indicating that
Japanese is a consistent head-final language at both nominal and clausal levels.

(6) a. kono Taroo no kaban

this Taro GEN bag
lit. ‘this Taro’s bag’

b. Taroo no kono kaban

Taro GEN this bag
lit. ‘Taro’s this bag’
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxi

Japanese lacks determiners of the English type that “close off” NP expansion.
The literal translations of the Japanese forms above are ungrammatical, indicating
that English determiners like demonstratives and genitive noun phrases do not allow
further expansion of an NP structure. Also seen above is the possibility that preno-
minal modifiers can be reordered just like the dependents at the sentence level. The
order of prenominal modifiers, however, is regulated by the iconic principle of placing
closer to the head noun those modifiers that have a greater contribution in specifying
the nature and type of the referent. Thus, descriptive adjectives tend to be placed
closer to a head noun than demonstratives and genitive modifiers of non-descriptive
types. Interesting is the pattern of genitive modifiers, some of which are more
descriptive and are placed closer to the head noun than others. Genitives of the
same semantic type, on the other hand, can be freely reordered. Compare:

(7) a. Yamada-sensei no kuroi kaban

Yamada-professor GEN black bag
‘Professor Yamada’s black bag’
b. *kuroi Yamada-sensei no kaban
(O.K. with the reading of ‘a bag of Professor Yamada who is black’)

(8) a. Yamada-sensei no gengogaku no koogi

Yamada-professor GEN linguistics GEN lecture
‘Professor Yamada’s linguistics lecture’
b. *gengogaku no Yamada-sensei no koogi
(O.K. with the reading of ‘a lecture by Professor Yamada of linguistics’)

(9) a. Yamada-sensei no kinoo no koogi

Yamada-professor GEN yesterday GEN lecture
lit. ‘Professor Yamada’s yesterday’s lecture’ ‘Yesterday’s lecture by
Professor Yamada’
b. Kinoo no Yamada-sensei no koogi

(10) a. oomori no sio-azi no raamen

big.serving GEN salt-tasting GEN ramen
lit. ‘big-serving salt-tasting ramen noodles’
b. sio-azi no oomori no raamen

(11) a. atui sio-azi no raamen

hot salt-tasting GEN ramen
‘hot salt-tasting ramen noodles’
b. sio-azi no atui ramen
xxii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

Numeral classifiers (CLFs) pattern together with descriptive modifiers so that

they tend to occur closer to a head noun than a possessive genitive phrase.

(12) a. Taroo no san-bon no enpitu

Taro GEN three-CLF GEN pencil
‘Taro’s three pencils’
b. *san-bon no Taroo no enpitu

Numeral classifiers also head an NP, where they play a referential function and
where they can be modified by a genitive phrase or an appositive modifier, as in
(13a.b). They may also “float” away from the head noun and become adverbial, as
in (13c).

(13) a. Taroo wa gakusei no san-nin o mikake-ta.

Taro TOP student GEN three-CLF ACC see.by.chance-PST
‘Taro saw three of students by chance.’

b. Taroo wa gakusei san-nin o mikake-ta.

Taro TOP student three-CLF ACC see.by.chance-PST
lit. ‘Taro saw student-threes by chance.’

c. Taroo wa gakusei o san-nin mikake-ta.

Taro TOP student ACC three-CLF see.by.chance-PST
‘Taro saw students, three (of them), by chance.’

As in many other SOV languages, the so-called relative clauses are also prenomi-
nal and are directly placed before their head nouns without the mediation of “relative
pronouns” like the English which or who or “complementizers” like that. The predi-
cates in relative clauses are finite, taking a variety of tense and aspect. The subject
may be replaced by a genitive modifier. Observe (14a).

(14) a. Boku mo [Taroo ga/no kat-ta] hon o kat-ta.

I ADVPART Taro NOM/GEN buy-PST book ACC buy-PST
‘I also bought the book which Taro bought.’

b. Boku mo [Taroo ga/no kat-ta] no o kat-ta.

I ADVPART Taro NOM/GEN buy-PST NM ACC buy-PST
‘I also bought the one which Taro bought.’

The structure used as a modifier in the relative clause construction can also
head a noun phrase, where it has a referential function denoting an entity concept
evoked by the structure. In Standard Japanese such a structure is marked by the
nominalization particle no, as in (14b).
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxiii

7.4 Subject and topic

Some of the sentences above have noun phrases marked by the nominative case par-
ticle ga and some by the topic marker wa for what appear to correspond to the subject
noun phrases in the English translations. This possibility of ga- and wa-marking is
seen below.

(15) a. Yuki ga siro-i.

snow NOM white-PRS
‘The snow is white.’

b. Yuki wa siro-i.
snow TOP white-PRS
‘Snow is white.’

As the difference in the English translations indicates, these two sentences are
different in meaning. Describing the differences between topic and non-topic sentences
has been a major challenge for Japanese grammarians and teachers of Japanese alike.
The difference in the English translations above, however, is indicative of how these
two sentences might differ in meaning. Sentence (15a) describes a state of affairs
involving specific snow just witnessed, whereas (15b) is a generic statement about a
property of snow unbounded by time. Thus, while (15a) would be uttered only when
the witnessed snow is indeed white, (15b) would be construed true even though we
know that there are snow piles that are quite dirty.
A similar difference is seen in verbal sentences as well.

(16) a. Tori ga tob-u.

bird NOM fly-PRS
‘A bird is flying/is about to fly.’

b. Tori wa tob-u.
bird TOP fly-PRS
‘Birds fly.’

Non-topic sentences like (15a) and (16a) are often uttered with an exclamation
accompanying a sudden discovery of a state of affairs unfolding right in front of
one’s eyes. The present tense forms (-i for adjectives and -(r)u for verbs) here anchor
the time of this discovery to the speech time. The present tense forms in (15b) and
(16b), on the other hand, mark a generic tense associated with a universal statement.
These explanations can perhaps be extended to a time-bound topic sentence
seen in (17b) below.
xxiv Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

(17) a. Taroo ga hasit-ta.

Taro NOM run-PST
‘Taro NOM ran.’

b. Taroo wa hasit-ta.
Taro TOP run-PST
‘Taro ran.’

That is, while (17a) reports an occurrence of a particular event at a time prior to the
speech time, (17b) describes the nature of the topic referent – that Taro was engaged
in the running activity – as a universal truth of the referent, but universal only with
respect to a specifically bound time marked by the past tense suffix.
Topics need not be a subject, and indeed any major sentence constituent,
including adverbs, may be marked topic in Japanese, as shown below.

(18) a. Sono hon wa Taroo ga yon-de i-ru.

that book TOP Taro NOM read-GER BE-PRS
‘As for that book, Taro is reading (it).’

b. Kyoo wa tenki ga yo-i.

today TOP weather NOM good-PRS
‘As for today, the weather is good.’

c. Sonnani wa hayaku wa hasir-e na-i.

that.way TOP quickly TOP run-POTEN NEG-PRS
‘That quickly, (I) cannot run.’

7.4 Complex sentences

As in many Altaic languages, compound sentences in Japanese do not involve a coor-
dinate conjunction like English and. Instead, clauses are connected by the use of in-
flected verb forms, as in (19a) below, where the -i ending is glossed in the HJLL series
as either INF (infinitive) or ADVL (adverbal) following the Japanese term ren’yō-kei
for the form. While the -i ending in the formation of compound sentences is still
used today, especially in writing, the more commonly used contemporary form in-
volves a conjunctive particle -te following the -i infinitive form, as in (19b) below. In
HJLL, this combination is glossed as GER (gerundive), though the relevant Japanese
forms do not have the major nominal use of English gerundive forms.

(19) a. Hana wa sak-i, tori wa uta-u.

flower TOP bloom-INF bird TOP sing-PRS
‘Flowers bloom and birds sing.’
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxv

b. Hana wa sa.i-te, tori wa uta-u.

flower TOP bloom-GER bird TOP sing-PRS
‘Flowers bloom and birds sing.’

Both the -i and -te forms play important roles in Japanese grammar. They are
also used in clause-chaining constructions for serial events (20a), and in complex
sentences (20b)–(20d), as well as in numerous compound verbs (and also in many
compound nouns) such as sak-i hokoru (bloom-INF boast) ‘be in full bloom’, sak-i
tuzukeru (bloom-INF continue) ‘continue blooming’, sa.i-te iru (bloom-GER BE) ‘is
blooming’, and sa.i-te kureru (bloom-GER GIVE) ‘do the favor of blooming (for me/us)’.

(20) a. Taroo wa [ok-i/ok.i-te], [kao o ara-i/arat-te],

Taro TOP rise-INF/rise-GER face ACC wash-INF/wash-GER
[gohan o tabe-ta].
meal ACC eat.PST
‘Taro got up, washed his face, and ate a meal.’

b. Taroo wa [sakana o tur-i] ni it-ta.

Taro TOP fish ACC catch-INF DAT go-PST
‘Taro went to catch fish.’

c. Taroo wa [aruk-i nagara] hon o yon-da.

Taro TOP walk-INF SIMUL book ACC read-PST
‘Taro read a book while walking.’

d. Taroo wa [Hanako ga ki-ta no] ni awa-na-katta.

Taro TOP Hanako NOM come-PST NM DAT see-NEG-PST.
‘Taro did not see (her), even though Hanako came.’

(20d) has the nominalized clause marked by the particle no followed by the dative
ni, also seen in (20b) marking the purposive form. Now the no-ni sequence has
been reanalyzed as a concessive conjunction meaning ‘even though’.

7.5 Context dependency

The context dependency of sentence structure in Japanese is much more clearly pro-
nounced than in languages like English. Indeed, it is rare that Japanese sentences
express all the arguments of a verb such as a subject (or topic) and an object noun
phrase included in the sentences used above for illustrative purposes. A typical dialog
would take the following form, where what is inferable from the speech context is
not expressed.
xxvi Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

(21) a. Speaker A: Tokorode, Murakami Haruki no saisin-saku yon-da ka.

by.the.way Murakami Haruki GEN newest-work read-PST Q
‘By the way, have (you) read Haruki Murakami’s latest work?’

b. Speaker B: Un, moo yon-da.

uh-hu already read-PST
‘Uh-hu, (I) already read (it)’.

In (21a) A’s utterance is missing a subject noun phrase referring to the

addressee, and B’s response in (21b) is missing both subject and object noun
phrases. In some frameworks, sentences like these are analyzed as containing zero
pronouns or as involving a process of “pro drop”, which deletes assumed underlying
pronouns. This kind of analysis, however, ignores the role of speech context com-
pletely and incorporates information contextually available into sentence structure.
In an analysis that takes seriously the dialogic relationship between speech context
and sentence structure, the expressions in (21) would be considered full sentences as
they are.

7.6 Predicative verbal complexes and extenders

Coding or repeating contextually determinable verb phrases, as in (21b), is less
offensive than expressing contextually inferable noun phrases presumably because
verb phrases have the predication function of assertion, and because they also code
a wide range of other types of speech acts and of contextual information pertaining
to the predication act. Declarative sentences with plain verbal endings like the one
in (21b) are usable as “neutral” expressions in newspaper articles and literary works,
where no specific reader is intended. In daily discourse, the plain verbal forms “ex-
plicitly” code the speaker’s attitude toward the hearer; namely, that the speaker is
treating the hearer as his equal or inferior in social standing, determined primarily
by age, power, and familiarity. If the addressee were socially superior or if the occa-
sion demanded formality, a polite, addressee honorific form with the suffix -masu
would be used, as below.

(22) Hai, moo yom-i-masi-ta.

yes already read-INF-POL-PST
‘Yes, (I have) already read (it).’

The referent honorific forms are used when the speaker wishes to show defer-
ence toward the referent of arguments – subject honorific and object honorific (or
humbling) forms depending on the type of argument targeted. If (21b) were to be
uttered in reference to a social superior, the following would be more appropriate:
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxvii

(23) Un, (Yamada-sensei wa) moo yom-are-ta.

uh-hu (Yamada-professor TOP) already read-SUB.HON-PST
‘Uh-hu, (Professor Yamada has) already read (it).’

This can be combined with the polite ending -masu, as below, where the speaker’s
deference is shown to both the referent of the subject noun phrase and the addressee:

(24) Hai, (Yamada-sensei wa) moo yom-are-masi-ta.

Yes (Yamada-professor TOP) already read-HON-POL-PST
‘Yes, (Professor Yamada has) already read (it).’

As these examples show, Japanese typically employs agglutinative suffixes in

the elaboration of verbal meanings associated with a predication act. The equiva-
lents of English auxiliary verbs are either suffixes or formatives connected to verb
stems and suffixed forms in varying degrees of tightness. These are hierarchically
structured in a manner that expresses progressively more subjective and interper-
sonal meaning as one moves away from the verb-stem core toward the periphery.
For example, in the following sentence a hyphen marks suffixal elements tightly
bonded to the preceding form, an equal sign marks a more loosely connected forma-
tive, which permits insertion of certain elements such as the topic particle wa, and a
space sets off those elements that are independent words following a finite predicate
form, which may terminate the utterance.

(25) (Taroo wa) ik-ase-rare-taku=na-katta rasi-i mitai des-u wa.

(Taro TOP ) go-CAUS - PASS - DESI = NEG - PST CONJEC - PRS UNCERT POLCOP- PRS SFP
‘(Taro) appears to seem to not want to have been forced to go, I tell you.’

The final particle wa above encodes the information that the speaker is female.
A male speaker would use yo or da yo, the latter a combination of the plain copula
and yo, instead of desu wa above, or combinations such as da ze and da zo in rough
speech.
Non-declarative Japanese sentences, on the other hand, frequently suppress
auxiliary verbs, the copula, and the question particle especially in casual speech,
where intonation and tone of voice provide clues in guessing the intended speech
act. Casual interrogatives take the form of (26a) with a nominalization marker bearing
a rising intonation, marked by the question mark in the transcription, whereas fuller
versions have the interrogative particle ka or a combination of the polite copula and
ka, as in (26b).

(26) a. Moo kaeru no?

already return NM
‘Going home already?’
xxviii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

b. Moo kaeru no (desu) ka.

already return NM (POLCOP) Q
‘Going home already?’

Requests are made with the aid of an auxiliary-like “supporting” verb kureru
‘GIVE (ME THE FAVOR OF. . .)’, its polite form kudasai, or its intimate version tyoodai,
as seen in (27a). Again, these forms are often suppressed in a highly intimate conver-
sation and may result in a form like (27b).

(27) a. Hayaku kaet-te kure/kudasai/tyoodai.

soon return-GER GIVE/GIVE.POL/GIVE.INTI
‘(Please) come home soon (for me/us).’

b. Hayaku kaet-te ne.

soon return-GER SFP
‘(Please) come home soon, won’t you?’

The use of dependent forms (e.g., the gerundive -te form above) as independent sen-
tences is similar to that of subjunctive forms of European languages as independent
sentences, as illustrated by the English sentence below.

(28) If you would give me five thirty-cent stamps.

Conditionals are used as independent suggestion sentences in Japanese as well.

For example, (29a) has a fuller version like (29b) with the copula as a main-clause
verb, which can also be suppressed giving rise to the truncated form (29c).

(29) a. Hayaku kaet-tara?

quickly return-COND
lit. ‘ If return quickly.’ ‘Why don’t you go home quickly?’

b. Hayaku kaet-tara ikaga desu ka.

quickly return-COND how POLCOP Q
lit. ‘How is it if (you) went home quickly?’

c. Hayaku kaet-tara ikaga?

quickly return-COND how
‘Why don’t (you) go home quickly?’

Understanding Japanese utterances requires full recourse to the elements of

speech context, such as the nature of the speaker and the hearer and the social rela-
tionship between them, the information “in the air” that is readily accessible to the
interlocutors, and the formality of the occasion. Indeed, the difficult part of the art of
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxix

speaking Japanese is knowing how much to leave out from the utterance and how to
infer what is left unsaid.

8 Conclusion
Many of the interesting topics in Japanese grammar introduced above are discussed
in great detail in the Lexicon-Word formation handbook and the Syntax volume. The
Historical handbook also traces developments of some of the forms and construc-
tions introduced above. The Sociolinguistics volume gives fuller accounts of the sen-
tence variations motivated by context and discourse genre.

References
Chamberlain, Basil H. 1895. Essay in aid of a grammar and dictionary of the Luchuan language.
Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japanese, vol. 23 supplement.
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Miller, Roy A. 1971. Japanese and the other Altaic languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix: List of abbreviations for HJLL

1 first person
2 second person
3 third person
A agent-like argument of canonical transitive verb
ABL ablative
ACC accusative
ACOP adjectival copula
ADJ adjective
ADN adnominal
ADV adverb(ial(izer))
ADVL adverbal
ADVPART adverbial particle
AGR agreement
AGT agent
ALL allative
AN adjectival noun
xxx Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

ANTIP antipassive
AP adverbial particle, adjective phrase
APPL applicative
ART article
ASP aspect
ATTR attributive
AUX auxiliary
AUXV auxiliary verb
C consonant
CAUS causative
CLF classifier
COHORT cohortative
COM comitative
COMP complementizer
COMPL completive
CONC concessive
CONCL conclusive
COND conditional
CONJEC conjectural
CONJCT conjunctive
CONT continuative
COP copula
CVB converb
DAT dative
D demonstrative
DECL declarative
DEF definite
DEM demonstrative
DET determiner
DESI desiderative
DIST distal
DISTR distributive
DO direct object
DU dual
DUR durative
EMPH emphatic
ERG ergative
ETOP emphatic topic
EVID evidential
EXCL exclamatory, exclusive
EXPL expletive
FOC focus
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxxi

FUT future
GEN genitive
GER gerund(ive)
H high (tone or pitch)
HON honorific
HUM humble
IMP imperative
INCL inclusive
IND indicative
INDEF indefinite
INF infinitive
INS instrumental
INT intentional
INTERJEC interjection
INTI intimate
INTR intransitive
IO indirect object
IRR irrealis
ITERA iterative
k-irr k-irregular (ka-hen)
L low (tone or pitch)
LB lower bigrade (shimo nidan)
LM lower monograde (shimo ichidan)
LOC locative
MPST modal past
MVR mid vowel raising
N noun
n-irr n-irregular (na‐hen)
NCONJ negative conjectual
NEC neccessitive
NEG negative
NM nominalization marker
NMLZ nominalization/nominalizer
NMNL nominal
NOM nominative
NONPST nonpast
NP noun phrase
OBJ object
OBL oblique
OPT optative
P patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb, preposition, post-
position
xxxii Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

PART particle
PASS passive
PCONJ present conjectural
PERF perfective
PL plural
POL polite
POLCOP polite copula
POSS possessive
POTEN potential
PP prepositional/postpositional phrase
PRED predicative
PRF perfect
PRS present
PRES presumptive
PROG progressive
PROH prohibitive
PROV provisional
PROX proximal/proximate
PST past
PSTCONJ past conjectural
PTCP participle
PURP purposive
Q question/question particle/question marker
QD quadrigrade (yodan)
QUOT quotative
r‐irr r‐irregular (ra‐hen)
REAL realis
RECP reciprocal
REFL reflexive
RES resultative
RESP respect
S single argument of canonical intransitive verb, sentence
SBJ subject
SBJV subjunctive
SFP sentence final particle
SG singular
SIMUL simultaneous
s‐irr s-irregular (sa-hen)
SPON spontaneous
SPST simple past
STAT stative
TOP topic
 Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics xxxiii

TR transitive
UB upper bigrade (kami-nidan)
UNCERT uncertain
UM upper monograde (kami-ichidan)
V verb, vowel
VN verbal noun
VOC vocative
VOL volitional
VP verb phrase

Languages
ConJ contemporary Japanese
EMC Early Middle Chinese
EMJ Early Middle Japanese
EOJ Eastern Old Japanese
J-Ch Japano-Chinese
LMC Late Middle Chinese
LMJ Late Middle Japanese
JPN Japanese
MC Middle Chinese
MJ Middle Japanese
MK Middle Korean
ModJ Modern Japanese
OC Old Chinese
OJ Old Japanese
pJ proto-Japanese
pK proto-Korean
SJ Sino-Japanese
Skt Sanskrit
Table of contents

Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama

Preface v
Masayoshi Shibatani and Taro Kageyama
Introduction to the Handbooks of Japanese Language and Linguistics vii

Contributors xxxvii

Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Introduction 1

Yoshio Nitta
1 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 27

Wesley M. Jacobsen
2 Transitivity 55

Takashi Masuoka
3 Topic and subject 97

Hisashi Noda
4 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 123

Isao Iori
5 The layered structure of the sentence 157

Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kun

6 Functional syntax 187

Seizi Iwata
7 Locative alternation 235

Masayoshi Shibatani
8 Nominalization 271

Heiko Narrog
9 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 333

Nobuko Hasegawa
10 Modality 371
xxxvi Table of contents

Tomoko Ishizuka
11 The passive voice 403

Hideki Kishimoto
12 Case marking 447

Yoshihisa Kitagawa
13 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 497

Masatoshi Koizumi
14 Subject 553

Shigeru Miyagawa
15 Numeral quantifiers 581

Yoichi Miyamoto
16 Relative clauses 611

Nobuaki Nishioka
17 Expressions that contain negation 635

Masao Ochi
18 Ga/no conversion 663

Mamoru Saito
19 Ellipsis 701

Natsuko Tsujimura
20 Syntax and argument structure 751

Akira Watanabe
21 Attributive modification 783

Noriko Yoshimura
22 Scrambling 807

Subject index 845

Contributors
Nobuko Hasegawa (Ph.D., University of Washington, 1981) is Professor of Linguistics
at Graduate School of Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies.
Her research interests are in the comparative syntactic studies of Japanese and
English. Her publications include an authored book (Seisei-Nihongogaku Nyūmon,
Taishūkan, 1999), edited books (Nihongo no Shubun-Genshō, Kaitakusha, 2007;
Tōgoron no Shintenkai to Nihongo Kenkyū, Kaitakusha, 2010) and journal papers in
Linguistic Analysis, The Linguistic Review, Journal of Japanese Linguistics, etc.

Isao Iori (Ph.D., Ōsaka University, 1997) is Professor at the Center for Global Educa-
tion, Hitotsubashi University. His research is concerned with cohesion, noun, tense/
aspect, and their behaviors in Japanese text. He is the author of Zō wa Hana ga
Nagai Nyūmon (Introduction to the Grammatical Theory by Akira Mikami) (Kurosio
Publishers, 2003), Nihongo ni okeru Tekisuto no Kessokusei no Kenkyū (Study of
Cohesion in Japanese Text) (Kurosio Publishers, 2007), Atarasii Nihongogaku Nyūmon
(Dai 2han) (Introduction to Japanese Linguistics, 2nd Edition) (3A Network, 2012) and
Yasashii Nihongo: Tabunka Kyōsei Syakai e (Easy Japanese: For a Sustainable Multi-
cultural Society) (Iwanami Shoten, 2016).

Tomoko Ishizuka (Ph.D., UCLA 2010) is Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law
at Aoyama Gakuin University. Her research interests are the interaction between
morphology and syntax, especially in the areas of voice and nominal phrases. She
is the author of The Passive in Japanese: A Cartographic Minimalist Approach (John
Benjamins, 2012).

Seizi Iwata is a professor of English Linguistics at Kansai University. His main

research interest lies with lexical semantics. He is the author of Locative Alternation:
A Lexical-Constructional Approach (John Benjamins, 2008) and has published papers
in such journals as Journal of Linguistics, Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics, and Lin-
guistics and Philosophy.
Wesley M. Jacobsen is Professor of the Practice of the Japanese Language and
Director of the Japanese Language Program at Harvard University. His research is
concerned with voice, modality, tense/aspect, and their interaction in Japanese. He
is the author of The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese (Kurosio Publishers,
1992) and co-editor of On Japanese and How to Teach It (Japan Times, 1990) and
Transitivity and valency alternations: studies on Japanese and beyond (Mouton, 2016).
He has contributed chapters to Polymorphous Linguistics (MIT Press, 2005), Current
Issues in the History and Structure of Japanese (Kurosio Publishers, 2007), Nihongo
Kyōiku no Atarashii Chihei o Hiraku (Opening New Horizons in Japanese Pedagogy)
(Hituzi Syobo, 2014), and The handbook of Japanese lexicon and word formation
(Mouton, 2016).
xxxviii Contributors

Hideki Kishimoto (Ph.D., Kobe University, 1991) is Professor of Linguistics at Kobe

University, specializing in lexical semantics, morphology, and syntax. He is the
author of Tōgo-kōzō to bunpō-kankei [Syntactic structures and grammatical relations]
(Kurosio Publishers, 2005) and Beisikku seiseibunpō [A basic guide to generative
grammar] (Hituzi Syobo, 2009), and co-editor of the Handbook of Japanese lexicon
and word formation (De Gruyter Mouton, 2016). He contributed to The Oxford hand-
book of Japanese linguistics (Oxford University Press, 2008) and published articles
in Language, Linguistic Inquiry, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Journal of
Linguistics, The Linguistic Review, Lingua, Studies in Language, Journal of East Asian
Linguistics, Journal of Japanese Linguistics, Word Structure, and Gengo Kenkyu.

Yoshihisa Kitagawa (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1986) is a pro-

fessor in the Department of Linguistics, an adjunct faculty of East Asian Studies
Center, and an associate member of Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University.
His research interests are in syntax and its interfaces. His publications include
Subjects in Japanese and English (1994, Garland), Sēsē-bunpō no Kangae-kata (2004,
Kenkyusha, co-authored), Prosody at the Grammatical Crossroads – Japanese and
Beyond (2013, co-edited special issue in Lingua), and journal articles in English
Linguistics, Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Journal of Japanese Linguistics, Lingua,
Linguistic Inquiry, and Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.

Masatoshi Koizumi (Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995) is a professor

in the Department of Linguistics in Tohoku University. His research interests are in
grammatical theory and neurocognition of language. He is author of Phrase Struc-
ture in Minimalist Syntax, Bun-no Kozō [Clausal Architecture], and journal articles in
Frontiers in Psychology, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Language, Lingua, Linguistic
Inquiry, and so on.
Susumu Kuno (Ph.D., Harvard University, 1964) is Professor of Linguistics Emeritus at
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., USA. He was a Guggenheim Fellow in 1977–78.
He received an honorary doctorate from Universite’ Paris VII in 1997. His research has
been focused on elucidating cross-linguistic semantic/pragmatic principles that inter-
act with syntactic constraints. His publications include The Structure of the Japanese
Language (MIT Press, 1973), Nihonbunō Kenkyū [A Study of Japanese Grammar]
(Taishūkan Shoten, 1973), Danwa no Bunpō [Discourse Grammar] (Taishūkan Shoten,
1978), Functional Syntax (University of Chicago Press, 1978), Shin-Nihonbunō Kenkyū
[A New Study of Japanese Grammar] (Taishūkan Shoten, 1983), and journal articles
in Linguistic Inquiry, Language, Natural Language Semantics and Studies in Language.

Takashi Masuoka is Professor of Japanese linguistics at Kansai Gaidai University.

He has research interests in Japanese grammar (syntax and semantics) and gram-
matical constructions. His publications include Meidai no Bunpō [A Grammar of
Proposition] (Kurosio Publishers, 1987), Fukubun [Complex Sentence Constructions]
(Kurosio Publishers, 1997), Nihongo Modariti Tankyū [Investigations on Japanese
 Contributors xxxix

Modality] (Kurosio Publishers, 2007), and Nihongo Kōbun Imiron [Japanese Construc-
tion Semantics] (Kurosio Publishers, 2013).

Shigeru Miyagawa is Professor of Linguistics and Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japa-

nese Language & Culture at MIT. His publications include two Linguistic Inquiry
Monographs from MIT Press, Why Agree? Why Move? (2010) and Agreement Beyond
Phi (2017). He has also published Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order (2012),
Rutledge Leading Linguists Series; Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics (2008),
co-edited with Mamoru Saito; and Structure and Case Marking in Japanese (1989). He
has numerous articles in linguistics journals such as Linguistic Inquiry and several
articles on language evolution in Frontiers in Psychology. Since 2013, he has been
jointly appointed at the University of Tokyo, where he is Project Professor and the
Director of Online Education. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Arizona
in 1980 and his B.A. from the International Christian University (Tokyo) in 1975.

Yoichi Miyamoto (Ph.D. University of Connecticut, 1994) is an Associate Professor in

Linguistics at the Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University. His
research interests relate to comparative syntax of Japanese and English, along with
first and second language acquisition with a special focus on the syntax-semantics
interface. His publications include “On the Nominal-internal Distributive Interpreta-
tion in Japanese” ( Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2009), “On Transparent Adjuncts
in Japanese” (Ways of Structure Building, Oxford University Press, 2012), and “On
Chinese and Japanese Relative Clauses and NP-ellipsis” ( Japanese Syntax in Com-
parative Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2014).

Heiko Narrog is professor at Tohoku University, Japan. He received a PhD in Japanese

studies from the Ruhr University Bochum in 1997, and a PhD in language studies
from Tokyo University in 2002. His publications include Modality in Japanese and
the Layered Structure of Clause (Benjamins, 2009), Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic
Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (OUP, 2012), and The Oxford Handbook of
Linguistic Analysis (OUP, 2010) and The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (OUP,
2011), both co-edited with Bernd Heine.

Yoshio Nitta (LITTD) is a Professor Emeritus of Osaka University. His research centers
around the descriptive study of Modern Japanese, especially modality and the syntax-
lexicon interface. His publications include Goironteki Tōgoron [Lexical Syntax] (Meiji
Shoin 1980), Nihongo no modaritī to Ninshō [Japanese Modality and Person] (Hitsuji
Shobō, 1991), and Fukushi Hyōgen no Shosō [Aspects of Adverbial Expressions]
(Kurosio Publisshers, 2002).

Hisashi Noda (Ph.D., University of Tsukuba, 1999) is Professor of JSL Research Divi-
sion, National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, Tokyo. He works on
Japanese grammar and Japanese as a second language. He is the author of Wa to ga
[Japanese particles wa and ga] (Kurosio Publishers, 1996), co-author of Nihongo no
xl Contributors

bunpō 4: Fukubun to danwa [Japanese grammar 4: Complex sentences and discourse]

(Iwanami Shoten, 2002), the editor of Nihongo kyōiku no tame no komyunikēshon
kenkyū [Communication studies for Japanese language education] (Kurosio Publishers,
2012), and co-editor of Nihongo no hairyo hyōgen no tayōsei: Rekishi-teki henka to
chiri-teki, shakai-teki hen’i [The variety of politeness in Japanese language: Historical
changes and geographical-social variations] (Kurosio Publishers, 2014).

Nobuaki Nishioka (Ph.D., Osaka University, 2006) is a Professor at the English

Department, Faculty of Humanities, Kyushu University. His research interest is in
syntax and linguistic theory, especially negative phenomena and clause structures
in Japanese and English. His publications include an authored book (Eigo Hiteibun
no Tōgoron Kenkyū (Kurosio Publishers, 2007)), co-edited books (Kotobano Shirube
(Kyushu Univ. Press, 2005), Kotoba to Kokoro no Tankyū, (Kaitakusha, 2012)), and
book/journal papers in Syntactic and Functional Explorations: In Honor of Susumu
Kuno (Kurosio Publishers, 2000), Hitei to Gengoriron (Kaitakusha, 2010), English
Linguistics, Studies in English Literature, and Glossa (with Shigeru Miyagawa and
Hedde Zeijlstra).

Masao Ochi (Ph.D., University of Connecticut, 1999) is an Associate Professor at

the Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University. His research has
focused on various aspects of theoretical syntax, including Case alternation phe-
nomena, noun phrase structure, and wh-dependencies. His publications include
articles in journals such as English Linguistics, Iberia, Journal of East Asian Linguistics,
Lingua, and Syntax.

Mamoru Saito completed his Ph.D. at MIT in 1985 and is currently Professor of
Linguistics at Nanzan University. His main research interest is in Japanese syntax
and syntactic theory. Among his recent articles are “Cartography and Selection:
Case Studies in Japanese” (in Ur Shlonsky, ed., Beyond Functional Sequence, Oxford
University Press, 2015), “Remnant Movement, Radical Reconstruction, and Binding
Relations” (in Günther Grewendorf, ed., Remnant Movement, de Gruyter, 2015), and
“(A) Case for Labeling: Labeling in Languages without ɸ-feature Agreement” (The
Linguistic Review 33.1, 2016).

Masayoshi Shibatani is Deedee McMurtry Professor of Humanities and Professor

of Linguistics at Rice University and a Professor Emeritus at Kobe University. He
specializes in linguistic theory, language typology, syntax, Japanese linguistics,
and Austronesian linguistics with wide-ranging field experiences in Japanese and
Ryukyuan dialects, Ainu, Austronesian languages in the Philippines, Indonesia and
Taiwan, as well as Amazonian languages in Brazil. He is the author of Nihongo no
Bunseki [Analysis of Japanese] (Taishūkan shoten, 1978) and The Languages of Japan
(Cambridge University Press, 1990) and the (co-)editor of Japanese Generative Grammar
(Academic Press, 1976), Approaches to Language Typology (Oxford University Press,
1995), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation (John Benjamins,
 Contributors xli

2002), and Syntactic Complexity (John Benjamins, 2009). His articles, numbering over
one hundred, have appeared in major linguistics journals, handbooks, and interna-
tional encyclopedias.

Ken-ichi Takami (Ph.D., Tokyo Metropolitan University, 1990) is Professor of Lin-

guistics at Gakushuin University, Tokyo, Japan. His research is concerned with
functional analyses of various English and Japanese constructions. His publications
include Preposition Stranding (Mouton de Gruyter, 1992, Ichikawa Award); Grammar
and Discourse Principles (University of Chicago Press, 1993, coauthored with Susumu
Kuno); Quantifier Scope (Kurosio Publishers, 2002, coauthored with Susumu Kuno);
Functional Constraints in Grammar (John Benjamins, 2004, coauthored with Susumu
Kuno); and journal papers in Language (1999, 2001), Linguistic Inquiry (1997), Lingua
(1988), Journal of Pragmatics (1987) and Linguistic Analysis (1985, 1990, 1992).

Natsuko Tsujimura (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1987) is Professor in the Depart-

ment of East Asian Languages and Cultures and Adjunct Professor in the Department
of Linguistics at Indiana University, Bloomington. She is the author of An Introduction
to Japanese Linguistics, Third Edition (Wiley Blackwell, 2014), and the editor of
Japanese Linguistics: Critical Concepts (Routledge, 2005) and The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics (Wiley Blackwell, 1999). Her published articles in journals and book
chapters including Cognitive Linguistics, Lingua, Linguistic Inquiry, Linguistics, Studies
in Language, and Transitivity and Valency Alternations (De Gruyter Mouton) have
focused on a wide range of issues involving Japanese verbs as they are relevant to
theories in phonology, syntax, semantics, and sociolinguistics.

Noriko Yoshimura is Research Professor and Director of Language and Communi-

cation Research Center at the University of Shizuoka. She received her Ph.D. in
linguistics from the University of Southern California in 1992. Her research focuses
primarily on Japanese-English comparative syntax and Japanese dialect syntax.
Her other research interest is in grammatical transfer at the syntax-semantics-prosody
interfaces in second language acquisition. Her recent articles include Dialectal per-
spectives on the emergence of Japanese complementizer NO (2010), New Perspectives
on Double O Constructions in Japanese (2011), Distributional patterns of syntactic and
semantic/pragmatic coding in four Japonic varieties (2015, with Shoichi Iwasaki),
and The modularity of grammar in L2 acquisition (2105, with Mineharu Nakayama).

Akira Watanabe (Ph.D., MIT, 1993) is a professor of linguistics in the department of

English at the University of Tokyo. His major research interests lie in the theory of
universal grammar and parametric syntax. He has published articles on Case, switch
reference, negative concord, models of parameter setting, the structure of DP, theory
of phi-feature agreement, syntax of adjectives and adpositions, and diachronic
changes in the history of Japanese. He is also the author of Case Absorption and
Wh-Agreement (Kluwer 1996). He is currently involved in the project on degree
modification.
Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda
Introduction

Landscape of studies in Japanese grammar

Before introducing individual contributions to this volume, it seems appropriate to
provide a quick bird’s-eye view of the major approaches to the study of Japanese
grammar, beginning with the oldest framework, known as Kokugogaku (national-
language study).
The root of the Kokugogaku tradition goes back to the middle of the Edo period
(1603–1868), when the grammatical study of Classical Japanese was recognized as a
field of scholarly interest and value, and which, along with studies in the fields of
classical Japanese literature, poetics, Shintoism, history, and geography, formed the
backbone in the formation of the Kokugaku (national study) school in a movement
toward establishing a field of native Japanese studies apart from the then prevailing
Chinese studies centered around Confucianism.
Over a period of more than two hundred years, the Kokugogaku framework has
produced a huge amount of scholarly results of high value in all aspects of the
Japanese language, ranging from historical to synchronic studies of different his-
torical periods, from phonetics to the lexicon, from syntax to semantics, and from
dialect studies to studies of Modern Standard Japanese, though the emphasis has
always been on the historical side, especially on Old, Middle, and Early Modern
Japanese.
With an increased number of foreign scholars specializing in Japanese gram-
matical studies, on the one hand, and a dramatic rise in the number of non-native
learners of Japanese, on the other, scholars in the field turned their attention to the
study of Modern Japanese, in part out of a need to prepare suitable textbooks for
non-native learners of Japanese. In the beginning, those trained in the Kokugogaku
tradition as well as specialists in European languages like English and Spanish bore
the burden of tasks related to teaching Japanese to non-native speakers. However,
the establishment of university units devoted to training both teachers and specialist
researchers of Japanese as a second language has produced a large number of scholars
with interest in Japanese grammar whose training did not include the traditional
study of Japanese. This and the nationalistic flavor of the terms Kokugo (national
language) and Kokugogaku (national-language study) led to the establishment of
the term Nihongogaku (Japanese-language study) some thirty years ago. As opposed
to the Kokugogaku tradition, the Nihongogaku framework mainly focuses on Modern
Japanese and on contrastive studies of Japanese with the languages of Europe and
Asia. The Nihongogaku scholars are perhaps more open and receptive to newer
theoretical developments abroad than those who receive training in the Kokugogaku
tradition, who tend to be less proficient in foreign languages.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-001
2 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Following this general trend, the Kokugogakkai (national-language society), estab-

lished in 1944, changed its name to Nihongogakkai (The Society for Japanese
Linguistics1) in 2004, and its journal Kokugogaku (national-language study) became
Nihongo no Kenkyu (Study of Japanese Language).
In the middle of the 1960’s, a handful of Japanese students and a few American
scholars started earnest studies of Japanese grammar within the Chomskyan genera-
tive grammar framework. Their pioneering works galvanized the field of Japanese
syntactic studies and inspired a large number of younger scholars (Japanese and
non-Japanese alike) to follow suit with voluminous results, mainly in syntax, but
also in phonology, the lexicon, and semantics. Due to the typological differences
between English and Japanese, the study of Japanese has been strongly encouraged,
with research results widely read and taken seriously by non-Japanese specialists
for theoretical interest. As a result, Japanese has become one of the most studied
languages along with English in this framework. With a history of more than half
a century, generative grammar is now a mature field customarily mentioned in
introductory linguistics textbooks as an analytical tool useful in discovering and
analyzing grammatical structures. As the chapters on formal syntax in this volume
demonstrate, the generative tradition in Japanese linguistics continues strong among
the adherents of generative grammar, although its impact on the broader community
of Japanese grammatical studies is felt less strongly nowadays. Indeed, newer
approaches to linguistics in general and to Japanese grammar in particular have
been explored by those who did not practice generative grammar in the first place,
as well as by some of those who have turned away from the generative tradition.
By the turn of the century, a sizable quantity of work on Japanese grammar had
been produced in the typological and the functional framework, both of which have
venerable roots in pre-Saussurean Europe. A broader definition of functionalism in
linguistics would subsume typological studies, especially studies that seek func-
tional explanations for crosslinguistic typological variation. While some aspects of
the typological approach have been adopted and incorporated in the generative
framework2, functional linguistics is characterized, and distinguished from genera-
tive grammar, by its emphasis on the communicative functions of language and its
commitment to offering grammar-external explanations for linguistic phenomena, as
opposed to the theory- and grammar-internal explanations of generative grammar.
Because of their positioning of grammar within the domain of general cognition,
as opposed to the Chomskyan hypothesis of a unique language faculty, and because
of their analyses and explanations of grammatical phenomena with reference to cogni-
tive processes such as conceptualization, categorization, image-schema, metaphor,

1 Not to be confused with the Linguistic Society of Japan (Nihon Gengogakkai), which is a separate
organization devoted to general linguistics.
2 See Fukui (1995), for example.
 Introduction 3

and metonymy, many functionalists believe that their approaches constitute a genu-
ine cognitive linguistics framework. With the establishment of the Nihon Ninchi
Gakkai (Japan Cognitive Science Society) in 1983, cognitive-functional studies of
Japanese have become popular in Japan, attracting a large number of younger
scholars, as evidenced by the formation of the Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai (Japanese
Cognitive Linguistics Association) in 2000.

This volume
With a history of nearly two hundred and fifty years, summarizing achievements
in Japanese grammatical studies is no mean task. Instead of attempting to cover all
different approaches and schools of thought, the initial intention of this volume was
to focus on works representing the four strands of research efforts briefly reviewed
above. However, even this goal turned out to be highly challenging because of
various logistic considerations, including preparation of English manuscripts by
scholars with little experience in English. The wide range of research topics was
another issue, making it impractical for a single volume to cover even a fraction of
all the promising results that have been accumulated over the years.
What we decided in the end was to yield ground to other relevant companion
volumes in this handbook series, which cover many topics in Japanese syntax and
their analysis under different theoretical persuasions. In particular, the Handbook of
Japanese Historical Linguistics contains a large number of contributions presenting
results of research within the Kokugogaku tradition. The Handbook of Japanese Lexicon
and Word Formation includes many papers dealing with issues relating to morphology-
syntax interactions. And the Handbook of Japanese Contrastive Linguistics is devoted
to articles dealing with many central topics in Japanese syntax. This decision made
our task easier, allowing us to be selective in our choice of topics and to highlight
only those not taken up in these companion volumes. For example, of the two major
voice phenomena, we only take up passive constructions because the contrastive
volume has a major contribution on causative constructions. Studies within the
Kokugogaku and the Nihongogaku traditions receive less attention in this volume, as
they are well represented in the other volumes mentioned. Below is a brief introduc-
tion to the topics and the orientations of the papers appearing in this volume.

Nitta
Yoshio Nitta, originally trained in the Kokugogaku tradition, has been developing
his own framework of grammatical analysis focusing on the interconnectedness
between sentence types and the structural elements forming sentences. In his own
words, “[t]he type of the sentence affects its internal structure, and affects the types
4 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

of grammatical categories that can appear in a sentence and how the grammatical
meaning associated with the grammatical categories is realized.”
Nitta elaborates on this kind of connection between sentence types and their
internal elements by dividing sentences into the following types: freestanding word
sentences and predicate sentences. The latter is subdivided into several subtypes
depending on the parts of speech forming their predicates – verbal sentences, adjec-
tival sentences, and nominal sentences. In terms of the events described, predicate
sentences are divided into action sentences, stative sentences, and attributive sentences.
And from the perspective of communicative function, sentences can be divided into
declarative, interrogative, imperative, and purposive. The paper also touches on
several central issues in Japanese grammar including the layered structuring of
sentential elements, a topic taken up separately by Isao Iori in his contribution to
this volume.

Jacobsen
The notion of transitivity and its morphological and syntactic manifestations have
been one of the perennial problems addressed in a variety of frameworks from the
founding days of the Kokugogaku tradition all the way to the present day in the
frameworks of generative grammar and functional typology. While modern studies
tend to focus on individual issues centering on the morphological marking patterns
of transitive-intransitive verb pairs, on causative constructions, on passive construc-
tions, on the typology of ditransitive constructions, etc., MOTO’ORI Haruniwa, in his
pioneering work Kotoba no kayoiji (Passage to language; 1828), offered a comprehen-
sive scheme of verb classification that distinguishes six categories of: Onozukara
shikaru (inactive intransitive), Mizukara shikasuru (active intransitive), Mono o
shikasuru (accusative-object transitive), Ta ni shikasuru (dative-object transitive), Ta
o sikasasuru (causative), Onozukara shikaseraruru (spontaneous), and Ta ni shika-
seraruru (passive), suggesting that these different manifestations of transitivity and
voice must somehow be accounted for in a coherent manner3.
Jacobsen first focuses on three dimensions of transitivity correlating with the
semantically motivated notion of valency, the syntactic realization of a direct object,
and the morphological marking patterns of the transitive-intransitive verb-pairs.
Despite these manifestations of transitivity being spread over three areas of grammar,
Jacobsen maintains that transitivity is a unitary phenomenon tied together by a
common parameter of marking a degree of differentiation between two entities partic-
ipating in an event. In particular, he offers an analysis based on intentional meaning

3 See Shibatani (2006) for a view of issues in transitivity as constituting a part in a larger conceptual
framework of voice, addressing these constructions as well as applicatives, benefactives and some
others.
 Introduction 5

that makes reference to an intending entity and an intended event or a participant

in the intended resulting event. In other words, the bivalency of a transitive con-
struction is rooted in the underlying intentional meaning. Whether or not syntactic
transitivity in terms of the presence of an accusative-marked object materializes
depends on the degree of differentiation between the two event participants. In the
final section, Jacobsen discusses the relationship between transitivity and voice,
examining how the meaning and function of lexical transitive forms interact with
those of causative and passive forms.

Masuoka
Another perennial issue in Japanese grammar, studied throughout the history of
grammatical studies both in Japan and abroad, has been explicating the function of
the topic particle wa. One of the earliest studies on this particle is found in TOGANOI
Michitoshi’s Teniha abikizuna (1770), which states that wa has “the effect of making
judgment emphatic or describing an entity by separating [it from others].” FUJITANI
Nariakira from the same period tells us that wa “separates an entity and makes a
judgment [about it]” (Ayuishō 1778). Remarkably, these traditional characterizations
of the function of wa have been echoed in the works of non-native scholars, as seen
in W.G. Aston’s remark that “[w]a is used not only to isolate or single out one or
more objects from a number, but also contrast one object with another” (A Grammar
of the Japanese written language 1872: 51).
Masuoka takes up this time-honored grammatical problem by contrasting the
topic and the subject. From his survey of modern studies on this topic, Masuoka
gleans three perspectives taken in past studies: (a) ones that attempt to understand
the nature of the topic and the subject in terms of predication types of “property
predication” and “event predication”, (b) efforts to delineate the topic/subject dis-
tinction from the perspective of language typology, and (c) those focusing on the
communicative function, especially the distinction of known (old)/unknown (new)
information.
Masuoka’s own views on the problem can be summarized as: (i) The notions of
topic and subject derive from the inherent characteristics of the two predication types,
property predication and event predication. Sentences of a topic-prominent language
like Japanese are based on property predication, whereas a subject-prominent lan-
guage like English bases the architecture of sentences on event predication. (ii) The
notion of topic and that of subject are not mutually exclusive – covert subjects and
covert topics are respectively allowed for Japanese and English. (iii) The notion of
topic is associated with both cognitive and communicative functions; in languages
like Japanese, the former plays a greater role than the latter.
6 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Noda
In the traditional classification of Japanese particles, the topic wa has been classified
as a Kakarijoshi (binding or concordial particle) or Fukujoshi (adverbial particle)
along with other particles such as mo ‘also’, koso ‘especially’ and dake ‘only’. A
group of modern grammarians some thirty years ago started to study these particles
under the rubric of Toritate ‘focusing’, including the contrastive use of the topic
particle wa (but perhaps not its non-contrastive topic use). Noda provides a compre-
hensive overview of the toritate particles examining their morphological, syntactic,
and semantic properties.
Noda identifies the following properties that set toritate particles apart from
other types of Japanese particles: (i) A single toritate particle may express multiple
meanings, e.g. mo marks both similarity and extreme meanings. (ii) Unlike case
particles that attach to noun phrases, toritate particles attach to adverbs, subordinate
clauses, and predicates, in addition to noun phrases. (iii) Unlike case particles, toritate
particles may have co-occurrence restrictions with regard to the verbal categories of
tense and modality. Besides a detailed analysis of the syntactic properties of toritate
particles, such as the levels of clausal and sentential structure at which different
toritate particles interact, Noda offers a semantic scheme consisting of three domains
of polar opposites in an attempt to capture the systematic patterns that toritate
particles display: Restriction – Anti-restriction (e.g. dake ‘only’ – demo ‘even if it
is’), Extremes – Anti-extremes (e.g. sae ‘even’ – nanka ‘even though it is’), and
Similarity – Anti-similarity (e.g. mo ‘also, as well’ – wa ‘contrast, unlike the others’).

Iori
The hierarchical organization of syntactic constituents plays a very important role in
generative grammar, as many rules and principles are formulated in terms of hierar-
chical structures. In functional linguistics, emphasis has been not so much on the
structural configuration of sentence structures as on the linear ordering of elements
surrounding the predicate form, in particular, the order of a verb stem and accom-
panying derivational and inflectional morphemes such as those marking valence
change, voice, aspect, tense, mood, number, and person (cf. Bybee 1985). Independ-
ently from these approaches, Japanese grammarians, since the 1950’s, have been
concerned with the layered structuring of sentential elements that largely determines
the order of the verb stem and those morphemes marking grammatical categories.
Iori reviews pioneering works of MOTOKI Tokieda and MIKAMI Akira and
the major contributions made on this issue by MINAMI Fujio, as well as those by
contemporary grammarians who build on Minami’s seminal work in an attempt to
refine the model and to garner further insights from it. As mentioned by Iori, the
achievements by Japanese grammarians have high relevance to the studies on the
 Introduction 7

hierarchical representations of linguistic structure attempted in generative grammar

(e.g. cartography).
One major insight into the nature of the layered syntactic structure brought out
in Minami’s work is that those structures higher in rank cannot be embedded below
those of a lower rank. The possibility of embedding is found only between those
involving structures of the same rank or between an embedding structure at a higher
rank and a lower ranked embedded structure. In other words, Minami’s is a much
more tightly constrained model of syntax than the one entertained in generative
grammar, which freely allows embedding of clausal structures higher in rank such
as IP and CP below structures of lower rank such as NP/DP and VP.

Takami and Kuno

The Chomskyan paradigm in linguistics came with a new methodology in linguistic
analysis that heavily relies on native-speaker intuition on the grammaticality of
isolated sentences often constructed by analysts themselves. As an antidote to
this methodology, which is still widely practiced by both Chomskyan and non-
Chomskyan linguists today, Susumu Kuno in the 1970’s developed his own version
of functional linguistics, which contends that syntactic analysis independent of the
usage context is untenable since native speaker judgment on constructed sentences
crucially depends on grammar-external discourse factors such as functional perspec-
tives, old- and new-information, focus of attention, and evidentiality.
In their contribution to this volume, Takami and Kuno demonstrate with ample
examples that currently proposed analyses of various constructions that rely on
the grammaticality judgment of isolated sentences and that offer grammar-internal
explanations are fundamentally incorrect since grammaticality judgment changes
according to the availability of supporting context and because the usage pattern
(or the variation in grammaticality judgment) is determined by grammar-external
factors. They show, for example, that various accounts that invoke the Unaccusative
Hypothesis one way or another in analyzing the purported difference in grammati-
cality such as seen between (a) and (b) below are all problematic because sentences
of the same pattern involving so-called unaccusative verbs are acceptable when
framed in particular ways, as in (c), for example.

(a) gakusei ni zyugyootyuu ni osyaberi-sareru (unergative verb)

‘(I) had students chattering during the class’

(b) *genkan no kabin ni warerareru (unaccusative verb)

‘(I) had the flower vase in the entrance break (on me)’

(c) soturon siage no ziki ni pasokon ni kowarerarete. . . (unaccusative verb)

‘(I) had my laptop breakdown at the time of completing my graduation thesis’.
8 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Takami and Kuno, after reviewing these issues and summarizing the achieve-
ments of Kuno’s functional approach, offer an original analysis of -te aru construc-
tions (e.g. mado ga akete aru ‘the window is left open’) further demonstrating that
past accounts based on grammar-internal factors such as verb semantics (e.g. involve-
ment of change-of-state and change-of-location verbs) are far from adequate. Instead,
they offer an analysis based on the following extra-grammatical constraints:
(i) the speaker (the hearer in the case of interrogative sentences) has direct evidence
that the intentional action the verb represents was performed by someone for
some future purpose, and that
(ii) the state caused by the action is significant to the speaker at the moment of
speech.

Iwata
Points similar to those seen in the works of Kuno and Takami are made by Iwata,
who asserts that a satisfactory analysis of linguistic phenomena demands not only
detailed grammar-internal investigation but also grammar-external explanations.
He demonstrates this by looking at the phenomenon known as locative alternation
illustrated below:

a. kabe ni penki o nuru (ni-variant)

wall on paint ACC smear
‘smear paint on the wall’

a’. kabe o penki de nuru (de-variant)

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’

b. mizu o hodoo ni maku (ni-variant)

water ACC sidewalk on sprinkle
‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’

b’. *hodoo o mizu de maku (de-variant)

sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle
‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’

Iwata contends that the question of which verbs (both basic and derived types)
allow this kind of alternation under what circumstances cannot be answered simply
in terms of a single rule or in terms of a strictly lexical process, as previously pro-
posed by formally oriented linguists. Instead of the previous verb-based accounts,
he argues for a construction-based analysis in the spirit of Construction Grammar
advocated by Charles Fillmore and Paul Kay and their associates. In this approach,
 Introduction 9

grammatical devices such as lexical rules converting verbs into another type or
syntactic rules deriving one construction from another are not posited. Alternating
sentences are each recognized as instantiations of abstract grammatical construc-
tions that represent the speaker’s alternative construals of events. These grammati-
cal constructions, characterized by the features abstracted from concrete instances,
determine the productivity of alternation patterns in terms of the compatibility
between the verb meaning and the schematic constructions, sanctioning new instances
that conform to their specifications and disallowing those that deviate from them.4

Shibatani
Shibatani’s voluminous contribution is an innovative, comprehensive treatment of
grammatical nominalization phenomena widely observed but quite understudied,
not only in Japanese studies but also in works dealing with other languages. This
ambitious chapter first defines nominalization as a metonymically motivated process
that enriches the expressive power of language by allowing existing lexical and
grammatical resources to denote novel concepts on the basis of the intimate rela-
tions perceived between them and the concepts denoted by the base forms. While
recognizing distinctions between lexical and grammatical nominalization, between
argument and event nominalization, as well as between verbal-based and nominal-
based nominalization, Shibatani contends that they represent a unified phenomenon
characterized by common meaning and syntactic functions and by shared morpho-
logical properties.
The two most striking fallouts of Shibatani’s new analysis are; (i) a new treat-
ment of so-called relative clauses, which simply turn out to be uses of nominalizations
and which are not structures independent from them, and (ii) a novel analysis of the
so-called genitive case, which turns out to be nominal-based nominalization. Under
this analysis, so-called headless relative clauses represent an NP-use of argument
nominalizations allowing these to head an NP, where they play referential function.
So-called internally headed RCs are no more than an NP-use of event nominalizations.
Both argument and event nominalizations allow modification-use, where they either
restrict or identify the denotation of the head noun. These uses are what are known
as relative clauses and content clauses, under the assumption that they are clauses.
The new analysis reveals that these are not really clauses, whose predication function,
Shibatani claims, is different from the entity-denoting function of nominals, includ-
ing lexical and grammatical nominalizations.
The prosed analysis identifies gaps in so-called relative clauses as a property
of argument nominalizations that point to the participant roles of the intended

4 Shibatani (1996) advocates a similar approach to applicative and benefactive constructions.

10 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

denotations. Subject-nominalizations would have a gap in subject position (([Ø hon o

katta (no)] wa. . . ‘(one) who [Ø bought a book]’) that points to the agentive meaning
of the denotation of such argument nominalizations. So-called subject relativization
is simply a modification-use of a subject argument nominalization with a gap in sub-
ject position. There is no movement or deletion involved in relative clause formation
under this analysis, which simply juxtaposes two nominal entities, an argument
nominalization and a head noun. Accordingly, the notion of grammatical relations
is not relevant to relativization per se, challenging the widely accepted Keenan-Com-
rie typology of relative clauses based directly on the hierarchy of grammatical rela-
tions known as the Accessibility Hierarchy.
Shibatani advances a similar analysis for genitive/possessive constructions
([[Hanako no] hon] ‘Hanako’s book’), which are reanalyzed as an instance of modifi-
cation-use of the nominal-based nominalization, [Hanako-no] ‘Hanako’s’, which also
has an NP-use, as shown by such use as [Hanako-no] wa dore ‘Hanako’s is which?’.
Besides obviating the need for the category of genitive case, Shibatani’s new analysis
solves a long-standing mystery about the morphological connection between so-called
genitive case and the marking of so-called relative clauses seen across the globe.
Similar to the Takami-Kuno contribution, Shibatani’s approach takes speech con-
text seriously, as it plays an important role in determining the intended denotation
of a grammatical nominalization consistent with the context. If context is taken
seriously, Shibatani contends, there is no need to invoke the popular deletion/ellipsis
analysis for so-called headless RCs and headless genitives.

Narrog
One of the criticisms that scholars working within functional frameworks have about
structural linguistics has been the strict separation between diachronic and syn-
chronic aspects of language advocated by Saussure. While there was a time when
generative phonologists thought that underlying morphophonemic representations
and phonological rules would often capture historical changes (cf. Chomsky and
Halle’s 1968 treatment of vowel alternations in Modern English reflecting the Great
English vowel shift), the Saussurean position has been rigorously maintained by
generative grammarians. This position has been challenged by several leading func-
tional grammarians, who view synchronic grammatical structure to be the result of
historical processes requiring explanation in diachronic terms. A similar, diachronically-
oriented typology was also advocated by the late Joseph Greenberg (cf. Greenberg
1995). The concept of grammaticalization developed as a way of grasping synchroni-
cally observable traces of diachronic changes and of understanding why synchronic
grammatical patterns are the way as they are.
Among those aspects of grammaticalization, such as phonological reduction
and semantic bleaching, Narrog highlights more neglected formal topics of morpho-
syntactic grammaticalization in Japanese. After presenting an overview of gram-
maticalization in Japanese with particular reference to morphological and syntactic
 Introduction 11

properties, he then takes up several case studies in this area, offering critical appraisals
on the works dealing with the grammaticalization of motion verbs, periphrastic deontic
constructions, and the future marker. The first two case studies use the concept
of grammaticalization in explaining synchronic patterns, whereas the last offers a
glimpse of the diachronic perspective.

Formal syntax
The thirteen chapters on formal Japanese syntax represent some of the most important
recent achievements in the field of Japanese linguistics. As is always the case, signifi-
cant accomplishments like these are made possible by standing on the shoulders of
those who laid the foundations for today’s interesting and insightful pursuits. In the
study of Japanese syntax, we are all indebted first and foremost to S.-Y. Kuroda’s
(1965) monumental work that demonstrated how interesting Japanese syntax is
when looked at from the perspective of generative grammar. His work laid the foun-
dation both for topics to explore, such as sentence structure, case marking, and
valency-changing constructions as well as the procedure for carrying out research
through rigorous empirical analysis. It is difficult to imagine what our field would
be like today if Kuroda had not written his dissertation. His work directly or indirectly
contributed to works in the 1970s by such eminent linguists as S.-I. Harada, Kazuko
Inoue, Susumu Kuno, and Masayoshi Shibatani, and, in the 1980s, to Saito’s impor-
tant 1985 dissertation. These works substantially extended Kuroda’s original vision
of Japanese syntax and pioneered new areas of study. Nevertheless, these studies
and others that followed, including the thirteen chapters below, adhered to the
idea in Kuroda’s original work of identifying interesting and important problems to
try to solve using the most rigorous methodology available. Other languages that
have had enormous success follow the same pattern: English, studies by Noam
Chomsky and others; Chinese, by the eminent linguist, James Huang; and Romance
languages, which find foundational works by such distinguished linguists as Gugliemo
Cinque, Richard Kayne, and Luigi Rizzi.
The overall goal of the studies contained in each of the thirteen chapters on
formal syntax reflects the general goal of the original work by Kuroda and others
mentioned above including those on other languages. Each work has the dual, and
related, mission of carrying out deep, extensive, and critical empirical analysis of
the selected topic and, at the same time, demonstrating the relevance of the analysis
to general linguistic theory. Reading through the chapters, one can sense the passion
with which the linguists attempt to unravel the empirical puzzles they have taken
on. This can only be appreciated by carefully working through the details of the
study. In the remainder of this introduction, we will comment on these works and
some ways in which they relate to general theory.
12 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Movement
A topic that runs through several works is the issue of movement. The topic of move-
ment has been pervasive in generative grammar from its inception, so much so that
if one understands how a theory at a particular point in time deals with movement,
one has a fairly good grasp of the overall theory. GB theory characterized movement
as completely optional (Chomsky 1981, Lasnik and Saito 1984); it was up to universal
principles such as Subjacency to evaluate whether a particular movement is gram-
matical or not. These universal principles constituted the core substantive content
of universal grammar, and the principles and the parameters built into them became
an intense subject of study. Once the theory transitioned to the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1993, 1995, etc.), movement took on an opposite characterization, as a last
resort operation that some element in the grammar triggers. Grammatical features
became the focus of study as triggering at least some movement, and a great deal
of the work in MP turned to looking closely at various agreement systems we find
in languages. Below, we will comment briefly on the chapters by Yoichi Miyamoto,
Yoshi Kitagawa, Noriko Yoshimura, and Tomoko Ishizuka from the perspective of
movement.
Miyamoto takes up the relative clause construction with the question of whether
there is movement involved in the RC, and if so, what kind of movement we find in
it. In the general literature on relative clauses, linguists have postulated two kinds
of movement, matching and head-raising. Matching is the familiar type in which
the head of the RC is related to the gap within the RC by operator movement. Head-
raising refers to a way of constructing the RC by moving the head directly from its
original position within the RC. These are illustrated below (e.g. Kayne 1994).

(1) a. [DP the book [CP OPi that [TP Mary read ti ]]]

b. [CP the book that [Mary read ____]]

↑_____________________|

Miyamoto concludes that the Japanese RC does have movement, and it is only of
the matching kind, which involves operator movement. Interestingly, he argues that
this movement can only be short distance; any movement-like construal in the sub-
ordinate domain involves pro. This is something apparently unique to Japanese, and
it leaves a question as to why the RC limits itself to this “shallow” movement when
one sees long-distance movement in other constructions such as the wh-question
and clefts.

(2) [DP [CP OPi [TP Taroo ga [CP ti [TP Hanako ga proi yonda] to] omotta] honi ]]
Taro NOM Hanako NOM read C thought book
‘the book that Taro thought that Hanako read’
 Introduction 13

As shown, this long-distance construal has two parts: there is the pro in the sub-
ordinate object position, and an operator in the subordinate CP coindexed with this
pro. This operator moves to the matrix Spec,CP and matches with the head noun,
which makes it possible to construe the head noun as being associated with the
gap in the subordinate clause of the RC. This accounts for the apparent absence of
island violations (Kuno 1973). It also accounts for the inability of an adjunct (“why”)
to have a long-distance contrual (Murasugi 1991); this is so because an adjunct is not
expected to have a pro counterpart. Miyamoto’s work does leave the question of
whether the Japanese RC only allows matching. Miyamoto demonstrates that we
find reconstruction and also relativization involving idiom chunks in the Japanese
RC, both of which are considered as signs of head-raising in the literature. As a
simple demonstration, (3a) is a relative clause that reconstructs the head that con-
tains the anaphor himself, making it possible to place the anaphor in the c-command
domain of its antecedent John. The fact that this relative clause is grammatical shows
that the reconstruction takes place.

(3) a. I saw [[the picture of himself] that John liked ___]

b. *I saw [[the picture of himself] yesterday [that John liked ___]

In (3b), the relative clause has been extraposed, an operation that is possible for
English relative clauses. What we find, however, is that extraposing the relative
clause blocks reconstruction (e.g. Hulsey and Sauerland 2006). We see the same for
idiom chunks. In other words, extraposition excludes the possibility of head-raising.
The fact that we find both reconstruction for anaphor interpretation and idiom
chunk relativization raises the possibility of head-raising in Japanese. To pursue
this, we must find a way, like extraposition in English, to block it.
Kitagawa’s chapter takes up a study of the syntax-semantics-prosody interface,
an area that he, along with a handful of others like Shin’ichi Ishihara, pioneered
using Japanese. As one important example of his work, he addresses the controversy
surrounding wh-islands: is there an island effect? Some speakers detect it while
others do not. Kitagawa argues that the two readings in the following example, one
in which the wh-phrase “which sumo wrestler” is interpreted inside the wh-island,
and the one in which the wh-phrase has matrix scope, have two distinct prosodic
patterns.

(4) Ana’ta wa [do’no ri’kisi ga ka’tta ka] kininarima’su ka?

you TOP which sumo.wrestler NOM won C curious.about C
a. Subordinate wh-scope reading:
‘Are you curious which sumo wrestler won?’

b. Matrix wh-scope reading:

‘[Which sumo wrestler]1 is it that you are curious whether he1 won?’
14 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Regardless of the interpretation, there is a pitch prominence at the wh-phrase,

signaling the start of a wh-prosodic domain. The pitch falls immediately after
the wh-phrase, a stage called “post-focus reduction.” This stage of reduction may
continue to the embedded C, then stop, resulting in a rise in pitch right after the
embedded C. This signals that the domain of the wh-phrase is the embedded clause,
leading to an indirect question. But if the reduction persists to the end of the sentence,
it gives rise to the matrix scope of the wh-phrase and a matrix wh-question. This
kind of syntax-semantics-prosody interface in Japanese led to a number of important
innovations in linguistic theory. For example, Norvin Richards (e.g. 2016) has de-
veloped what he calls the Contiguity Theory, which predicts when movement must
occur in a language based on the idea that the wh-phrase and the interrogative C
must be in the same prosodic domain. In languages such as Japanese, this require-
ment can be met by manipulating the prosodic domain, as we saw. But in other
languages such as English, for an independent reason prosodic domains cannot be
so manipulated, hence the wh-phrase is forced to undergo movement to the Spec,CP
to be in the same domain as the interrogative C.
Scrambling is a major topic in Japanese linguistics and it is the topic that
Yoshimura takes up in her chapter. An important issue surrounding scrambling
is the A versus A’ distinction for movement. These two kinds of movements have
distinct properties.

(5) A-movement A’-movement

a. Local Long-distance
b. Restricted to nominals Not restricted to nominals
c. No Weak Crossover Weak Crossover
d. New antecedents for Binding Theory No new antecedents for BT
e. No reconstruction for Principle C Reconstruction for Principle C
f. No parasitic gap licensing Parasitic gap licensing

Traditionally, A-movements are movements to a (potential) A(rgument) position,

most typically Spec,TP. This is the position to which the external theta role is
assigned in the Standard Theory. But with the advent of the VP-internal subject
hypothesis, the Spec,TP no longer is a position to which a theta role is ever assigned.
Yet, movement to this position (e.g. passive) has all the properties of A-movement,
and not A’-movement. Could the A-position be a Case position? That is a distinct
possibility, until one considers scrambling. As originally noted by Anoop Mahajan
(1990) for Hindi, local scrambling of the object across the subject counts as A-
movement, with all the requisite properties one sees for this kind of movement in
(5). It is difficult to justify this local scrambling as being Case-driven. Scrambling
suggests that A and A’ movements should somehow be distinguished by the posi-
tions to which they move. Spec,TP is an A-position possibly because it is contained
 Introduction 15

in the spell-out domain of the phase (complement of the phase head, Chomsky
2001), while Spec,CP would count as an A’-position because it is part of the phase
head and outside the complement that is spelled out first. However, Van Urk (2016),
in his study of Dinka, a Nilotic dialect spoken in South Sudan, shows that the A/A’
distinction cannot be based on the position of the landing site. In Dinka, phi-feature
agreement occurs at C, and anything that moves to Spec,CP to enter into agreement
with the phi feature at C undergoes A-movement with the properties noted in (5),
even if it is to the traditional A’ position of Spec,CP. This suggests that A-positions
are defined by phi-feature agreement, at T or C, not by positions such as Spec,TP
or Spec,CP. Very clearly, scrambling, which already has enjoyed a great deal of
attention in Japanese linguistics, requires further study to see how we are to account
for the A/A’ distinction. In this regard, Yoshimura’s chapter does an excellent job of
laying out the major research on scrambling, thus providing a sound foundation for
future research.
Ishizuka takes up the passive construction, which has enjoyed a great deal of
attention throughout the development of the field from the time of Kuroda (1965).
Typically, two separate constructions are postulated for the passive, direct and
indirect passives. The direct passive involves promotion of the object (or the indirect
object) to the surface subject position, leaving a gap in the object position. In
contrast, the indirect passive does not have any apparent gap, and there is no
corresponding active counterpart.

(6) a. Ken ga Naomi ni home-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi by praise-PASS-PST
‘Ken was praised by Naomi.’

b. Ken ga Naomi ni nige-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT escape-PASS-PST
Lit. ‘Ken was escaped from by Naomi.’ [cf. Naomi escaped from Ken.]

Given this difference, the traditional analysis postulates movement in the direct
passive while no movement is thought to be present in the indirect passive. One
piece of evidence used by Ishizuka comes from the ability to strand a numeral quan-
tifier (Miyagawa 1989).

(7) a. Kuruma ga doroboo-ni ni-dai nusum-are-ta.

car-NOM thief-by 2-CL steal-PASS-PST
‘Two cars were stolen by a thief.’

b. *Keimusyo ga syuuzin ni futa-tu nige-rare-ta.

prison NOM prisoner DAT 2-CL escape-PASS-PST
int ‘Two prisons were escaped from by (their) prisoners.
16 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

In the direct passive in (7a), we see that the numeral quantifier ni-dai can be stranded
in the object position, showing that the surface subject moved from the object position
to the subject position. In contrast, a numeral quantifier cannot be stranded in the
indirect passive example in (7b). Ishizuka argues that this distinction can be explained
even if movement is assumed to occur in the derivation of the indirect passive.
She goes on to present an interesting analysis in which she unifies both passive
constructions and presents arguments that movement of one sort occurs across all
instances of the passive construction.

The underlying position of the subject

The issue of the underlying position of the surface subject plays a crucial role in
several chapters. These are chapters by Nobuaki Nishioka, Masatoshi Koizumi, and
Shigeru Miyagawa. There are two interrelated issues. First is the idea of the VP-internal
subject position, and the second is the distinction between unergative and unaccusa-
tive verbs. The VP-internal subject hypothesis is one of the major distinguishing charac-
teristics of MP. By postulating the external argument as originating within the verbal
projection, we are able to unify all theta marking as taking place in the verbal pro-
jection. Assuming the VPISH, the question of why the subject raises to Spec,TP in
languages such as English has become a central topic of study in MP, with various
theories that attempt to identify the driving force for this movement: agreement,
Case, and Extended Projection Principle. Kuroda (1988) is one of the linguists
credited with proposing the VPISH along with Sportiche (1988) and a few others.
See McCloskey (1997) for arguments for the VPISH.
Nishioka in his chapter provides a simple and convincing argument from Kuma-
moto Japanese, spoken on the southern island of Kyushu, for the VPISH. KJ has two
distinct nominative markers, -ga and -no. -Ga marks the nominative outside of the
verbal phrase, and -no marks the nominative inside the verbal phrase (Kato 2007).
The three examples below are drawn from Nishioka’s chapter. The point to note is
the kind of nominative marking on the subject “all” and whether this universal
quantifier subject is interpreted outside or inside the scope of negation.

(8) a. Zen’in ga/*no siken ba uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

all NOM test ACC take-NEG-PST
‘All did not take the test.’ *NEG > all, all > NEG

b. Siken ba zen’in no uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

test ACC all NOM take-NEG-PST
‘The test, all did not take.’ NEG > all, *all > NEG

c. Siken ba zen’in ga uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

test ACC all NOM take-NEG-PST
‘The test, all did not take.’ *NEG > all, all > NEG
 Introduction 17

In (8a), which is in the default SOV order, the subject “all” is marked with the -ga
nominative marker. This subject is necessarily interpreted outside the scope of nega-
tion, which occurs between vP and TP (Pollock 1989). The -ga marked subject here is
assumed to occur in Spec,TP, above the negation. This is why it is interpreted outside
the scope of negation. In (8b), which is in the scrambled OSV order, the “all” subject
is marked by the -no nominative marker. Since a no-marked subject must be within
the scope of the verbal projection and is interpreted as within the scope of negation,
it is presumably in its initial position of Spec,vP. As shown in (6c), in the same
scrambled order OSV, if the subject instead has the -ga nominative marker, it neces-
sarily scopes outside of negation. The -ga marked subject presumably has moved to
Spec,TP, and the scrambled object has adjoined above it. Two points to notice are,
first and foremost, the -no nominative subject occurs in Spec,vP (or some such verbal
projection), as stipulated on the basis of Kato (2007). Second, as we see in (8b), the
-no subject in a transitive construction may occur most readily if the object is
scrambled to its left. Nishioka assumes that the object has moved to Spec,TP, thereby
fulfilling the need of T to have a specifier, the so-called EPP (Extended Projection
Principle) requirement (Chomsky 1981). This allows the subject to stay in the Spec,
vP position. Since it is a subject that occurs in the verbal projection, it must be
marked by the -no nominative marker. As we see in (8c), there is an option of first
moving the subject to Spec,TP to fulfill the need of the T to have a specifier. In this
case, the subject must be marked by -ga, and it necessarily takes scope outside of
negation. This analysis of KJ parallels the analysis given in Miyagawa (2001). There
he used Standard Japanese, which only has -ga for all instances of the nominative.
In part because it is difficult to distinguish the position of the subject, given that all
subjects are marked by -ga, it is not always clear where the subject is located, which
leads to judgment uncertainties that understandably the analysis. In this regard, the
KJ data provided by Nishioka gives a more convincing empirical demonstration of
the position of the subject and how scrambling affects its occurrence. In the chapter
by Koizumi, he draws on processing research he carried out with collaborators that
provides experimental evidence for distinguishing the subject at vP and at TP.
The Unaccusative Hypothesis (Perlmutter 1978, Burzio 1981, 1986) has played
a major role in the analysis of argument structure and the underlying position of
the subject. In its simplest form, the UH distinguishes between unergative and un-
accusative predicates, which are typically both intransitive. (9a) is an example of
an unergative construction, and (9b) that of an unaccusative construction.

(9) a. John laughed.

b. The door opened.

The UH postulates the subject of the unergative laugh to have originated in the
external argument position, Spec,vP, while the subject of the unaccusative open
18 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

originated in the complement position of the verb (the order given below is for head-
initial languages).

(10) a. Unergative:
[vP DP [VP V]]

b. Unaccusative
[vP [VP V DP]]

Semantically the subject of the unaccusative open, the door, corresponds to the
object in the lexical causative counterpart.

(11) Mary opened the door.

Thus, the unaccusative is the non-lexical causative counterpart of this example,

lacking in the external argument and the causative meaning. A number of linguists
have worked on the unergative/unaccusative distinction in Japanese. One piece of
evidence comes from floated numeral quantifiers, which typically must be construed
locally with its associate noun phrase. As noted in the chapter by Miyagawa, an FNQ
construed with the subject cannot be separated by a VP adverb if the verb is unerga-
tive, but such a separation is possible for unaccusative verbs.

(12) a. Kodomo-ga (san-nin) umaku (*san-nin) hasitta.

kids-NOM 3-CL successfully 3-CL ran
‘Three kids ran well.’

b. Doa-ga (huta-tu) umaku (?huta-tu) aita.

door-NOM 2-CL successfully 2-CL opened
‘Two doors opened successfully.’

In (12a), the VP adverb forces the second occurrence of the FNQ to be inside the VP;
given that the verb is unergative, thus there is no copy (trace) of the surface subject
to fulfill the locality requirement of the FNQ. In (12b) the surface subject begins in
the complement position of the unaccusative verb aku ‘open’, leaving a copy that
meets the locality requirement for the stranded FNQ inside the VP.

Case marking
Case marking has been a major focus of study since Kuroda took it up in his 1965
dissertation. There are generally two kinds of case markers recognized, grammatical
(or structural) case marking and semantic (or inherent) case marking. Japanese has
both. In the section of her chapter on the ditransitive construction, Tsujimura, based
 Introduction 19

on her own work and that of other linguists, outlines how various semantic roles in
argument structure are projected in syntax and the kinds of case markers that these
semantic roles are accompanied by. In Kishimoto’s chapter, he looks primarily at
grammatical case marking, addressing the issue of how the case marking gets licensed,
including the heads that are responsible for assigning a particularly case marking.
In Ochi’s chapter, he pursues the question of which head licenses the genitive
case marker on the subject in the ga/no Conversion construction: C, T, v, or some
combination?
If we look back to Kuroda’s original proposal for case marking, it was a funda-
mentally different system than the one typically assumed in Japanese linguistics
today. Calling it “linear case marking”, the system called for the first unmarked
nominal to be marked by the nominative -ga and if there is a second unmarked
nominal, marking it with the accusative -o. In this way, the accusative case is depen-
dent on the nominative case. There are no heads involved that assign a case marker,
but rather, the system scans the relevant domain for unmarked nominals, marking
the first (the highest) nominal with -ga and if there is a second (lower) nominal,
marking it with -o. A system that is consonant in spirit to Kuroda’s system was de-
veloped by Marantz (1991), called dependent case.

(13) Dependent case (Marantz 1991)

a. NOM is the morphology found on the highest non-case-marked nominal in
a clause in which V has entered a relationship with T.

b. ACC case is the morphology found on a nominal within a domain in which

a higher nominal has received NOM.

Like Kuroda’s system, dependent case does not utilize heads such as T and v for case
assignment. Also like Kuroda’s system, it looks at a domain within which the highest
(=first) unmarked nominal receives the nominative case, and if within the same
domain there is a second nominal, it receives the accusative case. To motivate the
dependent case approach, Marantz turned to Icelandic. While this language normally
has the nominative-accusative case pattern, the following is an exception.

(14) Eg tel [henni hafa alltaf þótt [Olafur leiðinlegur]]

I believe her-DAT to-have always thought Olaf-NOM boring-NOM
‘I believe her to have always thought Olaf boring.’

Under normal circumstances, Olafur would receive the accusative case, but in this
example, the higher unmarked nominal henna ‘her’ has the dative case, thus Olafur
becomes the highest (first) unmarked nominal, and it receives the nominative case.
The chapter by Kishimoto provides extensive data on case marking, some that easily
fall under the dependent case approach, but others, like the double nominative
20 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

construction, poses a challenge to the dependent case approach; as Kishimoto notes,

it is also a challenge to an approach of case marking by heads. On the other hand,
the dependent case approach readily handles the following array of case marking.

(15) a. Taroo-ga huransugo-o hanas-e-ru.

Taro-NOM French-ACC speak-can-PRS
‘Taro can speak French.’

b. Taroo-ni huransugo-ga / *-o hanas-e-ru.

Taro-DAT French-NOM / *-ACC speak-can-PRS

(15a) is the typical NOM-ACC array. Because the predicate is stative, it also allows the
subject to be marked with the DAT, as shown in (15b). As we see in this example, the
object can only be marked with the nominative case marking (the nominative is also
possible for the object in (15a)). This is similar to the Icelandic example. On the
dependent case scenario, in (15b) the highest unmarked nominal is the object, so it
gets -ga. On the approach to case assignment by heads, it isn’t clear why the “small”
v that assigns the accusative case in (15a) can’t also assign the same case in (15b).
There are many issues to contend with and a research project that compares the two
approaches using the Japanese data would be of use not only to Japanese linguistics
but also to the general theory of case marking.

Clausal structure
Clausal structure has played a key role in generative studies. The X-bar theory of
clausal structure (Jackendoff 1977) showed that all kinds of phrases and clauses
(AP, TP, NP, etc.) have the same phrase structural format. Within each clause, the
specifier-head relation has a special status that allows important grammatical and
semantic factors to be operative, such as agreement, selection, and deletion. Three
chapters contain studies in which clausal structure plays an important role. Saito’s
chapter elucidates the conditions under which various kinds of ellipsis are possible
while Watanabe’s chapter deals with a variety of attributive modification patterns
that are sensitive to the structure of the clause. Hasegawa’s chapter deals with the
relationship between various types of modality and clausal structure.
The specifier-head relationship plays a crucial role in Saito’s chapter on ellipsis,
a topic he has pioneered for Japanese along with Keiko Murasugi. The issue of
specifier-head is particularly challenging in Japanese because Japanese does not
evidence grammatical agreement, which typically occurs on a head with the agree-
ment linked to the specifier. The condition relevant to ellipsis as regards specifier-
head is the idea that an XP can be elided only if the specifier of the head that selects
the XP is filled (Lobeck 1990, Saito and Murasugi 1990, Richards 2003).
 Introduction 21

(16) a. I read Bill’s book, but I haven’t read [DP Mary’s [NP book]]

b. Mary bought something, but I don’t know [CP what [TP she bought]]

In (16a) the specifier of the DP is filled by Mary, which allows NP ellipsis. Likewise,
in (16b), the specifier of the CP is filled by what, making it possible to elide the TP,
leading to a sluicing construction. In contrast to these, the following instances of
ellipsis are ungrammatical because the relevant specifier is not filled.

(17) a. *I want to read the book because I hear good things about [DP [the [NP book]]].

b. **John denied that he cheated, but I believe [CP [that [TP he cheated]]].

An early work showing the relevance of the specifier condition for ellipsis in Japanese
is Saito and Murasugi (1990), on the topic of N’-ellipsis (which we would call NP
ellipsis today).

(18) a. Taroo no hon wa [Hanako no __] yori omosiroi.

Taro GEN book TOP Hanako no than interesting

b. John’s book is more interesting than [Mary’s __].

Their analysis assumes that Hanako no is in the specifier of what today we would
call DP, thus licensing the ellipsis. They provide the following as evidence that the
specifier must be filled for ellipsis to take place.

(19) *Saikin wa kumori-no hi-ga [ame no __] yorimo ooi.

nowadays TOP cloud-GEN day-NOM rain GEN than plentiful
‘Nowadays, there are more cloudy days than rainy days.’

According to Saito and Murasugi, ame no ‘rain GEN’ is an adjunct, and adjuncts are
not available to move to the specifier, hence ellipsis cannot take place. In Saito’s
chapter, we also see cases of what some have termed sluicing (e.g. Inoue 1978,
Takahashi 1994), which requires a wh-phrase in Spec,CP.

(20) Kare wa dokoka e itta ga, boku-wa [CP doko e [TP ] ka] siranai.
he TOP somewhere to went though I-TOP where to Q know.not
‘He went somewhere, but I don’t know where.’

This analysis indicates something unusual, that Japanese has overt wh-movement
despite the fact that Japanese is a stereotypical wh-in-situ language, something that
Kuroda (1988) suggested as a possibility based on independent grounds. Saito care-
fully goes through the pros and cons of these analyses for NP ellipsis and sluicing as
well as other types of ellipsis.
22 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Watanabe takes up the topic of attributive modification, primarily, though

not limited to, adjectival modification of a nominal. This is a topic for which he
has done foundational work for Japanese, and his work has had impact cross-
linguistically. The literature on attributive adjectives has identified two types, direct
and indirect. The adjectives that enter into direct modification occur closest to the
nominal and they are rigidly ordered.

(21) [F1P AP F1 [F2P AP F2 NP]]

F1 and F2 are functional heads that select a particular type of adjective, and the
ordering cannot be inverted (e.g. Sproat and Shih 1991).

(22) a. small square table

b. *square small table

We can see that shape (“square”) must be closer to the nominal head than size
(“small”). In contrast, indirect modification does not impose a rigid ordering of the
attributive adjectives; in Chinese adjectives with -de may be freely ordered, suggest-
ing that they enter into indirect attribution.

(23) a. xiao-de lü-de huaping

small-DE green-DE vase

b. lü-de xiao-de huaping

green-DE small-DE vase
‘small green vase’ (Sproat and Shih 1991)

Indirect modifiers occur structurally higher than the direct ones, and the head in the
structure that has an indirect modifier does not select the modifier, which allows free
ordering among the indirect modifiers (Cinque 2010).

(24) [HP RC H [HP RC H [FP AP F [FP AP F NP]]]]

indirect modification direct modification

While the F heads within the direct modification structure select designated modifiers,
as we saw earlier, the H heads within the indirect modification structure does not. In
this regard, Sproat and Shih (1991) make an interesting observation about Japanese.

(25) a. tiisana sikakui ie

small square house

b. sikakui tiisana ie
square small house
‘small square house’
 Introduction 23

The two adjectives, tiisana ‘small’ and sikakui ‘square’ are interchangeable in order.
This suggests that Japanese adjectives are indirect in nature, occurring exclusively in
the indirect modification region. This would be a puzzling gap in the paradigm for
Japanese. In his chapter, Watanabe shows that this gap is in fact not absolute; there
are adjectives even in Japanese that occur in the direct modification domain, adjec-
tives that have the so-called non-intersective reading, which Cinque and others have
proposed to occur in the direct modification domain (see also Larson and Takahashi
2007).
Drawing on a rich set of literature from both Japanese traditional grammar and
generative studies, Hasegawa elucidates the relationship between various kinds of
modality and their position within the clausal structure. She shows that the senten-
tial structure proposed in the Japanese traditional grammarians’ studies (e.g. Masuoka
2007) and also by linguists such as Inoue (2007) translate directly into the kind of
clausal structure assumed in generative studies.

(26)

The idea is that modality occurs at C as shown. Drawing on her own work and that
of others, she shows that the modality at C sometimes selects the subject of the
sentence, and this leads to the kind of restriction on the subject that has been widely
observed in the literature. Hasegawa calls this a form of person restriction, and
suggests that a participant agreement system of speaker/addressee, instead of 1st,
2nd, and 3rd person, is operative in the modality system.

Acknowledgments
To close these introductory remarks, we wish to thank Hideki Kishimoto for assistance
with the editorial process especially in the final stages of the production of many
parts of this volume.

References
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay
Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1995. The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and
Japanese. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon (eds.), Approaches to language typology.
327–372. Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University) Press.
Greenberg, Joseph. H. 1995. The diachronic typology approach to language. In Masayoshi Shibatani
and Theodora Bynon (eds.), Approaches to language typology. 145–166. Oxford: Clarendon
(Oxford University) Press.
Hulsey, Sarah and Uli Sauerland. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics
14. 111–37.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1978. Nihongo no bunpō kisoku [Grammatical rules of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Inoue, Kazuko. 2007. Nihongo no mōdaru no tokuchō saikō [Reconsideration of the characteristics
of modals in Japanese]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-genshō: Tōgo-kōzō
to modariti [Main clause phenomena in Japanese: Syntactic structure and modality], 227–260.
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kato, Sachiko. 2007. Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the viewpoint of the Kumamoto
dialect in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 113–124. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Larson, Richard and Naoko Takahashi. 2007. Order & interpretation in prenominal relative clauses.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II, 101–119. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15.
235–289.
Lobeck, Anne. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. Proceedings of North East Linguistic
Society 20. 348–362.
McCloskey, James. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Marantz, Alsec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on
Linguistics (ESCOL ’91), 234–253.
Mahajan, Anoop K. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2007. Nihongo modariti kenkyū [A study of modality in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale:
A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability, and
acquisition. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings
of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. J. Jaeger, A. Woodbury,
F. Ackerman, C. Chiarello, O. Gensler, J. Kingston, E. Sweetser, H. Thompson, K. Whistler: 157–
189. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
 Introduction 25

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic
Inquiry 20. 365–424.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 123. 221–256.
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical consequences. Cambridge.
MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese. University of Connecticut Working
Papers in Linguistics 3. 87–107.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Masayoshi
Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning.
157–194. Oxford: Oxford University
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44–2.
217–269.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent struc-
ture. Linguistic inquiry 19. 425–449.
Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih. 1991. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restric-
tions. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to
language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3. 265–300.
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. The syntax of displacement: A Dinka case study. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.

Appendix: List of additional abbreviations used in

this volume
Morpheme classes:
vV adverbial verb; -v: suffix verb, -a: suffix adjective, =a: particle adjective, vN:
adverbial noun; =p: particle; -f: inflection

ABS absolutive
ANP adnominal present
AFF affirmative
CAU causative
CAUS causative (also used for case marking cause)
CON conditional
CNC concessive
COOR coordinate
CONJCTPART conjunctive particle
CPL complementizer
DIR directional
DUTY duty
ESS essive
FIN finite
FNP finite non-past
26 Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa, and Hisashi Noda

INTF intentional form

IM llocutionary modification
ILIM limitative
MAN manner
NMZ nominalization
NMLZR nominalizer
NONPOL non-polite
NPS non-past tense
NPST nonpast (NONPST)
PATH path
PLN plain
PN proper noun
POLSUF polite suffix
QUO quotative
REAS reason
REQ request
ROF root form
SP sentential particle
TEMLOC temporal locative
TMP temporal (case marking time of occurrence)

Periodization:
OJ Old Japanese (6th–8th c)
LOJ Late Old Japanese (9th–11th c)
MidJ Middle Japanese (12th–18th c)
EMJ Early Modern Japanese (18th–19th c)
ModJ Modern Japanese (late 19th c ~)

Others:
MYS Man’yōshū,
subj. subject
pos. position
Yoshio Nitta
1 Basic sentence structure and grammatical
categories

1 Introduction
Not only in Japanese but probably in most languages, from the point of view of
the elements comprising the core of sentence formation, sentences can be divided
into two types: free-standing word sentences and predicate sentences. Predicate
sentences can be further subdivided into several subtypes, depending on one’s point
of view. In terms of the parts of speech comprising the predicate, sentences can be
divided into verbal sentences, adjectival sentences, and nominal sentences; in terms
of the events described by the sentence, they can be divided into action sentences,
stative sentences, and attributive sentences; in terms of the speech-communicative
function played by the sentence, they can be divided into declarative, interrogative,
imperative, and purposive.
The type of the sentence affects its internal structure, and affects the types of
grammatical categories that can appear in a sentence and how the grammatical
meaning associated with the grammatical categories is realized. The type of text
that forms the context in which a sentence appears also affects the type of sentence
that can appear and the grammatical categories that can appear in the sentence. One
such text type difference is the difference between a conversation in which there
exists a hearer and a monologue in which there does not. This difference in type
affects the type of sentence and the grammatical categories that may appear.

2 Free-standing word sentences

A predicate sentence is composed of the predicate that forms its core and some
number of elements subordinate to it. Predicate sentences have a varied internal
structure and an assortment of grammatical categories may appear. This chapter
outlines the basic internal structures of predicate sentences and the grammatical
categories that may appear in them.
However, before getting into the main topic, we will extremely briefly touch
upon free-standing word sentences. A free-standing word sentence is one that is
composed with a free-standing word as its core. Free-standing words include such
things as exclamations and nouns, are disengaged from any link with a predicate,
and serve the role of signaling an expression that follows. A free-standing word,
used alone, cut off from what precedes or follows, can show a limited number of

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-002
28 Yoshio Nitta

meanings, such as exclamation or surprise, hailing, or response, and forms a free-

standing word sentence.
Unlike a predicate sentence, a free-standing word sentence cannot be divorced
from the here, now, or first person. Nitta (1995) proposed the tentative typology
described here for free-standing word sentences. From the type of word forming the
free-standing word sentence and its communication characteristics, free-standing
word sentences can be cross-categorized into four types. Word type subcategorizes
into single, unanalyzable free-standing word sentences composed of exclamations
and analyzable free-standing word sentences composed of separable words, usually
nouns. Communication characteristics subcategorizes into presentational free-standing
word sentences that do not presuppose a listener and communicative free-standing
word sentences that do presuppose a listener.

(1) Maa! (2) Ooi!

‘Well!’ ‘Hey!’

(3) Kazi! (4) Yamada-san!

‘Fire!’ Yamada-POLSUF
‘Ms Yamada!’

(1) and (2) are unanalyzable free-standing word sentences and (3) and (4) are analyz-
able free-word sentences. (1) and (3) are presentational free-standing word sentences
and (2) and (4) are communicative free-standing word sentences. Presentational
free-standing word sentences are ones that express surprise or wonder, as in Are!
‘What!’ or Yuki! ‘Snow!’, and communicative free-standing word sentences are ones
that show a response or a hail, as in Hai! ‘response word’ or Hirosi! ‘Hiroshi (proper
name)!’
It probably does not need saying, but, when unanalyzable free-standing word
sentences and analyzable free-standing word sentences are used together, they are
always in that order, never in the opposite order.

(5) Ooi, Hirosi! (6) *Hirosi, Ooi!

‘Hey, Hiroshi!’

Unanalyzable free-standing word sentences are composed of a single-word exclama-

tion and do not take other elements, but an analyzable free-standing word sentence
may take additional elements and may become quite complex in terms of its internal
structure.

(7) Soko ni suwatte iru Yamada-san!

there PART/LOC sit.GER be.ADN Yamada-POLSUF
‘You, the Ms Yamada sitting there!’
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 29

Sentence (7) shows a hail and is an independent sentence containing a noun modi-
fying clause.

3 The basic structure of a predicate sentence

In a predicate sentence, the predicate word is the controlling constituent and forms
the core of the sentence. The sentence is formed by the predicate taking forms to
complete it. The structure of and the governing power and centrality of the predicate
part of a predicate sentence differ greatly among verbal, adjectival, and nominal
sentences.

3.1 Basic structure of a verbal sentence

Let us start with a very brief overview of the basic structure of verbal sentences. The
verb forms the predicate and influences the structure of the sentence. Depending
on the lexical type of the verb, the kinds of elements that can co-occur with the
predicate verb are different.

3.1.1 The nucleus of the sentence structure

Let us first consider the most nuclear part of the structure of a verbal sentence.

(8) Ki ga kare -ta

tree PART/NOM wither.ADVL AUX/PST
‘The tree withered.’

(9) Sensei ga kodomo o nagusame -ta.

teacher NOM child PART/ACC console.ADVL PST
‘The teacher consoled the child.’

(10) Inu ga ayasii otoko ni kamitui -ta.

dog NOM suspicious.ADN man PART/DAT bite.ADVL PST
‘The dog bit the suspicious looking man.’

(11) Hirosi wa Yooko to kekkonsi -ta

Hiroshi PART/TOP Yoko PART/COM marry.ADVL PST
‘Hiroshi got married to Yoko.’

(12) Hirosi wa Yooko ni hanataba o okut -ta

Hiroshi TOP Yoko DAT bouquet ACC send.ADVL PST
‘Hiroshi sent Yoko a bouquet.’
30 Yoshio Nitta

(13) Kaikei ga kaiin kara kaihi o atume -ta

treasurer NOM members PART/ABL dues ACC collect.ADVL PST
‘The treasurer collected the dues from the members.’

In a sentence like (8) with the verb kareru ‘wither’ as the predicate, only a subordinate
element marked with the nominative ga is necessary for the action expressed by the
predicate to be realized. Incidentally, let us here broadly divide sentences by their
meaning into action, stative, and attributive. The minimum necessary elements for
the action expressed by the verb that is the predicate in example sentences (9)
through (13) are as described below. In sentence (9) with nagusameru ‘console’ as
the predicate, a nominative ga-marked element and an accusative o-marked element
are necessary, and in (10) with kamituku ‘bite’ as predicate, a ga-marked element
and a dative ni-marked element are necessary. In (11) with kekkonsuru ‘get married’
as predicate a ga-marked element and a comitative to-marked element are needed,
and in (12) with okuru ‘send’ as predicate, a ga-marked, an o-marked, and a ni-marked
element are necessary. In (13) with atumeru ‘collect’ as predicate, a ga-marked, an
o-marked and an ablative kara-marked element are necessary.
As seen above, for a verb functioning as predicate to realize the action its lexical
meaning expresses requires that the predicate co-occur with noun phrases or noun-
like elements having a lexically determined case relationship. In Nitta (2010), the
noun-like elements that are required to co-occur with the predicate verb are termed
case elements or co-occurring elements (actants). In other words, when a verb be-
comes a predicate and forms a sentence, in order to realize the action it expresses,
it acts to selectively require a set of actants that participate in the realization of that
action. [N-ga], [N-ga, N-o], [N-ga, N-ni], [N-ga, N-to], [N-ga, N-o, N-ni], [N-ga, N-o,
N-kara], and the like are combinations of cases required by the verbs.
The most basic predicate sentence is a simple sentence composed of one clause.
A simple sentence expresses a single event. The framework for the event expressed
by the sentence is made up of the predicate word, or more accurately, the stem portion
that carries the lexical meaning of the predicate word, and a set of case-marked
elements. Accordingly, the most core part of the structure of a predicate sentence
is formed of the stem portion of the predicate word and the set of case-marked ele-
ments. If we show the most core part of sentence (9) Sensei ga kodomo o nagusameta
‘The teacher consoled the child,’ it would be as shown below.

(14) [[Sensei ga kodomo o nagusame] ta]

The part appearing enclosed in the inner square brackets in (14) is the most core part
of the structure of a verbal predicate sentence.

3.1.2 Expanding the core

The framework of an event, and therefore the core part of the structure of a sentence,
expands and grows through the addition of grammatical categories the predicate
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 31

takes and elements that characterize or restrict how an event is realized. Here, we will
examine the addition of elements that characterize how an event is realized. Among
the elements that, in a broad sense, characterize how an event is realized, there are
those that refer to the nature of aspects internal to the event and those that are related
to the temporal realization of the event.

(15) Kabin ga konagona.ni ware -ta.

vase NOM into.smithereens break.ADVL PST
‘The vase broke into smithereens.’

(16) Sensei ga kodomo o yasasiku nagusame ta.

teacher NOM child ACC gently console.ADVL PST
‘The teacher gently consoled the child.’

The konagona.ni in (15) shows the state of the subject as a result of the action. The
yasasiku in (16) shows the manner of the action as it progresses. By restricting some
aspect internal to the action of the event, these both characterize how an event is
realized. (15) can be categorized as an element modifying the result of the action
and (16) as an element modifying the manner of the event.
Next, let us examine elements expressing the temporal circumstances of the
event.

(17) Kare wa nanzikan mo hon o yon -da.

he TOP any.number.of.hours PART book ACC read.ADVL PST
‘He read books for hours on end.’

(18) Otoko wa sugu genba ni kaketuke -ta.

man TOP immediately scene LOC hasten.ADVL PST
‘The man immediately hastened to the scene.’

The nanzikan mo in (17) show how much time the event occupied as it took place.
The sugu in (18) shows how long it took for the event to begin. Both of these
are related to aspect and refer to temporal characteristics internal to the event and
thus characterize how the event is realized. Let us call these time-related modifying
elements.
The structure of the sentence causes the participants in the event to appear as
case-marked elements; the core portion is formed of the predicate word and the
case-marked elements, and, through the addition of elements describing how the
event is realized, expands and grows. A sentence expanded in this way can be
further expanded by the addition of information about the frequency of the event’s
occurrence.
32 Yoshio Nitta

(19) Sensei wa yoku kodomo o yasasiku nagusame -ta.

teacher TOP often child ACC gently console.ADVL PST
‘The teacher often gently consoled the child.’

(20) Kare wa tokidoki nanzikan mo

he TOP sometimes any.number.of.hours PART
hon o yon -da.
book ACC read.ADVL PST
‘He would sometimes read books for hours on end.’

The yoku in (19) and the tokidoki in (20) are elements that show information regard-
ing the frequency with which the events occurred. These are called frequency modi-
fying elements. Frequency modifying events do not characterize how an event is
realized in terms of aspects internal to the action of the event. They describe from
outside the event how many times the event occurred in a fixed period of time.
Through the addition of a description of the frequency of an event’s occurrence, the
content expressed by the sentence becomes even richer. In this way, the core part of
the sentence structure is expanded and grows even more.
The case-marked elements are the elements that participate in the realization
of the event and make it happen. Their number is restricted and determined by the
type of the event. Due to the fact that they are few in number and are limited, the
occurrence of the participants in the formation of the event is obligatory, whether
or not they actually appear in the sentence as it is expressed. By obligatory is meant
that they are indispensable for the semantic realization of the event. If the partici-
pants are missing, the event is semantically incomplete. In contrast to these actants,
elements describing how an event occurs are numerous and cannot be specified
in advance. Their occurrence in the expression of the event is supplementary and
optional. Compared to the case-marked elements, which are obligatory elements,
the modifying elements are supplementary elements.
An event also occurs against an external background and circumstances. Let
us call the elements that express the external background and circumstances of the
occurrence of the event situational elements. Representative situational elements are
those like the following.

(21) Sakuya kare wa boku no ie ni kossori yatteki -ta.

last.night he TOP I GEN house LOC secretly come.ADVL PST
‘Last night he secretly turned up at my house.’

(22) Mokuyoobi Hirosi wa Takesi ni at -ta.

Wednesday Hiroshi TOP Takeshi DAT meet.ADVL PST
‘Wednesday, Hiroshi met Takeshi.’
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 33

The sakuya in (21) and the mokuyoobi in (22) show the time when the event
happened. This kind of situational elements that the the external background of the
time of an event’s occurrence are called temporal situational elements. If the content
expressed by the sentence is a dynamic event, the event happens at a certain time
and at a certain place. Temporal situational elements are representative situational
elements. Temporal situational elements are related to tense. Through the addition
of the manner of an event’s realization and the external background of the time
and place situational elements to the framework of an event, its content becomes
even richer and the structure of the sentence expands and develops.
The elements that expand the content expressed by the sentence, that provide
the manner of the event’s realization and the external background to the event’s
occurrence, may or may not appear in the sentence as it is actually uttered. The
expression of such is optional. In contrast, the possibility of the appearance of the
grammatical categories that the predicate takes increases as the sentence structure
gradually expands the layers from the core part. In other words, through the expan-
sion of the layers, the grammatical categories that must appear are determined. The
appearance of grammatical categories the predicate word takes becomes obligatory
or restricted together with the steps in the expansion of the sentence structure.

3.1.3 The layeredness of the expansion elements

The framework formed by the action expressed by stem portion of the predicate word
and the participants whose participation is necessary for its realization is expanded
optionally and supplementarily by the modification elements characterizing how the
action takes place or how the event develops. To this, information on the frequency
with which the event occurs is optionally added and the content of the event expands
more. The expressed content of the event can be further expanded with the addition
of the external circumstances of the time of the event’s happening.

(23) Anokoro kare wa yoku nanzika .mo

those.days he TOP often any.number.of.hours PART
nessin.ni hon o yon -da.
earnestly book ACC read.ADVL PST
‘Those days he often used to earnestly read books for hours on end.’

In (23) the part that can be written as [kare ga hon o yomu] is pretty much the frame-
work of the event the sentence expresses and thus forms the core part of the struc-
ture of (23). This core part is expanded with the manner modifying element nessin.ni
showing how the event is realized and further with the time-relation modifying ele-
ment nanzikan mo. In addition, it is expanded with the frequency modifying element
34 Yoshio Nitta

yoku and, finally, is expanded with the temporal situation element anokoro. The
expansion elements in (23) are in the embedding relation [anokoro [yoku [nanzikan.mo
[nessin.ni]]]]. That is, the manner modifying element is contained within the time-
relation modifying element, both are then contained within the frequency modifying
element, and then all of them are then embedded within the temporal situation
element. These relations can be summarized as below.

(24) [time [frequency [temporal relations [manner – event]]]]

The elements that expand the core of a sentence’s structure are not arranged at the
linear level but are arranged in a layered structure as shown in (24).

3.2 The basic structures of adjectival and nominal sentences

The basic structures of adjectival and nominal sentences, which do not express
dynamic events, are quite different from verbal sentences.

(25) Kare wa Kyooto no tiri ni kuwasii.

he TOP Kyoto GEN geography DAT knowledgeable.CONCL
‘He is knowledgeable about the geography of Kyoto.’

(26) Hirosi wa Yooko to tomodati da.

Hiroshi TOP Yoko COM friend COP/CONCL/NONPOL
‘Hiroshi is friends with Yoko.’

(27) Kanozyo wa gakusei desu.

she TOP student COP/CONCL/POL

In adjectival and nominal sentences, there is not found the governing power and
nuclearity of the predicate word found in verbal sentences. Granted, there are cases
when elements other than the ga-marked element are required. In (25) the ni-marked
element is required and in (26) the to-marked element is required. However, there
is not the variety of combinations of required case-marked elements found with
verbal sentences. For the vast majority of cases, the ga-marked element (the so-called
subject) alone is sufficient. Furthermore, even the ga-marked element does not appear
as something required by the predicate word, but has a status essentially equal to
that of the predicate word.

(28) Kaki no mi wa akai.

persimmon GEN fruit TOP red.CONCL
‘The fruit of the persimmon is red.’
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 35

(29) Kaki no mi ga akai.

persimmon GEN fruit NOM red.CONCL
‘The persimmons are red.’

In adjectival and nominal sentences, normally the subject takes the particle wa that
shows topic. (28) is such an example. The cases when the subject can be shown by
ga and not receive the exhaustive listing interpretation are ones like (29), in which a
temporary state, a situation whose existence is temporally limited, is expressed.
When an adjectival or nominal sentence expresses a temporary state, it can still
take a number of expansion elements, but when they express attributes of a person
or thing, the expansion elements that can co-occur with the predicate word are
extremely limited.

(30) Sonokoro boku wa sibasiba onaka ga itakat -ta.

those.days I TOP frequently stomach NOM painful.ADVL PST
‘Those days I often had stomachaches.’

(31) *Anokoro kare wa Hokkaidoo-syussin dat -ta

those.days he TOP Hokkaido-birthplace COP.ADVL PST
‘Those days, his birthplace was Hokkaido.’

(30) expresses a temporary state. In (30), the predicate word can co-occur with the
temporal situation element sonokoro and the frequency modifying element sibasiba.
In contrast, (31) expresses an attribute that, once acquired, cannot be changed. In a
sentence like this, not even a temporal situation element (in this example, anokoro)
can co-occur.

4 The layeredness of the clause

There is a type of sentence called a complex sentence. This is a sentence composed
of more than one clause. Among the clauses are the main clause, which forms the
sentence, and a clause or clauses subordinate to the main clause called subordinate
clauses. As has been well-known ever since it was advocated by Minami (1974, 1993),
there are varying degrees of subordination among clauses, including main clauses.
There exist embedding relations among the types of clauses depending on the
degree of subordination of the clause, in which clauses embed other clauses or are
embedded within them.

(32) Memo o tori -nagara hanasi o

notes ACC take.ADVL CONJCTPART/MAN talk ACC
kiku -to, yoku wakaru
listen.CONCL CONJCTPART/COND well understand.CONCL
36 Yoshio Nitta

-node, memo o toroo to

CONJCTPART/REAS notes ACC take.INTF QUOT
omot -ta ga, nooto ga
think.ADVL PST CONJCTPART/COO R notebook NOM
mitukara nakat -ta.
be.found.IRR AUX/NEG.ADVL PST
‘Since I understand better when I take notes asI listen to the talk, I went to
take notes, but I couldn’t find my notebook.’

In (32), memo o tori.nagara is a manner clause describing how the action of [hanasi o
kiku] takes place and is therefore, embedded within the conditional clause hanasi
o kiku to. The combination memo o tori.nagara hanasi o kiku.to is further embedded
within the reason clause yoku wakaru.node. Furthermore, that whole combination is
further embedded into the adversative coordinate clause memo o toroo to omotta.ga,
yielding the complex composite memo o tori.nagara hanasi o kiku.to, yoku wakaru.node,
memo o toroo to omotta.ga. Finally, this whole thing is embedded within the main
clause nooto ga mitukaranakatta producing (32).
That is, the structure of the whole of (32) is the layered structure shown below.

(33) [[[[[manner clause] conditional clause] reason clause] coordinate clause]

main clause]

Japanese complex sentences are formed with the clauses taking a layered structure.
As will be touched upon a little bit later on, the grammatical categories a predicate
takes are constrained by the degree of embedding of the clause. Fewer grammatical
categories can appear in highly subordinate clauses located deep inside. As the
degree of subordination decreases, the number of grammatical categories that can
appear increases. In the main clause, basically any grammatical category can appear.

5 Grammatical categories appearing in the

predicate
A variety of grammatical categories can appear in a verbal sentence. In Japanese, the
grammatical categories appear as morphological changes in the words making up
the predicate. The term “morphological changes” is used in a broad sense. Morpho-
logical changes in Japanese are realized through a variety of morphological means.
Among the morphological changes, there may be alternations in word endings,
addition of affixes, or addition of supplementary words.
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 37

The types of grammatical categories appearing vary depending on the type

of clauses forming the sentence, differences in the parts of speech forming the
predicate, or more accurately, differences in the lexical and grammatical type of the
predicate, the type of meaning expressed by the sentence, and the sentence type
from the view of its speech and communicative function.
Among the grammatical categories appearing in a predicate are: voice, aspect,
polarity, tense, cognitive modality, speech and communicative modality, and polite-
ness. Among these grammatical categories, there are some whose appearance is
heavily influenced by the type of clause the predicate occurs in and some whose
appearance is heavily influenced by the lexical and grammatical type of the predicate.
Nitta (2009a) broadly divides the grammatical categories into two types. The
grammatical categories whose appearance is constrained by the lexical and gram-
matical type of the predicate Nitta (2009a) terms lexico-grammatical categories and
those that can appear with a variety of predicate types without regard to lexico-
grammatical types he termed pure grammatical categories. Being able to appear
with a variety of predicate types means that they can appear not only with verbal
predicates but also with adjectival and nominal predicates.

5.1 Lexico-grammatical categories

Let us start by looking at the lexico-grammatical categories, the appearance of
which is constrained by the lexical and grammatical type of the predicate. The
lexico-grammatical categories are voice and aspect.
When looking at voice in Japanese, as is well known, there are two types of
passives, the direct passive, which in in direct opposition with the active, and the
indirect passive. Here we will take up the direct passive as the primary representa-
tive of voice. The direct passive stands in opposition to the active.

(34) Hirosi wa Yooko o yasasiku nagusame -ta.

Hiroshi TOP Yoko ACC gently console.ADVL PST
‘Horoshi gently consoled Yoko.’

(35) Yooko wa Hirosi ni yasasiku nagusame -rare -ta.

Yoko TOP Hiroshi DAT gently console.IRR AUX/PASS.ADVL PST
‘Yoko was gently consoled by Hiroshi.’

(34) is an active sentence and (35) is a direct passive sentence. As shown in (35)
the form showing the meaning of direct passive is made by adding an auxiliary
verb (ra)reru acting as a suffix to the active form of the verb. The active and passive
verbs can be seen as an opposition of the verb forms [nagusame-ru – nagusame-rare-ru].
Voice can only appear in a verbal predicate. Furthermore, even with a verbal
predicate, it is not the case that voice can occur with all verbal predicates. There
38 Yoshio Nitta

are constraints on the verbal predicates with which the direct passive can appear. A
generalization about the predicates with which the direct passive can appear is not
as simple as for aspect. Even so, some characteristics can be adduced. Taking up
only a part of the required characteristics, the following can be said. Verbs that
can be used in the direct passive must be verbs that take at least two noun phrase
arguments. However, even though they take two arguments, verbs like naguriau ‘hit
each other’, tatakau ‘battle’, koosaisuru ‘associate’, or wakareru ‘separate, part’,
which have a meaning of reciprocal action or mutual influence, cannot appear in a
direct passive. Verbs that take the direct passive are verbs like naguru ‘hit’, taosu
‘knock down’, amaeru ‘take advantage of’, suteru ‘discard’, which have a meaning
showing an action extended unilaterally from the agent toward an object.

(36) Hirosi wa Yooko ni yorikakara -re -ta.

Hiroshi TOP Yoko DAT lean.on.IRR PASS.ADVL PST
‘Hiroshi was leaned on by Yoko.’

(37) *Kabe wa Yooko ni yorikakara -re -ta.

wall TOP Yoko DAT lean.on.IRR PASS.ADVL PST
‘The wall was leaned on by Yoko.’

(36) is a grammatical sentence but (37) is not. Both (36) and (37) show an action
extended unilaterally from the actor, but in (36) the target of the action, Hiroshi,
can feel the effect of the extension of the action. In contrast, in (37), the target of
the action, the wall, is not so affected by the action. A direct passive occurs more
easily in cases showing an action expressed by the verb that affects the object.
Aspect is also a grammatical category that is constrained by the lexical and
grammatical type of the predicate word.

(38) Sukosi mae Hirosi wa siken o uke -ta.

a.little before Hiroshi TOP exam ACC take.ADVL PST
‘A little bit earlier, Hiroshi took an exam.’

(39) Sukosi mae Hirosi wa siken o ukete i -ta.

a.little before Hiroshi TOP exam ACC take.GER AUXV.ADVL PST
‘A little bit earlier, Hiroshi was taking an exam.’

Basically, aspect consists of the opposition between imperfective and perfective,

as in (38) and (39). Imperfective aspect is formed by adding the auxiliary verb iru to
the te-form of the verb. Perfective and imperfective can be seen as an opposition
between two verb forms, as in [uke-ru – uke-te-ru].
Aspect can only appear with a verbal predicate. Furthermore, even with a verbal
predicate, it is not the case that aspect can appear with all verbal predicates. Verbs
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 39

with which aspect can appear are verbs that show action, like taberu ‘eat’ as in
[tabe-ru – tabe-te-i-ru]. Verbs that show states or attributes like aru ‘exist, have’ to
not have a form like atteiru. Aspect does not appear with verbs like these. Also, in
Japanese, a homophonous teiru form shows a different type of continuing state. The
lexical type of the verb is involved with this form as well.

(40) Kodomo ga okasi o tabete -iru.

child NOM candy ACC eat.GER AUXV/PROG
‘The child is eating the candy.’

(41) Otoko ga yuka ni taorete -iru.

man NOM floor LOC fall.GER AUXV/RES
‘The man lies fallen on the floor.’

In (40) tabeteiru shows the continuing state of an action that is on-going and in (41)
taoreteiru shows a continuing state that arises in the subject, the ending result of
an action. Verbs that show the former meaning are ones like aruku ‘walk’, tataku
‘hit’, or kowasu ‘crush’, and verbs that show the latter meaning are ones like sinu
‘die’, iku ‘go’, or kowareru ‘break’. Okuda (1985) characterizes the two groups of
verbs, calling them verbs that show an action of the subject and verbs that show a
change in the subject. Kudō (1995) and Nitta (2010) present more detailed analyses
of the relation between aspect and the lexical type of a verb.
The type of clause does not greatly affect the lexico-gramatical categories. They
also appear in clauses high in subordination. This is especially true of voice.

(42) Kare wa minna ni tasuke -rare

he TOP everyone DAT aid.IRR PASS.ADVL
-nagara yama o nobot -ta.
CONJCTPART/MAN mountain PATH climb.ADVL PST
‘Helped by everyone, he climbed the mountain.’

As can be seen in (42), the direct passive appears in a nagara manner clause, the
kind of clause highest in subordination.

5.2 Grammatical categories appearing in various types of

predicates
The purely grammatical categories, which can appear with any type of predicate,
include polarity, tense, and politeness. Instead of being constrained by the lexical
and grammatical type of the predicate, these grammatical categories are greatly
constrained by the type of clause in which the predicates appear, or, in other words,
40 Yoshio Nitta

are constrained by the structural position of the sentence in which the predicate
appears. The types of clauses in which polarity, tense, and politeness can appear
are all different.
Using the cases of the verb tukamu ‘grab’, the adjective hiroi ‘wide’, and the
noun gakusei ‘student’ being used as predicates as examples, the forms showing
the oppositions of polarity, tense, and politeness are illustrated below.

(43) tukamu – tukama -nai

grab.ROF/AFF grab.IRR NEG
‘grab’ ‘not grab’

(44) tukamu – tukan -da

grab.ROF/NONPST grab.ADVL PST
‘grab’ ‘grabbed’

(45) tukamu – tukami -masu

grab.ROF/PLN grab.ADVL POL
‘grab’ ‘grab’

(46) hiroi – hiroku -nai

wide.ROF/AFF wide.ADVL NEG
‘wide’ ‘not wide’

(47) hiroi – hirokat -ta

wide.ROF/NONPST wide.ADVL PST

(48) hiroi – hiroi -desu

wide.ROF/PLN wide.CONCL POL
‘wide’ ‘wide’

(49) (gakusei) da – (gakusei) de -nai

student COP/ROF/AFF COP.ADVL NEG
‘(He) is a student.’ ‘(He) is not a student.’

(50) (gakusei) da – (gakusei) dat -ta

student COP/ROF/NONPST COP.ADVL PST
‘(He) is a student.’ ‘(He) was a student.’

(51) (gakusei) da – (gakusei) desu

student COP/ROF/PLN COP.POL
‘(He) is a student.’ ‘(He) is a student.’

(43), (44), and (45) are verbal predicate examples, (46), (47), and (48) are adjective
predicate (more precisely, i-adjective predicate) examples, and (49), (50), and (51)
are nominal predicate examples. Nominal predicates take the form of a noun with the
copula attached. (43), (46), and (49) are examples showing the polarity oppositions
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 41

with the forms on the left showing grammatically affirmative meanings and the
forms on the right being negative forms. (44), (47), and (50) are examples showing
the tense oppositions with the forms on the left being non-past forms and those on
the right past forms. (45), (48), and (51) are examples showing politeness opposi-
tions with the forms on the left being plain forms and the forms on the right polite
forms. The forms on the left are the unmarked forms and those on the right are
marked.
The following are examples in which polarity, tense, and politeness all appear in
their marked forms.

(52) Sensei wa gakusei o metta.ni sikari

teacher TOP student ACC almost.never scold.ADVL
-mase -n -desi -ta.
AUX/POL.ADVL NEG AUX/POL.ADVL PST
‘The teacher almost never scolded the students.’

(53) Kono hon wa sahodo takakuari

this book TOP to.a.great.extent expensive.ADVL
-mase -n -desi -ta.
POL.ADVL NEG POL.ADVL PST
‘This book wasn’t all that expensive.’

(54) Kare wa hongaku no gakusei deari

he TOP this.school GEN student COP.ADVL
-mase -n -desi -ta.
POL.ADVL NEG POL.ADVL PST
‘He was not a student at this school.’

Accordingly, the grammatical meaning expressed in (52), (53), and (54), is, for all
of them, negative, past, and polite. The forms sikari-mase-n-desi-ta, takakuari-mase-
n-desi-ta, and gakusei deari-mase-n-desi-ta also have the alternate forms sikara-
nakat-ta-desu (scold.IRR-NEG.ADVL-PST-POL), takaku-nakat-ta-desu (expensive.ADVL-
NEG.ADVL-PST-POL), and (gakusei) de-nakat-ta-desu (COP.ADVL-NEG.ADVL-PST-POL),
respectively.

(55) Asu sensei wa gakusei o sikaru

tomorrow teacher TOP student ACC scold.CONCL
‘Tomorrow the teacher will scold the student.’

When used as the clause-final predicate in the main clause, as in (55), sikaru appears
in its simplest form, but it still shows the grammatical meanings affirmative, non-past
42 Yoshio Nitta

(future in this case), and plain style. In other words, in a structural context in which
the grammatical categories of polarity, tense, and politeness are expressed, the
unmarked form sikaru is the form that expresses the grammatical meanings of
affirmative, non-past, and plain style. The unmarked form also expresses affirmative,
non-past, and plain style with adjective predicates like takai ‘expensive’ and nominal
predicates like gakusei da.
In Japanese, there are various morphological forms that express the grammatical
meanings associated with the grammatical categories born by the predicate; they
string together one after another to create a form that expresses complex grammatical
meanings. In that sense, it would appear that an IA (Item and Arrangement) analysis
would apply quite well, but that is only when all the meanings are expressed in their
marked forms. In order to correctly capture the grammatical meanings expressed by
unmarked forms, it is necessary to compare and contrast the respective words in a
word paradigm table. The importance of situating the lexical item in a word form
opposition and extracting the grammatical categories and the importance of accu-
rately capturing the grammatical meanings expressed by the unmarked forms is
strongly argued by such researchers as Okuda (1985), Takahashi (1994) and Suzuki
(1996).

5.3 Polarity
Polarity is the grammatical category that expresses whether or not a given action,
state, or attribute pertains to the person or thing that occupies the subject position.
In Japanese, a form that does not have a morpheme expressing negation attached
is not unspecified for affirmative versus negative. The forms ugoku ‘move’, ugoita
‘moved’, and ugokimasu ‘move.POL’, and hiroi ‘wide’, hirokatta ‘was wide’, and
hiroidesu ‘wide.POL’, as well as (gakusei)da ‘is (a student)’, (gakusei)datta ‘was (a
student)’, and (gakusei)desu ‘is (a student).POL’ are all affirmative forms. In order to
express negation, the word must be changed into a negative form with a morpheme
expressing negation attached. Looking just at verbal predicates, the negative forms
are: ugoka-nai ‘don’t move’, ugoka-nakat-ta ‘didn’t move’, and ugoki-mase-n ‘don’t
move.POL’. The grammatical category of polarity is manifested by the opposition
between the affirmative and negative forms of the predicate.
Unlike languages like English, the use of a negative polarity item (NPI) like
hitori.mo ‘even one person’ or metta.ni ‘almost never’ alone does not make the
sentence negative.

(56) *Kare wa metta.ni niku o taberu.

he TOP almost.never meat ACC eat.CONCL

(57) Kare wa metta.ni niku o tabe -nai.

he TOP almost.never meat ACC eat.IRR NEG
‘He almost never eats meat.’
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 43

(56) is a sentence with the predicate in the affirmative form, in spite of co-occurring
with an NPI. In Japanese, (56) not only does not show negation, it is ungrammatical.
A predicate must be put into its negative form in order to co-occur with an NPI.
Polarity is a grammatical category that can appear even in highly subordinate
clauses. Polarity can occur in conditional clauses, but not in manner clauses.

(58) Sikkari tabe -nake -reba

properly eat.IRR NEG CONJCTPART/COND
tairyoku ga otiru yo.
strength NOM fall.CONCL SFP
‘If you don’t eat properly, your strength will weaken.’

(59) Okasi o tabe -nagara

candy ACC eat.ADVL CONJCTPART/MAN
otoko wa hon o yonde -i -ta.
man TOP book ACC read.GER AUXV PST
‘The man was reading a book as he ate (some) candy.’

(60) *Okasi o tabe -nai -nagara

candy ACC eat.IRR NEG CONJCTPART/MAN
otoko wa hon o yonde -i -ta.
man TOP book ACC read.GER AUXV PST
‘The man was reading a book as he didn’t eat (some) candy.’

As shown by (58), negation can appear in a conditional clause. The grammatical

category of polarity, then, can appear in a conditional clause. Thus, there is also
the form tabe-reba ‘eat-CONJCTPART/COND’ incorporating the affirmative meaning.
(59) is grammatical, but (60) is not. A nagara manner clause does not take negation.
Because of the fact that it cannot have an affirmative – negative opposition, it can be
said that the grammatical category of polarity does not appear in a nagara manner
clause.

5.4 Politeness
Politeness in Japanese is a grammatical category that expresses the manner in which
one speaks, that is, with what sort of treatment stance towards the listener the
speaker utters a sentence. Politeness is shown by changes in the form of the predi-
cate word. In Japanese, a form that does not have a morpheme expressing politeness
attached is not unspecified for polite style versus plain style. The forms ugoku [move.
CONCL] ‘move’, ugoka-nai [move.IRR-NEG] ‘not move’, and ugoi-ta [move.ADVL-PST]
44 Yoshio Nitta

‘moved’ are all forms showing plain style. In contrast, ugoki-masu [move.ADVL-POL]
‘move’, ugoki-mase-n [move.ADVL-POL-NEG] ‘not move’, and ugoki-masi-ta [move.ADVL-
POL-PST] ‘moved’ are all forms expressing polite style. The polite style are forms
showing the speaker’s consciousness of the listener and his consideration in relating
the sentence to the listener in a polite manner. In contrast, the plain form is a form
that relates the sentence neutrally, without particularly recognizing the existence
of the speaker or including the consideration of relating the sentence in a polite
manner. In Japanese, predicate forms appearing in a structural context in which
the grammatical category of politeness can appear are either polite-style forms or
plain-style forms.
However, although politeness can be expressed by changes in the form of a
predicate, there are cases in which politeness cannot be determined within the scope
of a single sentence. Politeness involves the style of a text as a whole. Even in a text
that is basically in the polite style, there may occasionally appear plain-style forms.
However, the occasional appearance of a plain-style form does not destroy the polite
style of the text.
Politeness is a grammatical category that is deeply related to the whole of a text.
Texts in which the polite style appears and in which there is an opposition between
polite style and plain style are discourse-type texts. In monologue-type texts, the
polite style does not appear; only the plain style appears.

(61) Kare wa kitto yakusoku o mamori -masu.

he TOP surely promise ACC keep.ADVL POL
‘He will surely keep his promise.’

(62) *Kare wa kitto yakusoku o

he TOP surely promise ACC
mamori -masu to omot -ta
keep.ADVL POL QUOT PART think.ADVL PST

(63) Kare wa kitto yakusoku o

he TOP surely promise ACC
mamoru to omot -ta
keep.CONCL QUOT PART think.ADVL PST
‘I thought he would surely keep his promise.’

The predicate of (61) is in the polite style. As (62) shows, a sentence with the predi-
cate in the polite-style form cannot be embedded as a quote to a psychological verb
like omou ‘think’. What can appear as the quoted part of omou is a sentence in the
plain form, as in (63). The quoted part of omou is self-directed speech. Self-directed
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 45

speech is a monologue that naturally does not require a listener. From these examples,
it is apparent that in monologues only plain-style forms can appear, not polite-style
forms. In monologues, there is no opposition between polite style and plain style.
Politeness is a grammatical category that involves the relation between the speaker
and the hearer. However, unlike modality, it can appear in clauses high in subordina-
tion. Politeness does not appear in manner clauses, but there are times it appears in
conditional clauses.

(64) Kado o migi ni magari -masu -to

corner PATH right DIR turn.ADVL POL CONJCTPART/COND
yuubinkyoku ga ari -masu.
post.office NOM exist.ADVL POL
‘If you turn the corner to the right, there is a post office.’

The magari-masu-to in (64) is a predicate in a conditional clause and takes a polite-

style form. However, appearance of the polite style with the predicates of conditional
clauses is rare. Mio (1958:249) studied how often the predicate of a subordinate clause
appeared in the polite form when the main clause predicate was polite. The results
were 7.3% of the time for to conditional clauses, 28% of the time for node reason
clauses, and 94.5% of the time for ga adversative coordination clauses. Unlike
polarity, with politeness, the predicate of each single subordinate clause does not
maintain the opposition of a characteristic grammatical category. If the predicate of
the main clause takes a polite-style form, even though the predicate of a subordinate
clause may be in the plain form, it is influenced by the polite-style form of the main
predicate and takes on the grammatical meaning of polite style. The figures from the
study in Mio (1985) show the degree to which, in terms of the grammatical category
or politeness, the predicate of a subordinate clause is influenced by the form of the
main clause. The type that is most easily influenced by the main clause, for which
the necessity of showing an opposition of characteristic forms is lower, is the to
clause. In contrast, the type for which the need to show opposition of characteristic
forms is high the adversative coordination ga clause.

5.5 Tense
Although there are also exceptional uses, tense is the grammatical category that
expresses with regard to a time-limited event a temporal earlier than or later than
relationship between a reference time and the time of the event the sentence is
describing. In a main clause, the reference time is basically the time of speech.
In Japanese, tense is expressed by changes in the form of the predicate.
Tense can be either past or non-past. The non-past form is not limited to ugoku
46 Yoshio Nitta

[move.CONCL] ‘move’, but ugoka-nai [move.IRR-NEG] ‘not move’, and ugoki-masu

[move.ADVL-POL] are also non-past forms. The past forms that stand in opposition
are ugoi-ta [move.ADVL-PST] ‘moved’, ugoka-nakat-ta [move.IRR-NEG.ADVL-PST]
‘didn’t move’, and ugoki-masi-ta [move.ADVL-POL.ADVL-PST] ‘moved’, respectively.
Tense appears in all type of predicate: verbal, adjectival, and nominal. The
appearance of tense is not constrained solely by the lexical and grammatical type
of the predicate. Although how tense is expressed is influenced by the lexical and
grammatical type of the predicate, what ultimately influences its expression is the
semantic type of the event the sentence expresses and the sentence type as viewed
from its speech-communication function.
In terms of speech-communication function there are imperative and inten-
tional sentences. Tense does not appear in these. Events shown by imperatives and
intentional sentences are all unrealized events. The predicates of imperative and
intentional sentences take forms in which there is no way of showing tense, as in
ugok-e [move.IMP] ‘Move!’, ugoi-tekure [move.ADVL-GER.give.IMP] ‘Move, please’,
and ugok-oo [move.INTF] ‘Let’s move!’. The types of sentences in which tense
appears are declarative and interrogative sentences. However, not all tense forms
appearing in declarative and interrogative sentences express a proper tense mean-
ing. Whether the forms express the proper tense meaning of the occurrence of an
event being earlier or later with respect to the time of speech is influenced by the
semantic type of the event. It is in sentences that express actions or states that the
meaning of proper tense is realized in declarative and interrogative sentences. In
sentences that express attributes of people or things that are not easily changed,
the tense meanings that tense forms express are different from the normal meanings.

(65) Sakuzitu kare wa siken o uke -ta.

the.other.day he TOP exam ACC take.ADVL PST
‘The other day he took an exam.’

(66) Sakuya boku wa onaka ga itakat -ta.

last.night I TOP stomach NOM hurt.ADVL PST
‘Last night I had a stomachache.’

(67) Nara no daibutu wa ookikat -ta.

Nara GEN large.statue.of.Buddha TOP big.ADVL PST
‘The large statue of Buddha in Nara was big.’

The type of events expressed by these sentences are: (65) action, (66) state, and (68)
attribute. The action and states have a temporary existence that will disappear after
the passage of some period of time. In contrast to these, attributes are something
with which a person or thing is furnished and are not something that are time-
bound in the sense that they exist only for a limited period of time. The past tense
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 47

form in (65) shows that the event of the subject’s taking an exam occurred in the
past. In the same way, the past tense in (66) shows that the situation of having a
stomachache happened in the past. In contrast, the past tense in (67) does not
show a period of existence for the situation of Nara’s statue of Buddha being big.
The past form in (67) involves a cognitive-experiential time and shows that the
speaker became conscious of and experienced a situation in the past. The past tense
appearing in attribute sentences does not express the usual tense meaning.
Tense does not appear in highly subordinate clauses.

(68) Ame ga huru node,

rain NOM fall.CONCL CONJCTPART/REAS
sentakumono o toriire -ta.
laundry ACC take.in.ADVL PST
‘Since it was about to rain, I took in the laundry.’

(69) Ame ga hut -ta node,

rain NOM fall.ADVL PST CONJCTPART/REAS
sentakumono o toriire -ta.
laundry ACC take.in.ADVL PST
‘Since it had rained, I took in the laundry.’

(70) Kare ni at -ta ga,

he DAT meet.ADVL PST CONJCTPART/COOR
sono mae ni kanozyo ni mo at -ta.
that before TEMLOC she DAT PART meet.ADVL PST.
‘I met him, but before that I met her.’

A node reason clause is comparatively low in subordination. As shown in (68) and

(69), even in a node reason clause the non-past versus past forms of the predicate
do not show earlier or later with respect to speech time as reference time. Instead,
the reference time with respect to which it expresses earlier or later than is the event
time of the main clause. The predicate of the subordinate clause in (70) is in the past
tense form. However, the event of the subordinate clause did not happen before the
event of the main clause, but happened after. In (70), the past tense of the predicate
of the subordinate clause, like the main clause, takes speech time as the reference
time relative to which it expresses earlier or later than. It is the ga adversative coor-
dination clause, which is extremely low in subordination, that takes speech time as
the reference time relative to which it expresses earlier or later than.
As a string of words has a temporal situation element added and the predicate
expresses tense, it moves even closer to becoming a complete sentence.
48 Yoshio Nitta

6 Toward becoming a sentence

A sentence can be broadly divided into a part that expresses a proposition and a
part that expresses modality. The proposition is, broadly speaking, the part in which
the speaker expresses an objective happening or circumstance he has taken note
of in the external world or in his internal world. The proposition part includes the
grammatical categories through polarity, politeness, and tense.
Proposition and modality basically have the following layered structure.

(71) [[proposition] modality]

This layered structure is not at a string level but is on the structural level.

(72) Zannen.na koto ni tabun kono hukeiki,

unfortunate.ADN matter COP/ADVL probable this recession
toobun tuzuku daroo ne.
for.awhile continue.CONCL PRES SFP
‘It’s unfortunate, but this recession will probably continue for a while, don’t
you think?’

Taking (72) as an example, proposition and modality can be shown as follows.

(73) [Zannen.na koto ni [kono hukeiki, tooban tuzuku] daroo ne]

Nitta (1991, 2009b) establishes cognitive modality and speech-communicative modality

as core modalities.

(74) Kare wa siken o uke -nakerebanaranai -daroo.

he TOP exam ACC take.ADVL DUTY PRES
‘He will probably have to take an exam.’

As shown in (74), so-called deontic modality can have cognitive modality added to it
and, compared to cognitive modality, has a strongly objective character.
Cognitive modality expresses how the speaker apprehends the proposition
cognitively. Cognitive modality is basically expressed by changes in the form of the
predicate word. Cognitive modality can, as a first cut, be divided into judgements
taking the circumstances expressed by the proposition as being something certain,
and conjectures taking the proposition as something uncertain from one’s imag-
ination or from inference. Judgements are shown by unmarked forms like suru
[do.CONCL], or takai [expensive.CONCL]. Conjecture is shown by the addition of
an auxiliary verb as in suru daroo [do.CONCL PRES] ‘will probably do’or takai daroo
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 49

[expensive.CONCL PRES] ‘is probably expensive’. There are also expressions of

cognitive modality that involve probability. These are expressed by the addition
of an auxiliary verb equivalent as in suru-kamosirenai [do.CONCL-for.all.I.know]
‘may do’or takai-nitigainai [expensive.CONCL-without.a.doubt] ‘definitely expensive’.
Furthermore, there are also expressions of cognitive modality that involve evi-
dentiality. These are expressed by the addition of auxiliary verbs, as in suru-rasii
[do.CONCL-seems] ‘it seems he will do’or takai-yooda [expensive.CONCL-apparent]
‘it is apparently expensive’.
Speech-communicative modality are expressions of how the speaker conveys
the proposition or the proposition with cognitive modality added to realize a given
communication function. Speech-communicative modality includes declarative, inter-
rogative, imperative and intentional. It is only with declarative that a variety of
cognitive modality forms appear.

(75) Asu wa ame ni naru -daroo.

tomorrow TOP rain DAT become.CONCL PRES
‘It will probably rain tomorrow.’

(76) Sugu yamete -kudasai.

immediately stop.GER AUXV/REQ
‘Please stop that immediately.’

(77) Asu wa ame ni naru daroo

tomorrow TOP rain DAT become.CONCL PRES
ga, asatte wa hareru daroo.
CONJCTPART/COOR day.after.tomorrow TOP clear.up.CONCL PRES
‘It will probably rain tomorrow, but it will probably clear up the day after.’

(78) *Sugu yamete -kudasai ga

immediately stop.GER AUXV/REQ CONJCTPART/COOR
nakanaka yame -nai.
quite stop.IRR NEG
‘Please stop that immediately, but (they) just don’t stop.’

In (75) only cognitive modality appears in an explicit form as daroo. In (76) speech-
communicative modality appears explicitly in the form tekudasai. As shown in (77),
even if a string of words includes cognitive modality, it can form part of a sentence
as a subordinate clause. In contrast, (78) is ungrammatical. Once a string of words is
formalized explicitly as having speech-communications modality, it cannot no longer
become part of another sentence. By including speech-communicative modality, a
string of words becomes a sentence.
50 Yoshio Nitta

The sentence is the fundamental unit of linguistic activity. A string of words

forms a proposition expressing the necessary grammatical categories appropriately
and the addition of modality to the proposition completes the sentence. Ultimately,
a string of words has no existence as a unit below the sentence unit and it is the
speech-communicative modality that makes the string a sentence.

7 On how to treat modality

In this chapter we have adopted capturing and identifying grammatical categories
from the oppositions seen in predicate word paradigms as a way of analyzing
and describing the meaning expressed by the forms of expression in a sentence.
Naturally other ways of analyzing and describing grammatical categories have been
put forth. For example, there is the position advocating analyzing and describing
sentence meaning giving weight to the meanings of the auxiliary verbs and particles
that express the grammatical meanings.
Within the grammatical categories as well, there have been a variety of proposals
on how to treat modality. In this chapter, modality has been situated as one of
the grammatical categories expressed by the predicate. In this case, to put it more
precisely, this means that modality is one of the morphological categories expressed
by changes in the form of the predicate. Modality is realized by changes in the
forms of the predicates in a broad sense, including changes in suffixes as in hasire
[run.IMP] ‘Run!’, the addition of an auxiliary verb as in hasiru-daroo [run.CONCL-
PRES] ‘(He’ll) probably run’, or the addition of a particle as in hasiru-kana [run.CONCL-
PART] ‘I wonder whether he’ll run’. However, although the grammatical categories
may be realized through changes in the form of the predicate, the scope within
which the respective grammatical categories operate is determined. The breadth of
the scope within which the respective grammatical categories operate differ among
categories. For example, aspect does not operate on a structure in which tense is
realized but, rather, tense operates on a structure in which aspect is realized. That
is, the scope of tense is broader than the scope of aspect. Concerning the cognitive
modality expressed by daroo, the form itself never appears in a past tense form.
Daroo does not bear tense. The scope of the cognitive modality expressed by daroo
is broader than the scope of tense. That is, the cognitive modality expressed by
daroo takes as its scope of operation a sentence structure that is already furnished
with tense.
This chapter has adopted the position that the basic semantic and syntactic
structure of a sentence is formed by a proposition and modality. To further state the
position: putting aside exceptions, a sentence is formed by the proposition’s taking
on modality. This kind of position is influenced by one traditional thread in the
theory of sentence formation in Japanese grammar studies like Tokieda (1931) and
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 51

Watanabe (1971). The view of modality in this chapter is one that goes in the
direction of taking the sentence as a unit of linguistic activity and extracting the
conditions for the formation of sentence as a unit of linguistic activity.
Naturally, there are other positions concerning how to treat the sentence and
other views of modality. One influential position is that of Onoe (2004, 2014). Onoe’s
ideas are presented in a comprehensive form in the commentary entries he wrote for
Nihongo Bunpō Gakkai (2014). Onoe (2014) takes the position that, in a sentence like
Neko ga nete-iru [cat NOM sleep.GER-AUXV.CONCL] ‘A cat is sleeping,’ some kind of
existential recognition is expressed through the linking of the subject neko ga and
the predicate nete-iru and through this a sentence is formed. The subject expresses
something that exists and the predicate expresses the manner in which it exists.
Also, for him, the specialized sentence-final forms for the purpose of speaking of
an event in an unreal world are modal forms and the meaning that is brought to
the sentence by these modal forms is modality. Onoe (2004) labels this position a
theory of modality as a theory of moods. Thus, in the case when one is speaking of
an event in the real world, without including any specialized modal forms, there is
no modality included. That is, modality is a question of the form of the predicate as
constituent in opposition to the subject and moreover, is a question of whether a
sentence takes a specialized form.
In Onoe (2014) the following are given as modal forms. First, forms in which
the auxiliary verbs -yoo, -mai, and -bekida appear are given, such as uke-yoo
[take.INTF] ‘let’s take’, ukeru-mai [take.CONCL-NEG.PRES] ‘probably will not take’,
and ukeru-bekida [take.CONCL-OBLIGATION] ‘ought to take’. These forms are called
the predicate modal forms ( johōkeishiki). Next, there are forms in which an auxiliary
verb equivalent like -daroo, -kamosirenai, -yooda, or -nakerebanaranai has been added
to a predicate, as in ukeru-daroo [take.CONCL-PRES] ‘will probably take’, ukeru-
kamosirenai [take.CONCL-for.all.I.know] ‘may take’, ukeru-yooda [take.CONCL-appear]
‘looks like (he will) take’, and uke-nakerebanaranai [take.IRR/DUTY] ‘must take’.
These auxiliary verb equivalent forms are called predicate-external forms ( jutsugo
gaisetsu keishiki). Whether they are forms resulting from predicate modals or from
predicate-external forms, they are all involve the form of the predicate and the
recognition of the existence they express is recognition of an existence in an unreal
world. Thus, these end up being modal forms. This way of treating modality is
probably close to the view of modality in Western linguistics.
In Onoe (2014) cases such as Aitu wa hannin-daroo [he TOP criminal-COP/PRES]
‘He’s probably a criminal’ that express a circumstance the reality of which is uncon-
firmed and cases such as Gakusei wa hon o yomu -bekida [student TOP book ACC
read.CONCL-OBLIGATION] ‘Students ought to read books’ that express a circumstance
that ought to be realized are given as events in an unreal world. In addition, forms
expressing intention, like Gohan o tabe-yoo [meal ACC eat.ADVL-INTF] ‘Let’s eat.’ or
requests, like Gohan o tabe-ro [meal ACC eat-IMP] ‘Eat!’ express circumstances still
unrealized and are events in the unreal world.
52 Yoshio Nitta

In contrast to forms like uke-yoo or ukeru-bekida, forms like uke-ta [take.ADVL-

PST] ‘took’ and ukete-iru [take.GER-AUXV] ‘be taking’ are forms expressing past tense
or expressing continuative aspect, that is to say, need to be situated as forms relating
events in the real world.
However, there are problems with the following.

(79) Kare wa sakuzitu siken o uke -ta.

he TOP the.other.day exam ACC take.ADVL PST
‘He took a test the other day.’

(80) Kare wa kitto sakuzitu siken o uke -ta.

he TOP surely the.other.day exam ACC take,ADVL PST
‘He surely took an exam the other day.’

The predicate of both (79) and (80) is uketa, a form expressing an event in the real
world. In fact, (79), reflecting the type of its predicate, does express an event in the
real world. However, even though (80) has the same predicate form used for talking
about events in the real world, because it co-occurs with the adverb kitto showing
degrees of certainty, the sentence actually talks of an event in an unreal world. The
phenomenon arises here of a predicate form used for relating events of the real
world being used in a sentence relating events of an unreal world.
However, this kind of phenomenon remains a problem as well for the stance
adopted in this chapter of treating modality as one grammatical category of the
predicate operating over a fixed scope. Modality is a grammatical category that is
more difficult to analyze and describe than categories like tense.

Acknowledgments
This chapter has been translated into English by John Haig based on the Japanese
manuscript prepared by the author.

References
Kudō, Mayumi. 1995. Asupekuto,tensu taikei to tekusuto [Text and the system of aspect and tense].
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai Nihongo no kōzō [The structure of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan
Shoten.
Minami, Fujio. 1993. Gendai Nihongo bunpō no rinkaku [Outline of the grammar of modern Japanese].
Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
 Basic sentence structure and grammatical categories 53

Mio, Isago. 1958. Hanashi kotoba no bunpō [The grammar of the spoken language]. Tokyo: Hōsei
Daigaku Shuppan-kyoku.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no modariti to ninshō [Modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1995. Nihongo bunpō gaisetsu: Tanbun hen [Outline of Japanese grammar: Simple
sentences]. In Tatsuo Miyazima and Yoshio Nitta (eds.), Nihongo ruigi hyōgen no bunpō:
Tanbun hen [Synonymous expressions in Japanese: Simple sentences]. 1–39. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Nitta, Yoshio. 2009a. Nihongo no bunpō kategorī o megutte [On grammatical categories in Japanese].
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nitta, Yoshio. 2009b. Nihongo no modariti to sono shūhen [Japanese modality and its periphery].
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo
Nitta, Yoshio. 2010. Goiron-teki tōgoron no kanten kara [From the view of lexical syntax]. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Nihongo Bunpō Gakkai (ed.). 2014. Nihongo bunpō jiten [Japanese grammar dictionary]. Tokyo:
Taishukan Shoten.
Okuda, Yasuo. 1985. Kotoba no kenkyū: josetsu [Language research: Introduction]. Tokyo: Mugi
Shobō.
Onoe, Keisuke. 2004. Bunpō to imi I [Grammar and meaning I]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Onoe, Keisuke. 2014. Shugo, jutsugo, bun, modariti [Subject, predicate, sentence, modality]. In Nihongo
Bunpō Gakkai (eds.), Nihongo bunpō jiten [Japanese grammar dictionary]. Tokyo: Taishukan
Shoten.
Suzuki, Shigeyuki. 1996. Keitairon josetu [Morphology: Introduction].Tokyo: Mugi Shobō.
Takahasi, Tarō. 1994. Dōshi no kenkyū [Studies on verbs]. Tokyo: Mugi Shobō.
Tokieda, Motoki. 1931. Kokugogaku genron [Japanese language studies theory]. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Watanabe, Minoru. 1971. Kokugo kōbunron [Theory of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō.
Wesley M. Jacobsen
2 Transitivity

1 Introduction
Broadly understood, transitivity is concerned with the number of nouns (arguments)
that a predicate requires in order for the meaning of a sentence containing it to
be complete. A predicate that requires two or more such arguments is transitive; a
predicate requiring just one is intransitive, as illustrated in (1a) and (1b).

(1) a. Kokku ga tamago o wat-ta. (< war-ta)

cook NOM egg ACC crack-PST
‘The cook cracked the egg.’

b. Tamago ga war-e-ta
egg NOM crack-INTR-PST
‘The egg cracked.’

By this definition, the predicate war-u ‘cracktr’ in (1a) is transitive as it requires two
arguments (filled here by kokku ‘cook’ and tamago ‘egg’) while the predicate war-e-ru
‘crackin’ in (1b) is intransitive as it requires only one (filled here by tamago ‘egg’).
Understood in this way, transitivity is no different from the concept of valency, which
is concerned with the full range of noun arguments required by a predicate.
There is a narrower sense of transitivity, however, that is concerned with a
specific kind of noun argument – the direct object, whose presence is a condition
for a predicate to count as transitive in this sense. The predicate war-u ‘cracktr’ in
(1a) above is thus transitive in both the broad and narrow sense, as its second argu-
ment can be identified from its accusative case marking o as a direct object, whereas
the predicates tiga-u ‘be different’ and onazi-da ‘be the same’ in (2) take two
arguments (in both examples, boku no iken ‘my opinion’ and kare no (iken) ‘his
(opinion)’), and are therefore transitive in the broad sense, but not in the narrower
sense, as neither argument in these examples is a direct object.

(2) a. Boku no iken wa kare no to tiga-u/onazi-da.

I GEN opinion TOP he GEN COM differ-NPST/be.same-NPST
‘My opinion is different from/the same as his.’

b. Ano hito wa boku no ozi ni ataru.

that person TOP me GEN uncle DAT correspond-NPST
‘That person is (corresponds to) my uncle.’

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-003
56 Wesley M. Jacobsen

Different means are employed across languages for distinguishing the direct object
from other arguments of a predicate. In English, direct objects are identified by the
position they occupy immediately following the predicate (e.g. egg in (1a)), but in
Japanese, as seen earlier, by their marking with the accusative case marker o (e.g.
tamago o ‘egg-ACC’ in (1a)). Second arguments in Japanese may be marked in ways
other than with accusative o, depending on the predicate, such as with comitative to
‘with/as/than’ in kare no (iken) to ‘his (opinion)’ in (2a) and dative ni ‘to/toward’ in
boku no ozi ni ‘my uncle’ in (2b). Although the default position of all such second
arguments in Japanese is immediately adjacent to the predicate – i.e., immediately
preceding the predicate in conformity with the SOV typology of Japanese, second
arguments, including those marked by accusative o, may be “scrambled” to positions
non-adjacent to the predicate, such as in (3), with varying pragmatic effects, but no
effect on the literal meaning..

(3) Tamago o kokku ga wat-ta.

egg ACC cook NOM cracktr-PST
‘The cook cracked the egg.’

The possibilities for syntactic marking of second arguments, both positionally and in
terms of case marking, are therefore more varied in Japanese than in English, where
second arguments occur consistently in post-predicate position, differentiated at most
by whether a particle or preposition intervenes. The difference between bivalency
(taking a second argument) and transitivity (taking a second argument marked as
a direct object) is thus more clearly apparent in the syntax of Japanese than in
English.
In addition to these two dimensions of transitivity, a semantic one concerned
with the number of arguments of a predicate and a syntactic one concerned with
what case marking the second argument receives, there is a third, morphological
dimension of transitivity in Japanese, reflected in the differing shapes of the transi-
tive verb in (1a) and the intransitive verb in (1b). As we will show, each of these three
dimensions defines a class of transitive predicates that is distinct to some extent
from the other two. While this might raise doubts as to whether transitivity is in
fact a unitary phenomenon in Japanese, this chapter will argue that all three dimen-
sions can in fact be seen to share a common parameter of marking a degree of
differentiation between two entities seen to participate in an event, defining a cline
along which entities are relatively more or relatively less differentiated, as proposed
in Næss (2007). A fundamental question that emerges from this is how some predi-
cates come to be associated with two arguments as opposed to one in the first place,
and among predicates associated with two arguments, what conditions must obtain
for the second argument to receive special treatment as a direct object, questions
that will be taken up in detail in Section 4 of this chapter. As groundwork for this,
Section 2 will first lay out a more complete description of the formal characteristics
 Transitivity 57

of transitivity in Japanese, followed by a brief survey in Section 3 of the historical

development of transitivity as a grammatical concept in the native Japanese gram-
matical tradition. Section 5 will be concerned with how the meaning and function
of lexical transitive forms interacts with, and cannot be understood independently
from, the meaning and function of causative and passive forms in Japanese.

2 The formal character of transitivity in Japanese

Alongside the syntactic dimension of transitivity described in the previous section –
marking of the direct object with the accusative case marker o – there is a second
formal dimension of transitivity seen in the marking of transitive and intransitive
predicates in Japanese. Specifically, this morphological marking takes the form of
affixes distinguishing the transitive and intransitive members of verb pairs such as
war-u ‘crack (tr.)’ vs. war-e-ru ‘crack (intr.),’ ak-e-ru (tr.) ‘open (tr.)’ vs. ak-u ‘open
(intr.),’ nao-s-u (tr.) ‘fix’ vs. nao-r-u (intr.) ‘become fixed,’ etc. These alternating verb
pairs typically enter into sentence patterns such as that seen earlier in (1), repeated
here, and exhibiting the syntactic and semantic properties listed in (4).

(1) a. Kokku ga tamago o wat-ta. (< war-ta)

cook NOM egg ACC crack-PST
‘The cook cracked the egg.’

b. Tamago ga war-e-ta
egg NOM crack-INTR-PST
‘The egg cracked.’

(4) a. The transitive verb requires one noun argument more than the intransitive
verb.

b. The noun arguments of the transitive and intransitive members are case
marked as follows, with the accusative noun argument of the transitive
member corresponding to the nominative noun argument of the intransitive
verb, represented here by NP2 (= tamago ‘egg’ in example (1)):

NP1 ga (NOM) NP2 o (ACC) Vtr ↔ NP2 ga (NOM) Vin

c. The transitive verb expresses an intentional action; the intransitive verb the
result intended by that action.1

1 While the action of the transitive verb always intends an event of the type expressed by the intran-
sitive, the intransitive may also express an event that occurs spontaneously, independent of any
action that brings it about.
58 Wesley M. Jacobsen

Although NP2 receives a different case marking in the transitive and intransitive
patterns in (4b), it represents in both cases an entity that undergoes a change of
state in exactly the same way – in the case of (1) a change from a state of being an
integral whole to one of being in several parts – something commonly referred to in
the linguistic literature as “theme,” following Gruber (1965). The question may arise
then as to why the theme does not receive the same case marking in both the transi-
tive and intransitive case. Such a case marking strategy is in fact adopted in certain,
so-called ergative languages, where the transitive object and the intransitive subject
receive the same “absolutive” marking and the transitive agent receives an “ergative”
case marking distinct from this (Dixon 1994). Illustrating this with Japanese case-
marking particles, this would be tantamount to intransitive subjects receiving the
same case particle o as transitive objects, as in the imaginary example (5b).2

(5) a. Kokku ga tamago o wat-ta. (< war-ta)

cook ERG egg ABS crack-PST
‘The cook cracked the egg.’

b. Tamago o war-e-ta
egg ABS crack-INTR-PST
‘The egg cracked.’

Japanese in fact marks intransitive subjects in the same way as transitive agents,
adopting the so-called nominative-accusative case marking strategy. These two case
marking strategies can be seen as differing ways of economizing with two case
particles to mark three syntactic functions, both strategies making it possible for all
intransitive subjects to consistently receive the same case marking. Not all intransi-
tive subjects are in fact alike, however, as some intransitive subjects encode agents,
rather than themes, as in (6).

(6) a. Odoriko ga odot-ta.

dance-girl NOM dance-PST
‘The dancer danced.’

b. Uma ga hasit-ta.
horse NOM run-PST
‘The horse ran.’

Interestingly, these kinds of intransitives do not typically have transitive partners,

suggesting a third possible case marking strategy where intransitive subjects like

2 A reviewer points out that in many ergative languages absolutive case, being the unmarked case,
is in fact indicated by zero marking, and is sometimes therefore referred to as “(zero) nominative
case.”
 Transitivity 59

those in (6) are differently case-marked from intransitive subjects like (1b), the former
receiving the same case marking as transitive agents and the latter receiving the
same case marking as transitive objects. This is the case marking strategy adopted
in certain so-called “split-S” or “active” languages (Woolford 2015). Languages such
as Japanese, by contrast, economize in their case marking systems by assigning the
same case marker to all intransitive subjects no matter what the type, adopting
a consistently nominative-accusative case marking strategy. As with many other
nominative-accusative languages, there are subareas of Japanese grammar that
exhibit ergative tendencies, where transitive objects and intransitive subjects behave
in a similar way, such as resultative constructions (Tsujimura 1994) and construc-
tions built on the -kake form (Kishimoto 1996). Insofar as case marking is concerned,
however, every predicate in Japanese must minimally have at least one noun argu-
ment that is marked by nominative ga.
Verb pairs exhibiting the transitive-intransitive alternations in (4) number close
to 500 in Japanese and fall into three broad categories according to whether the
transitive member can be seen to be derived from the intransitive member, normally
by exhibiting an affix that is absent from the intransitive member (e.g. ak-e-ru ‘open
(tr.)’ vs. ak-u ‘open (intr.)’), or the intransitive member from the transitive member
(e.g. war-u ‘crack (tr.)’ vs. war-e-ru ‘crack (intr.)’), or neither, with both the transi-
tive and intransitive member exhibiting an affix not appearing on its partner (e.g.
nao-s-u ‘fix’ vs. nao-r-u ‘be fixed’). These morphological alternations are treated
in detail in a separate companion volume to the current series (Transitivity and
valency alternations: studies in Japanese and beyond, ed. Taro Kageyama and Wesley
M. Jacobsen, 2016, Mouton de Gruyter), to which interested readers are referred.
A list of transitive-intransitive alternating pairs appears in the appendix to that
volume that totals 474 verb pairs, divided into 305 core pairs exhibiting in main
the properties in (4) and 169 additional pairs that depart in some respect from
these properties, such as in their meaning, syntactic behavior, or frequency of usage.
Suffice it to note here that the syntactic criterion for transitivity – co-occurrence with
a noun argument marked with accusative o – and the morphological criterion for
transitivity – participation in an affix pattern that identifies a predicate as the transi-
tive member of one of the alternating verb pairs listed above, while overlapping in
the “core” cases, do not in all cases pick out as transitive the same group of predi-
cates. There are, in particular, predicates that co-occur with o-marked noun arguments
that have no intransitive morphological partner with which they enter into an affixal
opposition like that described above (e.g. tabe-ru ‘eat,’ nagur-u ‘hit,’ yob-u ‘invite,’
etc.) and verb pairs that exhibit the affix markings of typical transitive-intransitive
verb pairs where both members of the pair co-occur with o-marked arguments
(e.g. azuk-e-ru ‘entrust (to the care of another)’ vs. azuk-ar-u ‘keep (in one’s own
care),’ to be taken up in Section 3). Mismatches such as this point to independent,
if largely overlapping, criteria that underlie syntactic and morphological transitivity
in Japanese. We begin in the next section with examining the notion of transitivity
60 Wesley M. Jacobsen

that underlies the morphological dimension, one that has played a central role in the
historical evolution of a grammatical concept of transitivity in the native Japanese
tradition.

3 Morphology and transitivity in the native

Japanese grammatical tradition
The kernels of a conception of transitivity can be traced back to the 18th century in
the native Japanese grammatical tradition of Kokugogaku (‘native language study’),
originating in some early anonymous treatises and developed in the work of scholars
such as Fujitani Nariakira, Moto’ori Norinaga, and, most notably, Moto’ori Haruniwa.
This conception of transitivity centered on a distinction between ji ‘self’ and ta ‘other,’
understood roughly as the individual self in opposition to the world surrounding
the individual, a distinction that is inherited to this day in the Japanese terms for
intransitive verb and transitive verb ( jidōshi ‘self-movement-word’ vs. tadōshi ‘other-
movement-word’). Beginning with the work of Haruniwa, this distinction began to
receive a more specifically grammatical treatment, as reflected in the detailed analysis
of morphological forms found in his Kotoba no kayoiji (1828) and its six-way classifica-
tion of verb forms into categories corresponding roughly to intransitive, transitive,
ditransitive, causative, spontaneous, and passive. This concern with morphology
has been dominant through the history of the Kokugogaku tradition, virtually to the
exclusion of attention to other dimensions of transitivity, so that even in relatively
modern work in this tradition such as Shimada (1979), the idea of transitivity as
defined by the presence of a direct object is viewed as a foreign notion borrowed
from western grammar. With the advent of generative grammar in the 1960s, how-
ever, analyses of transitivity in Japanese appeared that depart from this tendency to
view transitive morphological oppositions as a self-contained system, instead treat-
ing them as surface forms triggered by syntactic features such as presence or lack of
accusative case marking or number of arguments, as seen in works such as Okutsu
(1967) and Inoue (1976). More recent descriptive studies in this native Japanese tradi-
tion are found in collections of papers such as Nitta (ed., 1991) and Suga and Hayatsu
(eds., 1995).
This focus on morphology contrasts sharply with treatments of transitivity in
western traditions of modern linguistics, where there has been a marked lack of
attention to morphological dimensions of transitivity. This is perhaps a natural con-
sequence of the absence of any significant morphological dimension to transitive vs.
intransitive alternations in English, as seen in the use of verbs such as crack illus-
trated earlier in (1) and open and burn in the English glosses of the sentence pairs
in (7).
 Transitivity 61

(7) a. Ken ga mado o ak-e-ta. ↔ Mado ga ai-ta. (< ak-ta)

Ken NOM window ACC open-TR-PST window NOM open-PST
‘Ken opened the window.’ ‘The window opened.’

b. Kaizoku ga ie o yai-ta. (< yak-ta) ↔ Ie ga yak-e-ta

pirate NOM house ACC burn-PST house NOM burn-INTR-PST
‘The pirates burned (down) the house.’ ‘The house burned (down).’

The Japanese examples in (7), on the other hand, exhibit both a morphological
opposition (ak-e-ru ‘opentr’ vs. ak-u ‘openin,’ yak-u ‘burntr’ vs. yak-e-ru ‘burnin’) and
a syntactic opposition (presence or lack of an o-marked accusative argument). As
in (1), these two formal characteristics coincide, so that only the morphologically
transitive verb occurs with an o-marked argument, typical of the behavior of stan-
dard transitive-intransitive pairs described in (4). As noted earlier, though, there are
a significant number of verb pairs in Japanese where the morphological opposition
does not coincide with a syntactic opposition. One such class of verbs is seen in the
examples in (8) and (9).

(8) a. Kyaku ga tokeiya ni tokei o azuk-e-ta.

customer NOM clock-shop DAT watch ACC leave-PST
‘The customer left his watch with the watch repairman.’

b. Tokeiya ga kyaku no/kara tokei o azuk-at-ta (< azuk-ar-ta).

Clock-shop NOM customer GEN/ABL watch ACC keep-PST
‘The watch repairman kept the customer’s watch (took the watch under his
care from the customer)’

(9) a. Hahaoya ga kodomo ni huku o ki-se-ta.

mother NOM child DAT clothes ACC put.on-PST
‘The mother dressed (lit., put clothes on) the child.’

b. Kodomo ga huku o ki-ta.

child NOM clothes ACC put.on-PST
‘The child put on his clothes.’

Other morphological pairs that exhibit the syntactic pattern in (8) and (9) include
sazuk-e-ru ‘grant’ vs. sazuk-ar-u ‘receive, be granted,’ kabu-se-ru ‘put (on the head
of another)’ vs. kabu-r-u ‘put (on one’s own head),’ hukum-e-ru ‘include (in some-
thing else)’ vs. hukum-u ‘contain (in oneself)’, ka-s-u ‘lend’ vs. ka-ri-ru ‘borrow,’ and
osi-e-ru ‘teach’ vs. osow-ar-u ‘learn.’ The right-hand member of each of these pairs,
appearing in the (b) examples in (8) and (9), can be identified as morphologically
intransitive, as it exhibits in each case a morphological opposition exactly analo-
gous to that of the intransitive member of standard transitive-intransitive pairs
62 Wesley M. Jacobsen

(e.g., azuk-ar-u in (8b) analogous to the intransitive member of pairs such as ag-e-ru
‘raise’ vs. ag-ar-u ‘rise’ and ki-ru in (9b) to the intransitive member of pairs such as
ni-se-ru ‘imitate’ vs. ni-ru ‘be similar to, resemble’), and yet in all cases occurs with
an accusatively-marked direct object argument. In fact, both the morphologically
transitive and intransitive members of these pairs take the same direct object argu-
ment (tokei ‘watch’ in (8), huku ‘clothes’ in (9)), in contrast to the case marking
pattern of standard transitive-intransitive verb pairs seen in (4b). The case marking
pattern here also differs from (4b) in that the ga-marked nominative subject of the
intransitive clause corresponds not to the o-marked accusative argument of the tran-
sitive clause, but rather to its ni-marked dative argument.
This case marking relationship can be schematized as in (10), with the morpho-
logically transitive pattern on the left and the morphologically intransitive pattern
on the right:

(10) NP1 ga NP2 ni NP3 o Vtr ↔ NP2 ga NP3 o Vin

Although both sentence patterns in (10) would appear to be transitive, at least in

the syntactic sense, there are nevertheless several important respects in which the
sentence pattern exhibits intransitive characteristics, apart from the morphology
alone of its predicate. There is, first of all, a reduction in the number of its argu-
ments as compared to the morphologically transitive clause, due to the absence in
the intransitive clause of the subject argument NP1 of the transitive clause, thus pre-
serving feature (4a) of standard transitive-intransitive verb pairs.3
At the level of meaning, in addition, the meaning feature (4c) can be seen to be
present in the syntactic pattern in (10): the transitive clause expresses an intentional
action that has as its result the situation expressed by the intransitive clause. In (8),
for example, as a result of the customer in (8a) leaving the watch with the repairman,
the repairman in (8b) keeps the watch, and in (9), as a result of the mother in (9a)
putting the clothes on the child, the child in (9b) has the clothes on, and so forth.
There is, furthermore, a difference in the relationship that obtains between the
subject and direct object in the two patterns in (10) that may be seen to reflect a
difference in transitivity. In the intransitive pattern, the o-marked object entity (NP3 =
tokei ‘watch’ in (8)) enters into the possession of the ga-marked subject entity (NP2 =

3 Note that in the case of verb pairs such as azukeru/azukaru in (8), the subject NP1 ga of the mor-
phologically transitive clause may appear in the morphologically intransitive clause with ablative
marking NP1 kara ‘from NP1.’ The fact that this is not an obligatory argument of the ‘intransitive’
clause, however, is evident from the possibility of NP1 alternatively appearing as a non-argument
modifier of NP3 in the genitive collocation NP1 no NP3 o ‘NP1’s NP3’ with no sense of ellipsis. For a
discussion of how to determine argumenthood in Japanese, see the chapter on argument structure in
the forthcoming volume in the HJLL series Handbook of Japanese semantics and pragmatics (ed. by
Wesley M. Jacobsen and Yukinori Takubo).
 Transitivity 63

tokeiya ‘watch repairman’ in (8)), whereas in the morphologically transitive pattern,

the o-marked object entity (again, NP3 = tokei ‘watch’ in (8)) comes into the posses-
sion, not of the subject entity (NP1 = kyaku ‘customer’ in (8), but rather an entity dis-
tinct from the subject, the datively ni-marked entity (NP2 = tokeiya ‘watch repairman’
in (8)). In the morphologically intransitive clause, that is, the object entity becomes
incorporated into the subject entity, as opposed to the morphologically transitive
clause, where the object entity becomes incorporated into something else.
If the grammatical subject is identified with the “self”, this distinction between
incorporation of the object into the subject “self” versus incorporation into a non-
subject “other” correlates closely with the traditional historical Japanese understand-
ing of transitivity as a difference between self-oriented (zi) and other-oriented (ta)
meaning, an understanding that may therefore be seen as a natural outgrowth of
the focus on morphology in this tradition. This meaning may be seen to subsume
the meaning of standard transitive-intransitive morphological pairs illustrated earlier
in (1) and (7) in that only the transitive form in such cases bears reference to an object
“other” distinct from the subject, one that is absent in the intransitive case, but
extends more broadly to cases where both transitive and intransitive morphological
forms take an object, distinguished by whether it becomes incorporated or not into
the subject “self.” This points to a view of transitivity that has been put forth in
more recent research as encoding a variously higher or lower level of differentiation
between two entities (Næss 2007), one that holds the promise of making possible
a unified treatment of the various dimensions of transitivity that are observed in
Japanese.
One further type of mismatch between syntactic and morphological transitivity
is seen in cases where the morphologically intransitive form takes an accusatively-
marked locative object representing either the path or source of a motion expressed
by the verb. The accusative object of the intransitive member (11b) of the pair in (11)
illustrates the case of path of motion, and the accusative object of the intransitive
member (12b) of the pair in (12) illustrates the case of source of motion.

(11) a. Sagyooin ga kuda ni mizu o too-si-ta. < too-s-ta

worker NOM pipe DAT water ACC let.pass-PST
‘The worker passed water through the pipe.’

b. Mizu ga kuda o too-t-ta. < too-r-ta

water NOM pipe ACC pass.through-PST
‘Water passed through the pipe.’

(12) a. Takusii untensyu ga eki no mae de kyaku o

taxi driver NOM station GEN front LOC passenger ACC
(takusii kara) or-osi-ta. < or-os-ta
taxi ABL let.off-PST
The taxi driver let the passenger off (from the taxi) in front of the station.
64 Wesley M. Jacobsen

b. Kyaku ga eki no mae de takusii o or-i-ta

passenger NOM station GEN front LOC taxi ACC get.off-PST
‘The passenger got off the taxi in front of the station.’

Further examples of pairs with an intransitive member taking a path object include
nuku ‘pull out’ vs. nukeru ‘pass through,’ watasu ‘hand over/let across’ vs. wataru
‘go across,’ and kaeru ‘change’ vs. kawaru ‘exchange (places) with’; further examples
of intransitive members taking source objects include the intransitive member of
the pairs dasu ‘take out’ vs. deru ‘leave/come out from,’ sugosu ‘let pass/spend’ vs.
sugiru ‘pass by,’ and hanasu ‘release’ vs. hanareru ‘move away from.’
These verb pairs, like those following the pattern in (10), exhibit accusative case
marking in both morphologically transitive and intransitive clauses, but maintain an
important affinity with the standard pattern in (4b) that is lacking in (10): the accu-
sative object of the morphologically transitive form is identified with the nominative
subject of the morphologically intransitive form (e.g., mizu in (11a,b) and kyaku
in (12a,b)). As a consequence, the accusatively marked object represents a different
entity in the transitive and intransitive case, unlike (10). The case pattern of noun
arguments with these pairs can be schematized as in (13):

(13) a. Path object case: NP1 ga NP2 o NP3 ni Vtr ↔ NP2 ga NP3 o Vin

b. Source object case: NP1 ga NP2 o NP3 kara Vtr ↔ NP2 ga NP3 o Vin4

(13) also exhibits a reduction in the number of arguments between the morphologi-
cally transitive and morphologically intransitive case, preserving another feature of
standard transitive/intransitive pairs.
From the standpoint of meaning, finally, these pairs provide another example of
a distinction between self-oriented (zi) and other-oriented (ta) meaning, as seen in
the differing relationship that obtains between the accusative object and nominative
subject in each case. Specifically, the transitive object here encodes an entity distinct
from the subject that undergoes a change in state (namely, a change in position or
location), while the object in the intransitive case, though representing a locative
entity distinct from the subject, does not undergo such a change – it is the subject
itself that undergoes such a change in the intransitive case. So the effect of the
action expressed by the transitive verb extends to an entity distinct from the subject

4 The question arises of whether locative objects are in fact arguments of their intransitive predi-
cates, an answer to which requires developing an objective test for argumenthood. According to
the test proposed in the chapter on argument structure in the Handbook of Japanese semantics and
pragmatics (see Footnote 1), locative objects are arguments in some cases, including most cases of
intransitives having transitive partners, such as tooru ‘go through/along,’ oriru ‘get off,’ and deru
‘go out from/leave,’ but not in the case of verbs having no transitive partner, such as aruku ‘walk,’
kuru ‘come,’ and iku ‘go.’
 Transitivity 65

entity, whereas the action of the intransitive verb reverts to the subject itself, in a
reflexive-like self-oriented action.5
Much as morphological patterns of transitivity in Japanese may diverge from
syntactic intransitivity, then, with many morphologically “intransitive” forms allowing
accusative marking, we have seen that these patterns nevertheless encode dimensions
of transitivity that overlap with, but are not entirely coterminous with, syntactic tran-
sitivity, such as varying levels of differentiation between the subject and object entity
and inward versus outward directedness of the event expressed relative to the subject
entity. The question remains at a deeper level of how certain predicates are associated
with two arguments rather than one to begin with and what licenses certain second
arguments to receive the privileged status of accusative marking – what kind of tran-
sitivity it is, in other words, that is encoded by the syntactic dimension of transitivity
in Japanese, a question we turn to in the next section.

4 Bivalency and syntactic transitivity

As noted at the outset of this chapter, a transitive predicate, understood in the broad
sense, is one that is bivalent – i.e., requires at least two noun arguments for the
meaning of the sentence containing it to be coherent. But second arguments of biva-
lent predicates in Japanese can receive marking other than accusative marking. One
class of such bivalent predicates are those whose second arguments take comitative
case marking, such as the verb tigau ‘be different (from)’ and the copular adjective
onazi da ‘be the same (as),’ illustrated earlier in (2). Further examples of predicates
taking, or at least allowing, comitative marking include butukaru ‘collide (with),’
syoototu-suru ‘collide (with),’ kekkon-suru ‘get married (with),’ wakareru ‘separate,
break up with,’ au ‘meet (with),’ and ni(te-i)ru ‘resemble, look like.’
These predicates have in common the semantic property of expressing properties
or events that are symmetric, in the sense that what is predicated of the first argument
with respect to the second entails that the same thing can be predicated of the second
with respect to the first: ‘A is different from B’ entails ‘B is different from A,’ ‘A looks
like B’ entails ‘B looks like A,’ etc. The possibility of the same predication being
made of either argument is reflected in the possibility of the two entities being
coordinated into a single subject, as in (14a) and even into a single compound
word representing two entities as in (14b).

(14) a. Boku no iken to kare no iken wa tiga-u.

I GEN opinion and he GEN opinion TOP differ-NPST
‘My opinion and his opinion are different.’

5 Reflexive constructions occupy an intermediary position between transitive and intransitive mean-
ing, behaving in certain respects like the former and in other respects like the latter, and represent a
special case of what has been called middle voice (Kemmer, 1993).
66 Wesley M. Jacobsen

b. Ano oyako wa yoku nite-iru.

that mother.child TOP well resemble-STAT-NPST
‘That mother and child strongly resemble (each other).’

No matter how the two entities are configured, a relationship between two entities is
inherent to the meaning of these predicates, so that their bivalent character may be
seen to have a logical basis in this relational meaning.
Relational meaning, however, comprises a wider range of meaning than sym-
metrical meaning, including non-symmetrical properties and events inherently involv-
ing reference to two entities. Such non-symmetrical relational meaning characterizes
a second class of bivalent predicates with second arguments marked with dative ni,
represented by verbs such as ataru ‘hit/strike (against),’ sawaru ‘touch,’ tayoru ‘rely
on,’ and koi-suru ‘fall in love with,’ where the event or property has a one-way direc-
tionality extending from one entity toward the other but not vice versa. Examples of
such predicates taking second arguments with dative ni are given in (15).

(15) a. Kaze ga tuyoku madogarasu ni atat-ta.

wind NOM strongly window.glass DAT hit-PST
‘The wind hit against the window with great force.’
b. Ano kyoozyu wa yuunoo-na zyosyu ni tayot(te-i)ru.
that professor TOP cabaple assistant DAT rely-STAT
‘That professor relies on his able assistant.’

Many predicates that otherwise express a symmetric relationship with comitative

second arguments have alternative uses with dative marking, when one of the two
entities is seen as dominant in the sense of bearing responsibility for initiating the
relationship, as in (16a), or one entity is seen as the standard against which the
property holding between the two arguments is conceptualized, as in (16b).

(16) a. (Unten ni ki o tukero.) Mae no kuruma

driving DAT attention ACC attach-IMP front GEN car
ni butukaru yo.
DAT collide SP
‘(Watch your driving.) You’ll run into the car in front of you.’
b. Ano ko wa hahaoya ni yoku nite-iru.6
that child TOP mother DAT well resemble-STAT-NPST
‘That child strongly resembles its mother.’

6 The topic marker wa is a variety of ‘focus’ particle, not a case particle, and does not specify the
case relationship a noun bears to its predicate. In each of the examples in (16), wa conceals an
underlying nominative ga that encodes the case relationship in question. This can be seen from
observing the case marker that emerges when the noun is placed in contexts where topical wa
marking is not licensed in Japanese, such as when the noun represents questioned information or
when its clause occurs in subordinate contexts. The case particle that emerges in such contexts
for each example in (16) is nominative ga. E.g., Ano ko ga hahaoya ni yoku niteiru no wa toozen no
koto da. ‘It is natural that that child strongly resembles its mother.’
 Transitivity 67

Apart from the presence or absence of symmetry, all predicates obligatorily taking
comitative or dative second arguments inherently express a relational meaning that
requires reference to two entities, and their bivalency may therefore be seen to have
a logical basis in such relational meaning.7
Turning now to the case of paradigmatic transitive predicates, with second argu-
ments receiving accusative o marking, it is clear by contrast with two-place predicates
taking dative or comitative second arguments that paradigmatic transitive predicates
are inherently asymmetric in their meaning. This can be illustrated, however trivially,
with the transitive clause on the left in (7), repeated here, where the relationship is
conceived of as a one-way action directed from Ken to the window, and there is no
sense in which the role played by Ken vis-à-vis the window is shared by the window
vis-à-vis Ken.

(7) a. Ken ga mado o ak-e-ta. ↔ Mado ga ai-ta. (< ak-ta)

Ken NOM window ACC open-TR-PST window NOM open-PST
‘Ken opened the window.’ ‘The window opened.’

Negatively defining accusative transitive constructions as asymmetric in this way

does not, however, explain why their predicates must be bivalent. The question still
remains as to whether such predicates inherently encode a component of meaning
that is relational, thereby requiring reference to two distinct obligatory entities in
their argument structure.
Ironically, the presence of the large number of morphological transitive-intransitive
pairs like those considered in Section 3 (e.g., waru-wareru ‘crack,’ akeru-aku ‘open,’
naosu-naoru ‘fix-get fixed,’ etc.) might suggest that syntactically transitive predicates
cannot in general be characterized as relational in meaning. Otherwise it would be
difficult to explain why the meaning of each such pair may be expressed so naturally
in either an intransitive (monovalent) or transitive (bivalent) fashion. The meaning
shared by each member in such pairs appears to be a simple change of state that in
itself is neutral to occurrence involving one entity (a theme undergoing the change
in state) versus two entities (a theme undergoing the change in state and an agent
bringing about that change). The critical question then is whether syntactic accusa-
tive constructions impose some element of meaning on their predicates in addition
to this simple change of state that is inherently relational in meaning and uniquely
distinguishes them from non-accusative intransitive constructions.
One place to search for such an element of meaning is in the “prototype” of
transitive meaning proposed by Hopper and Thompson in their famous 1980 study

7 Not all noun phrases marked by comitative to are arguments of their predicate. There are also
cases of to marking an optional adjuncts that supplement the meaning of the sentence, but are not
obligatory to its meaning, such as Tomodati to kooen o aruita ‘I walked through the park with a
friend.’
68 Wesley M. Jacobsen

of transitivity. According to Hopper and Thompson, transitivity is not a property that

can be defined in dichotomous terms of transitive versus intransitive, but is rather a
scalar property that clauses may possess in relatively higher or lower degrees to the
extent that they express events that exhibit or do not exhibit a set of properties that
can be summarized as in (17):

(17) a. Two participants are involved.

b. One participant is an agent that acts in an intentional manner.
c. The other participant is a theme that undergoes a change.
d. The event expressed culminates in an endpoint (it is “telic” and “bounded”
in time)
e. The event occurs in real time (as opposed to being merely possible, desired,
or otherwise imagined).

A prototypical transitive event, from this perspective, is one like that expressed in the
transitive clause of the pair in (7). This clause expresses an event exhibiting all the
features in (17): there are two participants in the event, Ken and the window; Ken
acts in an intentional manner to bring about a change in the window; the window
undergoes a change from a state of being closed to being open; this event culminates
in an endpoint defined by the window attaining the state of being open; and the event
occurs in real time. The features in (17) can indeed be seen to group together in the
meaning of many, perhaps most, syntactically transitive predicates, pointing to the
centrality of the event type they collectively represent in human experience.
The features in (17) are not, however, logically bound together in an inextricable
way. For example, meaning feature (a) – the involvement of two participants – does
not always co-occur with meaning feature (c) – the undergoing of a change of state
in one of these participants, as illustrated in dative constructions such as (18), where
two participants are involved but no change of state occurs in the second participant.

(18) Ken ga Mari ni paatii de at-ta.

Ken NOM Mari DAT party LOC meet-PST
‘Ken met Mari at a party.’

Similarly, the involvement of two participants in an event does not necessarily have
to be seen as occurring in real time, as seen in possible or desired contexts such
as (19).

(19) a. Ken ga niku ga tabe-rare-nai (koto)

Ken NOM meat NOM eat-POT-NEG (fact)
‘(The fact that) Ken cannot eat meat’
 Transitivity 69

b. Ken ga niku ga tabe-tai (koto)8

Ken NOM meat NOM eat-DESI (fact)
‘(The fact that) Ken wants to eat meat’

Significantly, the second argument in these cases is marked with a case particle
other than accusative o: the dative case particle ni in (18) and the nominative case
particle ga in (19). The question is whether accusative constructions require the
presence of all the meaning features in (17), and if not, whether there is any one
feature predominant over the others in such constructions that can be seen to be
inherently relational in meaning and requires bivalent expression.
As we survey the range of meanings expressed in accusative constructions, it
becomes quickly clear that the answer to the first part of this question is negative:
as I have pointed out in earlier work (Jacobsen 1992), numerous examples exist of
accusative constructions that depart from the Hopper and Thompson prototype in
(17). Three types of such non-prototypical constructions are illustrated in (20): verbs
of perception (20a), verbs of emotion (20b), and verbs of expectation (20c). In each of
these cases, the o-marked second participant undergoes no change of state and thus
lacks property (17c), a central feature of the transitive prototype. In the case of the
examples in (20c) the second participant need not even be an actually existing entity.

(20) a. Terebi no gamen o mi-ru; ongaku o ki-ku; hon o yom-u

TV GEN screen ACC look.at; music ACC listen.to; book ACC read
‘Look at/watch the TV screen’; ‘Listen to music’; ‘Read a book’

b. Teki o nikum-u; sake o konom-u; kokyoo o sita-u

enemy ACC hate; wine ACC like; home.town ACC long.for
‘Hate one’s enemy’; ‘Like/prefer wine’; ‘Long for one’s home town’

c. Tomodati o mat-u; syoku o sagas-u; ii kekka o nozom-u

friend ACC wait.for; work ACC search.for; good result ACC hope.for
‘Wait for one’s friend’; ‘Search for work’; ‘Hope for a good result’

While the examples in (20) may lack one feature of the prototype, however, they
consistently preserve another central feature of the prototype, and that is inten-
tionality in the subject. All predicates in (16) are capable of entering into one or
more verbal constructions that require a subject having volition, indicative of the
presence of intentional meaning, such as the imperative, potential, and conative
(‘try to’) constructions, illustrated in (21a–c) for syoku o sagasu ‘search for work.’

8 The use of koto ‘fact’ to subordinate the constructions here is intended to suppress the tendency
for the first argument to be marked with topic wa, which would otherwise be more natural in main
clause contexts with stative predicates such as these (see Footnote 6).
70 Wesley M. Jacobsen

(21) Syoku o sagas-e. Syoku ga sagas-e-nai. Syoku o sagas-oo-to-suru

work ACC search-IMP work NOM search-POT-NEG work ACC search-VOL-do
‘Search for work!’ ‘I can’t search for work.’ ‘I try to search for work.’

Particularly interesting in this regard are the verbs of perception in (20a), several of
which form pairs with intransitive counterparts, exhibiting not only the same kind of
morphological alternations that characterize standard transitive-intransitive pairs,
but also the case marking alternation that characterizes such pairs seen earlier in
(4b), with the transitive object corresponding to the intransitive subject. These pairs
also preserve the meaning relationship in (4c): in each case the intransitive clause
expresses the result of the intentional action expressed in the transitive clause, as
illustrated in (22).

(22) a. Terebi no gamen o mi-ru ↔ Terebi no gamen ga mi-eru

TV GEN screen ACC look.at TV GEN screen NOM be.visible
‘Look at the TV screen’ ↔ ‘The TV screen is visible/can be seen.’

b. Ongaku o kik-u ↔ Ongaku ga kikoe-ru

music ACC listen.to music NOM be.audible
‘Listen to music’ ↔ ‘Music is audible/can be heard.’

Another class of accusative-marked constructions lacking the prototypical feature

(17c) of theme undergoing a change in state are the locative object constructions
considered earlier in Section 3, such as in (23).

(23) Miti o aruku; tonneru o tooru; umi o wataru

road ACC walk; tunnel ACC go.through; sea ACC cross
‘Walk along the road’; ‘Go through a tunnel’; ‘Cross the ocean’

Although these examples differ from the examples in (20) in that the second partici-
pant is not always an argument of the predicate (e.g., miti ‘road’ is not an obligatory
argument of aruku ‘walk,’ though tonneru ‘tunnel’ and umi ‘sea’ are respectively
arguments of tooru ‘go through’ and wataru ‘cross’), these constructions, like those
in (20), are again intentional in character, as can once again be shown in the possi-
bility of these verb forms taking imperative, potential, conative, etc., forms, as illus-
trated for umi o wataru ‘cross the ocean’ in (24).9

9 A reviewer points out that there are locative object constructions with inanimate subjects, such
as Taru ga saka o koroge-otite itta ‘The barrel rolled down the slope’ or Soyokaze ga umi o watatte
huite kuru ‘A gentle breeze blows across the ocean.’ While the subject entities here do not exhibit
intentionality in the strict sense, they exhibit a closely related element of agency in that they are
conceived of as moving under their own power.
 Transitivity 71

(24) Umi o watar-e. Umi ga watar-e-nai. Umi o watar-oo-to-suru

ocean ACC cross-IMP ocean NOM cross-POT-NEG ocean ACC cross-VOL-do
‘Cross the ocean!’ ‘I can’t cross the ocean.’ ‘I try to cross the ocean.’

Judging from the examples so far, it appears that the feature in (14b) – the presence
of intentional meaning – is a necessary condition on the occurrence of accusative o.
Though far less common, however, apparent counterexamples can be found here as
well.

(25) a. Sumaho o dokoka e nakusi(te-simat)ta.

smart.phone ACC somewhere LOC lose-PST
‘I lost my smart phone somewhere.’

b. Kookoo zidai ni oboeta eigo o sukkari

high.school years TMP learn-PST English ACC completely
wasure(te-simat)ta.
forget-PST
‘I completely forgot the English I learned in high school.’

c. 19sai no toki baiku no ziko de asi no

19 GEN time motorbike GEN accident CAUS leg GEN
hone o ot(te-simat)ta.
bone ACC break-PST
‘I broke my leg(bone) in a motorbicycle accident when I was 19 years old.’

The actions expressed in (25) clearly do not involve conscious intention. As many
have observed, however, these events can be seen to arise under the control of the
subject entity in the sense that it has the ability, with sufficient exercise of the will,
to prevent the actions from taking place. Under the nonintentional readings, further-
more, the presence of the te-sima(w)u auxiliary is strongly preferred, and absent
such a marking these predicates co-occur freely in the usual constructions indicating
intentional meaning, such as imperative (especially negative imperative), potential,
and conative.
A second class of accusative constructions where intentional meaning is absent
in a more salient way are ones expressing asymmetrical spatial relationships where
the subject entity is dominant over the object entity in some sense, as in verbs
expressing relationships of containment or surrounding in (26).

(26) a. Kono ganseki ga kin o hukunde-iru.

this rock NOM gold ACC contain-RES
‘This rock contains gold.’
72 Wesley M. Jacobsen

b. Hori ga siro o kakonde-iru

moat NOM castle ACC surround-RES
‘A moat surrounds the castle.’

With predicates expressing a whole-part relationship such as (26), it would intui-

tively appear that the dominant role should be associated to the whole rather than
the parts, but that is not always necessarily the case. In a relationship such as that
between a set and its members the role of dominance may be conceived of in two
ways, as the whole is alternately seen to spatially dominate the parts or the parts
are seen to make up, and therefore have priority over, the whole, reflected in the
two distinct accusative constructions in (27):

(27) a. Kono syuugoo ga itutu no yooso o hukunde-iru.

this set NOM five GEN member ACC contain-RES
‘This set contains five members.’

b. Itutu no yooso ga kono syuugoo o nasite-iru.

five GEN member NOM this set ACC form-RES
‘Five members form (lit. bring about) this set.’

Significantly, though, these non-intentional constructions typically occur with the

resultative stative affix te-iru. Absent that affix, each of these accusative construc-
tions has a basically intentional character, as can again be seen in the ease with
which they occur in imperative, potential, and conative constructions.

(28) a. Kuti ni tabemono o ippai hukun-de (hanasa-nai-de kure)

mouth DAT food ACC full contain-GER (talk-NEG give-IMP)
‘Don’t hold food full in your mouth and talk (Don’t talk with your mouth
full.).’

b. Teeburu o kakon-de (tatte-kudasai).

table ACC surround-GER stand-please
‘Please stand surrounding the table.’

c. Taigyoo o nasoo to sitemo, sono nooryoku

great.work ACC bring.about-VOL QUOT do-even, that-GEN ability
ga nai.
NOM have-NEG
‘Even though I try to accomplish (lit. bring about) something major, I don’t
have the ability to do so.’

The feature of the transitive prototype that persists most strongly in all the syntacti-
cally accusative constructions considered thus far, in either a basic or derivative way,
 Transitivity 73

is therefore intentional meaning. Accusative constructions that lack literal inten-

tionality must at least encode a relationship of asymmetric dominance or control of
the subject entity over the accusative entity that is rooted in the elements of dominance
and control wielded by the agent over the theme in the Hopper-Thompson prototype
described in (17).
This correlation between intentionality and accusative marking can be observed
across a wide range of phenomena in Japanese. One surprising confirmation of this
comes from the unlikely source of certain intransitive constructions. As noted earlier,
intransitives that enter into standard transitive-intransitive verb pairs such as (1) and
(7) express the result of the intentional action expressed in the transitive verb, a
pattern observed also in verbs of perception such as (22). The result expressed by
the intransitive in such cases lacks any intentional character. But intransitive verbs
that are intentional, or at least have intentional uses, exist in large numbers as well,
both among intransitive verbs that have transitive partners and intransitive verbs
lacking transitive partners.10 Among intentional verbs having transitive partners are
numerous verbs of motion such as deru ‘go out, leave,’ oriru ‘come down/get off,’
hairu ‘go in, enter,’ wataru ‘cross,’ and tooru ‘go through’ (respectively having transi-
tive partners dasu ‘take out,’ orosu ‘take down/let off,’ ireru ‘let/put in,’ watasu ‘let/
send across,’ and toosu ‘let/make pass through.’) All these intransitives allow locative
accusative objects, variously expressing path or source of the motion in question, of
the sort illustrated earlier in (18) (e.g., kuni o deru ‘leave the country,’ basu o oriru
‘get off the bus,’ mon o hairu ‘enter the gate,’ etc.). The existence of such accusative
constructions might call into question the intransitive status of these verbs, but their
intransitive status is secure, first, on the basis of the morphological pairing they
participate in and, secondly, on the basis of the fact that each is capable of express-
ing a non-intentional result of the sort described in (4c), illustrated in the examples
in (29).

(29) a. Gamen ni eizoo ga de-ta.

Screen DAT image NOM come.out-PST
‘An image came out (appeared) on the screen.’

b. Kuni ni kaeru kyoka ga ori-ta.

Country DAT return permission NOM come.down-PST
‘Permission was granted (lit., came down) to return to his home country.’

c. Booru ga gooru ni hait-ta.

Ball NOM goal DAT go.in-PST
‘The ball went into the goal.’

10 The distinction drawn here between intentional versus non-intentional intransitives corresponds
in essential respects to the distinction commonly referred to to in the literature as unergative versus
unaccusative intransitives, terms due originally to Perlmutter (1978).
74 Wesley M. Jacobsen

The presence of a locative accusative object, by contrast, gives rise to an intentional

interpretation where the subject is seen as an agent that moves over the indicated
locative space under its own power.
Intentional intransitive verbs that lack transitive partners, on the other hand, are
seen in the large number of activity verbs such as hataraku ‘work,’ odoru ‘dance,’
asobu ‘play,’ oyogu ‘swim,’ hasiru ‘run,’ aruku ‘walk,’ and tobu ‘fly.’ Some of these
are motion verbs that again allow the locative accusative construction, as in kawa o
oyogu ‘swim (across) the river,’ rooka o hasiru ‘run down the hall,’ kooen o aruku
‘walk through the park,’ and sora o tobu ‘fly through the sky.’ Yet another type
of accusative construction that arises with many of these verbs is that illustrated
in (30), where the accusative noun phrase encodes a specific subtype of the general
category of activity forming the lexical meaning of the verb.

(30) hiraoyogi o oyogu, bon’odori o odoru,

breast.stroke ACC swim, bon’odori ACC dance,
‘swim the breaststroke,’ ‘dance the bon’odori,’
husei o hataraku, marason o hasiru
injustice ACC work, marathon ACC run
‘work (do) an injustice,’ ‘run a marathon’

The question arises here again as to whether these predicates are truly intransitive.
The morphological criterion is absent as these verbs have no transitive partners, but
their syntactic intransitive status is nevertheless evidenced by the fact that the accu-
sative nouns are not obligatory here: the meaning of the clause containing each
predicate is complete without any accusative argument. The fact that these intransi-
tive activity verbs lack transitive partners in the first place may be accounted for by
the fact that their meaning is inherently agent-oriented, in the sense that they make
specific reference to bodily parts or motions that cannot be excluded from the mean-
ing, making a non-intentional interpretation difficult to conceptualize. Given the
general correspondence that exists in standard transitive-intransitive pairs between
the intransitive subject and the transitive object (see (4b)), both lacking in inten-
tional agency, this places a severe constraint on the existence of a transitive partner
to these intentional intransitives, as the object argument of the transitive would have
to lack intentional agency. Intentional intransitives, furthermore, themselves exhibit
numerous affinities with standard transitive verbs, despite their syntactically intran-
sitive status, as seen in their ability to enter without difficulty into imperative, poten-
tial, and conative constructions that are characteristic of transitive verbs. This hints at
a fundamental link between intentionality and transitivity that seeks an explanation.
Another phenomenon pointing to a link between intentionality and accusative
marking is to be found in the lexicon of Sino-Japanese intransitive verbs. Unlike
native Japanese verbs, Sino-Japanese verbs exhibit no morphological distinction
between transitive and intransitive, both uses realized by the combination of a verbal
 Transitivity 75

noun and the “light verb” suru unmarked for any transitivity distinction. As illustrated
in (31), the transitivity distinction in Sino-Japanese verbs thus must rely for its formal
realization solely on the presence (in (31a)) or absence (in (31b)) of accusative o, a
distinction that is in the final analysis determined by the meaning of the verb in
question.

(31) a. Nitibei kankei o kenkyuu-suru. Hoomupeezi o sakusei-suru.

US-Japan relations ACC research-suru, home.page ACC create-suru
‘Research US-Japan relations.’ ‘Create a webpage.’

b. Hanmei-suru. Syoometu-suru. Ryokoo-suru. Kinmu-suru.

become.clear-suru cease.to.exist-suru travel-suru work-suru
‘Become clear (come to light).’ ‘Be nervous.’ ‘Travel.’
‘(Do one’s) work.’

In certain Sino-Japanese forms, an alternate form is possible where accusative o is

inserted between the verbal noun and suru. For example, the transitive examples
in (31a) have alternate versions in (31’a) where the original object appears as a
modifier on the verbal noun, allowing o to be inserted before suru without violating
the “double o constraint” (Harada 1973) that disallows more than one o to appear
per clause.

(31’) a. Nitibei kankei no kenkyuu o suru

US-Japan relations GEN research ACC suru,
‘Do research on US-Japan relations.’
Hoomupeezi no sakusei o suru
home.page GEN create ACC suru
‘Do home-page (website) creation.’

In the intransitive examples in (31b), on the other hand, the first two examples are
non-intentional and the last two intentional in meaning. As seen in (31’b), the inser-
tion of o is permitted only with intransitives of intentional meaning.

(31’) b. hanmei (*o) suru, syoometu (*o) suru,

become.clear ACC suru, cease.to.exist ACC suru,
‘become clear (come to light),’ ‘cease to exist,’
ryokoo o suru, kinmu o suru
travel ACC suru, work ACC suru
‘take a trip,’ ‘be at work’

Despite the existence, then, of a wide range of accusative constructions in Japanese

that depart from the prototype in (17), particularly where the o-marked noun does
76 Wesley M. Jacobsen

not encode a theme undergoing any change of state, such constructions exhibit
a persistent correlation with the presence of intentional meaning (17b), either in a
literal agentive sense, or in closely related senses that may be seen to derive from
intentional meaning.
Does intentionality provide the link we are seeking between syntactic transitivity
and bivalent meaning? In earlier work (Jacobsen 1992), I argued, based on the theory
of intentionality proposed in Searle (1983), that intentionality is an inherently transi-
tive notion. According to Searle’s analysis, intentional action has two fundamental
components, an intention in the inner mind of the intending agent to bring about a
given state of affairs in the outside world and the occurrence of that event as a result
of this intention. These two components are inherent to the meaning of prototypical
transitive constructions in the Hopper-Thompson sense, as can be seen if we con-
sider the transitive members of the examples in (7), repeated here.

(7) a. Ken ga mado o ak-e-ta. ↔ Mado ga ai-ta. (< ak-ta)

Ken NOM window ACC open-TR-PST window NOM open-PST
‘Ken opened the window.’ ‘The window opened.’

b. Kaizoku ga ie o yai-ta. (< yak-ta) ↔ Ie ga yak-e-ta

pirate NOM house ACC burn-PST house NOM burn-INTR-PST
‘The pirates burned (down) the house.’ ‘The house burned (down).’

Borrowing a schema commonly adopted in the literature (Dowty 1979, Kageyama

1996), the transitive members of these constructions may be represented as having
the general conceptual structure in (32a), where x represents the intending agent
and y a real world entity in which some change is effected as a result. The examples
in (7a) and (7b), for example, may be represented as having the conceptual struc-
tures (32b) and (32c).

(32) a. [DO(x)] CAUSE [BECOME [STATE(y)]]

b. [DO(Ken)] CAUSE [BECOME [OPEN(window)]]

c. [DO(pirates)] CAUSE [BECOME [BURNT(house)]]

The [DO(x)] portion of this schema represents the event of x acting (“doing”) inten-
tionally and [BECOME [STATE(y)]] the event that is intended, that of a new state
coming about in entity y, corresponding to the two components of Searle’s analysis
outlined above. x (a participant in the intending event) and y (a participant in the
intended event) are ultimately realized as grammatical subject and object, respec-
tively, so that the transitive character inherent in the duality between intending
agent and intended event is realized in a grammatically transitive construction. It
can be seen that the intended event in this schema, such as the window opening or
 Transitivity 77

the house burning down, is precisely the event expressed by the intransitive member
of transitive-intransitive construction pairs like those in (7).
The duality between intending agent and intended event nevertheless leaves
open various possibilities in the way the intended event may leave its trace on gram-
matical expression. In cases corresponding to the Hopper-Thompson prototype, such
as (7), it is the theme, the central entity that undergoes a physical change in the
intended event, that is realized as grammatical object. But the intended event may
be one that involves no physical change in a real-world entity, involving instead an
entity entering into the field of perception of the agent, as with verbs of perception,
and may extend to cases where the intended event occurs in possible worlds that
may not include the actual world, such as with verbs of waiting and searching. The
intended event may also be an occurrence of a feeling, positive or negative, asso-
ciated with someone or something, as in the case of verbs of emotion. And since
what is intended is an event as a whole, the possibility exists of the entire event or
activity, not merely one of its participants, being realized as grammatical object, as
seen in the case of intransitive activity verbs and Sino-Japanese suru constructions
where intentionality is present. Even the location of the intended event, to the
degree that the event is coextensive with the totality of the location (Kuno 1973), as
in crossing the sea, going through a tunnel, walking through a park, etc., may func-
tion as object in the grammatical representation of the intended event. Objects
marked by o appearing in accusative constructions range across entities in all these
different categories, but are bound together by a common link to intentional mean-
ing, and their accusative marking may be seen to be licensed by the inherently tran-
sitive character of that intentional meaning.
To say that intentional meaning is inherently transitive in character may appear
to be disconfirmed by the possibility of intentional meaning arising in intransitive
predicates as well, such as the activity predicates considered earlier (hataraku
‘work,’ odoru ‘dance,’ asobu ‘play,’ oyogu ‘swim,’ hasiru ‘run,’ aruku ‘walk,’ tobu
‘fly,’ etc.). As noted earlier, though, these predicates do in fact share many traits of
grammatical behavior with transitive verbs, such as their ability to occur in impera-
tive, potential, and conative constructions. To this list may be added their ability to
occur in passive rare constructions, like transitive verbs but unlike non-intentional
intransitives, as seen in (33).

(33) a. Sonna-ni dara-dara hatarak-(r)are(te-wa komar)u. [intentional intransitive]

like.that sluggishly work-PASS-(GER-TOP be.put.out-NPST)
‘I can’t have (you) work so sluggishly like that.’

b. Konna-ni atui hi ni wa mado o

like.this hot day TMP TOP window ACC
sime-rare(te-wa komaru). [transitive]
shuttr-PASS-(GER-TOP be.put.out-NPST)
‘I can’t have (you) shut the windows (on me) on a hot day like this.’
78 Wesley M. Jacobsen

c. *Konna ni atui hi ni wa mado

like.this hot day TMP TOP window DAT
ni simar-(r)are(te-wa komaru). [non-intentional intransitive]
shutin-PASS-(GER-TOP be.put.out-NPST)
‘I can’t have the windows shut (on me) on a hot day like this.’

They also exhibit aspectual characteristics similar to transitives, such as taking a

progressive meaning with the te-i(ru) aspectual affix, like transitives, as opposed to
non-intentional intransitives, which take a resulting state interpretation with this
affix (as seen in (34)).

(34) a. Otto wa tiisana kaisya de hatarai-te-iru. [intentional intransitive]

husband TOP small company LOC work-PROG-NPST
‘My husband is working at a small company.’ [progressive]

b. Soozinin wa ima mado o sime-te-iru. [transitive]

janitor TOP now windows ACC shuttr-PROG-NPST
‘The janitor is shutting the windows.’ [progressive]

c. Mado ga simat-te-iru. (<simar-te-iru) [non-intentional intransitive]

windows NOM shutin-RES-NPST
‘The windows are shut (in a state of having shut).’ [resulting state]

Still, it is not apparent how the transitive duality between intending agent and
intended event is reflected in intentional intransitive constructions. The solution to
this apparent contradiction lies in the nature of the grammatical subjects of these
constructions, which in fact play a dual role, acting at the same time both as agent
and theme in the event expressed. Intentional intransitive constructions encode
in this sense a reflexive meaning: the event intended by the agent is one in which
the agent itself participates. Consider as an example the verb oyogu ‘swim,’ illus-
trated in (35):

(35) (Akutenkoo no tame) sensyutati ga kesa okunai puuru

bad.weather GEN reason athletes NOM this.morning indoor pool
de oyoi-da.
LOC swim-PST
‘Because of the bad weather, the athletes swam this morning in the indoor
pool.’

The conceptual structure of activity verbs can be represented, following Kageyama

(1996), as in (28a) where MOVE represents motion in general, a meaning feature
common to activity verbs, although realized in different ways according to the lexi-
cal meaning of the verb. In the case of oyogu ‘swim,’ for example, the motion in-
volves a characteristic movement of the arms and legs that accompanies progression
 Transitivity 79

through the water. The particular realization of this meaning in the case of oyogu
‘swim’ in (35) may be represented as in (36).

(36) a. [DO(x)] CAUSE [MOVE(x)]

b. [DO(athletes)] CAUSE [MOVE-THROUGH-WATER(athletes)]

The transitive character of the intentional meaning is here reflected in the separate
components [DO(x)] and [MOVE(x)], the former representing the event of x acting
intentionally, a component of meaning shared with the conceptual structure of tran-
sitive verbs in (32), and the latter the intended event of x itself moving in a particular
way. The dual transitive character is thus not realized here in distinct subject and
object entities, but rather in distinct roles borne by the single subject entity. Since
the theme receives no grammatical expression distinct from the agent subject, the
accusative marker o may become displaced to other entities, such as the locative
path object in sensyutati ga kawa o oyoida ‘the athletes swam (across) the river’
or onto a noun expressing the particular type of activity engaged in, such as in
hiraoyogi o oyogu ‘swim the breaststroke.’ Despite being displaced from the theme
entity, though, the accusative particle continues to function as a marker of inten-
tional meaning of the clause as a whole, and the semantically transitive character it
thereby possesses.
A correlation between accusative marking and intentional meaning is therefore
seen across a wide range of grammatical phenomena in Japanese, providing con-
vincing evidence that intentionality is the key semantic link mediating accusative
marking and two-place valency. Intentionality is inherently relational, and therefore
bivalent, in that the existence of an intending entity automatically entails the exis-
tence of an intended entity. This relationship is undoubtedly one that finds its most
basic and primal realization in agentive intentional action of the sort described in
Searle’s analysis and underlying the Hopper-Thompson prototype, but intentionality
may take forms other than agentive action. It is also present in varieties of human
experience where the sentient subject is the passive recipient of, rather than agen-
tive causer of, an event external to itself, as illustrated in non-agentive uses of
perceptual predicates such as mi-ru ‘see,’ and verbs of receiving such as uke-ru
‘receive,’ koomur-u ‘undergo,’ abi-ru ‘be covered with,’ and mora(w)-u/itadak-u ‘get,
receive,’ illustrated in (37).

(37) a. (Sono sanzi o mimai-to site me o sorasita ga)

that tragedy ACC see-NEG.VOL do-GER eye ACC avert-PST but
tui mite-simatta.
inadvertently see-end.up-PST
‘(I averted my eyes trying not to see the tragedy, but) I inadvertently
saw it.’
80 Wesley M. Jacobsen

b. Konkai no taihuu de waga-mati wa ookina higai

this.time GEN typhoon CAUS our.town TOP great damage
o uketa.
ACC receive-PST
‘Our town suffered great damage in the recent typhoon.’

c. Bensi wa kankyaku no kassai o abite

speaker TOP audience GEN applause ACC be.covered.with-GEN
(koodan-sita).
step.down-PST
‘The speaker (stepped down) surrounded by the applause of the audience.’

These cases represent a “reverse intentionality” where the flow of causation from in-
tending agent to intended event is reversed, corresponding to a change in the role of
the subject from that of agent to that of experiencer, but the same duality between
inner world of the intending/experiencing subject and outer world of the intended/
experienced event obtains, in either case imparting an inherently bivalent character
to the meaning, and grammar, of the constructions in question.
Another variant on intentional meaning arises where inanimate entities such as
natural forces are seen to move under their own power or to exert control over other
events, in a way analogous to animate agents. Accusative constructions may in this
way become licensed with inanimate subjects, as seen with predicates such as okosu
‘cause, bring about,’ syoozi-ru ‘give rise to,’ manek-u ‘invite,’ and kitas-u ‘bring
about,’ (38a,b) as well as activity predicates taking locative objects (38c), parallel to
agentive constructions.

(38) a. Sono kaisya no toosan wa kensetu gyookai ni rensa

that company GEN bankruptcy TOP construction industry DAT chain
hannoo o okosita.
reaction ACC cause-PST
‘The bankruptcy of that company caused a chain reaction in the
construction industry.’

b. Kono hooan wa syoorai samazama-na mondai o

this bill TOP in.future many problems ACC
syooziru daroo.
give.rise.to-NPST probably
‘This bill will undoubtedly give rise to many problems in the future.’

c. Mati no naka o kawa ga nagarete-iru.

town GEN center ACC river NOM flow-PROG-NPST
‘A river flows through the center of town.’
 Transitivity 81

Conceiving of an event as being caused by a controlling force is conceptually one

step removed from conceiving of an event as caused by an intending agent, so that
the bivalency inherent in the relationship of intending agent to intended event is
mirrored directly in the relationship of controlling force to controlled/caused event.
The act of intending, and the related acts of experiencing and controlling, pro-
vide in this way a relational meaning component that accounts for the bivalency of
the accusative construction, just as a basis in relational meaning exists for the
bivalency of constructions with comitative and dative second arguments. The fact
remains, however, that the relational character of intentional meaning is one that
can more easily be disassociated from the meaning of transitive predicates than can
the relational meaning present in comitative and dative constructions. As illustrated
in (39), predicates taking dative and comitative second arguments typically refer to
configurational or logical relationships that inherently exist between two entities in
a stative, permanent fashion that cannot be divorced from the meaning of a predi-
cate, unlike the temporally contingent relationship existing between an intending
(or experiencing) subject and an intended (or experienced) event.

(39) a. Boku no iken wa kare no to tiga-u.

I GEN opinion TOP he GEN COM differ-NPST
‘My opinion is different from his.’

b. Ano hito wa boku no ozi ni ataru.

that person TOP me GEN uncle DAT correspond
‘That person is (corresponds to) my uncle.’

This is borne out by the very fact that intentional meaning is often encoded by tran-
sitive verbs that alternate with intransitive partners (waru-wareru ‘crack,’ akeru-aku
‘open,’ naosu-naoru ‘fix-get fixed,’ etc.). These pairs have meanings that are inher-
ently concerned with the occurrence of change in some entity (e.g., from being
whole to being divided in parts, from being shut to being open, from being broken
to being fixed, etc.), and differ solely in whether that change is expressed as being
externally caused or not. The fact that intransitive expression is possible in these
cases shows that intentional meaning itself is not inherent to their meaning, but is
an ‘extra’ layer of meaning imposed, and lexicalized, in the transitive member of the
pair. What kinds of change come to be associated with an external force strongly
enough to warrant the existence of a lexicalized transitive predicate is not something
that is determined by the logical nature of the change, but is ultimately something
grounded in experience, to the degree that the change is commonly associated or
not with an external force that brings it about (Jacobsen 2016, Matsumoto 2016).
Transitive-intransitive verb pairs therefore provide speakers of the language with
the option of presenting the change as occurring either with or without the influence
of an external force, that is, as either involving one participant or two. In the next
section, we consider what happens when gaps arise in the lexical mechanisms for
expressing this distinction.
82 Wesley M. Jacobsen

5 Increasing and decreasing valency: transitives,

causatives, and passives
As seen above, transitive-intransitive morphological pairs in Japanese have as one of
their functions to alternately increase or decrease the number of arguments in the
argument structure of a predicate, and thereby to increase or decrease the number
of entities seen as participating in a given event. This is illustrated in Figure 1, where
n represents the number of arguments of a predicate.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

ak-u ‘openin’ ake-ru ‘opentr’

naor-u ‘become fixed’ naos-u ‘fix’
agar-u ‘rise’ age-ru ‘raise’

Figure 1

For the predicates in Figure 1, the increase in valency from intransitive to transitive
is 1 → 2 (e.g., mado ga aku ‘the window opens’ → Ken ga mado o akeru ‘Ken opens
the window’), but with predicates that have additional arguments beyond agent and
theme, such as, for example, a goal argument, the increase in valency between the
morphologically intransitive and transitive members of a pair can also be 2 → 3, as
seen in Figure 2 (e.g., Booru ga gooru ni hairu ‘The ball goes into the goal’ → Sensyu
ga booru o gooru ni ireru ‘The athlete puts the ball into the goal’).

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

hair-u ‘go in/enter’ ire-ru ‘put in’

tuk-u ‘become attached’ tuke-ru ‘attach’
ata-ru ‘hitin against’ ate-ru ‘hittr against’

Figure 2

The general relationship between the valency of the transitive and intransitive
members of such pairs can be schematized as in (40), where n(Vtr) represents the
number of arguments of the transitive form and n(Vin) represents the number of
arguments of the intransitive form.

(40) n(Vtr) = n(Vin) + 1

 Transitivity 83

Not all verbs fall into transitive-intransitive pairs, however. There are numerous cases
in Japanese of intransitive verbs without transitive partners and transitive verbs
without intransitive partners, as illustrated in Figure 3.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

nak-u ‘cry’ Ø
aruk-u ‘walk’ Ø
Ø nagur-u ‘hit’
Ø tabe-ru ‘eat’

Figure 3

Partnerless verbs such as these exhibit a unique characteristic that sets them apart
from verbs entering into standard transitive-intransitive pairs. As noted at the end of
Section 4, the transitive and intransitive member in standard transitivity pairs share
all features of their meaning except the lack or presence of intentional meaning, or
related meanings such as experience or control. There is nothing about their mean-
ing, that is, that ties the occurrence of the event to the action or experience of an
intending subject – when the intentional meaning is ‘bleached’ out of the transitive
member of the pair, all that is left is the meaning expressed by the intransitive partner,
typically the occurrence of a change of state in the thematic entity. The verbs in
Figure 3, however, all bear reference in their meaning to some action or body part
that is inseparably tied to the agent. Nagur-u ‘hit,’ for example, includes as part of
its meaning a particular movement of the arm of the agent, and tabe-ru ‘eat’ is
inseparable in its meaning from anatomical details of the agent’s body and motions
of these that are involved in the act of eating. It is impossible therefore for the inten-
tional component of meaning to be bleached out from these verbs in a way that
leaves pure occurrence of change of state in the thematic entity as a result. This
places a significant obstacle in the way of lexicalizing a purely change-of-state
meaning in a corresponding intransitive verb having no reference to an intending
subject, as is the case with the intransitive member of a standard transitive-intransitive
pair. Nak-u ‘cry’ and aruk-u ‘walk,’ conversely, are intransitive verbs that bear inherent
reference to a complex set of bodily motions that are difficult to disassociate from the
agency or control of the subject, and to be viewed as pure, non-agentive changes of
state occurring in the subject. This in turn makes it difficult for the subject entity to
take on a non-agentive thematic role as object of a corresponding lexical transitive.
Situations nevertheless arise where it may be necessary to add or subtract
participants to or from the set of participants specified in the argument structure
of partnerless verbs. Events such as crying or walking, for example, can in certain
situations be seen to be the consequence of agentive control by an entity other
84 Wesley M. Jacobsen

than the intransitive subject, so that a method of adding that individual as an addi-
tional participant in the event of crying or walking becomes desirable. In the case of
events such as hitting or eating, by contrast, the speaker may wish to highlight what
happens to the object of the hitting or eating, without regard for, or perhaps due to
lack of knowledge of, the agent that intends the event of hitting or eating. The need
arises, that is, to increase or decrease the valency of verbs in Figure 3 in such a way
as to fill the gaps indicated by Ø, even when there is no predicate available in the
lexicon of Japanese to fill those gaps. In such cases, the grammar steps in to fill
the gap left by the lexicon, providing a valency-increasing causative sase form to
fill the gap existing in the transitive slot and the valency-decreasing direct passive
rare form to fill the gap existing in the intransitive slot.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

nak-u ‘cry’ Ø → nak-(s)aseru ‘make/let cry’

aruk-u ‘walk’ Ø → aruk-(s)aseru ‘make/let walk’
Ø → nagur-(r)areru ‘be hit’ nagur-u ‘hit’
Ø → tabe-rareru ‘be eaten’ tabe-ru ‘eat’

Figure 4

The causative sase form may also be appropriated, as the need arises, to fill gaps
existing at valencies higher than 2, for example by effecting a valency change of
2 → 3 on an already transitive predicate, as seen in Figure 5.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

nak-u ‘cry’ nak-(s)aseru ‘make/let cry’

aruk-u ‘walk’ aruk-(s)aseru ‘make/let walk’
nagur-(r)areru ‘be hit’ nagur-u ‘hit’ Ø → nagur-(s)aseru, ‘make hit’
tabe-rareru ‘be eaten’ tabe-ru ‘eat’ Ø → tabe-saseru ‘make eat, feed’

Figure 511

11 As pointed out by a reviewer, the o-marked entities receive a different interpretation in Kodomo
o tabe-saseru. ‘I feed the child (make the child eat)’ vs. Kodomo o nagur-aseru ‘I make (someone)
hit the child’: kodomo ‘child’ receives the preferred interpretation of agent of the eating in
the former vs. patient of the hitting in the latter, with a separate, unexpressed agent of hitting.
Tabe-saseru is in this case functioning as a two-place predicate, suggesting that it is based on
a one-place intransitive use of tabe-ru ‘(someone) eats’ alongside its regular transitive use, whereas
nagur-u is consistently transitive in argument structure. The valency-increasing character of sase is
nevertheless unchanged in all these cases.
 Transitivity 85

The increase or decrease in valency effected by the causative and direct passive
forms, respectively, can be schematized as in (40).

(40) a. n(Vsase) = n(V) + 1

b. n(Vrare) = n(V) – 1

Changes of valency of 1 → 2, 2 → 1, and 2 → 3 involving causative and direct passive

forms are illustrated for aruku ‘walk’ and taberu ‘eat’ in (41).

(41) a. Inu ga arui-ta. → Kainusi ga inu o (kooen de) aruk-(s)ase-ta. 1 → 2

dog NOM walk-PST owner NOM dog ACC (park LOC) walk-CAUS-PST
‘The dog walked’ → ‘The owner walked the dog (in the park).’

b. Neko ga nezumi o tabe-ta. → Nezumi ga (neko ni) tabe-rare-ta. 2 → 1

cat NOM mouse ACC eat-PST mouse NOM (cat DAT) eat-PASS-PST
‘The cat ate the mouse.’ → ‘The mouse was eaten (by the cat).

c. Neko ga nezumi o tabe-ta. → Kainusi ga neko ni nezumi o tabe-sase-ta. 2 → 3

cat NOM mouse ACC eat-PST owner NOM cat DAT mouse ACC eat-CAUS-PST
‘The cat ate the mouse.’ → ‘The owner fed the mouse to the cat.’

Although it may appear that there is no decrease in valency in (41b) because both
arguments neko ‘cat’ and nezumi ‘mouse’ of the transitive taberu appear with
the passive form tabe-rareru as well, the agent neko ni ‘by the cat’ is in fact not an
obligatory argument here, as indicated by the parentheses, and may be omitted
without a sense of ellipsis. In effect, causative and passive forms fill in as functional
equivalents for absent transitive and intransitive forms, alternately increasing and
decreasing valency in the same way as standard transitive and intransitive forms do.
The fact that the gaps in Figure 3 are filled by “marked” forms that are longer
and more complex than simplex lexical forms would otherwise be reflects the special
“marked” character of the meaning here, setting these forms apart from the kinds of
meaning typically associated with standard transitives and intransitives forming pairs,
such as those in Figure 2 and 3. The object theme in the valency-increased transitive
clause in (41a), for example, is not totally devoid of agency as is the case with
thematic objects of standard, lexical transitive verbs, and the valency-decreased
clause filling in for the intransitive in (41b) is not devoid of reference to the intention
of the suppressed agent, as would be the case in a standard intransitive verb of the
kind having a transitive partner.
An interesting effect occurs when a predicate undergoes both causativization
and passivization successively, resulting in the combined form Vsaserare. Consider-
ing that sase increases, and rare decreases, valency by one, the net effect on valency
86 Wesley M. Jacobsen

of combining the two should be zero, as predicted if we make the relevant substitu-
tion of values from (40) as follows.

(42) n((Vsase)rare) = n(Vsase) – 1 = (n(V) + 1) – 1 = n(V) + 0 = n(V)

In fact, what we find is not only that the valency of a Vsaserare form is the same as
that of V itself, but that the very argument structure of the Vsaserare form is the
same as that of the original V. This is illustrated step by step in (43), beginning with
a predicate taberu ‘eat’ of valency 2 in (43a), increasing its valency to 3 by converting
it into a causative with the addition of the external agent hahaoya ‘mother’ in (43b),
and then reducing its valency by 1 via direct passivization in (43c). Note that direct
passives in Japanese allow the promotion to subject position of ni-marked arguments,
thus allowing kodomo ‘child’ in (43b) to be promoted to subject position in (43c), and
also that the agent hahaoya ‘mother’ demoted from subject position in (43b) is no
longer an obligatory argument in (43c).

(43) a. Kodomo ga nattoo o taberu. n = 2

child NOM fermented.beans ACC eat-NPST
‘The child eats fermented beans.’

b. → Hahaoya ga kodomo ni nattoo o tabe-saseru. n = 3

mother NOM child DAT fermented.beans ACC eat-CAUS-NPST
‘The mother makes the child eat fermented beans.’

c. → Kodomo ga (hahaoya ni) nattoo o tabe-sase-rareru. n = 2

child NOM (mother DAT) fermented.beans ACC eat-CAUS-PASS-NPST
‘The child is made to eat fermented beans (by his mother).’

The net effect is that the complex form tabesaserareru ‘be made to eat’ takes the
same two arguments kodomo ga ‘child NOM’ and nattoo o ‘fermented beans ACC’ as
the original verb taberu ‘eat.’
When an intransitive verb has no transitive partner, then, the gap left by the
missing transitive can be filled by the functionally equivalent causative of the intran-
sitive. This raises the question of what happens in the case of a causative formed
from an intransitive verb that does have a lexical transitive partner, giving rise
to two distinct forms that “compete” for the same territory of meaning defined by
a given argument structure. There is a general principle of economy operating in
natural language that resists such duplication, so that one of the two competing forms
tends to be “blocked” from occurring (Miyagawa 1984) in such cases. When such
blocking occurs, it is the longer and more complex causative form that is blocked
in favor of the shorter and less complex lexical form, as illustrated in Figure 6.
 Transitivity 87

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

aku ‘openin’ akeru ‘opentr’

ak-(s)aseru
naoru ‘healin/become fixed’ naosu ‘healtr/fix’
naor-(s)aseru
tuku ‘become attached’ tukeru ‘attach’
tuk-(s)aseru
hasamaru ‘become hasamu ‘put between’
sandwiched between’ hasamar-(s)aseru

Figure 6

But such blocking does not occur in all cases of apparently competing forms such
as these. There are numerous cases where the causative of a lower-valency form is
observed to co-exist alongside the lexical form of higher valency, as illustrated in
Figure 7.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

agaru ‘rise/go up’ ageru ‘raise/lift up’

agar-(s)aseru ‘cause to go up.’
tomaru ‘stopin’ tomeru ‘stoptr’
tomar-(s)aseru ‘cause to/let stop.’
tatu ‘standin up’ tateru ‘standtr up’
tat-(s)aseru ‘cause to/let stand’
hairu ‘go in/enter’ ireru ‘put in’
hair-(s)aseru ‘cause to/let go in’

Figure 7

It would run counter to the principle of economy for competing forms identical in
meaning and function to coexist with one another as appears to be the case here so
a strategy must be adopted to avoid such an overlap in meaning. Such a strategy is
available in the form of a division of labor that arises between the two members, that
makes it possible for the two forms to coexist without completely overlapping in
their meaning. The exact form this division of labor takes varies from case to case,
and is subject to considerable idiolectal variation, but a number of parameters along
which this division of labor can occur have been pointed out in the classic work on
causativization by Shibatani (1973, 1976). In the case of tateru ‘standtr up’ vs. tataseru
‘cause to/let stand,’ for example, the causative is blocked in a context like (44a),
with an inanimate object, while in (44b), with an animate object capable of standing
88 Wesley M. Jacobsen

under its own agency, it is the lexical transitive that is blocked, thus permitting,
indeed requiring, use of the causative form.

(44) a. Taoreta hei o massugu ni tateta/*tataseta.

fall.over-PST fence ACC straight DAT stand.uptr-PST/stand.upin-CAUS-PST
‘I stood up the fence that had fallen over.’

b. Kodomo o heya no sumi ni *tateta/tataseta.

child ACC room GEN corner LOC stand.uptr-PST/stand.upin-CAUS-PST
‘I made the child stand in the corner.’

In the pair illustrated in (45), by contrast, the causative hairaseru ‘cause to/let go in’
allows only an animate object, parallel to (44), while the transitive ireru ‘put in’
permits either an animate or inanimate object.

(45) a. Isu o heya ni ireta/*hairaseta.

chair ACC room DAT put.in-PST/go.in-CAUS-PST
‘I put the chair in the room.’

b. Gakusei o heya ni ireta/hairaseta.

student ACC room DAT put.in-PST/go.in-CAUS-PST
‘I let the student into the room.’

From the examples so far one might conclude that inanimate objects are not allowed
with causative forms built on intransitive verbs, but the examples in (46) indicate
otherwise.

(46) a. Mizu o sponzi ni simikom-(s)aseta.

water ACC sponge DAT soak.inin-CAUS-PST
‘I soaked water into the sponge.’

b. Reizooko in irezu-ni yasai o kusar-(s)ase(te-simat)ta

refrigerator DAT put.in-NEG-GER vegetables ACC rot-CAUS-end.up-PST
‘Without (by not) putting them in the fridge, I let the vegetables rot.’

The causatives in (46), however, are ones formed from intransitives (simikom-u
‘soakin into’ and kusar-u ‘rot’) that have no transitive partner, illustrating how the
causative in such cases takes over the full range of meaning of the missing transitive
verb, with no restrictions placed on it by a competing form.
While forms such as simikom-(s)aseru ‘soaktr in’ in (46) are remarkable for being
grammatically derived causatives that take inanimate, non-intentional thematic objects,
the form ireru in (45b) is, to the contrary, remarkable for being a simple lexical transi-
tive that allows an animate object acting under its own intentional agency, something
 Transitivity 89

normally not seen with thematic objects in standard transitive constructions. Not all
animate objects of ireru, though, allow an agentive interpretation, as illustrated in (47).

(47) Kodomo o hako ni ireta.

child ACC box LOC put.in-PST
I (forcibly) put the child in the box

(47), if somewhat awkward, is possible only under the interpretation of physical

manipulation, unlike the interpretation of (45b). (48) provides further examples of
lexical transitives allowing an animate object acting under its own agency, despite
the existence of a “competing” causative form built on an intransitive (examples
are modified from Shibatani 1976).

(48) a. Miti de tuukoonin o tometa/tomar-(s)aseta.

road LOC passerby ACC stoptr-PST/stopin-CAUS-PST
‘I stopped a passerby on the road.’

b. Musume o nikai e ageta/agar-(s)aseta.

daughter ACC 2nd.floor LOC send.up-PST/go.up-CAUS-PST
‘I sent my daughter to the second floor.’

c. Hahaoya ga gakkoo no mae de kodomo o

mother NOM school GEN front LOC child ACC
orosita/?ori-saseta
let.off-PST/get.off-CAUS-PST
‘The mother let the child off (a vehicle) in front off the school.’

As argued in Shibatani (1976), a division of labor of the following sort can be ob-
served in these cases: the lexical transitive is associated with more normal, less
marked situations that can be seen to have a ‘conventional purpose,’ leaving the
grammatically derived causative to express situations that are less usual and lacking
in such a conventional purpose. Though there is significant idiolectal variation, for
example, many native speakers prefer the lexical transitive tomeru ‘stoptr’ in (48a) if
the stopping has a conventional purpose such as to ask directions from the passerby,
whereas tomar-(s)aseru ‘cause to stopin’ is preferred for nonconventional purposes
such as stopping a passerby just for the fun of doing so.12
Turning now to the opposite case of reduced valency, a competition similar to
that seen to arise between a lexical transitive and the causative form of its corre-
sponding lexical intransitive might be anticipated to occur between a lexical intran-
sitive form and the passive form of its corresponding lexical transitive. We might

12 Other examples of the use of ‘marked’ causative forms to express ‘marked’ situations that are less
normal are discussed in McCawley (1978).
90 Wesley M. Jacobsen

therefore expect to see instances where the passive of a transitive is blocked by the
existence of an intransitive form. Interestingly, however, unlike the causative case,
such instances of blocking are almost never seen: the passive of a transitive coexists
almost without exception with its corresponding lexical intransitive, as seen in
Figure 8.

n = 1 (intransitive) n = 2 (transitive) n = 3 (ditransitive)

wareru ‘breakin, crackin’ waru ‘breaktr, cracktr’

war-(r)areru ‘be broken/cracked’
kireru ‘become cut, disconnected’ kiru ‘cut, sever’
kir-(r)areru ‘be cut, severed’
tatu ‘standin up’ tateru ‘standtr up, build’
tate-rareru ‘be stood up, built’
hairu ‘go in, enter’ ireru ‘put in, insert’
ire-rareru ‘be put in, inserted’

Figure 8

This difference in behavior between causatives and passives may be accounted for
in the following way: while both the intransitive and passive of a transitive exhibit
a lower valency than the corresponding transitive, in the sense that the number of
obligatory arguments is one less than the corresponding transitive, the passive of
the transitive cannot be fully disassociated from the presence of a hidden agent
that may optionally be realized as an optional adjunct, unlike the corresponding
lexical intransitive. The possibility is therefore always present of a division of labor
arising between an intransitive form and the passive of the transitive, unlike the case
of a transitive versus the causative of the intransitive, where a complete overlap in
meaning and function may occur causing the causative form to be blocked, particu-
larly in cases where the intransitive does not allow an intentional interpretation. The
division of labor between intransitives and corresponding grammatically derived
passives can be seen in the different interpretation assigned to each form pairwise
in examples such as (49).

(49) a. Tori wa kago ni hai(r)te-ita/ire-rarete-ita.

bird TOP cage DAT go.in-RES-PST/put.in-PASS-RES-PST
‘The bird was in (in a state of having entered) a cage/had been put in a
cage (by someone).’

b. Madogarasu ga warete-ita/war-(r)arete-ita.
windowpane NOM breakin-RES-PST/breaktr-PASS-RES-PST
‘The windowpane was broken (in a state of having become broken)/had
been broken (by someone).’
 Transitivity 91

This division of labor can also be seen in contexts that explicitly exclude the work-
ing of a hidden agent, where the passive of the transitive form is in fact blocked by
the presence of the intransitive.

(50) Arasi de densen ga kirete-ita/*kir-(r)arete-ita.

storm CAUS electric.lines NOM become.cut-RES-PST/cut-PASS-RES-PST
‘The electric lines had become severed/had been cut (by someone) in the
storm.’

Conversely, when a transitive verb lacks an intransitive partner, such as in the case
of ara(w)u ‘wash,’ no division of labor occurs, and the possibility arises of the
passive form co-opting the non-agentive meaning normally borne by intransitive
forms, as seen in the lack of an agentive reading in (51).

(51) Kawagisi no koisi ga nami ni kirei-ni araw-(r)arete-ita.

river.bank GEN pebbles NOM waves DAT cleanly wash-PASS-RES-PST
‘The pebbles on the riverbank were washed smooth by (the action of) the
waves.’

Strategies made available by the grammar to compensate for gaps left in the lexicon,
causatives filling in for missing transitives and passives filling in for missing intran-
sitives, thus also give rise to scenarios where the grammatically derived forms
compete in meaning and function with already existing lexical forms. The meaning
and function of lexical transitives and intransitives, on the one hand, and those
of grammatically derived causatives and passives, on the other, can therefore only
be fully accounted for in terms of a division of labor that is negotiated between
these competing forms, pointing to a fundamentally organic principle governing
the meaning and function of these individual forms within the larger structural unity
of the language.

6 Conclusion and directions for future research

Transitivity in Japanese is a multifaceted phenomenon encompassing syntactic,
semantic, and morphological dimensions. What counts as a transitive predicate can
be defined independently in terms of any of these three dimensions, with results that
do not necessarily overlap. The traditional syntactic definition of a transitive predicate
as one that “takes a direct object” picks out as transitive, in its formal Japanese
counterpart, predicates that co-occur with accusative o-marked nouns (e.g., A ga B
o nagur-u “A hits B”). But understood in a broader semantic sense, transitivity refers
to predicates that have at least two obligatory arguments in their argument structure,
encompassing predicates other than those marking their second argument with o.
92 Wesley M. Jacobsen

How the presence of two arguments follows from the meaning of the predicate differs
in these two cases. Predicates taking comitative or dative second arguments encode,
or contain elements of, relational meaning from which the presence of two arguments
follows by logical necessity (e.g., A ga B to tiga(w)-u “A differs from B,” A ga B ni
a(w)-u “A fits/matches B”). In the case of standard transitive constructions taking
accusative second arguments, by contrast, this chapter has argued that the presence
of two arguments is rooted in an intentional meaning component that inherently makes
reference both to an intending entity and to an intended event, or an element partic-
ipating in that event (e.g., A ga B o tabe-ru “A eats B,” A ga B o nagur-u “A hits B”).
This intentionality is not limited to intentionality of the agentive sort defined in the
Hopper-Thompson prototype, but encompasses intentionality of another sort present
in an experiencing subject that mentally intends an event in the outside world over
which it lacks agentive control (A ga B o mi-ru ‘A sees B,’ A ga higai o uke-ru
‘A receives damage’), and extends to derivative cases of intentionality where control
is present but agency absent, such as where an inanimate force or power is seen
to causally bring about an event external to itself (e.g., A ga B o syoozi-ru, okos-u
‘A gives rise to, brings about B’). Intention, experience, and control are all inherently
bivalent notions requiring reference at once to an entity that intends, experiences,
or controls, and at the same time to an event that is intended, experienced, or
controlled, in all cases encoding an inherently asymmetric relationship where one
argument is dominant over the other.
A related, but distinct, dimension of transitivity is encoded in the many transitive-
intransitive verb pairs in Japanese defined by various affixal oppositions (war-u-warer-u
‘break, crack,’ ake-ru-ak-u ‘open,’ naos-u-naor-u ‘fix-get fixed,’ etc.). In many cases the
transitive and intransitive members of these pairs share reference to occurrence of a
change of state in an entity, but without specific reference to the bodily actions or
motions of an outside agent or force that intends or brings about the change. As a
result, the change in question may potentially occur with or without the presence of
such an outside agent or force, making it possible for the change to be expressed
either transitively or intransitively (e.g., A ga B o war-u “A breaks B” vs. B ga ware-ru
“B breaks”). Although the transitive member is lexicalized for intentional meaning,
therefore, the bivalency inherent in intentional meaning is separable from the mean-
ing of the predicate in a way that is not possible with relational predicates whose
transitivity has a logical foundation. While these transitive-intransitive pairs are
numerous and range widely across the verbal lexicon of Japanese, gaps nevertheless
arise where lexical transitive or intransitive verbs lack intransitive or transitive partners,
respectively. Such gaps are filled by grammatically-derived causative and passive forms
that in some cases give rise to new transitive-intransitive oppositions in the language
but in other cases compete with existing transitive and intransitive forms, resulting
in a mutually negotiated division of labor that plays an important role in governing
the meaning and function of the competing forms.
 Transitivity 93

While accusative marking is limited to the morphologically “transitive” member

in the majority of lexical transitive-intransitive pairs, there is a significant minority
where such marking is possible on both the morphologically “transitive” and mor-
phologically “intransitive” members of the pair (e.g., A ga B ni C o azuke-ru ‘A
entrusts C to B’ vs. A ga C o azukar-u ‘A keeps C’). The intransitive form in such cases
exhibits a reduced valency with respect to the transitive form, just as in standard
transitive-intransitive pairs, but at the level of meaning, these pairs point to a broad
distinction between an event or action that is seen to be directed outward from the
subject in the transitive case vs. inward toward the subject in the intransitive case,
regardless of the number of arguments, a distinction that informs the traditional
Japanese understanding of transitivity as an opposition between jidō ‘self-movement
and tadō ‘other-movement.’ This parameter of transitivity exhibits an overlap with
the other parameters of transitivity defined by intentionality and valency in that
intentional acts are typically directed outward toward a world external to the intend-
ing subject, and in that outward-directed motion entails a more salient bivalent
distinction between self (subject) and other than does inward-directed motion. But
at the same time areas of non-overlap may be seen among the three parameters,
in that intentional acts may be directed inwardly toward the intending subject as
well as outwardly away from it, and inward-directed events may involve two distinct
entities as well as one, as when an object distinct from the subject is seen to be
incorporated into the subject.
Despite areas of non-overlap, however, all three parameters can be seen to point
to the existence of a cline like that proposed in Næss (2007) between relatively greater
or lesser differentiation between two entities, the transitive term of each parameter
pointing to greater differentiation, whether arising from the opposition between the
intending subject and the external world, or from the outward orientation of an
event away from the self (subject) toward the non-self, and the intransitive term
pointing to lesser differentiation, whether inherent in non-intentional occurrence
such as spontaneous change of state in an entity, or in the inward orientation of an
action or event from the self (subject) to itself. The existence of such a cline in turn
points to prototype meanings that define the extreme poles of the cline. While much
attention has been directed to a transitive prototype defining the highest, most
maximally differentiated pole of the cline, such as the celebrated Hopper-Thompson
prototype, relatively little attention has been given to the existence of an intransitive
prototype defining the lowest pole of the cline, characterized by zero differentiation.
In earlier works (Jacobsen 2007, 2016), I have proposed identifying this intransitive
prototype with event occurrence of a spontaneous type, involving the coming into
existence of an entity or change of state in an existing entity apart from any external
control or cause, such spontaneous occurrence finding its cognitive basis in the
primal experience of a sense datum coming to existence in the field of perception.
It must be left to future research to determine whether the existence of such a
cline and its associated dual prototypes is borne out by investigation of transitive
94 Wesley M. Jacobsen

phenomena across a range of languages and whether such notions prove useful in
accounting for phenomena observed in cognitive domains such as language acquisi-
tion. It is hoped that the range of transitive phenomena observed for Japanese in this
chapter are suggestive of new directions of research in such areas.

References
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of
information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965/1970. Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT; reprinted in Gruber,
Lexical structures in syntax and semantics, Amsterdam, North-Holland.
Harada, S. I. 1973. Counter Equi NP deletion. In Annual bulletin 7. 113–147. Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoniatrics, Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2).
251–299.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei-bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese], Vol. 2.
Tokyo: Taishukan.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 2007. The semantics of spontaneity revisited. In Susumu Kuno, Seiichi Makino,
and Susan G. Strauss (eds.), Aspects of linguistics: In Honor of Noriko Akatsuka, 19–41. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 2016. The semantic basis of Japanese transitive-intransitive derivational patterns.
In Taro Kageyama and Wesley Jacobsen (eds.), Transitivity and valency alternations, 21–50. Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Dōshi imiron: Gengo to ninchi no setten [Verb semantics: The interface of
language and cognition]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kageyama, Taro, and Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.). 2016. Transitivity and valency alternations: Studies
in Japanese and beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 1996. Split intransitivity in Japanese and the unaccusative hypothesis. Language
72. 248–286.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Matsumoto, Yo. 2000. Causative alternations in English and Japanese: a closer look. English Lin-
guistics 17(1). 160–192. Tokyo: English Linguistics Society of Japan.
Matsumoto, Yo. 2016. Phonological and semantic subregularities in noncausative-causative verb
pairs in Japanese. In Taro Kageyama, and Wesley M. Jacobsen (eds.), Transitivity and valency
alternations, 51–88. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
McCawley, James D. 1978. Notes on Japanese clothing verbs. In Irwin Howard and John Hinds (eds.),
Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 68–78. Tokyo: Kaitakusha,
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1984. Blocking and Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9. 177–
207.
Moto’ori, Haruniwa. 1828. Kotoba no kayoiji [Pathways of words]. Reprinted in Suga and Hayatsu
(eds.), Dōshi no jita [Intransitive/transitive distinction of verbs]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Transitivity 95

Nitta, Yoshio (ed.). 1991. Nihongo no voisu to tadōsei [Voice and transitivity in Japanese]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1976. Jidōshika, tadōshika oyobi ryōkyokuka-tenkei [Transitivization, intransitivi-
zation and bipolarization of Japanese verbs]. Kokugogaku 70. 46–66.
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of
the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. UC Berkeley. 157–189.
Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. Semantics of Japanese causativization. Foundations of Language 9:3
327–373.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativization. In M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 5: Japanese
Generative Grammar, 239–94. New York: Academic Press.
Shimada, Masahiko. 1979. Kokugo ni okeru jidōshi to tadōshi [Intransitive and transitive verbs in
Japanese]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Suga, Kazuyoshi and Emiko Hayatsu (eds.). 1995. Dōshi no jita [Intransitive/transitive distinction in
verbs]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1994. Resultatives and motion verbs in Japanese. Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences 24.2, 429–440.
Woolford, Ellen. 2015. Ergativity and transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 46.3, 489–531.
Takashi Masuoka
3 Topic and subject

1 Introduction
There are a great number of interesting research topics in Japanese grammar which
reflect the important features of the Japanese language. One of them is the topic of
the present chapter, i.e. the grammatical aspects of topic and subject in Japanese.
The primary goal of sentence grammar is to elucidate how a sentence is composed
and how the meaning of the sentence is related to its composition. One of the most
important research questions of sentence grammar is a proper treatment of the
grammatical notions of topic and subject.
In sentences of Japanese, the notions of topic and subject are interrelated in a
complicated manner. The problem of the distinction between the particles wa and
ga is a typical example that indicates the complicated relation. Reflecting this state
of affairs, there has been a continuous flow of research on the relation of topic and
subject in the long history of the study of Japanese grammar. The significance of
this research topic is exemplified by the following facts: that Mikami (1960) is still
quoted in articles and monographs, that Hattori et al. (eds.) (1978), the first compre-
hensive anthology of Japanese grammatical studies, provided a section for the topic/
subject research, and that introductory Japanese linguistics textbooks invariably
contain a chapter on the problem of topic and subject.
The research on grammatical relations such as subject and object has long
attracted many linguists, and there are too many important research results to
mention.1 In contrast, full-scale investigations into the notion of topic started fairly
recently, after the appearance of the research framework called “information struc-
ture”. Compared with that situation, it can be said that the state of affairs concerning
the research on topic and subject in Japanese, to which great attention has been
directed, is a notable characteristic of the Japanese grammatical studies.
In discussing the topic/subject issue, we are required to give an account of how
the notions of topic and subject are to be conceptualized. Our basic stance as to this
point is a fairly standard one, which is adopted by many linguists. That is, the topic
of a sentence is taken to be the constituent X in the sentence where a comment is
made on X. The semantic notion of “aboutness” (“what the sentence is about”) plays
a crucial role in characterizing the topic of a sentence (cf. Reinhart 1982, Gundel and
Fretheim 2004).

1 See Farrell (2005) for the research on grammatical relations in general, Falk (2006) for the research
on subject, and Postal (2010) for the research on object.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-004
98 Takashi Masuoka

Subject, on the other hand, is one of the grammatical relations that function
significantly in the composition of a sentence. Direct object and indirect object as
well as subject are the representative grammatical relations to be mentioned. Among
the grammatical relations of the sentence, subject is considered to be the highest
in superiority. This characteristic of subject is referred to as “the most prominent”
grammatical relation by Speas (1990:11) and “the most syntactically privileged”
grammatical relation by Farrell (2005:14).
The objective of the present chapter is twofold: one is to provide an overview of
the main stream found in the previous research on the topic and subject in Japa-
nese, and the other is to present my own view of the topic/subject issue as a possible
extension of the observed stream of the previous research. Thus, this chapter is
composed of two main sections. Section 2 is devoted to a description of the points
of the previous research on Japanese topic/subject. This is followed by section 3,
which presents a possible direction for further development of the topic/subject
issue. Concluding remarks will be given after section 3.

2 A survey of the previous research on the topic

and subject in Japanese
In this section, I would like to make a general survey of the previous research on the
topic/subject in Japanese.

2.1 Matsushita’s and Sakuma’s research

In the long history of the Japanese topic/subject research, Matsushita (1928) and
Sakuma (1941) stand out as key research results. These two studies are to be mentioned
specifically in that they laid the foundations of the Japanese topic/subject research,
occupying important positions in the accumulated research literature dealing with
the topic/subject issue. Thus I will point out the contributions that Matsushita
(1928) and Sakuma (1941) made to the development of the research topic.
Let us start with Matsushita (1928). Key points presented by Matsushita (1928)
are the following: (i) the distinction between the topic (Matsushita uses the term
daimokugo (‘topic word’)) and the subject, (ii) a language typology in relation to
the topic/subject distinction, (iii) the distinction between “the topic sentence” (a
sentence with a topic) and “the topicless sentence” (a sentence without a topic), and
(iv) the distinction between “known” and “unknown”. These points will be described
below in this order.
 Topic and subject 99

With respect to the first point, Matsushita claims that in Japanese it is important
to distinguish between “logical subject” and “grammatical subject”. According to
Matsushita, “logical subject” is the entity being judged and should be called daimo-
kugo, whereas “grammatical subject” expresses the central or subject entity of a
given state of affairs. He calls attention to the fact that the topic of a sentence is
not necessarily a grammatical subject (the central entity), as shown in (1) and (2).
Sakura wa in (1) is both topic and grammatical subject of the sentence, while in
(2) the topic kono ki wa expresses the object entity of the sentence, not the subject
entity.

(1) Sakura wa haru saku.

cherry blossoms TOP spring bloom
‘Cherry blossoms bloom in spring.’

(2) Kono ki wa watasi ga ueta.

this tree TOP I NOM planted
‘This tree, I planted it.’

In this connection, it is noted that Matsushita recognizes a government-dependence

relation between the predicate of a sentence and its grammatical subject. This idea is
equivalent to the current linguistic view that there is a dependency relation between
the predicate and its subject and that the predicate is the head of a sentence. He
states that the subject of a sentence as well as the object (kyakugo ‘object word’ in
his terminology) functions to “complete the predication”. His idea that the subject
functions as a complement of the predicate antedates the generally accepted view
in modern linguistics that the subject is an argument of the predicate.
The second point of Matsushita (1928) is that of a language typology in relation
to the topic/subject distinction. Matsushita argues that in contrast to Japanese,
which requires a strict distinction between the notion of topic and that of subject,
Indo-European languages like English do not distinguish these notions, expressing
both the entity being judged and the central entity of a state of affairs in the form
of grammatical subject. In Indo-European languages, he says, the content of (2) is
expressed by sentences like “this tree was planted by me”. Thus Matsushita clearly
noticed the typological difference between Japanese and Indo-European languages
in respect to the distinction between the topic and the subject.
On the basis of the topic/subject distinction in Japanese, Matsushita moves a
step further and points out that a Japanese sentence may or may not have a topic.
This is the third point, mentioned above, i.e. the distinction between “the topic
sentence” and “the topicless sentence”.
He illustrates the topic/topicless sentence distinction with a sentence in which
the particle wa is used as in (3) and a sentence in which the particle ga is used
as in (4).
100 Takashi Masuoka

(3) Sakura no hana wa sigatu no hazime ni saki-masu.

cherry GEN blossoms TOP April GEN beginning in bloom-POL
‘Cherry blossoms bloom in the beginning of April.’

(4) Hana ga sai-ta.

blossoms NOM bloom-PST
‘Blossoms bloomed.’

According to Matsushita, sentences like (3) take a topic-comment pattern, with the
topic being presented by the particle wa, while those like (4) take a topicless pattern,
where the particle ga represents the subject relation to the predicate.
Another important observation of Matsushita’s is that the wa/ga distinction is
related to the contrast of kyū-gainen (‘old notion’) and shin-gainen (‘new notion’),
an equivalent of the old/new information contrast. This is essentially the distinction
between “known” and “unknown”, mentioned above. He argues that in the topic-
comment composition, the topic is “determined” previous to the comment, and
hence it becomes an old/known notion. The entity being judged is claimed to be
“determined and invariable” prior to the judgment. As opposed to the topic, the
comment is “undetermined and variable”, and hence it becomes a new/unknown
notion.
Matsushita illustrates this point with the following examples.

(5) Watasi wa nanigasi toiu mono desu.

I TOP so-and-so called person COP
‘I am a person called so-and-so.’

(6) Watasi ga o-yobidasi no nanigasi desu.

I NOM POL-paged GEN so-and-so COP
‘I am the paged so-and-so. (The person paged is me.)’

In (5), the topic watasi is determined and invariable, and the comment nanigasi toiu
mono desu is undetermined and variable, i.e. unknown. In (6), on the other hand,
the determined and invariable part is o-yobidasi no nanigasi desu, with watasi ga
providing an unknown notion. Matsushita further states that (6) can be converted
into the topic sentence o-yobidasi no nanigasi wa watasi desu ‘the paged so-and-so
is me’.
Matsushita’s observation above is noteworthy in view of the history of linguistics.
That observation was as early as that of the Prague School linguist Mathesius, who
is known to be an advocate of the theory of old/new information. Another aspect
of Matsushita’s observation with respect to the known/unknown distinction will be
discussed in 3.2.
 Topic and subject 101

Let us turn to Sakuma (1941). What is significant about Sakuma’s research is

his original distinction of two sentence types and its relevance to the topic/subject
issue.
Sakuma, attaching importance to explicating the structural composition of
sentences, proposed to allow for two important types of declarative sentence. These
sentence types are referred to as shinasadame-bun (‘evaluative sentence’) and
monogatari-bun (‘event sentence’). He characterizes shinasadame-bun as “the sentence
whose function is to describe a property/state of a given entity or to express judg-
ment”, and monogatari-bun as “the sentence whose function is to describe an event
that takes place” (Sakuma 1941:153).
Sakuma points out that the sentence types in question are not just conceptual
but that they manifest themselves differently in their structural compositions. That
is, the evaluative sentence takes the form (nani-nani) wa (koo-koo/nanika) da ‘(such
and such) is (such and such)’, where the beginning portion appears as the topic of
the sentence (Sakuma 1941:155). The event sentence, on the other hand, takes the
form (nani-nani) ga (dooka) suru/sita ‘(such and such) do/did (such and such)’,
where in addition to the requirement that a verb should appear as the predicate,
“the specification of the temporal and spatial setting” is indispensable since “the
description of an event would not be complete, if the temporal/spatial setting is not
explicit” (Sakuma 1941:154). Thus, Sakuma draws attention to the fact that the dis-
tinction between the evaluative sentence and the event sentence is reflected in their
structural compositions. Particularly important is his observation that topicalization
and temporal/spatial specification are involved in the evaluative sentence and the
event sentence, respectively. In referring to the evaluative/event sentence distinc-
tion, which plays a crucial role in this chapter, I will henceforth make use of the
terms “property predication sentence” and “event predication sentence”.
To sum up, the points of Matsushita’s (1928) and Sakuma’s (1941) research are
the following: (i) the notion of topic and that of subject are distinguished in Japanese,
(ii) with respect to the topic/subject distinction, we can think of different language
types: the Japanese type, which distinguishes topic and subject, and the English
type, which does not make such a distinction, (iii) “the topic sentence” and “the
topicless sentence” are differentiated in Japanese, (iv) the topic/topicless sentence dis-
tinction is related to the known/unknown distinction, and (v) the evaluative sentence
(property predication sentence) vs. event sentence (event predication sentence) dis-
tinction has a bearing on whether a topic appears in a sentence or not.

2.2 Three significant points found in the previous research

In 2.1, I presented the points of Matsushita’s (1928) and Sakuma’s (1941) view on
the topic/subject issue. Observing the development of the Japanese topic/subject
research after Matsushita and Sakuma, it is possible to narrow the above points
of their research down to three major points: (a) the predication types of “property
102 Takashi Masuoka

predication” and “event predication” and their relevance to the topic/subject issue,
(b) the language typology based on the topic/subject distinction, and (c) the relation
between the topic/topicless sentence distinction and the known/unknown distinc-
tion. I will discuss these points in this order.
Let us start with the first point, i.e. the two predication types and their relevance
to the topic/subject issue. As studies that made a great contribution to this problem,
Mikami (1953) and Kawabata (1976, 2004) should be mentioned, in addition to
Sakuma (1941).
Mikami (1953), following Sakuma’s (1941) idea of the evaluative/event sentence
distinction, characterizes the two sentence types in terms of the part of speech of
the predicate concerned. He uses the terms meishi-bun (‘noun sentence’) and dōshi-
bun (‘verb sentence’) in place of Sakuma’s shinasadame-bun and monogatari-bun:
meishi-bun is a sentence whose predicate is a noun, and dōshi-bun is a sentence
whose predicate is a verb.
According to Mikami, the noun sentence expresses “a quality of a given entity”,
while the verb sentence expresses “the process of an event”. He states that how
and to what extent the noun sentence and the verb sentence are distinguished can
vary among languages, and that Japanese makes a clearer distinction than West
European languages.
The clear distinction between the noun sentence and the verb sentence in
Japanese is claimed to be substantiated more than anything else by how a topic
appears in a sentence. Mikami, who like Sakuma attaches importance to the topic
status in a sentence, argues that the noun sentence expresses a categorical judgment
by means of its form “topic (the whole) – comment (its part/side is such and such)”,
and that “the topic of the noun sentence is a self-centered and independent con-
stituent, to which its part/side having a certain quality is attached” (Mikami 1953:139).
By this characterization, the structural composition of a sentence like (7) is ac-
counted for.

(7) Ano hito wa ne ga syoosin-mono da.

that person TOP heart NOM timid-person COP
‘That person is a coward at heart’.

In contrast to the noun sentence, Mikami argues, the verb sentence typically is
topicless. Stating that “the typical verb sentence to be called ‘the simple reportive
sentence’ is composed without a topic” (Mikami 1953:141), he points out that topic-
less sentences like (8) are used in a chronological table of Japanese history.

(8) Kinmei Tennoo no zyuusan-nen, Kudara kara Bukkyoo

Kinmei Emperor GEN 13th-year Kudara from Buddhism
ga denraisita.
NOM was introduced
‘In the 13th year of Emperor Kinmei, Buddhism was introduced from Kudara.’
 Topic and subject 103

Mikami thus estimates, in agreement with Sakuma, that the noun/verb sentence
distinction is clearly reflected in the structural composition of sentences. To be noted
in particular is his view on the relation between the two sentence types and the
topic/topicless sentence distinction.
Another notable study of sentence predication type is Kawabata (1976, 2004).
Kawabata’s theory was constructed independently of Sakuma and Mikami, but he
stands on common ground with them in that great importance is attached to the
notion of sentence type in conducting a grammatical analysis.
Based on the idea that a sentence corresponds to the structure of judgment,
Kawabata recognizes two sentence types, called keiyōshi-bun (‘adjective sentence’)
and dōshi-bun (‘verb sentence’). He adopts the term keiyōshi-bun rather than meishi-
bun, which is used by Mikami. Kawabata entertains the idea that the adjective
sentence corresponds directly to the structure of judgment, and hence it is formed
by the unification of “the subject term” and “the predicate term”, i.e. a two-part
structure. For Kawabata, subject is a concept relevant primarily to the adjective
sentence.
The verb sentence, on the other hand, is claimed to be the individuation of
a state of affairs on the basis of time and space (primarily, time), with the voice/
aspect/tense categories represented distinctively in the predicate. He also asserts
that the verb sentence has case categories (more specifically, the nominative case,
the accusative case, and the dative case), corresponding to the subject in the adjec-
tive sentence. In Kawabata’s view, the grammatical category of case is proper to the
verb sentence.
Although Kawabata does not use the term “topic” in his characterization of the
sentence types, we might be allowed to understand that “the subject of the adjective
sentence” and “the nominative case of the verb sentence” in his terminology are
equivalent to the topic and the subject in the terminology of this chapter.
A linguistic concept similar to the property/event predication distinction, that of
“individual-level predication vs. stage-level predication”, proposed by Carlson (1977)
and Carlson and Pelletier (eds.) (1995), is worthy of mention (cf. Kageyama 2006,
2009). In their research on the semantics of reference, Carlson and others dis-
tinguish between “the individual-level reference” and “the stage-level reference” in
reference to entities. Take, for instance, the following sentences.

(9) John knows French.

(10) John is smoking.

The way John functions in its reference differs in (9) and (10): in (9) the referent in
question is John as an individual, while in (10) it is John as a manifestation of the
individual in a specific time and space.
Corresponding to the difference in the reference of entities, the individual-level
predication and the stage-level predication are distinguished as different types of
predication. In (9) and (10), “knows French” and “is smoking” function as individual-
104 Takashi Masuoka

level predication and stage-level predication, respectively. Thus, the individual-level/

stage-level predication distinction has much in common with the property/event
predication distinction. Nonetheless, their thesis has not delved into the topic/
subject issue so far, as it has not taken languages like Japanese into consideration.
Let us next turn to the second point, i.e. that of the language typology based on
the topic/subject distinction. Mikami (1953, 1963, 1970) and Shibatani (1989, 2002), in
addition to Matsushita (1928), have presented a notable view on this issue.
Mikami is known to be an advocator of shugo-hitei-ron (‘the thesis of the denial
of subject’). Mikami does not simply deny the existence of subject in Japanese. The
point of his thesis is that the sentence structure is “bipartite” in a different sense
between Japanese and English: Japanese has a “topic-comment” bipartite structure,
while English has a “subject-predicate” bipartite structure.
It is noted that Mikami was conscious of the typological difference between
Japanese and English regarding the basic composition of sentences. Stating that
Japanese and English exhibit a typological difference in accentuation, i.e. “pitch
accent language” vs. “stress accent language”, Mikami draws attention to the point
that the constructional pattern of sentences is also remarkably different between
the two languages. His claim is condensed into the expression “the skeleton of the
Japanese sentence is ‘T-P’ (‘Topic-Predicate’) and that of the English sentence is ‘S-P’
(‘Subject-Predicate’)” (Mikami 1963: preface). Mikami’s view is highly evaluated as
an early instance of the current typological perspective.
Shibatani (1989, 2002) makes a conceptual distinction between “the topic” in the
sense of “subject matter” and “the subject” as characterized by the semantic role
of “agent”. On this basis, Shibatani maintains that English is a language in which
the notions of “subject matter” and “agent” converge on the same grammatical
form, i.e. grammatical subject, and that “the generalization of agent in the subject”
(that is, noun phrases with various kinds of semantic roles including agent can
appear in the subject position) is quite conspicuous. In contrast, he says, Japanese
is regarded as a language in which the notions of topic and subject are separated,
because the convergence of the notion of subject matter and that of agent is not
observed.
Shibatani’s idea that English only necessitates the notion of subject, while
Japanese necessitates the notion of topic as well as that of subject is basically in
accord with Matsushita’s (1928) idea, mentioned in 2.1. What makes Shibatani’s
view distinctive is his prototype theory approach to the notion of subject. Shibatani
takes the position that the degree of subject prominence varies across languages: in
English the notions of “subject matter” and “agent” converge on the grammatical
subject and the generalization of agent is conspicuous, while this is not the case
in Japanese. Thus, English is considered to have “the prototype subject”, while
Japanese subject is non-prototypical.
In relation to the language typology in question, we need to touch on Li and
Thompson (1976) as a related proposal in linguistics. Li and Thompson propose the
distinction of “the topic-prominent language vs. the subject-prominent language”.
 Topic and subject 105

Their proposal is an attempt to classify languages according to whether sentences of a

given language are framed on the basis of “topic-comment” or “subject-predicate”.
Their typological classification resembles Mikami’s “TP/SP” typology. They claim,
however, that the topic-prominence property and the subject-prominence property
can coexist in a single language, and classify Japanese as a “both topic-prominent
and subject-prominent language”. In this respect, their view is similar to Matsushita’s
and Shibatani’s idea rather than Mikami’s idea.
Finally, let us take up the issue of (c), the relation between the topic/topicless
sentence distinction and the known/unknown distinction. In addition to Matsushita
(1928), I would like to refer to Matsumura (1942) and Kuno (1972, 1973).
Matsumura (1942) asserts that when we discuss the problem of whether wa or
ga is to be used to mark the subject, it is necessary to differentiate between sudeni
kotei-shita gainen (‘previously-fixed notion’; he also uses the term kichi ‘known’) and
atarashii gainen (‘new notion’). He points out that in (11) wa is used to treat ie
‘house’ as known, while in (12) ga is used to express that ie is unknown.

(11) Tonari no ie wa mada moetei-nai na.

neighboring GEN house TOP yet burning-NEG SFP
‘The house next door has not burned yet.’

(12) A, ie ga moeteiru.
oh house NOM burning
‘Oh, the house is burning.’

Examining how wa and ga are used in dialogue, Matsumura came to the conclusion
that the difference between “known to the hearer” and “unknown to the hearer”
plays a key role in the usage of wa/ga. He cites (13) as a typical example that indi-
cates the relevance of the “known/unknown to the hearer” distinction to the usage
of the two particles.

(13) Mukasi-mukasi aru tokoro ni oziisan to obaasan

a long time ago a certain place in old man and old woman
ga arimasita. Oziisan wa yama e
NOM existed the old man TOP mountain to
sibakari ni, obaasan wa kawa e
gathering firewood for the old woman TOP river to
sentaku ni ikimasita.
washing for went
‘A long time ago, there lived an old man and an old woman. The old man
went to a mountain to gather firewood and the old woman went to a river
to do the washing.’
106 Takashi Masuoka

Matsumura (1942) thus is worthy of attention because of his claim that the contrast
between old and new information has much relevance to linguistic communication.
Incidentally, since Matsumura’s concern was with the problem of wa/ga marking
in the subject, he did not go into the topic/subject issue; neither did he adopt
Matsushita’s (1928) terminological distinction between daimokugo (‘topic word’) and
shugo (‘subject’), although he referred to Matsushita’s description of the usage of
wa/ga.
Another important study of the issue of (c) is Kuno (1972, 1973). Influenced by
the “functional sentence perspective” of the Prague School, Kuno introduced the
notion of “old/new information” to explain the usage of wa/ga.
Kuno proposed two uses of wa and ga, respectively. They are “thematic wa”,
“contrastive wa”, “descriptive ga”, and “exhaustive-listing ga”, as shown in (14)
through (17).

(14) [thematic wa] John wa gakusei desu.

student is
‘Speaking of John, he is a student’.

(15) [contrastive wa] Ame wa hutte imasu ga. . .

rain falling is but
‘It is raining, but. . .’

(16) [descriptive ga] Ame ga hutte imasu.

rain falling is
‘It is raining.’

(17) [exhaustive-listing ga] John ga gakusei desu.

student is
‘(Of all the people under discussion) John (and only John) is a student’.

Kuno points out that thematic wa conveys old information, commenting that “the
themes of Japanese sentences, as in English sentences, must be either generic or
anaphoric” (Kuno 1973: 44). In contrast, descriptive ga and exhaustive-listing ga
both convey new information: “what is common between the ga for neutral descrip-
tion and the ga for exhaustive listing is that, in both cases, the subject conveys new
information” (Kuno 1972: 272).
The notion of “old/new information” has been discussed extensively since the
appearance of the theory of information structure. In the theory of information struc-
ture, which emphasizes the communicative functions of linguistic expressions, the
notions of “topic” and “focus” occupy an important position. In that theory, the
topic and the focus are thought of as constituting the old/new information contrast
(cf. Lambrecht 1994, Erteshik-Shir 2006, Heycock 2008).
 Topic and subject 107

3 Remarks
In this section, I will address some remarks on the following three issues, surveyed
in section 2: (a) the property/event predication distinction and its relevance to the
topic/subject issue, (b) the language typology based on the topic/subject distinction,
and (c) the relation between the topic/topicless sentence distinction and the known/
unknown distinction. For expository purposes, I discuss (a) and (b) in 3.1, in the way
that they are interrelated. Then I come to grips with (c) in 3.2.2

3.1 Predication type and language typology

3.1.1 Predication type and the topic/subject issue

I would like to begin by examining the relation between the predication types and
the topic/subject issue. Research in linguistics generally concentrates on the analysis
of the event sentence, i.e. the verb-predicate sentence, without showing much interest
in the noun-predicate sentence. So it would be appropriate to start with the event
predication.
The event predication is the description of an event that occurs in a specific time
and place. What props up the event predication sentence is the predicate that deter-
mines the event type, a verb being the core of the predicate. The representative event
predication sentence, therefore, is a verb-predicate sentence like (18).

(18) Kodomo ga nikkori waratta.

child NOM broadly smiled
‘The child smiled broadly.’

The event predication sentence is composed of the head and its dependents. The
head is the predicate that determines the frame of a sentence. Among the depend-
ents, the one that complements the predicate is the argument. In (18), the phrase
kodomo ga functions as an argument of the predicate warau ‘smile’. Another type
of dependent is the adjunct, which is used to detail a description concerned. In
(18), nikkori functions as an adjunct of the predicate. The event predication sentence
thus has an endocentric structure, in which the predicate is the head, and the argu-
ment(s) and the adjunct(s) are its dependents.
Since arguments are indispensable constituents, the core of the event predica-
tion sentence is a composite of the predicate and its argument(s), called “the argu-
ment structure”. How many (and what types of) arguments are required in a given

2 The remarks presented in section 3 are based on Masuoka (1987, 2004, 2008, 2013). For details, see
those references.
108 Takashi Masuoka

structure is determined by each individual predicate. For instance, warau ‘smile’

takes one argument, sodateru ‘raise’ two arguments, and watasu ‘hand’ three argu-
ments, as illustrated below.

(19) Kodomo ga waratta.

child NOM smiled
‘The child smiled.’

(20) Kodomo ga hana o sodateta.

child NOM flower ACC raised
‘The child raised flowers.’

(21) Oya ga kodomo ni kagi o watasita.

parent NOM child DAT key ACC handed
‘The parent handed a key to his/her child.’

To add a word, the event predication characteristically calls for the notion of tempo-
rality and spatiality. Particularly important is the notion of temporality. Hence, the
grammatical category of “tense” is crucial to the event predication, and in the case
of dynamic events, the grammatical category of “aspect” is relevant as well.
Concerning argument phrases appearing in the event predication sentence, the
grammatical category of “case” comes into play, which represents the relation of a
given argument to its predicate. In (21), for instance, the nominative case, the dative
case, and the accusative case are respectively assigned to the three arguments oya,
kodomo, and kagi.Furthermore, as described in the introduction, there is a difference
in superiority among arguments taken by a predicate, and so, grammatical relations
such as subject and object are acknowledged on the basis of that difference. Subject,
for example, is considered to be the most superior argument. One of the points of
this chapter is that the notion of subject derives from the composition of the event
predication sentence, that is, this notion is called for as an intrinsic part of the event
predication.
On the assumption that there is a grammatical relation of subject, the gram-
matical category of “voice” e.g. the passive voice, can be thereby defined. The
passive sentence, for example, is defined such that the subject of the correspond-
ing active sentence bears a grammatical relation other than subject, as exemplified
in (22).

(22) Kodomo ga oya kara kagi o watas-are-ta.

child NOM parent ABL key ACC hand-PASS-PST
‘The child was handed a key by his/her parent.’

In this sentence, oya, the subject of the corresponding active sentence, is marked by
kara, which represents a “source” relation to the passive predicate watasareta ‘was
handed’.
 Topic and subject 109

Next, let us consider the property predication, which has not been discussed
at length in the linguistics literature. The property predication is conceived of as
attributing a constant property to a given entity, as in (23).

(23) Nihon wa yamaguni da.

Japan TOP mountainous country COP
‘Japan is a mountainous country.’

In (23), the constant property of “being a mountainous country” is attributed to the

entity Japan. To put it another way, the entity Japan is construed as belonging to the
category “mountainous country”. Let us call the property of this type “the property
of category”. Predicating the property of category is representative of the property
predication,3 which means that the representative property predication sentence
is a noun-predicate sentence like (23). The view that the noun-predicate sentence
and the verb-predicate sentence are respectively typical of the property predication
sentence and the event predication sentence is in line with Mikami’s (1953) idea that
the basic contrast in the relevant sentence type is that of “the noun sentence vs. the
verb sentence”.
A notable feature of the property predication is the mutual-dependency relation
that holds between a given entity and its property: the property in question requires
the existence of an entity to which it is attributed, while the given entity requires the
existence of a property to be attributed. Reflecting this mutual-dependency relation,
the property predication sentence is composed of the part representing the entity to
be predicated of and the part representing its property, i.e. the “bipartite structure”
sentence in Mikami’s (1970) terminology, and the sentence formed by “the unification
of the subject term and the predicate term” in Kawabata’s (1976, 2004) terminology.
With respect to the property predication sentence, it is not appropriate to say
that the predicate is the head of the sentence. If we dare to use the notion of
“head”, both the entity part and the property part are thought of as the heads of
the sentence. I thus contend that different from the event predication sentence,
which has an endocentric structure, the property predication sentence has an exo-
centric structure, in which the relevant parts are connected in such a way that they
are mutually dependent.
Reflecting the mutual-dependency relation between the two parts, the property
predication sentence takes the following form.

(24) [topic (the entity part) + comment (the property part)]

In the case of (23), for example, the entity part manifests itself as nihon wa, with the
topic particle wa, and the property part yamaguni da follows it as a comment. The

3 Besides “the property of category”, we may allow for “the property of simple possession” and “the
property of past record”. See Masuoka (2004, 2008, 2013) for details.
110 Takashi Masuoka

property predication conceptually presupposes the existence of an entity, and that

entity is expressed as the topic of the sentence concerned since the sentence is
“about” that entity.
A sentence like (25), which is often discussed under the heading of “the double-
subject sentence”, also takes the form of (24).4

(25) Zoo wa hana ga nagai.

elephants TOP trunk NOM long
‘As for elephants, their trunks are long.’

In (25), the topic zoo wa represents the entity to be predicated of, and the comment
hana ga nagai represents a property attributed to that entity.
I thus conceive that the notion of topic derives from the essential characteristic
of the property predication. In other words, the notion of topic is called for as an
intrinsic part of the property predication, and hence the topic of the property predica-
tion sentence can be characterized as “the topic that is motivated sentence-internally”.
In relation to the topic status in the property predication, a word is in order
about the relevance of the notion of topic to the event predication. The event predi-
cation differs from the property predication in that it does not intrinsically require
the existence of a topic. However, there are cases in which a topic is necessitated
by a sentence-external factor. That is, if a given context requires a specific argument
of the predicate to function as the topic of the sentence, that argument is realized as
a topic. This is exemplified by (26), where (sono) kodomo is presented as a topic so
that the predicate part can make a comment on it.

(26) (Sono) kodomo wa nikkori waratta.

the child TOP broadly smiled
‘The child smiled broadly.’

When an argument is realized as the topic of a given sentence, we may handle it as

“topicalization of an argument”. The topic in an event predication sentence like (26)
can be construed as “the topic that is motivated sentence-externally” in the sense
that it is called for by the context concerned.
Now let us summarize the discussion of the relation between the predication
types and the topic/subject issue. The notion of topic is ascribed to the property
predication. That is, the notion derives from the function of property attribution.
Property attribution is accomplished by the topic-comment combination, where

4 The existence of this type of sentence was first pointed out by Kusano (1901). The example (7),
mentioned above, is a sentence of the same type.
 Topic and subject 111

the topic represents the entity to be predicated of and the comment represents its
property.5
The notion of subject, on the other hand, is defined on the basis of the gram-
matical characteristic of the event predication. When a predicate takes more than
one argument, they are not equal in superiority. For instance, the three arguments
oya (ga), kodomo (ni), and kagi (o) in the sentence oya ga kodomo ni kagi o watasita
‘the parent handed a key to his/her child’ are different in superiority. Subject is
defined as the most superior argument, i.e. the primary argument, of a given predi-
cate. Subject and object are said to be representative grammatical relations relevant
to grammatical description.
Incidentally, numerous Japanese grammarians and linguists, such as Mikami
(1953, 1970), Harada (1973), Shibatani (1978, 1985), Onoe (2004), and Tsunoda (2009),
have pointed out that arguments taken by a predicate exhibit a difference in
superiority. They disagree as to whether the notion of subject should be acknowl-
edged or not: Mikami takes a negative stance on this issue, while Harada and others
take a positive stance. This topic will be taken up in 3.1.2.
Based on the above discussion, I now turn to the issue of (b), the language
typology in relation to the topic/subject distinction. As surveyed in 2.2, a noteworthy
idea as to the relevant typology is Li and Thompson’s (1976) “topic-prominent language
vs. subject-prominent language” distinction. Here I propose a somewhat modified
version of this distinction.
I consider Japanese to be a topic-prominent language, with the “topic-comment”
bipartite structure of the property predication sentence forming the basis of sentence
composition. To put it another way, the basic composition of the property predica-
tion sentence is extended or generalized to the event predication sentence, with the
result that an argument of the event predication sentence can be realized as a topic,
as pointed out above in reference to (26). Another example of topicalization of an
argument is (27).

(27) Watasi wa kesa roku-zi ni me o samasita.

I TOP this morning six o’clock at eye ACC awoke
‘I woke up at 6 this morning.’

A notable construction called “double-subject sentence” like (25) above, which is

common in the property predication, is also extended to the event predication,
thereby producing a sentence like (28).6

5 Occurrence of topics in subordinate clauses is severely restricted, but I do not go into discussion
of this issue.
6 Strict semantic conditions are imposed on the double-subject sentence of the event predication
type. See Masuoka (1987:61–70) for a discussion of this issue.
112 Takashi Masuoka

(28) Hanako wa musume ga zyozi o syussansita.

Hanako TOP daughter NOM girl ACC gave birth to
‘As for Hanako, her daughter gave birth to a girl.’ (Masuoka 1987:70)

There are cases, however, in which event predication sentences lack a topic, as in
(18) and (29), hence yielding the topic/topicless sentence distinction in the event
predication.

(18) Kodomo ga nikkori waratta.

child NOM broadly smiled
‘The child smiled broadly.’

(29) Kodomo ga roku-zi ni me o samasita.

child NOM six o’clock at eye ACC awoke
‘The child woke up at 6.’

The event predication sentence goes without a topic in case it describes “an external
event” (an event observed objectively). “An internal event” (an event expressing an
experience of the subject concerned) such as (27), on the other hand, manifests itself
as a topic sentence.7 This point will be discussed in 3.2.
In Japanese, a topic-prominent language, a topic appears overtly in a sentence.
The topic in Japanese shows up explicitly: it takes a marker like wa and basically
is placed in the sentence initial position. If we refer to the topic of this type as
“prototype topic”, Japanese can be said to have the prototype topic in this sense.
Experience indicates that it is not difficult to identify a topic in a given sentence.
Incidentally, the idea that the basic composition of Japanese sentences is molded
on that of the property predication sentence is also found in Kawabata’s (1976, 2004)
view. As surveyed in 2.2, Kawabata contends that the sentence corresponds to judg-
ment and that the adjective sentence, which corresponds directly to judgment, deter-
mines the basic structure of a sentence. In Kawabata’s view, it is not only that the
adjective sentence and the verb sentence are distinguished, but also that the structure
of the verb sentence is characterized on the basis of that of the adjective sentence.
In contrast to Japanese, English is a subject-prominent language. In subject-
prominent languages like English, the basic composition of sentences is considered
to be molded on that of the event predication sentence. To put it differently, the basic
composition of the event predication sentence is extended or generalized to the
property predication sentence, and so the entity being predicated of in property
predication is realized as a subject, modeled on the argument realization of the event
predication sentence.

7 It is to be noted that an external event sentence can be realized as a topic sentence in a certain
context, as in (26).
 Topic and subject 113

Thus, the subject-prominent language is endowed with a mechanism to have a

subject in the composition of sentences. Due to this “inclination toward a subject
sentence (a sentence with a subject)”, subject sentences form the majority, while
subjectless sentences are in the minority. English seems to be particularly conspicuous
in the inclination toward a subject sentence. The fact that the “subject-predicate”
form is maintained by means of formal elements like “expletive it” is symbolic of
this characteristic of English.
In English, a subject appears overtly in a sentence. The subject in English shows
up quite explicitly: in the basic word order, the subject is placed in the initial posi-
tion, and morphologically the subject agrees with the predicate in finite clauses. In
relation to word order, subject-auxiliary inversion also plays a role in giving an overt
status to the subject in English.
While the entity being predicated of in property predication is explicitly realized
as a subject, the construction called “double-subject sentence”, such as (25) and (28)
above, is not found in English. This is attributable to the characteristic of the subject-
prominent language like English, which does not have a topic-comment structure
as the basic sentence composition (cf. Li and Thompson 1976). As mentioned in 2.2,
English is considered to have “the prototype subject”, and hence it is quite easy to
identify a subject in a given English sentence.

3.1.2 The overtness/covertness of topic and subject

In 3.1.1, it was stated that Japanese and English sharply contrast in that they are a
typical topic-prominent language and a typical subject-prominent language, respec-
tively. This does not mean, however, that the notion of subject is unnecessary for a
topic-prominent language like Japanese, or that the notion of topic is unnecessary
for a subject-prominent language like English. It will be shown below how the notion
of subject is relevant to Japanese and that of topic is relevant to English.
Let us begin with Japanese. Mikami (1953, 1970) addressed the issue of the sub-
ject status in Japanese and advanced his shugo-hitei-ron (‘the thesis of the denial of
subject’). As described in 2.2, Mikami’s thesis was based on a typological linguistic
point of view, more specifically, on an observation of the typological difference between
Japanese and English. Harada (1973), Shibatani (1978, 1985), Kuroda (1988), Onoe
(2004), Tsunoda (2009), Kishimoto (2010), and others, as opposed to Mikami, have
presented the thesis which acknowledges the notion of subject. Among them, Harada
(1973) and Shibatani (1978, 1985) are direct arguments against Mikami’s view.
Although Mikami and the other linguists like Harada disagree as to whether the
notion of subject is feasible for Japanese or not, a detailed examination of their
factual observations reveals that their views do not conflict substantially. They share
the view on the event predication sentence that there is a difference in superiority
among arguments taken by a predicate. The points of departure are: (i) how the
114 Takashi Masuoka

notion of case like nominative and dative concerns the issue of the acknowledge-
ment of subject, and (ii) how the structural position of the subject is specified.
With respect to the first issue, Mikami imposed a strict restriction to the effect
that only nominative case is relevant to the notion of subject. Harada (1973), Shibatani
(1978, 1985), Tsunoda (2009), and Kishimoto (2010), on the other hand, do not im-
pose such a restriction and allow for the dative subject and the like, in addition to
the nominative subject.
Based on an observation of grammatical phenomena like honorification, Mikami
pointed out that arguments taken by a predicate vary in their superiority. Examples
of the honorification phenomena that he took notice of are the following.

(30) Sensei wa ookuno tyosyo o o-motida.

teacher TOP many book ACC HON-have
‘The teacher has many books.’

(31) Sensei ni wa ookuno tyosyo ga o-arida.

teacher LOC TOP many book NOM HON-exist
‘The teacher has many books.’

In (30), the honorific form o-motida in the predicate is targeted at the nominative
sensei (ga) (the topic sensei wa is thought of as bearing a nominative case relation
to the predicate). In (31), on the other hand, the target of the honorific form o-arida
is the locative sensei ni (he uses the term “locative case” instead of the more com-
mon term “dative case”). Mikami utilizes the observation that the locative as well as
the nominative can be the target of honorification as evidence in favor of his thesis
of the denial of subject.
In contrast, Harada (1973), Shibatani (1978, 1985), and others regard the observed
facts about honorification as evidence that the dative, like sensei ni in (31), is to
be acknowledged as a subject (“the dative subject”) just as the nominative, like
sensei (ga) in (30), is a subject (“the nominative subject”).
As for the second issue above, how the structural position of the subject is speci-
fied, it is noted that Mikami (1953, 1970) proposed a hierarchical sentence structure.
Mikami (1970: 37–38) is especially worthy of notice in that tree diagrams as used in
generative grammar at that time were utilized to represent the hierarchical structure.
As an example of the hierarchical structure representation, he gave the sentence
Taroo ga Ziroo ni hon o kasita ‘Taro lent a book to Ziro’, where the nominative Taroo
ga is the primary argument. For this sentence he proposed a hierarchical structure in
which the accusative hon o ‘book ACC’ and the verb kasu ‘lend’ make up a low level
VP, the dative Ziroo ni ‘Ziro DAT’ and the low VP make up an intermediate level VP,
and Taroo ga ‘Taro NOM’ and the intermediate VP make up a high level VP. Another
example sentence given by Mikami is watasi ni musume ga aru ‘I have a daughter’,
where the dative (“locative” in Mikami’s terminology) watasi ni ‘I DAT/LOC’ is taken
 Topic and subject 115

to be the primary argument. For this sentence, Mikami proposed a hierarchical struc-
ture in which the nominative musume ga ‘daughter NOM’ and the verb aru ‘exist’
make up a low level VP, and the dative/locative watasi ni ‘I DAT/LOC’ and the low
VP make up a high level VP.
Under that proposal, Mikami contends that the superiority of the nominative like
Taroo ga and the dative/locative like watasi ni in the above examples is restricted
inside the domain of VP, and that the necessary condition for an NP to qualify as a
subject is that the NP concerned is positioned outside the VP and forms an exo-
centric bipartite structure. This is the point of his thesis of the denial of subject.8
Notice that Mikami takes a different stance from Matsushita (1928) in the charac-
terization of the notion of subject. As reviewed in 2.1, Matsushita (1928) pointed out
that the predicate and the subject in a sentence are in a “government-dependence
relation” – more precisely, a head-complement relation. To put it in the current lin-
guistic terminology, Matsushita regarded the subject as an argument of the predicate.
It can further be said that Matsushita’s view on the notion of subject is basically
in agreement with “the VP-internal subject hypothesis”, advanced by Kuroda (1988)
and others.
Thus, I would emphasize that, although Matsushita and Mikami had different
views as to whether the notion of subject is feasible for Japanese, they both came
up with the idea of the relative superiority of the arguments of a predicate, prefigur-
ing the VP-internal subject hypothesis. As far as the substance of the relevant obser-
vations is concerned, Matsushita, Mikami, and Kuroda can be grouped as a single
school of thought.9
In view of the foregoing observation, I acknowledge the notion of subject in
Japanese, with the proviso that, while topics are overtly expressed in Japanese, sub-
jects behave only covertly. As mentioned in 3.1.1, topics in Japanese take the topic
marker wa and are placed in the initial position of the basic word order; hence,
they are directly accessible in the outer forms. Subjects in Japanese, on the other
hand, are not directly accessible, to be acknowledged only in terms of their behavior
in grammatical phenomena like honorification.10

8 Mikami’s thesis is also related to the problem of the finiteness/non-finiteness of predicates, but I
do not enter into this problem.
9 Different from the VP-internal subject hypothesis, Kishimoto (2010) argues that subjects in Japanese
take a position outside the VP just like subjects in English. This view is in marked contrast to Mikami’s
idea in that it acknowledges the “subject-predicate” bipartite structure for Japanese as well as English.
It is noted further that different from Mikami, who presumably considered the “subject-predicate”
bipartite structure to be an exocentric structure, Kishimoto (2010) should think that the subject and
the predicate constitute an endocentric structure in which the subject occupies the specifier position
of the IP.
Much remains to be examined to resolve the problem of the structural position of subject, and for
that matter, that of the structural position of topic (cf. Kishimoto 2007).
10 The entity being predicated of in property predication, which is realized as a topic, also counts as
subject in view of its behavior in grammatical phenomena like honorification.
116 Takashi Masuoka

If we adopt Shibatani’s (1989, 2002) term “the prototype subject” to characterize

the subject in English, we may say that the subject in Japanese is non-prototypical.
As a matter of fact, in Japanese it is often difficult to judge whether a given phrase is
a subject or not, which, coupled with other factors, has caused a great controversy
over the notion of subject.
The opposite of Japanese is English. That is, in English subjects are expressed
overtly: they are placed in the initial position of the basic word order, they agree
with predicates in finite clauses, and subject-auxiliary inversion is very common.
Topics, on the other hand, behave covertly in English. There are some marked
constructions which specifically signal the presence of a topic or the lack thereof.
For example, the construction called a “left-dislocation sentence” is considered to
have a function of topicalizing a phrase by putting it in the dislocated position, as
exemplified in (32).11

(32) John, he is a genius.

Also, the construction called a “presentation sentence”, which has a marked word
order as shown in (33), is taken to be a topicless sentence.12

(33) Round the bend came the train.

Except for these grammatical constructions, however, topics are not directly accessible
in English. So, if we posit the concept of “prototype topic”, a counterpart of Shibatani’s
(1989, 2002) “prototype subject”, we may say that Japanese has a prototype topic,
while the topic in English is non-prototypical. As a matter of fact, in English it is
often difficult to judge whether a given phrase is a topic or not, as is the case with
John in the sentence “John is smoking” (the example (10) above). Thus, the topic in
English did not receive a full-scale investigation until the appearance of the theory
of information structure, in contrast to the topic in Japanese, which has been exten-
sively studied by many grammarians and linguists.
Let us now summarize what we have seen above. A topic-prominent language is
characterized as a language in which topics are realized overtly as a prototype topic,
subjects being covert and non-prototypical. A subject-prominent language, on the
other hand, is characterized as a language in which subjects show up overtly as
a prototype subject, topics being covert and non-prototypical. The point is that

11 For discussions of this issue, see Kuno (1972), Reinhart (1982), Lambrecht (1994), and Gundel and
Fretheim (2004). The sentence in (32) is taken from Kuno (1972:298). Incidentally, French, which is
considered to be a subject-prominent language, seems to make frequent use of the left-dislocation
sentence in colloquial speech (cf. De Cat 2007).
12 See Kuno (1972) and Hasegawa (2010) for details. The sentence in (33) is taken from Kuno
(1972:299).
 Topic and subject 117

the notion of topic and that of subject are not mutually exclusive in a language, but
that they behave either overtly or covertly. Also, there could be another type of lan-
guage, in which both topics and subjects are expressed overtly. Much remains to be
done to substantiate the idea of the overtness/covertness of topic and subject.

3.2 The functional/cognitive approach to topic

Lastly, I would like to reconsider the issue (c) of 2.2, the relation between the topic/
topicless sentence distinction and the known/unknown distinction. In relation to
this issue, I touched on Matsushita’s (1928) view in 2.1. There, I focused a spotlight
on the side of the known/unknown distinction, since in the linguistics literature the
notion of topic is generally discussed from the viewpoint of oldness/newness of
information with emphasis on its relation to the notion of focus. Actually, depicting
Matsushita’s (1928) view that way is one-sided.
In discussing the notion of topic, Matsushita took notice of its relevance to
cognition (“judgment in thinking”, in his words) as well as its communicative function.
Maintaining that a topic sentence connects an entity and a specific judgment, he called
attention to the cognitive aspect of the notion of topic. According to Matsushita
(1928:713), the topic sentence sakura no hana wa sigatu no hazime ni sakimasu
‘cherry blossoms bloom in the beginning of April’, given above as (3) in 2.1, can be
analyzed in such a way that “the notion sakura no hana (‘cherry blossoms’) is judged
by means of the notion sigatu no hazime ni sakimasu (‘bloom in the beginning of
April’)”.
After Matsushita, the communicative aspect and the cognitive aspect of the
notion of topic have generally been discussed separately. For instance, Matsumura
(1942) was concerned with the communicative aspect, as described in 2.2. Mio (1948),
published in the same period, proposed a sentence type distinction called handan-bun
(‘judgment sentence’) vs. genshō-bun (‘phenomenon sentence’), focusing on the
cognitive aspect of the notion of topic. Another instance was Kuno (1972, 1973), also
mentioned in 2.2, which was an attempt to explicate the communicative aspect of
the notion of topic under the functional sentence perspective. Kuroda (1972), on the
other hand, proposed a cognitively-based concept of the “categorical judgment vs.
thetic judgment” distinction on the basis of the judgment theory of the German
philosophers Franz Brentano and Anton Marty. Here, a word is in order about Mio’s
(1948) and Kuroda’s (1972, 2005) view.
Mio (1948) put forward the idea of distinguishing two types of sentence, i.e.
handan-bun (‘judgment sentence’) and genshō-bun (‘phenomenon sentence’), under
the influence of Matsushita. According to Mio, the judgment sentence takes a topic-
comment structure, where “the topic is a problem to be solved” and “the comment
is a solution to that problem”. For example, “in the judgment sentence neesan wa
gakkoo e ikimasita ‘The elder sister went to school’, neesan wa ‘elder sister TOP’
118 Takashi Masuoka

represents a problem such as where the elder sister went or where she is, and gakkoo
e ikimasita ‘school to went’ represents a solution to the problem” (Mio 1948:88).
The phenomenon sentence, on the other hand, is characterized as “the sentence
that describes an event as it is” (Mio 1948:83). It is realized as a topicless sentence,
as exemplified by the sentence ame ga hutteru ‘it is raining’, in which “ame ga ‘rain
NOM’ is not a topic, hutteru ‘is raining’ does not provide a solution to a problem,
nor is recognized a topic-comment unification based on subjective judgment” (Mio
1948:88). He thus made a clear distinction between the judgment sentence and the
phenomenon sentence, which manifest themselves distinctively as a topic sentence
and a topicless sentence.
Similar to Mio’s “judgment/phenomenon sentence” distinction is Kuroda’s (1972,
2005) “categorical/thetic judgment” distinction. Independently of Matsushita/Mio’s
line of research, Kuroda, exploring the problem of the usage of wa/ga, proposed to
account for the wa/ga distinction in terms of the categorical/thetic judgment distinc-
tion, founded on the ideas of Brentano and Marty.
Kuroda (1972: 8–11) explained the difference between the two types of judgment
by way of the categorical judgment sentence inu wa hasitteiru ‘dog TOP is running’
(‘the dog is running’) and the thetic judgment sentence inu ga hasitteiru ‘dog NOM is
running’ (‘a dog is running’). He points out that in the former sentence, the speaker’s
interest is directed toward a definite dog and a specific event is related to that dog,
while the latter sentence is a simple description of an observed event. Although
Kuroda did not use the term “topic”, the categorical judgment sentence and the
thetic judgment sentence can be interpreted as a topic sentence and a topicless
sentence, respectively. Note that while Mio attributes the topic/topicless contrast to
the presence/absence of judgment, Kuroda attributes it to the difference between
judgment types.
Regarding the relation between the sentence type distinction proposed by Mio/
Kuroda and the sentence classification on the basis of the predication type, mentioned
earlier in 2.2 and 3.1, it can be said that the property predication sentence is a
judgment sentence (categorical judgment sentence) and that the event predication
sentence is either a phenomenon sentence (thetic judgment sentence) or a judgment
sentence (categorical judgment sentence), depending on whether it is a topicless
sentence or a topic sentence. So, we need to differentiate Mio/Kuroda’s judgment
theory and the predication type theory. The point is that while the property predica-
tion sentence is a judgment sentence (categorical judgment sentence), the event
predication sentence is not necessarily a phenomenon sentence (thetic judgment
sentence) (cf. Sasse 1987, Kageyama 2009).
I would like to recapitulate how I conceptualize the notion of topic. As described
in 3.1.1, the notion of topic has its source in the composition of property predication.
That is, the “topic-comment” bipartite structure reflects the intrinsic feature of property
attribution. This view bears a similarity to Kawabata’s (1976, 2004) claim, surveyed
in 2.2, that the sentence type directly corresponding to judgment is “the adjective
 Topic and subject 119

sentence”, which is composed of the subject (“the topic” in our terminology) and the
predicate.
In the property predication, the entity being predicated of is established prior to
predication; in other words, the existence of a specific entity is presupposed in the
predication concerned. Let us call this characteristic “given”. Although the concept
of “given” is not necessarily uniform among linguists, I use this term to mean
that the existence of an entity is determined. Matsushita’s (1928) concept of kitei
(‘determined’) is understood as indicating “given” in this sense. The concept of
“given”, thus, is associated with the topic of the property predication sentence,
but since the notion of topic is extended and generalized to the event predication,
“givenness” also applies to the topic of the event predication sentence.
In the current studies of information structure, the notion of topic is discussed in
relation to that of focus from the perspective of the oldness/newness of information.
Different from that viewpoint, I attribute the notion of topic to the inherent charac-
teristic of property predication. The concept of “given” is also construed as attribut-
able to the nature of the entity being predicated of in property predication. That is,
the notion of topic is not directly associated with the discourse context but rather
is characterized in terms of the mode of judgment, which means that importance is
attached more to the cognitive aspect of the topic than to its communicative aspect.
Let us now summarize what we have seen in 3.2. In the discussion of the notion
of topic, both the aspect of communicative function and that of cognitive meaning
come into view; the idea of “language as communication” and that of “language as
thought” are compatible. On that assumption, we may ask which aspect is more
important for the topic in Japanese. The answer to that question would be that for
the topic in Japanese, the cognitive aspect is of more significance than the commu-
nicative aspect, as argued by Mio and Kuroda; hence, we may say that the cognitive
approach is more appropriate than the functional approach for the characterization
of the topic in Japanese.
Linguistic research as represented by the theory of information structure generally
approaches the issue of topic from the perspective of communicative function, taking
its relation to the issue of focus into account. Under such circumstances, the judgment
theoretic conception proposed by Mio and Kuroda provides a significant viewpoint
for the linguistic investigation of the notion of topic (cf. Shibatani 1989).

4 Conclusion
The present chapter aimed to provide an overview of previous research on the topic
and the subject in Japanese and to present some remarks on the topic/subject issue,
based on that overview. The key concept in the remarks presented in section 3 was
“predication type”, which originates in the traditional studies of Japanese grammar.
120 Takashi Masuoka

The main points of the remarks in section 3 are the following.

(i) A topic-prominent language like Japanese and a subject-prominent language
like English base the architecture of sentences on the property predication and
the event predication, respectively. Also, the notions of topic and subject derive
from the inherent characteristics of the two predication types.
(ii) The notion of topic and that of subject are not mutually exclusive in a language;
the covert subject and the covert topic are respectively allowed for in Japanese
and English.
(iii) The notion of topic is associated with the aspect of communicative function and
that of cognitive meaning; for the topic in Japanese, the cognitive aspect is more
significant than the communicative aspect.

In this chapter, I have explored the possibility of building a bridge between the
research by the traditional Japanese grammarians such as Matsushita, Sakuma,
Mikami, Mio, and Kawabata, on the one hand, and current linguistic research on
Japanese, on the other. Although the traditional research results, with the exception
of Mikami, are rarely cited in the current studies of Japanese linguistics,13,14 there
can be numerous points of contact between the traditional grammatical research
and the current issues of Japanese linguistics, including the topic/subject issue. It
is hoped that the domestic studies of Japanese grammar will contribute to the develop-
ment of linguistic investigation through exchanges with the linguistic research con-
ducted in the world.

References
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts
dissertation.
Carlson, Gregory N. and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.). 1995. The generic book. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
De Cat, Cécile. 2007. French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Falk, Yehuda N. 2006. Subjects and universal grammar: An explanatory theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Farrell, Patrick. 2005. Grammatical relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13 Mikami’s view became known to linguists through Kuno (1973) and Shibatani (1978), among others.
14 Shibatani (1990) is a valuable reference which contains a detailed description of the traditional
studies of the Japanese language.
 Topic and subject 121

Gundel, Jeanette K. and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory
Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 175–196. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harada, S.-I. 1973. Kōbun no imi: Nihongo no shugo o megutte [The meaning of the construction: On
the subject in Japanese]. Gengo 2(2). 2–10.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2010. Thetic judgment as presentational. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 26. 3–24.
Hattori, Shirō, Susumu Ōno, Atsuyoshi Sakakura, and Akira Matsumura (eds.). 1978. Nihon no
gengogaku 3: Bunpō I [Linguistics in Japan 3: Grammar I]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Heycock, Caroline. 2008. Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. In Shigeru Miyagawa and
Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 54–83. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Kageyama, Taro. 2006. Property description as a voice phenomenon. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro
Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations, 85–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kageyama, Taro. 2009. Gengo no kōzō seiyaku to jojutsu-kinō [Structural constraints and predica-
tion functions in language]. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 1–34.
Kawabata, Yoshiaki. 1976. Yōgen [Verbals]. In Susumu Ōno and Takeshi Shibata (eds.), Iwanami-kōza
nihongo 6: Bunpō I [Iwanami-series Japanese 6: Grammar I], 169–217. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Kawabata, Yoshiaki. 2004. Bunpō to imi [Grammar and meaning]. In Keisuke Onoe (ed.), Asakura-
kōza nihongo 6: Bunpō II [Asakura-series Japanese 6: Grammar II], 58–80. Tokyo: Asakura
Shoten.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject
and topic, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2007. Daimoku-yūi gengo to-shiteno nihongo: Daimoku to Wh-gimonshi no kaisōsei
[Japanese as a topic-prominent language: The topic and the hierarchy of Wh-words]. In Nobuko
Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-genshō: Tōgo-kōzō to modariti [Main clause phenomena
in Japanese: Syntactic structures and modality], 25–71. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2010. Subjects and constituent structure in Japanese. Linguistics 48(3). 629–670.
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English.
Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9. 153–185.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In
William J. Poser (ed.), Papers from the second international workshop on Japanese syntax,
103–143. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 2005. Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 14. 1–58.
Kusano, Kiyotami. 1901. Nihon bunpō [Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Huzanbō.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental repre-
sentations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In
Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–489. New York: Academic Press.
Masuoka, Takashi. 1987. Meidai no bunpō [A grammar of proposition]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2004. Nihongo no shudai: Jojutsu no ruikei no kanten kara [The topic in
Japanese: From a perspective of predication type]. In Takashi Masuoka (ed.), Shudai no taishō
[Contrastive studies of the topic], 3–18. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2008. Jojutsuruikeiron ni mukete [Toward a theory of predication type]. In Takashi
Masuoka (ed.), Jojutsuruikeiron [The theory of predication type], 3–18. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2013. Nihongo-kōbun-imiron [Japanese construction semantics]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Matsumura, Akira. 1942. Shukaku ni okeru joshi ga to wa no mondai [Remarks on the problem of the
particles ga and wa in nominative phrases]. In Kokugogaku Shinkōkai (ed.), Gendai nihongo no
kenkyū [Studies in contemporary Japanese], 385–408. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.
122 Takashi Masuoka

Matsushita, Daizaburō. 1928. Kaisen hyōjun nihon bunpō [Revised standard Japanese grammar]. Tokyo:
Kigensha.
Mikami, Akira. 1953. Gendai gohō josetsu [A preface to contemporary Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Tōkō
Shoin.
Mikami, Akira. 1960. Zō wa hana ga nagai [Elephants, their trunks are long]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Mikami, Akira. 1963. Nihongo no kōbun [A Japanese syntax]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Mikami, Akira. 1970. Bunpō shōronshū [Short essays on Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Mio, Isago. 1948. Kokugohō bunshōron [A theory of Japanese syntax]. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Onoe, Keisuke. 2004. Shugo to jutsugo o meguru bunpō [A grammar of the subject and the predi-
cate]. In Keisuke Onoe (ed.), Asakura-kōza nihongo 6: Bunpō II [Asakura-series Japanese 6:
Grammar II], 1–57. Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
Postal, Paul M. 2010. Edge-based clausal syntax: A study of (mostly) English object structure. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topic. Reproduced by the
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Sakuma, Kanae. 1941. Nihongo no tokushitsu [Characteristics of Japanese]. Tokyo: Ikuei Shoin.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25. 511–580.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Mikami Akira and the notion of “subject” in Japanese grammar. In John
Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 52–67. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Shugo-purototaipuron [A prototype theory of the subject]. Nihongogaku
4(10). 4–16.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1989. Gengo-ruikeiron [Linguistic typology]. In Akira Ota (ed.), Eigogaku-
taikei 6: Eigogaku no kanren-bun’ya [Outline of English linguistics 6: Related disciplines],
1–179. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2002. Gengo-ruikeiron to taishō-kenkyū [Linguistic typology and contrastive
linguistics]. In Naoki Ogoshi (ed.), Taishō gengogaku [Contrastive linguistics], 11–48. Tokyo:
Tokyo-daigaku Shuppankai.
Speas, Margaret J. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2009. Sekai no gengo to nihongo [Languages of the world and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Kurosio.
Hisashi Noda
4 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words,
phrases, and clauses

1 Introduction
This section explains what toritate is and the importance of its study.

1.1 What is toritate?

Toritate refers to the function of focusing a word, phrase, or clause, indicating, “this
is all there is” or “everything else is different” or of defocusing to indicate, “this is
not all there is” or “there are also others that are the same”. It is the sort of function
born in English by such words as “only”, “even”, or “too”.
(1a) is a sentence in which no toritate has taken place. (1b) is a sentence in
which dake ‘only’ has been added to tanosikatta koto ‘things that were enjoyable’,
focusing the tanosikatta koto. (1a) only shows that what someone being urged to
recall are “things that were enjoyable”. There is no implication concerning other
things like, “Do not recall things that were sad”. In contrast, (1b), thanks to the
dake ‘only’, limits the things one is being urged to recall to tanosikatta koto. This
implies that one is being urged not to recall, for example, things that were sad.

(1) a. Tanosikatta koto o omoidasite kudasai.

pleasant.PST things ACC recall.GER please
‘Please recall pleasant things.”

b. Tanosikatta koto dake o omoidasite kudasai.

pleasant.PST things only ACC recall.GER please
‘Please recall only pleasant things.”

(2a) is also a sentence in which no toritate has taken place. (2b) is a sentence in
which the toritate particle demo ‘even if it is’ has been added to doonatu o [donuts
ACC], defocusing doonatsu o. (2a) simply shows that “donuts” are what someone
is being asked to buy. There is no implication that buying something other than
“donuts”, say, “a pie” or “a hamburger”, would also be acceptable. (2b), thanks
to the demo, shows that what someone is being asked to buy is not limited to
“donuts”. This states that not buying “donuts” but instead buying, say, “a pie” or
“a hamburger” would also be acceptable.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-005
124 Hisashi Noda

(2) a. Doonatu o katte kite.

donuts ACC buy.GER come.GER
‘(Please) go get some donuts.’

b. Doonatu demo katte kite.

donuts even.if.it.is buy.GER come.GER
‘(Please) go get some donuts or something.’

1.2 The importance of studying toritate

Studies of Japanese grammar, like studies of the grammars of other languages, have
concentrated on the elements thought to be essential for sentence structure, such as
studies on case, voice, tense, or the like.
Such elements are essential to sentence formation. For example, (3a) with the past
tense ta is an acceptable sentence. However, if one removed the past tense ta from
(3a) and made the tense non-past as in (3b), it would not be an acceptable sentence.
Studies of such elements that are considered essential to the well-formedness of a
sentence have a long history.

(3) a. Kinoo kare kara meeru ga todoita.

yesterday he from email NOM arrive.PST
‘An email from him arrived yesterday.’

b. *Kinoo kare kara meeru ga todoku.

yesterday he from email NOM arrive.NONPST
‘An email from him arrives yesterday.’

Compared to these, research into elements not considered essential to the structure
of a sentence, such as adverbs, sentence-final particles, and toritate, has not been at
the center of studies of grammar.
For example, if one removes the adverb hakkiri ‘clearly’ from (4a) to form (4b),
while the meaning may change somewhat, there is no change in the well-formedness
of the sentence. Research into elements like these that are not considered essential
to the formation of a sentence is comparatively lagging.

(4) a. Kanozyo wa “sore de ii” to hakkiri itta.

she TOP that be.GER good.NONPST QUOT clearly say.PST
‘She said clearly, “That’s enough.”’

b. Kanozyo wa “sore de ii” to itta.

she TOP that be.GER good.NONPST QUOT say.PST
‘She said, “That’s enough.”’
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 125

Toritate is something not considered essential to sentence formation. In fact, (1a),

from which the toritate particle dake, which shows a restriction, has been removed
from (1b), is a well-formed sentence. (2a), from which the toritate particle demo,
which shows a lack of a restriction, has been removed from (2b), is also a well-
formed sentence.
Research on toritate has thus lagged behind, but for the reasons in (5) through (7),
such research is of great importance.

(5) Toritate is an element with a limited number of forms and strong grammatical
characteristics. It does not show the diversity of meaning found with adverbs,
which have a great many forms and strong lexical characteristics. Thus, the
meanings shown by toritate can be systematized, as will be described in detail
in section 4. In this sense, toritate is an excellent means for considering
systematically the meanings shown by grammatical forms.

(6) The forms showing toritate differ greatly in their grammatical characteristics
depending on their form, unlike nouns or adjectives. They differ in what
elements in a sentence they can attach to depending on their form. The fact
that forms have constraints on the predicates with which they can co-occur is
deeply related to the layered structure of sentences, as described in detail in
section 5. Thus, toritate is an excellent tool for considering sentence structure.

(7) Japanese can be considered a language in which toritate is particularly well

developed. Toritate elements like dake or “only” that show restriction and
elements like mo or “even” that show similarity are found and used in many
languages. However, there are many languages in which toritate elements like
demo showing non-restriction are realized by forms that cannot be called
toritate elements like “or something” or in which a toritate element like wa
showing contrast is realized by word order, placing the element at the beginning
of the sentence. Thus, studies on toritate in languages other than Japanese are
commonly even further behind than studies of toritate in Japanese. Conducting
research on toritate in Japanese, in which toritate is well developed, can
provide major stimulus to studies of toritate in other languages as well.

2 An overview of toritate
This section provides an overview of toritate from the view of morphology, semantics,
and syntax.

2.1 Morphology of toritate

Toritate is primarily shown by toritate particles (toritate-joshi) in Japanese. Among
the toritate particles, there are some like dake in (8a) that are attached after a
126 Hisashi Noda

noun, but the majority of toritate particles attach to a noun phrase consisting of a
noun and a case particle, as does the mo in (8b).

(8) a. Yamada-san dake ga ansyoobangoo o sitte iru.

Yamada-Ms only NOM password.number ACC know.GER be,NONPST
‘Only Ms Yamada knows the password number.’

b. Yamada-san ni mo ansyoobangoo o osieta.

Yamada-Ms DAT also password.number ACC teach.PST
‘I taught the password number also to Ms Yamada,’

When a toritate particle is added to a noun phrase, the case particle preceding the
toritate particle may be deleted. For example, the case particle ga is deleted before
a toritate particle, as in (9a) and the case particle o is also usually deleted, as in (9b).
However, other case particles like ni or de are usually not deleted before a toritate
particle, as in (9c).

(9) a. Syatyoo ga sae sono zizitu o siranakatta.

company.president NOM even that fact ACC know.NEG.PST
‘Even the president of the company didn’t know about that.’

b. Omuretu o gurai tukureru.

omelet ACC about make.POTEN.NONPST
‘I can at least make an omelet.’

c. Ano biru no okuzyoo ni mo

that building GEN roof LOC also
heripooto ga aru.
heliport NOM exist.NONPST
‘There’s also a heliport on the roof of that building.’

Toritate may be shown by toritate adverbs (toritate-fukushi), in addition to toritate

particles. The tan.ni ‘simply’ in (10a) and the toku.ni ‘especially’ in (10b) are toritate
adverbs.

(10) a. Kono hoohoo wa tan.ni hiyoo ga yasui

this method TOP simply expense NOM cheap,NONPST
kara erabareta no dewanai.
since select.PASS.PST NMLZ COP.NEG.NONPST
‘It’s not the case that this method was selected simply because it’s cheap.’

b. Kono kyoku wa toku.ni merodii ga utukusii.

this musical.piece TOP especially melody NOM beautiful.NONPST
‘The melody of this piece is especially beautiful.’
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 127

Toritate particles are attached after the word, phrase, or clause they focus or defocus,
but toritate adverbs are fundamentally placed before the word, phrase, or clause
they apply to. In (10a), tan.ni applies to hiyoo ga yasui kara. In (10b), toku.ni applies
to merodii.

2.2 Semantics of toritate

The meanings expressed by toritate can be broadly divided into 6 categories. The
meanings expressed by and the respective meanings of some representative toritate
particles are listed in (11).

(11) Restriction: dake ‘only’, bakari ‘just’

Anti-restriction: demo ‘even if it is’, nanka ‘or something of the kind’
Extremes: sae ‘even’, made ‘even extending to’
Anti-extremes (normal): nanka ‘or something of the kind’, gurai ‘at least about’
Similarity: mo ‘also, as well’
Anti-similarity (contrast): wa ‘contrast, unlike others’

Toritate particles expressing these 6 meanings are well developed in Japanese

and are, in fact, used regularly. In English, expressions of restriction, extremes, and
similarity are well developed and are quite often used, but expressions of anti-
restriction, anti-extremes, and anti-similarity are not well developed and are not
often used.
Toritate semantics will be described in more detail in section 3.

2.3 The syntax of toritate

Toritate particles can attach to a variety of constituents. Examples of the variety of
such constituents are given in (12).

(12) Noun: Yamada-san dake ni (siraseta.) ‘(Someone) informed only

Ms Yamada.
Noun Phrase: Tanaka-san ni made (hanasita no ka?) ‘Did you talk of it
even to Ms Tanaka?’
Adverb: Hakkiri.to wa (kotaenakatta.) ‘(He) didn’t answer clearly.’
Subordinate clause: Kosei ga nai kara koso (minna ni sukareru no da.) ‘It’s
precisely because it has no idiosyncrasies that it is liked
by everyone.’
Predicate: Odoroki mo (sinakatta.) ‘(He) wasn’t even (the least bit)
surprised.’
128 Hisashi Noda

Toritate particles only attach to constituents that have noun-like qualities. Thus,
when one is attached to a predicate, the stem of the predicate is first changed to a
noun-like form (e.g. odoroki) and the toritate particle is attached to that. The light
verb suru is then inserted and conjugational endings are attached to suru.
Among the toritate particles, there are some that impose restrictions on the
predicates with which they co-occur. For example, sae showing an extreme can be
used in a sentence like (13a) that expresses conjecture. However, as shown by (13b),
it cannot be used in a sentence that expresses intention.

(13) a. Doromizu sae nomu daroo.

muddy.water even drink.NONPST COP.PRES
‘(He’ll) probably even drink muddy water.’

b. *Doromizu sae nomoo.

muddy.water even drink.INT
‘Let’s drink muddy water!’

Toritate syntax will be addressed in detail in section 4.

2.4 Situating toritate in Japanese grammar

Toritate particles are well developed in Japanese. There are toritate particles showing
a variety of meanings and they are, in fact, frequently used.
In a language like English in which toritate is expressed with adverbs, it is
difficult to recognize the importance of toritate in grammar. Since adverbs each
have their own idiosyncrasies, they are more easily treated as a lexical problem
than as a grammatical problem.
In Japanese, since toritate particles are every bit as much particles as are case
particles, toritate is easily recognized as a problem in the grammar. Since toritate
particles have, in particular, the characteristics shown in (14a)–(14c), issues like
these have drawn interest and have been studied from a grammatical perspective.

(14) a. A single toritate particle may express multiple meanings. For example,
mo expresses both similarity and extreme meanings.

b. Case particles normally attach only to nouns or noun phrases, but toritate
particles attach to adverbs, subordinate clauses, and predicates in addi-
tion to nouns and noun phrases.

c. Case particles do not have co-occurrence constraints with regard to

the tense or modality of predicates, but toritate particles may have co-
occurrence constraints with regard to the tense or modality of predicates.
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 129

In the seven-volume grammar of Japanese compiled by Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō

Kenkyūkai [the Japanese Language Descriptive Grammar Research Group] (2003–
2010) the description is divided into the 13 sections shown in (15), and the fact
that “Toritate” is one of the sections shows the importance of toritate in Japanese
grammar.

(15) General Overview, Morphology, Case and Constructions, Voice, Aspect, Tense,
Polarity, Modality, Toritate, Topic, Complex Sentences, Discourse, Attitudinal
Expressions

3 History of toritate research

This section describes the history of research on toritate particles, including the
time when they were studied as kakarijoshi ‘binding particle, concord particle’ and
fukujoshi ‘adverbial particle’.

3.1 Research on kakarijoshi and fukujoshi

The term toritate became common in Japanese grammar about 30 years ago. Before
that, research on toritate was done under the rubric of kakarijoshi and fukujoshi.
In old Japanese, there was a phenomenon called kakari-musubi ‘concord, linked-
forms’. In this phenomenon, when a particular particle was used, the form of the
verb had to change to match. For example, when the particle koso was used, the
verb appeared, not in the conclusive (shūshikei) form, but in the realis (izenkei)
form, as shown in (16). Particles that changed the form of the predicate in this way
were called kakarijoshi.

(16) Ima koso wakare.me.

now especially part.INT
‘Let us part now. (It is an especially opportune time.)’

Adverbial particles, on the other hand, attach to nouns like case particles and
kakarijoshi, but, unlike case particles, they do not mark case, and, unlike kakarijoshi,
they do not participate in the kakari-musubi phenomenon. They are not limited to
attaching to nouns or noun phrases but can attach to a variety of phrases to express
such meanings as restriction, exemplification, or similarity. The nomi in (17) is one
example.

(17) karaki koto nomi ari.

painful.ADN thing only exist.NONPST
‘There are only painful things.’
130 Hisashi Noda

Since in Modern Japanese the kakari-musubi phenomenon has disappeared, the

necessity of considering kakarijoshi and adverbial particles separately has lessened.
It would be reasonable to think of toritate particles as covering both kakarijoshi and
adverbial particles
Among the adverbial particles, the phenomenon is seen that made, which expresses
an extreme, can co-occur with an affirmative predicate, but cannot co-occur with a
negative predicate. Accordingly, it could be said to be more logical not to separate
the particles out into kakarijoshi and adverbial particles but rather to group them
together as toritate particles and analyze the co-occurrence of each toritate particle
with a predicate.

3.2 Research on toritate particles

It is probably safe to say that detailed research on toritate particles started with
Numata (1986). Numata termed toritate particles toritate words (toritate-shi) and
studied their syntactic and semantic characteristics. She also gave detailed descrip-
tions of toritate particles, some of which are given in (18)

(18) mo1 (simple affirmation of other), mo2 (unexpected), mo3 (softening)

demo (selective exemplification)
sae1 (unexpected), sae2 (minimal condition)
made (unexpected)
dake (restriction)
bakari (restriction)
sika (restriction)
koso (prominence)
gurai (minimum limit)
nado1 (softening), nado2 (negative emphasis)
wa (contrast)

Since that time, analysis of toritate particles in Modern Japanese has proceeded with
an growing quantity of research, including Teramura (1991), Numata (2000), Sawada
(2007), and Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai (2009). Numata and Noda (2003)
presented research on historical changes and geographic variation in toritate particles.
Nakanishi (2012) conducted research on the acquisition of toritate particles by learners
of Japanese.

3.3 Studies on toritate adverbs

The first detailed research on toritate adverbs was Kudo (1977). Kudo called toritate
adverbs “restrictive adverbs” and described them, categorizing the meanings of
toritate adverbs as shown with representative examples in (19).
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 131

(19) Exclusionary restriction: tada ‘only’, tan.ni ‘simply’

Selective designation: masa.ni ‘surely’, hoka.demo.naku ‘none other than’
Prominence: toku,ni ‘especially’, koto.ni ‘particularly’
Centrality: omo.ni ‘mainly’, syu.to.site ‘in the main’
Exemplification: tatoeba ‘for example’
Comparative selection: musiro ‘rather’, dotira.ka.to.ieba ‘if I have to choose’
Analogy: iwan’ya ‘to say nothing of’, masite ‘much less’
Estimation, evaluation: sukunaku.tomo ‘at the least’, semete ‘at the very least’

Since then, although research on various other sorts of adverbs has progressed
greatly, research on toritate adverbs is extremely limited.

4 What meanings do toritate particles express?

This section describes the meanings expressed by toritate particles.
In previous research, the meanings expressed by toritate particles were described
separately for each particle. For example, in Numata (1986) mo is described in terms
of cases when it expresses “simple affirmation of other”, cases when it expresses
“unexpected”, and cases when it expresses “softening”, while dake is described as
expressing “restriction”. Since until now, descriptions have been limited to this sort
of approach, the connections among the various meanings toritate particles express
have never been clarified and there has been no systematization of the meanings of
toritate particles.
Here, the meanings that toritate particles express are shown systematically in 6
categories. Doing so makes it clear that the meanings expressed by toritate particles
are not randomly scattered but are systematic.

4.1 An overview of the meanings expressed by toritate particles

Following Noda (2015), the meanings expressed by toritate particles are systemati-
cally displayed below in a table of three sets, each with two contrasting members.
As can be seen in Table 1, first, “Restriction” and “Anti-restriction” express oppos-
ing meanings. “Anti-restriction” is “Exemplification”. Second, “Extremes” and “Anti-
extremes” express opposing meanings. “Anti-extremes” is “Ordinary”. Third, Similarity”
and “Anti-similarity” express opposing meanings. “Anti-similarity” is “Contrast”.
Sections 4.2 through 4.8 describe the meanings expressed by “Restriction”,
“Anti-restriction”, Extremes”. “Anti-extremes”, “Similarity”, and “Anti-similarity”
toritate particles in order. When more than one toritate particle belongs to the same
132 Hisashi Noda

Table 1: Meanings expressed by toritate particles

Meaning Representative toritate Meaning Representative toritate particles

particles
Restriction dake ‘only’ Anti-restriction demo ‘even if it is’
bakari ‘just’ (Exemplification) nanka ‘or something’
sika ‘none other than’
Extremes sae ‘even’ Anti-Extremes nanka ‘even though it is’
made ‘even extending to’ (Ordinary) gurai ‘at least, about’
demo ‘even being’
Similarity mo ‘also, as well’ Anti-similarity wa ‘contrast, unlike the others’
(Contrast)

semantic category, the differences in meaning among are described. Section 4.9
describes the mutual relationships among the six categories of meaning the toritate
particles express.

4.2 What it means to have a toritate particle attached

When a toritate particle is attached to a constituent in a sentence, one of the
meanings shown in 4.1 (“Restriction”, “Anti-restriction”, Extremes”. “Anti-extremes”,
“Similarity”, and “Anti-similarity”) is added. For example, when the toritate particle
dake expressing restriction is added to koohii ‘coffee’ in (20a), the result is (20b).

(20) a. Kesa, koohii o nonda.

this.morning coffee ACC drink.PST
‘I drank coffee this morning.’

b. Kesa, koohii dake nonda.

this.morning coffee drink.PST
‘I drank only coffee this morning.’

(20a) just states the fact that I drank coffee this morning and does not particularly
emphasize that what I drank was only coffee. Thus, in the case that I drank not
only coffee but also juice, saying (20a) would not be a lie.
On the other hand, (20b) emphatically states that I did not drink anything other
than coffee. Thus, in the case that I drank not only coffee but also juice, saying (20b)
would be a lie. If, for example, the toritate particle demo expressing anti-restriction
is added to biiru ‘beer’ in (21a), the result is (21b).
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 133

(21) a. Biiru o nomimasyoo.

beer ACC drink.POL.INT
‘Let’s drink (some) beer.’

b. Biiru demo nomimasyoo.

beer drink.POL.INT
‘Let’s drink (some) beer or something.’

(21a) simply proposes drinking some beer and does not particularly posit drinking
anything other than beer. Thus, even if, after saying (21a), one were to take someone
to an establishment that serves only beer, the person being invited would not feel
any sense of oddness.
On the other hand, (21b) affirmatively expresses the idea that drinking some-
thing other than beer would also be acceptable. Thus, if after saying (21b), one
were to take someone to an establishment that serves only beer, the person being
invited might feel a sense of oddness.
The toritate particles thus emphatically express the meanings of “Restriction”,
“Anti-restriction”, Extremes”. “Anti-extremes”, “Similarity”, and “Anti-similarity”.
If it should be the case that one gets the same interpretation from an utterance
even without the use of toritate particles, that would be no more than a pragmatic
implication.

4.3 Toritate particles expressing restriction

Toritate particles like dake, sika, and bakari express “restriction”. “Restriction” here
means that what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is attached
to is limited to that object and that the sentence does not apply to any other object.
The toritate particles dake and sika expressing restriction are used in (22a) and
(22b), respectively. Both sentences express the idea “what is being cultivated is
apples and nothing else”.

(22) a. Kono noozyoo dewa ringo dake tukutte iru

this farm LOC.TOP apple only grow.GER be.NONPST.
‘At this farm they grow only apples.’

b. Kono noozyoo dewa ringo sika

this farm LOC.TOP apple none.other.than
tukutte inai
grow.GER be.NEG.NONPST.
‘At this farm they grow nothing but apples.’

The difference between dake and sika is a difference in where emphasis is being
placed. In (22a) with dake, the emphasis is “what they grow here is limited to
134 Hisashi Noda

apples”. On the other hand, in (22b) with sika the emphasis is “they do not grow
anything other than apples”.
Since there is this sort of difference, it would be more natural for a speaker to
continue with (23a) following (22a) than to continue with (23b). Conversely, it would
be more natural to follow (22b) with (23b) than with (23a).

(23) a. Dakara zyuugyooin wa ringo no saibai

therefore employees TOP apple GEN cultivation
no koto o yoku sitte iru.
GEN thing ACC well know.GER be.NONPST
‘Therefore, the employees are really knowledgeable about the cultivation
of apples.’

b. Dakara, zyuugyooin wa ta no kudamono

therefore employees TOP other GEN fruit
no saibai no koto wa siranai.
GEN cultivation GEN thing TOP know.NEG.NONPST
‘Therefore, the employees know nothing about the cultivation of other
fruits.’

Bakari also expresses restriction, but it is used in sentences like (24a) that express
a situation that is repeated many times or that persists for a long time. If used in a
sentence that does not express such a situation, like (24b), then the sentence becomes
unnatural.

(24) a. Kare wa mainiti geemu bakari site iru.

he TOP every.day electronic.games do.GER be.NONPST
‘All he does every day is play electronic games.’

b. ?Kare wa hiruyasumi ni geemu bakari sita.

he TOP lunch.break in electronic.games do.PST
‘All he did at lunch break was play electronic games.’

Toritate expressions expressing restriction are found not only in Japanese but
in most other languages as well. English, for example, has such expressions as
“only”, “merely”, and “alone”.

4.4 Toritate particles expressing anti-restriction

Toritate particles like demo or nanka express “anti-restriction”. “Anti-restriction”
here means that what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 135

attached to is not limited to that object and that any similar object would be
acceptable. The word or phrase the toritate particle is attached to is simply given as
a representative example.
In (25a) a toritate particle expressing anti-restriction, that is, exemplification,
demo is used. This demo shows the possible beverages are not restricted to “coffee”.
That is, a similar beverage like tea or even a juice would also be good. In (25b), in
which the anti-restrictive demo is not used, there is no thought of the possibility of
some other beverage like tea or juice.

(25) a. Koohii demo nomimasyoo ka.

coffee drink.POL.INT Q
‘Shall we have some coffee or something?’

b. Koohii o nomimasyoo ka.

coffee ACC drink.POL.INT Q
‘Shall we have some coffee?’

The toritate particles demo and nanka are not forms that are used exclusively to
express anti-restriction. Demo is sometimes also used to express extremes and nanka
is sometimes also used to express anti-extremes. Toritate particles expressing extremes
are discussed in 4.5 and toritate particles expressing anti-extremes in 4.6.
Japanese has toritate expressions showing anti-restriction, but there are many
languages in which toritate expressions showing anti-restriction are not much used.
In English, there are no adverbial expressions as toritate expressions showing anti-
restriction and so there is no choice but to use “or something” or the like.
In English, it is easier, compared to Japanese, to express the meaning of exem-
plification pragmatically, without explicitly stating that it is exemplification. An
English sentence like (26a) can express the meaning that another beverage like tea
or juice would also be acceptable, even without using “or something”. Compared to
the English expression, it is difficult to show the meaning that another beverage like
tea or juice would also be acceptable without using something like demo.

(26) a. Shall we have some coffee?

b. Koohii o nomimasyoo ka. (=(25b))

4.5 Toritate particles expressing extremes

Toritate particles like sae, made, and demo express extremes. “Extremes” here
means that it is unusual for the situation described in the sentence to happen with
what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is attached to, that it is
an extreme. There is the implication that if the situation described by the sentence
happens even with the extreme object, it would have happened much more easily
with something not so extreme.
136 Hisashi Noda

(27) uses sae, a toritate particle expressing extremes. The sentence expresses the
meaning that, as the speaker’s thought before the game, “I will win” is extreme. In
this case, there is the implication that the speaker’s thinking he would win naturally
means he thought he would come in in the best 8 or the best 4.

(27) Siai.mae wa zibun ga yuusyoo suru

before.competition TOP self NOM win do.NONPST
to sae omotta.
QUOT think.PST
‘Before the competition I thought I might even win.’

In this case, the event of finishing in the top 4 is an event less likely to occur than
finishing in the top 8, and that of winning is even less likely than finishing in the top
4. Toritate particles expressing extremes are used in cases like this in which there is
a hierarchy of difficulty from easy to achieve to difficult to achieve. The circumstance
that the toritate particle expressing extremes foregrounds is the most difficult end of
the hierarchy and has the implication that if that circumstance should be realized
then, naturally, the more easily achieved circumstances will be realized.
Made also expresses extremes. (28) shows the meaning that, as something to
make by oneself, “ice cream” would be a stretch. In this case, there is the implica-
tion that of course the person could manage something easy like a boiled egg or a
salad.

(28) Kare wa aisu.kuriimu made zibun.de tukuru.

he TOP ice cream by.himself make.NONPST
‘He even makes his own ice cream.’

Unlike sae, made is basically not used in a negative sentence. Therefore, the negative
sentence (29a) in which made appears is extremely unnatural. Replacing made with
sae, as in (29b) yields a natural sentence.

(29) a. *Kare wa yude.tamago made zibun.de

he TOP boiled egg by.himself
tukurenai
make.POTEN.NEG.NONPST

b. Kare wa yude.tamago sae zibun.de

he TOP boiled egg by.himself
tukurenai
make.POTEN.NEG.NONPST
‘He can’t even boil an egg by himself.’
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 137

Demo also expresses extremes. (30) expresses the meaning that, as someone who
does not know about this kind of illness, a “doctor” is an extreme. In this case,
there is the implication that, naturally, a layman or a pharmacist would also not be
knowledgeable.

(30) Isya demo konna byooki wa siranai.

doctor this.kind.of illness TOP know.NEG.NONPST
‘Not even a doctor knows about this disease.’

Demo comes from deattemo ‘COP.GER.even’, a form showing supposition. (30) shows
the meaning, “Even though that person may be a doctor, that person does not know
about this kind of disease.” Because of this, it is not used in a sentence depicting an
event that occurred in the past.
Toritate expressions expressing extremes are found not only in Japanese but in
many other languages as well. English has “even”.

4.6 Toritate particles expressing anti-extremes

Toritate particles like nanka, and gurai express anti-extremes. “Anti-extremes” here
means that it is perfectly normal for the situation described in the sentence to
happen with what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is
attached to, that it is not extreme. There is the implication that, although the situa-
tion is realized with such a normal object, it would not be realized with something
that was not so normal.
A toritate particle expressing anti-extremes, nanka, is used in (31). This sentences
expresses the meaning that “jogging” is normal as something that is done every day.
In this case there is the implication that one does not play, for example, tennis or
golf every day.

(31) Zyoggingu nanka mainiti site iru.

Jogging every.day do.GER be.NONPST
‘I jog every day.’

Gurai also expresses anti-extremes. (32) expresses the meaning that a “harmonica” is
normal as an instrument one blows into to play. In this case, there is the implication
that one cannot not play, say, a flute or a trumpet.

(32) Haamonika gurai hukeru

harmonica blow.POTEN.NONPST
‘I can play a harmonica, at least.’
138 Hisashi Noda

Unlike nanka, gurai is basically not used in a negative sentence. Therefore, the
negative sentence (33a) in which gurai is used, sounds extremely unnatural. Replac-
ing gurai by nanka, as in (33b), yields a natural sentence.

(33) a. *Toranpetto gurai hukenai.

trumpet blow.POTEN.NEG.NONPST

b. Toranpetto nanka hukenai.

trumpet blow.POTEN.NEG.NONPST
‘I can’t play a trumpet (or anything like it).”

Japanese has toritate expressions showing anti-extremes, but there are many languages
in which toritate expressions showing anti-extremes are not much used. In English
there is no archetypical toritate expression showing anti-extremes. Depending on
the context, there are times when the same meaning can be expressed by expres-
sions like “at least” or “only”.
In English, it is easier, compared to Japanese, to express the meaning of anti-
extremes pragmatically, without explicitly stating that it is anti-extreme. Depending
on the context, an English sentence like (34a) can pragmatically express the meaning,
“If it’s just a minute, I can wait.” In contrast, a sentence like (34b) without gurai is
somewhat unnatural. A sentence like (34c) would be more natural.

(34) a. I’m in a hurry, but I can wait one minute.

b. ?Isoide iru kedo, ippun materu.

hurry.GER be,NONPST but one.minute wait.POTEN.NONPST

c. Isoide iru kedo, ippun gurai materu.

hurry.GER be,NONPST but one.minute wait.POTEN.NONPST
‘I’m in a hurry, but I can wait (if it’s as little as) one minute.’

4.7 Toritate particles expressing similarity

The toritate particle mo shows similarity. “Similarity” here means that it is not only
with what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is attached to that
the situation described by the sentence can be realized, but that something else
could equally well bring about the situation described in the sentence or some
situation close to it.
In the sentences of (35a), the predicate of the second sentence, isya da, is the
same as that of the first. In a case like this, the subject of the second sentence, ani,
must have the toritate particle mo attached to it. If mo is not attached, as in the
second sentence of (35b), the sentence is unnatural.
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 139

(35) a. Ane wa isya da.

older.sister TOP doctor COP.NONPST
Ani mo isya da.
older.brother doctor COP.NONPST
‘My older sister is a doctor. My older brother also is a doctor.

b. Ane wa isya da.

older.sister TOP doctor COP.NONPST
#Ani wa isya da.
older.brother TOP doctor COP.NONPST
‘My older sister is a doctor. My older brother is a doctor.

Whether or not a toritate particle expressing similarity is used depends on the con-
text. The ani in (36a) does not have the toritate particle mo attached. This is because
it is used in a context that relates the difference in the older sister’s and brother’s
jobs. In (36b), on the other hand, ani had the toritate particle mo attached. This is
because it is used in a context that conveys the fact that both are similarly health
care providers.

(36) a. Ane wa isya da.

older.sister TOP doctor COP.NONPST
Ani wa kangosi da.
older.brother TOP nurse COP.NONPST
Hutari wa onazi byooin de hataraite
two.people TOP same hospital LOC work.GER
iru ga, tigau sigoto o
be.NONPST but different.NONPST job ACC
site imasu.
do.GER be.POL.NONPST
‘My older sister is a doctor. My older brother is a nurse. They both work at
the same hospital, but they are doing different jobs.’

b. Ane wa isya da.

older.sister TOP doctor COP.NONPST
Ani mo kangosi da.
older.brother nurse COP.NONPST
Dakara, karada no guai ga
therefore body GEN condition NOM
waruku nattemo, ansin da.
bad.ADV become.GER.even at.ease COP.NONPST
‘My older sister is a doctor. My older brother is also a nurse. So I don’t
worry about getting get sick.’
140 Hisashi Noda

Toritate expressions expressing similarity are found not only in Japanese but in
many other languages as well. English has “too” and “also”. There are also “either”
and “neither” used in negative sentences.

4.8 Toritate particles used to express anti-similarity

The toritate particle wa expresses anti-similarity. “Anti-similarity” here means that
while what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is attached to
can bring about the situation described by the sentence, something other than that
could not bring about the situation described in the sentence or some situation close
to it. This is contrast.
In sentence (37a), the predicate of the second clause is nomanakatta ‘did not
drink’. This contrasts with nonda ‘drank’ in the first clause. In a case like this, the
toritate particle expressing anti-similarity, wa, must be attached to the koora ‘cola’
in the first clause and the biiru ‘beer’ in the second clause. A sentence like (37b) in
which wa is not used is unnatural.

(37) a. Watasi wa koora wa nonda ga.

I TOP cola drink.PST but
biiru wa nomanakatta.
beer drink.NEG.PST
‘I drank cola, but I didn’t drink beer.’

b. *Watasi wa koora o nonda ga.

I TOP cola ACC drink.PST but
biiru o nomanakatta.
beer ACC drink.NEG.PST
‘I drank cola, but I didn’t drink beer.’

Besides its use to show contrast, the particle wa is also used to show a sentence
topic. The koora wa and biiru wa in (37a) show contrast, not the topic. The topic of
this sentence is watasi wa and the koora wa and biiru wa show not the topic but a
contrastive meaning.
On the one hand, the otooto wa in (38a) simply shows the topic, showing no
contrastive meaning. In (38b), on the other hand, watasi wa and otooto wa can be
considered to show both topic and a contrastive meaning.

(38) a. Otooto wa Tookyoo de umareta.

younger.brother Tokyo LOC be.born.PST
‘My younger brother was born in Tokyo.’
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 141

b. Watasi wa Osaka de umareta ga,

I Osaka LOC be.born.PST but
otooto wa Tookyoo de umareta.
younger.brother Tokyo LOC be.born.PST
‘I was born in Osaka, but my younger brother was born in Tokyo.’

Japanese has toritate particles expressing anti-similarity, but there are many languages
that do not have toritate expressions expressing anti-similarity. In English there is no
toritate expression expressing anti-similarity and contrast is shown by changing the
word order to put the contrasted constituent at the beginning of the sentence and
give it prominence.

4.9 Mutual relations among the meanings expressed by

toritate particles
In 4.1 through 4.8, the meanings expressed by toritate particles were organized
into three sets each with two opposing members: [Restriction – Anti-restriction],
[Extremes – Anti-extremes], and [Similarity – Anti-similarity]. The relations among
these sets are shown below.

This figure shows the relations among “restriction”, “extremes”, and “similarity”.
“Nothing else qualifies” in the figure means “things that are applicable to a given
situation are limited to what is referred to by the word or phrase to which the toritate
particle is attached and no other object belonging to the same category of things is
applicable”. This corresponds to “restriction” toritate particles.
“Other things qualify” means “things that are applicable to a given situation are
not limited to just what is referred to by the word or phrase the toritate particle is
attached to and other objects in the same category of things may be applicable”.
This corresponds to “extremes” and “similarity” toritate particles. With “extremes”
toritate particles, there is a hierarchy among the objects belonging to the same
category, but with “similarity” toritate particles, there is no such hierarchy.
On the other hand, “anti-restriction”, “anti-extremes”, and “anti-similarity” have
the following relation with “restriction”, “extremes”, and “similarity”. Since toritate
particles expressing “anti-restriction” are the opposite of “restriction”, they corre-
spond to “other things qualify”. Since toritate particles expressing “anti-extremes”
142 Hisashi Noda

and “anti-similarity” are the opposites of “extremes” and “similarities”, respectively,

they correspond to “nothing else qualifies”. With toritate particles expressing “anti-
extremes”, there is a hierarchy among objects belonging to the same category, but
with toritate particles expressing “anti-similarity”, there is no such hierarchy.
In this way, “anti-restriction” shares “other things qualify” with “extremes” and
“similarity”, and “anti-extremes” and “anti-similarity” share “nothing else qualifies”
with “restriction”.

5 To what elements do toritate particles attach?

This section describes what kinds of elements in a sentence toritate particles attach
to. The elements toritate particles attach to are shown divided into 5 categories.

5.1 An overview of the elements to which toritate particles attach

The elements to which toritate particles attach can be divided into 5 categories as
shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Elements toritate particles attach to

Sentence Constituent Example

Noun Yamada-san dake ni (siraseta)

‘(Someone) informed only Ms Yamada.’
Noun Phrase Tanaka-san ni made (hanasita no ka)
‘Did you talk of it even to Ms Tanaka?’
Adverb Hakkiri.to wa (kotaenakatta)
‘(He) didn’t answer clearly.”
Subordinate Clause Kosei ga nai kara koso (minna ni sukareru no da)
‘It’s precisely because it has no idiosyncrasies that it is liked by everyone.’
Predicate Odoroki mo (sinakatta.)
‘(He) wasn’t even (the least bit) surprised.’

Attachment of toritate particles to “nouns”, “noun phrases”, “adverbs”, “sub-

ordinate clauses”, and “predicates” will be described in order in 5.2 through 5.6.

5.2 Toritate particles attaching to nouns

Toritate particles attach to nouns. In (39) a toritate particle expressing restriction,
dake, is attached to the noun Yamada-san.
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 143

(39) Tyoosa-kekka wa Yamada-san dake ni siraseta.

investigation.results TOP Yamada-Ms only DAT inform.PST
‘(I) informed only Ms Yamada of the results of the investigation.’

Toritate particles that can attach to nouns are limited those such as bakari, made,
and nanka, in addition to dake, which expresses restriction. Even though it is a
toritate particle expressing restriction like dake, sika cannot be attached to a noun,
as shown in (40).

(40) *Tyoosa-kekka wa Yamada-san sika ni sirasenakatta.

investigation.results TOP Yamada-Ms DAT inform.NEG.PST
‘(I) informed no one except Ms Yamada of the results of the investigation.’

5.3 Toritate particles attaching to noun phrases

Toritate particles attach to noun phrases. In (41) a toritate particle expressing extremes,
made, is attached to the noun phrase Tanaka-san ni, composed of a noun and a case
particle.

(41) Sono himitu o Tanaka-san ni made hanasita no ka

that secret ACC Tanaka-Ms DAT speak.PST NMLZ Q
‘Did you tell that secret even to Ms Tanaka?’

Basically any toritate particle can attach to a noun phrase. However, when a toritate
particle attaches to a noun phrase including the case particles ga ‘NOM’ or o ‘ACC’,
basically the case particles ga and o cannot remain, as shown in (42a). In (42b) the
case particle o has been deleted.

(42) a. *Tanaka-san ni sono himitu o made hanasita no ka?

Tanaka-Ms DAT that secret ACC speak.PST NMLZ Q

b. Tanaka-san ni sono himitu made hanasita no ka?

Tanaka-Ms DAT that secret speak. PST NMLZ Q
‘Did you tell even that secret to Ms Tanaka?’

Also, there is basically no difference in meaning between when a toritate particle is

attached to a noun phrase, as in (43a), and when a toritate particle is attached to a
noun (cf. 5.2), as in (43b),

(43) a. Tyoosa-kekka wa Yamada-san ni dake siraseta.

investigation.results TOP Yamada-Ms DAT inform.PST
‘(I) informed only Ms Yamada of the results of the investigation.’
144 Hisashi Noda

b. Tyoosa-kekka wa Yamada-san dake ni siraseta. (=(39))

investigation.results TOP Yamada-Ms DAT inform.PST
‘(I) informed only Ms Yamada of the results of the investigation.’

5.4 Toritate particles attaching to adverbs

Toritate particles attach to adverbs. In (44) the toritate particle expressing anti-
similarity (contrast), wa, is attached to the adverb hakkiri.to.

(44) Yamada-san wa sono situmon ni hakkiri,to wa kotaenakatta.

Yamada-Ms TOP that question to clearly reply.NEG.PST
‘Ms Yamada didn’t answer that question clearly.’

It is not the case that toritate particles can attach to any adverb. They attach easily to
adverbs showing manner, as in (44), and adverbs showing quantity, as in (45a). They
cannot attach to adverbs showing modality, as in (45b) or adverbs showing degree,
as in (45c).

(45) a. Suupu o sukosi dake nonda.

soup ACC a.little drink.PST
‘(I) drank only a little of the soup.’

b. *Tabun dake asita wa ame ga huru.

maybe tomorrow TOP rain NOM fall.NONPST
‘Maybe tomorrow it will rain.’

c. *Sono kooen wa totemo dake hirokatta.

that park TOP very be.spacious.PST

5.5 Toritate particles attaching to subordinate clauses

Toritate particles attach to subordinate clauses. In (46) a toritate particle expressing
restriction, koso, is attached to a subordinate clause showing reason, kosei ga nai
kara.

(46) Kono baggu wa kosei ga nai

this handbag TOP idiosyncrasies NOM exist.NEG.NONPST
kara koso, minna ni sukareru no da.
since everyone AGT like.PASS.NONPST NMLZ COP.NONPST
It’s precisely because it has no idiosyncrasies that this handbag is liked by
everyone.
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 145

Among subordinate clauses, there are those, like subordinate clauses showing time,
to which toritate particles can attach easily. (47a) is an example of a subordinate
clause showing time (. . .toki) with gurai attached to it. On the other hand, there
are subordinate clauses, such as those expressing a reason, to which it is almost
impossible for toritate particles to attach. A toritate particle cannot attach to a sub-
ordinate clause with node expressing a reason, as in (47b).

(47) a. Syokuzi o site iru toki gurai

meal ACC do.GER be.NONPST time
sigoto no hanasi o suru no wa yameyoo.
work GEN talk ACC do.NONPST NMLZ TOP cease.INT
‘Let’s stop talking about work, at least while we’re eating.’

b. *Tukareta node dake, hayaku ie ni kaeritai.

tire.PST since early home to return.DESI.NONPST
‘Just because I’m tired, I want to go home early.’

5.6 Toritate particles attaching to predicates

Toritate particles attach to predicates. In (48) a toritate particle expressing extremes
is attached to the predicate odorokanakatta.

(48) Sonna koto ni wa odoroki mo sinakatta.

that.kind of thing at TOP surprise do.NEG.PST
‘(He) wasn’t the least surprised at such a thing.’

As in (48), when a toritate particle is attached to a predicate, the stem of the predi-
cate is first changed to a noun-like form (e.g. odoroki) and the toritate particle is
attached to that. The light verb suru is then inserted and the conjugational endings
are attached to suru. When the verb is in a form that includes -te, as in -te iru ‘be
doing’ or -te kureru, the toritate particle is attached after the te.

(49) Bukkyoo ni.tuite no essee wa mada

Buddhism about GEN essay TOP still
kaki.hazime.te sae inai.
begin.writing.GER be.NEG.NONPST
‘I haven’t even begun writing my essay on Buddhism.’

When a toritate particle attaches to an adjective (an i-adjective), it attaches to the

adverbal form of the adjective followed by the light verb aru, as in (50a) in which
the negative form, nai, of the verb aru is used. When toritate particles are attached
146 Hisashi Noda

to nominal adjectives (na-adjectives) or to nominal predicates, as in (50b), de is

placed after the stem of the nominal adjective or the noun and the toritate particle
is attached following that, continuing with the light verb aru.

(50) a. Yama no ue demo samuku wa nakatta.

mountain GEN top LOC.even cold,ADVL aru.NEG.PST
‘Even at the top of the mountain, it wasn’t cold (contrary to expectation).’

b. Kono ryoori wa kenkoo.teki de mo aru.

this dish TOP healthy
‘This dish is also healthy (in addition tasting good).’

6 With what levels of the predicate do toritate

particles co-occur?
Previous syntactic research on toritate particles has been centered on what kinds of
elements toritate particles attach to and not much attention has been to concordance/
co-occurrence relations between toritate particles and predicates.
The levels of the predicate with which toritate particles co-occur are divided into
six levels here. Previous research on toritate particles centered on semantic aspects,
but, through their co-occurrence relations with levels of the predicate, toritate
particles are greatly involved with the structure of a sentence and it is clear that
research on the syntactic aspects is also important.

6.1 An overview of levels of the predicate that co-occur with

toritate particles
The case-bearing elements, adverbs, and subordinate clauses that toritate particles
attach to modify the predicate. The interior of the predicate is thought to have the
layered structure shown in (51a). (51b) shows examples of predicate elements corre-
sponding to the levels in (51a).

(51) a. Stem – Voice – Aspect – Polarity – Tense – Event-directed

Mood – Addressee-directed mood

b. sime – rare – tei – nakat – ta – yooda – ne

‘(It) looks like it wasn’t closed, right?’

In addition, there is thought to be another level in the predicate whose correspon-

dence with linguistic forms is not visible on the surface – the realis level. This is
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 147

the level that distinguishes whether or not an utterance is a hypothetical. It is the

level that shows concord with subordinate clauses that show hypothetical condi-
tions, such as [. . .tara] or [. . .(re)ba].
As described in Noda (1995), the case-bearing elements, adverbs, and sub-
ordinate clauses to which toritate particles are attached can be thought of as being
in concord with some level of the layered structure of the predicate described here.
For example, both sae and demo can express extremes, but the levels of the
predicate they co-occur with are different. Sae can be used in a sentence like (52a)
that shows conjecture, but it cannot be used in a sentence like (52b) that shows
will or intention.

(52) a. Doromizu sae nomu daroo.

muddy.water drink.NONPST COP.CONJEC
‘(He’d) probably drink even muddy water.’

b. *Doromizu sae nomoo.

muddy.water drink.INT
‘Let’s drink even muddy water.’

This is because sae selects an event-oriented mood, either conjecture or intention.

From this fact we can conclude that sae co-occurs with the level of event-oriented
mood.
On the other hand, demo can be used in both a sentence showing conjecture,
like (53a) or one showing volition, like (53b).

(53) a. Doromizu demo nomu daroo.

‘(He’ll) probably drink even muddy water.’

b. Doromizu demo nomoo.

‘Let’s drink (something even if it’s) muddy water.’

This is because demo does not select an event-oriented mood, either conjecture
or volition. From this fact, we can conclude that demo does not co-occur with the
event-oriented mood level. The demo expressing extremes is thought to co-occur
with some level inside the event-oriented mood level; details will be described in 5.5.
The predicate levels with which toritate particles co-occur can divided into 6
groups as shown in Table 3.
Attachment of toritate particles to the “stem level”, the “aspect level”, the
“polarity level”, the “realis level”, the “event-oriented level”, and the “addressee-
oriented level” will be described in order in 6.2 through 6.7.
148 Hisashi Noda

Table 3: Predicate levels with which toritate particles co-occur

Predicate level Examples of toritate particles

Stem Level dake (restriction)

Aspect Level bakari (restriction
Polarity Level sika (restriction)
wa (anti-similarity)
Realis Level nara (restriction)
demo (extremes)
Event-oriented Level demo (anti-restriction)
sae (extremes)
Addressee-oriented Level koso (restriction)
mo (anti-restriction)

6.2 Toritate particles co-occurring with stems

Dake, a toritate particle expressing restriction in (54), can be considered to co-occur
with the stem level.

(54) Kare dake ni siraseta.

he DAT inform.PST
‘(I) informed only him.’

Since dake can be used in any kind of sentence, it is difficult to ascertain with what
level of the predicate it co-occurs. However, it can be concluded from indirect evi-
dence that it co-occurs with the stem level.
The first piece of indirect evidence is that dake can be attached immediately
after a noun rather than after a case particle. The noun at the level before case
particles have been attached is the noun before case marking has been determined.
A noun before case marking has been determined co-occurs with the stem level.
Therefore, it can be said that it is possible that dake attached to a noun prior to
determination of case marking co-occurs with the stem level.
The second piece of evidence is the fact that dake can appear inside a [. . .nagara]
clause as in (55). According to Noda (2002), generally, elements that appear inside a
[. . .nagara] clause co-occur with the stem level.

(55) Mae dake minagara kuruma o unten

ahead look.while vehicle ACC drive
suru no wa abunai.
do.NONPST NMLZ TOP dangerous.NONPST
‘It is dangerous to drive a car (while) looking only ahead.’
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 149

From this sort of indirect evidence, it can be concluded that dake expressing restric-
tion co-occurs with the stem level, the innermost level within the layers of levels in
the predicate.

6.3 Toritate particles that co-occur with the aspect level

Bakari, a toritate particle expressing restriction in (56), can be considered to co-occur
with the aspect level.

(56) Ryoosin wa otooto bakari kawaigaru

parents TOP younger.brother be.affectionate.toward.NONPST
‘My parents shower all their affection on my younger brother.’

Bakari can be used in a sentence like (57a) that shows continuative or repetitive
aspect but cannot be used in a sentence like (57b) that shows instantaneous aspect.

(57) a. Gakusei no toki wa hanbaagaa bakari tabete ita.

student GEN time TOP hamburger eat.GER be.PST
‘When I was a student I used to eat nothing but hamburgers.’

b. *Kesa 7-zi ni hanbaagaa bakari tabeta.

this.morning 7.o’clock at hamburger eat.PST
‘At 7 o’clock this morning I ate nothing but hamburger.’

This shows that bakari selects between continuative/repetitive and instantaneous

aspect. From this fact, it can be concluded that bakari co-occurs with the aspect
level.

6.4 Toritate particles co-occurring with the polarity level

Sika, a toritate particle expressing restriction in (58a), and wa, a toritate particle
expressing anti-similarity (contrast) in (58b), can be considered to co-occur with the
polarity level.

(58) a. Kare ni sika sirasenakatta.

he DAT inform.NEG,PST
‘(I) didn’t inform anyone but him.’

b. Sakana wa taberu ga, niku wa tabenai.

fish eat.NONPST but meat eat.NEG.NONPST
‘Fish, I eat, but, meat. I don’t eat.’
150 Hisashi Noda

Sika can be used in a sentence showing negation like (59a), but it cannot be used in
a non-negative sentence like (59b).

(59) a. Nyuukaikin sika iranai.

initiation.fee need.NEG,NONPST
‘All you need is the initiation fee.’

b. *Nyuukaikin sika iru.

initiation.fee need.NONPST

Sika can basically only co-occur with a predicate that has a syntactic negative form,
like the -nai in (59a). It cannot usually co-occur with a predicate that has a lexically
negative meaning but no syntactic negative form, like (60).

(60) *Nyuukaikin sika huyoo da.

initiation.fee unneeded COP,NONPST.

Sika selects between negative or affirmative. From this fact, it can be concluded that
sika co-occurs with the polarity level.

6.5 Toritate particles co-occurring with the realis level

Nara, a toritate particle expressing restriction in (61), can be considered to co-occur
with the realis level.

(61) Hamada-san to nara kyooen suru.

Hamada-Ms with appear.together do.NONPST
‘Provided it’s with Ms Hamada, I’ll appear on stage together.’

Nara can only be used in a sentence that shows a hypothetical situation that has not
occurred in reality, as in (61). Even should nara be used in a sentence like (62) that
expresses the past, it is not the case that it shows a situation that occurred in reality.
It ends up expressing a meaning contrary to reality, that is, “if the condition ‘with Ms
Hamada’ had been satisfied, I would have appeared on stage together, but, as it was
not, I did not.”

(62) Hamada-san to nara kyooen sita.

Hamada-Ms with appear.together do.PST
‘If it had been with Ms Hamada, I would have appeared on stage together.’

Nara selects between real and hypothetical situations. From this fact, it can be con-
cluded to co-occur with the realis level.
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 151

6.6 Toritate particles co-occurring with the event-oriented

mood level
Demo, a toritate particle expressing anti-restriction (exemplification) in (63), can be
considered to co-occur with the event-oriented mood level.

(63) Otya demo nomoo.

tea drink.INT
‘Let’s drink some tea or something.’

Demo can be used in a sentence that expresses intention, like (63), or in a sentence
that expresses a desire, like (64a), but it cannot be used in a sentence that simply
narrates facts, like (64b).

(64) a. Otya demo nomitai.

tea drink.DESI.NONPST
‘I want to drink (some) tea or something.’

b. *Otya demo nonda.

tea drink.PST
‘I drank (some) tea or something.’

Demo selects between sentences expressing things for which truth or falsity cannot
be determined, like intention or desires, and sentences expressing things for which
the truth or falsity can be determined, like narrative statements, that is, it selects
between event-oriented moods. From this fact, it can be concluded that the demo
that expresses anti-restriction (exemplification) co-occurs with the event-oriented
level.

6.7 Toritate particles co-occurring with the addressee-oriented

mood level
Koso, a toritate particle expressing restriction in (65), can be considered to co-occur
with the addressee-oriented mood level.

(65) Yamada-san koso kaityoo ni husawasii.

Yamada-Ms chairperson DAT be.suited.NONPST
‘Ms Yamada, in particular, is suitable to be the chairperson.’

Koso can be used in a sentence like (65) expressing a statement, but it cannot be
used in a sentence like (66) expressing a question.
152 Hisashi Noda

(66) *Yamada-san koso kaityoo ni husawasii?

Yamada-Ms chairperson DAT be.suited.NONPST
‘Would Ms Yamada, in particular, be suitable to be the chairperson.’

Koso selects between sentences expressing statements and sentences expressing

questions; that is, it selects between addressee-oriented moods. From this fact, it
can be concluded that koso co-occurs with the addressee-oriented level.

7 Toritate adverbs
To this point, the discussion has been on toritate particles, but this section will
discuss toritate adverbs.

7.1 The semantics of toritate adverbs

The meanings expressed by toritate adverbs can be broadly divided into the two
groups, “restriction” and “prominence”, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Meanings expressed by toritate adverbs

Meaning Examples of toritate adverbs

Restriction tan.ni ‘simply’

tada ‘only’
tatta ‘merely’
Prominence toku.ni ‘especially’
toriwake ‘above all’
omo.ni ‘mainly

Toritate adverbs like tan.ni, tada, and tatta express “restriction”. The toritate adverb
tan.ni expressing restriction is used in (67). It expresses the meaning, “what I was
doing was looking at the scenery outside and I was not doing anything else.” There
are also times when a toritate adverb expressing restriction is also used with the
toritate particle dake expressing restriction, as in (67).

(67) Tan.ni soto no kesiki o mite ita dake desu.

simply outside GEN scenery ACC see.GER be.PST COP.POL.NONPST
‘All I was doing was simply looking at the scenery outside.’

The toritate adverb expressing restriction, tatta, can only foreground quantity expres-
sions, as in (68).
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 153

(68) Tatta hitori no kyoodai ga nakunatta.

merely one.person GEN sibling NOM pass.away.PST
‘My only sibling passed away.’

Toritate adverbs like toku.ni, toriwake, and omo.ni express “prominence”. The toritate
adverb toku.ni expressing prominence is used in (69). It expresses the meaning, “the
most frequently caught fish is saury and no other fish is caught as often as saury.”

(69) Kono atari de wa iroiro.na sakana ga

this area LOC TOP various.ADN fish NOM
tureru ga, toku,ni saba ga yoku tureru.
be.caught.NONPST but especially saury NOM often be.caught.NONPST
‘A variety of fish are caught around here, but the fish that is caught especially
often is saury.’

7.2 The syntax of toritate adverbs

Toritate adverbs are basically placed directly before the elements they apply to. In
(70a) toku.ni puts focus on the immediately following yama dewa. In (70b), in which
the word order has been changed, the focus is on tenki no henka ni

(70) a. Toku,ni yama de wa tenki no

especially mountain LOC TOP weather GEN
henka ni ki.o.tukete kudasai.
change DAT pay.attention.GER please
‘Please pay attention to changes in the weather, especially in the
mountains.’

b. Yama de wa toku.ni tenki no

mountain LOC TOP especially weather GEN
henka ni ki.o.tukete kudasai.
change DAT pay.attention.GER please
‘Please pay attention in the mountains, especially to changes in the
weather.’

However, there are also cases in which toku.ni and toriwake are placed immediately
after the focused element. In (71) the focus is placed not on the immediately follow-
ing ki o tukete kudasai, but on the immediately preceding tenki no henka ni.
154 Hisashi Noda

(71) Yama de wa tenki no henka ni

mountain LOC TOP weather GEN change DAT
toku.ni ki.o.tukete kudasai.
especially pay.attention.GER please
‘Please pay attention in the mountains, especially to changes in the weather.’

8 Topics for future research

This section discusses topics for future research, divided into research on toritate
in Japanese and comparative research on toritate in other languages. It further dis-
cusses what is needed for future research developments.

8.1 Research on toritate in Japanese

Two topics in toritate in Japanese that are in need of more research in the future are
listed in (72a) and (72b).

(72) a. Research on toritate adverbs

b. Systematizing the meanings of toritate

(72a) can be expanded as follows: There is an extremely small quantity of research

on toritate adverbs compared to toritate particles. There is a need to advance
research into the scope of toritate adverbs, conditions on when toritate adverbs are
used, and the differentiation in use between toritate adverbs and toritate particles.
(72b) can be expanded as follows: The meanings of individual toritate adverbs
have been studied. However, there has been almost no systematization of the mean-
ings of toritate adverbs and particles. There is a need to advance such research in
the future.

8.2 Comparative research on toritate in other languages

Comparative research on toritate in Japanese and toritate in other languages has not
been very actively pursued. Topics in need of further comparative research include
those listed in (73a) through (73c).

(73) a. The meanings shown by toritate forms

b. Constraints on predicates co-occurring with toritate forms
c. Conditions determining whether toritate forms are used or not
 Toritate: Focusing and defocusing of words, phrases, and clauses 155

(73a) can be expanded as follows: The meanings expressed by toritate forms, that is,
toritate particles and toritate adverbs, differ from language to language. Sometimes
a meaning that can be expressed by a toritate form in Japanese cannot be expressed
in another language. The reverse also happens, that meanings that can be expressed
by toritate forms in other languages cannot be expressed in Japanese. There is a
need for future research on the meanings expressed by toritate forms in a variety of
languages.
(73b) can be expanded as follows: Sometimes there are constraints on the pred-
icates that co-occur with toritate forms in Japanese. For example, as discussed in 6.1,
sae showing extremes can be used in a sentence showing quantity but not in
one expressing intention. There is a need for future research on the constraints on
predicates that co-occur with toritate forms in a variety of languages.
(73c) can be expanded as follows: There are times when, in the same context,
Japanese uses a toritate expression but other languages do not. The reverse also
happens, that Japanese does not use a toritate expression in some context but other
languages do. There is a need for future research on the conditions under which
languages do or do not use toritate expressions.

8.3 For the development of future research

Research on toritate in Japanese has developed greatly in the past 30 years. Descrip-
tions of the use of and meanings expressed by individual toritate particles in
particular have become extremely precise. However, research on toritate in other
languages, including English, have not flourished and comparison of toritate in
Japanese and other languages is difficult. Because of this, it is difficult in the current
state to investigate toritate theoretically, not knowing which of the phenomena
observed with regard to toritate in Japanese are pan-linguistic and which are unique
to Japanese.
For the sake of the development of future research, it is most important to advance
comparative research between Japanese and a variety of other languages. Such com-
parative research would not only contribute to the development of research on
toritate in other languages, it would likely also greatly contribute to research on
toritate in Japanese.
In order to advance comparative research on Japanese and other languages, a
good start would be to survey how toritate in Japanese and in other languages
correspond with each other or even whether they correspond at all. A “parallel
corpus”, allowing easy investigation of the correspondence relations between Japanese
literary works and translations into other languages and between the literary works
of other languages and their translations into Japanese is a necessity. Such a corpus
would also be useful in comparative research of grammatical areas other than toritate
and its development is earnestly desired.
Along this line, Noda (2015) is a comparative study of toritate in Japanese and
Spanish using small-scale “parallel corpus” not available publicly. Furthermore,
156 Hisashi Noda

Noda (2018 expected), is expected to contain comparative studies of toritate in

Japanese and a variety of other languages as well as a clarification of the differences
in toritate in Japanese and in the other languages studied.

Acknowledgments
This chapter has been translated into English by John Haig based on the Japanese
manuscript prepared by the author.

References
Kudo, Hiroshi. 1977. Gentei fukushi no kinō [Functions of restrictive adverbs]. In Matsumura Akira
Kyōju Kanreki Kinenkai (ed.), Kokugogaku to kokugoshi [Japanese language studies and the
history of Japanese], 969–986. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Nakanishi, Kumiko. 2012. Gendai Nihongo no toritate joshi to shūtoku [Modern Japanese focusing
particles and acquisition]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai (ed.). 2003–2010. Gendai Nihongo bunpō [Modern Japanese
grammar]. 7 volumes. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Nihongo Kijutsu Bunpō Kenkyūkai (ed.). 2009. Gendai Nihongo bunpō 5: Toritate, shudai [Focus and
topic]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Noda, Hisashi. 1995. Bun no kaisō kōzō kara mita shudai to toritate [Topic and focus as viewed from
the hierarchical structure of the sentence]. In Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda, and Yoshiko
Numata (eds.), Nihongo no shudai to toritate [Topic and focus in Japanese], 1–35. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Noda, Hisashi. 2002. Tanbun, fukubun, to tekisuto [Simple sentences, complex sentences, and text].
In Hisashi Noda, Takashi Masuoka, Mayumi Sakuma, and Yukinori Takubo, Nihongo no bunpō
4: Fukubun to danwa [Japanese grammar: Complex sentences and discourse], 1–62. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Noda, Hisashi. 2015. Nihongo to supeingo no toritate hyogen no imi taikei [A semantic classification
of toritate expressions in Japanese and Spanish]. Nihongo Bunpō 5(2), 82–98.
Noda, Hisashi (ed.). 2018. Nihongo to sekai no gengo no toritate hyōgen [Focus expressions in
Japanese and the languages of the world]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Numata, Yoshiko. 1986. Toritate-shi [Focus words]. In Keiichirō Okutsu, Yoshiko Numata, and Takeshi
Sugimoto, Iwayuru Nihongo joshi no kenkyū [Studies on the so-called Japanese particles], 105–
225. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Numata, Yoshiko. 2000. Toritate [Focus]. In Satoshi Kinsui, Mayumi Kudo, and Yoshiko Numata,
Nihongo no bunpō 2: Toki, hitei, to toritate [Japanese grammar 2: Tense, negation, and focus],
151–216. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Numata, Yoshiko and Hisashi Noda (eds.). 2003. Nihongo no toritate: Gendaigo to rekishi-teki henka,
chiri-teki hen’i [Focus in Japanese: Modern Japanese and historical changes, geographical
variations]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Sawada, Mieko. 2007. Gendai Nihongo ni okeru “toritate joshi” no kenkyū [Studies on “focus particles”
in Modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Teramura, Hideo. 1991. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi III [Japanese syntax and semantics III]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Isao Iori
5 The layered structure of the sentence

1 Introduction
In Japanese, as shown in (1), the stem of a predicate can be followed by a string of
morphemes expressing a variety of grammatical meanings.

(1) Nezumi ga neko ni oikake -rare -tei -ta -yoo

mouse NOM cat DAT chase PASS GER.be PST appearance
desu yo
COP.NONPST.POL SFP
‘It looks like the mouse was being chased by the cat.’

The order of the morphemes is basically fixed in this case and there is a thought
influential in Japanese language studies that this morpheme order is correlated
with the process of sentence formation. Viewed from this perspective, the ordering
in (1) is called the layered structure of the sentence and has been variously studied
within Japanese grammar.

2 Studies prior to Minami’s model

Serious research clearly related to the layered structure of the sentence first began
with MINAMI Fujio. Minami’s layered structure has been called the “Minami model”
(Onoe 1999a) and has greatly influenced Japanese language research (Noda 1989,
2002; Nitta 1991; Masuoka 1991). However, Minami’s research did not spring forth
overnight; there was also research that preceded and influenced it. This section will
take a brief look at such prior research.

2.1 MIKAMI Akira

Mikami was one scholar prior to Minami who considered Japanese sentence forma-
tion to be layered. He proposed that one could measure sentencehood by means of a
number of syntactic tests (Mikami 1953, 1955). Linking the sentencehood so measured
with inflectional forms, Mikami came up with the following numerical values (Mikami
linked inflectional forms to mood, calling the mood expressed by the conclusive form
used within a sentence the “conclusive mood” Mikami (1959)). Mikami called these
numerical values “degrees of modality”.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-006
158 Isao Iori

(2) Conclusive Mood (sentence-final) 1

Conclusive Mood (sentence-internal) ¾
Conditional Mood ½
Neutral Mood ¼
Gerundive Mood 0

The lowest degree of modality, having no modality at all, is the the gerundive mood
expressing generic tense as in (3).

(3) Taberu koto wa taisetu da.

eat NMLZ TOP important COP
‘Eating is important. / It is important to eat.’

The next lowest in degree of modality is the neutral mood shown in (4), which,
although it has some degree of modality in that it expresses a concrete action, the
degree is weak because it allows tense inheritance as in (4). (The structure of (4) is
[[[atarasii huku o ki-] te dekake-] ta] and the tense of the main clause spreads to
[atarasii huku o ki-], so (4) ends up meaning “Atarasii huku o kita. Sosite, dekaketa.”
‘I put on new clothes. And then, I went out.’)

(4) Atarasii huku o kite dekaketa.

new clothes ACC put.on.GER go.out.PST
‘I went out wearing my new clothes.’

Higher than the neutral mood is the conditional mood, which, although it has a
higher degree of modality because it does not allow tense inheritance, still has a
lower degree of modality in that the tense cannot be explicitly expressed, as shown
in (5).

(5) Asita ame ga hureba / *huruba /

tomorrow rain NOM fall.COND fall.NONPST.COND
*huttaba, dekakenai.
fall.PST.COND go.out.NEG.NONPST
‘If it rains tomorrow, I won’t go out.’

Still higher in degree of modality is the sentence-internal conclusive mood, which,

although having a high degree of modality in that tense and epistemic modality
can be expressed explicitly, is lower than a complete sentence in that politeness and
sentence final particles cannot be expressed, as seen in (6).
 The layered structure of the sentence 159

(6) Taroo wa susi o {taberu / tabeta / *tabemasita /

Taro TOP sushi ACC eat.NONPST eat.PST eat.POL.PST
*tabeta ne} daroo.
eat.PST SFP COP.PRES
‘Taro probably {will eat / has eaten / has eaten (polite) / has eaten, don’t you
think} sushi.’

The highest degree of modality, with absolutely no restrictions, is a complete sentence,

as seen in (7).

(7) Taroo wa Oosaka ni {iku / itta / ikimasu /

Taro TOP Osaka LOC go.NONPST go.PST go.POL.NONPST
ikimasita / iku ne / itta ne}.
go.POL.PST go.NONPST SFP go.PST SFP
‘Taro {will go / went / will go (polite) / went (polite) / will go, won’t he / went,
didn’t he} to Osaka.

While aspects of Mikami’s treatment may lack rigor as a syntactic argument, in that
he linked the morphological problem of inflections with the chinjutsu ‘modality’,
which had been discussed ever since Yamada (1908), parts of his treatment are
related to part of Minami’s arguments (for views on Japanese inflection, see Watanabe
1971 and Teramura 1984, among others).

2.2 TOKIEDA Motoki

Casting a more direct influence on Minami was the research of TOKIEDA Motoki
(Tokieda 1950). Tokieda proposed that a sentence is composed of shi, which express
content objectively and ji, which express the speaker’s subjective treatment of the
content, and advocated a “nested box” structure in which shi are enclosed within ji.
For example, the structure of (8) would be as shown in (9).

(8) Ume no hana ga sai-ta

plum GEN flower NOM bloom-PST
‘The plum flower bloomed.’

(9)
160 Isao Iori

Here ume, hana, and sai are shi and no, ga, and ta are ji. As a single phrase, ume no
hana expresses a single concept and constitutes the equivalent of a shi, to which ga
attaches. Adding sai (the stem of saku ‘bloom’) gives ume no hana ga sai, the whole
of which, as a single meaningful unit, constitutes the equivalent of a shi, to which ta
attaches, illustrating Tokieda’s “nested box” idea.
Tokieda originally took the position that shi and ji were rigorously distinguished,
but later the idea of them forming a continuum appeared. Minami’s layered structure
is different from the nested box model, but Tokieda’s influence can be seen in the
idea that there is a correlation between how a string of constituents is expanded
and sentence formation, which is part of Minami’s own claim.

3 MINAMI Fujio’s layered structure

This section discusses Minami’s layered model (Minami 1974, 1993), but concerning
how this model should be interpreted, Minami himself wavered and the stance of
Minami (1993), which treats semantics as being most important, is close to Mikami’s
claims, tying layered structure to the sentence’s degree of modality (Minami himself
noted that behind his adoption of this position lay the influence of Hayashi 1960
(Minami 1993). However, it is persuasively argued in Onoe (2016) that it is not appro-
priate to link this kind of sentence formation theory to Hayashi 1960 and that it
cannot be considered appropriate, on this point, to interpret the Minami model as
“directly” tied to sentence formation theory.).
On the other hand, Minami’s original theory concerned what kinds of gram-
matical categories could be contained within subordinate clauses and that itself can
be considered a pure syntactic theory. (For detailed arguments concerning the inter-
pretation of the Minami model, see Onoe 1999a 1999b.)
Considering the above, this section will consider Minami’s arguments without
linking them to the degree of modality.
Minami divided subordinate clauses into four types (Type A through Type D)
depending on what grammatical elements could be included within them.

3.1 Minami’s layered structure model

Looking first at nagara clauses expressing ancillary states, it is apparent that they
can contain case-marked elements other than those marked by ga, manner adverbs,
and voice (that ga-marked elements cannot be included is clear from the fact that in
(10a) neither Taroo ga, which is identical to the subject of the main clause, nor Ziroo
ga, which is different from the subject of the main clause, is allowed).
 The layered structure of the sentence 161

(10) a. (*Taroo ga / *Ziroo ga) oogoe de uta o utai-nagara,

Taro NOM Jiro NOM loud.voice INS song ACC sing-nagara
Taroo ga heya ni haitte kita.
Taro NOM room LOC enter.GER come.PST
‘(*Taro/*Jiro) singing a song in a loud voice, Taro came into the room.’

b. Dareka ni oikake-rare-nagara, Taroo ga

someone DAT chase-PASS-nagara Taro NOM
heya ni haitte kita.
room LOC enter.GER come.PST
‘Being chased by someone, Taro came into the room.’

On the other hand, as shown by (11), nagara clauses cannot contain ga-marked ele-
ments or any other sentence constituents (topic, aspect, polarity, tense, politeness,
daroo, interpersonal modality (the # here shows that the intended meaning, ancillary
state, is ungrammatical). Minami called subordinate clauses of the same type as
nagara clauses “Type A (subordinate clauses)”.

(11) a. *Taroo wa uta o utai-nagara,

Taro TOP song ACC sing-nagara
Taroo ga heya ni haitte kita.
Taro NOM room LOC enter.GER come.PST

b. Uta o {#utat-tei-nagara / *utawa-nai-nagara /

song ACC sing-PROG-nagara sing-NEG-nagara
*utat-ta-nagara / *utai-masu-nagara /
sing-PST-nagara sing-POL-nagara
*utai-daroo-nagara / *utau-ne-nagara},
sing-PRES-nagara sing-SFP-nagara
Taroo ga heya ni haitte kita.
Taro NOM room LOC enter.GER come.PST

Looking next at noni clauses expressing adversative conjunction, it is clear from (12)
that, in addition to all the elements allowed in Type A clauses, ga-marked elements,
aspect, polarity, and tense can all also be included.

(12) a. Ame ga hutte ita noni,

rain NOM fall.GER be.PST in.spite.of.the.fact.that
Taroo wa dekaketa.
Taro TOP go.out.PST
‘Despite the fact that it was raining, Taro went out.’
162 Isao Iori

b. Tenki ga yoku nakatta noni

weather NOM good NEG.PST in.spite.of.the.fact.that
Taroo wa dekaketa.
Taro TOP go.out.PST
‘Despite the fact that the weather was not good, Taro went out.’

On the other hand, as shown by (13), topic, daroo, and interpersonal modality cannot
be included.

(13) a. *Ame wa hutte ita noni,

rain TOP fall.GER be.PST in.spite.of.the.fact.that
Taroo wa dekaketa.
Taro TOP go.out.PST
‘Despite the fact that, rain, it was falling, Tao went out.’

b. Ame ga {OKhuru / *huru-daroo /

rain NOM fall.NONPST fall-PRES
*huru-ne} noni,
fall-SFP in.spite.of.the.fact.that
Taroo wa dekaketa.
Taro TOP go.out.PST
‘Despite the fact that {it was going to rain / probably it would rain /
it would rain, right}, Taro went out.’

There are cases in which politeness may also be included, but even if the end of the
sentence is a polite form, it is not necessary for the embedded clause to have its own
polite form (as far as politeness goes, (14a) is sufficient and there is no need to
change it to (14b)). Minami called subordinate clauses of the same type as noni
clauses “Type B (subordinate clauses)”.

(14) a. Ame ga hutte iru noni

rain NOM fall.GER be.NONPST in.spite.of.the.fact.that
dekakeru no desu ka?
go.out.NONPST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Are you going out despite the fact that it’s raining?’

b. Ame ga hutte imasu

rain NOM fall.GER be.POL.NONPST
noni dekakeru no
in.spite.of.the.fact.that go.out.NONPST NMLZ
desu ka?
COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Are you going out despite the fact that it’s raining?’
 The layered structure of the sentence 163

Continuing on, considering kedo clauses, it is clear from (15) that in addition to
being able to contain everything that Type B clauses can contain, they can addi-
tionally contain topics and daroo.

(15) Taroo wa kuru daroo kedo,

Taro TOP come.NONPST PRES but
Hanako wa konai.
Hanako TOP come.NEG.NONPST
‘Taro will probably come, but Hanako will not come.’

On the other hand, as shown in (16), interpersonal modality cannot be included.

Minami called subordinate clauses of the same type as kedo clauses “Type C (sub-
ordinate clauses)”.

(16) *Taroo wa kuru daroo ne kedo,

Taro TOP come.NONPST PRES SFP but
Hanako wa konai.
Hanako TOP come.NEG.NONPST

Finally, considering quotative to clauses, as is clear from (17), in addition to every-

thing Type C clauses can include, they can also include interpersonal modality.
Minami called subordinate clauses of the same type as to clauses “Type D (sub-
ordinate clauses)”. The only difference between Type D subordinate clauses and
independent sentences is that the former are embedded within another clause.

(17) Taroo wa “Asita mata koko ni kuru

Taro TOP tomorrow again here LOC come.NONPST
ne” to itta.
SFP QUOT say.PST
‘Taro said, “I’ll come here again tomorrow, okay?”’

Also, when the to clause shows a direct quotation, it can contain such types of inter-
personal modality as imperatives and invitation forms determining the type of the
sentence and sentence final particles, as shown in (18).

(18) Taroo wa “Asita mata koko ni {koi /

Taro TOP tomorrow again here LOC come.IMP
koyoo}” to itta.
come.INT QUOT say.PST
‘Taro said, “{Come / Let’s come} here again tomorrow.”’
164 Isao Iori

In contrast, when the to clause shows an indirect quotation (that is, a quotation in
which deictic shift has taken place), while such types of interpersonal modality as
imperatives and invitations forms that determine sentence type can appear, sentence
final particles cannot be included, as shown in (19).

(19) a. Watasi wa Taroo ni, yokuzitu mata

I TOP Taro DAT the.next.day again
eigakan ni ike to itta.
movie.theater LOC go.IMP QUOT say.PST
‘I ordered Taro to go to the movie theater again the next day.’

b. Watasi wa Taroo ni, yokuzitu mata

I TOP Taro DAT the.next.day again
eigakan ni ikoo to itta.
movie.theater LOC go.INT QUOT say.PST
‘I suggested to Taro that we go to the movie theater again the next day.’

c. Watasi wa Taroo ni, {asita / *yokuzitu} mata

I TOP Taro DAT tomorrow the.next.day again
eigakan ni ike yo to itta.
movie.theater LOC go.IMP SFP QUOT say.PST
(Acceptable with asita ‘tomorrow’ as a direct quotation.)
‘I ordered Taro, “You to go to the movie theater again OKtomorrow/
*the next day!’

Next, in a series of multiple subordinate clauses, each clause can contain a clause of
the same or higher degree of subordination but cannot contain a clause with a lower
degree of subordination. For example, a Type B clause can contain a Type A clause,
but not vice versa. Thus, (20) is grammatical. Also, (21) can only be interpreted as
meaning (22a), not as (22b).

(20) [B [A uta o utai-nagara] aruitara],

song ACC sing-nagara walk.COND
dentyuu ni butukatta.
utility.pole DAT run.into.PST
‘Walking along, sing a song, I walked into a utility pole.’

(21) Marason-sensyu ga koko o toottara

marathon-runner NOM here PATH pass.COND
uta o utai-nagara hata o huroo.
song ACC sing-nagara flag ACC wave.INT
 The layered structure of the sentence 165

(22) a. [B Marason-sensyu ga koko o toottara] [[Auta o utai-nagara]

hata o huro] o
‘Let’s wave a flag singing a song when the marathon runners pass here.’

b. *[ A[[B Marason-sensyu ga koko o toottaraB] uta o utai-] nagara]

hata o huroo
‘Let’s wave a flag when the marathon runners pass here singing a song.’

Minami’s treatment of subordinate clauses outlined here has gained wide acceptance
as a way to view subordinate clauses in Japanese.

3.2 TAKUBO Yukinori’s revision of the Minami model

Minami’s layered model gained wide acceptance, but proposals were made for revi-
sion of parts of it. While basically accepting the Minami model, Takubo proposed a
number of revisions (Takubo 1987).
The first revision concerned ga-marked elements. Minami located all ga-marked
elements as first being able to appear with Type B clauses, but, as can be seen from
(23), there are cases when they are included in Type A clauses. The ga-marked ele-
ment is restricted to non-volitional things in this case.

(23) [Koori ga tokeru] yoo ni,

ice NOM melt.NONPST appearance DAT
reizooko no soto ni dasite oita.
refrigerator GEN outside LOC set.out.GER place.PST
‘I set the ice outside the refrigerator so it would melt.’

The clauses in which ga-marked elements can appear have no tense opposition and
express generic events that are not time-limited. In contrast, in a Type B clause as in
(24), there is a tense opposition and the clause expresses a time-limited event.

(24) [Koori ga toketa] tame.ni, teeburu no

ice NOM melt.PST since table GEN
ue ga mizubitasi ni natta.
top NOM soaked DAT become.PST
‘Because the ice melted, the table top got soaked.’

This difference between Type A and Type B clauses also appears in the distribution
of zero pronouns. For example, while zero pronouns can appear in Type A clauses,
they are limited to the nominative, and, moreover, the clause is interpreted generi-
cally, as in (25), or they refer to an element in the same sentence, as in (26). Reference
to a contextual antecedent outside the sentence is impossible.
166 Isao Iori

(25) [ɸ (ga) aruku] koto wa kenkoo ni yoi.

walk.NONPST NMLZ TOP health DAT good.NONPST
‘Walking is good for one’s health.’

(26) Taroo wa [ɸ (ga) iku] koto o yakusoku sita.

Taro TOP go.NONPST NMLZ ACC promise do.PST
‘Taro promised to go.’

In contrast, when zero pronouns appear in Type B clauses, they are not limited to
the nominative case, as seen in (27). Also, as can be seen from (27) and (28), zero
pronouns in such clauses can refer anaphorically to a contextual antecedent.

(27) [Taroo ga ɸ (o) katta] koto ga wakatta.

Taro NOM buy.PST NMLZ NMLZ find.out.PST
‘(I) could tell that Taro had bought it.’

(28) [ɸ (ga) kita] noni, Taroo wa kaettyatta?

come.PST in.spite.of.the fact.that Taro TOP end.up.going.home.PST
‘Did Taro go home even though (someone) had come?’

The next problem Takubo pointed out is that of the location of focus.
In Japanese, as a general rule, the scope of the question particle ka or of nega-
tion is limited to the constituent immediately preceding it. For example, in (29) and
(30), kare ga kanemoti dakara ‘because he’s rich’ is outside the scope of ka or the
negation. Thus, (29) is unnatural and (30) does not express the meaning intended
here, ‘The reason I married him is not because he’s rich.’

(29) ??kare ga kanemoti da kara kekkon simasita ka.

he NOM rich COP because marry do.POL.PST Q
‘(intended) Did you marry him because he’s rich?’

(30) #kare ga kanemoti da kara kekkon sinakatta.

he NOM rich COP because marry do.NEG.PST
‘(intended) It’s not because he’s rich that I married him.’
‘(acceptable) Because he’s rich, I didn’t marry him.’

In order to include the kara clauses of (29) and (30) in the scope of ka or the nega-
tion, it is necessary to explicitly expand the scope by the use of the nominalizer no,
as in (31) and (32) (Kuno 1983; Takubo 1985).
 The layered structure of the sentence 167

(31) Kare ga kanemoti da kara kekkon

he NOM rich COP because marry
sita no desu ka?
do.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Was it because he’s rich that you married him?’

(32) Kare ga kanemoti da kara kekkon

he NOM rich COP because marry
sita no dewa.arimasen.
do.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NEG.NONPST
‘It’s not because he’s rich that I married him.’

Kara has two uses, one to express the cause or reason for an action or event, as in
(33), and the other to show the basis for a judgement, as in (34).

(33) Ronbun de isogasii kara, kare wa

paper INS busy.NONPST because he TOP
paatii ni konakatta no daroo.
party LOC come.NEG.PST NMLZ COP.PRES
‘It’s probably because he’s busy with his paper that he didn’t come to
the party.’

(34) Miti ga nurete iru kara, ame ga

road NOM be.wet.GER be.NONPST because rain NOM
hutta no daroo.
fall.PST NMLZ COP.PRES
‘It must have rained, since the road is wet.’

Whether kara expresses “cause/reason” or expresses “basis for a judgment” can be

tested for by restating P kara, Q ‘P, therefore Q’ to Q no wa P kara da ‘the fact that Q
is because P’. When such a restatement is possible, as in (35), the kara clause shows
“cause/reason” and when it cannot, as in (36), it shows “basis for a judgement”.

(35) Kare ga paatii ni konakatta no wa,

he NOM party LOC come.NEG.PST NMLZ TOP
ronbun de isogasii kara daroo.
paper INS busy.NONPST because COP.PRES
‘The fact that he didn’t come to the party is probably because he was busy
with his paper.’
168 Isao Iori

(36) ?Ame ga hutta no wa, miti ga nurete

rain NOM fall.PST NMLZ TOP road NOM be.wet.GER
iru kara daroo.
be.NONPST because COP.PRES
‘The fact that it rained is probably because the road is wet.’

For example, the kara clause in (37), below, shows “cause/reason” and that in (38)
shows “basis for a judgement”.

(37) Kare ga kita kara kanozyo wa

he NOM come.PST because she TOP
paatii ni kita no desyoo.
party LOC come.PST NMLZ COP.POL.PRES
‘It’s probably because he came that she came to the party.’

(38) (Kanozyo wa kare no daifan desu.)

she TOP he GEN great.fan COP.POL
Kare ga kanzi da kara, kanozyo wa
he NOM organizer COP because she TOP
paatii ni kuru desyoo.
party LOC come.NONPST COP.POL.PRES
‘(She’s a huge fan of his.) Since he’s the organizer, she’ll probably come to
the party.’

-Tara clauses are Type B and kedo clauses are Type C; as shown in (39) and (40),
tara clauses allow question words while kedo clauses do not. In general, question
words constitute a focus location. From this fact, Takubo concluded that Type B
clauses can become the focus of a question, but that Type C clauses cannot.

(39) Dare ga kitara, anata wa paatii ni syusseki

who NOM come.COND you TOP party LOC attend
simasu ka.
do.POL.NONPST Q
‘(lit) If who came would you attend the party?’
‘Whose coming would get you to attend the party?’

(40) *Dare ga kuru kedo. anata wa

who NOM come.NONPST but you TOP
paatii ni syusseki simasen ka
party LOC attend do.POL.NEG.NONPST Q
‘Who will come, but you will not attend the party?’
 The layered structure of the sentence 169

Cf. (41) Tanaka-san wa kuru kedo anata wa

Tanaka-Mr TOP come.NONPST but you TOP
paatii ni syusseki simasen ka.
party LOC attend do.POL.NEG.NONPST Q
‘Mr. Tanaka is coming, but you will not attend the party?’

Considering kara clauses in the light of the observations above, a kara clause
showing “cause/reason” can become the focus location, but a kara clause showing
“basis for a judgement” cannot, as shown by (42) and (43). This argues that the
former is a Type B clause and the latter a Type C.

(42) Dare ga kita kara kanozyo wa

who NOM come.PST because she TOP
paatii ni kita no desu ka.
party LOC come.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘(lit) Who did she come to the party because (he) came?’

(43) ??Dare ga kanzi da kara

who NOM organizer COP.NONPST because
kanozyo ga paatii ni kimasu ka.
she NOM party LOC come.POL.NONPST Q
‘(lit) Since who is organizer will she come to the party?’

An explanation of the concepts of “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” will help in

interpreting the facts above.
First, consider Type B and Type C subordinate clauses.

(44) [Kare ga kita kara kanozyo ga

he NOM come.PST because she NOM
kita] no dewanai.
come.past NMLZ COP.NEG.NONPST
‘It’s not the case that she came because he came.’

(45) [Kare wa kita ga] kanozyo wa konakatta.

he TOP come.PST but she TOP come.NEG.PST
‘He came but she did not come.’

Since in (44) the kara clause limits the reasons for her coming, it is restrictive. On
the other hand, the ga clause in (45) imposes no such limitation and is therefore
non-restrictive.
170 Isao Iori

The same kind of relationship is also found in modifying clauses (Miyake 1995).
For example, the functions of the modifying clauses enclosed in square brackets,
are different. In (46) Reonarudo Da Binti ga kaita ‘Leonardo Da Vinci painted’ defines
a proper subset of the set of e ‘pictures’ (and, therefore, the cognitive meaning
changes if the clause is elided), but in (47) Reonarudo Da Binti ga kaita ‘Leonardo
Da Vinci painted’ has no such function (and, therefore, the cognitive meaning of
the sentence as a whole hardly changes if the clause is elided). The former kind of
modifying clause is called a “restrictive modifying clause” and the latter a “non-
restrictive modifying clause”.

(46) Hakubutukan ni [Reonarudo Da Binti ga kaita]

museum LOC Leonardo Da Vinci NOM draw.PST
e ga tenzi sarete iru.
picture NON display do.PASS.GER be.NONPST
‘Paintings painted by Leonardo Da Vinci are displayed in the museum.’

(47) Hakubutukan ni [Reonarudo Da Binti ga kaita]

museum LOC Leonardo Da Vinci NOM drew
Mona Risa ga tenzi sarete iru.
Mona Lisa NOM display do.PASS.GER be.NONPST
‘The Mona Lisa, painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, is displayed in the museum.’

From these considerations, we can conclude the following: A restrictive modifying

clause like (46) can be the location of question focus but a non-restrictive modifying
clause like (47) cannot.

(48) Dare ga kaita e ga ureta

who NOM draw.PST picture NOM sell.PST
no desu ka.
NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘(lit) Who is that the pictures (he) painted sold?’

(49) *Dare ga kaita sono e ga ureta

who NOM draw.PST that picture NOM sell.PST
no desu ka.
NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘(lit) Who is that that picture, which (he) painted, sold?’
 The layered structure of the sentence 171

Cf. (50) Taroo ga kaita sono e ga

Taro NOM draw.PST that picture NOM
ureta no desu ka
sell.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Is it the case that that picture, which Taro painted, sold?’

4 Layered structure from the perspective of the

process of sentence formation
Minami’s layered model is a highly original study grounded in the linguistic facts of
the Japanese language, but views from the perspective of a theory of sentence forma-
tion and based on a different sort of linguistic reality that are somewhat different from
the Minami model have since been proposed. This section introduces two such other
views.

4.1 MASUOKA Takashi

Masuoka’s study is the first to be introduced (Masuoka 1991, 1997). From the perspec-
tive of the conceptual levels expressing the stages in sentence formation, Masuoka
divided the sentence broadly into two levels: the proposition level, which is concerned
with the objective content, and the modality level, which is concerned with the
speaker’s attitude toward the proposition.
The proposition level is further divided into the “event-naming” level and the
“phenomenon level”. The event-naming level presents an event generically, without
tense. The phenomenon level, on the other hand, has tense opposition and presents
an individuated event.
The modality level is further divided into a “judgement level” that expresses
the speaker’s subjective judgement concerning the event and an “expression-
communication” level that is related to the speech acts conveying the speaker’s
judgment to the hearer.
Masuoka held that these four levels are also to be found in subordinate clauses.
First, event-naming level subordinate clauses, such as (51), have no tense opposi-
tion and present an event generically. The subordinate clause ame ga huru koto in
this case simply expresses the template of the event of “rain falling”.

(51) Ame ga huru koto wa syokubutu no

rain NOM fall.NONPST NMLZ TOP plants GEN
seityoo nitotte zyuuyoo da.
growth for important COP.NONPST
‘Rain (lit. rain falling) is important for plants’ growth.’
172 Isao Iori

The form in which huru appears in (51) is its dictionary form, but it expresses
no opposition vis-à-vis the past tense ta form. In fact, if huru is changed to hutta
‘fall.PST’, the subordinate clause ame ga hutta koto would mean that rain had fallen
at a certain point in time and would lose its temporal permanence.

(52) Ame ga hutta koto wa syokubutu no

rain NOM fall.PST NMLZ TOP plants GEN
seityoo nitotte zyuuyoo.da.
growth for important.NONPST
‘That it rained is important for the plants’ growth.’

The zyuuyoo da of the main clause in (51) also shows temporal permanence in its
dictionary (non-past) form, but, as seen in (53) and (54), this is because adjectives
often express temporal permanence when used in their non-past forms and this
fact should be considered separately from the argument being made here.

(53) Zoo wa hana ga nagai.

elephant TOP nose NOM long
‘The elephant’s trunk is long.’

(54) Mori no asa wa sizuka.da

forest GEN morning TOP quiet.NONPST
‘The morning is silent in the forest.’

In contrast, phenomenon-level subordinate clauses are clauses that have tense

opposition and show individuated events, as shown in (55). The ame ga hutta koto
in this case shows that template of “rain falling” is realized at a particular time.

(55) Ame ga hutta koto ga akiraka ni natta.

rain GEN fall.PST NMLZ NOM clear DAT become.PST
‘It became clear that it had rained.’

On the other hand, modality expressions showing the speaker’s subjective judgement
can appear in a judgement-level subordinate clause, as shown in (56).

(56) Ame ga huru yoo da kara,

rain NOM fall appearance COP.NONPST because
kasa o motte ikinasai.
umbrella ACC take.GER go.IMP
‘Since it looks like it’s going to rain, take an umbrella.’
 The layered structure of the sentence 173

Finally, modality expressions related to expression and communication can appear

in expression-communication level subordinate clauses, as shown in (57)

(57) Kare wa “Asita wa ame ga huru

he TOP tomorrow TOP rain NOM fall.NONPST
kamosirenai ne” to itta.
for.all.I.know SFP QUOT say.PST
‘He said, “It may rain tomorrow, don’t you think?’

These four levels of subordinate clauses may look like they correspond to Minami’s
Types A–D. In fact, however, although there is indeed a certain degree of correlation
between them, they are different concepts.
For example, ga-marked elements first appear in Type B subordinate clauses in
Minami’s model, but in Masuoka’s approach, as can be seen from (58), ga-marked
elements belong to the event-naming level. This is because, even though the event-
naming level presents only generic events without any tense opposition, it is also
a level that includes all the elements necessary to express the event (all elements
affiliated with the event except tense). A similar observation is found in Onoe
1999a, 1999b.

(58) Oya ga kodomo no kyooiku ni tikara

parent NOM child GEN education DAT strength
o ireru koto wa toozen da.
ACC insert.NONPST NMLZ TOP of.course COP.NONPST
‘It’s natural that parents would put their energies into their child’s education.’

Setting up these four levels of subordinate clauses allows the explanation of several
linguistic phenomena in Japanese. One such phenomenon concerns conditional ex-
pressions in Japanese.
Representative linguistic forms expressing conditionals in Japanese are the four
forms -to, -ba, -tara, and -nara (in addition to these, there are secondary conditional
expressions in which these are used as complex affixes). Of these, leaving to aside as
its original function was not as a conditional expression, ba, tara, and nara can be
considered to be associated with the event-naming level, the phenomenon level, and
the judgement level, respectively.
Beginning with ba, as shown in (59), it shows generic conditions without any
tense, that is, it can be considered to basically express conditionals for which the
truth value is not determined in some specified temporal environment.

(59) Tiri mo tumoreba yama to naru.

dust even pile.up.PROV mountain QUOT become.NONPST
‘(proverb) Even dust if it piles up, makes a mountain.’
174 Isao Iori

On the other hand, tara can be considered to basically express a condition that is
situated with respect to some specified time, as shown in (60).

(60) Asita ame ga huranakattara, haikingu ni iku.

tomorrow rain NOM fall.NEG.COND hiking DAT go.NONPST
‘If it doesn’t rain tomorrow, I’ll go hiking.’

In contrast, nara can be considered to basically make a statement assuming an

event to be true, as shown in (61).

(61) Kare ga kuru no nara, watasi mo

he NOM come,NONPST NMLZ PROV I also
paatii ni sanka suru
party DAT participate do.NONPST
‘If it’s the case that he is going to come, I’ll join the party, too.’

This difference in levels of conditional expressions has also been pointed out for
English in Sweetser (1990), but it is interesting that, in contrast to English where
these differences are merely differences in usage, in Japanese conditionals the differ-
ences appear as different forms.
As shown in (62) and (63), “reciprocal interchanges” are frequently observed in
which ba is used to express a condition situated at a particular time and tara is used
to express a generic condition.

(62) Asita ame ga huranakereba, haikingu ni iku.

tomorrow rain NOM fall.NEG.PROV hiking DAT go.NONPST
‘Provided it doesn’t rain tomorrow, I’ll go hiking.’

(63) Haru ni nattara, sakura ga saku.

spring DAT become.COND cherry NOM bloom.NONPST
‘When spring comes, the cherry blossoms bloom.’

However, this kind of mutual interchange occurs only within the proposition level
and does not occur between the proposition level and the modality level. That is, as
can be seen in (64) and (65), nara cannot be used at the event-naming level or the
phenomenon level ((65) is grammatical in the situation that at the time of speech it
is known that it will not rain the following day, which is different from the meaning
of (60)).

(64) *Tiri mo tumoru nara, yama to naru.

dust even pile.up.NONPST PROV mountain QUOT become.NONPST
‘If it is the case that even dust piles up, it makes a mountain’
 The layered structure of the sentence 175

(65) #Asita ame ga huranai nara,

tomorrow rain NOM fall.NEG.NONPST PROV
haikingu ni iku.
hiking DAT go.NONPST
‘If it is the case that it won’t rain tomorrow, I’ll go hiking.’

Also, as can be seen from (66), neither ba nor tara is used at the judgement level
((66) is grammatical in case it is known at the time the party is held (in the future
with respect to the time of speech) that the proposition “he will come” is true, which
is different from the meaning of (61)).

(66) #Kare ga {kureba / kitara}, watasi mo

he NOM come,PROV come.COND I also
paatii ni sanka suru
party DAT participate do.NONPST
‘{Provided that he is coming/If he is coming}, I’ll join the party, too.’

Masuoka also pointed out that, in addition to the conceptual levels of a sentence, it
is also necessary to consider the “degree of subordination of subordinate clauses”.
In addition to its use as a conditional, shown in (67), tara also has what has
been termed by Hasunuma (1993), among others, a “factual use”, shown in (68).

(67) Suupaa de itigo ga urarete itara, kaoo.

supermarket LOC strawberries NOM sell.PASS.GER be.COND buy.INT
‘If strawberries are being sold at the supermarket, let’s buy some.’

(68) Suupaa ni ittara, itigo ga urikirete ita.

supermarket LOC go.COND strawberries NOM sell.out.GER be.PST
‘When I went to the supermarket, the strawberries were sold out.’

Here, the semantic relation between the events is closer in the case in which it ex-
presses a condition than in the case of the factual use. In Masuoka (1997), he defines
this as the former showing a higher degree of subordination by the subordinate
clause to the main clause than the latter.
With this definition in mind, consider the following examples.

(69) Sono toki, anata wa nani o kikinagara

that time you TOP what ACC listen.nagara
aruite ita no desu ka.
walk.GER be.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘What were you listening to as you were walking that time?’
176 Isao Iori

(70) ?Sono toki, anata wa nani o sitte inagara

that time you TOP what ACC know.GER be.nagara
watasi ni kakusite ita no desu ka.
I DAT hide.GER be.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘What did you hide from me although you knew it that time?’

Cf. (71) Sono toki, anata wa sono zizitu o sitte

that time you TOP that fact ACC know.GER
inagara watasi ni kakusite ita no
be.nagara I DAT hide.GER be.PST NMLZ
desu ka.
COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Is it the case that, although you knew that fact, you hid it from me that
time?’

Comparing (69) and (70), the nagara clause in (69) showing ancillary state is within
the scope of the question particle ka, but the nagara clause in (70) showing adversa-
tive conjunction is not easily included within the scope of ka. Considering just these
examples, it may appear as though whether or not something is included within the
scope of ka is a matter of the difference of cognitive level (the event-naming level
being more easily included than the phenomenon level).
However, even though the tara clauses in (72) and (73) are both at the phenom-
enon level, there is still a difference in the case with which they can be interpreted
as being within the scope of ka.

(72) Syatyoo wa, watasi ga nani o sitara

company.president TOP I NOM what ACC do.COND
manzoku suru no desu ka.
satisfied do.NONPST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘The company president, what is it the case that he would he be satisfied
if I did?’

(73) ?Kare ga nani o ositara, ookina oto ga

he NOM what ACC push.COND big.ADN sound NOM
sita no desu ka.
do.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘What is it the case that when he pushed (it), it made a loud noise?’
 The layered structure of the sentence 177

Cf. (74) Kare ga kono botan o ositara, ookina oto

he NOM this button ACC push.COND big.ADN sound
ga sita no desu ka.
NOM do.PST NMLZ COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Is it the case that when he pushed this button, it made a loud noise?’

Considering these examples, it is clear that what decides whether or not something
is within the scope of ka is not the cognitive level but the “degree of subordination
of subordinate clauses”.
Masuoka’s research, as seen above, further developed Minami’s model, which
was basically a syntactic one, and reanalyzed subordinate clauses from the perspec-
tive of levels in a semantic typology of types of event prehension, which can be
thought to have great implications for language typology theory.

4.2 NODA Hisashi

Noda is another researcher who has made his own original claims while at the same
time retaining a certain connection with the Minami model. Of his research, the
correlation between subordinate clauses and the grammatical categories expressed
by the predicate is taken up here (Noda 1989, 2002).
Since, as is clear from (75), a nagara clause showing ancillary state fits well with
a stative aspect but not so well with a non-stative aspect, it can be said to correlate
with stative aspect.

(75) a. Terebi o minagara, gohan o tabete iru.

television ACC see.nagara meal ACC eat.GER be.NONPST
‘(He) is eating watching television.’

b. ?Terebi o minagara, gohan o tabe-hazimeru.

television ACC see.nagara meal ACC eat-begin.NONPST
‘(He) starts eating watching television.’

Zu.ni ‘without . . . ing’ is correlated with polarity. As shown in (76), zu.ni fits well with
an affirmative form but does not fit with a negative form.

(76) a. Kare wa naiyoo o yoku mizu.ni,

he TOP content ACC well look.at.zu.ni
sono hon o katta.
that book ACC buy.PST
‘He bought that book without thoroughly looking at its content.’
178 Isao Iori

b. *Kare wa naiyoo o yoku mizu.ni,

he TOP content ACC well look.at.zu.ni
sono hon o kawanakatta.
that book ACC buy.PST
‘He didn’t buy that book without thoroughly looking at its content.’

Ba is correlated with tense. As shown in (77), ba fits well with the non-past tense,
but it does not fit well with the past tense. ((77b) is only grammatically interpreted
as expressing a counterfactual condition and is difficult to interpret in the same
meaning as (78). Also, when expressing a counterfactual condition, it is common
for the main clause (and the subordinate clause as well) to include the -te-i- ‘progres-
sive or resultant state’ form.)

(77) a. Mado o akereba, Huzisan ga mieru.

window ACC open.PROV Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.NONPST
‘If you open the window, you can see Mt. Fuji.’

b. #Mado o akereba, Huzisan ga mieta.

window ACC open.PROV Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST
‘If you opened the window, you could have seen Mt. Fuji.’

Cf. (78) Mado o {aketara / akeruto},

window ACC open.COND open.COND
Huzisan ga mieta.
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST
‘When (I) opened the window (I) could see Mt. Fuji.’

(79) Mado o ake (te-i) reba, Huzisan ga

window ACC open GER-be PROV Mt. Fuji NOM
miete ita.
be.visible.GER be.PST
‘If you had opened the window, Mt. Fuji would have been visible.’

The tara and to showing conditions are also correlated with tense. (80b) is ungram-
matical as a conditional sentence. As shown by (81a), tara and ba share the fact that
they become grammatical as counterfactual conditions, but to (normally) does not
have a counterfactual condition use.

(80) a. Mado o {aketara / akeruto},

window ACC open.COND open.COND
Huzisan ga mieru.
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST
‘If you open the window, you can see Mt. Fuji.’’
 The layered structure of the sentence 179

b. #Mado o {aketara / akeruto}.

window ACC open.COND open.COND
Huzisan ga mieta. (=(78))
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST
‘When (I) opened the window (I) could see Mt. Fuji.’

(81) a. Mado o ake (te-i) tara, Huzisan

window ACC open GER-be COND Mt. Fuji
ga miete ita.
NOM be.visible.GER be.PST
‘If you had opened the window, Mt. Fuji would have been visible.’

b. *Mado o ake (te-i) ruto,

window ACC open GER-be NONPST.COND
Huzisan ga miete ita.
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.GER be.PST
‘If you had opened the window, Mt. Fuji would have been visible.’

On the other hand, node and kara showing reasons are correlated with epistemic
modality. As shown in (82), node and kara showing reasons fit well with unmarked
modality (assertion) forms but do not fit well with a marked modality showing
judgement. Although (82b) is ungrammatical and (83) is grammatical, the node and
kara clauses in (83) do not show reasons but show a basis for a judgement. In other
words, the node and kara clauses in (83) are not included in the scope of daroo. (84)
shows the meaning intended in (82b), that node and kara clauses showing reasons
be included in the scope of daroo (cf. (35)–(40)).

(82) a. Sakki ame ga hutta {node / kara}

earlier rain NOM fall.PST
suzusiku natta.
cool.ADV become.PST
‘It cooled down because it rained earlier.’

b. ?Sakki ame ga hutta {node / kara}

earlier rain NOM fall.PST
suzusiku natta daroo
cool.ADV become.PST PRES
‘Probably it cooled down because it rained earlier.’
180 Isao Iori

Cf. (83) Sakki ame ga hutta {node / kara}

earlier rain NOM fall.PST
suzusiku naru daroo
cool.ADV become.NONPST PRES
‘Since it rained earlier, it will probably cool down.’

(84) Sakki ame ga hutta {node / kara}

earlier rain NOM fall.PST
suzusiku natta no daroo
cool.ADV become.PST NMLZ PRES
‘It’s probably the case that it cooled down because it rained earlier.’

Since, in contrast to the grammatical (85a), (85b) is ungrammatical in the factual use
((85b) is grammatical as a counterfactual condition), it is clear that the factual use of
tara and to clauses is correlated with epistemic modality.

(85) a. Mado o {aketara / akeruto}

window ACC open.COND open.COND
Huzisan ga mieta.
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST
‘When I opened the window, Mt. Fuji was visible.’

b. #Mado o {aketara / akeruto}

window ACC open.COND open.COND
Huzisan ga mieta daroo.
Mt. Fuji NOM be.visible.PST PRES
‘If I had opened the window, Mt. Fuji would probably have been visible.’

Ga clauses are correlated with interpersonal modality. As shown by (86), ga fits well
with the unmarked modality form, but not with the ka of an interrogative sentence.

(86) a. Kankyoo wa ii ga,

environment TOP good.NONPST but
huben desu.
inconvenient COP.POL.NONPST
‘The environment is good, but it’s inconvenient.’

b. ?Kankyoo wa ii ga,
environment TOP good.NONPST but
huben desu ka
inconvenient COP.POL.NONPST Q
‘Is the environment good, but it’s inconvenient.’
 The layered structure of the sentence 181

It is similarly clear from (87) that node and kara clauses expressing the basis for a
judgement are correlated with interpersonal modality.

(87) a. Sora ga kumotte iru {node / kara}

sky NOM cloudy be.NONPST
mousugu ame ga hurimasu.
soon rain NOM fall.POL.NONPST
‘It will rain soon because the sky is cloudy.’

b. ?Sora ga kumotte iru {node / kara}

sky NOM cloudy be.NONPST
mousugu ame ga hurimasu ka.
soon rain NOM fall.POL.NONPST Q
‘Will it rain soon because the sky is cloudy?’

Here, as seen in section 3, there is a hierarchical relation among the grammatical

categories and the respective subordinate clauses in which they can be used.

Epistemic Interpersonal
Voice Aspect Polarity Tense Modality Modality
Stem (rare) (-te-i-) (nai) (ta) (daroo) (ka)

nagara ○ ○ × × × × ×

zu.ni ○ ○ ○ × × × ×

ba/tara/to
○ ○ ○ ○ × × ×
(conditional)

node/kara
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ × ×
(reason)

tara/to
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ × ×
(factual use)

node/kara
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ×
(basis for judgement)

ka ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ×

From this table and the facts observed above, it is clear that each clause can include
all the grammatical categories up to one before the level with which it is correlated
but cannot contain any grammatical categories from the level it is correlated with or
later categories.
The relation between the subordinate clauses considered here and the gram-
matical categories expressed by the predicate can also be represented as in (88) and
(89), below.
182 Isao Iori

(88) Subordinate Clause Case-Marked Elements Predicate Elements

Case-Marked Elements Stem Voice Case-Marked Elements Stem Voice Aspect Polarity
Aspect Polarity Tense Modality Tense Modality

(89) Subordinate Clause Case-Marked Elements Predicate Elements

Case-Marked Elements Stem Case-marked Elements Stem Voice Aspect Polarity
Voice Aspect Polarity ba Tense Modality
|____________________________________________↑
Correlation

(89) shows that ba is correlated with the tense layer.

In addition, Noda (2002) provides a relativized treatment of the relations among

simple sentences, complex sentences, discourse, and text at various levels.
To a certain degree, Noda’s work overlaps the Minami model, but it can be said
to be a dynamic approach more clearly tying together subordinate clauses and layers
of sentence structure. Moreover, by setting parts related to sentence structure, like
tense and nominative case, as the vertical axis and looking at all subordinate clauses,
he has succeeded in more clearly drawing out the characteristics of subordinate
clauses. The approach here, tying together subordinate clauses and layers of the
sentence structure, has also had a large influence on recent studies from the perspec-
tive of cartography.

5 Recent research
Above, this chapter has presented an overview of research from Japanese language
studies related to the layered structure of sentences. In this final section, research
based on cartography is introduced as the most recent research from the perspective
of generative grammar (cf. Endo 2014).
“Cartography” is short for “the cartography of sentence structure” and means
a map of syntactic structure. Cartography is an attempt to account for the layered
structure of language, focusing on the function words that form the framework of
natural language, and to clarify the universality of the layered structure observed in
sentence function words.
For example, the underlined portion of (90) has the structure shown in (91).

(90) Taroo wa kare ni hinan sarete inakatta daroo.

Taro TOP he DAT criticize do.PASS.GER be.NEG.PST PRES
‘Taro was probably not criticized by him.’
 The layered structure of the sentence 183

(91) hihan + sare + te-i + nakat + ta + daroo

criticize do.PASS GER-be NEG PST PRES

The elements of (91) are then linked (merged) by pairing with the closest element,
forming one level, which is in turn merged with the next closest element to form a
higher level.

(92) a. [Voice Level predicate voice]

b. [Aspect Level [predicate voice] aspect]
c. [Polarity Level [[predicate voice] aspect] polarity]
d. [Tense Level [[[predicate voice] aspect] polarity] tense]
e. [Mood Level [[[[predicate voice] aspect] polarity] tense] mood]

Let us examine the problem of what elements a subordinate clause can include
within it from the perspective of cartography.
As observed in section 3, a nagara clause can include categories up to voice, but
cannot include elements from aspect on. On the other hand, in 4.2 the nagara clause
was said to be correlated with the aspect level.
From the perspective of cartography, the fact that a nagara clause is correlated
with aspect is expressed by generating the nagara clause in the specifier position of
the aspect level of the main clause. In this position, the nagara clause is checked
against the main clause aspect features. In this case, if the main clause aspect
feature is “in process”, as in (93a), it is grammatical, but, if it is “initiating”, then it
is not permitted and it sounds awkward.

(93) a. Taroo wa terebi o minagara

Taro TOP television ACC watch.nagara
gohan o tabete iru.
meal ACC eat.GER be.NONPST
‘Taro is eating watching television.’

b. ?Taroo wa terebi o minagara

Taro TOP television ACC watch.nagara
gohan o tabehazimeru
meal ACC eat.begin.NONPST
‘Taro starts eating watching television.’

On the other hand, the fact that nagara clauses cannot include lower grammatical
categories is explained as follows.
184 Isao Iori

First, subordinate clauses have layers like those in (94). As shown in (95), a
nagara clause cannot include elements belonging to layers higher than aspect.

(94) . . . Voice Aspect Polarity Tense Mood Conjunction

(95) . . . Voice Aspect Polarity Tense Mood Conjunction

nagara

If it is hypothesized that the head of the nagara clause, “nagara”, moves to the hier-
archically highest position in the subordinate clause, the conjunction position, the
intervening heads (“te-i”, “nai”, “ta”, and “daroo”, for example) cannot exist. If
they did exist, then the movement would violate the locality principle. Thus, a
nagara clause cannot contain any elements following aspect.

(96) . . . Voice Aspect Polarity Tense Mood Conjunction

nagara

There is a growing possibility of explaining the findings that have accumulated

in Japanese language studies from the perspective of universal grammar, which is
the intention of generative grammar. However, the current situation is that there are
quite a lot of findings in Japanese grammar to explain. In order for cartographic
studies (or any similar theoretical studies based on a layered structure) to truly be
effective, it is necessary to reach the point where a great number of new findings
not already gained in previous studies can be achieved through taking this approach.
We can only await future research.

6 Conclusion
This chapter has outlined previous research in Japanese language studies from the
perspective of the layered structure of the sentence. Japanese is an agglutinating lan-
guage and has the characteristic that morphemes expressing grammatical categories
(sentence constituents) are attached following the stem of a predicate to form a string.
Minami’s research attempted to treat the fact that the order of the morphemes in the
string is (mostly) fixed from the perspective of the layered structure of the sentence.
This result is of great importance as something that arose from the linguistic realities
of Japanese and ultimately reached the point of becoming a principle high in univer-
sality. Takubo’s research was a revision of a part of Minami’s ideas, but is especially
important for its treatment of restrictive modifying clauses as Type B clauses and
non-restrictive modifying clauses as Type C. Masuoka’s study, like Minami’s, set up
 The layered structure of the sentence 185

four levels in the sentence formation process, but these were not treated as a simple
continuum; rather, broadly dividing the sentence into the proposition level and the
modality level, each of which was further subdivided into two levels, he raised the
validity of his proposal as a theory of sentence formation above that of Minami’s.
Noda’s research also basically did not depart greatly from the Minami model, but,
by correlating each level of structure with each subordinate clause, he succeeded
in describing the layered structure in more detail.
“Explanations” for the rich set of findings from Japanese language studies con-
cerning the layered structure of the sentence have begun to emerge from cartographic
studies of layered structure. That alone is significant, but if those “explanations” are
just a translation of known phenomena into a structure map, it cannot be said to be
of much value (at least to researchers who do not adopt such a theoretical frame-
work). The accumulation of empirical data that is clarified by examining it from
this framework is to be desired in the future.
Layered structure can be said to be a valuable area of study that has become the
point of intersection between Japanese language descriptive research and theoretical
research like generative grammar. Studies on layered structure are also being done
in the framework of functional grammar from the perspective of subjectivity versus
objectivity, pursuing a distinction between event perception and communication
functions, as in subjective – objective – interpersonal (cf. Bybee 2015), and in this
sense as well, this continues to be an area in which we can look forward future
research developments.

Acknowledgments
This chapter has been translated into English by John Haig based on the Japanese
manuscript prepared by the author.

References
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Endo, Yoshio. 2014. Nihongo kātogurafī josetsu [Introduction to Japanese cartography]. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
Hasunuma, Akiko. 1993. “Tara” to “to” no jijitsuteki yōhō o megutte [On the factual use of tata and
to]. In Takashi Masuoka (ed.), Nihongo no jōken hyōgen [Japanese conditional expressions],
73–97. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Hayashi, Shiro. 2013 [1960]. Kihon bunkei no kenkyū [Research on basic sentence patterns]. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Shin Nihon bunpō kenkyū [New Japanese grammar research]. Tokyo: Taishukan
Shoten.
Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modariti no bunpō [The grammar of modality]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
186 Isao Iori

Masuoka, Takashi. 1997. Shin Nihongo bunpō kenkyū 2: Fukubun [New Japanese grammar research
2: Complex sentences]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Mikami, Akira. 1972 [1953]. Gendai gohō josetsu [Introduction to modern grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Mikami, Akira. 1972 [1955]. Gendai gohō shinsetsu [New theory of modern grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Mikami, Akira. 1959. Zoku gendai gohō josetsu [Continued introduction to modern grammar]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai Nihongo no kōzō [Structure of modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Minami, Fujio. 1993. Gendai Nihongo bunpō no rinkaku [Outline of modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo:
Taishukan Shoten.
Miyake, Tomohiro. 1995. Nihongo fukugō meishiku no kōzō [The structure of Japanese compound
noun phrases]. Gendai Nihongo kenkyū, 49–66. Osaka: Osaka University.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no modariti to ninshō [modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
Noda, Hisashi. 1989. Bunkōsei [Sentence formation]. In Kōza Nihongo to Nihongo kyōiku: Dai 1 Kan:
Nihongo-gaku yōsetsu [Japanese and Japanese language education Volume 1. Outline of
Japanese language studies], 67–95. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Noda, Hisashi. 2002. 1 Tanbun, fukubun to tekisuto [simple sentences, complex sentences and text].
In Hisashi Noda, Takashi Masuoka, Mayumi Sakuma, and Yukinori Takubo, Nihongo no bunpō
4: Fukubun to danwa [Japanese grammar 4: Complex sentences and discourse], 3–62. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Onoe, Keisuke. 1999a. Minami moderu no naibu kōzō [Internal structure of the Minami model].
In Keisuke Onoe. 2001. Bunpō to imi 1 [Grammar and meaning 1], 333–343. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Onoe, Keisuke. 1999b. Minami moderu no gakushiteki igi [Signigicance in academic history of the
Minami model]. In Keisuke Onoe, Bunpō to imi 1 [Grammar and meaning 1], 345–353. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Onoe, Keisuke. 2016. Hayashi Shiro cho “Kihon bunkei no kenkyū” (fukkan) [Review of Hayashi 1960
(reprinted)]. Nihongo Bunpō 16(1), 120–129. Nihongo Bunpō Gakkai.
Sweetser, Eve. 1991. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic
structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Takubo, Yukinori. 1985. On the scope of negation and question in Japanese. In Yukinori Takubo,
Nihongo no kōzō [Structure of Japanese], 41–59. Retitled Dai 3 shō Nihongo ni okeru hitei
to gimon no sukōpu [Chapter 3: Scope of negation and question in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. Tōgo kōzō to bunmyaku jōhō [Syntactic structure and contextual information],
In Takubo. 2010. Nihongo no kōzō [Structure of Japanese], 7–18. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Tokieda, Motoki. 1950. Nihon bunpō: Kōgohen [Japanese grammar: colloquial language]. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Japanese syntax and semantics II]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Watanabe, Minoru. 1971. Kokugo kōbunron [Theory of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1908. Nihon bunpō ron [Theory of Japanese grammar]. Osaka: Hōbunkan.
Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno
6 Functional Syntax

1 Introduction
Functional Syntax, a subarea of functional linguistics proposed by Susumu Kuno in
the early 1970s, is an approach to syntax in which sentence structures and their
grammaticality/acceptability are analyzed with emphasis on their communicative
function. It is radically different from pure syntactic theories such as Chomskyan
generative grammar that maintain the autonomy of syntax. Kuno and his associates
and followers have since discussed a wide range of linguistic phenomena such as
ellipsis, anaphora, movement, honorification, negation, sentence ambiguity includ-
ing quantifier scope, and a large number of constructions in English, Japanese,
Korean, and many other languages. He has identified in these discussions various
nonsyntactic (semantic, discourse-based, or pragmatic) factors that play crucial
roles in determining sentence structures and their grammaticality/acceptability. He
has also shown how important it is to bear in mind nonsyntactic factors that interact
with syntactic phenomena when we study syntax, and how dangerous it is to draw
sweeping generalizations on the basis of a small number of examples and limited
syntactic notions such as ‘c-command’ or the ‘unergative-unaccusative’ distinction.
In this paper, we will first review in Section 2 some of the advances in the study
of Japanese syntax that Functional Syntax has made possible. In Sections 2.1 and
2.2 we will review two functional perspectives uncovered by Functional Syntax –
functional sentence perspective and empathy perspective – that are indispensable
for the study of syntactic phenomena in natural language. In Section 2.3 we will
review eight Japanese constructions that generative grammarians and lexical seman-
ticists have claimed to be heavily dependent upon the unergative-unaccusative dis-
tinction, and observe some problems that such analyses encounter. Then, taking up
one of the constructions, the ‘V-kake-no N’ construction, we will review briefly Kuno
and Takami’s (2003) and Takami and Kuno’s (2006: ch. 3) Functional Syntax analysis
of the construction.
In Section 3, we will discuss the Japanese ‘–te aru’ construction, exemplified
below, in the framework of Functional Syntax.

(1) a. Doa ga akete aru.

door NOM open is
‘The door is open (has been opened).’

b. *Doa ga tataite aru.

door NOM hit is
‘The door has been hit.’

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-007
188 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

Although this construction has been extensively discussed in the literature, there
still seem to be a wide range of examples left unaccounted for. In addition to point-
ing out some problems with previous analyses, we would like to propose a func-
tional constraint that can account for the acceptability of three different types of
this construction in a uniform manner. Finally, in Section 4, we will point out, in
the conclusion to this paper, some useful directions for future research in syntax.

2 A review of Functional Syntax

2.1 Functional sentence perspective

Observe first the following discourses.

(2) Speaker A: Kimi wa asa go-zi ni okirun desu ka?

you TOP morning 5 o’clock at get.up Q
‘Do you get up at five in the morning?’

Speaker B1: Hai, asa go-zi ni okirun desu.

yes morning 5 o’clock at get.up
‘Yes, I get up at five in the morning.’

Speaker B2: *Hai, ɸ okirun desu.

yes get up
‘*Yes, I get up ɸ.’

(3) Speaker A: Kimi wa asa go-zi ni wa okite imasu ka?

you TOP morning 5 o’clock at get.up are Q
‘Are you up at 5 o’clock in the morning?’

Speaker B1: Hai, asa go-zi ni wa okite imasu.

yes morning 5 o’clock at get.up am
‘Yes, I am up at 5 o’clock in the morning.’

Speaker B2: Hai, ɸ okite imasu.

‘Yes, I am up ɸ.’

(2B2), where asa go-zi ni ‘at 5 in the morning’ in (2B1) has been deleted, is unaccept-
able as an answer to question (2A), while (3B2), where asa go-zi ni wa ‘at 5 in the
morning’ in (3B1) has been deleted, is acceptable as an answer to question (3A).
What is the reason for this difference?
 Functional syntax 189

The contrast between (2B2 ) and (3B2 ) is accounted for by the following principle
proposed by Kuno (1978, 1982, 1983a, b), which is a universal constraint controlling
discourse deletion.

(4) Pecking Order of Deletion Principle: Delete less important information first,
and more important information last.

For the purpose of the present discussion, ‘important’ in this formulation can be
interpreted as ‘new’ in the sense of ‘focus(ed)’.1 Question (2A) is paraphrasable as
‘What time do you get up?’. The expression asa go-zi ni ‘at 5 in the morning’ in (2B1 )
is the answer to the Wh-expression what time in the question. Therefore, it is the
focus element in the sentence. (2B2 ) is unacceptable because the more important
information asa go-zi ni (which is a focus adverb in the sentence) has been deleted
and the less important information okirun desu ‘get up’ (which is taken for granted)
has been left undeleted, in violation of the Pecking Order of Deletion Principle in (4).
In contrast, question (3A) can be paraphrased as ‘What kind of state are you in at
five in the morning?’. The expression okite imasu ‘be up’ in (3B1) is the answer to
the Wh-expression in what kind of state in the question. Therefore, it represents the
most important information (focus) in the sentence. The expression asa go-zi ni wa
‘at 5 in the morning’, a thematic adverb marked by the thematic wa (Kuno 1973),
can be deleted because it is less important information than okite imasu, which has
been retained.
Observe next the following discourses, in which it is assumed that Speaker
A’s question is pronounced without any conspicuous emphatic stress on any of its
elements.

(5) Speaker A: Sinzyuku de Taroo to nonda no?

in with drank Q
‘Did you drink sake in Shinjuku with Taro?’

Speaker B1: Un, ɸ Taroo to nonda.

yes with drank
‘Yes, I drank sake ɸ with Taro.’

Speaker B2: *Un, Sinzyuku de ɸ nonda.

‘*Yes, I drank sake in Shinjuku ɸ.’

1 See Kuno (1983a, b) for the difference between given (old) / new information and more / less
important information.
190 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

(6) Speaker A: Taroo to Sinzyuku de nonda no?

‘Did you drink sake with Taro in Shinjuku?’

Speaker B1: Un, ɸ Sinzyuku de nonda.

‘Yes, I drank sake ɸ in Shinjuku.’
Speaker B2: *Un, Taroo to ɸ nonda.
‘*Yes, I drank sake with Taro ɸ.’

The subject Kimi wa/Boku wa ‘You/I’ has been deleted in (5) and (6), but since it is
the topic of the sentence representing the least important information, the principle
given in (4) is satisfied (it is not marked with ɸ above). Now, as an answer to ques-
tion (5A), it is possible to delete Sinzyuku de and retain Taroo to, as seen in (5B1 ),
while it is impossible to retain Sinzyuku de and delete Taroo to, as seen in (5B2 ). On
the other hand, when the order of Sinzyuku de and Taroo to is reversed, as in ques-
tion (6A), the elements that can be deleted or retained are also reversed, as shown in
(6B). This shows that question (5A) asks whether it was with Taro that the hearer
drank sake in Shinjuku, while question (6A) asks whether it was in Shinjuku that
the hearer drank sake with Taro. In other words, the focus element is Taroo to in
(5A), but it is Sinzyuku de in (6A). (5B1 ) is acceptable because the more important
information Taroo to has been retained and the less important information Sinzyuku
de has been deleted, in keeping with the Pecking Order of Deletion Principle in (4),
but (5B2 ) is unacceptable because the opposite operation has been done, in viola-
tion of (4). Likewise, (6B1 ) is acceptable because the more important information
Sinzyuku de has been retained and the less important information Taroo to has been
deleted, but (6B2 ) is unacceptable because the opposite operation has been done.
Note that both of the focus elements Taroo to in (5A) and Sinzyuku de in (6A) are
situated immediately to the left of the verb. Kuno (1978: 60) (see also Kuno 1995) has
drawn the following generalization, based on examples such as (5) and (6).

(7) Information Structure in Japanese: Since the verb is generally fixed in

sentence-final position in Japanese, a constituent immediately to the left of
the verb represents the focus of the sentence when the verb represents less
important information.

This shows that the word order of Japanese sentences accords at least partially with
the following cross-linguistic principle (Kuno 1978, 1979, Quirk et al. 1985: 1359).

(8) Flow of Information Principle: Elements in a sentence that does not contain
emphatic stress or morphologically marked focus elements are ordinarily
arranged in the order ‘less important information first and more important
information last.’

Thus, the Flow of Information in sentences such as (2B1 ), (5A) and (6A), where the
verb carries less important information, can be represented as in (9a), and that in
 Functional syntax 191

sentences such as (3B1 ), where the verb carries the most important information, can
be represented as in (9b).

(9) a. [S subject . . . . . . . . verb] b. [S subject . . . . . . . . verb]

______________→| __________________→
more important more important

The Flow of Information in (9a) automatically explains the difference in accept-

ability between the following two discourses.

(10) a. Titi wa musuko ni ni-man en yatta. Haha wa

father TOP son to 20,000 yen gave mother TOP
ɸ san-man en yatta.
30,000 yen gave
‘Father gave their son 20,000 yen. Mother gave ɸ 30,000 yen.’

b. *Titi wa musuko ni ni-man en yatta. Haha mo

father TOP son to 20,000 yen gave mother too
musume ni ɸ yatta.
daughter to gave
‘*Father gave their son 20,000 yen. Mother gave their daughter ɸ, too.’

The second sentence of (10a), where musuko ni ‘to (their) son’ has been deleted,
is acceptable, while that of (10b), where ni-man en ‘20,000 yen’ has been deleted, is
unacceptable. This is attributable to the following: in the second half of (10a) the
deleted musuko ni is not a constituent immediately to the left of the verb and it
represents less important information than san-man en ‘30,000 yen’, a constituent
immediately to the left of the verb. In the second half of (10b), in contrast, the deleted
ni-man en is a constituent immediately to the left of the verb and it represents the
most important information. Hence, the deletion in (10a) meets the Pecking Order
of Deletion Principle in (4), but it does not in (10b). We understand that sentences
(10a, b) are intended to tell how much money Father and Mother gave to their
children.
The following contrast is accounted for by the Flow of Information in (9a, b).

(11) a. ??Hanako wa Toodai o sotugyoo-si, Kyooko

TOP Tokyo Univ. ACC graduated
mo ɸ sotugyoo-sita.
too graduated
‘*Hanako graduated from Tokyo University, and Kyoko graduated ɸ, too.’

b. Hanako wa Toodai o sotugyoo-si, Kyooko wa

tyuutai-sita.ɸ
left
‘Hanako graduated from Tokyo University, and Kyoko left (it).’
192 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

In both (11a) and (11b) the constituent immediately to the left of the verb, Toodai o
‘Tokyo Univ.’, has been deleted, but while (11a) is unnatural, (11b) is perfectly fine.
Why this difference? (11a) is intended to tell which university Hanako and Kyoko
both graduated from, and therefore Toodai o represents more important information
than sotugyoo-sita ‘graduated’. In spite of this, Toodai o has been deleted, in viola-
tion of the Pecking Order of Deletion Principle; hence unacceptability. On the
other hand, (11b), as shown by the contrast between the two verbs sotugyoo-sita
and tyuutai-sita ‘left’, is intended to tell what Hanako and Kyoko each did in regard
to Tokyo Univ. Therefore, the verbs represent more important information than
Toodai o. The deletion of the latter element does not violate the principle in (4);
hence acceptability.
Observe next the following discourses.

(12) a. *Hanako wa Toodai o kyonen sotugyoo-si,

TOP Tokyo Univ. ACC last.year graduated
Kyooko wa Kyoodai o ɸ sotugyoo-sita.
TOP Kyoto Univ. ACC graduated
‘*Hanako graduated from Tokyo Univ. last year, and Kyoko graduated
from Kyoto Univ. ɸ.’

b. Hanako wa kyonen Toodai o sotugyoo-si,

Kyooko wa kotosi ɸ sotugyoo-sita.
this.year
‘Hanako graduated from Tokyo Univ. last year, and Kyoko graduated ɸ
this year.’

Note that the word order of (12a) is [S+O+Adjunct+V], and that of (12b) is [S+Adjunct
+O+V]. Note also that in (12a, b) the verbs do not represent the focus of the sentences
since they are not contrasted at all. The Flow of Information given in (9a) and the
Pecking Order of Deletion Principle in (4) can readily account for the unacceptability
of (12a) because the null element kyonen ‘last year’ appears in the immediately pre-
verbal position, which is the focus position. However, the acceptability of (12b) poses
a problem since the null element Toodai o also appears in the immediately preverbal
position. Why is (12b) acceptable?
Kuno (1995) has explained the contrast shown in (12a, b) by assuming that (12b)
maintains the basic word order of Japanese, shown in (13) below, and that (12a) is
derived by intentionally placing the time adjuncts to the immediately preverbal posi-
tion by scrambling, as shown in (14).

(13) Basic Word Order in Japanese:

[S S + Adjunct1 + . . . Adjunctn + Complement1 + Complement2 + V]2

2 There is only one complement (i.e. object) that appears in an ordinary transitive sentence, but
there are two in sentences such as (10a, b). Therefore, two complements are given in (13).
 Functional syntax 193

(14) Kyooko wa ______ Kyoodai o kyonen sotugyoo-sita.

Complement Adjunct
|______________________↑ [scrambling]

In the second sentence of (12a) (=14), the adjunct kyonen ‘last year’, which is not in
the immediately preverbal position in the basic word order of the sentence, has been
intentionally placed in that position to indicate its focushood, as shown in (14).
Therefore it is difficult to interpret it as a nonfocus element, and hence, the sentence
is unacceptable when a null element is used.
In the second sentence of (12b) (=Kyooko wa kotosi [Toodai o] sotugyoo-sita.), on
the other hand, the complement Toodai o (an argument of the verb) is in the imme-
diately preverbal position in the basic word order of the sentence, and therefore it
is not too difficult to interpret it as a nonfocus element, since the placement of that
element in that position is not by the speaker’s design (i.e. it automatically obtains
because of its syntactic nature). In short, the difference in acceptability between
(12a) and (12b) is attributable to an instance of the working of the following general
principle proposed by Kuno (1978, 1979, 1987, 1995).

(15) Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations: Sentences that involve
marked (or intentional) violations of discourse principles are unacceptable. On
the other hand, sentences that involve unmarked (or unintentional) violations
of discourse principles go unpenalized and are acceptable.

In (12a), the speaker’s deletion of the adjunct kyonen is an intentional violation of

the Pecking Order of Deletion Principle because he/she has deleted the most im-
portant information in spite of the fact that he/she has marked it as the focus of
the sentence by changing its basic word order. Thus, there is a penalty and the un-
acceptability of (12a) results. In (12b), on the other hand, the speaker’s placement of
the nonfocus complement Toodai o in the immediately preverbal position is not an
intentional violation of the Flow of Information in Japanese, since he/she has simply
observed the basic word order of Japanese. Hence, there is no penalty for this viola-
tion, and the deletion of the nonfocus Toodai o is allowed by the Pecking Order of
Deletion Principle. (12b) is acceptable for this reason.
We have reviewed above functional sentence perspective proposed in Functional
Syntax and shown how it can account for the phenomenon of discourse deletion
in Japanese by the interaction of the Pecking Order of Deletion Principle and the
Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations. Kuno (1978), Kuno and Takami
(2003) and Takami and Kuno (2002: ch. 8) have demonstrated that functional sentence
perspective also plays a crucial role in accounting for the acceptability of Japanese
sentences such as those involving the so-called ‘quantifier float’ and the displacement
of an argument or an adjunct to the right of the verb, though we cannot go into the
details here because of space limitations.
194 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

2.2 Empathy perspective

Observe first the following examples.

(16) a. Taroo ga kinoo Sinzyuku de Hanako to pattari deatta.

NOM yesterday in with accidentally met
‘Taro chanced to meet Hanako in Shinjuku yesterday.’

b. Hanako ga kinoo Sinzyuku de Taroo to pattari deatta.

‘Hanako chanced to meet Taro in Shinjuku yesterday.’

(17) a. Boku wa kinoo Sinzyuku de Hanako to pattari deatta.

I TOP yesterday in with accidentally met
‘I chanced to meet Hanako in Shinjuku yesterday.’

b. *Hanako wa kinoo Sinzyuku de boku to pattari deatta.

‘*Hanako chanced to meet me in Shinjuku yesterday.’

(18) Taroo wa gakkoo o sabotte mati ni dekaketa. Maruman

TOP school ACC skipping town into went
Patinko ten no kado o magatta tokoro de,
Pachinko parlor GEN corner ACC turned place at
‘Taro skipped school and went into town. When he turned the corner at the
Maruman Pachinko Parlor,’

a. Kare wa gakkoo no seitosidoo tantoo no

he TOP school GEN student.guidance in.charge GEN
sensei to pattari deatta.
teacher with accidentally met
‘He chanced to meet the school guidance counselor.’

b. *Gakkoo no seitosidoo tantoo no sensei ga kare to pattari deatta.

‘*The school guidance counselor chanced to meet him.’

The verb deau ‘meet by chance’ in (16)–(18) is a reciprocal verb; (16a), for instance,
conveys the same logical content as (16b). However, it is intuitively felt that (16a)
and (16b) are different with respect to the speaker’s attitude to the event, or toward
the participants of the event. That is, we feel that in (16a), the speaker has taken a
perspective that places him/her closer to Taro than to Hanako, whereas in (16b), the
speaker is closer to Hanako than to Taro. The same is the case with sentences involv-
ing other reciprocal verbs such as kekkon-suru ‘marry’ and deeto-suru ‘date’. Kuno
(1975, 1978, 1987: ch.5) and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) have proposed the notion of
 Functional syntax 195

‘empathy’ to formalize this intuitive feeling and thus to account for the unaccepta-
bility of (17b), (18b) and many other related phenomena.
Let us first enumerate empathy definitions, empathy hierarchies, and other
assumptions that are necessary for further discussion.

(19) a. Empathy: Empathy is the speaker’s identification, which may vary in

degree, with a person/thing that participates in the event or state that the
speaker describes in a sentence.

b. Degree of Empathy: The degree of the speaker’s empathy with x, E(x),

ranges from 0 to 1, with E(x) = 1 signifying his/her total identification with
x and E(x) = 0 signifying a total lack of identification.

c. Surface Structure Empathy Hierarchy: It is easier for the speaker to

empathize with the referent of the subject than with that of any other NP
in the sentence.
E (subject) > E (other NPs)

d. Speech Act Empathy Hierarchy: The speaker cannot empathize with

someone else more than with himself/herself.
E (speaker) > E (others)

e. Topic Empathy Hierarchy: Given an event or state that involves A and B

such that A is coreferential with the topic of the present discourse and B is
not, it is easier for the speaker to empathize with A than with B.
E (topic) ≧ E (nontopic)

f. Humanness Empathy Hierarchy: It is easier for the speaker to empathize

with a human than with a nonhuman animate entity, and easier to
empathize with an animate entity than an inanimate entity.
E (human) > E (nonhuman animate) > E (inanimate)

g. Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: Empathy relationships are

transitive.

h. Ban on Conflicting Empathy Foci: A single sentence cannot contain

logical conflicts in empathy relationships.

The Surface Structure Empathy Hierarchy (EH) in (19c) states that, given Taroo in
subject position and Hanako in nonsubject position in (16a), the speaker’s empathy
with Taroo is greater than that with Hanako (E (Taroo) > E (Hanako)). The opposite
(i.e. E (Hanako) > E (Taroo)) is the case with (16b). Now in (17a), in addition to the
empathy relationship E (subject=boku) > E (nonsubject=Hanako) dictated by the
Surface Structure EH, the Speech Act EH given in (19d) dictates the empathy relation-
ship E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Hanako). Since these two empathy relationships are
196 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

consistent, the sentence does not violate the Ban on Conflicting Empathy Foci in (19h);
hence acceptability. We will show these two relationships and the resulting conclu-
sion in the following way (‘EH’ stands for ‘Empathy Hierarchy’):

(20) Boku wa kinoo Sinzyuku de Hanako to pattari deatta. (=17a)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=boku) > E (nonsubject=Hanako)
Speech Act EH: E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Hanako)
————————————————————————————————————
E (boku) > E (Hanako) [no conflict]

On the other hand, the unacceptability of (17b) can be accounted for in the
following manner.

(21) *Hanako wa kinoo Sinzyuku de boku to pattari deatta. (=17b)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=Hanako) > E (nonsubject=boku)
Speech Act EH: E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Hanako)
————————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (Hanako) > E (boku) > E (Hanako)

The two empathy relationships shown in (21) contain a logical conflict and therefore
violate the Ban on Conflicting Empathy Foci; hence the unacceptability of (17b) results.
The difference in acceptability between (18a) and (18b) can be accounted for
by the interaction of the Surface Structure EH with the Topic EH given in (19e), as
shown below.

(22) Kare wa gakkoo no seitosidoo tantoo no sensei to pattari deatta. (=18a)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=kare=Taroo) > E (nonsubject=sensei)
Topic EH: E (topic=kare=Taroo) ≧ E (nontopic=sensei)
——————————————————————————————————————
E (kare=Taroo) > E (sensei) [no conflict]

(23) *Gakkoo no seitosidoo tantoo no sensei ga kare to pattari deatta. (=18b)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=sensei) > E (nonsubject=kare=Taroo)
Topic EH: E (topic=kare=Taroo) ≧ E (nontopic=sensei)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (sensei) > E (kare=Taroo) ≧ E (sensei)

The two empathy relationships in (22) are consistent, and therefore sentence (18a) is
acceptable, whereas the two empathy relationships in (23) contain a logical conflict,
and therefore sentence (18b) is unacceptable.
 Functional syntax 197

Observe next the following sentences, which seem to be similar to the unaccept-
able (17b) and (18b), but are acceptable.

(24) a. Hanako wa kinoo boku o hihan-sita. (cf. 17b)

TOP yesterday me ACC criticized
‘Hanako criticized me yesterday.’

b. Taroo wa gakkoo o sabotte mati ni dekaketa. Maruman

Patinko ten no kado o magatta tokoro de, gakkoo no
seitosidoo tantoo no sensei ga, totuzen kare ni
suddenly him to
‘Oi kora!’ to koe o kaketa. (cf. 18b)
‘Hey, you!’ voice ACC said
‘Taro skipped school and went into town. When he turned the corner at the
Maruman Pachinko Parlor, the school guidance counselor suddenly called
out to him, ‘Hey, you!’’

It seems that (24a), just like (17b), and (24b), just like (18b), contain logical conflicts
in empathy relationships, as shown below.

(25) Hanako wa kinoo boku o hihan-sita. (=24a)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=Hanako) > E (nonsubject=boku)
Speech Act EH: E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Hanako)
————————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (Hanako) > E (boku) > E (Hanako)

(26) Gakkoo no seitosidoo tantoo no sensei ga, totuzen kare ni ‘Oi kora!’
to koe o kaketa. (=24b)
Surface Structure EH: E (subject=sensei) > E (nonsubject=kare=Taroo)
Topic EH: E (topic=kare=Taroo) ≧ E (nontopic=sensei)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (sensei) > E (kare=Taroo) ≧ E (sensei)

The acceptability of (24a, b) can be explained as another instance of the working

of the Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations discussed in Section 2.1,
which is repeated here.

(15) Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations: Sentences that involve
marked (or intentional) violations of discourse principles are unacceptable. On
the other hand, sentences that involve unmarked (or unintentional) violations
of discourse principles go unpenalized and are acceptable.
198 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

If Hanako criticizes the speaker, the subcategorization requirement of the verb hihan-
suru ‘criticize’ automatically places the agent NP Hanako in subject position and the
patient/theme NP boku ‘me’ in nonsubject (object) position. The same holds true of
the verb koe o kakeru ‘call out to’. Therefore, the violations of the Ban on Conflicting
Empathy Foci in (25) and (26) (=24a, b) are not by the speaker’s design; they are
unintentional, and therefore there is no penalty and the sentences are acceptable.
Note, on the other hand, that the logical conflict seen in (23) (=18b), for example,
has been created by the speaker’s intentional choice of a nontopic NP (i.e. gakkoo
no seitosidoo tantoo no sensei) as the subject of the reciprocal verb deatta ‘met by
chance’. Hence, the Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations penalizes
this conflict and the unacceptability of (23) (=18b) results.
As observed in (24a, b), many transitive verbs take the agent NP in subject posi-
tion and the patient/theme NP in object position in active sentences. Therefore, the
speaker’s placement of the agent NP in subject position and the patient/theme NP
in object position is unintentional. However, the speaker can place the agent NP
in nonsubject position and the patient/theme NP in subject position by employing
passive sentences, and therefore passive sentences are an instance of the speaker’s
intentional use of a marked construction. With this in mind, observe the following
passive sentences.

(27) a. Sonotoki, boku wa Taroo ni tatakareta.

then I TOP by was.hit
‘Then, I was hit by Taro.’

b. *Sonotoki, Taroo wa boku ni tatakareta.

‘*Then, Taro was hit by me.’

(28) a. *Kono hon wa kinoo Taroo ni yomareta.

this book TOP yesterday by was.read
‘*This book was read by Taro yesterday.’

b. *Nyuuyooku wa sengetu Taroo ni otozurerareta.

New York TOP last.month by was.visited
‘*New York was visited by Taro last month.’

While (27a) is acceptable, (27b) is unacceptable. (28a, b) are both unacceptable.

(27a) is acceptable because both the Surface Structure EH and the Speech Act EH
say that the speaker’s empathy with boku ‘I’ (subject/speaker) is greater than that
with Taroo (nonsubject/others). The unacceptability of (27b) and (28a) is accounted
for in the following way.
 Functional syntax 199

(29) *Sonotoki, Taroo wa boku ni tatakareta. (=27b)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject=Taroo) > E (nonsubject= boku)
Speech Act EH: E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Taroo)
——————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (Taroo) > E (boku) > E (Taroo)
[a violation of the Ban on Conflicting Empathy Foci]

This violation has been created by the speaker’s intentional use of a marked con-
struction (i.e. the passive construction), and therefore the Markedness Principle for
Discourse Rule Violations penalizes it and the unacceptability results.

(30) *Kono hon wa kinoo Taroo ni yomareta. (=28a)

Surface Structure EH: E (subject= kono hon) > E (nonsubject=Taroo)
Humanness EH: E (human=Taroo) > E (inanimate=kono hon)
—————————————————————————————————————————
Transitivity of Empathy Relationships: *E (kono hon) > E (Taroo) > E (kono hon)
[a violation of the Ban on Conflicting Empathy Foci]

Note here that the Humanness EH given in (19f) plays a role in accounting for
the unacceptability of (30) (=28a) and that the violation of the Ban on Conflicting
Empathy Foci has also been created by the speaker’s intentional use of the passive
sentence. The unacceptability of (28b) is explained in exactly the same manner.
Interestingly enough, though, the following passive sentences, unlike (28a, b),
are acceptable.

(31) a. Kono hon wa tennooheika ni mo yomarete-iru.

this book TOP the.Emperor by also has.been.read
‘This book has also been read by the Emperor.’

b. Nyuuyooku wa maitosi sekaizyuu no

New York TOP every.year all.over.the.world GEN
ookuno kankookyaku ni otozurerarete-iru.
a.lot.of tourists by has.been.visited
‘New York is visited by many tourists from all over the world every year.’

The above analytical framework predicts that (31a, b), just like (28a, b), should be
unacceptable. Where does this difference come from?
The difference between the unacceptable (28a, b) and the acceptable (31a, b) lies
in the fact that while the latter sentences characterize what kind of book this book is
and what kind of city New York is, the former do not have such a characterizational
property. That is, the fact that the Emperor has also read this book implies that many
other people have read it, and characterizes what kind of book it is. Likewise, the
fact that many tourists from all over the world visit New York characterizes what
kind of city it is. In contrast, (28a, b) cannot be interpreted as characterizational
200 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

sentences: a single event of Taro’s reading the book does not characterize what kind
of book it is, and a single event of Taro’s visiting New York does not characterize what
kind of city it is.
Kuno (1990: 50), based on this type of difference, has proposed the following
hypothesis (see also Kuno 2004).

(32) Subject Preference for Characterizing Sentences: Sentences that characterize/

define X are most felicitous if X is placed in subject position.

Note here that if the speaker wants to characterize or define something, the Subject
Preference for Characterizing Sentences forces him/her to place it in subject position.
That is, this sentence pattern is not produced by the speaker’s design. Therefore, the
acceptability of (31a, b) can be accounted for by saying that the empathy relationship
conflicts that these sentences contain have been forced by the Subject Preference
for Characterizing Sentences, and thus have not been created intentionally by the
speaker. The Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule Violations does not penalize
such empathy relationship conflicts, and the acceptability of (31a, b) results.
Let us next consider Japanese compound verbals involving the expressions –te
yaru ‘give’, –te kureru ‘give’, and –te morau ‘receive’, which are all empathy expres-
sions (Kuno 1978, 1987, Kuno and Kaburaki 1977). An English sentence such as Taro
praised Hanako can be expressed in Japanese in at least four ways as shown below.

(33) a. Taroo ga Hanako o hometa. (objective description)

NOM ACC praised

b. Taroo ga Hanako o homete yatta.

NOM ACC praising gave

c. Taroo ga Hanako o homete kureta.

NOM ACC praising gave

d. Hanako ga Taroo ni homete moratta.

NOM from praising received

Kuno (1978, 1987) and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) have shown that these three com-
pound verbals have the following empathy relationships.3

3 Kuno (1978, 1987) and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) have shown that the independent verbs yaru
‘give’, kureru ‘give’, and morau ‘receive’ are also empathy expressions having the following empathy
relationships.
(i) a. yaru ‘give’: E (subject) ≧ E (dative)
b. kureru ‘give’: E (subject) < E (dative)
c. morau ‘receive’: E (subject) > E (ni-marked NP)
 Functional syntax 201

(34) Empathy Hierarchies for Giving/Receiving Verbs in Japanese

a. –te yaru ‘give’: E (subject) > E (nonsubject)
b. –te kureru ‘give’: E (subject) < E (nonsubject)
c. –te morau ‘receive’: E (subject) > E (ni-marked NP)

It is important to note here that the above three empathy hierarchies (as well as
those for the independent verbs yaru ‘give’, kureru ‘give’, and morau ‘receive’) are
marked (special) empathy hierarchies defining the relationships between subject
and other NPs. Therefore, when these empathy hierarchies are applied, the ordinary
empathy hierarchy, i.e. the Surface Structure EH (E (subject) > E (other NPs)), is not
applied. Thus, while (33a) is the speaker’s objective description of the event where
Taro praised Hanako, (33b) is a description in which the speaker places himself/
herself closer to Taro than to Hanako, and (33c, d) are descriptions in which the
speaker places himself/herself closer to Hanako than to Taro.4
Now observe the following sentences.

(35) a. Boku wa Hanako o homete yatta.

b. *Boku wa Hanako o homete kureta.
c. *Hanako wa boku ni homete moratta.

(36) a. *Taroo wa boku o homete yatta.

b. Taroo wa boku o homete kureta.
c. Boku wa Taroo ni homete moratta.

(35a) is acceptable, but (35b, c) are unacceptable. On the other hand, (36a) is unac-
ceptable, but (36b, c) are acceptable. These differences are automatically accounted
for by the interaction between the Empathy Hierarchies for Giving/Receiving Verbs
in Japanese given in (34a–c) and the Speech Act EH. (35a) is acceptable because
the EH for –te yaru in (34a) and the Speech Act EH both dictate the empathy rela-
tionship E (subject/speaker=boku) > E (nonsubject/others=Hanako). On the other
hand, (35b) is unacceptable because the EH for –te kureru in (34b) dictates the
empathy relationship E (nonsubject=Hanako) > E (subject=boku), but the Speech
Act EH dictates the empathy relationship E (speaker=boku) > E (others=Hanako).
These two relationships contain a logical conflict and violate the Ban on Conflicting
Empathy Foci. This violation has been created by the speaker’s intentional use of the
‘–te kureru’ construction, which is penalized by the Markedness Principle for Dis-
course Rule Violations. The unacceptability of (35c) and the difference between
(36a) and (36b, c) are explained in a similar fashion.

4 (33c) involving ‘–te kureru’, as shown by its empathy hierarchy (E (nonsubject) > E (subject)), is
also interpretable as representing the speaker’s empathy with himself/herself; namely, Taro’s praising
of Hanako was beneficial to the speaker. It is also interpretable as representing the speaker’s empathy
with himself/herself and Hanako.
202 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

Let us finally observe the following examples involving zibun ‘self’, another
empathy expression, as well as the above three expressions.

(37) a. *Hanako wa [Taroo ga zibun o homete yatta]

TOP NOM self ACC praising gave
koto ga uresikatta.
fact NOM was.delighted
‘Hanako was delighted that Taro praised her.’

b. Hanako wa [Taroo ga zibun o homete kureta] koto ga uresikatta.

c. Hanako wa [zibun ga Taroo ni homete moratta] koto ga uresikatta.

TOP self NOM from praising received

Kuno (1978, 1987) and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977) have demonstrated that the
Japanese reflexive pronoun zibun ‘self’ dictates that the speaker empathize with
its referent rather than with other persons that show up in the same clause. Thus,
the empathy relationships that hold in the embedded clauses in the above three
sentences are as shown below.

(38) a. (=37a) –te yaru: E (subject=Taroo) > E (nonsubject=Hanako)

zibun: E (referent=Hanako) > E (other person=Taroo)

b. (=37b) –te kureru: E (nonsubject=Hanako) > E (subject=Taroo)

zibun: E (referent=Hanako) > E (other person=Taroo)

c. (=37c) –te morau: E (subject=Hanako) > E (ni-marked NP=Taroo)

zibun: E (referent=Hanako) > E (other person=Taroo)

Only (37a) contains an irreconcilable conflict in the speaker’s empathy foci, and the
unacceptability results.
We have shown above that empathy perspective plays an important role in
accounting for the acceptability of various constructions and expressions in Japanese.
There are of course many other empathy-related constructions and expressions in
Japanese and other languages, and the reader is referred to Kuno (1975, 1978, 1987:
ch. 5) and Kuno and Kaburaki (1977).

2.3 Unaccusativity and the ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction

Perlmutter (1978) proposed to divide intransitive verbs into two categories – unerga-
tive verbs and unaccusative verbs.5 Unergative verbs are predicates describing (i)

5 A similar distinction was also made by Mikami (1953).

 Functional syntax 203

willed or volitional acts (hasiru ‘run’, hataraku ‘work’, odoru ‘dance’, oyogu ‘swim’,
etc.) and (ii) certain involuntary bodily processes (nemuru ‘sleep’, naku ‘cry’, haku
‘vomit’, etc.). Unaccusative verbs are (i) predicates whose subjects are semantically
patient/theme (kowareru ‘break’, kareru ‘wither’, otiru ‘fall’, kusaru ‘rot’, etc.), (ii)
predicates of existing and happening (aru ‘exist’, okoru ‘happen’, arawareru ‘appear’,
etc.), and (iii) aspectual predicates (hazimaru ‘start’, owaru ‘end’, etc.). His work has
prompted various scholars to claim that a large number of phenomena in various
languages hinge on this unergative-unaccusative distinction. Japanese is no excep-
tion. The following eight constructions in Japanese, among others, have been claimed
to be acceptable or unacceptable (or to have different interpretations) depending upon
whether unergative or unaccusative verbs are used.

(39) Adversity Passive Construction: requires unergative (or transitive) verbs

(Kageyama 1993, 1996)
a. Gakusei ni zyugyoo-tyuu osyaberisareta. (unergative)
student by class-during talk.PASS.PST
‘I was adversely affected by the fact that the students talked during
the class.’

b. *Genkan no kabin ni kowarerareta. (unaccusative)

hall GEN vase by break.PASS.PST
‘I was adversely affected by the fact that the vase in the hall broke.’

(40) Causative Passive Construction: requires unergative (or transitive) verbs

(Kageyama 1993)
a. Kodomo ga hatarakasareta. (unergative)
child NOM work.make.PASS.PST
‘Children were made to work.’

b. *Kanzya wa siboosaserarete simatta. (unaccusative)

patient TOP dying.make.PASS ended.up
‘*The patient was made to die.’

(41) ‘–te morau’ Construction: requires unergative (or transitive) verbs

(Kageyama 1996)
a. Taroo ni watasi no kawarini hasitte moratta. (unergative)
by me GEN on.behalf.of running received
‘I am happy that Taro ran on my behalf.’

b. *Bukka ni sagatte moratta. (unaccusative)

prices by coming.down received
‘I am happy that prices have come down.’
204 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

(42) VP Focus Fronting: requires unergative (or transitive) verbs

(Hoji, Miyagawa & Tada 1989, Hasegawa 1990, Hirakawa 2003, etc.)
a. [UBC ni osiiri sae]i gakusei ga sannin ti sita. (unergative)
into breaking.into even student NOM 3.person did
‘(Lit.) Even break into UBC, three students did.’

b. *[Huri sae]i ame ga ti sita. (unaccusative)

falling even rain NOM did
‘(Lit.) Even rain, it did.’

(43) ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction: requires unaccusative verbs

(Kishimoto 1996) [kake ‘be about to, do halfway’]
a. kare-kake-no hana (unaccusative)
wither-KAKE-GEN flower
‘a flower, almost withered’

b. *sakebi-kake-no kankyaku (unergative)

shout-KAKE-GEN spectator
‘spectators, who are about to shout’

(44) ‘Rokuna. . .nai’ Construction: requires unaccusative verbs

(Nishigauchi 1993, Hirakawa 2003)
a. Rokuna mono ga otite nakatta. (unaccusative)
good thing NOM falling NEG.PST
‘Nothing good was lying on the ground.’

b. *Rokuna tarento ga huzake nakatta. (unergative)

good actor NOM fooling.around NEG.PST
‘No good actors fooled around. (Only bad actors did.)’

(45) ‘–te iru’ Construction: produces different interpretations

(Hirakawa 2003)
a. Inu ga hasitte iru. (unergative – action in progress)
dog NOM running is
‘A dog is running.’

b. Mado ga warete iru. (unaccusative – resultative state)

window NOM broken is
‘The window is broken.’
 Functional syntax 205

(46) Quantifier Construction: produces different interpretations

(Kageyama 1993, Kishimoto 2003, 2005)
a. Ippai asonda. (unergative – modifies the quantity of playing)
a.lot played
‘(We) played a lot.’ [‘a lot’ does not modify the number of the subject]

b. Ippai kusatta. (unaccusative – modifies the number of the subject)

a.lot rotted
‘A lot of things rotted.’

In the Government and Binding Theory of generative grammar, it has been

assumed that the subjects of unaccusative verbs take the direct object position at
D-structure, and move to the specifier position of IP (=S) at S-structure. This assump-
tion is generally referred to as the Unaccusative Hypothesis, as shown below.

(47) Unaccusative Hypothesis:

a. Unergative Verbs: [IP NP [VP V ]] e.g. Taroo ga hasitta. ‘Taro ran.’

b. Unaccusative Verbs: [IP e [VP V NP ]] e.g. Doa ga aita. ‘The door opened.’
↑________|

For each of the constructions in (39)–(46), it has been claimed that the require-
ment of unergative or unaccusative verbs is directly or indirectly attributable to the
Unaccusative Hpyothesis. In Takami and Kuno (2002, 2006) and Kuno and Takami
(2003), however, we have shown that none of these requirements hold. Observe the
following sentences.

(48) Adversity Passive Construction: allows unaccusative verbs

a. Soturon siage no ziki ni pasokon
graduation.thesis completion GEN time at PC
ni kowarerarete, komatte simatta.
by breaking.PASS in.trouble ended.up
‘I was in trouble at the time of completing my graduation thesis because
my personal computer broke.’

b. Niwa itimen iyana nioi no suru hana ni

garden all.over bad smell GEN do flower by
sakarete, kimoti ga warui.
blooming.PASS feeling NOM bad
‘I feel nauseated because foul-smelling flowers bloomed all over the
garden.’
206 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

(49) Causative Passive Construction: allows unaccusative verbs

a. Sinzoo-isyoku ni saigo-no nozomi o kaketa sono
heart.transplant on last hope ACC set the
kanzya wa, muzan-nimo isi no sittoo no misu
patient TOP miserably doctor GEN perform GEN mistake
ni-yori siboosaserarete simatta. (cf. 40b)
by dying.make.PASS ended.up
‘The patient, who had set his last hope on a heart transplant, was caused
to die because his/her doctor made a mistake in performing the operation.’

b. Watasi wa ayauku tissokusaserareru tokoro datta.

I TOP almost suffocate.make.PASS was
‘I was almost made to suffocate.’

(50) ‘–te morau’ Construction: allows unaccusative verbs

a. Kodomo ni hayaku ookikunatte morai, sigoto ni hukki sitai.
child by fast growing.up receive job to return want
‘I want my child to grow up fast so that I can return to my job.’

b. Hayaku okyaku-san ni tuite morawa

soon guest by arriving receive
naito, ryoori ga samete simau wa.
if.not dish NOM get.cold end.up SFP
‘The dishes will get cold unless the guests arrive soon.’

(51) VP Focus Fronting: allows unaccusative verbs

a. [Zyoobuni umare sae]i sono ko ga ti
healthily be.born even the child NOM
sureba, otoko demo onna demo ii.
doing.if boy even.if girl even.if good
‘As long as the child is born in a healthy condition, it is fine regardless
of whether it is a boy or a girl.’

b. (Kareru dokoroka) [siore sae]i sono hana wa ti sinakatta.

wither far.from droop even the flower TOP did.not
‘Far from withering, the flower didn’t even droop.’

(52) ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction: allows unergative verbs

a. Tati-kake-no kirin o syasin ni totta yo.
stand.up-KAKE-GEN giraffe ACC photo DAT took SFP
‘I took a picture of a giraffe in the process of standing up.’
 Functional syntax 207

b. Isutori-geemu de suwari-kake-no hito no isu o

musical.chairs in sit-KAKE-GEN person GEN chair ACC
totta.
pulled.away
‘I pulled away a chair from the person who was about to sit on it in the
game of musical chairs.’

(53) ‘Rokuna. . .nai’ Construction: allows unergative verbs

a. Sakana o torini umi ni mogutta keredo,
fish ACC catch sea to dived but
rokuna sakana ga oyoide inakatta.
good fish NOM swimming are.not
‘Though I dived into the sea to catch fish, there were no good fish
swimming around.’

b. Kinoo no keiba wa rokuna uma ga hasiranakatta.

yesterday GEN the.races TOP good horse NOM didn’t.run
‘No good horses ran at the races yesterday. (Only bad horses did.)’

(54) ‘–te iru’ Construction: allows opposite interpretations

a. Taroo ga isu ni suwatte iru.
NOM chair on sitting is
‘Taro is sitting on a chair.’ (unergative – resultative state) (cf. 45a)

b. Kane ga natte iru.

bell NOM ringing is
‘A bell is ringing.’ (unaccusative – action in progress) (cf. 45b)

(55) Quantifier Construction: allows opposite interpretations

a. Petto ga ippai nigeta.
pet NOM a.lot ran.away
‘A lot of pets ran away.’
(unergative – modifies the number of the subject) (cf. 46a)

b. Ippai naita.6
a.lot cried
‘(I) cried a lot.’ (unaccusative – modifies the quantity of crying) (cf. 46b)

6 Kageyama (1993, 1996) and Kishimoto (1996, 2003, 2005), contrary to Perlmutter (1978), classify
Japanese intransitive verbs describing bodily processes (naku ‘cry’, nemuru ‘sleep’, etc.) as unaccusative
verbs.
208 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

Since the proposed constraints have been claimed to derive from the Unaccusative
Hypothesis, the acceptability of (48)–(53) and the interpretations in (54) and (55)
that are different from those in (45) and (46) cast serious doubt on the relevance of
the Unaccusative Hypothesis to the above eight constructions in Japanese. They also
seem to show how dangerous it is to draw sweeping generalizations on the basis of
scanty data. In Takami and Kuno (2002, 2006) and Kuno and Takami (2003), we have
proposed semantic, pragmatic, and discourse-based constraints for these construc-
tions, but we have no space to summarize all of them here. We would like to take
up just the ‘V-kake-no N’ construction here and discuss how the acceptability of
this construction can be accounted for.7
Observe first the following examples of the ‘V-kake-no N’ construction, the first
pair of which shows that the construction, even when the V is unaccusative, is
acceptable or unacceptable depending upon the N that ‘V-kake-no’ modifies.

(56) a. oti-kake-no kanban

fall-KAKE-GEN signboard
‘a signboard in the middle of falling’

b. *oti-kake-no enpitu
fall-KAKE-GEN pencil
‘*a pencil in the middle of falling’

(57) a. naki-kake-no syoozyo

cry-KAKE-GEN girl
‘a girl just about to cry’

b. *sakebi-kake-no syoozyo
shout-KAKE-GEN girl
‘*a girl just about to shout’ (cf. 43b: Kishimoto)

The difference in acceptability between (56a) and (56b) seems to depend on whether
we can observe a process leading to the goal point of the event that the ‘N+V’
(kanban/enpitu-ga otiru ‘a signboard/pencil falls’) represents. We can observe a sign-
board (affected, say, by a strong wind) in the process of falling, but being held back
from falling, for example, by a nail at just one corner and remaining in a state of
precarious suspension. But a pencil’s falling (say, from a desk to the floor) is just

7 Various researchers have claimed that the unergative-unaccusative distinction plays a crucial role
in deciding the acceptability of constructions in English such as the there-construction, the way con-
struction (e.g. Mary danced her way through the park), the cognate object construction, the pseudo-
passive construction, the locative inversion construction, and the have-causative construction. See
Kuno and Takami (2004, 2007) for counterexamples to these claims and alternative functional
accounts.
 Functional syntax 209

an instantaneous happening, and we usually do not observe the process or pay any
attention to it. Similarly, the difference in acceptability between (57a) and (57b)
seems to depend on whether we can observe a sign leading to the event that the
‘N+V’ represents. We can observe indications that someone is about to cry: e.g.
sniffling or a teardrop falling from an eye. People can often keep themselves from
actually bursting into tears even when such an indication has appeared. However,
shouting starts instantaneously, and therefore we do not usually observe any indica-
tion that it is about to begin.
Based on these differences, we have proposed the following constraint in Kuno
and Takami (2003) and Takami and Kuno (2006: ch.3).

(58) The Semantic/Functional Constraint on the ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction:

The ‘V-kake-no N’ construction is acceptable to the extent that
(i) a process or a sign leading to the event that the ‘N+V’ (or ‘N+O(bject)
+V’/‘S(ubject)+N+V’) represents has already started;8
(ii) we customarily pay attention to such a process or a sign; and
(iii) the achievement of the event that the V represents is physically or psy-
chologically being held back, and remains in a state of suspension.

In (56a), the falling process of a signboard has already started, but we can observe it
being physically held back from falling in a state of suspension; hence acceptability,
in keeping with the constraint in (58). In (56b), on the other hand, we customarily
do not observe a process in which a pencil falls, as it happens in the blink of an
eye; hence unacceptability, violating the constraint in (58). In (57a), we can observe
some signs that a girl is about to cry, but it is intuitively felt that the girl is in a state
of being psychologically held back from actually crying. We also pay attention to
such a state in daily life; hence acceptability. In (57b), on the other hand, we
customarily do not observe any indication that someone is about to shout; hence
unacceptability.
The following contrasting examples can be accounted for in a similar manner.
Note that the fact that (59b) is acceptable casts serious doubt on Kishimoto’s claim
that unergative verbs cannot be used in the ‘V-kake-no N’ construction.

8 The two constructions given here in parentheses, i.e. ‘N+O(bject)+V’/‘S(ubject)+N+V’, represent

the ‘V-kake-no N’ constructions in which either the subject or the object of the transitive verb overtly
appears to the left of the verb, as in the following.
(i) a. seetaa o ami-kake-no syoozyo (N+O+V)
sweater ACC knit-KAKE-GEN girl
‘a girl in the middle of knitting a sweater’
b. syoozyo ga ami-kake-no seetaa (S+N+V)
girl NOM knit-KAKE-GEN sweater
‘a sweater that a girl is knitting’
210 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

(59) a. *aruki-kake-no hito

walk-KAKE-GEN person
‘a person just about to walk’

b. aruki-kake-no akatyan (cf. Tsujimura 1999: 370)

walk-KAKE-GEN baby
‘a baby on the point of walking’ (‘a baby about to be able to walk’)

(60) a. ?*mituke-kake-no takaramono (Kishimoto 1996: 261)

find-KAKE-GEN treasure
‘treasure that someone is about to find’

b. √/?mituke-kake-no syoorai no mokuhyoo

find-KAKE-GEN future GEN goal
‘a future goal that someone is about to discover’

In (59a), walking is an action that starts instantaneously for ordinary people, and
therefore there is neither a sign nor a process held in suspension leading to this
action. On the other hand, (59b) represents a baby advancing toward the goal point
of being able to walk independently without any difficulty; that is, the baby is still in
a stage in which he/she cannot walk well. Since he/she is not old enough yet to
walk independently, it is said that he/she is being physically held back from walking
in a satisfactory way. Hence, the difference in acceptability between (59a) and (59b)
can be explained by the constraint in (58).9 A similar explanation holds in (60a, b).
Finding treasure is generally an incidental and instantaneous occurrence for a

9 Tsujimura (1999) argues that the difference in acceptability between (59a) and (59b) depends on
whether the events described are telic or atelic; ‘walking’ in (59a) is interpreted as an atelic event,
since one can walk continuously without any specific endpoint, while that in (59b) is interpreted as a
telic event whose endpoint refers to a steady walking stage. This notion of telicity has led Tsujimura
to claim that even unacceptable nominals such as (59a) become acceptable if telicity is explicitly
specified by a phrase such as eki made ‘to the station’, as shown below (Example (i), together with
the acceptability judgment and its translation, is Tsujimura’s (1999: 371)).
(i) eki made aruki-kake-no hito (cf. 59a)
station to walk-KAKE-GEN person
‘a person, halfway walking to the station’
However, contrary to Tsujimura’s judgment, (i) is as unacceptable as (59a) for most speakers, and it
couldn’t be used to describe a man who has already walked several steps towards the station, to
say nothing of a man who is already halfway to the station. Her analysis also fails to account for
the difference in acceptability between (56a) (=oti-kake-no kanban) and (56b) (=*oti-kake-no enpitu),
among others, because otiru ‘fall’ in both examples denotes telic events. Hence it seems clear that
we cannot consider the notion of telicity as a crucial factor for the acceptability of the ‘V-kake-no N’
construction. Tsujimura and Iida (1999) propose an analysis similar to Tsujimura (1999), and we
have shown their theoretical and empirical problems in Takami and Kuno (2006: ch. 3).
 Functional syntax 211

treasure seeker as well as for an observer, and there is neither a sign nor a process
leading to it. On the other hand, it takes someone a rather long time to discover his/
her future goal, and therefore there is a process leading to the point of discovering
his/her future goal. This process is customarily worth paying attention to, and it
is felt that the achievement of discovering one’s future goal in (60b), since it is
a fairly difficult task, is being psychologically held back and remains in a state of
suspension. Thus, the difference in (60a) and (60b) is accounted for by the con-
straint in (58).
It seems now clear that the acceptability of (43a) and (52a, b) and the unaccept-
ability of (43b) observed above can also be accounted for by the constraint in (58). In
(43a), it takes some time for a flower to wither, and we customarily pay attention to
such a process. In (52a), it takes some time, if not much, for a giraffe to stand up,
and people observing its action generally pay close attention to such a process. The
same is the case with (52b). On the other hand, in (43b), as observed above, shouting
is an instantaneous action, and therefore we do not observe any sign or process lead-
ing to this action. Hence (43a) and (52a, b) are acceptable, while (43b) is unacceptable.
From the above discussion it seems clear that the Semantic/Functional Con-
straint on the ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction in (58) can account for the acceptability of
a wide range of examples (see Takami and Kuno (2006: ch. 3) for further examples
and details), and that this construction cannot be dealt with by the unergative-
unaccusative distinction. This latter point is especially clear from the different
acceptability status shown in (56a, b), (59a, b) and (60a, b), in each pair of which
the same verbs are used (the unaccusative otiru ‘fall’ in (56a, b), the unergative
aruku ‘walk’ in (59a, b), and the transitive mitukeru ‘find’ in (60a, b)).

3 The ‘–te aru’ construction

3.1 Previous analyses and their problems
Observe first the following examples of the ‘–te aru’ construction.

(61) a. Yasai ga kitte aru.

vegetable NOM cut is
‘The vegetables have been (are) cut.’

b. Sara ga kireini aratte aru.

dish NOM perfectly wash is
‘The dishes have been washed perfectly.’

c. Kabin ni hana ga ikete aru.

vase in flower NOM arrange is
‘The flowers have been arranged in a vase.’
212 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

This construction consists of the gerundive form of a transitive verb (–te/de) and the
verb aru ‘be, exist’. The subject of this construction, just like the direct passive, is the
original object of a transitive verb; in (61a), for example, the subject yasai ‘vegetable’
corresponds to the object of the verb kiru ‘cut’ (yasai o kiru ‘cut vegetables’).
However, this construction, unlike the passive, does not allow the subject of the
corresponding transitive construction to appear as an agent NP marked with ni ‘by’.
Martin (1975) calls this type of the ‘–te aru’ construction the ‘intransitivizing resulta-
tive’ construction. We call it here the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction, distinguishing it
from what we will call the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction in Section 3.3.10
The ‘–te aru’ construction has already been discussed extensively in the fields of
traditional Japanese grammar (Matsushita 1924, Takahashi 1969, Yoshikawa 1973,
Teramura 1984: 147, 151) and Japanese language teaching (Jorden 1963: 282, Jorden
and Noda 1988: 88–89, among others). The following account given in (62i) has
been unanimously accepted by the scholars in these fields, and the one given in
(62ii) has been additionally proposed by some of them (Matsushita 1924, Yoshikawa
1973, see also the Japanese textbook Minna no nihongo shokyū [Elementary Japanese
for everyone] 2001: 54–55, published from Three A Network).

(62) The account of the ‘–te aru’ construction in traditional Japanese

grammar and Japanese language teaching:
(i) The ‘–te aru’ construction shows that a result brought about by an action
is still in existence at the moment of speech.
(ii) The action described in this construction has been performed in prepara-
tion for something.

Each of (61a–c) represents the resultative state of an action. For example, (61a) repre-
sents the present state that exists as a result of cutting vegetables (i.e. the vegetables
are in pieces after being cut), and (61b) also represents the resultative state of the
dishes that are now clean after being washed perfectly. Besides, each of the actions
described in (61a–c) seems to have been performed in preparation for something. For
instance, the action of cutting vegetables in (61a) can be considered as having been
performed for some future purpose, say, to make vegetable stir-fry. Hence, the accept-
ability of (61a–c) can be captured by the account given in (62).11

10 Martin (1975) calls this type of the ‘–te aru’ construction the ‘possessive resultative’ construction.
11 The ‘–te aru’ construction and the ‘–te iru’ construction taken up briefly in Section 2.3 both con-
sist of the gerundive form of a verb (–te/de) and the verbs aru/iru ‘be, exist’. Aru is used to express
the existence of an entity that the speaker considers inanimate, while iru is used to express the exis-
tence of an entity that the speaker considers animate. Note here that these existential meanings of
an entity that the independent verbs aru and iru represent are lost when they form the ‘–te aru’ and
‘–te iru’ constructions with the gerundive form of a verb. As already observed in the text part of this
paper, these constructions represent aspectual meanings such as an action in progress and a
resultative state. Therefore, some researchers such as Kinsui (2006: ch. 14) and Kudo (2014: 469–
492) discuss these constructions as instances of grammaticalization.
 Functional syntax 213

More recently, Miyagawa (1989), in the framework of generative grammar, and

Kageyama (1996), in the framework of lexical semantics, have proposed a new anal-
ysis of the acceptability of the ‘–te aru’ construction. They argue that transitive verbs
that can appear in this construction are only those that intentionally bring about a
change of state or location of an object. Observe the following examples from
Miyagawa (1989: 58–60) and Kageyama (1996: 65, 72, 186).

(63) a. Mado ga akete aru.

window NOM open is
‘The window is open (has been opened).’

b. Yu ga wakasite aru.
water NOM heat.up is
‘The water has heated up.’

(64) a. Ringo ga katte aru.

apple NOM buy is
‘I have bought some apples.’

b. Genkin ga kinko ni irete aru.

cash NOM safe in put is
‘The cash has been put in the safe.’

(65) a. *Aisukuriimu ga kononde aru. (Miyagawa)

ice.cream NOM like is
‘*Ice cream is liked.’

b. *Kodomo ga homete aru. (idem)

child NOM praise is
‘The children have been praised.’

c. *{Ano hito / Bokusingu no aite} ga nagutte aru.

that person / boxing GEN opponent NOM hit is
(Miyagawa/Kageyama)
‘{That person / The opponent in the boxing match} has been hit.’

d. *Otoosan no kata ga tataite aru. (Kageyama)

father GEN shoulder NOM pound is
‘My father’s shoulders have been pounded (lightly and repeatedly).’

e. *Tue ga nigitte aru. (idem)

cane NOM hold is
‘The cane has been held (by someone).’
214 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

f. *Tama ga emono ni utte aru. (idem)

bullet NOM prey to shoot is
‘A bullet (dart) has been shot at the prey.’

g. *Hurai ga gaiya ni utte aru. (idem)

fly (ball) NOM outfield to hit is
‘A fly ball has been hit to the outfield.’

In (63a, b), the window and the water have undergone a change in state; in (64a, b),
apples and the cash have undergone a change in location. (Likewise, the vegetables
and the dishes in (61a, b) have undergone a change in state, and the flowers in (61c)
have undergone a change in location.) Miyagawa (1989) attributes the unacceptability
of (65a–c) to the fact that the subject referents have undergone neither a change in
state nor a change in location. In (65a), even if someone likes ice cream, it does not
undergo any change of state. In (65b, c), similarly, even if someone is praised or hit,
there is usually no observable change of state regarding that person. Kageyama
(1996), stating that only change-of-state and change-of-location verbs can appear
in the ‘–te aru’ construction, proposes the following lexical conceptual structure for
events representing a change of state or location.

(66) [EVENT BECOME [STATE y BE AT-z]]

Then he attributes the unacceptability of (65c–e) to the fact that the verbs employed
here (naguru ‘hit’, tataku ‘pound’, nigiru ‘hold’) are those of hitting or touching,
not those of change of state or location. He further attributes the unacceptability of
(65f, g) to the fact that the verbs utu ‘shoot’ and utu ‘hit’ do not necessarily imply
that an object shot or hit (i.e. a bullet or a fly ball in (65f, g)) reaches the intended
place; even if someone shoots a bullet at the prey, it may not hit the target. This
means, Kageyama argues, that the verbs in (65f, g) do not have ‘AT-z’ in their lexical
conceptual structures (see (66)); hence unacceptability.
The above proposal by Miyagawa and Kageyama can be summarized as in the
following.

(67) The Change-of-state and Change-of-location Constraint on the ‘–te aru’

Construction: Only transitive verbs that intentionally bring about a change of
state or location can appear in the ‘–te aru’ construction. (Verbs of hitting and
touching that do not imply a resultative state do not appear.)12,13

12 (67) is Kageyama’s (1996: 186) formulation. Miyagawa (1989: 58), assuming that an object under-
going a change in state or in location is assigned the semantic role of Theme, makes a similar claim
in terms of this notion.
13 We should note here that (67) is actually quite similar to Takahashi’s (1969) [Kindaichi (ed.) (1976:
128)] claim that verbs that appear in the ‘–te aru’ construction are transitive verbs causing a change
to an object, and are restricted to verbs representing willed or volitional acts.
 Functional syntax 215

However, there seem to be counterexamples to the constraint in (67). Observe

first the following contrast.

(68) a. *Kodomo ga homete aru. (=65b) (Miyagawa)

‘The children have been praised.’

b. [Seitotati no risaitaru no ato de]

students GEN recital GEN after
[‘after the students’ recital’]

Sensei: Kodomotati minna ni ‘Yoku ganbatta’ to homete

teacher: children all to good did.well that praise
yaranakereba narimasen ga, homewasureta
give must but praising.forgot
kodomo wa arimasen ka?
children TOP aren’t Q
‘We must praise all the children, saying ‘You did well!’, but are there any
children we’ve forgotten to praise?’

Zyosyu: Taroo-kun to Natuko-san wa homete arimasu

assistant: and TOP praise is.POLITE
ga, Hanako-san wa mada homete arimasen.
but TOP yet praise is.not.POLITE
‘Taro and Natsuko have (already) been praised, but Hanako hasn’t been
praised yet.’

Unlike (68a), (68b) involving the expression homete aru is perfectly acceptable.
Observe further the following pairs of contrast.

(69) a. *{Ano hito / Bokusingu no aite} ga nagutte aru. (=65c)

(Miyagawa/Kageyama)
‘{That person / The opponent in the boxing match} has been hit.’

b. Oyabun: Yatura o korasime no tame, tekibisiku

boss those.guys ACC punishment GEN as severely
naguritukete oku beki da.
hit should
‘We should hit those guys severely to punish them.’

Kobun: (Heizi to Gonsuke wa nagutte arimasu ga,)

underling and TOP hit is.POLITE but
Sanpei ga mada nagutte arimasen.
NOM yet hit is.not.POLITE
‘(Heiji and Gonsuke have already been hit, but) Sanpei hasn’t been hit yet.’
216 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

(70) a. *Otoosan no kata ga tataite aru. (=65d) (Kageyama)

‘My father’s shoulders have been pounded (lightly and repeatedly).’

b. [Aru massaazi-in dewa, kyaku ga ie de zibun

a massage-parlor in customer NOM home at self
no kata o yoku tataite kara kuru yooni
GEN shoulder ACC well pounding after come
susumete iru.]
recommend is
[‘A certain massage parlor recommends that customers come to the
parlor after they pound their shoulders well.’]

Okyaku: Kata no kori ga hidoinde, yatte-kimasita.

customer shoulder GEN stiffness NOM bad.as came.here
‘I’m here because I have very stiff shoulders.’
Massaazisi: Ryookata tomo zyuubun tataite arimasu ka?
masseur both.shoulders well pound is.POLITE Q
‘Have you pounded both of your shoulders well?’

Okayku: Watasi hidari-kiki nande, (migikata wa zyuubun

customer I left-handed as right.shoulder TOP well
tataite arundesu ga,) hidarikata ga mada
pound is but left.shoulder NOM yet
sukosi sika tataite arimasen.
a.little only pound is.not.POLITE
‘Since I am left-handed, I have already pounded my right shoulder well,
but I have only pounded my left shoulder a little.’

According to Miyagawa and Kageyama, the verbs of hitting naguru ‘hit’ and tataku
‘pound’ do not cause a change of state for their object referents, and no resultative
state can be seen after such actions are performed. Therefore, they predict that not
only (69a) and (70a) but also (69b) and (70b) should be unacceptable, but the latter,
contrary to their predictions, are perfectly acceptable.
The same holds true of the following pair of examples involving the verb of
touching nigiru ‘hold’.

(71) a. *Tue ga nigitte aru. (=65e) (Kageyama)

‘The cane has been held (by someone).’

b. [Kankoo-gaido ga, nagai turibasi o wataru mae

tour-guide NOM long rope.bridge ACC cross before
no oyakozure no okyakusantati ni]
GEN family GEN visitors to
[‘a tour guide saying to family visitors who are about to cross a long rope
bridge’]
 Functional syntax 217

Okosantati no te ga sikkari nigitte areba,

children GEN hands NOM tightly hold are.if
turibasi ga yuretemo, okosantati wa huan ni
rope.bridge NOM shake.even.if children TOP fear to
naranai to omoimasu.
don’t.get that I.think
‘So long as their hands are held tightly, I think your children won’t be
afraid, even if the bridge shakes.’

Unlike (71a), (71b) is perfectly acceptable. Thus, the acceptability of (69b), (70b) and
(71b) shows that we cannot say that verbs of hitting and touching do not appear in
the ‘–te aru’ construction, as stated in (67).
Observe finally the following contrasting pairs.

(72) a. *Tama ga emono ni utte aru. (=65f) (Kageyama)

‘A bullet (dart) has been shot at the prey.’

b. Saimindan ga sudeni ippatu ano tora ni utte

tranquilizer.dart NOM already one that tiger into shoot
aru node, suguni nemuru desyoo.
is since soon sleep I.think
‘Since the tiger has already been shot with a tranquilizer dart, I think it
will lose consciousness soon.’

(73) a. *Hurai ga gaiya ni utte aru. (=65g) (Kageyama)

‘A fly ball has been hit to the outfield.’

b. [Kookoo-yakyuu no kooti ga sankan ni kita hukei ni]

high.school-baseball GEN coach NOM visit to came parents to
[‘a high school baseball coach saying to the parents who came to observe
(their children’s play)’]

Moo hyappon izyoo mo goro ga naiya ni

already 100 more.than grounder NOM the.infield to
utte arimasu kara, korekara gaiya-hurai no rensyuu
hit is.POLITE since now the.infield-fly GEN practice
ni hairimasu.
to start
‘Since more than 100 grounders have already been hit to the infield,
we will now start practicing outfield fly balls.’
218 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

In (72b), just like (72a), the verb of hitting utu ‘shoot’ is used, but this sentence is
perfectly acceptable. Given this, (72a) is also judged acceptable if it is considered to
be a sentence uttered by someone who shot the bullet (dart) at the prey. (72a) is un-
acceptable if it is considered to be a sentence uttered by, say, one of the tourists who
just got off their sightseeing bus. This seems to be due to the fact that he/she cannot
see the bullet (dart). However, if the dart were an arrow with feathers, the sentence
would be judged acceptable even if it was uttered by such a tourist. (73b) involving
the verb utu ‘hit’ is also acceptable, unlike (73a).
The above discussion seems to show that there are a wide range of counter-
examples that cannot be dealt with by the constraint in (67), and that the acceptabil-
ity of the ‘–te aru’ construction does not depend simply on verb types alone, but on
the meaning that the sentence expresses as a whole.
It should be noted here that the unacceptability of (65a–g) that Miyagawa and
Kageyama have presented can also be explained by the account given in (62) in
traditional Japanese grammar and Japanese language teaching. In (65a), someone’s
liking for ice cream is not an action, to begin with, but a psychological state. There-
fore, no result has been brought about. In (65b), even if someone is praised, it is
usually the case that no result is left on him/her. In (65c), likewise, even if someone
is hit, this action does not usually bring about any observable result on him/her. The
same applies to the other examples in (65). However, the acceptability of the (b)
examples in (68)–(73) poses a serious problem to the account in (62) as well, show-
ing that the notion of a result (as well as a change of state/location) is not adequate
to account for the acceptability status of sentences of the ‘–te aru’ construction.

3.2 A functional analysis of the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction

Let us now turn to discuss in this section the real conditioning factors for the accept-
ability status of the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction and offer our functional con-
straints on the construction.

3.2.1 An actor or an observer?

We have pointed out in the preceding subsection that the acceptability of Kageyama’s
unacceptable example (72a) (=65f: *Tama ga emono ni utte aru) varies depending on
who utters this sentence; it is unacceptable if uttered by, say, a tourist who just got
off his/her sightseeing bus. This is because the tourist (=an observer/the speaker) is
not sure whether someone (=an actor) shot a dart at the tiger. On the other hand, it
is acceptable if uttered by the actor himself (=the speaker) because he knows that he
performed that action. The acceptability of (72b) (=Saimindan ga sudeni ippatu ano
tora ni utte aru node, suguni nemuru desyoo.) is attributable to the same reason –
the speaker is a warden of the park and he himself shot a dart at the tiger, or knew
 Functional syntax 219

that his colleague did. This indicates that it is essential for us to consider not only
the case in which the actor of an action described in the ‘–te aru’ construction is
different from the observer (=the speaker) of the action, but also the case in which
they are the same person.
In the case of events in which an action causes an object to change state or loca-
tion, an observer (=the speaker), even if he/she is not the doer of the action, can
understand that some action was performed in the past simply because he/she can
see a resultative state of the object. Hence (61a–c), (63a, b) and (64a, b) are accept-
able. But in the case of events in which an action does not cause an object to change
state or location, the fact that this action was performed in the past is evident only
to the doer of the action, but not to an observer, who cannot see any change of state
for the object. Hence (65b–g) are unacceptable on the assumption that they are
uttered by someone (=an observer) who is different from the doer of the action
described in each of them. On the other hand, the (b)-examples of (68)–(73) (except
(71b)) are acceptable because it is clear that they are uttered by the actor himself/
herself who performed the action described in each of these sentences. In (71b), the
actor of holding the children’s hands (i.e. their parents) and the observer (i.e. the
tour guide=the speaker) are different, but in this case, the observer has advised
the parents to hold their children’s hands tightly when they cross the rope bridge.
The acceptability of (72a) (=65f) on the interpretation that the dart is assumed to
be an arrow with feathers (even if uttered by someone other than the doer of this
action) is attributable to the fact that the speaker can understand that this action
was performed by observing the arrow with feathers.
The above consideration can now be summarized as in the following.

(74) In order for the ‘V-te aru’ construction to be acceptable, the speaker (observer)
has to have clear evidence that the action that the V represents has been
performed.

When the actor of the V is the speaker himself/herself, the speaker can be said to
have clear evidence of what he/she has done, even if he/she cannot see the result
of the action.
We are claiming in the above generalization that ‘V-te aru’ is a construction that
represents the speaker’s direct evidentiality.

3.2.2 The significance of the state caused by an action

It is important to note here that Yoshikawa (1973) has already pointed out that there
are some (exceptional) cases that cannot be dealt with by the account given in (62),
presenting acceptable examples such as hanasite aru ‘has been talked about’, mite
aru ‘has been seen’, and happyoosite aru ‘has been announced’ (see Teramura 1984:
220 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

147 for similar remarks). The actions that these verbs represent do not leave any
observable resultative state behind, and therefore the acceptability of these examples
cannot be accounted for by (62). Now, in order to capture the meaning of the ‘–te aru’
construction, we would like to employ the expression ‘the state caused by an action
performed in the past is significant to the speaker at the moment of speech’. Accord-
ing to this definition, Mado ga akete aru ‘The window is open’ (=63a), for example,
turns out to be an expression representing a resultative state brought about by the
action of opening the window, because the window must be open at the moment of
speech in order for the state caused by someone’s opening the window in the past to
be significant at the moment of speech. On the other hand, Sono koto ga moo minna
ni hanasite aru ‘That matter has already been talked about to everyone’ has a variety
of implications at the moment of speech that are significant, such as ‘Everyone
should remember that’, ‘I don’t have to repeat it to everyone’, or ‘Everyone should
now be prepared for it’. Therefore, the difference in meaning between a simple past
sentence like (75a) below and a ‘–te aru’ sentence like (75b) is that while the former
simply describes an action performed in the past in an objective manner, the latter
describes the significance at the moment of speech caused by the action performed
in the past.

(75) a. Gakuseitati wa kono kyoku o itiban yoku rensyuusita.

students TOP this music ACC best well practiced
‘This is the piece of music that the students practiced most.’

b. Kono kyoku ga itiban yoku rensyuusite aru.

‘This is the piece of music that has been practiced most.’

With the above in mind, let us compare (76a) and (76b).

(76) [Sensei ga koosya-kanrinin ni keetai-denwa de]

teacher NOM school.building-custodian to cell-phone by
[‘a teacher saying to the custodian of the school building by cell phone’]

Kodomotati o turete konpyuutaasitu ni kita no desu ga,

children ACC taking computer.room to came is but
‘I came to the computer room with my students, but’
a. *Dareka ga doa ni kagi o kakemasita.
someone NOM door DAT key ACC locked.POLITE
‘Someone locked the door.’

b. Doa ni kagi ga kakete arimasu.

‘The door is locked.’
 Functional syntax 221

(76a) is unacceptable because someone’s past action of locking the door is incon-
gruous with the present situation that the teacher and his/her students are facing.
(76b), on the other hand, is acceptable because the ‘–te aru’ construction expresses
the present situation in which the teacher and his/her students are in trouble, and
therefore someone’s past action of locking the door is congruous with its signifi-
cance at the moment of speech.

3.2.3 Intentional actions performed for some future purpose

As stated in (62ii) in Section 3.1, it has been claimed in the fields of traditional
Japanese grammar (Matsushita 1924 and Yoshikawa 1973) and Japanese language
teaching (for example, the Japanese textbook Minna no nihongo shokyū [Elementary
Japanese for everyone] 2001: 54–55) that the ‘–te aru’ construction implies that the
actions described in the construction have been performed in preparation for some-
thing. Since such actions are necessarily intentional, we use the term ‘intentional
actions in preparation for something’ to refer to this constraint. In this subsection,
we show that this constraint is too restrictive, and propose instead a constraint
based on ‘intentional actions for some future purpose’ because there are numerous
intentional actions that can show up in this construction that are not performed
in preparation for something.
We will first give examples which appear to show that the ‘intentional actions in
preparation for something’ constraint seems to work.

(77) a. Sakana ga yaite aru.

fish NOM grill is
‘The fish has been grilled.’

b. *Ie ga yaite aru.

house NOM burn is
‘The house has burned down.’

(78) a. Tume ga kireini kitte aru.

nail NOM neatly cut is
‘My (His/Her, etc.) nails have been cut neatly.’

b. *Yubi ga ippon kitte aru.

finger NOM one cut is
‘One finger has been cut off.’

While (77a) and (78a) are acceptable, (77b) and (78b) are not. Grilling fish and cutting
nails are intentional actions performed in preparation for something (as well as for
222 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

some future purpose), but ordinarily, burning down a house and cutting a finger are
unintentional events that unfortunately happen by accident. Therefore, the ‘inten-
tional actions in preparation for something’ constraint (as well as our constraint)
has no difficulty explaining the acceptability of (77a) and (78a) and the unaccepta-
bility of (77b) and (78b).
The validity of our claim is borne out by the fact that the acceptability of the
following sentence, in which it is shown that the act of burning down a house is
intentionally performed for some future purpose, unlike (77b).

(79) [Hooka-hannin no hitorigoto]

arsonist GEN talk.to.oneself
[‘an arsonist talks to himself’]

Aitu no ie wa moo yaite aru kara, syuttyoo

that.guy GEN house TOP already burn is since business.trip
kara kaette kitemo sumu tokoro wa nai zo. Zamaa miro!
from come.back even.if live place TOP no SFP serves.him.right
‘Since that guy’s house is already burned down, he has no place to live in
when he comes back from his business trip. That serves him right!’

Here it is difficult to consider the arsonist’s act of burning down the house of the
person under discussion as having been performed in preparation for something,
but it is easy to assume it as having been done for some future purpose (in this partic-
ular example, for making him suffer when the person under discussion returns home),
and therefore we can say that the notion of ‘for some future purpose’ works better
than that of ‘in preparation for something’.
Now we will give examples which clearly show the difference between our con-
straint and the ‘intentional actions in preparation for something’ constraint.

(80) a. Konna tokoro ni gomi ga sutete aru.

such place in trash NOM throw.away is
‘(Lit.) Trash is thrown away in such a place.’
‘(Nonlit.) How could someone throw trash away in a place like this?’

b. Konna tokoro ni rakugaki ga site aru.

such place in graffiti NOM do is
‘(Lit.) There is graffiti in such a place.’
‘(Nonlit.) I can’t believe there is graffiti in a place like this.’

The speaker in (80a, b), that is, the observer of the events described, would not think
that the actor performed the act of throwing away trash or of writing graffiti in
preparation for something. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to assume that actions
described in the ‘–te aru’ construction are all performed in preparation for some-
 Functional syntax 223

thing: it seems to be too strong. However, the actor can be considered to have per-
formed such an act with some future purpose in mind, say, to tidy up his/her things,
or to leave what he/she wants to express for the public to see. Therefore, it seems
appropriate to consider the actions described in the ‘–te aru’ construction as those
performed by the actor for some future purpose, and not as those performed in
preparation for something. This notion of ‘for some future purpose’, as the above
discussion implies, has resulted from differentiating the two interpretations of the
actions performed ‘in preparation for something’; that is, one from the observer’s
standpoint and the other from the actor’s standpoint, and we have shown that it is
necessary to restrict the interpretation for the ‘–te aru’ construction to the actions
from the actor’s standpoint.
From the above discussion, the unacceptability of Miyagawa’s (1989: 58–59, 61)
examples given below is automatically accounted for.

(81) a. *Aisukuriimu ga kononde aru. (=65a)

b. *Hanako ga aisite aru.

NOM love is
‘*Hanako is loved.’

c. *Kurasumeeto ga kiratte aru.

classmate NOM hate is
‘A classmate is hated.’

Konomu ‘like’, aisuru ‘love’, and kirau ‘hate’ all represent unintentional psychological
states, and not intentional actions performed for some purpose; hence the unaccepta-
bility of (81a–c) results.
Uniting all the above discussions, we now propose the following hypothesis.

(82) The Functional Constraint on the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ Construction:

The ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction is an expression that shows that
(i) the speaker (the hearer in the case of interrogative sentences) has direct
evidence that the intentional action the verb represents was performed
by someone for some future purpose,14 and that
(ii) the state caused by the action is significant to the speaker at the moment
of speech.

14 There is a brief description of the ‘–te aru’ construction in Jacobsen (1991: 38–39, 139). In this
description, he uses the term ‘for some future purpose’ twice. Therefore, it might be thought that
the claim we are making here is not an original one. But Jacobsen uses the term ‘for some future
purpose’ together with the verb ‘prepare’, saying that the construction is used to indicate that the
action under discussion has been performed on an entity ‘in order to prepare it for some future
purpose’. Therefore, it seems to us that his generalization is based on the earlier claim by traditional
grammarians and those in Japanese language teaching that ‘the action described in this construction
has been performed in preparation for something’ (see 62ii).
224 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

Recall here that ‘the state caused by the action’ described in (82ii) is the state of the
surface subject referent (‘X-ga’), which corresponds to the object of a transitive verb.
For example, the subject yasai in Yasai ga kitte aru ‘The vegetables have been cut.’
(=61a) corresponds to the object of the verb kiru ‘cut’. Thus, it seems clear that the
‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction is, so to speak, a passive-like expression, describing
the present state brought about by an intentional action performed by someone in
the past, with focus on the patient/theme, and not on the actor/agent.

3.3 Other types of the ‘–te aru’ construction

In this subsection, we will briefly discuss the intransitive ‘–te aru’ construction and
what we call the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction. We will point out here that while the
acceptability of these two constructions can be dealt with neither by (62) nor by (67),
it can automatically be accounted for by our constraint (82).

3.3.1 The ‘–te aru’ construction involving intransitive verbs

Let us briefly examine here the ‘–te aru’ construction involving intransitive verbs.
Observe first the following examples.

(83) a. *Kenkyuusitu no doa ga simatte aru.

office GEN door NOM close is
‘The door of the office is closed.’

b. *Inu ga mitibata de sinde aru.

dog NOM roadside by die is
‘A dog is dead by the roadside.’

c. *Ike no mizu ga kootte aru.

pond GEN water NOM freeze is
‘The water of the pond is frozen.’

(83a–c) involving the intransitive verbs simaru ‘close’, sinu ‘die’, and kooru ‘freeze’
are all unacceptable; They must be expressed by the use of the ‘–te iru’ construction
(see Section 2.3), like simatte iru ‘is closed’. Now, why are (83a–c) unacceptable?
It is because the events described in these sentences are not intentional actions
performed by human beings, which violates the Functional Constraint in (82).
Now what about the following examples, in which intentional action verbs are
used?
 Functional syntax 225

(84) a. *Kodomotati ga butai de odotte aru.

children NOM stage on dance are
‘The children have danced on the stage.’

b. *Sensyutati ga gurando o hasitte aru.

players NOM field around run are
‘The players have run around the field.’

c. *Sagyooin ga koozi-genba de hataraite aru.

worker NOM construction-site at work is
‘The workers have worked at the construction site.’

(84a–c) are also unacceptable. This must be due to the fact that it is not clear to the
speaker (=the observer) whether the intentional actions described in these sentences
were in fact performed in the past by the subject referents (=the actors), since the
speaker has no evidence for it (see (74)). Hence (84a–c) are unacceptable, in viola-
tion of the Functional Constraint in (82).
Unlike (83a–c) and (84a–c), the following examples involving intransitive verbs
are (nearly) acceptable.

(85) a. Ano pittyaa wa huyubani tappuri hasirikonde aru node,

that pitcher TOP wintertime a.lot run is since
entyoosen ni haittemo daizyoobu da.
extra.inning.game into go all.right SFP
‘Since that pitcher ran a lot in the winter, he will be all right even if they
go into extra innings.’

b. Yuube wa moo zyuubun nete aru kara, kyoo

last.night TOP already well sleep is since today
wa tetuya o sitemo daizyoobu da.
TOP stay.up.all.night all.right SFP
‘I slept well last night, so I’ll be all right even if I stay up all night
tonight.’ (adapted from Jacobsen 1991: 197)

c. Daigaku zidai ni moo zyuubun asonde arimasu

college period in already well play is.POLITE
kara, korekarawa sigoto ni sennen simasu.
since from.now.on work to devote
‘I enjoyed myself a lot at college, so I’ll now devote myself to work.’
(adapted from Miyagawa 1989: 58)
226 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

The speaker of (85a) knows that the pitcher in question ran a lot in the winter. The
speaker of (85b) also knows that he himself slept well last night. Likewise, the
speaker of (85c) knows that he/she enjoyed himself/herself a lot at college. In short,
in these sentences it is obvious to the speaker (=the observer) that the intentional
actions described in (85a–c) were performed by the subject referents (=the actors)
for some purpose. Therefore, the Functional Constraint in (82), without any need for
modification, can apply to the ‘–te aru’ construction involving intransitive verbs, and
can account for its acceptability.
On the other hand, it should be noted that Kageyama’s constraint in (67) and a
constraint similar to it proposed by Miyagawa apply only to the ‘–te aru’ construc-
tion involving transitive verbs, and therefore cannot capture the acceptability of the
‘–te aru’ construction involving intransitive verbs. The account in (62) cannot, either,
because ordinarily, no observable result is left behind even if a pitcher ran a lot, or
someone slept well or enjoyed himself/herself a lot.
Let us state here the difference between the transitive and the intransitive ‘–te
aru’ constructions. As stated in the preceding subsection, the former is a passive-
like expression, describing the action in question with focus on the patient/theme,
suppressing the actor/agent, but the latter is an active-like expression, describing it
with focus on the actor/agent. The property that the latter construction has holds
true of the ‘X-o –te aru’ construction that we will briefly examine in the next sub-
section.

3.3.2 The ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction

The ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction that we have discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 is of
the type in which the subject X is the original object of a transitive verb. There is
another type of the ‘–te aru’ construction in which the object of a transitive verb
remains on the surface as it is, marked with –o, as shown below.

(86) a. Boku wa sono hon o moo yonde aru.

I TOP that book ACC already read am
‘I have already read that book.’

b. Hirosi-kun wa natuyasumi no syukudai o

TOP summer.vacation GEN homework ACC
moo yatte arun datte.
already do is I.hear
‘Hiroshi told me that he had already finished his homework for the
summer vacation.’
 Functional syntax 227

We will call this type of the ‘–te aru’ construction the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction,
distinguishing it from the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction. The characteristic of the
‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction is that the subject of the transitive verb, i.e. the actor/
agent of the action described, appears on the surface, as in (86a, b) (Boku ‘I’ and
Hirosi-kun ‘Hiroshi’), since the object is marked with –o. The acceptability of (86a,
b) is accounted for by the Functional Constraint in (82); reading a book or doing
one’s homework is an action performed intentionally for some purpose. In (86a) the
person who read that book is the speaker himself, and therefore it is obvious to
the speaker that he did so in the past. In (86b), the person who did his homework
is Hiroshi, not the speaker, but the speaker knows it because it is obvious from
context that he has heard about it from Hiroshi or someone else.
Now observe the following contrasting pairs of examples.

(87) a. *Ano pittyaa wa henkakyuu o kyattyaa ni nagete aru.

that pitcher TOP breaking.ball ACC catcher to throw is
‘That pitcher has thrown breaking balls to the catcher.’

b. [Haru no kyanpu de tookyuu-rensyuu o siteiru

spring GEN camp in pitching.practice ACC is.doing
pittyaa ga kooti ni]
pitcher NOM coach to
[‘A pitcher practicing his pitching in a spring training game says to
his coach’]

(Watasi wa) kinoo madeni moo zyuubun

I TOP yesterday by already enough
henkakyuu o nagete arimasu kara, kyoo wa
breaking.ball ACC throw am.POLITE since today TOP
sutoreeto ni torikumitai to omoimasu.
fastball to want.to.work.on that think
‘I threw so many breaking balls up until yesterday, so today I want to
start working on fastballs.’

(88) a. *Karera wa monbusyoo-syooka

they TOP song.authorized.by.the.Ministry.of.Education
akatonbo o utatte aru.
red.dragonfly ACC sing are
‘They have sung the song “Red Dragonflies” authorized by the Ministry
of Education.’
228 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

b. [Gassyoo-konkuuru ni muketeno rensyuu no bamen]

choral.competition to for practice GEN situation
[‘Situation: Practice for a choral competition’]

Watasitati wa kadaikyoku o moo zyuubun utatte

we TOP assigned.piece ACC already a.lot sing
arimasu kara, zyunbi-bantan desu.
are.POLITE since all.set SFP
‘Since we have already sung the assigned piece a lot, we are all set.’

If (87a) is uttered in isolation, there is no evidence showing that the speaker (=the
observer) knows that the pitcher threw breaking balls to the catcher in the past.
Since the sentence violates the Constraint in (82), it is unacceptable. In contrast, in
(87b) it is the speaker himself (=the pitcher) that had had enough practice for break-
ing balls up until the day before. Therefore, (87b) is acceptable, satisfying the Con-
straint in (82). The same is the case with the difference between (88a) and (88b).
Finally, let us compare the following two instances of the ‘–te aru’ construction.

(89) a. Oisii koohii-mame ga katte aru. [X-ga . . . –te aru]

delicious coffee.bean NOM buy is
‘Delicious coffee beans have been bought.’

b. (Watasi wa) oisii koohii-mame o katte aru. [X-o . . . –te aru]

‘I have bought delicious coffee beans.’

While (89a), focusing on delicious coffee beans, emphasizes that they are at hand,
(89b), focusing on the speaker’s present state, emphasizes that he/she has delicious
coffee beans at hand, and is ready to make coffee. Thus, we can say that the ‘X-ga . . .
–te aru’ construction, as argued above, is a passive-like expression with focus on the
patient/theme, whereas the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction, like the intransitive ‘–te
aru’ construction, is an active-like expression with focus on the actor/agent. We can
further say that the ‘–te aru’ construction itself, being independent of the notions of
the patient/theme or the actor/agent, simply expresses (i) that it is obvious to the
speaker (the hearer in the case of interrogative sentences) that the intentional action
the verb represents was performed by someone for some future purpose, and (ii) that
the state caused by the action is significant to the speaker at the moment of speech.
Note further that the acceptability of these three types of the ‘–te aru’ construc-
tion can all be accounted for by the Functional Constraint in (82), now reformulated
as in the following.
 Functional syntax 229

(90) The Functional Constraint on the ‘–te aru’ Construction: The ‘–te aru’
construction is an expression that shows that
(i) the speaker (the hearer in the case of interrogative sentences) has direct
evidence that the intentional action the verb represents was performed
by someone for some future purpose, and that
(ii) the state caused by the action is significant to the speaker at the moment
of speech.

On the other hand, Kageyama’s constraint in (67) and Miyagawa’s similar constraint,
which are intended to cover only the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction, not only
encounter crucial counterexamples, but also cannot apply to the intransitive ‘–te aru’
construction, as observed above, or to the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction. Similarly,
the account based on the notion of ‘result’ given in (62) that has been claimed in
the fields of traditional Japanese grammar and Japanese language teaching is also
insufficient, although it seems intended to apply to all three types of the ‘–te aru’
construction, because in all three cases there are examples that are acceptable even
if no result is left behind after an action is performed.

4 Concluding remarks
We have shown in this paper how important it is to take functional perspectives into
account in the study of Japanese syntax. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, we have reviewed
two functional perspectives proposed in Functional Syntax – functional sentence
perspective and empathy perspective, and shown that the former perspective is
crucially important in analyzing the acceptability of Japanese discourse deletion, as
is the latter in analyzing why one particular expression in Japanese rather than some
others is chosen in a given context. In Section 2.3, we have briefly reviewed Kuno
and Takami’s (2003) and Takami and Kuno’s (2006: ch. 3) functional approach to
the ‘V-kake-no N’ construction, and shown that the acceptability of this construction
is not dependent on the unergative-unaccusative distinction, as claimed by Kishimoto
(1996), but on the semantic/functional factors formulated in the constraint stated in
(58). We have also observed in Section 2.3 seven other Japanese constructions that
have been claimed to be accounted for by the unergative-unaccusative distinction,
and reviewed crucial counterexamples presented by Takami and Kuno (2002, 2006)
and Kuno and Takami (2003). These discussions show that these seven constructions
must also be considered to be dependent on nonsyntactic (semantic, discourse-
based, or pragmatic) factors, as argued in Takami and Kuno (2002, 2006) and Kuno
and Takami (2003), rather than on the unergative-unaccusative distinction.
In Section 3, we have discussed the ‘–te aru’ construction in Japanese from a
functional perspective. We first made it clear that the past analyses depending on
whether a result brought about by an action is still in existence at the moment of
230 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

speech (see (62)), or on whether an object has undergone a change in state or in

location (see (67)), are inadequate to account for the acceptability status of this
construction. Next we argued that it is essential to differentiate the actor (agent) of
the action described in the ‘–te aru’ construction from the observer (speaker) of the
action, and showed that this functional perspective has been lacking in the previous
analyses. Then we proposed the Functional Constraint on the ‘–te aru’ construction
in (90), and showed that this constraint can capture the acceptability of a wide
range of examples not only of the ‘X-ga . . . –te aru’ construction but also of the
intransitive ‘–te aru’ construction and the ‘X-o . . . –te aru’ construction.
In discussing the ‘–te aru’ construction in Section 3, we have pointed out that
Yoshikawa (1973) and Teramura (1984: 147) were already aware of the existence of
sentences such as mite aru ‘has been seen’ and hanasite aru ‘has been talked about’
that could not be accounted for by their own hypothesis. Seeing or talking about
something does not leave any observable result behind. Therefore, these examples
constitute counterexamples to the account of the ‘–te aru’ construction given in
(62). Unfortunately, however, they were regarded as only minor exceptions, few in
number, to the account in (62). Although such examples were no longer mentioned
in Miyagawa (1989) and Kageyama (1996), we have shown in Section 3 that there are
numerous examples of this type, and that they actually serve as an important step
toward a full understanding of the ‘–te aru’ construction. Therefore, there seems to
be a valuable lesson here for future research in syntax (or in linguistics in general).
We must first collect a large number of examples and examine carefully the full
range of relevant data. Then we have to attempt to discover the real conditioning
factors that lie behind such data. It seems that we must refrain from seeking only
theoretical elegance or simplicity, while leaving counterexamples to the initial set
of data out of consideration.
We have shown in this paper numerous pairs of contrasting examples in which
the same verbs are used. Let us repeat just a few of them here (see further (39b),
(48a), (56a, b), (59a, b), (68a, b), (69a, b), (70a, b), (71a, b), (73a, b), (77a, b), (78a, b),
(87a, b), (88a, b)).

(91) a. *Kanzya wa siboosaserarete simatta. (unaccusative) (=40b) (Kageyama)

‘*The patient was made to die.’

b. Sinzoo-isyoku ni saigo-no nozomi o kaketa sono kanzya wa, muzan-nimo

isi no sittoo no misu ni-yori siboosaserarete simatta. (=49a)
‘The patient, who had set his last hope on a heart transplant, was caused
to die because his/her doctor made a mistake in performing the operation.’

(60) a. ?*mituke-kake-no takaramono (Kishimoto 1996: 261)

‘treasure that someone is about to find’

b. √/?mituke-kake-no syoorai no mokuhyoo

‘a future goal that someone is about to discover’
 Functional syntax 231

(72) a. *Tama ga emono ni utte aru. (=65f) (Kageyama)

‘A bullet (dart) has been shot at the prey.’

b. Saimindan ga sudeni ippatu ano tora ni utte aru node, suguni nemuru
desyoo.
‘Since the tiger has already been shot with a tranquilizer dart, I think it
will lose consciousness soon.’

The difference in acceptability in each pair of the examples above clearly demon-
strates that it is futile to attribute the acceptability of a sentence only to a property
of the verb. The acceptability of a sentence is a complex phenomenon determined by
the interaction of all the elements in the sentence, and it is deeply affected by the
context in which the sentence is placed, as shown by the difference in acceptability
between (91a) and (91b) and between (72a) and (72b). Therefore it seems that we
have another lesson here for future research; it is not sufficient to concentrate only
on part of a sentence when we attempt to understand the acceptability status of
the sentence; it is important to consider the meaning of the whole sentence and the
context in which it is placed.15
One final lesson for future research can be drawn from the acceptability judg-
ments given to (60a, b). As is often the case, the acceptability of a sentence is not
just yes or no, but contains various degrees such as ‘marginal’ or ‘passable’, and
often fluctuates from speaker to speaker. This seems to imply that the phenomenon
under consideration is not determined by syntax alone, but is also affected by non-
syntactic factors. Therefore, it seems necessary to carry out research in syntax
paying close attention to degrees of acceptability, and keeping in mind that non-
syntactic factors may be involved.

Acknowledgments
We are indebted to Nan Decker, Karen Courtenay and an anonymous reviewer for
their invaluable comments on earlier versions of this paper. We would also like to
thank Phillip Brown for checking some of the English translations of the Japanese
examples given in the paper.

15 This lesson may remind the reader of the approach of Construction Grammar, whose basic tenet
is that constructions themselves carry meaning, independently of the words in the sentence (see
Fillmore 1985, 1988, 1989, Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor 1988, Kay 1990, 2002, Goldberg 1992, 1995,
2006, Michaelis 1993, Michaelis and Lambrecht 1996, Kay and Fillmore 1999, among others). In
fact, our Functional Syntax analysis and their Construction Grammar analysis, as we have pointed
out in Kuno and Takami (2004), have one thing in common – both attempt to account for the
constraints under which a given construction can be used felicitously, with the conviction that subtle
semantic and pragmatic factors are crucial to understanding the constraints on grammatical con-
structions. However, there are of course various differences between the two both in theory and in
the phenomena examined, and the reader is referred to Kuno and Takami (2004: chs 1 and 3).
232 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

References
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS 11. 73–
86.
Fillmore, Charles. 1988. The mechanism of ‘construction grammar’. BLS 14. 35–55.
Fillmore, Charles. 1989. Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Rainer
Dietrich and Carl F. Graumann (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam:
North-Holland/Elsevier.
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay and Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.
Goldberg, Adele. 1992. Argument structure constructions. California: University of California at
Berkeley dissertation.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1990. On the VP-internal subject hypothesis. In Tadashi Sakamoto and Yasuaki
Abe (eds.), Nihongo kyōiku kokusai shinpojium hōkokusho [Proceedings of the international
symposium on the teaching of Japanese], 249–254, Nagoya: Nanzan University.
Hirakawa, Makiko. 2003. Unaccusativity in second language Japanese and English. Tokyo: Hituzi
Shobō.
Hoji, Hajime, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hiroaki Tada. 1989. NP-movement in Japanese. Unpublished
ms., University of Southern California, The Ohio State University and MIT.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1991. The transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Jorden, Eleanor Harz. 1963. Beginning Japanese Part I. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jorden, Eleanor Harz and Mari Noda. 1988. Japanese: The spoken language. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpō to go-keisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobō.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Dōshi imiron [Verb semantics]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kay, Paul. 1990. Even. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 59–112.
Kay, Paul. 2002. English subjectless tagged sentences. Language 78(3). 453–481.
Kay, Paul and Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The
what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33.
Kinsui, Satoshi. 2006. Nihongo sonzai hyōgen no rekishi [A history of existential expressions in
Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobō.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 1996. Split intransitivity in Japanese and the unaccusative hypothesis. Language
72(2). 248–286.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2003. Seisei bunpō no shiten kara mita nihongo [Japanese seen from the view-
point of generative grammar]. Nihongogaku 22(10). 40–50.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Tōgo kōzō to bunpō kankei [Syntactic structure and grammatical relations].
Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kudo, Mayumi. 2014. Gendai nihongo mūdo, tensu, asupekuto ron [Discussions on mood, tense and
aspect in modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobō.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Three perspectives on the functional approach to syntax. In Robin E. Grossman,
James San and Timothy J. Vance (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism, 276–336.
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Danwa no bunpō [Grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten.
 Functional syntax 233

Kuno, Susumu. 1979. On the interaction between syntactic rules and discourse principles. In George
Bedell, Eichi Kobayashi and Masatake Muraki (eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in
honor of Kazuko Inoue, 279–304. Tokyo: Kenkyūsha.
Kuno, Susumu. 1982. Principles of discourse deletion: Case studies from English, Russian and
Japanese. Journal of Semantics 1. 120–154.
Kuno, Susumu. 1983a. Principles of discourse deletion. In Shirō Hattori and Kazuko Inoue (eds.),
Proceedings of the thirteenth international congress of linguistics, 30–41. The Hague: CIPL.
Kuno, Susumu. 1983b. Shin nihon bunpō kenkyū [A new study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishūkan
Shoten.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1990. Passivization and thematization. In Osamu Kamada and Wesley M. Jacobsen
(eds.), On Japanese and how to teach it: In honor of Seiichi Makino, 43–66. Tokyo: The Japan
Times.
Kuno, Susumu. 1995. Null elements in parallel structures in Japanese. In Reiko Mazuka and Noriko
Nagai (eds.), Japanese sentence processing, 209–233. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Associates,
Inc.
Kuno, Susumu. 2004. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In Lawrence Horn and Gregory
Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 315–343. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Kuno, Susumu and Etsuko Kaburaki. 1997. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 2003. Remarks on unaccusativity and unergativity in Japanese
and Korean. In William McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. 280–294. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 2004. Functional constraints in grammar: On the unergative-
unaccusative distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 2007. Eigo no kōbun to sono imi [English constructions and
their meanings]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Martin, Samuel. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matsushita, Daisaburo. 1924. Hyōjun nihon bunpō [Standard Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kigensha.
Michaelis, Laura. 1993. Toward a grammar of aspect: The case of the English perfect construction.
California: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.
Michaelis, Laura and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language func-
tion: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2). 215–247.
Mikami, Akira. 1953. Gendai gohō josetsu [An introduction to modern usages]. Tokyo: Noe Shoin.
(Reprinted from Kurosio Publishers in 1972.)
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1993. Nihongo no kaku-fuyo no bunpō to gengo kakutoku riron [The grammar
of case assignment in Japanese and language acquisition theory]. Proceedings of Sophia
Linguistic Society (SLS) 8. 160–172.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. BLS 4. 157–189.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Takahashi, Taro. 1969. Sugata to mokuromi [Form and intention]. In Haruhiko Kindaichi (ed.), 1976
Nihongo dōshi no asupekuto [Aspects of Japanese verbs], 117–153. Tokyo: Mugi Syobō.
Takami, Ken-ichi and Susumu Kuno. 2002. Nichieigo no jidōshi kōbun [Intransitive verb construc-
tions in English and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Takami, Ken-ichi and Susumu Kuno. 2006. Nihongo kinōteki kōbun kenkyū [A functional approach to
Japanese syntax]. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten.
234 Ken-ichi Takami and Susumu Kuno

Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Syntax and meaning in Japanese II]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1999. Lexical semantics. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese
linguistics, 349–377. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Tsujimura, Natsuko and Masayo Iida. 1999. Deverbal nominals and telicity in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 8(2). 107–130.
Yoshikawa, Taketoki. 1973. Gendai nihongo dōshi no asupekuto no kenkyū [A study of aspects
of modern Japanese verbs]. In Haruhiko Kindaichi (ed.) 1976, Nihongo dōshi no asupekuto
[Aspects of Japanese verbs], 155–327. Tokyo: Mugi Syobō.
Seizi Iwata
7 Locative alternation

1 Introduction
As in many other languages, there is a diathesis alternation called locative alternation
in Japanese, in which alternatively a locatum or a location can be realized as direct
object.1 Thus in (1a) a locatum (penki ‘paint’) is marked with an accusative marker o
and a location (kabe ‘wall’) with ni ‘into/onto’, whereas in (1b) a location (kabe
‘wall’) is o-marked and a locatum de ‘with’-marked. For convenience’s sake, the two
variants will be referred to as a ni ‘into/onto’-variant and a de ‘with’-variant.

(1) a. kabe ni penki o nuru (ni-variant)

wall on paint ACC smear
‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe o penki de nuru (de-variant)

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’

In Japanese word order is relatively free, so that the ni ‘into/onto’-variant may be

realized either as [NP-o NP-ni V] or as [NP-ni NP-o V], and the de ‘with’-variant either
as [NP-o NP-de V] or as [NP-de NP-o V]. Apart from this possibility for different word
orders, the locative alternation in Japanese seems very similar to that in English, as
exemplified in (2).

(2) a. John sprayed paint onto the wall. (locatum-as-object variant)

b. John sprayed the wall with paint. (location-as-object variant)

In fact, as far as the locative alternation with spray/load verbs is concerned, the
locative alternation seems to be fundamentally the same across English and Japanese.
Thus it is well-known that a holistic interpretation tends to be observed with the
location-as-object variant, but not with the locatum-as-object variant: The paint
ends up being all over the wall in (2b), but this is not necessarily the case with
(2a). Hence the contrast between (3a) and (3b).

(3) a. John sprayed paint on the wall, but most of the wall didn’t get any paint
on it.

b. ?*John sprayed the wall with paint, but most of the wall didn’t get any paint
on it.

1 These terms are borrowed from Clark & Clark (1979).

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-008
236 Seizi Iwata

A parallel contrast is observed between the ni ‘into/onto’-variant and the de ‘with’-

variant.2

(4) a. kabe ni penki o nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun wa

wall on paint ACC smear-PST though wall-GEN most TOP
nurarete inai
smeared not
‘I smeared paint on the wall, but most of the wall is not smeared’

b. ?*kabe o penki de nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun

wall ACC paint with smear-PST though wall-GEN most
wa nurarete inai
TOP smeared not
‘I smeared the wall with paint, but most of the wall is not smeared’

However, in contrast to Japanese, in English another type of alternation involving

verbs of removal is also available, as shown in (5).

(5) a. John cleared dishes from the table.

b. John cleared the table of dishes.

Thus in Japanese (6b), which is the supposed counterpart of (5b), is not possible.3

(6) a. teeburu kara sara o katazukeru

table from dishes ACC clear
‘clear dishes from the table’

b. *teeburu o sara de katazukeru

table ACC dishes with clear
‘clear the table of dishes’ (Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 15)

Now in the literature, formally oriented scholars have tended to assume that argu-
ment structure alternations (including the locative alternation) can be accounted

2 When a verb is accompanied by a suffix or another word, its ending often changes: nuru ‘smear’ +
ta (PST) = nut-ta (‘smear PST’); haru (‘put.up’) + tukusu (exhaust) = hari-tukusu (‘put.up-exhaust’).
3 Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) observe that the intended meaning can be conveyed by (i),
which literally means “to clear the table’s dishes.”
(i) teeburu-no sara o katazukeru
table-GEN dishes ACC clear
‘clear the table of dishes’ (Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 19)
But to identify (i) as a counterpart of (5b) would be stretching the notion of locative alternation
too far.
 Locative alternation 237

for by means of a single, neatly formulated rule (or its equivalent). This is true of the
previous studies on the locative alternation in Japanese as well: All the previous
analyses have attempted to attain a blanket generalization by means of a single
rule or a single notion in the lexicon, as will be shown immediately below.
The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate: (1) that no single rule or single
notion can properly account for the locative alternation, and (2) that the locative
alternation is in fact not to be accounted for by means of a purely lexical process.

2 Previous analyses
2.1 Kageyama (1980)
As far as I know, Kageyama (1980) is the earliest analysis of the locative alternation
in Japanese. In order to account for a range of case alternation phenomena in
Japanese (including the locative alternation), Kageyama (1980) posits a lexical rule
in (7).

(7) Theme Transfer

   
Theme LOC
[LOC] → [X]
X Theme
(LOC is a cover symbol for Location, Goal, and Source) (Kageyama 1980: 55)

This rule transfers the Theme role of a NP to a locational NP in the lexicon. Since the
Theme role is assumed to correspond to the direct object position in transitive sentences,
this rule will effect the object alternation.
Now the locative alternation is claimed to result from one application of this
rule. Thus the ni ‘into/onto’-variant in (8a) is turned into the de ‘with’-variant in (8b).
 
Theme
(8) a. [Agent] [Goal] V
Instru:
(Watasi ga penki o kabe ni nuru)
 
Goal
→ b. [Agent] [Instru.] V
Theme
(Watasi ga penki de kabe o nuru) (Kageyama 1980: 56)

One serious shortcoming of this analysis is that it does not say anything about when
the Theme Transfer rule applies and when not. Simply stating that the rule applies
when the verb enters into an alternation, but does not apply when the verb does not
enter into an alternation, does not really account for anything.
238 Seizi Iwata

2.2 Fukui, Miyagawa, and Tenny (1985)

Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) is probably the first serious attempt to address
the question of when and why the locative alternation arises in Japanese. Fukui,
Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) observe that there are three types of Japanese verbs, as
far as the possibility of alternation is concerned: First, oku ‘put’ does not alternate,
as shown in (9).

(9) a. hon o tukue ni oku

book ACC desk on put
‘put a book on the desk’

b. *tukue o hon de oku

desk ACC book with put
‘put a desk with a book’

Next, maku ‘sprinkle’ does not alternate either, as shown in (10b). Remarkably, though,
the complex verb maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ may appear in the de ‘with’-variant,
as in (10c).

(10) a. mizu o hodoo ni maku

water ACC sidewalk on sprinkle
‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’

b. *hodoo o mizu de maku

sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle
‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’

c. hodoo o mizu de maki-tukusu

sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle-exhaust
‘sprinkle the sidewalk completely with water’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 24)

And third, verbs like nuru ‘smear’ alternate, as seen in (1).

In order to distinguish the three types properly, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny
(1985) claim that in order for a verb to enter into the locative alternation, (1) the
verb must take two arguments, and (2) the Lexical Conceptual Structure (=LCS) of
the verb must include an ‘Affect’ clause.

(11) Conditions for the Alternation

(i) The verb takes two arguments x, y in its LCS; and
(ii) One of its arguments (y) is affected by the action represented by the
meaning of the verb (‘Affect y’) (Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 44)
 Locative alternation 239

All three types of verbs take two (internal) arguments, but are claimed to differ from
each other as follows. With nuru ‘smear’ type verbs, one argument is affected by
the action, thereby satisfying both of the conditions. By contrast, maku ‘sprinkle’
type verbs and oku ‘put’ type verbs lack the sense of ‘Affect,’ which accounts for
their failure to alternate. But the existence of some material is necessarily implied
with maku ‘sprinkle’ type verbs but not with oku ‘put’ type verbs: “What can be the
‘material’ of maku is highly restricted (some liquid that can be ‘sprayed’) while no
such restriction is placed on the object noun of the verb oku ‘put’” (Fukui, Miyagawa
and Tenny 1985: 40).
Consequently, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) differentially represent the
three types of verbs as in (12): oku ‘put’ type verbs, which simply express a change
of location; maku ‘sprinkle’ type verbs, which place a selectional restriction on the
locatum (material) argument but which lack an ‘Affect’ clause; and nuru ‘smear’
type verbs, which place a selectional restriction on the locatum argument and possess
an ‘Affect’ clause in the LCS.

(12) a. LCS of oku: OKU x at some place y

b. LCS of maku: Realize the action MAKU by using the Material x
c. LCS of nuru: Realize the action NURU by using the Material x & Affect y
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 43)

Since –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding is claimed to bring in an ‘Affect’ clause, the

LCS of maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ will end up essentially the same as that of
nuru ‘smear’ as in (13). Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) claim that this is why
maku ‘sprinkle’ cannot alternate but maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ can.

(13) LCS of maki-tukusu: Realize the action MAKU by using the Material x &
Affect y (Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 46)

According to Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985), therefore, what ultimately determines
the possibility of alternation is the presence/absence of ‘Affect.’
Unfortunately, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) do not make clear what ‘Affect’
means. In the absence of a clear definition of the key notion, their account does not
seem very promising.

2.3 Kishimoto (2001)

Kishimoto (2001), following Pinker (1989), characterizes the two variants of locative
alternation in terms of change of location vs. change of state. However, Kishimoto
equates change of state with ‘Affect,’ as is evident in his following statement: “Loca-
tive alternation is permitted for verbs whose meaning is broad enough to express the
240 Seizi Iwata

two distinct meanings of a change of location (i.e. a transfer of an entity (material))

and a change of state (i.e. a change affecting a location)” (Kishimoto 2001: 60).
The same problem arises as before: It is not clear what it means for a change to
“affect” a location.

3 Non-uniform semantics of the de ‘with’-variant

3.1 The relevance of ‘cover’ semantics
How is the locative alternation to be accounted for, then? To find an answer to this
question, let us begin by examining what is actually going on in the phenomenon
called locative alternation. As is well-known, there are classes of verbs like sosogu
‘pour’ that only allow a ni ‘into/onto’-variant as in (14), as well as classes of verbs
like oou ‘cover’ that only allow a de ‘with’-variant as in (15).

(14) a. koppu ni mizu o sosogu

glass into water ACC pour
‘pour water into the glass’

b. *koppu o mizu de sosogu

glass ACC water with pour
‘pour the glass with water’

(15) a. *nuno o teeburu ni oou

cloth ACC table on cover
‘cover a cloth over the table’

b. teeburu o nuno de oou

table ACC cloth with cover
‘cover the table with a cloth’

It is reasonable to assume that the ni ‘into/onto’-variant syntax and the de ‘with’-

variant syntax are associated with identifiable semantics. Let us call them Property
A and Property B, respectively. If one looks at distributional facts without any preju-
dice, then, a reasonable possibility that suggests itself is to suppose that sosogu ‘pour’
type verbs have Property A alone, oou ‘cover’ type verbs have Property B alone, and
nuru ‘smear’ type verbs as in (16) have both.

(16) a. kabe ni penki o nuru

wall on paint ACC smear
‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe o penki de nuru

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’
 Locative alternation 241

Now what allows nuru ‘smear’ type verbs to have both Property A and Property B?
What is crucial in this connection is that nuru ‘smear’ involves a liquid entity and a
surface, with the liquid typically undergoing a back and forth movement of strokes
over the surface, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: manner of nuru ‘smear’

Accordingly, the nuru ‘smear’ event may be described as in Figure 2.

Figure 2: nuru ‘smear’ event

This scene is open to two interpretations. On the one hand, by focusing on the paint
and its movement within the scene, we get the interpretation “to put paint onto the
wall,” as in Figure 3.

Figure 3: ni ‘into/onto’-variant of nuru ‘smear’

If, on the other hand, we focus on the wall, we get the interpretation “to cover the
wall with paint,” as in Figure 4.

Figure 4: de ‘with’-variant of nuru ‘smear’

242 Seizi Iwata

Now we can identify Property A and Property B. What is crucial for the ni ‘into/onto’-
variant syntax is that the substance is moved onto the location. So this aspect may
be characterized as change of location (= Property A). By contrast, what is essential
to the de ‘with’-variant syntax is that the location comes to be covered with the
substance. This is Property B. In what follows, this property, i.e. the location being
covered with the substance, will be referred to as ‘cover’ semantics.
Note further that this account automatically explains why a holistic interpreta-
tion obtains with the de ‘with’-variant but not with the ni ‘into/onto’-variant, as
noted at the outset in (4), repeated here as (17).

(17) a. kabe ni penki o nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun

wall on paint ACC smear-PST though wall-GEN most
wa nurarete inai
TOP smeared not
‘I smeared paint on the wall, but most of the wall is not smeared’

b. ?*kabe o penki de nut-ta kedo kabe-no-daibubun

wall ACC paint with smear-PST though wall-GEN most
wa nurarete inai
TOP smeared not
‘I smeared the wall with paint, but most of the wall is not smeared’

Since the location entity comes to be covered in the de ‘with’-variant, it is no wonder

that the paint ends up being all over the wall, thus nullifying the possibility of a
majority of the wall not becoming smeared.
By contrast, a similar effect is rather hard to come by if one characterizes the de
‘with’-variant syntax in terms of ‘Affect’ or change of state. Proponents of the affect-
edness thesis claim that a holistic interpretation is one manifestation of affectedness
(Pinker 1989), but among the number of linguistic phenomena that have been
claimed to be explainable in terms of affectedness (e.g. middles (Hale & Keyser 1987,
Levin & Rapoport 1988), the specifier of nominals (Anderson 1979, Rozwadowska
1988, among others)), locative alternation is practically the only area where a holistic
interpretation supposedly counts as a specific type of affectedness.
Thus, it is the ‘cover’ semantics, rather than ‘Affect’ or change of state, that is
responsible for the de ‘with’-variant syntax.

3.2 ‘Cover’-type and ‘fill’-type

The alternations exhibited by a number of other verbs can be similarly accounted
for. Thus haru ‘stretch’, maku ‘wind’, mabusu ‘coat’, and tiribameru ‘inlay’ alternate
as follows:
 Locative alternation 243

haru ‘stretch’
(18) a. kabe ni kabegami o haru
wall on wall-paper ACC stretch
‘spread wall-paper on the wall’

b. kabe o kabegami de haru

wall ACC wall-paper with stretch
‘spread the wall with wall-paper’

maku ‘wind’
(19) a. ude ni hootai o maku
arm on bandage ACC wind
‘wind a bandage around the arm’

b. ude o hootai de maku

arm ACC bandage with wind
‘wind the arm with a bandage’

mabusu ‘coat’
(20) a. kinako o moti ni mabusu
soybean flour ACC rice cake on coat
‘coat soybean flour on the rice cake’

b. moti o kinako de mabusu

rice cake ACC soybean flour with coat
‘coat the rice cake with soybean flour’

tiribameru ‘inlay’
(21) a. hooseki o doresu ni tiribameru
Jewel ACC dress on inlay
‘inlay jewels on the dress’

b. doresu o hooseki de tiribameru

dress ACC jewel with inlay
‘inlay the dress with jewels’

Note that in the de ‘with’-variants of all these examples the location entity seems to
be characterizable as being covered.
But this is not the end of the story. There are other verbs whose de ‘with’-
variants cannot be characterized in terms of the ‘cover’ semantics. Thus tumeru
‘stuff’ and umeru ‘bury, fill up’ alternate as in (22) and (23), which involve containers
like a box or a hole being filled.
244 Seizi Iwata

tumeru ‘stuff’
(22) a. hako ni itigo o tumeru
box in strawberry ACC stuff
‘stuff strawberries into the box’

b. hako o itigo de tumeru

box ACC strawberry with stuff
‘stuff the box with strawberries’

umeru ‘bury, fill up’

(23) a. ana ni gomi o umeru
hole LOC trash ACC bury
‘bury trash in a hole’

b. ana o gomi de umeru

hole ACC trash with bury
‘bury a hole with trash’

What seems to be relevant in this connection is the notion of being made full. In
Japanese the phrase ippai-ni suru ‘make full’ is an apparent counterpart of fill in
English. Crucially this verb may appear in the de ‘with’-variant syntax.

(24) gurasu o mizu de ippai-ni suru

glass ACC water with make.full
‘fill the glass with water’

Remarkably, the de ‘with’-variants of tumeru ‘stuff’ and umeru ‘bury, fill up’ may be
paraphrased by using ippai-ni suru ‘make full’ as in (25).

(25) a. hako o itigo de ippai-ni suru

box ACC strawberry with make.full
‘make the box filled with strawberries’

b. ana o gomi de ippai-ni suru

hole ACC trash with make.full
‘make the hole filled with trash’

Thus both of the de ‘with’-variants in (22b) and (23b) are to be characterized in terms
of the ‘fill’ semantics.
Furthermore there are some verbs in Japanese that involve a vertical arrangement
of things, similar to English pile and heap: yamamori-ni suru ‘heap up’, moritukeru
‘dish up’, and yamazumi-ni suru ‘pile up’. These verbs enter into the locative alterna-
tion, as shown below.
 Locative alternation 245

moritukeru ‘dish up’

(26) a. sara ni gohan o moritukeru
plate on rice ACC dish up
‘dish up rice (high) onto the plate’

b. sara o gohan de moritukeru

plate ACC rice with dish up
‘dish up the plate (high) with rice’

yamamori-ni suru ‘heap up’

(27) a. yakisoba o sara ni yamamori-ni suru
fried noodle ACC plate on mountain-high-heap do
‘heap up fried noodles (high) on the plate’

b. sara o yakisoba de yamamori-ni suru

plate ACC fried noodle with mountain-high-heap do
‘heap up the plate (high) with fried noodles’

yamazumi-ni suru ‘pile up’

(28) a. tukue ni hon o yamazumi-ni suru
desk on book ACC mountain-high-pile do
‘pile up books (high) on the desk

b. tukue o hon de yamazumi-ni suru

desk ACC book with mountain-high-pile do
‘pile up the desk (high) with books’

Again, the de ‘with’-variants of all these verbs may be paraphrased by using ippai-ni
suru ‘make full’: The situations described by (26b), (27b), and (28b) may also be
described by using ippai-ni suru ‘make full’, accordingly.

(29) a. sara o gohan de ippai-ni suru

plate ACC rice with make.full
‘dish up the plate (high) with rice’

b. sara o yakisoba de ippai-ni suru

plate ACC fried noodles with make.full
‘dish up the plate (high) with fried noodles’

c. tukue o hon de ippai-ni suru

desk ACC book with make.full
‘pile up the desk (high) with books’

Thus all the de ‘with’-variants in (26b) to (28b) are to be characterized in terms of the
‘fill’ semantics.
246 Seizi Iwata

To sum up, the Japanese verbs that enter into the locative alternation divide into
two types, depending upon whether the de ‘with’-variant is to be characterized in
terms of the ‘cover’ semantics or the ‘fill’ semantics. The ‘fill’-type is further divided
according to whether the verb involves filling a container or arranging things vertically.

‘cover’-type
(30) nuru ‘smear’, haru ‘stretch’, maku ‘wind’, tiribameru ‘inlay’, mabusu ‘coat’

‘fill’-type
(31) a. mitasu ‘fill’, tumeru ‘stuff’, umeru ‘bury’
b. moritukeru ‘dish up’, yamamori-ni suru ‘heap up’, yamazumi-ni suru
‘pile up’

These three types can be safely regarded as counterparts of the English alternating
verbs, which can also be roughly divided into the corresponding three types.

(32) a. spray, smear, scatter

b. load, pack, cram
c. pile, heap

3.3 Still other types

But there are still other types of complement alternation whose de ‘with’-variant
cannot be characterized in terms of the ‘cover’ semantics or the ‘fill’ semantics. First,
note that sasu ‘stick’ alternates as in (33), but a holistic interpretation is not required
of the de ‘with’-variant. In (33b) only a tiny spot gets pricked.

(33) a. Hanako-no-te ni hari o sasu

Hanako-GEN hand in needle ACC stick
‘stick a needle in Hanako’s hand’

b. Hanako-no-te o hari de sasu

Hanako-GEN hand ACC needle with stick
‘stick Hanako’s hand with a needle’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 5–6)

Similarly, there are a couple of other verb classes that enter into the locative alterna-
tion but whose de ‘with’-variant does not seem to be characterizable in terms of
‘cover’ semantics or ‘fill’ semantics. The first class consists of verbs having to do
with tying or fastening one thing around another: kukuru ‘tie up’, sibaru ‘bind’, and
tomeru ‘fasten’.
 Locative alternation 247

(34) a. ki ni nawa o kukuru

tree DAT rope ACC tie up
‘tie rope around the tree’
b. ki o nawa de kukuru
tree ACC rope with tie up
‘tie the tree with rope’

(35) a. ki ni nawa o sibaru

tree DAT rope ACC bind
‘bind rope around the tree’
b. ki o nawa de sibaru
tree ACC rope with bind
‘bind the tree with rope’

(36) a. hako ni teepu o tomeru

box DAT tape ACC fasten
‘fasten tape around the box’
b. hako o teepu de tomeru
box ACC tape with fasten
‘fasten the box with tape’

What seems to be crucial for this group is the functional unity of the locatum and
the location as a result of the verbal action. Thus the objects of (34)–(36), such as a
tree or a box, are unified with the items being wrapped around them, but that unity
can later be undone.
The second group may also be characterized by the fact that the locatum and
the location attain functional unity as a result of the verbal action: aeru ‘dress’ and
karameru ‘entwine’.

(37) a. goma o kyuuri ni aeru

sesame ACC cucumber LOC dress
‘dress sesame into pieces of cucumber’
b. kyuuri o goma de aeru
cucumber ACC sesame with dress
‘dress pieces of cucumber with sesame’

(38) a. soosu o nikudango ni karameru

sauce ACC meatball LOC enmesh
‘enmesh sauce around a meatball’
b. nikudango o soosu de karameru
meatball ACC sauce with enmesh
‘enmesh a meatball with sauce’
248 Seizi Iwata

Unlike the first group, however, the unity of the locatum and the location can no
longer be undone. The locatum and the location are so closely intermingled with
each other that they cannot be brought apart again, like the mixed elements of
food in (37) and (38).
The third group has to do with hitting a target: iru ‘shoot’, ateru ‘hit’, and
butukeru ‘throw’.

(39) a. ya o mato ni iru

arrow ACC target LOC shoot
‘shoot an arrow at a target’

b. mato o ya de iru
target ACC arrow with shoot
‘shoot a target with an arrow’

(40) a. daatu o mato ni ateru

dart ACC target LOC strike
‘strike a dart into the target’

b. mato o daatu de ateru

target ACC dart with strike
‘strike the target with a dart’

(41) a. booru o okada ni butukeru

ball ACC Okada LOC throw
‘throw a ball at Okada’

b. okada o booru de butukeru

Okada ACC ball with throw
‘throw at Okada with a ball’

Here the de ‘with’-variant indicates that the location entity is physically impinged
upon.
These may or may not count as instances of locative alternation, depending
upon how one defines locative alternation. But if we include all these alternations
in the category of locative alternation, it means that the de ‘with’-variant syntax
needs to be associated with all these different types of semantics: covering a surface,
filling a container, hurting one’s body part, gaining functional unity that can be
undone, gaining functional unity that cannot be undone, and physically impinging
upon a thing. It seems practically impossible to unify all these semantics into a
single coherent notion, and even if one manages to come up with a notion that
covers all these semantics, the resulting notion will be too abstract to be of any use
in describing the observed linguistic facts. Rather, all this suggests that the locative
 Locative alternation 249

alternation is a heterogeneous phenomenon where the de ‘with’-variant is to be

associated with various semantics, not something that can be handled by a single
mechanism.

4 A constructional account
4.1 Lower-level constructions
But given that the de ‘with’-variant is to be associated with various semantics, how
are these associations to be captured theoretically? I argue that constructions in the
sense of Construction Grammar are suitable for this task.
In the version of Construction Grammar being adopted here (Iwata 2008), con-
structions are defined as schemas in the sense of Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 2008,
Taylor 2002, among others). That is, constructions are nothing other than schematic
form-meaning pairings abstracted over usage events. As a schema both captures the
commonalities over its instances and sanctions new instances which conform to
its specifications, so does a construction. Also, I take the position that generaliza-
tions are to be captured at lower levels. So such lower-level constructions as verb-
class-specific constructions or verb-specific constructions will be useful devices (See
Croft 2003, 2012; Iwata 2008, 2014, and the references cited therein).
Let me illustrate by focusing upon the alternation exhibited by nuru ‘smear.’

(42) a. kabe ni penki o nuru

wall on paint ACC smear
‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe o penki de nuru

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’

The intuition that nuru ‘smear’ may appear in the de ‘with’-variant syntax as in (43b),
similarly to oou ‘cover’ in (43a), precisely because nuru ‘smear’ can be construed as
semantically similar to oou ‘cover’ can be expressed as follows. First, we need to
posit an oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction as represented in Figure 5.

(43) a. teeburu o nuno de oou

table ACC cloth with cover
‘cover the table with a cloth’

b. kabe o penki de nuru

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’
250 Seizi Iwata

Figure 5: oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction

Now both (43a) and (43b) instantiate this construction as in Figure 6.

Figure 6: How the de variant is sanctioned by the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction

The de ‘with’-variant of nuru ‘smear’ is thus sanctioned.

Note that under this view of constructions, it is the whole string embedding a
particular verb (e.g. kabe o penki de nuru), rather than a verb alone (e.g. nuru), that
instantiates a construction. This is an automatic consequence of constructions being
schemas: Schemas sanction the linguistic expression as a whole, not part of it.
Whether a given verb can appear in a particular syntactic frame or not is a matter
of whether the whole string embedding the verb in that syntactic frame can instantiate
a relevant construction or not.
Also, the possibility of a given verb’s entering into the alternation is a matter of
degree under this view of constructions. In a usage-based theory, newly encountered
expressions are acceptable and meaningful to the extent that (not “if”) they can be
construed as instances of a schema. Accordingly, a given de ‘with’-variant is judged
acceptable to the extent that it can be construed as instantiating a relevant con-
struction.
These two characteristics separate the proposed constructional account from any
other theory that fails to take into consideration the contributions made by participant
NPs and PPs.

4.2 The alternation is not confined to the lexicon

Exactly as the proposed constructional account maintains, the de ‘with’-variant
is indeed judged acceptable to the extent that the verbal action described by the
 Locative alternation 251

phrasal expression as a whole is construable as a covering activity. First, let us

compare (44) and (45).

(44) a. kabe ni penki o nuru

wall on paint ACC smear
‘smear paint on the wall’

b. kabe o penki de nuru

wall ACC paint with smear
‘smear the wall with paint’

(45) a. pan ni bataa o nuru

bread on butter ACC smear
‘spread butter on the bread’

b. ?pan o bataa de nuru

bread ACC butter with smear
‘spread the bread with butter’

Despite the fact that a representative instance of the locative alternation can be
constructed by using nuru ‘smear’ as in (44), the de ‘with’-variant of the same verb
with different locatum and location entities is judged slightly less acceptable as in
(45b).4,5
This contrast is confirmed by the corpus data. When penki ‘paint’ is the locatum
entity, both its o-marked occurrence (‘smear paint’) as in (46a) and its de-marked
occurrence (‘smear with paint’) as in (46b) are attested quite frequently in the NIN-
JAL-LWP for Tsukuba Web Corpus (=NLT) (223 and 66 instances, respectively).6

(46) a. penki o nutta ato desu

paint ACC smear after COP.POL
‘Someone has already smeared paint on it.’

b. tobira o penki de kanzen-ni nuru-to . . .

door ACC paint with completely smear-and,
‘smearing the door completely with paint . . .’ (both from NLT)

4 As a matter of fact, Okutsu (1981) judges (45b) unacceptable.

5 As the glosses in (44) and (45) show, the English expressions corresponding to penki-o nuru and
bataa-o nuru are smear paint and spread butter, respectively. In other words, in English two different
verbs are employed to cover the range of meanings expressed. But few native speakers of Japanese
would feel that there are two different verbs involved in (44) and (45).
6 http://corpus.tsukuba.ac.jp
252 Seizi Iwata

By contrast, when bataa ‘butter’ is the locatum entity, its o-marked occurrence
(‘spread butter’) amounts to 148 instances, but I have not found a single instance of
nuru with bataa ‘butter’ being de ‘with’-marked.

(47) syokupan ni bataa o nuri

bread on butter ACC spread
‘spread butter on the bread’ (NLT)

The results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: penki ‘paint’ vs. bataa ‘butter’

___ o nuru ____ de nuru

‘smear ___ on NP’ ‘smear NP with _____’

penki ‘paint’ 223 66

bataa ‘butter’ 148 0

What differentiates between paint-smearing and butter-spreading is the size of the

location entity. Note that in order for the activity of nuru ‘smear’, which involves a
back and forth movement of strokes over the surface, to count as a covering activity,
a somewhat large space is necessary. A wall is large enough to be thus covered, but
a single slice of bread is not. In fact, (45b) improves in the context in which the
bread is exceptionally large, like a Guinness World Record competition.

(48) zentyou 1-meetoru-mo-aru kyodai-na-pan o

as-.large.-as.-.1.-meter-wide giant bread ACC
hasi-kara hasi-made bataa de nut-ta
edge-from edge-to butter with spread-PST
‘They spread the bread, all of a meter wide, with butter’

Thus (48) is acceptable because the location entity is now large enough to be
‘covered’.
Let us next turn to maku ‘wind’. As already noted in 3.2, this verb may occur
both in ni ‘into/onto’-variant and de ‘with’-variant frames.

(49) a. ude ni hootai o maku

arm on bandage ACC wind
‘wind a bandage around the arm’

b. ude o hootai de maku

arm ACC bandage with wind
‘wind the arm with a bandage’
 Locative alternation 253

Interestingly enough, however, when the locatum entity is ito ‘thread’, rather than
hootai ‘bandage’, the de ‘with’-variant is less acceptable, as in (50b).

(50) a. yubi ni ito o maku

finger on thread ACC wind
‘wind a thread around a finger’

b. ??yubi o ito de maku

finger ACC thread with wind
‘wind a finger with a thread’

But the de ‘with’-variant improves when guruguru ‘round and round’ is added, as
in (51).

(51) yubi o ito de guruguru maku

finger ACC thread with round.-and.-round wind
‘wind a finger round and round with thread’

This is due to the different configurations the locatum comes to display. In (49b) the
arm is covered with a bandage, which is extended in two dimensions. But in (50b)
the finger cannot be said to be covered by a single loop of thread, as in Figure 7. It is
possible, however, to cover a finger by winding thread around it repeatedly, as in
Figure 8.7 This is why (51) is acceptable.

Figure 7: yubi-o ito-de maku Figure 8: yubi-o ito-de guruguru maku

Again, these contrasts are confirmed by corpus data. The entities that are rather
frequently found to occur in the de ‘with’-phrase of maku ‘wind’ in the NLT corpus
are teepu ‘tape’, hootai ‘bandage’, and taoru ‘towel’, all of which are extended in two
dimensions. Ito ‘thread’ is also found to occur in the de ‘with’-phrase of maku ‘wind’,
but those instances are either accompanied by guruguru ‘round and round’ as in (52)
or clearly involve the thread’s being wound again and again.

7 Strictly, one’s arm and one’s finger are three-dimensional. But the surface of the arm and the
surface of the finger are covered in (49b) and (51), respectively.
254 Seizi Iwata

(52) akai-ito de guruguru-ni mai-te sibarimasu.

red thread with round.-and.-round-COP wind-CONJCT tie
‘wind (it) round and round with red thread and tie (it)’ (NLT)

Table 2: entities that appear in the de-phrase of maku ‘wind’

_____ de maku
‘wind with _____’

teepu ‘tape’ 66
hootai ‘bandage’ 40
taoru ‘towel’ 32
ito ‘thread’ 24

All these facts confirm that it is the whole phrasal expression, rather than the verb
alone, that counts.

4.3 Morphologically complex cases

Now one thing that apparently argues in favor of handling the locative alternation
by means of a formal operation in the lexicon is tukusu ‘exhaust’-compounding. As
already noted at the outset, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) observe that maku
‘sprinkle’ does not appear in the de ‘with’-variant as in (53b), but the complex verb
maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ does, as in (53c).

(53) a. mizu o hodoo ni maku

water ACC sidewalk on sprinkle
‘sprinkle water on the sidewalk’

b. *hodoo o mizu de maku

sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle
‘sprinkle the sidewalk with water’

c. hodoo o mizu de maki-tukusu

sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle-exhaust
‘sprinkle the sidewalk completely with water’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny 1985: 24)

They also observe that the same is true of haru ‘put.up’, which does not appear in
the de ‘with’-variant as in (54b), but hari-tukusu ‘put.up-exhaust’ does as in (54c).

(54) a. kabe-ni posutaa-o haru

wall on poster-ACC put.up
‘put up posters on the wall’
 Locative alternation 255

b. *kabe o posutaa de haru

wall ACC poster with put.up
‘put up the wall with posters’

c. kabe o posutaa de hari-tukusu

wall ACC poster with put.up-exhaust
‘completely put up the wall with posters’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny, 1985: 24)

Based on these facts, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985: 24) claim that “the number
of basic nuru/smear verbs in Japanese is small, but the number increases significantly
when we add morphological endings to verbs which are not of the nuru/smear type.”
According to the exposition by Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985), tukusu ‘exhaust’-
compounding seems to be a rather formal operation that turns non-alternating verbs
into alternating verbs quite productively. Thus tukusu ‘exhaust’-compounding is
reminiscent of the German prefix be-, which is held to turn non-alternating verbs
into alternating ones (Brinkmann 1997, Michaelis and Ruppenhofer 2001).
The actual facts are not exactly as Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) claim them
to be, however. First and foremost, the number does not “increase significantly” with
the help of tukusu ‘exhaust’-compounding. Note that both sosogu ‘pour’ and tukeru
‘attach’ place a very similar restriction on the locatum argument to that of maku
‘sprinkle’. It follows then that sosogu ‘pour’ and tukeru ‘attach’ should receive the
same LCS representation as maku ‘sprinkle’, rather than as oku ‘put’. But sosogu
‘pour’ and tukeru ‘attach’ cannot appear in the de ‘with’-variant even when they are
compounded by –tukusu ‘exhaust’, contrary to the prediction of Fukui, Miyagawa
and Tenny’s (1985) theory.

(55) a. koppu ni mizu o sosogu

glass into water ACC pour
‘pour water into the glass’

b. *koppu o mizu de sosogu

glass ACC water with pour
‘pour the glass with water’

c. ?*koppu o mizu de sosogi-tukusu

glass ACC water with pour-exhaust
‘pour the glass completely with water’

(56) a. kabe ni penki o tukeru

wall on paint ACC attach
‘attach paint to the wall’
256 Seizi Iwata

b. *kabe o penki de tukeru

wall ACC paint with attach
‘attach the wall with paint’

c. *kabe o penki de tuke-tukusu

wall ACC paint with attach-exhaust
‘attach the wall completely with paint’

Next, huki-tukeru ‘spray’, tumi-ageru ‘pile’, tume-komu ‘cram’, and tumu ‘load’, which
are counterparts for English locative alternation verbs, nevertheless do not alternate.

(57) a. penki o kabe ni huki-tukeru

paint ACC wall on spray
‘spray paint on the wall’

b. *kabe o penki de huki-tukeru

wall ACC paint with spray
‘spray the wall with paint’

(58) a. rooka ni hako o tumi-ageru

corridor in box ACC pile
‘pile boxes in the corridor’

b. *rooka-o hako-de tumi-ageru

corridor-ACC box with pile
‘pile the corridor with boxes’

(59) a. hon o hon-dana ni tume-komu

book ACC bookshelf into cram
‘cram books into the bookshelf’

b. *hon-dana o hon de tume-komu

bookshelf ACC book with cram
‘cram the bookshelf with books’

(60) a. hosikusa o niguruma ni tumu

hay ACC wagon onto load
‘load hay onto the wagon’

b. *niguruma o hosikusa de tumu

wagon ACC hay with load
‘load the wagon with hay’
 Locative alternation 257

Since all these verbs place a selectional restriction on the locatum argument, they
should turn into alternating verbs via –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding. None of these
verbs behaves that way, however.8

(61) a. ?*kabe o penki de huki-tuke-tukusu

wall ACC paint with spray-exhaust
‘spray the wall completely with paint’

b. ?*rooka o hako de tumi-age-tukusu

corridor ACC box with pile-exhaust
‘pile the corridor completely with boxes’

c. ?*hon-dana o hon de tume-komi-tukusu

bookshelf ACC book with cram-exhaust
‘cram the bookshelf completely with books’

d. ?*niguruma o hosikusa de tumi-tukusu

wagon ACC hay with load-exhaust
‘load the wagon completely with hay’

Thus –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding is not as powerful as Fukui, Miyagawa and

Tenny’s (1985) exposition would have us believe.9
Rather, what is crucial is whether the compound verb expresses the ‘cover’
semantics or not. Like nuru ‘smear’, maku ‘sprinkle’ involves a back and forth move-
ment of a liquid over a location, so that the liquid reaches an area of some width.
When this action is exhaustively done to the sidewalk, the sidewalk ends up being
covered, as described in Figure 9.

Figure 9: maku ‘sprinkle’ event

Thus it is no wonder that maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ may appear in the de ‘with’-

variant syntax.

8 Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) judge (61d) acceptable, but almost all of my informants find
it unacceptable. In fact, Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) concede that “some native speakers of
Japanese might feel that [(61d)] is not perfectly acceptable.” (p. 12)
9 Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny (1985) cite maku ‘sprinkle’ and haru ‘put.up’ as examples that can
be turned into alternating verbs via –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding. But maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-
exhaust’ and hari-tukusu ‘put.up-exhaust’ are virtually the only instances that can acceptably appear
in the de ‘with’-variant. Obviously, two is far from warranting the characterization “significant
increase.”
258 Seizi Iwata

But things are different with sosogu ‘pour’ and tukeru ‘attach’, neither of which
inherently involves a back and forth movement of substance over a location. So even
if the action is exhaustively done, the location does not end up being covered.10
Consequently, neither of these two verbs may appear in the de ‘with’-variant syntax
even when they are compounded with –tukusu ‘exhaust’.
Similar things can be said of huki-tukeru ‘spray’, tumi-ageru ‘pile’, tume-komu
‘cram’, and tumu ‘load’, none of which can acceptably appear in the de ‘with’-variant
syntax via –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding. Note that in the acceptable cases of (53c)
and (54c) a surface is covered, whereas in the unacceptable cases in (61) this is not
the case. This seems to indicate that –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding is compatible
with the ‘cover’ semantics but not with the ‘fill’ semantics. Anyway, the facts are
clear: Not every verb can appear in the de ‘with’-variant by being compounded with
–tukusu ‘exhaust’.
Conversely, not every compounding can ensure the occurrence of the complex
verb in the de ‘with’-variant syntax. Thus when nuru ‘smear’, which alternates, is
compounded with –tukeru ‘attach’, the resulting nuri-tukeru ‘smear-attach’ no longer
alternates.

(62) a. Zyon wa kabe ni penki o nuri-tuke-ta

John TOP wall on paint ACC smear-attach-PST
‘John put a smear of paint on the wall’

b. *Zyon wa kabe o penki de nuri-tuke-ta

John TOP wall ACC paint with smear-attach-PST
‘John attached the wall with a smear of paint’

This is because with –tukeru ‘attach’, the focus is on the substance being attached to
a location. Nuri-tukeru ‘smear-attach’, therefore, does not entail that the wall ends
up being covered.
The following observation by Matsumoto (2000) can be accounted for along the
same lines. According to Matsumoto (2000), haru ‘put.up’ does not alternate, but
when it combines with –te iku (-CONJ go) ‘go on V-ing’ to form a participial complex
motion predicate, the de ‘with’-variant becomes acceptable.

(63) a. Zyon wa kabe ni posutaa o hatte-it-ta

John TOP wall on poster ACC put.up go-PST
‘John went on putting up posters on the wall’

b. Zyon wa kabe o posutaa de hatte-it-ta

John TOP wall ACC poster with put.up go-PST
‘John was covering the wall with posters’
(Matsumoto 2000: 203, Kishimoto 2001: 66)

10 With sosogu ‘pour,’ logically a three-dimensional container could end up being filled. But –tukusu
‘exhaust’ compounding does not seem to be compatible with the ‘fill’ semantics, as will be noted
immediately below.
 Locative alternation 259

Again, this is not surprising when one carefully looks at the expressed meaning.
According to Matsumoto (1996: 259), with participial complex motion predicates of
the form V-te iku (V-CONJ go) ‘go on V-ing’, the participle may bear only four kinds
of relation to a verb of motion, i.e. resultative, progressive, iterative, and perfect.
Clearly, hatte-iku in (63) is an instance of the iterative reading: putting up a poster
on the wall is iterated as the motion proceeds. Since many posters come to occupy
the wall, the wall ends up being covered. Thus the acceptability of (63b) is again due
to the ‘cover’ semantics involved.
Now it might be argued that even though the number does not “increase signifi-
cantly,” the fact still remains that –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding indicates the need
to resort to a complex verb formation in the lexicon. This lexical rule thesis might go
as follows: Maku ‘sprinkle’ is a verb of putting and therefore cannot appear in the de
‘with’-variant syntax, but maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ is now a verb of covering
and therefore can assume the de ‘with’-variant syntax.
But according to this lexical account, maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ should
appear in the de ‘with’-variant syntax alone, not in the ni ‘into/onto’-variant syntax.
In actuality, however, maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ may appear either in the ni
‘into/onto’-variant as in (64a) or in the de ‘with’-variant as in (64b).

(64) a. Zyon wa mizu o hodoo ni maki-tukusi-ta

John TOP water ACC sidewalk LOC sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled water completely on the sidewalk’

b. Zyon wa hodoo o mizu de maki-tukusi-ta

John TOP sidewalk ACC water with sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled the sidewalk completely with water’

This is because maki-tukusu simply means “to sprinkle-exhaust,” while the entity
that is exhausted is lexically indeterminate.
Rather, –tukusu ‘exhaust’ targets the amount/extent of the entity denoted by the
o-marked NP. This can be confirmed by attaching zenbu ‘whole’ and seeing what
entity is exhausted.

(65) a. Zyon wa mizu o zenbu hodoo ni maki-tukusi-ta

John TOP water ACC whole sidewalk on sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled the whole water completely on the sidewalk’

b. Zyon wa hodoo o zenbu mizu de maki-tukusi-ta

John TOP sidewalk ACC whole water with sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled the whole sidewalk completely with water’
260 Seizi Iwata

In (65a) the whole water is used up, while in (65b) the whole sidewalk is covered.11
Given that a –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounded verb comes to express the meaning
of ‘cover’ only when it occurs with an o-marked location entity, then, its occurrence
in the de ‘with’-variant syntax cannot be attributed to a process localized in the
lexicon. Rather, the event described by the sentence as a whole is to be assessed as
to whether it instantiates a covering event or not, exactly as the proposed construc-
tional account maintains. Thus why maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ may appear in
the de ‘with’-variant syntax is because the phrasal expression hodoo o mizu de
maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle the sidewalk completely with water’, not the complex verb
maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’ alone, instantiates the oou ‘cover’-class-specific con-
struction, as indicated in Figure 10.

Figure 10: de-variant of maki-tukusu

Thus while the facts about –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compounding might appear to argue
in favor of a lexical account, actually –tukusu ‘exhaust’ compound verbs can be
accounted for in entirely the same way as simple verbs in the proposed construc-
tional account.

11 It might be argued that these interpretations are possible because zenbu ‘whole’ is adjacent to the
o-marked NP in (65). But even if zenbu ‘whole’ is not adjacent to the o-marked NP, the distinction
between the two readings still seems clear.
(i) a. Zyon wa mizu o hodoo ni zenbu maki-tukusi-ta
John TOP water ACC sidewalk on whole sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled the whole water completely on the sidewalk’
b. Zyon wa hodoo o mizu de zenbu maki-tukusi-ta
John TOP sidewalk ACC water with whole sprinkle-exhaust-PST
‘John sprinkled the whole sidewalk completely with water’
 Locative alternation 261

5 Some further issues

5.1 Why does nuru ‘smear’ alternate even when the location is
not covered?
As seen above, the de ‘with’-variant may be sanctioned by other constructions than
the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction and the ippai-ni suru ‘make full’-class-
specific construction. Thus the de ‘with’-variant of sasu ‘prick’ in (66b) is acceptable
despite the fact that Hanako’s hand is not strictly covered, because it is sanctioned
by a construction which likely specifies ‘hurt’ or ‘damage’ semantics.

(66) a. Hanako-no-te ni hari o sasu

Hanako-GEN hand in needle ACC stick
‘stick a needle in Hanako’s hand’

b. Hanako-no-te o hari de sasu

Hanako-GEN hand ACC needle with stick
‘stick Hanako’s hand with a needle’
(Fukui, Miyagawa and Tenny, 1985: 5–6)

But given that the de ‘with’-variant of sasu ‘prick’ can be thus sanctioned, isn’t it
also possible, at least in principle, for verbs like nuru ‘smear’ to be sanctioned by
constructions other than the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction as well?
The answer is in the affirmative, of course. The discussion in the previous section
might create the impression that the de ‘with’-variants of different verbs are to be
handled by different constructions. Actually, if the de ‘with’-variants of one and the
same verb exhibit different interpretations, those interpretations are to be handled
by different constructions. Let me illustrate this point by having a look at nuru
‘smear.’
We have seen above that (67b) is somewhat degraded because a piece of bread
is not large enough to be ‘covered.’ In other words, (67b) cannot fully instantiate the
oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction.

(67) a. pan ni bataa o nuru

bread on butter ACC smear
‘spread butter on the bread’

b. ?pan o bataa de nuru

bread ACC butter with smear
‘spread the bread with butter’

Now Kimi Akita (personal communication) challenges this thesis, by citing the follow-
ing “counter-examples,” where the location entities (i.e. bread and one’s finger nail)
are not very large.
262 Seizi Iwata

(68) a. syokupan o kusat-ta bataa de nuru

bread ACC rotten butter with smear
‘smear the bread with rotten butter’

b. koyubi-no-tume o makka-na manikyua de nuru

little finger-GEN nail ACC red nail polish with smear
‘smear the little finger’s nail with red nail polish’

According to Akita, these examples instead support the “affectedness” thesis, in that
the location entities are clearly affected.
Indeed, the location entities are not very large in these sentences, but this is
simply because these de ‘with’-variants are sanctioned by constructions other than
the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction. In (68a) the bread becomes non-edible,
so it is damaged or spoiled; in (68b) the fingernail becomes more attractive-looking,
so it undergoes an aesthetic change. Accordingly, these de ‘with’-variants are to be
sanctioned by respective, appropriate constructions, which do not require that the
location be covered.
At the same time, note that cases like (68), where the direct object entity is
visibly affected, are exceptional, rather than a rule, for the de ‘with’-variants of
nuru ‘smear’. Thus when presented with kabe o penki de nuru ‘smear the wall with
paint’, few native speakers of Japanese would feel that the wall is affected in the
same way as in (68a) or (68b).
Also, as the act of smearing could be done for a variety of purposes like spoiling
the food, enhancing the aesthetic value, etc. (See Dowty 1991: 591 for a relevant
discussion), sentences like (68) could be constructed with some ingenuity. But
this is not necessarily the case for acts other than smearing. Thus we have already
seen that the following de ‘with’-variants can be analyzed in terms of the ‘cover’
semantics.

(69) a. moti o kinako de mabusu

rice cake ACC soybean flour with coat
‘coat the rice cake with soybean flour’

b. doresu o hooseki de tiribameru

dress ACC jewel with inlay
‘inlay the dress with jewels’

It seems far-fetched to think of examples corresponding to (68a) and (68b) for these
verbs.
In short, just because some de ‘with’-variants do not evince the ‘cover’ semantics
does not mean that the de ‘with’-variant cannot be analyzed by means of the oou
‘cover’-class-specific construction. When the de ‘with’-variant can be characterized
in terms of ‘cover’ semantics, the location entity does not seem to be affected, at
 Locative alternation 263

least not in the ordinary sense of the term. On the other hand, when the de ‘with’-
variant does not seem to be characterizable in terms of ‘cover’ semantics, the loca-
tion entity is visibly affected. The natural conclusion to be drawn is, therefore, that
the apparent counter-examples to the ‘cover’ semantics thesis are to be handled by
constructions other than the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction.

5.2 Why does kabuseru (‘place’) not alternate?

There is still another apparent problem for the ‘cover’ semantics thesis. Kimi Akita
(personal communication) questions why kabuseru, which is often translated as
“cover”, should appear in the ni ‘into/onto’-variant but not in the de ‘with’-variant,
by citing the following examples.

(70) a. kodomo ni huton o kabuseru

child on bedclothes ACC place
‘place bedclothes on the child’

b. *kodomo o huton de kabuseru

child ACC bedclothes with place
‘cover the child with bedclothes’

Conceivably, this is because kabuseru ‘place’ is fundamentally a verb of putting but

looks similar to oou ‘cover’ due to the selectional restrictions imposed on the locatum
and location entities. Basically, kabuseru means to place a concave entity on a convex
entity, as described in Figure 11.

Figure 11: kabuseru ‘place’ configuration

(71) is among the examples that illustrate these selectional restrictions well.

(71) atama ni boosi o kabuseru

head on hat ACC place
‘place a hat on one’s head’

The concave entity thus encloses the top area of the convex entity, a configuration
not unlike covering.
264 Seizi Iwata

Nevertheless, the specific top portion of a convex entity is not a surface that can
be covered per se. That is, the configuration of kabuseru ‘place’ does not count as
covering. Accordingly, there is a conflict between the verb meaning and the con-
structional meaning in (70b): The verb kabuseru ‘place’ requires a convex entity,
but the construction requires a surface, which is basically a flat entity. Hence the
unacceptability.
But this does not mean that kabuseru ‘place’ never appears in the de ‘with’-
variant. Sentences like (72) are attested in the NLT corpus.

(72) a. sono-ato 3-syoku-no dookei-syoku-no garasu de kabuse-masu

that-after 3-color-GEN similar-color-GEN glass with place-POL
‘After that, place a piece of glass with three similar colors over it (=bead)’

b. maeba o seramikku de kirei-ni kabuseru

front tooth ACC ceramic with beautifully place
‘put a ceramic covering on a front tooth beautifully’

In (72a) a thin layer of colored glass is put over a flattened bead, so the bead may be
construed not only as a convex entity but also as being covered with the glass. In
(72b) a layer of ceramic is placed on a front tooth, which is also of a shape that can
be both convex and somewhat flat, as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: a convex entity being covered

Thus even kabuseru ‘place’ may be found in the de ‘with’-variant syntax when the
location entity can be construed as being covered. The behavior of kabuseru ‘place’
confirms, rather than disconfirms, the ‘cover’ semantics thesis.

5.3 Why does ippai-ni suru (‘make full’) alternate?

The majority of Japanese verbs entering into locative alternation can be accounted
for by claiming that the de ‘with’-variant can be sanctioned either by the oou
‘cover’-class-specific construction or by the ippai-ni suru ‘make full’-class-specific
construction. So the locative alternation in Japanese has so far been shown to be
 Locative alternation 265

entirely parallel to that in English, at least as far as how the de ‘with’-variant is to be

sanctioned.
But there is an important difference. In 3.2, we have seen that ippai-ni suru ‘make
full’ may appear in the de ‘with’-variant syntax. This might create the impression
that ippai-ni suru ‘make full’ is exactly like English fill. But ippai-ni suru ‘make full’
may appear in the ni ‘into/onto’-variant frame as well.

(73) a. gurasu ni mizu o ippai-ni suru

glass into water ACC full make
‘fill water into the glass’

b. gurasu o mizu de ippai-ni suru

glass ACC water with full make
‘fill the glass with water’

Note that what appears to be a perfect parallel between English and Japanese breaks
down here. In English, both cover and fill appear only in the location-as-object
variant.

(74) a. *He covered a cloth over the table.

b. He covered the table with a cloth.

(75) a. *Bill filled water into the tank.

b. Bill filled the tank (with water).

However, as we have seen in (73), ippai-ni suru ‘make full’, unlike English fill, does
alternate. In contrast, the Japanese counterpart for cover, i.e. oou, fails to alternate,
parallel to English cover.

(76) a. *nuno o teeburu ni oou

cloth ACC table on cover
‘cover a cloth over the table’

b. teeburu o nuno de oou

table ACC cloth with cover
‘cover the table with a cloth’

It might be argued that this is an idiosyncrasy on the part of ippai-ni suru. But this
does not seem likely, because mitasu ‘fill’, another counterpart for English fill, also
alternates.
266 Seizi Iwata

(77) a. gurasu ni mizu o mitasu

glass into water ACC fill
‘fill water into the glass’

b. gurasu o mizu de mitasu

glass ACC water with fill
‘fill the glass with water’

Thus the incongruity between English fill and its Japanese counterparts does not
seem to be a coincidence.
A solution to this apparent puzzle comes from examining the morphologically
related words. In English, fill has a cognate adjective full, so that fill can be decom-
posed into “to cause something to become ‘full’.” On the other hand, Japanese has
ippai-ni naru, which is an intransitive counterpart of ippai-ni suru. So the transitive-
intransitive pair ippai-ni suru and ippai-ni naru can now be analyzed as “to cause
something to become ‘ippai’” and “to become ‘ippai’,” respectively. Accordingly,
the difference between English fill and Japanese ippai-ni suru can be ultimately
traced back to the contrast between English full and Japanese ippai.
Remarkably, while full can be predicated of a container but not a liquid as
in (78), ippai-ni naru can be predicated of both as in (79).

(78) a. *The water is full (in the glass).

b. The glass is full (of water).

(79) a. gurasu ga ippai-ni naru.

glass NOM full become
‘The glass became full.’

b. mizu ga ippai-ni naru

water NOM full become
‘The water became full.’

This indicates that the notion of completely occupying the inside of a container is
conceptualized differently between English and Japanese. In English, being full
is exclusively a property of a container. But in Japanese, the corresponding notion
is attributable not only to a container but also to a liquid going into the container.
Hence the difference between (78) and (79). Since this difference as to predication
carries over to the causatives fill and ippai-ni suru, fill means “to cause a container
to become ‘full’,” whereas ippai-ni suru is “to cause a container to become ‘ippai’”
or “to cause a liquid to become ‘ippai’.”
Essentially the same is true of mitasu, whose intransitive counterpart mitiru can
be predicated either of a liquid or of a container.
 Locative alternation 267

(80) a. gurasu ga miti-te -iru.

glass NOM fill-CONJCT be
‘The glass is full.’

b. mizu ga miti-te -iru

water NOM fill-CONJCT be
‘The water is full.’

Again, therefore, it is no wonder that mitasu ‘fill’ can alternate between the two
variants as in (77).

5.4 Summary
Now the Japanese verbs entering into the locative alternation which have been dis-
cussed in this chapter are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Japanese alternating verbs discussed in this chapter

Section
Meaning of de ‘with’-variant Discussed

Cover a surface nuru ‘smear’; haru ‘stretch’; maku ‘wind’; tiribameru 3.1, 3.2
‘inlay’; mabusu ‘coat’
maki-tukusu ‘sprinkle-exhaust’; hari-tukusu 4.3
‘put.up-exhaust’; hatte-iku ‘go on V-ing’
Fill a container ippai-ni suru ‘make – full’, tumeru ‘stuff’, umeru ‘bury’ 3.2
mitasu ‘fill’ 5.3
Arrange vertically moritukeru ‘dish up’, yamamori-ni suru ‘heap up’, 3.2
yamazumi-ni suru ‘pile up’
Hurt one’s body part sasu ‘stick’ 3.3
Gain functional unity that kukuru ‘tie up’; sibaru ‘bind’; tomeru ‘fasten’ 3.3
can be undone
Gain functional unity that aeru ‘dress’; karameru ‘entwine’ 3.3
cannot be undone
Physically impinge upon iru ‘shoot’; ateru ‘hit’; butukeru ‘throw’ 3.3
Cause an aesthetic change nuru ‘smear’ 5.1

The verbs are grouped according to how the de ‘with’-variant can be semantically
characterized and/or whether the verb is complex or simplex.12

12 There are still several alternating verbs that have not been discussed in this chapter. See Iwata
(2008) for discussion of these verbs.
268 Seizi Iwata

6 Conclusion
It has been demonstrated (1) that no single rule or single notion can properly
account for the locative alternation, and (2) that the locative alternation is not to be
accounted for by means of a strictly lexical process, exactly as stated at the outset.
As for the first point, what is crucial is that the de ‘with’-variant expresses a
covering event or a filling event (for the core cases, at least). The form-meaning
correlations in question can be captured by means of such lower-level constructions
as the oou ‘cover’-class-specific construction or the ippai-ni suru ‘make full’-class-
specific construction. As the proposed account attempts to capture generalizations
at more concrete levels than previous analyses, the number of constructions needed
will inevitably increase, particularly if we are to accommodate the locative alterna-
tions that cannot be handled in terms of the ‘cover’ semantics or ‘fill’ semantics. Yet,
this seems to be the right direction.
As for the second point, it is not a verb alone (e.g. nuru) but the whole string
embedding a particular verb (e.g. kabe o penki de nuru) that is sanctioned by a
relevant construction. This means that the possibility of alternation is not fully deter-
mined by the verb alone. Accordingly, the locative alternation is no longer a strictly
lexical phenomenon.
Additionally, there is no need to resort to purely grammatical devices that con-
vert one variant into the other. After all, what is crucial is the compatibility between
the verb meaning and the two constructions. Even the fact that –tukusu ‘exhaust’
compounding apparently turns non-alternating verbs into alternating ones can be
accounted for by closely examining the compatibility between the verb meaning
and the semantics of –tukusu ‘exhaust’.
Note that this view of the locative alternation offers an answer to the question
of why the locative alternation is observed across many different languages. Con-
ceivably, the act of putting something onto something else, on the one hand, and
the acts of covering or filling something with something else, on the other, are so
fundamental to human activities that virtually every language needs verbs of putting
and verbs of covering or filling. Now it is virtually unavoidable that among those
fundamental acts are acts that involve moving a large amount of substance and
which therefore can be construed either as a putting-type action or as a covering/
filling-type action. Thus the locative alternation ultimately arises from the need to
verbalize actions fundamental to human activities, not from a grammatical function-
changing operation.

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to Kimi Akita, Tony Higgins, and an anonymous
reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this chapter. Thanks again to Tony
Higgins, who also suggested stylistic improvements. This work is financially supported
by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), No. 25370558, 2013-2015 from the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science.
 Locative alternation 269

References
Anderson, Mona. 1979. Noun phrase structure. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Brinkmann, Ursula. 1997. The locative alternation in German: Its structure and acquisition. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Clark, Eve and Herbert Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 767–811.
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Herbert Cuyckens, Thomas
Berg, Rene Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language, 49–68. Amsterdam
and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.
Fukui, Naoki, Shigeru Miyagawa and Carol Tenny. 1985. Verb classes in English and Japanese: A case
study in the interaction of syntax, morphology and semantics. Lexicon project working papers
3, Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1987. A view from the middle. Lexicon project working papers
10, Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam and Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Iwata, Seizi. 2014. Construction grammar. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato, and Daniel Siddiqi, (eds.),
The Routledge handbook of syntax, 647–669. London: Routledge.
Kageyama, Taro. 1980. The role of thematic relations in the spray paint hypallage. Papers in
Japanese Linguistics 7. 35–64.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Locative alternation in Japanese: A case study in the interaction between
syntax and lexical semantics. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 17. 59–81.
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Beth and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical subordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 24. 275–289.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion
‘word’. Tokyo & Stanford, California: Kurosio Publishers and CSLI Publications.
Matsumoto, Yo. 2000. Nihongo ni okeru tadōshi.nijūtadōshi-pea to nichieigo no shiekikōtai (Transitive/
ditransitive pairs in Japanese and causative alternation in Japanese and English). In Tadao, Maruta
and Kazuyoshi Suga (eds.), Nichieigo no jitakōtai [Intransitive/transitive alternation in Japanese
and English], 167–207. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobō.
Michaelis, Laura and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the
German applicative pattern. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1981. Jōtaihenka-dōshi-bun – iwayuru spray paint hypallage ni tsuite [Motion and
change of state sentences – so-called ‘spray paint hypallage’]. Kokugogaku 127. 48–60.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with theta-roles. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax
and semantics 21: Thematic relations, 7–36. New York: Academic Press.
Rozwadowska, Bozena. 1988. Thematic restrictions on derived nominals. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.),
Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, 147–165. New York: Academic Press.
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Masayoshi Shibatani
8 Nominalization
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

(Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken”)

1 Introduction
Studies on nominalization, in both Western and Eastern grammatical traditions, have
largely concentrated on lexical nominalizations, neglecting grammatical nominaliza-
tions, despite their theoretical importance and far-reaching implications to the
descriptive practice.1 This imbalance is due to the fact that while lexical nominal-
izations (e.g. English sing-er) typically involve distinct morphology and their lexical
status as nouns is relatively clear-cut, grammatical nominalizations (e.g. [I know]
that John recklessly shoots trespassers; [I saw] John shoot trespassers; John’s recklessly
shooting trespassers [angered the entire community]; To shoot trespassers [is unaccept-
able]) vary considerably in form, some of which displaying structural properties
similar to clauses, and their nominal status is less fully realized compared to lexical
nominalizations (e.g. a/the shooting [of trespassers]; those terrible shootings [of
trespassers], but not *a/*the shooting trespassers [is unacceptable]).2
The Japanese grammatical tradition is no exception to this general trend. In the
context of Japanese there have been two historical developments that have con-
tributed to the failure to properly recognize grammatical nominalizations and their
roles in grammar. One is a terminological issue, which nonetheless has had a pro-
found effect on the thinking of Japanese grammarians. One of the major functions
of grammatical nominalizations is that of modifying a noun. Because of this, the
monk-scholar Tōjō Gimon (1785–1843) named a nominalized verbal form Rentaigen3
(adnominal word). This term has gained wide currency in the name of Rentaikei
(adnominal form), used today in the paradigms of verb conjugation, where the nomi-
nalized form is recognized as a conjugated verbal form along with finite (Shūshikei)
and other forms. The term Rentaikei and placing Rentai forms in the verb paradigm
have led many grammarians to believe that these forms in both Classical4 and

1 This chapter is a vastly expanded version of an earlier paper, which will appear as Shibatani
(2018a). This version contains a shorter description of lexical nominalizations and several new
sections and subsections on grammatical nominalizations, which are the main topic of this version.
2 See Lees (1965) for early, but still the most comprehensive treatment of English nominalizations.
3 Japanese grammatical terms all have an initial letter capitalized in this article.
4 Pre-Modern forms of Japanese, such as Old Japanese, Early and Late Middle Japanese, are collec-
tively referred to as Classical Japanese in this chapter.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-009
272 Masayoshi Shibatani

Modern Japanese are simply conjugated forms of verbs associated with the function
of noun modification rather than distinct grammatical nominalization structures
with different usage patterns, one of which is modification of a noun.
The other confounding issue has to do with a formal distinction between a finite
verb form and its nominalized counterpart. In Old Japanese, there was a formal dis-
tinction for many verbs between a finite verb form (Shūshikei) and its nominalized
counterpart labeled as Rentaigen by TŌJŌ. These two forms, however, began to merge
in the eighth century and the merger of the two was largely completed by the middle
of the sixteenth century, when nominalized structures supplanted finite sentences.
This process, known as insubordination/desubordination in the current literature,
obliterated the historical formal distinction between Shūshikei, e.g. ot-u ‘fall.PRS ’,
and Rentaikei forms, e.g. otu-ru ‘falling’, resulting in single modern forms based
on the latter, e.g. oti-ru ‘fall-PRS /falling’. This loss of the formal distinction between
finite and nominalized forms of verbs has led many grammarians to believe that
grammatical nominalizations are just regular clauses, rather than independent struc-
tures or constructions with functions and syntactic properties distinct from those of
clauses and sentences.
The two issues touched on here are, of course, related. The lack of formal dis-
tinction between finite verb forms and their nominalized counterparts in Modern
Japanese and maintaining the label for the latter suggesting a modification function
have had a profound effect on generations of Japanese grammarians. Had TŌJŌ
given a more neutral term to what we consider to be grammatical nominalizations,
such as Juntaigen (quasi-nominal), the term coined by YAMADA Yoshio (see below),
and had grammarians paid more attention to grammatical functions, both semantic
and syntactic, than just to formal appearances of linguistic structures, which may
vary over time and from one language to another, Japanese grammar would have
had a countenance quite different from what it is purported to be.
This paper is organized as follows. After a brief introduction to the process of
nominalization in the next section, where nominalization is defined as a metonymic
process of deriving new nominal expressions, section 3 discusses lexical nominaliza-
tions as a way to set the stage for the discussions of grammatical nominalizations,
the main concerns of this paper. This section first sets the record straight that
nominalization applies to nouns as well, contrary to the received wisdom on the
possible inputs to this process, and then delineates the range of concepts that
derived nominalizations are associated with via metonymic extensions. Section 4
starts a long discussion of grammatical nominalizations. Verbal-based nominaliza-
tions are discussed in section 4.2 beginning with a critical appraisal of the seminal
study on this topic by Yamada (1908), followed by a discussion on event nominali-
zations (section 4.2.1) and on argument nominalizations (section 4.2.2). Section 4.2.3
discusses two major uses of grammatical nominalizations, namely an NP-use and a
modification-use. Major claims advanced in these sections are that there are nothing
like relative clauses apart from these uses of nominalizations. So-called restrictive
 Nominalization 273

relative clauses are a modification-use of argument nominalizations, and so-called

internally-headed relative clauses are event nominalizations in NP-use. These claims
lead to the view that so-called relative clauses are not really clauses, let alone
sentences. Section 4.2.4 clarifies the differences among nominalizations, clauses, and
sentences in terms of the different functions they play. Section 4.2.5 discusses the
role of so-called Juntaijoshi (nominalization particle). Contrary to the wide-held
belief that the Juntaijoshi no is a nominalizing particle or nominalizer, we claim that
it is actually a marker of the NP-use of nominalizations and that nominalization
itself obtains independently from the Juntaijoshi.
Section 4.3 argues for nominal-based nominalizations and reanalyzes so-called
genitive/possessive constructions as a modification-use of N-based nominalizations,
marked by the so-called genitive particle no in central dialects. Section 5 discusses
the historical development of Juntaijoshi from the so-called genitive particle, which
we reanalyze as a nominalizer for N-based nominalization. Data from peripheral
Japanese dialects are drawn in support of the radical proposal for reanalyzing so-called
possessive constructions as a modification-use of N-based nominalizations, just as
so-called relative clauses are reanalyzed as a modification-use of V-based argument
nominalizations in earlier sections. Sections 6 and 7 take stock of our proposals and
analyses by re-examining two popular approaches to related phenomena, namely
so-called ga/no conversion and the characterization of two types of noun modifica-
tion in terms of the Uchi no kankei (internal relation) and Soto no kankei (external
relation) by TERAMURA Hideo. It is shown that the relevant phenomena go far
beyond the range of the observations and analyses offered in these past efforts. It is
shown that the no-marking of noun modifiers goes well beyond the realm of ga/no
conversion and that our distinction between restrictive modification and identifying
modification by both V-based and N-based nominalizations cuts across different
types of modification constructions.

2 What is nominalization?
Nominalization is a metonymic process that yields constructions, including both words
and phrasal units, associated with a denotation comprised of substantive or entity
concepts that are metonymically evoked by the nominalization structures, such as
events, facts, propositions, and resultant products (event nominalizations), and event
participants (argument nominalizations) or other concepts closely associated with the
base forms. As products, nominalizations are like nouns by virtue of their associa-
tion with an entity-concept denotation, a property that provides a basis for the
referential function of a noun phrase headed by such nominalizations.5 Verbs and

5 Denotation refers to the relationship between a linguistic form and concepts, both entity- and
relational-concepts, connected with it, while reference is the denotation-mediated relationship between
a nominal linguistic form and a real (or imaginary) world entity.
274 Masayoshi Shibatani

verb phrases, on the other hand, are associated with relational concepts (time-stable
or transient properties pertaining to an entity) and play a predication function in a
clause by ascribing a relational concept to the referent of a subject noun phrase.
They differ crucially from nouns and nominalizations in not denoting things and
thing-like entity-concepts and thereby in being unable to play a referential function.
A single metonymic expression may denote a variety of entity concepts that are
closely associated with the concepts denoted by the original words or larger structures,
and it is the speech context that determines and selects the denotation most relevant
to the context per Gricean maxims of conversation, one of which (the Maxim of
Relevance) requires speakers to be contextually relevant at the time of the utterance.
For example, the United States may metonymically denote a variety of entities closely
associated with the country by this name, but only a contextually relevant interpreta-
tion would be intended by the speaker and would be chosen by the hearer – e.g. the
sitting US president in the United States decided to attack the Islamic State’s forces
inside Syria, or a US women’s soccer team in the United States defeated China 1–0
to advance to the semifinals of the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Likewise, the
lexical nominalization half-pounder, based on the noun half-pound and is used in
an expression like Give me a half-pounder, may denote a hamburger in a fast-food
restaurant, or a can of tobacco in a smoke shop. While many lexical nominalizations,
listed as nouns in the lexicon, tend to have more uniform denotations, grammatical
nominalizations, which are created for the nonce, do not have fixed denotations, and
speech context plays an important role in determining and selecting the denotation
most consistent with the context.6

3 Lexical nominalizations
Since this volume is mainly concerned with syntactic phenomena, we will not dwell
on lexical nominalizations, which fall in the domain of word formation.7 However,
at least a couple of topics need to be addressed as a way to motivate our analysis
of grammatical nominalizations below. One is the scope of nominalization processes,
the issue centering on the question of possible inputs to nominalization processes.

6 Fillmore’s (1976, 1982) Frame Semantics is an attempt to harness metonymic patterns underlying
the understanding of word meaning in a larger framework that aims to represent a speaker/hearer’s
relevant encyclopedic knowledge mobilized in successful communication. Keith Alan (2001: 251)
characterizes a semantic frame as consisting of “characteristic features, attributes, and functions of
a denotatum, and its characteristic interactions with things necessarily or typically associated
with it” (emphasis added). A similar effort is seen in Langacker’s (1987) Cognitive Linguistics
framework in terms of the notions of “profiling” and “reference point”. See sections 6 and 7 for
further discussions on the mechanisms of metonymy.
7 See Shibatani (2017) for discussions of lexical nominalizations and their theoretical implications,
including critiques of earlier treatments of them.
 Nominalization 275

The other topic has to do with the range of meaning extension effected by nominali-
zation as a metonymy-based derivational process.

3.1 Scope of nominalization

Perhaps influenced by the term “nominalization”, which suggests turning something
into a new state, many researchers believe that nominalization is restricted to
derivations that turn verbal inputs into nominal outputs. Payne (1997: 223) tells us
that “. . . operations that allow a verb to function as a noun . . . are called nominali-
zations, and can be described with a simple formula: V → N.” In a more recent
study, Malchukov (2004: 6) characterizes it as a transcategorial operation, noting
that “’nominalization’ actually conflate[s] two properties: “deverbalization . . . and
substantivization (acquisition of noun-properties)”. While recognizing nominaliza-
tions based on nominal inputs, Comrie and Thompson (1997/2007) give short shrift
to such cases by allocating only one page and a few additional lines in their 47–
page discussions on lexical nominalization. A similar bias toward verbal-based nom-
inalization is also clearly seen in all the papers collected in Yap, Grunow-Hårsta, and
Wrona (2011).
It is unclear why these researchers have decided to focus more on verbal-based
nominalization, when even in such a well-known language as English exhibits a
case where a nominalizer that applies to verbal inputs also takes nominal inputs.
The case in point involves the so-called agentive suffix -er, deriving verbal-based
forms such as play > player, sing > singer, which, everyone would agree, is a clear
case of lexical nominalization. But this process takes a wide range of nominal inputs,
as demonstrated by villager, New Yorker, leftfielder, knuckleballer, tenner, 49ers, the
aforementioned half-pounder, three-wheeler, rear-ender, backhander, etc. While many
of these are not strictly agentive, they denote entities that are closely associated
with the meaning of the base forms. Whether a derived form denotes an agent
or non-agentive entity simply depends on the nature of the base form; verb-based
nominalizations denote an entity most closely associated with activities, namely an
agent, whereas nominal-based ones denote other types of entities metonymically
evoked in close association with the denotations of the base nouns, such as the
people associated with specific locations one way or another, and those entities
associated with a specific quantity, time, or manner.
This is certainly not limited to English. Parkatêjê, a Je language in northern
Brazil, has the agentive suffix -katê, which nominalizes verb roots (e.g. krere ‘sing’ >
krere-katê ‘singer’; jakre ‘write’ > jakre-katê ‘writer’). But this suffix productively
applies to animal names as well, producing forms like pryre ‘animal’ > pryre-katê
‘(animal) hunter’, rop ‘jaguar’ > rop-katê ‘jaguar hunter’, and kukryt ‘tapir’ > kukryt-
katê ‘tapir hunter’. Yagua in northeast Amazonia has nominalizing classifiers that
276 Masayoshi Shibatani

apply not only to verbal roots but also to adjectival as well as nominal roots (e.g.
tiryóó̹ -̹ jay (sleep-CLF.PELT) ‘sleeping mat’, jąąmu-daisiy (big-CLF.THIN.POLE) ‘big
blowgun, pole’, nǫǫnoo-jąą́ (light-CLF.LIQUID) ‘kerosene’) (Payne 1985). The Salish
language Halkomelem has similar nominalizing classifiers that also apply to verbal,
adjectival, and nominal roots (e.g. ʔitǝt=ǝ’wtxw (sleep=CLF.HOUSE) ‘hotel, bedroom’,
q’aq’iy=e’wtx w (sick=CLF.HOUSE), ‘hospital’, tel=e’wtx w (money=CLF.HOUSE) ‘bank’).
(Gerdts and Hinkson 2004)
Japanese is no exception to this possibility of applying a nominalizing morphology
to nouns as well. Sino-Japanese suffixes such as -sya, -syu, -si, and -ka, as in
syusseki-sya ‘attendee’, kussaku-syu ‘driller’, soozyuu-si ‘operator’, and katudoo-ka
‘activist’, derive nouns denoting agent specialists from verbal nouns, which are
nouns denoting activities by themselves and which form verbs in combination with
the verb suru ‘do’; e.g. syusseki ‘attending/attendance’ and syusseki-suru ‘to attend’.
The change from verbal noun to noun is arguably a case of category change,
although verbal nouns form a subcategory of nouns. But these noun-deriving forma-
tives, like the English suffixes -er and -ist, may also attach to simple nouns yielding
new nouns, such as higai-sya ‘victim’, uyoku-syu ‘right-fielder’, eiyoo-si ‘nutritionist’,
and syoosetu-ka ‘novelist’.
The Tagalog locative-focus suffix -an productively derives verbal-based locative
grammatical nominalizations that denote a place where some action takes place.
This suffix also attaches to nouns and yields new nouns (lexical nominalizations)
denoting locations that the referents of the base nouns are conventionally associated
with (Schachter and Otanes 1972/1983: 98ff).

(1) ang [k<in>ain-an ng=lalaki]

TOP eat<PRFV >-LF GEN =man
‘where the man eats’

(2) aklat ‘book’ > aklat-an ‘library’

halaman ‘plant’ > halaman-an ‘garden’
tarangka ‘lock’ > tarangka-han ‘gate’

These Tagalog forms point out two crucial facts for our analysis of nominalization:
(i) that nominalization processes may also apply to non-verbal forms, especially to
nouns, and (ii) that the four types of nominalizations – namely, lexical and gram-
matical nominalization, on the one hand, and verbal-based and nominal-based
nominalization, on the other – constitute a unitary phenomenon that needs to be
treated in a comprehensive manner. The following discussions corroborate these
points, especially the point that verbal-based nominalization and nominal-based
nominalization are intimately connected and that the latter also plays a vital role in
grammar.
 Nominalization 277

3.2 Meaning types of lexical nominalizations

Metonymy is a powerful cognitive process that allows a variety of form-concept
connections, increasing the expressive power of a language with limited resources.
It takes advantage of our knowledge that many things in the world occur in close
association. Verbal-based nominalization evokes various concepts intimately related
to what the verbal bases denote, namely states, processes, activities, attendant pro-
tagonists such as agents and patients, resultant products, as well as instruments
and locations constantly associated with particular activities. While some lexical
nominalizations involve morphology that delimits the range of meanings associated
with the derived nominals, as in the case of the English suffix -er and the Sino-
Japanese formatives seen above, some others may form nominalizations with a
greater range of meanings. Of the Japanese lexical nominalizations, stem nominali-
zations, involving -i/-Ø suffixes8, display a diverse array of meaning patterns on their
own but more typically in forming compounds with another nominal element. How-
ever, the form-meaning connections are not random and are metonymically bound
such that some meaning patterns are more consistently observed while others are
not.
For example, stem nominalizations based on change-of-state process verb roots
denote resultant states and products closely associated with the change-of-state
event, as in [kumor-] > [kumor-i] ‘clouded state’, [usu-[gumor-i]] ‘lightly clouded
state’, [kor-] > [kor-i] ‘stiffness’, [kata-[kor-i]] ‘shoulder stiffness’, but never activities
or agents, because these are beyond the range of metonymically evocable concepts
associated with simple processes. Action-process verb roots such as age- ‘fry’ and
hos- ‘dry’, on the other hand, may produce forms that denote either activities or resul-
tant products, as in [age-Ø] ‘thin fried tofu’, [kara-[age-Ø]] ‘frying with light coating’
or ‘fried stuff with light coating’, and [itiya-[bos-i]] ‘drying overnight (in the air)’
or [itiya-[bos-i]] ‘stuff dried overnight (in the air)’. What follows summarizes major
form-meaning patterns that stem nominalizations display.9

(3) a. Process/Activity: nagare ‘flowing’, suberi ‘sliding’, ugoki ‘movement’,

oyogi ‘swimming’, ake-sime ‘opening and closing’, mawasi-yomi (rounding-
reading) ‘reading by circulating reading materials in a group’, yama-nobori
‘mountain climbing’, hito-gorosi (person-killing) ‘manslaughter’

8 These nominalizations, often labeled ‘infinitive’, involve the suffix -i attaching to a consonant-
ending root/stem (e.g. odor- > odor-i ‘dancing/dance’), and -Ø to a vowel-ending root/stem (e.g.
kake- > kake ‘betting’). Besides the term ‘infinitive’, ‘participle’ used in European linguistics also
refers to grammatical nominalizations.
9 It would be interesting to ask whether all these meaning patterns have independently developed
or some have secondarily developed on the basis of some other patterns.
278 Masayoshi Shibatani

b. State/Characteristic person: hare ‘fine weather condition’, yuu-yake (evening-

burning) ‘evening glow’, zikan-gire ‘time expiration’, ame-agari (rain-
stopping) ‘after the rain’, hanasi-zuki (talk-liking) ‘a talkative person’,
Tookyoo-umare ‘a Tokyo-born’

c. Agent/Natural force: suri ‘pick pocket’, tasuke ‘helper,’ hito-gorosi ‘killer’,

uso-tuki (lie-telling) ‘liar’, arasi ‘storm’, hubuki ‘snow storm’

d. Instrument/Chemical agent: hasami ‘scissors’, hakari ‘scale’, nezi-mawasi

‘screw driver’, tume-kiri ‘nail cutter’, ha-migaki ‘tooth paste’, simi-nuki
‘stain remover’

e. Patient: yatoi ‘employee’, tukai ‘errand runner’, tumami ‘what is picked/hors

d’oeuvre’, tukuri ‘prepared raw fish/sashimi’, ture ‘one taken along/companion’

f. Resultant product: koori ‘ice’, yogore ‘stain’, age ‘thin fried-tofu’, kangae
‘thought’, kasi ‘loan’, sirase ‘message’, sasayaki ‘a whisper’, saezuri ‘a chirp’

g. Location: hanare ‘detached room/house’, nagasi ‘sink’, watasi ‘landing pier’,

mono-hosi ‘cloth-drying place’, mono-oki (thing-placing) ‘place to keep stuff’

h. Game name: tako-age ‘kite flying’, karuta-tori ‘playing Japanese cards’,

nawa-tobi ‘rope skipping’

i. Sports technique: seoi-nage (Jūdō), oosoto-gari (Jūdō), uwate-nage (Sumō),

osi-dasi (Sumō)

One characteristic that distinguishes lexical nominalizations of the type seen above
and grammatical nominalizations, to be discussed presently, is that the former,
being lexical processes, have irregular gaps in the meaning patterns. While many
based on action verb roots allow both activity and agent/instrument readings (suri
‘pickpocketing/pickpocket’, hito-gorosi ‘manslaughter/killer’, simi-nuki ‘stain removing/
stain remover’), many other similar forms have only one reading. Forms like yama-
nobori ‘mountain climbing’, uo-turi ‘fish catching’, and sumi yaki ‘charcoal-making’
only denote activities, whereas uta-utai (song-singing) ‘singer’, e-kaki (picture-
drawing) ‘painter’, and sumoo-tori (sumo-taking) ‘sumo-wrestler’ name only agents
and not activities such that while yama-nobori-suru ‘do mountain-climbing’ is possible,
*uta-utai-suru ‘do song-singing’ is not. Grammatical nominalizations differ from lexical
nominalizations in that they are created for the nonce. Accordingly, their meanings
tend to be compositional. However, the meanings of grammatical nominalizations,
which show a great deal of overlap in the patterns of lexical nominalizations seen
in (2), tend to be vaguer than lexical nominalizations.
Shibatani (2017) analyzes stem nominalizations as sublexical structures/construc-
tions that may form nouns by themselves or only in combination with another
nominal. The former are freestanding stem nominalizations (e.g. asobi ‘playing’,
 Nominalization 279

nagare ‘flowing/stream’) that function as nouns by themselves. They achieve a

noun status in the manner of [[asob-i]NMLZ ]N and [[nagare-Ø]NMLZ]N, distinguishing
themselves from underived ones such as [yama]N ‘mountain’ and [inu]N ‘dog’. There
are numerous stem nominalizations that only function as compound formatives and
that do not acquire a noun status by themselves. For example, neither of the com-
ponents of the compounds ake-sime ‘opening and closing’ and kaki-oki (writing-
putting) ‘a memo left behind’ occur as freestanding nouns, and their status remains
sublexical. The relevant compounds thus involve two nominalized compound forma-
tives in the manner of [[ake-Ø]NMLZ-[sime-Ø]NMLZ]VN and [[kak-i]NMLZ-[ok-i]NMLZ]VN.10 We
shall now turn to the discussions of grammatical nominalizations that are larger in
size than lexical nominalizations but that also function as nominalization structures
and are hence representable as [. . .]NMLZ , which play different grammatical functions
as in the case of lexical nominalizations.

4 Grammatical nominalizations
Like bound compound formatives, grammatical nominalizations are not subject
to part-of-speech classification, contrary to the term Meishika (noun-forming) used
in the literature11. Similar to lexical nominalization, grammatical nominalization pro-
duces structures that denote metonymically evoked entity (thing and thing-like)
concepts. Because of this entity-denoting function, shared by all nominal forms,
grammatical nominalizations head an NP, the most telling syntactic property of
nominals. In addition, they may function as a modifier in an NP, or they play an
adverbial function, typically in combination with an adverbial particle (see below).
These are all uses of grammatical nominalizations, not what grammatical nominali-
zations are per se, as we shall see below.

10 These are similar to Sino-Japanese compound formatives, such as doku ‘alone/single’ and ritu
‘stand’ in [[doku]?-[ritu]?]VN ‘independence’, which do not occur as independent nouns or verbs, but
which recur widely as compound formatives.
11 The term “part of speech” refers to WORD categories and do not apply to roots, affixes, and
phrasal structures, which are not words. One may classify different roots as “verb roots”, “adjective
roots”, and suffixes as “causative suffix” and “passive suffix”, etc. depending on their morphological
and functional status, but verb roots, for example, need to be clearly distinguished from verbs. Verb
roots become verbs when they are inflected for tense or mood, as in yorokob-u/yorokon-da ‘rejoice-
PRS/rejoice-PST’ and yorokob-e ‘rejoice-IMP’, and they become nouns when they undergo the stem
nominalization discussed here, as in yorokob-i ‘pleasure’, when they have a word status as in this
example. Similarly, adjective roots are not adjectives by themselves; they become adjectival predicates
when they form words with the -i tense suffix (e.g. tuyo-i ‘be strong’), nouns when suffixed by -sa
(tuyo-sa ‘strength’), or adverbs when suffixed by -ku (tuyo-ku ‘strongly’). In this way, Japanese
inflecting roots are “precategorical” in the sense that their part of speech is not predetermined.
280 Masayoshi Shibatani

4.1 Stem nominalizations as grammatical nominalizations

Before turning to the discussions of the prevalent types of grammatical nominaliza-
tions, let us briefly look at some phenomena that suggest that stem nominalization
mentioned above may have been a productive grammatical nominalization process
in the past.
Japanese has an evidential marker, soo, which marks information obtained typi-
cally based on visible evidence about certain states and properties. It attaches to
adjectival nouns such as the native word siawase ‘happiness’ and the Sino-Japanese
form kenkoo ‘health’, which, like other nouns, require the copula da for predica-
tion.12 Adjective roots denoting states and properties also take soo as in (5b):

(4) a. Takasi wa siawase da.

TOP happy COP
‘Takashi is happy.’

b. Takasi wa siawase=soo da.

happy=EVID
‘Takashi looks happy.’

(5) a. Takasi wa kasiko-i.

TOP smart-PRS
‘Takashi is smart.’

b. Takasi wa kasiko-Ø=soo da.

smart-NMLZR- EVID COP (NMLZR = nominalizer)
‘Takashi looks smart.’

It is not clear whether the adjective root kasiko- ‘smart’ in Modern Japanese as seen
in (5b) is inherently nominal or has been nominalized via stem nominalization.
Since all adjective roots end in a vowel, Ø-stem nominalization would apply produc-
ing the form identical with the root form.13 We tentatively assume that adjective
roots undergo Ø-stem nominalization, as indicated in the gloss for (5b). Either
way, they follow the pattern of adjectival nouns, suggesting that the soo evidential
attaches to nominals denoting property concepts, or conversely, what can be marked
by the soo evidential is nominal.

12 We divide the class of Keiyōdōshi (adjectival verb) in Japanese school grammar into two classes;
adjectival nouns (siawase ‘happiness’, kenkoo ‘health’) may function as a noun, and take the
copula da in predication function and na or no in modification function; nominal adjectives (kirei
‘pretty’, zyuudai ‘important’) do not function as a noun, and take da in prediction function and na
exclusively in modification function.
13 Frellesvig (2010: 79) states, without offering evidence, that Old Japanese “[a]djectives are nominal
roots or stems”.
 Nominalization 281

Now, this soo evidential also attaches to verbal-based stem nominalizations. For
example,

(6) [Ame ga kyuuni huridas-i]=soo da.

rain NOM suddenly fall.start-NMLZR =EVID COP
‘It appears that rain will start falling suddenly.’

When verbal-based nominalizations are involved, the soo evidential points to a cir-
cumstance with some visible sign of the imminent occurrence of a process or action.
Our point here is that this kind of i-/Ø-nominalizations are not words but have struc-
tures like a VP or a clause, indicating that the stem nominalization also produces
grammatical nominalizations with structures larger than words. This is also seen
with the desiderative predicates derived via suffixation of -ta, which conjugate like
adjectives (e.g. yomi-ta-i ‘want to read’).

(7) Takasi ga [hon o yomi-ta-Ø]=soo ni siteiru.

NOM book ACC read-DES - NMLZR = EVID PRT is.doing
‘Takashi looks like wanting to read a book.’

Grammatical nominalizations derived by the stem nominalization also have an

adverbial use in combination with the particle ni, occurring in a position where an
NP headed by a verbal noun occurs:

(8) a. Takasi wa [siryoo no [syuusyuu]VN]NP ni tosyokan ni itta.

TOP material GEN collecting PRT library to went
‘Takashi went to the library for collecting material.’

b. Takasi wa [hon o yom-i] ni tosyokan ni itta.14

read-NMLZR
‘Takashi went to the library for reading books.’

While these usage patterns of the relevant nominalization structures are highly pro-
ductive in Modern Japanese, they are atypical as nominalizations in that they do not
head an argument NP, nor do they modify a noun like more typical grammatical
nominalizations to be discussed next.15 But the usage patterns seen above suggest

14 This is what Yamada (1908) calls “purposive grammatical nominalization” (see below).
15 This type of stem nominalizations when marked by the conjunctive particle =te, as found in ex-
pressions like [hon o yon]=de kaetta ‘having read a book, (I) returned home’, historically arising from
the form [hon o yom-i]=te, can head a topic NP, as in [kono hon o yon]=de wa ikemasen ‘(you) should
not read this book’, or can modify a noun in the manner of a regular noun, as in [tosyokan de hon o
yon=de] no kaeri ‘a return home having read a book at the library’ (cf. [eiga] no kaeri ‘(lit.) movie’s
return home/a return home after the movie’.
282 Masayoshi Shibatani

that stem nominalization may once have been a productive process that has become
a more restrictive lexical process in recent history. Just as with the Tagalog case
mentioned earlier, Japanese also shows that lexical and grammatical nominaliza-
tions may overlap in morphological marking suggesting that the two are similar
phenomena.

4.2 Verbal-based grammatical nominalizations

YAMADA Yoshio (1873–1958) was perhaps the first to study Japanese grammatical
nominalizations in some detail. But his seminal study has not received the critical
appraisal it deserves, nor has any attempt to extend his work beyond its limitations
succeeded in drawing the far-reaching theoretical implications that a proper analysis
of grammatical nominalizations is bound to make. In his monumental Nihonbunpōron
[Theory of Japanese grammar] (1908), Yamada recognized the following types of
grammatical nominalizations, which he termed Juntaigen (quasi-nominal) after the
term Taigen (nominal).

(9) a. True grammatical nominalization

[Yorokobu] wa yoku, [ikaru] wa asi.16
rejoicing TOP good getting.angry TOP bad
‘Rejoicing is good, and getting angry is bad.’

b. Abbreviated grammatical nominalization

[Ikareru] wa kare ni site, [yorokobu] wa ware nari.
angry.one TOP he COP do-GER rejoicing.one TOP I COP
‘The angry one is he, and the one rejoicing is I.’

c. Clausal grammatical nominalization

[Hito no yorokobu] o mireba uresi.
person GEN rejoicing ACC when.seeing delighted
‘When (I) see people rejoicing, I feel delighted.’

d. Purposive grammatical nominalization (cf. (8b))

[Hana o mi] ni iku.
flower ACC seeing PRT go
‘(I) will go to see flowers.’

16 Yamada’s examples are in Classical Japanese form.

 Nominalization 283

Despite his definition of grammatical nominalizations as “the adnominal forms of

conjugating words [verbs and adjectives] used in the nominal status” (p. 707), the
revered guru of modern Japanese grammatical studies fails to grasp the true nature
of what he terms “abbreviated grammatical nominalizations” illustrated in (9b).
Likely influenced by the term Rentaikei (adnominal form), Yamada describes these
nominalizations as involving

“conjugating words [e.g. ikareru ‘angry (one)’] that modify substantive concepts. What is
modified here, however, has been absorbed in the conjugating words and cannot be recognized
in external form. In order to understand these, hito [person], mono [person], mono [thing], etc.
must be added after the relevant conjugating words.” (ibid., my translation; emphasis added)

This interpretation is curious in view of the fact that the same verbal-based forms
yorokobu ‘being glad/one who is glad’ is seen in what Yamada calls “true grammatical
nominalizations” in (9a) and “clausal grammatical nominalizations” in (9c), where he
apparently would not consider those forms to be modifying a substantive concept.
When Yamada defined grammatical nominalizations as words “conjugated” in
the so-called adnominal form that function like nominals, he seems to have had in
mind the syntactic properties of these forms, such as their functioning as sentence
subjects and objects, rather than the more basic meaning function that all nominals
bear, namely the function of denoting substantive concepts. Had Yamada taken this
fundamental function of nominals more seriously, he would have analyzed forms
such as ikareru ‘angry one’ and yorokobu ‘one who is glad’ in (9b) as directly bearing
the nominal, entity-denoting function, denoting entities that are metonymically evoked
by these forms – a person who is being angry and one who is glad, in this case.
While inventing the new term Juntaigen, Yamada still falls victim of the traditional
term Rentaikei reflecting an adnominal modification function. Had he considered
the Rentaikei as representing a derivation, rather than a verbal conjugation, that
yields nominalization structures with a nominal denotation function, he would
have had a more straightforward analysis that connects the meaning function of
nominalizations to their syntactic functions consistent with how nouns in general
function in grammar. In other words, it is the sharing of the function of denoting
substantive concepts that makes nominalizations and nouns pattern syntactically
alike.
The essential difference between Yamada’s true nominalizations (9a) and abbre-
viated nominalizations (9b) is, then, whether the structure denotes an event – or a
state-of-affairs more broadly – or denotes more concrete substantive entities. What
Yamada calls “clausal nominalizations” in (9c) are also event nominalizations with
a modifier, which specifies an event participant in this case (see section 6 for dis-
cussions on the differences between clauses and sentences, on the one hand, and
nominalizations, on the other).
284 Masayoshi Shibatani

4.2.1 Event nominalizations

Grammatical nominalizations denote either abstract concepts like events (processes

and activities) and those related to them such as facts and propositions, as well as
times, places, and reasons, or concrete substantives such as event protagonists func-
tioning as an agent or patient as well as resultant objects, just as lexical nominaliza-
tions denote these in a more codified manner.
Event nominalizations have clause-like internal structures, often with a full
array of NP arguments overtly expressed. They have, however, external syntagmatic
properties like nouns in that they head an NP, playing both syntactic and referential
functions of arguments of a clause. Bear in mind that grammatical categories are
determined on the basis of external properties, not by internal properties, meaning
that even if a structure is clause-like internally, it does not follow that the structure
in question is a clause (see below). Event nominalizations denote the following
kinds of concepts:

(10) a. State-of-affairs/Circumstance
[Haha ga you]17 no o itumo mitemasita kara . . .
mother NOM getting.drunk PRT ACC always watched because
‘Because I always watched my mother getting drunk . . .’

b. Fact
Masako wa [otto ni sonna onna ga ita] no
TOP husband LOC such woman NOM existing PRT
o sitta.
ACC learned
‘Masako learned that (her) husband had such a woman.’

c. Time, place, reason/cause

(i) [Masako ga Hukuoka ni tonde itta] no ga sigatu no
Masako NOM Fukuoka to fly.GER went PRT NOM April GEN
zyuuni niti, . . .
twelve day
‘(lit.) That Hanako went flying to Fukuoka was April 21, . . .’

17 By bracketing as [haha ga you] as in this example and the others below, we are indicating the
basic nominalization structures, which take the particle no only in their NP-use in central dialects,
including Tokyo Japanese (see below). The structure containing no can be represented as [[haha ga
you]NMLZ] no]NMLZ′ .
 Nominalization 285

(ii) [Watasi ga umareta] no wa Saitama – sono inaka mati

I NOM was.born PRT TOP that rural town
ni aru syakuya datta.
in exist rental.house was
‘Where I was born was a rental house in a rural town in Saitama.’
(iii) [Hotyoo ga hayai] no wa kanzyooteki ni natte iru
step NOM quick PRT TOP emotional to become be
kara daroo.
from COP.CONJEC
‘(The reason) why (her) steps are quick is perhaps because (she) has
become emotional.’

d. Event participant
(i) Hora, [sensei ga izen kingyo no e o kaita] no
look teacher NOM before gold.fish GEN picture ACC drew PRT
ga aru desyoo.
NOM exsist COP.CNJ
‘(Lit.) Look; there is that the teacher drew a picture of a gold fish
sometime ago, isn’t there?’/‘Look; there’s a picture of a gold fish that
the teacher drew some time ago isn’t there?’
(ii) [Suberi no warui hikido ga oto o tateru] no
sliding GEN bad sliding.door NOM sound ACC emit PRT

o kiite, . . .
ACC hear.GER
‘Upon hearing the bad sliding door make sounds. . .’

e. Resultant product
(i) [Sobo no katte iru zyuusimatu ga saezuru] no o
grand.mother GEN keep society.finch NOM chirp PRT ACC

kiita.
heard
‘(I) heard the society finch chirp that (my) grandmother keeps.’
(ii) Ogata wa waratte [syuumai ni kiiroi karasi o
Ogata TOP smile.GER dumpling to yellow mustard ACC
tappuri nutta] no o, ikioiyoku kuti no naka ni
amply smeared PRT ACC vigorously mouth GEN inside to
hoori konda.
throw pushed
‘Ogata smiled and shoved into his mouth a dumpling smeared full of
mustered.’
286 Masayoshi Shibatani

These constructions are interesting in that the bracketed nominalization structures

are syntactic arguments, but they do not represent the semantic arguments of the
main clause predicates in a direct manner like simple noun phrase arguments. For
example, what Masako learned in (10b) is a fact, and what was heard in (10e.i) was
the chirping sounds of the society finch, but these are not given as NP arguments
[zizitu] ‘fact’ and [zyuusimatu no saezuri] ‘chirping sounds of the society finch’ in
the relevant structures.
In some circles (e.g. Keenan 1985; Kuroda 1992), constructions like (10d) are
analyzed as internally-headed relative clauses, assuming (i) that these are relative
clauses, and (ii) that a head nominal exists within relative clauses unlike regular
relative clause constructions, where a head exists externally in the main clause. A
problem with the first assumption is that it is not at all obvious that these structures
have the function of relative clauses, which is either to restrict the denotation of the
head noun (restrictive relatives) or to identify the head noun in terms of the denota-
tion of a modifying nominalization structure (non-restrictive relatives). The second
assumption that in these structures an argument internal to the “relative clause” is
the argument of the main-clause predicate is also problematic. Such an assumption
does not extend to other constructions without an external head like (10e), where
there is no NP within the “relative clause” that can serve as a main-clause argument.
The nominalization structures in (10a–c) also lack an internal argument that can
serve as a head, as seen in a comparison between them and the synonymous con-
structions below, where an NP argument of the main clause predicates is explicitly
coded:

(11) a. [Haha ga you] zyookyoo o itumo mitemasita kara . . .

mother NOM getting.drunk scene ACC always watched because
‘Because I always watched the scene that my mother was getting drunk . . .’

b. Masako wa [otto ni sonna onna ga ita] zizitu

TOP husband LOC such woman NOM existing fact

o sitta.
ACC learned
‘Masako learned the fact that (her) husband had such a woman.’

c. [Watasi ga umareta] basyo wa Saitama – sono inaka mati

I NOM was.born place top that rural town
ni aru syakuya datta.
in exist rental.house was
‘The place where I was born was a rental house in a rural town in Saitama.’

Whatever analysis is offered to these cases, the proposal to analyze forms like (10d)
as internally-headed relative clauses divides the phenomenon into two or more
 Nominalization 287

sub-phenomena, while the metonymy-based analysis treats it uniformly. All these

constructions contain nominalization structures that, like lexical nominalizations
discussed earlier, metonymically evoke concepts such as situations associated with
events, circumstantial matters like time, location, and reason for an event, event
participants, as well as resultant products closely associated with an event. In these
constructions, nominalization structures function as syntactic arguments as a sub-
ject or object precisely because they evoke and stand for thing-like entities just like
nouns do. The metonymic relation seen here between the nominalization structures
and what they stand for parallels the ordinary metonymic patterns such as huro ga
waita (bath NOM has.boiled) “the bath has boiled (= the bath is ready)” and Bētōben
o kiku “listen to Beethoven”, where the metonymically evoked entities, not what the
syntactic arguments literally denote, serve as the semantic arguments of the verbs.
Note, at this juncture, that nominalization is not a morphological concept or
process. Accordingly, nominalization structures are not necessarily associated with
a morphological marker, though many are. The English nominalization process
known as “conversion” does not involve a morphological marker ([cook]V > [cook]N).
One type of the English “factive nominals” typically take that as a marker, but
may not in some contexts; I know [John is honest]NMLZ . In Chinese, while argument
nominalizations (see next subsection) involve a morphological marker, event nomi-
nalizations may not ([tā dă rén]NMLZ shì bú duì=de ‘[(that) he hits people] is not
right’). While in many languages verbs undergo a morphological alteration under
nominalization, in both English and Chinese verbal forms in nominalizations are
no different from finite verb forms.18 These structures are recognized as nominaliza-
tions not because of morphological properties but because of their nominal denota-
tions and external syntagmatic properties that may be morphologically indicated in
some other languages.
In our analysis nominalization structures analyzed and labeled as [. . .]NMLZ are
grammatical constructions of various sizes in the sense of Construction Grammar.
Grammars contain various constructions that are smaller or larger in size than words
that are not categorizable as words such as Noun or Verb or phrasal units such as
NP or VP, though they may function as constituents of these units. For example, the
conjoined structures [$10 to Pat] and [$5 to Kim], as well as the entire coordinate
structure [$10 to Pat and $5 to Kim] in I gave $10 to Pat and $5 to Kim are neither
NPs nor any other known phrasal categories because they are not constituents

18 In the case of Japanese, there is the possibility of analyzing the verbal-based nominalizations of
the type seen in this section as involving nominalized verb forms (so-called Rentaikei) that are iden-
tical in form to the finite verb forms (Shūshikei) due to a historical process merging the two. This is
the position taken by Japanese school grammar that recognizes separate Rentaikei and Shūshikei
forms though they are identical in form, except for the copula da accompanying an adjectival noun
and a nominal adjective in a predicative function.
288 Masayoshi Shibatani

in other contexts. Similarly, extremely expensive and in bad taste in This dress is
extremely expensive and in bad taste is a grammatical construction that functions
as a predicative complement like an adjectival phrase (extremely expensive) and a
prepositional phrase (in bad taste), but it is neither an AP nor a PP. A view that
grammatical units must be morphemes, words, or familiar phrasal categories such
as NP and VP is based on limited observation of possible grammatical constructions.
The field has learned that N and NP alone did not provide enough nominal categories
to handle some known facts, which motivated the recognition of an intermediate
nominal category N′. We are arguing in this paper that it is high time we recognized
the nominalization structure [. . .]NMLZ on account of its nominal semantic and
syntactic properties. These points are further demonstrated in a clearer manner by
another type of grammatical nominalizations that we call argument nominalization,
to which we now turn.

4.2.2 Argument nominalizations

Event nominalizations may evoke event participants, as seen in (10d). When the
structure contains two NP arguments, a possible ambiguity arises regarding which
of the arguments is the intended denotation, as in the following type of example
attributed to S.-Y. Kuroda:

(12) Gakusei wa [sihuku ga doroboo o oikakete iru] no

student TOP plainclothes.police NOM thief ACC chasing PRT

o tukamaete, nezihuseta.
ACC catching tackled.down
‘(Lit.) The student caught and tackled down that a plainclothes police was
chasing a thief.’

This sentence can be disambiguated by leaving empty an argument position within

the nominalization structure, as below:

(13) a. Gakusei wa [Ø doroboo o oikakete iru] no o tukamaete, nezihuseta.

‘The student caught and tackled down the one that was chasing a thief.’

b. Gakusei wa [sihuku ga Ø oikakete iru] no o tukamaete, nezihuseta.

‘The student caught and tackled down the one that a plainclothes police
was chasing.’

Unlike the event nominalizations discussed in the preceding subsection, which may
evoke a variety of concepts metonymically related to the basic events denoted by the
 Nominalization 289

structures, these nominalizations are dedicated to denoting event participants,

whose semantic roles are indicated by the position of a gap. The subject argument
nominalization has a gap in subject position, as in (13a), and the nominalization
structure as a whole denotes an entity acting as an agentive participant. The object
argument nominalization, on the other hand, contains a gap in object position and
denotes a patientive participant, as in (13b). Again, the entire nominalization struc-
tures marked by the particle no function as syntactic objects of the main-clause
verbs. They can bear these grammatical functions precisely because they denote
substantive concepts just like any noun.
As in other cases of metonymy, the actual denotation/reference of an argument
nominalization is determined by context, as in (14) below, where there are two argu-
ment nominalizations, zyukusita (no) and katamena (no), which can potentially refer
to a variety of ripe things (e.g. mangoes, bananas, tomatoes) and things that are
slightly hard (mangoes, avocados, pasta), respectively. The context and the Gricean
Maxim of Relevance, however, tell us that the author is referring to the mountain
persimmons given to him.

(14) Yama no mura no Natanosyoo ni tyuuzai siteita toki,

mountain GEN village GEN LOC residence was.doing time

yama-gaki ga dekiru to, mura no ie kara

mountain-persimmon NOM bear.fruit when village GEN house from
moratta koto wa aru. Keredomo, zyukusita no o sonomama
received NMLZ TOP exist however ripen(ones) PRT ACC as.is
kuu ka sukosi katame-na no wa, kawa o muite hosi-gaki
eat INT a.little hard(ones) PRT TOP skin ACC peel dried-persimmon
ni suru ka datta. (MIZUKAMI Tsutomu, Kokyō)
DAT do INT was
‘During my residency at a police substation in Natanoshō, a mountain village,
when the season of mountain persimmon arrived, I indeed received some from
villagers. However, I ate ripen ones as they are, or slightly hard ones, I peeled
them and made dried persimmons.’

Because these nominalizations in central dialects of Japanese, including Tokyo

Japanese, are marked by the particle no, and because their interpretations depend
on context, Kinsui (1995) and some others treat this particle as a pronominal no,
which heads a nominalization and which functions as an anaphor. Such an analysis,
however, does not extend to comparable nominalization structures in some other
dialects that have not developed a particle similar to no. Observe the following
from the Izumo dialect in Western Japan.
290 Masayoshi Shibatani

(15) a. [Okke na]NMLZ19 wa umai. (Izumo dialect)

big COP TOP tasty
‘A/the big one is tasty.’

a′. [Ooki na]NMLZ no wa umai. (Central dialect)

big COP PRT TOP tasty
‘A/the big one is tasty.’

b. Kono [yaita]NMLZ20 o gosinahai. (Izumo dialect)

this grilled ACC give.me
‘Give me this grilled one, please.’

b′. Kono [yaita]NMLZ no o kudasai. (Central dialect)

this grilled PRT ACC give.me
‘Give me this grilled one, please.’

Notice that these Izumo forms without no receive exactly the same referential inter-
pretations appropriate to the context as the no-marked central dialect forms, indi-
cating that no actually does not play a role in determining reference in argument
nominalization. In other words, there is nothing like a pronominal no in Japanese.
Another very popular analysis of these argument nominalizations is deriving
them from relative clause constructions, which are said to undergo deletion of their
head nouns when their identity is obvious from the context. For example, (16b)
would be derived from (16a) in this analysis.

(16) a. Kono [[yaita] sakana] o kudasai/gosinahai.

this grilled fish ACC please.give.me
‘Give me this grilled fish, please.’

b. Kono [[yaita] (no)] o kudasai/gosinahai.

PRT
‘Give me this grilled one, please.’

The problem here is that a full deletion account must refer to context anyway; i.e.
when does the deletion apply? Our point is that, if we have to refer to context, let
the context and the Gricean Cooperative Principle do the whole work of determining

19 These nominalizations, like regular nouns, can also be modified by nouns; [[sakana no [okke
na]NMLZ]NP ga tureta ‘(lit.) A big one of fish got caught’, [[sakana no [yaita]NMLZ]NP o gosinahai ‘(lit.)
Give me a grilled one of fish, please’. Cf. [[sakana no [nimono]N]NP ‘(lit.) cooked food of fish/cooked
fish’, [[nasu no [tukemono]N]NP ‘(lit.) pickles of eggplants/pickled eggplants’.
20 See section 6 on the true role of the nominalization particle no seen here.
 Nominalization 291

the reference of an argument nominalization without resorting to a pronominal no,

which doesn’t work in the case of the Izumo dialect anyway, or positing an un-
expressed head noun, a practice that goes against Occam’s razor.

4.2.3 Structures and their use

Grammatical structures, whether words or units larger in size than words, function
differently depending on their uses. Nominals, including nominalizations, have two
major uses, an NP-use and a modification-use. Observe these two uses of the noun
inu ‘dog’.

(17) a. NP-use/Referential function

[[Inu]N]NP wa tyuuzitu na doobutu da.
dog TOP loyal animal COP
‘Dogs are loyal animals.’

b. Modification-use/Restrictive function21
[[inu]N [koya]N]N (noun compound) (cf. tori-goya 'chicken coops')
dog shack
‘kennel’

In (17a) the noun [inu]N heads an NP and has a referential function at the NP level,
referring to a type of animal in the real world. In (17b) the same noun functions as a
modifier of the head noun, restricting the denotation of the latter to its subset. The
important point here is that a structure does not change its grammatical category
under different uses. In particular, nouns do not become adjectives even when they
play a modification function.22
Nominalizations, qua quasi-nominals, behave like regular nouns in allowing both
NP- and modification-use. The examples in the preceding subsections all demonstrate
the NP-use of grammatical nominalizations, where they have a referential function as
the head of an NP. The following examples show the parallelism observed in the usage
pattern between a regular noun ((17a)–(17b)) and an argument nominalization.

21 Japanese nouns do not syntactically modify nouns directly (but see section 7), as in English, which
allows non-compound, syntactic modification by nouns, as in [[cotton]N [shirt]N]NP and [[car]N
[smell]N]NP, or by NPs, as in [[Egyptian]A [cotton]N]NP [shirt]N]NP and [[new]A [car]N]NP [smell]N]NP.
22 If the noun car in a car smell has turned to an adjective, we would expect it to be modified by an
adverb, e.g. newly. It is modified by an adjective as a new car smell, indicating that car remains a
noun in its modification-use.
292 Masayoshi Shibatani

(18) a. NP-use/Referential function

[[[Hanako ga Ø katte-kita]NMLZ no]NMLZ]NP o minnade tabeta.
NOM buying-came PRT ACC by.everyone ate
‘(Lit.) We ate all together what Hanako bought and came.’

b. Modification-use/Restrictive function
[[Hanako ga Ø katte kita]NMLZ ringo]NP o minnade tabeta.
apple
‘(Lit.) We ate all together the apples that Hanako bought and came.’

So-called relative clauses (e.g. (18b)) involve two nominal structures, both with an
entity denoting function, whereby a modifying nominalization denotes a subset of
the denotation of the head noun. In this way, a construction with a restrictive func-
tion is characterized by a modifying structure that specifies a subset of the denota-
tion of the head noun. Our analysis of so-called relative clauses is largely consistent
with the treatment of restrictive relative clauses in Formal Semantics, which would
analyze a structure like apples that Hanako bought as denoting the intersection of the
two sets of objects specified as {x | x are apples} and {x | Hanako bought x}. The only
difference is that we would define the second set in terms of the entities that
are evoked by the nominalization structure, namely as {x | x is what is denoted
by [. . .]NMLZ }.23
Event nominalizations also permit two uses:

(19) a. NP-use/Referential function

[[[Takasi ga kekkonsite ita]NMLZ no]NMLZ′]NP o daremo
NOM had.been.married PRT ACC even.a.single.person

siranakatta.
did.not.know
‘No one knew that Takashi had been married.’

b. Modification-use/Identification function
[[Takasi ga kekkonsite ita]NMLZ [zizitu]N]NP o daremo siranakatta.
fact
‘No one knew the fact that Takashi had been married.’

Example (19b) involves a nominalization as a modifier that identifies the head noun
as one that the nominalization structure denotes, namely the fact that Takashi had
been married.

23 Our generalized formulation covers restrictive modification by both an argument nominalization,

which has a gap in an argument position, and an event nominalization, which does not have a gap in
an argument position, as well as by nominal-based nominalizations discussed subsequently beginning
section 4.3. See section 7 for further discussions on restrictive and identifying modification.
 Nominalization 293

Yamada (1908: 1461–62) correctly recognizes the two uses of nominalizations

shown in (18) and (19), but he then curiously suggests that these nominalizations
become special types of clause, as if nominalizations somehow turn into clauses
under the two uses. He tells us that the nominalizations in an NP-use can be called
Juntaiku (nominalization clause), and those in a modification-use Rentaiku (adnominal
clause). Yamada’s move is in line with the Western grammatical tradition that identifies
the nominalization structure in (18b) as a relative CLAUSE and (19b) as a content
CLAUSE. Our analysis, however, reveals that there exist nothing like relative clauses
and content clauses apart from a modification-use of argument and event nominali-
zations, respectively. Indeed, there is nothing that indicates that these nominaliza-
tion structures turn into clauses under the two uses for them.

4.2.4 Clauses, sentences, and nominalizations

Those who identify so-called relative clauses and complement or subordinate clauses
as clauses (or even as sentences)24 fail to make a clear distinction between internal
and external properties of grammatical constructions, and to properly understand
how structures are defined and categorized. Many grammatical nominalizations
have verbal syntax structure-internally. For example, the English event nominaliza-
tion [that [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] contains a finite verb that agrees with
the subject, an adverb that modifies the verb, and the verb shoots is followed by
a direct object in exactly the same way as in the sentence John recklessly shoots
trespassers. However, these verbal properties are structure internal, while the category
of a structure is determined by its semantic and external morphosyntactic properties.
Lexical nominalizations like (We built that) building, (Those terrible) shootings (are
deplorable) are categorized as nouns on the account of their property of denot-
ing things, such as physical objects and abstract entities like events and facts,
which are correlated with their external morphosyntactic properties of inflecting
for plurality, standing in argument positions, and being modified by a determiner
and adjective, etc. Specifically, we would not categorize them as verbs even though
they internally contain the verb roots build and shoot, as in [[[build]V-ing]NMLZ]N
and [[[shoot]V-ing]NMLZ]N. On the other hand, we would categorize forms like
[[[sing]V-er]NMLZ]N and [[[left field]N-er]NMLZ]N similarly as noun despite the difference
in the internal properties, because their external properties are exactly alike. The
structure [that [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] in an expression like [That John
recklessly shoots trespassers] is well known denotes an abstract entity of fact, like

24 Comrie and Horie (1995) tell us that relative clauses are no different from ordinary sentences with
an anaphoric gap, without taking seriously the crucial fact that while anaphoric gaps can be filled
(somewhat redundantly) by a pronoun, RC gaps cannot be in Japanese and other languages. Nevis,
Pesetsky, and Rodrigues (2009) tell us that “[a] verb may merge with a sentence, as in Mary thinks
[that the world is round]” (p. 366; emphasis added), while they think elsewhere (p. 363) that the
similar structure [that a boat is coming] is a clause in Y said that a boat is coming.
294 Masayoshi Shibatani

a noun fact denotes an abstract entity concept. It also has an important external
syntactic property of heading a subject or object NP, a major hallmark of nominals.
The reason why nominalizations behave syntactically like nouns is because they
denote substantive concepts like nouns. Clauses and sentences perform functions
different from the entity-denoting function. Clauses complete a predication by ascrib-
ing verbal relational concepts to the referent of a subject nominal. The structure
[John recklessly shoots trespassers] as a clause ascribes the verbal property of [reck-
lessly shoot trespassers] to the referent of the subject [John]. Sentences, on the other
hand, perform different kinds of speech acts such as asserting that the predication
made by a clause is true (declarative sentences), questioning whether or not the
predication is true (yes-no questions), ordering (imperative sentences), etc. The struc-
ture [John recklessly shoots trespassers] is a sentence when it is used in making
an assertion about the clausal predication, i.e. when the speaker, by uttering the
phonetic content of the structure, performs the speech act of declaring that the
predication made in the clause is true. Notice that predication and assertion are
two different types of speech acts, which can be clearly separated in yes-no ques-
tions. In asking “Does John recklessly shoot trespassers?”, the speaker makes a
predication but he does not assert its truth; instead, he asks the hearer to either
assert or negate the truth of this predication.
The structure [(that) [John recklessly shoots trespassers]] as a nominalization,
on the other hand, bears a function different from the clausal or sentential use of
this structure. Nominalization structures neither predicate nor assert. Instead, they
presuppose propositions such as John recklessly shoot trespassers and John shot
something (for the nominalization in I saw [what John shot]). How one arrives at
these presuppositions from the nominalization structures is an interesting question.
But grammatical nominalizations generally contain enough materials, as in the
examples given here, from which one can construct associated presuppositions.
Instead of speech acts of predication and assertion (or some other speech acts),
nominalization structures have a function of denoting substantive concepts, as
repeatedly noted above. Being nominal, nominalizations may head an NP and func-
tion as arguments of clauses and sentences. They do not stand alone like sentences
in their capacity as nominal structures. However, nominalizations may become used
as sentences when they perform speech acts, such as the expressive act of evincing
the speaker’s psychological stance or attitude toward the state of affairs denoted
(e.g. an expression of lamentation or surprise).25 Conversely, sentences/clauses do
not function as NP arguments. The only case in which they function as arguments
is when it is used as a direct quotation, as in John said/wrote/boasted, “I am the

25 Notice that nouns also function as a sentence (so-called one-word sentences) when it is used to
perform a speech act, as in the act of warning in an utterance like “Fire!”. It is believed that the
replacement of Japanese sentences ending in the Shūshikei form of a verb by the nominalization
structures in the history of Japanese started out with this kind of use of nominalizations as sentences.
Cf. the famous example of this from the Tale of Genji: Suzume no ko o Inuki ga nigasi-turu ‘Inuki let
my baby sparrow escape (shucks!)’, which ends in the nominalized form of the perfective suffix.
 Nominalization 295

greatest of all!”. In this way, grammatical constructions – sublexical morphemes, words,

as well as larger phrasal units – are defined in terms of their functions and morpho-
syntactic properties, not by morphology or formal similarities to other structures.

4.2.5 Nominalization particle no 26

The grammar of nominalizations in most modern Japanese dialects has evolved from
that of Classical Japanese via two prominent historical changes. One is the merger of
nominalized verbal forms and their finite counterparts, as already discussed. The
other is the rise of so-called Juntaijoshi (nominalization particle) starting in the late
sixteenth century in the case of central dialects, which began to use the particle no
to mark one use of grammatical nominalizations. Many other, but not all, dialects
have also developed similar particles for this function; to or tu in Kyūshū, so or ho in
Yamaguchi prefecture, ga in Hokuriku (Toyama and Ishikawa prefectures) and Kōchi
prefecture in Shikoku, the compound form ga-n in Niigata prefecture, yazu and its
variants in Akita, etc. While the term Juntaijoshi itself is non-committal to its function,
many scholars consider these particles to be nominalizing particles or nominalizers
that create nominalization structures (Horie 2008, Frellesvig 2010, etc.). That these
particles are actually independent from the nominalizing process is clearly seen from
the data in those dialects that have not developed such particles, as in the Izumo
dialect seen above (see (15)), where nominalizations occur without a particle.
There is one verbal form in many varieties of Modern Japanese that distinguishes
between the finite and the nominalized form. It is the copula da that supports predi-
cation by a nominal adjective or adjectival noun, whose finite form is da and whose
nominalized form is na. Observe the following, where we can clearly see that the
nominalization structure in (20c) obtains independently from the particle no:

(20) a. Ano hana wa kirei da.

that flower TOP pretty COP
‘That flower is pretty.’

b. Ano [kirei na]NMLZ no o katte. (NP-use)

COP PRT ACC buy.GER
‘Buy (me) that pretty one.’

c. Ano [kirei na]NMLZ hana o katte. (Modification-use)

‘Buy (me) that pretty flower.’

26 Beside no, there are many other particles that mark the NP-use of nominalizations including
koto, yatu, kata, and so-called Keishiki meishi (formal noun). This chapter focuses on the most
versatile marker no, which marks both event and argument nominalizations. The other markers are
limited in their use, either to event or argument nominalizations, and have additional functions such
as marking the semantics of event nominalization (as in the case of toki ‘time’, tokoro ‘place’, wake
reason’, etc.) or indicating the speaker’s attitude toward the denotations of argument nominaliza-
tions (cf. the difference among aruite iru no ‘one walking’ (plain), aruite iru kata (honorific), and
aruite iru yatu (rough/derogative).
296 Masayoshi Shibatani

The usage pattern of nominalizations above shows that the so-called Juntaijoshi
occurs only when nominalizations are used as NP-heads, as in (20b), and that it
is not really a nominalizing particle.27 Its true function is to mark the referential
use of nominalizations as the heads of NPs. The historical fact that this no first
developed in the NP-use of argument nominalizations corroborates this conclusion.
Argument nominalizations tend to denote concrete things that play a referential
function in discourse more readily than abstract concepts such as events and facts
that event nominalizations denote.28
A tantalizing question now emerges regarding the connections between the
markers of NP-use of nominalizations, Juntaijoshi, across different dialects (no/n,
ga, ga-n, to/tu, so/ho) and the so-called genitive particles found in possessive con-
structions, e.g. Takasi no hon ‘Takashi’s book’ ore-n ti ‘my house’ in modern central
dialects, nusi ga musuko ‘your son’ in the Kumamoto dialect, and Classical Japanese
forms Hitomaro ga uta ‘Hitomaro’s poems’ and oki tu siranami ‘white waves of the
open sea’.29 The exploration of this question will lead us to recognize another type
of nominalization, namely nominal-based nominalizations, which would obviate the
need for the so-called genitive particles and which would answer the question posed
above.

4.3 Nominal-based grammatical nominalizations

The genitive case, with which the so-called possessive particle no in Japanese is
identified, is an odd case since grammatical cases, such as nominative and locative,
in general, express grammatical or semantic relations between an NP and the verb
of a sentence.30 The constructions containing no-mediated NPs are also problematic

27 A true nominalizing particle/nominalizer occurs in both NP- and modification-use. Compare the
occurrence of no in (20b–c) and that of the Mandarin Chinese nominalizing particle de, which occurs
in all the contexts in which an argument nominalization is used, e.g. [Ø zài nàr diào yú]=de (shì Xiăo
Wáng)] ‘The one fishing over there (is Little Wang)’ (NP-use) and [Ø zài nàr diào yú]=de hái-zi (shì
Xiăo Wáng)] ‘The child who is fishing over there (is Little Wang)’ (modification-use).
28 There is a cross-dialectal pattern that matches this historical development of the marker of the
NP-use of grammatical nominalization. In central dialects, yatu marks only the NP-use of argument
nominalization (e.g. boku ga katta yatu ‘the one that I bought’), but in Akita dialects, the cognate
forms yazu, yazi, yati, yeti, azi, zi mark the NP-use of both argument and event nominalizations. Cf.
dekkee yazi hosi ‘(I) want a big one’, kono kasa ore yazi da ‘This umbrella is mine’, Taroo kuru yazi
mattera ‘(I) am waiting for Taro to arrive’ (from author’s field notes on the Akita dialect spoken in
Tsunodate City dated June 8, 2014). See Shibatani and Shigeno (2013) on the spread of Juntaijoshi.
29 See the similar connection in the Mandarin Chinese nominalizer de seen in footnote 27 and the
marker of a possessive construction, e.g. wŏ de shū ‘my book’. Matisoff (1972) was among the early
researchers who had noticed this connection in Mandarin, Japanese, and Lahu, though he had no
explanation for it.
30 Vocative is another such case that does not express the NP-verb relationship. See Teramura
(1999) on further discussions on this point.
 Nominalization 297

because the meaning relationships between the two NP constituents vary consider-
ably, as can be seen in Takesi no hon ‘Takeshi’s book’, Hanako no syasin ‘Hanako’s
photo’, Koronbusu no sin-tairiku no hakken ‘the discovery of a new continent by
Columbus’, niwa no ki ‘a garden tree’, kinu no syatu ‘a silk shirt’, Hanako no nasu
no tukemono ‘Hanako’s eggplant pickles’, etc. Do we have a single no here, and
what is the role of one or possibly more than one no involved here in determining
these varied meanings? We explore these problems in terms of a nominalization
process, the one that applies to a nominal structure yielding another nominal struc-
ture whose meanings are metonymically motivated as in the case of verbal-based
nominalizations studied above. In an introductory section of this article, we have
seen that lexical nominalizations apply to nouns as well. Once this possibility is
duly recognized, it should come as no surprise that grammatical nominalization
may also apply to nominal structures. Our proposal below is to reanalyze the expres-
sions of so-called genitive case (such as his, John’s and Takesi no) as nominal-based
grammatical nominalizations and altogether do away with the genitive case, or the
category of Zokkaku joshi (genitive particle) in Japanese (and elsewhere).
Let us first observe how the two instances of the expression Kawabata no is
understood below:

(21) Sono koro, bungaku syoonen no31 muzyakisa de, syoosetuka nizyuunin
that time literary boy GEN innocence at writer twenty.CLF
gurai no zyuusyo o Bungaku-nenkan de sirabe,
about GEN address ACC literary-yearbook in check
nengazyoo o, dasita koto ga attaga tosi ga
new.year.greeting.card ACC mailed that NOM was.but year NOM
akete henzi ga kita no wa, Kawabata Yasunari to
dawn.GER reply NOM came PRT TOP Kawabata Yasunari and
Konuma Tan dake datta. Kawabata no wa hondana ni
Konuma Tan only was Kawabata GEN TOP bookcase on
kazari, Konuma no wa mune ni daite neta.
decorate.GER Konuma GEN TOP bosom in hold.GEN slept
“At that time, out of the innocence of a literary youth, (I) found out the
addresses of about twenty writers, and sent new year’s greeting cards. At
the New Year’s start, the ones from whom replies came were only Kawabata
Yasunari and Konuma Tan. Kawabata’s was displayed on the bookshelf and
Konuma’s was held to my bosom while (I) slept.”
(KUZE Mitsuhiko Hito koishikute – yohaku no ōi jūshoroku)

31 Despite our new analysis of this type of no as nominalizer, we continue to gloss it as GEN for the
sake of simplicity. Likewise, we continue to gloss the Juntaijoshi no as PRT (particle).
298 Masayoshi Shibatani

(22) Zannen nangara Tookyoo Jihen no Yukiguni ga

unfortunately though Tokyo Incidents GEN Yukiguni NOM
Kawabata no o isikisite tukurareta toyuu meikakuna bunsyoo
Kawabata GEN ACC consciously was.made that clear sentences
o mita koto ga nai no desu ga, hon yondete kyoku
ACC saw that NOM not PRT COP NOM book reading.GER music
kikuto, Kawabata no Yukiguni no koto sika omoemasen.
listen.to Kawabata GEN Yukiguni GEN thing only cannot.think
“Unfortunately (I) have not seen any piece of clear writing that Yukiguni of the
Tokyo Incidents [a vocal group] was composed with a conscious awareness of
Kawabata’s, but when I read the book and listen (to the music) carefully, I can
only think of Kawabata’s Yukiguni.” (http://bungeiclub.exblog.jp/)

The expression Kawabata no in these excerpts does not denote/refer to the author
named Kawabata. Furthermore, what the expression denotes and refers to differ
between the two contexts. In the first passage, Kawabata no is understood to be
denoting things connected to the author Kawabata Yasunari, and the context suggests
that the expression is used to refer specifically to the New Year’s greeting card or the
reply connected to Kawabata, namely the one connected in terms of the authorship
and its product. In the second passage, the same expression is used to refer to
Kawabata’s novel Yukiguni (Snow country). It is clear from this that a form such as
Kawabata no functions in exactly the same way as many of the regular metonymic
expressions and verbal-based grammatical nominalizations, denoting a variety of
things that have intimate connections with the literal denotations of the base forms,
out of which the denotation most relevant to the context is chosen.32
Instead of viewing constructions like Kawabata no as arising from deletion of
the head noun (Kawabata no henzi → Kawabata no) or positing a pronominal no,33
we are proposing to analyze no seen here (or so-called genitive forms in general) as
a nominalizer that turns a nominal expression into another with a new denotation,
the one essentially denoting entities that are in close association with the denotation
of the nominal base-form. The notion of possession associated with the genitive
case form is a prominent instance of the denotation property of the nominal-based
nominalization, as seen in the use of John’s in This toy is John’s or John’s is more
expensive than Bill’s toy. These examples and the following Japanese examples
show that nominal-based grammatical nominalizations also have two major uses,
like verbal-based grammatical nominalizations.

32 Cf. Matsushita (1930: 246): “When one says Zibun no wa nai ga hito no ga aru ‘Mine does not exist
but others’ exists’ in Tokyo speech, zibun no ‘mine’ and hito no ‘others’ mean ‘my thing’ and ‘others’
thing’ and they are “nominal re-nouns” (名詞性再名詞) [nominal-based nominalizations?].” (my
translation)
33 See 4.2.2 for an argument against such an analysis.
 Nominalization 299

(23) a. NP-use
Ano sakuhin wa [[Kawabata no]NMLZ]NP o manete iru.
that work TOP Kawabata NMLZR ACC imitate be
‘That work imitates Kawabata’s.’

b. Modification-use
[[Kawabata no]NMLZ sakuhin]NP
Kawabata NMLZR work
‘Kawabata’s work’

Notice that unlike the marker of an NP-use of verbal-based nominalizations (the

Juntaiijoshi no) discussed in section 4.2.5, the nominalizing no discussed here
occurs in all contexts of use, in both NP- and modification-use, just like the
nominalizing particle de in Chinese (see footnote 27). Understanding the rise of the
marker for the NP-use of nominalizations – how it is connected to the nominalizing
no (and ga), and how its marking pattern develops – is essential in seeing that
our analysis of the genitive as a nominal-based nominalization is also supported by
morphological evidence.34

5 From the nominalizers no/ga to the Juntaijoshi

It is well known that in Classical Japanese there were two particles, no and ga,
which, according to our analysis, functioned as nominalizers for nominals. NP- and
modification-uses of the structures nominalized by these particles are shown below:

(24) NP-use
a. Kususi wa tune no mo aredo marahito no ima no
medicine.man TOP past GEN also exist.but visitor GEN present GEN
yakusi tootokarikemu medasikarikeri.
Bhaisajyaguru noble worthy.of.praise
‘As for medicine men, there are ones from the past, but the presently
visiting Bhaisajyaguru is noble and worthy of praise.’ (Bussokuseki no uta)

b. Kara no mo Yamato no mo kakikegasi

Chinese GEN also Japanese GEN also write.away
‘having written away Chinese ones as well as Japanese ones’
(Genji Monogatari ・Aoi)

34 Chinese and some other languages (e.g. Nepali) show a more direct connection between nominal-
based nominalizations (wŏ de shū ‘my book’) and verbal-based nominalizations, both of which
involve the same nominalizer de. Cf. the de marking in verbal-based nominalizations in footnote 27.
300 Masayoshi Shibatani

c. Kono uta wa aru hito no iwaku Kakinomoto

this poem TOP certain person GEN say Kakinomoto
Hitomaro ga nari.
Hitomaro GEN COP
‘This poem, a certain person says, is Kakinomoto Hitomaro’s.’
(Kokin Wakashū, Vol. 13)
(25) Modification-use
a. Huzi no takane
Fuji GEN high.peak
‘Mt. Fuji’s high peak’ (Man’yōshū)

b. aru hito no ke no ana

certain person GEN hair GEN hole
‘a certain man’s hair’s hole’ (Taketori Monogatari)

c. Onore ga gei no masaritaru koto o yorokobu

self NOM ability GEN superior that ACC be.glad
‘be glad about one’s ability being superior’ (Tsurezuregusa)

d. Kono uta wa aru hito no iwaku Kakinomoto

this poem TOP certain person GEN say Kakinomoto
Hitomaro ga uta nari.
Hitomaro GEN poem COP
‘This poem, a certain man says, is Kakinomoto Hitomaro’s poem.’
(Kokin Wakashū, Vol. 9)

As early as the tenth century, these nominalizing particles have been used to mark
the NP-use of nominal-based nominalizations, and have gradually established them-
selves as obligatory markers ( Juntaijoshi), as attested in the following examples.

(26) Marking of NP-use of nominal-based nominalizations

a. Hitozuma to [wa ga] no hutatu omouni hanarekosi
man’s.wife and I GEN PRT two think leave.behind
sode wa awaremasereru.
sleeve TOP exceedingly.sad
‘As I think about both a man’s wife and mine, the sleeves left behind are
exceedingly sad.’ (Yoshitadashū, 10th C)

b. Kokin no tyooka, [Ise ga] no ga sugurete omosirosi to yuu nari.

Kokin GEN long.poem Ise GEN PRT NOM very interesting that say EVI
‘Of the long poems of Kokin, Ise’s are said to be very interesting.’
( Jiteiki 17th C)
 Nominalization 301

c. Kore syooben wa sukunoo temo, [kotitora ga] no wa,

this.one urine TOP little though I GEN PRT TOP
siromono ga eiwai.
thing NOM good.FP
‘This one, though pee is little, mine is a good thing.’
(Tōkaidōchū Hizakurige 19th C)

Notice that the no marking the bracketed N-based nominalizations above only occurs
when these nominalizations are used as an NP-head at this stage.35
As for modern dialects, Matsushita (1930: 246) notes the following forms,36

(27) a. [zibun no] no (Tōkaidō area)

self GEN PRT
‘mine’

b. [zibun ga] no (Tōhoku)

self GEN PRT
‘mine’

c. [zibun no] ga (Shikoku)

self GEN PRT
‘mine’

and then remarks that “in Shikoku ga becomes a formal noun [Juntaijoshi]. With
this, it can be conjectured that the [Juntaijoshi] no developed out of the [genitive/
nominalizing particle] no.”
A fuller picture of the use of N-based nominalizations in the Tosa dialect in
Shikoku is as in (28). What is crucial to our claim that these forms are nominaliza-
tions is the fact that exactly the same marking pattern obtains in the use of verbal-
based nominalizations, as a comparison between (28) and (29) below shows.

(28) Tosa dialect (Kōchi Pref. Shikoku; Field notes)37

(Nominal-based nominalization)
a. [[watasi no]NMLZ kasa]NP wa kore ya kendo (Modification-use)
I GEN umbrella TOP this COP while
‘While my umbrella is this,’

35 There are modern dialects, like the Toba dialect in the Mie prefecture, in which the marking
pattern here has spread to the modification context (e.g. [Takeo ga no] hon] ‘Takeo’s book’). See
Shibatani and Shigeno (2014) on the cyclic development of the marking pattern in the two use
contexts in Ryukyuan languages.
36 See Shibatani and Nitta (forthcoming) for a fuller picture of the dialectal forms and patterns of
nominalization markers.
37 The parallel pattern in the use of ga as the marker of NP-use of nominal based nominalizations is
also seen in Hokuriku (Ishikawa and Toyama Prefectures).
302 Masayoshi Shibatani

b. [[sensei no]NMLZ ga]NMLZ′]NP wa atti no ga ze. (NP-use)

teacher GEN PRT TOP that GEN PRT FP
‘the teacher’s is that one.’

(29) Tosa dialect (Verbal-based nominalization)

a. [[asoko ni tattyuu]NMLZ kodomo]NP (Modification-use)
there at standing child
‘child who is standing there’

b. [[[Asoko ni tattyuu]NMLZ ga]NMLZ′]]NP wa uti no ko da. (NP-use)

there at standing PRT TOP house GEN child COP
‘The one standing there is our child.’

Exactly the same parallel pattern between N-based and V-based nominalizations
is seen in other dialects that have fully developed a marker for the NP-use of nomi-
nalizations as in the above Tosa pattern and the pattern, seen below, involving to,
believed to be related to the old genitive/nominalizing particle tu.

(30) Hakata dialect (Fukuoka Pref., Kyushu; courtesy of Takanori Hirano)

(Nominal-based nominalization)
a. [[ore no]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use)
I GEN book
‘my book’

b. Sore, [[ore n/no]NMLZ] to]NMLZ′]]NP bai. (NP-use)

that I GEN /GEN PRT FP
‘That (one), it’s mine.’

(31) Hakata dialect (Verbal-based nominalization)

a. [[anko ga haittoo]NMLZ moti]NP (Modification-use)
bean.paste NOM contain rice.cake
‘the rice cake that contains bean paste’

b. Moti wa [[anko ga haittoo]NMLZ to]NMLZ′]NP ga yoka. (NP-use)

rice.cake TOP bean.paste NOM contain PRT NOM good
‘As for the rice cake, the one that contains bean paste is good.’

The historical evidence (see (26a)) indicates that the development of Juntaijoshi as
markers of the NP-use of nominalizations in central dialects started out with mark-
ing N-based grammatical nominalizations as early as the tenth century. Marking of
V-based grammatical nominalizations in NP-use started only in the late sixteenth
 Nominalization 303

century. But our point is that the fact of the spread of the marking pattern from
one type of construction to another is strong evidence that the two are of the same
general type, namely a family of nominalization constructions in our case.38
What about the Tokyo Japanese pattern, where a Juntaijoshi seems missing in
the NP-use of N-based nominalization, as observed in (32b) below?

(32) Tokyo Japanese

(Nominal-based nominalization)
a. [[Takao no]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use)
Takao GEN book
‘Takao’s book’

b. [[Takao no]NMLZ]NP wa are da. (NP-use)

TOP that COP
‘Takao’s is that one.’

(33) (Verbal-based nominalization)

a. [[Takao ga katta]NMLZ hon]NP (Modification-use)
Takao NOM bought book
‘the book which Takao bought’

b. [[Takao ga katta]NMLZ no]NMLZ′]NP wa are da. (NP-use)

PRT TOP that COP
‘What Takao bought is that one.’

Recall what Matsushita (1930: 246) had to say about the relevant form in the vicinity
of the Tōkaidō (cf. 27a). That is, Tokyo Japanese may have also involved Juntaijoshi
no, as Takesi no no in the pattern of (32b) in an earlier stage. Indeed, we find quite a
few such examples in the memoire of NATSUME Sōseki by his wife.39

38 This historical development pattern, the spread of Juntaijoshi from nominal-based to verbal-
based nominalizations, is also seen as a synchronic pattern. Thus in northern Ryukyuan dialects of
Okinawan Island marks the NP-use of nominal-based nominalization with mun, but it has not spread
to verbal-based nominalizations yet. Southern Ryukyuan dialects, on the other hand, have extended
the marking pattern to verbal-based nominalizations. See Shibatani and Shigeno (2013) on this and
other points about the development of Juntaijoshi in Ryukyuan languages.
39 NATSUME Kyōko (1877–1963) was born in Hiroshima but presumably grew up in Tokyo, where
her father was a senior official of the Upper House of the Imperial Diet. MATSUOKA Yuzuru (1891–
1969), a writer and Sōseki’s son-in-law, who transcribed and edited Sōseki no omoide (Sōseki
memoire), was born in Niigata but spent his adult life in Tokyo. The page numbers after the examples
are from the Bunshun Bunko version of Natsume Sōseki no omoide (1994), which is a reproduction of
the original version published by Kaizōsha in 1928.
304 Masayoshi Shibatani

(34) Sōseki no omoide (Sōseki memoire)

a. boosi nasi de wa to yuu node, tomokaku itizi sinogi ni
hat without at TOP that say because anyway temporarily
[Natume no] no o kabutte okaeri o negau
Natsume GEN PRT ACC wear.GER going.home ACC ask
koto ni simasita (p. 157)
that at did
‘because (he) said (it wouldn’t do) without a hat, I asked (him) to go home
wearing Natsume’s temporarily.’

b. [anata no] no wa osieru yori sikaru hoo ga ooi (p. 367)

you GEN PRT TOP teach than scold side NOM more
‘Yours is more on the side of scolding than teaching.’

c. [watasi no] no to ii, Nakamura-san no baai to ii (p. 384)

I GEN PRT that say Nakamura-Mr GEN case that say
‘speaking of mine, (and) speaking of Mr. Nakamura’s case’

d. [mae no] no wa Natume ga kononde kaita ku nano

former GEN PRT TOP Natsume NOM fondly wrote poem because
de (p. 388)
COP.GER
‘Because the former was one that Natsume wrote fondly’

It is thus highly likely that the Tokyo dialect also once had the [[Takesi no]NMLZ -
no]NMLZ′]NP pattern when an N-based nominalization headed an NP. This form then
got reduced to the modern form as seen in (32b) due perhaps to avoiding a no-no
doubling.40 Here again we can clearly see that the nominalizing particle no and the
Juntaijoshi no are different – the latter only occurring in the context of an NP-use of
nominalization –, though the two are clearly related historically.

6 Beyond the “genitive subject” and ga/no

conversion
Besides the use in so-called possessive constructions seen above, where the head
noun is a noun (phrase), nominal-based nominalizations marked by no (and ga in

40 Cf. Osaka forms: [[boku no]NMLZ hon]NP ‘my book’, [[boku no]NMLZ-n]NMLZ′]NP ‘mine’; [[boku ga
koota]NMLZ hon]NP ‘the book which I bought’, [[boku ga koota]NMLZ-n]NMLZ′]NP ‘(that) which I bought’.
 Nominalization 305

Classical Japanese) co-occurs with a non-finite verbal form, as in the following

example from Old Japanese, cited in Frellesvig (2010: 127):

(35) [sawarabi no moye-duru] paru ni41

fern GEN sprout-emerge.ADN spring DAT
‘in the spring when fern sprouts’

The modifying structure above has the same properties (a nominalized/adnominal

verbal form and a no-marked noun phrase) as what Yamada (1908) called “clausal
nominalization” below:

(36) [Hito no yorokobu] o mireba uresi.

person GEN rejoicing ACC when.seeing delighted
‘When (I) see people rejoicing, I feel delighted.’

This type of construction persists in Modern Japanese, where we observe the pattern
known as ga/no conversion in the literature.

(37) a. [warabi no moe-deru] haru

fern GEN sprout-emerge spring
‘fern sprouting spring’

b. [warabi ga moe-deru] haru

NOM
‘spring when fern sprouts’

The usual understanding of these forms, subscribed to by Frellesvig and many spe-
cialists of Japanese historical linguistics, including Yamada (1908) and more recently
Kinsui et al. (2011), is that in Classical Japanese the genitive particle (our nominalizer)
marked the subject of these non-finite structures. On the other hand, many who deal
with Modern Japanese consider (37a) to have resulted from particle conversion that
optionally turns the subject marking ga into no in non-finite structures.42 Either
treatment views the no seen in these structures as a subject. A major puzzle in this
kind of analysis is why the genitive/nominalizer particle marks a subject of what is
considered to be a clause, when the other use of it is to mark what modifies a noun,
as in the so-called possessive construction.
The problem in these traditional analyses lies in their assumption that the rele-
vant non-finite structures are clauses. The no-marked NPs in them are considered

41 Both transliterations and glosses are Frellesvig’s.

42 See Chapter 18 of this volume for more recent views, in which ga- and no-marking are treated by
different mechanisms than an optional particle conversion.
306 Masayoshi Shibatani

syntactic subjects, likely because clauses supposedly have subjects. But no evidence
(or a definition for the clause) has been offered that the relevant structures are
clauses and/or that the no-marked NPs in them are syntactic subjects. The strongest
motivation for the traditional views appears to be semantic; namely, the relevant
no-marked NPs denote entities functioning as a protagonist (an agentive participant,
a patientive participant, etc.) of the state of affairs denoted by the relevant non-finite
structures, just as grammatical subjects do. But that is not enough to establish the
subjecthood of no-marked NPs, because the same kind of interpretation obtains in
constructions like obaatyan no unten ‘Grandma’s driving’ and kodomo no seityoo
‘the child’s growth’, which certainly are not clauses.43
There are two additional structures that contain no-marked NPs similar to the
ones being considered here that go beyond the notion of genitive subject or the
situations that ga/no conversion covers. These are illustrated below, where no-marked
NP appears to correspond to an o-marked object noun phrase.

(38) a. [nasu o nita] no o tabeta

eggplant ACC PRT ACC ate
‘ate the cooked stuff resulting from cooking eggplants’

b. [nasu no nita] no o tabeta

GEN
‘ate the cooked stuff, which was an eggplant’

(39) a. yamabato wa [mame o maku] syun o yoku

mountain.dove TOP bean ACC sow high.season ACC well
kokoroete ite. . .
understand be.GER
‘the mountain doves, knowing well the best time of the season for sowing
beans, . . .’

b. yamabato wa [mame no maku] syun o yoku kokoroete ite. . .

GEN
‘the mountain doves, knowing well the best time of the season for sowing
beans, . . .’ (MIZKUKAMI Tsutomu Tsuchi o kuu hibi, 1982)

(40) a. [yuki o kabutta] Takayama-renpoo ga kasukani mieta

snow ACC covered Takayama-range NOM vaguely visible
‘the Takayama-range, which was covered by the snow, was vaguely visible’

43 There is a proposal for analyzing so-called possessor NPs of possessive constructions as subjects.
We reject such a proposal (see Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng 2014).
 Nominalization 307

b. [yuki no kabutta] Takayama-renpoo ga kasukani mieta

GEN
‘the Takayama-range, which was covered by the snow, was vaguely visible’
(MIYAMOTO Teru Ten no yakyoku, 2005)

Expressions such as [mizu no maku] oto ‘the sound of the spraying of water’ have
been noticed before but have been thought to be sporadic in their occurrence, as
earlier studies on this topic generally maintain that o does not convert to no (Harada
1971, Shibatani 1975, and others). As it turns out, very many similar expressions turn
up in Google searches, often even with two no-marked NPs, as in (43).

(41) a. [piano no hiku] no ga zyoozu desu

piano GEN play PRT NOM good COP
‘good at playing the piano’
(https://www.sendai-sensei.com/. . ./)
b. [mizu no maku] no taihen dayoo
water GEN spray PRT hard COP.FP
‘It is tough to spray water.’
(ex14.vip2ch.com/test/read.cgi/news4ssnip/1369153804)
c. yaku mae ni [kinako no mabusu] no mo osusume
bake before at soy.flour GEN cover PRT also recommending
‘it is recommended also to cover with soy flour before baking’
(https://twitter.com/_kaze_mama_2/status/7146057464706662400)
d. [kami-no-ke no arau] no mo zyuuyoo dakedo
head.hair GEN wash PRT also important COP.though
‘important to also to wash the hair, but’
(detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp › . . . ›)
e. [kao no siranai] no ga hosyoo ni tatte ita.
face GEN know.NEG PRT NOM guard as stand was
‘one, whose face (I) didn’t know, was standing on guard
(www.scn-net.ne.jp/~grakam/dairen-horyo.htm)

(42) a. [piano no hiku] hito

piano GEN play person
‘person who plays the piano’
(www.seiwa-gakki.co.jp/services/services index/)
b. [kinako no mabusita] ohagi
soy.flour GEN covered bean.cake
‘bean cake that (one) has covered with soy flour’
(http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/okaru100/diary/200503200000/)
308 Masayoshi Shibatani

c. [wadaiko no tataku] doosa

Japanese.drum GEN beat motion
‘motion of the beating of the Japanese drum’
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkXI01qkFY)

d. [kimono no tatamu] hoohoo

kimono GEN fold method
‘the method of folding Japanese kimono’
(ameblo.jp/4daime-you/entry-11955123479.html)

e. [kao no siranai] aite to tanosiku kaiwa site. . .

face GEN know.NEG partner with happily conversation do.GER
‘happily having a conversation with a partner whose face (I) didn’t know’
(www.beittikva.net/2012/06/post.html)

(43) a. [Umai hito no taiko no tataku] no wa zutto mitete

skillful person GEN drum GEN beat PRT TOP continuously see.GER
mo akinai desu.
even bored.NEG COP
‘(you) won’t be bored even if you continuously looked at a skillful person’s
beating of the drum.’
(hatotetsu.blog89.fc2.com/blog-entry-619.html)

b. [Sensei no piano no hiku] oto o yoku kikoo ne.

teacher GEN piano GEN play sound ACC well listen FP
‘Let’s listen to the sound of the teacher’s playing of the piano’
(tanosii-piano-lesson.seesaa.net/article/274792769.html)

c. [sokudoku o syuutoku sita hito no hon no yomu] hayasa

rapid.reading ACC mastering did person GEN book GEN read speed
‘the speed of the person who has mastered rapid reading read a book’
(ameblo.jp/renn0120/entry-11935933238.html)

d. [baatyan no kuruma no unten-suru] supiido

grandma GEN car GEN driving-do speed
‘the speed of the grandma’s driving of a car’
(https://twitter.com/zyousouaruaru)

e. [otto no sake no nomu] ryoo

husband GEN wine GEN drink amount
‘the amount of the husband’s drinking of Japanese wine’
(suzukey.com/QandA/view.php?question_id=11146215246)
 Nominalization 309

While speakers’ reactions to these forms may vary, from “acceptable” to “dubious”,
the high frequency of occurrence of the structural patterns above can no longer be
brushed aside as sporadic if one’s goal is a descriptively adequate account. Now, are
we to recognize no-marked objects or o/no conversion? But then we would fail to
capture the semantic parallelism between these forms and noun-headed expressions
like the ones below, which illustrate a more well-established noun modification
pattern than those in (43).

(44) a. [baatyan no kuruma no unten] (cf. 43d)

grandma GEN car GEN driving
‘Grandma’s driving of a car’

b. [Koronbusu no sin-tairiku no hakken]

Columbus GEN new-continent GEN discovery
‘Columbus’s discovery of a new continent’

c. [Yamanaka hakusi no Nooberusyoo no zyusyoo]

Yamanaka doctor GEN Nobel.prize GEN receiving
‘Dr. Yamanaka’s receiving of a Nobel prize’

In fact, it is a parallelism like this that has led some to consider that these nominal
structures also have subjects (and objects?)44. An effort to capture cross-constructional
meaning similarities of this kind is laudable. However, the range of semantic relations
seen in the relevant constructions far exceeds what can be captured in terms of
the syntactic arguments of subject and object. Besides those relations paralleling
what can be expressed by syntactic adjuncts, as in (45), there are many no-marked
modifiers, as in (46), that cannot be understood in terms of clausal arguments or
adjuncts in a natural way.

(45) hana (e) no mizuyari ‘water-giving to flower’, sima (de) no kurasi ‘living on the
island’, satoo (de) no azituke ‘seasoning with sugar’, Hiroko (kara) no tegami
‘letter from Hanako’

(46) ringo no kago ‘basket for apples’, kodomo no byooin ‘child’s hospital’, eigo no
kyookasyo ‘textbook for English’, sakura no kisetu ‘cherry (-blossom) season’,
sakura no meisyo ‘famous spot for cherries’, hana-mi no kyaku ‘flower-viewing
visitors’, huyu no kooto ‘winter coat’, Huransu no wain ‘wine made in France’,
nikai no kyaku ‘customers upstairs’, nyuusi no benkyoo ‘study for an entrance
exam’, kenkoo no hiketu ‘secret for health’

44 See footnote 43.

310 Masayoshi Shibatani

The nominalization analysis of no proposed here aspires to account for the meanings
of all these no-marked NPs uniformly as a function of the nominalization process
producing NP-no structures that denote various entities and state of affairs with
which base NPs hold a metonymic relation. But let us first look at the structural
patterns of the modification constructions headed by a grammatical nominalization.
First, notice that V-based grammatical nominalizations come in a range of syntactic
complexity ranging from ones based on a V alone, those corresponding to a VP, and
those corresponding to a clause, as below:

(47) a. Watasi wa [yomu]NMLZ no o yameta.

I TOP read PRT ACC stopped
‘I stopped reading.’

b. Watasi wa [hon o yomu]NMLZ no o yameta.

book
‘I stoped reading books.’

c. Watasi wa [Kenzi ga hon o yomu]NMLZ no o zitto mimamotta.

Kenji NOM PRT ACC steadily watched
‘I steadily watched Kenji read a book.’

Of these, (47a) allows modification by NP-no in the manner of (41)–(42) above. While
the question of why NP-no modifiers corresponding in meaning to the ga-marked
subjects of intransitive clauses (e.g., kodomo-tati no hasiru (no)) are found more
frequently and sound more natural than any of the forms in (41)–(42) must be
answered,45 they undoubtedly take after those headed by lexical nouns such as
[sin-tairiku no hakken] ‘a discovery of the new continent’ and [kodomo no situke]
‘disciplining of a child’. We are claiming that this analogy is made possible because
the forms in (41)–(42) all have grammatical nominalizations [hiku]NMLZ ‘playing’,
[maku]NMLZ ‘spraying’, etc. as their heads. Further modification of such forms by
another NP-no appears also possible, as attested by the examples in (43). This
pattern is something unexpected in the past studies since it has generally been
believed that the nominalization structure [hon o yomu]NMLZ (no/hito) seen in (47b)
cannot be modified by NP-no in Modern Japanese (Harada 1971, Shibatani 1975, and
others). Again, this wide-spread belief is contradicted by some sporadic examples in
literary works and by much more abundant data from Google searches. Observe the
following:

45 It appears that the ease of modification by NP-no follows the following pattern: intransitive patient-
ive (ke no mizikai (inu) ‘(the dog) that has short hair) ≥ intransitive agentive (kodomo no hasiru (sugata)
‘(the figure) of the child running) >> transitive patientive (mizu no maku (oto) ‘(the sound) of spraying
water >> transitive agentive (kodomo no mizu no maku (oto) ‘(the sound) of a child spraying water’.
 Nominalization 311

(48) a. kono myoo na otokoo wa. . . bonyari [boku no

this strange COP.MNLZ man TOP absentmindedly I GEN
sake o nomu] no o nagamete iru.
wine ACC drink PRT ACC look.GER be
‘This strange man is absentmindedly watching me drink Japanese wine.’
(AKUTAGAWA Ryūnosuke Mensua Zoili 1917)

b. Watasi wa soremade [akasia no hana o tukete iru] tokoro

I TOP until.then acacia GEN flower ACC put.on be PRT
o mita koto ga nai.
ACC saw that NOM non-existent
(Lit.) ‘To me that I saw acacias’ putting on flowers is non-existent until
then.’/ ‘I had not seen acacias having flowers until then.’
(HORI Tatsuo Utsukushii Mura 1934)

b. Sinsuke wa atama no naka de [Tae no zibun o miru]

Shinsuke TOP head GEN inside at Tae GEN self ACC see
hyoozyoo o omoi-egaita.
expression ACC visualized
‘Shinsuke, in his head, visualized the expression of Tae’s looking at
himself (Shinsuke).’ (ITSUKI Hiroshi Seishun no mon 1970)

c. [Kodaira-sensei no mizu o maku] oto sika kikoenai.

Kodaira-teacher GEN water ACC spray sound only saudible.NEG
‘Nothing but the sound of Teacher Kodaira spraying water is audible’
(https://twitter.com/nabe_ashikusa/status/561155811892662273)

d. [okami-san no obi o simeru] sugata46 ga dandan

mistress-Miss GEN belt ACC tighten figure NOM gradually
sama ni natte kiteiru.
shape.up become coming
‘the figure of the mistress’s tightening of a Japanese belt gradually took
shape’ (fakikaku.com/paststage/2002-10-fresh/diary-7.htm)

e. [nizyuu-dai no koro no watasi no hon o yomu] ryoo

twenties GEN time GEN I GEN book ACC read amount
‘the quantity of books I read when I was in the twenties’
(yukari-akiyama.com/career/2657)

46 This could be construed as [okami-san no [obi o simeru sugata]. But [okami-san no obi o simeru]
oto seems equally good, which is difficult to construe as [okami san no [obi o simeru oto].
312 Masayoshi Shibatani

Let us now turn to the semantics of the NP-no modifiers. The problem boils down to
the question of how to capture the semantic parallelism observed between the two
constructions below:

(49) a. [[kodomo no] [kakekko]N]N′

child GEN running
‘the running of the child’

b. [[kodomo no] [hasiru]NMLZ]NMLZ′ (no)

run (PRT )
‘the child’s running’

The nominalization analysis we are proposing for the so-called genitive NP-no treats
such a structure as a nominal that denotes concrete thing-like entities (a toy, a
person, etc.) or abstract states of affairs (running, reading a book, etc.) with which
the denotation of the base NP is metonymically associated (e.g. for being the owner
of an object, for being related as a sibling to a person, or being an agentive protagonist
of a state of affairs, being a patientive protagonist of a state of affairs). These specific
metonymic relations are based on culturally sanctioned general metonymy schema
of the type such as OWNER FOR GOODS (e.g. asoko no nikuya wa oisii ‘that meat
ship is delicious’, kono hon wa Haruo no da ‘this book is Haruo’s’), EVENT FOR
PROTAGONIST (hito-gorosi ‘killer’, hi-yatoi ‘laborer employed daily’, hasitte iru
(no) ‘one running’), EVENT FOR RESULT (tataki ‘chopped up sashimi’, sakana o
ageta (no) ‘fish fry’), etc. (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Thus, [kodomo no]NMLZ in
both constructions in (49) in principle allow many interpretations that are metonym-
ically sanctioned. Of all the possible interpretations, the ones that denote a subset of
the head nominal would be chosen in the case of modification structures. In (49a),
the head nominal denotes a running activity. Accordingly, its modifier [kodomo no]
must denote a state of affairs in which the denotation of the base NP [kodomo] is
involved as its agentive protagonist.
Instead of accounting for the agentive nature of the NP-no modifier [kodomo no]
of (49b) in term of the syntactic subjecthood, we apply the same analysis we have
offered for (49a). The event nominalization [[hasiru]NMLZ (no)] denotes activities;
accordingly, the modifier [kodomo no] must denote an activity that specifies a subset
of the denotation of the head nominal, namely an activity in which the denotation of
the base NP [kodomo] is involved as an agentive protagonist. The same account can
be offered to the pairs below:

(50) a. [[Koronbusu no]NMLZ [[sin-tairiku no]NMLZ [hakken]N]N′]N′

Columbus GEN new-continent GEN discovery
‘Columbus’s discovery of a new continent’
 Nominalization 313

b. [[umai hito no]NMLZ [[taiko no]NMLZ [tataku]NMLZ]NMLZ′]NMLZ′ (no) (cf. 43a)

skillful person GEN drum GEN beating (PRT )
‘a skillful person’s beating of the drum’

The head noun [hakken] ‘discovery’ in (50a) denotes an event in which an agent
and a patient are involved. As such, it allows modification by a structure denoting
an event in which either an agent or a patient is involved. The nominalization
[sin-tairiku no] (new continent NMLZR) may denote an event in which the base NP
[sin-tairiku] is involved as a patientive protagonist, and thus it can modify the head
noun [hakken]. The resulting structure [[sin-tairiku no] [hakken]] also denotes an
event in which an agentive protagonist is involved. The nominalization [Koronbusu
no] may denote an event in which Columbus is involved as an agentive participant,
and thus it can modify the structure [[sin-tairiku no] [hakken]]. The same process
yields a similar interpretation for (50b).47
We believe that the same account can be offered for other kinds of semantic rela-
tions that NP-no and the head nominal may have as in (45) and (46). For example,
[[ringo no] [kago]] ‘a basket for apples’ contains a nominalization [ringo no] that
may denote an object with which the denotation of the base NP [ringo] ‘apple’ holds
a GOODS FOR CONTAINER48 metonymic relationship. The container that holds this
relationship with apples can certainly specify a subset of the denotation of [kago]
‘basket’, allowing the entire [[ringo no] kago]] to have the reading ‘a basket for
apples’. Similarly, the nominalization [Huransu no] ‘France’s’ may denote products
based on the PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT schema. Accordingly, it can modify the
head noun [wain] ‘wine’, since the former can specify a subset of the denotation of
the latter. In the next, final section of this paper, we shall explicate the notion of
modification, which we tried to illustrate above in terms of the subset relationship
between two denotations.

7 Beyond the Uchi no kankei (internal relation) and

Soto no kankei (external relation)
Among the literature on Japanese noun-modification constructions, Teramura (1999:
157–320) is one of the most influential, in which he distinguishes two types of modi-
fication patterns. Teramura attempts to explicate the difference between so-called
restrictive relative clauses and content clauses in terms of the relationship that the

47 See Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) for the reason why the order [sin-tairiku no
[Koronbusu no hakken]] with the intended reading does not obtain.
48 Cf. Aka wain o go hon watte simatta (red wine ACC five CLF break.GER ended up) ‘I ended up
breaking five red wine’.
314 Masayoshi Shibatani

head noun holds with regard to the modifying structure. The head noun of a relative
clause, as in (51a) below, is generally believed to be related to an NP position (indi-
cated by the gap marker) of the modifying structure. Teramura characterizes such a
relationship as Uchi no kankei (internal relation).

(51) a. [Takao ga Ø katatta] zizitu o daremo siranakatta.

Takao NOM talk.about fact ACC no.one knew
‘No one knew the fact [which Takao talked about Ø].’

b. [Takao ga kekkon site ita] zizitu o daremo siranakatta.

marry do.GER was fact
‘No one knew the fact [that Takao had been married].’

In the case of so-called content clauses such as (51b), the head noun is not related to
any syntactic position of the content clause. Accordingly, Teramura considers this
type of modification construction as exhibiting a Soto no kankei (external relation).
Teramura (1999: 195–198) tries to explicate the difference between these two
types of modification by using the examples similar to the following pair.

(52) a. [sanma o yaku] otoko (ga iru)

saury ACC grill man NOM exist
‘(there is) a man who grills a saury’

b. [sanma o yaku] nioi (ga suru)

smell NOM do
‘(there is) a smell of grilling of a saury’

Teramura (1999: 196) tells us that (52a) obtains by transposing the subject NP of the
underlying clause into the head position of the relative clause.

(53) otoko ga sanma o yaku

man NOM saury ACC grill
‘A man grills a saury’
→ sanma o yaku otoko
‘a man who grills a saury’

In the case of a construction exhibiting an external relation, the head noun and the
modifying structure are connected in terms of the content-filling function of the
latter. According to Teramura (1999: 196–197), the entire sentence structure of (52b)
“contains two descriptive contents” as in (54), and what the modification structure
such as the one in (52b) does is to fill the content of the head noun nioi ‘smell’ by
its descriptive content, (54b).
 Nominalization 315

(54) a. (aru) nioi ga suru

(certain) smell NOM do
‘There is a (certain) smell.’

b. sanma o yaku
saury ACC grill
‘grill a saury’

In Teramura’s (1999) own words:

in the “external relation” the modifying part expresses the content of the head noun or at least
has some relevance to its content, in opposition to the “internal relation”, where, though the
modifying part “specifies” the head noun, it has nothing to do with its content. That is, in an
adnominal modification structure that coheres in terms of “internal relation”, the modifying
part semantically modifies the head noun no more than “adjunctively”, but in [the structure
unified by] the “external relation”, [the modifying part] semantically modifies the head in a
“content-filling” manner. (195; my translation)

Teramura’s distinction between these two types of noun modification constructions

corresponds to the modification-uses of two types of nominalizations in our frame-
work. Structures holding the internal relation represent a modification-use of argu-
ment nominalizations, which have an obligatory gap (e.g. [Ø sanma o yaku]NMLZ (no)
‘(one) who grills a saury’), which evokes a protagonist of an event, while the ones
characterized as holding an external relation by Teramura instantiate a modifica-
tion-use of event nominalizations without an obligatory gap (e.g. [otoko ga sanma o
yaku]NMLZ (no) ‘that a man grills a saury’), which may evoke a resultant product (e.g.
a smell of a burning fish) as an intended denotation.
Teramura’s effort to distinguish the two types of modification observed in (51)
and (52), falls far short of its intended goal. First of all, the notion of the “content-
filling” function is problematic. It is not entirely clear what is meant by saying that
the descriptive content of the structure (54b) sanma o yaku ‘grilling of a saury fish’
fills the content of the head noun nioi ‘smell’ in (52b). When one utters (52b), is he
smelling the state of affairs of grilling of a saury fish? Can one smell a state of affairs
itself? The problem becomes clearer if we look at another of Teramura’s examples
illustrating the “external relation”.

(55) a. [ki no eda ga reiki de oreru] oto o kiita.

tree GEN branch NOM cold.air with break sound ACC heard
‘I heard the sound of the tree branch breaking due to the cold air.’

b. [ki no eda ga reiki de oreru] no o kiita.

PRT
‘I heard the tree branch break due to the cold air.’
316 Masayoshi Shibatani

What the one uttering (55a) heard was not the descriptive content of the modifying
structure, “the tree breaks due to the cold air” or “the tree’s breaking due to the cold
air”, as it is the case when one says: “I heard John say the tree breaks due to the
cold air”. Compare (55a) and (55b), where the latter describes a situation of some-
one’s hearing the sound resulting from a branch-breaking event. As is clear from
our earlier discussions, this is a case of the resultative nominalization that metonym-
ically denotes a product resulting from an event. The modification structure in (55a)
uses this resultative nominalization structure as a modifier, which identifies the head
noun as the sound resulting from the event denoted by the nominalization structure
(see Teramura (1999: 297). That is, (55a) identifies the denotation of the head noun
with that resulting from the tree-breaking event. Likewise, what the one uttering
(52b) smelled was the smell identified as that resulting from the grilling of a saury
fish.
Teramura’s mistake was to stick to the traditional understanding of the relevant
construction as the “content clause”. What Japanese data show is that this type of
construction abounds in Japanese and that they go far beyond the typical content
clauses in English, demanding an analysis that goes beyond the notion of content-
filling, which we consider unsatisfactory even for English. Teramura really should
have pursued the other line of explanation that he suggests in the above quotation,
namely “in the ‘external relation’ the modifying part expresses [a state of affairs
that] . . . has some relevance to” the content of the head noun, and should have ex-
plicated in what way the modifying nominalization structure is relevant in qualify-
ing the denotation of the head noun, as we have done above.
Teramura’s understanding of restrictive relative clauses is also problematic since
the head noun of such relative clauses should not be directly identified with any
of the arguments in the modifying structure as Teramura’s account in (53) has it.
In our analysis, both restrictive and non-restrictive types of modification involve
grammatical nominalizations, but the manners in which the modifying nominaliza-
tion structure qualifies the denotation of the head noun are different between the
two. The head noun of a restrictive relative clause specifies the domain of modifica-
tion independently from any element of the modifying structure. The larger domain
denoting a set of entities specified by the head noun is then restricted to some sub-
set by the denotation of an entity metonymically evoked by the modifying structure.
The denotation of the whole restrictive relative clause structure is the intersection of
two nominal denotations, one specified by the head noun and the other that restricts
this domain to its subset, as in the manner of (56a), where { } represents the meto-
nymically evoked entities.
 Nominalization 317

(56) a.

Figure 1: Restrictive Modification

b. sanma o yaku {smell}49 = nioi (ga suru) (cf. 52b)

In non-restrictive modification, on the other hand, the denotation of the modifying

nominalization structure identifies that of the head nominal, as in the manner of
(56b).
Teramura’s (1999) ultimate goal appears to come to an understanding of the
difference between restrictive modification (56a) and non-restrictive, identifying
modification (56b) in terms of the distinction between the “internal relation” and
the “external relation”. If so, this enterprise fails because there is no one-to-one
correspondence between the two. That is, structures holding an internal relation
according to Teramura can also be used as identifying modifiers, and those holding
an external relation can also be used as restrictive modifiers, as shown below:

(57) a. [kono [[sanma o yaku] otoko]] ga Hiroko no titioya sa.

this saury ACC grill man NOM Hiroko GEN father FP
‘This man who grills a saury is Hiroko’s father, you know.’

b. [[sanma o yaku] nioi] ga itiban kirai na nioi da.

smell NOM most disliked COP smell COP
‘the smell of grilling a saury is the smell most disliked’

Sentence (57a) might be describing a film-watching event, where the speaker points
to the man grilling a saury fish and tells the hearer that this man turns out to be the
heroine Hiroko’s father. In this context, the structure holding an internal relation

49 Cf. Watasi ga kuruu no wa sumibide tyiboon suteeki ga yakeru no o kagu toki da (taizooo.
tumblr.com/post/55712025) ‘When I go crazy is when I smell a T-bone steak burning on charcoal
fire.’ Compared to the visual and auditory senses, the olfactory sense appears more difficult to per-
ceive and makes it more resistant to a metonymic construal. Cf. I saw John sneak out of the house, I
heard John sing in the shower vs. *I smelled John grill a steak in the kitchen.
318 Masayoshi Shibatani

with the head nominal according to Teramura does not have a restricting function
since there could be a single man in the scene of the film. A possibility like this is
well known from studies on English, which allows the same modifying structure in
either a restrictive or an identifying function; e.g. The boys who were given surprise
prizes were all overjoyed; The boys, who were given surprise prizes, were all over-
joyed. While these two types of constructions, known as restrictive relative and non-
restrictive relative, differ in both speech and written form, our claim is that both use
the same argument nominalization as a modifier.
Sentence (57b), as an utterance in a situation where various kinds of smell are
discussed, illustrates the possibility that a modifying structure holding an external
relation according to Teramura can also be used in a restrictive function.
As his discussion of Jespersen’s example The industrious Japanese will conquer in
the long run shows, Teramura (1999: 254) is well aware that a distinction between
restrictive and non-restrictive modification obtains where the contrastive notion
of “external relation” and “internal relation” presumably does not apply. Indeed, the
restrictive/non-restrictive distinction does not correlate with structural differences of
the modifying structure, captured either in terms of argument nominalizations vs.
event nominalizations, as in our framework, or in terms of Teramura’s distinction
between internal and external relation. The distinction lies on the nature of the
denotational/referential status of the head noun. As noted above, restrictive modifi-
cation obtains when the head noun is construed to be denoting a set of entities (a
group of individual Japanese people) and when some members of this larger set are
singled out as a subset by the denotation of a modifying structure (the industrious
ones). The entire modification structure of this type denotes the intersection of the
two nominal denotations (see Figure 1 in page 317).
Non-restrictive, identifying modification, on the other hand, involves a head
noun that denotes or refers to a unique entity, such as a class of things (a class
of dogs, a class of people named Japanese), a singular object (e.g. the sun, Tokyo),
or something made specific by context, as in [naganen hito ni kawarete kita] inu
‘the dog, which has been kept by people over a long period’, [Taroo ga sunde iru]
Tookyoo ‘Tokyo, where Taro lives’, and [boku ga kinoo kata] kono hon ‘this book,
which I bought yesterday’. In identifying modification, the denotation of a modifier
identifies that of the head noun in terms of an alternative way of identifying it, and
it is this alternative description that provides additional information about the head
noun. We recognize two types of identification. One is identification under strict
identity (e.g. [Taroo ga sunde iru] Tookyoo ‘Tokyo, where Taro lives’) and the other
by type identity (e.g. [boku ga kinoo kata] kono hon ‘this book, which I bought
yesterday’. In both these cases we are identifying a unique denotation of the head
noun, either in terms of strict identity of “A (head) is B” or type identity of “A
(head) is a kind/an instance of B”.
As we have seen, modifiers of different structural configurations (argument nomi-
nalizations with a gap, event nominalizations without a gap) may function in both
 Nominalization 319

restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying modification. The same applies to the modi-
fication by nominal-based nominalizations in the form of NP-no discussed earlier in
the preceding section and illustrated below:

(58) a. Hanako no tukemono

Hanako GEN pickles
‘Hanako’s pickles’

b. Hanako no tuketa (no)

pickled PRT
‘Hanako’s pickled stuff’

(59) a. nasu no tukemono

eggplant GEN pickles
‘pickles of the eggplant kind’

b. nasu no tuketa (no)

pickled PRT
‘pickled stuff of the eggplant kind’

Shibatani, Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) distinguished two types of genitive or

“possessive” construction, identifying the type in (59) as “appositive” tacitly on
account that while nasu no tukemono/tuketa no o tabe ta ‘ate pickles/picked stuff of
the eggplant kind” entails nasu o tabeta ‘ate (some) eggplant’, while no such entail-
ment obtains in the case of forms in (58). Herein lies the distinction between the two
forms pointed out earlier and repeated below:

(60) a. [nasu o nita] no o tabeta

eggplant ACC cooked PRT ACC ate
‘(I) ate what came out of cooking eggplants.’

b. [nasu no nita] no o tabeta

GEN
‘(I) ate what came out of cooking, which were eggplants.’

(60a) is a resultative nominalization based on a VP structure and it does not specifi-

cally say that the resultant products were (still) eggplants – it may be in shape unfit
to be described as a kind of eggplants. (60b), on the other hand, identifies that the
resultant products were (a kind of) eggplants. The contrast is seen more clearly in
the following pair.
320 Masayoshi Shibatani

(61) a. [koppu o konagona ni kowasita] no ga yuka ni otite ita.

cup ACC in.minute.pieces to broke PRT NOM floor on fallen was
‘what became of breaking a cup into small pieces was fallen on the floor’

b. *[koppu no konagona ni kowasita] no ga yuka ni otite ita.50

GEN
‘what became of breaking (something) into small pieces, which was a cup,
was fallen on the floor’

Structure (61b) is not possible since what has been shattered into small pieces can
no longer be identified as a cup.
The meaning difference between the forms in (58) and (59), which Shibatani,
Chung, and Bayaerduleng (2014) tried to capture in terms of the appositive/non-
appositive distinction should be attributed to the two nominalizing no’s included
in these forms. The nominalizer no in forms like Hanako no tukemono/tuketano
‘Hanako’s pickles/picked stuff’ is the “regular” genitive/possessive no, based on
various kinds of metonymy schemas such as OWNER FOR GOODS, AUTHOR FOR
PRODUCT, THEME FOR REPRESENTATION (e.g. Huzi-san no e ‘painting of Mt. Fuji),
the PLACE FOR THING (niwa no ki ‘a tree in the garden’, nikai no okyakusan ‘the
customers on the second floor’), etc. The one found in forms like nasu no tukemono/
tuketano ‘pickles/picked stuff of the eggplant kind’, on the other hand, appears to be
analyzable as a nominalized form of the copula da that supports predication by a
noun. This would capture the meaning relationship between the forms in (59) and
the nominal predications below:

(62) a. Kono tukemono wa nasu da.

this pickle TOP eggplant COP
‘This pickle is an eggplant.’

b. Kono nuka de tuketa no wa nasu da.

this rice.bran in pickled PRT
‘this stuff (I) pickled in rice-bran is an eggplant’

The meaning of a nominalization by the copulative no would be something like

“NP de aru mono” (a thing/person that is NP or “that which/one who is NP”). This
is more clearly discernible in an NP-use of such a form, as below, where [nasu no]
is analyzed as a case of subject nominalization involving a nominalized copula
form:51

50 Compare (60b) and [koppu no kireini migaita] no ga teeburu no ue ni atta ‘cleanly polished
things, which were cups, were placed on the table.’
51 Compare these with the other copulative nominalization na, related to the copula da supporting
predication by a adjectival noun or a nominal adjective; kono hana wa kirei da ‘this flower is pretty’:
[Ø kirei na] hana ‘pretty flower’.
 Nominalization 321

(63) a. Tukemono wa [[Ø nasu no]NMLZ]NP ga yoi.

pickles TOP eggplant COP. NMLZ NOM good
‘As for pickles, that which are eggplants are good.’

b. Tukemon wa [[[Ø nasubi no]NMLZ] to]NMLZ′]]NP ga yoka.52 (Hakata dialect)

PRT
‘As for pickles, that which are eggplants are good.’

The analysis above converting the copula da into no is viable for Modern Japanese,
which has the copula. However, it does not work for Classical Japanese. The forms of
Japanese subsumed under the rubric of Classical Japanese in this chapter did not
have a copula or copula sentences like those in (62)53, yet, no-marked modifiers like
the ones discussed here abound in those varieties of Japanese, as we will see below.
It is thus necessary to recognize another type of nominalization effected by no,
which yields forms with the meaning of “that which/who is NP”. But what kind of
nominalization is it?
The recent research in natural language semantics (e.g. Carlson 1977 and Kratzer
1995 inter alia) recognizes that NP’s refer to an entity in terms of its different aspects,
ranging from an abstract generic sense referring to a class of objects to a variety of
concrete senses pointing to specific manifestations of the object in time and space.
An NP with a common noun like nasu ‘eggplant’, thus, may refer to a class of plant,
as in Nasu wa nasu-ka no syokubutu da ‘The eggplant is a plant of the solanaceae
family’, but also to any concrete manifestations of this plant, as in Kono nasu ni-hon
kudasai ‘Give me two (long) pieces of eggplant’, which, for example, can be referring
to two eggplant seedlings in a nursery or two eggplant fruits in a produce market.
Kono nasu wa umai ne ‘This eggplant is tasty, isn’t it?’ can be referring to an uncooked
eggplant fruit or any variety of its form in various uses, such as the one cooked,
fried, barbecued, or pickled. That NPs may refer to these concrete objects existing
in space at a given time is indicated by the use of classifiers that refer to concrete
shape. The above example, Kono nasu ni-hon kudasai ‘Give me two (long) pieces of
eggplant’, would be appropriate when the objects referred to come in an elongate
shape, as in the plant form or as long-shaped eggplant fruits or eggplant products
in an elongate shape. The sentence is not usable if we want two pieces of fried egg-
plant tempura in a round flat shape, for which we must use the default classifier tu,
as in huta-tu ‘two pieces’, or the one for flat objects, as ni-mai ‘two flat pieces’.

52 The abbreviated version [[nasubi-n]to] is more frequently heard.

53 What best corresponds to the modern copulative predication seen in (62) in Classical Japanese
takes nari, the so-called dantei ‘assertive’ auxiliary in the traditional grammar, whose nominalized
(Rentai) form is naru (cf. Ono ga mi wa . . . tuki no miyako no hito nari ‘My body is a person of the
capital of the moon’ Taketori monogatari).
322 Masayoshi Shibatani

If we assume, similarly to Carlson (1977), that common nouns denote entities

conceptualized in terms of their general characteristics and properties apart from
their specific instances or concrete manifestations in time and space, we need to
posit an operation relating the general meaning to the concrete meanings denoting
specific instances of the entity in question. In Carlson’s framework, nouns denote
“individuals”, a collection of kinds and objects, which are related to concrete
denotations of entities in time and space (“stages”) via a relation R (standing for
“realize”). In a metonymic analysis, the function of Calrson’s R can be achieved by
recognizing a conceptual metonymy such as THE ABSTRACT FOR THE CONCRETE.
Observe: Kotosi wa suugaku ga muzukasi katta ‘As for this year, the math was
difficult”, where, the nouns kotosi ‘this year’ and suugaku ‘mathematics’ denoting
abstract concepts are used to refer to concrete entities, this year’s entrance exam
and the math problems. As these examples show, nouns can be metonymically
used as they are. The appositive no seen in nasu no tukemono/tuketano ‘pickles/
pickled stuff of the eggplant kind” is a grammatical device (a nominalizer) effecting
the schema THE ABSTRACT FOR THE CONCRETE, which turns a noun (or noun
phrase) such as nasu ‘egplant’ into a construction nasu no, which then stands for
concrete manifestations of eggplants in terms of the meaning “that which/who is
an NP”.
Because of the various conceptual metonymies available, many expressions
involving no are ambiguous, as in the case of Hanako no syasin ‘Hanako’s photo’.
Similarly, forms like bengosi no ozisan can be ambiguous allowing either the apposi-
tive no reading just discussed, ‘an/the uncle, who is lawyer’, and non-appositive
readings such as ‘a/the lawyer’s uncle’. Like the other kinds of modifiers discussed
in this chapter, an appositive no modifier can be used in both restrictive and non-
restrictive function, though the latter use seems more widely witnessed than the
former. A speaker may identify his only uncle as an entity instantiating the concept
begosi (‘(one) who is a lawyer’) by saying bengosi no ozisan ‘the uncle, who is a
lawyer’ or ‘the uncle of the lawyer kind’. If a brother and a sister are debating which
of their three uncles is their favorite and say Boku wa bengosi no ozisan ga itiban
sukida ‘I like the lawyer uncle the best’; Watasi wa isya no ozisan yo ‘(Lit.) I am the
doctor uncle’, they are using the appositive no as a restrictive modifier.54
In the Japanese linguistics literature, modification structures involving a nomi-
nalized head are generally ill-understood, largely due to an inadequate understand-
ing of the nature of grammatical nominalizations. For example, Ishigaki (1955: 220–
221), an influential work in this area, comments that in his example, reproduced as

54 When an individual-level predicate like suki da ‘like’ is involved, the entailment associated with
the appositive no must be qualified. For example, bengosi no ozisan ga sukida ‘(I) like the lawyer
uncle’ does not entail bengosi ga suki da ‘(I) like lawyers’. It, however, entails ‘(I) like at least one
lawyer’. Even this limited entailment does not obtain in the case of the non-appositive no: Kodomo
no ega suki da ‘(I) like children’s paintings’ does not entail ‘(I) like at least one child’.
 Nominalization 323

(64) below, what semantically connects with the predicate is tomo ‘friend’ and the
sentence as a whole means “entertain a friend”. The nominalization [enpoo yori
tazunetaru] ‘one having visited from afar’ (in Classical Japanese form) is said to
modify the noun tomo.

(64) [[tomo no] enpoo yori tazunetaru] o motenasu

friend GEN far.away from have.visited ACC entertain
‘entertain the one who has visited from afar, who is a friend’

The understanding that the verbal-based nominalization [enpoo yori tazunetaru]

functions as a modifier is reminiscent of Yamada’s (1908) understanding of what he
called abbreviated grammatical nominalizations (see section 4.2) and is again likely
influenced by the term Rentaikei (adnominal form), in which this form ends. While
Ishigaki identifies the modification pattern involved in (64) as appositive, he is mis-
taken in the identification of the head and the modifier. A similar error is committed
by Kuroda (1992), who recognizes a left-headed modification pattern, aberrant for
head-final Japanese, for the following:

(65) Taroo wa [[ringo no] tukue no ue ni aru] no o totte. . .

Taro TOP apple GEN desk GEN TOP on exist PRT ACC take.GER
‘Taro took what existed on top of the table, which was an apple, and. . .’

The errors by both Ishigaki and Kuroda were caused by their lack of a proper
understanding of the nature of both grammatical nominalizations and the appositive
nominalizer no, the latter of which has a special entailment such that [[ringo no]
tukue no ue ni aru] no o totta ‘(I) took what was on the table, which was an apple’
entails ringo o totta ‘(I) took an apple’. This entailment gives the impression that
tomo (no) ‘who is a friend’ and ringo (no) ‘that which is an apple’ in (64) and (65),
respectively are functioning as a syntactic head. Our analysis treats structures like
(64) and (65) similarly to the simpler modification pattern involving the appositive
no, such as [[nasu no] tukemono] ‘eggplant pickles’, discussed above, [[ebi no]
tenpura] ‘prawn tempura’, [[onna no] sensei] ‘woman teacher’, etc., where the head
nominal is consistently on the right-hand side, although these all have the same
kind of entailment as Ishigaki’s and Kuroda’s example. The heads in (64) and (65)
are [enpoo yori tazunetaru]NMLZ ‘one who has visited from afar’ and [[tukue no ue
ni aru]NMLZ no]NMLZ′ ‘what is on the table’, respectively, which are modified by the
appositive-no nominalizations, [tomo no] and [ringo no], in exactly the same way
as in [[onna no] sensei] ‘woman teacher’. These constructions can be either identify-
ing or restrictive. In the identifying modification interpretations, the modifiers iden-
tify the head nouns in the following manner, where the arrowhead indicates the
direction of identification:
324 Masayoshi Shibatani

(66) MODIFIER HEAD

a. [tomo no]NMLZ => [enpoo yori tazunetaru]NMLZ
{one who is a friend} {one who has visited from afar}

b. [ringo no]NMLZ => [tukue no ue ni aru]NMLZ (no)

{that which is an apple} {what is on the table}

c. [onna no]NMLZ => [sensei]N ‘teacher’

{one who is a woman}

Modification structures involving a nominalized head and an appositive-no

modifier like the ones discussed here abound in the literary works from the Heian
period, as seen in the following passages from the Ise monogatari (Tales of Ise)
quoted by Frellesvig (210: 326)55:

(67) a. [[siro-ki tori no pasi to asi to aka-ki]

white-ACOP. ADN bird GEN beak and feet and red-ACOP. ADN
sigi no opokisa naru] midu no upe ni asobitutu iwo
snipe GEN size COP. ADN water GEN TOP DAT frolic.CONT fish
wo kupu
ACC eat.CONCL
‘A white bird which has a red beak and feet and is the size of a snipe was
eating fish while frolicking on the water.’ (Ise monogatari 9)

b. [kiku no pana no uturop-eru] wo worite

chrysanthemum GEN flower GEN fade.STAT.ADN ACC break.GER
‘picking some faded chrysanthemum’ (Ise monogatari 18)

Many literary commentators56 on Japanese classical literature advise us to interpret

passages like these the way they are translated into English above; namely to interpret
the non-boldfaced genitive marked NPs as the heads of the relevant constructions
and the boldfaced verbal-based nominalizations, glossed ADN (adnominal), as their
modifiers.57 But some others are more cautious and are consistent with our analysis
in considering the V-based nominalizations to be nominal heads, which are modified
by the N-based nominalizations marked the appositive no. For example, the com-
mentators of the Ise monogatari collected in the volume nine of the Iwanami Nihon
Koten Bungaku Taikei (Compendium of Japanese Classic Literature) explicitly note

55 The transliterations, glosses, and translations are Frellesvig’s.

56 Keita Kitayama Genji monogatari no gohō (Tokyo: Tōkōshoin 1951).
57 Kinsui et al. (2011:138) also think that [pati to asi to akaki] modifies [siroki tori] in (66a).
 Nominalization 325

that pasi to asi to aka-ki in (67a) is to be understood as (siroi tori no) kutibasi to asi to
no akai mono “a thing whose beak and feet are red” and that uturoperu wo in (67b)
means iro aseteiruno o “that which has lost its color ACC”.58
The contexts in which these passages are used also suggest that these verbal-
based nominalizations are, indeed, the heads of the relevant constructions. With
regard to (67a), it is not the sighting of a white bird, which is not rare, but it was
the sighting of a rarer kind whose beak and feet were red that prompted the traveler
to ask for its name. The two poems that follow (67b) dwell on the state of chrysan-
themums that have lost their color, indicating that uturoperu ‘that which has lost its
color’ was the center of attention. One would have to ask why the author (Ariwara
no Narihira?) of the Ise monogatari used these constructions the way they are as
in (67) when the constructions matching the English translations were readily
available, namely [[pasi to asi to akaki] siroki tori] ‘a white bird which has a red
beak and red feet’ and [[uturoperu] kiku no pana] ‘a chrysanthemum flower which
has lost its color’.
Let us finally ask why noun modifiers, whether based on verbs or nouns, must
be nominalized in their modification function. This question can be answered easily
in the case of the non-appositive no nominalization. In either restrictive or identifica-
tion function, the head noun must be either restricted or identified by the same kind
of denotations as that of the head noun. Under the normal relative clause analysis,
the notion of restrictive modification, for example, would be difficult to define if
so-called relative clauses were believed to be clauses representing a predication
relation between a subject and a verb. Under the nominalization analysis of “relative
clauses”, what a verbal-based nominalization denotes is a set of entity (thing and
thing-like) concepts (e.g., [Hanako ga katta] (no) ‘things/what Hanako bought’),
which can straightforwardly specify a subset of the entity denotation of the head
nominal (e.g., [ringo] ‘apple’). Japanese adjectives must be nominalized when they
modify, as clearly seen in Classical Japanese forms such as [aka-ki ringo] ‘red apple’
and [tuyo-ki hito] ‘strong person’.59 Their modern counterparts, [aka-i ringo] and
[tuyo-i hito], can be analyzed as containing the modern nominalized forms of adjec-
tival roots (cf. [[aka-i] no] ‘red one’ and [[tuyo-i] no] ‘strong one’ in the NP-use),
similar to verbal-based nominalizations, whose endings are the same as finite forms
in Modern Japanese. The reason why adjectives must be in nominalized form in their
modification function is now easy to understand.60
The need for nominalization of modifying nouns for restrictive modification is
equally easy to understand in our analysis. In the modification structure like [[Hanako]

58 Nihon Koten Bungaku Taikei Vol 9 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 1957) p. 117, p. 122.
59 Cf. ungrammatical *[aka-si ringo] and *[tuyo-si hito] with the finite forms of these adjectives.
60 See the concluding section about the ramifications of this in other languages.
326 Masayoshi Shibatani

kaban], for example, the denotation of [Hanako], namely a woman by that name,
cannot specify a subset of the denotation of the noun [kaban] ‘bag’ because the
two sets of denotation do not intersect. The nominalization [Hanako no], on the
other hand, denotes entities to which Hanako might be related as their owner.
Because [Hanako no] now denotes things, it can specify a subset of the things
denoted by [kaban]. Accordingly, the structure [[Hanako no] kaban] satisfies the
semantic requirement for restrictive modification. Similar reasoning applies to other
constructions such as the noun-headed one [[kodomo-tati no] kakekko] ‘the running
of the children’ and the nominalization-headed one [[kodomo-tati no] hasiru] (no)
‘the running of the children’, where the modifying nominalizations denote activities
in which the children are involved as protagonists, which then can specify a subset
of the running activities denoted by the head nominals.
The reason why the appositive-no nominalization must apply can also be under-
stood along the similar line, once we assume, as we did earlier, that nouns denote
“individuals” defined in terms of general characteristics/properties pertaining given
entities. The appositive-no nominalization convert the individual level denotations to
stage-level denotations, brining the denotations to the level appropriate for restrict-
ing or identifying purposes.
An interesting phenomenon related to the use of the appositive-no nominaliza-
tion is that nouns can modify without undergoing this nominalization process in
many, but not all, cases. For example, while *[[bengosi] ozisan] (for ‘lawyer uncle’)
is definitely bad, both [[nasu no] nita] (no) ‘cooked stuff of the eggplant kind’ and
[[nasu] nita] (no) are possible. Some of the ones without no call for a slight pause
as in [[Nihon no syuto] Tookyoo] ‘Tokyo, Japan’s capital’ [[Nooberu-syoo sakka] Ooe
Kenzaburoo]] ‘Kenzaburō Ōe, a Nobel laureate author’, similar to the English counter-
parts, where the order of the modifier and the head is reversed. The range of juxta-
position constructions without no far exceeds those relatable to the ones mediated
by no like the examples seen here. They also vary considerably in the semantic rela-
tions holding between the modifier nominal and the head nominal, even including
ones commuting to restrictive modification constructions with no, but whose func-
tion does not seem entirely identical with restrictive modification, e.g. [[seikai no
oomono] (no) toozyoo] ‘the appearance of a political big shot’.61 How these juxta-
position constructions are related to the types involving N-based nominalizations
discussed above is an interesting and important question that needs to be explored
further (cf. Kobayashi (1966), and Mano (2016) for initial attempts).

61 Some of these may derive from abbreviation of clausal expressions; e.g. [Seikai no oomono ga
tuini toozyoo] ‘a political big shot finally appears’ > [seikai no oomono tuini toozyoo], the latter of
which has no no-mediated counterpart, *[seikai no oomono no] tuini toozyoo].
 Nominalization 327

8 Conclusions and future prospects

Despite its importance in both grammar descriptions and theoretical studies, there
has been a general neglect in the study of nominalizations, especially grammatical
nominalizations, in the field. A consequence of this neglect has been widespread
misunderstanding of the true nature of so-called subordinate clauses in general
and so-called relative clauses, in particular, which have long been analyzed in a
wrong-headed way. The treatment of the nominalizations in NP-use as headless rela-
tive clauses (Andrews 2007, etc.) or as nominalizations derived from relative clauses
is putting the cart before the horse.62 Comrie and Thompson (2007: 378), among
others, recognize a connection between nominalizations and relative clauses, but
they describe it as “a somewhat more rare function of nominalization: as a relative
clause modifying a head noun”, despite the fact that such a connection is found
even in English, which uses wh-forms to mark argument nominalizations, as in
Figure 2.63

Figure 2: Two uses/functions of English argument nominalization

There is even more striking similarity between Japanese and English. Both have
developed a special marker for an NP-use of nominalization, no in central dialects
of Japanese, as discussed above, and English one, as used for argument nominaliza-
tions in NP-use; cf. You should marry [who [Ø loves you]] and You should marry one
[who [Ø loves you]].
As shown above, both historical and dialectal, as well as crosslinguistic perspec-
tives play very vital roles in reaching deeper understandings of various aspects of
grammatical structures. For example, studies of Middle English, where the NP-use

62 Sneddon (1996: 300) remarks about Indonesian nominalizations thus: “Nominalization occurs when
the head noun [of a relative clause] is elipted [. . .] The yang [nominalization] phrase then functions
like a noun.”
63 See Shibatani (2009) for a crosslinguistic survey of the extensive use of nominalizations as modi-
fiers in relative constructions.
328 Masayoshi Shibatani

of grammatical nominalizations did not need the one marker, and of the transition
from Middle English to Modern English, and those dealing with dialectal data
displaying usage patterns different from the mainstream dialects, such as the East
Anglia use of what-nominalization as a modifier (e.g. Gemma screamed at the man
[what crashed into our car], would open up the horizon for a comprehensive under-
standing not attainable in a narrow investigation focused on synchronic data from
a mainstream dialect. We have also mentioned the importance of the descriptive
practice of addressing the actual use of grammatical structures rather than relying
on native-speaker intuition, which may not reflect actual usage patterns found in
natural data.
We argued at length that so-called relative clauses are neither clauses/sentences
nor independent structures apart from a use of nominalizations as modifiers. The
same applies to so-called content clauses that identify head nouns (the fact [that
John is already married]). Treating these as clauses or sentences, as in past studies,
fails to distinguish between internal and external properties of grammatical structures.
Structure-internal similarities do not guarantee that we are dealing with similar
grammatical structures, whose category status must be determined on the basis of
their functions and external morphological and syntagmatic properties. Sentences,
clauses, and nominalizations differ in both function and external properties, as
described in section 5. There are other structures than these nominalizations that
require further investigation from a functional perspective, such as those clause-
looking structures used as adverbial modifiers (e.g. before/after/since [John arrived
here] or [Kenzi ga kuru] ya inaya ‘as soon as Kenji has arrived’ and [Kenzi ga kure-ba]
‘if Kenji comes’ in Modern Japanese), as well as those non-finite structures permitting
no-marked modifiers, as in the Classical Japanese form kimi no imasi-seba ‘if my lord
had still be here’.
Our radical proposal to reanalyze the so-called genitive case as a nominal-based
nominalization finds support in many languages other than Japanese, such as Lahu
and other Tibeto-Burman languages, Chinese, Nepali, and Modern Hebrew, where
both N-based and V-based nominalizations have the same morphological marking,
or in languages such as Korean and Telugu, where the NP-use of both N-based and
V-based nominalizations involve the same marker, as in Japanese. Our analysis solves
the longstanding mystery why so-called genitive cases are similar to nominalization/
relative clause markers in one way or another in the world’s languages (cf. Aristar
1991).
We suggested that a noun modifier must be nominal based on our understand-
ing of what restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying modification amounts to.
The modification-use of adjectival roots in Classical Japanese, which requires the -ki
derived nominal forms as in [tuyo-ki] hito ‘a strong person’, corroborates this. This
raises an interesting issue about the nature of modification by adjectives in other
languages, the understanding of which has been a challenge. One proposal has
been that a phrase like a strong man involves a secondary predication such as a
man is strong, but there is little evidence for it other than that the phrase has such
 Nominalization 329

an entailment. In the case of Indo-European languages, a closer affinity between

nouns and adjectives allows a possibility that adjectival modification turns out to
be a case of modification by a noun, or a nominalized form of an adjective. The
Sanskrit form śukla:m ‘white’ in saḥ śukla:m ga:m a:nayati (he white cow brings)
‘He brings a white cow’, is like a noun taking noun inflections just like the head
noun ga:m ‘cow.FEM . SG . ACC ’.64 It also has an NP-use, like any other nouns, as in
saḥ śukla:m a:nayati ‘He brings a white (one).’
A similar pattern is seen in modern European languages, most clearly in
Romance languages that permit the usage pattern paralleling the Sanskrit case; e.g.
Portuguese um carro azul (ART car blue) ‘a blue car’: Eu quero um azul ‘I want a blue
(one)’. What about English then? Are adjectival modifiers really nouns or nominali-
zations in English as well? Do they have an NP-use like Sanskrit and Portuguese?
Well, as seen in the translations of these Sanskrit and Portuguese examples, English
requires the one-marking in the NP-use of these “adjectives”. But we noted above
that the one-marking is almost obligatorily required in the NP-use of verbal-based
nominalizations in Modern English. The parallelism is clear between the pattern
Marry a man [who you love] (modification-use): Marry one [who you love] (NP-use)
and a blue car (modification-use): a blue one (NP-use). Investigations of languages
in which adjectives form a robust independent lexical category would yield interest-
ing results.
In the introduction of this chapter we promised that Japanese grammar would
look quite different from what we had known once a proper understanding of the
nature of nominalization has been attained. We hope that the lengthy discussions
above have lived up to this promise. These concluding remarks above suggest that
the same point perhaps applies to the grammars of other languages as well.65

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to John Haig and Wesley Jacobsen, who read an earlier version of this
chapter and provided highly useful comments, which prompted me to further clarify
my ideas about the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive, identifying
modification discussed in sections 7. The preparation of this work was supported in
part by a grant from the Osaka University International Joint Research Promotion
Program. Parts of this chapter were presented to the workshops (July and December,
2016) of the NINJAL project on noun modifying constructions.

64 This is normally treated as agreement between the head noun and the dependent modifier. Our
understanding of restrictive modification in the previous section readily explains why the modifier
must agree with the head noun. But the agreement analysis does not extend to the case of an NP-
use of the “agreeing” form, as in he brings a white (one), unless gratuitous deletion of a head noun is
posited.
65 See Shibatani (2009) and Shibatani (2018b) on crosslinguistic patterns of nominalizations.
330 Masayoshi Shibatani

References
Alan, Keith. 2001. Natural language semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Andrews, Avery. 2007. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and linguistic
description, 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aristar, Anthony. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation to the origin
of linguistic universals. Language 67. 1–33.
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Ph.D.
dissertation.
Comrie, Bernard and Kaoru Horie. 1995. Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer
evidence. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Discourse Grammar
and Typology: Papers in Honor of John W.M. Verhaar, 65–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Comrie, Bernard and Sandra Thompson. 2007. Lexical nominalization. In Timothy Shopen (ed.)
Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 3, 334–381.Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. “Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech.
Volume 280: 20–32.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin
Publishing Co.
Frellesvig, Bjarke. 2010. A history of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerts, Donna B. and Mercedes O. Hinkson. 2014. Salish numeral classifiers; e lexical means to a
grammatical end. Language Typology and Universals 57. 247–279.
Harada, S.-I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38.
Horie, Kaoru. 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive
study. In María José López-Couso and Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization:
New perspectives, 169–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ishigaki, Kenji. 1955. Joshi no rekishiteki kenkyū (A historical study of particles). Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic
description, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kinsui, Satoshi, Yoshiyuki Takayama, Tomohide Kinuhata, and Tomoko Okazaki. 2011. Bunpōshi
[Historical grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Kobayashi, Yukie. 1966. Dōkakuo megutte [On the appositive]. Tōkyō Gaikokugo Daigaku Nihongo
Kyōiku Sentā Ronshū 22.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Gregory N. Carlson and Francis
J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuroda, S-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lees, Robert. 1963. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Mano, Miho. 2016. Nihongo dōkaku meishiku ni tsuite no ichi kōsatsu-koyūmeishi ga fukumareru
baai [A note on Japanese appositive noun phrases-Cases containing proper nouns]. In Fukuda
Yoshiichiro and Hajime Tateishi (eds.), Meishirui no Bunpō, 21–40. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Matisoff, James. 1972b. Lahu nominalization, relativization, and genitivization. In John Kimball (ed.),
Syntax and semantics, Volume 1, 237–58. New York & London: Seminar Press.
Matsushita, Daizaburo. 1930. Kaisen Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō. [Revised Standard Japanese Grammar].
Tokyo: Chūbunkan.
 Nominalization 331

Nevis, A., D. Pesetsky, and C. Rodrigues. 2009. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language 85:
355–404.
Payne, Doris. 1985. Aspects of the Grammar of Yagua: A Typological perspective. UCLA Ph.D. thesis.
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fé T. 1972/1983. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1975. Perceptual strategies and the phenomena of particle conversion in
Japanese. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, 469–480.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2009. Elements of complex structures, where recursion isn’t: The case of
relativization. In Talmy Givón and Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony,
acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution, 163–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2018a. Nominalization. In Yoko Hasegawa (ed.), Handbook of Japanese
linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2018b. Nominalization in crosslinguistic perspective. In Prashant Pardeshi
and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Handbook of Japanese contrastive linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Hiromi Shigeno. 2013. Amami nominalizations. International Journal of
Okinawan Studies 4(1). 107–138.
Shibatani, Masayoshi, Sung Yeo Chung, and Bayaerduleng. 2014. Genitive modifiers: Ga/no conver-
sion revisited. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 22. 355–394.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Tetsuo Nitta. Forthcoming. Nominalization: A cross-dialectal perspective.
In Nobuko Kibe, Tetsuo Nitta and Kan Sasaki (eds.), Handbook of Japanese dialects. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Sneddon, James. 1966. Indonesian: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Yap, Foong Ha, Karen Grunow-Hårsta and Janick Wrona. 2011. Nominalization strategies in Asian
languages. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta and Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in
Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1908. Nihon bunpōron [Theory of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Hōbunkan.
Heiko Narrog
9 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization
in Japanese

1 Introduction
Grammaticalization is a framework that goes back to ideas in European linguistics in
the late 19th and early 20th century, but in its current form it was kickstarted by a
seminal paper by Givón (1971), was further developed in continental Europe of the
1980s (Heine and Reh 1984; Lehmann 1986), and then finally took off in the 1990s,
with the paper collection Traugott and Heine (1991) and the textbook by Hopper
and Traugott (1993) as important catalysts. Nowadays, it is one of the most popular
approaches to grammar in functionally oriented linguistics, and is increasingly making
inroads into formal linguistics as well.
The standard definition of the core concept harks back to the Polish linguist
Kuryɬowicz (1976 [1965]: 52), for whom “[g]rammaticalisation consists in the increase
of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a
less grammatical to a more grammatical status.” In ex. (1) we can see the contrast
between the same verb mora(w)- ‘receive’ in lexical (1a) and in grammaticalized
benefactive (1b) use. While the lexical verb originates in the 13th century, the gramma-
ticalized use is about 400 years younger and a development out of the lexical use.

(1) a. Taroo wa kaisya ka kara hana o morat.ta.

PN to TOP company ABL flower ACC receive-PST
‘Taroo received flowers from the company.’

b. Taroo wa miN na ni ie ni kaet.te morat.ta.

PN to TOP all DAT house ALL return-GER receive-PST
‘Taro had everyone go home’ (lit. ‘Taroo received from everyone going
home’)

This concept of grammaticalization may sound like a rather innocent, trivial idea,
but it can have profound repercussions for our understanding of grammar if we
assume that practically all elements of grammar have reached their status through
the process of grammaticalization. There are indeed many scholars working within
functional frameworks who share the assumption that synchronic language structure
is the result of, and must be explained with reference to, diachronic processes. Thus,
as Heine (1997: 2) writes, “Language is a historical product and must be explained
first of all with reference to the forces that have shaped it.” These processes are in
turn driven by cognitive and communicative mechanisms. The relevance of gramma-

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-010
334 Heiko Narrog

ticalization theory to the current research landscape in linguistics can be understood

under this premise. This premise is a challenge to formal and structural approaches
to grammar that strictly distinguish synchrony and diachrony, privileging synchrony
over diachrony. It is also a challenge to a syntax-centered conception of grammar,
as the driving factors behind grammaticalization are assumed to be semantic and
pragmatic. It is no surprise, then, that the large majority of grammaticalization
studies deal with semantic and pragmatic issues. Furthermore, while some authors
define the study of grammaticalization rather strictly as (part of) the study of (histor-
ical) language change (e.g. Hopper and Traugott 2003: 2), others also recognize a
synchronic dimension. Lehmann (1986: 3) writes that “under the diachronic aspect,
grammaticalization is a process which turns lexemes into grammatical formatives
and makes grammatical formatives still more grammatical [. . .]. From the synchronic
point of view, grammaticalization provides a principle according to which sub-
categories of a given grammatical category may be ordered.”
The study of grammaticalization has also led to the development and study of a
number of related concepts, especially lexicalization and pragmaticalization, which
share some but not all features of grammaticalization, and degrammaticalization,
which is in some features opposite to grammaticalization. Narrog and Heine (2011)
includes articles for each of these processes.
Since this paper is designed as a chapter for a handbook of syntax, the goal will
be to highlight the formal, i.e. syntactic and morphological, aspects of grammatical-
ization in Japanese, which are often neglected. This does not mean, though, that
the approach taken here is formalist. The following section 2 will give a short over-
view of grammaticalization studies in Japanese. Section 3 will give an overview of
grammaticalizations in Japanese with particular reference to their morphological
and syntactic properties. Section 4 will present case studies.

2 Studies in Japanese grammaticalization

Before delving into details, I should note here that it is quite difficult if not impossible
to give an accurate picture of grammaticalization studies on Japanese. For one thing,
there is the question to what extent studies on the diachronic developments in
grammar before the advent of the concept of grammaticalization, or even more recent
publications that concern diachrony but do not make reference to grammaticalization,
should count as grammaticalization studies. For example, it has been pointed out
that concepts like “formalization of words” (tango no keishikika) were known before
the advent of grammaticalization (cf. Horie 2002: 126). On the other hand, it is fair to
say that such concepts were not investigated vigorously or researched systemati-
cally. Admittedly, such problems also hold for studies published in English or other
European languages. However, in Japanese, the situation is more complicated in one
important respect. Unlike in Western linguistics, most linguistic research, especially
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 335

in historical linguistics, is published in university publications that are almost infinite

in number and difficult to monitor. The presentation in this section is therefore
inevitably biased towards research with high visibility in well-known publications.
It is fair to say that grammaticalization was introduced to the Japanese research
landscape with considerable delay, and this was initiated by scholars trained in the
U.S. To start chronologically with book publications and special issues of journals,
Ohori (1998) is a paper collection based on a 1993 workshop enhanced by additional
papers. True to the spirit and theoretical impetus of grammaticalization of its time,
the focus is clearly on semantics and pragmatics. Most of the papers deal with the
development of particles that have developed various functions in discourse. The
weight was on analyses within Modern Japanese, including Early Modern Japanese.
This is in fact a characteristic of grammaticalization studies in Japanese in general:
although historical materials are in principle available, and some of them also in
electronic form, the lack of corpora is a considerable hurdle to study the phenomenon
from a historical perspective. After Ohori (1998), there was a 2005 special issue of
the journal Nihongo no Kenkyū (formerly: Kokugogaku), which is the leading journal
of Japanese linguistics in Japan. This special issue contained a good mix of topics,
synchronic and diachronic, structural and semantic-pragmatic. The paper collection
Aoki (2007) is more clearly historically oriented. Some of the individual papers of
these collections will be cited below. Onodera and Suzuki (2007) is a special issue
of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics on grammaticalization and (inter)subjectifica-
tion, that is, a mainly semantic issue that will not feature in this chapter. In Japanese
linguistics, grammaticalization-related research can sometimes be found under dif-
ferent labels, such as the study of ‘complex words’ ( fukugōji; e.g. Fujita & Yamazaki
2006) or of ‘formal words’ (keishikigo; e.g. Fujita 2013). Finally, one should also
mention Robbeets and Cuyckens (2013) edited book on shared grammaticalization
more generally in Transeurasian (Altaic) languages, which carries a couple of articles
specifically on grammaticalization in Japanese.
As for monographs that are grammaticalization studies in all but in name, we
have for example the seminal book on the grammaticalization of the case/connective
particle ga by Ishigaki (1955), the monograph on the history of the politeness suffix –
mas- (Miyaji 1980), and the study of morphological grammaticalization of Japanese
verb morphology by Narrog (1999). A few PhDs have been written on Japanese gram-
maticalization topics in English and are available via UMI, of which we shall mention
here Ohori (1992) on conditional clauses, Dasher (1995) on honorifics, and Suzuki
(1999) on the “formal noun” wake and the quotative particle –tte. A still unpublished
paper collection by Tsunoda will deal with the grammaticalization of nouns in the
verb phrase in Japanese and structurally similar languages. Otherwise, we have a
large number of individual paper publications, the majority of which are written in
Japanese. We will refer to them below to the extent that they are relevant to the topic
here, and known to the present author.
336 Heiko Narrog

3 Morphosyntactic aspects of grammaticalization

in Japanese
3.1 Parameters of grammaticalization
Before delving into concrete cases of grammaticalization, it is important to keep in
mind what actually constitutes grammaticalization, that is, what concretely constitutes
a shift from the lexical to the grammatical, and from there to more grammatical.
Of course, the most fundamental issue involved here is the question what is gram-
matical. This is an immensely complex question that we cannot reasonably try to
solve here, but we have to take for granted that there is a rough consensus about
what is grammatical across frameworks. It goes without saying, though, that there
are plenty of borderline cases that are controversial even within one framework.
When it comes to specific criteria, Lehmann (2002) and Heine (Heine and Narrog
2010; more comprehensively concerning formal aspects in Heine and Reh 1984),
although both originally proposed already in the 1980s, are still the most detailed
references that continue to be cited.
Lehmann’s (2002) parameters of grammaticalization are developed top-down from
an overarching idea of grammaticalization as decrease in autonomy of a linguistic
sign. The autonomy of a linguistic sign can be measured by the three parameters of
weight, cohesion, and variability, which have both a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic
aspect. The idea is represented in Table 1.

Table 1: Parameters of grammaticalization (I) (Lehmann 2002: 110)

Parameter Paradigmatic Syntagmatic

Weight Integrity Structural scope

Cohesion Paradigmaticity Bondedness
Variability Paradigmatic variability Syntagmatic variability

The parameters on the paradigmatic dimension of a sign’s autonomy mainly belong

to the domain of morphology while those on the syntagmatic dimension refer to both
morphology and syntax. Morphologically, grammaticalization means that a sign
becomes increasingly shortened, and integrated into inflectional and derivational
paradigms, while syntactically it loses freedom of position. Overall, the parameters
display a bias towards morphology.
Heine’s approach, as in the following list from Heine and Narrog (2010) is
bottom-up. Based on the observation of a very large number of grammaticalization
processes cross-linguistically, they posit the parameters of grammaticalization as in
Table 2:
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 337

Table 2: Parameters of grammaticalization (II) (Heine and Narrog 2010: 405)

parameter explanation

Extension the rise of new grammatical meanings when linguistic expressions are
extended to new contexts (context-induced reinterpretation)
Desemanticization loss (or generalization) in meaning content
Decategorialization loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less
grammaticalized forms
Erosion loss in phonetic substance

Unlike in Lehmann’s parameters, there is not one overarching idea that subsumes
all specific tendencies. Instead, these parameters aim to represent a comprehensive
package or set of changes that is characteristic for grammaticalization as opposed to
mere analogical change, or lexicalization or pure semantic change in the lexical
domain, for example. It is readily admitted by all authors mentioned here, that
actual cases of grammaticalization rarely imply the full set of changes posited by
them. They should display at least a sub-set, though. There is also the question
whether in a specific language some parameters of grammaticalization are more or
less relevant than in others. There are indications that this is the case, but we start
out here with the assumption that Japanese is a language to which the common
parameters apply quite well.

3.2 Morphological aspects of grammaticalization in Japanese

In terms of Lehmann’s parameters, we expect the following things to happen to gram-
maticalizing items.
A) loss of “integrity”, i.e. loss of morphological and phonological substance
B) increasing paradigmaticity, i.e. integration into small(er) and tight(er) paradigms;
also resulting in a decrease of paradigmatic variability
C) increasing bondedness, also accompanying decrease of structural scope, i.e. the
grammaticalizing item gets attached to, or becomes morphologically dependent
on a smaller syntactic unit than before; note that “structural scope” in Lehmann’s
model is a morphological and not a syntactic notion; syntactically we would
rather expect scope increase (see below)
D) loss of syntagmatic variability, which is also often concomitant to bonding to
another linguistic item

In terms of Heine’s parameters we primarily expect the following:

E) decategorialization, i.e. loss of nominal and verbal properties.
338 Heiko Narrog

In addition, Heine (Heine and Reh 1984) earlier enumerated the following processes
as characteristic for the phonological and morphological aspects of grammaticalization.
They are fundamentally no different from the contents of Lehmann’s parameters A, C,
and D.
F) phonological changes: adaptation, erosion, fusion, loss; morphosyntactic processes:
permutation, compounding, cliticization, affixation, fossilization

Now we’ll take a look at what actually happens morphologically to grammaticalizing

items in Japanese. The observations below are based on Narrog (1999, 2005) and
Narrog and Ohori (2010), and therefore admittedly biased towards the present author’s
own writings. Note, though, that morphological grammaticalization has never been
a particularly popular research topic in Japanese linguistics, because traditional
Japanese linguistics, with its dependence on script rather than phonology, and
adherence to Classical Japanese as the standard, lacked the tools for systematic
diachronic morphological analysis.
The morphological aspect of grammaticalization in Japanese is largely determined
by the fact that the language has been consistently head-final and agglutinating
(with some isolating and fusional elements) throughout its documented history.
As another premise, based on structural distributions one can distinguish three
dependent morpheme classes in Japanese, namely derivational affixes (whereby the
understanding here is that they do not necessarily change word class), particles,
and inflections (on verbs and adjectives). Inflections are the most tightly bound, i.e.
exhibiting the highest degree of assimilation and fusion, and particles the most
loosely bound among these three morpheme classes (cf. Narrog 1998). Furthermore,
we know from cross-linguistic research that there is a strong preference for suffixa-
tion over prefixation in general, but in SOV languages in particular (cf. e.g. Bybee
et al. 1990). This preference also plays out in Japanese. The overall tendency is
captured in the grammaticalization cline of (2) (cf. Narrog and Ohori 2011: 777):

(2) word/construction > particle > derivational affix > inflection

Note that this cline does not suggest that a grammaticalizing item has to take every
step on the cline. Especially particles are peculiar, as particles tend to end up as
particles, and in some cases even degrammaticalize, and not move further to the
right, and they are therefore put in brackets here. However, in terms of the expected
changes A) to F), the overall cline has the following properties:
B) increasing paradigimaticity, since members of the major word classes on the left
side are the least paradigmatic while inflections form the smallest paradigms,
C) increasing bondedness, since independent words are the least bound, and inflec-
tions the most bound morphemes, as shortly explained above,
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 339

D) loss of syntagmatic variability, since inflections are clearly the least variable
morphemes, and
E) decategorialization, since words and constructions are by definition categorical,
while in each step to the right, verb and noun properties get lost.1

A) cannot be immediately confirmed since in principle, an item can go through all

steps without being eroded. However, as we will see now, erosion does often take
place. Table 3 presents a number of grammaticalizations from the Japanese verb
phrase. The table focuses on the historical source and the target, i.e. the result in
Modern Japanese. I should emphasize here again that morphological categorization
is based on distributional analysis and does not necessarily coincide with category
labels in traditional Japanese grammar, where morphological analysis is based on
the writing system, and the description of Classical Japanese.

Table 3: Some grammaticalizations in the Japanese verb phrase (cf. Narrog 2005)

Modern morphological historical morphological

Japanese form structure source (period) structure of source

From periphrastic construction to particle

–da =v(+f) –de ar- (ModJ) =p V+f
–des- =v –de gozari-mas- (ModJ) =p V+v
From lexical item to suffix
–ta- –a ita- (LOJ) A
–mas- –v mawir.as- (LOJ) V+v
From suffix, or suffix combination, to inflection
–Taroo –f –tar-am.u (LOJ) –v+v+f
–(a)na- –a –(a)n.af- (OJ) –v+v
–mai –f =masizi-ki (OJ) =a+f
–Ta –f –tar.u (OJ) –v+f
–Tara –f –tar-aba (OJ) –v+f
–(y)oo –f –(a)m.u (OJ) –v+f
–(a)zu –f –(a)zu (OJ) –v
–Te –f –te (OJ) –v
–Tari –f –tari (OJ) –v
From particle to inflection
–(r)eba –f –(ur)e-ba (OJ) –f=p
–(i)ro –f =ro (OJ) =p
–yo –f =yo (OJ) =p
–e/i –f –(y)e/=yo (OJ) –f/=p

1 As for the intermediate step between particle and suffix, in accordance with this cline, suffixes are
also less autonomous than particles with respect to each of the parameters mentioned here, but I
will forego discussing this point in detail here.
340 Heiko Narrog

As can be seen from the table, quite often two or more morphemes merge into one.
Furthermore, quite often inflecting morphemes (e.g. –v+f, -a+f) become uninflecting
ones, thus exemplifying tendency E) of decategorialization. Perhaps the most spec-
tacular case of morphological erosion is that of the politeness marker –mas-, which
in full detail underwent the following change:

(3) a. *mawi~ir.as.uru (OJ) > mawir-as.uru (LOJ) > mair-as.uru/mairas.uru (EMJ) >
maras.uru (LMJ) > –mas.uru (LMJ) > –mas.u (EModJ)

b. V+V+v+f > V+v+f > V (+v)+f > V+f > –v+f > –v+f

However, grammaticalization does not always lead to suffixation. In many cases a

noun (e.g. koto ‘thing’, tokoro ‘place’) or verb (e.g. kuru ‘come’, suru ‘do’) exhibits
a continuum from lexical to grammatical uses, and the grammatical use cannot
be clearly classified as a suffix. Also, there are cases where periphrastic structures
persist (e.g. –(a)nakereba narana- for necessity, as discussed below in 4.2). Further-
more, the contrast to Korean (cf. Rhee 2011) is striking, where loss of “integrity” is
rampant, leading to many more examples of stunning morphological erosion than
in Japanese. One possible explanation for this is difference in phonological structure.
Schiering (2010) has suggested that the prosodic system of a language strongly influ-
ences the degree to which erosion accompanies grammaticalization. Japanese is
clearly a mora-based language, and according to Schiering (2010) should display
little erosion. In contrast, the classification of Korean prosodic structure is less clear,
and it may therefore involve more erosion. This is an issue that warrants further
investigation.
Japanese language history also offers a number of examples of morphological
degrammaticalizations and exaptations. There are also a few eye-catching examples
of accretion instead of deletion of morphological material (e.g. so-called sa-ire and
re-tasu words). Interested readers are referred to Narrog and Ohori (2011: 783–4) for
a short summary.

3.3 Syntactic aspects of grammaticalization in Japanese

3.3.1 The syntactic study of grammaticalization in general

As mentioned above, the study of grammaticalization tended to be based on semantics

and pragmatics, and syntax was mostly identified with aspects of decategorialization.
Nevertheless, meanwhile even a formal syntactic line of grammaticalization research
has developed, as described in van Gelderen (2011). Generally speaking, nowadays
there are mainly three approaches to syntax in grammaticalization, namely, (1) the
traditional one, in which grammaticalization is analyzed in its own terms, without
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 341

the application of a specific theory of syntax, (2) an approach in terms of structural

hierarchies, as represented by generative grammar and Functional Discourse Grammar
(FDG), and (3) the Construction Grammar (CxG) approach. They are introduced here
only briefly, under the assumption that whoever wants to apply one of the more
specialized approaches to syntax in grammaticalization will have access to them.
Furthermore, basic literature on these approaches is provided for further reference.
As for the traditional approach, one can refer to DeLancey (2004, 2011) and
section 2 of Narrog and Heine (to appear). Among Lehmann’s (2002) parameters (3.1),
only the loss of syntagmatic variability is a clearly syntactic criterion. Instead of being
able to appear in various positions in the sentence, as normal nouns and verbs can,
the grammaticalized item loses syntactic flexibility and gets bound to one, or a small
number of, specific position(s). Among Heine’s criteria (Heine and Narrog 2010), it is
primarily decategorialization that can be identified with syntactic grammaticaliza-
tion. In fact, for DeLancey (2011: 366–7) grammaticalization is primarily the “shift
of a form or construction from one category to another”, in particular, from the
major lexical categories of noun or verb, or a combination of them, to a minor or a
functional category. Items that grammaticalize are downgraded in various respects,
including loss of clause boundary, loss of informational (and concomitantly, prosodic)
focus, and loss of head status in traditional grammar description (cf. DeLancey 2004:
1596). Besides the reanalysis and downgrading of categories, processes that particu-
larly reflect the syntactic side of grammaticalization, are the genesis of complex
clauses (cf. also Narrog and Heine [to appear; section 2]) and of grammatical relations.
Approaches in terms of structural hierarchies can be represented by van Gelderen
(2011) and Hengeveld (2011). While the approach to grammaticalization in terms of
generative grammar may be better known than that in FDG, it was in fact Hengeveld
(1989) who first claimed that “diachronic developments in the field of operators tend
to follow the direction [from lower layer to higher layer]” (p. 142). In both models of
grammar, the basic idea is that grammaticalization constitutes a reanalysis upwards
within the structural hierarchy from a lower-level lexical or grammatical category, to
a higher-level grammatical category. In generative grammar, this idea is also framed
in terms of “economy”. It is more economical for a linguistic item to merge higher in
the tree than to merge lower and then move, and it is more economical to be a head
than a specifier (cf. van Gelderen 2004). The most recent approach is in terms of
“feature economy”. Lexical items with specific semantics are reanalyzed as gram-
matical items with interpretable, and then with uninterpretable features, before
the item gets lost and then renewed (cf. van Gelderen 2011). Note that the relation-
ship between generative grammar and grammaticalization theory is anything but
straightforward, since generative grammar is intrinsically a-historical, and non-
semantic. However, besides the work of van Gelderen, grammaticalization has recently
gained some spotlight through work by other prominent scholars such as Werner
Abraham, Ian Roberts, and Paul Kiparsky.
342 Heiko Narrog

A similar conflicted yet increasingly fruitful relationship also holds for CxG and
grammaticalization. The approach may be represented by Noël (2007) and Trousdale
(2012). Noël (2007) suggests that from a CxG point of view, grammaticalization is
a mere sub-case of the emergence of constructions, which is the object of study of
construction grammarians interested in diachrony. He further points out the intrinsic
contradiction between the concept of grammaticalization and construction grammar,
which in most models rejects the distinction between grammar and the lexicon that
lies at the heart of the idea of grammaticalization. Trousdale (2012: 175) tries to
bridge the contradiction by positing specific criteria for what he calls “grammatical
constructionalization”, namely (a) an increase in the generality of the construction,
(b) an increase in the productivity of the construction, and (c) a decrease in the com-
positionality of the construction. He then shows how these criteria can be applied to
English degree modifier constructions.
We won’t go into detail with any of these theories here but instead look at actual
grammaticalizations in Japanese and how they may be interpreted.

3.3.2 Japanese

If we assume that all, or at least the majority of all grammar, is the product of gram-
maticalization processes, we have just as many subjects for the study of grammatical-
ization as we have grammatical markers and constructions. However, not all of them

Table 4: Representative (recurrent) grammaticalizations in recorded Japanese language history

i. The rise of postpositional verb phrases of the structure vN=p V+f (e.g. vN ni tuite/ni yotte
etc.) (e.g. Matsumoto 1998; Chen 2005)
ii. The rise of the vV+Te V constructions (e.g. vV+Te i-/k-/mora(w)-/mi- etc.) to express
aspectual, benefactive, directional, and other meanings (e.g. Ono 1991; Fukushima 2011)
iii. The rise of conditional constructions to express mainly event-oriented modal meanings; e.g.
V+(a)nakereba narana-. In general, the rise of periphrastic constructions in the domain of
modality. (e.g. Narrog 2007; Yajima 2013)
iv. The increasing use of semantically bleached nouns (e.g. tumori, wake) in the verbal cluster to
express modal meanings (e.g. Suzuki 1998; Miyaji 2007)
v. The genesis of complex sentences through noun phrase expansion (cf. Heine and Kuteva
2007; ch. 6.4; Givón 2009). There are mainly three processes, namely (a) the rise of adverbial
clauses with case particles marking the adverbial relation (e.g. ga, no de), (b) the rise of
adverbial clauses from nouns with adnominal clauses (e.g. baai, toki), and (c) the spread
of complement clauses with nouns as complementizers (e.g. koto, tokoro). Note that (iv) and
(v b,c) taken together constitute what has been called the ‘grammaticalization of formal
nouns’ in traditional Japanese linguistics (cf. Miyaji 2007)
vi. The rise of the minor, grammatical word class of adnominals (e.g. kono, sono, aru)
vii. The rise of numeral classifiers, which is as much a phenomenon of language contact with
Chinese as it is a phenomenon of grammaticalization (cf. Miyasu 2010)
viii. The genesis of various quotative forms (e.g. tote, tte), some of which have grammaticalized
beyond the domain of quotation (e.g. Suzuki 2007)
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 343

are equally suitable. Obviously, grammaticalizations in historically documented

times are more suitable for study than proto-Japanese reconstructions, and recurrent
processes, of which we have many examples, are better examples than unique
processes. Further, as we are interested in syntax here, we are interested in clear
examples of category change, even if this change may not be completed yet. The
list in Table 4 is a selection of processes that pass these criteria, and which may be
seen as representative of grammaticalization in Japanese as we know the language
historically.
This is by no means a comprehensive list but it should be representative. I
believe that one could also add the two most spectacular syntactic changes in the
documented history of Japanese, namely the demise of the kakarimusubi focus con-
structions, and the spread of systematic case marking to this list. But these changes
are not yet very well understood in terms of grammaticalization, so they are left out
here.

4 Studies on Japanese
In this section I will introduce two pieces of research that are remarkable for having
paid particular attention to formal criteria of grammaticalization, namely Shibatani
(2007a, b) for case (ii) in Table 4 above (4.1), and Hanazono (1999) for case (iii) (4.2).
Both are concerned with so-called “primary grammaticalization”, i.e. change from
lexical to grammatical. In addition I will present a short study of my own (4.3),
which is concerned with a case of “secondary grammaticalization”, i.e. progressive
change to other grammatical categories.

4.1 Motion verbs

Shibatani (2007a), together with Shibatani (2007b) and Shibatani and Chung (2007),
is a study of the synchronic degree of grammaticalization of the vV+Te k- (verb
gerund + ‘come’) construction in its spatial uses. This is a construction which is
clearly grammaticalized in its aspectual use as inchoative aspect, but has also a
number of spatial uses that do not have clear grammatical status. Iwasaki (2013:
149), for example, is a language description that does not include them in grammar,
while Kaiser et al. (2001: 504–505) includes them partially. It is these weakly or non-
grammaticalized uses, depending on the perspective, that are the subject of Shibatani’s
study. The author does not reveal which concept of grammaticalization he adheres
to, but he mainly operates with the term “decategorialization”, which goes back to
Heine et al. (1991) and Hopper (1991), and is central to Heine’s understanding of
the formal aspect of grammaticalization (see above).
344 Heiko Narrog

Shibatani (2007a) sets up five syntactic tests in order to determine fine distinc-
tions in the degree of grammaticalization between the spatial uses of vV+Te k-. They
are augmented by one test about vV+Te ik- (verb gerund + ‘go’). The results of these
tests are displayed in Table 5, rearranged in order to make the argumentation
clearer.

Table 5: Tests for grammaticalization of spatial vV+Te k- (cf. Shibatani 2007a: 123)

a. b. c. d. e. f.
mie- valency fragment ˈrassyar- ˈk- neg. scope

I. lexical k- ‘come’ + + + – – n/a

II. arui.te k- ‘walk come’ + + +/– +/– +/– wide/narrow
III. de.te k- ‘exit come’ + – – + + wide
IV. noNde k- ‘drink come’ – – – ++ ++ narrow

The spatial uses of the construction, on the left side of the table may be labeled as,
(I) the lexical use, (II) “manner of motion” use, (III) “directional” (“spatial vector”)
use, and (IV) “consecutive actions” use.
Now, from a point of view of semantic grammaticalization, one would expect
the “directional/spatial vector” use (III) to be the most grammaticalized one, if not
the only one grammaticalized. In this use some abstraction has taken place, and
directionality is a semantic category which many languages actually grammaticalize.
In contrast, the expression of manner of motion (II) is often a matter of lexical typology
rather than grammaticalization (Kaiser et al. (2001) don’t have them either). Finally,
the expression of consecutive (but semantically unrelated) actions (IV) would nor-
mally imply grammaticalization of the subordination marker on the verb, but not
grammaticalization of one of the verbs. After all, k- in this construction does not
express any apparent grammatical category. Furthermore, and decisively, in the
consecutive actions use we are dealing with two separate events. In contrast,
grammaticalization would presuppose that the erstwhile two events are fusing into
a single event, that is, a bi-clausal construction becomes mono-clausal.
However, Shibatani (2007a) is a paper that aims to derail conventional wisdom
about grammaticalization in general. The author suggests that the tests and their
results as displayed in Table 5 show that the consecutive actions use (IV), which
shows no sign of semantic/functional grammaticalization, is in fact the most gram-
maticalized one. That is, we would have formal grammaticalization without semantic
or functional grammaticalization. If proven to be correct, this would be a major
challenge to grammaticalization theory, where it is commonly assumed that semantic
grammaticalization precedes and triggers formal grammaticalization (cf. Heine et al.
1991: 213; Heine & Narrog 2010: 405). As I will show below, I believe that this
challenge is not successful. But the paper is nevertheless meaningful in posing such
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 345

a challenge, and in approaching grammaticalization from a syntactic vantage point,

and it will therefore be discussed in some detail here.
Positive results in tests (a)–(c) are supposed to indicate a high degree of verbal
categoriality, and negative results decategorialization. In (a), the motion verb is
replaced by the honorific verb mie-, which according to the author is possible in all
but the consecutive actions construction (IV). In (b), it is argued that the motion verb
does not retain its goal argument in constructions (III) and (IV). In (c), the point is
whether the verb preceding the motion verb can be used alone without the motion
verbs in responses to questions about the action. I cannot render all examples for all
the tests here, but I will shortly describe them and reproduce the examples to the
extent that they are immediately relevant to the discussion.
Examples (4) to (6) were provided by Shibatani (2007a: 116) for test (a).

(4) Yamada~seN sei wa gakkoo ni arui.te ki.ta/mie.ta.

Yamada-Prof to TOP school ALL walk-GER come-PST /come.HON - PST
‘Professor Yamada walked (walk come) to school.’

(5) Yamada~seN sei ga kyoositu ni hait.te kit.ta/mie.ta toki. . .

Yamada-Prof. NOM classroom ALL enter-GER come-PST /come.HON - PST time
‘When Professor Yamada came into (enter come) the classroom. . . ’

(6) Yamada~seN sei wa ippai noN.de ki.ta/*mie.ta.

Yamada-Prof. to TOP a.drink drink-GER come-PST /come.HON - PST
‘Professor Yamada had a drink (and came).’

Next are the examples provided in Shibatani (2007a: 119–120) for test (b). Example
(7) shows that the goal complement is fully compatible with construction (II), while
(8) in contrast to (9), and (10) in contrast to (11) presumably show that a goal com-
plement gets disallowed in constructions (III) and (IV) of Table 5.

(7) Taroo wa gakkoo=e arui.te it.ta/ki.ta.

Taroto TOP school ALL walk-GER go-PST /come-PST
‘Taro walked (walk went/came) to school.’

(8) Taroo wa zibuN no heya-o de.te, Hanako no heya ni it.ta.

Taroto TOP self GEN room ACC exit-GER Hanako GEN room ALL go-PST
‘Taro exited his room and went to Hanako’s room.’

(9) *Taroo wa Hanako no heya ni zibuN no heya o de.te it.ta.

Taroto TOP Hanako GEN room-ALL self GEN room ACC exit-GER go-PST
‘(lit.) Taro went out (exit went) of his room to Hanako’s room.’
346 Heiko Narrog

(10) Taroo wa riN go o tabe.te, gakkoo=e it.ta.

Taroto TOP apple ACC eat-GER school ALL go-PST
‘Taro ate an apple and went to school.’

(11) *Taroo wa gakkoo=e riN go o tabe.te it.ta.

Taroto TOP school ALL apple ACC eat-GER go-PST
‘(lit.) Taro eat-went an apple to school.’

Positive results in tests (d) and (e) conversely indicated decategorialization. They
both concern the deletion of the first syllable of the motion verb in the verb
sequence. ˈrassyar- is the abbreviation of irassyar- as an honorific equivalent of k-
‘come’. ˈk- is the abbreviation of ik- ‘go’, a stand-in for k- ‘come’ only in this test,
because there is no equivalent phenomenon with k-.

(12) Yamada~sensei wa gakkoo ni arui.te ki.ta/irassyat.ta/’rassyat.ta.

Yamada-teacher to TOP school ALL walk-GER come-PST /come(HON )-PST
‘Professor Yamada walked (walk come) to school.’ (Shibatani 2007a: 117)

(13) arui.te ik.u > arui.te~ˈk.u

walk-GER go-NPS walk-GER-go-NPS

With all constructions, the abbreviations are possible. However, the result of the
author’s Google searches (Shibatani 2007a: 118, 122) suggested to him that they
become better, or more common, in the order (II) > (III) > (IV), i.e., they are best
with the consecutive actions construction.
Finally, the meaning of test (f) is difficult to assess, since the judgments for it
do not form a cline. However, according to Shibatani (2007a), narrow scope of nega-
tion on the final motion verb shows higher event integration and therefore a higher
degree of grammaticalization than wide scope. Examples (14) to (16) illustrate the
judgments found in Table 5.

(14) Daremo basu ni not.te ko-na-kat.ta.

no one bus ALL ride-GER come-NEG -VBZ- PST
‘No one came riding a bus.’
(No one came on the bus = wide scope reading)
(‘They came but no one came by bus’ = narrow scope reading)

(15) Daremo heya ka karade.te ko-na-kat.ta.

no one room ABL exit-GER come-NEG -VBZ- PST
‘No one came out of the room.’
(No one came out= wide scope reading)
(No narrow scope reading possible; ‘They came but not exiting a room’)
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 347

(16) Daremo gohan o tabe.te ko-na-ka.tta.

no one meal ACC eat-GER come-NEG -VBZ- PST
‘No one had a meal (and came).’
(No wide scope reading is possible; No one came after having eaten a meal)
(‘They came but no one had a meal’ = narrow scope reading)

As mentioned above, this battery of tests was designed to demonstrate the decate-
gorialization of k- ‘come’ in the construction vV+Te k-, as observed in its syntactic
behavior. The paper also comes up with a number of far-reaching conclusions and
claims about grammaticalization in general, such as denial of the role of metaphor
and metonymy, and denial of the role of frequency in grammaticalization, two factors
which have played a central role in traditional grammaticalization research of various
convictions (cf. section 1). As for the motivation for presumptive high degree of gram-
maticalization of the consecutive actions use, Shibatani (2007a) proposes the principle
that “semantically incongruous contexts facilitate grammaticalization” (p. 130). This
hypothesis also appears counterintuitive, or even provocative, in the light of gram-
maticalization research.2
Despite the highly challenging nature of Shibatani’s (2007a) study, together with
Shibatani (2007b), and Shibatani and Chung (2007), the reaction has been muted.
To my knowledge, so far only Arai (2013; and in presentations elsewhere) has
responded directly to the challenge. In a systematic study on phonological corpus
data, he rejects Shibatani’s (2007a) findings about phonological truncation (e).
According to Arai (2013), it is stylistic and phonotactic (word length) factors rather
than semantics that influence truncation of the initial syllable of ik- ‘go’. Further, in
terms of Shibatani’s types of constructions, it is the directional use (III) rather than
the consecutive actions use that has the highest rate of truncation. While Arai (2013)
does not include (d) ˈrassyaru in the study, overall it seems unlikely that the proposed
results and conclusions in Shibatani (2007a) about the phonological aspects are
tenable.
The same must probably be said about Shibatani’s (2007a) other tests as well.
The study covers a fairly narrow semantic area of constructions which have not
undergone much grammaticalization yet, and tries to tease out subtle differences
between them in terms of their syntactic behavior. Crucially, a clear standard of
what is expected to happen in grammaticalization is lacking. I believe that it would
have been necessary to start by asking what the criteria are for grammaticalization
in the verbal domain in general. Second, one should look for criteria to test mono-
clausality, i.e. clause condensation, versus bi-clausality. Then, one should clarify
how these criteria are expected to play out in these specific constructions. A standard

2 Cf. Liu 2012 for a study of the historical grammaticalization of the Chinese venitive verb lái, where
he shows that grammaticalization started in contexts where lái was attached to a semantically similar
verb, which enabled the semantic backgrounding of lái.
348 Heiko Narrog

of comparison of how these criteria actually play out in constructions of the same
structural type that are more advanced in grammaticalization, e.g. aspectual –Te i-;
benefactive –Te kure-, –Te mora(w)- etc. might have further enhanced the reliability
of the tests. Since these steps are lacking, the tests appear to be constructed ad hoc
just for this particular set of constructions, and it is not clear whether they actually
test for degree of grammaticalization, or for something else. Additionally, the relia-
bility of constructed sentences and individual grammar judgments on very subtle
semantic distinctions is a perennial problem in research methodology, which in my
opinion also casts its shadow on this study.
In any case, test (a) should probabbly be interpreted in the sense that k- in spe-
cific constructions but not in others loses its ability to be replaced by an honorific.
This, then, is part of decategorialization. However, it is not clear whether the possi-
bility to replace k- by mie- tells us anything about the grammaticalization or decate-
gorialization of k-. Instead, it may tell us actually more about the (relatively low)
degree of grammaticalization of mie-, which unlike irassyar-, for example, is not an
honorific broadly used in auxiliary position. After all, k- can be easily replaced by
the more common honorific, irassyar-. Likewise, in constructions that are doubt-
lessly much more grammaticalized than motion vV+Te k-, such as the aspectual
vV+Te i- and the benefactive vV+Te kure-, the plain verb can be replaced by an
honorific verb (irassyar- or kudasar-) without problem. It is rather questionable there-
fore, that non-replacement by mie- is a sign of grammaticalization. Furthermore, one
cannot help but get the impression that the difference in judgment between construc-
tions (III) and (IV) was affected by a simple manipulation of the linguistic context.
Note that while the whole example sentence (5) is adnominalized to the noun
toki ‘time’, the others are not. It turns out that if toki is removed, according to
the speaker judgment available to me, the difference in grammaticality or felicity
between (5) and (6) is basically eliminated.
In the case of the valency test (b), I believe that the contrast between (10) and
(11) in fact shows just the opposite of what Shibatani (2007a) intended, namely that
the construction is not grammaticalized at all, or only to a very low degree, and
is still essentially bi-clausal. (11) is disallowed because the arguments of the two
predicates have not merged yet in one single complex predicate, so the predicates
and their arguments must be kept separate. Compare (11) to the predicate and argu-
ment merger observed in the clearly grammaticalized benefactive construction:

(17) Taroo ga Hanako ni zitaku ni ki.te morat.ta#

PN NOM PN DAT home ALL come-GER receive-PST
‘Tarō had Hanako [do the favor to] come to his place.’

I cannot say much about the fragment test (c), since basically all three constructions
are not felicitous as fragments, and the author teases out subtle differences in
“badness”, which as a non-native speaker I am unable to replicate. Finally, with
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 349

respect to test (f) (negation), I also believe that if anything, it shows just the opposite
of what the author intended. The wide scope reading in (15) with directional con-
struction is exactly what we find in the highly grammaticalized constructions with
vV+Te, as (18) with vV+Te mora(w)- below demonstrates.

(18) Daremo seN sei ni seikai o osie.te moraw-ana-katta.

no one teacher DAT solution ACC tell-GER receive-NEG - PST
‘No one [received the favor of] being told the solution by the teacher.’
(wide scope reading)

Essentially, in a clearly grammaticalized, and mono-clausal, construction like the

benefactives, since the two predicates have fused, there are no two scopes anymore,
and consequently the final negation has scope over the whole sentence. The clear
scope distinction between the predicates, and the narrow scope in (16) show that
this construction has practically not grammaticalized. Overall, then, those tests that
may actually tell us something about the grammaticalization of vV+Te k-, namely
(b), (d/e) and (f), seem to point to a very low or no degree of grammaticalization
for the consecutive actions construction (IV), and perhaps to some grammaticaliza-
tion for (III). This is exactly what we expected by their degree of semantic gramma-
ticalization. But further investigation is necessary.
Although the discussion of Shibatani (2007a) has ended in a rather negative
conclusion3, the paper has been valuable for the discussion in this chapter for a
number of reasons. First of all, this is one of only few papers that try to seriously
tackle grammaticalization with testable syntactic criteria. In fact, it is hard even
today to come by similar contributions to the study of grammaticalization in Japanese.
Secondly, the apparent flaws in the choice and interpretation of the syntactic tests
demonstrate the necessity to approach such a study systematically from a broad
perspective with a set of general parameters of grammaticalization, or ideally, even
a model of grammaticalization in mind. Concrete tests should then be developed out
of such a model, with a clear idea of what kind of phenomena are suitable to assess

3 In my view the paper has further serious flaws when it comes to generalizing the results to the
study of grammaticalization in general, as the author attempts to do. For example, the relevance of
the concepts of metaphor and metonymy and frequency for grammaticalization is dismissed easily
on the basis of a superficial discussion, without much reference to the numerous empirical studies
in the field, or without any serious attempt to actually explain the constructions in terms of
metonymy or metaphor. In fact, the grammaticalization of motion verbs in general, which is quite
common cross-linguistically but only incipient in the case of the Japanese vV+Te k- motion con-
structions discussed in this paper, has been treated as a paradigm case of the role of metaphor and
metonymy (e.g. Radden 1996). On the other hand, the problem more fundamentally lies with the
assessment of which of the three constructions is actually grammaticalized. There is indeed no
apparent metaphor or metonymy in construction (IV), but as the discussion here has shown, this
construction is not grammaticalized either.
350 Heiko Narrog

the degree of grammaticalization, which outcome of a specific test would be indica-

tive of grammaticalization, and why. Furthermore, clearly grammaticalized construc-
tions as a standard of comparison will enhance the reliability of the tests.

4.2 Periphrastic deontic constructions

Hanazono (1999), the next study presented here, is quite similar in its approach.
However, typically for traditional Japanese research, it does not highlight the theo-
retical concept of grammaticalization, and it is more modestly descriptive in orienta-
tion. Therefore, it also does not make sweeping claims about grammaticalization
in general. Unfortunately, Hanazono (1999) as well does not present a clear idea
of general parameters, or even a model, of grammaticalization either. However, in
practical terms, the approach is solid and the results are as far as I can judge reliable.
Therefore I consider it as a successful study that deserves being introduced here
as well, in a pairing with the similar study of the previous section. The subject of
investigation are two modal conditional constructions (item (iii) in Table 4), in five
different formal realizations, namely the general necessity construction in the two
formal realizations V+(a)nakereba narana-, lit. ‘it does not become if not’ and
V+(a)nakereba ikena-, lit. ‘it cannot go if not’, which differ in the expression of
impossibility in the apodosis, and the “advice” construction in the three formal real-
izations V to ii, V-Tara ii and V+(r)eba ii. All three literally mean ‘it would be good if’
but they have a different conditional form in the protasis (see Narrog 2009; ch. 10 for
descriptive details on these constructions). These two constructions in five realiza-
tions are run through nine tests, the results of which are displayed in Table 6. The
tests are designed with the goal of determining the degree of what the author vari-
ously calls unification (ittaika), univerbation (ichigoka), grammatical formalization
(bunpō keishikika), and grammaticalization (bunpōka). Thus, arguably, the theoretical
foundation, or background, is also unclear in the case of this study. Nevertheless, in
terms of the models of grammaticalization and their parameters introduced in 3.1,
the paper can be said to actually test Lehmann’s parameters of syntagmatic and
paradigmatic variability. It tests the degree to which the complex expressions under
investigation have become mono-clausal. Compared to the original, I have rearranged
the criteria on both axes in an order that a continuum (cline) obtains, namely from
easier to fulfill to harder to fulfill criteria on the vertical axis and from (presumably)
more to less grammaticalized on the horizontal axis.
There is clearly not enough space to explain each construction with respect to
each criterion. I’ll nevertheless give one example per criterion, as provided by the
author. Examples for actual occurrence are mostly taken from a corpus of written
texts (novels), and are quoted here indirectly, i.e. not from the original texts but
from Hanazono (1999). Ungrammatical examples that do not occur in the texts were
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 351

Table 6: Tests for grammaticalization of modal conditionals (cf. Hanazono 1999: 49)

a. b. c. d. e.
V+(a) V+(a) V to ii V-Tara ii V+(r)eba ii
nakereba nakereba
narana- ikena-

I. impossibility of ellipsis of first apodosis + + + + +

with two protases
II. conditional adverb impossible + + + + +
III. modal adverb modifies whole + + + + +
predicate
IV. repetition of conditional + + n/a + +
V. impossibility of politeness marking in n/a n/a + + n/a
protasis
VI. loss of semantic correspondence with + + + +/– +
polar antonym in the apodosis
VII. impossibility of protasis-apodosis + +/– + + +/–
inversion
VIII. impossibility of insertion of adverb + +/– +/– +/– +/–
between protasis and apodosis
IX. loss of polarity in protasis + + +/– +/– –

constructed by the author. Note that Hanazono (1999) indicates ungrammaticality by

a simple question mark “?”, while I use a an asterisk “*”.

I. Impossibility of ellipsis of first apodosis with two protases

Unlike in ordinary conditionals, the first apodosis cannot be deleted if it is identical

with the second apodosis in a series of two conditionals. This is shown in example
(19), which is ungrammatical without narana- in the first conditional.

(19) Sigoto-zyoo de misu o si.ta baai, zibuN de kaiketusaku o

work on ESS mistake ACC do-NPS case self ESS solution ACC

kaN gae-na.kereba
think-NEG CON
*(nar-ana.i), mosiku wa tadati ni hookoku~si-na.kereba
become-NEG - NPS or to TOP immediate ADV report-do-NEG CON

nar-ana.i#
become-NEG - NPS
‘If you make a mistake at work, you have to think of a solution or immediately
tell your superior.’ (Hanazono 1999: 43)
352 Heiko Narrog

II. Conditional adverb impossible

Ordinary conditionals can be modified by a conditional adverb, but conditionals

that are part of a grammaticalized construction cannot, as (20) is supposed to show.

(20) *mosi kimi ga ik-ana.kereba nar-ana.i#

if you NOM go-NEG CON become-NEG - NPS
‘You have to go.’ (Hanazono 1999: 42)

III. Modal adverb modifies whole predicate

There are a number of adverbs like zehitomo ‘by all means’ that can modify performa-
tive deontic expressions. Neither protasis nor apodosis of the conditional construc-
tion in (21) by itself would be felicitous with this adverb (cf. *zehitomo kansei-suru;
*zehitomo naranai) but only the combination of both as a deontic modal construction.

(21) Zehitomo, simekiri-made ni kaN sei~si-na.kereba nar-ana.i#

by.all.means deadline-LIM ADV completedo-NEG CON become-NEG - NPS
‘It doesn’t become, if you don’t finish this job till tomorrow.’
(Hanazono 1999: 44)

IV. Repetition of conditional

In this test, the point is whether the same conditional form can occur before the
conditional involved in the modal expression or not. Repetition of the same non-
grammaticalized conditional would be stylistically odd, while this is not the case
with a conditional in the grammaticalized conditional constructions, as (22) is supposed
to show.

(22) . . . setuiN ni huN ga tamar.eba, kumi~tori mo si-na.kereba

latrine-LOC shit NOM accumulate CON scoop-take FOC do-NEG CON
nar-ana.i#
become-NEG - NPS
‘. . . when shit would accumulate in the latrine, he would have to scoop it up
and dispose of it.’ (Hanazono 1999: 41)

V. Impossibility of politeness marking in protasis

In the grammaticalized construction, the verb in the protasis loses its ability to
take honorific marking. Note that this test cannot be applied to -(a)nakerebanaranai,
which does not allow honorific marking in the protasis for morphological reasons,
so in this case I replace it with an example of Vto i- in (23). The apodosis in this
example is adjusted to honorific style in order to facilitate honorific marking in the
protasis, but even then, honorification is not possible.
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 353

(23) SeN sei ni kii.te mi.ru to i.i / *mi-mas.u to yorosyuu

teacher DAT ask-GER try-NPS CON good-NPS / try-POL- NPS CON good(ADV )
gozaimas.u
be(HON )-NPS
‘You’d better ask the teacher.’ (Hanazono 1999: 46)

VI. Loss of semantic correspondence with polar antonym in the apodosis

The polarity of the apodosis cannot be changed without a loss of semantic corre-
spondence, or outright ungrammaticality, as in (24).

(24) Gakkoo=e ik-ana.kereba *nar.u/nar-ana.i#

school ALL go-NEG - CON become-NPS /become-NEG - NPS
‘You have to go.’ (Hanazono 1999: 43)

VII. Impossibility of protasis-apodosis inversion

(25) is supposed to demonstrate that protasis and apodosis of the grammaticalized
conditional cannot be inverted, as they could in a normal conditional sentence.

(25) *nar-ana.i#, asu=made ni kono sigoto o siage-na.kereba. . .

become-NEG - NPS tomorrow-LIM ADV this job ACC finish-NEG - CON
‘It doesn’t become, if you don’t finish this job till tomorrow.’
(Hanazono 1999: 44)

VIII. Impossibility of insertion of adverb between protasis and apodosis.

According to the author, unlike with normal conditionals, it is not possible to insert
an adverb between protasis and apodosis.

(26) Gakkoo=e ik-ana.kereba *zettai ni nar-ana.i#

school ALL go-NEG - CON absolute ADV become-NEG - NPS
‘You absolutely have to go to school.’ (Hanazono 1999: 44)

IX. Loss of polarity in protasis

As (27) illustrates, the polarity of the conditional in the protasis cannot be changed,
as would be possible with ordinary conditionals.

(27) Gakkoo=e *ik.eba/ik-ana.kereba nar-ana.i#

school ALL go-CON /go-NEG - CON become-NEG - NPS
‘You have to go.’ (Hanazono 1999: 42)
354 Heiko Narrog

The author himself mentions three presumptive limitations to his tests at the end
of his study4 (Hanazono 1999: 49–50) but I believe that his tests are essentially
successful. As mentioned above, Hanazono’s tests seem to be a good match with
Lehmann’s (2002) parameters of grammaticalization. In terms of these parameters,
they can be grouped as follows:
(a) Loss of syntagmatic variability: I, VII, VIII
(b) Loss of paradigmatic variability: V, VI, IX
(c) Loss of structural scope; increase in bondedness: II, III, IV

As already mentioned, Lehmann’s notion of scope is different from that in generative

grammar. II, III, and IV are good examples for the loss of scope in Lehmann’s (2002)
morphological terms, since the individual elements in the grammaticalizing con-
struction lose the ability to relate to elements outside the verb phrase, but instead
become part of the overall construction. Arguably, though, while the individual items
of the construction lose scope, the construction as a whole undergoes an increase
in syntactic scope from clause to sentence. Likewise, the individual elements of
the construction become bound to the construction, although the bounding is still
syntagmatic and (probably) not yet morphological, i.e. there is no clear evidence
that narana- etc. must be considered as suffixes yet, nor the conditionals as prefixes.
Tests II to IV simultaneously indicate a shift from bi-clausality to mono-clausality,
i.e. clause integration, as do tests I, VII, and VIII.
In conclusion, the grammatical status of the periphrastic constructions that
developed in Japanese of the modern period (from Late Middle Japanese on) is a
perennial problem, but Hanazono’s (1999) study gives a good example of how it
can be assessed from a modern synchronic perspective.

4.3 The Japanese future marker

The two studies presented so far have used grammaticalization as a concept for
synchronic data analysis. While this is entirely legitimate, there is little doubt that
grammaticalization research, especially in languages that are historically documented,
should ideally be based on, or at least backed up by, diachronic data. In English
grammaticalization studies, the availability of diachronic corpora has greatly enhanced
the study of grammaticalization. In Japanese, such corpora are not yet available
(although a number of historical electronic texts are available), and large-scale
studies of diachronic grammaticalization are still largely missing, even if there are

4 1. Finer distinctions in the meanings of the constructions investigated should be made; 2. The very
fact that variation in the conditional form is possible shows that to some extent conditional meaning
is still alive, which was not shown in the tests; 3. Related, less grammaticalized forms should also be
included in the investigation.
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 355

Figure 1: Old Japanese –(a)m-

Figure 2: –(y)oo (daroo) in the modern standard language

some high-quality traditional diachronic grammar studies. The last piece of research
by myself presented in this subsection will not really alleviate this lack, but it will
at least offer a limited diachronic perspective. Also, it will deal with a case of
“secondary grammaticalization”, i.e. a grammatical marker acquiring different gram-
matical functions, instead of primary grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical), as
the previous two studies in this section.
356 Heiko Narrog

My own interest in grammaticalization with respect to syntax has mostly been

in the “upwards” movement of grammatical categories across a hierarchy or layering
of categories, as espoused in FDG and in generative grammar. In an earlier publica-
tion I suggested that the Japanese future marker –(y)oo (–(a)m- in Old and Late Old
Japanese) historically “climbed up” in a hierarchical model of modal categories from
relatively event-oriented modality in Old Japanese to being a speech-act-oriented
mood marker in Modern Japanese (Narrog 2012: 131–2). This is represented in the
two figures below. The figures present the core area of modality and on top of it,
that is, further grammaticalized, we find mood and illocutionary modification (“IM”).
The layering is semantically and pragmatically motivated, and I will not further
elaborate on it here, but simply refer to the source (Narrog 2005, 2012) for reference.
In short, as the contrast between the two figures showed, I claimed that while OJ
–(a)m- was a broad intention/prediction marker expressing event-oriented modality,
ModJ –(y)oo has become mainly a mood marker with performative functions (hortative,
emphatic), and clause-subordinating functions (concessive) while retaining an
epistemic (presumptive) use in written language. In this section, I wish to illustrate
another salient aspect of the development of –(a)m-/-(y)oo by referring to the con-
cept of “grammatical constructionalization” (cf. section 3.3.1; Noël 2007; Trousdale
2012). The concept of “construction” refers to a unique match of form and meaning.
It is particularly useful to highlight the Modern Japanese synchronic usage of –(y)oo
as well as its history, which is, in some sense, as I will explain below, symptomatic
of the diachrony of Japanese modal expressions in general. Note, though, that this
section is not a strict application of any specific model of construction grammar,
but merely takes construction grammar as an inspiration to describe the development
of constructions.
Before delving into the analysis, it is worth-while to note that –(a)m-/-(y)oo is
a clear case of grammaticalization with respect to form. OJ –(a)m- was an inflect-
ing suffix. Besides the finite and adnominal form, which were undistinguishable
as –(a)m.u, it also had a nominalizing conditional form –(a)m.e, a nominal form
–(a)m.aku, and depending on the morphological analysis, an irrealis past form
–(a)m.asi. We will ignore –(a)m.asi from here on, since its relation to –(a)m- is
sometimes contested. –(a)m- lost its inflections in Late Old and Middle Japanese
and became an uninflecting suffix, i.e. an inflection itself. In terms of Lehmann’s
parameters, it lost “integrity” and gained in “paradigmaticity”. In Heine’s terms, it
“decategorialized” by losing its verb features. One can also speak of phonological
“erosion” since the only consonant of the morpheme, /m/, fell prey to fusion between
preceding and following vowel.
Now, the main point that I want to make here by focusing on constructions is
that –(a)m- originally covered a large semantic area without much formal distinc-
tion, but eventually it differentiated into a large number of functionally specialized
form-meaning pairings. This kind of change is representative of the change in modal
expressions from OJ to ModJ in general. Similar modal morphemes in OJ were be-,
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 357

to which sometimes 20 or more meanings across epistemic, deontic, and dynamic

domains of modality are ascribed (cf. Narrog 2002), and masi-. In contrast, ModJ
modal markers and constructions are usually specialized on specific modal mean-
ings, and they are often periphrastic (analytic) rather than inflectional (synthetic),
such as the deontics discussed in 4.2. In this respect, –(y)oo, as a remainder from
older Japanese, is untypical for ModJ modality. It is typical, though, in terms of
specialization of meaning, namely through a proliferation of constructions rather
than through change of form, as I will argue below. A very basic contrast between
Old Japanese –(a)m- and Modern Japanese –(y)oo can be illustrated with the con-
structed example (28).

(28) a. Kimi o yume ni mi.yoo

you ACC dream ADV see-HOR
‘I’ll/wanna see you in my dreams’ / #’I’ll probably see you in my dreams’
(ModJ)

b. Kimi o ime ni mi-m.u.

you ACC dream ADV see- INT
‘I’ll/wanna see you in my dreams’/ ‘I’ll probably see you in my dreams’
(OJ)

The point is that at least in the Modern standard colloquial language and in sentence-
final position –(y)oo has only a volitive reading (usually a hortative one, but in this
linguistic context a commissive one), while in OJ, we find both volitive and non-
volitive (predictive) readings for the same verb in basically the same linguistic context
(cf. Narrog 2005, 2012 for the concept of “volitive” vs. “non-volitive” in modality).
The following analysis of –(a)m- in OJ is based on Kōji (1980), a corpus study of
OJ –(a)m- covering all occurrences (1731) of the morpheme in the Man’yōshū, which
is by far the largest collection of OJ text. Note that the fact that the Man’yōshū con-
sists mainly of poetry potentially distorts the description, but we also have analyses
of –(a)m- from LOJ (e.g. Wada 1994), which show a similar picture. Kōji’s (1980)
work is philological in nature, basing his analysis on extant comments on, and
translations of, this work. He basically distinguishes two major meanings of –(a)m-,
which are available across its different inflectional forms, and across all persons
as subjects. These are (1) prediction, and (2) intention. Note that (1) prediction is
labeled as suiryō “inference” by Kōji in Japanese, but suiryō is an extremely broad,
almost vacuous cover term for all kinds of epistemic and evidential meanings in
traditional Japanese linguistics. In the case of –(a)m-, the “inference” is mostly an
inference about the future, i.e. a prediction (cf. Konoshima 1979: 262–3). Kōji (1980)
considers the kind of “inference” expressed by –(a)m- as “objective” (cf. p. 178). There
are also four secondary meanings, namely (3) wish (kibō), (4) “euphemism” (enkyoku),
(5) inference of possibility (kanō suiryō) and (6) appropriateness (tekitō). Kōji defines
358 Heiko Narrog

(3) wish as the “strong subjective expression of intention” (p. 108) and admits that
they are essentially the same, and the distinction between them relies on the intuition
of the person interpreting them (p. 113, 117). Furthermore, no distinction is made
between intentions or wishes of first person singular and plural or second person.
Therefore his (2) intention and (3) wish taken together correspond to “intention/
inducement” in Figure 1. (4) “Euphemism” is subcategorized into (1) prediction and
(2) intention. In adnominal position, where the expressive meaning of the modal suffix
weakens, and the meaning contribution of –(a)m- to the clause becomes vague. One
could take this as a kind of merger in the sense of Coates (1983: 16). I will label this
here as “downgraded” prediction/intention. Kōji’s (5) inference of possibility (kanō
suiryō) is (1) prediction with additional subjectivity (cf. p. 178), as he considers the
normal prediction use of –(a)m- as “objective”. But again, he readily admits that
essentially there is no distinction to (1) prediction, and the impression of different
meanings is largely an artifact of different modern translations (p. 179). Lastly, (6)
“appropriateness” and (7) “assumption” are only found in 2 and 1 out of 1731 in-
stances of –(a)m-, respectively. Kōji (1980: 188, 169) also considers them as the (1)
prediction use with variation as an artifact of modern translation. We will therefore
ignore (6) and (7) from here on.
Overall, then, we have two basic meanings and some variation in syntactic con-
text. The question I am most interested in here is to what extent the two basic mean-
ings and their nuances can actually be differentiated according to specific forms and
syntactic contexts, i.e. in specific constructions. We are therefore looking for distinct
patterns associated with a specific meaning, which occur with some frequency. Kōji’s
(1980) does not only cite every single occurrence of –(a)m-, he also classifies them
along person of the subject and syntactic position, and gives further systematic
information about syntactic context. Altogether he identifies and presents about
190 different combinations of form, meaning, person, and syntactic surrounding
with –(a)m- and gives their number of occurrence (pp. 201–205). Therefore, he is an
excellent source of information, practically equivalent to a modern corpus study,
even if he does not espouse corpus linguistics or construction grammar.
Now, my goal was to identify among the 190 different patterns cases in which
specific meanings are uniquely identified with specific persons of the subject, specific
inflectional forms, or specific syntactic environments, i.e. “constructions”. Further-
more, I set a threshold of five occurrences, because the presence or absence of just
a handful of examples among 1731 overall may simply be due to coincidence of
documentation. It turns out that uniquely identifiable constructions are rather rare.
Basically, all meanings are available across morphosyntactic contexts and persons
of subject. The few identifiable “constructions” are represented in Table 7. The first
letter of the construction label refers to the fact whether the meaning of –am- in
the construction is volitive (“V”) or non-volitive (“N”).
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 359

Table 7: Uniquely identifiable constructions with –(a)m- in OJ

label form subj. pos. meaning example frequency

V1 –(a)m.aku 1~3 ADV intention/ nak.u kowe o kik-am.aku pori to 42

posi/pori wish cry-ANP voice ACC hear-FUT NMZ
want QUO
‘I [went out], wanting to hear
[the cuckoo] sing’ (MYS 4209)
V2 –(a)m.u NP 1~3 ADN downgraded se-m.u sube mo na.si 67
intention do-FUT- ANP way FOC not.be-FNP
‘There is nothing I can do’
(MYS 466)
N1 –(a)m.u/e 1~3 FIN prediction yam.azu omop.aba imwo ni 56
ka mo ap-am.u ka mo
stop-NEG think-CON lover DAT
meet-FUT- ANP QUE FOC
‘If I think incessantly of her, I
may [actually] meet her’ (MYS
3053)
N2 –(a)m.e 1S FIN or prediction of ter.u pi no mo wa ga sode 19
ADV possibility pi-m.e ya
shine-ANP sun GEN FOC
I=GEN sleeve dry-FUT CON QUE
‘Would my sleeves dry even in
the bright sun [if I cannot meet
you]?’
(MYS 1995)
N3 –(a)m.u NP 1~3 ADN downgraded ap-am.u pi no katami 210
prediction meet-INT- ANP day GEN keepsake
‘A keepsake of the day when I
will meet you’ (MYS 3753)
N4 –(a)m.aku 1, 3 ADV downgraded kusa~ne no kare-m.aku wosi mo. 31
wosi prediction weed-root GEN wither-FUT NMZ
regretful FOC
‘It’s a pity that the weeds on the
shore wither away.’ (MYS 435)

As represented in Table 7, –(a)m- in the construction –(a)m.aku posi/pori always

expresses a “wish”. In adnominal position, –(a)m.u expresses a downgraded (i.e.
non-subjective, semantically vague) intention or prediction. The “subjective” prediction-
of-possibility use is only found with the form –(a)m.e, and there is a morpheme
sequence –(a)m.u/ekamo that is always sentence-final and always interpreted as
prediction (and not intention). Finally, in –(a)m.aku wosi, –(a)m- expresses a down-
graded prediction.
360 Heiko Narrog

Together with the basic meanings, which I will label here as “V0” and “N0”,
respectively, and which are available across contexts, the six constructions and one
specific context can be combined into a construction network as below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Construction network of –(a)m- in Old Japanese (based on Kōji 1980)

The arrangement of constructions in this figure is based on the principle that semantic-
functional similarity is reflected in proximity. The upper part of the figure has the
volitive meanings, and the lower part the non-volitive ones. The “desire” meanings
are maximally distinct from the prediction meanings, while the constructions with
“downgraded” meanings in the middle are close to merger, i.e. tend to be vague
between the two basic readings. Furthermore, the axis from left to right represents
presumptive (i.e. reconstructed) progress in meaning change, i.e. subjectification,
as it is known from the literature (i.e. Traugott and Dasher 2002, Narrog 2012). The
meanings labeled as more subjective by Kōji (1980) are therefore placed to the right.
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 361

Note that –(a)m- in –(a)m.aku pori/posi is not necessarily more subjective than
the default –(a)m- “intention” reading, though, because the stronger desire reading
must be attributed to the following predicates pori and posi ‘want’. Overall, Figure 3
also represents a number of hypotheses about how the constructions developed. It
is difficult to confirm or reject these hypotheses, though, because historical evidence
(i.e. from proto-Japanese) is lacking.
Now we take the same approach to the Modern Japanese uses of –(y)oo. Here
I have built a corpus of my own, made up of 206 megabyte of plain text (about 65
million. morphemes (“tango”)) of Modern Japanese, including 660 novels and short
stories ranging from 1889 to 2004, 145 essays, two half-yearly series of the Mainichi
Shinbun newspaper, 484 spontaneous conversations, and the non-planned part of
the Corpus of Spontaneous Japanese (CSJ). It contains 64,172 instances of –(y)oo,
which is significantly more than what we find in the OJ materials. This unevenness
in data, and our better intuitive access to the meanings inevitably hamper any
comparison, but nevertheless I believe that some clear-cut tendencies can be estab-
lished. First of all, the more event-oriented suffix verb –(a)m- has not only developed
morphologically into the mood inflection –(y)oo, but also the meaning spectrum has
become more mood-like, with the first plural hortative ‘let’s’ now being the most
frequent, and prototypical meaning and use of –(y)oo. Again, this is clearly morpho-
logical, but arguably also semantic grammaticalization towards more speaker-oriented
meaning. But another development is even of greater interest here, namely the dif-
ferentiation of many specialized form-meaning pairs. The volitive “default” meaning
has practically disappeared, while a non-volitive “default” meaning is meanwhile
only available in written-style language. What we do find is a large number of very
specific constructions into which the erstwhile default meanings have differentiated
out. Most of these constructions appear with considerable frequency in the corpora
and are therefore likely to be entrenched in language use and in the language user’s
linguistic knowledge. Some of them are entirely colloquial while others belong to
written style. Because there are so many of them, I split up the volitive uses and
the prediction uses into two tables. Table 8 presents the volitive, “V”, uses. The
meaning of the new labels is as following. VC means “volitive complement”, VL
means “volitive/light verb”, VE “volitive/ellipsis of light verb”, and VN “volitive/
adnominal”.
The volitive uses have practically split up into sentence-final performative mood
uses mainly for first person subjects on the one hand and adverbial uses with specific
complement-taking verbs on the other hand. Adnominal uses are sparse and confined
to written style.
Table 9 shows the non-volitive, “N”, meaning range of –(y)oo. The meaning of
the additional new labels is as following. NN means “adnominal non-volitive”, and
NA means “adverbial non-volitive”.
Non-volitive uses in general are not bound to a specific person of the subject,
although we expect them to be overwhelmingly used with non speech-participant
subjects. In their case, a broad default meaning that can be labeled as “presumptive”,
362 Heiko Narrog

Table 8: Volitive constructions with hortative –(y)oo

Morpho-
syntactic
pattern(s) Subj. Pos. meaning example frequency
V1 –(y)oo#/ 1Pl F hortative Odor.oo! 13404
–(y)oo to ‘Let’s!’ dance-HOR
‘let’s dance!’
V2 –(y)oo#/ 1S FIN commissive Watasi mo mairi.mas.yoo 1710
–(y)oo to ‘I’ll!’ 1S FOC go-POL- HOR
‘I’ll go as well!’
V3 –(y)oo(ka) 1Pl FIN proposal Odor.oo ka? 1708
‘shall we?’ Dance-HOR QUE
‘Shall we dance?’
V4 –(y)oo(ka) 1S FIN/ self kaer.oo ka (to omot.ta) 1936
ADV QUEstioning return-HOR QUE (CPL-think-PST )
‘should I?’ ‘(I thought) should I go back?’
V5 –(y)oo 2 FIN indirect Sorosoro tosi o kangae.yoo! 8
imperative Slowly year ACC think-HOR
‘Let’s. . . !’
‘Think of your age!’
VC1 –(y)oo to (1) ADV complement it.te ok.oo to omo.u 5561
omo.u/ clause with say-GER put-HOR - CPL think-NPS
kangae.ru verbs of ‘I want to say this’
‘thinking’ –
intention
VC2 –(y)oo to ADV complement moosikom.oo to kime.ta 358
kime.ru/ with verbs of apply-HOR - CPL decide-PST
kokorozas.u intending, ‘I decided to apply’
deciding etc.
VC3 –(y)oo to ADV complement ne.yoo to doryoku-si.ta 336
tutome.ru with verbs of sleep-HOR - CPL endeavor-do- PST
etc. endeavoring
‘I tried hard to sleep’
VC4 –(y)oo to ADV complement hikaku-si.yoo to kokoromi.ta 159
kokoromi.ru with verbs of compare-do-HOR - CPL try-PST
etc. trying ‘I tried to compare [them]’
VC5 –(y)oo to ADV complement kakuho-si.yoo to kuwadate.ta 126
kuwadate.ru with verbs of secure-do-HOR - CPL plan-PST
etc. planning ‘I planned to secure [them]’
VL1 –(y)oo to ADV conative motto yoku mi.yoo to si.ta 19364
suru (/immediate More good see-HOR - CPL do. PST
prospective)
‘I tried to see [it] better.’
construction
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 363

Table 8: Continued

Morpho-
syntactic
pattern(s) Subj. Pos. meaning example frequency
VL2 –(y)oo to ADV immediate hi ga kure.yoo to s.uru 883
suru (/ to iu) prospective sun noM set-HOR - CPL do-NPS
construction ‘It is about to get dark’
VE1 –(y)oo to. . . ADV Adverbial kuwawar.oo to tika-duk.u 2498
purpose add-HOR - CPL approach
clause approach in order to join
VE2 –(y)oo ni mo ADV Adverbial uta.oo ni mo uta.e.na.i 166
frustrated Sing-HOR DAT FOC sing-POT- NEG
effort clause
‘I couldn’t sing although I
wanted’
VN1 –(y)oo tame ADN Relative huseg.oo tame 23
clause with Prevent-HOR purpose
purpose ‘with the purpose of preventing’
noun
VN2 –(y)oo yoo ADN Relative i.oo yoo na.i 12
clause with say-HOR way not.be-NPS
manner ‘there is no way to say it’
noun

and given the “default” label number P0, has survived. I will give a short example
here.

(29) Sai.syuusyoku no kikai wa taiheN kaN gei-s.are.yoo.

again-employment GEN opportunity to TOP very welcome-do-PAS - HOR
‘The opportunity for re-employment will surely be welcomed a lot.’
(constructed example, based on a real example from the internet)

This reading is found quite frequently in the corpus (11089 instances) and is practi-
cally entirely confined to written style. In colloquial language use it is replaced by
the particle daroo. This basically holds across the board for the non-volitive mean-
ings. All of them belong to written style, or spoken language that mimics written
style.
Now, I will again present a construction network, in Figure 4. Space does not
allow us to spell out all constructions. They are therefore only represented by their
labels in the figure. Furthermore, in order to enhance clarity with this large number
of constructions (25), I have arranged them into 8 groups of related constructions.
Thus, in comparison to Figure 3, which offered a detailed “micro” view, Figure 4
only offers a “macro” view.
364 Heiko Narrog

Table 9: Non-volitive constructions with hortative –(y)oo

Morpho-
syntactic subj pos meaning example frequency
pattern(s)
N1 –(y)oo(ka) FIN Doubt Dare ga sir.oo? 2507
3S NOM know-HOR
‘Who will/should know that?’
NN1 –(y)oo hazu/ ADN Possibility (1) Waru.kar.oo hazu wa na.i 124
wake ga na.i bad-VRB - HOR expectation to TOP
not.be
‘It can’t be bad’
NN2 ar.oo koto ka ADN Possibility (2) Ar.oo koto ka? 22
nar.oo koto= be-HOR thing QUE
nara ‘It’s inconceivable!’
NN3 to mo ar.oo ADN Frustrated gakusya to mo ar.oo mono 15
mono expectation scholar-FUN FOC be-HOR thing
‘someone who should be a
scholar’
NA1 –(y)oo to (mo) ADV Concessive Ame ga fur.oo to kaze ga 1341
CONditional fuk.oo to
with to (mo) rain NOM rain- CNC wind NOM
blow-CNC
‘Whether it rains or the wind
blows, . . .’
NA2 –(y)oo ga ADV Concessive basya ni nor.oo ga fune ni 677
CONditional nor.oo ga
with ga coach DAT GET. ON - CNC ship DAT
GET. ON - CNC

‘Whether by coach or by
ship, . . .’
NA3 –(y)oo ADV Conditional Ari ni kam.are.yoo mono nara 123
(mono=)nara with ant DAT bite-PAS - HOR thing CON
(mono=)nara
‘If you get bitten by an ant, . . .’
NA4 –(y)oo mono o ADV Concessive meiyo mo agar.oo mono o 14
with mono o honor FOC rise-HOR thing ACC
‘Although his honor would rise
[then]’
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 365

Figure 4: Construction network of ModJ –(y)oo

Like Figure 3, Figure 4 also represents a number of hypotheses about the relation-
ship between the meanings and constructions in Modern Japanese. As there are so
many of them, I will outline here only a few observations on which the arrangement
of constructions in Figure 4 is based. First of all, since there is practically no ambi-
guity between volitive and non-volitive readings left, there is also no connection
between these areas. On the other hand, we have a fair number of constructions
with downgraded intentionality and epistemicity. These are especially the VE and
VN on the one hand, and the NA constructions, and to some extent the NN construc-
tions, on the other hand. The adnominal constructions are mostly direct successors
of the adnominal constructions extant already in OJ. So this is the part of the func-
tional spectrum of –(a)m- that made it into Modern Japanese, while the majority of
OJ uses is meanwhile extinct. The core of the ModJ volitive uses is strictly performa-
tive (V1–V5), and therefore depicted to the right side. Note that the V1 use, which
is the core volitive use in ModJ, is not part of the OJ meanings spectrum. In OJ,
sentence-final volitive –(a)m- referred to the speaker alone, and did not include the
hearer. V2 may be seen as the most direct successor of OJ V0. There is also some
overlap in use, namely in sentence-final position. However, while the OJ default
366 Heiko Narrog

V0 meaning spread across many contexts, including non-performative ones, ModJ

–(y)oo (V2) is practically limited to performative contexts. V5 is the most innovative
use, which is still relatively rare. The modern default non-volitive use is epistemic
and therefore more advanced to the right, and distinctive from the volitive uses
than most other non-volitive uses. Lastly, VL2 is an especially intriguing construc-
tion. While being derived from a volitive use (VL1), its meaning is mainly aspectual
and evidential, so that it tilts towards the non-volitive spectrum.
For methodological reasons, the above comparison is not entirely satisfying.
First, we would like to know the full history of this morpheme and its constructions,
but to document that would at least require a study of the scale of one or two PhDs,
which has yet to be written. Also, as mentioned above, the limited OJ data and
our non-intuitive access to them are very different from the large-scale data we
have from ModJ and our more intuitive access to them. Nevertheless, I believe
that the above description has shown the following. While in my own writing on
–(a)m-/–(y)oo I have highlighted the fact that its development is characterized by
a movement towards the outer, performative, layers and mood-like functions in a
layered model of grammar (especially uses V1 to V5), this represents only half of
the truth of the development of this item. The other development, which is just as
salient, is the almost rampant proliferation of specific form-meaning combinations,
i.e. constructions, involving this item. A full account of the grammaticalization of
–(a)m-/-(y)oo needs both perspectives.

5 Conclusion
This article has given an overview of grammaticalization in Japanese, particularly
with respect to formal aspects. This topic is still largely underexplored, partially
due to the difficulties associated with accessing representative historical data. Section
2 gave an overview of previous studies. In order to explore grammaticalization
phenomena systematically, we need an overall idea of grammaticalization. Further-
more, it is advantageous to have a set of criteria that are suitable to determine
whether, and to which degree, grammaticalization has taken place. I have attempted
to provide a number of criteria for grammaticalization in section 3.1. In section 3.3, I
gave a list of phenomena in Japanese language history that would particularly lend
themselves to analysis in terms of grammaticalization, and in section 4, a few case
studies by myself and by other authors were discussed in detail. I do not consider
them as exemplary. Instead it is their deficiencies, paired with only sporadic
strengths, that point to what is desirable and necessary in future studies on the
topic. I believe that the development of historical corpora, combined with the further
increase and development of linguistic theories taking an interest in the study of
grammaticalization will increasingly open up exciting research avenues in Japanese
grammaticalization.
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 367

References
Aoki, Hiroshi (ed.). 2007. Nihongo no kōzō henka to bunpōka [Structural change and grammaticaliza-
tion in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō.
Arai, Fumihito. 2013. A variationist approach to a grammaticalized motion verb of Japanese. Working
Papers from NWAV Asia-Pacific 2. 1–8.
Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca and Revere D. Perkins. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation
of grammatical material. In: William Croft, Suzanne Kemmer and Keith Denning (eds.), Studies
in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday,
1–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chen, Chun-Hui. 2005. Bunpōka to shakuyō – nihongo ni okeru dōshi no chūshikei o fukunda
kōchishi o rei ni [Grammaticalization and borrowing. Postpositions derived from verbs in the
base form as an example]. Nihongo no Kenkyū 1(3). 123–138.
Dasher, Richard B. 1995. Grammaticalization in the system of Japanese predicate honorifics. Stanford
University Ph.D. dissertation.
DeLancey, Scott. 2004. Grammaticalization: from syntax to morphology. In: Geert Booij et al. (eds.),
Morphologie/Morphology. Ein internationals Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1590–
1599. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Grammaticalization and syntax: A functional view. In: Heiko Narrog and Bernd
Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 365–377. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fujita, Yasuyuki (ed.). 2013. Keishikigo kenkyū ronshū [Paper collection on formal words]. Ōsaka:
Izumi Shoin.
Fujita, Yasuyuki and Makoto Yamazaki (eds.). 2006. Fukugōji kenkyū no genzai [The current state of
the study of complex words]. Ōsaka: Izumi Shoin.
Fukushima, Takenobu. 2011. –te iru no seiritsu to sono hattatsu [Emergence and development of –te
iru]. In: Hiroshi Aoki (ed.), Nihongo bunpō no rekishi to henka, 119–149. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip.
Chicago Linguistics Society 7. 394–415.
Givón, T. 2009. Multiple routes to clause union. The diachrony of complex verb phrases. In: T. Givón,
and Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition,
evolution, 81–116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hanazono, Satoru. 1999. Jōkenkei fukugō yōgen keishiki no nintei [The acknowledgement of complex
predicate forms based on conditionals], Kokugogaku 197. 39–53.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heine, Bernd and Heiko Narrog. 2010. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Bernd Heine
and Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 401–423. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages.
Hamburg: Buske.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–
157.
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In: Heiko Narrog and Bernd
Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 580–594. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd
Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
368 Heiko Narrog

Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Horie, Kaoru. 2002. Review of Hino, Shigenari. 2001. Keishikigo no kenkyū – bunpōka no riron to
ōyō [Research on formal words – theory and application of grammaticalization] Kokugogaku
53/4, 124–131.
Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Ishigaki, Kenji. 1955. Joshi no rekishiteki kenkyū [Historical research on particles] Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2013. Japanese. Revised edition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
JKD = Jidaibetsu Kokugo Daijiten. Jōdaihen [Great dictionary of the National Language by periods.
Old Japanese]. 1967. Edited by the Jōdaigo Jiten Henshū Iinkai. Tōkyō: Sanseidō.
Kaiser, Stefan et al. 2001. Japanese. A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
Kōji, Kazuteru. 1980. Man’yōshū jodōshi no kenkyū [Studies of the auxiliaries in the Man’yōshū].
Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Konoshima, Masatoshi. 1979. Kokugo jodōshi no kenkyū [The study of the auxiliaries of the national
language]. Second edition. Tokyo: Ōfūsha.
Kuryɬowicz Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques 2.
38–54. (Diogenes 1965: 55–71.)
Lehmann, Christian. 1986. Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. General Linguistics 26(1). 3–22
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Second, revised edition. Erfurt: Seminar
für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
Liu, Cheng-hui. 2012. The grammaticalization of the directional verb lái: A construction grammar
approach. In Janet Zhiqun Xing (ed.), Newest trends in the study of grammaticalization and
lexicalization in Chinese, 87–113. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1998. Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in
Japanese. In Toshio Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: cognitive and dis-
course perspectives, 25–60. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Miyaji, Kôichi. 1980. Masu genryūkō [Thoughts on the origins of masu]. Tōkyō: Ōfūsha.
Miyaji, Asako. 2007. Keishiki meishi no bunpōka. Meishiku to shite no tokusei kara miru [The
grammaticalization of formal nouns, seen from the characteristics of the noun phrase]. In:
Hiroshi Aoki (ed.), Nihongo bunpō no rekishi to henka, 1–31. Tokyo: Hituzi Shobo.
Miyake, Tomohiro. 2005. Gendai nihongo ni okeru bunpōka – naiyōgo to kinōgo no renzokusei o
megutte [Grammaticalization in Modern Japanese: On the continuum between content words
and function words]. Nihongo no Kenkyū 1(3). 61–76.
Miyasu, Tadao. 2010. Nihongo no josūshi: Kenkyū to shiryō [Japanese classifiers: Analyses and
materials]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobō.
Narrog, Heiko. 1998. Nihongo dōshi no katsuyō taikei [The inflection system of Japanese verbs].
Nihongo Kagaku [Japanese Linguistics] 4. 7–30.
Narrog, Heiko. 1999. Japanische Verbflexive und flektierbare Verbalsuffixe. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Narrog, Heiko. 2002. Polysemy and indeterminacy in modal markers – the case of Japanese beshi.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11. 123–167.
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: a new perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics 16(4). 677–731.
Narrog, Heiko. 2007. Modality and grammaticalization in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics
8(2). 269–294.
 The morphosyntax of grammaticalization in Japanese 369

Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of
Functional Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective.
Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Narrog, Heiko and Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. Grammaticalization. The Oxford handbook of gramma-
ticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narrog, Heiko and Bernd Heine. To appear. Grammaticalization. In Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts
(eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Narrog, Heiko and Toshio Ohori. 2011. Grammaticalization in Japanese. In Heiko Narrog and Bernd
Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 775–785. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of
Language 14(2). 177–202.
Ohori, Toshio. 1992. Diachrony in clause linkage and related issues. University of California, Berkeley
Ph.D. dissertation.
Ohori, Toshio (ed.). 1998. Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspec-
tives. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Ono, Tsuyoshi. 1992. The grammaticization of the Japanese verbs oku and shimau. Cognitive Lin-
guistics 3(4). 367–390.
Onodera, Noriko O. and R. Suzuki (eds.). 2007. Historical changes in Japanese: With special focus on
subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Special issue of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics.
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion metaphorized: the case of coming and going. In Eugene.H. Casad
(ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics,
423–458. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rhee, Seongha. 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean. In Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 764–774. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robbeets, Martine and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). 2013. Shared grammaticalization. With special focus
on the Transeurasian languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schiering, René. 2010. Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization. Evidence from cliticization. In:
Katerina Stathi et al. (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 73–100. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2007a. Grammaticalization of motion verbs. In Bjaerke Frellesvig, Masayoshi
Shibatani and John-Charles Smith (eds.), Current issues in the history and structure of Japanese.
Tokyo: Kuroshio, 107–134.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2007b. Grammaticalization of converb constructions. The case of Japanese
-te conjunctive constructions. In: Jochen Rehbein et al. (eds.), Connectivity in grammar and
discourse, 21–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sung-Yeo Chung. 2007. On the grammaticalization of motion verbs: A
Japanese-Korean comparative perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15. 21–40.
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998. From a lexical noun to an utterance-final pragmatic particle: wake. In Toshio
Ohori (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives,
67–92. Tokyo: Kuroshio
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1999. Grammaticization in Japanese: A study of pragmatic particle-ization. University
of California, Santa Barbara Ph.D. dissertation.
Suzuki, Ryoko. 2007. (Inter)subjectification in the quotative tte. Local change, utterance-ness and
verb-ness. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(2). 207–237.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, 2 vols.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
370 Heiko Narrog

Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of construc-

tions. In Kristin Davidse et al. (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections,
167–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. Grammaticalization and generative grammar. A difficult liaison. In Heiko
Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 43–55. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wada, Akemi. 1994. Kodai nihongo no jodōshi no kenkyū [Studies of the auxiliaries of Ancient
Japanese]. Tokyo: Kazama Shobō.
Yajima, Masahiro. 2013. Kamigata, Ōsakago ni okeru jōken hyōgen no shiteki kenkyū [Historical
Research on Conditional Expressions in the languages of Kamigata and Osaka]. Tokyo: Kasama
Shoin.
Nobuko Hasegawa
10 Modality

1 Introduction
The definition of ‘modality’ is not straightforward and what the term refers to varies
widely among the subfields of linguistics. Notions that have been subsumed under
‘modality’ include: speaker’s attitude, certainty, commitment, subjectivity, necessity/
possibility, factuality, evidentiality, etc., none of which seems clearly definable inde-
pendent of the research traditions and practices within which they are used. The
kinds of linguistic phenomena that are subsumed under ‘modality’, and the kinds
of structures imposed on them, also vary widely. It is beyond the scope of this chapter
to define exactly what ‘modality’ is or what aspects or phenomena of language are to
be examined under the term of ‘modality’. Instead, I will focus on the phenomena
that have clear relevance to syntax; i.e. elements that are typically referred to as
‘modality’ and the concordance relations – or agreement – between such ‘modality’
items and some other items in the sentence. By exploring such concordance phe-
nomena, I will discuss the relationship between modality and syntax.
We will first briefly look at how modality has been treated in English and in
Japanese. Then in section 3, based on recent developments in syntactic research,
especially cartography, I will show that the insights and descriptive generalizations
expressed in traditional Japanese language studies can be captured in theoretical
syntax. Given the direction suggested in section 3, case studies will be presented:
an analysis of the phenomenon of person restriction on the subject, which will
be examined in section 4, and the peculiar concordance between an adverbial to-
temporal clause and main clause types, which is dealt with in section 5. Section 6
offers a summary.

2 Modality phenomena: how they have been

considered
2.1 Modality in English
As stated above, various notions are subsumed under the term ‘modality’. Similarly,
in terms of linguistic phenomena, various grammatical constructions may be included.
Portner (2009), for example, who examines modality in terms of semantics and prag-
matics, considers ‘modality’ as “the linguistic phenomenon whereby grammar allows
one to say things about, on the basis of, situations which need not be real (p. 1)”,

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-011
372 Nobuko Hasegawa

including the following expressions and constructions among others. (See also Palmer
2001)

(1) Sentential Modality

a. Modal auxiliaries: must, can, should, etc.
b. Modal verbs: the semi-modals, such as need (to), ought (to), etc.
c. Modal adverbs: maybe, probably, possibly, etc.
d. Generics, habituals, and individual-level predicates
e. Tense and aspect
f. Conditionals

(2) Sub-sentential Modality

a. Modal adjectives and nouns: possible, necessary, certain, etc.
b. Propositional attitude verbs and adjectives: believe, pleased, etc.
c. Verbal mood, the indicative and the subjunctive, in particular.
d. Infinitives
e. Negative polarity items

(3) Discourse Modality

a. Evidentiality
b. Clause Types
c. Performativity (Portner 2009: 5–8)

From the list above, we may say that practically any linguistic phenomenon can be
included under ‘modality’. If there is anything that may be excluded from ‘modality’,
it would be the core part of a sentence, that is, the proposition: a predicate and its
argument. Fillmore (1968), for example, in fact expresses the view that a sentence
consists of a proposition and a modality: i.e. sentence → a proposition + a modality.
The phenomena listed in (1) have been subject to generative syntactic studies,
however, they have not been dealt with as a whole or under the single umbrella
term ‘modality’. They are treated as separate and somewhat independent phenomena,
or as item specific characteristics. For example, modal auxiliaries (1a), the most typical
‘modality’ in English are analyzed as predicates that take either the control construc-
tion in deontic use or the raising construction in epistemic use. The former, as
shown in (4a), takes a subject that is identical with the subject of the main verb. In
the latter, the matrix subject position is not a thematic position, so that it is filled
either by an expletive or by raising the lower subject to it, as shown in (4b).
 Modality 373

(4) a. He must study hard. (deontic)

[he must [(he) study hard]

b. He must be tired. (epistemic)

[ɸ must [he be tired] → [he must [t be tired].

Similarly, modal adjectives and propositional attitude verbs in (2) are treated in
terms of complement selections, for the most part, the control type or the raising
type, as in the case of modal auxiliaries. Another option is for the complement
to be either finite or non-finite (cf. Rosenbaum 1967). Other phenomena, such as
generics and individual level predicates (1d), tense and aspect (1e), and clause types
(3b) have been discussed in terms of functional categories, such as vP, IP, and CP.
And those like conditionals (1f) and negative polarity items (2e) have been examined
as independent constructions, etc. (cf. Emonds 1976) That is, in syntactic tradition,
the phenomena in (1)–(3) have been examined and analyzed as separate and inde-
pendent phenomena and there does not seem to be an obvious reason to treat these
phenomena under the single term ‘modality’. All that can be extracted from the
above phenomena is simply that they all involve more than a proposition, namely,
Fillmore’s characterization mentioned above. In short, syntax has not investigated
modality extensively as a single phenomenon or a construction that covers from (1)
to (3). This is not surprising, in view of the fact that generative syntax started out
as a research program that structurally accounts for the structure of propositions
(cf. Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981, 1986, etc.).

2.2 Modality in Japanese

Let us now turn to the research tradition of Japanese language studies, Kokugo-gaku,
traditional Japanese language studies, and Nihongo-gaku, modern Japanese linguistics.
In these traditions, modality has been one of the most widely investigated topics.
Though the definition of modality in these traditions may also not be completely
uncontroversial, the definition in (5) seems to have been relatively well-accepted.
(Masuoka 1991, 2007; Nitta 1991; Moriyama 1988; Noda 1995; Noda et. al 2002;
Pizziconi and Kizu (eds.) 2009; Narrog 2009; etc.)

(5) Modality:
Modality (i) expresses the speaker’s attitude toward and judgment on the
content of a proposition, and (ii) refers to the elements that express (i).

Though this definition still covers quite a variety of phenomena, given that Japanese
typically expresses ‘the speaker’s attitude or judgment’ at the end of a sentence,
much study has been devoted to sentence final elements. For example, sentences in
(6) all involve the content expressed in a simple proposition (7) but differ from each
374 Nobuko Hasegawa

other with respect to the sentence final elements: daroo ‘probably, (I) guess’ in (6a),
kamosirenai ‘might, possible’ in (6b), rasii ‘likely, seem’ in (6c), nasai ‘polite impera-
tive, should’ in (6d), and –(y)oo ‘volitional’ in (6e), which all express the speaker’s
attitude in one way or other. Thus, in view of (5), these elements are considered to
be modality expressions.

(6) a. Hanako ga Boston e iku daroo.

Hanako NOM Boston to go guess
‘I guess Hanako will go to Boston.’

b. Hanako ga Boston e iku kamosirenai.

Hanako NOM Boston to go might
‘Hanako might go to Boston.’

c. Hanako ga Boston e iku rasii.

Hanako NOM Boston to go seem
‘Hanako seems to go to Boston.’

d. Hanako ga Boston e iki-nasai.

Hanako NOM Boston to go-polite.IMP
‘Hanako (you) go to Boston.’

e. Watasi ga Boston e ik-oo.

I NOM Boston to go-VOL
‘I will go to Boston.’

(7) {Hanako / Watasi} ga Boston e iku.

Hanako / I NOM Boston to go
‘Hanako / I will go to Boston.’

These underlined sentence final elements are categorized with respect to their func-
tions: epistemic modality, exemplified in (6a), (6b), and (6c), which expresses the
speaker’s certainty or judgment on the realizability of the proposition (7), and dis-
course or speech act modality, which indicates the discourse function of the propo-
sition, such as imperative, as in (6d), by which the speaker induces the addressee to
realize the event expressed by the proposition, and volitional, as in (6e), by which
the speaker expresses her intention to realize the event. These two types, which
differ in meaning and function, also show distinctive characteristics in syntactic
behavior. As pointed out by Nitta (1991) (see also Ueda 2007), epistemic modality
can be followed by the conjunction ga ‘but’, but discourse modality cannot.1

1 Conjunctions that distinguish epistemic modality and discourse modality are of the C-type conjunc-
tions, in the sense of Minami (1997), which include ga ‘but’, kedo ‘though’, etc. See the discussion
below around (15) for Minami’s clause types.
 Modality 375

(8) a. Hanako ga Boston e iku {daroo / kamosirenai / rasii} ga,

Hanako NOM Boston to go {guess / may / seem} but
Taro wa ika-nai ({daroo / kamosirenai / rasii}).
Taro TOP go NEG {guess / may/ seem}
‘(I guess) Hanako {might / seems to} go to Boston, but Taro will not.’

b. *Hanako ga Boston e iki-nasai ga, Taro wa iku na.

Hanako NOM Boston to go-polite.IMP but Taro TOP go NEG.IMP
‘Hanako, (you) go to Boston, but Taro, don’t.’

c. *Watashi ga Boston e ik-oo ga, Taro wa ika-nai.

I NOM Boston to go-VOL but Taro TOP go-NEG
‘I will go go to Boston, but Taro won’t.’

This follows from the fact that discourse modality is relevant to main clauses, where
the role of the clause in discourse or its speech act function is specified: question,
request, imperative, assertion, etc. Epistemic modality, on the other hand, expresses
the speaker’s judgment or (un)certainty concerning the propositional content, which
itself is independent of how the entire utterance functions in the given discourse,
and can be conjoined with another sentence that may contain yet another epistemic
modality, as shown in (8a).
With respect to morphological forms, epistemic modality is further divided into
two categories: genuine modality, which does not inflect for tense, such as daroo
‘(I) guess’ and –mai ‘would not’, and quasi modality, which does inflect for tense,
e.g. kamosirenai ‘might’, rasii ‘seem’, etc.2 This is shown below.

(9) a. Hanako ga Boston e iku {daroo / *daroo-ta/ru}.

Hanako NOM Boston to go guess / guess-PERF / IMPERF
‘I guess Hanako will go to Boston.’

b. Hanako wa Boston kara kaeru {mai / *mai-ta / ru}.

Hanako TOP Boston from return would.not / would.not-PERF/IMPERF
‘Hanako would not return from Boston.’

(10) a. Hanako ga Boston e iku {kamosirenai / kamosirenakat-ta}.

Hanako NOM Boston to go might / might-PERF
‘Hanako might go to Boston / It might have been that Hanako would go
to Boston.’

2 Note incidentally that discourse modality is genuine modality to the extent that it does not take a
tense element (see –nasai ‘polite imperative’ exemplified in (6d), the volitional form –(y)oo in (6e)).
We will discuss discourse modality more extensively in section 3.
376 Nobuko Hasegawa

b. Hanako ga Boston e iku {rasii / rasikat-ta}.

Hanako NOM Boston to go seem / seem-PERF
‘Hanako {seems / seemed} to go to Boston.’

c. Hanako ga Boston e iku {hazu-da / hazu-dat-ta}.

Hanako NOM Boston to go must.be.the.case-IMPERF / PERF
‘Hanako must be going to Boston / Hanako was supposed to go to Boston.’

Examples (9) involve genuine modality and a tense marker, either the perfective –ta
or the imperfective –ru, may not occur with these modality expressions. The modality
expressions in (10) exhibit tense inflection and are considered quasi modality.3
To summarize, even with the rather coarse observation above of the sentence
final, or the right periphery part, of Japanese sentences, we obtain the following
descriptive generalizations:

(11) The Categorization of Modality Expressions

a. Based on functions: (i) epistemic modality vs. (ii) discourse modality –
the former can be followed by the conjunction ga while the latter shows
up only at the sentence final position of the main clause.
b. Based on morphology: (i) genuine modality vs. (ii) quasi modality –
(i) does not inflect for tense.

In addition to the modality expressions shown in the above examples, sentence final
particles such as ka ‘question marker’, ne ‘confirmation marker’, and yo ‘assertion
marker’ have been considered as discourse modality, since they indicate what dis-
course function a sentence assumes (cf. Inoue 1976, 2007; Masuoka 1991; Nitta 1991;
Endo 2007, 2010; etc.). Given that a sentence final particle comes at the end of a
sentence, the order of epistemic modality and discourse modality can be clearly
determined. That is, epistemic modality precedes discourse modality. This is exem-
plified in the following examples, where the epistemic daroo ‘(I) guess’ precedes the
sentence final particle ka ‘Q’.

(12) Hanako ga Boston e iku daroo ka.

Hanako NOM Boston to go guess Q
‘I wonder whether Hanako will go to Boston.’

In the generative tradition, Inoue (1976), providing examples like (13), proposes that
a Japanese sentence involves verbal elements of the following kinds appearing at
the end of a sentence in the order shown in (14).

3 In view of the characteristics of quasi modality expressions that they inflect for tense and are
preceded by a proposition that has an independent tensed predicate, Nakau (1973) and Inoue (1976,
2007), for example, analyze them as predicates that take a complement clause. The tense on a
modality expression marks the tense of the probability judged by the speaker, which can be indepen-
dent of when the expressed event takes place.
 Modality 377

(13) Taro ga hon o yakusi A] te-i B] ru C] daroo D] ne E]

Taro NOM book ACC translate PROG PRES guessl confirm
where A: proposition, B: aspect, C: tense, D: Epistemic Modality,
E: Speech Act Modality
‘Taro will be translating the book, won’t he?’ (cf. Inoue 1976)

(14)

Inoue (2007: 242)

Consideration of the size of the subordinate clauses has also been the topic of
research on modality in Japanese. Minami’s (1974) proposal that clauses come in
four different sizes and that a larger one may contain a smaller one has been widely
assumed. Takubo (1987) refines Minami’s proposal and presents (15).

(15) a. A-type: (manner/degree adverbs) + arguments + predicate[stem/voice]

b. B-type: (restrictive modifiers) + Nominative + A-type + (Negation) + tense
c. C-type: (non-restrictive modifiers) + Topic + B-type + (Epistemic Modal)
d. D-type: (vocative) + C-type + sentence final particles [Speech Act Modality]
(cf. Takubo 1987)

The validity of these layers can be seen in the account of the three types of con-
ditionals, –eba, –tara, and –nara, which correspond to A-type, B-type, and C-type,
respectively. (cf. Masuoka 2009; Takubo 2010)

(16) a. Ame ga hur-eba, siai wa tyuusi da.

rain NOM fall-if game TOP cancel copula
‘If it rains, the game will be canceled.’

b. Ame ga hut-tara, siai wa tyuusi da.

rain NOM fall-PERF.if game TOP cancel copula
‘If it rains, the game will be canceled.’

c. Ame ga hur-u-(ni-tigainai)-nara, siai wa tyuusi da.

rain NOM fall-IMPERF-(should)-if game TOP cancel copula
‘If it (is strongly probable that it) rain(s), the game would be (better to be)
canceled.’
378 Nobuko Hasegawa

The –eba conditional, which does not contain a tense morpheme –ru or –ta, ex-
presses just propositional content, i.e. a clause of A-type, while the –tara conditional,
as the morpheme –ta indicates, involves the tense morpheme, the element allowed
in B-type. The –nara conditional can involve not only a tense morpheme but an
epistemic modal, like ni-tigainai ‘strongly probable, should’ or kamosirenai ‘might’,
which is an indication of C-type.
With respect to (15), expressions relevant to discourse modality would be cate-
gorized as elements that belong to D-type, the clause of the largest size or the top-
most layer of a clause. In view of these considerations, it has widely been accepted
in Japanese studies that Japanese sentences are layered, where the core part (i.e.
propositional content) is encapsulated inside the tense layer, which is inside the
modality layer. Masuoka’s (2007) figure (17) illustrates how Japanese sentences are
hierarchically structured.4

(17) The Sentential Hierarchy in Japanese

grammatical items
levels
head arguments adjuncts

(a) Proposional case-related adverbs of manner, degree,

predicate voice
Event items (argument) quantity, etc.

(b) Individual
aspect tense aspectual adverbs time, place, etc.
Event

tabun ‘probably’ type

(c) Epistemic T/F judgment
muron ‘needlessly’ type
Modality value judgment
ainiku ‘unfortunately’ type

speech act type

(d) Speech dooka ‘please’ type
politeness
Act Modality zituwa ‘in fact’ type
speaker’s attitude

(cf. Masuoka 2007: 21)

In 2.1, we referred to Fillmore’s (1968) view that a sentence consists of a proposition

and modality, which was based primarily on semantic considerations of what sentences

4 Similar hierarchies are provided also in Noda (1995) and Nitta (1991). Different researchers use
slightly different terminologies and they may also differ in how they consider these levels, structurally
and characteristically independent from other layers, or gradually extending without clear boundaries.
We will not discuss how closely the layers, (a), (b), (c), and (d) of (17), correspond with Minami’s
clause types, A, B, C, and D, either. See also Iori (2001).
In (17), not only items involved in predicates, what is listed under ‘head’, but also adverbial
adjuncts, which typically appear at the beginning of a sentence, are listed. We will come back to
adverbs at the discourse level in section 5.
 Modality 379

involve. Note that this cannot easily be deduced from syntactic observations on lan-
guages like English, a head initial language, since there is no obvious syntactic posi-
tion that is clearly designated for modality and which is structurally separated from
the proposition. More concretely, with the most typical modality elements of English,
for example, modality auxiliaries, being placed in the middle of a sentence, it is not
obvious exactly where a modality element stands in relation to the position of the
items necessary for the propositional content. Hence, a generalization like (17) has
not been straightforwardly obtained in head initial languages like English. Japanese,
on the other hand, exhibits the hierarchical structure of proposition and modality
in a much more discernible way due to its predicate final nature, where relevant
elements are clearly ordered at the end (or at the right periphery) of a sentence
(Hasegawa 2010b).
Japanese thus exhibits ample evidence for how modality elements are structurally
represented. It is straightforward to interpret the hierarchy in (17) in terms of syntactic
categories: VP, TP, and CP.5

(18)

By interpreting the sentential hierarchy of Japanese in this way, we are now able
to discuss in a systematic way where modality takes place in syntactic structure in
relation to tense and propositional content. That is, modality (an element at C
head) selects a TP as its complement, which then embeds a VP. Furthermore, given
a structure like (18), there would be some phenomena that are located at C, a func-
tional category that typically exhibits concordance or agreement between its head
and Spec. We will show below that the phenomenon of person restriction observed
between the subject and discourse modality is in fact such a phenomenon.

5 The terms, propositional event and individual event, are due to Masuoka’s (17). The propositional
event, which involves arguments of a predicate with voice features, may be represented as vP, VP,
VoiceP, etc. depending on how finely the predicate part of the sentence is structurally mapped in
category. In (18) and in the following, the category VP is adopted, to simply show that it is the
category whose main head is a verb. The individual event involves a tense element which specifies
the propositional event in reference to tense; which thus is represented as TP (or IP). As for epistemic
genuine modality, it is not clear exactly where it is placed. See Ueda (2007) for relevant discussion.
380 Nobuko Hasegawa

2.3 Modality and Person Restriction

Japanese has been considered to be a non-agreement language, since it does not
exhibit subject-predicate agreement in ordinary indicative clauses (cf. Fukui 1986;
Kuroda 1988). This is shown in (19a), which can be compared with English, where a
verb is to be marked by –s in the present tense context, agreeing with a third person
singular subject.

(19) a. {Watasi / Taroo / Karera} ga mainiti kooen de hasir-u.

I / Taro / they NOM everyday park in jog-IMPERF
‘{I / Taro / They} jog(s) in the park every day.’

b. I jog
Taro jogs in the park every day.
They jog

Despite the above consensus among Japanese generativists, it has been noted in
Japanese studies (Nitta 1991; for example) that Japanese does exhibit subject-predicate
agreement once discourse modality is considered.6 Relevant examples are shown
below.

(20) a. ɸ / {Omae / Hanako} ga kotti e ko-i / ki-nasai.

you / Hanako NOM here to come-IMP / come-POL.IMP
‘{ɸ / You / Hanako} come here!’

b. ɸ / {Omae / Hanako} ga kotti e kuru-na.

you / Hanako NOM here to come-NEG.IMP
‘{ɸ / You / Hanako} don’t come here!’

c. ɸ / {Watasi / *Hanako / Watasi-to-Hanako} ga iki-masyoo.

I / Hanako / I and Hanako NOM go-PROPOSITIVE
‘{ɸ / I / *Hanako / Hanako and I} shall go.’

d. ɸ / {Watasi / *Kimi / *Hanako} ga sugu ik-oo.

I / you / Hanako NOM soon go-VOL
‘{ɸ / I / *You / *Hanako} will go right now.’

These examples end with a discourse modality marker; imperative or polite impera-
tive, –i (or –e/ro) or nasai, respectively, in (20a), prohibition or negative imperative
–na in (20b), propositive or exhortative in the sense of ‘shall we/I’ –masyoo in (20c),
and volitional –(y)oo in (20d). In these sentences, the subject can be null but its

6 Basically the same phenomena are observed in Korean, according to Pak (2006).
 Modality 381

person cannot be arbitrary or just anyone mentioned in the discourse. The subject
must be a participant in the given discourse, not a third person in an ordinary sense.
That is, in these sentences with discourse modality, the subject should be either the
addressee or the speaker, depending on which discourse marker is used. The subject
must be the addressee in (20a) and (20b), whose discourse function is imperative,
and it should be the speaker in (20c) and (20d), the function of which is to encode
the speaker’s intention or willingness for the realization of the event.
The most interesting and exciting syntactic phenomenon, which crucially shows
that structural accounts are called for, is a concordance relation between two items
in a sentence. The subject-predicate agreement observed in (19b) in English is such
an example. Then, it seems natural to consider that the facts in (20) ought to be
accounted for by the same, or a similar, syntactic mechanism.7

3 The C-System and its Periphery

In the early stages of generative grammar, i.e. standard theory and extended standard
theory including the Principle and Parameter framework (or GB theory), syntactic
derivation starts out from D-structure, where the lexical information (i.e. argument
arrays) of a predicate is satisfied; in other words, the level where the theta criterion
is met (cf. Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1981). In such a framework, the immediate concern is
about how arguments are realized in syntactic structure at the surface level and
what rules and mechanisms are responsible for their realization. In the course of
theoretical developments, attention has shifted from arguments themselves, which
involve content words or lexical categories, to functional categories, as far as struc-
tural building is concerned. Toward the end of the PP framework and the initial
stage of the Minimalist program, functional categories came to be considered respon-
sible for building sentential structure, in which the head of a functional category

7 The subject-predicate agreement seen in (19b) for example is taken as the core case of agreement,
for which the relevant agreeing features are the so-called ɸ features, [person, number, and gender].
In the generative tradition, the notion of ‘agreement’ is further extended to phenomena that involve
some concordance relations between two items. Thus, wh-interrogatives, for example, are considered
to exhibit grammatical agreement between the occurrence of a wh-word and a particular marking at
C, in spite of the fact that there is no obvious ɸ feature agreement between the two. As a reviewer
pointed out, it is theoretically significant to examine what the grammatical process of agreement is
and whether it is appropriate to consider the concordance between two items that do not involve ɸ
features to be the same agreement process as one with the ɸ features. In this sense, the subject and
modality concordance (or ‘agreement’) observed in (20), and another phenomenon to be taken up in
section 5, may provide interesting cases for such investigation. However, to do so in this chapter
would lead us too far into overly technical and theory-bound discussions. The use of the term
‘agreement’ in this chapter will thus be kept rather intuitive and the subject-modality concordance
in (20) will be considered as an instance of ‘agreement’.
382 Nobuko Hasegawa

requires the occurrence of the item that agrees with it at its specifier position. As for
TP, the subject moves from the VP (or vP) internal subject position to the TP-Spec posi-
tion due to agreement with a tense (T) element. In the case of CP, a wh-item, an
interrogative phrase, for example, moves from an argument position inside TP to a
CP-Spec position, due to the question feature at the C-head, which marks the basic
sentential function: declarative, interrogative, subordination, etc. Furthermore, the
role of functional categories has become more specifically clarified and the structure
of the functional categories, TP and CP, in particular, has been elaborated. Pollock
(1989) initiated this move by splitting the TP region into several sub-heads and Rizzi
(1997) extended it to the CP region, proposing the layered CP structure (21).8

(21)

(Rizzi 1997: 297)

Rizzi developed this structure by examining phenomena that make use of the left
periphery (or initial part) of a sentence. The facts taken up include the following.9
The items that are to be particularly noted as relevant to structure (21) are italicized.

(22) a. What will you buy?

b. That kind of behavior, we cannot tolerate in a civilized society.
c. No other colleague would he turn to.
d. I am absolutely convinced [that no other colleague would he turn to].

8 Rizzi (1997) uses IP for a functional category that is selected by CP. We use TP in the following,
instead.
9 Rizzi (1997) mainly considers Italian examples. Here, the English examples equivalent to Italian
are presented, which are due to Radford (2004).
 Modality 383

e. Syntax is the kind of subject [which only very rarely will students enjoy].
f. A university is the kind of place [in which, that kind of behavior,
we cannot tolerate].
g. He prayed [that atrocities like those, never again would he witness.]
(cf. Radford 2004: 327–336)

Various items make use of the left periphery region; Wh-question (22a), Topicalization
(22b), and Negative Inversion (22c), all involve movement of an item from inside TP
to the CP region. Examples (22d)–(22f) show that a sentence involving the elements
moved to the left periphery can be embedded inside a factive complement, as in
(22d), and a relative clause, as in (22e) and (22f). Furthermore, (22g) suggests that
more than one item can appear at the left periphery following the complementizer,
namely, that: the topic atrocities like those, the negative item never again, and the
inverted auxiliary would.
Supported by facts such as (22), Rizzi describes how the C-system is considered
in syntax.

(23) a. We can think of the complementizer system as the interface between

a propositional content (expressed by the IP) and the superordinate
structure (a higher clause or, possibly, the articulation of discourse,
if we consider a root clause). As such, we expect the C system to express
at least two kinds of information, one facing the outside and the other
facing the inside. (Rizzi 1997: 283)

b. I will then assume that the C system expresses a specification of finiteness,

which in turn selects an IP system with the familiar characteristics of
finiteness: mood distinctions, subject agreement licensing nominative
case, overt tense distinctions. (Rizzi 1997: 284)

What is extracted from Rizzi’s description of the structure in (21) involves the follow-
ing. (i) Force specifies the function or clause type of a sentence; a main clause or a
subordinate clause. If it is a main clause, Force specifies the discourse function of
the sentence such as a question, declarative, imperative, etc. If it is a subordinate
clause, it marks whether it is a factive clause, relative clause, infinitive clause, etc.
(ii) At the subcategory TopP, the head, Top(ic) attracts a topic phrase at its specifier.
(iii) At FocP, Foc(us) hosts a focus element such as a negative phrase and a wh-
question. And (iv) Fin encodes the ‘rudimentary’ temporal property of a clause,
according to Rizzi (1997: 283), which is morphologically manifested at T of TP, which
may be attracted to Fin when some features on Force so induce; e.g. questions, focus
constructions with a negative item at FocP, or inverted conditionals.
384 Nobuko Hasegawa

The description and function of modality we have entertained in previous sec-

tions would fit right into this view of the C-system. English, a head initial language,
and Japanese, a head final language, differ in where these functions are most obvi-
ously observed – at the left periphery (the clause initial part) in English and at the
right periphery (the clause final part) in Japanese. That is, the order of the elements
in a predicate expression in Japanese is supposed to be the mirror image of the order
of the specifier elements in English.10
In next section, we will return to the sentences in (20), which, as we have seen,
represent different discourse functions: Imperative in (20a, b), Propositive in (20c),
and Volitional in (20d), which are different from ordinary declarative or interrogative
functions. Such functions are to be marked as such at Force in terms of the structure
(21). Since the person restriction on the subject in (20) is due to the presence of a dis-
course modality marker, we will take the phenomenon as agreement between Force
and the subject, to which we now turn.

4 Agreement at CP: Discourse modality and

the subject
Hasegawa (2009, 2010c) accounts for the phenomena seen in (20), the concordance
relation between certain discourse modality expressions and the subject, by referring
to the CP structure in (21). Let us take the case of Imperatives (20a, b) as a representa-
tive. The facts to be captured are given in (24).

(24) a. Imperatives assume the discoursal force of imperative.

b. The modality expressions that mark ‘imperative’ are above the tense
marker, which is clearly seen in the negative imperative of (20b), where
–na ‘don’t’ follows a predicate with a tense marker.
c. The subject of an imperative is ‘the addressee’, which may be lexicalized
as omae ‘you-vulgar’ or omitted (ɸ indicates that the subject can be null).
d. Despite (24c), it appears that the 3rd person (e.g. Hanako in (20a, b)) may
serve as a subject of an imperative.
e. The 3rd person subject of imperatives, however, does not refer to an ordi-
nary 3rd person individual, but the individual that should be referable as
the addressee.

10 The validity of Rizzi’s view and structure for analyzing various syntactic phenomena of Japanese
has been discussed and demonstrated (e.g. Endo 2007, 2010; Hasegawa 2009, 2010a, 2010c, 2011,
2012; Saito 2012). In the following, we will take up only a couple of phenomena; the one observed
in (20), which will be taken up immediately below, and the to-temporal phrase, to be discussed in
section 5. See also section 6.
 Modality 385

Along the spirit of (23a), it is assumed in Hasegawa (2009, 2010c) that imperatives
have a distinctive force marked at Force (say, [IMP(erative)]), which specifies the
‘irrealis’ tense on Fin.11 As will be argued below, imperative modality takes place at
Fin, which in turn specifies the particular morphological form at T. As for the agree-
ment between the modality and the subject, the imperative status [IMP] involves the
addressee feature [+Addressee], which licenses or forces the existence of the subject
that is compatible with ‘the addressee’. As noted in (24d), 3rd person nominals like
Hanako are allowed as a subject for imperatives, to the extent that they are among
the addressees to whom the utterance is addressed. That is, the 3rd person subject in
imperatives is not a true 3rd person but merely disguised as such. It is the second
person, or rather the addressee, in reality, that is the DP that is compatible with the
[+Addressee] feature required by Force [IMP].12

(25)

(cf. Hasegawa 2009: 8; 2010c: 47)

The negative imperative (20b), for example, repeated here as (26), clearly shows that
an imperative morpheme makes use of the CP region, given that –na follows the
tense morpheme, –(r)u.

(26) ɸ / {Omae / Hanako} ga kotti-e kuru-na.

you / Hanako NOM here-to come-IMP
‘{ɸ / You / Hanako} don’t come here!’

11 The discoursal or speech act function of imperatives is distinct from that of indicatives or ques-
tions. Imperatives are not descriptions of events but rather the speaker’s requests given to the
addressee for the realization of the event expressed. Given this distinctive function, it is natural to
consider that the imperative status of a sentence is to be marked at Force, in the sense of Rizzi’s
(1997) structure (21), and the tense or Fin feature of imperatives to be considered ‘irrealis’ with the
content of the proposition having been not realized at the time of the utterance.
12 We will take up imperatives in English and discuss more clearly the nature of a 3rd person
subject in imperatives.
386 Nobuko Hasegawa

In addition, there is evidence that shows the negative imperative morpheme na

appears structurally higher than the subject position. Relevant examples involve the
mo ‘also’ phrase. Observe the following.

(27) a. Hanako mo sono hon o yon-da.

Hanako also that book ACC read-PERF
‘(Beside someone else) Hanako also read that book.’

b. Hanako ga sono hon mo yon-da.

Hanako NOM that book also read-PERF
‘Hanako also read that book (beside some other book).’

c. Hanako mo sono hon o yom-anakat-ta. *not > also also > not
-NEG-PERF
‘(Beside someone else) Hanako also didn’t read that book.’

d. Hanako ga sono hon mo yom-anakat-ta. *not > also also > not
‘Hanako also didn’t read that book (beside some other book).’

(28) a. {Hanako / Kimi} mo sono hon o yom-u na. not > also also > not
Hanako / you also -NEG.IMP
‘(lit.) Don’t Hanako / you also read that book!’

b. ɸ Sono hon mo yom-u na. not > also also > not
‘Don’t also read that book!’

What we are interested in is the scope relations between negation and the mo-phrase
in (27c), (27d), and (28). Are the following two readings possible in (27c), for example?

(29) a. also > not: Hanako didn’t read that book in addition to some other book
that she also didn’t read.

b. not > also: Hanako read at least one book but it is not the case that she
also read that book.

In indicative sentences (27c) and (27d), only the also > not reading (29a) is possible.
This indicates that the mo-phrase always takes scope over negation, which is
supposed to be somewhere below the tense marker (–ta ‘past’ in (27)). Due to these
facts (and others), Hasegawa (1990, 1994, 2005) argues that the mo-phrase is at Spec
of TP (or higher) and c-commands the negation nai. (See also Miyagawa 2010)
In the negative imperatives in (28), on the other hand, the not > also reading is
possible. In this interpretation, the speaker orders the addressee not to read that
book, while allowing reading at least one other book. The availability of this reading
 Modality 387

indicates that na, the (negative) imperative marker, takes scope over the mo-phrase,
which in turn suggests that na is above TP and somewhere inside CP, most probably
Fin. The analysis for imperatives provided here can be extended to other discourse
modality cases, –masyoo propositives and –(y)oo volitionals. Force, marked as such,
specifies what subject is required, the 1st person or the speaker, for these cases. Fin
hosts the modality expression, which agrees with the [+Speaker] subject.

4.1 Imperatives in English

The analysis for imperatives in Japanese discussed above naturally extends to impera-
tives in English. Let us review some basic facts. Observe (30).

(30) a. Open the door. Be quiet.

b. You be quiet.
c. Behave yourself. Use your own pen.

Imperatives lack a subject and the predicate is in the infinitive form. The missing
subject is assumed to be ‘you’ and this you may in fact show up as in (30b). The
assumed subject you explains the occurrence of the anaphoric expressions, yourself
and your own in (30c), which require antecedents, or binders, at some level where
they are licensed (i.e. at LF). Given these facts, the subject of an imperative has
been considered as ‘you’, which can be ‘deleted’ (perhaps in PF). However, the
hypothesis that the subject ‘you’ is deleted cannot easily be maintained once the
so-called ‘3rd person’ imperatives are taken into consideration (these are equivalent
to the 3rd person subject of Japanese imperatives (20a, b)). Observe (31).

(31) a. Somebody open the door, will {you / *he}?

a’. Someone opens the door everyday, doesn’t he?
b. Everybodyi take off {youri hat / *hisi hat}.
b’. Everybodyi takes off {*youri hat / hisi hat}.
c. John come here, and Mary stay there!

Examples (31a) and (31b) indicate that the subject other than ‘you’ can show up.
What is interesting is the fact that, even though the subject is in the form of the 3rd
person, the subject in the tag is you and the pronoun in the object that refers to the
subject is 2nd person your. This is in contrast to (31a’) and (31b’), ordinary indicatives
with the 3rd person subject, which have the 3rd person he in the tag and his in the
object. Example (31c) indicates that proper nouns can be the subject of imperatives,
as long as their referents are included in the group to which the imperatives are
388 Nobuko Hasegawa

addressed. Note that these imperatives do not exhibit third person agreement on
the predicate, which is mandatory in indicatives. The facts in (31) suggest that
imperatives do involve ‘the addressee’ as the subject but ‘the addressee status’ is
not necessarily expressed by the 2nd person pronoun ‘you’ but can be disguised by
the 3rd person subject without triggering the 3rd person morphological agreement.
Thus, the facts about the 3rd person imperative in English provides a clearer and
stronger piece of evidence than the Japanese cases for the nature of the agreement
feature involved in imperatives, [+Addressee] not [2rd person].
As for the position of the imperative subject, the negative imperative is sugges-
tive, as we saw for negative imperatives in Japanese.

(32) a. Don’t you say anything! Don’t you be stupid! (imperative)

a’. You don’t say anything. *You don’t be stupid. (indicative)
b. Don’t anyone open the door! (imperative)
b’. *Anyone don’t / doesn’t open the door. (indicative)

Negative imperatives involve don’t and, unlike the indicative counterparts in (32a’),
the don’t can appear even with the be verb preceding the subject you. What is partic-
ularly interesting is (32b), where the negative polarity item anyone, which cannot
appear as an indicative subject, can serve as the subject of the 3rd person negative
imperative. This indicates either (i) the subject of imperatives is below TP, if don’t is
at T, or (ii) it may be at Spec of TP, just like any other subject, but don’t occurs above
TP. In view of the discourse function of imperatives, and in view of where –na,
the negative imperative marker of Japanese, appears, (ii) would be the more likely
option, where the subject is c-commanded by don’t, most likely at Fin.
To sum up, imperatives exhibit the following characteristics that require ex-
planation.

(33) a. The subject of an imperative, ‘you’, may be omitted.

b. 3rd person DPs (e.g. someone, everybody, John, Mary, etc.) can be the
subject of imperatives.13

13 Interestingly, the 3rd person DPs in (31) do not include the 3rd person pronouns, since sentences
in (i) are utterly ungrammatical as imperatives, which contrasts with (31).
(i) a. *They take off {your hats/their hats}!
b. *She come here and he stay there!
If we assume that pronouns (3rd person pronouns, in particular) represent just the ɸ features, ‘person,
number, and gender’, what is relevant here is not these features but the features that refer to the
speaker and the addressee. This seems to indicate that agreement relevant to the C-system may be
different from agreement inside TP. This fact may suggest, as a reviewer pointed out, that the ‘agree-
 Modality 389

c. The 3rd person subject of imperatives does not trigger 3rd person agree-
ment and it behaves more like the 2nd person, serving as an antecedent
for your and triggering the you subject in the tag.
d. The imperative status is marked at a level higher than the position of the
subject, as the position of don’t indicates.

What is summarized in (33) is basically equivalent to the generalization (24) of

Japanese and we can apply the same analysis here. The structure for English impera-
tives would be (34).

(34)

(cf. Hasegawa 2009: 5; 2010c: 49)

4.2 Summary
Japanese has been considered to be a non-agreement language. However, previous
discussion on agreement has primarily been concerned with phenomena at the TP
level, which has been a main concern of generative study. Once we take into consid-
eration what Japanese descriptive studies have investigated, and turn to phenomena
involving modality or CP’s with particular Force or discourse functions, such as
imperatives and volitionals, we see that Japanese exhibits varieties of agreement
between the subject and the predicate. By refining the function and structure of CP,
theoretical research has enabled incorporation of such facts with the general practice

ment’ at the C-system may be ‘qualitatively’ different from the one at the T-system which crucially
involves ɸ features, if the involvement of ɸ features is a necessary condition for the grammatical
process of ‘agreement’. However, as mentioned in Note 7, to entertain this issue in this chapter takes
us too far afield. See section 6 below. See also Speas and Tenny (2003), Tenny (2006), Miyagawa
(2012), and Haegeman and Hill (2014) for relevant discussion.
390 Nobuko Hasegawa

and mechanisms of syntax. The agreement between the subject and the predicate at
the level of CP can be captured basically in the same way as that at TP. What needs
special consideration is what feature is involved in agreement. At the TP level, the
relevant features seem to be ‘person, number, and gender’, the so-called ɸ features,
whereas the agreement features involved at the CP level have to do with the
addressee [±Addressee] as in imperatives and the speaker [±Speaker] as in propositives
and volitionals.14 In view of the function of modality, which expresses the speaker’s
certainty or judgment regarding the proposition especially in the context of the
presence of the addressee, it is reasonable to expect that the relevant features refer
to the speaker and the addressee.
The analysis of Japanese imperatives discussed above can naturally be extended
to imperatives in other languages. It was shown in 4.2. that English imperatives can
in fact be analyzed in an almost identical manner. With the English facts alone,
where no obvious morphological agreement between the subject and the predicate
is observable, an analysis with agreement at the CP level may not be an obvious
option. On the other hand, the facts about 3rd person imperatives in English provide
strong evidence that the relevant features are to be [±Addressee] and [±Speaker] and
not the ɸ features. Thus, approaching linguistic phenomena from both Japanese
and English, different types of languages with different orientation in terms of how
sentence function is realized in structure, can give rise to a novel and innovative
analysis which may not be immediately obtainable based on the consideration of
just one language or one type of language.
In the next section, we will take up another type of concordance phenomenon
between a clause type and an adverbial expression, which will also be accounted
for in the modality layer (or CP).

5 Concordance between an adverbial and a

clause type
In Masuoka’s generalization in (17), it is shown that a clause is hierarchically layered
and the occurrence of adverbial elements is relevant to the layers. Recent studies
assume that adverbs are licensed by the head of a relevant layer (Cinque 1999). With
respect to the discourse modality layer, the presence of a particular adverb requires
a certain form of a predicate in Japanese. See (35).

14 As will be briefly touched upon in section 6, genuine epistemic modality also restricts what person
can be the subject (Nitta 1991) and the relevant features would also be [±Addressee][±Speaker].
Based on Nitta’s generalizations, Ueda (2007, 2009) proposes a CP structure that incorporates modality,
attempting to provide structural explanations for such agreement phenomena. She notes that the
features involved are [±1st] and [±2nd], which can be easily translated into our features, [±Speaker]
and [±Addressee], respectively.
 Modality 391

(35) a. Dooka hayaku {kite-kudasai / *ki-ta / *ki-ta no}.

please quick come-give.polite=imperative / came / came Q
‘Please come quckly! / *Please (you) came. / *Please did (you) come?’

b. Ittai Hanako wa {kuru no-ka / *ki-ta / *ko-i}.

in.the.hell Hanako TOP come-COMP-Q / came / come=IMP
‘Will Hanako ever come? *Hanako ever came. Hanako, ever come!’

Dooka ‘please’ needs a predicate form that expresses a request and ittai ‘in the hell,
what on earth’ requires a question. This type of concordance can be analyzed as
a kind of agreement between (a sub-head of) the C-head and an adverb.15 Similar
requirements may hold in other languages, as well, but Japanese is special in the
sense that the requirement is discernible in the form of the predicate. This con-
cordance can be accounted for in a manner similar to (25), by agreement between a
head and a specifier in the C-system. More concretely, the concordance between ittai
and the question status of a clause can be captured if the adverb ittai is licensed
at Focus, which is given rise to by the question (Q) specification of Force, which
licenses the question particle ka (perhaps at the head of Force or Focus) and no
(perhaps at the Fin head) (Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002; Kuwabara 2010).
Japanese not only has simple adverbs, seen in (35), but also adverbial clauses
that specifically require a certain clause type. Here, we will take up the to-temporal
clause, the occurrence of which is conditioned by particular main clause types
(cf. Kuno 1973; Inoue 1976, 2006; Tsubomoto 1993; etc.).16 Observe examples below.

15 In Masuoka’s (17), adverbs of manner, time, place, etc, are also listed which are relevant to the
proposition levels. Their occurrence is conditioned by meanings or types of predicates but it does
not trigger the occurrence of another item or form. In contrast, adverbs at the speech act level, those
shown in (35), require particular clause types that are morphologically so marked at modality. I
consider such co-occurrence or concordance syntactically significant and take it a kind of agreement
that can be captured by a mechanism the same or similar to that responsible for the subject-modality
agreement discussed in section 4.
16 The to-adverbial clause has at least two uses, as Kuno (1973) clearly argues. One refers to
two specific events, exemplified in (36), and the other represents a general statement, describing a
habitual or logical antecedent-consequence relation, whose examples are given in (i).
(i) a. Tokyo wa natu ni na-ru to taihen atu-i.
Tokyo TOP summer become-IMPERF when very hot-IMPERF
‘When summer comes, it becomes very hot in Toky’
b. 2 ni 3 o tas-u to 5 ni na-ru.
to ACC add-IMPERF when become-IMPERF
‘When 2 is added to 3, 5 results.’
They each observe different conditions. In the following, however, we will deal with only the former
type (36), expressing two specific events, not the latter type in (i). Furthermore, the speech style
under which the following discussion can be maintained is a reportive one, not a narrative style.
See Note 17 and section 6 for some discussion on how speech styles affect acceptability.
392 Nobuko Hasegawa

(36) a. Doa o ake-ru to, Hanako ga tat-te-ita.

door ACC open-IMPERF when Hanako NOM stand-was
‘When (I) opened the door, Hanako was there.’

b. *Doa o ake-ru to, suwar-{u / ta / oo}.

door ACC open-IMPERF when sit-{IMPERF / PERF / VOL}
‘When (I) open the door, I will sit.’ / ‘When (I) opened the door, (I) sat.’

c. *Doa o ake-ru to, suwar-{e / inasai}.

door ACC open-IMPERF when sit-{IMP/ POL.IMP}
‘When (you / I) open the door, sit down.’

As can be seen from the above, there is a strong restriction on the clause type of
the main clause: it cannot be an imperative, volitional, nor an action that refers to
the speaker. Kuno gives (37), among other restrictions, regarding the acceptability
of the to-temporal clause, ‘the S1 to S2 construction’.17

(37) When the S1 to S2 construction refers to two specific events:

(i) The sentence must be amenable to the paraphrase “After / while S1
happened, what do you think happened? I observed / discovered that S2
happened.” In other words, S2 must represent an event that the speaker
could observe objectively. Consequently, the construction carries with it
the connotation of suspense and surprise.
(ii) Therefore, S2 cannot represent the speaker’s voluntary action.
(Cf. Kuno 1973: 194)

As (37-i) suggests, the to-temporal clause functions as a sort of scene setter for the
occurrence of the main clause event, which the speaker observes as a surprised or
unexpected event. Hasegawa (2011, 2012), noting that the conditions in (37) are
basically the same as those for presentational sentence types – thetic judgments, in
the sense of Kuroda (1972, 1992) – argues that the to-clause is licensed at the CP layer
of the presentational sentence.18 The structure presented is (38).19

17 Besides (37-i and ii), Kuno (1973: 194) further states that (ii) “does not apply in narratives, where
the narrator can talk about the first person as if the latter were a third party.” What is stated in (37-i)
also clearly indicates by the quoted paraphrase that this use of the to-clause is observed in reportive
utterances, not narratives. In Hasegawa (2011, 2012), taking these features as crucial features of this
construction, I argued that this use constitutes the ‘presentational’ function of the clause. See
section 6 for some discussion on speech styles and acceptability.
18 Kuroda states “A thetic judgment is based on a perception. The cognitive act of making a thetic
judgment is confined within the limit of this act of perception.” (Kuroda 1992: 27)”, which is
contrasted with the categorical judgment, “the cognitive act of apprehending something as substance
and attributing to it a certain property perceived in a situation.” (Ibid.: 23) We will briefly refer to
categorical judgment below.
19 Structure (38) is basically equivalent to the one for thetic judgment sentences, which are taken up
in Hasegawa (2010a).
 Modality 393

(38)

(cf. Hasegawa 2012)

The peculiarities of the to-clause become even more apparent when compared with
other temporal adverbials, such as a –toki ‘when, time’ clause. Compare (39) with a
to-temporal clause and (40) with an ordinary time adverbial, a toki- clause.

(39) a. {ɸSpeaker / *ɸi / *Watasi-ga} mado o ake-{ru / *ta} to

I NOM window ACC open-IMPERF / PERF when
Hanakoi {ga / *wa} tat-te i-ta.
Hanako NOM / TOP stand be-PERF
‘When (I) opened the window, Hanako was standing there.’

b. *Hanakoi {ga / wa} {ɸSpeaker / ɸi} mado o ake-ru to, tat-te i-ta.

(40) a. John ga ki-ta toki, Mary {ga / wa} ne-te i-ta.

John NOM come-PERF when Mary NOM / TOP sleep be-PERF
‘When John came in, Mary was sleeping.’

b. Maryi {ga / wa} [ɸi Tokyo e {(i)ik-u / (ii)it-ta} toki]

Mary NOM/TOP Tokyo to go-IMPERF / go-PERF when
kaban o kat-ta.
bag-ACC buy-PERF
‘(i) When (Before) Mary went to Tokyo, (she) bought a bag.’
‘(ii) When (After) Mary went to Tokyo, (she) bought a bag.’

c. Anata wa [ɸi Tokyo e it-ta toki] kaban o

You TOP Tokyo to go-PERF when bag ACC
kai-masi-ta ka.
buy-polite-PERF Q
‘Did you buy a bag, when (after) you went to Tokyo.’
394 Nobuko Hasegawa

d. Watasi wa [ɸi Tokyo e it-ta toki] kaban o

I TOPP Tokyo to go-PERF when bag ACC
{kai-mas-u / kat-ta}.
buy-polite-IMPERF / buy-PERF
‘I {will buy / bought} a bag, when (after) I {go / went} to Tokyo.’

The facts observed in these examples lead to the generalizations in (41).

(41) a. The matrix subject of the to-clause cannot be marked by wa ‘top’, i.e.
cannot be topicalized (See (39a)), while that of an ordinary temporal
clause (a toki-clause) can.
b. The predicate of the to-temporal clause has to be in the imperfective –ru
form, while that of a toki-clause can be either imperfective or perfective.
(Compare (39a) with (40a/b))
c. The to-temporal clause, being different from a toki-clause, cannot be put
after the subject of the main clause. (Compare (39b) with (40b))
d. The null subject of the to-clause cannot refer to the matrix subject, while
that of a toki-clause can. (Compare (39a/b) with (40b))
e. When the subject of the to-clause is null, it refers to the speaker.20
(See (39a))
f. The time reference of the –ru imperfect form of the to-clause is simulta-
neous to (or immediately precedes) the occurrence of the matrix clause.
This is opposite to the case of the toki-temporal clause, in which the –ru
morpheme refers to the time that follows the main event. (Compare (39a)
and (40b))

The contrast between the to-clause and the toki-clause is striking and this difference
seems to be due to differences in clause types and how the to-temporal clause and
the toki-temporal adverbial are licensed. The to-clause is assumed to have structure
(38), while the toki-clause, being an ordinary time adverbial, is placed somewhere at
or below TP, namely, (42).

20 The subject of the to-clause is null in the unmarked case, referring to the speaker. However, a
lexical third person subject is possible as in (i).
Mary ga ku-{ru/*ta} to, John ga kaet-ta.
Mary NOM come-IMPERF/PERF when John NOM leave-PERF
‘When Mary came, John left.’
Note that the predicate in the to-clause must be in the imperfective –ru form and its event time must
precede (or be simultaneous to) the event time of the main clause, observing (41f).
 Modality 395

(42) Structure for (40), with an ordinary time adverbial Inside TP or VP

Given (38) and (42), the generalizations in (41) would follow. The restriction on the
occurrence of a topic mentioned in (41a) is due to clause types; i.e. how Force is
specified. The to-clause is licensed by Force of the presentational sentence, which
does not allow a topic, while the presence of a topic indicates a categorical judg-
ment, not a thetic judgment (See Note 19; Kuroda 1972, 1992).21 The toki-clause is
licensed in an ordinary statement that may take a categorical judgment, which may
involve a topic.
The difference in the positions of the adverbials account for the other character-
istics in (41). As for (41b), the position of the to-clause being at Force is not in the
realm of the tense or time specification of the main clause tense, either Fin or T,
and the interpretation of the imperfective –ru is independent of the time referent of
the main clause, giving rise to the fact (41f), which will be discussed below. As for
(41c), the to-clause, being licensed by the presentational Force, occurs higher than
and must precede the entire main clause; there is no way for a main clause subject
to precede the to-clause. This fact also explains (41d) and (41e): The to-clause at the
Force area is too high for a main clause subject to be an antecedent of the null sub-
ject of the to-clause. If there is anything that has control over the to-clause at Force,
it would be the speaker. Recall Rizzi’s description of the C-system given in (23a) that

21 The to-temporal clause can take a topic if it is used in narratives. A reviewer presented (i) (modified)
and other similar examples, judging them acceptable with –wa ‘topic’ in the main clause. Incidentally
he stated that “the connotation of suspense and surprise is somewhat diluted” in these examples.
(i) (My wife looked down in the morning, which worried me. Then,)
{ɸSpeaker} Kaisya kara kitaku-su-ru to
company from return=home-IMERF when
tumai {ga/wa} yuka ni taore-te i-ta.
wife NOM/TOP floor on collapse be-PERF
‘When (I) came back home, my wife way lying on the floor.’
This example with the topic tuma-wa ‘wife-topic’ is acceptable because this is an example in a
narrative where tuma ‘wife’ has been set as a topic in the description that precedes this utterance.
Thus, (i) is not a counter example to (41a) but complies with it under (37).
396 Nobuko Hasegawa

the function of the main clause is specified at Force in the C-system, which works
as a mediator between the proposition (TP) and the superordinate structure (the
discourse for main clauses). In the case of a toki-clause, on the other hand, being
placed inside TP, its null subject is c-commanded by the main clause subject, which
serves as its antecedent.22
The interpretation of the tense or the event time of the adverbial clauses (41f )
would also be relevant to where they appear in relation to the head that specifies
the event time of the main clause. In this system, Fin, directed by Force, specifies
the rudimentary tense, which is morphologically realized in a specific way at T. It is
well-known that the Japanese tense morpheme is in principle interpreted relative to
the superordinate structure (cf. Iori 2001). In a main clause, tense is interpreted in
terms of the speaking time; the imperfective –ru refers to the present tense and the
perfective –ta refers to the past tense. In a subordinate clause, on the other hand, its
event time is interpreted relative to the main clause event time. If it has the imper-
fective –ru, it is interpreted as imperfect with respect to the event time of the main
clause. With the perfective –ta, it is perfect or completed at the time of the occur-
rence of the main clause event. The tara-clause complies with this generalization,
as clearly shown in (40b). The to-clause, however, does not observe this generaliza-
tion, as we have seen in (41f). The to-clause has to always be in the imperfective –ru
form, as stated in (41b), but it behaves in a way almost opposite to what the general
rule of the event time interpretation of the subordinate clause imposes. Even with
the imperfective –ru, the event expressed in the to-clause has to precede (or be
simultaneous with) the main clause event. This otherwise peculiar fact can be ex-
plained by the structural position of the to-clause shown in (38), which is far above
ordinary subordinate clauses. The to-clause, being at the specifier of Force, is free
from the ‘binding’ of the tense of a main clause. Hence, the –ru form in the to-clause
cannot be an ordinary imperfect marker of tense, since it is free from the tense inter-
pretation of the main clause. It simply functions as a default form of a predicate and
does not mark the tense of the event of the to-clause. The to-clause simply presents
a scene when the main clause event is observed with some surprise, as in Kuno’s
description of S1 of this construction in (37-i).
Discourse functions are often clearly discernible in morphological forms in the
right periphery region in Japanese, which has been noted and described in tradi-
tional Japanese studies, as well as within the generative tradition. However, there

22 Adverbial clauses inside TP, such as the toki-clause, can be scrambled to the sentence initial
position which the subject may not c-command. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss how
pronouns (and zero-pronouns) are interpreted in scrambled sentences in general. I assume, however,
that the (zero-)pronoun in a scrambled adverbial can refer to the subject of the main clause, as long
as the adverbial is within the c-command domain of the subject at base. The to-clause is different
from the tara-clause in that the sentence initial position (Spec of Force) is its base position (see
(38)) and it would not be inside the c-command domain of the subject at any stage of derivation.
This fact is responsible for (41d).
 Modality 397

has not been enough close attention placed on the relation between a particular
discourse function and a certain item whose occurrence is contingent upon that
discourse function. Such co-occurrence indicates that there be some syntactic opera-
tion at work. The phenomena observed with respect to the to-temporal clause would
constitute a case study for such research.

6 Summary
The range of phenomena that have to do with ‘modality’ is vast and the definition
of modality relies on semantic and pragmatic characterizations. In this chapter, we
have taken up the phenomena mainly in terms of how modality is related to syntax
by looking at two general issues: (i) how Japanese typical modality expressions can
be represented in syntactic structure, and (ii) how agreement or concordance rela-
tions are syntactically captured between modality and another item in a sentence.
For (i), it is shown that the hierarchical clause structure found in Japanese descrip-
tive studies provides strong arguments for recent proposals regarding the C-system.
As for (ii), we have taken up the agreement relation between the subject and a dis-
course modality expression and that between the occurrence of a to-clause and
clause types. There, it was shown that clause types marked at Force are agreement
enforcers or licensers for a subject of a particular type and the to-clause.
It is only recently that phenomena involving the CP area or modality have been
examined extensively in a systematic and theoretically significant way in generative
syntax. The phenomena we have discussed have shed new light on modality and CP
phenomena not only for analyses of Japanese facts, but for other languages, thus
giving a universal perspective. There are other interesting facts that have been noted
in descriptive studies which have not yet been theoretically accounted for. Once they
are investigated, they may lead research in a direction different from what studies in
English and other widely investigated languages have suggested.
In fact, such research is already under way: the phenomenon of sentence final
particles (e.g Endo 2007, 2010; Saito 2012), for example, shows that a particular order
of sentence particles in Japanese provides evidence for a particular order and function
of sub-heads of the C-system, e.g. (kuru)-yo-ne ‘(come)-assertion-confirm’ vs. *(kuru)-
ne-yo ‘(come)-confirm-assertion’; (kuru)-ka-to (kiku) ‘(come)-Q-that-(ask)’ vs. *(kuru)-
to-ka (kiku) ‘(come)-that Q-(ask)’, etc. The concordance between an adverbial or a
focus phrase (e.g. the –made phrase ‘exemplification’) and a type of modality has
been pointed out by Noda (1995) and theoretically dealt with in Sano (2007) (see
also Uchibori 2007).
As for the person restriction on the subject, we have discussed the agreement
between the subject and a discourse modality expression. The person restriction on
the subject is noted also with respect to epistemic modality expressions, such as –
398 Nobuko Hasegawa

mai ‘would not’, which takes [–Addressee] subject, and –daroo ‘guess’, which
requires a 3rd person (i.e. [–Addressee, –Speaker]) subject, as briefly noted in 2.2
(see Nitta 1991 for an extensive description of this fact and Ueda 2007, 2009 for a
theoretical analysis). Furthermore, it has been well-known that certain predicates,
e.g. those that express personal feelings or sentience, such as, hosii ‘want’ and
samui ‘cold’, take only the speaker as subject in reportive style speech (see Kuroda
1965, 1973; Speas and Tenny 2003; Tenny 2006; in particular). Obviously these
phenomena are not completely independent from each other. First of all, they all
involve the person features relevant to [±Addressee, ±Speaker], rather than the ɸ
features [person, number, gender]. Second, they are sensitive to speech styles. The
person restriction holds in a reportive style but not in a narrative, where the speaker
or narrator can disguise any person.23 Furthermore, as mentioned in section 4 (see
also Notes 16 and 17), the conditions on the to-clause in (37) and the generalizations
on its subject, (41c) and (41e), can be lifted in narratives, where the narrator can talk
about the speaker (narrator)’s voluntary action as if it were an observable event
caused by the third party.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to properly examine differences in speech
styles and how they affect the restrictions on person features. We simply point out
that there have been several attempts that entertain the possibility of incorporating
the addressee and the speaker, as well as register (or speech style) differences, into
syntactic structure, somewhere at around the CP area (cf. Tenny 2006; Haegeman
1990, 2008; Miyagawa 2012; Haegeman and Hill 2014). With intensive integration of
both descriptive and theoretical work, we will see in future research how fruitful
these attempts will be.

Acknowledgments
The research presented here has been in part supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scien-
tific Research (B) 23320089 from JSPS (Principal Investigator: Nobuko Hasegawa),
for which I am grateful. Parts of the research here have been presented at various
occasions, including: at the workshop at the Linguistics Society of Japan at Ibaraki
University, at a linguistics colloquium at UCLA, at the annual meeting of the Society
of Japanese Grammar at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, at a linguistics collo-
quium at Kanda University of International Studies, etc. I have benefitted much
from the comments and discussions given on these occasions. Lastly, I would like
to thank the editors of this volume and the reviewers of this chapter for valuable
comments on earlier versions.

23 The agreement involving discourse modality expressions, taken up in section 4, is not affected by
speech styles. By definition, discourse modality has a specific function in a discourse, which would
not be altered by speech styles.
 Modality 399

References
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving,
and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.
Endo, Yoshio. 2007. Locality and information structure: A cartographic approach to Japanese.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Endo, Yoshio. 2010. Shūjoshi no kātogurafi [Cartography of sentence final particles]. In Nobuko
Hasegawa (ed.), Tōgo-ron no shintenkai to nihongo kenkyū: Meidai o koete [New developments
in syntactic theory and research in Japanese: Beyond proposition], 67–94. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in
linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT disser-
tation.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries. Multilingua 9. 157–199.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2008. Subject omission in the present-day written English. In Nobuko Hasegawa
(ed.), Pragmatic functions and syntactic theory: In view of Japanese main clauses (1), Report:
Grant-in-aid for scientific research (B) #19320063, 213–235. Chiba: Kanda University of Interna-
tional Studies.
Haegeman, Liliane and Virginia Hill. 2014. The Syntacticization of discourse. In Raffaella Folli,
Christina Sevdali and Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1990. Affirmative polarity items and negation in Japanese. In Carol Georgopoulos
and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y.
Kuroda, 271–85. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1994. Economy of derivation and A’-movement in Japanese. In Masaru Nakamura
(ed.), Current topics in English and Japanese, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2005. EPP materialized first, agree later: Wh-questions, subjects and MO ‘also’
– phrases. Scientific Approaches to Language 4. 33–80. Chiba: Center for Language Sciences,
Kanda University of International Studies.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2009. Agreement at the CP level: Clause types and the ‘person’ restriction on
the subject. Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 5. 131–152. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2010a. Thetic judgment as presentational. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 26.
3–23.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2010b. Bun no kinō to tōgo kōzō: Nihongo-tōgo-kenkyū kara no kōken (Sentence
function and syntactic structure: Contributions from Japanese syntactic research). In Nobuko
Hasegawa (ed.), Tōgo-ron no shintenkai to nihongo kenkyū: Meidai o koete [New developments
in syntactic theory and research in Japanese: Beyond proposition], 1–30. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2010c. CP-ryōiki karano kara-shugo no ninka [The CP area and licensing a null
subject]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Tōgo-ron no shintenkai to nihongo kenkyū: Meidai o koete
[New developments in syntactic theory and research in Japanese: Beyond proposition], 31–65.
Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
400 Nobuko Hasegawa

Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2011. Tōgo-kōzō to hatsuwa no chikara [Syntactic structure and force in speech
acts]. In Michiko Takeuchi and Yumi Sato (eds), Hatsuwa to bun no modariti [Speech acts and
sentential modality], 89–114. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2012. Gendaiban ‘kakari-musubi’ toshite no to-jōkensetsu kōbun: CP kōzō
niokeru jūzokusetsu to shubun no koō [The to-conditional clause as a modern version of
‘kakari-musubi’: The concordance between a subordinate clause and a main clause at the CP
structure]. Nihongo Bunpō [Journal of Japanese grammar] 12(2). 24–42.
Hiraiwa, Ken, and Shinichiro Ishihara. 2002. Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and ‘no da’ construction
in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35–54. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkeibunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese] Vol. 1.
Tokyo: Taishukan.
Inoue, Kazuko. 2006. Nihongo no jōken-setsu to shubun-no modariti [Conditionals and main clause
modality in Japanese]. Scientific Approaches to Language 5. 9–28, Chiba: Center for Language
Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies.
Inoue, Kazuko. 2007. Nihongo no mōdaru no tokuchō saikō [Reconsideration of the characteristics
of modals in Japanese]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-genshō: Tōgo-kōzō
to modariti [Main clause phenomena in Japanese: Syntactic structure and modality], 227–260.
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Iori, Isao. 2001. Atarashii nihongogaku nyūmon: Kotoba no shikumi o kangaeru [A new introduction
to Japanese linguistics: Reflections on the mechanism of language]. Tokyo: 3A Corporation.
Kizu, Mika. 2009. Japanese modals at the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Barbara Pizziconi and Mika
Kizu (eds.), Japanese modality: Exploring its scope and interpretation, 183–204. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgments. Foundations of Language 9. 153–185.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1973. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In
Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 377–391. New York:
Molt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticaæ Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Judgment forms and sentence forms. Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected
papers, 13–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kuwabara, Kazuki. 2010. Nihongo gimonbun niokeru hobunhyōshiki no sentaku to CP ryōiki no kōzō
[The selection of complementizers and the structure of CP in Japanese questions]. In Nobuko
Hasegawa (ed.), Tōgo-ron no shintenkai to nihongo kenkyū: Meidai o koete [New developments
in syntactic theory and research in Japanese: Beyond proposition], 95–127. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modariti no bunpō [The grammar of modality]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publsihers.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2007. Nihongo modariti kenkyū [A study of modality in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Masuoka, Takashi. 2009. Modality from a Japanese perspective. In Barbara Pizziconi and Mika Kizu
(eds.), Japanese modality: Exploring its scope and interpretation, 36–55. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo no kōzō [The structure of the modern Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move?: Unifying agreement-based and discourse con-
figurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Lobke Aelbrecht,
Liliane Haegeman and Rachel Nye (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons, 79–111.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Modality 401

Moriyama, Takuro. 1988. Nihongo-dosi-jutugobun no kenkyuu [A study of verbal predicates in

Japanese]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Narrog, Heiko. 2009 Modality, modariti and predication – The story of modality in Japan. In Barbara
Pizziconi and Mika Kizu (ed.) Japanese modality; Exploring its scope and interpretation, 9–35.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no modariti to ninshō [Modality and person in Japanese]. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
Noda, Hisashi. 1995. Bun no kaisō-kōzō kara mita shudai to toritate [Topic and focus in view of the
hierarchical structure of sentences]. In Takashi Masuoka, Hisashi Noda and Yoshiko Numata
(eds.), Nihongo no shudai to toritate [Topic and focus in Japanese], 1–35. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Noda, Hisashi, Takashi Masuoka, Mayumi Usami and Noriyuki Takubo. 2002. Nihongo no bunpō 4:
Fukubun to danwa [Japanese grammar 4: Complex sentences and discourse]. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Pak, Mion. 2006. Jussive clauses and agreement of sentence final particles in Korean. In Tim Vance
and J. Kim (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14. 295–306. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pizziconi, Barbara and Mika Kizu. (eds.). 2009. Japanese modality: Exploring its scope and interpre-
tation. Basingstoke and Philadelphia: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic
Inquiry 20. 365–424.
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, 281–331. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement construction. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Sano, Masaki. 2007. Toritateshi no ninka to saishōjōken [The licensing of focus elements and mini-
mality]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-genshō: Tōgo-kōzō to modariti [Main
clause phenomena in Japanese: Syntactic structure and modality], 73–111. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Sentence types and the Japanese right periphery. In Gunther Grewendorf and
Thomas E. Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar, 147–175. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Speas, Peggy and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Anna Maria
DiSciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. Tōgokōzō-to bunmyaku jōhō [Syntactic structure and contextual informa-
tion]. Nihongogaku 6(5). 37–48.
Takubo, Yukinori. 2010. Nihongo no kōzō: Suiron to chishikikanri [The structure of Japanese: Inference
and information management] Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Tenny, Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 15. 245–288.
Tsubomoto, Atsurou. 1993. Jōken to toki no renzokusei: Jikeiretsu to haikeika no shosō [The
sequence in condition and time: Some aspects of chronological sequence and backgrounding].
In Takashi Masuoka (ed.), Nihongo no jōken-hyōgen [Conditional expressions in Japanese], 99–
130. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Uchibori, Asako. 2007. Modariti yōso niyoru ninka no (fu)tōmei-ryōiki [The (non-)opaque domain for
licensing modality elements]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-genshō: Tōgo-kōzō
to modariti [Main clause phenomena in Japanese: Syntactic structure and modality], 295–330.
Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
402 Nobuko Hasegawa

Ueda, Yukiko. 2007. Nihongo no modariti no tōgo-kōzō to ninshō-seigen [The syntactic structure of
modality in Japanese and person restrictions]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun-
genshō: Tōgo-kōzō to modariti [Main clause phenomena in Japanese: Syntactic structure and
modality], 261–294. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Ueda, Yukiko. 2009. Person restriction in CP-domain in Japanese. Proceedings of the Workshop on
Altaic Formal Linguistics 5. 345–359. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Tomoko Ishizuka
11 The passive voice

1 Introduction
The passive voice system in Japanese is extremely rich and has been studied exten-
sively for the last 60 years (Hoshi 1991, 1994; Inoue 1976; Kubo 1992; Kuno 1973;
Kuroda 1965; N. McCawley 1972; Miyagawa 1989; Shibatani 1972, among many others).
Many important properties, which have significantly advanced the empirical and
theoretical understanding of Japanese, have been found, but many issues remain
controversial; for example, there is no consensus in terms of the precise number of
passive types, let alone their syntactic structures (see Shibatani 1990 and Hoshi 1999
for an overview of the literature). The widely-adopted view is that at least two homo-
phonous passive –(r)are morphemes need to be posited to account for different clusters
of properties associated with Japanese passives – one inducing NP-movement and
the other taking an NP as its subject (Kuno 1973; Shibatani 1978; Miyagawa 1989;
Kubo 1992, among others). Unifying the two types while assuming a single and in-
variant set of semantic and syntactic properties of –(r)are is clearly a theoretically
desirable hypothesis, from both language-internal and universal perspectives, yet it
has never been successful.
This chapter revisits various properties and analyses of Japanese passives from a
perspective of generative syntax, the Minimalist Program framework (e.g. Chomsky
1993, 1995). In particular, rather than considering passives a unique construction,
I assume modularity of grammar, which takes various properties of passives as
to result from interaction between the properties of the lexical and grammatical
morphemes contained in a sentence and independently-motivated principles of the
language (see Chomsky 1981; Jaeggli 1986, among others). Such a modular approach
allows us to identify the source of distributional differences observed between
different passive types, thus making some inroads into the unification of passives
as a single phenomenon. In order to illustrate insights such a modular approach
can provide, this chapter introduces a recent trial pursued by Ishizuka (2010a, 2012)
at unifying passives as an NP-movement (or raising) phenomenon, in addition to the
major traditional research. Ishizuka’s idea differs from the previous analyses in that
it is not the passive morpheme –(r)are but the main verb combined with –(r)are that
always licenses the noun appearing in the grammatical subject position, sometimes
as the oblique of the main verb or the possessor of an internal argument (e.g. the
direct object).
This chapter is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the traditional classifi-
cation and analyses. Section 3 reviews and reevaluates some of the important findings
in the literature. Section 4 introduces Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) unified raising analysis.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-012
404 Tomoko Ishizuka

Section 5 provides two pieces of evidence for a movement approach to Japanese

passives. Lastly, further directions and conclusions are provided in section 6.

2 Traditional classification and analyses

Japanese passive sentences contain a synthetic passive morpheme –(r)are, which
attaches to transitive, ditransitive, and some intransitive verbs.1 The following two
types of passives have long been acknowledged in the literature (see Kuno 1973;
Shibatani 1990; Hoshi 1999, among others): “direct passives”, which have a corre-
sponding active sentence like English passives, with the logical object appearing
as the grammatical subject, as shown in an active-passive pair (1a) and (1b), and
“indirect passives”, which come in two varieties – (a) “possessive passives”, whose
grammatical subject stands in a canonical possessive relation (i.e. kinship as in (2),
ownership, inalienable possession) with the direct object and (b) “gapless passives”,
which appear to lack an active counterpart and to contain an extra argument (realized
as the grammatical subject) that is unlicensed by the main verb, as exemplified in
(3). In both direct and indirect passives, the logical subject of the main verb is intro-
duced, sometimes optionally, by the dative by-phrase, thus these passives are also
called ni-passives.2

(1) Direct passive

a. Naomi ga Ken o nagut-ta.
Naomi NOM Ken ACC hit-PST
‘Naomi hit Ken.’ (Active)

b. Ken ga Naomi ni nagur-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT hit-PASS-PST
‘Ken was hit by Naomi.’ (Passive)

(2) Indirect (Possessive) passive

Ken ga sensei ni musuko o sikar-are-ta.
Ken NOM teacher DAT son ACC scold-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was scolded his son by the teacher.’ (cf. Ken’s son was scolded.)3

1 The passive morpheme appears as -rare after a verb ending with a vowel, and as are after a verb
ending with a consonant.
2 The logical subject of the main verb is sometimes introduced by kara ‘from’. The use of kara is
restricted to verbs whose logical subject is the “source” of the transition of emotion/perception,
entities, or verbal information. In this chapter, I will focus on passives involving ni-phrases and ni-
yotte phrases, and will put kara-phrases aside (see Ishizuka 2012 for more information about passives
with kara-phrases).
3 Most of the English translations of Japanese indirect passives tend to be awkward or ungrammatical.
However, such translations are used because they seem to me to be the best approximations.
 The passive voice 405

(3) Indirect (Gapless) passive

a. Ken ga Naomi ni nige-rare-ta.
Ken NOM Naomi DAT escape-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was escaped from by Naomi.’ (cf. Naomi escaped [from Ken].)

b. Naomi ga hahaoya ni sin-are-ta.

Naomi NOM mother DAT die-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Naomi was died by (her) mother.’ (cf. Naomi’s mother died.)

c. {Ken / Kantoo tihoo} ga ame ni hur-are-ta.

{Ken / Kanto region} NOM rain DAT descend-PASS-PST
‘{Ken / Kanto region} was rained on.’

d. Ken ga Naomi ni nak-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT cry-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was cried over by Naomi.’ (cf. Naomi cried [over Ken].)

Linguists like Terada (1990), Kubo (1992), and Kinsui (1997) assume that possessive
passives constitute a natural class, having characteristics of both direct and indirect
passives – namely, having a possessor gap corresponding to the grammatical subject
and having an overt direct object. On the other hand, linguists like Kuroda (1979)
and Kitagawa and Kuroda (1992) do not acknowledge the presence of a possessor
gap and assume that (2)-type passives are gapless just like the passives in (3).
Another type of passives often discussed in the literature is called ni-yotte
passives, which contrasts with the above-mentioned ni passives – direct and indirect
passives containing a dative ni-phrase (Inoue 1976; Kuroda 1979, among others).
Ni-yotte passives look basically the same as direct passives except that the logical
subject is realized not as a ni-phrase but as a ni-yotte phrase, as exemplified in (4).

(4) Ni-yotte passive

Kabin ga (Ken ni-yotte) kowas-are-ta.
vase NOM Ken DAT-owing break-PASS-PST
‘The vase was broken (by means of Ken).’

According to Kinsui (1997), direct and indirect passives containing ni-phrases have
existed from early times and are indigenous to the Japanese language, while passives
with ni-yotte phrases are non-indigenous and came into Japanese as a means of trans-
lating modern Dutch texts.

2.1 Uniform and non-uniform theories

Since the 1960s, there have been two competing analyses of the dichotomy between
direct and indirect passives: the “uniform theory”, which derives both passives from
406 Tomoko Ishizuka

a common complementation substructure with optional “control” (K. Hasegawa

1964; Kuroda 1965, 1979, 1985; Makino 1972, 1973; Howard and Niyekawa-Howard
1976; Kuno 1983, 1986; Kitagawa 1986; N. Hasegawa 1988; Kitagawa and Kuroda
1992; Matsuoka 2002, among others), and the “non-uniform theory”, which posits
distinct structures for direct and indirect passives (N. McCawley 1972; Kuno 1973;
S.-I. Harada 1973; Perlmutter 1973; K. Inoue 1976; Shibatani 1978; Terada 1990;
Kubo 1992, among others). Both theories agree on the structure of indirect passives:
the passive –(r)are is a two-place predicate selecting an experiencer-like “affectee”
argument as its subject and a clausal complement expressing “eventuality” (Kuno
1973, 1986; Kuroda 1979, 1985; Kubo 1992, among many others). This is because
indirect passives not only lack an active counterpart but often carry strong “adversa-
tive or affected connotations”, where the referent of the grammatical subject is
adversely affected by the event denoted in the rest of the sentence (cf. Wierzbieka
1979; Oehrle and Nishio 1981). The structure for (3d) is given in (5) (see Hoshi 1999: 192).

(5)

The structure of indirect passives (or gapless passives, to those who acknowledge
two types of indirect passives) raises a problem for that of direct passives (and posses-
sive passives), which contain the same –(r)are morpheme yet show different clusters of
properties. The “uniform theory” assumes that the –(r)are morpheme in direct passives
is the same as the one contained in indirect passives in selecting an affectee argument
and a clausal complement. The object gap in the complement clause is considered
pro coindexed with the matrix subject (e.g. Kuroda 1965, 1979; Kitagawa and Kuroda
1992; Hoshi 1994, 1999; Matsuoka 2002; Goro 2006). In contrast, under the “non-
uniform theory”, direct passives are derived from the transitive underlying structure
just like English passives. The direct passive morpheme –(r)are triggers the move-
ment of the logical object to the subject position by absorbing the external θ-role
and structural Case discharged by the main verb (Kuno 1973; Miyagawa 1989; Kubo
1992, among others).
More recently, variants of the uniform theory, which I call “hybrid theories”,
have been proposed by Hoshi (1991, 1994) and Huang (1999). In their proposals, the
structure involves both a control relation and tough-movement-like movement (i.e.
with the missing object moving to the edge of the embedded clause), having –(r)are
select a subject in common. Their structures are given in (6a) and (6b).
 The passive voice 407

(6) Hybrid theories

a. b.

[Hoshi 1991, 1994] [Huang 1999]

c. Ken ga Naomi ni nagur-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT hit-PASS-PST
‘Ken was hit by Naomi.’

Regarding “possessive passives”, they can be derived by any of the approaches dis-
cussed above: (i) by moving a possessor out of the direct object to the subject position
(Terada 1990; Kubo 1992); (ii) by having –(r)are select an affectee argument as its
subject and a gapless clausal complement (Kuroda 1979; Kitagawa and Kuroda
1992, among others); or (iii) by moving PRO to the edge of the embedded clause
and letting it be bound by the subject selected by –(r)are (Hoshi 1994).4 The problem
with treating possessive passives as a subset of indirect passives as in the “uniform
theory” is that they appear to behave as a natural class from a typological perspec-
tive: Korean and Chinese are known to have possessive and direct passives but lack
(3)-type indirect passives (e.g. Washio 1993). This typological fact supports the idea
that the distinction should be drawn not between direct and indirect passives
but within indirect passives – possessives vs. gapless passives (see also Shibatani
1990). However, if the “non-uniform theory” were correct, it would be an unsustain-
able coincidence that the two morphemes are both spelled out as –(r)are. Needless
to say, the “uniform theory” is preferable to the “non-uniform theory” from both
a theoretical and acquisitional point of view, assuming only one passive –(r)are
morpheme in Japanese. How can we resolve this dilemma? Before answering this
question, let us briefly review the third type of passives.

2.2 Ni-yotte passives

Among the linguists who regard the ni-yotte passive as a natural class, there is a
consensus that the ni-yotte passive is derived from its underlying active counterpart

4 In order to capture the cross-linguistic differences, Huang (1999), unlike Hoshi (1994), attributes
the availability of possessive passives to the availability of the outer object construction (see Huang
1999 for more information).
408 Tomoko Ishizuka

via NP movement, just like English passives (e.g. Kuroda 1979; Kitagawa and Kuroda
1992; Hoshi 1994, 1999; Matsuoka 2002). According to Hoshi (1994), in ni-yotte
passives the logical subject of the main verb is suppressed by –(r)are, appearing as
an adverbial ni-yotte phrase. Furthermore, based on Teramura’s (1982) and Park and
Whitman’s (2003) observations such that the ni-yotte phrase is infelicitous with psy-
chological predicates like aisuru ‘love’, linguists like Goro (2006) and Fukuda (2009)
conclude that ni-yotte is different from ni in assigning a cause θ-role. Since ni-yotte
contains a gerundive form of the verb yor-u ‘owe’ – yotte ‘owing’, their proposal is a
cogent hypothesis. Significantly, the ni-yotte phrase is not specific to passives but is
used more generally to introduce a cause, as illustrated (cf. Ishizuka 2012:129) below:

(7) Zyuutai wa ziko ni-yotte oki-ta.

traffic.jam TOP accident DAT-owing occur-PST
‘The traffic jam occurred due to an accident.’

Furthermore, Ishizuka (2012) points out that a ni phrase and a ni-yotte phrase can
co-occur in a single passive.

(8) a. Doroboo ga (keikan ni) konboo ni-yotte ude o or-are-ta.

thief NOM policeman DAT stick DAT-owing arm ACC break-PASS-PST
‘A thief’s arm was broken (by a policeman) by means of a stick.’

b. Hikooki ga (terorisuto ni) bakudan ni-yotte hakais-are-ta.

airplane NOM terrorist DAT bomb DAT-owing destroy-PASS-PST
‘The airplane was destroyed (by a terrorist) using a bomb.’

Examples like (8a) and (8b) are unexpected, if –(r)are contained in the ni-passive
and –(r)are in the ni-yotte passive are fundamentally different. Hence, following
the insights in the literature (e.g. Goro 2006, Fukuda 2009), we can probably con-
clude that ni-yotte passives are basically short passives – direct passives with a
suppressed logical subject – containing a ni-yotte phrase introducing the cause. If
short passives and ni-yotte phrases were already independently available in Japanese,
combining them to translate Dutch texts, for which direct translations were unavail-
able, seems to have been a practical solution. In section 5.2, I will review cases
where replacing a ni-phrase with a ni-yotte phrase indeed improves the acceptability
of the passive.
Let us now return to the dilemma between cross-linguistic consistency and lan-
guage internal unification discussed in the previous section. There is another reason
we do not want to disregard crosslinguistic consistency, that is the polysemous nature
of –(r)are. In quite a few languages (e.g. Hindi, Turkish, Russian, Spanish), the syn-
thetic passive morpheme is known to give rise to a number of different readings,
such as reflexives, reciprocals, middles, and potentials (see Shibatani 1985: 828;
 The passive voice 409

Kazenin 2001: 902). This is also the case with –(r)are: it has several usages besides
passives (i.e. spontaneous, potentials, and subject honorifics), which are known to
have arisen from a common source (Shibatani 1985; Oshima 2006: 150). The cross-
linguistic polysemy strongly supports the idea that –(r)are is a typical passive mor-
pheme that never introduces an external argument. As a solution to this dilemma,
Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) has proposed a “unified raising analysis”. However, a ques-
tion arises: given all the previous findings in support of the traditional analyses,
how can a unified raising analysis be achieved? Evidently, the critical step is to
identify a gap corresponding to the grammatical subject in indirect, especially gapless,
passives. I will first revisit some major findings in the literature in section 3, and
then lay out Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) proposal in section 4.

3 Revisiting the previous findings

It is impossible in the current context to give a comprehensive survey of the existing
literature. Therefore, I will focus on the properties of passives that are critical to
the questions of whether or not indirect passives constitute a natural class and of
whether or not the derivation of passives involves movement.

3.1 Evidence for and against the defining properties of

indirect passives
All the literature on Japanese passives commonly assumes that indirect passives
constitute a natural class. This assumption has been supported by properties like
lack of active counterparts, incompatibility with an inanimate subject, necessity of con-
textual support, and the presence of adversative or affected connotations (Kitagawa
and Kuroda 1992; Kubo 1992; Kuroda 1979, among others). The four defining properties
of indirect passives will be reviewed in turn.

3.1.1 Availability of active counterparts

The indirect passives in (3) contain an intransitive verb, thus in theory lack an active
counterpart. However, as is well-known, many languages allow passives derived
from intransitive verbs. For example, languages like Dutch, German, and Latin allow
“impersonal passives” (N. Hasegawa 1988; Shibatani 1990; Keenan and Dryer 2007).

(9) Er wordt (door de jongens) gefloten.

there became (by the young.men) whistled
lit. ‘There was whistled (by the boys).’ [Dutch] (Keenan and Dryer 2007: 17)
410 Tomoko Ishizuka

In contrast, languages like English allow “pseudo-passives” (or prepositional passives),

as exemplified in (10). In pseudo-passives, not an overt or covert there expletive but
the object of a prepositional phrase occupies the subject position, stranding the
preposition (Chomsky 1975; Davison 1980; Hornstein and Weinberg 1981; Bresnan
1982; Postal 1986, 2004; van Riemsdijk and Williams 1986; Baltin and Postal 1996,
among others):

(10) a. The clown was laughed at by the children.

b. The bed has been slept in (by the children).
c. The problem was referred to by Myron.
d. Harry was cared for.
e. Pauline’s thesis was talked about by the committee.

Without an overt or covert there expletive, impersonal passives like (9) are not avail-
able to Japanese. Then how about pseudo-passives? This is not always transparent
since Japanese allows neither double-Case marking (e.g. *hon-ni-ga, ‘book-DAT-NOM’)
nor Case stranding in any movement configuration, not only in passives but also
in relative constructions (see Kameshima 1989: 13; Ishizuka 2009, 2012: 55). The rela-
tivized head marks only the Case in the matrix clause, as shown in (11).

(11) [Naomi ga naihu-de niku o kit-ta naihu] ga togat.tei-ta.

Naomi NOM meat ACC cut-PST knife NOM sharp.be-PST
‘The knife which Naomi cut meat with was sharp.’
[de-marked instrumental]

Concerning passives, it has been widely assumed that Japanese allows the goal to be
the grammatical subject despite the disappearance of the original dative marking, as
shown in (12) (e.g. Inoue 1976; Shibatani 1978; Kubo 1992).

(12) [Taroo ni]i ga Ziroo ni ti Hanako o syookais-are-ta.

Taro DAT NOM Jiro DAT Hanako ACC introduce-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Taro was introduced Hanako to by Jiro.’

From a universal perspective, it is utterly conceivable that a language allows a non-

direct object to be the grammatical subject in the passive.
Extending such a pseudo-passive analysis to the indirect passives in (3), Ishizuka
(2010a, 2012) analyzes them as passives with an underlying oblique or genitive NP
occupying the subject position. Specifically, she proposes that the grammatical sub-
jects in the passives in (3) are originally licensed as “source”, “genitive”, “on/at-
directional”, and “cause” arguments of the main verb respectively. The proposed
active counterparts are provided below:
 The passive voice 411

(13) a. Naomi ga Ken kara nige-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken ABL escape-PST
‘Naomi escaped from Ken.’ (Source)

b. Naomi no hahaoya ga sin-da.

Naomi GEN mother NOM die-PST
‘Naomi’s mother died.’ (Genitive)

c. Ame ga {Kantoo tihoo / *?Ken} ni hut-ta.

rain NOM {Kanto region / Ken} DAT decend-PST
‘Rain decended on Kanto region.’ (on-Directional)

d. Naomi ga Ken *?(no uragiri) ni nai-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken GEN betrayal DAT cry-PST
‘Naomi cried over Ken(’s betrayal).’ (Cause)

Although not standardly assumed, Ishizuka’s proposal that (3a) involves moving the
“source” (kara-phrase) to the subject position is unsurprising if we take the behavior
of the goal into consideration (see (12)). The source is basically the counterpart of
the goal, minimally differing in directionality. Now consider (14a) and (14b), without
presupposing any supportive context.

(14) a. Ken ga Naomi ni nige-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT escape-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was escaped from by Naomi.’

b. ?*Ken ga Naomi ni Taroo kara nige-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT Taro ABL escape-PASS-PST
int. ‘Ken was affected by Naomi’s escaping from Taro.’

(14a) is felicitous, while (14b) is not, at least without supportive context inducing
possessive relation between Ken and Naomi.5 This is unexpected since (13a) shows
that the verb ‘nige-ru’ is compatible with a source phrase. However, this is exactly
what we expect if Ken in (14a) is originally licensed as the source of ‘nige-ru’. If
we can all agree that (13a) is an active counterpart of (14a), this will be a strong
motivation for analyzing other instances of indirect passives as having an active
counterpart. This is because having the same –(r)are in all indirect (or gapless, at
least) passives is theoretically preferable.

5 If Ken and Naomi stand in a kinship (or some kind of a genitive) relation, a clause internal active
source of Ken (i.e. [Ken-no Naomi]) becomes available and (14b) will be acceptable. However, this
reading is irrelevant to the discussion here (see section 4.3.1 for more information).
412 Tomoko Ishizuka

Recall that linguists who consider possessive passives like (2) a natural class
assume that the possessor of the direct object (i.e. theme) is entitled to move to the
subject position via an operation known as possessor-raising (Shibatani 1990, Kubo
1992, among many others). Then Ishizuka’s proposal that (3b) contains a possessor
gap in the ni-phrase is simply an extension of their proposal. In (3b), Naomi is
originally licensed as a genitive phrase of the internal argument hahaoya ‘mother’ –
the ‘theme’ of the verb sin-u – and moves to the subject position in the passive. In
fact, a kinship (or some kind of a genitive) relation between the subject and the
dative NP is obligatory for this type of passive to be grammatical. Manipulating the
relation between the two NPs can illuminate this requirement. Consider (15a) and
(15b), which are chosen to eliminate the potential internal source of the grammatical
subject.

(15) a. *Naomi ga Sibuya de misiranuhito ni sin-are-ta.

Naomi NOM Shibuya LOC stranger DAT die-PASS-PST
int. ‘Naomi had a stranger die at Shibuya.’

b. *Ken ga Naomi no kaisya ni toosans-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi GEN company DAT bankrupt-PASS-PST
int. ‘Ken had Naomi’s company go bankrupt.’

Intriguingly, (15a) is not acceptable even if Naomi felt sick from witnessing the
event, and could not go to work. Changing the locative phrase Shibuya de to
[Naomi-no meno mae] de ‘in front of Naomi’ makes (15a) acceptable because the
possessor source of Naomi is now available.6 Significantly, this in fact shows that
the grammatical subject in the passive needs a linguistically represented internal
source. Similarly, (15b) is not acceptable unless context inducing some kind of a
genitive relation between the subject and the dative phrase (e.g. Ken is the owner
of Naomi’s company) is assumed (thus, creating an internal source for Ken – [Ken’s
[Naomi’s company]]). The contrast between (3b) and (15a) shows that the grammati-
cality of (3b) is contingent on the possessive relation and strongly supports the idea
that the grammatical subject in the passive requires an internal source.
Since the genitive particle no encodes a wide variety of relations especially in
supportive context, subsuming the indirect passive of (3b)-type under possessive
passives might wrongly give an impression that everything is now analyzed as
possessive passives. However, this is not true. It is well known that in Romance
languages and Hebrew, possessor-raising is only possible from internal arguments
(e.g. direct objects) and impossible from external arguments (i.e. subject of transitive

6 According to Landau (1999: 17), “possessor raising is sensitive to islands. Thus locative, source
and instrumental PPs do not in general block possessor raising from the prepositional object, but
typical adjunct PPs (expressing cause, purpose, opposition, etc.) do so.”
 The passive voice 413

or unergative verbs) (see Landau 1999). The same restriction is at work in Japanese,
as evidenced by (16) (cf. Pylkkänen 2000, Ishizuka 2009, 2011):

(16) *?Ken ga otooto ni misiranuhito o koros-are-ta.

Ken NOM brother DAT stranger ACC kill-PASS-PST
Int. ‘Ken was affected by his brother killing a stranger.’

Possessive passives will be discussed in more detail in section 4.3.1.

Now let us move on to (3c), a well-cited ‘rain’ example. A typical state-of-affairs
depicted in (3c) is that Ken gets wet because of rain. Basing on this observation,
Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) proposes that the subject Ken is licensed as the on-Directional
NP of hur-u ‘descend’, as suggested in (13c). However, there are some complications:
when the on-Directional NP refers to a single person, the active counterpart sounds a
bit awkward. Presumably, this is due to pragmatic reasons. Generally, ‘rain’ falls on
larger areas than one person, thus real world plausibility is likely to reject sentences
like ‘Rain falls on one person.’7
One of the reviewers has noted that Ken need not be the on-Directional because
(3c) is compatible with the situation that Ken had to cancel the outdoor event he is
in charge of due to rain. Incidentally, the same example is discussed in Ishizuka
(2012: 227) and the speakers she asked did not accept (3c) in such a context. It
might be possible for some speakers to interpret Ken to mean Ken’s event in well-
established context, but the difference between the two readings – Ken and Ken’s
event – can be elucidated by comparing the following two passives:

(17) a. Ken no ibento ga ame ni hur-are te,

Ken GEN event NOM rain DAT descend-PASS and
tyuusi ni nat-ta.
cancellation DAT become-PST
‘Ken’s event was rained on and got cancelled.’

b. ?Ken ga ame ni hur-are te, ibento ga

Ken NOM rain DAT descend-PASS and event NOM
tyuusi ni nat-ta.
cancellation DAT become-PST
‘Ken was rained on and his event got cancelled.’

7 The pragmatic account is also supported by the fact that if the on-Directional NP refers to more
than one person, the sentence sounds much better. In fact, the passive – Megumi-no ame-ga watasitati-
ni hut-ta ‘A beneficial rain descended upon us’ – was acceptable to many speakers Ishizuka (2012: 86)
asked. The results from a 5-point scale (5 = completely natural, 1 = impossible) grammaticality judgment
survey show that 52 out of 74 speakers rated this sentence as 4 or 5, 14 speakers as 3, and 8 speakers as
1 or 2. The mean rating is 4.03 with the standard deviation 1.11.
414 Tomoko Ishizuka

Only (17a) depicts the state of affairs such that it started raining during the outdoor
event and it was cancelled. In contrast, (17b) makes sense only if Ken’s appearance
was critical to the event, and his appearance was no longer available because he
was rained on. Eliminating ibento-ga ‘the event’ might increase the acceptability of
(17b) in the context described in (17a), but then that indeed shows that Ken can be
loosely used in place of Ken-no ibento ‘Ken’s event’ in context.
Finally, let us turn to (3d). One plausible situation (3d) depicts is that Ken says
something unfavorable or unexpected to Naomi and she cries (or Ken is responsible
for Naomi, but she cries). Such an observation has led Ishizuka (2012: 89) to propose
that the subject Ken in (3d) is originally licensed as the dative-marked “cause”
of nak-u ‘cry’. Another passive of this type, which contains the psych-verb odorok-u
‘be surprised’, is presented below with its active counterpart:

(18) a. {Naomi / ?*sono nyuusu} ga Ken ni odorok-are-ta.

Naomi / that news NOM Ken DAT be.surprised-PASS-PST
‘{Naomi / ?*That news} was being surprised at by Ken.’ [Passive]

b. Ken ga {Naomi/sono nyuusu} ni odoroi-ta.

Ken NOM {Naomi/that news} DAT surprise-PST
‘Ken was surprised at {Naomi/that news}.’ [Active]

Animacy effects are again observed. The verb nak-u ‘cry’ is only compatible with an
inanimate “cause” (ni-phrase) in the active and with an animate “cause” (ga-phrase)
in the passive (cf. (13d)). Similarly, the passive containing odorok-u ‘be surprised’
sounds awkward with an inanimate subject, as shown in (18a). This is quite puzzling.
Nevertheless, despite the animacy mismatch, Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) proposes that
the grammatical subject Ken in (3d) should be taken as an underlying dative Cause
selected by the main verb nak-u ‘to cry.’ The following pair supports her proposal:

(19) a. Naomi ga sono eiga ni nai-ta.

Naomi NOM that movie DAT cry-PST
‘Naomi cried over that movie.’

b. Sono eiga ga (Naomi ni {wa}) nak-e-ta.

that movie NOM Naomi DAT TOP cry-POTEN-PST
lit. ‘That movie is cry-able (to Naomi).’
‘That movie is able to make {Naomi/people} cry.’

The verb nak-e ‘cry-able’ in (19b) consists of the stem nak ‘to cry’ and the potential
morpheme –(r)e (which seems to share some properties with the passive –(r)are).
This pair shows that the dative “cause” is indeed an argument selected by nak
‘to cry’, which is entitled to undergo movement to the subject position. Admittedly,
 The passive voice 415

however, if context is provided, the subject in cry passives is compatible with an

interpretation other than the cause (e.g. a Directional NP). Requirement of supportive
context has been taken as one of defining properties of indirect passives (see Kubo
1992). Section 3.1.4 will review this property of indirect passives. Notably, however,
all the indirect passives containing intransitives reviewed in this section do not
require supportive context. Hence contrary to Kubo (1992), requirement of context
cannot be a defining property of indirect or gapless passives.
This section has shown that some indirect passives, especially those not requir-
ing supportive context, can be reinterpreted as having an active counterpart. If the
“source”, “genitive”, “on-Directional”, and “cause” are indeed the internal source
of the grammatical subjects in the indirect passives in (3), as Ishizuka (2012) proposes,
then one of the critical defining properties of indirect passives – the lack of active
counterparts – is no longer tenable.

3.1.2 Animacy effects

Another defining property of gapless (or indirect) passives lies in incompatibility

with an inanimate or abstract subject (e.g. Kubo 1992: 239). This property has been
taken as an argument in favor of –(r)are discharging the “affectee” θ-role (e.g. Inoue
(1976), Kuroda (1979), Hoshi (1991), and Kubo (1992)). The reasoning behind this
comes from the fact that only sentient beings can be adversely/emotionally affected.
However, animacy effects are not coextensive with all indirect passives: they are
manifested in passives containing nak-u ‘cry’, but not in passives containing waraw-u
‘laugh’, as shown in (20a) and (20b).

(20) a. ?*Sono kabe no e ga minna ni nak-are-ta.

that wall GEN picture NOM everyone DAT cry-PASS-PST
int. ‘That picture on the wall was cried over by everyone.’

b. Sono kabe no e ga minna ni waraw-are-ta.

that wall GEN picture NOM everyone DAT laugh-PASS-PST
lit. ‘That picture on the wall was laughed at by everyone.’

According to Ishizuka (2010a, 2012), the grammatical subject in (20a) is originally

licensed as a ni-marked “Cause”, while the one in (20b) as an o-marked “at-
Directional” (i.e. e-o warat-ta, ‘laughed at the picture’). Since the NP in the subject
position in the indirect passive varies in terms of its θ-role, some distributional
differences are expected in her analysis. In contrast, under the standard analyses,
the grammatical subject always bears an affectee θ-role assigned by –(r)are. If
–(r)are were to select for an animate external argument, all instances of indirect
passives (or gapless passives, at least) should be incompatible with an inanimate
416 Tomoko Ishizuka

subject, which is indeed the claim made by Kubo (1992). However, the prediction
is not born out. Under the standard analyses, the indirect passives given in (20a)
and (20b) mean that ‘that picture on the wall’ can be affected by laughter, but not
by crying. This contrast seems to be difficult to explain for the traditional analyses.
The indirect passive in (21) is another example whose grammatical subject is an
inanimate NP.

(21) Sono ki wa ooame ni hu-rare (temo taore-nakat-ta).

that tree TOP heavy.rain DAT descend-PASS even.though fall-NEG-PST
Lit. ‘(Although) that tree was descended on by heavy rain, (it did not
fall down).’

Examples like (20b) and (21) lead us to conclude that the indirect passive –(r)are
per se is not responsible for animacy effects found in some indirect passives. Nor
can incompatibility with inanimate subjects be evidence for the standard analysis
of –(r)are selecting for the affectee external argument. Understanding the animacy
effects observable in some indirect passives calls for detailed examinations of the
properties of each verb –(r)are combines with, which we are not able to cover in
this chapter. See section 5.2 for further discussion on animacy effects manifested in
some direct passives.

3.1.3 Adversative connotations

Another purported defining property of indirect passives is “adversative or affected

connotations”. This is because many indirect passives carry connotations such that
the referent of the grammatical subject is adversely affected by the event denoted in
the rest of the sentence, as exemplified in the passives in (2) and (3) (Wierzbicka
1979; Kuroda 1979; Oehrle and Nishio 1981; Kuno 1983; Shibatani 1990; Washio 1993
among others). However, many linguists have noticed by now that not all indirect
passives carry adversative connotations (e.g. Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976;
Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992; Washio 1993). The indirect passive in (22) is a well-cited
example, which contains an intransitive but lacks adversative connotations (Alfonso
1971; Shibatani 1990; Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992; Washio 1993):

(22) Bokura wa soto de suzusii kaze ni huk-are-ta.

we TOP outside LOC cool wind DAT blow-PASS-PST
‘We enjoyed the cool wind outside.’ (Washio 1993: 63)
lit. ‘We were blown at by the cool wind outside.’
 The passive voice 417

Under Ishizuka’s unified raising analysis (2010a, 2012), the wa-marked topic is
originally licensed as the ni-marked at-Directional of huk ‘blow’, as in (23).8

(23) Soto de suzusii kaze ga bokura ni hui-ta.

outside LOC cool wind NOM we DAT blow-PST
‘The cool wind blew at us outside.’

Conversely, the direct passive (24a) carries adversative connotations that are absent
in the active counterpart (24b) (Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976).

(24) a. Hawai daigaku wa Satoo sensei ni yame-rare-ta.

Hawaii university TOP Sato teacher DAT quit-PASS-PST
‘The University of Hawaii had Professor Sato quit.’

b. Satoo sensei wa Hawai daigaku o yame-ta.

Sato teacher TOP Hawaii university ACC quit-PST
‘Professor Sato quit the University of Hawaii.’
(Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976: 211)

According to Howard and Niyekawa-Howard (1976: 211), (24a) implies that “the
institution suffered, either because the professor was a valued asset or because the
manner in which he left was such as to bring discredit to the institution.” Examples
like (22) and (24a) show that the adversative connotation cannot be a defining property
of indirect passives.
Furthermore, affected interpretations are not a necessary condition for indirect
passives like (3a) to be felicitous. Suppose that Naomi is the name of Ken’s cat,
which often escapes. (3a) is felicitous even if Ken did not notice the cat’s escape
(i.e. if Ken did not notice, he was unlikely to be affected). Even the following string,
which explicitly denies the affect of the cat’s escape, is well-formed.

(25) Ken wa neko ni nige-rare-ta ga, sono koto de

Ken TOP cat DAT escape-PASS-PST but that thing by
eikyoo o ukeru koto wa nakat-ta.
effect ACC receive thing TOP NEG-PST
Int. ‘Ken was affected by the cat’s escape, but he was not affected by that.’

8 One of the reviewers noted that if something precious is blown off by the wind, then the passive
can no longer be analyzed as pseudo-passive, but should be taken as an indirect passive, with
no active source. However, Japanese huki-toba-su ‘blow off’ is a transitive verb. Consequently, the
following passive is another instance of (2)-type possessive passives: Ken-ga kaze-ni [Ken-no syorui]-
o huki-tobas-are-ta. ‘Ken had his documents blown off by the wind.’
418 Tomoko Ishizuka

Were Ken selected as an “affectee” argument of -(r)are, (25) would result in contra-
dictions. The well-formedness of (25), however, shows that the adversative connota-
tion carried by (3a) is just a conversational implicature, thus cancelable (see also
Shibatani 2000: 142; Oshima: 2006: 158).
An important question remains: where does the adversative connotation come
from if not from the affectee θ-role of –(r)are? Ishizuka (2010a, 2012: 197–203) postu-
lates that “affected” connotations arise from a particular structure while “adversity”
connotations stem from metalinguistic factors – i.e. the choice of predicate and real-
world knowledge. Specifically, her proposal is given in (26) (Ishizuka 2012: 198 –
slightly modified):

(26) Affected and adversative connotations

a. “Affected” connotations are a by-product of the structure in which the
grammatical subject is originally licensed as a possessor of the internal
argument, the Directional NP, or the source NP (kara-phrase) of the main
verb –(r)are attaches to.

b. “Adversative” connotations are attributable to (i) the lexical semantic/

pragmatic properties of the main verb or (ii) the interaction between (i) and
the θ-role that the NP in the subject position is originally assigned.

First of all, possessive passives like (2) and (3b) generally carry strong adversely
affected connotations. The affected connotation arises because the referent of the
grammatical subject is “affected” by being the possessor of an affected object (i.e.
the object that undergoes change) of the main verb, and the degree of affectedness
perceived correlates with how much the possessed NP is affected by the activity
denoted by the main verb. Compare in this regard the following two passives.

(27) a. Ken ga sensei ni musuko o sikar-are-ta.

Ken NOM teacher DAT son ACC scold-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was scolded his son by the teacher.’ (cf. Ken’s son was scolded.)

b. Ken ga sensei ni musuko o homer-are-ta.

Ken NOM teacher DAT son ACC praise-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was praised his son by the teacher.’ (cf. Ken’s son was praised.)

Ken in (27b) might be affected by the teacher’s praising of his son but very likely in
a positive way, unlike in (27a). The contrast between (27a) and (27b) shows that
adversative connotations possessive passives generally carry can be traced to the
semantics of the main verb (see also Washio’s (1993: 51) idea of “lexical adversity”).
As evidenced by (3c), passives containing a Directional gap corresponding to
the grammatical subject also carry affected connotations. The reason for this is that
 The passive voice 419

the activity depicted by the predicate is directed at the referent of the grammatical
subject. In particular, on-Directional passives carry strong affected connotations
because the subject receives a direct impact from the event. If the event is unfavorable
like raining, adversative connotations arise. In contrast, the following at-Directional
passive is free from adversative connotations, illustrating that the availability of
adversative connotations depends on the choice of the main verb.

(28) at-Directional passive

Ken ga kawaii ko ni Ken-ni hohoem-are-ta.
Ken NOM cute child DAT smile-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was smiled at by a cute girl.’ (cf. ‘A cute girl smiled at Ken.’)

Similarly, passives with a source gap like (3a) and (29) carry affected connotations.
The reason for this is not hard to see: it is that the subject NP is affected by being the
source of an affected object (see also Pylkkänen 2002).

(29) Source passive

Ginkoo ga doroboo ni ginkoo-kara kokyaku no okane o
bank NOM thief DAT customer GEN money ACC
nusum-are-ta.
steal-PASS-PST
lit. ‘The bank was stolen the customers’ money from by a thief.’

In (29) the bank is affected because the money is stolen “from the bank”.9
One might say that a passive containing ‘cry’ like (3d) also carries affected
connotations. However, it is not always the case that the Cause of an event in the
passive is affected, as illustrated by the following passive containing odorok-u
‘be.surprised’.

(30) Naomi ga Ken ni odorok-are-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken DAT be.surprised-PASS-PST
‘Naomi was being surprised at by Ken.’

Naomi herself is unlikely to be affected by being the “cause” of Ken’s surprise

unless there are special reasons she does not want to surprise Ken. By analogy, it
seems reasonable to take the affected connotation carried by (3d) as a conversa-
tional implicature.

9 Alternatively, the subject NP in this passive can be analyzed as an underlying possessor: [Bank’s
[customer’s money]]. Since possessive passives are another type of passives that carry affected
connotations, the observed affected connotations are accounted for by either of the analysis.
420 Tomoko Ishizuka

For reasons mentioned above, Ishizuka (2012) concludes that the adversely
affected connotation indirect passives often carry is in fact a derived property, which
arises from a particular structure and the semantics of the main verb. Now another
question arises: if the NP in the subject position does not bear an affectee θ-role,
why can adversative contexts sometimes improve the acceptability of illicit indirect
passives? The next section discusses this property in detail.

3.1.4 Requirement of Supportive Context

Contrary to what the traditional analyses predict, not all indirect passives are
unequivocally well-formed, as we have already seen in (15) and (16). A supportive
or adversative context that explicates how the subject of the passive is adversely
affected by the event denoted in the rest of the sentence is argued to make such
indirect passives acceptable. Three properties have been reported regarding context-
requiring passives: (i) adversely affected connotations, (ii) animacy restriction on
its subject, and (iii) individual variation over the acceptability judgment (e.g. Kubo
1992, Shibatani 1994). Note that the first two properties directly fall out from the
requirement of adversative context. Namely, the referent of the grammatical subject
has to be capable of perceiving adversity. Linguists like Kubo (1992) regard the con-
text requirement as one of the defining properties of gapless passives, but this is
empirically false as none of the gapless passives in (3) needs context to be acceptable.
Shibatani (1994: 465) proposes that the grammatical subject in the passive that
needs contextual support is “extra-thematic” – i.e. not thematically licensed by the
main verb –(r)are attaches to. In such extra-thematic passives, supportive context is
indispensable in order to integrate the unlicensed NP into the structure. This is con-
sistent with Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) idea that the passive does not need supportive
context if it contains a gap corresponding to its grammatical subject. However, many
questions remain. How does context introduce an additional NP into the passive?
Is context a sufficient condition to license an additional NP? Is such a licensing
mechanism available to all native speakers?
Addressing these questions, Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) proposes that the subject
that is seemingly extra-thematic is in fact syntactically licensed (with a correspond-
ing gap) and context helps people access the active counterpart of the passive when
it is not so obvious without context. Specifically, Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) distinguishes
between two cases where context improves the acceptability of a given passive: one
involves a gap of a possessor or genitive NP, and the other involves a gap of the
Directional NP. The two cases will be discussed in turn below.
Many of context-requiring indirect passives are actually instances of possessive
passives. This is so because what has been considered adversative context is in fact
possessor-priming context that establishes a genitive relation between the gram-
matical subject and the internal argument (i.e. the direct object of transitives or the
 The passive voice 421

subject of unaccusatives) or the locative. Consider the following seemingly gapless

passive:

(31) Ken wa Naomi ni [tosyokan no hon] o kari-rare-ta.

Ken TOP Naomi DAT library GEN book ACC check.out-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was checked out the book from the library by Naomi.’
int. ‘Ken had the library book checked out by Naomi.’

Since Ken is not thematically licensed by the verb kari-ru ‘to check out’, (31) is
predicted to be ill-formed under Ishizuka’s unified raising analysis and it indeed
does not sound good. However, “possessor priming” contexts like (32) that establish a
“genitive relation” between Ken and library book significantly improve the acceptability
of (31) (see Ishizuka 2012: 113).

(32) Context inducing a “genitive relation”

Ken went to the library to check out a book, which he needed in order to write
a report for his class. However, the book was unavailable, and he found that
Naomi, who was taking the same class as him, had already checked it out.

In this context, the book Naomi checked out was actually “Ken’s library book” (i.e.
the book Ken was going to check out). The context makes the following active counter-
part readily accessible:

(33) Naomi ga [Ken no [tosyokan no hon]] o kari-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken GEN library GEN book ACC check.out-PST
‘Naomi checked out Ken’s library book.’

Genitive no-phrases in Japanese can encode a wide variety of relations, some of

which are very loose. For example, Tomu-no bus can be used if one is talking about
“the bus Tom regularly takes” (i.e. a habitual relation), and watasi-no toori ‘my
street’ can be used to mean “the street my car is parked on”. The possessor-priming
context is indispensable in order to license such a relative clause-like genitive rela-
tion (see section 4.3.1 for more discussion on possessors). In addition, what counts
as a possessive relation seems to “vary across speakers” as some people have
more tolerance than others, allowing very loose relationships between the two NPs
(Vergnaud and Zubizarreta 1992; Shibatani 1994, among others). Ishizuka’s syntactic
approach to the idea of possession predicts that the same variability will carry over
to the possessive passive counterpart. In this way, the interspeaker variability observed
with context-requiring passives like (31) is successfully accounted for. Further, the
affected connotation arises from the passive as well as the supportive context since
the referent of the grammatical subject is licensed as the possessor of an affected
object (see (26a)).
422 Tomoko Ishizuka

There are also cases that cannot be analyzed as possessive passives. Consider
the passives in (34) containing simple unergatives. In these cases a possessive passive
interpretation is unavailable since the ni-marked NPs are the external argument of
unergatives.

(34) a. *?Ken ga Naomi ni oyog-are-ta.10

Ken NOM Naomi DAT swim-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was swum by Naomi.’
int. ‘Ken was affected by Naomi’s swimming.’

b. *?Ken ga Naomi ni odor-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT dance-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was danced by Naomi.’
int. ‘Ken was affected by Naomi’s dancing.’

c. *?Ken ga Naomi ni hatarak-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT work-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was worked by Naomi.’
int. ‘Ken was affected by Naomi’s working.’

Unlike the indirect passives in (3), the passives in (34) are not acceptable, at least
without some kind of adversative context. The observed contrast in acceptability is
not predicted under the traditional analyses of indirect passives. Conversely, it is
exactly what Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) expects if the indirect passives in (3) are not
gapless but pseudo-passives. (35) shows that the grammatical subject Ken does not
have a clause internal source, thus the passives in (34) appear to be true gapless
cases.

(35) *Naomi ga Ken {o/ni/kara} {oyoida/odotta/hataraita}.

Naomi NOM Ken {ACC/DAT/ABL} {swam/danced/worked}
lit. ‘Naomi {swam/danced/worked} {to/from} Ken.’

Contrary to the accepted wisdom, many speakers Ishizuka asked did not accept the
passives in (34) even in context (for results of grammaticality judgment surveys, see
Ishizuka 2010a, 2012: 42). Shibatani (1994) aptly captures such a situation by saying
“there is a great deal of individual variation over the acceptability judgment . . . a
greater amount of semantic augmentation is required as the ostensible relevance

10 It should be noted that (34a) does not necessitate context if an overt adverbial like saki-ni ‘before’
is added. This is probably because the addition of the adverb in fact changes the structure of (34a)
by providing a comparative active source for the derived subject Ken (i.e. Ken-yori saki-ni ‘earlier
than Ken’) (See Ishizuka 2010a, 2012 for more details).
 The passive voice 423

between the referent of an extra-thematic argument and the described scene gets
smaller” (Shibatani 1994: 467–468). The analytical question is, however, for speakers
who accept (34)-type passives in context, exactly how the extra-thematic subjects
are licensed. Drawing on the similarities between extra-thematic passives and
passives with the Directional gap like (36a), Ishizuka (2012) speculates that context
might allow some speakers to license the extra thematic subject as a dative Direc-
tional NP in the active counterpart. Consider the following passive and its active
counterpart.

(36) a. Densya de Naomi ga roozin ni seki o s-are-ta.

train LOC Naomi NOM old.man DAT cough ACC do-PASS-PST
‘In the train, Naomi was coughed on by an old man.’

b. Densya de roozin ga Naomi ni seki o si-ta.

train LOC old.man NOM Naomi DAT cough ACC do-PST
‘In the train, an old man coughed on Naomi.’

Both (36a) and (36b) carry strong adversely affected connotations, and the grammat-
ical subject of (36a) must be animate. Further, there is a great deal of interspeaker
variation in terms of whether or not the verb su-ru ‘to do’ can select for a dative
Directional in the active and the variability seems to carry over to the passive
counterpart (See Ishizuka 2012: 223 for results of a grammaticality judgment survey).
Further, according to the speakers who accept (34a), their interpretation of the
sentence is similar to that of (37). Although (37) does not sound natural at all, it
can be interpreted in such a way that Naomi’s activity was directed to Ken, and
thereby he was adversely affected.

(37) a. Ken ga Naomi ni oyogukoto o s-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT swimming ACC do-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was done the swimming to by Naomi.”

b. Naomi ga Ken ni oyogukoto o si-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken DAT swimming ACC do-PST
lit. ‘Naomi did the swimming to Ken.’

Based on such observations, Ishizuka (2012) hypothesizes that supportive context

allows some speakers to insert a silent verbal head like su-ru ‘do’, which introduces
a dative Directional NP.11 Subsequently, the directional NP moves to the subject

11 One reviewer pointed out that the “cry” passive in (3d) could depict the state of affairs such that
Ken wants to quietly watch a movie but his child ruins his quiet time by crying. In this case, the
subject Ken seems to be interpreted not as the cause but as the ni-marked Directional. Thus, this
can be taken as another instance of (34)-type passives.
424 Tomoko Ishizuka

position in the passive to satisfy the subject requirement. The idea of a silent verbal
head is very similar to Pylkkänen’s high applicatives that assign a malefactive θ-role.
The difference between the two approaches is that Pylkkanen’s high applicative is
merged above the external argument of the main verb while the Directional NP is
merged below the external argument, just like regular ditransitive verbs taking a
goal or addressee. Further research is needed in order to identify the distribution of
the optional dative Directional introduced by a silent verbal head and the reason
that some speakers (e.g. those who consistently reject passives of (34)-type even in
context) lack this silent head in their grammar.
The discussion in this section has shown that the purported defining properties
of indirect passives are all untenable. This is because the generalizations are based
on an incomplete version of the empirical paradigm, and once more data are
examined, we find that the generalizations no longer hold. Without a property that
draws a clear line between the direct and indirect passives, we must conclude that
the traditional dichotomy is not only unnecessary but also empirically inadequate.

3.2 Evidence for and against a movement analysis of passives

The literature assumes, without exception, that indirect passives derivationally
involve clausal complementation but no movement. This is not surprising since the
gap corresponding to the grammatical subject in indirect passives has never been
acknowledged. However, if the pseudo-passive analysis of indirect passives is
correct, the analytical question is what is the relation between the subject and
the gap, movement or obligatory control? Linguists advocating the “non-uniform
theory”, such as Miyagawa (1989), Shibatani (1990), Terada (1990), and Kubo (1992),
have capitalized on the distributional differences between the direct and indirect
passives and argued that only the direct passive involves movement. However, since
the positions in which the grammatical subject originates differ in the two types of
passives, some distributional differences are expected. In this section, three classic
arguments, which are said to highlight the structural difference between the two
passives, will be reviewed: the three arguments are: (i) the behavior of numeral
quantifiers, (ii) the interpretation of zibun ‘self’, and (iii) the adjunct vs. argument
status of the dative by-phrase.
Examining the behavior of numeral quantifiers, Miyagawa (1989) argues that
direct passives involve movement. As is well-known, Miyagawa (1989) has proposed
that the numeral quantifier must be in a strict sisterhood relation with its associated
NP (in traditional terms, a mutual c-command relation). However, (38) is well-formed
even though ni.dai is not in a strict sisterhood relation with kuruma.

(38) Kurumai ga doroboo ni ti ni.dai nusum-are-ta.

car NOM thief DAT two.ClF steal-PASS-PST
int. ‘Two cars were stolen by a thief.’ (Miyagawa 1989: 38)
 The passive voice 425

According to Miyagawa (1989), the strict sisterhood condition between the stranded
numeral quantifier and its associated NP in (38) is satisfied by the trace of the NP
kuruma, which is moved to the subject position. Thus, the availability of the numeral
quantifier stranding has been taken as evidence for the movement derivation in
the direct passive. Then how about indirect passives? Do they also allow numeral
quantifier stranding? Unfortunately, they do not, as exemplified in (39).

(39) a. *[Keimusyo ti ]j ga syuuzin ni tj hutatui nige-rare-ta.

prison NOM prisoner DAT two.clF escape-PASS-PST
int ‘Two prisons were escaped from by (their) prisoners.’

b. *[Seito ti ]j ga Yamada-sensei ni tj hutarii nak-are-ta.

student NOM Yamada-teacher DAT two.clF cry-PASS-PST
int. ‘Two students were cried over by Mr. Yamada.’

Does the unavailability of numeral quantifier stranding like (39a) and (39b) argue
against the movement derivation of indirect passives? Ishizuka (2010a, 2012: 146–157)
explains that the unavailability of numeral quantifier stranding in (39a) and (39b)
comes from other sources. As illustrated in (40b) and (40c), unlike in (40a), the
numeral quantifier cannot move out of its hosted NP “even in the active” if the NP
originates as the oblique of the verb.

(40) a. Doroboo ga [kuruma ti ] o sandaii nusun-da.

thief NOM car ACC three.clF steal-PST
int. ‘A thief stole three cars.’

b. Syuuzin ga [keimusyo ti ] kara (*hutatui ) nige-ta.

prisoner NOM prison ABL two.clF escape-PST
int. ‘A prisoner escaped from two prisons.’

c. Yamada-sensei ga [(seito no) uragiri ti ] ni (*hutatui ) nai-ta.

Yamada-teacher NOM student GEN betrayal DAT two.ClF cry-PST
int. ‘Mr. Yamada cried over two (student’s) betrayals.’

Without being able to move out of its original NP in the active, the numeral quanti-
fier is not entitled to be stranded from its hosted NP in the passive. Significantly, the
data is consistent with the standard assumption that stranding of numeral quantifier
is possible from arguments but not from adjuncts (see Nakanishi 2008 for an exten-
sive review on numeral quantifiers). For this reason, (39a) and (39b) cannot be taken
as evidence against the movement analysis of indirect passives, although the well-
426 Tomoko Ishizuka

formedness of (38) indeed provides evidence for the movement analysis of direct
passives.12
Another classic argument in favor of distinguishing between the derivations of
the two types of passives comes from the behavior of the ni-phrase with respect to
zibun-binding (N. McCawley 1972; Kuno 1973, among others). The anaphor zibun is
known as a long distance subject-oriented anaphor, which can be bound either by
the local subject or by the subject of the matrix clause (e.g. Kuroda 1965; Postal
1970). Concerning passives, the generalization is that in direct and possessive passives
zibun can refer only to the grammatical subject while in gapless passives it is ambig-
uous and can refer to both the grammatical subject and the dative by-phrase (i.e. the
logical subject of the main verb). This is illustrated in (41).

(41) a. Direct Passive

Maryi wa Johnj ni [zibuni/*j no uti] de koros-are-ta.
Mary TOP John DAT self GEN house LOC kill-PASS-PST
‘Mary was killed by John in selfi/*j’s (=Mary’s) house.’ (Kuno 1973: 299)

b. Possessive passive
Johni wa Maryj ni [zibuni/*j no heya] de atama o nagur-are-ta.
John TOP Mary DAT self GEN room loc head ACC hit-PASS-PST
lit. ‘John was hit the head by Mary in self’s (=John’s) room.’
(cf. Kuroda 1979)

c. Indirect (or gapless) passive

Johni wa Maryj ni [zibuni/j no koto] o zimans-are-ta.
John top Mary DAT self GEN matter ACC brag-PASS-PST
‘John suffered from Mary’s bragging about self’s (=John’s or Mary’s) matter.’
(Kuno’s translation 1973: 304; N. McCawley 1972)

This leads to the standard assumption that the dative phrase in direct passives is an
adjunct, whereas the one in indirect passives is an external argument of the main
verb (N. McCawley 1972; Kuno 1973).13 However, as noted by Miyagawa (1989: 40)

12 The distribution of the numeral quantifier with respect to the dative by-phrase in the two types of
passives is also discussed in the literature. The complication is that the grammaticality of sentences
with the stranded numeral quantifier from “external” and “dative” arguments involves subtle judg-
ments and gradations, and not all linguists agree with the data critical to the leading proposals.
Thus, I will not cover this issue here. See Ishizuka (2010a, 2012: 146–157) for more information.
13 Another motivation for the adjunct status of the ni-phrase of the direct passive comes from the
observation that the ni-phrase of direct passives can be suppressed, while that of indirect passives
cannot (e.g. Terada 1990; Kubo 1992; Hoshi 1994). However, this generalization is empirically incorrect,
since the indirect passive derived from waraw-u ‘to laugh’ is well-formed without an overt dative by-
phrase. Further, not all direct passives are felicitous without a dative by-phrase. Because of space
limitations, we are unable to discuss this matter. See Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) for more information.
 The passive voice 427

and Kubo (1992: 251), the dative phrase in “direct passives” is not restricted to
“agent” but is compatible with a wide variety of θ-roles introduced by the main
verb (e.g. “cause” (42a), “experiencer” (42b), “source” (42c), “goal” (42d)). This is
unexpected if the dative phrase is an adjunct.

(42) a. Naomi ga [kaisya ga toosan-si-ta to iu

Naomi NOM company NOM bankrupt-do-PST that say
zizitu] ni utinomes-are-ta.
fact dat damage-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Naomi was damaged by the fact that her company went bankrupt.’
(Cause)

b. Sono kyoozyu ga gakuseitati ni kowagar-are-ta.

that professor NOM students DAT fear-PASS-PST
‘That professor was feared by the students.’ (Experiencer)

c. Ken ga Naomi ni hanataba o okur-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT flower ACC send-PASS-PST
‘Ken was sent a flower bouquet by Naomi.’ (Source)

d. Sono inu wa Ken ni moraw-are-ta.

that dog TOP Ken DAT receive-PASS-PST
‘That dog was received by Ken.’ (Goal)

Consequently, the standard adjunct story cannot be adopted. Then what brings
about the attested differences? Notably, (41c) contains a “verb of speaking” that option-
ally takes a dative “addressee” in addition to a “theme” (i.e. a pseudo-ditransitive
verb). Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) proposes that the ambiguity with respect to the inter-
pretation of zibun in (41c) in fact reflects structural ambiguity; one involves raising
of the dative “addressee”, and the other involves possessor-raising from the “theme”.
The first structure coupled with its active counterpart is provided below:

(43) a. Johni wa Maryj ni ti [zibunj no koto] o zimans-are-ta.

John TOP Mary DAT self GEN matter ACC brag-PASS-PST
lit. ‘John was bragged to by Mary about self’s (=Mary’s) matter.’

b. Maryi ga John ni [zibuni no koto] o zimansi-ta.

Mary NOM John DAT self GEN matter ACC brag-PST
‘Mary bragged about self’s (=Mary’s) matter to John.’

(43a) is compatible with the reading in which John suffered (if he suffered at all)
because Mary bragged about herself to him. Zibun refers only to Mary in (43a), as
428 Tomoko Ishizuka

well as in its active counterpart (43b). This is so because the verb zimansu-ru is a
“verb of speaking”, imposing the logophoric center on Mary.
The second structure and its proposed active counterpart are given in (44).

(44) a. Johni wa Mary ni pro [John no [zibuni no koto]] o

John TOP Mary DAT self GEN matter ACC
zimans-are-ta.
brag-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Johni was bragged to by Mary about self’s (=John’s) matter.’

b. Mary wa pro [Johni no (zibuni no) koto] o zimansi-ta.

Mary TOP John GEN self GEN matter ACC brag-PST
‘Mary bragged about John’s self’s (=John’s) matter to someone.’

(44a) is compatible with the reading in which John suffered because Mary bragged
about him to somebody. Namely, John is the underlying “possessor” of the theme
Mary bragged about. Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) proposes that zibun in (44b) is used
emphatically, albeit a bit redundant. Significantly, neither of the two structures is a
gapless passive.14 Consequently, the well-cited example (41c) does not show that
indirect passives are ambiguous in terms of zibun-binding.
Now the question is whether all the dative by-phrases in Japanese passives
behave the same way with respect to zibun-binding, as the unified analysis pre-
dicts. The situation is not straightforward. In the “source” passive (45a) and the
“at-Directional” passive (45b), zibun can be bound only by the grammatical subject.
This is the same as zibun in the direct passive (41a). In contrast, in the possessive
passive (45c), where the referent of the grammatical subject associates with the
dative phrase, its interpretation is ambiguous and can be bound either by the subject
or by the dative phrase.

(45) a. Keni ga Naomij ni [zibuni/*j no daigaku] de nige-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT self GEN college LOC escape-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was escaped from by Naomi at self’s (=Ken’s) college.’

b. Keni ga Naomij ni [zibuni/*j no kyoositu] de hohoem-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT self GEN classroom LOC smile-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Ken was smiled at by Naomi in self’s (=Ken’s) classroom.’

14 Similar to zimansu-ru ‘to brag’, Japanese has many “verbs of speaking” that optionally select
a dative “addressee” (e.g. kokuhakusu-ru ‘to confess’, sasayak-u ‘to whisper’, sirase-ru ‘to inform’,
hookokusu-ru ‘to report’). In fact, many purported gapless passives discussed in the literature (e.g.
Kuno 1973; Kuroda 1979) can be reanalyzed as passives whose subject is the underlying ni-marked
addressee, as exemplified in (43a).
 The passive voice 429

c. Keni ga musukoj ni [zibuni/j no heya] de sin-are-ta.

Ken NOM son DAT self GEN room LOC die-PASS-PST
‘Ken had his son die on him in self’s (=Ken’s/his son’s) room.’
(Shibatani 1990: 321).

Furthermore, in the following possessive passive, the interpretation is ambiguous

(compare it with (41b)).

(46) Keni ga Naomij ni [zibuni/j no heya] de

Ken NOM Naomi DAT self GEN room LOC
Ken-no (kakusiteita) okasi o tabe-rare-ta.
hidden candy ACC eat-PASS-PST
‘Ken had Naomi eat his (hidden) candy in self’s (=Ken’s/Naomi’s) room.’

The readings of zibun in the direct and indirect passives vary depending on the main
verb –(r)are attaches to and the active source of the grammatical subject. Thus,
nothing can be concluded from the above data, except that the ambiguity in terms
of the interpretation of zibun is neither a characteristic of indirect passives, nor evi-
dence for the argument (i.e. non-adjunct) status of the dative phrase in the indirect
passive. Understanding the exact mechanism of zibun-binding in the passive awaits
future research.
In this section, I have reviewed the defining properties of indirect passives as
well as classic arguments against the movement analysis of indirect passives, and
have demonstrated that none of the arguments are conclusive. Now we are ready to
introduce Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) unified raising analysis of Japanese passives.

4 A unified raising analysis

Crucial for Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) proposal is the assumption that Japanese has
only one –(r)are with invariant features. This means that all types of passives con-
taining –(r)are project the same substructure, with particular movements triggered
by the properties of –(r)are and the main verb –(r)are attaches to.

4.1 Properties of –(r)are

Assuming that –(r)are never introduces an argument, Ishizuka (2010a, 2012: 28)
proposes the following properties of –(r)are:
430 Tomoko Ishizuka

1. –(r)are selects for an active vP as its complement, and thus can never take a
middle, non-agentive unaccusative, or passivized VP (e.g. ware-ru ‘breakintr’,
nuge-ru ‘to undress’).
2. –(r)are has an edge (EPP) feature that attracts a VP layer to its specifier (cf.
Collins’ (2005) smuggling analysis for English passives).

(47)

The first property – incompatibility with non-agentive unaccusative and passive

predicates – has already been noted by Washio (1989) and Shibatani and Pardeshi
(2002).

(48) a. *Taroo wa zubon ni nuge-rare-ta.

Taro TOP pants DAT undress-PASS-PST
int. ‘It happened to Taro that his pants fell off.’

b. *Watasi wa musuko ga (dareka ni) nagur-are-rare-ta.

I TOP son NOM someone DAT hit-PASS-PASS-PST
int. ‘I was affected by the fact that my son was hit (by someone).’
(Washio 1989)

The strings like nuge-rare and nagur-are-rare are not legitimate in Japanese, and the
ill-formedness of (48a) and (48b) directly falls out from the complement property of
–(r)are. As shown in (3), however, –(r)are can combine with other unaccusatives like
sin-u ‘to die’ or nige-ru ‘to escape’. Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) hypothesizes that this is
because, unlike nuge-ru ‘undress’, unaccusatives like sin-u and nige-ru can optionally
introduce an “active vP” layer, which can combine with –(r)are.
Significantly, as Collins (2005) does for English passives, Ishizuka (2010a, 2012)
assumes that –(r)are absorbs neither an external argument nor accusative Case. The
o-marked NP remains intact in the passive containing a dative “goal” or “addressee”
gap, as illustrated in passives like (12), (43a), and (49) (Inoue 1976; Shibatani 1978:
141; Kubo 1992, among others).

(49) Naomi ga Ken ni Naomi-ni tomodati o syookais-are-ta.

Naomi NOM Ken DAT friend ACC introduce-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Naomi was introduced his friend to by Ken.’
 The passive voice 431

As is well-known, Japanese allows only one accusative Case in a clause (known as

Harada’s Double-o constraint (1973)). The fact that (49) contains an overt o-marked
NP shows that –(r)are does not absorb accusative Case. Under Ishizuka’s (2010a,
2012) proposal, the accusative Case -o is stranded when the underlying direct object
moves to the subject position, and the stranded -o is unable to survive without a
phonological host. Further, the logical subject of the main verb receives dative Case
from –(r)are, appearing as a dative by-phrase (See Ishizuka 2010a, 2012: 74 for the
details of this process).
We now turn to the specifier property of –(r)are. This property is very important,
as it is this edge feature of –(r)are that smuggles the internal argument past the
external argument, yielding passivization.

4.2 Motivating the specifier feature of –(r)are

As shown in (34), Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) observes that –(r)are cannot combine with
some unergative verbs like oyog-u ‘to swim’, odor-u ‘to dance’, and hatarak-u
‘to work’, at least without supportive context (cf. Pylkkänen 2000, 2002). This
phenomenon directly follows from the proposed specifier property of –(r)are. If we
assume, with Abels (2003) and Kayne (2005), the general ban on a movement opera-
tion from an immediate complement to its specifier position (i.e. vP – the comple-
ment of –(r)are – cannot move to the specifier of VoiceP), the only way to satisfy
the specifier condition of VoiceP is to strand the vP and move the VP to the specifier
of VoiceP (see (47)). In other words, the specifier feature of –(r)are in effect forces the
structure of the main verb to contain at least two separable VP layers with the lower
layer containing overt lexical materials. Assuming that in unergatives, a lexical root
and v coalesce into vP, –(r)are cannot merge with simple unergative verbs lacking
a VP layer. The ill-formed examples given in (34) contain such simple unergative
verbs.

(50) a. *Ken ga Naomi ni oyog-are-ta.

Ken NOM Naomi DAT swim-PASS-PST
int. ‘Ken was affected by Naomi’s swimming.’

b.
432 Tomoko Ishizuka

The specifier feature of –(r)are raises the question of why other unergatives, such as
waraw-u ‘laugh’ and nak-u ‘cry’, are compatible with –(r)are. Given the proposed
syntactic properties of –(r)are, these predicates must be complex, with at least two
layers with a lower layer having overt materials (i.e. they have a pseudo-transitive
use). As discussed earlier, waraw-u and nak-u, at least in the indirect passive con-
text, take an o-marked “Directional” and a ni-marked “Cause” respectively, thus
they are indeed complex. Consequently, under Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) analysis, the
puzzling distribution of –(r)are with respect to unergative verbs is reduced to the
difference in their syntactic structures.15

4.3 General properties of Japanese interacting with –(r)are

The proposed syntactic properties of –(r)are interact with the following general
properties of Japanese: (i) the subject requirement of the main clause (i.e. EPP of
matrix T – Shibatani 1977), (ii) the lack of there expletives (e.g. Fukui 1986; Miyagawa
1989; Terada 1990; Heycock 1993), (iii) the disappearance of Case-markers or postposi-
tions under movement (Kameshima 1989), and (iv) the availability of possessor-raising
(e.g. Kuroda 1988, 1992; Kubo 1992; Ura 1996; Hiraiwa 2002; Ishizuka 2009, 2010b,
2011).
Many languages that allow impersonal passives, like Dutch, German, Turkish,
and Latin, have a there expletive or a covert expletive (i.e. pro) (see Shibatani 1990;
Keenan and Dryer 2007: 17, among others). However, Japanese lacks an overt or
covert there expletive, thus impersonal passives are impossible, as illustrated in (51).

(51) *Ooku.no hito ni sin-are-ta.

many people DAT die-PASS-PST
int. ‘There were died by many people.’ (Miyagawa 1989)

Without the option of having an expletive occupy the subject position, an NP avail-
able besides the logical subject of the main verb (i.e. a direct or indirect object or
a genitive or oblique NP) obligatorily moves to satisfy the subject requirement of
the matrix clause. Specifically, the highest, among the smuggled NPs in the VP layer,
must move to the subject position. Accordingly, NP-movement in Japanese passives
takes place not for Case reasons but for the subject requirement.
You might wonder why many passives have been considered gapless if the sub-
ject position is always a non-thematic position. This is because of the last two prop-
erties listed above – (iii) movement operations in Japanese force the postposition or

15 One reviewer questioned the validity of dividing unergative verbs into two types – “swim”-type
and “laugh”-type. The distinction is just for explanatory purposes. Enriching the structure by adding
an additional verbal layer licensing a Directional NP (see section 3.1.4) or by embedding the verb
under the causative –(s)ase allows the “swim”-type unergative verbs to undergo passivization.
 The passive voice 433

case marker to disappear, leaving no overt clues to the derivation (briefly discussed
in section 3.1.1) and (iv) Japanese allows possessors to move out of the original
possessive NP to the subject position in the passive (i.e. possessor-raising operations
are possible in Japanese), as shown in (2) and (3b) (see sections 3.1.1. and 3.1.4). The
next section reviews the properties of possessor-raising and why some instances of
possessive passives are wrongly taken as gapless.

4.3.1 Possessor-raising

Japanese allows possessor-raising, which is an operation that moves a possessor –

to be more precise, a no-marked genitive – to a Case position external to the posses-
sive NP in which it is licensed (e.g. Kubo 1992; Kuroda 1988, 1992; Ura 1996; Hiraiwa
2002; Ishizuka 2009, 2010b, 2011). This operation feeds into multiple nominative
constructions – a sentence with more than one nominative NP – and passive con-
structions, where the genitive NP moves to the subject position to satisfy the subject
requirement.

(52) a. Multiple Nominative

Syoonen ga [syoonen-no zitensya] ga nakunat-ta.
boy NOM bike NOM disappear-PST
lit. ‘The boy, his bike disappeared.’

b. Possessive Passive
Syoonen ga [syoonen-no zitensya] o kowas-are-ta.
boy NOM bike ACC break-PASS-PST
lit. ‘The boy was broken his bike.’ (‘The boy had his bike broken.’)

The application of possessor-raising operations yields a wide variety of Japanese

passive sentences that cannot be literally translated into English (see also (2) and (3b))
The possessor-raising analysis of (2)-type passives is not new (e.g. Shibatani
1990, Terada 1990, Kubo 1992). However, prior research is too restrictive, assuming
that possessor-raising is possible only from the direct object and only with no-phrases
encoding canonical possessive relations, such as ownership, kinship, and/or inalien-
able (whole-part/body-part) relations.
Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) proposal differs from the previous ones in three respects,
which all contribute to the uniqueness of Japanese passives. First, as stated in section
3.1.1, it does not restrict the source of external possessors to within the direct object.
The genitive NP should be able to move to the subject position as long as it is licensed
as a genitive NP of the highest NP in the smuggled VP domain (i.e. the internal
argument). This includes the logical subject of “unaccusative” verbs, such as sin-u
434 Tomoko Ishizuka

‘die’. Consequently, the purported indirect passive (3b), repeated below as (53), is
now subsumed under possessive passives:

(53) Naomii ga [ti musuko] ni sin-are-ta.

Naomi NOM son DAT die-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Naomi was died by her son.’ (‘Naomi had her son die on her.’)

Second, in Ishizuka’s proposal (2010a, 2012) the NP occupying the subject position
in possessive passives is not restricted to canonical possessors. This is so because
she defines the possessive relation as a “particular syntactic configuration” (i.e. NP-
internal subject in the frame of [Possessor-no Possessed.NP]). As we have seen in
section 3.1.4, this syntactic frame encodes a wide variety of relations, some of which
are very loose, like reduced relative clauses, especially if context is provided.16 The
smuggling analysis imposes no semantic restrictions on the no-phrase that can
satisfy the subject requirement of the matrix clause as long as it can “move out of
its possessive NP” where it originates. Extending the potential active source of the
subject to non-canonical possessors allows us to realize that many instances of
purported indirect passives actually involve possessor-raising, as we have seen in
(3.1.4). The following passive is an example that appears to be gapless at first glance:

(54) Sono hitoi wa [ti kankyaku ni] inemuris-are-ta.

that person TOP audience DAT doze-PASS-PST
lit. ‘That person was dozed by his audience.’

People who accept (54) must interpret ‘that person’ as a performer or an organizer
of the event, thus unconsciously creating an underlying possessor source for ‘that
person’ (i.e. [that person’s audience]). The possessive relation between ‘that person’
and ‘audience’ might not be evident, but replacing ‘that person’ with another NP like
‘that comedian’ elucidates the presence of a possessive relation between the two
NPs, which can be syntactically realized as a genitive phrase (i.e. sono manzaisi-
no kankyaku ‘that comedian’s audience’). Consequently, under Ishizuka’s proposal

16 This is obviously an oversimplification: although various kinds of relations are realized in the
[NP-no NP] frame, their internal structures appear to differ. Clearly non-restrictive no-phrases (e.g.
kasyu-no Naomi ‘Naomi, who is a singer’) do not undergo possessor-raising. Further, inalienable
(whole-part/body-part) possessors, which can appear as an external possessor, in fact show different
distribution from other types of possessors in many languages including Japanese (Shibatani 1990,
1994; Ishizuka 2010b). For example, Ishizuka (2010b) shows that body-part possessors distribute
differently from other types of possessors in A’-contexts, such as relativization and topicalization.
However, the distributional difference due to the relation type does not come to the surface in the
passive (A-movement) context. Therefore, this chapter does not distinguish inalienable possessors
from alienable possessors. However, this is not to claim that all “NP-no NP” phrases have the same
underlying structure.
 The passive voice 435

(2010a, 2012) the seemingly gapless passive (54) is another instance of possessive
passive, with a gap within the dative corresponding to the grammatical subject
sono hito ‘that man’.
Third, Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) proposal differs from previous ones in assuming
that the highest (or outermost) among the “stacked possessors” is eligible to move
to the subject position. One important property of genitive phrases, which has not
been taken into consideration in the context of the passive, is their stackability (e.g.
Ken-no kinoo-no sinbun, ‘Ken’s yesterday’s paper’) (cf. Fukui 1986). Consider the
following possessive passives disguised as indirect passives.

(55) a. Mary ga John ni [kyoo no sinbun] o yabuk-are-ta.

Mary NOM John DAT today GEN paper ACC tear-PASS-PST
‘Mary had today’s newspaper torn by John.’

b. Mary ga John ni sono tegami o yom-are-ta.

Mary NOM John DAT that letter ACC read-PASS-PST
‘Mary had that letter {of hers/about her} read by John.’
(Watanabe 1996: 116)

c. Mary ga John ni [himitu no tegami] o yom-are-ta.

Mary NOM John DAT secret GEN letter ACC read-PASS-PST
‘Mary had a secret letter {of hers/about her} read by John.’

The direct object in all these examples has its possessor position filled, thus a
possessor raising analysis has never been considered as a derivational option. In
fact, the direct object with a filled possessor position in the passive has led researchers
like Pylkkänen (2000) to reject a possessor-raising analysis of Japanese passives
(Pylkkänen 2000: 408). However, once we take the possibility of stacked possessors
into consideration, the following active counterparts become available:

(56) a. John ga [Mary no [kyoo no sinbun]] o yabui-ta.

John NOM Mary GEN today GEN newspaper ACC tear-PST
‘John tore Mary’s today’s newspaper.’

b. John ga [Mary no [sono tegami]] o yon-da.

John NOM Mary GEN that letter ACC read-PST
‘John read that letter {of Mary’s/about Mary}.’

c. John ga [Mary no [himitu no tegami]] o yon-da.

John NOM Mary GEN secret GEN letter ACC read-PST
‘John read a secret letter {of Mary’s/about Mary}.’
436 Tomoko Ishizuka

Significantly, the passives in (55) and their proposed active counterparts in (56) are
all felicitous only if Mary is an “owner”, “writer”, or “theme” of sinbun ‘newspaper’
or tegami ‘letter’. The three readings of Mary-no in the passives in (55) are straight-
forwardly derived under the smuggling account, as ‘Mary-no’ is the highest possessor
in the direct object in each of the readings. Presumably, the reason (55b) has never
been analyzed as a possessive passive is due to the presence of the demonstrative
sono. However, as illustrated in (56b), demonstratives do not block stacking of geni-
tive phrases. Therefore, now all the passives in (55) can be subsumed under posses-
sive passives.
The following passive in (57) is another case of the possessive passive disguised
as the gapless passive.

(57) Keni wa [ti Naomi ni] zikka ni kaer-are-ta.

Ken TOP Naomi DAT parents’.house DAT return-PASS-PST
‘Ken had Naomi return to her parents’ house.’

People who accept (57) must tacitly assume a kinship relation between Ken and
Naomi (i.e. Ken’s wife) because of the presence of the word zikka ‘(her) parents’
house’, which unconsciously allows them to access the possessor active source
of Ken, i.e. [Ken-no [(tuma-no) Naomi]]. However, the possessor source of Ken is
obscured because the possessed NP is a proper name. In context, however, proper
names sometimes appear as a possessed NP, as exemplified below:

(58) Ore no Naomi ni te o dasu-na.

I GEN Naomi DAT hand ACC put.out-NEG.IMP
‘Don’t touch my (girl) Naomi.’

Hence, neither the filled possessor position of the direct object nor the proper name
possessee can be the reason not to analyze passives like (55) and (57) as possessive
passive.
This section has shown how the syntactic properties of –(r)are proposed in
Ishizuka (2010a, 2012) interact with some general properties of Japanese and generate
all sorts of passive sentences that are seemingly very different from those available
in other languages.

5 Support for the movement derivation

In section 3.2, the availability of numeral quantifier stranding from direct passives
has been given in support for the movement derivation. This section provides two
additional pieces of evidence from Ishizuka (2010a, 2012: 168–173) in favor of a move-
 The passive voice 437

ment derivation, using standard diagnostic tools in generative syntax – reconstruc-

tion effects and locality.

5.1 Reconstruction effects

The situation regarding reconstruction is quite complex. The grammatical subject
does not reconstruct under the ni-phrase (i.e. the external argument of the main
verb) in the direct passive, which has been presented as an argument against move-
ment analyses in the literature (Kuroda 1979; Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992; Ariji 2006;
Hoji 2008, among others). This is illustrated below:

(59) Darekai ga daremo ni ti homer-are-ta.

someone NOM everyone DAT praise-PASS-PST
‘Someone was praised by everyone.’ (p>o, ?*o>p)
(Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992)

Importantly though, the grammatical subject in the direct passive does reconstruct
under the goal and the locative, as shown in (60):

(60) a. Kurisumasu ni nanikai ga dono kodomo ni mo ti watas-are-ta.

Chiristmas DAT something NOM which child DAT PART hand-PASS-PST
‘Something was given to every child on Christmas.’ (p>o, o>p)

b. Nanikai ga dono ie de mo (doroboo ni) ti nusum-are-ta.

something NOM which house LOC PART thief DAT steal-PASS-PST
‘Something was stolen at every house by {a thief/someone}.’ (p>o, o>p)

In both (60a) and (60b), the universal quantifier in the goal and locative phrases can
have wide scope over the existential quantifier in the subjects, indicating that their
subjects are merged in the position lower than the goal or locative phrase and
moved to the grammatical subject position. Now consider the following indirect
passives:

(61) a. Darekai ga dono kyoositu de mo (nanimonoka ni)

somebody NOM which classroom loc PART somebody DAT
ti saihu o nusum-are-ta.
wallet ACC steal-PASS-PST
‘Somebody had his wallet stolen by somebody in every classroom.’
(p>o, o>p)
438 Tomoko Ishizuka

b. Kinoo keisatukani ga dono mati de mo hannin

yesterday policeman NOM which town LOC PART criminal
ni ti nige-rare-ta.
DAT escape-PASS-PST
‘Yesterday a policeman was escaped from by a criminal in every town.’
(p>o, o>p)

c. (Kinoo ookuno hito ga hoikuen ni sisatu ni

yesterday many people NOM daycare LOC inspection DAT
otozureta ga,) dareka ga dono kyoositu de mo.
visited but somebody NOM which classroom LOC PART
akatyan ni nak-are-ta.
baby DAT cry-PASS-PST
‘(Yesterday many people visited the daycare for an inspection, but)
somebody was cried over by a baby in every classroom.’ (p>o, o>p)

Although there is some variability among speakers with respect to the ease of acces-
sibility, the universal quantifiers in the locative phrases can have wide scope over
the existential quantifiers in the subjects in (61a), (61b) and (61c). One might argue
that the locative phrases in (61) are merged with –(r)are and not with the lower main
verb. However, adverbial phrases cannot modify –(r)are. Should –(r)are be a verb
meaning ‘be.affected’, as assumed in the literature, then it is predicted to be
independently modifiable. However, this is not possible, as shown in (62). For (62),
suppose that Mary escaped from Ken three times, but he was emotionally affected
only twice, because he got used to her escape. (62) is incompatible with such a
situation.

(62) *Ken ga nido Mary ni sankai nige-rare-ta.

Ken NOM twice Mary DAT three.times escape-PASS-PST
int. ‘Ken was affected two times by Mary’s three-time escape.’

Likewise, in (63), the intended meaning is unavailable, which again shows that
adverbials cannot modify –(r)are.

(63) *Ken ga hidoku tomodati ni sukosi keeki o tabe-rare-ta.

Ken NOM heavily friend DAT a.little cake ACC eat-PASS-PST
int. ‘Ken was heavily affected by his friend eating a small amount of his cake.’

Assuming that the locative phrases in (61) modify the main verb embedded under
–(r)are, the availability of reconstruction effects indicates that the NP in the subject
 The passive voice 439

positions in (61) is originally merged in the position lower than the locative phrase
(i.e. they are selected by the main verb) and moved to the subject position.

5.2 Minimality effect

The raising analysis predicts some difficulty in raising the “direct object” (i.e. theme)
over the “indirect object” (i.e. goal) in the passive containing (pseudo-) ditransitive
verbs.

(64) Theme raising over goal

The prediction is basically borne out. Ironically, the difficulty, which can be taken as
a manifestation of “minimality effect”, has been generalized as “animacy effect” in
the literature and has been presented as an argument in favor of the “uniform
theory” (Kuroda 1979; Hoshi 1994; Matsuoka 2002, among others). Let me explicate
the phenomenon with the following examples adapted from Kuroda (1979) and
Hoshi (1991):

(65) a. Fermat no teiri ga John ni syoomeis-are-ta.

Fermat GEN theorem NOM John DAT prove-PASS-PST
lit. ‘Fermat’s theorem was proved {to/*by} John.’

b. Kaikai ga gityoo ni sengens-are-ta.

opening NOM chairman DAT announce-PASS-PST
lit. ‘The opening (of the event) was announced {to/*by} the chairman.’

Kuroda (1979) finds these passives unacceptable and attributes the unacceptability
to the grammatical subject denoting abstract notions (i.e. an animacy effect). How-
ever, it is not the case that the subject NP in direct passives cannot denote abstract
notions, as illustrated in (66) ((66a) is based on Kubo’s (1992) example).

(66) a. Sono yuuki ga ookuno hito ni tatae-rare-ta.

that courage NOM many people DAT praise-PASS-PST
lit. ‘That courage was praised by many people.’
440 Tomoko Ishizuka

b. Sono meisin wa ookuno hito ni sinzi-rare-tei-ru.

that superstition TOP many people DAT believe-PASS-ASP-PRS
‘That superstition has been believed by many people.’

The real problem with (65a) and (65b) is the interpretation of the dative phrases:
although intended to be the “agent”, they give rise to “addressee” or “recipient” inter-
pretations. Further complication with respect to (65b) comes from real-world knowl-
edge, that is gityoo ‘chairman’ is a plausible agent, and the conflict between our real-
world knowledge and the available reading makes it difficult to make sense of (65b).
(Replacing gityoo ‘chairman’ with sensyutati ‘players’ in (65b) controls the real-world
plausibility and allows us to see that an “addressee” reading of the dative phrase is
indeed available.) The unavailability of an “agent” reading of the dative phrase is
quite puzzling if syoomeisu-ru ‘to prove’ and sengensu-ru ‘to announce’ are regular
transitive verbs. However, syoomeisu-ru is a pseudo-ditransitive verb, optionally taking
a ni-marked “recipient”, as in (67a). Similarly, sengensu-ru is a “verb of speaking”,
which optionally takes a ni-marked “addressee”, as shown in (67b).

(67) a. Bengosi ga saibankan ni hikoku no muzitu o syoomeisi-ta.

lawyer NOM judge DAT defendant GEN innocence ACC prove-PST
‘The lawyer proved the defendant’s innocence to the judge.’

b. Gityoo ga sensyutati ni kaikai o sengensi-ta.

chairman NOM players DAT opening ACC announce-PST
‘The chairman announced the opening (of the event) to the players.’

The unavailability of “agent” interpretations of the dative phrase is in fact a general

property of (pseudo)-ditransitive passives when the “theme” occupies the subject
position (Ishizuka 2010a, 2012: 64–75). Furthermore, in ditransitive passives the “theme”
cannot cross over two arguments − the “goal” and the dative by-phrase, as shown
below:

(68) a. *Tomodati ga Ken ni (kinoo) Naomi ni syookais-are-ta.

friend NOM Ken DAT yesterday Naomi DAT introduce-PASS-PST
int. ‘A friend was introduced by Ken to Naomi (yesterday).’

b. *Hikoku no muzitu ga bengosi ni (hootei de)

defendant GEN innocence NOM lawyer DAT court LOC
saibankan ni syoomei-s-are-ta.
judge DAT prove-do-PASS-PST
int. ‘The defendant’s innocence was proved by a lawyer to the judge
(at the court).’
 The passive voice 441

Significantly, unacceptability of these passives is not due to repeated uses of ni-

phrases, since the same phenomenon occurs in passives containing a verb licensing
a “source” and a “theme”. (69b) is a passive counterpart of (69a), whose gram-
matical subject corresponds to the “source” gap. (69c) shows that the “theme”
cannot move to the subject position crossing over two arguments – the source and
the dative by-phrase (see also Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976: 218, who first
noted the same phenomenon):

(69) a. Hanako ga Naomi kara koibito o nusun-da.

Hanako NOM Naomi ABL lover ACC steal-PST
‘Hanako stole the boyfriend from Naomi.’

b. Naomi ga Hanako ni koibito o nusum-are-ta.

Naomi NOM Hanako DAT lover ACC steal-PASS-PST
‘Naomi had her boyfriend stolen by Hanako.’

c. *Koibito ga Hanako ni Naomi kara nusum-are-ta.

lover NOM Hanako DAT Naomi ABL steal-PASS-PST
lit. ‘The boyfriend was stolen from Naomi by Hanako.’

In short, it is impossible to raise the “theme” over “goal” or “source” when the
dative by-phrase is present. This kind of minimality effect is exactly what a raising
analysis predicts.
In this section, I have introduced two of the arguments Ishizuka (2012) presented
in favor of a movement analysis of direct and indirect passives. Further, the discus-
sions so far have demonstrated that some well-known puzzles or inconsistent behavior
of the passive now directly follow from the movement analysis of the passive.

6 Conclusions and remaining issues

This chapter has reviewed the traditional analyses of Japanese passives and a new
unified raising analysis proposed by Ishizuka (2010a, 2012). The latter analysis
assumes that –(r)are has an edge feature that attracts a VP to its specifier, which
brings the internal argument closer to the subject position than the logical subject
of the main verb (cf. Collins 2005). Consistent with the idea of modularity of grammar,
the very rich phenomenon of Japanese passives is brought about by the properties of
–(r)are interacting with some general properties of Japanese (i.e. the subject require-
ment in the matrix clause, lack of expletives, disappearance of Case-markers under
movement, availability of possessor raising). Ishizuka’s (2010a, 2012) proposal differs
from previous approaches in that the source of the grammatical subject is not
442 Tomoko Ishizuka

restricted to the direct object but encompasses the genitive and various obliques
including the ablative and the dative.
There is a large body of literature on Japanese passives, and I was unable to
cover all the instances of indirect passives previously discussed. However, if all the
cases reviewed in this chapter are indeed passives involving movement, it should
not be very difficult to extend the NP-movement analysis to other cases. Needless to
say, many more properties need to be reexamined and accounted for, especially the
necessity of supportive context and individual variability in terms of accepting (34)-
type gapless passives. Further, the literature reviewed in this chapter introduces new
generalizations – (i) in ditransitive passives, the “theme” cannot be raised over the
“goal” or “source” when the dative by-phrase is overt; and (ii) the interpretation of
the dative phrase in (pseudo-)ditransitive passives is generally interpreted as “goal”
but not as “agent”. The question of how to derive these properties remains to
be accounted for. We have also observed that verbs like nak-u ‘cry’ indeed impose
animacy constraints on the grammatical subject of the passive. Understanding the
fine structure of these verbs licensing the dative “cause” is needed to account for
the attested animacy effect with the passive.
Nevertheless, identifying a gap corresponding to the grammatical subject in
indirect passives is an essential step in order to analyze –(r)are as a true passive
morpheme that never introduces an argument, which is consistent with what is
considered a universal property of the passive voice. Furthermore, the new raising
analysis brings the passive voice in Japanese much closer to those in Western lan-
guages, questioning the adequacy of the current bifurcated view.

Acknowledgments
This chapter is based on my UCLA dissertation. I am grateful to many linguists who
have supported this project, especially to Hilda Koopman, Dominique Sportiche,
Anoop Mahajan, Andrew Simpson, and to the native speakers who provided me
with grammaticality judgments. Further, many thanks to two anonymous reviewers
for insightful feedback.

References
Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT: Univer-
sity of Connecticut dissertation.
Alfonso, Anthony. 1971. On the “adversative” passive. The Journal–Newsletter of the Association of
Teachers of Japanese 7(1). 1–7.
Ariji, Kenichi. 2006. A unique feature of direct passive in Japanese. In Werner Abraham and Larisa
Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (Typological studies in Language
68), 403–440. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 The passive voice 443

Baltin, Mark and Paul M. Postal. 1996. More on reanalysis hypotheses. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1). 127–
145.
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation
of grammatical relations, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay
Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvin Bromberger,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8. 81–120.
Davison, Alice. 1980. Peculiar passives. Language 56(1). 42–66.
Goro, Takuya. 2006. A minimalist analysis of Japanese passives. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist
essays, 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fukuda, Shinichiro. 2009. Two by-phrases in Japanese passives. In William McClure and Marcel den
Dikken (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 18, 253–265. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1973. Counter equi-NP deletion. Annual Bulletin 7 of the Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 113–147. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Hasegawa, Kinsuke. 1964. Nihongo bunpō shiron [An essay on Japanese grammar]. Gengobunka 1.
3–46.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1988. Passive, verb raising, and the affectedness condition. Proceedings of the
7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 99–113.
Heycock, Caroline. 1993. Syntactic predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2. 167–
211.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Facets of case: On the nature of the double-o constraint. In Yukio Otsu (ed.),
Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Psycholinguistics Conference. 139–163. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Hoji, Hajime. 2008. Reconstruction effects in passive and scrambling in Japanese. In Mutsuko E.
Hudson, Peter Sells, and Sun-Ah Jun (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Japanese/Korean Linguistics
Conference. 152–166.
Hornstein, Nobert and Amy Weinberg. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic
Inquiry 12(1). 55–91.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1991. The generalized projection principle and its implications for passive construc-
tions. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 13. 53–89.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994. Passive, causative, and light verbs: A study on theta role assignment. Storrs,
CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1999. Passives. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics.
191–235. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Howard, Irwin and Agnes M. Niyekawa-Howard. 1976. Passivization. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.),
Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, 201–237. New York: Academic Press.
Huang, James C.-T. 1999. Chinese passives in comparative perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese
Studies 29(4). 423–509.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei-bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2009. CNPC violations and possessor raising in Japanese. Proceedings of the
2nd International Conference on East Asian Linguistics. http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/
linguistics/Gradlings/SFUWPL/Ishizuka_T.pdf
444 Tomoko Ishizuka

Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2010a. Toward a unified analysis of the passive in Japanese: A cartographic
minimalist approach. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2010b. Alienable-inalienable asymmetry in Japanese and Korean possession. Pro-
ceedings of the 33rd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/
vol16/iss1/11/
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2011. The genitive passive in Japanese: What does a modular approach tell us?
Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, 107–122.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2012. The passive in Japanese: A cartographic minimalist approach. (Linguistik
Aktuell/Linguistics Today 192). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 587–622.
Kameshima, Nanako. 1989. The syntax of restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses, in Japanese.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin dissertation.
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2001. The passive voice. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard Konig, Wulf Oester-
reicher, Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international
handbook 2, 899–916. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Silent years, silent hours. Movement and silence (Oxford Studies in Com-
parative Syntax). 241–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, Edward L. and Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy
Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the
lexicon, 325–361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kinsui, Satoshi. 1997. The influence of translation on the historical development of the Japanese
passive construction. Journal of Pragmatics 28(6). 759–779.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst dissertation.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. and S.-Y. Kuroda. 1992. Passive in Japanese. Indiana University and University
of California, San Diego, unpublished manuscript.
Kubo, Miori. 1992. Japanese passives. Working Papers of the Department of Language and Culture
23. 231–302. Hokkaido: University of Hokkaido
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Shin nihon bunpō kenkyū [New studies in Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuno, Susumu. 1986. Ukemi bun-no imi: Kuroda setsu-no sai-hihan [The meaning of passive sentences:
a reply to Kuroda] Nihongogaku 5. 70–87.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. On Japanese passives. In George Bedell, Eichi Kobayashi and Masatake Muraki
(eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, 305–347. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1985. Ukemi nitsuite no Kuno setsu o kaishaku suru: Hitotsu no han-hihan [Recon-
sideration of Kuno’s account of passives: A rebuttal]. Nihongogaku 4. 69–76.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12, 1–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107(1-2). 1–37.
Makino, Seiichi. 1972. Adverbial scope and the passive construction in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics
5(1). 73–98.
Makino, Seiichi. 1973. The passive construction in Japanese. In Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov
Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, and Sol Saporta. (eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of
Henry and Renee Kahane, 588–605. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
 The passive voice 445

Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2002. Linking arguments to phrase structure: A study of passives, psych verbs,
and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Montréal: McGill University dissertation.
McCawley, Noriko Akatsuka. 1972. On the treatment of Japanese passives. In Paul M. Peranteau,
Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares (eds.), Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of Chicago
Linguistic Society, 256–270.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case marking in Japanese (Syntax and semantics 22). New
York: Academic Press.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2008. The syntax and semantics of floating numeral quantifiers. In Shigeru Miya-
gawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 289–319. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Oehrle, Richard T. and Hiroko Nishio. 1981. Adversity. In Ann K. Farmer and Chisato Kitagawa (eds.),
Coyote Papers: Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese Linguistics 2. 163–93.
Oshima, David Y. 2006. Adversity and Korean/Japanese passives: Constructional analogy. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 15(2). 137–166.
Park, Sang Doh and John Whitman. 2003. Direct movement passives in Korean and Japanese.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. 307–321.
Perlmutter, David M. 1973. Evidence for the cycle in Japanese. Annual Bulletin 7 of the Research
Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, 187–210. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Postal, Paul M. 1970. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt.
Postal, Paul M. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: SUNY Press.
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. Deriving adversity. Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, 399–410.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1972. Remarks on the controversy over the Japanese passive. Papers in
Japanese Linguistics 1. 145–166.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53(4). 789–809.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki: Seisei bunpō no hōhō [An analysis of Japanese:
The method of generative grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis. Language
61(4). 821–848.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and
adversative passives. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society
20. 461–486.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2000. Boisu [Voice]. In Takashi Masuoka (ed.), Bun no kokkaku, (Nihongo no
bunpō 1). 117–186. Tokyo: Iwanami.
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Prashant Pardeshi. 2002. The causative continuum. In Masayoshi Shibatani
(ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (Typological Studies in Lan-
guage 48), 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, dissertation.
Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no sintakusu I [Japanese syntax]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger and Zubizarreta, Mari Luisa. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable
constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4). 595–652.
Van Riemsdijk, Henk C. and Edwin B. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar (Current
studies in linguistics series). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
446 Tomoko Ishizuka

Washio, Ryuichi. 1989. The Japanese passive. The Linguistic Review 6. 227–263.
Washio, Ryuichi. 1993. When causatives mean passive: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 2. 45–90.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Case absorption and wh-agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wierzbieka, Anna. 1979. Are grammatical categories vague or polysemous? (The Japanese adversa-
tive passive in a typological context). Research on language and social interaction 12(1-2). 111–
162.
Hideki Kishimoto
12 Case Marking

1 Introduction
The main objective of this chapter is to show how nominals are case-marked in
Japanese. Case marking is one kind of referencing apparatus used to specify the
grammatical roles of arguments, which are largely determined by the properties of
the predicates. Needless to say, there are a number of conceivable devices that could
be utilized to specify grammatical relations. Some commonly-used coding mecha-
nisms, which make the efficient retrieval of the grammatical relations of arguments
possible, include case marking (grammatical marking appearing with nominals,
which could be realized as part of inflection, an adposition, or a particle), agreement
(cross-referencing system marked on predicates), and word order. Among these
options, Japanese makes use of (postnominal) case marking.
In point of fact, in Japanese, morphological case marking is the sole reliable
means of signaling the grammatical relations of arguments, because the language
has no person/number/gender agreement that appears on verbs (except an optional
honorific marking that can be treated as a kind of agreement), and word order
cannot be used to identify the grammatical relations (mainly due to the presence of
a reordering operation often called ‘scrambling’). Even though the grammatical
functions of arguments are coded morphologically by means of postnominal case
markers in Japanese, the relationship between the two is not always straightforward.
Thus, it is important to have a proper understanding of how case marking (on
nominals) is regulated in Japanese grammar.
Japanese has several different kinds of particles, including case, adverbial, and
sentence-final particles, which can be distinguished according to their function and
distribution. Among them, case particles play an important role in designating the
grammatical relations of arguments. In Japanese generative grammar, it is commonly
assumed that case markers are divided into two groups, more or less reflecting the
argument/adjunct distinction. The first group of postnominal case markers is called
‘case marker’ or ‘syntactic case marker’, and the other ‘postposition’ or ‘semantic
case marker’. In traditional Japanese grammar, by contrast, these two kinds of particles
are generally not distinguished: both types of particles are assigned the label kaku
joshi (case particles), regardless of whether they fall into the class of syntactic case
markers or semantic case markers.
Despite the fact that case marking plays a pivotal role in encoding the gram-
matical relations of arguments, Japanese has only a handful of simple postnominal
particles. While syntactic case markers mark arguments bearing core grammatical rela-
tions like subject, direct object, and indirect object, semantic case markers encode

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-013
448 Hideki Kishimoto

fixed semantic relations, such as instrument, direction, location/place, time, material,

and manner, as shown in Table 1.1

Table 1: Types of Case Markers

Syntactic case marker ga (NOM), o (ACC), ni (DAT), no (GEN)

Semantic case marker de (INS)/(PLC) instrument, means, reason, material,

manner, location, etc.
ni (LOC) location/goal, time
kara (ABL) source
e (DIR) destination, direction
made (GOAL) goal
to (COM)/(QUOT) comitative, quote

The basic case-marking patterns of arguments are determined by the semantic prop-
erties of predicates. While nominals with syntactic case markers (nominative, accu-
sative, dative) are often amenable to syntactic operations affecting their grammatical
relations (such as passivization), nominals with semantic case markers (such as kara
‘from’, made ‘up to’, and the like) are not. These properties are correlated with the
argument/adjunct distinction, but it is also true that the distinction of argument
versus adjunct cannot be determined solely on the basis of particular morphological
forms. This is largely due to the fact that most, if not all, basic markers are polyse-
mous or homonymous, and have multiple functions. One and the same morphologi-
cal marker can often mark both arguments and adjuncts; e.g. ni marking can be
used in a number of different ways, since it can serve as a dative, locative, direc-
tional, or goal marker.
This chapter provides a bird’s-eye view of how nominals are case-marked in
various clauses. The discussion proceeds as follows. Section 2 discusses the case-
marking patterns in basic clauses, including intransitive, transitive, and ditransitive
clauses. Section 3 illustrates some case-marking alternations made available by
grammatical operations. It is suggested in section 4 that the nominative-case con-
straint is operative when tense participates in Case valuation. A conclusion, together
with further research perspectives, is presented in section 5.

1 Besides simple postnominal markers, Japanese has a number of complex postpositions resulting
from grammaticalization of combined nominal markers and verbs or combined nouns and nominal
markers (Kishimoto, Kageyama and Sasaki 2015). The first class of complex postpositions include
nitaisite ‘toward, against’ (< ni + taisi-te ‘LOC + face-GER’), nitotte ‘for’ (< ni + tot-te ‘LOC + take-GER’),
nisotte ‘along’ (< ni + sot-te ‘LOC + parallel-GER’), and nikansite ‘concerning’ (< ni + kansi-te ‘LOC +
concern-GER’). The second class includes hooni ‘in the direction of’ (< hoo + ni ‘direction + LOC’) and
tameni ‘for the benefit of’ (< tame + ni ‘benefit + for’).
 Case Marking 449

2 Case Marking in Basic Clauses

In simple clauses, the case marking patterns of nominals are largely determined by
the type of predicate. In this section, I will provide an overview of how verbal argu-
ments are marked in basic clauses.

2.1 Transitive and Intransitive Clauses

Let us begin by illustrating the basic case-marking patterns observed in transitive
and intransitive clauses. Japanese is a nominative-accusative language. Thus, it is a
general rule that the subject of a transitive verb is treated in the same way as the
subject of an intransitive verb, and differently from the direct object of a transitive
verb in their case marking, as seen in (1).

(1) a. Ken ga kono kodomo o sikat-ta.

Ken NOM this child ACC scold-PST
‘Ken scolded this child.’

b. Ken ga hasit-ta.
Ken NOM run-PST
‘Ken ran.’

In a transitive clause like (1a), the subject is marked with nominative case, and
an object with accusative case, displaying the case-marking pattern <NOM, ACC>. In
(1b), the sole argument (i.e. the subject) of an intransitive verb is marked with
nominative case, taking the case pattern <NOM>.2
While <NOM, ACC> is the unmarked case-marking pattern for transitive verbs,
there are cases where transitive verbs take other case-marking patterns. In particular,
stative predicates allow a number of different case-marking patterns (see e.g. Kuno
1973). Potential verbs, which carry stative meanings, can be productively formed via
suffixing non-stative verbs with the potential –e or –(r)are. As seen in (3), a derived

2 When a fuku joshi (an adverbial particle) is added to an argument, its case marking often does not
appear on the surface, but there are cases where a case marker can be overtly manifested even in the
presence of an adverbial particle, as in (i).
(i) Ken ga sono hon (o) mo yon-da.
Ken NOM that book ACC also read-PST
‘Ken also read that book.’
This shows that arguments are case-marked even when a case marker is suppressed by virtue of an
adverbial particle.
450 Hideki Kishimoto

stative predicate like uta-e-ru ‘can sing’ allows its subject to bear either dative or
nominative case.

(2) a. Ken ga sono uta {o/ga} uta-e-ru.

Ken NOM that song {ACC/NOM} sing-POTEN-PRS
‘Ken can sing that song.’

b. Ken ni sono uta {ga/*o} uta-e-ru.

Ken DAT that song {NOM/*ACC} sing-POTEN-PRS
‘Ken can sing that song.’

When the subject has nominative case, as in (2a), the object can be marked with
either accusative or nominative case. When the subject is marked with dative case,
as in (2b), the object can only be marked with nominative case. The impossibility of
accusative case marking on the object in (2b) is due to the so-called ‘nominative-
case’ constraint, i.e. the requirement that a finite clause must have at least one
nominative argument (Shibatani 1978).3 Note that the potential verb uta-e-ru ‘can
sing’ in (2) allows accusative marking on its object, which is possible with non-
stative transitive verbs, because the base verb is non-stative and carries an inten-
tional meaning (Makino 1975–76). A simple verb like wakaru ‘understand’ can also
take the same case-marking patterns as derived potential predicates, owing to the
fact that the verb can be either stative or non-stative (Sugioka 1986).
In (1a) and (2a, b), the arguments appearing in the initial position (in unmarked
word order) are construed as subjects, regardless of whether they are marked with
dative or nominative case. This can be confirmed by the two major subject diagnostics
of reflexivization and subject honorification. First, the examples in (3) show that
despite a difference in case-marking pattern, the reflexive zibun ‘self’ can take the
initial argument as its antecedent (Shibatani 1978; Kishimoto 2004).

(3) a. Keni ga kodomo o zibuni no heya de sikat-ta.

Ken NOM child ACC self GEN room PLC scold-PST
‘Ken scolded the child in his own room.’

b. Marii ni zibuni no uta ga uta-e-ta.

Mari DAT self GEN song NOM sing-POTEN-PST
‘Mari could sing her own song.’

c. Marii ga zibuni no uta {ga/o} uta-e-ta.

Mari NOM self GEN song {NOM/ACC} sing-POTEN-PST
‘Mari could sing her own song.’

3 Even though the nominative-case constraint applies to many types of clauses, there are certain
contexts where it does not apply (Kuroda 1978; Shibatani 1978; see also section 4).
 Case Marking 451

The examples in (4) show that the initial arguments can be targeted for subject
honorification, whether they are marked with nominative or dative case (Harada
1976a; Hasegawa 2006).

(4) a. Sensei ga kodomo o o-sikari-ni-nat-ta.

teacher NOM child ACC HON-scold-DAT-become-PST
‘The teacher scolded the child.’

b. Sensei ni sono uta ga o-utai-ni-nar-e-ru.

teacher DAT that song NOM HON-sing-DAT-become-POTEN-PRS
‘The teacher can sing that song.’

c. Sensei ga sono uta {ga/o} o-utai-ni-nar-e-ru.

teacher NOM that song {NOM/ACC} HON-sing-DAT-become-POTEN-PRS
‘The teacher can sing that song.’

Since both subject honorification and reflexivization have subject orientation, it can
be stated that the initial nominative and dative arguments serve as subjects.4
Intransitive potential predicates, unlike transitive potential predicates, do not
display varying case-marking patterns. In the potential class of intransitive verbs
(with no objects or path arguments), the subject must appear in the nominative
case, while excluding the dative case.

4 In generative grammar, it is generally assumed that subjects are merged with vP, where they
receive their theta roles and are raised to Spec-TP if T has an EPP requirement. If so, there is the
possibility that subject diagnostics pick out subject arguments located in either Spec-TP or Spec-vP.
Kishimoto (2010, 2012) shows that obliquely-marked subjects reside in Spec-vP without raising to
Spec-TP, but can be the target of reflexivization and subject honorification. Furthermore, the following
examples also suggest that they can target subjects that do not reside in Spec-TP.
(i) a. Sensei ga [Hanako o zibun no heya de hatarak]-ase-ta.
teacher NOM Hanako ACC self GEN room at work-CAUS-PST
(lit.) ‘The teacher made Hanako work at self’s room.’
b. Watasi wa [Abe-sensei o totemo o-kinodoku] omo-u.
1.SG TOP Abe-teacher ACC very HON-pitiful think-PRS
‘I feel very sorry about Prof. Abe.’
In the causative construction (ia), the embedded clause does not include tense (see Saito 2009), but
the causee Hanako (as well as the causer sensei ‘the teacher’) can be the antecedent of zibun. In (ib),
the embedded subject is targeted for subject honorification, even if it appears in the small clause,
which does not comprise a tense element (Takezawa 1987). Given that subject honorification and
reflexivization can pick out subject arguments residing in clauses which lack tense, it is reasonable
to assume that they are operations targeting a subject argument in Spec-vP (or its copy left there by
virtue of movement) (see Kishimoto 2010, 2011; Saito 2009).
452 Hideki Kishimoto

(5) Kono hito {ga/*ni} hatarak-e-ru.

this person {NOM/*DAT} work-POTEN-PRS
‘This person can work.’

The obligatory nominative marking on the subject of the intransitive potential verb
may be attributed to the nominative-case constraint. The subject must be marked
with nominative case in (5); otherwise (5) is excluded as ungrammatical on the
grounds that no nominative argument appears in the clause.
Note that the transitive frame of <NOM, ACC> is superficially associated with
intransitive verbs of locomotion such as noboru ‘climb’, aruku ‘walk’, and korogaru
‘roll’, where the accusative argument indicates a traversal path.

(6) a. Ken ga yama-miti o nobot-ta.

Ken NOM mountain-path ACC climb-PST
‘Ken climbed the mountain path.’

b. Ken ni yama-miti ga nobor-e-ta.

Ken DAT mountain-path NOM climb-POTEN-PST
‘Ken was able to climb the mountain path.’

It is controversial whether the traversal path in the accusative case is an argument

or an adjunct (Haig 1981). Note, however, that when an intransitive predicate taking
an accusative path argument is turned into a potential predicate, the case-marking
pattern <DAT, NOM>, where the subject is marked with dative case, is made available
if the path argument is realized with nominative case.
Besides potential predicates derived from non-stative verbs with the suffixation
of the potential affix, there is a set of simple stative predicates taking dative subjects
and nominative objects, which often allow the initial dative case to be changed to
nominative case, as in (7).

(7) Ken {ni/ga} sono hon ga hituyoo-da.

Ken {DAT/NOM} that book NOM necessary-PRS
‘Ken needs that book.’

The class of dative-subject predicates that allow nominative case as an alternative

subject marker for their dative subjects includes predicates expressing perception
(e.g. mieru ‘see’), necessity (e.g. hituyoo-da ‘necessary’), potentiality (e.g. kanoo-da
‘possible’), existence (e.g. aru ‘be (inanimate)’, iru ‘be (animate)’), and the like (see
Shibatani 2001). These predicates, which carry only stative meanings, cannot take
the case-marking pattern of <NOM, ACC>.
 Case Marking 453

Up to this point, I have illustrated the basic case-marking patterns of transitive

and intransitive clauses. The question to be raised here is how the case marking
patterns for ordinary transitive verbs as well as variable case markings for transitive
potential verbs are licensed. In the following discussion, I will discuss how case
marking is licensed syntactically from the theoretical perspective of implementing
Case valuation.
To begin with, it is commonly assumed in generative grammar that structural
Case is necessary for a DP, i.e. an argument without a postposition, to occur in a
clause.5 As often discussed, T can be assumed to be the Case licenser of a nomina-
tive argument, with the transitive light verb v being the licenser of accusative Case
(see e.g. Pesetsky and Torrego 2001; Chomsky 2000, 2001). Given the premise that T
(carrying the formal feature [NOM]) values an initially unvalued Case feature as
nominative, and v (carrying [ACC]) as accusative, it is easy to see that the transitive
case-marking pattern is licensed when the Case features on arguments are valued,
as in (8).

(8) [[SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] [OBJ[Case: ] V] v[ACC] T[NOM]]

→ [Case: ACC]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ

In (8), v values the Case feature on the object as accusative, and T values the Case
feature on the subject as nominative under c-command. The derivation is legitimate,
since all the grammatical features can be deleted after Case valuation, i.e. no gram-
matical features remain that make the derivation crash. This is the regular option of
Case valuation for transitive predicates, and thus, clauses with transitive predicates
in unmarked cases display a <NOM, ACC> case-marking pattern.
With transitive stative predicates, v sometimes does not value a Case feature on
a nominal and thus, different case-marking patterns emerge. In cases where transi-
tive stative predicates are derived by the addition of the potential affix, it can be
assumed that the Case feature [ACC] on the transitive v is absorbed by the affix
optionally. This would be a reasonable assumption, given that the potential affix
has a morphological affinity with the passive marker, and induces a case-marking
change similar to one effected in passive constructions (see e.g. Shibatani 1985;
Jacobsen 1992; Hasegawa 1988). On the other hand, with simple stative verbs like

5 There are many different proposals on the Case-licensing system. In the early days of Japanese
generative grammar, case marking was assigned to arguments via transformational rules. In the
Government and Binding Theory, it was generally assumed that structural Case is assigned to argu-
ments under certain syntactic configurations: T assigns nominative Case to an argument appearing
in Spec-TP, V assigns accusative Case to its complement, etc. (Chomsky 1981, 1986). In the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004), Case valuation rather than Case assignment is used as a
tool for Case-licensing arguments.
454 Hideki Kishimoto

wakaru ‘understand’, which take varying case-marking patterns, their light v carries
the Case feature [ACC] optionally. (With adjectival predicates like hituyoo-da ‘neces-
sary’, their associated light predicate does not carry [ACC], and hence they do not
take a <NOM, ACC> case-marking pattern).
When transitive v associated with potential predicates carries [ACC], the case-
marking pattern <NOM, ACC> is derived by invoking the regular transitive Case-
valuation process depicted in (8). On the other hand, when transitive v does not
carry [ACC], the following derivations can be posited, given that T carrying either
[DAT, NOM] or [NOM] values the Case features on arguments (see e.g. Takezawa
1987, 1998; Koizumi 1994, 2008; see also section 4).

(9) a. [[SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: DAT] [OBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] V]v] T[DAT, NOM]]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ

b. [[SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] [OBJ[Case: V]v] T[NOM]]

] → [Case: NOM]
↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ

In (9a), the Case feature on the subject is valued as dative, and the Case feature on
the object is valued as nominative, which gives rise to the <DAT, NOM> case-marking
pattern. If the subject is valued as nominative rather than dative, as in (9b), the
sentence has a <NOM, NOM> case-marking pattern. The derivation in (9b) involves a
multiple Agree operation, in which T[NOM] values more than one Case feature (Hiraiwa
2000b, 2005).
When an argument carries structural Case feature, what head is used for Case
valuation is determined according to the syntactic context in which the argument
appears. Thus, the kind of syntactic case marker with which the argument is asso-
ciated – i.e. its morphological case marking – could differ even when its semantic
relation does not vary. This means that in the case of an argument with structural
Case, there is no strict correlation obtained between the semantic role that it
assumes and the morphological case marking. By contrast, an argument bearing a
semantic case marker (e.g. kara ‘from’, e ‘to, de ‘at’, or to ‘with’) has a fixed semantic
relation, because the semantic case marker serves as a postposition which deter-
mines both semantic role and case relation of the argument. Specifically, when a
nominal occurs with a postposition, forming a PP as a whole, the Case feature on
the nominal is valued by the postposition (but not an independent element outside).
At the same time, the postposition assigns a theta role to the nominal. Accordingly,
when a postpositional nominal (PP) is involved, there is a one-to-one correspon-
dence between the kind of semantic case marker appearing on the argument and
the thematic role that it assumes.
 Case Marking 455

The fact that the case-marking patterns of stative predicates taking two argu-
ments, i.e. experiencer and theme, differ from those of non-stative transitive pre-
dicates leads to a debate over whether the two-argument stative predicates are
construed as intransitive predicates with no object or transitive predicates with an
object. In traditional Japanese grammar, nominative-marked arguments are often
analyzed uniformly as subjects (Hashimoto 1969; Onoe 1997–1998; and others), and
under this analysis, there is no possibility that they are categorized as transitive
verbs.6 There is also a view that considers the second nominative theme argument
of a two-argument stative predicate to have a grammatical relation different from
subject or object (Tokieda 1950). In Japanese generative grammar, on the other
hand, the possibility of marking objects with nominative case is widely acknowl-
edged, and the dyadic stative verbs are often treated as transitive predicates with
nominative objects (Kuno 1973; Takezawa 1987, 1998; Kuno and Johnson 2005;
Koizumi 2008; and others).
Under the view espoused in this chapter, nominative Case is licensed by T, but it
is worth noting at this point that in the literature on Japanese, there are two major
claims about where nominative marking on objects comes from: On the one hand,
Kuno (1973, 1978) and Tada (1992) claim that the stativity of predicates determines
the choice of case marking on the objects; on the other hand, Takezawa (1987,
1998), Koizumi (1994, 1995, 1998), Kishimoto (2001b), and Takahashi (2010) take T
(or a functional category associated with it) as responsible for nominative mark-
ing (see also Koizumi 2008). (For some other proposals on the structures and the
scope properties of potential predicates, as well as the licensing of their varying
case-marking patterns, see e.g. Sugioka 1986; Sano 1985; Ura 1999; Takano 2003;
Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2007.)

2.2 Other Two-Place Predicates

In Japanese, there are a number of two-place predicates displaying non-typical case-
marking patterns; some predicates show marked behavior belonging to special
classes, and others behave differently from regular ones, by taking arguments with
semantic case markers. In this section, I will briefly discuss some examples.
First, transitive verbs most typically take a <NOM, ACC> case-marking pattern, but
some transitive predicates mark their object with dative rather than accusative case,
giving rise to a <NOM, DAT> case pattern, as illustrated in (10).

6 Needless to say, there are some other ways of characterizing subjects that have been proposed by
traditional Japanese grammarians (see e.g. Matsushita 1928; Yamada 1936; Kitahara 1981). It is also
worth noting that some Japanese grammarians (e.g. M. Watanabe 1971) do not assign special status
to subjects, and others (e.g. Mikami 1953) deny the relevance of the notion of subject to Japanese
grammar.
456 Hideki Kishimoto

(10) Sono kodomo ga hahaoya ni ni-te i-ru.

that child NOM mother DAT resemble-GER be-PRS
‘That child resembles his mother.’

The case frame <NOM, DAT> is used for symmetric verbs like niru ‘resemble’ and au
‘meet’, and also verbs denoting abstract states, such as naru ‘become’ and ataru
‘correspond to’.7
Secondly, while non-verbal predicates normally do not allow accusative marking
on their object, there is a special group of stative adjective predicates, such as
suki-da ‘like’, which can assign accusative case, as well as nominative case, to their
object.

(11) Mari ga kare {ga/o} suki-da.

Mari NOM he {NOM/ACC} fond-PRS
‘Mari likes him.’

The class of predicates marking the object with accusative as well as nominative
case includes predicates of (dis)liking (e.g. suki-da ‘be fond of’, kirai-da ‘hate’) and
wanting (e.g. hosii ‘want’). (Note that these predicates do not allow their subjects to
be marked with dative case.)
Thirdly, adjectival predicates like sinsetu-da ‘kind’, yasasii ‘gentle’, isogasii
‘busy’, etc., take a dative complement, showing a <NOM, DAT> case pattern, which
differs from the <DAT, NOM> case pattern available for predicates taking a dative
subject.

(12) Ken ga kodomo ni amakat-ta.

Ken NOM child DAT indulgent-PST
‘Ken was indulgent to children.’

In (12), amai ‘indulgent’ does not take a dative subject. Rather, with this predicate,
the nominative argument serves as a subject, and the dative argument a comple-
ment. This fact can be confirmed by applying the subject tests of reflexivization and
subject honorification, as in (13).

7 The ni-marked arguments in this class of verbs cannot be promoted to subjects by direct passiviza-
tion.
(i) *Hahaoya ga sono ko ni ni-rare-te i-ru.
mother NOM that child DAT resemble-PASS-GER be-PRS
‘His mother is resembled by that child.’
Additionally, in the case of naru ‘become’, it might be possible to view the verb as taking a clausal
complement. Under this view, ni, which appears in front of naru, can be analyzed as a preverbal
form of copula.
 Case Marking 457

(13) a. Keni ga zibuni no kodomo ni amakat-ta.

Ken NOM self GEN child DAT indulgent-PST
‘Ken was indulgent to his own children.’

b. Kimura-sensei ga gakusei ni kanari amaku-te irassyar-u.

Kimura-teacher NOM student DAT fairly indulgent-GER be.HON-PRS
‘Professor Kimura is fairly indulgent to his students.’

In (13), the nominative argument can antecede the reflexive zibun, and subject honor-
ification can target this argument. The data regarding reflexivization and subject
honorification show that the nominative experiencer serves as the subject of an
adjective predicate like amai ‘indulgent’.
Fourthly, motion predicates often take locative arguments accompanying post-
positions. Predicates like iku ‘go’, suwaru ‘sit’, and saru ‘leave’ require two arguments:
the theme (or the agent) marked with the nominative ga, and its location, which is
marked either with the locative ni (in the case of stative verbs and verbs of arrival) or
with the ablative kara (in the case of verbs of departure).

(14) a. Nimotu ga daigaku ni tui-ta.

luggage NOM university LOC arrive-PST
‘The luggage arrived at the university.’

b. Tomodati ga mati {kara/o} sat-ta.

friend NOM town {ABL/ACC} leave-PST
‘My friend left (from) the town.’

The verb saru ‘leave’ allows its source argument (specifying the point of departure)
to be marked with accusative case, instead of the ablative kara. This type of case
alternation is not allowed for the verb of arrival tuku ‘arrive’, which takes a goal
argument.
While the locative ni marks a location or a goal selected by the verb, the post-
position de marks an adjunct location regardless of the type of verb.

(15) Seito ga kyoositu de ason-da.

pupil NOM classroom PLC play-PST
‘The pupils played in the classroom.’

The locative marker de designates the place where the action or event expressed by
the predicate takes place.
Finally, predicates like hanasu ‘speak’, au ‘meet’, and niru ‘resemble’ allow their
dative complement to be marked with the comitative to as well.
458 Hideki Kishimoto

(16) Ken ga Eri {ni/to} hanasi-ta.

Ken NOM Eri {DAT/COM} talk-PST
‘Ken talked {to/with} Eri.’

The dative/comitative variation on the second argument is not regarded as signaling

a case-marking alternation, since the two variants in (16) carry distinct meanings:
the ni-variant implies that only Ken talked, but the to-variant denotes that Ken and
Eri talked with each other.

2.3 Ditransitive Clauses

Let us now move on to the discussion of the case-marking patterns of ditransitive
predicates. With ditransitive verbs denoting transfer of possession (e.g. ataeru ‘give’,
miseru ‘show’, tugeru ‘tell’, osieru ‘teach’), as well as the dressing verb kiseru ‘dress’,
the case frame <NOM, DAT, ACC> is used.

(17) Oya ga kodomo ni hon o atae-ta.

parent NOM child DAT book ACC give-PST
‘The parents gave the child the book.’

The dative argument is identified as a recipient (i.e. an animate goal) and functions
as an indirect object syntactically, because it can be promoted to subject by direct
passivization, in just the same way as a direct object, as seen in (18).

(18) a. Kodomo ga hon o atae-rare-ta.

child NOM book ACC give-PASS-PST
‘The child was given a book.’

b. Hon ga kodomo ni atae-rare-ta.

book NOM book DAT give-PASS-PST
‘A book was given to the child.’

Given that the ni-marked argument (i.e. the indirect object) of ataeru ‘give’ in (17)
may be affected by a grammatical operation, the particle ni here is construed as a
syntactic case maker, which represents dative case.8
Owing to the fact that ni can be either a dative or a locative case marker, the
ditransitive case frame superficially looks identical to the case frame <NOM, LOC,
ACC> for verbs designating a change of location (e.g. hakobu ‘carry’, okuru ‘send’,
oku ‘put’).

8 Under the standard split vP analysis, it can be assumed that v values the Case feature on the
indirect object of a ditransitive verb as dative, since the indirect object is included in the lower VP
projection (Chomsky 1995).
 Case Marking 459

(19) Ken ga itiba {ni/e} hako o hakon-da.

Ken NOM market {LOC/DIR} box ACC carry-PST
‘Ken carried the boxes to the market.’

Unlike the dative possessor arguments with verbs of transfer of possession, the loca-
tive arguments of the change-of-location verbs are not promoted to subjects by direct
passivization, as (20) shows (Kishimoto 2001c; Miyagawa and Tsujioka 2004).

(20) *Itiba ga hako o hakob-are-ta.

market NOM box ACC carry-PASS-PST
‘The market was carried the boxes.’

The locative ni appearing on the argument itiba ‘market’ in (19) indicates a specific
semantic relation, and thus, is identified as a semantic case marker. Note also that
the locative ni marking on the goal arguments of change-of-location verbs can often
be replaced with other locative markers (such as e ‘to, toward’), as in (19).
Morphological ni marking can be either a dative case marker (as in ataeru ‘give’)
or a postposition (as in hokobu ‘carry’). When ni represents dative case, a question
arises as to how it is sanctioned. Given that the dative argument of ataeru ‘give’,
just like its accusative argument, can be promoted to a subject by direct passiviza-
tion, as seen in (18), it is reasonable to postulate that ditransitive v carries [DAT]
as well as [ACC], and values the Case features on the two internal arguments, as
depicted in (21).

(21) [. . . IO[Case: ] → [Case: DAT] DO[Case: V-v[DAT, ACC] . . .]

] → [Case: ACC]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ

In (21), the Case feature on the indirect object appearing to the left of the direct
object is valued as dative, and the direct object as accusative. The derivation in (21)
is legitimate, because all the grammatical features can be deleted as a consequence
of Case valuation. Note that the Case feature on the indirect object is valued as
dative by v, and this stands in contrast with the Case feature of dative subjects,
which is valued by T (see section 4).
Finally, observe that an interesting case-marking pattern is found with ‘receiving’
verbs of transfer of possession, such as narau ‘learn’, morau ‘receive’, and sazukaru
‘be given/endowed’. With these predicates, their source argument can be marked
not only with the expected ablative kara but also with the dative ni.

(22) Ken ga ano sensei {kara/ni} suugaku o narat-ta.

Ken NOM that teacher {ABL/DAT} mathematics ACC learn-PST
‘Ken learned mathematics from that teacher.’
460 Hideki Kishimoto

When transfer of possession is expressed by a ditransitive predicate, a possessor

argument realized as an indirect object could be either a source or a goal themati-
cally but can invariably be marked with dative case. This fact suggests that the
dative case does not specify a fixed grammatical relation. The ablative/dative alter-
nation is not available for verbs of physical removal like toru ‘take’, hazusu ‘remove’,
and nusumu ‘steal’, which mark the source argument exclusively with the ablative
kara.
In the literature, there is controversy over the hierarchical position of the two
internal arguments of ditransitive predicates. For the debates on the structures of
ditransitive predicates, see Hoji (1985), Kishimoto (2001c), Miyagawa (1997), Takano
(1998, 2008), and Matsuoka (2003), among others.

2.4 Alternation of Subject Marking

In Japanese, subjects are most typically marked with nominative or dative case, but
other types of marking are sometime allowed. The examples in (23) illustrate that
nominative case on subjects can be replaced with a semantic case marker under cer-
tain condition (Nitta 1997; Inoue 1998; Kishimoto 2005, 2010).

(23) a. Watasi {ga/kara} sono koto o hanasi-ta.

1.SG {NOM/ABL} that fact ACC speak-PST
‘I talked about that matter.’

b. Kodomo-tati {ga/de} kyoositu ni atumat-ta.

child-PL {NOM/INS} classroom LOC gather-PST
‘The children gathered in the classroom.’

In (23a), the subject may be assigned ablative kara ‘from’, in lieu of nominative ga,
since it is thematically conceived as a source, as well as an agent. As seen in (23b),
the instrumental (or possibly, the locative) de may be substituted for nominative ga
on the agent subject when it refers to a group of people (Kishimoto 2005; Takubo
2010). The initial oblique arguments in (23) count as subjects syntactically regardless
of whether they are marked with kara or de, as can seen from the fact that both
kara- and de-marked arguments can be targeted for subject honorification, and
reflexive zibun ‘self’ can take them as its antecedent.9

(24) a. Sensei kara sono koto o o-hanasi-ni-nar-u.

teacher ABL that fact ACC HON-speak-DAT-become-PRS
‘The teacher will talk about that matter.’

9 There seems to be idiolectal variation in acceptability in regard to subject honorification when

subjects receive oblique marking.
 Case Marking 461

b. Sensei-tati de o-atumari-ni-nat-ta.
teacher-PL INS HON-gather-DAT-become-PST
‘The teachers got together.’

(25) a. Keni kara wa zibuni no koto o hanasa-nakat-ta.

Ken ABL TOP self GEN fact ACC speak-NEG-PST
‘Ken did not talk about his own matter.’

b. Kodomo-tatii de zibuni no nimotu o hakon-da.

child-PL INS self GEN luggage ACC carry-PST
‘The children carried their own luggage.’

In the light of the data (24) and (25), it is fair to say that the initial obliquely-marked
arguments in (23) serve as subjects syntactically, i.e. they function as subjects because
they are base-generated in Spec-vP, where the theta role of agent is assigned.
The facts of subject honorification as well as reflexivization suggest that argu-
ments can serve as subjects if they are assigned their theta role in Spec-vP regardless
of whether they have the status of DP or PP. This suggests that the grammatical rela-
tions of arguments are not affected by their syntactic status, i.e. the distinction
between DP and PP. This fact can further be verified by appeal to non-subject honor-
ification. To take just one example, a ditransitive verb like morau ‘get’ (and its
non-subject honorific form itadaku ‘get’) marks its indirect object with either dative
ni or ablative kara, and non-subject honorification targeting the indirect object argu-
ment is legitimate regardless of the choice of nominal marking, as in (26).

(26) Ken ga Ito-sensei {ni/kara} hon o itadai-ta.

Ken NOM Ito-teacher {DAT/ABL} book ACC get.HON-PST
‘Ken got a book from Prof. Ito.’

As noted by Harada (1976a), the indirect object of a ditransitive verb can be targeted
for non-subject honorification. The acceptability of (26) illustrates that an argument
located in the indirect object position qualifies as a target of non-subject honorifica-
tion regardless of whether it is construed as DP or PP.
Incidentally, de-marked nominals can be used as adjuncts, in which case they
are not constrained by the semantic condition that applies to de-marked subjects
(i.e. arguments), as in (27a).

(27) a. Keni ga zibuni de hon o kai-ta.

Ken NOM self PLC book ACC write-PST
‘Ken wrote books by himself.’
462 Hideki Kishimoto

b. {Gakusei-tati de/*Ken de} hon o kai-ta.

{student-PL INS/Ken INS} book ACC write-PST
‘{The students/Ken} wrote books.’

In (27a), Ken is the thematic subject of the verb kaku ‘write’ and zibun de ‘by one-
self’, which is used as an adjunct modifier, is coreferential with the subject. (27a) is
acceptable, despite the fact that zibun de refers to a single person Ken. By contrast,
when a de-marked phrase counts as the subject rather than an adjunct, it needs to
refer to a group of people semantically.10 Thus, in (27b), gakusei-tati de [student-PL
INS], which refers to a group of students, qualifies as the subject of the verb kaku
‘write’, but Ken de [Ken INS] does not.

2.5 Locative alternation

Japanese has other types of case alternation applying to basic clauses. For instance,
locative alternation can be instantiated by a number of verbs such as mitasu ‘fill’,
nuru ‘paint’, tirakasu ‘scatter’, and kazaru ‘decorate’, which express the meanings of
‘filling’ or ‘spreading’, as seen in (28).

(28) a. Ken ga kabe ni akai penki o nut-ta.

Ken NOM wall LOC red paint ACC paint-PST
‘Ken painted red paint on the wall.’

b. Ken ga akai penki de kabe o nut-ta.

Ken NOM red paint INS wall ACC paint-PST
‘Ken painted the wall with red paint.’

In one variant, i.e. the material-object variant, the theme receives accusative marking
while the location is marked with locative ni. In the other variant, i.e. the location-
object variant, the location is marked with accusative, and the theme with instrumental
de. Verbs with the meaning of ‘removal’ (e.g. katazukeru ‘clear’, nomi-hosu ‘drink up’)
display different case-marking patterns.

(29) a. Ken ga teeburu no ue kara syokki o katazuke-ta.

Ken NOM table GEN TOP ABL dish ACC clear-PST
‘Ken cleared the dishes from the table.’

10 Example (27b) is ruled out when the subject refers to Ken, owing to a semantic constraint. Thus,
the sentence is acceptable when the subject is replaced by a noun like sensei ‘teacher’, which can be
interpreted as referring to a group of individuals, even though the noun does not have plural marking
morphologically.
 Case Marking 463

b. Ken ga teeburu no ue o (*syokki ??) katazuke-ta.

Ken NOM table GEN TOP ACC dish ?? clear-PST
‘Ken cleared the table.’

In the variant in (29a), the theme is marked with accusative case and the source with
ablative kara. (The source can sometimes be expressed as the possessor of the
theme, as in teeburu no syokki o katazukeru [table GEN dish ACC clear] ‘clear the
dish on the table’). In the other variant in (29b), the source is marked with accusa-
tive case, but the theme must be left unexpressed in the absence of an oblique
marker that can be used for marking this argument (Kageyama 1981).11
Locative alternation verbs can take two distinct case frames because they can
express change-of-location and change-of-state meanings (Okutsu 1981; Fukui, Miya-
gawa and Tenny 1985; Kishimoto 2001a). This can be seen by the fact that com-
pounding a locative alternation verb like nuru ‘paint’ with another verb sometimes
results in impeding the locative alternation. When nuru is compounded with the
verb tukeru ‘attach’, which signifies a directional movement, the component of
lexical meaning indicating a change of state is removed from the verb nuru. Thus,
only the material-object variant is allowed for the compound verb nuri-tukeru
‘paint-attach’.

(30) a. *Ken wa akai penki de kabe o nuri-tuketa.

Ken TOP red paint with wall ACC paint-attach-PST
‘Ken painted the wall with red paint.’

b. Ken wa kabe ni akai penki o nuri-tuketa.

Ken TOP wall LOC red paint ACC paint-attach-PST
‘Ken painted red paint on the wall.’

If ageru ‘up, finish’, which denotes a completion of action, is compounded with

nuru, the meaning of motion is eliminated, which makes only the location-object
variant available for the compound verb nuri-ageru ‘paint-up’.

(31) a. Ken wa akai penki de kabe o nuri-age-ta.

Ken TOP red paint with wall ACC paint-up-PST
‘Ken painted the wall with red paint.’

11 Some locative alternation verbs have only the transitive use, but others have intransitive counter-
parts; in the case of intransitive verbs such as tirakaru ‘scatter (intr.)’ (cf. tirakasu ‘scatter (tr.)’),
the alternation takes place between nominative subjects and oblique arguments. The verb ahureru
‘overflow’ represents a rare case that can take both the case frames available for verbs of filling and
verbs of removal.
464 Hideki Kishimoto

b. *Ken wa kabe ni akai penki o nuri-age-ta.

Ken TOP wall LOC red paint ACC paint-up-PST
‘Ken painted red paint on the wall.’

The examples involving the compound verbs nuri-tukeru and nuri-ageru make it
clear that the possibility of the locative alternation is fixed on semantic grounds,
and that locative alternation verbs are ambiguous, carrying both change-of-state
and change-of-location meanings.

3 Case Marking in Complex Clauses

As discussed previously, it is generally true that the case marking patterns of argu-
ments are determined by the type of predicate (in basic clauses), but some other
case-marking patterns are instantiated in certain complex clauses. In this section, I
will discuss some representative cases.

3.1 ECM and Small-Clause Constructions

In Japanese, some case markings that are not available in basic clauses are found
in certain syntactic contexts. For example, in the exceptional case marking (ECM)
construction in (32a) and the small-clause construction in (32b), accusative case is
assigned to the embedded subject.

(32) a. Ken wa [Mari o {kawai-i/??kawaikat-ta} to] omot-ta.

Ken TOP Mari ACC {cute-PRS/cute-PST} COMP think-PST
‘Ken thought Mari to be cute.’

b. Ken wa [Mari o kawaiku] omot-te i-ru.

Ken TOP Mari ACC pretty think-GER be-PRS
‘Ken thinks Mari pretty.’

The examples in (32) show that when an adjectival predicate is embedded under a
predicate like omou ‘think’, accusative case marking may be assigned to the subject
of the embedded predicate. (Note that accusative case is not assigned to subjects in
simple clauses.) Verbs that can take ECM complements include omou ‘think’, sinziru
‘believe’, and katei-suru ‘assume’, and verbs that can select small-clause comple-
ments include omou ‘think’ and suru ‘make’.
In both ECM and small-clause constructions, the matrix predicate can be assumed
to license the accusative case marking on the embedded subjects, given that omou
‘think’ can take an accusative argument, as in sono koto o omou [that matter ACC
 Case Marking 465

think] ‘think about that matter’. Moreover, the accusative-marked arguments in these
constructions can be promoted to subjects when direct passivization applies to the
upper predicates.

(33) a. Mari ga kawai-i to omow-are-ta.

Mari NOM pretty-PRS that think-PASS-PST
‘Mari was thought to be pretty.’

b. Mari ga kawaiku omow-are-te i-ru.

Mari NOM pretty think-PASS-GER be-PRS
‘Mari is considered pretty.’

The fact suggests that in both ECM and small-clause constructions, the main predicate
licenses accusative marking on the embedded subjects. Under the present perspective,
this means that the v-head of the matrix predicate, possessing [ACC], values the Case
feature on the embedded subjects in both ECM and small-clause constructions, as
illustrated in (34) (abstracting away from irrelevant details).

(34) [TP . . . [ . . . SBJ[Case: ] . . . PRED] . . . V-v[ACC]] T]

→ [Case: ACC]
↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ

Given that the v head in the matrix clause values the Case feature on the accusative
argument in the embedded clause, it is naturally expected that this argument can be
promoted to a passive subject by applying passivization to the matrix verb, as in
(33).
Several different views have been advanced for the syntactic structures of the
ECM and small-clause constructions. In regard to the small-clause construction, some
studies (Takezawa 1987; Kikuchi and Takahashi 1991) literally take the embedded
small clause as constituting a clausal constituent, but there is also an analysis taking
the embedded predicate and omou ‘think’ to form a complex predicate (Hoshi and
Sugioka 2009). In the ECM clause in (32a), the complementizer to ‘that’ appears
in the subordinate clause, but the embedded predicate cannot appear in the past
form, which suggests that this predicate appears in the non-finite form. Arguably,
the accusative marking on the ECM subject in (32a), as well as the small-clause
subject in (32b), is licensed by the matrix predicate. Nevertheless, there is an issue
over whether the ECM subject is located in the main clause via the raising of the em-
bedded subject to the matrix object position (Kuno 1976; Tanaka 1992, 2002; Kawai
2006) or remains in the embedded clause (Hiraiwa 2005; Kaneko 1988; Sakai 1998).
Kuno (1976) provides a number of arguments in support of his ‘raising’ view for
the accusative argument appearing in the ECM construction. First, a modal adverb
like orokanimo ‘stupidly’, which is construed with the main predicate, can intervene
466 Hideki Kishimoto

between the accusative subject and the embedded predicate in the ECM construction,
as in (35a), but it cannot appear inside a finite subordinate clause, where the subject
is marked with nominative case, as in (35b).

(35) a. Abe wa Ito o (orokanimo) tensai da to omot-te i-ru.

Abe TOP Ito ACC (stupidly) genius COP COMP think-GER be-PRS
‘Abe thinks Ito to be a genius (stupidly).’

b. Abe wa [Ito ga (*orokanimo) tensai da to] omot-te i-ru.

Abe TOP Ito NOM (stupidly) genius COP COMP think-GER be-PRS
‘Abe thinks that Ito is a genius (stupidly).’

The adverb orokanimo ‘stupidly’, which modifies the matrix verb, must appear in the
matrix clause. This adverbial modification is possible even if the adverb is placed
after the accusative-marked subject in (35a), which suggests that the ECM subject
should be located in the matrix clause.
Secondly, a pronoun bearing accusative case in the ECM clause cannot be core-
ferential with the matrix subject, as in (36a), although a nominative-marked pronoun
in the subject position of the embedded clause can be coreferential with the subject
in the matrix clause, as in (36b).

(36) a. *Yamadai ga karei o tensai da to omot-te i-ru.

Yamada NOM he ACC genius COP COMP think-GER be-PRS
‘Yamadai thinks himi to be stupid.’

b. ?Yamadai ga [karei ga tensai da to] omot-te i-ru.

Yamada NOM he NOM genius COP COMP think-GER be-PRS
‘Yamadai thinks hei is stupid.’

c. *Yamadai ga karei o home-ta.

Yamada NOM he ACC praise-PST
‘Yamadai praised himi.’

A comparison of (36a) and (36c) shows that the ECM subject behaves like an object in
a simple transitive clause, in that it cannot be coreferential with the matrix subject.
Chiefly in light of data like (35) and (36), Kuno claims that the ECM subject marked
with accusative case, unlike a nominative subject in an embedded clause, is a con-
stituent in the matrix clause (see also Tanaka 1992, 2002; Takano 2003).
A non-raising view for the ECM subjects has also been advanced in the literature.
For instance, Hiraiwa (2005) provides an example like (37) pertaining to indeter-
minate pronoun binding (Kishimoto 2001b), in support of the view that ECM subjects
do not have to raise to the matrix clause.
 Case Marking 467

(37) a. Abe wa [dare o tensai da to mo] omot-te i-na-i.

Abe TOP anyone ACC genius COP COMP QU think-GER be-NEG-PRS
‘Abe thinks no one to be a genius.’

b. Abe wa [dare ga tensai da to mo] omot-te i-na-i.

Abe TOP anyone NOM genius COP COMP QU think-GER be-NEG-PRS
‘Abe thinks that no one is a genius.’

If the sequence of dare . . . mo is to serve as a negative polarity item, it is necessary

for the indefinite pronoun dare ‘anyone’ to be bound by mo (under c-command)
(Kuroda 1965; Kishimoto 2001b). Since the ECM subject dare in (37a), just like the
nominative subject dare in (37b), can be bound by mo attached to the comple-
mentizer to ‘that’, Hiraiwa (2005) claims that accusative case on the ECM subject is
licensed without raising to the matrix clause (see also Sakai 1996).
Another fact that deserves attention in the light of the ECM construction has
to do with formal noun insertion. First, observe that the examples in (38) illustrate
that the semantically empty noun koto ‘fact’ can be inserted into the object position,
but not the subject position (Sasaguri 2000; Takubo 2010; Kishimoto 2004, 2005,
2013).

(38) a. Ken (*no koto) ga Eri o sikat-ta.

Ken (GEN fact) NOM Eri ACC scold-PST
‘Ken scolded Eri.’

b. Ken ga Eri (no koto) o sikat-ta.

Ken NOM Eri (GEN fact) ACC scold-PST
‘Ken scolded Eri.’

Interestingly, the ECM subject whose accusative case is licensed by the matrix verb
omou ‘think’ allows the semantically empty noun koto to be inserted, as in (39).

(39) Mari wa Ken (no koto) o tensai da to omot-te i-ru.

Mari TOP Ken (GEN fact) ACC genius COP COMP think-GER be-PRS
‘Mari thinks Ken to be a genius.’

Granted that the semantically empty noun koto can be inserted into an argument in
object position, the fact suggests that the ECM subject is placed in the matrix clause.
Note, however, that the possibility of scrambling differs depending on whether the
accusative argument accompanies koto or not.

(40) Mari wa [tensai da to]i Ken *(no koto) o ti omot-te i-ru.

Mari TOP genius COP COMP Ken (GEN fact) ACC think-GER be-PRS
‘Mari thinks Ken to be a genius.’
468 Hideki Kishimoto

When the accusative subject accompanies koto ‘fact’, the scrambling of the embedded
clause across the accusative subject does not result in deviance. By contrast, the
embedded clause cannot be scrambled to the right of the accusative subject which
does not occur with koto. This fact suggests that the accusative subject which accom-
panies koto, unlike the accusative subject without koto, appears in the object posi-
tion of the matrix clause. If so, the clause with an ECM subject accompanying the
semantically empty pronoun koto can be assumed to have a structure equivalent to
one found in an English sentence like The teacher said of Mary that she is honest.

3.2 Nominative-Genitive Conversion

Let us next discuss so-called nominative-genitive conversion. Nominative-genitive
conversion refers to the phenomenon that arguments – most typically, subjects –
embedded in a relative or a noun-complement clause have a case-marking alternation
between nominative ga and genitive no, as shown in (41).

(41) a. [gakusei {ga/no} kai-ta] ronbun

student {NOM/GEN} write-PST paper
‘the paper which the student wrote’

b. [gakusei {ga/no} ku-ru] kanoosei

student {NOM/GEN} come-PRS possibility
‘the possibility that the student will come’

Needless to say, the subject is not allowed to bear genitive case marking when it
appears in a matrix clause or a complement clause selected by iu ‘say’.

(42) a. Gakusei {ga/*no} ki-ta.

student {NOM/GEN} come-PST
‘The student did not come.’

b. Sensei wa [gakusei {ga/*no} ki-ta to] it-ta.

teacher TOP student {NOM/GEN} come-PST COMP say-PST
‘The teacher said that the student came.’

There are a number of constraints barring nominative-genitive conversion even when

arguments are embedded in noun-complement or relative clauses. When a com-
plementizer is introduced in the embedded clause, as in (43), nominative-genitive
conversion is precluded (Inoue 1976).

(43) [sensei {ga/*no} ku-ru toiu] sirase

teacher {NOM/GEN} come-PRS COMP notice
‘the notice that the teacher will come’
 Case Marking 469

Another constraint blocking the nominative-genitive conversion is the ‘transitivity’

constraint (Harada 1971; A. Watanabe 1996).12

(44) [gakusei {ga/*no} hon o kat-ta] mise

student {NOM/GEN} book ACC buy-PST shop
‘the shop where the student bought books’

As seen in (44), the nominative-genitive conversion is blocked when the clause in-
cludes an overtly realized accusative object.
There are various issues pertaining to nominative-genitive conversion, but one
prominent theoretical issue regarding this conversion is how genitive case is licensed
(see Maki and Uchibori 2008; Chapter 18 [Ochi, this volume]). Under one view (e.g.
Miyagawa 1993, 2011; Ochi 2001), genitive case is licensed by a nominal element like
N (or D), which appears outside a relative clause or a noun complement clause (the
N/D licensing view), i.e. N/D values the Case feature of the genitive arguments under
c-command. There is also the C-licensing view taking C to license genitive case, i.e.
C values the Case feature of the genitive arguments. This view is argued for by
Hiraiwa (2000a, 2005), who claims that C associated with the attributive form of the
predicate is responsible for the genitive case marking, on the assumption that C
Agrees with T and v to derive an attributive form of the predicate.

3.3 Passives and Causatives

In this section, I will discuss complex causative and passive verbs formed by adding
the causative –(s)ase and passive –(r)are to main verbs. Both causative and passive
constructions manifest mono-clausal case alignments even if bi-clausal structures are
involved syntactically. Despite the fact that they have mono-clausal case alignments
uniformly, their syntactic structures vary significantly according to the meanings
they express.
To discuss passive formation first, the passive morpheme –(r)are serves to form
two syntactically distinct passives, i.e. ‘direct passive’ and ‘indirect passive’ (and the
latter is also referred to as ‘adversative passive’ because it implies an adversative effect
on the subject: see Hoshi 1999).13 The direct passive clause reduces the main verb’s
valency by one, demoting the erstwhile subject to an adjunct phrase.

12 Some dialectal variations are observed for this constraint. See Harada (1971, 1976b) for discussion
on this point.
13 In the literature on Japanese, the so-called ‘possessor’ passives are sometimes treated as forming
an independent class, owing to the fact that they show certain intermediate properties that crisscross
the direct and indirect passives (see e.g. Nitta 1997; Ishizuka 2012; Masuoka 2000). Under this view, a
three-way classification of direct, indirect, and possessor passives is posited. For reasons of space, I
will not discuss the third kind of passive, i.e. the possessor passive.
470 Hideki Kishimoto

(45) a. Sensei ga gakusei o home-ta.

teacher NOM student ACC praise-PST
‘The teacher praised the student.’

b. Gakusei ga sensei ni home-rare-ta.

student NOM teacher DAT praise-PASS-PST
‘The student was praised by the teacher.’

By contrast, indirect passivization may apply to essentially any kind of verb and
increases the verb’s valency by adding a new subject that has the meaning of an
affected experiencer, with a concomitant change of the nominative marking on the
original subject to dative ni. A typical example is found in (46b), which is derived
from (46a) via indirect passivization.

(46) a. Kodomo ga nai-ta.

child NOM cry-PST
‘The child cried.’

b. Ken ga kodomo {ni/*niyotte} nak-are-ta.

Ken NOM child {DAT/*by} cry-PASS-PST
‘Ken was adversely affected by the child crying.’

The agent is optional in direct passive sentences. When realized, it is marked with
the dative ni, the ablative kara ‘from’, or the postposition niyotte ‘by’ (see e.g.
Masuoka 1987; Kuroda 1979). By contrast, the agent in indirect passive sentences is
invariably marked with the dative ni.14
The two types of passive clauses show some behavioral differences (Kuroda
1965; Kuno 1973; Howard and Niyekawa-Howard 1976). The examples in (47) show
that while only the nominative argument can be the antecedent of subject-oriented
reflexive zibun ‘self’ in a direct passive clause, the dative as well as the nominative
argument can serve as the antecedent of zibun in an indirect passive clause.

14 As pointed out by John Haig, the ni-marked agent nominal can be omitted when it is understood
to refer to an unknown or unspecified agent, as in (i) and (ii).
(i) Saihu o sur-are-ta!
purse ACC steal-PASS-PST
‘I got my purse stolen!’
(ii) A: Doo si-ta no?
how do-PST Q
‘What happened (to you)?’
B: Asi o hum-are-te, aruk-e-na-i.
leg ACC step.on-PASS-GER walk-POTEN-NEG-PRS
‘I got my leg stepped on, so I cannot walk.’
 Case Marking 471

(47) a. Keni ga Marij ni zibuni/*j no heya de home-rare-ta.

Ken NOM Mari by self GEN room PLC praise-PASS-PST
(lit.) ‘Ken was praised by Mari in self’s room.’

b. Keni ga Marij ni zibuni/j no heya de nak-are-ta.

Ken NOM Mari by self GEN room PLC cry-PASS-PST
(lit.) ‘Ken was adversely affected by Mary’s crying in self’s room.’

Since the indirect passive, as opposed to the direct passive, allows two distinct argu-
ments to serve as the antecedent of reflexive zibun, the indirect passive can be
assumed to have a bi-clausal structure despite its mono-clausal case morphology
(For some proposals on the syntax of passives, see Washio 1989–1990; Hoshi 1994;
Ishizuka 2012).
In the case of causative verb formation, verbal complexes are formed by aggluti-
nating the causative –(s)ase to verbal predicates. Causativization brings about the
effect that the number of arguments in the clause is increased by one (i.e. a causer
argument is added to the base clause). The causative morpheme –(s)ase attaches to
any type of verb (to the exclusion of verbs describing uncontrollable events/states).
The causative constructions display mono-clausal case-marking patterns, as in (48).

(48) Ken ga Mari ni hon o yom-ase-ta.

Ken NOM Mari DAT book ACC read-CAUS-PST
‘Ken {made/let} Mari read a book.’

Nevertheless, a causative clause like (48) has a bi-clausal structure syntactically.

Empirical evidence comes from the fact that both causer and causee arguments can
be the antecedent of subject-oriented zibun, as seen in (49).

(49) Keni ga Marij ni zibuni/j no heya de hon o yom-ase-ta.

Ken NOM Mari DAT self GEN room PLC book ACC read-CAUS-PST
‘Ken {made/let} Mari read a book in self’s room.’

Semantically speaking, causative sentences with –(s)ase can indicate ‘directive causa-
tion’ and ‘manipulative causation’ (Shibatani 1976). When the main verb is intransitive,
the ‘directive versus manipulative’ distinction is manifested in the case marking of
the causee argument (dative ni in directive causation (50a) and accusative o in
manipulative causation (50b)).

(50) a. Hahaoya ga kodomo ni suwar-ase-ta.

mother NOM child DAT sit-CAUS-PST
‘Mother let her child sit down.’
472 Hideki Kishimoto

b. Hahaoya ga kodomo o suwar-ase-ta.

mother NOM child ACC sit-CAUS-PST
‘Mother made her child sit down.’

c. Oziisan ga hana {*ni/o} sak-ase-ta.

old.man NOM flower {DAT/ACC} bloom-CAUS-PST
‘The old man {*let/made} the flower bloom.’

Kuroda (1965, 1978) proposes an analysis invoking raising for ni-marked causee in
directive causatives, and NP-deletion for the o-marked causee in manipulative causa-
tives. On the other hand, Inoue (1976) and Nakau (1973) argue for the NP-deletion (or
control) analysis for directive causatives, and the raising analysis for manipulative
causatives, on the basis that the ni-marked causee is confined to animate NPs, but
the o-marked causee need not be animate, as seen in (50c) (see also Terada 1990;
Kitagawa 1986; Harley 1995; Tonoike 1978).
If transposed into a more recent analysis, the two kinds of causative sentences
can be assumed to have control and complementation structures, as schematically
illustrated in (51) (see Miyagawa 1999).

(51) a. [TP Causer Causeei [vP PROi V-CAUS] T]

b. [TP Causer [vP Causee V-CAUS] T]

Since the directive causative needs to have the causee which refers to an individual
having control over the action denoted by the verb, it is confined to an animate
argument. Given that a contrast in acceptability is observed in regard to the animacy
when the causee argument is marked with dative case, but not with accusative case,
as in (50c), it would be reasonable to postulate that a directive causative sentence
like (50a) has the structure in (51a), while a manipulative causative sentence like
(50b) has the structure in (51b).
When the main verb is transitive, the distinction of directive versus manipula-
tive interpretations is not reflected in the surface case marking, because the causee
argument is invariably marked with dative case, as in (52).

(52) Hahaoya ga kodomo {ni/*o} hon o yom-ase-ta.

mother NOM child {DAT/*ACC} book ACC read-CAUS-PST
‘Mother {made/let} her child read books.’

When the main verb is transitive, the causative sentence carries the case frame
<NOM, DAT, ACC> regardless of whether it expresses manipulative or directive causa-
tion. It has been assumed by many researchers (e.g. Harada 1973; Inoue 1976;
Shibatani 1978, 1990) that the exclusion of the accusative case on the causee with
 Case Marking 473

the causativized transitive verb is due to the ‘double-o constraint’, which stipulates
that a single clause cannot have two or more o-marked arguments.
Furthermore, it is claimed by Kuroda (1978) and Poser (2002), among others, that
the double-o constraint is divided into two types, mainly on the basis that sentences
like (53) show distinct syntactic behaviors.

(53) a. *John ga kodomo o hon o yom-ase-ta.

John NOM child ACC book ACC read-CAUS-PST
‘John made the child read the book.’

b. ?*John ga kodomo o hamabe o aruk-ase-ta.

John NOM child ACC beach ACC walk-CAUS-PST
‘John made the child walk on the beach.’

While the causative clause in (53a) is formed on the ordinary transitive clause in
(54a), (53b) is derived from (54b), which contains a so-called ‘traverse object’, via
causativization.

(54) a. Kodomo ga hon o yon-da.

child NOM book ACC read-PST
‘The child read the book.’

b. Kodomo ga hamabe o arui-ta.

child NOM beach ACC walk-PST
‘The child walked on the beach.’

In (53a) and (53b), it is not possible to mark the causee with accusative case. The two
sentences in (53) are excluded, due to the presence of two accusative arguments.
This gives us the impressions that the same double-o constraint rules out the two
causative sentences. Nevertheless, these two causative sentences behave differently
in some contexts. There are a number of linguistic phenomena that distinguish
between (53a) and (53b) (see Poser 2002), but one typical case (observed originally
by Kuroda 1978) is found in (55), where one of the two accusative arguments is
placed in cleft-focus position.

(55) a. *John ga kodomo o yom-ase-ta no wa hon (o) da.

John NOM child ACC read-CAUS-PST that TOP book ACC COP
‘It was the book that John made the children read.’

b. John ga kodomo o aruk-ase-ta no wa hamabe (o) da.

John NOM child ACC walk-CAUS-PST that TOP beach ACC COP
‘It was on the beach that John made the child walk.’
474 Hideki Kishimoto

Example (55a) is unacceptable even if one accusative argument is placed in cleft-

focus position, separate from another accusative argument. One the other hand,
(55b), where pseudo-clefting has applied to one of the two accusative arguments, is
acceptable. The syntactic behavior of the two causative sentences, which are both
constrained by the double-o constraint, diverges in certain contexts, and this fact
provides a motivation for the claim that the double-o constraint must be divided
into two types.15

3.4 Multiple Subject Constructions and Possessor Raising

Japanese has a multiple nominative construction, where two or more nominative-
marked arguments occur in a single clause. In this section, I will discuss some facts
regarding this construction.
First, observe that Japanese allows a non-thematic argument to appear, marked
in the nominative case, as seen by the representative examples given in (56).

(56) a. Zoo ga hana ga naga-i.

elephant NOM trunk NOM long-PRS
‘As for the elephant, its trunk is long.’

b. Nyuu Yooku ga koosoo-kentiku ga oo-i.

New York NOM high.rise-building NOM many-PRS
‘It is New York that has many high-rise buildings.’

The type of construction that is found in (56) is often referred to as the ‘major
subject’ construction, since the initial nominative phrase is not the thematic subject
of the verb, but is an extra argument (i.e. the major subject) which is generally
assumed to be licensed with an ‘aboutness’ relation to the thematic subject on its
right.

15 The double-o constraint applies to some other domains of Japanese syntax. For instance, Saito
and Hoshi (2000) regard a sentence like (ia) as excluded by a weaker version of the double-o con-
straint, in the light of the acceptability of (ib).
(1) a. ?*Mary ga John ni toti o zyooto o si-ta.
Mary NOM John DAT land ACC giving ACC do-PST
‘Mary gave a piece of land to John.’
b. Mary ga John ni zyooto o si-ta no wa toti (o) da.
Mary NOM John DAT giving ACC do-PST that TOP land ACC COP
‘It was a piece of land that Mary gave a land to John.’
Saito and Hoshi (2000) claims that the verbal noun undergoes LF incorporation to the verb suru ‘do’,
so that (ia) is constrained by the weaker double-o constraint.
 Case Marking 475

Kuno (1973) argues that the two sentences in (56) are derived from (57a) and
(57b), via the rule of what he calls ‘subjectivization’, which changes a genitive or a
locative phrase into a nominative phrase.

(57) a. [Zoo no hana] ga naga-i.

elephant GEN trunk NOM long-PRS
‘The elephant’s trunk is long.’

b. Nyuu Yooku ni koosoo-kentiku ga oo-i.

New York LOC high.rise-building NOM many-PRS
‘There are many high-rise buildings in New York.’

The examples in (56a) and (57a) have different constituent structures. In (58a), the
adverb kanari ‘fairly’ cannot intervene between the possessor and the possessum,
showing that the possessor is included in the phrase headed by the possessum. In
(58b), in contrast, the adverb kanari can be inserted to the right of the possessor,
showing that the possessor is located outside the possessum.16

(58) a. [Zoo no (*kanari) hana] ga naga-i.

elephant GEN (*fairly) trunk NOM long-PRS
‘The elephant’s trunk is (fairly) long.’

b. Zoo ga (kanari) hana ga naga-i.

elephant NOM (fairly) trunk NOM long-PRS
‘As for the elephant, its trunk is (fairly) long.’

The contrast in acceptability between (58a) and (58b) with regard to the insertion
of an adverbial element shows that the genitive possessor appears in a nominal-
internal position, but the nominative possessor serves as a clausal argument.

16 One question that might be raised at this point is how the nominative case on the major subject is
licensed. One possible answer to this question is that the major subject, as well as the thematic sub-
ject, is generated in the vP projection, and T values the Case features of these nominative arguments,
as in (i).
(i) [TP [vP Major-SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] V-v] T[NOM]]
↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ
In the configuration in (i), the Case features of nominative arguments are valued as nominative. If
both nominative arguments are raised to TP, the structure in (ii) will be derived.
(ii) [TP Major-SBJ SBJ [vP Major-SBJ SBJ . . . V-v] T]
The structure in (ii) can be derived from (i), given that the major subject is first moved to Spec-TP,
and then the thematic subject is moved to inner Spec-TP by virtue of a ‘tucking in’ operation (Richards
2001; Chomsky 2004). The desired consequence for the relevant case may also be obtained under the
theory of ‘cyclic linearization’ (Ko 2014).
476 Hideki Kishimoto

When subjectivization applies to the genitive argument in (57a), the multiple

nominative-subject sentence in (56a) is derived. If this rule applies to the initial loca-
tive argument in (57b), (56b) is derived. Subjectivization has the effect of creating
an extra (major) subject argument, because the thematic subject retains its subject
status even when a possessor or a locative argument is marked with nominative
case by this rule (Kuno 1973, 1978; and others).
Moreover, subjectivization can be applied iteratively in a single clause, as long
as the added nominative argument is licensed with an ‘aboutness’ relation to the
argument on its right, thereby creating a ‘multiple nominative-subject construction’,
as in (59a).

(59) a. Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikinzyumyoo ga mizika-i.

civilized.country NOM man NOM average.life.span NOM short-PRS
‘It is in the civilized countries that males’ average life span is short.’

b. [Bunmeikoku no dansei no heikinzyumyoo] ga mizika-i.

civilized.country GEN man GEN average.life.span NOM short-PRS
‘It is the average life span of males of civilized countries that is short.’

According to Kuno (1973), (59a) is derived by applying subjectivization iteratively to

the genitive arguments in (59b).
While Kuno (1973) claims that subjectivization gives rise to the multiple nomina-
tive-subject sentences in (56), Kuroda (1988) argues that a multiple nominative-
subject sentence like (60) is derived via base-generation.

(60) Kono koma ga iro ga kirei-da.

this spinning.top NOM color NOM pretty-PRS
‘The color of this spinning top is pretty.’

Kuroda bases his argument on the fact that in a sentence like (60), either of the two
nominative phrases is allowed to appear in cleft-focus position via pseudo-clefting.

(61) a. Iro ga kirei-na no wa kono koma da.

color NOM pretty-PRS that TOP this spinning.top COP
‘It is this spinning top that the color is pretty.’

b. Kono koma ga kirei-na no wa iro da.

this spinning.top NOM pretty-PRS that TOP color COP
‘It is the color that this spinning top is pretty.’

In (56a), by contrast, only the initial nominative phrase can be moved to the cleft-
focus position, as seen in (62).
 Case Marking 477

(62) a. Hana ga naga-i no wa zoo da.

trunk NOM long-PRS that TOP elephant COP
‘It is the elephant that its trunk is long.’

b. ?*Zoo ga naga-i no wa hana da.

elephant NOM long-PRS that TOP trunk COP
‘It is its trunk that the elephant is long.’

The major subject in (56a) is sanctioned by holding an ‘aboutness’ relation with the
thematic subject on the right. (62) shows that in this type of major-subject con-
struction, the thematic subject cannot be positioned in the cleft-focus position.
Apparently, this constraint does not apply to (60), and hence both sentences in (61)
are acceptable. In the light of this fact, Kuroda claims that in (60), the two argu-
ments koma and iro are base-generated as subjects, because the subject theta role
(i.e. the theme) that the predicate bears is assigned to both arguments.17
Presumably, multiple nominative-subject constructions can be derived from
several different sources, but as far as (56a) is concerned, it can be assumed that
an extra nominative argument is created via possessor raising from within its host
possessed nominal. The view that (56a) is derived from (57a) via possessor raising
gains support from the facts of possessor honorification, which is made available
by a nominal honorific marker like o- (attached to native Japanese nouns) or go-
(attached to Sino-Japanese nouns) (see Harada 1976a; Kishimoto 2013).
First, observe that possessor honorification is legitimate if the genitive possessor,
which refers to a person worthy of deference, appears in the specifier position of the
nominal to which a possessor-honorific marker is attached, as (63) shows.

(63) Ito-sensei no o-kuti

Ito-teacher GEN HON-mouth
‘Prof. Ito’s mouth’

Possessor honorification normally does not target a subject merged externally with
vP (i.e. the subject base-generated in Spec-vP), even if a body-part expression is
related to the subject semantically, as (64) shows.

17 The order of the two arguments is fixed in the double nominative-subject constructions in (56a)
and (60), so that the following sentences are not acceptable.
(1) a. ?*Hana ga zoo ga naga-i.
trunk NOM elephant NOM long-PRS
‘The trunk, the elephant is long.’
b. ?*Iro ga koma ga kirei-da.
color NOM spinning.top NOM pretty-PRS
‘The color, the spinning top is pretty.’
This fact suggests that an ‘aboutness’ relation needs to obtain for the two-arguments to appear, and
hence poses a potential problem on Kuroda’s (1988) analysis.
478 Hideki Kishimoto

(64) a. *Ito-sensei ga o-kuti o tugun-da.

Ito-teacher NOM HON-mouth ACC shut-PST
‘Prof. Ito shut her mouth.’

b. ?*Ito-sensei ga o-kuti o sawat-ta.

Ito-teacher NOM HON-mouth ACC touch-PST
‘Prof. Ito touched his mouth.’

In both sentences in (64), the subject of the transitive verb is identified as the
possessor of the body-part noun kuti ‘mouth’, but since this clause is transitive, the
subject must be selected by the verb, and hence, is not created via possessor raising.
In (64), even if an invisible possessor located within the object nominal is coreferential
with the subject, possessor honorification is not licensed (unless the possessor is
turned into an honorific form by adding an honorific affix, which would be impossible
with an invisible pronoun, as in *go-ɸ [HON-ɸ] for obvious morphological reasons).
Given that the subject cannot be an argument created by possessor raising in (64), it
is easy to see that possessor honorification fails in (64), since the possessive relation
between the subject and the body-part noun is obtained through binding.
Note that possessor-honorific sentences are often improved if they additionally
invoke subject honorification.

(65) Ito-sensei ga o-kuti o o-sawari-ni-nat-ta.

Ito-teacher NOM HON-mouth ACC HON-touch-DAT-become-PST
‘Prof. Ito touched her mouth.’

The increased acceptability of (65) comes from the fact that an honorific relation is
established between the predicate and the subject via subject honorification (but not
possessor honorification). This fact shows that honorification is sanctioned if the
target toward which deference is directed is successfully linked to an honorific
marker, satisfying the structural conditions on possessor or subject honorification.
This in turn suggests that (64) is not acceptable since the subject is not anchored to
any honorific marker.
Possessor honorification is not legitimate if the subject establishes a possessive
relation with the possessum merely by way of binding, as in (64). In the major-subject
constructions, by contrast, possessor honorification targeting the possessor is allowed
regardless of whether the possessor is realized inside or outside the possessum to
which its possessor-honorific marker is added, as in (66).

(66) a. [Ito-sensei no o-kuti ga] koe-te i-ru.

Ito-teacher GEN HON-mouth NOM fattening be-PRS
‘Prof. Ito is dainty about her food.’
 Case Marking 479

b. Ito-sensei ga (kanari) o-kuti ga koe-te i-ru.

Ito-teacher NOM (fairly) HON-mouth NOM fatten-GER be-PRS
‘Prof. Ito is (fairly) dainty about her food.’

Possessor honorification is established between the possessor and the possessum

when the possessor appears inside the possessum nominal. Thus, the acceptability
of (66b), coupled with the acceptability of (66a), can be taken as evidence that in
(66b), the nominative-marked possessor nominal appears in the clause via extrac-
tion from within the possessum nominal.

3.5 Tough-Construction and Desiderative Construction

In this section, I turn to the discussion of the tough-construction and the desidera-
tive construction. These constructions invoke mono-clausal case-marking patterns,
despite the fact that they involve bi-clausal structures. Notably, both non-stative
and stative case-marking patterns are available for the tough-construction and the
desiderative construction (see e.g. Inoue 1976; Kuroda 1978, 1987).
First, let us discuss the tough-construction, which is formed by embedding a
verb under a so-called tough-adjective (e.g. –zurai ‘hard’, –nikui ‘difficult’, –yasui
‘easy’), as exemplified in (67).

(67) a. Gakusei ga misu o minogasi-yasu-i.

student NOM mistake ACC overlook-easy-PRS
‘Students easily overlook mistakes.’

b. Gakusei {ni/ga/nitotte} kono zisyo ga tukai-niku-i.

student {DAT/NOM/for} that dictionary NOM use-difficult-PRS
‘It is difficult for students to use that dictionary.’

In the tough-clauses in (67), which comprise a transitive verb, the object may be
marked with either nominative or accusative case. The two types of tough-sentences
in (67) express different meanings. When the tough-clause takes a non-stative case-
marking pattern, as in (67a), a tendency or a dispositional meaning is encoded.
When the clause takes a stative case-marking pattern, as in (67b), it expresses the
sense of the subject’s control (Inoue 1978; Saito 1982). The interpretive facts suggest
that (67a) should involve a raising structure, while (67b) should form a control struc-
ture, i.e. the sentences have the two distinct syntactic configurations given in (68).

(68) a. [TP Gakusei ga [Gakusei ga misu o minogasi] yasu-i]

b. [TP Gakusei ni/ga/nitotte [PRO kono zisyo ga tukai] niku-i]

480 Hideki Kishimoto

When the desiderative predicate carries a dispositional or tendency meaning, a

raising construction is formed, where the embedded subject is raised to the matrix
clause, as in (68a). By contrast, when the desiderative predicate expresses the mean-
ing of the subject’s control, it takes an experiencer argument plus a control comple-
ment clause, as in (68b).
It is reasonable to state here that in the tough-construction, the stative case-
marking pattern <DAT/NOM, NOM> is licensed by the tough-adjective, and the non-sta-
tive pattern <NOM, ACC> by the lower main verb. The difference in the structure of the
two variants can be confirmed by the contrast in acceptability between (69a) and
(69b).

(69) a. Kono konpuutaa ga netu o moti-yasu-i.

this computer NOM heat ACC hold-easy-PRS
‘This computer easily gets hot.’

b. *Kono konpuutaa {ni/ga/nitotte} netu ga moti-yasu-i.

this computer {DAT/NOM/for} heat NOM hold-easy-PRS
‘It is easy for this computer to get hot.’

Both clauses in (69) have the structure where a transitive verb taking an inanimate
subject is embedded under the tough-adjective. Given that inanimate subjects can
appear in raising but not control clauses, it is reasonable to say that the tough-
sentences in (67) have the two distinct clause structures depicted in (68) – control
and raising structures – which are distinguished by the type of case marking avail-
able for the arguments in the clause.
Secondly, the desiderative construction in (70) displays similar variation in case
marking, in allowing both stative and non-stative case-marking patterns.

(70) Ken ga kono zisyo {o/ga} tukai-takat-ta.

Ken NOM that dictionary {ACC/NOM} use-want-PST
‘Ken wanted to use that dictionary.’

In (70), the embedded verb is transitive, and its object may be assigned either nomi-
native or accusative case marking. In the desiderative sentence in (70), as opposed
to the tough-sentences in (67), no significant difference in meaning is observed, irre-
spective of whether the object of the verb is marked with accusative or nominative
case. In addition, an inanimate subject cannot be embedded in the desiderative
construction.

(71) *Kono konpuutaa ga netu {o/ga} moti-ta-i.

this computer NOM heat {ACC/NOM} hold-want-PRS
‘This computer wants to get hot.’
 Case Marking 481

Given the unacceptability of (71), it is easy to see that the desiderative construction
involves a control structure regardless of whether the clause has a stative or non-
stative case-marking pattern, as in (72).

(72) [TP Ken ga [PRO kono zisyo {o/ga} tukai] takat-ta]

This fact is not too surprising, because another desiderative predicate hosii ‘want’,
which does not take a clausal complement, is allowed to take both stative and non-
stative case-marking patterns, as (73) shows (see Sugioka 1986).

(73) Watasi wa sono hon {o/ga} hosi-i.

1.SG TOP that book {ACC/NOM} want-PRS
‘I want that book.’

The facts of the simple desiderative predicate hosii ‘want’ in (73) suggest that in the
desiderative construction in (70), the two distinct case-marking patterns should be
made available by the desiderative predicate, i.e. the desiderative predicate licenses
both stative and non-stative case-marking patterns.

3.6 Periphrastic Auxiliary Verb Constructions

This section discuses periphrastic auxiliary verb constructions, which are formed by
making use of hojo-dōshi ‘auxiliary verb’, in combination with main verbs taking the
gerundive (–te) form (see e.g. Teramura 1984; Masuoka 1987). In Japanese, there are
two major periphrastic auxiliary verb constructions – the resultative and benefactive
constructions – which exhibit interesting case-marking alternations.18
First, periphrastic resultative constructions can be formed by combining a verb
with the auxiliary verb aru ‘be’, which originates from the existential verb aru ‘be’.
The auxiliary verb indicates the completion of an action or an event.

(74) Watasi wa sono hon o tyuumon-si-te ar-u.

1.SG TOP that book ACC order-do-GER be-PRS
‘I have already ordered this book.’

The periphrastic resultative construction signifies that an action has been taken for
some specific purpose (Teramura 1984). Thus, the described action of ‘ordering’ in (74)

18 The term hojo dōshi ‘auxiliary verb’ is used in descriptive studies of Japanese grammar. A limited
number of auxiliary verbs are usable in the constructions at issue, which include verbs like kuru
‘come’, iku ‘go’, and oku ‘put’ (see Nakatani 2013). These verbs generally take either subject-control
or subject-raising structures, and do not trigger case-marking alternations, unlike aru ‘be’ and ageru/
morau ‘give/take’ discussed in this section.
482 Hideki Kishimoto

is construed as purposeful, and (74) is taken to describe some preparatory action.

(Matsumoto 1990).
There are two types of periphrastic resultative constructions – one is a transitivity-
maintaining type, as in (74), and the other intransitivizing type (Masuoka 1987). The
intransitivizing type, which expresses a volitional action to be taken in preparation
for some purpose just like the transitivity-maintaining type, additionally assumes
a passive-like function, promoting a theme (i.e. an object) to the subject while
defocusing an agent, as in (75) (Martin 1975; Masuoka 1987; Matsumoto 1990).

(75) Syorui ga (*Ken niyotte) yabut-te at-ta.

document NOM (*Ken by) tear-GER be-PST
‘The document was torn purposefully (*by Ken).’

In the periphrastic resultative construction in (75), unlike in the direct passive con-
struction, an agent is not allowed to be realized syntactically, although the existence
of an agent is implied semantically.
Given the apparent passive-like behavior in (75), one might be tempted to argue
that in the intransitivizing type of resultative reconstruction, the theme argument
appears in the subject position as a result of A-movement, i.e. movement of the
theme argument from the object position of the embedded main verb to the subject
position in the matrix clause, as depicted in (76).

(76) [TP Theme [ Theme V ] be T ]

Nevertheless, this analysis is called into question because the subject of the peri-
phrastic construction need not be an argument of the verb embedded directly under
aru, as seen in (77a).

(77) a. Sono hon ga gakusei ni yom-u yooni it-te ar-u (koto)

that book NOM student DAT read-PRS COMP say-GER be-PRS fact
(lit.) ‘(the fact that) that book was told to the students to read’

b. *Sono hon ga gakusei ni yom-u yooni

that book NOM student DAT read-PRS COMP
iw-are-ta (koto)
say-PASS-PST fact
(lit.) ‘(the fact that) that book was told to the students to read’

In (77a), the theme argument counts as the object of the verb yomu ‘read’, which
appears in the complement clause selected by iu ‘say’. Since direct passivization
applying to the verb iu ‘say’ cannot promote the object of yomu to the subject, as
 Case Marking 483

shown in (77b), it is reasonable to state that the theme argument in (77a) does not
appear in the subject position as a result of A-movement. In addition, the resultative
aru can take only the type of verb (or verb phrase) describing an action that brings
out a certain resultant state for the object: this is also a restriction which is not
shared by direct passives.19
The benefactive construction where an extra ‘benefactive’ argument is added to
the clause can be constructed from the auxiliary verbs yaru/ageru ‘give’ or morau/
itadaku ‘receive’ (Shibatani 1996). The benefactive construction with ageru/yaru ‘give’
behaves similarly to the English double object construction, in that the beneficiary
argument is marked with the dative case, as in (78).

(78) Okaasan ga kodomo ni ringo o mui-te age-ta.

Mother NOM child DAT apple ACC peel-GER give-PST
‘mother peeled an apple for her child.’

With the benefactive verb morau ‘receive’, on the other hand, the beneficiary is
realized as the nominative subject, as seen in (79).

(79) a. Kodomo ga okaasan ni ringo o mui-te morat-ta.

child NOM mother DAT apple ACC peel-GER get-PST
‘The child had his mother peel an apple (for him).’

b. Ken ga Mary ni itiba ni it-te morat-ta.

Ken NOM Mary DAT market LOC go-GER get-PST
‘Ken had Mary go to the market (for him).’

Intransitive-based benefactive sentences like (79b) can be formed with morau/itadaku

‘receive’, but not with yaru/ageru ‘give’. Accordingly, (80) is not acceptable.

(80) *Ken ga Mary ni itiba ni it-te age-ta.

Ken NOM Mary DAT market LOC go-GER give-PST
‘Ken had Mary go to the market (for him).’

It remains to be seen why such a constraint exists in the benefactive constructions

formed on the auxiliary verbs yaru/ageru.

19 The ‘resultant state’ here refers to a broader range of pragmatically implied results. For example,
although senaka o osu ‘push someone’s back’ cannot occur in the resultative aru construction, suitti
o osu ‘push the switch’ can.
484 Hideki Kishimoto

4 Subject Case and Tense

Having looked at how the case-marking of arguments is determined in simple as
well as complex clauses, we are now in a position to address one theoretical issue
on case-marking, which concerns the nominative-case constraint. In the following
discussion, I suggest that the nominative-case constraint should be construed as a
local case-marking constraint which applies when the subject is marked with dative
case.
To begin, recall the following case-marking patterns obtained for a transitive
potential verb like kake-e-ru ‘can write’.

(81) a. Ken ga ronbun {o/ga} kak-e-ru.

Ken NOM paper {ACC/NOM} write-POTEN-PRS
‘Ken can write a paper.’

b. Ken ni ronbun {ga/*o} kak-e-ru.

Ken DAT paper {NOM/*ACC} write-POTEN-PRS
‘Ken can write a paper.’

When the subject has nominative case, as in (81a), the object can be marked with
either accusative or nominative case. When the subject is marked with dative case,
as in (81b), the object can be marked with nominative case, but not with accusative
case. As noted in section 2.1, the absence of the case array <DAT, ACC> for transitive
potential verbs is considered to come from the nominative-case constraint i.e. the
requirement that a finite clause needs to have at least one nominative argument in
it (Shibatani 1978).
Given that ordinary finite clauses contain nominative subjects, it is often assumed
that nominative case is assigned to subjects as a default case (Kuroda 1978; Kuno 1973;
Shibatani 1978; Fukui 1986). Finite clauses are, more often than not, required to
include a nominative argument in them, but it is also true that there are construc-
tions that need not comprise any nominative argument. The oblique-subject con-
structions in (82) provide a case in point.

(82) a. Sensei-tati de keikaku o tate-ta.

teacher-PL INS plan ACC make-PST
‘The teachers drew up the plan.’

b. Watasi kara sono koto o hanas-u.

1.SG ABL that fact ACC talk-PRS
‘I will talk about that matter.’

The oblique-subject constructions in (82) are derived by replacing nominative case

on subjects with alternative oblique marking, such as ablative kara and instrumental
 Case Marking 485

de (Kishimoto 2010). In both sentences in (82), no nominative argument appears in

the clause, but the sentences are acceptable, which suggests that the nominative-
case constraint does not apply to the oblique-subject constructions. Furthermore,
the nominative-case constraint does not apply to simple clauses headed by certain
meteorological and time-denoting predicates (Kuroda 1978; Kishimoto, Kageyama
and Sasaki 2015; Kishimoto 2016).

(83) a. Kinoo hidoku hubui-ta.

yesterday terribly snow.storm-PST
‘It snow-stormed terribly yesterday.’

b. Iti-zikan si-tara, (kare wa kaer-u daroo).

one-hour do-if he TOP return-PRS will
‘When one hour has gone by, (he will return home).’

The meteorological predicate hubuku ‘snow-storm’ and the time-denoting verb suru
‘pass’ do not select any argument, and so no nominative argument appears in both
clauses in (83). Even so, they are fully acceptable.
The facts noted above give rise to the question of why the nominative-case con-
straint constrains some clauses but not others.20 In answer to this question, I suggest
that the difference comes from the property of tense associated with the clauses.
Note that T is the licenser of nominative Case (see e.g. Takezawa 1987, 1998), and
that the Case feature [NOM] on T needs to be deleted in agreement with a nomina-
tive argument for the derivation to converge. Given this, the facts regarding the
nominative-case constraint fall out on the two assumptions: (1) Japanese makes two
types of T available – one type without the Case feature [NOM], and another, more
ordinary, type with [NOM], and (2) T bears the most prominent Case feature of [NOM]
whenever T enters into a Case-valuation relation with an argument.
To be concrete, let us consider why the clauses in (82) are not constrained by the
nominative-case constraint. First, when the subjects in ordinary clauses are marked
with nominative case, T enters a Case valuation relation with them.

20 The present discussion is limited to cases with non-embedded finite clauses. When a finite clause
appears in embedded contexts, the nominative-case constraint is often not observed. For instance, a
relative clause like (i) is fully acceptable without an overtly realized nominative argument.
(i) [hon o yoma-nakat-ta] hito
book ACC read-NEG-PST person
‘the person who did not read the book’
It is conceivable that the relative clause involves a null relative operator moved from argument posi-
tion to operator position. If T with [NOM] can value the Case feature carried by the null operator, it
naturally falls out that no nominative argument needs to be overtly manifested in (i). It should be
noted, however, that the analysis that accounts for the absence of the nominative-case effect in a
relative clause like (i) cannot be extended to the oblique-subject constructions.
486 Hideki Kishimoto

(84) [SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] . . . T[NOM]]

↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ

This means that the Case feature on T can be deleted after valuing the Case feature
on the nominative subject. On the other hand, if the subjects are marked with kara
or de, as in (82), T does not value the Case feature on the subjects. In this case, the
inert type of T without [NOM] can be merged, the result of which is that the clause
does not require any nominative argument, since this type of T does not value any
Case feature on arguments.

(85) [SBJ ABL/INST . . . Tɸ]

Consequently, the oblique-subject constructions in (82), whose subject receives oblique

marking, in lieu of nominative case, are not excluded by the nominative-case con-
straint. Likewise, the meteorological and temporal constructions in (83) are not ruled
out by the nominative-case constraint, since T can appear without [NOM]. In short,
if T appears without [NOM], the derivation can converge without any nominative
argument.
By contrast, dative-subject constructions need to include at least one nominative
argument, i.e. the nominative-case constraint is in force. This fact follows straight-
forwardly, given that the dative-subject construction must have T furnished with
[NOM], alongside [DAT].

(86) a. [SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: DAT] OBJ[Case: ] → [Case: NOM] V-v T[DAT, NOM]]
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ

b. *[SBJ[Case: ] → [Case: DAT] OBJ[Case: ] → [Case: ACC] V-v[ACC] T[DAT, NOM]]

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ *

When the subject is marked with dative case, T[DAT, NOM], which enters into a Case-
valuation relation with the subject, is merged (cf. section 2). With a potential predi-
cate kake-e-ru ‘can write’ in (81b), v does not have to carry [ACC]. If v appears without
[ACC] in the dative-subject construction, T values the Case features of the two argu-
ments, and all the Case features can be deleted successfully, as illustrated in (86a).
On the other hand, if the dative-subject construction does not have an argument
whose Case feature is valued as nominative, as in (86b), the derivation crashes,
owing to the fact that [NOM] on T remains undeleted without valuing the Case feature
of any argument. In short, the dative-subject construction needs to have a nomina-
tive argument for the derivation to be legitimate, because T has [NOM] as well as
 Case Marking 487

[DAT]. In the dative-subject construction, since the subject is not marked with nomi-
native case, a nominative argument needs to be included elsewhere in the clause.21
The adequacy of the view that the dative subject (whose Case feature is valued
by T) yields the nominative-case effect in the dative-subject construction is further
confirmed by (87), involving the potential verb de-rare-ru ‘can leave’, which takes a
source argument.

(87) a. Ken ga kono heya {ga/o/kara} de-rare-nakat-ta.

Ken NOM this room {NOM/ACC/ABL} leave-POTEN-NEG-PST
‘Ken could not leave (from) this room.’

b. Ken ni wa kono heya {ga/*o/*kara} de-rare-nakat-ta.

Ken DAT TOP this room {NOM/ACC/ABL} leave-POTEN-NEG-PST
‘Ken could not leave (from) this room.’

While nominative case on the locative argument can be replaced by accusative o

or ablative kara in (87a), where the subject is marked with nominative case, this
replacement is not allowed in (87b), where the subject is marked with dative case.
The fact illustrates that when the subject is marked with dative case, T containing
[NOM] alongside [DAT] is merged with the clause. In such cases, the nominative-case
constraint is imposed, because T needs to enter into a Case-valuation relation with a
nominative argument in the clause.22

21 Despite this generalization, dative-subject constructions based on intransitive potential predi-

cates like (i) are fairly acceptable without any nominative arguments (see Shibatani 1978; cf. section
2.1).
(i) Naze kare ni wa oyog-e-te, ano hito ni wa oyog-e-na-i no daroo?
why he DAT TOP swim-POTEN-GER that man DAT TOP swim-POTEN-NEG-PRS NMLZ will
‘Why is it that he can swim, but that man cannot?’
The potential clauses in (i) are acceptable when the dative-marked subjects are assigned contrastive
interpretation. Given that dative marking can often be replaced by a complex postposition like
nitotte ‘for’ and nituite ‘about’, perhaps for the purpose of adding emphasis, as in (ii), I surmise
that the ni marking on the dative subject could be a postposition.
(ii) Kare {ni/nitotte/nituite} wa sore ga hituyoo-da.
he {DAT/for/about} TOP that NOM necessary-PRS
‘That is necessary {for/about} him.’
Under this view, it would be plausible to say that in (i), postpositional ni, which presumably carries
the meaning of ‘as for’, instead of dative ni, can be assigned to the subjects, given a contrastive con-
text. Apparently, this type of construction is made available only in limited contexts, but precisely
when the special type of ni can be used is an open question for further research.
22 As discussed by Kishimoto (2010), the possibility of subject raising into Spec-TP differs depending
on whether subjects are marked with nominative or oblique case; in Japanese, nominative subjects,
but not oblique subjects, are raised to Spec-TP. There are a number of ways to confirm this, but a
difference can be detected by indeterminate pronoun binding (Kishimoto 2001b, 2013).
488 Hideki Kishimoto

What is more, note that the nominative-case constraint does not apply if a non-
subject argument is dative-marked, as in (88).

(88) John {ga/kara} sensei ni soodan o su-ru.

John {NOM/ABL} teacher DAT consult ACC do-PRS
‘John consults the teacher.’

Example (88) contains a dative-marked indirect object. Notably, in (88), when the
subject is marked with ablative kara, no nominative argument shows up. Even so,
the sentence is fully acceptable. This is due to the fact that the dative case appears
on the indirect object argument whose Case feature is valued by the verb rather than
T. In (88), since T does not value the Case feature of the indirect object, the inert type
of T without [NOM] can be merged, the result of which is that no nominative argu-
ment needs to appear in the clause.
In Japanese, simple finite clauses (except for the clauses headed by some mete-
orological and time-denoting predicates, as in (83)) comprise a nominative argument,
because T in unmarked cases appears with the Case feature [NOM]. Nevertheless,
oblique-subject clauses which do not comprise any nominative argument can be
derived from ordinary clauses by applying syntactic operations, such as oblique
kara or de replacement. This type of derivation is possible because Japanese has a
marked option of placing T without [NOM], which does not value the Case feature of
a nominative argument. Nevertheless, the nominative-case constraint is forced on
the dative-subject construction, i.e. the presence of a nominative argument is re-
quired. In the present perspective, this is due to the fact that when T equipped with
[DAT] values the Case feature on the subject as dative, it also has the Case feature
[NOM].23 The data considered in this section suggest that the nominative-case con-
straint is not a general case-marking condition in Japanese, but rather a local one

(i) {*Dare ga/Dare kara} kare ni hanasikake mo si-nakat-ta.

{anyone NOM/anyone from} he DAT speak QU do-NEG-PST
‘No one spoke to him.’
In (i), when the subject is marked with nominative case, it fails to be bound by mo attached to the
verb, which takes scope over vP. This fact shows that the nominative subject is located in Spec-TP.
On the other hand, when the subject bears oblique kara, it can be bound by mo, indicating that the
subject remains in vP without raising to TP. The crucial difference that distinguishes the two types of
constructions lies in the presence of a nominative argument, whose Case feature is valued by tense.
This fact illustrates that when T values the Case feature on a nominative argument, an EPP feature is
assigned to T (see Kishimoto 2010, 2012; Chapter 14 [Koizumi, this volume]), This suggests, in turn,
that the possibility of subject raising is conditioned by the property of tense (Kishimoto 2013).
23 It is sometimes claimed (see e.g. Ura 1999, 2000) that dative case is to be treated as an inherent
(i.e. semantic) case marker. This claim implies that T does not enter into an Agree relation with the
dative subject, and if so, it falls short of accounting for why the dative subject construction is
constrained by the nominative-case constraint. See Chomsky (2001) for a different proposal to the
effect that dative case in the dative-subject constructions is a marker of inherent Case with structural
Case properties.
 Case Marking 489

that is observed when subjects, but not other arguments, are marked with dative
case.

5 Perspectives for Future Research

This chapter has shown how case marking is assigned to arguments, which is the
sole reliable mechanism of signaling the grammatical relations of arguments in
Japanese. The case-marking patterns of basic clauses are largely determined by
the properties of the predicates. Nevertheless, non-basic case-marking patterns are
observed in some grammatical constructions, including passive, causative, desidera-
tive, and possessor raising constructions, as well as some periphrastic constructions
(e.g. the resultative and benefactive constructions). In some complex constructions,
case alignments on the arguments are simply changed, but in others, extra arguments
are often added by virtue of grammatical operations. This chapter has also looked at
the two prominent case-marking constraints constraining clauses in Japanese, i.e. the
nominative-case constraint and the double-o constraint.
There are a number of remaining issues on case marking that have not been
touched upon in this chapter. One such issue has to do with the question of how
case-marked arguments are realized in the syntax. In Japanese generative grammar,
it is often assumed that semantic case markers have the status of postpositions pro-
jecting to PP, whereas syntactic case markers are attached to DPs, without heading
their own projections. The hypothesized distinction between DP and PP, which is
determined by the kind of particle, is hard to substantiate, however. Miyagawa
(1989) advances the claim that the distinction can be made by considering whether
a nominal can be associated with a floating numeral quantifier, but Takami (1998,
2001) argues against it. The issue is further compounded by the fact that case markers
are more often than not polysemous; some particles (like nominative ga) usable
as case markers can also be used as conjunctive markers, and even when particles
are used to signal grammatical relations, they could be either syntactic or semantic
case markers (as in dative/locative ni). It still remains to be seen whether we can
find any reliable tests that can be used for discerning the exact constituent struc-
tures of nominals (i.e. arguments and adjuncts) in Japanese.
Another related issue concerns the morpho-syntactic status of case markers
such as ga, o, and ni. One of the earliest analyses on case particles is found in
Hattori (1950), where it is claimed that the particles are categorized as clitics, i.e.
non-independent free forms. Vance (1993), on the other hand, advances the view
that Japanese case particles behave more like words, rather than clitics. Perhaps, a
more specific, but cross-linguistically important, issue arises with regard to the
dative case marker ni. This particle sometimes shows conflicting behaviors. Thus,
opinions diverge as to whether it represents a semantic case marker (Ura 1999,
2000) or a syntactic case marker (Kishimoto 2001b, 2013). The divergence in its
490 Hideki Kishimoto

behavior might be taken as a sign that no clear division can be drawn between struc-
tural and semantic cases (see e.g. Maling 2001). To some extent, this state of affairs
is expected, however, because, as observed cross-linguistically, the dative case
marker often displays ambivalent behavior (see Butt 2006). Once this persistent
problem is resolved, our understanding of dative case, which shows intermediate
properties across languages, as well as the nature of case marking in general, will
be substantially furthered.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa, John Haig, and an anonymous reviewer for their
valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter.

References
Bobaljik, Johnasan and Suzi Wurmbrand. 2007. Complex predicates, aspect, and anti-reconstruction.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16. 27–42.
Butt, Miriam 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and
beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3, 104–131. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its application. Cambridge, MA: MIT disser-
tation.
Fukui Naoki, Shigeru Miyagawa and Carol Tenny. 1985. Verb classes in English and Japanese: A case
study in the interaction of syntax, morphology and semantics. Lexicon Project Working Papers
3. MIT: Center for Cognitive Science.
Hashimoto, Shinkichi. 1969. Joshi-jodōshi no kenkyū [Studies on particles and auxiliary verbs]. Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten.
Haig, John. 1981. Are traversal objects objects? Papers in Linguistics 14. 69–101.
Harada, S. I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38.
Harada, S. I. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and
Phoniatrics 7. 113–147.
Harada, S. I. 1976a. Honorifics. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese
generative grammar, 499–561. New York: Academic Press.
Harada, S. I. 1976b. Ga-no conversion revisited – A reply to Shibatani. Gengo Kenkyu 70. 23–38.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
 Case Marking 491

Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1988. Passives, verb raising, and the affectedness condition. Proceedings of the
Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 99–113.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2006. Honorifics. In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell
companion to syntax 2, 493–543. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hattori, Shirō. 1950. Fuzokugo to fuzoku-keishiki. Gengo Kenkyu 15. 1–104.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2000a. On nominative-genitive conversion. In Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky
(eds.), A Few from Building E39: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39. 67–125. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2000b. Multiple agree and the defective intervention effect in Japanese. In Ora
Matsushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan and Adam Szczegielniak
(eds.), Proceedings of the MIT-Harvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000): MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 40. 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetries in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture.
Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle:
University of Washington dissertation.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1994. Theta-role assignment, passivization, and excorporation. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3. 147–148.
Hoshi, Hiroto. 1999. Passives. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics,
191–235. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hoshi, Hiroto and Yoko Sugioka. 2009. Agree, control and complex predicates. In Hiroto Hoshi (ed.),
Dynamics of the language faculty, 177–202. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Howard, Irwin and Agnes Niyekawa-Howard. 1976. Passivization. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.) Syntax
and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, 201–237. New York: Academic Press.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1978. ‘Tough sentences’ in Japanese. In John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems
in Japanese syntax and semantics, 122–154. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1998. Sentences without nominative subjects in Japanese. Grant-in-Aid for COE
research report (2A): Researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language, 1–34.
Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies.
Ishizuka, Tomoko. 2012. The passive in Japanese: A cartographic minimalist approach. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. Transitive structure of events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kageyama, Taro. 1981. The role of thematic relations in the spray paint hypallage. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 7. 35–64.
Kaneko Yoshiaki. 1988. On exceptional case-marking in Japanese and English. English Linguistics
5. 271–289.
Kawai, Michiya. 2006. Raising to object in Japanese: A small clause analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 37.
329–339.
Kikuchi, Akira and Daiko Takahashi. 1991. Agreement and small clauses. In Heizo Nakajima and
Shigeo Tonoike (eds.), Topics in small clauses, 75–105. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001a. Locative alternation in Japanese: A case study in the interaction between
syntax and lexical semantics. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 17. 59–81.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001b. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese.
Linguistic Inquiry 32. 597–633.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001c. The role of lexical meanings in argument encoding: Double object verbs in
Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 120. 35–65.
492 Hideki Kishimoto

Kishimoto, Hideki. 2004. Transitivity of ergative case-marking predicates in Japanese. Studies in

Language 18. 105–136.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Tōgokōzō to bunpōkankei [Syntactic Structures and Grammatical Relations].
Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2010. Subjects and constituent structure in Japanese. Linguistics 48. 629–670.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2012. Subject honorification and the position of subjects in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 21. 1–41.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2013. Covert possessor raising. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 161–
205.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2016. Valency and case alternations in Japanese. In Taro Kageyama and Wesley
Jacobsen (eds.), Transitivity and valency alternation: Studies on Japanese and beyond, 123–
154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kishimoto, Hideki, Taro Kageyama and Kan Sasaki. 2015. Valency classes in Japanese. In Bernard
Comrie and Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Valency classes: A comparative handbook, volume 1:
Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 765-805. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts
dissertation.
Kitahara, Yasuo. 1981. Nihongo no bunpō [Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Chuō Kōron.
Ko, Heejeong. 2014. Edges in syntax: Scrambling and cyclic linearization. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Nominative objects: The role of TP in Japanese. In Masatoshi Koizumi and
Hiroyuki Ura (eds.), Proceedings of the First Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 24. 211–230. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1998. Remarks on nominative objects. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16. 39–
66.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2008. Nominative object. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 141–164. New York: Oxford University Press.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. this volume. Chapter 14: Subject. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese
generative grammar, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Theoretical perspectives on Japanese linguistics. In John Hinds and Irwin
Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 213–285. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuno, Susumu and Yuki Johnson. 2005. On the non-canonical double nominative construction in
Japanese: The particle ga as an object marker. Studies in Language 29. 285–328.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns and counter Equi in Japanese (A
preliminary survey). In John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and
semantics, 30–51. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1979. On Japanese passives. In George Bedell, Eichi Kobayashi and Masatake Muraki
(eds.), Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, 305–347. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1987. Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In Takashi Imai and Mamoru Saito
(eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics, 229–271. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
 Case Marking 493

Maki, Hideki, and Asako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito
(eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 192–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Makino, Seiichi. 1975–76. On the nature of the Japanese potential construction. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 4. 97–124.
Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, gram-
matical functions and thematic roles. Lingua 111. 419–464.
Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Masukoka, Takashi. 1987. Meidai no bunpō: Nihongo bunpō josetsu [The grammar of proposition:
Prolegomena to Japanese Grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Masukoka, Takashi. 2000. Nihongo bunpō no shosō [Aspects of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Kurosio
Publishers.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1990. Constraints on the ‘intransitivizing’ resultative -te aru construction in Japanese.
In Hajime Hoji (ed.), Japanese and Korean Linguistics, 269–283. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2003. Two types of ditransitive constructions in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 12. 171–141.
Matsushita, Daizaburō. 1928. Kaisen hyōjun nihon bunpō [Revised standard Japanese Grammar].
Tokyo: Chūbunkan.
Mikami, Akira. 1953. Gendai gohō josetsu [Prolegomena to modern Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Tōe
Shoin.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Syntax and semantics 22: Structure and case marking in Japanese. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF case-checking and minimal link condition. Colin Philips (ed.), Papers on
Case & Agreement II: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 213–254. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 1–25.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1999. Causatives. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguis-
tics, 236–268. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121. 1265–
1282.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structures and ditransitive verbs in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 1–38.
Nakatani, Kentaro. 2013. Predicate concatenation: A study of the V-te V predicate in Japanese. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1997. Nihongo bunpō kenkyū josetsu [Prolegomena to the study of Japanese grammar].
Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10.
247–286.
Ochi, Masao. this volume. Chapter 18: Ga/no conversion. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1981. Idō-henka-dōshibun [Sentences with motion-change verbs]. Kokugogaku
127. 21–32.
Onoe, Keisuke. 1997–1998. Bunpō o kangaeru: Shugo 1–4. [Thinking about grammar: Subjects].
Nihongogaku 16(11). 91–97; 16(12). 88–94; 17(1). 87–94; 17(4). 96–103.
Pesesky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael
Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Poser, William. 2002. The double-o constraints in Japanese. Unpublished ms., University of
Pennsylvania.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. New York: Oxford
University Press.
494 Hideki Kishimoto

Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Case marking in Japanese: A preliminary study. Unpublished ms., MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 2009. Optional A-scrambling. In Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak
and Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, 44–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Saito, Mamoru and Hiroto Hoshi. 2000. Japanese light verb constructions and the minimalist program.
In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 261–295. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1996. Clause reduction in Japanese. In Masatoshi Koizumi, Masayuki Oishi and Uli
Sauerland (eds.), Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
29. 193–212. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1998. Raising asymmetries and improper movement. In Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime
Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, Sung-Ock Sohn and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics
7, 481–497. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Sano, Masaki. 1985. LF movement in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 18. 245–259.
Tokyo: International Christian University.
Sasaguri, Junko. 2000. Meishiku-no modariti-toshite no koto [Koto as a modal element of noun
phrases]. In Yukiko Alam Sasaki (ed.), Gengogaku-to nihongokyōiku [Linguistics and Japanese
language education], 161–176. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativization. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5:
Japanese generative grammar, 239–294. San Diego: Academic Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki [An analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 61. 814–848.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Masayoshi
Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning,
157–194. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2001. Non-canonical constructions in Japanese. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald,
R.M.W. Dixon and Masayuki Onishi (eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects,
307–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sugioka, Yoko. 1986. Interaction of derivational morphology and syntax in Japanese and English.
New York: Garland.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1992. Nominative objects in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14. 91–108.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2010. Case, phases, and nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19. 319–155.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Nihongo no sūryōshi yūri nitsuite: Kinōronteki bunseki [On floating quantifiers
in Japanese: A functional analysis]. Gengo 27(1). 86–95; 27(2). 86–95; 27(3). 98–107.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 2001. Nihongo no kinōteki kōbun bunseki [A functional analysis of Japanese and
English constructions]. Tokyo: Ōtori Shobō.
Takano, Yuji. 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 817–889.
Takano, Yuji. 2003. Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A Prolepsis
Analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 779–834.
Takano, Yuji. 2008. Ditransitive constructions. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 421–455. New York: Oxford University Press.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A configurational approach to case marking in Japanese. Seattle, WA: Uni-
versity of Washington dissertation.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1998. Part I: Kaku no yakuwari to kōzō. In Koichi Takezawa and John Whitman,
Kaku to gojun to tōgo-kōzō, 1–102. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Takubo, Yukinori. 2010. Nihongo no kōzō [The structure of Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1992. Raising-to-object in English, French and Japanese. English Linguistics 9.
39–60.
 Case Marking 495

Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2002. Rasing to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 637–652.
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University
of Massachusetts dissertation.
Teramura, Hideo. 1984. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Syntax and meaning of Japanese II]. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Tokieda, Motoki. 1950. Nihonbunpō kōgohen [Colloquial Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Tonoike, Shigeo. 1978. On the causative construction in Japanese. In John Hinds and Irwin Howard
(eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 3–29. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1999. Checking theory and dative subject constructions in Japanese and Korean.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. 223–254.
Ura, Hiroyuki 2000. Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Vance, Timothy J. 1993. Are Japanese particles clitics? Journal of the Association of Teachers of
Japanese 27(1). 3–33.
Washio, Ryuichi. 1989–1990. The Japanese passive. The Linguistic Review 6. 227–263.
Watanabe, Minoru. 1971. Kokugo kōbun-ron [On Japanese grammatical constructions]. Tokyo: Haniwa
Shobō.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A crosslinguistic
perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 373–410.
Yamada, Yoshio. 1936. Nihon bunpōgaku gairon [An introduction to Japanese grammar]. Tokyo:
Hōbunkan.
Yoshihisa Kitagawa
13 Interfacing syntax with sounds and
meanings

1 Introduction
From its inception, generative grammar has been pursued with the working hypothesis
that grammar is an abstract form of language stored in our brain. Syntax as part of
such knowledge has been assumed to constitute an autonomous component that
can be studied independently of other aspects of grammar and the larger cognitive
system. While this research strategy has yielded remarkable progress in the field,
some serious problems have persisted in the process of its execution in the study of
generative syntax. This chapter attempts to depict such problems, give an overview
of some solutions offered in the literature and explore some future direction.
One such problem is empirical in nature. Theoretically, it is well-justified to
attempt to elucidate our syntactic knowledge based upon the hypothesis that lan-
guage users’ introspection on linguistic expressions can faithfully reflect grammar.
In reality, this hypothesis becomes legitimate only when researchers succeed in dis-
tilling grammaticality judgments from the language users’ acceptability judgments.
It, however, is an extremely difficult task to fulfill since neither the language users’
actual linguistic performance nor their introspection can escape the influences of
extra-syntactic/extra-grammatical factors. In many occasions, in fact, the “idealiza-
tion” strategy in question with its somewhat distorted application may have created
more confusion than clarification in the field.
Taking heed of this familiar but often disregarded warning, a significant number
of researchers have argued in recent works that even the study of formal aspects
of grammar should be conducted with reference to a wider linguistic context than
usually considered. In particular, it has been pointed out and argued that extra-
syntactic and extra-grammatical factors such as prosody, pragmatics, and process-
ing have much more pervasive and significant influences on our grammaticality
judgments than generally assumed. The issue is complex and delicate, but can be
illustrated by a case study of wh-interrogative sentences in Japanese, which we will
take up and examine in Sections 2 and 3.
The second problem is theoretical in nature. Generative grammar has always
placed syntax at the center of its model of grammar as a mediator of sounds and
meanings. It is hypothesized that syntax operates on its own, deriving two dis-
tinct types of output representations, on which phonology/phonetics and semantics
operate respectively and derive sounds and meanings. In such a theoretical frame-
work, a problem arises if any overt syntactic operation takes place solely to achieve
some desired effects in pronunciation and/or semantic interpretation. This is one

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-014
498 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

instance of a problem known as “look-ahead”, which threatens the autonomy of

syntax. Another type of problem arises when a clear correlation between sounds
and meanings is recognized, but what role syntax plays in their association is dis-
regarded (or at least remains unaccounted for). Since the sound-meaning associa-
tion is captured without involving syntax, this state of affairs in a sense threatens
raison d’être of syntax in generative grammar as a mediator of sounds and meanings.
We will refer to this problem as “look-across”. Both of these theoretical problems
are identified when we recognize the importance of the prosody involved in wh-
interrogative sentences in Japanese and attempt to incorporate it into our formal
syntactic analyses. We will examine the nature of these problems and discuss their
possible solutions in the remainder of this chapter.

2 Sound-meaning association in wh-interrogatives

There is growing concern in the field of Japanese syntax that many important and
influential works on the so-called island effects in the past might not have been
developed based upon precise empirical observations. In this section, we first
summarize the recent development of a research method incorporating prosody
into the formal study of syntax. We then describe the problem involved in the Sub-
jacency effects in Japanese in detail and show how the investigation of prosody casts
light on this problem. We will then introduce research that attempts to clarify the
sources of the confusion involved in the Subjacency problem by appealing to extra-
grammatical factors such as pragmatics and sentence processing.

2.1 Prosody-scope synchronization

To begin with, it has long been observed in the phonetics literature that wh-interroga-
tive sentences in Tokyo Japanese are generally accompanied by a distinctive type of
prosody (e.g. Fujisaki and Kawai 1988; Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1988; Kori 1989;
Maekawa 1991). For instance, based upon the data from his production and com-
prehension experiments, Maekawa (1991) reports that Tokyo Japanese speakers
crucially rely on the “focus prominence” of the wh-phrase itself accompanied by
what came to be referred to later as “post-focal reduction” as prosodic cues to
indicate the wh-interrogative status of a sentence. This Focus Prosody (henceforth
FPd) assigned to a simplex wh-interrogative sentence is illustrated in (1) below and
its corresponding pitch-track diagram in Figure 1, which is reproduced from Ishihara
(2003: 53) with permission. (All the notations and abbreviations will be clarified
shortly below.)
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 499

(1) Na’oya ga NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda no?

Naoya NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPWh
‘What did Naoya drink at the bar?’

Figure 1: Pitch-track diagram for (1)

Incorporating such groundwork in phonetics into syntax, several researchers have

over the past decade converged on the idea that the grammar of Japanese estab-
lishes a close association between the semantic scope of a wh-interrogative and the
domain of focus prosody (Tomioka 1997; Deguchi and Kitagawa 2002; Ishihara 2002;
Ishihara 2003; Kitagawa 2005 on Tokyo Japanese and Kubo 1989; Kubo 2001; Smith
2005 on Fukuoka Japanese; among others). For instance, the potentially ambiguous
sentence in (2) below can be disambiguated with the two distinct prosodic patterns
indicated in (3) and (4) in Tokyo Japanese.1

(2) Na’oya wa [Ma’ri ga na’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ‘ka]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr/Wh
i’mademo obo’eteru ’no?
even.now remember COMPWh/Y-N (Ishihara 2003: 61)

Wh-focus prominence Post-COMP rise

(3) . . . [ . . . NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ka] I’mademo oBO’eteru ’no?
. . . what ACC bar at drank COMPWh even.now remember COMPY/N
Post-Focal Reduction
‘Does Naoya still remember [what Mari drank at the bar]?’

(4) . . . [ . . . NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ka] i’mademo obo’eteru ’no?

. . . what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr even.now remember COMPWh

‘What1 is it that Naoya still remembers [whether Mari drank it1 at the bar]?’

1 In glosses of these and other examples, each distinct function of complementizers in Japanese
is indicated as COMPWh (Wh-scope marker), COMPWthr (a polar-question complementizer), COMPY/N
(yes/no question marker) and COMPThat (declarative complementizer).
500 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

The prosodic wh-domain typically realized in Tokyo Japanese is indicated on these

example sentences as follows: the wh-focus is enclosed by a box and its pitch
prominence is indicated by bold-face, the pitch-range compression by “post-focal
reduction” is indicated by the underlined reduced fonts (up to the associated
COMP), and the utterance-final interrogative rise is indicated by a question mark.
Where it is relevant, the position of an accent (where a high tone goes down to a
low tone) is indicated by an apostrophe (’), and the moras whose high tones do not
undergo reduction in the post-focal position are indicated by uppercase letters. This
coding scheme will be used throughout this chapter. The crucial difference between
the two prosodic patterns here is that, in (3), the focus prosody is terminated at the
end of the subordinate CP while in (4), it is extended to the end of the matrix CP.
This distinction is detected by the fact that the matrix materials remain unreduced
in (3) (as indicated by “Post-COMP rise”) but undergo post-focal reduction within
the FPd domain in (4). The former pattern will be referred to as “Local Focus Prosody
(Local FPd)” and the latter as “Global Focus Prosody (Global FPd)”. Figure 2 and
Figure 3 below are the pitch-track diagrams illustrating the Local FPd in (3) and the
Global FPd in (4), respectively, which are cited from Ishihara (2003: 61) with the
author’s permission. Note the distinct length of post-focal reduction in the two
figures (indicated by ovals) and the post-COMP rise signaling its end in Local FPd
(indicated by a square).2

Figure 2: Pitch-track diagram of Local FPd in (3)

Figure 3: Pitch-track diagram of Global FPd in (4)

Kitagawa and Hirose (2012) also present Figure 4 below, in which the contrast
between Local FPd and Global FPd is highlighted by two superimposed pitch-track

2 One thing the readers must keep in mind in their attempt to reproduce FPd as in these figures
based upon the “box-and-underline” notation in our examples is that all instances of the rise to the
high tone are being substantially compressed in the post-focal domain, i.e. in the underlined portion.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 501

diagrams. In each diagram, the pitch contours for the matrix wh-scope reading (black
lines) and the subordinate wh-scope reading (grey lines) of the same example sentence
(5) are superimposed onto each other (though the exact time is not matched).

(5) ana’ta wa [do’no ri’kisi ga ka’tta ka]

you TOP which sumo.wrestler NOM won COMPWh/Whether
kininarima’su ka?
curious.about COMPWh/Y-N
a. Subordinate wh-scope reading:
‘Are you curious which sumo wrestler won?’
b. Matrix wh-scope reading:
‘[Which sumo wrestler]1 is it that you are curious whether he1 won?’

Figure 4: Pitch-track diagrams for (5) (by participant #3 in their production experiment)

The contrast just discussed indicates that prosody plays an important role in physi-
cally marking the interpretive domain of wh-focus in Tokyo Japanese.3

2.2 Subjacency effects in Japanese

It is well-known that the acceptability judgments reported for so-called Subjacency
effects in Japanese are fuzzy, unstable, and variable. Subjacency violation was first

3 Such prosody-scope synchronization the grammar establishes, however, may not necessarily be
always reflected in linguistic performance. In fact, some Tokyo speakers might find the matrix wh-
scope interpretation in (4) somewhat difficult to obtain, at least until they identify an appropriate
pragmatic context for such an interpretation (e.g. some specific drink is at issue, which Naoya
remembers his beloved wife Mari had at a bar during their first date 10 years ago, and the speaker
is inquiring about the identity of such a drink). In Section 2.3 below, we will discuss various factors
that impose extra-grammatical biases toward the realization of Local FPd and a subordinate
wh-scope interpretation in potentially ambiguous wh-interrogative sentences like (4) above.
502 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

reported for English as a type of locality restriction imposed on movement (Chomsky

1973). For instance, it was reported that the wh-phrase base-generated as the object
of a subordinate wh-clause as in (6) below is not permitted to overtly move out of
this clause (as a “wh-island”) and make up a direct wh-question.

(6) *What crimes1 does the FBI know [CP whether to solve t1]?
↑___________________ × _____________________|

It was long assumed that wh-in-situ in languages like Japanese and Chinese do not
exhibit Subjacency effects (Kuno 1973; Huang 1982). It became increasingly popular
in the 1990s, however, to take the stance that wh-in-situ in Japanese in fact obeys
the Subjacency Condition as a grammatical constraint although its effect is claimed
to be detectable only when wh-islands are examined.4 Nishigauchi (1990) and
A. Watanabe (1992) reported, for instance, that a wh-phrase located within a wh-
clause as in (7) below generally cannot take matrix scope (although Nishigauchi
admits an exception, to which we will return shortly). The judgments indicated on
the example in (7) is from the original source (A. Watanabe 1992: 257, 263).

(7) (?)~??Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga nani o katta

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought
kadooka] siritagatteiru no?
COMPWthr want.to.know COMPWh
‘*What does John want to know whether Mary bought?’

Those researchers who detected such interpretive restrictions attempted to assimilate

them to the Subjacency violation observed for overt wh-movement in English as in
(6), postulating some version of “phonetically invisible movement” in the wh-in-situ
construction. While many interesting theoretical claims about Japanese syntax have
been made along the lines of the invisible movement analysis, the syntactic judg-
ments reported for the matrix wh-scope interpretation in question are notoriously
fuzzy and variable. A. Watanabe (1992: 257, 262), for instance, adds the disclaimer
that there is “a subtlety in the judgment” and that its “degree of unacceptability
varies among different speakers.” Note, for instance, the ambivalent grammaticality

4 See also Choe (1984) and Pesetsky (1987), who claim that Subjacency effects are observable even
in other types of islands. Throughout this work, we will distinguish the notion of “Subjacency effects”
from “the Subjacency Condition”. For us, the former refers to the various degrees of awkwardness lan-
guage users sense in letting a subordinate in-situ wh-phrase take its scope outside an interrogative
clause. The latter, in contrast, refers to the grammatical constraint proposed to capture these effects.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 503

judgments indicated for (7) above, suggesting that some accept it without any problem
while others find it somewhat awkward (though not completely unacceptable).5
When we appeal to the prosody-scope correlation in wh-questions observed in
Section 2 above, however, we can shed new light on this chaotic situation. As we
already pointed out, for many speakers of Tokyo Japanese, a wh-phrase located in a
subordinate clause is interpretable as a direct wh-question when it is assigned
Global FPd as in (4) and interpreted in an appropriate pragmatic context in mind.
Similarly, for many speakers, (7) permits the matrix scope interpretation of the wh-
phrase when we assign Global FPd as in (8).

(8) Zyon wa [Mearii ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr

siritagat’teiru ’no?

want.to.know COMPWh
‘What1 is it that John wants to know [whether Mary bought it1]?’

Tomioka (1997), Deguchi and Kitagawa (2002), Ishihara (2003), and Kitagawa (2005)
all appeal to this general prosodic property of wh-interrogatives in the syntactic
investigation of Subjacency effects in Japanese. They maintain that the grammar of
Japanese permits both matrix and subordinate wh-scope interpretations in a poten-
tially ambiguous sentence like (2) and that there is a one-to-one correspondence
between the domain of wh-scope and the domain of focus prosody, as indicated in
(3) and (4). Kitagawa and Hirose (2012: 618) also report that all seven participants in
their production experiment confirmed that they could detect not only subordinate
but also matrix wh-scope interpretations in thirteen potentially ambiguous stimulus
sentences similar to (7), which they were asked to read aloud assigning a prosodic
pattern they found to be appropriate for the particular scope interpretation forced
by a specific dialogue added as its context. The availability of the matrix wh-scope
in (4) and (8) to a significant number of speakers demonstrates that wh-in-situ in
Japanese does not induce a violation of a grammatical condition like the Subjacency
Condition even when its scope is extracted out of a wh-island.6
In order to maintain the Subjacency condition in Japanese, one may attempt to
marginalize what was observed above, claiming that the unexpected acceptability
of (8) arises only exceptionally due to a peripheral factor that does not belong to
grammar. The phenomenon thus resides outside the domain of the explanation of

5 For instance, Takahashi (1993: 657, footnote 3) regards a matrix wh-scope interpretation in a sentence
similar to (7) as straightforwardly available.
6 Hwang (2011) also reports that similar prosody-scope associations are replicated in the wh-
interrogatives of Tokyo Japanese, Fukuoka Japanese, and Kyeongsang Korean in her production and
perception experiments.
504 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

generative syntacticians. In this approach, the prosody in (8), for instance, is regarded
as an extra-grammatical factor that can exceptionally repair ungrammaticality induced
by the violation of a syntactic constraint. Nishigauchi (1990: 35), in fact, takes such a
position and assumes that the Subjacency Condition can be overridden by “focus-
assignment”. In other words, FPd in wh-questions, especially Global FPd, is regarded
as an exceptional extra-grammatical phenomenon which can, quite mysteriously,
overturn our grammaticality judgment.
To the contrary, as has been pointed out by various researchers, the assignment
of FPd to wh-interrogatives is the norm rather than an exception in Tokyo Japanese.
As we saw, it is assigned not only to matrix wh-questions like (8) but also to em-
bedded wh-questions like (3) and even to simplex wh-questions like (1). Moreover,
FPd is a norm even when a wh-phrase takes matrix scope out of a non-island declara-
tive CP, as in (9).

(9) Na’oya wa [Ma’ri ga NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda to ]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPThat
i’mademo omo’tteru no?
even.now think COMPWh
‘What1 does Naoya still think that Mari drank t1 at the bar?’

If, on the other hand, Local FPd is assigned to the same sentence as in (10) below
(with the post-focal reduction terminating at the subordinate COMP), the prosody of
the entire sentence becomes quite unnatural and its interpretation becomes quite
difficult since the wh-phrase must now be associated with the declarative comple-
mentizer to ‘COMPThat’ within a declarative complement clause. (# on the example
indicates that the sentence is unacceptable with the indicated prosody.)

(10) #Na’oya wa [Ma’ri ga NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda to ]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPThat

I’mademo oMO’tteru no?
even.now think COMPWh/Y-N
‘*Does Naoya still think what1 Mari drank at the bar t1?’

Global FPd, in other words, is required for all scope-extraction, even out of a non-
island.7 It therefore is a mistake to regard FPd as an exceptional intonational pattern
that is adopted only in order to override the Subjacency condition in cases like (8).
To recapitulate, we have given an overview of the following properties of wh-
interrogatives in Japanese pointed out in the literature. First, wh-interrogative sentences

7 This observation has been made by Deguchi and Kitagawa (2002: 83) and supported experimen-
tally by Kitagawa and Fodor (2006).
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 505

in Tokyo Japanese are generally accompanied by FPd. Second, when a wh-sentence

is potentially ambiguous in its scope interpretation as in (2), the grammar permits it
to be disambiguated by the contrast between Global FPd (for matrix wh-scope) and
Local FPd (for subordinate wh-scope), which are phonetically distinguished (most
consistently) by the distinct pitch contours of the post-COMP item in the matrix
clause. Thus, Global FPd is a legitimate focus-prosodic pattern for a wh-interrogative
sentence and should not be regarded as a special “stopgap” measure to override a
Subjacency violation (though it is more marked than Local FPd, as will be discussed
shortly). Finally, since many speakers find it possible for a wh-phrase to take matrix
scope from within the wh-clause when Global FPd is assigned as in (4) and (8), it
becomes difficult to maintain the hypothesis that the so-called “Subjacency effects”
in Japanese arise from ungrammaticality. Proposals made in the literature attempt-
ing to identify the source of the judgments behind the reported Subjacency effects
will be introduced and discussed in the next subsection.

2.3 Extra-grammatical biases

Once we start suspecting that the scope interpretations of wh-in-situ in Japanese may
in fact not be constrained by the Subjacency condition as a grammatical principle,
this newly-acquired perspective urges us to ask a distinct kind of question. First,
why have Subjacency effects involving wh-in-situ been reported in the literature on
Japanese syntax in the first place? Second, why is the detection of matrix wh-scope
in question so subtle, unstable, and variable? We now ask, in other words, why is it
difficult for the native speakers of Japanese to assign Global FPd to the Subjacency
construction and obtain its matrix scope interpretation?
When we attempt to answer these questions, it should be emphasized first that
the primary concern of Tomioka (1997), Deguchi and Kitagawa (2002), Ishihara (2003),
and Kitagawa (2005) discussed in the previous section was how the grammar encodes
the correspondence between the domain of focus prosody and that of wh-scope. They
all reached the conclusion that such a correspondence is induced when a wh-focus
and a specific COMP come to be associated with each other in a synchronized fashion
between PF and LF in the grammar.
Such prosody-scope synchronization as the grammar makes possible, however,
may not necessarily be always reflected in linguistic performance. Miyamoto and
Takahashi (2002), Kitagawa and Fodor (2003), Kitagawa and Fodor (2006), and
Kitagawa and Hirose (2012), among others, identified various extra-syntactic and
extra-grammatical factors which create bias toward the subordinate wh-scope inter-
pretation in scopally-ambiguous sentences, i.e. dispreference of a matrix wh-scope
interpretation out of a wh-island.
First, Kitagawa and Fodor (2003) argued that Global FPd is phonologically more
marked than Local FPd, especially when either of the two can be assigned to a
506 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

potentially ambiguous sentence as in (2) (repeated below as (11)). One of the prosodic
characteristics of FPd is that its post-focal reduction substantially compresses the
pitch range (and hence the rise to H tones) in every word appearing in the post-focal
domain. This tends to create a long string of rhythmically and tonally undifferentiated
material, which is generally dispreferred in natural languages as captured by the
“Principle of Rhythmic Alternation” (Selkirk 1984: 12).8 The contrast between Local
and Global FPd in this respect can be clearly observed when we compare, for example,
the length of post-focal reduction in (3) and that in (4) (repeated below as (12) and
(13)) – the latter is much longer than the former and hence is dispreferred.

(11) Na’oya wa [Ma’ri ga na’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ‘ka]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr/Wh
i’mademo obo’eteru ’no?
even.now remember COMPWh/Y-N

(12) . . . [ . . . NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ka ] I’mademo

. . . what ACC bar at drank COMPWh even.now
oBO’eteru ’no?
remember COMPY/N
‘Does Naoya still remember [what Mari drank at the bar]?’

(13) . . . [ . . . NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ka ] i’mademo

. . . what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr even.now
obo’eteru ’no?
remember COMPWh
‘What1 is it that Naoya still remembers [whether Mari drank it1 at the bar]?’

Perhaps even more importantly, Kitagawa and Fodor (2006) also argued that this
markedness relation is bound to be reflected in the acceptability judgments of wh-
questions in Japanese on written stimuli in accordance with the Implicit Prosody
Hypothesis (Fodor (2002a). Based upon the results of psycholinguistic experiments
conducted on various linguistic phenomena in various languages, it has been
argued by many researchers that language users actually assign a specific prosodic
pattern to a sentence in their minds even when they process it by way of silent read-
ing, i.e. even when they do not actually pronounce it aloud. It has also been argued
that when more than one prosodic pattern can be assigned to a sentence, readers
have a strong tendency to mentally project a default prosodic pattern for that

8 There is an extensive literature documenting this rhythmic principle in a variety of contexts, includ-
ing stress-split in English compounds (Selkirk 1984: 248–9), accent-split in Japanese compounds,
and extra F0 Boost in Japanese (Kubozono 1993: 51, 59).
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 507

construction in their silent reading, which may influence the way they parse the
sentence.9 It then is predicted that when a potentially ambiguous sentence like (11)
is read silently, the reader projects Local FPd as the default prosodic contour and
will prefer the syntactic analysis corresponding to this implicit prosody. As such,
when syntactic judgments are made on written examples, as they often are, Local
FPd in (12) as a default prosody would create a bias toward subordinate wh-scope,
causing the matrix wh-scope reading to be dispreferred. Kitagawa and Fodor (2006)
support this analysis with the results of an experiment investigating participants’
incremental parsing of sentences similar to (9), which contain a subordinate declara-
tive COMP to. They found that the participants accepted such sentences accompanied
by Global FPd more often when listening to them than when reading them silently.
In the latter case, the readers projected Local FPd as a default prosodic contour and
forced themselves to syntactically associate the wh-in-situ with the declarative COMP
in the subordinate clause, giving rise to anomaly as in (10).
Second, Kitagawa and Fodor (2003) argue that the bias in question is also at
least partly ascribable to the semantico-pragmatic handicap that the dispreferred
(matrix) wh-scope has. They note that satisfaction of the presuppositions necessary
for the matrix wh-scope interpretation from within a wh-clause tends to require a
very specific (and sometimes unusually elaborate) pragmatic context. Such a specific
pragmatic context, however, is typically not met in the null discourse context in
which sentences are often presented for acceptability judgment. The subordinate
scope reading in (12), for instance, would involve the presupposition (or ‘epistemic
bias’) in (14a) below, while the matrix scope reading in (13) would involve the one
in (14b) in addition to that in (14a).

(14) a. There exists some X that Mari drank at the bar.

b. Naoya still remembers whether Mari drank X at the bar.

It is not too difficult here to see that the satisfaction of both presuppositions in
(14a–b) would require a more elaborated pragmatic context (for example, like the
story fabricated in Footnote 3 above) than that of a single presupposition in (14a).
It therefore seems reasonable to consider that the interpretation involving matrix
wh-scope in a potentially ambiguous sentence like (11) is the more marked option
of the two available interpretations.
Kitagawa and Fodor (2003) also pointed out that a matrix wh-scope interpreta-
tion out of a wh-island is dispreferred because this scope interpretation would have
to be established in defiance of the locality restriction imposed on the processing

9 See Bader (1998), Fodor (1998), Fodor (2002a), Hirose (1999), Hirose (2003), Lovric (2003), and
Kitagawa, Tamaoka and Tomioka (2013), among others, for the experimental results to support the
Implicit Prosody Hypothesis.
508 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

of wh-in-situ. Locality restrictions in sentence processing in fact have long been

discussed in the literature. It has been pointed out, for instance, that in English wh-
questions involving more than one possible gap position (for wh-traces), the parser
always prefers to associate the fronted wh-phrase (under CP) with the gap that is
encountered first. Frazier (1987) proposed the Active Filler Strategy to capture this
phenomenon, which was later developed into more generalized processing principles
such as de Vincenzi’s (1991) Minimal Chain Principle. Extending this line of approach
further, Miyamoto and Takahashi (2002) argued that a similar locality effect is
observed in Japanese between a wh-in-situ and its associated interrogative COMP
(COMPWh). According to Kitagawa and Fodor (2003), all of these findings can possibly
be summarized as generally as the following:

(15) Minimize Dependencies Strategy (in parsing):

Resolve all dependencies as soon as possible (perhaps to reduce strain on
working memory).

In the present context, the relevant locality effect occurs between an in-situ wh-item
and its associated COMP, as argued for by Miyamoto and Takahashi (2002) based
upon their experimental results. During the on-line processing of a wh-COMP depen-
dency in a sentence like (11), for example, the matrix scope interpretation as in (13)
would force language users to skip the closer COMP, thereby disobeying the general
parsing strategy in (15). Thus, if such a processing strategy is indeed operative, it
would naturally urge them to settle for subordinate wh-scope rather than matrix scope,
giving rise to the clear markedness asymmetry between the two scope interpretations.
Finally, Kitagawa and Hirose (2012) argued that speaker-listener asymmetries in
the use of prosodic cues in on-line processing may also make the wh-scope extrac-
tion out of a wh-island somewhat difficult. In their production and comprehension
experiments, they observed that all speakers made use of the pitch of the post-COMP
item in encoding wh-scope more consistently than the pitch of the wh-item. The
majority of listeners, on the other hand, relied more heavily on the pitch of the
wh-item in decoding wh-scope. In other words, listeners can be sensitive to prosodic
cues that are less critical to speakers. Moreover, while listeners relied on both wh-
items and post-COMP items in detecting the subordinate wh-scope interpretation,
they relied solely on the pitch of the wh-item in detecting the matrix wh-scope inter-
pretation. This suggests that the association of matrix wh-scope and high pitch on a
wh-item in comprehension would involve a somewhat special mental activity. This
observation is quite compatible with the view presented above that the scope extrac-
tion out of a wh-island is multiply discouraged by prosodic, semantico-pragmatic,
and processing factors and hence is hard to obtain.
If all such extra-syntactic and extra-grammatical factors conspire to create a
discomfort with the matrix scope reading for the wh-phrase located in a wh-clause,
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 509

language users attempting to comprehend the sentence like (7), whether listening
or reading, must be inclined to settle for the subordinate wh-scope interpretation
accompanied by Local FPd as in (16) below, in which the FPd is terminated at
the end of the subordinate clause (as indicated by the retention of the high tones in
siRITAGA’tteiru ‘wants to know’).

(16) #Zyon wa [Mearii ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr
siRITAGA’tteiru no?
want.to.know COMPY/N
‘Does John want to know [whether Mary bought what]?’

Under this analysis, the sentence now is clearly unacceptable. The wh-phrase NAni o
‘what ACC’ is urged to be associated with the subordinate COMP –kadooka ‘whether
or not’, but for most speakers of Japanese, –kadooka cannot be associated with a
wh-phrase.10 This causes clear discomfort, thereby inducing the acceptability judg-
ment that can be easily mistaken as ungrammaticality arising from a Subjacency
violation
It obviously is impossible to entirely eliminate all of the handicaps for the
matrix wh-scope interpretation out of a wh-island discussed above. We can, however,
at least reduce them and make such an interpretation reasonably acceptable when
we assign proper FPd to a sentence, either explicitly or implicitly, with clear wh-
focus prominence and post-focal reduction and interpret the sentence in an appro-
priate pragmatic context.

3 Further empirical implications

Many other conundrums have been discussed and many interesting and influential
theoretical proposals have been made in the literature concerning the interpretive
restrictions imposed on the wh-interrogatives in Japanese. In this section, we will
re-examine some of those cases from the new perspective introduced in the previous
section.

3.1 Additional wh-effects

A. Watanabe (1992: 263) reports a contrast in the acceptability judgments indicated
in (17) below, which is often referred to as “additional-wh effects” in the literature.

10 There apparently are some speakers who can interpret –kadooka as COMPWh, and for those
speakers, (16) is acceptable as a yes/no question embedding an indirect wh-question.
510 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

The indicated acceptability judgments are from the original source, and they are
declared to have been adjusted to “the judgment of the relevant speakers” (p. 262).

(17) a. ??Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga nani o katta

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought
kadooka] Tomu ni tazuneta no?
COMPWthr Tom DAT asked COMPWh
‘What1 is it that John asked Tom whether Mary bought it1?’

b. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga nani o katta

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought
kadooka] dare ni tazuneta no?
COMPWthr who DAT asked COMPWh
‘Who did John ask whether Mary bought what?’

c. ??Zyon wa [CP dare ga nani o katta kadooka]

John TOP who NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr
Tom ni tazuneta no?
Tom DAT asked COMPWh
‘Who1 is it that John asked Tom whether he1 bought what?’

First, it was reported that the familiar Subjacency violation allegedly detected in
(17a) is obviated in (17b) when an additional wh-phrase (dare ni ‘who DAT’) is intro-
duced in the matrix. Second, it was also reported that when a similar additional wh-
phrase (dare ga ‘who NOM’) is introduced within a wh-island as in (17c), it allegedly
fails to obviate the Subjacency effect.
When we pay close attention to the prosody in wh-questions, we can provide a
new angle from which we can examine this paradigm. First, Deguchi and Kitagawa
(2002) pointed out that multiple wh-questions in Japanese exhibit their prosody-
scope correlation in a very specific way. Prosodically, they are accompanied by
“Compound FPd”, in which more than one FPd is combined and terminated at the
same COMPWh, as shown in (18a) below. Semantically, the multiple wh-phrases are
interpreted as “paired (or set) wh-questions” with their scope synchronized.
To begin with, Compound FPd seems necessary in order to interpret multiple
wh-questions properly, as can be seen from the contrast between (18a) and (18b)
(Kitagawa 2006b).

(18) a. DA’re ga asokode NA’ni o katta ’no?

who NOM there what ACC bought COMPWh

‘Who bought what there?’
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 511

b. # DA’re ga asokode na’ni o katta ’no?

who NOM there what ACC bought COMPWh

When Compound FPd is assigned as in (18a), the prosody is natural, each of the wh-
phrases receiving focus prominence and followed by post-focal reduction in contrast
to (18b), in which only one of the wh-phraes receives focus prominence and the
interpretation of the sentence remains obscure. While we can answer (18a) by pro-
viding either single paired answers (e.g. John bought an umbrella there) or multiple
paired answers (e.g. John bought an umbrella and Bill bought a raincoat there),
(18b) would remain unanswerable since the unfocused wh-phrase nani o ‘what ACC’
seems to remain uninterpretable.11
Compound FPd can apply either locally or globally and induce subordinate or
matrix scope of paired wh-questions accordingly, as in (19a) and (19b–c), respec-
tively. Note that matrix scope of paired wh-questions is possible whether the second
wh-phrase is outside the subordinate clause as in (19b) or inside that clause as
in (19c).

(19) a. Keisatu wa [ano ban DA’re ga DA’re to a’tteita ka ]

police TOP that night who NOM who with seeing COMPWh
miNNA’ ni tazuneta no?
everyone DAT asked COMPY/N
‘Did the police ask everyone who was seeing whom that night?’

b. Keisatu wa [ano ban Mearii ga DA’re to a’tteita ka ]

police TOP that night Mary NOM who with seeing COMPWthr
DA’re ni tazu’neta no?

who DAT asked COMPWh

‘Whom did the police ask whether Mary was seeing whom that night?’

11 The only case in which the “simplex” FPd as in (18b) may become acceptable is an echo question
like (i-B) or (i-B’) below uttered as a response to the question (i-A).
(i) A: Zyon wa asoko-de nani o katta no?
John TOP there what ACC bought COMPWh
‘What did John buy there?’
B: E? DA’re ga/wa asokode na’ni o katta ’ka tte?

Huh who NOM/TOP there what ACC bought COMPWh COMPThat

‘Huh? What did WHÓ buy there?’
B’: %E? DA’re ga/wa na’ni o katta ’no?

COMPWh
512 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

c. Keisatu wa [ano ban DA’re ga DA’re to a’tteita ka ]

police TOP that night who NOM who with seeing COMPWthr
kimi ni taze’neta no?

you DAT asked COMPWh

‘Who1 is it that the police asked you whether he1 was seeing whom
that night?’

Thus, the sentence in (19a) is interpreted as a yes-no question embedding paired wh-
questions and answered, for example, as in (20a) below. (19 b–c), on the other hand,
are interpreted as matrix paired wh-questions and the identity of both wh-phrases
must be provided in the answers, for example, as in (20 b–c), respectively.

(20) a. Soo. [dare ga dare to atteitta ka] zen-in

yes who NOM who with seeing COMPWh everyone
ga tazuneraretano.
NOM was.asked
‘Yes. They asked everyone who was seeing whom that night.’

b. Kanozyo ga Zyon to atteitta ka(dooka) Biru ni tazuneta-mitai.

she NOM John with seeing COMPWthr Bill DAT asked-seem
‘They seem to have asked Bill whether she (= Mary) was seeing John.’

c. Mearii ga Zyon to atteitta ka(dooka) tazuneraretandayone.

Mary NOM John with seeing COMPWthr was.asked
‘I was asked whether Mary was seeing John that night.’

Returning now to the “additional wh-effect” paradigm (17), let us assign “Global”
FPds – simplex FPd as in (21a) below and Compound FPd as in (21b–c) – and attempt
to interpret the multiple wh-questions there accordingly.

(21) a. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP May NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr

To’mu ni taze’neta no?
Tom DAT asked COMPWh
‘What1 is it that John asked Tom whether Mary bought it1?’

b. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr

DA’re ni tazuneta no?

who DAT asked COMPWh

‘Who did John ask whether Mary bought what?’
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 513

c. Zyon wa [CP DA’re ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP who NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr

To’mu ni tazu’neta no?

Tom DAT asked COMPWh

‘Who1 is it that John asked Tom whether he1 bought what?’

As we have already confirmed with (13), a sentence like (21a) does not exhibit a Sub-
jacency effect to begin with and is legitimately interpreted as a matrix wh-question,
as long as it is accompanied by Global FPd. Similarly, multiple wh-questions accom-
panied by Global Compound FPd as in (21b–c) can be interpreted as “paired” wh-
questions in the matrix clause regardless of whether one or both of the wh-phrases
are located within a wh-island. Note that multiple wh-questions in (21b–c) are com-
pletely parallel to those in (19b–c) in construction. The alleged Subjacency violation,
in other words, does not arise even when the “additional wh-phrase” is located
within the wh-island as in (21c).
When the sentence in (21c) is accompanied by Local Compound FPd as in (22)
below, on the other hand, the sentence becomes uninterpretable.

(22) #Zyon wa [CP DA’re ga NA’ni o katta ’kadooka ]

John TOP who NOM what ACC bought COMPWthr

TO’mu ni tazuneta no?
Tom DAT asked COMPWh
‘Did John ask Tom whether who bought what?’

Presumably, the problem involved here is exactly the same as that observed in (16),
the alleged case of a Subjacency violation we re-examined with Local FPd assigned
in the previous subsection. In fact, the presence of an “additional wh-phrase” in the
matrix clause does not permit wh-scope extraction out of a subordinate clause if
Local FPd is assigned in the subordinate clause in addition to the Global FPd in the
matrix, as in (23) below. Note the post-COMP rise in ZYO’n ‘John’, which indicates the
termination of Local FPd at the subordinate COMP.

(23) [Mearii ga NA’ni o katta ’ka ] ZYO’n wa

Mary NOM what ACC bought COMPWh John TOP
DA’re ni tazu’neta no?

who DAT asked COMPWh

‘Whom did John ask [what1 Mary bought t1]?’

Since the sentence in (23) is accompanied by two “simplex” FPds rather than Com-
pond FPd, the two wh-phrases are not required to take synchronized scope.
514 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

In short, as long as the sentences in the “additional wh-effect” paradigm in (17)

are accompanied by appropriate prosody, they do not yield the alleged “Subjacency”
contrasts, whether or not an “additional wh-phrase” appears and also wherever it
may appear in the sentence. This suggests that the “additional-wh effect” in Japanese
in fact may not be a grammatical phenomenon.

3.2 Adjunct scope extraction

Attention to prosody and semantics/pragmatics also provides us with a fresh and
useful viewpoint on other types of interpretive restrictions observed on adjunct wh-
phrases. Island effects as in (24)–(26) below, for example, have been reported by
Huang (1982) on weisheme ‘why’ in Chinese and by Lasnik and Saito (1984) on naze
‘why’ in Japanese. The examples and their judgments are from Saito (1994: 204–205).

(24) Complex NP Island:

*Zyon wa [NP [IP sono hon o naze katta] hito] o
John TOP that book ACC why bought person ACC
sagasiteru no?
looking.for COMPWh
‘Why1 is John looking for [the person who bought that book t1]?’

(25) Adjunct Island:

*Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga sono hon o naze katta
John TOP Mary NOM that book ACC why bought
kara] okotteru no?
since angry COMPWh
‘Why1 is John angry [because Mary bought that book t1]?’

(26) Wh-island:
*Kimi wa [CP Mearii ga naze sono hon o katta kadooka]
you TOP Mary NOM why that book ACC bought COMPWh
siritai no?
want.to.know COMPWh
‘Why1 do you want to know [whether Mary bought that book t1]?’

The alleged ungrammaticality in these and similar examples has been assimilated to
that in English observed in (27).

(27) *Why2 do [IP you wonder [CP what1 [IP John bought t1 t2]]]?12

12 Why in this sentence is to be interpreted in the subordinate clause, i.e. as “why John bought” not
“why you wonder”.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 515

With the assumption that wh-in-situ undergoes covert movement at LF, it is claimed
that the trace of naze ‘why’ extracted out of a wh-island in (24)–(26) violates the
Empty Category Principle (ECP) (Chomsky 1981), failing to be properly governed
(i.e. not bound by its antecedent within the island or θ-marked by any syntactic
head).
Although Saito (1994: 234, footnote 16) considers that examples like (24)–(26) are
straightforwardly and uniformly rejected by virtually every Japanese speaker as un-
grammatical, Kitagawa (2006a) argues that this is not the whole picture, especially
when we control the prosody and pragmatic contexts of the sentences. Just as in the
Subjacency examples discussed in Section 2.3 above, the semantics/pragmatics
involved in the scope extraction out of an island are rather complex and require
somewhat elaborate, specific types of pragmatic contexts, which are typically not
provided in a null discourse context. When the embedded wh-phrase questions
about ‘reasons’ as in (24)–(26), the situation even worsens, as described in (28)
below.

(28) a. (24): The speaker believes there is some specific reason such that John is
looking for the person who bought the book for it (= that reason),
and wants the hearer to identify the reason for which this is true.

b. (25): The speaker believes there is some specific reason such that John is
angry because Mary bought the book for it (= that reason), and
wants the hearer to identify the reason for which this is true.

c. (26): The speaker believes there is some specific reason such that the
hearer wants to know if Mary bought the book for it (= that reason),
and wants the hearer to identify the reason for which this is true.

The readers should try to imagine an appropriate pragmatic context for each case
and feel how difficult a task it is. Among the three, the cases involving a complex
NP island and a wh-island are especially hard, which seems to be reflected in the
difficulty of their intended interpretations. The speaker’s presupposition of the exis-
tence of some specific reason worthy of note in each case perhaps is one of the main
culprits of the difficulty, since a wh-phrase seeking to identify a reason, especially
with the use of naze, is usually asked without such a specific presupposition involved.
Though not an easy task, we can manage to improve similar wh-questions signif-
icantly by enriching the pragmatic context and adding appropriate prosody, i.e.
Global FPd, as in (29)–(31).

(29) Complex NP island:

[Maitosi nannin-mono sensyu ga puro-yakyuu-kai o satte-ikimasuga,]
‘Every year, numbers of players leave professional baseball,’
516 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

[NP [IP NA’ze yameteiku ] se’nsyu ] ga itiban-o’oi ka

why quit player NOM most COMPWh
siTTEMA’su ka? Kega desuyo, kega.
do.you.know COMPY-N injury it.is injury
‘Do you know for what reason the number of the players who quit
professional baseball for that reason is the largest? It is injury!’

(30) Adjunct island:

[Mondai wa nani o sita ka zyanakute naze sore o sita ka nandayo.]
‘What is important is not what you did but why you did it.’
[CP Omae ga NA’ze sonna koto o sita ’kara ] oyazi ga
you NOM why such thing ACC did since Dad NOM
annnani oko’tta ka oMAE NI ’wa wakaru ka?
that.much angry COMPWh you DAT TOP understand COMPY-N
‘Do you understand for what reason your dad is that much angry because
you did such a thing for that reason?’

(31) Wh-island:
[Context: A law professor lecturing on court cases says:
Ippan-teki ni saiban de wa kagaisya ga naze tumi o okasitesimattano ka ga
totemo zyuuyoona pointo ni narimasu ga, sono saiban no syurui niyotte
donoyoona dooki ga zyuuyoosi-sareru ka wa matimati desu. Tatoeba, keizi
saiban de wa . . .]
‘Generally speaking, in any trial, why the assailant committed a crime
becomes a very important point, though what kind of motive is considered to
be the most important differs depending on the type of the trial. For instance,
in criminal cases, . . .”
< The lecture on criminal cases continues for a while . . . >
Dewa, minzi-saiban de wa [CP kagaisya ga
then civil-case in TOP defendant NOM
NA’ze tu’mi o oka’sitesimatta ’ka ] ga mottomo
why crime ACC committed COMPWthr NOM most
zyuuyo’osi-sareru ’ka to iIMA’suto . . .
viewed.important COMPWh that if.I.say
‘Then, what reason is regarded as most important if the defendant committed
a crime for that reason? I would say . . .’
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 517

Among over 40 speakers to whom these sentences were presented, the most popular
reaction was that (30) is most naturally and immediately acceptable while interpret-
ing (29) and (31) requires some pondering. There were some speakers, though, who
remain uncomfortable with the use of naze in all of these contexts and would prefer
to use an alternative adjunct expression doo-yuu riyuu de ‘for what kind of reason’
instead. It probably is true that doo-yuu riyuu de more perfectly and easily fits the
presuppositions involved in these contexts as described in (28) than naze. Probably,
some additional pragmatic factor that we do not understand fully at this point is in
effect here. Nonetheless, it is important that many speakers come to accept at least
some of the sentences that are alleged to involve an ECP violation. While full-fledged
discussion on ECP goes beyond the scope of this work, these observations suggest
that some serious re-examination of the factual bases of the past studies on this
topic would be advisable.

3.3 Rigidity/Anti-superiority effects

Saito (1982) also reports a contrast as in (32) below concerning the use of naze in
multiple wh-questions. (The examples and indicated acceptability judgments are
from Saito (1994: 195). As seems to have been the case in the literature, we pay atten-
tion solely to multiple-pair (or pair-list) interpretations for the time being.)

(32) a. Zyon wa nani o naze katta no?

John TOP what ACC why bought COMPWh
‘What did John buy for what reason?’

b. *Zyon-wa naze nani o katta no?

why what ACC
‘For what reason did John buy what?’

Saito (1982) and A. Watanabe (1992) both consider the alleged ungrammaticality in
(32b) to arise from an ECP violation induced by some theorematic condition – “rigidity
condition” in Saito’s approach and “anti-superiority” in A. Watanabe’s. Both condi-
tions have the effect of requiring the c-command relation between the two wh-
phrases to be inherited from overt syntax to covert syntax, and this eventually dis-
allows the LF-trace of naze from being antecedent-governed in (32b). The judgment
reported here, however, has been acknowledged to be varied and unstable, which is
often referred to as “idiolectal variation”. For instance, Saito (1994: 233, footnote 1)
states “There seem to be equally many people who accept examples like (1b) and
(2b) [= examples like (32b) above]. I will basically ignore this idiolect in the dis-
cussion in the text but will come back to it from time to time in footnotes, simply
518 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

to show that its existence does not necessarily affect the main conclusions of this
paper.”13
One thing we immediately notice when we try to interpret these sentences is
that it is rather difficult to imagine a pragmatic context in which (32b) is felicitously
interpreted compared to (32a). As pointed out by Kuno (1982), the interpretation
of multiple wh-questions is required to reflect their relative hierarchical order in a
sentence in such a way that the information denoted by a lower wh-phrase is sorted
out in accordance with that denoted by a higher wh-phrase functioning as the “sort-
ing key”. Perhaps as Kuno and Takami (1993: 115–118) and S. Watanabe (2000) point
out, speakers detect awkwardness in a multiple wh-question like (32b) when they
have difficulty imagining a situation in which purchased items are sorted out on
the basis of the reasons for which they were purchased. When such difficulty is over-
come and naze can be interpreted as a “sorting key” naturally, the sentence becomes
interpretable much more easily, for instance as in (33) below, especially when it is
appropriately accompanied by Compound FPd.

(33) Itiryuuno kyattyaa wa siai-no-naka-de

first.rate catcher TOP in.the.game
NA’ze DO’noyoona tama o yookyuusita ka

why what.kind.of ball ACC required COMPWh

SU’bete kioku-siteiru-monodesu.
all remember
‘A first-rate catcher would remember why he required the pitcher to throw
what ball for every pitch in the game.’

Note that a sensible catcher in the baseball does often think of the hitter’s weakness
and then determines what type of ball he should require the pitcher to throw. In this
context, a reason can be naturally regarded as a sorting key for a type of ball. With
such careful control of pragmatics and prosody, the sentence becomes straight-
forwardly acceptable to many speakers including those who find some contrast
between the two sentences in (32), which suggests that we are dealing with some-
thing more than mere idiolectal variation.
As the following examples indicate, naze can also appear comfortably in a
position higher than another wh-phrase when multiple wh-questions can exhibit a
clear single-pair interpretation:

13 For example, Takahashi (1993: 666, footnote 8) apparently finds no problem with an example
involving the same hierarchical order between naze ‘why’ and nani ‘what’. On the other hand, some
speakers apparently find even (32a) somewhat difficult to interpret. For instance, A. Watanabe (1992:
266) adds one question mark to a sentence similar to (32a).
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 519

(34) [A conversation at the CIA: Kinoo siryoositu kara issyun no suki o tuite nanika
o nusumooto siteita KGB no supai o tukamaeta soodana.]
‘I heard that we captured a spy from KGB yesterday, who tried to steal
something from our record room in a very brief unattended moment.’
Soitu ga NA’ze NA’ni o nusumoo-to-siteita ka

that.brat NOM why what ACC tried.to.steal COMPWh

goOMON-NI-KA’kete hakasero.
torture.and make.confess
‘Torture him and make him confess why he was stealing what.’

(35) [In a detective story, a detective says:]

Mondai wa (ittai)
question TOP what.on.earth
NA’ze DA’re ga kono heya ni sinobikomu hituyoo ga

why who NOM this room into sneak.in need NOM

attano ka toYUU-KOTO’-desu.
existed COMPWh it.is.the.fact.that
‘The question is for what reason who needed to sneak into this room.’

Thus, we should consider that the pragmatic restriction in question is imposed not
just on “sorting keys” for multiple-pair interpretations but on the “anchor” informa-
tion denoted by the first wh-phrase on which the interpretation of the second wh-
phrase is contingent in single-pair readings of multiple wh-questions (Kitagawa,
Roehrs and Tomioka 2004).14 Again, these observations suggest that some serious
re-examination of the factual bases of the past work on the anti-superiority/rigidity
effects would be advisable. We should especially investigate the nature of idiolectal
variation in grammaticality judgment allegedly involved in this phenomenon.15

3.4 Higher wh-effects by LF-adjunction

Saito (1994: 204–206) offers an alternative account of the rigidity effects, extending
the observations to island effects. He reports a contrast between a pair of sentences
as in (36)–(38). (The indicated acceptability judgments are from the original source.)

14 When a multiple-pair interpretation is intended, it is somewhat difficult to try to interpret naze

even in a position lower than another wh-phrase as the “sorted” (rather than “sorting”) information.
A. Watanabe’s (1992) question mark on (32a) possibly reflects this tendency.
15 Variation in fact may arise in the way speakers associate sentences with pragmatic contexts
rather than in grammar per se. That is, some speakers may attempt to imagine some specific and
suitable pragmatic context for a sentence quite thoroughly before pinning down their acceptability
judgments while others do not.
520 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

(36) Complex NP Island:

a. *Zyon wa [NP [IP naze nani o katta] hito] o
John TOP why what ACC bought person ACC
sagasiteiru no?
looking.for COMPWh
‘What1 is the reason John is looking for [the person that bought what
for that reason1]?’

b. ??Zyon wa [NP [IP nani o naze katta] hito]

John TOP what ACC why bought person
o sagasiteiru no?
ACC looking.for COMPWh
‘What1 is it that John is looking for [the person that bought it1 for what
reason]?’

(37) Adjunct Island:

a. *Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga naze nani o katta] kara]
John TOP Mary NOM why what ACC bought since
okotteiru no?
angry COMPWh
‘What1 is the reason John is angry [because Mary bought what for that
reason1]?’

b. ?Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga nani o naze katta] kara]

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC why bought since
okotteiru no?
angry COMPWh
‘What1 is it that John is angry [because Mary bought it1 for what
reason]?’

(38) Wh-island:
a. *Kimi wa [CP naze dare ga sono hon o katta
you TOP why who NOM that book ACC bought
kadooka] siritai no?
COMPWthr want.to.know COMPWh
‘What1 is the reason you want to know [whether who bought that book
for that reason1]?’
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 521

b. ??Kimi wa [CP dare ga naze sono hon o katta

you TOP who NOM why that book ACC bought
kadooka] siritai no?
COMPWthr want.to.know COMPWh
‘Who1 is it that you want to know [whether (s)he1 bought that book for
what reason]?’

Here, the island effects in (36a), (37a), and (38a) are considered to arise when naze
‘why’ is extracted out of an island and its trace induces a (rigidity-induced) ECP
violation. On the other hand, a similar sentence in each of (36b), (37b), and (38b)
escapes this problem because another wh-phrase appears in a position higher than
naze. To account for this “higher-wh effect”, Saito (1994: 206–207) proposes an
analysis in which naze in a lower position as in (36b), (37b), and (38b) adjoins
nani/dare in a higher position at LF and derives a complex wh-phrase of the form
“[NP[Adv P naze][NP {nani/dare}]]”. Naze then gets a free ride to Spec-CP when the
derived complex wh-phrase is extracted out of an island, leaving behind the trace
of the wh-cluster as a whole. Since what is left behind by this LF-movement is
an argument trace rather than an adjunct trace, the ECP is not violated. Similar LF-
movement in (38a), on the other hand, would leave an adjunct trace of “[Adv P [NP
{nani/dare}][Adv P naze]]” within the wh-island, which would violate the ECP. This
account makes it unnecessary to postulate the rigidity condition.
Note, however, that the contrast reported on each pair of sentences in (36)–(38)
also involves the pragmatic issue discussed on the rigidity paradigm in (32). That
is, (36a), (37a), and (38a) are pragmatically handicapped because naze as a higher
wh-phrase must be interpreted as the “anchor” for the lower wh-phrase in these
sentences. The situation in fact is even more complicated because the multiple wh-
questions in these sentences are located within an island – a complex NP, an
adjunct CP, and an interrogative CP, respectively. Roughly, (36a), (37a), and (38a)
involve complex semantico-pragmatic interpretations as summarized in (39a–c).

(39) a. (36a): The speaker presupposes the existence of a specific reason-object

pair such that John is looking for the person who bought that
object for that reason, and the speaker wants the hearer to
identify this reason-object pair, where the identity of the object
is contingent on the reason.

b. (37a): The speaker presupposes the existence of a specific reason-object

pair such that John is angry because Mary bought that object for
that reason, and the speaker wants the hearer to identify this
reason-object pair, where the identity of the object is contingent
on the reason.
522 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

c. (38a): The speaker presupposes the existence of a specific reason-

person pair such that the hearer wants to know if the book was
purchased by that person for that reason, and the speaker wants
the hearer to identify this reason-person pair, where the identity
of the person is contingent on the reason.
Since (36a), (37a), and (38a) all require quite elaborate, specific types of pragmatic
contexts, their interpretation is naturally difficult and low acceptability is liable to
arise when they are presented in a null discourse context. On the other hand, (36b),
(37b), and (38b) are somewhat easier to interpret since the interpretation of naze in
these sentences is contingent on that of an entity-denoting wh-phrase (nani ‘what’ or
dare ‘who’) as the anchor, which is pragmatically much more common than the
reverse (i.e. assigning identity from reason to object).
Again, it is not an easy task to overcome such heavy handicaps, but we can
improve sentences similar to (36a), (38a), and (38a) by appropriately controlling
pragmatics and assigning Compound FPd, as in (40)–(42). (See also (35), which is
similar to (40) in construction.)
(40) Complex NP island:
[A sports broadcaster interviewing the catcher of a winning baseball club says:]
Kyoo-no-siai-no-naka-de [NP [IP pittyaa ni NA’ze DO’noyoona ]
today’s-game.in pitcher DAT why what
tama o yookyuusita ] daseki ] ga itiban-no pointo-desita ka?

ball ACC required at.bat NOM biggest point-was COMPWh

‘What reason was such that [NP the at-bat you required the pitcher to throw
what kind of ball for that reason] was the biggest point of today’s game?’
(41) Adjunct island:
[At the beginning of a broadcast of an ongoing baseball game, a sportscaster
says:]
Goran-noyooni, hudan-nara raito-o mamotte-iru Itiroo-sensyu-ga kantoku-ni
totyuu-kootai-sase-rare, sudeni benti-ni hikkonde-imasu.
‘As you can see, Ichiro, who is usually at the right field has been already
taken out of the game by the manager and is sitting in the dugout.’
[CP NA’ze DO’noyoona ] puree o sita kara ]

why what.kind.of play ACC did since

kae-rarete-simatta-no ka

was.replaced COMPWh
kyoo-no komenteetaa no Egawa-san ni kaisetusi-temoraimasyoo.
today’s commentator GEN Mr. Egawa DAT let.explain
‘Let’s ask today’s commentator Mr. Egawa to explain for what reason he was
taken out of the game because he had done what kind of play for that reason.’
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 523

(42) Wh-island:
[Context: An employee at some pharmaceutical company asked his colleague:]
Uti-no syatyoo wa [CP NA’ze DO’no seihin ga kooroo-syoo
our president TOP why which product NOM ministry.of.health
no oikari-ni-hure-yasinai ka ] sinpai-siteiru no?

worried COMPWh GEN make.angry-lest COMPWthr

‘For what reason is our president concerned lest the Ministry of Health and
Welfare should become angry at which merchandise of ours for that reason?’

These questions can be answered, for example, as in (43a), (43b), and (43c), respec-
tively.

(43) a. Saisyuu-kai ni daburu puree o neratte naikaku-no

last.inning in double play ACC attempting inside
syuuto o nage-saseta tokoro kana.
screw.ball ACC throw-made scene perhaps
‘I would say when I made him throw an inside screwball, attempting to
make a double play in the last inning.’

b. Saikuru hitto o tasseis-itakute san-rui made

cycle hit ACC achieve-wanted third.base to
boosoosita-no ga mazukatta-ndesyoo-nee.
recklessly.running NOM probably.was.blunder
‘Craving to hit for the cycle, he recklessly ran all the way to the third
base, which I would say was a blunder.’

c. Rinsyoo siken no kekka ga imaiti-datta kara-nee,

clinical test GEN result NOM was.not.perfect because
atarasii kooatuzai-no dioban no-koto o sinpai-siteiru rasii.
new antihypertensive Diovan about ACC worrying seems
‘Since the results of the clinical test was less than perfect, he seems to be
worried about Diovan, our new antihypertensive drug.’

Among these, the wh-island in (42) seems to require the most effort from us to imagine
an appropriate pragmatic context. Such a pragmatic situation in fact is difficult
enough to imagine even when we reverse the order of naze ‘why’ and dono seihin
‘which merchandise’ in (42).16

16 Furthermore, any multiple-pair interpretation seems to be prohibited in this context. See Kitagawa,
Roehrs and Tomioka (2004) for the observations and the analysis of this phenomenon.
524 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Again, these observations suggest that some serious re-examination of the factual
bases of the past work on the higher wh-effects would be advisable.

3.5 Overt wh-movement in Japanese

Takahashi (1993) claimed that when a wh-phrase in Japanese is dislocated across
a clause boundary in a long-distance fashion, it should be analyzed as having
undergone wh-movement rather than long-distance scrambling (henceforth LD-
scrambling). This analysis starts with his report that interpretive asymmetry exists
between (44a) and (44b).

(44) a. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga nani o tabeta ka]

John TOP Mary NOM what ACC ate COMPWh/Wthr
siritagatteiru no?
want.to.know COMPWh/Y-N
‘What1 is it that John wants to know whether Mary ate it1?’
or
‘Does John want to know what Mary ate?’

b. Nani o1 Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga t1 tabeta ka] siritagatteiru no?

what ACC

In (44a), the wh-phrase located in the subordinate clause may be interpreted either
as a direct question in the matrix CP or as an indirect question in the subordinate CP.
On the other hand, when the same wh-phrase is LD-scrambled as in (44b), it is
reported to be interpretable only as a direct question in the matrix. Takahashi
(1993: 658) argues that this observation can be accounted for if we follow Saito
(1989) and assume that scrambling is a movement rule that does not create an
operator-variable relation and hence can be “undone” at LF. The dislocated wh-
phrase cannot take subordinate scope in (44b) because it has not been moved by
LD-scrambling but by wh-movement, which by nature establishes an operator-
variable relation and hence does not permit “undoing” at LF.
As was pointed out above, however, each of the ambiguous interpretations in
(44a) is associated with one specific prosodic pattern. That is, the matrix scope for
a direct question is accompanied by Global FPd as in (45a) below, and the sub-
ordinate scope for an indirect question is accompanied by Local FPd as in (45b).
Note that the post-focal reduction is extended to the end of the entire utterance in
(45a) but it is terminated at the end of the subordinate clause in (45b), as marked
by the post-COMP rise in siRITAGA’tteiru ‘want.to.know’.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 525

(45) a. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga NA’ni o tabeta ka ] siritagatteiru no?

what ACC COMPWthr COMPWh

b. Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga NA’ni o tabeta ka ] siRITAGA’tteiru no?

what ACC COMPWh COMPY-N

Crucially, then, when we let the sentence in (44b) be accompanied by each of these
prosodic patterns, we can reproduce similar results, as Deguchi and Kitagawa (2002)
noted. That is, not only the matrix scope but also the subordinate scope of the LD-
scrambled wh-phrase becomes available, the former with Global FPd and the latter
with Local FPd as illustrated in (46). Note again the different terminating points of
the post-focal reduction in (46a) and (46b).

(46) a. NA’ni o Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga tabeta ka ] siritagatteiru no?

what ACC COMPWthr COMPWh

b. NA’ni o Zyon wa [CP Mearii ga tabeta ka ] siRITAGA’tteiru no?

what ACC COMPWh COMPY-N

Identifying what scope interpretations the grammar permits in accordance with the
analyses as in (46), however, is only the first step since it also raises an explanatory
question that needs addressing: Why does the subordinate scope interpretation asso-
ciated with Local FPd as in (46b) have a tendency to be overlooked by some when
(44b) is analyzed? Kitagawa and Fodor (2003) and Kitagawa and Fodor (2006) point
out that Takahashi’s rejection of the subordinate scope interpretation in (44b) in fact
has some grounds since the Local FPd assigned as in (46b) gives rise to some
conflict between prosody and syntax, whether the prosody is perceived overtly in
speech or assigned implicitly in silent reading. The crucial observation is that in the
(indisputable) LD-scrambling construction, when a wh-phrase is moved to the left
periphery of the matrix clause, it precedes some element in the matrix clause (in
the present case, the matrix topic Zyon wa ‘John TOP’), and this matrix item is
inevitably trapped in the domain of the post-focal reduction created by the dislocated
wh-focus, as can be observed in (46a–b). As a result, a mismatch arises when the
matrix element Zyon wa is included in the domain of Local FPd as in (46b), which
terminates at the end of the subordinate clause. This offends a very general prefer-
ence for congruence between prosodic and syntactic structure, which encourages
perceivers to assume a simple transparent relationship between prosody and syntax
wherever possible.17 When Local FPd as in (46b) is perceived overtly, the listeners

17 Such a perceptual preference for congruence between prosody and syntax in sentence processing
has independently been noted for other constructions in several languages. See, for example, the
Structural Interpretation of Prosody Principle of Fodor (2002b).
526 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

find such a prosody-syntax mismatch in on-line processing at the time they encounter
the post-COMP rise in siRITAGA’tteiru, which is bound to induce some amount of
awkwardness. Some of our informants in fact report that accepting the subordinate
scope interpretation with overt Local FPd in (46b) urges them to somehow send the
interpretation of the matrix topic Zyon wa to the background, marginalizing its role
in the utterance. Note that such a mismatch does not arise when Global FPd is
assigned as in (46a) and the matrix wh-scope interpretation is more easily obtained.
When the sentence in (44b) is perceived in silent reading, on the other hand, the
readers may initially attempt to project Local FPd as a default prosody (avoiding a
long string of post-focal reduction). When the “accidental” trapping of the matrix
topic in its post-focal reduction ensues, however, they now guess instead that Global
FPd must be assigned as in (46a). Local FPd as in (46b) thus tends to be avoided
in silent reading and hence the subordinate wh-scope interpretation as well,
although such prosody-scope association is permitted by the grammar. This explains
Takahashi’s rejection of the subordinate scope reading in (44b) while reconciling it
with the (conditional) availability of such a reading when it is forced by overt Local
FPd as in (46b).

3.6 Superiority effects with LD-scrambling

In his attempt to motivate overt wh-movement in Japanese, Takahashi (1993: 664)
also reports awkwardness induced by LD-scrambling of a wh-phrase as in (47).

(47) ??Nani1 o Zyon ga dare ni [CP Mearii ga t1

what ACC John NOM who DAT Mary NOM |
↑________________________________________________________|

tabeta to] itta no?

ate COMPThat said COMPWh
‘What1 did John say to whom that Mary ate it1?

He claims that this awkwardness arises due to the Superiority effect induced by the
interaction of the overt wh-movement of nani o ‘what ACC’ and the in-situ wh-phrase
dare ni ‘who DAT’.
In footnote 6 on p. 665, however, he also reports (48).

(48) “If the wh-in-situ in [(47)] receives heavy stress, then the examples sound
acceptable. In that case, however, the stressed wh-phrase may be discourse-
oriented, so that it could escape the Superiority effect for some reason. . . .”
[Emphasis added by YK]
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 527

Extrapolating from this statement, the prosodic pattern involving “heavy stress”
mentioned here is like (49a) while the prosody that has been assigned originally to
(47) is like (49b).18

(49) a. NA’ni o Zyon wa DA’re ni [CP Mearii ga t1 tabeta to ] itta no?

what ACC COMPThat COMPWh

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

b. # NA’ni o Zyon wa dare ni [CP Mearii ga t1 tabeta to ] itta no?

what ACC COMPThat COMPWh
..............................................................................................

Note then that, as pointed out by Kitagawa (2006b), the contrast in (49) parallels
that in (18) (repeated here as (50), which we examined in Section 3.1.

(50) a. DA’re ga asokode NA’ni o katta ’no?

who NOM there what ACC bought COMPWh

‘Who bought what there?’

b. # DA’re ga asokode na’ni o katta ’no?

who NOM there what ACC bought COMPWh

Recall that we need to assign Compound FPd to multiple wh-questions in Japanese

in order to ensure their synchronized scope and attain a proper pair-wise interpreta-
tion. If any of the multiple wh-phrases fails to receive focus prominence as in (50b),
on the other hand, this wh-phrase remains uninterpretable and the semantics of
the sentence would remain obscure. Thanks to Compound FPd, we can easily pair the
two wh-phrases in (49a) and succeed in obtaining a pair-wise interpretation in the
matrix clause. Due to the lack of focus prominence on the second wh-phrase, on
the other hand, the interpretation of (49b) would have to remain obscure. Presumably,
the only way a perceiver can avoid complete failure in interpreting this sentence is to
somehow marginalize the interpretation of the unfocused wh-phrase dare ni ‘who
DAT’ and interpret the sentence as if it involved only a single wh-question. This,
however, is a rather awkward mental activity and it must create some discomfort,
as reported. The awkwardness reported on (47) therefore seems to arise when a
perceiver fails to assign Compound FPd, either overtly or implicitly, to the involved
multiple wh-questions, which may have nothing to do with Superiority effects.
All the considerations provided above in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 will lead us to
rethink the status of the wh-movement analysis of LD-scrambling of wh-phrases in
Japanese.

18 Ga ‘NOM’ on the matrix subject Zyon ‘John’ was changed to wa ‘TOP’ to make the information
packaging of the sentence more felicitous.
528 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

4 Theoretical implications
The investigations in the previous sections suggest that we should incorporate
aspects of prosody into our formal syntactic analyses of wh-questions in Japanese.
It, however, is not immediately clear how exactly we can carry out such a research
strategy under the model of generative grammar. Pursuit of this mission in fact turns
out to pose serious challenges, especially to the widely accepted Minimalist Program.
In this section, after giving a brief overview of the major tenets of the Minimalist Pro-
gram, we will point out the theoretical problems the prosody-scope synchronization
of wh-interrogatives in Japanese poses to the Minimalist Program and discuss how
those problems can be solved.

4.1 The minimalist thesis and their achievements

Arguably, the most significant achievement of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky
1993, 1995) has been to provide adequacy conditions (or guiding intuition) of grammar
which led us to shift our attention from hypothetical interim syntactic levels of repre-
sentation (D-structure and S-structure) to only the input and output of grammar, i.e.
lexical items listed in the Numeration and the interface representations (PF and LF).
It had the effect of minimizing the role of syntax, which now is narrowed down to
the proper mapping of the information on the lexical items onto the instructions for
linguistic performance of sounds and meanings expressing an utterance – nothing
more and nothing less. The difference between the Government and Binding (GB)
model of grammar and the Minimalist model of grammar can be graphically illus-
trated in (51).19

(51) a. GB Model: b. Minimalist Model:

19 In this chapter, the “minimalist program/approach/syntax” refers to a general program seeking

“to discover to what extent minimal conditions of adequacy suffice to determine the nature of
the right theory” (Chomsky 2000: 92), which has been pursued with the working hypotheses to be
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 529

The minimalist program imposed restrictions on grammar by postulating the follow-

ing three core working hypotheses. First, the input to the grammar should be nothing
but the information encoded in lexical items (“Inclusiveness”). Second, the informa-
tion in lexical items should be completely split so that each of the interface repre-
sentations (PF and LF) consists solely of the information legible to the performance
systems of sounds and meanings, respectively (“Legibility”). Third, syntactic deriva-
tion should be induced only by an “immediate interface need” to derive legible PF
and legible LF (“Economy”).20 In this chapter, we will also take the position that
these restrictions must always be imposed on grammar in our efforts to pursue its
optimal solution to satisfy the interface conditions.

4.2 Deviation from a minimalist thesis – Overt movement as

look-ahead
The “minimalist theses” described above, however, have not always been met in the
pursuit of the minimalist syntax in the literature. A problem which has long been
noted, at least unofficially, is the very existence of “overt movement”. Overt move-
ment must apply before the syntactic derivation splits toward PF and LF (at Spell-
Out) because it affects both sounds and meanings. The early (pre-interface) applica-
tion of overt movement therefore gives rise to a prototypical look-ahead problem. (A
look-ahead problem arises when a global rather than local scanning of a derivation
in the grammar would be required for the generation of a well-formed sentence.)
In order to cope with this dilemma, “EPP-features” were devised (Chomsky 2000,
2001), which were characterized as “viruses” that need to be eliminated before any
larger constituent is created by Merge (cf. Uriagereka 1998). With this characteriza-
tion, an EPP-feature added to a functional head is hypothesized to attract some
item to its Spec position to undergo checking and get deleted before Spell-Out. But
this theoretical device merely rephrases the problem. It essentially is equivalent
to stating that “for some mysterious reason, which reminds us of some properties of
‘viruses’ in medicine, overt movement must take place before Spell-Out”. Moreover,
simultaneous effects of overt movement on sounds and meanings are mere by-
products in this approach arising from the virus-like characterization of EPP-features,
which were tailor-made to induce such an effect.
Comparing (52a) and (52b) below, Bošković (2007) pointed out that EPP-features
characterized as “I need a Spec” in fact would inevitably induce a look-ahead problem

mentioned immediately below. Crucially, the use of the term “minimalist” in this chapter does
not refer to any particular mechanics or technical details Chomsky has adopted in pursuing this
program, for example, postulation of specific functional categories like AGR or v, an appeal to a
“probe-goal relation” (or its predecessor “feature checking”) or overt Agree.
20 What is meant to be captured by “Least Effort”, “Last Resort”, “Local Economy”, and “Pro-
crastinate” are all subsumed here.
530 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

in Chomsky’s phase approach when movement applies in a successively cyclic fashion.

(52) a. [CP What1 do-COMP you think [CP t1 thatCOMP [IP Mary bought t1]]?
EPP EPP

b. *[CP Who2 COMP t2 thinks [CP what1 thatCOMP [IP Mary bought t1]]?
EPP EPP

In (52a), PIC (Phrase Impenetrability Condition) (Chomsky 2001) requires what to

have moved to the intermediate Spec-CP (as “phase edge”) for further movement.
Adding an EPP-feature to the subordinate COMP, in other words, is required in
(52a). On the other hand, an EPP-feature on the subordinate COMP would incorrectly
permit (52b). That is, an EPP-feature is introduced to the subordinate COMP only
when its specifier must move further as in (52a), which is nothing but a decision
with ‘look-ahead’.
Chomsky’s (2001: 5) “Agree” applying before Spell-Out also inevitably induces a
look-ahead problem since it applies shortly before Spell-Out, anticipating its effects
at both interface representations. It must send agreement features to PF since valued
agreement features on the target heads may provide phonetic effects at PF. It must
not, however, send those features to LF since they would be indistinguishable from
the interpretable agreement features on nominals; they cannot play any role at LF on
the target head.
Much published research involves a similar look-ahead problem even when
not directly appealing to EPP. For instance, Rizzi (1997) proposes various types of
“criteria” which require a phrase to move overtly (i.e. before Spell-Out) to become
the specifier of a semantically motivated head like Topic, Focus, or Wh, so that the
moved phrases can be interpreted as topic, focus, wh-interrogative, and so on.
Chomsky (2013) also claims that when a phrase is externally merged with another
phrase and generates a new syntactic object β without a head, one of the phrases
must overtly move out of β before Spell-Out so that β can be “labeled” via projection
from the remaining phrase, which would be necessary for the semantic interpreta-
tion of β, again causing a “look-ahead” problem.

5 The syntax of sound-meaning synchronization

5.1 Typology of wh-interrogatives as a look-ahead problem
A different type of a look-ahead problem arises when we start to understand the way
prosody interacts with syntax. For instance, Richards (2010) attempts to advocate
the view that some syntactic operations are motivated (or licensed) by phonology,
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 531

proposing typological classification of wh-interrogatives in the languages of the

world as follows. Whether a language syntactically derives a wh-question through
overt wh-movement or whether it does so through wh-in-situ can be predicted by
the interaction of the universal condition on wh-prosody as in (53) below with
the linear direction of prosodic boundaries and that of COMPs permitted in each
language as in (54a–b):

(53) The wh-phrase and the corresponding complementizer are separated by as few
prosodic boundaries (of Minor Phrases) as possible. (p. 145, See also p. 151.)

(54) a. Whether prosodic representations in the language are constructed by

mapping the left boundary or the right boundary of a syntactic phrase
onto the boundary of a prosodic category, in particular of Minor Phrase.
b. Whether the language is COMP-initial or COMP-final.

For example, when the prosodic boundary of the “wh-domain” (as a type of Minor
Phrase which is established by a wh-phrase) is placed on the left but COMP appears
on the right as in (55a) below, the wh-phrase may remain in-situ.

(55) a. Japanese: [Prosodic wh-domain wh . . . COMP]

b. English: [ wh COMP . . . [Prosodic wh-domain wh . . .]

↑_____________________________|

On the other hand, when both the prosodic boundary and COMP appear on the left
as in (55b), the universal condition (53) urges a wh-phrase to overtly move toward the
COMP across the intervening prosodic boundary. The generalization offered in this
approach thus is that overt wh-movement applies only when a language fails to
supply a prosodic wh-domain within which the wh-phrase and COMP can be suc-
cessfully paired, and that the position of COMP plays an important role in this
syntactic choice. Whether or not one pursues this typological generalization in the
exact way Richards does, it inevitably induces a look-ahead problem in the minimalist
model of grammar since the applicability of overt wh-movement in syntax is deter-
mined directly by interface incentives at PF.21

21 Richards implies the need to modify the model of grammar to let syntactic operations directly
refer to phonology, remarking that “. . . the look-ahead problems suggest that our understanding of
the interfaces is flawed in some way” (p. 215, footnote 1). He also mentioned briefly the possibility
that multiple Spell-Out at phase boundaries (Chomsky 2001) might be capable of offering a solution
if it can permit phonology to return to the syntax an object annotated for prosodic structure at each
phase edge (pp. 201–2, 206). It is not clear, however, if there is any substantial difference between
claiming that “phonology returns to the syntax some aspects of phonology” and claiming that “syntax
can look-ahead and access aspects of phonology”. See Kitagawa (2013) for other potential problems
of this particular idea as well as Richards’ approach appealing to general prosodic phrasing.
532 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

5.2 Prosody-scope synchronization as a look-across problem

Underlying Richards’ proposal was the view we introduced in Section 2.1 above –
there is a close association between the semantic scope of a wh-interrogative and
the domain of focus prosody in Tokyo Japanese (and Fukuoka Japanese, among
others). We have seen that the potentially ambiguous sentence in (2) (repeated below
as (56)), for instance, can be disambiguated with the two distinct prosodic patterns
indicated in (57) and (58) in Tokyo Japanese.

(56) Na’oya wa [Ma’ri ga na’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ‘ka]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr/Wh
i’mademo obo’eteru ’no?
even.now remember COMPWh/Y-N

(57)

(58) . . . [ . . . NA’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ka] i’mademo obo’eteru ’no?

. . . what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr even.now remember COMPWh

‘What1 is it that Naoya still remembers [whether Mari drank it1 at the bar]?’

Discovering the existence of such prosody-scope synchronization is an important

first step to take in our research. If, however, we merely point out that a certain pro-
sodic pattern is responsible for producing a specific semantic effect (or vice versa)
without elucidating how such a correlation is grammatically derived, that creates a
new problem for generative grammar to solve. Since a prosody-semantics correlation
is merely viewed in terms of the direct association of a PF with an LF skipping
syntax, the prosody-semantics correlation would involve “look-across” in a grammar,
as illustrated in Figure 5 below. Note that this situation induces a need for a global
rather than local scanning of a derivation in order to capture the well-formed asso-
ciation of PF and LF, which we may regard as another type of problem in maintain-
ing local economy.

Figure 5: Look-across problem in generative grammar

 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 533

Hirotani (2005), for instance, attempts to capture the prosody-scope synchronization

as in (57)–(58) and its distortion by the extra-grammatical bias toward the sub-
ordinate wh-scope interpretation by making a crucial appeal to prosodic phrasing
at surface. She claims that a subordinate wh-scope interpretation arises only when
the right boundary of a Major Phrase (MaP) created by the subordinate wh-focus is
recognized due to the existence of the pitch range reset (i.e. a post-COMP rise) at the
beginning of the following MaP, as illustrated in (59).

(59)

She then claims that the comprehension of the wh-phrase is guided by the prosodic
phrasing of the sentence, as specified in her Scope Prosody Correspondence (60)
below, which she describes as “a general principle that listeners use when they pro-
cess sentences containing all and only scope relevant items” (p. x) and induces “the
preferred correspondence relation between scope and the prosodic structure of the
sentence.” (p. 7)

(60) The Scope Prosody Correspondence (SPC): (Hirotani 2005: 256)

When a term X requires a c-commanding licensor, Y, X should be contained in
the same Major (phonological) Phrase (MaP) as Y.

Since this approach discusses only how prosodic phrasing and semantic scope are
associated with each other in sentence processing without taking into consideration
syntax, it poses a typical “look-across” problem in the framework of generative
grammar.22
Ishihara (2003: 92–93), on the other hand, claims that multiple transfer applying
at Chomsky’s (2001) phase achieves the prosody-scope synchronization of wh-
interrogatives in Japanese in the course of syntactic derivation, which avoids such a
“look-across” problem. We consider the core idea of his analysis to be correct and
pursue a version of the multiple transfer approach below. We will discuss an aspect
of this phase approach below and compares it to our analysis to be described in the
next section.

22 There in fact are a number of studies which suggest that focus prosody does not create a MaP.
The validity of the prosodic phrasing in (59) therefore is questionable to begin with. See Poser
(1984), Shinya (1999), Kubozono (2007), and Ishihara (2011). See also Kitagawa and Hirose (2012),
who also question the legitimacy of the experimental stimuli in some of Hirotani’s (2005) experi-
ments.
534 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

6 Encoding and decoding the sound-meaning

synchronization
6.1 Physical/logical feature complexes
The task that the grammar must undertake in both look-ahead and look-across cases
is the same – it must somehow find a way to guarantee the synchronization of a
specific PF effect and a specific LF effect without involving any global scan of gram-
matical derivations, and at the same time it must identify an independent interface
motivation to produce each of such effects.
We would like to argue in the remainder of this chapter that these seemingly
independent issues of “look-ahead” and “look-across” can be resolved in the same
way, i.e. with an appeal to the same grammatical mechanisms. The key to the solution
is to strictly observe the three minimalist constraints imposed on grammar mentioned
above – Inclusiveness, Legibility, and Economy.
The proposed approach begins with the hypothesis that the synchronization of
sounds and meanings in general is established by a feature complex of the form
[fP, fL], where fP is a feature relevant to PF and fL to LF (Kitagawa 2013). The paired
features [fP, fL], which we call a “PL-complex” (short for physical/logical feature
complex), represent two different interface aspects of a single linguistic phenomenon.
Some of the PL-complexes are inherently specified in lexical items but some others
are added to them just as other formal features like Case and Φ-features, when a
Numeration (or Lexical Subarray) is formed.23 For instance, when a Numeration is
formed for the utterance in (61) below, various extra features (among others) are
added to the lexical items, as indicated in (62).

(61) [As an answer to the question ‘Who does John love?’]

He loves MÁRY.

(62) Numeration: {he (NOM), loves (PRES, 3P/SG), Mary (ACC, [FOCP, FOCL ])}

Here, because of its focused status, the lexical head of the object Nmax/min Mary is
assigned the PL-complex [FOCP, FOCL]. This PL-complex consists of two distinct
types of features: the focus feature FOCP (which eventually becomes relevant to
phonetic interpretation) and the focus feature FOCL (which eventually becomes rele-
vant to semantic interpretation). When a language user decides what lexical items
are to be used in generating an utterance, he or she also determines, consciously or
unconsciously, what informational role should be assigned to each of them in accor-
dance with the appropriate information packaging strategy for a given context. This

23 In Section 7 below, we will touch upon the claim that the notion PL-complex in fact should be
extended to cover such formal features as well.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 535

decision leads to the introduction of PL-complexes to particular lexical items. The

PL-complex [FOCP, FOCL ] was added to Mary in (62) in this way so that Mary comes
to properly represent the concept of focus both at PF and LF, in a synchronized way
but separately.24 As such, the paired features [FOCP, FOCL ] are naturally bound to be
completely split in the course of computation.
One may have gotten the impression that “PL-complex” is a novel theoretical
device but it actually is not. Recall that lexical items in general are nothing but
a bundle of phonologico- phonetic and/or semantico-pragmatic features, to which
formal features may be added (e.g. he: /hi/, [3P, SG, M], NOM), and all of these
features must be properly assorted and sent separately to PF and LF when the
computation splits. Simply put, the PL-complexes of the form [fP, fL ] are only some
specific instances of such features. This means that no extra device or new hypo-
thesis needs to be added to the standard minimalist assumptions in order to capture
the synchronization of sounds and meanings.
The matter of what particular lexical items are selected into the Numeration is
not determined by purely grammatical factors alone but by various extra-grammatical
factors like register and style as well – as in the selection from angry, mad, and pissed
off. As such, we consider the Numeration to be an interface between the computa-
tional component of the minimalist grammar and other cognitive systems. Since
information packaging, i.e. how we convey a message, rather than what we convey,
is also determined partly by extra-syntactic factors like discourse and pragmatics,
we consider Numeration to be the appropriate level for the introduction of PL-
complexes like [FOCP, FOCL ].25 It should also be noted that Numeration should
not be regarded as a mere list of lexical items but as the blueprint of a particular
utterance. It presumably indicates which particular lexical items are to be combined
into an utterance in order to express the intended meanings. We therefore may
consider that syntactic derivations start with some semantic content even in the
Minimalist Program.

6.2 Physical legibility and logical legibility

Let us now establish some terminology that clearly labels the concepts we pursue.
The role of PL-complexes as characterized above is to guarantee that the linguistic

24 This is an extended version of Deguchi and Kitagawa’s (2002) “E-agreement”. Following Fuchs
(1984) in spirit, we assume that, when broad focus is involved, all the lexical items within the
focalized domain are assigned the PL-complex [FOCP, FOCL ]. In (i-A) below, for example, it is
assigned to all of the lexical items within the focalized VP, i.e. cleaned, my, and room.
(i) Q: What did you do yesterday?
A: I [VP cleaned my room].
As has been discussed by many researchers, however, how FOCP is phonetically implemented in broad
focus is a complex matter which requires further explanation. See Selkirk (1996), Schwarzschild (1999),
and Büring (2006), among others, for relevant discussion.
25 See Kitagawa (2013: 343) for the comparison of PL-complexes and Jackendoff’s (1972: 240) “F”.
536 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

expression they are assigned to represents a specific linguistic concept (e.g. focus)
properly both at PF and LF. PF and LF then must provide cues that can eventually
be interpreted as appropriate instructions for linguistic performance. When such
interface cues are established, a linguistic expression can be said to become “legible”
at each interface – “physically legible” at PF (henceforth “P-legible”) and “logically
legible” at LF (henceforth “L-legible”).
We now illustrate how “P-legibility” and “L-legibility” are established when the
prosody-scope synchronization for wh-interrogatives in Japanese is captured with an
appeal to PL-complexes. First, we hypothesize that the notion “wh-focus” is intro-
duced into the Numeration by a wh-word and COMPWh as a pair (henceforth “wh-C
pair”), which is specified, presumably inherently, with a PL-complex of the form
[whP, whL ] and [CP, CL ], respectively, as exemplified in (63).26

(63) Numeration: { . . . dare ([whP, whL ]) . . . ka/no/∅ka ([CP, CL ]) . . . }

who COMPWh

This hypothesis amounts to the claim that, at the time language users make the
blueprint of an utterance by forming a Numeration, they already encode the way
wh-interrogation is incorporated into that utterance by indicating which item is
interpreted as focus and under which projection it takes scope. That is, when a wh-
word and its associated complementizer are introduced into the syntax, it is already
specified how they must be represented at PF and at LF. The idea of encoding
grammatical information as two independent elements that come to be associated
as a single unit is not novel to generative syntax. For instance, in English, perfective
aspect, progressive aspect, and passive voice are often analyzed as one unit con-
sisting of both an auxiliary verb and a verbal inflection (i.e. have + -EN, be + -ING,
and be + -EN, respectively).
The P-features of a wh-C pair make the wh-word and COMPWh become P-legible
in the manner described in (64) below in wh-in-situ languages.

26 Some qualifications are in order here. First, these PL-complexes presumably involve the inter-
rogative properties associated with wh-C pairs, but we will not pay attention to them in this chapter.
Second, no in (63) possibly is some abbreviated form of no-desu-ka (NMLZ-COP-COMPWh), which
seems to involve some specific presupposition on the part of the speaker. We suppress this complica-
tion in this chapter. Third, we also postulate a phonetically empty COMPWh (∅ka) when no overt
COMP appears in wh-questions in Japanese. We in fact should probably consider that the PL-complex
[FOCP, FOCL] for non-wh focus also involves a similar pairing of a focused item and a phonetically
empty COMP, a hypothesis which we will not pursue in this chapter.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 537

(64) P-legibility of wh-in-situ:

A wh-phrase and COMPWh become P-legible when their P-features [whP] and
[CP] define a unique domain of focus prosody (FPd) in such a way that:
(i) [whP] physically marks the initiation of FPd, and
(ii) the end of the maximal projection headed by [CP] physically marks the
termination of FPd.27

While the PF of wh-in-situ in general becomes P-legible as specified in (64), the way
FPd is phonetically implemented varies from language to language, presumably
within the range of options made available by Universal Grammar. The most common
pattern seems to involve indicating the wh-focus word with a distinctively high or low
pitch, followed by a stretch of relatively level pitch that terminates at the end of CP
(thus marking the end of FPd) (Kitagawa 2013).
Independently of such licensing at PF, the wh-C pair must be made L-legible at
LF in the manner described in (65).

(65) L-legibility of a wh-question:

A wh-phrase and a COMPWh become L-legible when their L-features [whL ] and
[CL ] define a unique domain of interpretation for focus in such a way that:
(i) [whL ] identifies the item to be interpreted as wh-focus, and
(ii) the maximal projection headed by [CL ] is identified as this item’s scope
domain.

How legibility is implemented at PF and LF in a potentially ambiguous wh-question

(66) below in Tokyo Japanese is illustrated in (67) below. Observe how FPd at PF and
a wh-focus scope domain at LF are aligned when the legibility of a wh-phrase and a
COMPWh is established in accordance with (64) and (65).

(66) [CP Keisatu wa [CP ka’nozyo ga ano ban da’re to a’tteita

police TOP she NOM that night who with seeing
ka] kakunin-siyo’oto-siteiru no]?
COMPWthr confirm-trying.to COMPWh
‘Who1 is it that the police are trying to confirm [whether she was seeing him1
that night]?’

(67)

27 The portion “the end of the maximal projection headed by” in (64ii) is redundant in a COMP-final
language like Japanese, but not in COMP-initial languages. See Kitagawa (2013) for the analysis of
FPd in COMP-initial wh-in-situ languages.
538 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Note that prosody and wh-scope come to be indicated separately at PF and LF, but
their effects are synchronized. Since FPd in (67) does not correspond to a syntactic
constituent, the PF-LF correspondence here would be difficult to capture in terms
of syntactic structure (or prosodic structure derived from syntactic structure).28 PL-
complexes, on the other hand, can properly fulfill such prosody-scope synchroniza-
tion without “look-across”.
Presumably, [WhL ] can be considered as an interpretable feature that provides
wh-focus content, while [CL ] is an uninterpretable feature that gets deleted when its
maximal projection comes to be identified as the interpretive domain of focus. As
for the P-features, [WhP] in wh-in-situ languages can be considered an interpretable
feature that provides a phonological tone target that marks the initiation of FPd at
PF. In contrast, [CP] is an uninterpretable feature that marks the termination of FPd.
This feature is deleted when it is identified as marking the end of the post-focal pitch
pattern at the end of the relevant maximal projection. Since [CP] and [CL ] of a wh-C
pair are uninterpretable features, their failure to make the wh-C pair visible is ex-
pected to induce ungrammaticality. While [whP] and [whL ] are interpretable features,
they must also play a role in making the wh-C pair legible at the interface by being
associated with [CP] and [CL ], respectively. Such association will allow the focus
prosody starting with a distinctively high or low pitch of a wh-word to be properly
terminated, and will also allow the focus value of a wh-word (in the sense of Rooth
1992) to be elevated to the ordinary semantic value.29
Given the interface requirements on [whP, whL ] and [CP, CL ] just described, the
“paired” inclusion of a wh-phrase and COMPWh in the Numeration will probably be
guaranteed even without any external specification. Since a wh-C pair in Japanese as
in (63) collectively establishes legibility at PF and LF, if one of them fails to be intro-
duced in the Numeration, the derivation will crash at the interface level. Note that
creation of the Numeration per se may be carried out freely without involving any
constraint. A well-formed derivation results only when the entire lexical entry in
the Numeration can properly establish legibility at the interface and other deriva-
tions are filtered out. Thus, the creation of the Numeration would not require any
“look-ahead”. Presumably, the situation involved here is quite similar to what takes
place in the syntax of aspects and passive voice in English. As is well-known, each
of the auxiliary-participle pairs in these constructions must co-occur in English, for
example, as in (68).

28 This also suggests that what is often labeled as an “intonational phrase” in prosodic phonology
is not necessarily derived directly from a syntactic constituent.
29 At the same time, the post-focal materials located within FPd at PF presumably come to be regarded
as the “tail” portion of the background of the focus at LF in the sense of Vallduví (1990).
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 539

(68) a. *He is go__.

b. *He __ going.

We can also ascribe this obligatory periphrasis to the legibility they must establish
as a pair but separately at PF and LF.

6.3 Typology of wh-interrogatives

While the scope of wh-focus represented at LF is synchronized with a specific prosodic
pattern represented at PF in wh-in-situ languages, a similar PF-LF correspondence is
established by overt displacement in “wh-movement languages”. Richards (2010), in
fact, offered this generalization on the prosody-based typology of wh-interrogatives:
that overt wh-movement to the specifier position of CP applies when a language fails
to supply an appropriate prosodic wh-domain for successful wh-COMP association.
It then seems not too far-fetched for us to consider that overt movement, or more
precisely, the displacement effect observed at PF, plays essentially the same role as
wh-prosody. We then are prompted to extend the view of interface licensing developed
above from wh-in-situ languages to wh-movement languages. At the core of this
approach lies Wachowicz’s (1978: 156) idea that all languages must provide some
form of surface physical cue for marking wh-questions. Elaborating further on this
view in minimalist-syntactic terms, let us now hypothesize that whatever method of
physical marking may be adopted for wh-questions (assigning a distinctive wh-
prosodic pattern or displacing a wh-phrase to the periphery of CP, etc.), its primary
purpose is to indicate both: (i) the item to be interpreted as focus, and (ii) the con-
stituent that serves as its scope domain. The two types of languages then may be
unified by appealing to the notion P-legibility with the cross-language variation in
the method of establishing P-legibility as specified in (69i–ii).

(69) (i) In wh-in-situ languages:

A wh-C pair become P-legible when their [whP] and [CP] define a unique
FPd in such a way that the [whP] initiates FPd and (the maximal projec-
tion headed by) the [CP] terminates it.

(ii) In wh-movement languages:

A wh-C pair become P-legible when their [whP] and [CP] jointly initiate a
unique CP in such a way that the [whP] is located at the left periphery of
the CP headed by the [CP].

The P-legibility in (69ii) is illustrated in (70) with an English examples.

540 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

(70) [CP1 I don’t know [CP2 which book1 C2 she bought which book1]]
PF: ↓ ↳ CP2-initial
LF: Focus scope domain ↳ wh-focus

The crucial distinction between the two types of languages then is that the wh-word
and COMPWh become P-legible separately with division of their labor as indicated in
(69i) or the two must become locally associated to jointly become P-legible as indicate
in (69ii).30
We believe, on the other hand, that the L-legibility of wh-questions is established
in the same manner (as described in (65)) for both wh-in-situ languages and wh-
movement languages.31

6.4 Overt syntax extended

How can we solve the “look-ahead” problem of overt movement discussed in Sections
4.2 and 5.1 above? The “P/L-legibility” analysis of overt wh-movement sketched out
above could be regarded as advocating the view that overt wh-movement is PF-
movement that also induces synchronized LF-effects. This analysis would solve the
look-ahead problem in question at least partly since physical (and hence overt) dis-
location of phonetic content now takes place in the course of the derivation toward
PF after Spell-Out, and its application can be motivated strictly by an interface
requirement if we adopt PL-complexes along with it.32 While this approach is feasible,
we can in fact take a step further and bring overt movement back into syntax with
only small revisions of the minimalist model of syntax, as indicated in (71) below.
The fact that the current minimalist model of syntax cannot achieve overt movement
without inducing a look-ahead problem suggests, in itself, a need to redesign the
model.

30 We may consider that wh-movement is a more marked strategy of physical marking than wh-
prosody since it involves an extra process of relocating phonetic content to the periphery of a clause,
while prosody is assigned to a sentence no matter what. Richards’ generalization can be regarded as
the reflection of such a markedness relation between the two options in (69).
One question that is not easy to answer is if there exist languages which adopt both strategies in
(69). On the one hand, Ladd (1996: 170–172) mentions Romanian and Hungarian as those permitting
“the nuclear accent on the wh-word” even when wh-movement applies “so long as the sentence is
fairly short”. Zubizarreta (1998: 92–93, 179), on the other hand, considers that the mixture of (69i)
and (69ii) is not permitted at least in Romance and most Germanic languages, distinguishing nuclear
stress and focus prominence. The pursuit of this issue must be left for future work.
31 In effect, we have identified the fP of P-complexes as a possible locus of cross-linguistic variation
while maintaining the universality of the paired fL .
32 Another logical possibility of course is to analyze the wh-phrase as being externally merged at
the periphery of the relevant CP and becoming P-legible there at PF.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 541

(71)

The crucial revision here is that overt syntax (now called “physical syntax”) and
covert syntax (now called “logical syntax”) do not overlap. They are completely
separate and operate in the following order. Physical syntax starts with the genera-
tion of linguistic expressions by merging the features encoded in lexical items and
their projections. The goal of physical syntax is to derive a well-formed physical
form (ɸF), at which the P-legibility of linguistic expressions must be achieved. An
operation in physical syntax is enacted solely for this purpose, triggered by the
fP of a PL-complex. At any derivational stage of physical syntax, the semantico-
pragmatic properties of lexical items (L-features) and the structure they make up
may be extracted away from P-features and fed into logical syntax ‘as needed’ for
L-legibility. This can be achieved by multiple transfer, applying in the way proposed
by Epstein, et al. (1998). Logical syntax then attempts to derive a well-formed LF,
at which L-legibility of linguistic expressions must be achieved.33 In a sense, this
model proposes to treat not only covert syntax but also overt syntax (redefined now
as “physical syntax”) as a derivational process directly mapping lexical information
onto an interface representation, solely prompted by interface needs.
When PL-complexes are combined with the model of syntax in (71), we can
guarantee prosody-scope synchronization while making sure that each of them is
independently established with a separate motive in physical syntax and logical
syntax, respectively. That is, prosody does not directly induce scope, or vice versa,
in a look-across fashion.
How do PL-complexes trigger overt movement in this model of syntax? A [whP]
feature assigned to the head of a wh-argument in English, for example, requires this
argument to achieve its P-legibility in accordance with (69ii) and hence to undergo
movement. [whP] here plays a role similar to that of the “I need to be a spec” wh-
feature argued for by Bošković (2007), and inherits its virtue of inducing succes-

33 Such a “derivational” mapping of physical syntax onto logical syntax can induce, for instance,
various LF-reconstruction effects. We tentatively assume that multiple transfer applies also in the
mapping of logical syntax onto semantics and that of physical syntax onto phonology/phonetics.
Note that we are defining “interface” more broadly than customarily done since our ɸF is a purely
syntactic representation, which is more abstract than PF, the output of phonetics. In principle, a PL-
complex could come in a “simplex” form of [fP] alone or [fL] alone. The former then would induce,
for instance, stylistic rules and the latter, covert movement. We will, however, refrain from pursuing
this possibility in this work.
542 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

sively cyclic movement in a self-serving manner.34 If [whP] is not located at the

periphery of the projection of [CP] and remains “in-situ” (in the base-generated posi-
tion or in the intermediate Spec-CP position), it fails to become P-legible, and hence
must move every time merge applies. This way, a wh-phrase continues to move until
it eventually reaches the left periphery of a CP headed by [CP] without involving
look-ahead.35 A transfer to logical syntax at that point will also achieve L-legibility
of the wh-C pair in accordance with (65), both of [whL ] and [CL ] being located under
the same CP.
While the proposed reorganization of syntax in (71) may appear to be drastic at
first sight, the revisions are in fact relatively small-scale. First, the proposed reorga-
nization has simply decomposed traditional overt syntax by untangling and separat-
ing its PF-effects and LF-effects, while permitting them to be synchronized with an
appeal to PL-complexes. Second, multiple transfer merely applies in the opposite
way to Spell-Out, stripping away L-features rather than P-features from the feature
complexes of lexical items. If such small-scale revisions permit us to account for
the synchronization of sounds and meanings while avoiding the serious theoretical
problems involving “look-ahead” and “look-across”, they are certainly worth trying.
The model in (71) should not be misunderstood as the manifestation of the claim
that sound is more fundamental to language than meaning. On the contrary, it
hypothesizes that an utterance starts with the rough ideas about meaning, postulat-
ing the Numeration as the starting point of the derivation. It also hypothesizes that
the generative procedure advances step-by-step, with entirely local determination of
the exact physical form which turns the blueprint of partial linguistic meanings into
its (interim) logical form. Then the arising interface information will be utilized in
actual semantic interpretation and phonetic interpretation.36
In this interface licensing approach, both prosody and displacement are regarded
as physical (or overt) effects at ɸF to be synchronized with LF effects, and such syn-
chronization is achieved by separate but paired derivations in physical and logical

34 Crucially, however, [whP] would not require us to assign any contradictory semantic characteriza-
tion to a focus feature for moved wh-phrases and one for in-situ wh-phrases as Bošković’s [F] feature
does. Kitagawa (2011) also points out that EPP characterized as “a case feature that needs to be a
spec” in Bošković ’s approach is essentially equivalent to the property “I need to be located at the
Spec-position of the target head at PF (i.e. must be pronounced there)”, and overt movement is
assumed to apply before Spell-Out solely to achieve this anticipated displacement effect at PF.
35 If no such [CP] is encountered in the course of derivation, [whP] fails to become P-legible and a
crash arises.
36 We could postulate syntactic derivation in which merge generates linearly unordered syntactic
objects as Chomsky (2013) does, and let multiple transfer map it to both physical and logical syntax.
But generation of such syntactic objects would in fact give rise to redundancy since logical syntax
can simply disregard linear order existing in syntactic objects when it establishes a c-command rela-
tion intra-sententially. On the other hand, logical syntax can also appeal to linear order when some
discourse principle (e.g. the Novelty Condition of Heim 1982: 150–152) would call for it within a
single utterance (e.g. He likes {a cat1 / the cat1 / it1} and/while she hates a cat*1). It should also be
made clear that (71) is proposed as a model of competence, not as an acquisition model.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 543

syntax. In a sense, then, both cases of synchronization can be regarded as involving

syntax with overt effects. As such, it is practically useful to use “overt syntax” to
refer to both. We thus use the term “overt syntax” as a cover term to refer to a
grammatical procedure that achieves the synchronized ɸF- and LF-effects encoded by
PL-complexes. Under this new definition, the synchronization of wh-prosody and wh-
semantics can be regarded as a product of overt syntax, just as the synchronization
of wh-movement and wh-semantics is. Put differently, overt movement also involves
a type of PF-LF synchronization achieved by PL-complexes.
As mentioned at the end of Section 5.2, Ishihara (2003) claims that Chomsky’s
(2001) “derivation by phase” can properly capture the prosody-scope synchroniza-
tion of wh-interrogatives in Japanese. While this approach successfully avoids a
“look-across” problem, it is not clear to us if Chomsky’s (2001) phase categories
(vp/CP) indeed play any crucial role in such synchronization. In the by-now familiar
scopally ambiguous sentence as in (72) below, for example, whether the prosody-
scope synchronization takes place at the subordinate CP as a lower phase or at the
matrix CP as a higher phase cannot be determined without examining if these CPs
are headed by COMPWh or not.

(72) [CP Na’oya wa [CP Ma’ri ga na’ni o nomi’ya de no’nda ‘ka]

Naoya TOP Mari NOM what ACC bar at drank COMPWthr/Wh
i’mademo obo’eteru ’no]?
even.now remember COMPWh/Y-N

This suggests that phase in this sentence must be defined “dynamically” based upon
the lexical properties of COMP. Moreover, if transfer to each of the two interfaces
(the “sensorimotor” system and the “conceptual-intentional” system) indeed has
the freedom to take place independently at different points in the derivation as
suggested by some researchers (e.g. Cecchetto 2004; Felser 2004; Marušič 2005), an
extra device to ensure the prosody-scope synchronization would be necessary even
in the phase approach. That is, some device that fulfills the same function as PL-
complexes would likely have to be postulated in the phase approach as well. If, on
the other hand, we just postulate PL-complexes and adopt multiple transfer, we can
achieve not only the prosody-scope synchronization of wh-in-situ without involving
“look-across” but also the long-distance overt wh-movement without involving “look-
ahead”. In either case, the notion “phase” would be superfluous.

7 Further look-across problems in the minimalist

syntax
A look-across problem neither is limited to the issue of prosody-scope association
nor is an entirely new problem. It has in fact existed for a long time in generative
grammar under the Principles and Parameters approach. To begin with, based upon
544 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Jean-Roger Vergnaud’s observation, the well-known Case Filter as in (73) below was
proposed by Chomsky (1981) and well-accepted into the Government and Binding
framework.

(73) Every pronounced NP needs abstract Case at PF (or S-structure).

[Emphasis added by YK]

With the assumption that abstract Case is assigned under government, it was claimed
that, typically, a subject of a sentence appears as the specifier of a finite tense and
an object as the complement of a verb or a preposition. In addition, it was claimed
that the assigner and assignee of Case must be adjacent to each other at the surface
(Keyser 1968; Chomsky 1980; Stowell 1981). Although “S-structure” was hypothe-
sized to be a possible level of syntactic representation at that time, it came to be
eliminated later under the Minimalist Program. The Case Filter therefore can now
be characterized as an early attempt to predict the distribution of pronounced NPs
at PF under the Principles and Parameters approach.
Later, in an effort to reduce the Case Filter to the θ-Criterion, Chomsky (1981)
followed the suggestion by Aoun (1979) and proposed what is known as the Visibility
Condition as in (74).

(74) Arguments must have Case at PF to be visible for θ-marking at LF.

[Emphasis added by YK]

Note that this statement involves a proto-typical look-across problem in the genera-
tive grammar since it attempts to directly correlate the PF distribution of argument
NPs and their LF interpretations, skipping syntax. No serious attempt to implement
this conjecture seems to have been offered in the literature to this date, however.
Another task that must be fulfilled in the minimalist syntax therefore is to explicate
how the Case-θ association can be guaranteed without “look-across”. In addition, it
should be clarified where and how the Case adjacency requirement on Case marking
should be captured, which is not so easy a task to achieve in the minimalist syntax,
the role of Case having become increasingly more obscure.37
Kitagawa and Yoon (2011), Yoon (2012), and Kitagawa and Yoon (2012) point out
that the look-across problem involved in the Visibility Condition can be resolved
when we incorporate PL-complexes into the lexical entry of argument NPs at the
Numeration. They argue, for example, that the following heterogeneous and seem-
ingly independent case adjacency phenomena can be explicated in a uniform fashion.

37 Chomsky (2001: 6), for instance, has characterized Case merely as an entity ancillary to agree-
ment, assuming that Case of a goal N is “assigned a value under agreement, then removed by
Spell-Out from the narrow syntax” without playing any role in the Probe-Goal relation.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 545

(75) Japanese:
a. DA’re {ga / *∅} NA’ni {o / ∅} tanonda Fin no?

who NOM what ACC ordered COMPWh

‘Who ordered what?’

b. NA’ni1 {o / *∅} DA’re { ga / *∅} __1 tanonda Fin no?

what ACC who NOM ordered COMPWh

(76) Korean:
a. Nwukwu {ka / *∅} mwues {ul / ∅} sass Fin ni?
who NOM what ACC bought COMPWh
‘Who bought what?’

b. Mwue(s)1 {ul / *∅} nwukwu {ka / *∅} __1 sass Fin ni?
what ACC who NOM bought COMPWh

c. MwUE1↗ ∅ (//) nwukwu {ka / *∅} __1 sass Fin ni?

what ACC who NOM bought COMPWh
(↗ = Short accute rising intonation; // = pause)

First, as illustrated in (75)–(76), case marker drop is prohibited from an object unless
it is either the closest argument to (or adjacent to) the verb in Japanese and Korean
(cf. Kuno 1973; Saito 1985; Takezawa 1987; Ahn and Cho 2006), or accompanied by a
special rising intonation in Korean. It was argued that P-legibility of an object NP
can be achieved by one or more of the universal means selected from the list in (77)
below in a particular language while L-legibility of an object NP is achieved univer-
sally when it is properly recognized as an “internal argument” of a predicate. Note
that all of (77a–c) can be characterized as “physically recognizable” properties. It
was hypothesized that Korean adopts all of the options in (77) while Japanese adopts
only (77a–b).

(77) a. Overt accusative marking

b. Adjacency (or Proximality) to a verbal head
c. Specific prosodic marking

They also argue that P-legibility of a subject NP can be achieved by one or more of
the universal means of physical marking selected from (78) below while its L-legibility
is achieved universally when it is properly recognized as the “locus of predication”.

(78) a. Overt nominative marking

b. Left periphery of IP (= Adjacency to a finite head selecting IP)
546 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

It is assumed that Japanese and Korean adopt (78a) while English adopts (78b), re-
flecting their distinct head positions. From this assumption, not only the obligatori-
ness of nominative marking of a subject in Japanese and Korean as in (75)–(76) but
also the subject-object asymmetry in the case adjacency effect in English (Kitagawa
1997) as in (79) follows naturally:

(79) English:
a. Subject: Fin [IP John probably [I has] read the letter].
b. Object: *John [V read] carefully the letter.

Further pursuit of this topic, however, must be left for future research.

8 Summary and conclusion

Our investigations in Sections 2 and 3 suggested that the main culprit in obscuring
the empirical facts on island effects in Japanese may have been the lack of attention
to prosody, pragmatics, and other extra-grammatical factors. Since acceptability
judgments are often solicited using only written examples, there is a danger that
informants unconsciously and arbitrarily assign some specific prosodic pattern to
a sentence when they are either reading it aloud or silently. They may also uncon-
sciously feel pressed to assign a default prosodic pattern in silent reading. Either
way, their syntactic analysis will be influenced in a specific way by the assigned
prosody. By neglecting prosodic factors, in other words, a researcher runs the risk
of conducting a syntactic test that is not replicable, or otherwise adds noise.
Acceptability judgments also tend to be solicited with sentences presented in a
null discourse context even when their proper interpretation requires rather specific
elaborated pragmatic contexts. This common exercise also tends to elicit lower
acceptability judgments of the sentences from the informants who may or may not
make extra efforts to imagine an appropriate pragmatic context. The lowered accept-
ability judgments solicited in this way may be misinterpreted as ungrammaticality,
and the pragmatic control arbitrarily exercised by the informants could also hinder
replication of the involved syntactic test. Such lack of replicability and/or reliability
of syntactic tests seems to play a significant role in the variation as well as the
instability of native speaker intuitions on the island effect involving wh-questions in
Japanese.
In Sections 4–7, we laid out the core working hypotheses of the Minimalist Pro-
gram and the theoretical problems of “look-ahead” and “look-across” and pointed
out that attempts to incorporate prosody into investigations of formal syntax typically
induce such problems. We then spelled out an approach which allows us to capture
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 547

the prosody-scope synchronization as well as overt movement without causing

“look-ahead” and “look-across” problems. This approach provides a simple, unified
typological grasp of wh-in-situ and wh-movement. Finally, we also hinted at a possible
extension of this approach to the “look-across” problem posed by the Visibility Con-
dition when we attempt to account for the correlation between case markings and
thematic interpretations of arguments.
This approach completely splits traditional overt syntax into P-syntax and L-
syntax, each of which independently develops a syntactic derivation in order to
establish interface legibility in a local fashion. In this revised execution of overt
syntax, the synchronization of P-syntax and L-syntax is achieved by incorporating
PL-complexes into the Numeration and their independent licensing is carried out
by letting multiple transfer take place in a bottom-up fashion.
The approach also permits us to strictly observe the three minimalist theses.
First, it satisfies “Inclusiveness” by appealing to PL-complexes, the information repre-
sented on lexical items from the outset of syntactic derivation. Second, “Legibility”
is satisfied with the complete split of PL-complexes into the features relevant to
physical form (ɸF) and those relevant to logical form (LF). Finally, both general
and local “Economy” is maintained when sound-meaning synchronization is achieved
solely and separately by interface needs in physical and logical syntax, respectively.

Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Steven Franks, Tom Grano, Norbert Hornstein, Shinichiro
Ishihara, Jon Sprouse, Barbara Vance, and an anonymous reviewer for their invaluable
comments, and/or judgments. All of my co-authors/co-researchers of the cited studies
should also receive proper credit – Masanori Deguchi, Janet Fodor, Yuki Hirose,
Miguel Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Dorian Roehrs, Katsuo Tamaoka, Satoshi Tomioka,
and Junghyoe Yoon. Thanks are also due to Joshua Herring for his careful proofread-
ing of the entire manuscript. The research in this work was partially supported by
funding from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0650415, the College
of Arts and Sciences and East Asian Studies Center at Indiana University.

References
Ahn, Hee-Don and Sungeun Cho. 2006. Unpronounced case markers and apparent subject-object
asymmetry. Studies in Modern Grammar 43. 55–80.
Aoun, Joseph. 1979. On government, case-marking, and clitic placement. Unpublished ms., MIT.
Bader, Markus. 1998. Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In Janet
Dean Fodor and Fernanda Ferreira (eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing, 1–46. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
548 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal
theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–644.
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. in Valéria Molnár and Susanne
Winkler (eds.), The architecture of focus, 321–346. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of
phases. Natural Language Semantics 12. 345–397.
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1984. LF WH-movement: A case of Pied Piping? Unpublished ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Choe, Jae-Woong. 1987. LF movement and pied piping. Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 348–353.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky
(eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle. 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1–46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay
Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.
de Vincenzi, Marica. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Deguchi, Masanori and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2002. Prosody and Wh-questions. Proceedings of the
Thirty-Second Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, 73–92. Amherst, MA:
GLSA.
Epstein, Samuel David, Erich M. Groat, Ruriko Kawashima and Hisatsugu Kitahara. 1998. A deriva-
tional approach to syntactic relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114(5). 543–574.
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7. 285–318.
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002a. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. Proceedings of the Thirty-
Second Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, 113–137.
Fodor, Janet Dean. 2002b. Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. Proceedings of the Speech
Prosody 2002 Conference, 83–88.
Frazier, Lyn. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In Max Coltheart (ed.), Attention and
performance XII: The psychology of reading 559–586. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fuchs, Anna. 1984. ‘Deaccenting’ and ‘default accent’. in Dafydd Gibbon and Helmut Richter (eds.),
Intonation, accent and rhythm. Studies in discourse phonology – Research in Text Theory,
volume 8. 134–164. The Hague: De Gruyter.
Fujisaki, Hiroya and Hisashi Kawai. 1988. Realization of linguistic information in the voice funda-
mental frequency contour of the spoken Japanese. Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International
Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Volume 1. 663–666.
Heim, Irene. 1982. Semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts dissertation.
Hirose, Yuki. 1999. Resolving reanalysis ambiguity in Japanese relative clauses. New York: City
University of New York dissertation.
Hirose, Yuki. 2003. Recycling prosodic boundaries. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32. 167–
195.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 549

Hirotani, Masako. 2005. Prosody and LF: Processing of Japanese wh-questions. Amherst, MA: Univer-
sity of Massachusetts dissertation.
Huang, C. -T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT dissertation.
Hwang, Hyun Kyung. 2011. Scope, prosody, and pitch Accent: The prosodic marking of wh-scope
in two varieties of Japanese and South Kyeongsang Korean. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
dissertation.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2002. Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and deaccent-
ing in Japanese. Proceedings of the Twenty-First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
180–193.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2003. Intonation and interface conditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2011. Japanese focus prosody revisited: Freeing focus from prosodic phrasing.
Lingua 121. 1870–1889.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1968. Review of Adverbial Positions in English by Sven Jacobson. Language 44.
357–374.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1997. Case adjacency revisited. Unpublished ms., Indiana Univgersity.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2005. Prosody, syntax and pragmatics of wh-questions in Japanese. English
Linguistics 22. 302–346.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2006a. Naze. in Yubun Suzuki, Keizo Mizuno and Kenichi Takami (eds.), In
search of the essence of language science: Festschrift for Professor Heizo Nakajima on the
occasion of his sixtieth birthday. 101–120. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2006b. Wh-scope puzzles. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of
the North-Eastern Linguistic Society, Volume 2, 335–349.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2011. Decomposing overt syntax. In Ho-min Sohn, Haruko Minegishi Cook,
William O’Grady, Leon Serafim, and Sany Yee Cheon (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 19,
61–80. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2013. Uttering and interpreting trees. English Linguistics 30(1). 313–357.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Janet Dean Fodor. 2003. Default prosody explains neglected syntactic analyses
of Japanese. In William McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. 267–279. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Janet Dean Fodor. 2006. Prosodic influences on syntactic judgments. In
Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Fery, Mathias Schlesewsky and Ralf Vogel (eds.), Gradience in
grammar: Generative perspectives. 336–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Yuki Hirose. 2012. Appeals to prosody in wh-interrogatives: Speakers’
versus listeners’ strategies. Lingua 122(6). 608–641.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, Dorian Roehrs and Satoshi Tomioka. 2004. Multiple Wh-Interpretations. Genera-
tive Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia 2003, 209–233.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, Katsuo Tamaoka and Satoshi Tomioka. 2013. Prosodic matters in intervention
effects of Japanese: An experimental study. Lingua 124. 41–63.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Junghyoe Yoon. 2011. Case adjacency without Case. Paper presented at
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference 21, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and Junghyoe Yoon. 2012. Case reincarnated. Paper presented at The Seventh
International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, Hiroshima University.
Kori, Shiro. 1989. Kyōchō-to Intonēshon (Emphasis and Intonation). In Miyoko Sugito (ed.), Kōza
nihongo to nihongo-kyōiku 2: Nihongo-no onsei
on’in, volume 1, 316–342. Tokyo: Meiji-Shoin.
Kubo, Tomoyuki. 1989. Fukuoka-shi-hōgen no dare, nani to no gimon-shi o fukumu bun no pitchi-
patān [The pitch patterns of sentences containing the interrogatives such as who/what in the
Fukuoka-city dialect]. Kokugogaku 156. 71–82.
550 Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Kubo, Tomoyuki. 2001. Syntax-phonology interface in the Fukuoka dialect. Journal of the Phonetic
Society of Japan 5. 27–32.
Kubozono, Haruo. 1993. The organization of Japanese prosody. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kubozono, Haruo. 2007. Focus and intonation in Japanese. In Shinichiro Ishihara (ed.), Inter-
disciplinary Studies on Information Structure 9: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Prosody,
Syntax and Information Structure (WPSI 2), 1–27. Potsdam: University of Potsdam.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Nihon-bunpō kenkyū [A study of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuno, Susumu. 1982. The focus of the question and the focus of the answer. Papers from the
Parasession on Nondeclaratives, Chicago Linguistics Society. 134–157.
Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and
GB theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ladd, Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15.
235–289.
Lovric, Nenad. 2003. Implicit prosody in silent reading: Relative clause attachment in Croatian. New
York: City University of New York dissertation.
Maekawa, Kikuo. 1991. Perception of intonation characteristics of WH and non-WH questions in Tokyo
Japanese. Proceedings of the XXIInd International Congress of Phonetic Science 4. 202–205.
Marušič, Franc. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. New York: Stony Brook University dissertation.
Miyamoto, Edson T. and Shoichi Takahashi. 2002. The processing of wh-phrases and interrogative
complementizers in Japanese. In Noriko M. Akatsuka and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/
Korean Linguistics 10. 62–75.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Eric J. Reuland and Alice
G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (in)definiteness. 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Mary Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Poser, Williams J. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.
Saito, Mamoru. 1982. Scrambling, topicalization, and strong crossover. Unpublished ms., MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical consequences. MIT dis-
sertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark Baltin and Anthony
Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional-WH effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3. 195–240.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF, and other constraints on the placement of accent.
Natural Language Semantics 7. 141–177.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1996. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John A. Goldsmith
(ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 550–569. London: Blackwell.
Shinya, Takahito. 1999. Eigo-to nihongo-ni-okeru fōkasu-ni-yoru daunsuteppu-no soshi-to chōon-undō-
no chōgō [The blocking of downstep by focus and articulatory overlap in English and Japanese].
Proceedings of Sophia Linguistics Society, Volume 14, 35–51.
 Interfacing syntax with sounds and meanings 551

Smith, Jennifer L. 2005. On the WH-Question intonational domain in Fukuoka Japanese: Some impli-
cations for the syntax-prosody interface. In Shigeto Kawahara (ed.), Papers on Prosody, UMOP,
219–237. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
11. 655–678.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A Configurational Approach to Case-Marking in Japanese. Seattle: University
of Washington dissertation.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 1997. Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and LF syntax. Paper presented at LSA Summer
Institute, Cornell University,
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vallduví, Enric. 1990. The informational component. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
dissertation.
Wachowicz, Krystyna. 1978. Q-morpheme hypothesis, performative analysis and an alternative. In
Henry Hiz (ed.), Questions. 151–164. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of WH-in-situ. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1. 255–291.
Watanabe, Shin. 2000. Naze ‘why’ in Japanese multiple wh-questions and the Sorting Key Hypothesis:
A preliminary account. In Shuichi Takeda, Atsuro Tsubomoto, Yukio Hirose, Koichi Takezawa and
Noburiro Kaga (eds.) Imi to katachi no intāfēsu [An interface between meanings and forms],
volume 2, 561–570. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Yoon, Junghyoe. 2012. Case drop in Korean: Its empirical and theoretical investigation. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University dissertation.
Zubizarreta, Maria. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Masatoshi Koizumi
14 Subject

1 Introduction
In this chapter, we will review studies on the syntactic position of the subject in
Japanese. What is a subject is one of the most fundamental issues in linguistic
theory, and to answer the question is beyond the scope of this chapter. Here, we
operationally define Japanese subjects as arguments that can be the target of subject
honorification and the antecedent of reflexive zibun, as explained in Section 2. In
Section 3, we will overview the syntactic distribution of adjuncts, as a preparation
for subsequent discussions. In Sections 4, 5, and 6, we will consider whether the
nominative subject in Japanese may occupy Spec CP, Spec vP, and Spec TP, respec-
tively, at the point of Spell-Out. In Section 7, we will turn to the syntactic positions of
non-nominative subjects. Section 8 will conclude the chapter.

2 Tests for subjecthood

One of the most frequently used operational tests for subjecthood in Japanese is
subject honorification (cf. Harada 1976; Shibatani 1977). Subject honorification is a
phenomenon in which a certain marking on the predicate (e.g. circumfixing the
verb with o- and -ni naru as in o-V-ni naru) indicates the speaker’s sense of respect
toward the referent of the grammatical subject of that predicate. Compare the non-
honorific form in (1a) with its honorific counterpart in (1b).

(1) a. Tanaka-san ga tatta.

Tanaka-Mr. NOM stood.up
‘Mr. Tanaka stood up.’

b. Tanaka-san ga o-tati-ni natta.

Tanaka-Mr. NOM stood.up (SBJ- HON )
‘Mr. Tanaka stood up.’ (The speaker respects Mr. Tanaka.)

In a subject honorification sentence, the intended target of the speaker’s respect

must be the referent of the grammatical subject, as shown in (2a), and when it is
not, the sentence is judged deviant, as exemplified in (2b), where the intended target
of the speaker’s respect is the referent of the object.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-015
554 Masatoshi Koizumi

(2) a. Tigusa sensei ga gakuseitati o o-yobi-ni natta.

Chigusa professor NOM students ACC called (SBJ - HON )
‘Prof. Chigusa called the students.’

b. #Gakuseitati ga Tigusa sensei o o-yobi-ni natta.

students NOM Chigusa professor ACC called (SBJ- HON )
‘The students called Prof. Chigusa.’
(The speaker intends to express his/her respect to Prof. Chigusa.)

Another diagnostic for identifying grammatical subjects in Japanese involves the

reflexive anaphor zibun ‘self’, which generally takes a subject as its antecedent (cf.
Kuno 1973; Shibatani 1976). In (3), for instance, the subject Masami but not the
object Hiromi can be the antecedent of zibun.

(3) Masami1 ga Hiromi2 o zibun1/*2 no heya de hometa.

Masami NOM Hiromi ACC self GEN room in praised
‘Masami1 praised Hiromi in self’s1/*2 own room.’

In the following sections, the phrases that we refer to as subjects all pass these
two tests.

3 Subject and adjunct

In this section, we will review the syntactic positions of adjuncts relative to the
nominative subject, as a preparation for the subsequent discussions. Japanese
adverbs can be divided into three broad classes based on their syntactic distribution:
(i) adverbs that are externally merged with a projection of a verb (i.e. VP adverbs);
(ii) adverbs that are externally merged with a projection of tense (i.e. TP adverbs);
and (iii) adverbs that are externally merged with a projection of a complementizer
(i.e. CP adverbs) (Koizumi 1993; cf. also Minami 1974; Nakau 1980; Noda 1984;
Takubo 1987; Cinque 1999; among others). The canonical positions of the three
classes of adverbs are schematically shown in (4), where A represents an adverb.

(4) [CP (CP-A) [TP (TP-A) Subj (TP-A) [VP (VP-A) Obj (VP-A) V] T] C]

VP adverbs include manner and resultative adverbs such as hayaku ‘fast’ and
karikarini ‘to a crisp.’1 Their canonical positions within a VP are c-commanded by
the negative morpheme in short negation sentences such as those in (5), where the

1 The VP adverbs mentioned in the text may be base-generated not only in VP but also in vP (Koizumi
and Tamaoka 2010). Since the distinction between VP and vP is mostly irrelevant to the present discus-
sion, we will use the former as a cover term until Section 5, where we will take up this issue.
 Subject 555

negative morpheme occurs between a verb stem and a tense morpheme (i.e. katta)
(For negation in Japanese, see Chapter 17 [Nishioka, this volume]). Therefore, VP
adverbs tend to be the focus of negation. (5a) is interpreted as ‘I ran not fast’ (i.e.
‘I ran slowly’), and (5b) as ‘I baked the bacon but not to a crisp’ (i.e. I stopped cooking
the bacon before it became crispy).

(5) a. [VP Hayaku hasir] -ana-katta.

fast run -NEG - PST
‘(I) did not run fast.’

b. [VP Beekon o karikarini yak] -ana-katta.

bacon ACC to.a.crisp bake -NEG - PST
‘(I) did not bake the bacon to a crisp.’

TP adverbs include time and aspectual adverbs such as kinoo ‘yesterday’ and
sibasiba ‘frequently.’ Their canonical positions within a TP are outside the c-command
domain of the negative morpheme in short negation sentences.2 Thus, in the short
negation sentences given in (6), what is negated is the verb run and not the adverbs
yesterday/frequently. TP adverbs, however, can be the target of negation in long
negation sentences with wakedewanai ‘it is not the case’, which takes a TP as its
complement. Therefore, the preferred readings of the sentences in (7) are ‘The time
when I ran was not yesterday’ and ‘I ran only infrequently’, respectively.

(6) a. [TP Kinoo [[VP hasir] -ana] -katta].

yesterday run -NEG -PST
‘(I) did not run yesterday.’

b. [TP Sibasiba [[VP hasir] -ana] -katta].

frequently run -NEG -PST
‘Frequently (I) did not run.’

2 To be more precise, there are two types of time-related adverbials in Japanese: those marked with
the postposition -ni ‘at/on’ or -de ‘at’, and those without them. The former are VP adverbs, whereas
the latter are TP adverbs (Koizumi 1991). This can be illustrated, for example, by the following
contrast.
(i) a. Taroo wa sono hi ni siken o uke-nakat-ta.
Taroo TOP that day on exam ACC take-NEG - PST
‘Taroo didn’t take the exam THAT DAY.’
b. Taroo wa sono hi siken o uke-nakat-ta.
Taroo TOP that day exam ACC take-NEG - PST
‘Taroo didn’t take the exam that day.’
The time-related adverbial sono hi-ni in (ia) may be the focus of negation, in contrast to sono hi in
(ib), which cannot. We are only concerned with the latter type of time-related adverbials in this
paper.
556 Masatoshi Koizumi

(7) a. [TP Kinoo [VP hasir] -ta] -wakedewanai.

yesterday run -PST -it.is.not.the.case
‘It is not the case that (I) ran yesterday.’

b. [TP Sibasiba [[VP hasir] -ta] -wakedewanai.

frequently run -PST -it.is.not.the.case
‘It is not the case that (I) ran frequently.’

Finally, CP adverbs include various types of modal adverbs such as osoraku

‘probably’ and saiwai ‘fortunately’ (For modality and CP adverbs, see also Chapter
10 [Hasegawa, this volume]). CP adverbs occur outside the c-command domain of
the negative morpheme in both short negation and long negation sentences and
hence cannot be the target of negation, as shown in (8) and (9).3

(8) a. [CP Osoraku [TP [VP hasir] -ana -katta] daroo].

probably run -NEG -PST seem
‘Probably (he or she) did not run.’

b. [CP Saiwai [TP [VP ame ga hur] -ana -katta]].

fortunately rain NOM fall -NEG -PST
‘Fortunately, it did not rain.’

(9) a. [CP Osoraku [[TP [VP hasir] -ta] -wakedewanai] daroo].

probably run -PST -it.is.not.the.case seem
‘Probably it is not the case that (he or she) ran.’

b. [CP Saiwai [[TP [VP ame ga hur] -ta] -wakedewanai]].

fortunately rain NOM fall -PST -it.is.not.the.case
‘Fortunately, it is not the case that it rained.’

According to the schematic structure shown in (4) above, for sentences with a VP
adverb, Subject-Adverb-Object-Verb (SAOV) and Subject-Object-Adverb-Verb (SOAV) are
the canonical word orders, and Adverb-Subject-Object-Verb (ASOV) is a non-canonical,
derived word order that involves a scrambling of the adverb (10).4

3 The example in (8a) is not biclausal. The modal daroo does not inflect with tense, nor can it be
negated, suggesting that it is not a main verb.
4 That (10b) and (10c) are both syntactically basic does not entail that there is no semantic difference
between them. Generally speaking, sentences with different word orders (regardless of whether they
are canonical or derived) have different syntactic structures and, hence, are associated with different
semantic representations, which may or may not be truth-conditionally and/or functionally equivalent
to each other.
 Subject 557

(10) a. ASOV (derived word order with a VP adverb)

Yukkuri Taroo ga sinbun o yonda.
slowly Taro NOM newspaper ACC read
‘Taro read a newspaper slowly.’

b. SAOV (canonical word order with a VP adverb)

Taroo ga yukkuri sinbun o yonda.
Taro NOM slowly newspaper ACC read

c. SOAV (canonical word order with a VP adverb)

Taroo ga sinbun o yukkuri yonda.
Taro NOM newspaper ACC slowly read

Similarly, for sentences with a TP adverb, ASOV and SAOV are the canonical word
orders, and SOAV is a derived word order (11). For sentences with a CP adverb,
ASOV is the canonical word order, and SAOV and SOAV are non-canonical word
orders (12).

(11) a. ASOV (canonical word order with a TP adverb)

Kinoo Taroo ga kabin o kowasita.
yesterday Taro NOM vase ACC broke
‘Taro broke a vase yesterday.’

b. SAOV (canonical word order with a TP adverb)

Taroo ga kinoo kabin o kowasita.
Taro NOM yesterday vase ACC broke

c. SOAV (derived word order with a TP adverb)

Taroo ga kabin o kinoo kowasita.
Taro NOM vase ACC yesterday broke

(12) a. ASOV (canonical word order with a CP adverb)

Zannennagara Taroo ga syoosin o zitaisita.
unfortunately Taro NOM promotion ACC refused
‘Unfortunately, Taro refused (an offer of) promotion.’

b. SAOV (derived word order with a CP adverb)

Taroo ga zannennagara syoosin o zitaisita.
Taro NOM unfortunately promotion ACC refused

c. SOAV (derived word order with a CP adverb)

Taroo ga syoosin o zannennagara zitaisita.
Taro NOM promotion ACC unfortunately refused
558 Masatoshi Koizumi

The relation between the adverb classes and the canonicity of word order is sum-
marized in (13).

(13) Adverb Class Canonical Word Order(s) Derived Word Order(s)

VP adverbs: SAOV and SOAV ASOV
TP adverbs: ASOV and SAOV SOAV
CP adverbs: ASOV SAOV and SOAV

In psycholinguistic literature, it is generally held that other things being equal,

the human parser processes canonical word orders faster than derived word orders
(e.g. Mazuka, Itoh, and Kondo 2002; Miyamoto and Takahashi 2002; Tamaoka et al.
2005; see also Gibson 1998; Hawkins 2004; Marantz 2005). Thus, the analysis
summarized in (13) predicts that in sentences with VP adverbs, SAOV and SOAV are
processed faster than ASOV; in sentences with TP adverbs, ASOV and SAOV are pro-
cessed faster than SOAV; and in sentences with CP adverbs, ASOV is processed faster
than SAOV and SOAV:

(14) Predictions (“X < Y” stands for “X is processed faster than Y.”)
a. VP adverbs: {SAOV, SOAV} < ASOV
b. TP adverbs: {ASOV, SAOV} < SOAV
c. CP adverbs: ASOV < {SAOV, SOAV}

Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) tested these predictions with a reading experiment
that contained a sentence plausibility judgment task (Tamaoka et al. 2005).5 In the
experiment, transitive sentences with adverbs such as those in (10) to (12) as well
as semantically anomalous filler sentences were visually presented at the center
of a computer screen to the participants in random order. The participants were
instructed to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible by deciding whether
or not the sentences were semantically plausible (i.e. made sense) and registering
their responses by pressing either the “yes” or “no” button. In order to determine
whether or not a sentence made sense, the participants had to determine its syntactic
structure as well as retrieve lexical information. The results of the experiment con-
firmed all the predictions indicated in (14).6 In sentences with VP adverbs, the
response times were reliably longer for ASOV (1764 ms) than either SAOV (1534 ms)

5 In all the experiments reported in this chapter, the participants were native speakers of Japanese,
mostly undergraduate or graduate students living in Japan at the time of participation.
6 A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with repeated measures in three different word
orders revealed significant main effects of word order on reaction times in the sentences with VP
adverbs [F1 (2, 46) = 10.17, p < .001; F2 (2, 46) = 6.36, p < .01] and the sentences with TP adverbs
[F1 (2, 46) = 6.70, p < .01; F2 (2, 46) = 3.64, p < .05], as well as the sentences with CP adverbs [F1 (2,
46) = 14.43, p < .001; F2 (2, 46) = 5.76, p < .01]. See Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) for details.
 Subject 559

or SOAV (1530 ms), and the response times for the latter two did not differ signifi-
cantly. In sentences with TP adverbs, the response times were longer for SOAV
(1579 ms) than for ASOV (1419 ms) and SAOV (1401 ms), with the response times for
the latter two being comparable. In sentences with CP adverbs, ASOV (1546 ms) was
processed faster than SAOV (1657 ms), which in turn was processed faster than SOAV
(1848 ms). These results taken together support the analysis of adverb distribution
represented in (4)/(13).

4 Subject at Spec CP
Word order in Japanese is relatively free, as is partially demonstrated in the previous
sections. A widely assumed exception to this flexibility is that the subject cannot
undergo scrambling (Saito 1985:211):

(15) The Ban on Subject Scrambling

In Japanese, the subject cannot undergo scrambling.

Major empirical evidence that originally motivated the constraint in (15) was asso-
ciated with the paradigm with floating numeral quantifiers (NQs) shown in (16)
below (cf. Haig 1980; Kuroda 1980) (For NQs, see also Chapter 15 [Miyagawa, this
volume]):

(16) a. Gakusei ga san-nin sake o nonda.

student NOM 3-CLF people sake ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake.’

b. *Gakusei ga sake o san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLF people drank

c. Gakusei ga sake o san-bon nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLF bottle drank

d. Sake oi Gakusei ga ti san-bon nonda.

sake ACC student NOM 3-CLF bottle drank

In Japanese, a floating NQ must be locally associated with a noun phrase (NP).

In (16a), this locality is fulfilled by the subject NP gakusei ‘students’ and the NQ
san-nin ‘3-CLF people’ placed adjacent to each other. In (16b), the NQ occurs distant
from its intended associate NP, i.e. the subject, in violation of the locality require-
ment, thereby yielding an unacceptability. In (16c), the object sake ‘sake’ and the
NQ associated with it, san-bon ‘3-CLF bottles’, are adjacent to each other. In (16d),
560 Masatoshi Koizumi

although the object and its intended associate are separated by the subject NP, the
sentence is grammatical. This is because the trace of the object within a VP, indi-
cated as t, is adjacent to the NQ, thereby fulfilling the locality requirement (Kuroda
1983).
A question then arises as to why (16b) cannot be parsed as in (17), in which the
subject as well as the object has undergone scrambling, and the subject trace is
locally associated with the NQ.

(17) Gakusei gai sake oj ti san-nin tj nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CL people drank

In order to rule out the derivation in (17), Saito (1985) proposed the ban on subject
scrambling in Japanese (15), which became a standard assumption in later works in
this field. Saito suggested that the constraint in (15) should ultimately be derived
from more general principles of grammar, and this position has recently been de-
fended by Sugisaki et al. (2007). However, an alternative view on the topic claims
that although scrambling of the subject is grammatically possible, the human parser
prefers syntactic structures without subject scrambling whenever possible because
they are simpler than parallel structures with subject scrambling (Kitagawa 2000;
Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007; among others). For example, Miyagawa and Arikawa
(2007) argue that (16b) is “standardly” judged ungrammatical because in the neutral,
first-pass reading of the sentence, the NQ is (either covertly or overtly) pronounced
in the same intonation phrase as the preceding object, which promotes a reading
wherein the NQ refers to this object, thereby resulting in a clash in agreement. (16b)
improves significantly if a pause is placed between the object and the NQ, encourag-
ing the parser to construct the more complex representation involving subject scram-
bling, as shown in (17).7 In this section, we will review two pieces of evidence, pre-
sented in Koizumi (2013), that in Japanese, the subject can, in principle, undergo
scrambling, consistent with the parsing-based view mentioned above.
We have seen in Section 3 that the canonical word order of transitive sentences
with a CP adverb is ASOV and that the other two grammatically possible word orders
SAOV and SOAV are derived orders. A question naturally arises as to how the latter
two orders are derived. Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) suggest that they involve the
scrambling of the arguments, as shown in (18).

7 The advent of the VP-internal subject hypothesis in the mid-80s created an additional problem:
(3b) can be generated with the subject moving to Spec TP and the object scrambling to the edge of
VP (or vP), without subject scrambling. This prompted Ko (2005), for example, to purse an alternative
analysis. We are not concerned with this problem in this chapter. See Ko (2005) and Sabel (2005) as
well as Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007) for relevant discussions.
 Subject 561

(18) Analysis I
a. Structure of (12b): [CP Sbji CP-A [TP ti [VP Obj V]]]
b. Structure of (12c): [CP Sbji Objj CP-A [TP ti [VP tj V]]]

In (18a), the fronting of the subject is probably responsible for the longer reading
time of (12b) as compared to that of (12a). In (18b), the object as well as the subject
has undergone scrambling. The number of scrambling operations is greater in (18b)
than in (18a). This may be why (12c) is more difficult to process than (12b). The two
structures in (18) crucially involve a scrambling of the subject. Therefore, they are
compatible with the claim that in Japanese, the subject can, in principle, undergo
scrambling (Ko 2005; Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007; see also Sabel 2005). However,
the two structures in (18) exhibit a clear violation of the ban on subject scrambling
(15).
A conceivable method of deriving the word orders in (12b, c) without taking
recourse to subject scrambling is to invoke a covert movement of the adverb, as
shown in (19).

(19) Analysis II
a. Structure of (12b): [CP [TP Sbj CP-A [VP Obj V]]]
↑_________|

b. Structure of (12c): [CP [TP Sbj [VP Obj CP-A V]]]

↑_______________|

In (19), the CP adverb occupies a position lower than its canonical position in CP at
the point of Spell-Out and then undergoes covert movement to CP in order to be
properly interpreted. These structures and their derivations are consistent with the
ban on subject scrambling (15). Under this analysis, (12b) takes longer to be processed
than (12a) because it contains a covert movement of the adverb. (12c) takes even
longer to be processed because the movement chain is longer in (12c) than in (12b).
Another possible way to derive (12b, c) without relying on subject scrambling
would be to entertain the hypothesis that the CP adverbs in these examples are
parenthetical expressions. Parenthetical expressions, by definition, do not belong
to syntactic representation in the narrow sense, and hence the subject and the object
in (12b, c) occupy the same positions as those in (12a). This is schematically repre-
sented in (20).

(20) Analysis III

a. Structure of (12b): [CP [TP Sbj ↑ [VP Obj V]]]
Parenthetical expression: CP-A

b. Structure of (12c): [CP [TP Sbj [VP Obj ↑ V]]]

Parenthetical expression: CP-A
562 Masatoshi Koizumi

We might hypothesize that the longer the distance between the “parenthetically in-
serted position” and the “syntactically determined position” of a parenthetical expres-
sion is, the more difficult the sentence is to process.
Given that there are three competing analyses – Analysis I (18), Analysis II (19),
and Analysis III (20) – the next question pertains to identifying the empirically
correct analysis. The first empirical argument for Analysis I reviewed here concerns
indeterminate pronouns. An indeterminate pronoun is a wh-phrase that is interpreted
as being indefinite, e.g. any, in the scope of the universal morpheme mo. To arrive
at this interpretation, the indeterminate pronoun must be m-commanded by mo.8
When mo is attached to a verb, the verb stem raises to v but not to T, as shown
in (21) (Kishimoto 2001).

(21) [TP Sbji [vP ti [VP Obj tV] V-mo-v] T]

Kishimoto (2001) notes that since mo in (21) m-commands the object but not the
subject, an indeterminate pronoun can occur in the object position but not in the
subject position, as shown in (22).

(22) a. Taroo ga nani o kai mo si-nakat-ta.

Taro NOM what ACC buy MO do-NEG - PST
‘Taro did not buy anything.’

b. *Dare ga Hanako o home mo si-nakat-ta.

who NOM Hanako ACC praise MO do-NEG - PST
‘No one praised Hanako.’ (Kishimoto 2001: 600)

Now, consider the following examples with an indeterminate object pronoun and a
CP adverb in different positions (23).

(23) a. ASOV (canonical order with CP-A)

Osoraku Taroo ga dono eiga o mi mo sinakatta.
probably Taro NOM which movie ACC watch MO didn’t
‘Probably Taro did not watch any movie.’

b. SAOV (non-canonical order with CP-A)

Taroo ga osoraku dono eiga o mi mo sinakatta.
Taro NOM probably which movie ACC watch MO didn’t

c. SOAV (non-canonical order with CP-A)

*Taroo ga dono eiga o osoraku mi mo sinakatta.
Taro NOM which movie ACC probably watch MO didn’t

8 X m-commands Y iff the first full-category maximal projection dominating X dominates Y.

 Subject 563

The sentences in (23a) and (23b) are grammatical, suggesting that the indeterminate
object in these examples, like in (22a), is in a position m-commanded by the universal
morpheme mo attached to the verb, probably in situ within the VP. In contrast, the
sentence with the SOAV word order in (23c) is ungrammatical, indicating that the
indeterminate object in this example is outside the m-command domain of mo. This
is expected under Analysis I (18), in which the object has been moved from within
the VP to the CP. In contrast, the paradigm in (23) is difficult to accommodate under
Analysis II (19) or Analysis III (20), according to both of which the object occupies its
base position regardless of the order in which the CP adverb occurs. Incidentally,
note that the SOAV word order with an indeterminate object is grammatical if it
contains a VP adverb instead of a CP adverb, as shown in (24).9

(24) SOAV (canonical order with VP-A)

Taroo ga dono eiga o zikkuri mi-mo sinakatta.
Taro NOM which movie ACC carefully see-MO didn’t
‘Taro did not see any movie carefully.’

(24) is grammatical because the indeterminate object stays within the VP and is
therefore m-commanded by mo.
Another argument for the scramblability of the subject is concerned with partial
negation. Recall that constituents within a VP are c-commanded by the negation in
short negation sentences, but constituents that belong to a TP or a CP are not. Thus,
if the universal quantifier zen’in ‘all’ occurs in the object position, it may be inter-
preted as being inside the scope of the negation, yielding a partial negation reading,
i.e. ‘not all’ (25a). If zen’in occurs in the subject position, it is preferentially inter-
preted as being outside the scope of negation (25b).

(25) a. Taroo ga zen’in o sikar-anakat-ta.

Taro NOM all ACC scold-NEG - PST
‘Taro did not scold all.’ (not > all, all > not)

b. Zen’in ga Taroo o sikar-anakat-ta.

all NOM Taro ACC scold-NEG - PST
‘All did not scold Taro.’ (??not > all, all > not)

The universally quantified object is still interpreted inside the scope of negation if a
CP adverb is inserted before the subject, as in (26a), or between the subject and the
object, as in (26b). However, the object is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret
inside the scope of negation when a CP adverb follows it, as shown in (26c).

9 In this respect, sentences containing a TP adverb pattern with those containing a CP adverb rather
than those containing a VP adverb.
564 Masatoshi Koizumi

(26) a. Osoraku Taroo ga zen’in o sikar-anakat-ta.

probably Taro NOM all ACC scold-NEG - PST
‘Probably Taro did not scold all.’ (not > all, all > not)

b. Taroo ga osoraku zen’in o sikar-anakat-ta.

Taro NOM probably all ACC scold-NEG - PST (not > all, all > not)

c. Taroo ga zen’in o osoraku sikar-anakat-ta.

Taro NOM all ACC probably scold-NEG - PST (??not > all, all > not)

The difficulty of obtaining the partial negation reading in (26c) suggests that the
object has moved out of the VP, as shown in (18) of Analysis I. Again, the partial
negation reading will be readily available if the CP adverb in (26c) is replaced with
a VP adverb, as shown in (27).10

(27) Taroo ga zen’in o zikkuri sikar-anakat-ta.

Taro NOM all ACC carefully scold-NEG - PST
‘Taro did not scold all carefully.’ (not > all, all > not)

The sharp contrast between (26c), on the one hand, and, (26a), (26b), and (27),
on the other, cannot be easily explained by Analysis II or Analysis III, according
to which the object in (26c) occupies the same position as that in the other three
examples.
In summary, the nominative subject in Japanese can in principle undergo scram-
bling to positions higher than Spec TP, such as Spec CP.

5 Subject at Spec vP
Traditionally, the subject was defined as an NP immediately dominated by an S node
(Chomsky 1957). Thus, when Saito and Hoji (1983) argued that in Japanese, the object
is base-generated within the VP (28a) and that when it occurs to the left of the
subject, it has undergone scrambling (28b), it was presumed that the subject is in a
position directly under the S node throughout the derivation (see also Saito 1985;
Hoji 1985).

(28) a. [S S [VP O V]]

b. [S Oi [S S [VP ti V]]

10 TP adverbs behave like CP adverbs rather than VP adverbs in this respect, too.
 Subject 565

However, according to the Internal Subject Hypothesis, the “base” or “thematic”

position of the subject (i.e. the external argument), as well as that of the object (i.e.
the internal argument), is within the VP (Fukui 1986; Kitagawa 1986; Koopman and
Sportiche 1988; Kuroda 1988), and when the subject is outside the VP, it has moved
from its base position for some reason. For example, the Extended Projection Prin-
ciple (EPP) requires that every clause have a subject occupying the canonical subject
position, that is, that Spec TP be filled with a nominal element (Chomsky 1981). In
research on Japanese, it is now a standard analysis that the subject in a canonically
ordered SOV sentence moves from its thematic position to its derived position,
Spec TP, as shown in (29a) or (29b), where a more recent proposal of a VP/vP distinc-
tion is also adopted (Miyagawa 2001; Kishimoto 2001).

(29) a. [TP Si [VP ti OV]]

b. [TP Si [vP ti [VP OV]]]

The discussions in the previous sections were also based on this assumption,
although the presence of a subject trace within the VP/vP was not explicitly mentioned
because it was not relevant.
For Japanese OSV sentences, there are at least two competing analyses with
respect to the placement of the subject. One is that the subject in OSV sentences,
similar to the subject in SOV sentences, obligatorily moves to Spec TP, and the object
moves to an even higher position, as shown in (30) (cf. Saito 2003, etc.).

(30) Analysis 1: [TP Oj Si [vP ti [VP tj V]]]

Although this structure contains a vP-internal subject trace, it is fairly similar to the
traditional structure presented in (28b) above. Therefore, it can be considered an
updated version of the traditional structure.
A more innovative analysis was proposed by Miyagawa (2001), according to
which the subject stays in its base position within the vP, and only the object moves
to Spec TP, as shown in (31) (See also Kuroda 1988).

(31) Analysis 2: [TP Oi [vP ti’ S [VP ti V]]]

Note that the derivation of this structure involves two movements of the object: First,
the object moves to the edge of vP, which is necessary for locality reasons, and
second, it moves to Spec TP (Miyagawa 2001; Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007). Hence,
OSV (31) has a more costly derivation than SOV word order (29).
Part of the evidence for the proposal that the subject may stay in the vP, as
in (31), comes from the scope interpretation. Recall that constituents within a vP
(= former VP) are c-commanded by the negation in short negation sentences; how-
ever, this is not the case with constituents that belong to a TP or CP. Thus, if the
566 Masatoshi Koizumi

universal quantifier zen’in ‘all (members)’ occurs in the object position of SOV
sentences, it may be interpreted as being inside the scope of negation, thereby yield-
ing a partial negation reading, that is, ‘not all’ (25a). If zen’in occurs in the subject
position, it is interpreted as being outside the scope of negation (25b). Significantly,
Miyagawa (2001: 299) observed that if the object scrambles across the subject zen’in,
partial negation becomes easier to obtain with appropriate prosody, as exemplified
in (32) (see also Miyagawa 2006; Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007).

(32) a. Zen’in ga sono tesuto o uke-nakat-ta (yo/to omou)

all NOM that test ACC take-NEG - PST
‘All didn’t take that test.’ (??not > all; all > not)

b. Sono tesuto oi zen’in ga ti uke-nakat-ta (yo/to omou)

that test ACC i all NOM ti take-NEG - PST
‘That test, all didn’t take.’ ((/?/??not > all; all > not)

Miyagawa (2001) argued that the partial negation interpretation of (32b) is readily
explained if we assume that its subject occupies a vP-internal position (as in (31))
that is c-commanded by the negation. Unfortunately, however, the judgment here is
subtle and apparently subject to idiolectal variation. More solid evidence is called
for in order to evaluate the competing hypotheses.
Koizumi and Tamaoka (2010) attempted to resolve this issue by adopting a
psycholinguistic approach. As we have seen in Section 3, other things being equal,
sentences involving an instance of scrambling are more difficult to process than
their counterparts without an instance of scrambling (Assumption 1). Furthermore,
the canonical positions for the so-called VP adverbs such as manner and resultative
adverbs are within the VP. As such, when VP adverbs occur outside the VP, they
have undergone scrambling (Assumption 2). Given these assumptions, the two
competing analyses in (30) and (31) create different predictions for the processing
of OSV sentences with VP adverbs in three different positions, such as those in (33).

(33) a. AOSV: Yukkuri sinbun o Taroo ga yonda.

slowly newspaper ACC Taro NOM read
‘Taro read a newspaper slowly.’

b. OASV: Sinbun o yukkuri Taroo ga yonda.

newspaper ACC slowly Taro NOM read

c. OSAV: Sinbun o Taroo ga yukkuri yonda.

newspaper ACC Taro NOM slowly read

Before discussing the predictions, however, it is necessary to make Assumption 2

more precise. We have seen in Section 3 that VP adverbs may be base-generated to
 Subject 567

either the left or right of the base position of the object within VP. It is not yet clear,
at this point, if they can be base-generated within vP, as shown in (34a), or if they
cannot, as shown in (34b).

(34) Base positions of VP-adverbs: Two versions of Assumption 2

a. Assumption 2a: [vP (A) S (A) [VP (A) O (A) V]]
b. Assumption 2b: [vP S [VP (A) O (A) V]]

We will therefore consider both possibilities in the following discussion.

Let us now turn to the predictions of Analysis 1 and Analysis 2 for the process-
ing of OSV sentences with VP adverbs. In Analysis 1, with either Assumption 2a or
Assumption 2b, the VP adverb yukkuri ‘slowly’ occupies its base position within the
vP in the OSAV construction and has undergone scrambling in the other two orders.
This is schematically represented in (35). (The traces of the arguments are omitted,
and (ti) stands for the trace of the adverb that would be left within the VP under
Assumption 2b.)

(35) Schematic structures of the sentences in (33) in Analysis 1:

a. [TP Ai O S [vP . . . ti’ . . .[VP . . . (ti) . . . V]]]
b. [TP O Ai S [vP . . . ti’ . . .[VP . . . (ti) . . . V]]]
c. [TP O S [vP . . . A . . . V]]

Thus, Analysis 1 predicts that AOSV and OASV are more difficult to process than
OSAV.
Analysis 2 makes different predictions with Assumption 2a and Assumption 2b.
With Assumption 2a, both OASV and OSAV are canonical word orders with respect
to the adverb placement, and AOSV alone involves adverb scrambling, as shown
in (36).

(36) Schematic structures of the sentences in (33) in Analysis 2 with Assumption 2a:
a. [TP Ai O [vP . . . ti S [VP . . . V]]]
b. [TP O [vP . . . AS [VP . . . V]]]
c. [TP O [vP . . . SA [VP . . . V]]]

It is then expected that AOSV is more difficult to process than both OASV and OSAV.
With Assumption 2b, in contrast, AOSV involves two movements of the adverb: a
movement to the edge of vP and a movement to Spec TP from the vP edge. OASV
involves a movement of the adverb across the subject within vP. OSAV is a canonical
word order with respect to the adverb. This is schematically shown in (37), which
568 Masatoshi Koizumi

predicts that AOSV is more difficult to process than OASV, which in turn is more
demanding than OSAV.

(37) Schematic structures of the sentences in (38) in Analysis 2 with Assumption 2b:
a. [TP Ai O [vP ti’ . . . S [VP ti . . . V]]]
b. [TP O [vP . . . Ai S [VP . . . ti . . . V]]]
c. [TP O [vP . . . S [VP . . . A . . . V]]]

The predictions regarding the cognitive load associated with the processing of
sentences like (33) are summarized in (38).

(38) Predicted processing load

a. Analysis 1 with Assumption 2a or 2b: AOSV = OASV > OSAV
b. Analysis 2 with Assumption 2a: AOSV > OASV = OSAV
c. Analysis 2 with Assumption 2b: AOSV > OASV > OSAV

Koizumi and Tamaoka (2010) tested these predictions by conducting an experiment

with a sentence plausibility judgment task that involved whole sentence reading (cf.
Chujo 1983; Tamaoka et al. 2005). Semantically plausible triplets such as those in
(33) were constructed using VP adverbs. The stimuli were presented to the participants
in random order in the center of a computer screen, one sentence at a time. The
participants were instructed to judge whether or not the sentences made sense and
report their response as quickly and accurately as possible by pressing either a “yes”
or a “no” button. The duration from the stimulus presentation to the button press
was recorded as the response time.
Overall, transitive sentences in which the object precedes the subject took longer
to process in AOSV (1695 ms) than in OASV (1550 ms) or OSAV (1590 ms), and the
processing times for the latter two were comparable, as indicated in (39).11

(39) Overall reaction times

AOSV > OASV = OSAV

The results of the experiment summarized in (39) are consistent with the prediction
of Analysis 2 with Assumption 2a (i.e. (38b)), but not with the prediction of Analysis
2 with Assumption 2b (38c) or that of Analysis 1 (38a). Most importantly, OASV word
order was significantly less difficult to process than AOSV word order, contrary to

11 A series of ANOVAs with repeated measures in three different word orders revealed significant
main effects of word order on reaction times [F1 (2, 64) = 13.911, p < .001; F2 (2, 94) = 4.280, p < .05].
See Koizumi and Tamaoka (2010) for details.
 Subject 569

the prediction of Analysis 1. This suggests that the subjects of Japanese transitive
sentences may stay in the vP when they follow the objects, as has been argued and
defended in a series of papers by Miyagawa (e.g. Miyagawa 2001, 2003). This, in
turn, supports the central premise of the Internal Subject Hypothesis; that is, the
base position of the external argument is within the vP rather than outside it to
begin with. Furthermore, the comparable reaction times for OASV and OSAV are
consistent with Assumption 2a but not with Assumption 2b, indicating that VP
adverbs can be externally merged to the left of the base position of the subject within
the vP.12

6 Subject at Spec TP
Thus far, we have assumed that the subject always moves to Spec TP in canonically
ordered SOV sentences. However, there exists a differing view. According to some
researchers, the subject in Japanese stays within the VP throughout the derivation,
regardless of whether it precedes or follows the object (Fukui 1986; Kuroda 1988).
Let us consider whether this proposal can account for the experimental results
reviewed in Section 5. With respect to this particular version of the Internal Subject
Hypothesis, the discussion in Section 3 needs to be reinterpreted in such a way that
VP adverbs initially occur in the “lower part of VP” and TP adverbs, in the “higher
part of VP”, as shown in (40).

(40) [VP (TP-A) S (TP-A) [V’ (VP-A) O (VP-A) V]]

When the object undergoes scrambling as shown in (41), the subject stays in the
same position as the subject in (40).

(41) Analysis 3: Oi S [V’ (VP-A) ti (VP-A) V]

We shall refer to this analysis as Analysis 3. In Analysis 3, the VP adverb occupies

its canonical position in OSAV sentences, such as (33c) above, and the adverb
has undergone scrambling in AOSV sentences, such as (33a), as well as in OASV
sentences, such as (33b), as indicated in (42). (The object trace is not represented.)

(42) Schematic structures of the sentences in (33) in Analysis 3

a. Ai O S [V’ . . . ti . . . V]]
b. O Ai S [V’ . . . ti . . . V]]
c. O S [V’ . . . A . . . V]]

12 This by no means entails that the structure in (35), in which the subject as well as the object has
moved out of the vP, is impossible to attain. On the contrary, there is good reason to believe that
Japanese grammar allows not only the structures in (36) but also those in (35). If so, the argument
in the text still holds true. See Koizumi and Tamaoka (2010) for details.
570 Masatoshi Koizumi

Because (42a) and (42b) involve adverb scrambling and are therefore more syntacti-
cally complex than (42c), it is predicted that sentences with a VP adverb are more
difficult to process in AOSV and OASV than in OSAV (43).

(43) Predicted processing load:

Analysis 3: AOSV = OASV > OSAV

The prediction of Analysis 3 shown in (43) is identical to the prediction of Analysis 1

shown in (38a), and it is crucially incompatible with the results of the experiment
reviewed in Section 5 (Koizumi and Tamaoka 2010). This shows that Analysis 3
cannot account for the distribution of Japanese adverbs and their processing data.
In other words, the nominative subjects of transitive sentences in Japanese must
move to Spec TP when they precede objects, suggesting that Japanese T (or C) has
the EPP feature, requiring that Spec TP be filled with a nominal element.

7 Non-nominative subjects
7.1 Kara-subject
Consider the sentences in (44). In (44a), the subject is marked with the nominative
maker ga. In contrast, the subject is marked with the postposition kara in (44b) (See
also Chapter 12 [Kishimoto, this volume] for this construction).

(44) a. Watasi ga Minori ni zizyoo o setumeisimasu.

I NOM Minori DAT situation ACC explain
‘I will explain the situation to Minori.’

b. Watasi kara Minori ni zizyoo o setumeisimasu.

I from Minori DAT situation ACC explain

The ga-kara ‘NOM -from’ alternation is possible with a certain class of verbs, typically
three place verbs that take the ga-ni-o case pattern, an animate agentive subject, and
an animate goal ni-phrase (Inoue 2001; Ito 2001). The kara-phrase of this kind is a
grammatical subject in the sense that it may be the target of subject honorification
and the antecedent of the reflexive zibun ‘self’, as exemplified in (45).

(45) a. Sensei ga/kara kodomotati ni mondai no hinto o

teacher NOM /from children DAT question GEN tips ACC

o-atae-ni natta.
gave (SBJ- HON )
‘The teacher gave tips for the question to the children.’
 Subject 571

b. Anatai ga/kara okaasan ni zibuni no keikaku o

you NOM /from mother DAT self GEN plan ACC

setumeisi-nasai.
explain-IMP
‘Explain your plan to your mother (from yourself).’

Ueda (2003) argued that the alternating subjects are placed in syntactically dif-
ferent positions: The ga-marked subject is outside vP, whereas the kara-marked sub-
ject is in the vP-internal subject position. Ueda presented three arguments in support
of her claim. The first evidence has to do with causative sentences. In Japanese
causative sentences like those in (46), a VP-adverb, but not a TP-adverb or CP
adverb, can occur in the embedded clause denoting the caused event (Koizumi
1991). In (46b, c), the adverbs may only be associated with the matrix causative verb.

(46) a. VP-adverb
Minori ga [Megumi ni yukkuri hon o yom]-ase-ta.
Minori NOM Megumi DAT slowly book ACC read-CAUS - PST
‘Minori made [Megumi read a book slowly].’

b. TP-adverb
Minori ga Megumi ni kinoo hon o yom-ase-ta.
Minori NOM Megumi DAT yesterday book ACC read-CAUS - PST
*‘Minori made [Megumi read a book yesterday].’
‘Minori made [Megumi read a book] yesterday.’

c. CP-adverb
Minori ga Megumi ni saiwai hon o yom-ase-ta.
Minori NOM Megumi DAT fortunately book ACC read-CAUS - PST
*‘Minori made [Megumi read a book fortunately].’
‘Minori made [Megumi read a book] fortunately.’

Given the discussions in Section 3 and Section 5, this suggests that the embedded
clause of causative sentences of this kind is not a TP or CP. Rather it is a vP (cf.
Koizumi 1991; Harley 2008). Not surprisingly, the embedded subject cannot be
marked with the nominative ga, which needs to be licensed by T. More interestingly,
it may be marked with kara, as shown in (47) (Ueda 2003).

(47) Taroo wa [watasi kara Mary ni kanozyo no byoozyoo o

Taro TOP I from Mary DAT her GEN condition ACC

setumei-s]-(s)ase-ta.
explain-do-cause-PST
‘Taro made me explain her condition to Mary.’ (Ueda 2003)
572 Masatoshi Koizumi

Ueda considered this as evidence that the kara-subject may occur vP-internally at
the point of Spell-Out.
Ueda’s second argument is concerned with variable binding. As shown in (48),
the bound variable interpretation with overt personal pronouns is impossible with
the ga-subject, but it is possible with the kara-subject (Ueda 2003).

(48) a. *Daremoi ga [karerai ga Taroo o sikaru to] it-ta.

everyone NOM they NOM Taro ACC scold that say-PST
*‘Everyonei said that theyi will scold Taro.’

b. Daremoi ga [karerai kara Taroo o sikaru to] it-ta.

everyone NOM they from Taro ACC scold that say-PST
‘Everyonei said that theyi will scold Taro.’

This contrast is naturally accounted for if we assume that the ga-subject occupies a
vP-external A’-position whereas the kara-subject is in a vP-internal A-position, Ueda
argued.13
Finally, Ueda observed that unlike the ga-subject, the kara-subject may scopally
interact with the object, suggesting that it is structurally closer to the object than the
ga-subject, as in (49).

(49) a. ga-subject: (some > every, *every > some)

Dareka ga dono tegami mo okut-te-oi-te-kudasai.
someone NOM every letter send-TE -put-TE -imperative
‘I hope that there is someone who sends every letter.’
*‘I hope that each letter is sent by someone.’

b. kara-subject: (some > every, every > some)

Dareka kara dono tegami mo okut-te-oi-te-kudasai.
someone from every letter send-TE -put-TE -imperative
‘I hope that there is someone who sends every letter.’
‘I hope that each letter is sent by someone.’

In summary, the ga-subject and kara-subject seem to be placed in different

syntactic positions. Unlike the ga-subject in Spec TP, the kara-subject is in a lower
position, possibly in Spec vP.

13 The validity of this second argument is a debatable point, given Hoji’s (1991) claim that, being
referential, kare cannot be a bound variable. Thus, the conclusion that the ga-subject always occupies
an A’-position needs further consideration.
 Subject 573

7.2 Genitive subject

The subject of relative clauses and noun-complement clauses may appear with
either the nominative case marker ga or genitive case maker no, as exemplified in
(50) (For a review of this construction, see Chapter 18 [Ochi, this volume]).

(50) a. [Minori ga/no katta] hon

Minori NOM /GEN bought book
‘the book that Minori bought’

b. [kinoo Megumi ga/no kita] riyuu

yesterday Megumi NOM /GEN came reason
‘the reason Megumi came yesterday’

Much the same way as the nominative subject, the genitive subject may trigger
subject honorification and antecede the reflexive zibun ‘self’, showing that the geni-
tive subject is indeed a grammatical subject (51).

(51) a. [Tigusa sensei ga/no o-kaki-ni natta] e

Chigusa professor NOM /GEN drew (SBJ- HON ) picture
‘the picture that Prof. Chigusa drew’

b. [Hanako ga/no zibun de yaita] kukkii

Hanako NOM /GEN self by baked cookie
‘the cookies that Hanako baked herself’

Since Harada (1971), the alternation between ga and no, often called the ga/no
conversion, has attracted much attention in generative grammar (cf. Maki and
Uchibori 2008). One of the central issues concerning the ga/no conversion is the syn-
tactic position of the genitive subject. Some researchers hypothesize that the genitive
subject occupies the same position as the nominative subject, i.e. Spec TP, at the
point of Spell-Out (e.g. Hiraiwa 2005), whereas others propose that the genitive sub-
ject remains in its thematic position, i.e. Spec vP (Miyagawa 2011; see also Watanabe
1996). This is schematically shown in (52) and (53).

(52) Identical syntactic structure (Hiraiwa 2005):

[DP [CP [TP subject NOM /GEN [vP . . .]]]]

(53) Different syntactic structures (Miyagawa 2011)

a. [DP [CP [TP subject NOM [vP . . .]]]]
b. [DP [TP [vP subject GEN . . .]]]]
574 Masatoshi Koizumi

According to Miyagawa (2011), clauses with the genitive subject lack CP. T in such
a clause does not inherit any formal grammatical features from C (such as an EPP
feature). T thus does not trigger movement of the subject (or any other element),
and this is why the genitive subject stays in its original vP internal position.
One of the phenomena Miyagawa (2011) brought up to support his proposal is
concerned with adjacency. As originally observed by Harada (1971), placing items
between the genitive subject and the predicate sometimes leads to degradation in
acceptability (54b). Note that the nominative subject is fine with intervening ele-
ments (54a).14

(54) a. Kodomotati ga minnade kake-nobotta kaidan

children NOM together run-climb.up stairway
‘the stairway which those children ran up together vigorously’

b. ??Kodomotati no minnade kake-nobotta kaidan

children GEN together run-climb.up stairway

Given the basic structure in (53b), in order for the genitive subject to precede an
adjunct whose basic position is outside vP, the subject must have undergone move-
ment across the adjunct (55). According to Miyagawa (2011), this movement is un-
motivated and hence uneconomical, leading to the degradation in grammaticality.

(55) [TP Subjecti GEN adjunct [vP ti . . .]]

Miyagawa’s proposal makes clear predictions: (i) Adjuncts attached higher than
Spec vP may not intervene between the genitive subject and verb, and (ii) VP adjuncts
may occur either to the left or to the right of the genitive subject (56).

(56) a. [TP TP-adjunct [vP Subjecti GEN . . .]]

b. *[TP Subjecti GEN TP-adjunct [vP ti . . .]]
c. [TP [vP VP-adjunct Subjecti GEN . . .]]
d. [TP [vP Subjecti GEN VP-adjunct . . .]]

To test these predictions, Nambu and Nakatani (2014) conducted a rating experiment
using a 5-point scale (1: very unnatural, 5: very natural). The adjacency factor (adjacent

14 (54b) has an alternative parse, in which the genitive phrase, rather than being the subject, directly
modifies the head noun, interpreted as ‘children’s stairway.’ This possibility is irrelevant to the discus-
sion of subject positions here.
 Subject 575

vs. non-adjacent) and the case factor (ga vs. no) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 design.
In their test items, adjuncts attached higher than Spec vP were used, as illustrated
in (57).15

(57) a. Adjacent condition (adjuncts underlined)

Kyoo zyuku de kodomotati ga/no naratta
today cram.school at children NOM /GEN studied

rekisi wa Heianzidai nituite dat-ta.

history TOP Heian.period about COP- PST
‘The history that the children studied at a cram school today is about
the Heian period.’

b. Non-adjacent condition (adjuncts underlined)

Kodomotati ga/no kyoo zyuku de naratta rekisi wa
children NOM /GEN today cram.school at studied history TOP

Heianzidai nituite dat-ta.

Heian.period about COP- PST

The results showed that the acceptability of the genitive subject was degraded in the
non-adjacent condition, whereas that of the nominative subject was not affected by
the adjacency factor, consistent with Miyagawa’s first prediction. In order to examine
the locus of the effects, Nambu and Nakatani (2014) also conducted an experiment
with a moving-window, self-paced reading task, using the identical materials. The re-
sults of the self-paced reading task revealed a significant slowdown in the genitive/
non-adjacent condition compared with the nominative/non-adjacent condition, in
the region containing the TP adjunct (e.g. kyoo ‘today’) and the following region
with the locative adjunct (e.g. zyuku-de ‘cram.school-at’). In their third experiment,
Nambu and Nakatani used VP adjuncts (manner adverbs) instead of TP adjuncts, in
which comparable slowdown effects were not observed in the region with the manner
adverb.
The results from the three experiments above are readily accounted for by
Miyagawa’s (2011) hypothesis, as in (53), while they are not easily explained by the
theories that do not structurally distinguish the nominative and genitive subjects,
as in (52).

15 As shown in Section 3, temporal adverbs such as kinoo ‘yesterday’ are TP adjuncts, which may
occur either to the left or to the right of the nominative subject. Locative adverbs such as zyuku-de
‘cram.school-at’ seem to be adjoined to vP, as schematically shown in (i) (cf. Tamaoka et al. 2004).
(i) [TP (temporal adv) Subj NOM (temporal adv) [vP (locative adv) [vP Subj GEN VP]]]
576 Masatoshi Koizumi

8 Conclusion
In this chapter, we have considered the syntactic positions of nominative and non-
nominative subjects in Japanese. In Section 4, we saw that the nominative subject
occurs in CP when it precedes a CP adverb. This supports the view that the subject
in Japanese can, in principle, undergo scrambling. In Section 5, we reviewed a psy-
cholinguistic study whose results suggest that the nominative subject may stay in
Spec vP in OSV sentences, in which the object alone must move to Spec TP. Then,
in Section 6, we showed that the nominative subject in SOV sentences cannot stay
within vP and must raise to TP. Taken together, the conclusions of Sections 5 and 6
suggest that T in Japanese sentences with a nominative subject has the property of
attracting a nominal category to its Spec. Thus, the subject raises to Spec TP in SOV
sentences, whereas the object does so in OSV sentences. Finally, in Section 7, we
turned to non-nominative subjects and briefly reported two preliminary studies, one
on the kara-subject and one on the genitive subject. It was argued that, in contrast
to the nominative subject, the kara-subject and genitive-subject do not seem to raise.
Rather, what evidence we have suggests that they remain in situ at their thematic
position, i.e. Spec vP.

Acknowledgment
I would like to thank John Haig and Hideki Kishimoto for copy-editing, and Shigeru
Miyagawa and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Part of this work was
supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 22222001 and 15H02603.

References
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chujo, Kazumitsu. 1983. Nihongo tanbun no rikai katei: Bunrikai sutoratejī no sōgo kankei [Compre-
hension processes of Japanese monoclausal sentences: The interrelationships among strategies
for sentence comprehension]. Japanese Journal of Psychology 54. 250–256.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Cambridge MA: MIT disser-
tation.
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.
Haig, John H. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18. 1065–
1083.
Harada, S. I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and ideolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38.
 Subject 577

Harada, S. I. 1976. Honorifics. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese
generative grammar, 499–561. San Diego: Academic Press.
Harley, Heidi. 2008. On the causative construction. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.),
The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. this volume. Chapter 10: Modality. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington dissertation.
Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Kare. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary
approaches to language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Inoue, Kazuko. 2001. Nōdōbun, judōbun, nijūmokutekigo-kōbun to ‘kara’-kaku [The ablative case
and the structures of active, passive, and ditransitive sentences]. Scientific Approaches to
Language 1. 49–76. Center for Language Sciences, Kanda University of International Studies.
Ito, Taketo. 2001. Shugomeishiku niokeru ga-kaku to kara-kaku no kōtai nitsuite [Nominative and
ablative case alternation in subject NPs]. Meikai Nihongo 6. 45–63. Meikai University.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese.
Linguistic Inquiry 32. 597–633.
Kishimoto, Hideki. this volume. Chapter 12: Case marking. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miya-
gawa and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts
dissertation.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2000. Anti-scrambling. Unpublished ms., University of Rochester.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Lan-
guage & Linguistic Theory 23. 867–916.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1991. Syntax of adjuncts and the phrase structure of Japanese. MA thesis, Ohio
State University.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Modal phrase and adjuncts. In Patricia M. Clancy (ed), Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 2. 409–428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2013. On the scramblability of the subject in Japanese. In Yoichi Miyamoto,
Daiko Takahashi, Hideki Maki, Masao Ochi, Koji Sugisaki, Asako Uchibori (Eds.), Deep insights,
broad perspectives: Essays in honor of Mamoru Saito, 218–234. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka. 2006. Bunkaisekijikken niyoru nihongo-fukushirui no
gojun no hantei [Determination of basic word order of adverbs in Japanese by a sentence-
processing experiment]. Cognitive Studies 13. 392–403.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka. 2010. Psycholinguistic evidence for the VP-internal subject
position in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 663–680.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1988. The positions of subjects. Lingua 85. 211–258.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1980. Bun kōzō no hikaku [The comparison of sentence structures]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro
(ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku kōza 2: Bunpō [Lectures on Japanese-English comparative studies 2:
Grammar], 23–61. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1983. What can Japanese say about government and binding? WCCFL 2. 153–164.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Maki, Hideki, and Asako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito
(eds.) Oxford handbook of Japanese linguisitcs, 192–216. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, Alec. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The
Linguistic Review 22. 429–445.
578 Masatoshi Koizumi

Mazuka, Reiko, Kenji Itoh and Tadahisa Kondo. 2002. Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence
processing. In Mineharu Nakayama (ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian languages, 131–
166. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai nihongo-no kōzō [Structure of contemporary Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Simin Karimi
(ed.), Word order and scrambling, 177–200. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers in Japanese and
Korean. In Timothy J. Vance and Kimberly Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 270–
282. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121. 1265–
1282.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. this volume. Chapter 15: Numeral quantifiers. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru
Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floated numeral quantifiers. Lin-
guistic Inquiry 38. 645–670.
Miyamoto, Edson T. and Shoichi Takahashi. 2002. Sources of difficulty in the processing of scram-
bling in Japanese. In Mineharu Nakayama (ed), Sentence processing in East Asian languages,
167–188. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Nakau, Minoru. 1980. Bunfukushi no hikaku [The comparison of sentential adverbs]. In Tetsuya
Kunihiro (ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku kōza 2: Bunpō [Lectures on Japanese-English comparative
studies 2: Grammar], 157–219. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Nambu, Satoshi, and Kentaro Nakatani. 2014. An experimental study on adjacency and nominative/
genitive alternation in Japanese. In Shigeto Kawahara and Mika Igarashi (eds.) Proceedings of
FAJL 7: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics, 131–142. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. this volume. Chapter 17: Expressions that contain negation. In Masayoshi
Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Noda, Hisashi. 1984. Fukushi no gojun [Word order of adverbs]. Nihongo Kyōiku 52. 79–90.
Ochi, Masao. this volume. Chapter 18: Ga/no conversion. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sabel, Joachim. 2005. String-vacuous scrambling and the effects on output condition. In Joachim
Sabel and Mamoru Saito (eds), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and
diversity, 281–333. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua
113. 481–518.
Saito, Mamoru and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak crossover and move α in Japanese. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 1. 245–259.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Causativization. In M. Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese
Generative Grammar, 239–294. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface case. Language 53. 789–809.
Sugisaki, Koji, Yukika Nishimura, Noriko Hattori, Yasushi Inokuchi, Yoshihiro Nishimura, Mariko
Ogawa, Yuji Okazaki, Waro Taki, Shinichi Unoh, Tetsuro Yamamoto, Etsuko Yoshida, Seiki
Ayano. 2007. On the existence of subject scrambling: An fNIRS Study. In Yukio Otsu (ed.),
Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics: TCP 2007, 281–230. Hituzi
Syobo.
 Subject 579

Takubo, Yukinori. 1987. Tōgokōzō-to bunmyaku jōhō [Syntactic structure and contextual information].
Nihongogaku 6(5). 37–48.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Hiromu Sakai, Jun-ichiro Kawahara, Yayoi Miyaoka, Hyunjung Lim and Masatoshi
Koizumi. 2005. Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic
roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34. 273–
324.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Yayoi Miyaoka, Takane Ito and Hiromu Sakai. 2004. The canonical position of
instrumental and locative adverbs in the cognitive processing of Japanese sentences and
noun phrases. Proceedings of the 128th Conference of the Linguistics Society of Japan, 275–
280.
Ueda, Yukiko. 2003. Subject positions and derivational scope calculation in Minimalist syntax: A
phase-based approach. In Don Hong Ji and Kim Teng Lua (eds.), Language, Information and
Computation: Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference, 134–145.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 373–410.
Shigeru Miyagawa
15 Numeral quantifiers

1 Introduction
In Japanese, any expression for counting people, animals, or things invariably con-
tains a numeral quantifier (NQ). A numeral quantifier consists of a numeral and a
classifier (CLF) that agrees with the type of entity being counted. Two examples are
-nin for people and -satu for bound volumes such as books and magazines.

(1) Gakusei ga san-nin kita.

student NOM 3-CLF came
‘Three students came.’

(2) Hanako ga hon o ni-satu yonda.

Hanako NOM book ACC 2-CLF read
‘Hanako read two books.’

While over 150 classifiers are attested in the language, the classifiers that people use
on a daily basis number less than 30 (Downing 1984: 12–15). The NQ may occur in
four different configurations relative to the associated NP, as shown by the following
examples with the identical meaning ‘three students came’.

(3) a. [San-nin no gakusei] ga kita.

3-CLF GEN students NOM came

b. [Gakusei san-nin] ga kita.

students 3-CLF NOM came

c. Gakusei ga san-nin kita.

student NOM 3-CLF came

d. San-nin gakusei ga kita.

3-CLF students NOM came

In (3a) the NQ occurs in the modifier position of the associated NP and is marked
with the genitive case marker, while in (3b) the NQ apparently heads the phrase
that contains the associated NP. In both of these cases the NQ occurs in the same
phrase as the associated NP. In (3c) the NQ occurs after the case-marked associated
NP, and is commonly analyzed as an instance of floating NQ (FNQ), although if
it occurs adjacent to the case marker, as is the case in (3c), it is also analyzed
as heading the phrase that contains the associated NP (Kamio 1977; Terada 1990;

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-016
582 Shigeru Miyagawa

Kawashima 1998; Watanabe 2006; Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007). The fourth con-
figuration, in which the FNQ occurs in front of the associated NP, but without any
marking on it, is considered as the FNQ having scrambled from the configuration in
(3c) (see relevant discussion in, for example, Fukushima 1991; Gunji and Hashida
1998; Kawashima 1998). I will focus particularly on the configuration in (3c) in
which the FNQ occurs after the case-marked associated NP.

2 Mutual c-command requirement

What is the generalization across the four configurations we saw above? Based on a
number of earlier works (e.g. Shibatani 1977; Inoue 1978; Haig 1980; Kuroda 1980), I
argued in Miyagawa (1989) that the relation between the NQ and its associated NP is
a strictly local one requiring each to c-command the other.1

(4) Mutual c-command requirement

The NP or its trace and the NQ or its trace must c-command each other.
(Miyagawa 1989: 30)

This is clear for the first two configurations in which the NQ and the associated NP
are in the same phrase. For the third configuration, in which the FNQ follows the
case-marked associated NP, I argued for a ternary-branching structure that allows a
FNQ and the subject NP to mutually c-command each other.

(5) [TP NP-ga NQ VP]

The fourth configuration is derived from the third configuration by scrambling the
FNQ to the left of the associated NP, leaving behind a trace that maintains the
mutual-command relation with the associated NP (Miyagawa 1989).

(6) [TP NQi [TP NP-ga ti VP]]

In Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007), we revised the ternary-branching approach in

Miyagawa (1989), and suggested, along the lines of a number of earlier works (e.g.
Watanabe 2006), that the NP-Case NQ sequence may form a constituent, with the NQ
heading a NumP.

1 The mutual c-command requirement comes from the assumption that the FNQ is a secondary
predicate, which has been argued to be subject to strict locality (Williams 1990).
 Numeral quantifiers 583

(7) [NumP NP-Case NQ]

I will assume this structure for the discussion below.

The mutual c-command requirement finds support in a variety of constructions.
It has been noted that a FNQ cannot be associated with an NP inside adjuncts
(Okutsu 1969; Harada 1976; Shibatani 1977; Inoue 1978; Kuno 1978), something that
follows from the mutual c-command requirement because an adjunct, such as a PP,
projects a maximal projection that blocks the NP inside it from c-commanding the
FNQ.

(8) *[. . . [PP [NP] P] FNQ. . .]

In a similar vein, an associated NP in the specifier of a larger NP cannot c-command

a FNQ.2

(9) *[Sensei no hon] ga san-nin todoita.

teacher GEN book NOM 3-CLFHUMAN arrived
Intended: ‘Three teachers’ books arrived.’

2.1 A-movement analysis of stranding FNQ

The standard paradigm for FNQ that led to a number of proposals from a variety of
theoretical perspectives is given below (see Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007).

(10) Standard paradigm

a. Gakusei ga san-nin sake o nonda.
student NOM 3-CLFSBJ sake ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake.’

b. *Gakusei ga sake o san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake.’ (Haig 1980, Kuroda 1980)

2 Kikuchi (1994) notes one interesting exception, in which NPs in an inalienable possession relation
are allowed to be construed with a FNQ despite the apparent violation of mutual c-command.
(i) Ano isya wa [zidoo no me] o sanzyuu-nin sirabeta.
that doctor TOP pupil GEN eye ACC 30-CLF examined
‘That doctor exampled thirty pupil’s eyes.’
Kikuchi (1994), Takami (2001), and Nakanishi (2008) point to these as counterexamples to the
mutual c-command requirement, but because they occur in highly restricted cases involving inalien-
able possession, it would be interesting to pursue the possibility that these are exceptional cases,
something that I will not pursue in this chapter. I should note that not all speakers accept this type
of sentence. The reviewer of this chapter informs me that she finds it almost ungrammatical.
584 Shigeru Miyagawa

c. Hon o gakusei ga go-satu katta.

book ACC student NOM 5-CLFOBJ bought
‘Students bought five books.’ (based on Haig 1980; Kuroda 1980)

In (10a) the associated NP, the subject “students”, and the FNQ are adjacent to each
other. In (10b), the subject “students” and the FNQ are separated by the object, and
it is judged as ungrammatical. In (10c), which is grammatical, the object “books”
and its FNQ are separated by the subject. The subject/object asymmetry indicates
that while there is no trace of the subject in the VP to support a stranded FNQ, the
object to the left of the subject has been moved there by scrambling, leaving a trace.
This trace supports the FNQ (cf. Kuroda 1980; Saito 1985). The structures for (10b)
and (10c) are as shown below; I will ignore the VP-internal subject position until I
take it up in the next section.

(11) a. *[TP student . . . [VP sake FNQSBJ . . . ]]

b. [TP booki . . . student . . . [VP ti FNQOBJ . . . ]]

Miyagawa (1989) extends the insight particularly of Kuroda (1980) that the movement
of the associate NP away from its FNQ does not hinder fulfillment of the locality
condition because the copy of the associated NP occurs adjacent to the FNQ (see
also Saito 1985). This is an instance of FNQ stranding. A similar observation has
been made in English and French (Sportiche 1988) as well as West Ulster English
(McCloskey 2000).
An important point that comes out of the locality-based analysis of FNQs is that
we get clear evidence for NP trace. NP trace is an entity that is predicted to occur,
but it is empirically difficult to ascertain. The crucial examples are presented in
(12), where a FNQ can be associated with the subject of a passive or an unaccusative
verb, but not with the subject of a transitive or an unergative verb.

(12) a. Transitive
*Doroboo ga kuruma o san-nin nusunda.
thief NOM sake ACC 3-CLF stole
‘Three thieves stole a car.’

b. Direct passive
Kuruma ga doroboo ni ni-dai nusum-are-ta.
car NOM thief by 2-CLF steal-PASS-PST
‘Two cars were stolen by a thief.’ (Miyagawa 1989: 38; also Ueda 1986)

c. Unaccusative
Gakusei ga ofisu ni huta-ri ki-ta.
student NOM office to 2-CLF came
‘Two students came to the office.’ (Miyagawa 1989: 43)
 Numeral quantifiers 585

d. Unergative
*Tomodati ga tookyoo de huta-ri atta.
friend NOM Tokyo in 2-CLF met
‘Two friends met in Tokyo.’

In (12b) and (12c), which are passive and unaccusative examples, the nominative
subject may be construed with the FNQ in the VP, while in the transitive and the
unergative cases in (12a) and (12d), stranding of the subject-oriented FNQ inside the
VP leads to ungrammaticality. The contrast between (12b/c) and (12a/d) is due to
the fact that in the passive and the unaccusative cases, there is an NP trace of the
surface subject in the VP, as is schematized in (13), while no such NP trace occurs
in the VP in the transitive and unergative cases.

(13) [TP DPi . . . [VP ti FNQ . . .]]

This parallels the object scrambling case noted by Kuroda and others in which the
copy of the object scrambled out of VP may fulfill the locality requirement with the
FNQ inside the VP. Moreover, while the direct passive leaves a NP trace that fulfills
the locality requirement with the FNQ, the indirect passive does not involve any
movement (Kuno 1973). As a result, the indirect passive does not allow stranding of
FNQ inside the VP (Miyagawa 1989).

(14) *Tomodati ga ame ni huta-ri hur-are-ta.

friend NOM rain DAT 2-CLF fall-PASS-PST
‘Two friends were rained on.’

Finally, there are motion-type verbs such as ‘cross’ in which the traversed entity is
marked by the accusative, yet a FNQ is allowed to be stranded in the VP (Miyagawa
1989).

(15) Kodomo ga hasi o huta-ri watatta.

child NOM bridge ACC 2-CLF crossed
‘Two children crossed the bridge.’

This type of verb is a “transitive” unaccusative verb, and it differs sharply from a
normal transitive verb such as ’drink’, which does not allow stranding a FNQ inside
the VP. An independent support for the difference is found with quantifier scope.
Japanese is a scopally rigid language, so that subject and object quantifiers in a
normal transitive construction are scopally unambiguous (Kuroda 1970; Hoji 1985).

(16) Dareka ga dono-hon-mo yonda.

someone NOM every book read
‘Someone read every book.’ some > all, *all > some
586 Shigeru Miyagawa

As Kuroda noted, scope ambiguity obtains if one quantifier is moved across the
other, as in scrambling of the object across the subject.

(17) Dono-hon-moi dareka ga ti yonda.

every book someone NOM read
some > every, every > some

If we look at the “transitive” unaccusative construction, we see that scope ambiguity

is possible in the regular SOV order, indicating that the subject has moved across the
object.

(18) Dareka ga dono-hasi-mo watatta.

someone NOM every bridge crossed
‘Someone crossed every bridge.’ some > every, every > some

This is further evidence that A-movement has moved the surface subject of ‘cross’
from within the VP to Spec,TP, which makes it possible to strand a FNQ within the
VP as we saw earlier.

3 The predicate-internal subject position and

apparent counterexamples to locality
Much of syntax is a study based on locality. The reason is that characterizing a
problem in terms of locality substantially decreases the complexity of the problem
by reducing the possible grammars that can be deduced, in turn leading to deep
insights. The study of FNQ is no exception: it is based on the assumption that a
FNQ and its associated NP must observe strict locality. If they are not local to each
other in surface form, it means that the FNQ has been stranded by the associated NP
that has left a copy of itself in the position local to the NQ. By viewing the associated
NP – FNQ relation in this way, we can detect the underlying form, in turn giving evi-
dence for NP traces and, as we will see later, the predicate-internal subject position.
The stranding analysis has been challenged by a number of studies in a variety
of languages. Taking up the stranding data presented by Sportiche (1988), Shlonsky
(1991), and others, Bobaljik (1995, 2003) raises syntactic and semantic problems,
although for Japanese, he concludes that the distribution of FNQs does appear to
reflect stranding (Bobaljik 2003: 132–134; see also Bošković 2004). Nevertheless,
within the Japanese linguistics literature, the locality requirement has been taken
to task by a number of linguists (e.g. Gunji and Hasida 1998; Fukushima 2003;
Nishigauchi and Ishii 2003; Hoji and Ishii 2004; Kuno and Takami 2003).
 Numeral quantifiers 587

Analyses that do not adopt stranding typically regard FNQs as adverbs (see
Bobaljik 2003 for references for the adverb approach). This is a particularly attractive
approach for a language such as English in that, as Sag (1978) first observed, the
floating quantifier all has the same distribution as a normal adverb. Dowty and
Brodie (1984) propose a semantic analysis of floating quantifiers as VP adverbs,
based on, among others, the Chinese universal quantifier dou. Adverb analyses do
not impose the kind of strict locality on the associate NP – FNQ relation that the
stranding analysis does. One version of the adverb analysis would impose whatever
locality the grammar requires of an adverb to combine with a VP, and for this
predicate to predicate of the associated NP. Another version is that a floating quanti-
fier is an anaphoric adverb, in which the associated NP and the floating quantifier
are in the same relation as an antecedent and its anaphor (Kayne 1981; Belletti
1982; see Doetjes 1997 for a similar proposal). For Nakanishi (2004), who adopts an
adverb analysis of FNQs, a FNQ quantifies over events (see also Fujita 1994); the
relation between the FNQ and the associated NP is established by a certain semantic
mechanism, and this mechanism imposes a kind of locality, though not in any
way as strict as that imposed by the stranding analysis. We will discuss Nakanishi’s
data later.

3.1 Predicate-internal subject position and adverbs

Based on observations such as the following, Sportiche (1988) concludes that the
subject starts out inside the verb phrase, shown as the underlined position in (19b).

(19) a. Tous les enfants ont vu ce film.

all the children have seen this movie

b. Les enfants ont tous __ vu ce film.

the children have all seen this movie (Sportiche 1988: 426)

Assuming that the quantifier tous is in a strict local relation with its associated NP
les enfants, Sportiche hypothesizes that in (19b), there is a trace of the NP next to
the quantifier, and this trace fulfills the locality requirement. The trace cannot be
anywhere; for example, it does not occur after the verb (*Les enfants ont vu tous ce
film), which is expected. The position of the trace in (19b) is precisely where the sub-
ject is initially merged inside the verb phrase. This idea of the so-called “predicate-
internal subject position” is one of the major developments that distinguishes the
recent Minimalist Program from the earlier Government and Binding framework.
Kuroda (1988), in developing his important “whether we agree or not” work, inde-
pendently proposed the idea of the predicate-internal subject position from a con-
ceptual standpoint.
588 Shigeru Miyagawa

With the predicate-internal subject position (PISP) in mind, we can look at some
FNQ data in the literature with the hope of providing a more precise analysis. It has
been noted that a FNQSBJ can get stranded from its associated subject NP, being
separated by certain adverbs (Miyagawa 1989 and references therein).

(20) Gakusei ga kyoo san-nin sinbun o yonda.

student NOM today 3-CLF newspaper ACC read
‘Three students read a newspaper today.’

Nakanishi (2004) considers this occurrence of FNQ as an adverb that modifies the
VP. An alternative is to adopt a Sportiche-style analysis and assume that the position
occupied by the FNQ is the predicate-internal subject position, and the associated
subject NP ‘student’ has moved from there to Spec,TP (Kawashima and Kitahara
1994). The copy of the associated NP that resides adjacent to the FNQ fulfills the
mutual c-command requirement.
Evidence for the stranding analysis comes from other types of adverbs such as
umaku ‘well/skillfully’ (Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007; see Ko 2007). As Ko notes, this
adverb is a low VP adverb, which Miyagawa and Arikawa assume is lower than the
predicate-internal subject position. On the stranding analysis, we predict that a
subject-oriented FNQ that follows umaku would fail to be construed with the asso-
ciated subject NP because it is too low to meet the locality requirement with the
copy of the associated NP in Spec,vP. This is shown below in (21a); (21b) gives the
structure of the ungrammatical example.

(21) a. *Gakusei ga umaku san-nin eigo o hanasita.

student NOM well 3-CLF English ACC spoke
‘Three students spoke English well.’

b. *[TP SUBi [vP ti umaku [VP FNQSBJ . . .]]]

The adverb approach to FNQs would be hard put to explain the distinction between
‘today’ and ‘well’. Now, if it were the case that the stranding of the FNQ after umaku
were always bad, some condition could be constructed to prevent this umaku – FNQ
sequence even in the adverb approach. However, there are cases in which umaku
is fine before a FNQ; these are cases where the copy of the associated NP resides
within the VP. This shows that it is not sufficient simply to rule out all instances of
umaku – FNQ sequence.

(22) Doa ga umaku huta-tu aita.

door NOM deftly 2-CLF opened
‘Two doors opened deftly.’ (Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007)
 Numeral quantifiers 589

The verb in this example is unaccusative (‘openunacc’), so that the copy of the asso-
ciated subject NP resides in the VP that is modified by umaku.

(23) Doa gai umaku [VP ti huta-tu aita]

door NOM deftly 2-CLF opened

We can see the same with the direct passive.

(24) Kuruma ga doroboo ni umaku ni-dai nusum-are-ta.

car NOM thief by deftly 2-CLFF steal-PASS-PST
‘Two cars were stolen deftly by a thief.’

Here, again, the copy of the A-moved associated NP, ‘car’, is in the VP, which makes
it possible for the FNQ inside the VP to fulfill the locality requirement with the copy
of the associated NP.
The adverb approach faces difficulty in accounting for the range of data just
observed. Minimally, it will need to add mechanism to the analysis, thus potentially
introducing complexity into the account. We will return to Nakanishi’s (2004) study,
which presents an interesting argument for the analysis of FNQs in Japanese as
adverbs. We will see that there is an alternative locality approach that has a number
of advantages.

3.2 Predicate-internal subject position and the standard

paradigm
Recall the standard paradigm given earlier (Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007).

(25) Standard paradigm

a. Gakusei ga san-nin sake o nonda.
student NOM 3-CLFSBJ sake ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake.’

b. *Gakusei ga sake o san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake.’ (Haig 1980; Kuroda 1980)

c. Hon o gakusei ga go-satu katta.

book ACC student NOM 5-CLFOBJ bought
‘Students bought five books.’ (Haig 1980; Kuroda 1980)

With PISP in place, the question arises as to why (25b) is ungrammatical, given that
objects scramble to a sentence-medial position easily.
590 Shigeru Miyagawa

(26) Taroo wa piza oi isoide ti tabeta.

Taro TOP pizza ACC quickly ate
‘Taro ate the pizza quickly.’

As Bobaljik (2003: 11) noted, why can’t there be this clause-internal scrambling of the
object, then the scrambling of the subject across it, which would allow the copy of
the subject NP to fulfill locality with the stranded FNQ in Spec,vP?

(27) [TP SBJi . . . OBJj [vP ti FNQSBJ [VP tj . . .]] . . .]

Before the PISP was introduced into linguistic theory, structures such as (27) were
excluded by the proposal that Saito (1985) made: subjects do not scramble. This is
a reasonable constraint based on economy considerations: scrambling of the subject
is an instance of string-vacuous movement, which would be uneconomical. The
same goes with double scrambling – first the object, then the subject – which would
also constitute a string-vacuous derivation. But that is only true in the pre-PISP era,
when the subject was externally merged directly to VP.

(28) [S SBJ VP]

Moving the object to adjoin to S, then moving the subject above the object, would
indeed constitute a vacuous derivation.

(29) [S SBJ [S OBJ [S ti [VP . . . ti . . .]]]]

↑_______________|
↑_______________|

However, with the advent of the PISP, this kind of double movement need not be
considered as purely vacuous optional movement. With both the subject and the
object originating in the verbal phrase, one of them could move to Spec,TP, which
would constitute movement to fulfill the EPP requirement; see Miyagawa (2001,
2010) for evidence that either the subject or the object may fulfill the EPP require-
ment of T in Japanese. On that view, there is only one instance of scrambling, which-
ever that moves into a position other than Spec,TP. So long as this movement is
motivated, it would not be a string-vacuous movement (see Miyagawa 2011 for con-
ditions on optional movement).
In the remainder of this chapter, we will look at examples where structures such
as (27) are apparently possible under certain conditions. I will refer to this structure
as the “Double-Movement Structure” (DMS). The examples I cite are those given in
the literature to challenge the mutual c-command requirement on FNQ construal.
As we will see, the DMS can account for most of the counterexamples while main-
taining the mutual c-command requirement. We will also see that it is only under a
 Numeral quantifiers 591

specific condition that the DMS becomes possible for licensing the FNQ. Looking
closely at these apparent counterexamples informs us of the role of PISP in Japanese,
which has the consequence of providing evidence for this theoretically important
position.

3.3 Counterexamples to locality

A number of linguists have noted apparent exceptions to the standard paradigm,
particularly the locality between the subject and its FNQ (Gunji and Hasida 1998;
Fukushima 2003; Nishigauchi and Ishii 2003; Hoji and Ishii 2004; Kuno and Takami
2003). Following are typical examples.

(30) ?Gakusei ga sake o imamadeni san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC so far 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake so far.’ (Gunji and Hasida 1998: 57)

(31) Gakusei ga watasi no hon o huta-ri-sika kaw-anakat-ta.

student NOM my GEN book ACC 2-CLFSBJ-only buy-not-PST
‘Only two students bought my book.’ (cf. Takami 1998, pt. 1: 92)

These examples differ from the ungrammatical example in the standard paradigm in
having something intervene between the object and the subject-oriented FNQ ((30))
or, in (31), the addition of the negative polarity item –sika ‘only’ on the FNQ. In
the standard paradigm example, nothing comes between the object and the subject-
oriented FNQ nor does anything like –sika occur on the FNQ.
Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007) point out that the intervening item or –sika in the
counterexamples leads to a different prosody from the ungrammatical example in the
standard paradigm. In the example in the standard paradigm, the default prosody
is one in which the object and the FNQ are within the same prosodic domain that
receives the default prosodic prominence.

(32) *Gakusei ga [sake o san-nin] nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake.’

This leads to the object and the subject-oriented FNQ being construed together,
which results in a clash in the agreement between the classifier for people and the
object ‘sake’. In the counterexamples, it is the FNQ itself that receives the default
prosodic prominence, either because it is separated from the object as in (30) or
because of the occurrence of –sika on the FNQ in (31), a focus element that attracts
592 Shigeru Miyagawa

the sentential prosodic prominence. In either case, the prosodic prominence on the
FNQ keeps it from being construed in the same domain as the object.
If it were simply the case that keeping the object from being in the same prosodic
domain as the subject-oriented FNQ is what it takes to overcome the ungrammaticality
in the crucial example in the standard paradigm, it would be difficult to separate the
adverb approach from the locality-based analysis. It may in fact favor the adverb
approach. However, Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007) note an additional point: in
these counterexamples, the object has moved from inside the verb phrase to a posi-
tion high in the structure. They argue, following the EPP analysis of Miyagawa
(2001), that the object has moved to Spec,TP. If this is true, it is completely unexpected
under the adverb approach to the FNQ.
Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007) adopt the proposal in Miyagawa (2001) that when
the subject does not move into the Spec,TP, the object may move there to fulfill the
EPP requirement of T. The subject then moves across the object to form a Double-
Movement Structure (DMS) configuration.

(33) [TP SBJ [TP OBJ [vP tOBJ [vP [ tSBJ NQSBJ] [VP . . . tOBJ . . .]]]]
↑___| ↑________________________|
↑_______________________|

In this structure, the object first moves to adjoin to vP, then moves to Spec,TP. The
subject moves over the object to adjoin to TP. See Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007)
and Miyagawa (2001) for discussion. Below, I present two of the arguments Miyagawa
and Arikawa give for the DMS in (33).3
The first argument that the object in the counterexamples moves to Spec,TP is
based on the scope of a universal quantifier relative to negation. A universal expres-
sion such as zen’in ‘all’ in the subject position scopes over negation, but it may be
within the scope of negation in the object position (see Miyagawa 2001).4

(34) a. Zen’in ga syukudai o das-anakat-ta.

all NOM homework ACC turn.in-NEG-PST
‘Everyone did not turn in the homework.’ all > not, *not > all

b. Iinkai ga zen’in o erab-anakat-ta.

committee NOM all ACC choose-NEG-PST
‘The committee didn’t choose everyone.’ all > not, not > all

The universal-quantifier subject in (34a) has moved to Spec,TP, above negation, and
this position can only take wide scope relative to negation. In (34b), the universal-
quantifier object may be interpreted inside the scope of negation, showing that it

3 See Koizumi and Tamaoka (2010) for experimental evidence for the DMS in (33).
4 The judgment for the (a) example is based on the default pronunciation in which the object
receives the prosodic prominence.
 Numeral quantifiers 593

stays in VP. I will return to the other interpretation below. Now note that if the object
intervenes between the subject NP and the subject-oriented FNQ as we saw in the
counterexamples, there is evidence that the object moves high in the structure, above
negation. This is shown in the (35b) example below.

(35) a. Gakusei ga huta-ri zen’in o mi-nakat-ta.

student NOM 2-CLF all ACC see-NEG-PST
‘Two students didn’t see everyone.’ all > not, not > all

b. Gakusei ga zen’in o huta-ri-tomo mi-nakat-ta.

student NOM all ACC 2-CLF-both see-NEG-PST
‘Both of the two students didn’t see everyone.’ all > not, *not > all

In (35a), the subject FNQ occurs adjacent to the subject, and the object may take
scope within the negation. But in (35b), the object zen’in intervenes between the sub-
ject and the subject FNQ; the subject FNQ has –tomo ‘both’ that attracts the prosodic
prominence. Here, the object cannot be in the scope of negation, indicating that the
object has moved high in the structure. In this DMS, in which the object moves, and
then the subject moves across the moved object, there is a copy of the subject
following the object, which makes it possible to strand the subject-oriented FNQ
after the object. Going back to the (35a) example in which the object within the VP
may have the ‘all > not’ as well as the other interpretation, we can speculate that this
interpretation is possible due to movement of the object string vacuously to Spec,TP.
The second argument is based on indeterminate pronouns. An indeterminate
pronoun is a wh-phrase that is interpreted as indefinite any in the scope of the uni-
versal particle mo. To make this interpretation possible, the indeterminate pronoun
must be m-commanded by the universal –mo; this –mo, which occurs on the verb
stem, raises with the stem to v but not to T (Kishimoto 2001).

(36) a. Taroo ga nani o kai-mo-si-na-katta.

Taro NOM what ACC buy-MO-do-NEG-PST
‘Taro did not buy anything.’

b. *Dare ga warai-mo-si-na-katta.
who NOM laugh-MO-do-NEG-PST
‘No one laughed.’

c. *Dare ga Hanako o home-mo-si-na-katta.

who NOM Hanako ACC praise-MO-do-NEG-PST
‘No one praised Hanako.’ (Kishimoto 2001: 600)

While the object position can host an indeterminate pronoun ((36a)), the subject
position cannot ((36b/c)). The subject position is outside the domain of the mo particle,
which Kishimoto assumes is at v. Now note the following.
594 Shigeru Miyagawa

(37) a. Kodomo ga san-nin dono-eiga o mi-mo-si-na-katta.

kids NOM 3-CLF which-movie ACC see-MO-do-NEG-PST
‘Three kids did not see any movie.’

b. *Kodomo ga dono-eiga o imamadeni san-nin

kids NOM which-movie ACC so far 3-CLF
mi-mo-si-na-katta.
see-MO-do-NEG-PST
‘Three children did not see any movie so far.’
(Miyagawa and Arikawa 2007)

In (37b), in which the object occurs between the subject and the FNQ, the object
indeterminate pronoun is ungrammatical, indicating that this object has moved to
Spec,TP and outside the domain of -mo.

4 FNQ and telicity5

The DMS analysis accounts for the counterexamples noted in the literature to the
locality-based analysis of FNQs. It is crucially based on the PISP. However, there still
remains a problem. The DMS does not always lead to a natural example, as in the
following (Miyagawa 2012).

(38) ?*Kodomo ga uta o zyuppunkan san-nin utatta.

child NOM song ACC for 10 minutes 3-CLF sang
‘Three children sang a song for ten minutes.’

The subject-oriented FNQ san-nin is separated from the object by the adverb ‘for
ten minutes’ so that the FNQ receives the prosodic prominence, yet, the sentence is
ungrammatical. There is nothing wrong with the meaning of the sentence; if the FNQ
occurs next to the subject, the sentence is grammatical.

(39) Kodomo ga san-nin uta o zyuppunkan utatta.

child NOM 3-CLF song ACC for 10 minutes sang
‘Three children sang a song for ten minutes.’

As we will see, DMS alone is not sufficient to guarantee that the copy of the subject
is available to strand the FNQ. There is an additional condition: the aspect of verbal

5 Much of the text in sections 4 and 5 are taken from Miyagawa (2012). However, I have fundamen-
tally changed the analysis of telicity that is crucial to the arguments in these two sections.
 Numeral quantifiers 595

phrase must be telic (Miyagawa 2012). Below, we will explore this additional con-
dition on the copy in the PISP in Japanese.

4.1 Intransitive verbs

A number of linguists have noticed that certain types of FNQ stranding that are
otherwise impossible become possible in a particular aspectual context, namely, in
the telic aspect, in which there is an endpoint to the event expressed.6 The first
to note this was Tsujimura (1990) in her study of unaccusative mismatches (Dowty
1991; Levin and Rappaport 1989; Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995). She gives the
following minimal pairs with the intransitive verbs ‘run’ and ‘swim’.

(40) a. ?*Gakusei ga kodomo to san-nin hasitta.

student NOM children with 3-CLF ran
Intended: ‘Three students ran with the children.’

b. Gakusei ga kooen made san-nin hasitta.

student NOM park as far as 3-CLF ran
‘Three students ran to the park.’

(41) a. ?*Gakusei ga kodomo to inukaki de san-nin oyoida.

student NOM children with dog-paddling by 3-CLF swam
Intended: ‘Three students swam with children by dog-paddling.’

b. Gakusei ga kisi made inukaki de san-nin oyoida.

student NOM shore as far as dog-paddling by 3-CLF swam
‘Three students swam to the shore by dog-paddling.’

As Tsujimura (1990, 269–270) notes, ‘run’ and ‘swim’ are typical unergative verbs,
so that we would not expect them to allow stranding of the FNQ across PPs. The (a)
examples demonstrate this, but, puzzlingly, the (b) examples allow stranding. Accord-
ing to Tsujimura, the addition of the goal phrase in the (b) examples “adds a specifi-
cation of inherent direction as well as an endpoint to the original meaning of the verb
and makes the verb function like [an unaccusative] verb.” Tsujimura, referring to
Levin and Rappaport 1989 (see also Dowty 1991; Levin and Rappaport Hovav 1995),
observes that with the goal phrase, these intransitive verbs behave like unaccusative
verbs with inherent direction, such as ‘arrive’, ‘come’, ‘go’, ‘depart’, ‘fall’, ‘return’,
and ‘descend’.

6 See Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2005) for discussion of three types of telicity. In this chapter,
I will not subdivide telicity into different types.
596 Shigeru Miyagawa

In the following example given by Kuno and Takami (2003: 284), intended as
a counterexample to the locality analysis of FNQ, we can see the same point about
telicity.

(42) A: ‘Is this new magazine selling well?’

B: Ee, kesa mo gakusei-san ga

yes this morning also students NOM
[VP sore o go-nin kat-te iki-masi-ta yo].
it ACC 5-CLF buy-ing go-POL-PST
‘Yes, this morning also, five students bought it.’

Note that in this example, the verb contains the motion verb ‘go’, which, being un-
accusative, naturally leads to a telic interpretation.
The following minimal pair demonstrates in a direct fashion the importance of
aspectual interpretation for stranding of NQs.

(43) a. *Tomodati ga zyuppunkan huta-ri odotta.

friend NOM for ten minutes 2-CLF danced
Intended: ‘Two friends danced for ten minutes.’

b. Tomodati ga zyup-pun-no-uti-ni huta-ri odotta.

friend NOM in ten minutes 2-CLF danced
‘Two friends danced (a dance) in ten minutes.’

This is a classic test of aspect found in Vendler (1967) that distinguishes between
activities (X-ing for ten minutes) and accomplishments (X-ing in ten minutes), the
former without an endpoint that bounds the event expressed, and the latter with
such an endpoint. The judgment is crisp and clear: with an activity, which has atelic
aspect, stranding of the FNQ is entirely ungrammatical, while the telic aspect of
accomplishment makes FNQ stranding totally acceptable.7 There is nothing wrong
with the meaning of the sentence in (43a), as shown by the fact that if the FNQ is
next to the subject, the example is perfectly fine.

7 There are examples superficially very similar to the ungrammatical (42a) that for some people are
not so bad, with a special interpretation.
(i) (*)Tomodati-ga itizikan huta-ri odotta.
friend-NOM one hour two-CLF danced
(‘Two friends danced per hour.’)
For those who accept this sentence, the special interpretation is that every hour, two friends danced.
This is a telic interpretation, and the grammatical nature of it is predicted. To get this interpretation,
 Numeral quantifiers 597

(44) Tomodati ga huta-ri zyuppunkan odotta.

friend NOM 2-CLF for ten minutes danced
‘Two friends danced for ten minutes.’

Furthermore, it has been noted that stranding of a FNQ is ungrammatical with

permanent/individual-level predicates (Harada 1976; Fukushima 1991; Nishigauchi
and Uchibori 1991; Ohki 1987), an observation that coincides with the idea that
stranding of FNQs is limited to telic expressions, since individual-level predicates are
atelic (see, for example, Diesing 1992). The following is taken from Mihara (1998, pt. 3:
110–111; see also Nakanishi 2008).

(45) a. Uti-no doobutuen de wa kaba ga mada san-too genki da.

my zoo at TOP hippo NOM still 3-CLF healthy COP
‘In my zoo, three hippos are still healthy.’

b *Uti-no doobutuen de wa kaba ga zannennakotoni san-too osu da.

my zoo at TOP hippo NOM unfortunately 3-CLF male COP
‘In my zoo, unfortunately, three hippos are male.’

All of the examples of unexpectedly grammatical FNQ stranding involve an external

argument. The pattern that emerges is that stranding of a subject-oriented FNQ
by the external argument is possible in telic expressions. How can we account for
this? Whatever account we come up with will need to account for the unaccusative
mismatch that Tsujimura observed: the addition of a goal phrase to an unergative
construction creates the possibility of stranding a FNQ. Although one option is to
follow Tsujimura in assuming that the argument structure changes with the addition
of the goal phrase, there is a sense that the predicate and the participant in the event
are basically the same with and without the goal phrase, and that the difference is in
the aspectual interpretation of the event.
What I suggest is the following (Miyagawa 2012):

(46) Telicity and the external argument (TEA)

Once the external argument moves to Spec,TP, its copy in the predicate-
internal subject position is visible under a telic interpretation.

‘one hour’ and the NQ must be pronounced as a prosodic unit. The following pseudocleft example
shows that the two comprise a phrase (thanks to Hiroki Maezawa for pointing this out).
(ii) Tomodati-ga odotta-no-wa itizikan huta-ri da.
friend-NOM danced-NL-TOP one hour two-CLF COP
‘It’s two each hour that friends danced.’
This example only has the interpretation that friends danced two at a time each hour. In the
ungrammatical (42a), combining ‘ten minutes’ with the NQ is more difficult for reasons that I do
not understand.
598 Shigeru Miyagawa

It has been noted in the literature (e.g. Miyagawa 2001) that the lower copy of the
external argument is not visible in Japanese. However, what TEA states is that the
copy becomes visible under telic aspect. The reason is not clear, and it is beyond
the scope of this chapter to try to come up with an account (see a brief speculation
at the end of the chapter), particularly because the relationship between the external
argument and argument structure is, with few exceptions, uncharted territory. There
are a handful of works that make observations related to this relationship between
the subject and telicity (see, for example, Folli and Harley 2005; Rappaport Hovav
and Levin 2007; Rappaport Hovav 2008). Folli and Harley (2005) note a number of
examples from English and Italian where there is a close link between the type of
event in the verbal predicate and the type of external argument that is allowed,
and often it is the aspect of the event that governs the type of the external argument
that can occur.8
TEA accounts for all of the examples above in which a subject-oriented FNQ is
successfully stranded; in the telic aspect, the lower copy of the subject meets the
strict-locality requirement. We can in fact “repair” the ungrammatical example (47a)
from the standard paradigm and see TEA at work.

(47) a. *Gakusei ga sake o san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake.’ (Kuroda 1980)

b. Gakusei ga sake o sudeni san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC already 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students already drank sake.’

8 It is possible that TEA could follow from independent considerations, if we consider the possibility
that in the ungrammatical atelic examples, what intervenes between the subject NP and the subject
NQ is an element that structurally belongs below Spec,vP, and thus the stranded subject NQ is not
supported by the copy of the subject in vP. This would allow us to account for the ungrammatical
(and grammatical) cases without stipulating something like TEA. One example in favor of this is
that the following atelic example is fine.
(i) Gakusei-ga kinoo san-nin sake-o nonda.
student-NOM yesterday three-CLF sake-ACC drank
‘Three students drank sake yesterday.’
This is an atelic example, yet stranding is possible. The reason may be that the temporal adverb
‘yesterday’ is above Spec,vP, and the NQ san-nin is in Spec,vP along with the copy of the subject
‘students’. However, there are a number of examples, such as the pairs due to Tsujimura (1990) and
the activity–accomplishment minimal pair in (42), that are not readily amenable to this kind of struc-
tural analysis. I will therefore assume TEA, but with the idea that it may be possible to derive it from
basic structural considerations.
 Numeral quantifiers 599

While most speakers I have consulted agree with the judgment that (47a) is degraded,
example (47b), which, because of the addition of ‘already’, has a clear telic interpreta-
tion, is perfectly acceptable. This is true whether ‘already’ is placed before the verb
or even the subject.
The account according to TEA is particularly important for the notion of the
PISP. Sportiche’s (1988) examples from English and French of stranded quantifiers
provided one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this notion. However, Bošković
(2004) and Tada (1999), among others, argue that the position of the floating quan-
tifier in English (and French, in Bošković’s case) is not the original position of the
subject, but is instead a derived, non-θ-marked position. If this is the case, we no
longer have quantifier stranding in English and French as empirical evidence for
one of the most important notions that distinguish minimalism from Government
and Binding. Instead, if our analysis of subject-oriented FNQ stranding in terms of
TEA is correct, Japanese provides independent evidence for the predicate-internal
subject position.
In presenting support for FNQ stranding based on TEA, I take into account obser-
vations made in the literature to the effect that a FNQ not only modifies the associated
NP, it also interacts with the event structure of the verbal predicate. Fujita (1994)
argues that a NQ in the NP–FNQ sequence (or likewise a stranded FNQ) modifies
its host NP through modification of the verbal predicate. Likewise, Nakanishi (2004,
2007a, 2007b) presents a semantic approach in which the FNQ quantifies over events
denoted by the verbal predicate as well as over individuals denoted by the host NP.
What I will present is a stranding approach that makes explicit how the FNQ can
quantify over individuals denoted by the NP – which accounts for the agreement
between the type of associated NP being counted and the classifier on the FNQ –
and at the same time can directly participate in the quantificational structure of telic
events denoted by the verbal predicate.

4.2 Grammaticalizing telicity

The analysis I will present for FNQs in the NP(case)–FNQ sequence and stranded
FNQs is based on an extension of Borer (2005). Borer argues that the telic aspect is
structurally represented by an aspectual head, which she calls AspQ, where Q stands
for quantity. This represents the notion that “telic events are quantities, in the sense
that they involve quantification over event divisions” (Borer 2005: 74; see also Link
1983, 1987; Bach 1989; Krifka 1989, 1992; see also Tenny 1987, 1994; among others). In
contrast, “atelic events are homogeneous” and do not involve a quantitative aspec-
tual head. In Borer’s system, if AspQ occurs, an XP that provides the quantity is
merged into the specifier of this head, and this XP then binds an operator position
within an extended verbal projection.
600 Shigeru Miyagawa

(48)

In (48), <e> is an open value that requires range assignment, and if bound by an XP
with the property of quantity, it is given an appropriate range over event divisions.
In an atelic event, there is no such structure. This XP may be the object of a transi-
tive verb or the lone argument of an unaccusative verb. (Borer sometimes assumes a
nonce projection for atelic events and at other times there is no such projection; I
will make the latter assumption.)
In Miyagawa (2012), I argued that, contrary to Borer’s proposal, the AspQ is
merged above vP.

(49) Miyagawa (2012)

However, there are reasons to believe that we would end up with a better analysis
if we simply accept Borer’s original idea that the AspQis merged on the VP as shown
in (48). I will therefore depart from the analysis in Miyagawa (2012) and assume (48).
(48) is equivalent to what Fukuda (2012) calls a Low Aspect.
Let us again look at the minimal pair presented earlier.

(50) a. *Tomodati ga zyuppunkan huta-ri odotta.

friend NOM for ten minutes 2-CLF danced
Intended: ‘Two friends danced for ten minutes.’

b. Tomodati ga zyuppun-no-uti-ni huta-ri odotta.

friend NOM in ten minutes 2-CLF danced
‘Two friends danced (a dance) in ten minutes.’

To begin with the grammatical (50b) example, this sentence has a telic interpretation
because of the adverb ‘in ten minutes’. The relevant portion of the structure for this
sentence is given below.

(51) [TP tomotati ga zyuppun-no-uti-ni [vP ti huta-ri [AspQP [VP odotta. . .

friend NOM in ten minutes 2-CLF danced
 Numeral quantifiers 601

From this structure, which is grammatical, we can see that TEA is implemented by
the copy of the external argument c-commanding AspQ.
In the ungrammatical example, (50a), the aspect is that of an activity, which
is atelic, so the lower copy is not visible under TEA and hence the stranded FNQ
violates locality. If the subject NP and the FNQ are moved together to Spec,TP, the
FNQ is local to its associated NP and the sentence is grammatical as expected.

(52) Tomodati ga huta-ri zyuppunkan odotta.

friend NOM 2-CLF for ten minutes danced
‘Two friends danced for ten minutes.’

4.3 Subjects and objects

In Miyagawa and Arikawa (2007), we responded to a number of counterexamples
to the standard paradigm, including examples discussed earlier in this chapter in
which the subject and its FNQ are separated by the object; the examples are repeated
below.

(53) ?Gakusei ga sake o imamadeni san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC so far 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake so far.’ (Gunji and Hasida 1998: 57)

(54) Gakusei ga watasi no hon o huta-ri-sika kaw-anakat-ta.

student NOM my GEN book ACC 2-CLFSBJ-only buy-not-PST
‘Only two students bought my book.’ (cf. Takami 1998, pt. 1: 92)

As noted earlier, in these examples, the subject FNQ is prosodically separated from
the object, so that the FNQ cannot mistakenly be construed with the object. These
are cases of the DMS in which the object first moves above the subject, then the
subject moves above the object, stranding its FNQ. We adopted the EPP analysis in
Miyagawa (2001) in which the object moves to Spec,TP. I have added the AspQP to
the structure.

(55) [TP SBJ [TP OBJ [vP tOBJ [vP [ tSBJ NQSBJ] [AspQP [VP . . . tOBJ . . .]]]]]
↑___| ↑______________________________|
↑________________________|

This DMS in which the subject FNQ is stranded is possible under a telic interpreta-
tion due to TEA. This is again shown with the minimal pair below.

(56) a. *Gakusei ga sake o yonzyuugo-hun-kan san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC for forty-five minutes 3-CLFSBJ drank
Intended: ‘Three students drank sake for forty-five minutes.’
602 Shigeru Miyagawa

b. Gakusei ga sake o yonzyuugo-hun-no-uti-ni san-nin nonda.

student NOM sake ACC in forty-five minutes 3-CLFSBJ drank
‘Three students drank sake in forty-five minutes.’

4.4 Stranded NQ and modification of events

Fujita (1994) and Nakanishi (2004) observe that a FNQ not only modifies the asso-
ciated NP, but also the event represented by the verbal predicate. Nakanishi (2004:
67) gives the following to demonstrate this.9

(57) *?/??Gakusei ga kinoo san-nin Peter o korosi-ta.

student NOM yesterday 3-CLF Peter ACC kill-PST
Intended: ‘Three students killed Peter yesterday.’

Nakanishi notes that the event of killing Peter is something that can only occur
once. The unacceptance of (57) is explained if the FNQ, as an adverb, ranges over
multiple events of killing Peter that distribute over each of the three students; this
goes against the idea that there can only be one event of killing Peter. Nakanishi
uses this interesting data to argue against the stranding analysis of floating FNQs
(see also Nakanishi 2008), instead arguing that the interpretative facts suggest that
the FNQ is an adverb.
This debate is typical of the kind of discussion that has occurred in the general
analysis of floating quantifiers. Some assert that all floating quantifiers are of the
stranded kind (e.g. Cirillo 2009; Shlonsky 1991; Sportiche 1988) while others propose
that floating quantifiers are either always adverbs or maybe alternating between
stranded quantifiers and adverbs depending on the context (see for example, Bobaljik
2003; Doetjes 1997; Fitzpatrick 2006; Fukushima 1991; Ishii 1998; Nakanishi 2004;
Sag 1978). For Japanese, Nakanishi’s example has been one of the most compelling
pieces of empirical evidence given for the adverb analysis of FNQs (her analysis
can be traced back to the work by Ishii 1998, whose work in turn owes insights to
Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992).
But is there a reason to believe that (57) argues against a stranding analysis? I
believe the distributive reading noted by Nakanishi can be generated by the analysis
of the telic aspect sketched above without recourse to the adverb analysis of the
FNQ. Given that the verb ‘kill’ clearly defines a telic event, the structure for (57)
must contain AspQP. The stranded FNQ ‘three’ c-commands the AspQP, thereby

9 Nakanashi (2008) pairs (57) with the following example:

(i) Gakusei-ga kinoo san-nin Peter-o tatai-ta.
student-NOM yesterday three-CLF Peter-ACC hit-PST
‘Three students hit Peter yesterday.’
Unlike with ‘kill’ in (57), the act of hitting Peter can take place multiple times, hence the sentence is
felicitous.
 Numeral quantifiers 603

modifying the event subdivision of AspQ and giving the interpretation that there are
three instances of the (subdivided) event.
The following example argues against a Nakanishi-type adverb approach to
FNQs, and at the same time, is consistent with the analysis I have presented.

(58) Gakusei ga sakihodo san-nin (issyoni) teeburu o motiageta.

student NOM a while ago 3-CLF together table ACC picked up
‘A while ago, three students (together) picked up a table.’

This sentence is ambiguous between a collective and a distributive meaning: the

students either together picked up a table once (for which ‘together’ is compatible)
or they each individually picked up a table. The adverb analysis would only be
consistent with the distributive meaning. But on the analysis we have presented,
the FNQ itself does not trigger event division; if the event itself can be collective
because of the nature of the predicate, as in (58) above, the FNQ does not force a
distributed meaning. This is why a collective interpretation remains possible even
with a stranded FNQ; the distributed meaning is not a function of the FNQ but
simply an option that comes with the meaning of the predicate.
Nakanishi (2008: 308) is aware of this type of example; she claims that it is pro-
sodically ambiguous between floated and nonfloated versions. But in (58), there is
an adverb “a while ago” between the associated NP and the FNQ, which precludes
the nonfloated structure.

5 Quantifier scope and TEA

As the final point in this chapter, I will take up quantifier scope to give independent
evidence for TEA. As already noted, since Kuroda (1970), it has been widely assumed
that Japanese is a scopally rigid language (see also Hoji 1985).

(59) Dareka ga dono-sensei-mo kiratteiru.

someone NOM everyteacher hates
‘Someone hates every teacher.’

Unlike its English counterpart, in the Japanese example in (59), the surface-scope
reading involving a particular person who loves everyone is strongly preferred; for
most speakers, the inverse scope is impossible. This has become one of the defining
characteristics of Japanese.
However, a closer look at the data shows that this characterization as a general
property of the language is incorrect. There are examples in which native speakers
have an easier time getting an inverse-scope interpretation. Following are two such
examples.10

10 Most speakers I consulted about these examples were able to get the inverse scope. A few speakers
note that as soon as they hear dareka ‘someone’ in the subject position, they immediately imagine a
specific person; for these speakers, inverse scope is not available.
604 Shigeru Miyagawa

(60) a. (Gozi-kan-no-uti-ni) dareka ga dono-mado-mo aketa.

in five hours someone NOM every window opened
‘Someone opened every window (in five hours).’

b. (Nizi-kan-no-uti-ni) dareka ga dono-omotya-mo kowasita.

two hours someone NOM every toy broke
‘Someone broke every toy (in two hours).’

As we can see, these are clearly telic examples, suggesting that telicity has a role not
just in licensing certain kinds of NQ stranding, but also scope inversion. A reason-
able assumption based on TEA is that these are cases of DMS, in which the object
has moved to Spec,TP, and the subject across this object.
The following, pointed out to me by Toshiaki Inada and Hiroaki Tada, also
demonstrates that telicity is relevant to scope relations.

(61) Dareka ga dono-hon-mo yonde-iru.

someone NOM every book read-ing
‘Somone has read/is reading every book.’

The verbal inflection –iru can indicate progressive or resultative, the former represent-
ing activity and the latter accomplishment. In the progressive interpretation, this
sentence is unambiguous, with only the surface scope being possible, but with the
resultative interpretation, the inverse scope becomes possible, although surface
scope is still preferred.
Why is it that inverse scope appears under the telic aspect? Let us begin by look-
ing into how inverse scope is made possible in English. Johnson and Tomioka (1997)
and Johnson (2000) argue that inverse scope in a sentence such as the following is
possible thanks to the fact that the object quantifier many of the questions on the
exam takes scope over the copy of the subject in Spec,vP.

(62) Some student or other has answered many of the questions on the exam.

(63) [TP Subjecti [vP Objectj [vP ti [VP V tj] . . .

In Johnson and Tomioka (1997), the reason why the object moves to vP is to correct
type mismatch; in Johnson 2000 the movement of the object is covert scrambling.
On either account, the analysis does not depend on the object undergoing Quantifier
Raising to adjoin to TP, which is the classic analysis of inverse scope (May 1977).
Johnson gives the following evidence to show that it is the copy of the subject in
Spec,vP that is operative in inverse scope. First, we are reminded that the indefinite
some cannot scope under negation.

(64) I have not met some student. some student > not
 Numeral quantifiers 605

Johnson then notes the following, which is the negative counterpart of the ambiguous
sentence we saw in (62) above.

(65) Some student or other hasn’t answered many of the questions on the exam.

This example fails to have inverse scope in which many questions on the exam takes
scope over the subject some student or other. We can understand this lack of inverse
scope if negation keeps the subject indefinite some student or other from being inter-
preted in its original Spec,vP position. Without this copy available for interpretation,
inverse scope becomes impossible, on the assumption that it is this copy that enters
into the calculation of inverse scope.
Returning to Japanese, the surprising availability of inverse scope in telic sentences
finds an explanation in our approach to stranding of FNQs based on telicity, in a
way that parallels the analysis of inverse scope in English just outlined. Because of
TEA, a telic aspect allows a double-movement construction (DMC) with the copy of
the external argument visible.

(66)

In this structure, the object c-commands the visible copy of the external argument,
thereby making the inverse scope interpretation available. In an atelic structure,
even if it is a DMC, the inverse scope is not possible because the lower copy is
invisible.

6 Conclusion
The numerous counterexamples to the locality-based analysis of FNQs turn out to
provide further insights into the locality-based analysis. The typical counterexamples
may be analyzed as instances of a double-movement construction, with the object
moving to Spec,TP and the subject above the object. The subject FNQ in the original
Spec,vP position is local to the copy of the external argument, thereby fulfilling the
locality requirement. An additional condition in Japanese is that the copy of the
external argument is visible only under telic aspect. While we need to understand
where this condition comes from, we found independent evidence for it from quan-
tifier scope. On the analysis given, it is not the case that Japanese as a whole is
scopally rigid. Rather, Japanese has TEA, which only allows inverse scope in telic
aspect. Ultimately, we will have to derive TEA from other, independent considera-
tions. One possibility is to explore Nakanishi’s insight that FNQs distribute events.
606 Shigeru Miyagawa

Although I showed that this need not be the case, some combination of her obser-
vation and the idea of telicity as subdividing the event may lead to a promising
analysis.

Acknowledgments
I thank Hideki Kishimoto and Natsuko Tsujimura for many helpful suggestions. This
chapter is based to a great extent on Chaper 2 of Miyagawa (2012).

References
Bach, Emmon. 1989. Informal lectures on formal semantics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Belletti, Adriana. 1982. On the anaphoric status of the reciprocal construction in Italian. The Linguistic
Review 2. 101–138.
Bobaljik, Jonathan, D. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: MIT dis-
sertation.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma
(eds.), The second glot international state-of-the-article book, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 22. 681–742.
Cirillo, Robert. 2009. The syntax of floating quantifiers: Stranding revisited. LOT, Utrecht: University
of Amsterdam dissertation.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection: on the distribution of quantifying expressions in French,
Dutch, and English, HIL Dissertations, Volume 32. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Downing, Pamela. 1984. Japanese numeral classifiers: A syntactic, semantic, and functional profile.
Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.
Dowty, David and Belinda Brodie. 1984. A semantic analysis of “floated” quantifiers in a transforma-
tionless grammar. Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 75–
90. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fitzpatrick, Justin Michael. 2006. Syntactic and semantic routes to floating quantification. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Folli, Raffaella and Heidi Harley. 2005. Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In
Paula Kempchinsky and Roumyana Slabakova (eds.), Aspectual inquiries, 95–120. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Fujita, Naoya. 1994. On the nature of modification: A study of floating quantifiers and related con-
structions. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester dissertation.
Fukuda, Shin. 2012. Aspectual verbs as functional heads: Evidence from Japanese aspectual verbs.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 965–1026
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 1991. Generalized floating quantifiers. Tsuson, AZ: University of Arizona dis-
sertation.
 Numeral quantifiers 607

Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2003. Verb-raising and numeral quantifiers in Japanese: Incompatible bedfellows.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12. 313–347.
Gunji, Takao and Koiti Hasida. 1998. Measurement and quantification. In Takao Gunji and Koiti
Hasida (eds.), Topics in constraint-based grammar of Japanese, 39–79. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Haig, John H. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18. 1065–
1083.
Harada, S. I. 1976. Quantifier float as a relational rule. Metropolitan Linguistics 1. 44–49. Tokyo:
Tokyo Metropolitan University.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Washington,
WA: University of Washington dissertation.
Hoji, Hajime and Yasuo Ishii. 2004. What gets mapped to the tripartite structure of quantification in
Japanese. Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 346–359.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1978. Nihongo-no bunpō kisoku [Grammar rules in Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1998. Floating quantifiers in Japanese: NP quantifiers vs. VP quantifiers, or both? Grant-
in-Aid for COE Research Report (2), 149–171. Chiba: Kanda University of International Studies.
Johnson, Kyle. 2000. How far will quantifiers go? In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka
(eds), Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, 187–210. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, Kyle and Satoshi Tomioka. 1997. Lowering and mid-size clauses. In Graham Katz, Shin-Sook
Kim and Heike Winhart (eds), Reconstruction: Proceedings of the 1997 Tübingen workshop, 185–
205. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.
Kamio, Akio. 1977. Sūryōshi-no shintakkusu [The syntax of numeral quantifiers]. Gengo 8. 83–91.
Kawashima, Ruriko. 1998. The structure of extended nominal phrases: The scrambling of numerals,
approximate numerals, and quantifiers in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. 1–26.
Kawashima, Ruriko and Hisatsugu Kitahara. 1994. On the distribution and interpretation of subjects
and their numeral classifiers. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 3, 97–116. Ithaca, NY: CLC
Publications.
Kayne, Richard. 1981. Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control. In Frank Heny (ed.), Binding and
filtering, 191–211. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Lin-
guistic Inquiry 32. 597–633.
Kikuchi, Akira. 1994. Extraction from NP in Japanese. In Masaru Nakamura (ed.), Current topics in
English and Japanese, 79–104. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and S.-Y. Kuroda. 1992. Passive in Japanese. Unpublished ms., Indiana Univer-
sity and University of California, San Diego.
Ko, Heejeong. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 49–
83.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka. 2010. Psycholinguistic evidence for the VP-internal subject
position in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 663–680.
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution, and quantification in event semantics.
In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds), Semantics and contextual expressions,
75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal con-
stitution. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Danwa no bunpō [Grammar of discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
608 Shigeru Miyagawa

Kuno, Susumu and Ken-ichi Takami. 2003. Remarks of unaccusativity and unergativity in Japanese
and Korean. In William McClure (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12. 280–294.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1970. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only,
illustrating certain manners in which formal systems are employed as auxiliary devices in lin-
guistic descriptions, Part II. Annual bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics
4. 127–152. University of Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1980. Bun kōzō no hikaku [The comparison of sentence structures]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro
(ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku kōza 2: Bunpō [Lectures on Japanese-English comparative studies 2:
Grammar], 23–61. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12.1–47.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1989. An approach to unaccusative mismatches. Proceedings of
the 19th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Linguistics Society, 314–328.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics inter-
face. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach.
In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze and Armin von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use, and inter-
pretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Link, Godehard. 1987. Algebraic semantics for event structures. Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam
Colloquium, 243–262. Amsterdam: Institute for Language, Logic, and Information, University of
Amsterdam.
McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31.
57–84.
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Mihara, Ken-Ichi. 1998. Sūryōshi renketsu kōbun-to ‘kekka’-no gan’i [Quantifier linking construction
and the implication of “resultative”]. Parts 1–3. Gengo 27(6). 86–95; 27(7). 94–102; 27(8).
104–113.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Structure and case-marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken
Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational
languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Optionality. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic
minimalism, 354–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Case, argument structure, and word order. New York: Routledge.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Koji Arikawa. 2007. Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers.
Linguistic Inquiry 38. 645–670.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2004. Domains of measurement: Formal properties of non-split/split quantifier
constructions. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007a. Formal properties of measurement constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2007b. Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguistics and
Philosophy 30. 235–276.
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2008. Syntax and semantics of floating numeral quantifiers. In Shigeru Miyagawa
and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 287–319. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke and Asako Uchibori. 1991. Japanese bare NPs and syntax-semantics correspond-
ences in quantification. Unpublished ms., Osaka University and University of Connecticut, Storrs.
 Numeral quantifiers 609

Nishigauchi, Taisuke and Yasuo Ishii. 2003. Eigo kara nihongo o miru [Looking at Japanese from
English]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Ohki, Mitsuru. 1987. Nihongo no yūri sūryōshi no danwa kinō nitsuite [On discourse functions of
floating quantifiers in Japanese]. Shichōkaku Gaikokugokyōiku Kenkyū 10. 37–68.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1969. Sūryōteki hyōgen no bunpō [The grammar of quantified expressions].
Nihongo Kyōiku 14. 42–60.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2007. Deconstructing thematic hierarchies. In Annie Zaenen,
Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling and Chris Manning, (eds.),
Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, 385–402.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events.
In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Crosslinguistic and theoretical approaches to the semantics of aspect,
13–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sag, Ivan. 1978. Floating quantifiers, adverbs and extraction sites. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 146–150.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53. 789–809.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84.
159–180.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent struc-
ture. Linguistic inquiry 19. 425–449.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1999. Attracting categorial features. Fukuoka University Review of Literature and
Humanities 31(1). 97–110.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Nihongo no sūryōshi yūri nitsuite [On quantifier float in Japanese]. Gekkan
Gengo 27(1). 86–95; 27(2). 86–95; 27(3). 98–107.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 2001. Nichieigo-no kinōteki kōbun bunseki [A functional analysis of English and
Japanese constructions]. Tokyo: Ōtori Syobō.
Terada, Michiko. 1990. Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Amherst, MA: University
of Massachusetts dissertation.
Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Cambridge, MA: dissertation.
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990. Unaccusative mismatches in Japanese. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
Meeting of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 264–276. Columbus: Ohio State Uni-
versity.
Ueda, Masanobu. 1986. On quantifier float in Japanese. University of Massachusetts Occasional
Papers in Linguistics 11. 263–309. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 241–306.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–238.
Yoichi Miyamoto
16 Relative clauses

1 Introduction
The syntax of relative clauses has been one of the most widely discussed issues in
the literature (Chomsky 1977; Kayne 1994; Schachter 1973; to name a few), elucidat-
ing a variety of properties common and divergent across languages. In this respect,
Japanese relative clauses are no exception. It is well attested that Japanese relative
clauses exhibit characteristics different from those of other languages (Inoue 1976;
Okutsu 1974; Shibatani 1978; Teramura 1977; to name a few). The syntactic properties
of Japanese relative clauses are thus likely to provide us with a clue to reveal signif-
icant properties of this language, which, in turn, can lead to the clarification of the
properties of Universal Grammar.
One superficial, yet very significant property of Japanese relative clauses is that
they contain neither an overt relative pronoun nor an overt complementizer, yet no
deviance results, as shown in (1a) (Kuno 1973; Fukui and Takano 2000; Matsumoto
1997; among others). In the English counterpart of (1a), on the other hand, neither
the relative pronoun who nor the complementizer that can be omitted, as shown in
(1b, c).

(1) a. Taroo ga Hanako ni hanasikaketa sensei o sitteiru.

Taro NOM Hanako DAT talked.to teacher ACC know
‘Taro knows the teacher who talked to Hanako.’

b. Taro knows the teacher *(who) talked to Hanako.

c. Taro knows the teacher *(that) talked to Hanako.

Nevertheless, it is not the case that complementizers are totally absent in this lan-
guage. Consider (2a, b).

(2) a. Hanako ga Taroo ga oyoida to itta.

Hanako NOM Taro NOM swam that said
‘Hanako said that Taro swam.’

b. Hanako ga hometa no wa Taroo o da.

Hanako NOM praised that TOP Taro ACC is
‘It is Taro that Hanako praised.’

(2a) involves an embedded clause headed by the complementizer to, whereas (2b) is
an instance of the cleft construction in which the presuppositional clause is headed

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-017
612 Yoichi Miyamoto

by the complementizer no (Hoji 1990; Murasugi 1991). These examples show that
Japanese has complementizers. Nonetheless, relative clauses cannot be accompanied
by either of these complementizers, as illustrated in (3a, b):

(3) a. *Hanako ga katta to hon

Hanako NOM bought that book
‘the book that Hanako bought’

b. *Hanako ga katta no hon

Hanako NOM bought that book
‘the book that Hanako bought’

In fact, as observed in Clancy (1985), Harada (1980), and Murasugi (1991), among
others, Japanese children, at around two to three years old, do use relative clauses
with no, as exemplified in (4) (Nagisa: 3;2).

(4) gohan tabeteru no butasan

food eating.is that piggy
‘the pig that is eating the food’ (Murasugi 1991: 167)

The overgeneration of no in child’s grammar thus makes the fact in (1) very puzzling.
Syntactically, one important question arising from this issue is whether any
movement is involved in Japanese relativization, although neither a complementizer
nor a relative pronoun is at least overtly present in this language. In English, it has
been well accepted (Chomsky 1977; Kayne 1994; among others) that some form of
movement is involved, for example, in (5).

(5) the book which Mary bought

In order to clarify the nature of relative clauses in Japanese, this chapter is organized
as follows. In Section 2, we introduce Kuno’s (1973) seminal work on relative clauses,
which sets the basis for the discussion to follow. The essence of his proposal, further
pursued by Murasugi (1991), is that Japanese relativization does not involve the
movement operation that English relativization makes use of. Attractive though this
proposal may be, there are arguments against this no-movement hypothesis. In Section
3, we introduce three arguments presented in the literature: anaphor binding, idiom
interpretation, and weak crossover effects. All point towards the movement hypothesis
of short-distance relativization, suggested by Kizu (2005). In Section 4, we return to
Kuno’s examples, discussed in Section 2, and introduce Sakai’s movement-based alter-
native account of the examples. We also discuss island effects with special attention to
Inoue (1976)-Hasegawa’s (1984/85) generalization in this section. In Section 5, we return
to Inoue’s (1976) observation that long-distance adjunct relativization is prohibited
 Relative clauses 613

in Japanese. Having established that movement is involved in short-distance relativ-

ization, we provide an argument for the operator-movement approach to Japanese
relativization in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 is our concluding remarks.

2 Setting the Stage

Kuno (1973) made two more important observations, in addition to the observa-
tion that Japanese relative clauses are not accompanied by a relative pronoun or a
complementizer.
First, he points out that Japanese relative clauses do not always require a gap.
For example, there is no obvious position for a gap in (6a, b).

(6) a. syuusyoku ga taihen na buturigaku

employment NOM difficult is physics
‘physics, where finding a job is difficult’ (Kuno 1973: 255)

b. doa ga simaru oto

door NOM shut sound
‘(lit.) the sound that the door shut’ (Murasugi 1991: 155)

Second, even when the relative gap is present, it can be within an island. Consider
(7a–c).

(7) a. [Hanako ga [Taroo ga e1 mikaketa to] itta] sensei1

Hanako NOM Taro NOM saw that said teacher
‘the teacher that Hanako said that Taro saw’ (Kuno 1973: 67)

b. [[[e1 e2 kiteiru] yoohuku2 ] ga yogoreteiru] sinsi1

wearing.is suit NOM dirty.is gentleman
‘the gentleman such that the suit that (he) is wearing is dirty’

c. [[e1 sinda noni] daremo kanasimanakatta] hito1

died although anyone saddened.not.was person
‘the person who no one was saddened although he/she died’
(Kuno 1973: 249)

The grammaticality of (7a) shows that long-distance dependency is possible in argu-

ment relativization whereas the grammaticality of (7b, c), which are instances of a
complex NP island and an adjunct island, indicates that Japanese argument relativ-
ization is immune from island effects. Provided that the presence of island effects
means the presence of movement, the grammaticality of these two examples shows
614 Yoichi Miyamoto

that no movement is involved in these cases. This, in turn, indicates that the relative
gap being a covert pronominal (pro) must be an option available in argument rela-
tivization (Kuno 1973; Murasugi 1991; among others). Under this proposal, the struc-
tures of (7b, c) must be as in (8a, b).

(8) a. [[[pro1 pro2 kiteiru] yoohuku2 ] ga yogoreteiru] sinsi1

wearing.is suit NOM dirty.is gentleman

b. [[pro1 sinda noni] daremo kanasimanakatta] hito1

died although anyone saddened.not.was person

It is then of no surprise that no island effect is observed in (7b, c), and thus in Japanese
argument relativization.
In contrast, as observed in Inoue (1976), Murasugi (1991), and Saito (1985), in the
adjunct relativization exemplified in (9), long-distance dependency is not available,
even if no island intervenes.

(9) [Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta] riyuu

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said reason
‘the reason that Hanako said that Taro ran’

This example refers to the reason for which Hanako made the statement on Taro’s
running, but it does not refer to the reason for which Taro ran, according to Hanako.
This fact is quite surprising given that argument relativization even tolerates islands.
Under the pro-based account, we need to exclude the structure given in (10).

(10) [Hanako ga [Taroo ga pro1 hasitta to] itta] riyuu1

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said reason

Murasugi (1991) attributes the unavailability of the structure in (10) to the assump-
tion that pro’s are only available to arguments (Murasugi and Saito 1992). Accord-
ingly, no manner/reason pro’s are available in Japanese. Thus, (10) is not tenable.
Under the pro-based account, it is thus not surprising that Japanese relative
clauses are free from island effects. Furthermore, the fact that long-distance interpre-
tation is not readily available with adjunct relativization is also correctly predicted.
Furthermore, since no movement is required in Japanese relativization, no relative
gap is necessitated either. Now, Kuno’s first observation that Japanese relativization
does not require a gap also follows.
Within the framework of Lasnik and Saito (1992), Murasugi (1991) further argues
that the Japanese relative clauses are IP in category, which means that no CP SPEC
is available for the relative operator to move to. The IP hypothesis thus provides a
reason why Japanese relativization does not involve movement.
 Relative clauses 615

3 Evidence for Movement

Attractive though the no-movement approach may be, there is evidence that move-
ment is involved in Japanese argument relativization. We present three pieces of
evidence for the movement in question in this section. Section 3.1 concerns evidence
from anaphor binding. Section 3.2 discusses idiomatic interpretation. Section 3.3 deals
with weak crossover (WCO) effects that Japanese argument relativization exhibits.

3.1 Anaphor Binding

It has been well attested that English relativization exhibits reconstruction effects in
anaphor binding (Jackendoff 1972; Barss 1986; among others). In (11), the reflexive
himself contained in the relative head is successfully bound by John located within
the relative clause, although the relative head that contains the reflexive is not
c-commanded by the intended antecedent in overt syntax.

(11) the picture of himself1 [which John1 likes [e]]

The grammaticality of (11) thus shows that the reflexive itself or a phrase related to
the relative head that contains it through predication must have been c-commanded
by the antecedent at some point in the derivation. In (11), it must be the relative
pronoun which moved from the position [e] that is c-commanded by John.
Bearing this discussion in mind, consider (12) cited from Hasegawa (1988: 59).

(12) *[John ga e1 taipusita] zibun no ronbun1

John NOM type.did self GEN paper
‘(lit.) self’s paper that John typed’

Notably, in contrast to (11), this example is unacceptable, which suggests that no

reconstruction is available in Japanese argument relativization. This, in turn, sug-
gests that no movement is involved in Japanese relativization, which is consistent
with the no-movement hypothesis.
However, Ishii (1991) observes that once we replace zibun with karezisin ‘himself’,
a different picture emerges. Consider (13).

(13) Mary wa [[John1 ga e2 taipusita] karezisin1 no ronbun2 ] o mottekita.

Mary TOP John NOM type.did himself GEN paper ACC brought
‘Mary brought himself1’s paper that John1 typed.’ (Ishii 1991: 29)

The grammaticality of this example shows that reconstruction effects emerge with
the reflexive –zisin, which shows that Japanese relativization in fact involves move-
616 Yoichi Miyamoto

ment. Accordingly, the ungrammaticality of (12) must be independent of the avail-

ability of anaphoric binding (see Ishii 1991).
Ishii also observes that the reflexive –zisin cannot find its antecedent within an
island, as shown in (14), which indicates that reconstruction effects cease to emerge
when an island intervenes.

(14) ?*[Mary ga [[John1 ga e2 e3 miseta koto ga aru]

Mary NOM John NOM showed fact NOM exist
hito2 ] o sitteiru] karezisin1 no syasin3
person ACC know himself GEN picture
‘(lit.) the picture of himself which Mary knows the person to whom
John has once showed’ (Ishii 1991:30)

Kizu (2005), however, observes that even if no island intervenes, only an element
in the higher clause can be the antecedent of the reflexive/anaphor contained in a
relative clause, as shown in (15a, b), the latter of which is from Kizu (2005: 151).

(15) a. [Mary1 ga [John2 ga e3 taipusita to] omotteita]

Mary NOM John NOM type.did that thought
kanozyozisin1 / ?*karezisin2 no ronbun3 wa subarasikatta.
herself/himself GEN paper TOP wonderful.was
‘The paper of herself/himself that Mary thought that John typed was
wonderful.’

b. [Hanako to Taroo1 ga [sensei gata2 ga e3 atta

Hanako and Taro NOM eacher PL NOM met
to] omotteiru] otagai1/*2 no yuuzin3
that think each.other GEN friend
‘each other’s friend that Hanako and Taro think that the teachers met’

These examples thus show that reconstruction effects in binding are observed only
in the higher clause. Kizu calls this effect “highest clause sensitivity”. We add two
more pieces of evidence for this effect.

3.2 Idiomatic Interpretation

The presence of idiomatic interpretation has been taken as another piece of evidence
for movement (Schachter 1973; Vergnaud 1974; Aoun and Li 2003; among others).
Consider (16a, b) cited from Schachter (1973).
 Relative clauses 617

(16) a. The careful track that she’s keeping [e] of her expenses pleases me.
b. The headway that Mel made [e] was impressive.

(17a, b) further show that the intended long-distance dependency poses no problem.

(17) a. The careful track that John believes that she’s keeping [e] of her expenses
pleases me.
b. The headway that John believes that Mel made [e] was impressive.

Now, given the assumption that the constituency of the relevant parts is required for
idiomatic interpretation, the relative head must be located in the [e] position within
the relative clause at some point in the derivation. If the relative head or an element
related to it has been raised from the [e] position, the availability of the idiomatic
interpretation in (16a, b) and (17a, b) thus follows. Accordingly, the availability of
idiomatic interpretation provides a good testing ground for the availability of move-
ment in the construction under consideration.
Inoue (1976) shows that Japanese relativization also permits idiomatic interpre-
tation, although it is a little degraded, as shown in (18a, b).

(18) a. [[Karera ga magarinarinimo e1 tuketa] kettyaku1 ] wa

they NOM somehow.or.other reached conclusion TOP
amari yorokobarenakatta.
much pleased.make.not
‘The end that they brought it to did not make other people pleased.’
(Inoue 1976: 214)

b. [[Taroo ga sono ronbun ni e1 tuketa] keti1 ] ni tatarareru.

Taro NOM that paper DAT attached fault DAT haunted.is
‘(Someone) is haunted by the fault that Taro found on that paper.’

Given the conclusion reached in (16a, b) and (17a, b), the fact that these examples
permit the idiomatic interpretation constitutes evidence for the movement in short-
distance relativization.
Again, in the long-distance relativization, if the idiomatic expression is within
the lower clause, the idiomatic interpretation becomes unavailable. For example, the
idiomatic interpretation is more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in (19) than (18b).

(19) [Hanako ga [Taroo ga sono ronbun ni e1 tuketa

Hanako NOM Taro NOM that paper DAT attached
to] sinziteiru] keti1 ni tatarareta.
that believe fault DAT haunted.was
‘(Someone) was haunted by the fault that Hanako believes that Taro found
on that paper.’
618 Yoichi Miyamoto

The contrast between (19) and (17a, b) thus shows that the highest clause sensitivity
is also observed in the availability of idiomatic interpretation.

3.3 Weak Crossover Effects

Ishii (1991) presents the presence of weak crossover (WCO) effects as another piece
of evidence for movement in Japanese relativization. First, consider (20a, b).

(20) a. Dono daikigyoo1 ga soko1 no kogaisya o

which big.enterprise NOM that.place GEN subsidiary ACC
tyoosasita no.
investigation.did Q
‘Which big enterprise investigated its subsidiaries?’

b. *Soko1 no kogaisya ga dono daikigyoo1 o

that.place GEN subsidiary NOM which big.enterprise ACC
tyoosasita no.
investigation.did Q
‘Which big enterprise did its subsidiaries investigate?’

Descriptively speaking, in a configuration where a pronoun P and a trace T are both

bound by a quantifier Q, T must c-command P (Stowell and Lasnik 1991). In (20a, b),
the wh-phrase is assumed to be covertly raised to CP SPEC, and the trace left behind
c-commands the pronoun in (20a), but not in (20b). As a result, the latter example is
excluded.
Ishii (1991) observes that Japanese relativization also exhibits WCO effects, as
shown in the contrast between (21a) and (21b).

(21) a. ?[e1 [soko1 no kogaisya] o tyoosasita]

that.place GEN subsidiary ACC investigation.did
hutatu no daikigyoo1
two.CLF GEN big.enterprise
‘the two big enterprises that investigated its subsidiaries’

b. *[[soko1 no kogaisya] ga e1 tyoosasita]

that.place GEN subsidiary NOM investigation.did
hutatu no daikigyoo1
two.CLF GEN big.enterprise
‘its subsidiaries that investigated the two big enterprises’
 Relative clauses 619

If e1 is a trace left by movement, it fails to c-command the pronoun. Accordingly,

(21b) is ruled out, parallel to (20b). The ungrammaticality of (21b) thus constitutes
evidence for movement in short-distance relativization.
In contrast, long-distance relativization, again, shows the highest clause sensi-
tivity. Consider (22a, b). This time, WCO effects disappear.

(22) a. [keisatu ga [e1 soko1 no kogaisya o

police NOM that.place GEN subsidiary ACC
tyoosasita] to sinziteiru] hutatu no daikigyoo1
investigation.did that believe two.CLF GEN big.enterprise
‘the two big enterprises that the police believes investigated its subsidiaries’

b. [keisatu ga [soko1 no kogaisya ga e1

police NOM that.place GEN subsidiary NOM
tyoosasita] to sinziteiru] hutatu no daikigyoo1
investigation.did that believe two.CLF GEN big.enterprise
‘the two big enterprises that the police believes that its subsidiaries
investigated’

If the movement were also involved in (22b), we would expect this example to be
ungrammatical, parallel to (21b). The fact that (22a, b) are both acceptable thus
shows that no WCO effect is observed with long-distance relativization. This in turn
indicates that no movement is involved in the case in point.

3.4 Interim Summary

In this section we have elucidated three properties of Japanese relative clauses,
showing that movement is involved in the construction: (I) anaphor binding, (II)
idiomatic interpretation, and (III) weak crossover (WCO) effects. However, these
three instances of reconstruction effects are observable only in the highest clause.
This means that the relevant movement takes place only short-distance within the
highest clause, as Ishii (1991) and Kizu (2005) propose. Japanese relativization must
then come in two types: Short-distance relativization involves movement whereas
long-distance relativization must make use of the resumptive pro. Yet, the discussion
on anaphoric binding in Section 3.1 shows that long-distance relativization should
have an option of incorporating short-distance movement.

4 No Head-Raising in Japanese Relativization

Granted that short-distance relativization must, and long-distance relativization can,
involve movement, we now clarify the nature of the movement involved in Japanese
620 Yoichi Miyamoto

relativization. In the literature, two proposals have been entertained concerning the
nature of movement involved in relativization: the relative head-raising approach
(Schachter 1973; Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994; Hoshi 2004; among others) and the
Op-movement approach (Chomsky 1977; Safir 1986; Browning 1987; among others).
Given these proposals, we seek evidence as to which type of movement is involved
in Japanese short-distance relativization.
Murasugi (2000) examines Japanese relativization under the Kaynean approach.
According to Kayne, head-final languages have the derivational steps given in (23).

(23) a. [DP [D’ D [CP [C’ C [IP . . . NP . . . ]]]]]

b. [DP [D’ D [CP NP1 [C’ C [IP . . . t1 . . . ]]]]]

c. [DP [IP . . . t1 . . . ]2 [D’ D [CP NP1 [C’ C t2 ]]]]

The relative head is the NP in (23a). First, this NP is raised to CP SPEC, as shown in
(23b). Then, the relative clause IP comes to occupy DP SPEC, as in (23c).
Murasugi’s concern is whether the trace left by the relative head raising within
the IP is legitimate. Notice that the movements illustrated in (23) are not instances of
scrambling and thus, the relative head cannot be reconstructed into the original
position in LF (Saito 1989). Accordingly, given the assumption that traces must be
bound (Fiengo 1977; May 1977), (23c) is excluded, parallel to (24), since t1 is unbound.1

(24) *Which picture of t1 do you wonder who1 Hanako saw?

Accordingly, in order to generate the head final word order, we need to base-generate
the relative head NP in CP SPEC, and the relative clause IP should contain pro, as
illustrated in (25), so that we would not end up having the unbound trace within
the IP.

(25) [DP [IP . . . pro1 . . . ]2 [D’ D [CP NP1 [C’ C t2 ]]]]

Now, we reach the conclusion that Japanese, a head-final language, does not involve
movement within the relative clause. However, we have already had evidence in
Section 3 that movement is involved in short-distance relativization. The only possible
way to resolve this conflict would be not to adopt the Kaynean head-raising approach
to Japanese short-distance relativization. This, in turn, means that the movement
involved in Japanese relativization is Op-movement, as illustrated in (26).

1 Murasugi’s (2000) original claim is based on Saito’s (1986) proposal that an A-trace can be chain-
bound while an A’-trace must be bound by an antecedent that c-commands it. Given the assumption
that the movement to CP SPEC is an instance of A’-movement, she proposes that (23c) is not tenable
since t1 is unbound. See also Lasnik and Saito (1992) for relevant discussion.
 Relative clauses 621

(26) [DP [D’ [NP [CP Op1 [IP . . . t1 . . .]] [NP . . . N . . .]] D]]

The structure in (26) brings us a welcome consequence on the unavailability of NP-

ellipsis to be triggered by a relative clause.2 Saito, Lin and Murasugi (2008) show
that Japanese relativization does not permit NP-ellipsis. Consider (27).

(27) Taroo ga kinoo atta hito wa yasasii ga

Taro NOM yesterday met person TOP kind though
Hanako ga kinoo atta *(hito) wa kowai.
Hanako NOM yesterday met person TOP scary
‘The person Taro saw yesterday is kind, but the person Hanako saw
yesterday is scary.’ (Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 263)

This may seem trivial to some readers since relative clauses are generally considered
as a typical case of adjuncts, and we independently know that adjuncts in general
do not license NP-ellipsis, as exemplified in (28):

(28) Hare no hi wa yoi keredo, ame no *(hi) wa otikomu.

clear GEN day TOP good though rain GEN day TOP feel.depressed
‘Clear day are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days.’
(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 248)

However, once we turn our attention to Chinese, relative clauses do license NP-ellipsis,
as shown in (29) (see also Aoun and Li 2003; Miyamoto 2014).

(29) Wo zuotian kanjian de nanhai bi [ni zuotian kanjian

I yesterday see DE boy than you yesterday see
de (nanhai)] geng youqian.
DE boy more rich
‘The boy I saw yesterday is richer than the boy you saw yesterday.’
(Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008: 263)

The question to be raised is, then, why NP-ellipsis is available in Chinese, but not in
Japanese. Suppose that SPEC must be filled in order to license NP-ellipsis (Lobeck
1990; Saito and Murasugi 1990; Saito, Lin and Murasugi 2008). Then, a Chinese
relative clause, but not its Japanese counterpart, must be generated in the position
from which it can be raised to DP SPEC. However, notice that this is exactly what we
saw in (23c) and (25). We are then led to choose the structure in (26), which correctly
predicts the unavailability of NP-ellipsis in Japanese relativization.

2 See Chapter 19 (Saito, this volume) for discussion on ellipsis.

622 Yoichi Miyamoto

Yet, Takahashi (2011) claims that NP-ellipsis can be triggered by a relative clause.
The type of examples given by Takahashi is exemplified in (30).

(30) [[Kinoo okonawareta] syuzyutu] wa kantan datta ga

yesterday done.was operation TOP simple was though
[[kyoo yoteisareteiru] *(no)] wa kanari muzukasii.
today planned.is NO TOP very difficult
‘(lit.) The operation that was done yesterday was simple, but the operation
that is planned today is very difficult.’

For Takahashi, the no that appears with a relative clause is the genitive Case marker
(see Takahashi 2011 for the detailed analysis). Under the Op-movement approach,
illustrated in (26), on the other hand, (30) cannot be a true instance of NP-ellipsis.
Rather, the no attached to a relative clause must be the pronominal no, acting as
the relative head.
Miyamoto (2013) provides a variety of arguments for no being pronominal in cases
like (30). One of his arguments is based on the grammatical contrast between (30)
and (31) below.

(31) *[[Hanako ga sensei ni miseta] taido] wa ii ga

Hanako NOM teacher to showed attitude TOP good though
[[Taroo ga (sensei ni) miseta] (no)] wa yoku nai.
Taro NOM teacher to showed NO TOP good not
‘The attitude which Hanako showed to her teacher is good, but the attitude
which Taro showed to his teacher is not good.’

If (30) is a true instance of NP-ellipsis, triggered by the relative clause, we should

expect that the same derivational steps are available in (31). We then predict that
the intended NP-ellipsis is available in this example. Accordingly, under the ellipsis-
based account of (30), it is not clear why (31) is ungrammatical.
Under the Op-movement approach, the ungrammaticality of (31) is due to Kamio’s
(1983) condition on the pronominal no, which states that an abstract noun cannot
be replaced by the pronominal no. Accordingly, the remaining question is why the
pronominal no can appear in (30), but not in (31). In this regard, the view of Quirk
et al. (1985: 299) on abstract nouns becomes relevant. They state that “some [abstract
non-count nouns] can be reclassified as count nouns where they refer to an instance
of a given abstract phenomenon.” Given this, we now understand why (30) accepts
the pronominal no. This example refers to two instances of the action described by
the noun syuzyutu, and this noun no longer behaves as a typical instance of an
abstract noun. If so, Kamio’s condition does not prevent the pronominal no from
appearing in (30). In contrast, taido ‘attitude’ does not refer to particular instances
 Relative clauses 623

associated with this particular concept. Thus, Kamio’s condition does exclude the
pronominal no in (31). The contrast between (30) and (31) thus constitutes evidence
against an NP-ellipsis based account on (30), and thus against the Kaynean head-
raising approach.
Supporting evidence for our conclusion can be found in the Nagasaki dialect,
in which the genitive Case marker no is realized as n(o), whereas the pronominal no
appears as to. Given the conclusion that the no attached to a relative clause is
the pronominal no, we expect that relative clauses should be accompanied by to,
but not n(o) in this dialect. This prediction seems to be borne out, as shown in the
contrast between (32a), the Tokyo dialect, and (32b), the Nagasaki dialect.

(32) a. Taroo wa [[JEAL ni keisaisareta no] ga itiban da to] omotteiru.

Taro TOP JEAL in published.was NO NOM best is that think
‘Taro thinks that the one that was published in JEAL is the best.’

b. Taroo wa [[JEAL ni keisaisareta to] ga itiban ya to] omottoru.

Taro TOP JEAL in published.was TO NOM best is that think
‘Taro thinks that the one that was published in JEAL is the best.’

To conclude, we now have established that Japanese short-distance and long-distance

relativization involves Op-movement in the configuration given in (33a, b).

(33) a. Short-distance Relativization

[DP [D’ [NP [CP Op1 [IP . . . t1 . . .]] [NP . . . N . . .]1 ] D]]

b. Long-distance Relativization
[DP [D’ [NP [CP Op1 [IP . . . [CP (t1) [IP . . . pro1 . . .]] . . .]] [NP . . . N . . .]1 ] D]]

In (33a), for a reason to be clarified in future research (but see Section 7), the Op-
movement option must be chosen. In (33b), on the other hand, the resumptive pro
is in the lower clause, and the Op can be base-generated in CP SPEC, although
short-distance movement must be an option available in this case.

5 Absence of Island Effects with Argument

Relativization
Recall from Section 2 that under the no-movement approach, the reason why (7a, b),
repeated here as (34a, b), are grammatical despite the presence of the island, is that
Japanese relativization does not involve movement.
624 Yoichi Miyamoto

(34) a. [[[e1 e2 kiteiru] yoohuku2 ] ga yogoreteiru] sinsi1

wearing.is suit NOM dirty.is gentleman
‘the gentleman that the suit that he is wearing is dirty’

b. [[e1 sinda noni] daremo kanasimanakatta] hito1

died although anyone saddened.not.was person
‘the person who no one was saddened about even though he/she died’
(Kuno 1973: 249)

Yet, under the approach incorporating short-distance movement, an alternative

account is available to (34a, b). Kuroda (1992) and Sakai (1994) make an important
observation that (34a, b) have the corresponding “major subject” sentences given in
(35a, b).

(35) a. Sono sinsi1 ga [[e1 e2 kiteiru] yoohuku2 ] ga yogoreteiru.

that gentleman NOM wearing.is suit NOM dirty.is
‘The gentleman is such that the suit that he is wearing is dirty.’

b. Sono hito1 mo [e1 sinda noni] daremo kanasimanakatta.

that person also died although anyone saddened.not.was
‘That person is also such that no one was saddened about him/her even
though he/she died.’

Kuno’s example in (6a), repeated here as (36a), also has its “major subject” counter-
part, as shown in (36b).

(36) a. syuusyoku ga taihen na buturigaku

employment NOM difficult is physics
‘physics, where finding a job is difficult’

b. Buturigaku ga syuusyoku ga taihen da.

physics NOM employment NOM difficult is
‘Physics is such that finding a job is difficult.’

Considering the parallelism between (34a, b) and (35a, b), Sakai proposes that the
former examples are derived from the latter. Crucially, in (34a, b), the movement
of the Op1 is from the major subject position. Under the current approach, these two
examples have the structures given in (37a, b) respectively.

(37) a. [Op1 [t1 [[[Op2 [pro1 t2 kiteiru]] yoohuku2 ] ga yogoreteiru]]] sinsi1

wearing.is suit NOM dirty.is gentleman

b. [Op1 [t1 [[pro1 sinda noni] daremo kanasimanakatta]]] hito1

died although anyone saddened.not.was person
 Relative clauses 625

Note that these are instances of short-distance relativization, and thus, they should
be allowed. As a consequence, no island is crossed, and thus no island effect results
in these examples.
Sakai further argues that his proposal provides a natural account of Inoue
(1976)-Hasegawa’s (1984/1985) generalization which states that no Complex NP
violation is detectable only if extraction of subject takes place out of the subject.
For example, (38a, b) are clearly worse than (34a, b).

(38) a. ??[Bill ga [[e1 e2 kaita] hon2 ] o yakusiteiru] gakusya1

Bill NOM wrote book ACC translating.is scholar
‘the scholar1 that Bill is translating the book2 that t1 wrote t2’
(Inoue 1976: 178)

b. ??[[[sono gakusya ga e1 e2 okutta] syoten1 ] ga yaketa] hon2

that scholar NOM sent bookstore NOM burned book
‘the book1 that the bookstore2 that that scholar sent t1 t2 burned down’
(Inoue 1976: 179)

Crucially, as pointed out by Sakai, examples like these do not have their “major
subject” counterparts, as shown in (39a, b).

(39) a. ??Sono gakusya1 mo Bill ga [[e1 e2 kaita] hon2 ] o yakusiteiru.

that scholar also Bill NOM wrote book ACC translating.is
‘The scholar is also such that Bill is translating the book that he/she wrote.’

b. ??Sono hon2 ga [[sono gakusya ga e1 e2 okutta] syoten1 ] ga

that book NOM that scholar NOM sent bookstore NOM
yaketa.
burned
‘The book is such that the bookstore that that scholar sent it burned down.’

Accordingly, the derivation of the type illustrated in (37a, b) is not available to (38a, b),
and thus, in these examples, extraction of the Op is necessarily from within the relative
clause, which should yield island effects.
However, notice that if the intended movement takes place from within the rela-
tive clause, this is an instance of long-distance relativization. Accordingly, given the
discussion in Section 3, the pro option must be selected. If so, the marginality of
(38a, b) should not be attributed to the presence of islands.
In this respect, Saito’s (1985: 285) comment on Inoue-Hasegawa’s generalization
is relevant. He points out the difference in the degree of marginality between examples
like (38a, b) and typical island violations, exemplified in (40a, b).
626 Yoichi Miyamoto

(40) a. ?*Ano hon o2 John ga [[e1 e2 katta] hito1 ] ni aitagatteiru rasii.

that book ACC John NOM bought person DAT meet.want seem
‘It seems that John wants to meet the person who bought the book.’

b. ?*Russell ni2 John ga [[e1 e2 atta koto ga aru] hito] o1

Russell DAT John NOM met fact NOM have person ACC
mituketa rasii.
found seem
‘It seems that John found a person who actually met Russell.’
(Saito 1985: 285–286)

Given that (40a, b) are in violation of the Subjacency Condition, (38a, b) should not
be analyzed in the parallel fashion since these examples are less marginal than
(40a, b). Thus, Saito concludes that (38a, b) are ruled out by a constraint milder than
Subjacency.
Considering the fact that the resumptive pro strategy yields weak marginality
(cf. Chomsky 1977; Sells 1984; among others), Ishii (1991) suggests that (38a, b) are
a little degraded because these examples make use of a resumptive pro within an
island.3 To the extent that this account is correct, we have evidence that no move-
ment is involved in these examples. Yet, since (34a, b) do not even exhibit this
weak marginality, Ishii also concludes that these examples do not make use of
resumptive pro’s, which, in turn, indicates that they involve movement, as Sakai
(1994) proposes.
To recapitulate, this section introduced Sakai’s “major subject”-based analysis
of apparent Subjacency violation with relative clauses. To the extent that Ishii’s
proposal on (38a, b), based on Saito’s suggestion on Inoue-Hasegawa’s generaliza-
tion, is correct, we now have reason to maintain both movement- and pro-based
approaches to Japanese relativization, and the movement option can be chosen
only for short-distance relativization or part of long-distance relativization.

6 No Long-distance Adjunct Relativization

Given that the movement option is exclusively for short-distance relativization, we
can also account for the important observation, discussed in Section 2, that long-
distance adjunct relativization is not possible in Japanese. On this issue, we can
maintain Murasugi’s (1991) account of why (9), repeated here as (41), cannot refer
to the reason why Taro ran, according to Hanako.

3 As noted in Ishii (1991: 90), judgments of sentences with a resumptive pronoun vary among native
speakers.
 Relative clauses 627

(41) [Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta] riyuu

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said reason
‘the reason that Hanako said that Taro ran’

Under the assumption that pro’s are available only in argument positions, the reason
pro is not available in this example. As a result, the structure given in (42) is unavail-
able to (41).4 Accordingly, the intended interpretation is untenable.

(42) [Op1 [Hanako ga [Taroo ga pro1 hasitta to] itta]] riyuu1

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said reason
‘the reason that Hanako said that Taro ran’

Likewise, as Murasugi (1991) points out, relativization of manner PPs is also clause-
bound. For example, (43) is not acceptable in describing the way Taro ran, according
to Hanako. It can only refer to the way Hanako made the statement on how Taro ran.

(43) [Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta] hoohoo

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said method
‘the method that Hanako said that Taro ran’

Again, the unambiguity of this example is due to the lack of the manner pro.
In contrast, it has been argued (Murasugi 1991; Murasugi and Saito 1992) that
temporal and locative elements have an argument status. Accordingly, temporal/
locative pro’s are available to (44a, b). Thus, the availability of the lower reading is
correctly predicted.

(44) a. [Op1 [Hanako ga [Taroo ga pro1 hasitta to] itta]] hi1

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said day
‘the day that Hanako said that Taro ran’

b. [Op1 [Hanako ga [Taroo ga pro1 hasitta to] itta]] basyo1

Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said place
‘the place that Hanako said that Taro ran’

Furthermore, as Murasugi’s (1991: 131) shows, the contrast between temporal/locative

and manner/reason cases with respect to the availability of the lower reading remains
even when an island intervenes. The lower reading is only available in (45a, b).

4 I assume that reason adjuncts are generated in IP. See Ko (2005, 2006) and Takita (2007) for rele-
vant discussion.
628 Yoichi Miyamoto

(45) a. [[[mensetu o uketa] gakusei] ga minna ukaru] hi

interview ACC received student NOM all pass day
‘the day that all the students who have had an interview will pass’

b. [[[mensetu o uketa] gakusei] ga minna ukaru] kaigisitu

interview ACC received student NOM all pass conference.room
‘the conference room that all the students who have had an interview
will pass’

c. [[[mondai o toita] gakusei] ga minna siken ni otiru] hoohoo

problem ACC solved student NOM all exam in fail method
‘the method that all the students who have solved the problem will fail in
the examination’

d. [[[kubi ni natta] hito] ga minna okotteiru] riyuu

neck be became person NOM all angry reason
‘the reason that all the people who got fired are angry’

Recall from the discussion in Section 5, however, that the resumptive pro option
should result in weak marginality when an island intervenes. Yet, (45a, b) are fully
acceptable under the intended reading. This suggests that the Op must have moved
from the major subject position in these examples. We independently know (Kuno
1973) that temporal and locative elements can act as a major subject, as shown in
(46a, b), in contrast to (46c, d).

(46) a. Sono hi ga Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta.

that day NOM Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said
‘The day is such that Hanako said that Taro ran.’

b. Sono basyo ga Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta.

that place NOM Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said
‘The place is such that Hanako said that Taro ran.’

c. *Sono hoohoo ga Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta.

that method NOM Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said
‘The method is such that Hanako said that Taro ran.’

d. *Sono riyuu ga Hanako ga [Taroo ga hasitta to] itta.

that reason NOM Hanako NOM Taro NOM ran that said
‘The reason is such that Hanako said that Taro ran.’

Accordingly, under the current proposal, the structures of (45a–d) must be as shown
in (47a–d) respectively.
 Relative clauses 629

(47) a. [Op2 [t2 [[[Op1 [t1 pro2 mensetu o uketa]] gakusei1 ] ga minna
interview ACC received student NOM all
ukaru]]] hi2
pass day
‘the day that all the students who have had an interview will pass’

b. [Op2 [t2 [[[Op1 [t1 pro2 mensetu o uketa]] gakusei1 ] ga minna

interview ACC received student NOM all
ukaru]]] kaigisitu2
pass conference.room
‘the conference room that all the students who have had an interview
will pass’

c. *[Op2 [t2 [[[Op1 [t1 mondai o toita]] gakusei1 ] ga minna

problem ACC solved student NOM all
siken ni otiru]]] hoohoo2
exam in fail method
‘the method that all the students who have solved the problem will fail in
the examination’

d. *[Op2 [t2 [[[Op1 [t1 kubi ni natta]] hito1 ] ga minna okotteiru]]]

neck be became person NOM all angry
riyuu2
reason
‘the reason that all the people who got fired are angry’

In (47a–d), the Op1 is raised to the embedded CP SPEC, and the Op2 is from the major
subject position, which calls for an appropriate pro within the embedded clause for
the intended interpretation. However, (47c, d) cannot have one for the reason that
(41) and (43) are ruled out.
It may be worth noting before closing this section that in contrast to (41), (48)
can refer to the reason why Taro ran, according to Hanako. This means that the
Op-movement option can be chosen in this example.

(48) the reason that Hanako said that Taro ran

In order to explain this cross-linguistic difference, Kaplan and Whitman (1995: 45)
propose the Recoverability Condition on Null Relative Operators, which states as
in (49).

(49) An operator O α in the specifier of CP adjoined to NP may be null iff

630 Yoichi Miyamoto

a. O α has the syntactic features of the head of NP; or

b. O α has the syntactic features of O β, where O β is licensed in the specifier
of CP and O β is overt.

(49a) can be respected if the relative Op is DP in category. (49b) means that if a

language permits the overt counterpart of the covert relative Op, then the categorial
matching between the relative Op and the relative head is not required. In other
words, the relative Op does not have to be DP in category. For example, (48) can
have the overt relative operator why, as shown in (50).

(50) the reason why Hanako said that Taro ran

Therefore, under (49b), the covert relative Op, being non-DP in category, can be
selected in English. Notice that Japanese cannot meet the requirement in (49b)
because no overt relative pronoun is available in this language, as noted in Section
1. As a result, the covert relative Op must meet (49a) in Japanese. In other words,
the relative Op must always correspond to DP in category in Japanese. Consequently,
(44a, b) and (49a, b) cannot involve Op-movement either. Kaplan and Whitman assume
that these cases are instances of a pure complex NP with a temporal/locative pro in
the lower clause, as Murasugi (1991) proposes.
Although the condition in (49) can exclude (41) and (43), the condition itself
still needs motivating. Under the present proposal, on the other hand, the condition
in (49) can be dispensed with. We find it a welcome consequence of the present
approach to Japanese relativization.

7 Concluding Remarks
This chapter discussed the syntactic properties of Japanese relativization. We showed
that short-distance relativization must be distinguished from long-distance relativiza-
tion in that Japanese short-distance relativization involves Op-movement and long-
distance relativization makes use of pro’s along with optional short-distance Op-
movement, as shown in (51a, b).

(51) a. [DP [D’ [NP [CP Op1 [IP . . . t1 . . .]] [NP . . . N . . .]1 ] D]]
b. [DP [D’ [NP [CP Op1 [IP . . . [CP (t1) [IP . . . pro1 . . .]]. . .]][NP . . . N . . .]1 ] D]]

Ishii (1991) suggests that the dichotomy between short-distance relativization and long-
distance relativization concerning the availability of the movement option follows from
the Last Resort Principle (Chomsky 1986). A typical case in point is the one in which
the pro option is chosen when an island intervenes. However, Kizu (2005) shows
 Relative clauses 631

that even when no island is present, the pro option must be selected in long-distance
relativization. Then, the question remains as to why such a dichotomy is permitted in
Universal Grammar.
Notably, the pattern that we observe in Japanese relativization, shown in (51a,
b), does not seem to be a language-particular property of Japanese relativization.
Schneider-Zioga (2009) shows that Kinande exhibits the contrast between short-
distance and long-distance wh/focus movement with respect to reconstruction. Con-
sider (52a, b).

(52) a. [ekitabu kiwe1 ]2 ky’ [obuli mukolo]1 akasoma e2 kangikangi

book his wh.AGR each student reads regularly
‘(It is) his book that every student reads regularly’

b. *[ekitabu kiwe1 ]2 kyo ngalengekanaya [CP nga kyo

book his wh.AGR I.think that wh.AGR
[obuli mukolo]1 akasoma e2 kangikangi]
each student reads regularly
‘(It is) his book that I think every student reads regularly’
(Schneider-Zioga 2009: 49)

In (52a), kiwe ‘his’ can be bound by obuli mukolo ‘each student’. This shows that
reconstruction is possible with short-distance focus movement. Of significance is
her observation that the reconstruction in question is blocked in (52b). Now, it is
tempting to analyze Kinande and Japanese in a uniform way. Yet, there is an obvious
difference between the two languages in that the Kinande examples, in contrast to
the Japanese examples, show overt (wh-)agreement.
In spite of this apparent difference, as Kizu (2005) points out, given Watanabe’s
(1996) analysis of ga-no conversion, we see that agreement, overt or covert, is a
crucial factor in understanding both Japanese and Kinande facts.5 Watanabe’s impor-
tant observation is that the conversion in point is possible only in the highest clause.
Consider (53a–c).

(53) a. [[John ga e2 katta to]1 Mary no t1 omotteiru] hon2

John NOM bought that Mary GEN think book
‘(It is) his book that every student read regularly’

b. *[[John no e2 katta to]1 Mary ga/no t1 omotteiru] hon2

John GEN bought that Mary NOM/GEN think book

c. *[Mary ga/no [John no e2 katta to] omotteiru] hon2

Mary NOM/GEN John GEN bought that think book

5 See Chapter 18 (Ochi, this volume) for discussion on ga-no conversion.

632 Yoichi Miyamoto

In (53a), the embedded clause is scrambled so that any intervention effect can be
avoided. The contrast between (53a) and (53b) shows that in the scrambled context,
the subject of the embedded clause cannot be GEN-marked. Furthermore, the fact
that both (53b) and (53c) are ungrammatical shows that the embedded subject
cannot be GEN-marked, independent of whether the embedded clause is scrambled
or not. Under the Case system that Watanabe assumes, this means that ga-no conver-
sion is possible only in the AGR-T-C context, just like wh-agreement of French stylistic
inversion. Now, it is quite plausible to see that the same operation is operative within
the highest clause in Kinande and Japanese. The difference between the two lan-
guages may be due to whether relevant agreement is present in the CP domain of
the lower clauses, which may decide the way resumption takes place. We leave this
illuminating issue for future research. Deeper understanding of the nature of this
clause-bounded Op-movement will surely enhance our understanding of not only
Japanese syntax but also the architecture of Universal Grammar.

Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Ivan Brenes, Hideki Maki, Ryota Nakanishi, and Asako Uchibori, as
well as an anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments and suggestions. The usual
disclaimers apply.

References
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of
grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence: On reconstruction and its implications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT. dissertation.
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter Culicover, Tom Wasow and Adrian Akmajian (eds.),
Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins, and use. New York: Praeger.
Clancy, Patricia. M. 1985. The acquisition of Japanese. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study
of language acquisition 1. 373–524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 35–62.
Fukui, Naoki and Yuji Takano. 2000. Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. In
Peter Svenonius (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV, 219–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harada, K.-I. 1980. Notes on the acquisition of the genitive case particle no. Paper presented at Uni-
versity of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1984/1985. On the so-called “zero pronouns” in Japanese. The Linguistic Review
4. 289–341.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1988. Remarks on “zero pronominals”: In defense of Hasegawa (1984/85).
Proceedings of Japanese Syntax Workshop: Issues on Empty Categories, 50–76. Connecticut
College.
 Relative clauses 633

Hoji, Hajime. 1990. Sloppy identity in Japanese. Unpublished ms., University of Southern California.
Hoshi, Koji. 2004. Parameterization of the external D-system in relativization. Language, Culture
and Communication 33. 1–50. Yokohama: Keio University.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpō to nihongo: Jō; Tōgo kōzō o chūshin ni [Transformational grammar
and Japanese, Volume 1: Syntactic structure]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1991. Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut
dissertation.
Jackendoff, Ray, S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kamio, Akio. 1983. Meishiku no kōzō [The structure of noun phrase]. In Kazuko Inoue (ed.), Nihongo
no kihon kōzō [Basic structures of Japanese], 77–126. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Kaplan, Tamar I. and John Whitman. 1995. The category of relative clauses in Japanese, with reference
to Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4. 29–58.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kizu, Mika. 2005. Cleft constructions in Japanese syntax. London: Palgrave.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Lan-
guage and Linguistic Theory 23. 867–916.
Ko, Heejeong. 2006. On the structural height of reason wh-adverbials: Acquisition and consequences.
In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 319–349. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lobeck, Anne. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. Proceedings of North East Linguistic
Society 20. 348–362.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame-semantic approach.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyamoto, Yoichi. 2013. On the unavailability of NP-ellipsis with Japanese relative clauses. Nanzan
Linguistics 9. 51–83.
Miyamoto, Yoichi. 2014. On Chinese and Japanese relative clauses and NP-ellipsis. In Mamoru Saito
(ed.), Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, 50–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability, and
acquisition. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Murasugi, Keiko. 2000. An antisymmetry analysis of Japanese relative clauses. In Artemis Alexiadou,
Paul Law, Andr Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.), The syntax of relative clauses, 231–263.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Murasugi, Keiko and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Quasi-adjuncts as sentential arguments. Proceedings of
Western Conference on Linguistics 5. 251–264.
Ochi, Masao. this volume. Chapter 18: Ga/no-conversion. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1974. Seisei nihon bunpōron [Generative Japanese syntax]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive
grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
Safir, Kenneth. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 663–
689.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
634 Yoichi Miyamoto

Saito, Mamoru. 1986. LF effects of scrambling. Paper presented at the Princeton Workshop on Com-
parative Grammar.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark R. Baltin and
Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative concepts of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. this volume. Chapter 19: Ellipsis. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa and
Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Saito, Mamoru, Jonah, H. Lin and Keiko Murasugi. 2008. N’-ellipsis and the structure of noun phrases
in Chinese and Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17. 247–271.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese. University of Connecticut Working
Papers in Linguistics 3. 87–107.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In Masaru Nakamura
(ed.), Current topics in English and Japanese, 179–203. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49. 19–46.
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2009. Wh-agreement and bounded unbounded movement. In Josep M.
Brucart, Anna Gavarrò and Jaume Sorà (eds.), Merging features: Computation, interpretation,
and acquisition, 46–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts dissertation.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki [Analysis of the Japanese language]. Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Stowell, Timothy and Howard Lasnik. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 687–720.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2011. Some theoretical consequences of case-marking. Storrs, CT: University
of Connecticut dissertation.
Takita, Kensuke. 2007. Focus and wh-features in interrogative C. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue
1(1). 129–163.
Teramura, Hideo. 1977. Rentai shūshoku no shintakkusu to imi: Sono 3 [Syntax and semantics of
noun modification: No.3]. Nihongo Nihonbunka [The Japanese Language and Culture]. Osaka:
Osaka University of Foreign Studies.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 373–410.
Nobuaki Nishioka
17 Expressions that contain negation

1 Introduction
Since the seminal work of Klima (1964), the syntactic study of negation has con-
tributed greatly to the elucidation of clausal structures and structural relations that
are crucial to the scope of operators and to licensing relations between various lin-
guistic expressions.1 In the study of Japanese syntax, the central issues surrounding
negation have been the scope of negation and the distribution of items that occur
only in negative sentences. These items have been generally termed negative polarity
items (NPIs), of which representative ones are indeterminate pronouns with mo, which
will be referred to as wh-MO such as daRE-MO ‘who-MO’, naNI-MO ‘what-MO’,2 and
exceptive XP-sika ‘only XP’.3

(1) a. daRE-MO susi o tabe*(-nakat)-ta.

who-MO sushi ACC eat*(-NEG)-PST
‘No one ate sushi.’

b. Gakusei ga naNI-MO tabe*(-nakat)-ta.

students NOM what-MO eat*(-NEG)-PST
‘The students ate nothing.’

1 The notion “A is in construction with B” that is proposed by Klima (1964) is identical with “A is
c-commanded by B” defined by Reinhart (1976), which has been widely assumed for the definition
of scope and licensing relations.
2 Kuroda (1965) calls wh-phrases in Japanese “indeterminate pronouns”, and this type of NPI
has been sometimes referred to as “indeterminate with mo” in the literature (McGloin 1976; Y. Kato
1985; Aoyagi and Ishii 1994). The upper case will be used to indicate the location of a high-pitch tone
in wh-MO. If a high-pitch tone is placed on a wh-stem such as DAre-mo(ga) ‘everyone (NOM),’ the
expression functions as a universally quantified expression.
3 The following can be raised as examples of other NPIs.
(i) a. Numeral 1 + classifier (CLF) + MO: ichi- do-mo (one time-mo) ‘even once’, hito-ri-mo
(one person-mo) ‘even one person’
b. Wh + numeral 1 + CLF: dare-hito-ri (who-one person) ‘no one’, nani-hito-tu (what-one thing)
‘nothing’
c. Rokuna N: rokuna gakusei (rokuna student), ‘(not) good student’, rokuna mono (rokuna thing),
‘(not) a good thing’
d. N + numeral 1 + CLF: yubi-ip-pon (finger-one) ‘one finger’, mizu-it-teki (water-one drop),
‘even a drop of water’
e. Adverbials: kessite ‘never’, tittomo ‘at all’, mettani ‘seldom’
(Cf. McGloin 1976; Y. Kato 1985; Watanabe 2004; Kishimoto 2007; Kataoka 2010)

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-018
636 Nobuaki Nishioka

(2) a. John-sika susi o tabe*(-nakat)-ta.

John-sika sushi ACC eat*(-NEG)-PST
‘Only John ate sushi.’

b. John ga susi-sika tabe*(-nakat)-ta.

John NOM sushi-sika eat*(-NEG)-PST
‘John ate only sushi.’

Although the term “negativity sensitive items (NSIs)”, in place of NPIs, will be intro-
duced in section 3 as a cover term for elements that require sentential negation, and
NPIs will refer to one class of NSIs, I use the familiar NPI as a cover term until then.
Some analyses concerning the clausal structures and the scope of negation
have been proposed based on the distribution of NPIs (Muraki 1978; S. Kuno 2001;
Kishimoto 2007, 2008; among others). However, analyses of NPIs are still at issue.
Focusing on the syntax of sentential negation and NPIs, this chapter attempts to
provide an overview of some recent proposals, pointing out their problems and pro-
viding alternative suggestions. To explicate the behavior of NPIs we need to under-
stand properly at least (i) the scope of negation, (ii) the properties of NPIs, and (iii)
the syntactic relationship between NPIs and negation. These issues are addressed in
sections to follow.
Section 2 briefly considers the scope of negation in Japanese and validates the
assumption that [Spec, TP] is not included in the scope of negation in main clauses,
contrary to the opposing argument. Section 3 explores the distribution of three kinds
of NPIs, considering their properties and examining their possible licensing mecha-
nism. Section 4 presents a new perspective and suggests future directions for further
development of the analysis. Final remarks are given in Section 5.

2 The clausal structure of sentential negation and

the scope of negation
As we have already seen in (1)–(2), sentential negation in Japanese is expressed by
the negative morpheme -(a)na, which shows adjectival inflection as part of a predi-
cate.4 Since Pollock’s (1989) original comparative study of French and English, the

4 Other negative morphemes such as -nu, which is inflected as -zu, -nu/-n, and -ne (Y. Kato 1985: 2),
-mai, and -monka, which express negative decision, also constitute sentential negation and I assume
without further argument that analyses developed in this chapter can be extended to apply to them.
(i) a. Sore wa daRE-MO sir-anu koto da.
that TOP who-MO know-NEG thing be.PRS
‘It is the thing no one knows.’
b. Boku wa naNI-MO tabe-mai/taberu-monka.
I TOP what-MO eat-will.NEG.PRS
‘I will not eat anything.’
 Expressions that contain negation 637

existence of functional head Neg and its projection NegP has been widely accepted,
and much research on Japanese has also assumed NegP as the projection of the
negative morpheme -(a)na between vP/VP and TP/IP (Takahashi 1990; Kawashima
and Kitahara 1992; Aoyagi and Ishii 1994; Nishioka 1994, 2000; Yoshimoto 1998;
Watanabe 2004; among many others). If this is on the right track and the scope of
negation is defined as the c-command domain of Neg, vP/VP will be in its scope.5
However, since some researchers assume that [Spec, TP] is included in the scope of
negation (Kishimoto 2007, 2008, Saito 2010), it would be appropriate to start with a
discussion of whether this is the case.
Kishimoto (2007, 2008) argues that the scope of negation in Japanese extends to
the whole TP as a result of Neg-raising (2007) and LF movement of Neg to C (2008).6
As evidence for the argument that [Spec, TP] is under the scope of negation, he
presents data concerning the subject-object symmetry of NPI licensing.7

(3) a. {Gakusei-sika/Dare-hito-ri gakusei ga} hon o yom-anakat-ta.

student-sika/who-one-CLF student NOM book ACC read-NEG-PST
‘{Only students/Not a single student} read books.’

b. Gakusei ga {hon-sika/nani-hito-tu hon o} yom-anakat-ta.

student NOM book-sika what-one-CLF book ACC read-NEG-PST
‘The students read {only books/not a single book}.’ (Kishimoto 2007: 264)

Kishimoto claims that the grammaticality of (3a) should serve as evidence that [Spec,
TP] is under the scope of negation, simply assuming that NPIs are licensed uniformly
by being c-commanded by Neg at the overt positions of NPIs. However, the NPIs that
Kishimoto uses are not actually NPIs but negative concord items (NCIs) (see note 7
and 3.2), and the simple c-command condition is not appropriate as the licensing
condition for them. See Section 3 for analyses of NCIs in which being c-commanded
by Neg at overt structures is not required.

5 See S. Kuno (1980, 1983) and Takubo (1985) for earlier proposals on the scope of negation in
Japanese without assuming NegP. Takubo defines the scope of negation as the c-command domain
of negative morpheme and attempts to provide S. Kuno’s observation with a structural basis. How-
ever, Takubo assumes a nonconfigurational (i.e. VP-less) structure for Japanese, which has been
abandoned since Saito and Hoji (1983) (see, among others, Saito 1985, 1989; Hoji 1985; Miyagawa
2001).
6 Saito (2010) simply assumes that [Spec, TP] is included in the scope of negation on the basis of
English data such as (i). See Nishioka (2004) for an analysis of English negative sentences based on
PolP above TP.
(i) Everyone didn’t take that exam. not > every, every > not
7 Wh-one-CLF such as dare-hito-ri (who-one person) ‘no one’, nani-hito-tu (what-one thing) ‘nothing’
is the same type of NPI as wh-MO, which is classified later into negative concord items (NCIs).
638 Nobuaki Nishioka

On the contrary, a new kind of evidence from a dialect of Japanese suggests that
[Spec, TP] is not in the scope of negation. The Kumamoto dialect of Japanese (KJ),
spoken in Kyushu, south-western Japan, uses two nominative case markers ga and
no when only ga is used in standard Japanese (SJ). Nishioka (in press), extending
S. Kato’s (2007) generalization (4), argues that KJ uses two nominative case markers
ga and no in correspondence with two distinct positions and interpretations of
the subject, unlike standard Japanese (SJ), which conceals the differences under the
one case marker ga.8

(4) Nominative subject in KJ is expressed by the case-marker no if it is inside vP,

and by ga if it is outside vP, while that in SJ is expressed by ga regardless of
whether it is inside or outside vP. (S. Kato 2007)

Nishioka demonstrates that the no-marked nominative subject in KJ stays in vP and

expresses nontopic, nonfocus uses of the subject in thetic or all-focus sentences as
in (5), which correspond to existential and impersonal sentences of Indo-European
languages (cf. Kuroda 1992; Erteschik-Shir 2007), or in sentences with scrambling,
such as (6b).

(5) a. Tegami ga/no ki-ta. (KJ)

Cf. Tegami ga/*no ki-ta. (SJ)
letter NOM come-PST
‘Mail has come.’

b. Tukue no ue ni hon ga/no ar-u (tai). (KJ)

Cf. Tukue no ue ni hon ga/*no ar-u. (SJ)
desk GEN top on book NOM be-PRS (PART)
‘There is a book on the desk.’

(6) a. Taroo ga/*no son syoosetu ba koo-ta (bai). (KJ)

Cf. Taroo ga/*no sono syoosetu o kat-ta (yo). (SJ)
Taroo NOM the novel ACC buy-PST (PART)
‘Taroo bought the novel.’

b. Son syoosetu ba Taroo ga/no koo-ta (bai). (KJ)

Cf. Sono syoosetu o Taroo ga/*no kat-ta (yo). (SJ)
the novel ACC Taroo NOM buy-PST (PART)
‘The novel, Taroo bought.’

8 See Ochi and Saruwatari (in press) and Chapter 18 (Ochi, this volume) for similar behavior in
Nagasaki Japanese, spoken in western Kyushu.
 Expressions that contain negation 639

On the other hand, the ga-marked nominative subject in KJ moves to [Spec, TP] and
represents topic/focus uses. This is why the nominative case marker no cannot be
used in the focus or topic interpretations of the subject.9 (7a) is an exhaustive listing
sentence (S. Kuno 1973), in which the subject is focused, and the subject in (7b)
represents the topic/focus of the sentence, and therefore the no nominative is not
allowed in KJ.10

(7) a. Saru ga/*no ningen no senzo (desu) tai. (KJ)

Monkey NOM man GEN ancestor be.PRS PART
‘It is the monkey that is the ancestor of man.’

b. Gakusei ga/*no issyookenmei hatarai-ta (tai). (KJ)

student NOM hard work-PST (PART)
‘The students worked hard.’

In light of this analysis of KJ, the fact that the ga-marked nominative subject cannot
be interpreted under the scope of negation in (8) indicates that [Spec, TP] is not
included in the scope of negation.11

(8) a. Zen’in ga/*no siken ba uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

All NOM test ACC take-NEG-PST
‘All did not take the test.’ *NEG > all, all > NEG

b. Siken ba zen’in no uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

test ACC all NOM take-NEG-PST
‘The test, all did not take.’ NEG > all, *all > NEG

c. Siken ba zen’in ga uke-ndat-ta. (KJ)

test ACC all NOM take-NEG-PST
‘The test, all did not take.’ *NEG > all, all > NEG

9 See Nishioka (in press) for the formal mechanism to induce the movement based on Miyagawa’s
(2010) [topic/focus] feature inheritance analysis from C to T. See (49) in Section 4 on this point.
Adopting this analysis, we can assume that TopP in the CP cartography in the analysis of Rizzi
(1997) is reserved for -wa marked topics in Japanese. See Saito (2012) for an analysis of -wa phrases
in [Spec, TopP] based on the CP cartography in Japanese.
10 See Nishioka (in press) for a topic test that identifies the topic of a sentence.
11 In subordinate clauses, the scope of negation may extend to include [Spec, TP], unlike main
clauses (cf. Y. Kato 2000). This is confirmed by the KJ data in (i), where ga-marked subject can be
interpreted under the scope of negation.
(i) a. Zen’in ga son tesuto ba uke-ndat-ta ken mata sore ba suru. (KJ)
all NOM that test ACC take-NEG-PST because again it ACC do
‘Because all didn’t take that test, (we will) do it again.’ NEG > all, all > NEG
b. Zen’in ga siken ba uke-n nara koma-ru. (KJ)
all NOM exam ACC take-NEG if be embarrassed
‘If all don’t take the exam, I will be embarrassed.’ NEG > all, all > NEG
640 Nobuaki Nishioka

Therefore, it can be assumed that the scope of negation is the c-command domain of
Neg and it does not extend to include [Spec, TP] in Japanese main clauses. Keeping
this in mind, let us move to the discussion of the properties of NPIs as well as their
licensing mechanism.

3 The behavior of negativity sensitive items (NSIs)

and their licensing mechanism
Now, the term “negativity sensitive items (NSIs)” is introduced as a cover term for
lexical items that require sentential negation; these include negative concord items
(NCIs) and negative polarity items (NPIs). Thus from here on, the term “NPI” will be
used only to refer to the latter, differentiated from the former. I discuss the distribu-
tion and the licensing mechanism of three kinds of NSIs, wh-MO such as daRE-MO
‘who-MO’, naNI-MO ‘what-MO’, exceptive XP-sika ‘only XP’, and rokuna N ‘not
decent/bad N’. Specifically, I take up the locality between the NSIs and Neg expressed
by a clause-mate condition, the subject-object (a)symmetry, fragment answers, and
multiple occurrences.

3.1 Clause-mate condition

The three kinds of NSIs require a clause-mate Neg, as seen in the sentences in (9);
they are schematically represented in (10).

(9) a. Mary ga [John ga naNI-MO/ringo-sika/rokuna mono o

Mary NOM John NOM what-MO/apple-sika/good thing ACC
tabe-nakat-ta to] it-ta.
eat-NEG-PST that say-PST
‘Mary said that John didn’t eat anything/anything but an apple/a good
thing.’

b. Taroo ga daRE-NI-MO/Mary-ni-sika/rokuna yatu ni

Taroo NOM who-DAT-MO/Mary-DAT-sika/good chap DAT
[John ga ringo o tabe-ta to] iw-anakat-ta.
John NOM apple ACC eat-PST that say-NEG-PST
‘Taroo didn’t say to anyone/anyone but Mary/a good chap that John ate
an apple.’

c. *Mary ga [John ga naNI-MO/ringo-sika/ rokuna mono o

Mary NOM John NOM what-MO/apple-sika/good thing ACC
tabe-ta to] iw-anakat-ta.
eat-PST that say-NEG-PST
‘Mary didn’t say that John ate nothing/only an apple/a good thing.’
 Expressions that contain negation 641

d. *Taroo ga daRE-NI-MO/Mary-ni-sika/rokuna yatu ni

Taroo NOM who-DAT-MO/Mary-DAT-sika/good chap DAT
[John ga ringo o tabe-nakat-ta to] it-ta.
John NOM apple ACC eat-NEG-PST that say-PST
‘Taroo said to no one/only Mary/a good chap that John didn’t eat an apple.’

(10) a. [TP . . . [TP . . . wh-MO/XP-sika/rokuna N . . . Neg. . .] . . .]

b. [TP . . . wh-MO/XP-sika/rokuna N. . . [CP . . .] . . . Neg. . .]
c. *[TP . . . [CP . . . wh-MO/XP-sika/rokuna N. . .] . . . Neg. . .]
d. *[TP . . . wh-MO/XP-sika/rokuna N. . . [CP . . . Neg. . .] . . .]

The c-command condition in (11) has been widely assumed as the licensing condi-
tion for NPIs since Klima (1964).

(11) NPIs are licensed by being c-commanded by an overt negative element

(at S/LF-structure). (Cf. Ladusaw 1979; Laka 1990).

Note that this condition is not sufficient to exclude the ungrammatical (9c). This
sentence has the structure in (10c), where the NSI is c-commanded by the overt Neg
head, satisfying (11), but is still ungrammatical. This is in sharp contrast to English
NPIs such as any.

(12) Mary didn’t say that John ate anything.

In order to accommodate this fact, a clause-mate condition that requires that NSIs
occur in the same clause with Neg was simply stipulated in the early analyses
of Japanese negative sentences (among others, see Oyakawa 1975; McGloin 1976;
Muraki 1978; Y. Kato 1985), in which the NSIs in question were regarded as NPIs.
However, recent analyses of NSIs attempt to derive the clause-mate condition from
the licensing mechanism of NSIs, as will be outlined below.

3.1.1 Movement for Feature-checking analyses

Some analyses have been proposed to explain the behavior of wh-MO and XP-sika
based on their overt or covert movement to [Spec, NegP] (Takahashi 1990; Kawa-
shima and Kitahara 1992; Aoyagi and Ishii 1994; Nishioka 1994, 1999, 2000; Sohn
1996; Yoshimoto 1998; among many others). In order to account for the clause-mate
condition, they resort to independent principles of movement and chains such as the
proper binding condition of Fiengo (1977), the locality condition on binding, and the
illegitimacy of formed chains. Among them, the overt movement analysis by Sohn
642 Nobuaki Nishioka

(1996) and Yoshimoto (1998) most straightforwardly accounts for the clause-mate
condition (see Nishioka 2000), as outlined below.
Assuming a strong feature to trigger overt movement on NSIs (Sohn 1996) or on
Neg (Yoshimoto 1998), the overt movement analysis requires that NSIs overtly move
to [Spec, NegP] for feature-checking with Neg. Thus for (9a, b), the overt structures
in (13a, b) show that the strong feature is successfully checked and eliminated. But
for (9c, d), their overt structures in (13c, d) indicate that the strong feature remains,
leading to ungrammaticality.

(13) a. [TP . . . [TP . . . [NegP NSI . . . Neg] . . .] . . .]

b. [TP . . . [NegP NSI . . . [CP . . .] . . . Neg] . . .]
c. *[TP . . . [CP . . . NSI . . .] . . . Neg. . .]
d. *[TP . . . NSI . . . [CP . . . Neg. . .] . . .]

The overt movement analysis would also explain the apparent counter-examples to
the clause-mate condition.

(14) a. Ken wa naNI-MO/ringo-sika tabe-tai to iw-anakat-ta.

Ken TOP what-MO/apple-sika eat-want that say-NEG-PST
‘Ken didn’t say that he wanted to eat anything/anything but an apple.’

b. Keni-wa [CP [TP proi [PROi naNI-MO/ringo-sika tabe]-tai] to] iw-anakat-ta

c. Keni-wa [NegP naNI-MOj/ringo-sikaj [CP [TP proi [PROi ej tabe]-tai] to]

iw-anakat]-ta

If the overt structure of (14a) were (14b), the clause-mate condition would be violated
because the NSIs and Neg are not in the same clause, hence the strong feature would
fail to be checked off. However, since the subjects of the embedded clauses are non-
overt (pro, PRO), a structure like (14c), in which the NSIs overtly reside in [Spec, NegP]
and feature-checking is successfully fulfilled, can be assumed.12 This is why (14a) is
grammatical. This observation is supported by the ungrammaticality of (15), where
the existence of the overt subject in the embedded clause excludes the possibility
of the overt movement of the NSIs to [Spec, NegP].

(15) *Keni wa [CP [TP zibuni ga [PROi doKOE-MO/Boston-ni-sika ik]-itai] to]

Ken TOP self NOM where-MO/Boston-to-sika go-want that
iw-anakat]-ta.
say-NEG-PST
‘Ken did not say that he (=self) wanted to go anywhere.’

12 Empty category (ej) in (14c) represents the copy/trace or pro. Its identity is tangential to the
present discussion.
 Expressions that contain negation 643

3.1.2 Agree-based analyses

Chomsky (2000, 2001) proposes a feature-checking mechanism based on Agree, in

which an element with an uninterpretable feature (“probe”) seeks an element with
a matching feature (“goal”) in the sister constituents of H under the locality of c-
command, and uninterpretable features are deleted for the derivation to converge.
There are analyses that adopt and extend this Agree-based approach to NSIs (Watanabe
2004; M. Kuno 2007; Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra 2013). If NSIs are licensed
by Neg in terms of Agree, the clause-mate condition observed between NSIs and
Neg would follow from a condition on the implementation of Agree, such as the
Phase-Impenetrability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001) (Yamashita 2003).
Different explanations have been proposed to account for the behavior of NSIs based
on different versions of Agree, which will be observed in 3.3.

3.2 Subject-object (a)symmetry

The three kinds of NSIs exhibit different grammaticality on the subject-object (a)sym-
metry.

(16) a. daRE-MO sono koto o iw-anakat-ta.

who-MO the fact ACC say-NEG-PST
‘No one said it.’

b. John ga naNI-MO iw-anakat-ta.

John NOM what-MO say-NEG-PST
‘John said nothing.’

(17) a. John-sika sono koto o iw-anakat-ta.

John-sika the fact ACC say-NEG-PST
‘Only John said it.’

b. John ga sono koto-sika iw-anakat-ta.

John NOM the fact-sika say-NEG-PST
‘John said only that.’

(18) a. ??Rokuna yatu ga sono koto o iw-anakat-ta.

good chap NOM the fact ACC say-NEG-PST
‘Good chaps didn’t say it.’

b. John ga rokuna koto o iw-anakat-ta.

John NOM good book ACC buy-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t say anything good.’
644 Nobuaki Nishioka

Unlike wh-MO and XP-sika, the occurrence of rokuna N as the subject in the transi-
tive construction is degraded in (18a), which suggests that rokuna N is a type of NPI
and the other two are not. If [Spec, TP] is outside the scope of negation, as we have
observed in Section 2, and the subject in the transitive construction moves to [Spec,
TP] when there are no other elements to occupy the position, the ungrammaticality
of (18a) conforms to (11).
Therefore, rokuna N can be regarded as a case of an NPI that requires being c-
commanded by Neg, but as pointed out in 3.1, the locality observed between rokuna
N and Neg still remains to be explicated. See Section 4 on this point. Given the dif-
ference between wh-MO/XP sika in (16)/(17) and rokuna N in (18), neither movement
to [Spec, NegP] nor Agree for feature-checking mentioned in 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 can be
available for rokuna N if it is the licensing mechanism for wh-MO/XP sika. Note,
especially, that [Spec, NegP] is not in the c-command domain of Neg.

3.3 Fragment answers

The three kinds of NSIs behave differently with respect to fragment answers.

(19) Q: Nani o kat-ta no?

what ACC buy-PST Q
‘What did you buy?’

A: naNI-MO/*CD-sika/*Rokuna hon (o).

what-MO/CD-sika/good book
‘Nothing/Only CD/Not a good book.’

As pointed out by Nishioka (1999, 2000) and Watanabe (2004), wh-MO phrases can
occur as a fragment answer. Although negation is not an overt part of the fragment
answer, it is implied, which suggests that the wh-MO is an NCI.13 By contrast, XP-sika
and rokuna N may not constitute a negative fragment answer. However, see Section
4 for a different observation on XP-sika.
Since Watanabe’s (2004) detailed syntactic analysis of wh-MO, this topic has
attracted many researchers’ attention, and various analyses have been proposed
based on different ideas of Agree. I will review three of them including Watanabe
(2004).

13 See Zanutinni (1991), Vallduví (1994), Haegeman (1995), and Giannakidou (2000) for diagnostic
tests to distinguish between NCIs and NPIs, which include the use of fragment answers.
 Expressions that contain negation 645

3.3.1 Feature-copying

Watanabe (2004) develops an analysis of wh-MO as an NCI. Arguing that wh-MO

contains negative meaning, Watanabe proposes a way to produce single negation
in spite of multiple occurrences of negative expressions: wh-MO and the negative
predicate na. In essence, he proposes a mechanism in lieu of Neg-Factorization
([ox￢] [￢] = [ox￢]) by Haegaman and Zanuttini (1996), which is an operation that
converts multiple occurrences of negation into one. Watanabe reintroduces the
feature-copying mechanism suggested by Chomsky (1995, 1998) but abandoned by
Chomsky (2000, 2001), according to which the goal is copied on the probe, as illus-
trated in (20b, c) for (20a). Watanabe assumes an Agree system in which (i) both wh-
MO and the Neg head na have an interpretable neg feature ([iNEG]);14 (ii) probes do
not have to carry an uninterpretable feature, i.e., as long as the probe and the goal
have matching features and the goal is active (by having an uninterpretable focus
feature ([ufoc]), Agree can be established. Thus in (20b) [iNEG] of the Neg head func-
tions as a probe to perform Agree with the goal naNI-MO, which has both [iNEG] and
[ufoc], and as a result [ufoc] is deleted and [iNEG] of naNI-MO is copied on Neg as
illustrated in (20c). Due to the copying procedure, Neg contains two occurrences of
[iNEG], which cancel each other out (i.e. the negation of negation is affirmation). The
only remaining [iNEG] of naNI-MO produces the meaning of single negation.

(20) a. John wa naNI-MO tabe-nakat-ta.

John TOP what-MO eat-NEG-PST
‘John didn’t eat anything.’

b. . . .[NegP [VP naNI-MO[iNEG][ufoc]. . .] Neg[iNEG]]]. . .

|_______________|
Agree

c.

Watanabe argues that this Agree system is necessary to explain the fragment answer
involving wh-MO.

(21) a. Q: Nani o mi-ta no?

what ACC see-PST Q
‘What did you see?’

A: naNI-MO
what-MO
‘Nothing.’

14 Notations are adapted from the original to be consistent with the arguments through the chapter.
646 Nobuaki Nishioka

b. naNI-MO [mi-nakat-ta].
what-MO see-NEG-PST
‘I saw nothing.’

If semantic identity is required for ellipsis as argued by Merchant (2001), Watanabe

argues, the elided part in (21b) should be affirmative, because the antecedent in (21a)
is affirmative. Watanabe’s copying system makes the elided part affirmative by the
cancelation of two occurrences of [iNEG].
However, this argument for semantic identity is not without controversy. Follow-
ing Karttunen’s (1977) semantics, according to which questions denote the set of
their true answers, Giannakidou (2006) argues that the antecedent of the elided
part of fragment answers is obtained by choosing a proposition from the denoted
answer set. Thus, for example, given the domain of quantification: {yuurei ‘ghost’,
hebi ‘snake’}, the answer set denoted by the question in (21a) will be as follows.

(22) a. (Boku wa) yuurei o mi-ta.

I TOP ghost ACC see-PST
‘I saw a ghost.’

b. (Boku wa) hebi o mi-ta.

I TOP snake ACC see-PST
‘I saw a snake.’

c. (Boku wa) naNI-MO mi-nakat-ta.

I TOP what-MO see-NEG-PST
‘I saw nothing.’

If this is true and (22c) is chosen from the answer set, the fragment answer (21b) can
be explained without the copying mechanism Watanabe assumes.15
Moreover, as pointed out by M. Kuno (2007: 66), Watanabe’s (2004) feature-
copying analysis faces difficulty in accommodating the ellipsis in (23B).

(23) A: John wa naNI-MO tabe-tagara-nai sooda.

John TOP what-MO eat-want-NEG I.hear
‘I heard that John does not want to eat anything.’

B: Tokuni nani oi ka wakari-masu-ka?

especially what ACC Q know-POL-Q
‘Do you know in particular what he does not want to eat?’

15 Watanabe (2004) argues against Giannakidou’s (2006) proposal. M. Kuno (2007) argues that
fragment answers do not provide us with compelling evidence to favor one or the other.
 Expressions that contain negation 647

(24) a. John wa [naNI-MOi [XP ti tabe-tagara-nai]] sooda.

b. [CP Tokuni nani oi [XP (kare ga) ti tabe tagara nai] ka] wakari-masu-ka?

We can assume the structures in (24a, b) for (23A, B), respectively, as M. Kuno does.
Thus the fact that the ellipsis of XP indicated by the strikeout in (24b) is allowed
means that the semantic identity of XP between (24a) and (24b) is guaranteed. How-
ever, in Watanabe’s analysis, XP in (24a) should be semantically affirmative as a
result of copying and cancelling of two occurrences of [iNEG] in Neg, as in (20c),
whereas XP in (24b) is negative. The well-formed ellipsis in (23B) suggests that nega-
tive meaning resides in Neg even in the sentences involving wh-MO, as opposed to
what Watanabe claims.16
Watanabe focuses on occurrences of wh-MO with the negative head (na), a case
of “negative doubling”. He suggests that multiple occurrences of wh-MO, a case of
“negative spread”, should be treated differently from negative doubling, assuming
that Neg-Factorization, which must be part of the semantic interpretation outside
the syntactic computation, is still necessary for negative spread. In relation to frag-
ment answers, however, as pointed out by Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2013),
his analysis cannot deal with (25B) without requiring some syntactic mechanism.

(25) A: Dare-ka nani-ka tabe-ta no?

who-ka what-ka eat-PST Q
‘Did anyone eat anything?’

B: daRE-MO naNI-MO.
who-MO what-MO
‘Nobody, nothing.’

According to Watanabe’s Agree system, unless some syntactic mechanism in relation

to multiple Agree to the effect that only one [iNEG] is copied on Neg is postulated,
the elided part of (25B) should contain three occurrences of [iNEG] as a result of
copying of two occurrences in syntax, which should be negative because one [iNEG]
still remains in Neg even after the cancellation of two occurrences of [iNEG], as indi-
cated in (26). It is unclear how the semantic process of Neg-factorization can pro-
duce an affirmative out of three occurrences of [iNEG].

(26)

16 Watanabe (2010) suggests a possibility of non-constituent deletion, which requires syntactic

identity but not semantic identity, for (23B).
648 Nobuaki Nishioka

3.3.2 Feature-sharing

M. Kuno (2007) provides an analysis of wh-MO and XP-sika in terms of their morpho-
syntactic ingredients. He identifies wh-MO (a member of strong NCIs in his classifica-
tion) as consisting of an indefinite (wh), a focus element (mo) and a phonologically
null negative element (ɸ), based on the equivalent NCIs in Serbo-Croatian, Russian,
and Hungarian, in which they are represented by overt morphemes. Extending
Lahiri’s (1998) semantic analysis of NPIs in Hindi, he assumes that such NCIs cause
a semantic problem because of the existence of negative force inside NCIs. In order
to get rid of the negative force and get an appropriate interpretation, he resorts to an
Agree operation with sentential negation. The Agree operation that M. Kuno enter-
tains is different from the standard one in that (i) it applies between interpretable
features ([iNEG]) without uninterpretable features (i.e. no activation condition assumed
by Chomsky 2000, 2001 and Watanabe 2004), (ii) a feature that undergoes Agree is
shared and interpreted somewhere on the elements that share it. As a result, [iNEG]
disappears from NCIs and an appropriate interpretation is successfully produced.
The feature-sharing Agree that works on wh-MO is illustrated in (27), where the inter-
preted feature as a result of this feature-sharing Agree is boldfaced. The obtained
interpretation is the same as that of NPIs proposed by Lahiri (1998).

(27) [NCI Indefinite+Foc+ɸ[iNEG]] . . . Neg[iNEG] => [NCI Indefinite+Foc] . . . Neg[iNEG]

|___________|
Agree as feature-sharing

Under this analysis, negative force is finally located not in wh-MO but in Neg, which
is consistent with the ellipsis observed in (23), (24) (repeated as (28), (29)). The fact
that the ellipsis in (28B), which is represented as the strike-out XP in (29b), is inter-
preted as containing negation indicates that Neg (na) in XP must also retain negative
meaning in (29a), which corresponds to (28A).

(28) A: John wa naNI-MO tabe-tagara-nai sooda.

John TOP what-MO eat-want-NEG I.hear
‘I heard that John does not want to eat anything.’

B: Tokuni nani oi ka wakari-masu-ka?

especially what ACC Q know-POL-Q
‘Do you know especially what he does not want to eat?’

(29) a. John wa [naNI-MOi [XP ti tabe-tagara-nai]] sooda.

b. [CP Tokuni nani oi [XP (kare ga) ti tabe tagara nai] ka] wakari-masu-ka?
 Expressions that contain negation 649

M. Kuno treats XP-sika differently from wh-MO. However, the gist of the argument is
the same; in order to get the right interpretation of XP-sika, feature-sharing Agree
must apply between XP-sika and Neg. The difference from the case of wh-MO is
where [iNEG] is interpreted. Based on the semantics of XP-sika, he argues that two
[iNEG] features must be interpreted at XP-sika and not in Neg. This is schematically
represented in (30) and supported by the data in (31).

(30) XP-sika[iNEG1][iNEG2] . . . Neg[iNEG1]. . .

|_________________|
the left [iNEG1] and [iNEG2] get interpreted

(31) A: John wa kudamono-sika tabe-tagara-nai sooda.

John TOP fruit-sika eat-want-NEG I hear
‘I heard that John wants nothing except fruits.’

B: Tokuni nani oi ka wakari-masu-ka?

especially what ACC Q know-POL-Q
‘Do you know in particular what he does not want to eat?’

(32) a. John wa [kudamono-sikai [XP ti tabe-tagara-nai]] sooda.

b. [CP Tokuni nani oi [XP (kare ga) ti tabe tagatte-iru] ka] wakari-masu-ka?

The fact that the ellipsis in (31B), which is represented as the strike-out XP in (32b),
is interpreted as affirmative, unlike the case of wh-MO in (28B) indicates that Neg
(na) in XP does not retain negative meaning in (32a), which corresponds to (31A).
This is correctly captured by (30).
However, it is not clear how the ungrammaticality of XP-sika in fragment answers
in (33) is accounted for in this analysis because if [iNEG] is not interpreted in Neg,
the elided part should be semantically equivalent to the corresponding part of the
question.

(33) Q: John ga nani o kat-ta no?

John NOM what ACC buy-PST Q
‘What did John buy?’

A: *CD-sika [kaw-anakat-ta].
CD-sika buy-Neg-PST
‘Only CD.’

Moreover, as M. Kuno himself admits, the arbitrariness or nondeterministic property

of Agree as a feature-sharing operation must be gotten rid of if Agree is an indepen-
dent syntactic operation. M. Kuno suggests the possibility that it can be reinterpreted
based on feature valuation, but he leaves this for further study.
650 Nobuaki Nishioka

3.3.3 Upward Agree

Following Zeijilstra (2004, 2008), Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2013) propose
that another type of Agree, which can be called “upward Agree”, should be adopted
for the analysis of wh-MO. In their analysis both the sentential negative head Neg
(na) and NCIs are taken to bear an uninterpretable negative feature ([uNEG]), while
a covert negative operator with an interpretable negative feature ([iNEG]) is postulated
in [Spec, NegP]. This is schematically illustrated in (34).

(34) [NegP Op[iNEG] [vP . . . NCI[uNEG] . . . (NCI[uNEG]) . . . v]Neg[uNEG]]

|______________|____________|______________|
Agree

The direction of this Agree is the opposite of the standard Agree (Chomsky 2000,
2001) in that (multiple) probes (elements with [uNEG]) are c-commanded by a goal
(Op), that is, Agree applies upward. The advantage of this analysis is that single nega-
tion meaning is straightforwardly accommodated without assuming Neg-Factorization,
because the sentence contains only one [iNEG]. The locality between NCIs and Neg
na (i.e. the clause-mate condition) is actually the locality of the application of Agree
between NCIs and Op, but because Neg is necessary to identify Op in its Spec and is
licensed by it, the locality indirectly holds between NCIs and the Neg head.
Miyagawa, Nishioka, and Zeijlstra (2013) argue that XP-sika and rokuna N are
not NCIs but NPIs, assuming that neither bears [uNEG] but must be c-commanded
by Op[iNEG].
As for fragment answers in (35a) (=21a), they assume the structure in (35b). Ac-
cording to their analysis, the fragment contains the operator which carries the [iNEG]
feature and the elided part is semantically equivalent to what is overtly represented
in the question because Neg in XP does not have negative force (i.e. [iNEG]). In
contrast, as mentioned above, XP-sika and rokuna N are NPIs, which do not bear
[uNEG] and cannot invoke Op with [iNEG]. This is why XP-sika and rokuna N cannot
constitute fragment answers in (36a).

(35) a. Q: Nani o mi-ta no?

what ACC see-PST Q
‘What did you see?’

A: naNI-MO
what-MO
‘Nothing.’

b. [Op[iNEG] naNI-MO[uNEG] [XP mi-nakat[uNEG]-ta]]

 Expressions that contain negation 651

(36) a. Q: Nani o kat-ta no?

what ACC buy-PST Q
‘What did you buy?’

A: *CD-sika/*Rokuna hon (o).

CD-sika/good book (ACC)
‘Only a CD/Not a good book.’

b. [Op[iNEG] CD-sika/Rokuna hon (o) [XP kaw-anakat[uNEG]-ta]]

However, although they do not indicate what XP is in (35b), if it is TP, as usually

assumed (Merchant 2004), it is not clear how Op in [Spec, NegP] moves over TP in
their analysis, and some mechanism for this must be devised. Moreover, although as
just observed they argue that NPIs in (36a) cannot invoke Op due to the lack of
[uNEG], it is not clear why Neg cannot invoke Op, resulting in the structure in (36b).
As long as they stand on a PF deletion approach, it should be possible. Miyagawa,
Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016) present a new analysis, overcoming these problems,
which will be mentioned in section 4.

3.4 Multiple occurrences

Another difference observed among the three kinds of NSIs concerns multiple occur-
rences. (Aoyagi and Ishii 1994; Nishioka 2000; Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra 2013,
2016)

(37) a. daRE-MO naNI-MO kaw-anakat-ta.

who-MO what-MO buy-NEG-PST
‘No one bought anything.’

b. *John-sika eigo-sika hanas-anakat-ta.

John-sika English-sika speak-NEG-PST
‘No one but John spoke anything but English.’

c. Ken wa rokuna mono o rokuna basyo de tabe-nakat-ta.

Ken TOP good thing ACC good place LOC say-NEG-PST
‘Ken didn’t eat any decent food at any decent places.’

As observed in (37b), XP-sika cannot be used multiply in a clause, which makes a

sharp contrast with the cases of wh-MO and rokuna N in (37a, c).
Aoyagi and Ishii (1994) stipulate that XP-sika resides in [Spec, NegP] and wh-MO
adjoins to Op in [Spec, NegP] at LF and from the one-to-one requirement of the
spec-head relation they derive the difference between (37a) and (37b).17 Miyagawa,
Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2013) propose an account for (37a) in terms of upward Agree

17 Nishioka (2000) also stipulates that Foc can check only one [+FOC] of the same kind of focus
phrases and XP-sika, which has [+FOC], cannot occur multiply.
652 Nobuaki Nishioka

in (34), where multiple occurrences of wh-MO are captured as the application of

multiple Agree. They assume that both XP-sika and rokuna N are NPIs but what
differentiates them is that the former involves obligatory focus, while the latter does
not. They attribute the ungrammaticality of (37b) to the intervention of one XP-sika
with the licensing of another, as elements carrying a semantically active focus feature
act as intervenors for semantic licensing (Beck 2006; Miyagawa 2010). However, see
Section 4 for examples where multiple occurrences of XP-sika are possible.

4 A new perspective and remaining problems

As we have reviewed in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, the distinct distributions of wh-MO, XP-sika,
and rokuna N suggest that they belong to different classes and should be treated
differently. This is in contrast to the traditional view that they are all NPIs that are
c-commanded by NEG. But is it true that they really belong to different classes? The
fact of the subject-object (a)symmetry in section 3.2 indicates that rokuna N is an NPI
but the other two are not. What about other data concerning fragment answers and
multiple occurrences in 3.3 and 3.4? Recall (19) and (37), which are repeated as (38)
and (39), respectively.

(38) Q: Nani o kat-ta no?

what ACC buy-PST Q
‘What did you buy?’

A: naNI-MO/*CD-sika/*Rokuna hon (o).

what-MO/CD-sika/good book
‘Nothing/Only a CD/Not a good book.’

(39) a. daRE-MO naNI-MO kaw-anakat-ta.

who-MO what-MO buy-NEG-PST
‘No one bought anything.’

b. *John-sika eigo-sika hanas-anakat-ta.

John-sika English-sika speak-NEG-PST
‘No one but John spoke anything but English.’

c. Ken wa rokuna mono o rokuna basyo de tabe-nakat-ta.

Ken TOP good thing ACC good place LOC say-NEG-PST
‘Ken didn’t eat any decent food at any decent places.’

If rokuna N belongs to the class of NPI that must be c-commanded by Neg, as we

have seen in 3.2., the (un)grammaticality of rokuna N in (38A) and (39c) is predicted.
Since the fragment must move out of the TP that is elided (Merchant 2004), rokuna N
 Expressions that contain negation 653

in the fragment answer in (38A) cannot be c-commanded by Neg, which is contained

in the TP. This is in line with the fact that NPIs in general cannot constitute a fragment
answer, as in (40).

(40) A: What did you eat?

B: *Anything.

On the other hand, both occurrences of rokuna N in (39c) are licensed, being c-
commanded by Neg.
Wh-MO has been generally accepted as a type of NCI, as observed in the previous
section, while the differences between wh-MO and XP-sika in (38A) and (39a, b) seem
to suggest that XP-sika cannot be a type of NCI. However, observe the following
sentences presented by Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016).

(41) A: Kimi, nando mo betonamu ni it-ta koto

you many times also Vietnam to go-PST experience
aru no daroo?
have COMP I.suppose
‘Haven’t you been to Vietnam many times?’

B: Iya, itido-sika.
no once-sika
‘No, only once.’ (S. Kuno 1995: 170)

(42) A: Yoku Yamada-sensei to wa au no?

often Yamada-pfof. with TOP meet Q
‘Do you often see Prof. Yamada?’

B: Iya, gakugaide-sika/syuu ni ichido-sika.

No, off campus-sika/week in once-sika
‘No, only off campus/only once a week.’

(43) a. ?John-sika sono kuni e wa itido-sika it-ta

John-sika that country to TOP one time-sika go-PST
koto ga na-i
experience NOM NEG-PRS
‘Only John has the experience of visiting that country just once.’

b. Karaoke e wa itido-sika Shiori-to-sika it-ta

karaoke to TOP one time-sika Shiori-with-sika go-PST
koto ga na-i.
experience NOM NEG-PRS
‘I have been to Karaoke only once, only with Shiori.’
654 Nobuaki Nishioka

Fragment answers in (41) and (42) and multiple occurrences in (43) are possible with
XP-sika. Note that occurrences of XP-sika in (38A) and (39b) are arguments, while
those in (41)–(43) are adjuncts, and the two should be considered distinct.
As observed by Kawashima and Kitahara (1992) and Aoyagi and Ishii (1994),
case-markers ga ‘NOM’ and o ‘ACC’ for arguments cannot be attached to wh-MO and
XP-sika.

(44) a. daRE-MO/John-sika (*ga) ringo o tabe-nakat-ta.

who-MO/John-sika (NOM) apple ACC eat-NEG-PST
‘No one/No one but John ate an apple.’

b. Taroo ga naNI-MO/ringo-sika (*o) tabe-nakat-ta.

Taroo NOM what-MO/apple-sika (ACC) eat-NEG-PST
‘Taroo ate nothing/nothing but an apple.’

Moreover, wh-MO/XP-sika can co-occur with overt subject or object as in (45).18

(45) a. Gakusei ga daRE-MO/John-sika ko-nakat-ta.

student NOM who-MO/ John-sika come-NEG-PST
‘No student/No student but John came.’

b. Taroo ga kudamono o naNI-MO/ringo-sika tabe-nakat-ta.

Taroo NOM fruit ACC what-MO/apple-sika eat-NEG-PST
‘Taroo didn’t eat any fruit/any fruit but apples.’

Based on the above-mentioned properties, Aoyagi and Ishii (1994), following Fujita
(1993), assume that both wh-MO and XP-sika are a class of floating quantifiers (FQs)
like 3-bon ‘3-classifier’ in (46).

(46) a. John ga 3-bon banana o tabe-ta.

John NOM 3-CLF banana ACC eat-PST
‘John ate 3 bananas.’

b. John ga banana o 3-bon tabe-ta.

John NOM banana ACC 3-CLF eat-PST
‘John ate 3 bananas.’ (Aoyagi and Ishii 1994: 298)

However, wh-MO and argument XP-sika should still be distinguished. Konomi (2000)
argues that XP-sika differs from wh-MO in argument/adjunct status, and XP-sika
cannot be a type of FQ, unlike wh-MO, presenting several pieces of evidence for

18 Thus wh-MO/XP-sika without an overt argument is best analyzed as involving pro (Kawashima
and Kitahara 1992).
 Expressions that contain negation 655

this. One of them is the difference resulting from modification by relative clauses,
which indicates that XP-sika can be an argument while wh-MO may not.

(47) a. [[Gengogaku 112 no siken o pasusi-ta] hito]-sika kono

Linguistics 112 GEN exam ACC pass-PST person-sika this
koogi o totte wa ike-na-i.
class ACC take TOP may-NEG-PRS
‘Only students that passed the exam in Linguistics 112 may take this class.’

b. *[[Gengogaku 112 no siken o pasusi-ta] daRE-MO] ko-nakat-ta.

Linguistics 112 GEN exam ACC pass-PST who-MO come-NEG-PST
‘Nobody who passed the exam in Linguistics 112 came.’

c. *John ga hon o [[Harvard Book Store de kat-ta]

John NOM book ACC Harvard Book Store at buy-PST
2,3-satu] motteki-ta.
2,3-CLF bring-PST
‘John brought a couple of books which he bought at Harvard Book Store.’
(Konomi 2000: 62)

While argument XP-sika can be the head noun of a relative clause in (47a), wh-MO
cannot in (47b), which shows the similarity of wh-MO to FQs in (47c) and suggests its
adjunct status. See Konomi (2000) and Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijilstra (2016) for
more arguments for the differences between wh-MO and argument XP-sika.
If we recognize the distinction between argument XP-sika and adjunct XP-sika/
wh-MO, a new classification of the three kinds of NSIs will emerge, as Miyagawa,
Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016) observe.

(48) NCI
a. Adjunct NCI: (i) wh-MO (ii) adjunct XP-sika
b. Argument NCI: argument XP-sika
NPI: rokuna N

Based on this view of NSI classification, Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016)
develop an analysis to explicate their distribution, in which the interaction between
Case and focus plays a crucial role. Miyagawa (2010) proposes that Japanese as a
discourse-configurational language incorporates [topic/focus] based Agree, in which
a [topic/focus] feature is inherited from C to T and triggers the movement of an
element with the matching feature to [Spec, TP] in an application of Agree as in (49).
656 Nobuaki Nishioka

(49) [TP XP[topic/focus] . . . [vP . . . (XP[topic/focus]). . .] T] C[topic/focus]]

↑____________________| ↑_______|
movement inheritance

Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016) argue that obligatory movement of argument
XP-sika to [Spec, TP] is activated by the Case feature. Exploiting Case, the argument/
adjunct asymmetries of NCIs are naturally explained. Argument XP-sika, whose Case
activates Agree with T, should move to [Spec, TP] and stay there (cf. Rizzi’s 2006
Criterial Freezing). Thus it cannot survive in the TP deletion for the fragment answer
in (38A), while adjunct NCIs are free from this constraint. As for the multiple occur-
rence restriction in (39b), one argument XP-sika causes an intervention effect on the
movement of another to [Spec, TP], resulting in the failure of feature-checking.
If their analysis is on the right track, it would open a new perspective for the
unified analysis of NCIs as well as for Case theory in Japanese. As in the ɸ-feature
agreement of Chomsky (2000, 2001), Case makes [topic/focus] agreement of argu-
ments activate in the TP domain. By pursuing this idea further, more intriguing
questions will emerge, including: Is [topic/focus] agreement possible without involv-
ing Case? How is Case checked/assigned if [topic/focus] agreement is not involved?
Is morphological case marking based on the abstract Case checking? On the last
question Kuroda (1988) argues that morphological case marking should be based
on a mechanism distinct from abstract Case assignment. This seems to suggest that
the fact that XP-sika NCIs never realize nominative/accusative case-markers even
if they are arguments can be explicated in terms of Abstract Case assignment,
although in-depth analysis awaits further investigation.
Miyagawa’s (2010) Agree system is based on Agree, as proposed by Chomsky
(2007, 2008). However, as reviewed in 3.3., different versions of Agree have been
proposed for NCI wh-MO: Watanabe’s (2004) Agree with feature-copying, M. Kuno’s
(2007) Agree with feature-sharing, and Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijilstra’s (2013)
(originally Zeijilstra’s 2004, 2008) upward Agree. They differ in where an interpretable
negative feature ([iNEG]) resides after the application of Agree.

(50) a. [Wh-MO[iNEG] . . . Neg[iNEG] [iNEG]] (Agree with feature-copying)

b. [Wh-MO[iNEG] . . . Neg[iNEG]] (Agree with feature-sharing)

c. [Op[iNEG] . . . Wh-MO[uNEG] . . . Neg[uNEG]] (upward Agree)

In order to explain fragment data, they must depend on different assumptions of the
semantic identity between elided and antecedent parts, as we reviewed in 3.3. In
other words, the success of the analysis of NCIs affects the analyses for ellipsis in
general, explicating possible procedures of Agree.
 Expressions that contain negation 657

A final note on rokuna N should be in order. I have observed that rokuna N is an

NPI, but the distribution is different from English any in that the former is possible
only with the clause-mate negation, while the latter occurs in wider contexts includ-
ing questions and conditionals.

(51) a. Did anyone come?

b. If anyone comes, let me know.

(52) a. *Rokuna yatu ga ki-ta no?

rokuna chap NOM come-PST Q
‘Did a good chap come?

b. *Rokuna yatu ga ki-ta ra, watasi ni si-rase-te.

rokuna chap NOM come-PST if, me DAT know-let-IMP
‘If a good chap comes, let me know.’

Van der Wouden (1997) proposes that NPIs are classified depending on the hierarchy
of the negative contexts (licensers) that are defined in terms of Boolean functions.
According to the classification, rokuna N belongs to the strongest class, for which
antimorphic negation is required, while any belongs to the weakest class, for which
monotone decreasing elements can play the role of the licenser.19,20
I have focused on three kinds of NSIs in this chapter: Wh-MO, XP-sika, and
rokuna N. Among other NSIs, (N case) one-CLF-MO such as (gakusei ga) hitori-MO
‘even one student’, (hon o) issatu-MO ‘even one book’ is categorized with wh-MO,
while N one-CLF such as gakusei hitori ‘one student’, hon issatu ‘one book’ is catego-
rized with rokuna N (Kataoka 2010). Interestingly, the form one-CLF-demo such as
it-teki-demo, ‘even a drop’, hito-ri-demo ‘even one person’ is another type of NSI,
which can occur in wider contexts than NCIs such as in questions, conditionals,
and super-ordinate negation like (weak) NPIs, but cannot occur with the clause-
mate negation like positive polarity items (PPIs).21 This is why they are called bipolar
items (Yoshimura 1999; Watanabe 2010). Namely, Japanese has a variety of expres-
sions that are morphologically similar but behave differently with respect to polarity.
More systematic research, covering a wider range of NSIs in light of morphological
components with a viewpoint based on cross-linguistic facts and (the theory of) UG
is left to further study.

19 See van der Wouden (1997) for the definitions of the negative contexts and the kinds of NPIs, and
see also Yoshimura (1999) for examination of English and Japanese NPIs in light of the definitions.
20 NP + hodo ‘as’ (McGloin 1976), sonnakoto ‘such thing’ (Y. Kato 2000), koreizyoo ‘more than this’
(Kishimoto 2008: 426), are reported in the literature as any-type NPIs in Japanese.
21 To be exact, PPIs can occur with the clause-mate negation but cannot be interpreted in the scope
of negation.
658 Nobuaki Nishioka

5 Concluding remarks
I have discussed the scope of sentential negation and the behavior of three kinds of
NSIs in Japanese. First in section 2, I observed that the clause structure of negative
sentences contains NegP and the scope of negation is defined as the c-command
domain of Neg, which excludes [Spec, TP] in main clauses. This is supported by the
data from Kumamoto dialect.
Following the discussion of the scope of negation, I examined three kinds of
NSIs, focusing on their distribution in section 3. They all require clause-mate nega-
tion but exhibit different behavior with respect to (i) subject-object (a)symmetry, (ii)
fragment answers, and (iii) multiple occurrences. In examining their distribution, I
reviewed the overt movement analysis to [Spec, NegP] and different kinds of Agree
based analyses. Although the locality requirement of wh-MO and XP-sika can be re-
duced to the locality restriction on the implementation of feature checking, whether
in terms of movement or Agree, different behavior of the three with respect to (i)–(iii)
indicates the necessity of different treatment of them. Specifically, their behavior
with respect to (i) suggests that rokuna N is a type of NPI and different from the other
two. The Agree operations proposed by different researchers are so diverse that the
plausibility of each analysis is dependent on the legitimacy of the type of Agree
operation proposed for that analysis. To the extent that they are successful, they
provide support for their proposals on Agree, and conversely, if their assumed
operations of Agree are independently established or abandoned, their analyses may
gain support or lose power.
In section 4, based on Miyagawa, Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016), the possibility of
new classification of the three kinds of NSIs was suggested, according to which both
wh-MO and XP-sika are NCIs, although the different behavior of argument XP-sika
and adjunct XP-sika must be explicated. A possible solution proposed by Miyagawa,
Nishioka and Zeijlstra (2016) concerns Case theory in Japanese, and pursuing the
possibility will contribute to the elucidation of the NSI system as well as the role of
Case in Japanese. Although many problems still remain, it can be said that great
progress has been made in the study of negation with corresponding progress in
linguistic theory, and further study of negative phenomena will contribute to the
development of linguistics.

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Shigeru Miyagawa, Carey Benom, and an anonymous reviewer for
useful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are of course my own. This
work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) promoted by the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant No. 15K02606).
 Expressions that contain negation 659

References
Aoyagi, Hiroshi and Toru Ishii. 1994. On NPI licensing in Japanese. In Noriko Akatsuka (ed.), Japanese/
Korean Linguistics 4. 295–311. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics
14. 1–56.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The minimalist program, 219–394. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Some observations on economy in generative grammar. In Pilar Barbosa,
Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky (eds), Is the best good enough?,
115–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language,
1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.),
Interfaces + recursion = language?, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–
166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 35–62.
Fujita, Naoya. 1993. Floating quantifiers and adverbs in Japanese. Proceedings of the Formal Linguistic
Society of Mid-America 4. 90–103.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative . . . concord? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18. 457–
523.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. N-words and negative concord. In Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk,
Rob Goedemans and Bart Hollebrandse (eds.), The linguistics companion, volume 3, 327–391.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haegaman, Liliane and Raffaella Zanuttini. 1996. Negative concord in West Flemish. In Adriana and
Luigi Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, 117–179.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Washington,
WA: University of Washington dissertation.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2010. Hitei kyokusei to tōgo teki jōken [Negative polarity and syntactic conditions].
In Yasuhiko Kato, Akiko Yoshimura and Ikumi Imani (eds.), Hitei to gengo riron [Negation and
linguistic theory], 118–140. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Kato, Sachiko. 2007. Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the viewpoint of the Kumamoto
dialect in Japanese. In Yoichi Miyamoto and Masao Ochi (eds.), Formal approaches to Japanese
linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Aapproaches to Japanese Linguistics 4: MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics 55. 113–124. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Kato, Yasuhiko. 1985. Negative sentences in Japanese. Sophia Linguistica Monograph 19. Tokyo:
Sophia University.
Kato, Yasuhiko. 2000. Interpretive asymmetries of negation. In Laurence Horn and Yasuhiko Kato
(eds.), Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, 62–87. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
660 Nobuaki Nishioka

Kawashima, Ruriko and Hisatsugu Kitahara. 1992. Licensing of negative polarity item and checking
theory: A comparative study of English and Japanese. Proceedings of Formal Linguistic Society
of Mid-America 3. 139–154.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2007. Negative scope and head raising in Japanese. Lingua 117. 247–288.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2008. On the variability of negative scope in Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 44.
379–435.
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. In Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The structure of
language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Konomi, Keiji. 2000. On licensing of SIKA-NPIs in Japanese. In Ken-ichi Takami, Akio Kamio and John
Whitman (eds.), Syntactic and functional explorations in honor of Susumu Kuno, 51–82. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1980. The scope of the question and negation in some verb-final languages. CLS 16.
155–169.
Kuno, Susumu. 1983. Shin nihon bunpō kenkyū [New studies of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuno, Susumu. 1995. Negative polarity items in Japanese and English. In Samuel D. Epstein, Höskuldur
Thráinsson, Steve Peter, Andrea Calabrese, Bert Vaux and Susumu Kuno (eds.), Harvard Working
Papers in Linguistics 5. 165–197. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.
Kuno, Susumu. 2001. NPI licensing, o/ga alternation, verb raising and scrambling. In Noriko
Akatsuka and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10. 465–480, Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Kuno, Masakazu. 2007. Focusing on negative concord and negative polarity: Variations and relations.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Judgment forms and sentence forms. In Japanese syntax and semantics: Collected
papers, 13–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6. 57–123.
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland.
McGloin, Naomi. 1976. Negation. In Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese
generative grammar, 371–419. New York: Academic Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-
configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, Nobuaki Nishioka and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2013. Negative dependencies in Japanese.
In Umut Ozge (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL): MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 67. 231–244. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru, Nobuaki Nishioka and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2016. Negative sensitive items and the
discourse-configurational nature of Japanese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1).
33. 1–28.
Muraki, Masatake. 1978. The sika nai construction and predicate restructuring. In John Hinds and
Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 155–177. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. 1994. Improper movement and polarity items in English and Japanese. English
Linguistics 11. 1–28.
 Expressions that contain negation 661

Nishioka, Nobuaki. 1999. On sentential negation and the licensing of negative polarity items in
English and Japanese: A minimalist approach. English Linguistics 16(1). 25–54.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. 2000. Japanese negative polarity items wh-MO and XP-sika phrases: Another
overt movement analysis in terms of feature-checking. In Ken-ichi Takami, Akio Kamio and John
Whitman (eds.), Syntactic and functional explorations in honor of Susumu Kuno, 159–184. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. 2004. Quantifiers and negation: A minimalist approach to partial negation. English
Linguistics 21. 323–347.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. In press. On the positions of nominative subject in Japanese: Evidence from
Kumamoto dialect. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics.
Ochi, Masao. this volume. Chapter 18: Ga/no conversion. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ochi, Masao and Asuka Saruwatari. In press. Negative genitive conversion in (in)dependent clauses
in Japanese. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics.
Oyakawa, Takatsugu. 1975. On the Japanese sika-nai construction. Gengo Kenkyu 67. 1–20.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic
Inquiry 20. 365–424.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of
grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lisa Cheng and
Norbert Corver (eds.), WH-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark Baltin and Anthony
Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2010. Semantic and discourse interpretation of the Japanese left periphery. In Nomi
Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds.), The sound patterns of syntax, 140–173. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Sentence types and the Japanese right periphery. In Günther Grewendorf and
Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical
categories, 147–175. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Saito, Mamoru and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak crossover and move α in Japanese. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 1. 245–259.
Sohn, Keun-Won. 1996. Negative polarity items and rigidity of scope. In Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi
Iwasaki and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5. 353–368. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1990. Negative polarity, phrase structure, and the ECP. English Linguistics 7. 129–
146.
Takubo, Yukinori. 1985. On the scope of negation and question in Japanese. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 10. 87–115.
Vallduví, Enric. 1994. Polarity items, N-words and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish. Probus 6. 263–
294.
Watanabe, Akira. 2004. The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling.
Linguistic Inquiry 35. 559–612.
Watanabe, Akira. 2010. Ryōkyoku sei hyōgen [Bipolar items]. In Yasuhiko Kato, Akiko Yoshimura
and Ikumi Imani (eds.), Hitei to gengo riron [Negation and linguistic theory], 74–96. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
662 Nobuaki Nishioka

van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative contexts. London: Routledge.

Yamashita, Hideaki. 2003. On the distribution and licensing of negative polarity items in Japanese
and the Phase-Impenetrability Condition. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth Tokyo
Conference on Psycholinguistics, 313–338. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Yoshimoto, Yasushi. 1998. The strong [neg] feature of Neg and NPI licensing in Japanese. In David J.
Silva (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8. 529–541, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Yoshimura, Akiko. 1999. Hitei kyokusei genshō. Tokyo: Eihōsya.
Zanutinni, Rafaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance
languages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Two ways of expressing negation. In Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente and Mark de
Vos (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XII, 245–259.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Negative concord is syntactic agreement. LingBuzz 000645.
Masao Ochi
18 Ga/No conversion

1 Introduction
Nominative/Genitive Conversion, also known as Ga/No Conversion (henceforth GNC),
has been intensively investigated since S.I. Harada’s (1971) seminal work. Over the
years, several competing hypotheses have emerged, and, on occasion, conflicting
judgments are reported for some of the crucial examples. This chapter starts with a
brief overview of some of the representative works on GNC, and then proceeds to
offer a possible line of analysis based on insights from the past literature and new
sets of data from a dialect spoken in Nagasaki.
Let us start with some basic properties of GNC that any serious analysis needs to
have in its scope, although many of them have been called into question. First, GNC
is a non-root phenomenon.

(1) Taroo ga/*no kita.

Taro NOM/*GEN came
‘Taro came.’

(2) Taroo ga/no kita hi

Taro NOM/GEN came day
‘the day that Taro came’

Although this is a correct description for the standard Japanese (henceforth SJ), the
no-subject does occur in root clauses in some dialects. We will take up this point in
section 3. Second, GNC typically occurs in adnominal clauses, such as relative clauses
and noun-complement clauses.

(3) a. Taroo ga/no katta hon

Taro NOM/GEN bought book
‘the book that Taro bought’

b. Taroo ga/no kita koto

Taro NOM/GEN came thing
‘the fact that Taro came’

Third, the alternation between ga and no is generally considered to be optional (but

see Miyagawa (2011) for an opposing view). This, however, does not mean that the
alternation is always possible. For example, the no-subject does not occur with a

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-019
664 Masao Ochi

direct object, a restriction known in the literature as the transitivity restriction (TR).
We will discuss TR in section 4.2.

(4) kinoo Taroo ga/*no hon o katta mise

yesterday taro NOM/GEN book ACC bought store
‘the store where Taro bought a book yesterday’

Finally, no does not alternate with the accusative o (see Shibatani 1978; Saito 1983).

(5) Taroo ga hon o/*no katta mise

Taro NOM book ACC/*GEN bought store
‘the store where Taro bought a book’

But this does not mean that GNC applies exclusively to the subject. Japanese allows
a ga-marked object in a clause with a stative predicate (see Koizumi 2008; Chapter 12
[Kishimoto, this volume]; among many others), and GNC may apply to the object in
such cases. Furthermore, as noted by Miyagawa (1993) among others, stative
predicates allow both the subject and the object to alternate between ga and no. Thus,
the following four combinations are all allowed: ga-ga, ga-no, no-ga, and no-no.

(6) Taroo ga/no eigo ga/no wakaru koto

Taro NOM/GEN English NOM/GEN understand thing
‘the fact that Taro understands English’

In the next section, we will review some of the major approaches to GNC.

2 Previous approaches
2.1 D-licensing approaches
One major approach to GNC is often referred to as “D-licensing” approach. “D” in
this case refers to a syntactic head whose projection is a DP, which is a prototypical
syntactic realization of an argument. The idea behind the D-licensing approach goes
back to Bedell’s (1972) restructuring analysis, which attempts to assimilate GNC to
cases like (7) where a modifier (or a possessor) of a nominal is marked with no (see
Saito 1983).

(7) Taroo no kuruma

Taro GEN car
‘Taro’s car’
 Ga/No conversion 665

2.1.1 Miyagawa (1993)

Miyagawa’s (1993) analysis capitalizes on this idea. Adopting the DP hypothesis (see
Abney 1987; among many others), he proposes that no in GNC is genitive Case that
is licensed (or checked) by the D head. Furthermore, Miyagawa argues that this
Case checking takes place in covert syntax. His proposal is primarily based on the
following set of observations. First, ga-subject and no-subject show distinct scope
properties: the former cannot take scope over the head noun such as kanoosei
‘probability’ while the latter can. According to Miyagawa, the wide scope reading of
the no-subject is a consequence of its movement into the spec of DP, an option not
available for the ga-subject (because the latter has its Case licensed against T inside
the adnominal clause).

(8) a. Rubii ka sinzyu ga yasuku naru kanoosei o osiete.

ruby or pearl NOM cheap become probability ACC tell me
(i) ‘Tell me the probability that rubies or pearls become cheaper.’
(ii) *‘Tell me the probability that rubies become cheaper or the probability
that pearls become cheaper.’

b. Rubii ka sinzyu no yasuku naru kanoosei o osiete.

ruby or pearl GEN cheap become probability ACC tell me
(i) ‘Tell me the probability that rubies or pearls become cheaper.’
(ii) ‘Tell me the probability that rubies become cheaper or the probability
that pearls become cheaper.’

Second, the genitive subject may be preceded by an adverb such as kotosi ‘this year’
(see Nakai 1980).

(9) kotosi sinzyu ga/no yasuku naru kanoosei

this year pearl NOM/GEN cheap become probability
‘the probability that pearls will become cheap this year’

Modifiers like kotosi ‘this year’ must be accompanied by no when they occur within
an immediate projection of a noun, as shown below.

(10) kotosi *(no) natu

this year GEN summer
‘this year’s summer’

This shows that kotosi ‘this year’ in (9) is inside the noun-complement clause. Then
the no-subject in the same example must also be within the adnominal clause in
666 Masao Ochi

overt syntax. Hence, the movement of the genitive subject into the spec of DP occurs
in covert syntax.
Another important observation in Miyagawa (1993) is that a wide scope reading
of no-subject is suppressed when an adverb (or a PP) occurs to its left:

(11) a. Kotosi rubii ka sinzyu ga yasuku naru

this year ruby or pearl NOM cheap become
kanoosei ga 50 paasento izyoo da.
probability NOM 50 percent over be
(i) ‘the probability that rubies or pearls become cheaper this year is over
50 percent.’
(ii) *‘the probability that rubies become cheaper this year or the probability
that pearls become cheaper this year is over 50 percent.’

b. Kotosi rubii ka sinzyu no yasuku naru

this year ruby or pearl GEN cheap become
kanoosei ga 50 paasento izyoo da.
probability NOM 50 percent over be
(i) ‘the probability that rubies or pearls become cheaper this year is over
50 percent.’
(ii) *‘the probability that rubies become cheaper this year or the probability
that pearls become cheaper this year is over 50 percent.’

Assuming that the spec of DP may be A- or A-bar position, and armed with a specific
implementation of the minimal link condition, Miyagawa argues that the ambiguity
of (8b) is due to the dual nature of the spec of DP in Japanese. When it is an A-
position, we only obtain the wide scope reading of the genitive subject, assuming
that there is no reconstruction with A-movement (see Chomsky 1995; Lasnik 1999).
The narrow scope reading of the genitive subject obtains when the spec of DP is an
A-bar position, assuming that A-bar movement allows (or forces) scope reconstruc-
tion. Given all these, Miyagawa claims that an element such as an adverb (e.g. kotosi
‘this year’), if located higher than the genitive subject, blocks A-movement of the
genitive subject. This is why the wide scope reading of the genitive subject is not
available.
Miyagawa’s (1993) analysis has been influential up to date. At the same time,
several problems have been noted in the literature. For example, it is unclear why
adjunct modifiers, which need no Case, would block A-movement of the genitive
subject. Also, as Watanabe (1996) notes, the domain of GNC includes the relative
clause, which is an adjunct (see Chapter 16 [Miyamoto, this volume] for discussion
of the syntax of relative clauses in Japanese). The D-licensing approach would there-
fore need to allow a syntactic dependency across an adjunct in a principled manner.
These issues are taken up by Ochi (2001).
 Ga/No conversion 667

2.1.2 Ochi (2001)

Adopting and extending Miyagawa’s analysis, Ochi (2001) seeks to establish a syn-
tactic parallel between GNC and the exceptional case marking (ECM) construction
in English as analyzed by Lasnik (1999). Ochi’s modifications of Miyagawa’s (1993)
analysis concern the following points. First, movement of the genitive subject may
in principle occur in covert syntax (as in Miyagawa 1993) or it may occur in overt
syntax.1 Second, the spec of DP is unambiguously an A-position.
According to Ochi, (8b) is ambiguous because the movement of the genitive
subject may take place in overt syntax, or it may occur in covert syntax. Overt A-
movement of the genitive subject creates a new scope relation. Further, given the
lack of A-movement reconstruction, this derivation leads to the wide scope reading
only. When the genitive phrase undergoes covert movement (in the form of formal
feature movement), only the narrow scope reading is available. The situation is
analogous to expletive constructions, which have been analyzed in terms of covert
movement of the associate to the location of the expletive (see Chomsky 1995 among
many others). For example, (12a) lacks the reading in which the associate of there
(i.e. many pictures) takes scope over negation, unlike (12b):

(12) a. There aren’t many pictures on the wall.

b. Many pictures aren’t on the wall

Note that this covert feature movement may be reinterpreted as Agree in the sense of
Chomsky (2000) and his subsequent works.
Now, as briefly alluded to above, Watanabe (1996) points out a potential theoret-
ical problem with Miyagawa’s (1993) D-licensing approach. Since the relative clause
is an adjunct inside a DP, the postulated movement of the no-subject out of a relative
clause into the spec of DP should be an adjunct condition violation. Addressing this
issue, Ochi (2001) first argues, on independent grounds, that the operation Attract
is not sensitive to CED(Condition on Extraction Domain)-type islands. The reason is
as follows: Attract is, by definition, a target-based (or probe-based, in a more recent
terminology) operation, and, accordingly, minimality is calculated from the viewpoint
of the target/probe (see Chomsky 1995: chapter 4). Simply put, this type of minimality
dictates that a target/probe is allowed to search its c-command domain and find the
closest goal, and the search must come to a halt once the closest goal is found. This
is, the search (or probing) cannot go beyond the closest goal. This is all that matters,
and it does not care about the type of domain (i.e. complement or non-complement)
in which the closest goal is located as long as it is within a c-command domain of

1 For Ochi (2001), the optionality in the timing of the genitive phrase movement is obtained in noun-
complement clauses but not in relative clauses. See below.
668 Masao Ochi

the target/probe. Ochi (1999, 2001) then argues that feature movement is via Attract
and hence is immune to non-Relativized Minimality islands, including the adjunct
island. What is not allowed is for an entire phrase (or a category) to be extracted
out of non-complement domains (because the category movement obeys a different,
“greedy” locality condition). On the basis of these points, Ochi (2001) argues that
while the movement of a no-subject from noun-complement clauses may be overt
(i.e. phrasal) or covert (i.e. via Attract F or Agree), it is restricted to the latter in the
case of GNC in relative clauses.
One possible objection to this line of analysis is the optionality in the timing of
movement associated with the genitive phrase, as pointed out by Maki and Uchibori
(2008). While the affinity between GNC and the ECM construction in English suggests
that it is not an isolated property of GNC, it still begs the question of how we can
capture it. Note that the postulated movement of a no-subject is not scrambling. As
noted by Miyagawa (1993), scrambling cannot apply across an adnominal clause;
observe the lack of a wide scope reading of a scrambled object in the following
example:

(13) Rubii ka sinzyu o Taroo ga kau kanoosei o osiete.

ruby or pearl ACC Taro NOM buy probability ACC tell me
‘Tell me the probability that Taro will buy a ruby or a pearl.’
*‘Tell me the probability that Taro will buy a ruby or the probability that
Taro will buy a pearl.’
probability > [ruby or pearl]; *[ruby or pearl] > probability

For this issue, Ochi simply adopts Lasnik’s suggestion for the ECM, and suggests that
the functional head that licenses genitive (i.e. nominal AGR) is optionally present:
when it is present, it triggers overt movement and when absent covert feature check-
ing takes place between the genitive subject and the head noun. This is arguably an
undesirable aspect of Ochi’s analysis.
There is another issue to consider. Consider the following example from Ochi.
The genitive phrase in this example is clearly out of the adnominal clause, as it
occurs to the left of another modifier (i.e. a relative clause). According to Ochi (2001),
this example lacks the narrow scope of the genitive phrase because (i) the genitive
phrase is raised into the spec of DP in overt syntax and (ii) there is no A-movement
reconstruction.

(14) Rubii ka sinzyu no, kono konpyuutaa ga keisan

ruby or pearl GEN this computer NOM calculate
sita, kotosi yasuku naru kanoosei
did this year cheap become probability
 Ga/No conversion 669

(i) *‘the probability that rubies or pearls become cheap this year which
this computer calculated’
(ii) ‘(?)the probability that rubies become cheap this year or the probability
that pearls become cheap this year which this computer calculated’
*probability > [ruby or pearl]; [ruby or pearl] > probability

But there is an alternative way to interpret this type of data. Suppose that the
genitive phrase is base-generated in the spec of DP as a possessor, which binds (or
controls) a null argument inside the clause with which it is associated. This line of
analysis is also consistent with the lack of a narrow scope reading in (14).

(15) [Rubii ka sinzyu]i no [kono konpyuutaa ga keisan sita]

ruby or pearl GEN this computer NOM calculate did
[proi kotosi yasuku naru] kanoosei
this year cheap become probability

Exploring an analysis of this sort, Maki and Uchibori (2008) suggest that the depen-
dency between the genitive phrase and D is established in covert syntax in examples
like (9) where the no-subject is clearly inside the adnominal clause, and the wide
scope reading of the no-phrase is not due to the movement of the no-phrase, but
to the base-generation of the possessor phrase in the spec of DP that acts as a
controller, a possibility that Hiraiwa (2001) also suggests and refers to as the “pseudo
GNC” (but see note 2 for a potential objection to the pseudo GNC analysis).

2.1.3 Miyagawa (2011)

Extending his (1993) earlier work and placing GNC in a cross-linguistic context,
Miyagawa (2011) proposes that GNC is not a matter of genuine optionality as com-
monly conceived in the literature. Instead, he argues that the nominative and the
genitive occur in distinct types of clauses. The ga-subject is licensed by T that is
selected by C. Hence, it occurs in a CP clause. On the other hand, the genitive,
Miyagawa argues, occurs in a reduced clause, by which he means a bare TP.
Miyagawa provides two arguments for the view that ga and no occur in clauses
of different sizes: pronominal binding and co-occurrence with CP-level adverbs. The
first point is due to Sakai (1994), who observed a contrast between ga and no with
respect to binding of a pronoun that occurs in the adnominal clause.

(16) a. Hanako no [kinoo kanozyo ga yatotta] gakusei

Hanako GEN yesterday she NOM hired student
‘Hanako’s student that she hired yesterday’
670 Masao Ochi

b. ??Hanako no [kinoo kanozyo no yatotta] gakusei

Hanako GEN yesterday she GEN hired student

Sakai (1994) attributes a contrast of this kind to the raising of the genitive subject
into the spec of DP (which, for Sakai, takes place in covert syntax). After raising,
kanozyo no ‘she GEN’ in (16b) is too close to Hanako no ‘Hanako GEN’. Miyagawa
adopts Sakai’s idea and implements it in a slightly different manner. For Miyagawa,
the contrast is due to the difference in the size of the clause containing the nomina-
tive and the genitive. The nominative clause is a full CP, which constitutes an opaque
domain for an external binder. In contrast, the genitive phrase occurs in a reduced
clause, and the latter is transparent and allows binding from outside.2
The second argument for the CP vs. TP distinction involves “high” adverbials
that may or may not occur in the genitive clause. Following Cinque (1999), Miyagawa
(2011) identifies evaluative adverbials, such as saiwai-ni ‘fortunately,’ as CP-level
adverbials (see Chapter 15 [Koizumi, this volume] for more discussion of this point).
He then argues that such high adverbials cannot occur in a clause containing the
genitive subject (but see Nambu 2011 for a different judgment).

(17) [saiwai-ni Taroo ga/*no yomu] hon

fortunately Taro NOM/GEN read book
‘the book that Taro fortunately will read’

One important consequence of this analysis concerns the syntactic locations of the
nominative subject and the genitive subject. The former is licensed by T, which
inherits formal properties including the EPP property and Case-related features
from the C head that occurs immediately above it. Due to the EPP requirement, the
ga-subject raises to the domain of TP. On the other hand, the genitive clause lacks a
CP layer, which, under Miyagawa’s proposal, would mean that T does not inherit any
of such formal features from a higher phase head. The genitive subject therefore
does not have any motivation to move out of its underlying position and thus
remains internal to vP. Note that this hypothesis echoes Watanabe’s (1996) hypothesis,
which will be reviewed in 2.2.1.
Miyagawa discusses several issues in connection with the last point. For instance,
he argues that this line of analysis is in line with S.I. Harada’s (1971) old observation
that the genitive subject (but not the nominative subject) sounds best if it is adjacent
to the predicate of a clause in which it occurs. It begins to sound degraded when an
element or two intervenes between the genitive phrase and the predicate (see Chapter
14 [Koizumi, this volume] for relevant discussion).

2 To the extent that the contrast in (16) is substantial, it would undermine the pseudo GNC analysis
illustrated in (15): pro in this representation, like kanozyo ‘she’ in (16b), should induce a Condition B
violation.
 Ga/No conversion 671

(18) kodomotati ga/*no minnade ikioiyoku kake-nobotta kaidan

children NOM/GEN together vigorously run-climbed.up stairway
‘the stairway which those children ran up together vigorously’

Miyagawa’s explanation for this observation is as follows: In order to occur to the

left of such adjuncts, the genitive subject must undergo movement, but there is no
driving force for such a movement. We will see later on that this difference between
ga and no with respect to their surface positions is more clearly observable in some
dialects of Japanese. Miyagawa also relates this issue to the transitivity restriction,
which will be taken up in section 4.2.
While quite insightful, there are some aspects of Miyagawa’s analysis that need
careful scrutiny. First, as reviewed above, he claims that the alternation between ga
and no is not a matter of genuine optionality but is conditioned by the size of an
adnominal clause: the nominative subject occurs in a CP and the genitive subject in
a bare TP. We therefore expect the two types of subjects to be mutually exclusive. As
Miyagawa himself acknowledges, however, this is not the case. As we already saw
in (6), ga and no do co-occur in the same clause.

(19) a. Taroo ga eigo no wakaru koto

Taro NOM English GEN understand thing
‘the fact that Taro understands English’

b. Taroo no eigo ga wakaru koto

Taro GEN English NOM understand thing

For reasons having to do with the analysis entertained in Miyagawa (2012), which
will be reviewed in section 2.3, the ga-no sequence illustrated in (19a) does not pose
a problem for Miyagawa (2011). However, the availability of the no-ga sequence illus-
trated in (19b) is unexpected under his analysis. Miyagawa speculates that the
nominative on the object in such cases is presumably licensed in a manner that
does not rely on the C-T association. This issue will be considered in section 3.3.
Second, Miyagawa attributes the distinct scope properties of the nominative and
the genitive phrases that we saw in (8) to the phase-bound nature of quantifier raising
(QR). Ga-subject occurs in a CP, which is a phase. Hence it cannot take scope over
the head noun. No-subject, on the other hand, occurs in a TP that lacks a CP layer.
Since TP is not a phase, the no-subject is free to take scope over the head noun. But
this analysis faces the same difficulty that Miyagawa (1993) did with respect to
the unambiguity of examples such as (11b). It would be necessary to say that a
QRed element cannot move across an adjunct element (e.g. kotosi ‘this year), but
that needs independent justifications.
672 Masao Ochi

2.2 C-licensing approaches

We now turn to another influential line of approach to GNC, often referred to in the
literature as C-licensing approaches, which are represented by Watanabe (1996) and
Hiraiwa (2001, 2005). Although the two authors diverge on the specifics of their
proposals, they both called into question the role of D in GNC by presenting GNC
examples that (seemingly) occur in the absence of a nominal head (and hence D).

2.2.1 Watanabe (1996)

Watanabe’s (1996) analysis, which is couched in the early minimalist framework,

attempts to bring a cross-linguistic perspective to an analysis of GNC. He argues
that essentially the same mechanism lies behind GNC in Japanese and stylistic inver-
sion (SI) in French. In order to establish this point, he points out a few similarities
between the two constructions, including (but certainly not limited to) optionality
and the transitivity restriction (see Watanabe 1996 for details). He also argues that
GNC is not about Case alternation as standardly assumed. For Watanabe, ga and
no are two distinct manifestations of the nominative Case, with their distributions
correlating with the distinct structural positions in which the “nominative” phrase
occurs. While ga appears when the nominative phrase is external to VP, no appears
when the nominative phrase remains VP-internal, which is possible in the domain of
wh-extraction (e.g. relative clauses and comparatives). For this reason, Watanabe
considers no as a manifestation of wh-agreement. And it is for this reason that
Watanabe’s analysis has often been categorized as a C-licensing approach, although
C actually plays a somewhat indirect role in his analysis.
Watanabe’s analysis can be schematically illustrated below. Consider the example
in (20), which shows TR effects with the no-subject (see section 4.2 for more on this
issue).

(20) Zyon ga/*no hon o kasita hito

John NOM/GEN book ACC lent person
‘the person to whim John lent a book’

According to Watanabe, although TP (in the Pollockian sense) is present in the struc-
ture, its spec is not available as an intermediate landing site in languages such as
Japanese and French (see Watanabe 1996 for details on this). The derivation of (20)
with a ga-subject is shown in (21)–(22). The subject moves to the spec of AGRsP in
overt syntax, as shown in (21). At LF, the accusative object moves to the spec of
AGRoP, as shown in (22). Note that although the object movement crosses the trace
of the subject in the spec of VP, no minimality violation arises because the spec of VP
and the spec of AGRoP are rendered equidistant as a result of the verb movement.
 Ga/No conversion 673

(21) [CP [Agr-sP Johni Agr [TP T [Agr-oP [VP ti hon tk kasita ]]]]] hitok
↑_____________________|

(22) [CP [Agr-sP Johni Agr [TP T [Agr-oP honj [VP ti tj tk kasita ]]]]] hitok
↑________|

On the other hand, the derivation with no-subject, which remains VP-internal in
overt syntax, induces a minimality violation at LF. This is because the LF movement
of the subject into the spec of AGRsP needs to cross the object in the spec of AGRoP
and yet the two spec positions cannot be made equidistant (recall that the spec of TP
is not available in Japanese under Watanabe’s analysis).

(23) [CP [Agr-sP Johni Agr [TP T [Agr-oP honj [VP ti tj tk kasita ]]]]] hitok
↑________|
↑_______×_________________|

Some questions have been posed against this analysis, including the absence of GNC
in wh-questions (see Hiraiwa 2001, 2005). Nevertheless, Watanabe’s analysis has
been influential in the subsequent development in the field. Among other things,
his claim that the ga-subject and the no-subject occupy distinct structural positions
is gaining empirical support not only from standard Japanese (Miyagawa 2011) but
also, and perhaps more clearly, from some dialects spoken on the island of Kyushu,
where GNC occurs much more extensively (see section 3).

2.2.2 Hiraiwa (2001, 2005)

Hiraiwa’s analysis is more directly committed to the view that C is the key player
in GNC. Based on a detailed investigation of the morphosyntax of complementizer
systems in Japanese and beyond, Hiraiwa proposes that GNC in Japanese (and else-
where) occurs in clauses whose predicates are nominalized. In Japanese, this nomi-
nalized inflection corresponds to the Predicate Adnominal (P.-A.) form (Rentai-kei).
He then goes on to argue that this P.-A. form is a syntactic reflex of a special C-T
relation.3
Hiraiwa offers a cross-linguistic analysis of GNC(-like) constructions by examining
a wide range of data from a number of unrelated languages. Among other things,
he argues that Turkish supports his C-licensing analysis of Japanese. Turkish has
a possessive agreement marker, which typically occurs on the nominal head in a

3 Hiraiwa (2001: 72) has a slightly different formulation: “The syntactic C-T-V head amalgamate
formed via AGREE corresponds to the special verbal inflection predicate adnominal form (the P.-A.
form).”
674 Masao Ochi

possessive construction. In the genitive subject construction, this marker shows agree-
ment with a genitive subject and appears on the predicate of the adnominal clause,
and not on the external nominal head.

(24) Dün Mary nin bas-i-na koy-dig-u toko

yesterday Mary 3.GEN head-3.SG.POSS put-NMLZ-3.SG.POSS hairclip
‘the hairclip which Mary put on her head yesterday’ (Hiraiwa 2005: 123)

This is a good indication that the C-system is involved in the licensing of the genitive
Case in Turkish.
One crucial aspect of his analysis is that the same type of C-T association acts as
a probe for both nominative (ga) and genitive (no). As Hiraiwa himself notes, this
hypothesis nicely captures the fact, shown for example in (6), that a ga-phrase and
a no-phrase freely co-occur in any order in the same clause, which may be unexpected
if ga and no are licensed by distinct probes as argued by the proponents of the D-
licensing approach. At the same time, his analysis faces a challenge with respect to
data such as (18), which shows that the two types of subjects do appear to occur in
distinct syntactic positions, as Hiraiwa explicitly argues that the no-subject, like the
ga-subject, raises to the spec of TP.
All in all, Hiraiwa’s analysis has had a significant impact on the field. One of
the important contributions of his work comes from the wide range of data that he
provides as counterexamples to the D-licensing approach. In particular, he provides
data of the following kind to demonstrate that GNC occurs in the absence of a head
noun.4 Note in this context that the significance of the GNC in comparative clauses
(see (25b)) was originally pointed out by Watanabe (1996).

(25) a. Taroo wa [ame ga/no yamu made] ofisu ni ita.

Taro TOP rain NOM/GEN stop.PRS.ADN until office at was.
‘Taro was at his office until the rain stopped.’

b. Taroo wa [Hanako ga/no yonda yori]

Taro TOP Hanako NOM/GEN read.ADN than
takusan no hon o yonda.
many GEN book ACC read.CONCL
‘Taro read more books than Hanako.’

c. [Boku ga/no omou ni] Taroo wa

I NOM/GEN think.ADN DAT Taro TOP
Hanako ga sukini tigaina-i.
Hanako NOM like must-PRS
‘I think that Taro likes Hanako.’

4 Hiraiwa also discusses GNC in cleft constructions and head-internal relative clauses as counter-
examples for the D-licensing approach.
 Ga/No conversion 675

d. [Sengetu ikkai denwa ga/no atta kiri]

last month once call NOM/GEN be.PST.ADN since
Taroo kara nanimo renraku ga nai.
Taro from any call NOM be.not
‘There has been no call from Taro since he called me up once last month.’

e. Kono atari wa [hi ga/no kureru

this area TOP sun NOM/GEN go.down.PRS.ADN
niture(te)] hiekonde kuru.
as colder.get come.PRS
‘It gets chillier as the sun goes down around here.’

f. Taroo wa [toki ga/no tatu to tomoni]

Taro TOP time NOM/GEN pass.ADN with as
Hanako no koto o wasurete itta.
Hanako-GEN fact ACC forget go.PST
‘Hanako slipped out of Taro’s memory as times went by.’

g. [Taroo ga/no kuru to konai to]

Taro NOM/GEN come.ADN and come.not.ADN and
de wa ootigai da.
TOP great.difference be.PRS
‘It makes a great difference whether Taro comes or not.’

Hiraiwa then notes that the genitive clauses in these examples have predicates in the
P.-A. forms (although, as he notes, it is not possible to demonstrate this point for the
GNC clauses in (25c–g) in Modern Japanese).

(26) Zyon wa izyoona made ni sinkeisitu da.

John TOP extraordinary.ADN extent DAT nervous be
‘John is extremely nervous.’

(27) Zyon no koto ga sinpaina yorimo

John GEN thing NOM worried.ADN than
Hanako no koto ga sinpai da.
Hanako GEN thing NOM worried be.CONCL
‘I am worried about Hanako rather than about John.’

Such observations led to the proliferation of interesting works on GNC. For example,
in defense of the D-licensing approach, Maki and Uchibori (2008) (see also N. Harada
2002) argue that such examples in fact contain a phonologically null noun that selects
676 Masao Ochi

a genitive clause. As they point out, adding the nominalizer no as a head of the
embedded clause in many of these examples does not affect interpretation. As for
(25a), Maki and Uchibori postulate a silent counterpart of toki ‘time’ that selects the
adnominal clause (but see below for an objection to this point).

(28) Taroo wa [ame ga/no yamu toki made] ofisu ni ita.

Taro TOP rain NOM/GEN stop.PRS.ADN time until office at was.
‘Taro was at his office until the time that the rain stopped.’

Sudo (2009) also argues on independent grounds that what looks like a clausal com-
parative in Japanese, in which GNC is allowed (to some extent, with some speaker
variations), in fact contains a silent degree noun such as ryoo ‘amount’ or a silent
concrete noun (such as hon ‘book’ in the case under discussion). According to
Sudo, (25) is analyzed as in (29).

(29) Taroo wa [Hanako ga/no yonda ryoo/hon

Taro TOP Hanako NOM/GEN read.ADN amount/book
yori] takusan no hon o yonda.
than many GEN book ACC read

Takahashi (2010), however, provides evidence that (25a) and (28) do not share the
same syntactic structure. One of the differences that Takahashi points out lies in
the scope property of the genitive subject. Recall that the genitive subject, unlike
the nominative subject, may take scope over the head noun (see (8b)). In the clause
headed by made ‘until’, the presence/absence of an overt head noun makes a
difference:

(30) a. [Taroo ka Hanako ga kuru zikan made] mati-masyoo.

Taro or Hanako NOM come time until wait-let.us
‘Let’s wait until the time when Taro or Hanako comes.’
*‘Let’s wait until the time Taro comes or the time Hanako comes.’

b. [Taroo ka Hanako no kuru zikan made] mati-masyoo.

Taro or Hanako GEN come time until wait-let.us
‘Let’s wait until the time when Taro or Hanako comes.’
‘Let’s wait until the time Taro comes or the time Hanako comes.’

(31) a. [Taroo ka Hanako ga kuru made] mati-masyoo.

Taro or Hanako NOM come until wait-let.us
‘Let’s wait until the time Taro or Hanako comes.’
*‘Let’s wait until the time Taro comes or the time Hanako comes.’
 Ga/No conversion 677

b. [Taroo ka Hanako no kuru made] mati-masyoo.

Taro or Hanako GEN come until wait-let.us
‘Let’s wait until the time when Taro or Hanako comes.’
*‘Let’s wait until the time Taro comes or the time Hanako comes.’

When an overt head noun is present, the wide scope reading of the genitive subject
is available, as shown in (30b). The absence of the wide scope reading of the
genitive subject in (31b), which lacks an overt head noun, is an indication that no
silent head noun is present in this case, Takahashi reasons.

2.3 Miyagawa (2012) on Genitive of Dependent Tense

Accepting Takahashi’s (2010) overall conclusion, Miyagawa (2012) argues that the
genitive in cases like (25a) is an entirely different type of genitive, what he calls
genitive of dependent tense (GDT). His proposal rests on another observation made
by Takahashi (2010): virtually all the examples that Hiraiwa (2001) provides as
evidence against the D-licensing approach, including those with made ‘until’ and
toki ‘when,’ employ unaccusative predicates.5 Replacing the unaccusative predicate
by an unergative predicate results in degradation in acceptability.

(32) a. [Kodomo ga/*no waratta toki], tonari no heya ni ita.

child NOM/GEN laughed when next GEN room in was
‘When the child laughed, I was in the next room.’

b. [Kodomo ga/no kita toki], tonari no heya ni ita.

child NOM/GEN came when next GEN room in was
‘I was in the next room when the child came.’
(see Miyagawa 2012: 151–152)

This point also suggests that the genitive in (25a) is not licensed by C, either, since
the C-licensing approach would not expect the choice of the predicate to affect the
acceptability of the genitive subject in the temporal adjunct clause. Rather, the con-
trast between (32a) and (32b) suggests that this type of genitive marking targets only
internal arguments.
Miyagawa (2012) argues that this type of special genitive marking in Japanese
is akin to the genitive of negation in Slavic (see Pesetsky 1982; among others), a
phenomenon where an internal argument may optionally bear genitive in a negative
clause. Some representative paradigms of the latter are shown below (see Pesetsky
1982):

5 Miyagawa assumes that toki is a C head when it occurs as the head of a temporal adjunct clause.
678 Masao Ochi

(33) direct object

a. Ja ne polučal pis’ma.
I NEG received letters.ACC.PL
‘I didn’t receive the letters/?any letters.’

b. Ja ne polučal pisem.
I NEG received letters.GEN.PL
‘I didn’t receive *the letters/any letters.’

(34) unaccusative subject

a. Griby zdes’ ne rastut.
mushrooms.NOM here NEG grow.3PL

b. Gribov zdes’ ne rastët.

mushrooms.GEN here NEG grow.3SG

(35) unergative subject

a. Ni odin rebënok ne prygnul.
not one child.MASC.SG.NOM NEG jumped.MASC.SG

b. *Ni odnogo rebënka ne prygnulo.

not one child.MASC.SG.GEN NEG jumped.NEUT.SG

Note, however, that there are obvious differences between the two types of genitives.
For example, while the genitive of negation occurs exclusively in a clause with nega-
tion, this is clearly not the case in Japanese. Another difference is that the type of
genitive in Japanese that we saw in (25a) occurs only in embedded contexts (just
like the other, more familiar kind of genitive that occurs in the adnominal clause),
but the genitive of negation in Russian does occur in root clauses. Despite those
differences, Miyagawa argues that the two genitive constructions can be analyzed
in parallel once the details are fleshed out. He proposes that a common factor
for the two genitive constructions is (weak) v. This explains the generalization that
only internal arguments can be genitive, as external arguments reside outside the
c-command domain of v. He further proposes that the type of genitive under dis-
cussion is assigned by a combination of v and another element that occurs in its
vicinity: negation in the case of Russian and a specific type of tense, dependent
tense, in the case of Japanese. Thus, in Slavic, genitive is (optionally) assigned to
an internal argument by a combination of (weak) v and negation, and in Japanese,
by a combination of weak v and dependent tense.
As for the notion of dependent tense, Miyagawa adopts Ogihara’s (1994) proposal
that the semantics of the tense in subordinate temporal adverbial clauses is not fully
specified, and its semantics is in part determined in relation to the tense in an imme-
diately higher clause. The following is an example from Miyagawa (2013: 11).
 Ga/No conversion 679

(36) [Hanako ga te o ageru/ageta toki] kore o watasite kudasai.

Hanako NOM hand ACC raise/raised when this ACC give please
‘Please hand this (to her) when Hanako (lit.) raises/raised her hand.’

As Ogihara notes, even when the verb of a temporal adjunct clause is inflected for
past (e.g. ageta), the clause itself refers to a future event: the past tense morpheme
in this case simply implicates that “the adverbial clause event (or state) occurs in
the past of the matrix clause” (Ogihara 1994: 257). Similarly, when a non-past tense
occurs on the verb in the same adjunct clause, the event is still a future event, which
occurs “simultaneously (or subsequent to) the event or state described in the matrix
clause” (Ogihara 1994: 257).
Miyagawa’s proposal captures the two obvious differences between the two geni-
tive constructions mentioned above. GDT in Japanese is indifferent to the polarity of
a clause because negation does not play a role in the conditions for GDT. Further,
GDT cannot occur in the root clause because dependent tense, by definition, does
not occur in the root clause. Instead, it occurs in certain types of subordinate
clauses, especially those temporal adjunct clauses with made ‘until’ and toki ‘when’.
Unlike GDT in Japanese, the genitive marking in Russian does not care about tense,
and hence is indifferent to the root vs. non-root distinction.
While this line of analysis is novel and intriguing, it also faces some challenges.
For example, as Miyagawa himself notes, the presence of a weak v and dependent
tense does not always license GDT (see footnote 9 of Miyagawa (2012) for an illustra-
tion of this point with conditional adverbial clauses). Also, the genitive of negation
in Russian alternates with accusative, which is not the case with GDT (see (5) in
section 1). We should also note that the genitive of negation applies to VP-internal
adjuncts as well (Pesetsky 1982):

(37) a. ja odin čas ne spal.

I one hour.MASC.ACC.SG NEG slept
‘I didn’t sleep for one hour.’

b. ?ja odnogo časa ne spal.

I one hour.MASC.GEN.SG NEG slept

According to Pesetsky (1982: 216), (37a) tends to mean that “there was a one hour
period in which I did not sleep”, while (37b) means “I didn’t even sleep for an
hour” (i.e. slept for less), although (37a) can also have the latter interpretation. We
find no comparable alternation in Japanese.

(38) Hamabe o/*no aruku toki, tyuui-site kudasai.

shore ACC/GEN walk when attention-do please
‘Please watch out when you walk on the shore.’
680 Masao Ochi

Thus, there is some degree of uncertainty associated with the alleged parallel drawn
between GDT in Japanese and the genitive of negation in Russian. Nevertheless,
section 3.2 will introduce an analysis according to which the weak v-licensing is
productively used in some dialects of Japanese.

3 GNC in independent clauses

Up to now, we have focused on the GNC in standard Japanese, where the domain of
GNC is confined to adnominal clauses and a subset of temporal adjunct clauses.
However, it is known that GNC enjoys a much wider distribution in dialects spoken
in parts of Kyushu Island, e.g. Saga, some parts of Fukuoka, most parts of Kuma-
moto, and Nagasaki. This section will introduce some key data from the past litera-
ture on GNC in these dialects as well as new sets of data from Nagasaki Japanese
(NJ) discussed by Ochi and Saruwatari (in press).

3.1 Previous works on GNC in independent clauses

As already mentioned, GNC occurs in the root clause in those dialects. One intrigu-
ing property of GNC in these Kyushu dialects is that the alternation between ga and
no is not totally free but is governed by interpretative considerations. In particular,
authors such as Hatsushima (1998), Kato (2007), Yoshimura (2007), and Nishioka (in
press) observe that ga is typically used for the exhaustive listing (EL) reading while
no is reserved for the neutral description (ND) reading in the sense of Kuno (1973)
(see also Kuroda 1965).6 This point holds in Nagasaki Japanese, too. Thus, the prom-
inent reading of (39) is an ND reading, and replacing no by ga makes the EL reading
salient.

(39) Basu no ki-ta.

Bus GEN come-PST
‘The bus has come.’ [*standard J; √ NJ]

How to characterize the EL reading in formal terms is an issue that is beyond the
scope of this chapter. For concreteness, let us assume that it amounts to narrow
focus (see Heycock 2008), although this chapter continues to use the term ‘exhaus-
tive listing reading’, following the familiar practice in the literature.
The interpretive distinction between ga and no mentioned above helps us to
confirm that the GNC in independent clauses in NJ and the GNC in adnominal

6 Although this may be a matter of preference rather than an absolute requirement in some cases.
 Ga/No conversion 681

clauses in SJ (and in NJ) are indeed of the same species. As shown in (40), no cannot
appear on a subject that is modified by a focus particle such as dake ‘only’ (see
Hatsushima 1998; Kato 2007). The same restriction has been noted for the GNC
in the adnominal clause in SJ by Akaso and Haraguchi (2011) and Miyagawa (2013),
as shown in (41). This commonality between the two instances of genitive clearly
indicates that the genitive subject in the main clause in NJ and the one in adnominal
clauses in SJ (and also in NJ) should be grouped together as the same type of genitive
phrase.

(40) Kon naka jaa Taroo dake ga/*no gaikoku ni itta to bai.
these among in.TOP Taro only NOM/*GEN foreign.country to went C
‘Among these people, it is only Taro who has been to foreign countries.’

(41) Taroo dake ga/*no itta kuni

Taro only NOM/*GEN went country
‘the country that only Taro went’

Also, as Kuno (1973) notes, the ga-subject of an individual-level predicate necessarily

yields an EL reading in the root clause, but the situation is different in the embedded
context, where the same type of subject may have either of the two readings. This
makes the GNC in the matrix clause all the more important, since the distinction
between the two readings under discussion is more easily detectable in the GNC in
the matrix clause.
Returning to the main discussion, Kato (2007) claims that interpretation is not
the only factor that distinguishes ga and no. She argues for a structural condition
on GNC: ga-subject is vP-external and no-subject is vP-internal (recall that this is
precisely what Watanabe (1996) claims for GNC in standard Japanese). Her proposal
is based on the observation that no cannot appear on a transitive subject nor on the
subject of a stative predicate, as shown in (42a) and (43b).7 On the other hand, no is

7 A remark is in order here regarding (40). Given the ungrammaticality of (42a) with no on the
transitive subject, one might say that (40) with no on the unergative subject is likewise ruled out
independently of the presence of the focus particle dake. As (i) below shows, however, an example
like (40) with the no-subject is fine if dake is removed.
(i) Taroo ga/no gaikoku ni itta to bai.
Taro NOM/GEN foreign.country to went C
‘Taro went to foreign a foreign country/foreign countries.’
One crucial difference between (42a) and (i) concerns the right periphery of a clause (see section 3.2
for details). The acceptable sentence in (i) ends with a combination of discourse particles (to and
bai), whereas (42) has just bai at the end. Ochi and Saruwatari (in press), which will be introduced
in section 3.2, report that examples like (42) with no on the transitive subject improve significantly
when the sentence ending is enriched with an additional discourse particle.
682 Masao Ochi

allowed on a transitive subject when the object is scrambled (42b) and on the object
of a stative predicate (43a). In fact, no is preferred in the latter cases.

(42) a. Taroo ga/*no son syoosetu ba koota bai.

Taro NOM/GEN the novel ACC bought SFP
‘Taro bought the novel.’

b. Son syoosetu ba Taroo ga/no koota bai.

the novel ACC Taro NOM/GEN bought SFP

(43) a. Taroo ga eigo ?ga/no dekuru to.

Taro NOM English Nom/GEN can C
‘Taro is capable of English.’

b. *Taroo no eigo ga/no dekuru to.

Taro GEN English NOM/GEN can C

The unavailability of no in (43b) naturally follows from the generalization that no

is incompatible with the EL reading. As is well known, the subject of an individual
predicate (including stative predicates such as dekiru ‘can/capable’) necessarily
receives an EL reading in the root clause. The contrast in (42) is crucial for Kato,
whose analysis is based on Miyagawa’s (2001) EPP-based analysis of scrambling.
According to Kato, no does not appear in (42a) because the subject in this case is in
the spec of TP. In (42b), on the other hand, the scrambled object satisfies the EPP,
allowing the subject to remain in vP. Note that ga is also allowed in this example
because of another derivation in which the subject is in the spec of TP and the object
has undergone A-bar scrambling. Note also that to the extent that (42b) is acceptable
with the genitive subject, it shows that this dialect does not show TR effects. This
point will be discussed in section 4.2.
So, we seem to have two general conditions imposed on the GNC in Kyushu
Japanese. One involves interpretation (exhaustive listing vs. neutral description) and
the other involves structure (vP-external vs. vP-internal). If they go hand in hand (see
also Nishioka in press), the following picture will emerge. The ga-phrase is located
outside vP and receives the EL reading. The no-phrase is vP-internal and yields the
ND reading. While this correlation between interpretation and structure seems to be
fairly robust, there is an exception. As the following data from NJ shows, a focus
particle may appear on a no-object (see section 4.1 for more discussion of this issue).

(44) Hanako ga huransugo dake no hanas-e-ru to yo.

Hanako NOM French only GEN speak-can-PRS C
‘(Listen,) Hanako can speak only French.’
 Ga/No conversion 683

Let us now examine the matrix GNC in Kyushu Japanese in relation to the matrix
clause in standard Japanese where no does not occur. Does the structural distinction
between ga and no established in Kyushu Japanese also hold in standard Japanese
despite the surface difference? That is, could it be that the sole difference between
Kyushu Japanese and standard Japanese is that the same grammatical property (i.e.
nominative Case) receives two distinct phonetic realizations in the former but not in
the latter? Perhaps a concrete example will be helpful in making the issue clearer.
According to this line of hypothesis, (45), which has both the EL reading and the
ND reading in standard Japanese, would be structurally ambiguous. The EL reading
is obtained when the subject moves out of vP, whereas the ND reading comes out of
the structure in which the nominative phrase remains within vP.

(45) Basu ga ki-ta.

bus NOM come-PST
‘The bus has come.’ [standard Japanese]
a. [CP [TP busi-NOM [vP ti came-v] T] C] (EL)
b. [CP [TP [vP bus-NOM came-v] T] C] (ND)

The answer is negative, for the following reason. According to Kishimoto (2001), an
indeterminate pronoun may function as a negative polarity item (NPI) when it is
bound at LF by the Q particle mo. When mo is attached to a lexical verb, only those
elements that are inside a vP are bound by mo (presumably because a verb suffixed
with mo is located at the v-position). As Kishimoto notes, there is a subject/object
asymmetry in the construction with V+mo: unlike the object, the subject cannot be
licensed in this type of construction, regardless of the type of the predicate.

(46) a. Taroo ga nani o kai mo si-nakat-ta.

Taro NOM anything ACC buy Q do-NEG-PST
‘Taro didn’t buy anything.’

b. *Dare ga hon o kai mo si-nakat-ta.

anyone NOM book ACC buy Q do-NEG-PST
‘Anyone didn’t buy a book.’

(47) a. *Dare ga warai mo si-nakat-ta.

anyone NOM laugh Q do-NEG-PST
‘Anyone didn’t laugh.’

b. *Dare ga ki mo si-nakat-ta.
anyone NOM come Q do-NEG-PST
‘Anyone didn’t come.’
684 Masao Ochi

With this point in mind, let us consider the following pair of data in (48) from
Nagasaki Japanese in relation to (47b) from standard Japanese. The data show two
things. First, the ga-marked subject in (48a) is indeed outside vP whereas the no-
subject in (48b) is located internal to vP, which corroborates Kato’s (2007) conclusion
that the choice between ga and no reflects a structural difference. Second, and more
importantly, (45) in standard Japanese is not structurally ambiguous. Rather, the ga-
subject in standard Japanese always moves out of vP (by LF, at least). The no-subject
in Kyushu Japanese stays within vP throughout the derivation, an option not avail-
able for the ga-marked subject in Kyushu dialects (see (48a)) or for the ga-subject in
standard Japanese (see (47b)).

(48) a. *Dai ga ki mo se-nkat-ta.

anyone NOM come Q do-NEG-PST

b. Dai no ki mo se-nkat-ta.
anyone GEN come Q do-NEG-PST (see Saruwatari 2015)

In short, there does seem to be a crucial difference between standard Japanese and
the Kyushu dialects under discussion with respect to the nature of the EPP in the
matrix clause: in standard Japanese, the requirement is a must whereas in Kyushu
dialects, this requirement can be suspended.

3.2 D-licensing, C-licensing and v-licensing

This subsection will sketch a possible line of analysis explored in Ochi and Saruwatari
(in press). Before introducing their main proposal, let us recall Kato’s (2007) claim
that GNC in Kumamoto Japanese cannot target the external argument.

(49) a. Hanako no ki-ta.

Hanako GEN come-PST
‘Hanako came.’

b. *Hanako no warat-ta.
Hanako GEN laugh-PST
‘Hanako laughed.’

(50) a. Taroo ga eigo ?ga/no dekuru to.

Taro NOM English NOM/GEN can C
‘Taro is capable of English.’

b. *Taroo no eigo ga/no dekuru to.

Taro GEN English NOM/GEN can C
 Ga/No conversion 685

Investigating a dialect spoken in Nagasaki, Ochi and Saruwatari (in press) observe
that the external subject can indeed be marked with no (i) in a progressive form
and (ii) in the presence of a certain combination of discourse/modal particles, such
as to + yo and to + bai:

(51) a. Taroo ga/no warat-to-ru.

Taro NOM/GEN laugh-TE-be.PRS
‘Taro is laughing.’

b. Taroo ga/no warat-ta to yo/to bai.

Taro NOM/GEN laugh-PST C
‘Hey (Listen), Taro laughed.’

Similarly, Ochi and Saruwatari (in press) observe that while the NJ counterparts of
(50a, b) show a similar contrast (i.e. subject/object asymmetry), such contrast dis-
appears if the sentence ending is enriched.

(52) a. Taroo ga eigo ?ga/no dekuru to yo/bai.

Taro NOM English NOM/GEN can C
‘Taro is capable of English.’

b. Taroo no eigo ?ga/no dekuru to yo/bai.

Taro GEN English NOM/GEN can C

Thus, the addition of yo or bai to the right of to (which corresponds to no for stan-
dard Japanese) makes a difference. Following the recent practice in the literature,
Ochi and Saruwatari assume that these particles occur as distinct syntactic heads
in the articulated CP area (in the cartographic sense). For example, Saito (2013)
argues that the sentence-ending particle no in SJ (which corresponds to to in NJ) is
a Finite head. Kido (2013) argues that bai is located at Force.
It is instructive in this context to introduce Hasegawa’s (2008; cf. 2010 also)
discussion of the ND reading in the matrix clause. According to Hasegawa, the ND
reading of a ga-subject has a specific requirement in the matrix clause that need
not be met in embedded contexts: the ND reading in the matrix clause is possible
if the clause is a “presentational” sentence, which, roughly put, has the function
of describing an unfolding event or a state that is newly noted by the speaker and
presenting it to the hearer as new information. Crucially, Hasegawa explicitly refers
to the progressive aspect and the presence of particular discourse particles as crucial
elements for turning a root sentence into a presentational mode:

(53) a. *?Oya, Taroo ga hon o yon-da.

Oh Taro NOM book ACC read-PST
‘Oh, Taro read a book.’
686 Masao Ochi

b. Oya, Taroo ga hon o yon-de-iru.

Oh Taro NOM book ACC read-TE-be.PRS
‘Oh, Taro is reading a book.’

c. Oya, Taroo ga hon o yon-da yo.

Oh Taro NOM book ACC read-PST C
‘Oh, Taro read a book.’

As a technical implementation of this idea, Hasegawa proposes that the ND read-

ing in the matrix C requires a specific type of C-system. She postulates the feature
[+presentational] (or [+p] for short), which appears on the matrix Force head and
demands certain lexical items such as a progressive morpheme or a discourse
particle within the same clause. Ochi and Saruwatari’s (in press) observation thus
fits in well with Hasegawa’s (2008) description of the ND reading in the matrix clause.
Let us therefore suppose that the C-system consisting of Fin and Force (among other C
heads) plays an important role in licensing no on the external argument of the matrix
clause.
Two points are worth highlighting before going into the details of Ochi and
Saruwatari’s (in press) analysis. First, as Hasegawa (2008) (see also Kuno 1973) notes,
an unaccusative predicate does not require such sentence-endings in order for the
clause to be presentational.

(54) Oya, basu ga ki-ta.

Oh bus NOM come-PST
‘Oh, the bus has come.’

This would mean that licensing no on an unaccusative subject in NJ does not

depend on the C-system.
Second, the ga-subject and the no-subject have different scope properties irrespec-
tive of the predicate types. This shows that Ochi and Saruwatari’s new observations
conform to Kato’s (2007) generalization: no-subject remains within vP, whether it
occurs with an unaccusative predicate or an unergative predicate.

(55) a. Zen’in ga ko-n.

all NOM come-NEG (all > not; *not > all)
‘Everyone hasn’t come.’

b. Zen’in no ko-n.
all GEN come-NEG ((?)all > not; not > all)

(56) a. Zen’in ga hasira-n to yo/bai.

all NOM run-NEG C
‘Everyone doesn’t run.’ (all > not; *not > all)
 Ga/No conversion 687

b. Zen’in no hasira-n to yo/bai.

all GEN run-NEG C ((?)all > not; not > all)

Now, Ochi and Saruwatari’s main proposal is summarized below:

(57) Genitive Case licensors

(i) in standard Japanese (SJ):
a. D (Miyagawa 1993; Ochi 2001 etc.)
b. weak v, in conjunction with dependent tense (Miyagawa 2012)
(ii) in Nagasaki Japanese (NJ):
a. D
b. weak v
c. C (combinations of a Finite head and a Force head)

(58) Independent clauses project up to TP when there is no overt complementizer.

According to this line of analysis, Standard Japanese has two modes of genitive Case
licensing, D-licensing and GDT, neither of which is available in the matrix clause. On
the other hand, the list of GNC licensors is more extensive in Nagasaki Japanese.
First, various complementizers license genitive.8 Second, weak v licenses genitive
on its own.
Now let us examine (49). In (49a), the genitive on the unaccusative subject is
licensed by weak v, as shown below. By contrast, the genitive on the unergative
subject is not licensed in (49b) because none of the GNC licensors listed in (57ii) is
in the structure. Note that the assumption in (58) is crucial for this line of analysis.

(59) a. [TP [vP [VP hanako-no ki] v] ta]

↑__________|

b. [TP [vP hanako-no [VP warai] v] ta]

And the contrast between (49b) and (51b) is due to the presence of a complex C-system
(consisting of Fin and Force) in the latter.
As for the progressive example (51a), we could follow Hasegawa (2008) and
assume that a progressive form is somehow tied to the C-system. If so, the C-system
would license genitive on the external argument in this case as well. As an alterna-
tive, Ochi and Saruwatari suggest that no in (51a) is licensed by weak v. Here are two
crucial points of their analysis. First, -toru (-teiru for standard Japanese) consists of

8 The no-subject is systematically allowed in a wide range of subordinate clauses in Nagasaki

Japanese. See Ochi and Saruwatari (in press) for details. Due to space limitation, the discussion in
this section is confined to the GNC in the matrix clause.
688 Masao Ochi

-te and the unaccusative verb oru ‘be/exist’ (iru for standard Japanese). Second, the
verbal suffix -te is a T head that is not selected by C (see Nakatani 2013). In essence,
Ochi and Saruwatari assume the -toru clause to be bi-clausal. Specifically, following
Nakatani (2013), they assume that the unaccusative verb oru ‘be/exist’ in the pro-
gressive form selects a TP complement headed by -te. Under this set of assumptions,
the genitive in (51a) is licensed by the weak v that occurs on top of oru.

(60) [TP1 [vP1 [VP1 [TP2 [vP2 taroo-no [VP2 warai] v2 ] te (=T2 )] oru] v1 ] T1 ]
↑__________________________________|

But is there any clear evidence that weak v is indeed able to license genitive on its
own in Nagasaki Japanese? Ochi and Saruwatari provide one piece of evidence for
this hypothesis. Consider (61), in which the adjunct clause headed by -te contains
an unergative predicate. Here the genitive marking on the unergative subject is not
allowed in Nagasaki Japanese (nor in SJ) because (i) there is no weak v in the
adjunct clause here (v in this case is a strong v) and (ii) -te clause is a bare TP,
lacking a CP layer. Note that this example will be well formed in both dialects if no
is replaced by ga.

(61) Hanako no odot-te, minna wa yorokon-da.

Hanako GEN dance-TE everyone TOP rejoice-PST
‘Everyone was glad as Hanako danced.’
[*standard J; ?*Nagasaki J]

The genitive subject of an unaccusative predicate in the same environment, on the

other hand, is possible in Nagasaki Japanese, but not in Standard Japanese. Again,
the example would be fine in both dialects with ga on Hanako.

(62) Hanako no ki-te, minna wa yorokon-da.

Hanako GEN come-TE everyone TOP rejoice-PST
‘Everyone was glad as Hanako came.’
[*standard J; √ Nagasaki J]

Ochi and Saruwatari’s analysis of this contrast goes as follows. First, the ungramma-
ticality of (62) in SJ indicates that -te, which is regarded as T (a temporal sequential
marker according to Nakatani 2013), does not qualify as dependent tense in the
sense of Miyagawa (2012): If it did, this example should be fine in SJ. Given this
point, the grammaticality of the same example in NJ shows that genitive is licensed
by weak v, and by weak v alone.
 Ga/No conversion 689

Some comments are in order regarding Ochi and Saruwatari’s analysis. Accord-
ing to their analysis, every major phase head (i.e. D, C, and weak v) licenses genitive
(except for strong v, which is reserved for accusative). Although each of these phase
heads has been analyzed by various authors as playing a role in GNC in Japanese
and elsewhere (see Hale 2002 for a D-licensing approach for Dagur; Kornfilt 2003
for a C-licensing approach for Turkish, etc.), one may wonder why all these licensing
options manifest themselves within a single dialect/language (although UG certainly
does not exclude such a language). Despite this conceptual worry, we might be able
to gain a new perspective on the GNC in standard Japanese if we look at it from the
standpoint of Nagasaki Japanese. For instance, we might be able to say that the
former is somewhat impoverished in that C in SJ does not act as a GNC licensor,
and weak v in SJ needs the assistance of dependent T when fulfilling its role as a
GNC licensor. Again, all this is speculative. Second, although Ochi and Saruwatari
advocate C-licensing for Nagasaki Japanese, their view is crucially different from
Hiraiwa’s (2001, 2005) analysis. For instance, the P.-A. form does not play a role in
their account of GNC. As the following example of Nagasaki Japanese from Saruwatari
(2015) shows, GNC is licensed in a clause whose predicate is in the conditional form.

(63) [Zyon ga/no kureba] minna yorokobu yo.

John NOM/GEN come.COND everyone be.pleased C
‘Everyone will be delighted if John comes.’

3.3 Nature of the alternation in GNC

The analysis in the previous subsection may shed some light on the nature of the
alternation between ga and no. Let us revisit two influential proposals in the litera-
ture. Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) analyzes the alternation as a matter of pure optionality,
with both case values being assigned by the same probe (i.e. specific C-T system).
Miyagawa (2011), on the other hand, assumes distinct clause sizes for ga and no: ga
appears in a CP and no in a TP. Both approaches have appeals and drawbacks. While
Hiraiwa’s analysis allows us to capture the fact that ga and no co-occur and do
not interfere with each other as shown in (6), it fails to predict the distinct positions
occupied by the ga-subject and the no-subject (i.e. vP-internal vs. vP-external).
Miyagawa’s proposal (2011) fits nicely with S.I. Harada’s (1971) observation (see
(18)) as well as with the distinct distributions of ga and no that are clearly observed
in Kyushu dialects: the ga-subject is located at TP because it is probed by T as the
latter inherits formal properties from C, but T is inert in the genitive subject con-
struction, forcing the latter to remain within vP. And yet, Miyagawa’s analysis would
incorrectly expect ga and no to be mutually exclusive. Is there any way to gain any
new insights out of these two contrasting and competing viewpoints?
690 Masao Ochi

Let us explore one idea by revisiting the C-licensing part of Ochi and Saruwatari’s
analysis. On the standard assumption that nominative is licensed by T whose formal
features originate in C, it is plausible to suppose that both the nominative ga and the
genitive no start out on the same phase head, C. Now suppose that the difference
between the two Case values comes from the ways in which they are assigned.
When the C head transfers its grammatical features to T, so that T probes, we get
the nominative ga. On the other hand, we get the genitive no when C acts as a probe
without the mediation of T.

(64) a. [CP [TP [vP DP . . . ] T] C] (nominative)

↑___
________|↑______|
Agree inheritance

b. [CP [TP [vP DP . . . ] T] C] (genitive)

↑_________|
Agree

Like Hiraiwa (2001), this line of analysis would be able to explain why the ga-phrase
and the no-phrase co-occur and do not interfere with each other: the two values are
two distinct manifestations of the same grammatical property that can be traced
back to the same phase head. At the same time, the hypothesis also incorporates
Miyagawa’s idea that T is inactive in the genitive construction, thus predicting that
the ga-phrase occurs vP-externally and the no-phrase occurs vP-internally, as (55)
and (56) show.
Now, what if we extend this line of analysis to the GNC in the adnominal
domain? Given the syntactic parallelism between CP and DP (see Hiraiwa 2005), we
could say that, this time, the nominative ga and the genitive no originate in D.9 On
the assumption that the adnominal clause is uniformly a TP (as in Murasugi 1991),
the Agree relations depicted below are point by point analogous to the ones in the
GNC in independent clauses (aside from the presence of a head noun between T and
D, omitted here).

(65) a. [CP [TP [vP DP . . . ] T] D] (nominative)

↑___
________|↑______|
Agree inheritance

9 The postulated syntactic dependency between D and ga receives support from diachronic perspec-
tives. First, like no, ga was (and still is, to some extent) used as a possessive marker. Second, ga (as
well as no) as a nominative marker was typically used in adnominal clauses (such as quasi-nominal
phrases and Kakari-Musubi constructions), and rarely appeared in the main clause in Old Japanese.
See Nomura (1993).
 Ga/No conversion 691

b. [CP [TP [vP DP . . . ] T] D] (genitive)

↑_________|
Agree

Of course, this line of approach generates a number of questions. First, if all the
grammatical properties, including the EPP, originate on phase heads, it would
be unclear why T has the EPP-property whereas C (or D) does not: recall that the C-
licensed genitive phrase remains within vP, as (56b) shows.10 Second, this analysis
crucially assumes that the adnominal clause is a TP whether we have nominative
or genitive. It thus needs to be carefully examined in light of the evidence provided
by Miyagawa (2011) for the distinct sizes of adnominal clauses for ga-subjects and
for no-subjects. Third, recall that Ochi and Saruwatari (in press) analyze the te-
clause in (61) and (62) as bare TP, with no CP layer present. And yet, these examples
are fine with ga instead of no on the subject, which is mysterious under the hypoth-
esis entertained here (as well as under any analysis that relates the nominative ga to
the presence of a C head). Also, the assumption in (58) cannot be maintained, so the
analysis of (49b) needs some adjustment: perhaps we could say that (49b) is ruled
out not because it lacks a CP layer but because the C-system needed to license the
genitive needs a phonetic realization.

4 Further issues
In the remainder of this chapter, we will take up two issues that continue to pose
questions, especially in light of the discussion in the previous section.

4.1 GNC and focus

As noted in section 3.1, the no-subject is incompatible with a focus particle such as
dake ‘only’ in GNC in standard Japanese (see (41)). Miyagawa (2013), which is an
extension of his earlier analyses (Miyagawa 1993, 2011, 2012), argues that this restric-
tion is a natural consequence of his (2010) theory. Adopting Chomsky’s (2008) feature
inheritance mechanism and allowing some degrees of variation in the features to
be transferred across languages, Miyagawa argues that discourse configurational
languages such as Japanese select topic/focus features as the target of the feature
transfer operation. To be specific, those formal features originate on the C head (a
phase head) and get inherited by T. Thus, focus feature checking requires a CP layer,
but the genitive no cannot occur in CP. Miyagawa also argues that this analysis

10 If Ochi (2001) is correct, D has the EPP-property, though optionally.

692 Masao Ochi

accounts for the fact, noted by Akaso and Haraguchi (2011), that the genitive object
is compatible with dake. In this case, no on the object is licensed via GDT. Thus,
nothing prevents the example from having a CP layer (including Focus Phrase).

(66) umi dake ga/no mi-e-ru heya

ocean only NOM/GEN see-can-PRS room
‘the room from which only the ocean can be seen’

The analysis faces some challenges, however. First, the no-subject and focus particles
are not mutually exclusive, as the genitive subject construction may have focus
particles on other elements such as an adverb (67) or a nominative object (68b).

(67) kinoo/sukosi dake Taroo ga/no nonda kusuri

yesterday/little only Taro NOM/GEN took medicine
‘the medicine that Taro took only yesterday/only a little’

(68) a. ?*Hanako dake no huransugo no hanas-e-ru koto

Hanako only GEN French GEN speak-can-PRS fact
‘the fact that only Hanako can speak French’

b. Hanako no huransugo dake ga hanas-e-ru koto

Hanako GEN French only NOM speak-can-PRS fact
‘the fact that Hanako can speak only French’ (Miyagawa 2013: 19)

Second, the subject/object asymmetry that we saw in (68) is replicated in indepen-

dent clauses in Nagasaki Japanese.

(69) a. ??Hanako dake no huransugo no hanas-e-ru to yo.

Hanako only GEN French GEN speak-can-PRS C
‘(Listen,) Only Hanako can speak French.’

b. Hanako ga huransugo dake no hanas-e-ru to yo.

Hanako NOM French only GEN speak-can-PRS C
‘(Listen,) Hanako can speak only French.’

No on the unergative subject is licensed by the C-system under Ochi and Saruwatari’s
analysis (recall that no on the unergative subject is not possible without complex
sentence-final discourse particles such as to yo). And yet, it is still incompatible
with dake, as (69a) shows. These points demand further investigations.
 Ga/No conversion 693

4.2 Transitivity restriction

As a final point of this chapter, let us consider the transitivity restriction (TR) in GNC.

(70) kinoo Taroo ga/*no hon o katta mise

yesterday taro NOM/GEN book ACC bought store
‘the store where Taro bought a book yesterday’

The original observation goes back to S.I. Harada (1971), but Watanabe (1996) is the
first to offer a detailed description as well as a comprehensive analysis of this restric-
tion.11 Shibatani (1975) offers an analysis of this restriction in terms of sentence
processing. The idea is that since no is ambiguous between a subject marker (on a
par with ga) and a genuine genitive marker, the use of no on the subject leads to
a processing ambiguity when the subject is (immediately) followed by another
nominal phrase such as a direct object. This is the reason that no is disfavored in
examples like (70) for Shibatani. However, as noted by Inoue (1976) and Watanabe
(1996), the combination of a genitive subject and a direct object is degraded irrespec-
tive of the word order. In the following example, for instance, there is no potential
processing ambiguity as a result of the fronting of a direct object, and yet the
sentence continues to be degraded with no on the subject.

(71) kinoo hon o Taroo ga/*no katta mise

yesterday book ACC taro NOM/GEN bought store
‘the store where Taro bought a book yesterday’

One additional thing to note is that TR is lifted when the object is relativized (S.I.
Harada 1971) or, more generally, when it is phonologically null (Hiraiwa 2001; Saito
2004).

(72) Taroo no pro katta hon

Taro GEN bought book
‘the book that Taro bought’

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the relative gap is (or can be) pro, as
argued by Murasugi (1991).
Let us quickly go over some of the proposals in the literature. Roughly speaking,
there are three lines of approaches to TR. One approach is to analyze TR in terms of
minimality/intervention effects (Miyagawa 1993; Watanabe 1996; Ochi 2009; Bošković

11 It should be noted that there is a certain degree of variation associated with speakers’ judgments
about TR. In fact, S.I. Harada (1971) discussed (what is now regarded as) TR in the context of idio-
lectal variations.
694 Masao Ochi

2011). We already discussed Watanabe’s (1996) analysis of TR in section 2.2.1. In a

similar spirit, Ochi (2009) (see also Bošković 2011) analyzes TR under the assump-
tion that the accusative (and also dative) object always moves to the edge of vP in
overt syntax, crossing the original position of the subject in the (inner) spec of vP.

(73) a. Taroo ga hon o yonda.

Taro NOM book ACC read
‘Taro read a book.’

[TP Tarooi [vP honj [vP ti [VP tj yonda]]]]

↑___________|
↑______________|

Ochi further proposes a phase-based calculation of equidistance: terms of the same

minimal domain are equidistant (Chomsky 1995: chapter 3), but this equidistance
relation holds only up to a point in the derivation at which a new phase head is
introduced into the structure. Once this happens, equidistance is called off. For
instance, multiple specs start out as equidistant, but cease to be equidistant upon
the introduction of a new phase head such as C, strong v, or D. On the assumption
that nominative is licensed by T and genitive by D, this analysis accounts for the
TR with the no-subject while accommodating the fact that there is no TR with the
ga-subject, as illustrated below. The point is that T can access the subject located in
the inner spec of vP, as the two specs are equidistant. When D, which is a phase
head, is introduced, equidistance no longer holds and D cannot find the subject
due to minimality.

(74) a. [TP T [vP OBJ [vP SBJ [v [VP . . . tOBJ . . .]]]]]

↑___________________|
|____________ ↑

b. [D [TP T [vP OBJ [vP SBJ [v [VP . . . tOBJ . . .]]]]]]

↑___________________|
|______×___________ ↑

As for (71), Ochi assumes that scrambling of the object cannot take place across the
adnominal clause boundary, which is consistent with the fact, shown in (13) in
section 2.1.2, that a scrambled object cannot take scope over the head noun. Thus,
scrambled or not, the object acts as an intervener. As for the suspension of TR with
a null object in (72), Ochi explores several possibilities, including one in which the
object pro head-adjoins to the v head for Case checking purposes, so that it does not
interfere with the Agree relation between the genitive subject and D:

(75) [D [TP T . . . [vP SBJ [pro-v [VP tpro V]]]]]]

|_____________↑
 Ga/No conversion 695

A second approach is found in Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) (see also Saito 2004), who
argues that TR is not a matter of syntax per se but arises as a result of the interplay
between syntax (i.e. valuation of abstract nominative Case via Agree) and Spell-Out
at Transfer (i.e. realization of morphological accusative Case). At the core of his
proposal is the following cross-linguistic generalization.

(76) ACC-NOM Generalization

Spell-Out of morphological Accusative case is contingent on structural
Nominative Case. (Hiraiwa 2005: 145)

This generalization, which one could view as an instance of Marantz’s (1991) notion
of Dependent Case, neatly accommodates the contrast between (70) and (71), on the
one hand, and (72) on the other. The latter is grammatical because the accusative
case is not morphologically spelled out. One empirical question, however, concerns
the status of the dative ni in TR. As Miyagawa (2011) notes, a combination of the
genitive no and the dative ni shows the effect of TR. In the following pair of examples,
the presence of a floating numeral quantifier forces ni to be dative rather than a post-
position.

(77) a. Ziroo ga kodomo ni (san-nin) ageta hon

Jiro NOM child DAT three-CL gave book
‘the book that Jiro gave to (three) children’

b. Ziroo no kodomo ni (*san-nin) ageta hon

Jiro GEN child Dat three-CL gave book

The degraded status of (77b) with a floating quantifier suggests that TR should not
single out accusative as being incompatible with genitive.
Finally, based on Watanabe (1996) and Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (2001,
2007), Miyagawa (2012) argues that TR is an instance of the following cross-linguistic
generalization:

(78) The subject-in-situ generalization (SSG)

By Spell-Out, vP can contain only one argument with an unchecked
Case feature.

Given that the no-subject remains within vP (unlike the ga-subject that moves out),
the effect of TR may be reducible to this generalization (although, as Alexiadou and
Anagnostopoulou (2007) acknowledge, it is not totally clear if or how their analysis
can be restated in a more recent framework in which the operation Agree applies in
a cyclic fashion).
696 Masao Ochi

There is no doubt that the analyses reviewed above have been successful in
shedding some lights on the nature of TR. Once we bring GNC in Kyushu Japanese
into the discussion, however, we confront a problem. Recall Kato’s (2007) observa-
tion about the absence of TR in the OSV order.

(79) a. Taroo ga/*no son syoosetu ba koota bai.

Taro NOM/GEN the novel ACC bought C
‘Taro bought the novel.’

b. Son syoosetu ba Taroo ga/no koota bai.

the novel ACC Taro NOM/GEN bought C
‘Taro bought the novel.’

There seems to be a growing consensus among scholars that TR is absent in Kyushu

Japanese (see Kato 2007; Nishioka in press).12 But if so, what accounts for this dialectal
difference?13 The first and second approaches reviewed above have a difficulty in
dealing with this dialectal variation. The third approach, which is based on the
SSG, may successfully account for the contrast in (79) by saying that (79a) violates
the SSG but (79b) does not, but it would be unclear why (71) in standard Japanese
shows TR effects.

5 Conclusion
This chapter first provided a review of major works on GNC in standard Japanese,
and then set out to expand its empirical coverage by introducing recent works on
GNC in the main clause in Kyushu dialects. As discussed throughout the chapter,
we still face many unresolved issues and mounting questions about the true nature

12 It appears, however, that such speakers do not constitute a homogeneous group, as the speakers
of Nagasaki Japanese that Ochi and Saruwatari consulted do accept examples like (79a) as well as
(79b), provided that the sentence ending is slightly more enriched, as shown in (i) below. Further-
more, some of them seem to have a slight preference for the SOV order over the OSV order, but
more investigations are certainly necessary.
(i) a. Taroo ga/no son syoosetu ba koota to yo/bai.
Taro NOM/GEN the novel ACC bought Fin C
‘Taro bought the novel.’
b. Son syoosetu ba Taroo ga/no koota to yo/bai.
the novel ACC Taroo NOM/GEN bought Fin C
‘Taro bought the novel.’
13 Note that ba in Kyushu Japanese obeys the double-o constraint (the double-“ba” constraint, that
is). Thus, ba does seem to be a genuine accusative marker, on a par with o in standard Japanese.
 Ga/No conversion 697

of GNC. Nevertheless, progress has been made, and we are beginning to see signs
of cross-dialectal generalizations, such as the (near) complementarity between ga
and no with respect to their structural positions and with respect to interpretations.
Exploring such issues will no doubt lead to a better understanding of our linguistic
faculty.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer, Asuka Saruwatari, and Shigeru
Miyagawa for useful comments on an earlier version of this chapter. Part of this
work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 25370431), the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.

References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dis-
sertation.
Akaso, Naoyuki and Tomoko Haraguchi. 2011. On the categorial status of Japanese relative clauses.
English Linguistics 28. 91–106.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the
role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 193–231.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2007. The subject-in-situ generalization revisited.
In Hans-Martin Gärtner and Uli Sauerland (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s
minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 31–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bedell, George. 1972. On no. UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian Syntax, 1–20.
Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect.
Linguistic Inquiry 42. 1–44
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero and Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–166, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hale, Kenneth. 2002. On the Dagur object relative: Some comparative notes. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 11. 109–122.
Harada, S. I. 1971. Ga-no conversion and idiolectal variations in Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 60. 25–38.
Harada, Naomi. 2002. Licensing PF-visible formal features: A linear algorithm and Case-related
phenomena in PF. Irvine, CA: University of California dissertation.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2008. Teiji-bun to shite no chūritsu-jojutsu-bun [Neutral description sentences
as presentationals]. In Yoshiaki Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, Daiko Takahashi and Etsuro Shima (eds.),
Gengo-kenkyū no genzai: Keishiki to imi no intāfēsu [The state of art in linguistics research: The
interface of form and meaning], 62–80. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2010. Thetic judgment as presentational. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 26. 3–
23.
698 Masao Ochi

Hatsushima, Yasuko. 1998. Sagahōgen no kenkyū: shukaku no joshi ‘no’ to ‘ga’ no tsukaiwake ni
tsuite [A research on Saga dialect: The proper use of nominative case ‘no’ and ‘ga’]. Studies
in Language and Culture 7. 51–64. Tokyo Women’s Christian University.
Heycock, Caroline. 2008. Japanese wa, ga, and information structure. In Shigeru Miyagawa and
Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 54–83. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 39. 65–
123. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Kato, Sachiko. 2007. Scrambling and the EPP in Japanese: From the viewpoint of the Kumamoto
dialect in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 113–124. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Kido, Yasuhito. 2013. Fukuoka hōgen ni okeru ‘bai’ ‘tai’ no tōgoteki bunpu [Syntactic distribution of
‘bai’ and ‘tai’ in Fukuoka dialect]. Proceedings of the 147th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of Japan, 254–259.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese. Lin-
guistic Inquiry 32. 597–633.
Kishimoto, Hideki. this volume. Chapter 12: Case marking. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miya-
gawa and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2008. Nominative object. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 141–164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. this volume. Chapter 14: Subject. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miyagawa
and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2003. Subject Case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Uwe Junghanns and Luka
Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, 129–215. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.),
Working minimalism, 189–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maki, Hideki and Asako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito
(eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 192–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on
Linguistics (ESCOL ’91), 234–253.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF Case-checking and minimal link condition. MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 19. 213–254. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A
life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-
configurational languages, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121. 1265–
1282.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Case, argument structure, and word order. New York: Routledge.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2013. Strong uniformity and ga/no conversion. English Linguistics 30. 1–24
Miyamoto, Yoichi. this volume. Chapter 16: Relative clause. In Masayoshi Shibatani, Shigeru Miya-
gawa and Hisashi Noda (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
 Ga/No conversion 699

Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability and
acquisition. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Nakai, Satoru. 1980. A reconsideration of ga-no conversion in Japanese. Papers in Linguistics 13.
279–320.
Nakatani, Kentaro. 2013. Predicate concatenation: A study of the V-te V predicate in Japanese. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Nambu, Satoshi. 2011. Japanese genitive subject: a comparison with Uyghur. Online Proceedings of
GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, 217–231.
Nishioka, Nobuaki. In press. On the positions of nominative subject in Japanese: Evidence from
Kumamoto dialect. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL.
Nomura, Takashi. 1993. Jōdai no no to ga ni tsuite [On no and ga in Old Japanese]. Kokugo Kokubun
62(2). 1–17; 62(3). 30–49.
Ochi, Masao. 1999. Some consequences of Attract F. Lingua 109. 81–107.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10.
247–286.
Ochi, Masao. 2009. Overt object shift in Japanese. Syntax 12. 324–362.
Ochi, Masao and Asuka Saruwatari. In press. Nominative genitive conversion in (in)dependent clauses
in Japanese. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, MA:
MITWPL.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1994. Adverbs of quantification and sequence-of-tense phenomena. Proceedings
of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, 251–267. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. Proceedings of the Second West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, 247–259.
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Genitive subjects in Japanese: Implications for the theory of null objects. In
Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects, 103–118.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saito, Mamoru. 2013. Conditions on Japanese phrase structure: From morphology to pragmatics.
Nanzan Linguistics 9. 119–145.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1994. Complex NP constraint and case-conversions in Japanese. In Masaru Nakamura
(ed.), Current Topics in English and Japanese, 179–203. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Saruwatari, Asuka. 2015. Ga no kahen to tadōseiseiyaku [Ga/No conversion and the transitivity
restriction]. In Kimi Akita (ed.), Gengo bunka kyōdō purojekuto 2014: Shizen gengo e no
rironteki apurōchi [Report of the research project on language and culture 2014: Formal ap-
proaches to natural language]. 21–30. Osaka University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1975. Perceptual strategies and the phenomena of particle conversion in
Japanese. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, 469–480.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Mikami Akira and the notion of ‘subject’ in Japanese grammar. In John
Hinds and Irwin Howards, (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 52–67. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
Sudo, Yasutada. 2009. Invisible degree nominals in Japanese clausal comparatives. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 58. 285–295. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Takahashi, Hisako. 2010. Adverbial clauses and nominative/genitive conversion in Japanese. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 61. 357–371. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5. 373–410.
Yoshimura, Noriko. 2007. Ga/no kōtai wo hōgen kenkyū ni miru [Ga-no conversion: Dialectal perspec-
tives]. In Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), Nihongo no shubun genshō: Tōgokōzō to modariti [Japanese
main clause phenomena: syntactic structures and modality], 189–223. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Mamoru Saito
19 Ellipsis

1 Introduction
Ellipsis in Japanese has been examined since the 1970’s. Hinds (1973) observed the
absence of VP-ellipsis and VP-preposing in Japanese and argued that the language
lacks the VP-node.1 The kinds of examples he considered are shown below with their
English counterparts.

(1) a. I left because John did [VP leave].

b. *Taroo ga kaetta node, watasi mo kaetta.

Taroo NOM left because I also left
‘I also left because Taroo did.’

(2) a. He said he would jump into the river, and [VP jump into the river] he did.

b. *Kawa ni tobikonda, kare ga (koto)

river to jumped.into he NOM fact
Lit. ‘(the fact that) jump into the river, he did’

Kuno (1978), on the other hand, tried to explain the absence of VP-ellipsis with
what is now known as Lasnik’s (1981) stray affix filter. VP-ellipsis strands Tense and
hence, do-support is required in examples like (1a). Kuno argues that the absence of
a rule analogous to do-support makes VP-ellipsis impossible in Japanese. When a
modal is present, VP-ellipsis does not strand Tense as shown in (3).

1 Hinds (1973) assumes, following a proposal in generative semantics, that VP is absent in deep
structure universally. So what he argued for is that Japanese surface structure reflects the deep struc-
ture faithfully.

Note: In this chapter, I focus on N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, sluicing, and argument ellipsis. Among the
analyses that imply other types of ellipsis are the PF deletion analysis of right node raising and
the stripping analysis of right dislocation. The reader is referred to Mukai (2003) and An (2007) for
the former and to Abe (1999) and Tanaka (2001) for the latter.
The material in this chapter was presented at various places and almost in the present form as the
second of the five-part lecture series at Keio University on September 1–5, 2014. I have benefitted
from discussions with many people over the years, including Howard Lasnik, Keiko Murasugi, Daiko
Takahashi, and Kensuke Takita. I would like to thank Hisatsugu Kitahara in particular for helpful
comments on the material in Section 4, and Shigeru Miyagawa, John Haig, and an anonymous
reviewer for editorial advice.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-020
702 Mamoru Saito

(3) If Mary can eat it, John can [VP eat it], too.

But Kuno notes that the Japanese counterparts of the relevant modals are verbal
suffixes, as exemplified in (4), and hence VP-ellipsis necessarily produces a stray affix.

(4) Taroo wa sore ga tabe-rare-ru

Taroo TOP it NOM eat-can-PRS
‘Taroo can eat it.’

Thus, the discussion on ellipsis in Japanese centered around its absence until the
1980’s with the exception of Inoue’s (1978) brief mention of sluicing, which I will
come back to directly.2
However, the situation changed radically in the 1990’s. Saito and Murasugi
(1990), Otani and Whitman (1991), Takahashi (1994), and Oku (1998) respectively
argued for N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, sluicing, and argument ellipsis in the language.
Some examples are shown in (5).

(5) a. N’-ellipsis
Taroo no taido wa [DP Hanako no [NP e]] yorimo yoi.
Taroo GEN attitude TOP Hanako GEN than good
‘Taroo’s attitude is better than Hanako’s.’

b. sluicing
Kare wa dokoka e itta ga, boku
he TOP somewhere to went though I
wa [CP doko e [C’ [TP e] ka]] siranai.
TOP where to Q know.not
‘He went somewhere, but I don’t know where.’

c. argument ellipsis
Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo [DP e] aratta.
Taroo TOP self GEN car ACC washed Hanako also washed
‘Taroo washed his car. Hanako also washed his/her car.’

In the following section, I will discuss the initial analyses for these phenomena and
present a preliminary picture of ellipsis in Japanese.
Many new descriptive issues arose in the efforts to develop those initial analyses.
For example, Hoji (1998) presents evidence against the VP-ellipsis analysis, which

2 Another example of this is found in Kuno (1973). He considers what appears to be “backward
gapping” in Japanese and suggests that the relevant examples should be analyzed as instances of
right node raising instead.
 Ellipsis 703

applies to argument ellipsis as well, and proposes that the relevant examples are to
be accounted for with pro. Funakoshi (2012, 2013) argues against argument ellipsis
in favor of V-stranding VP ellipsis. I will consider these works in Section 3. I will
argue there that the potentially problematic examples they present do not constitute
evidence against argument ellipsis but instead provide further evidence for its
analysis in terms of LF copying. At the end of the section, I will discuss Takita’s
(2012) new evidence for sluicing and Watanabe’s (2010) argument for a QP projection
in Japanese noun phrases on the basis of N’-ellipsis that strands a classifier phrase.
The discussions in this section and the next aim to lay out bases for future research
rather than to present concrete hypotheses.
In Section 4, I will speculate on the direction for providing deeper explanations
for the ellipsis phenomena. As argument ellipsis is not observed in many languages,
including English, it should be explained why it is possible only in Japanese and
a few other languages. The second issue concerns the syntactic conditions on N’-
ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, and sluicing. A generalization is proposed in Saito and Murasugi
(1990) and Lobeck (1990) that the complements of D (N’-ellipsis), T (VP-ellipsis), and
C (sluicing) can be elided only when the specifier positions of these functional heads
are filled. This, if valid, demands an explanation. I will discuss these issues and
suggest directions to pursue them. The discussion is based on the mechanism of ɸ-
feature agreement (Chomsky 2000, 2008) as well as the labeling algorithm (Chomsky
2014). Section 5 concludes this chapter.

2 A Preliminary Survey of the Phenomena

In this section, I will briefly go over the initial arguments for N’-ellipsis (Saito and
Murasugi 1990), VP-ellipsis (Otani and Whitman 1991), sluicing (Takahashi 1994),
and argument ellipsis (Oku 1998; Kim 1999) in Japanese. The argument ellipsis
analysis developed out of the VP-ellipsis hypothesis and was intended to replace
it. Further arguments for argument ellipsis are presented in Saito (2004), Shinohara
(2004), and Takahashi (2008). The first in particular raises doubts about the sluicing
analysis. I will discuss these works as well and present a preliminary picture of
ellipsis phenomena in Japanese.

2.1 N’-ellipsis
The purpose of Saito and Murasugi (1990) was two-fold. One was to show that
ellipsis provides evidence for CP and DP structures, and the other was to argue for
N’-ellipsis in Japanese. Let me start with the first.3

3 The reader is referred also to Lobeck (1990), which reaches the same conclusion with basically the
same arguments.
704 Mamoru Saito

N’-ellipsis and sluicing have mysterious properties if the X’-theory of Chomsky

(1970) is assumed. First, what is elided is an intermediate projection as shown
in (6) and (7).

(6) a. I read Bill’s book, but I haven’t read [NP Mary’s [N’ book]].

b. Rome’s destruction was worse than [NP London’s [N’ destruction]].

(7) a. John bought something, but I don’t know [S’ what [S he bought]].
(S = T’, S’ = TP)

b. John knows [S’ which girl [S Mary likes]], but he doesn’t know [S’ which boy
[S she likes]].

This is puzzling given that the targets of grammatical operations are limited to heads
and maximal projections. Further, N’-ellipsis is possible only with a genitive remnant,
and sluicing requires a wh-phrase that moved out of the elided S. Thus, (8) and (9)
are ungrammatical in contrast with (6) and (7).

(8) a. *John has a dog, but Mary doesn’t have [NP a [N’ dog]].

b. *I want to read the book because I hear good thing about [NP the [N’ book]].

(9) a. *John said he saw a unicorn, but I don’t know [S’ if [S he saw a unicorn]].

b. *John denied that he cheated, but I believe [S’ that [S he cheated]].

It is curious that the ellipsis of N’ and S is dictated by the element in the specifier
position.
Saito and Murasugi (1990) point out that the DP hypothesis (Fukui and Speas
1986; Abney 1987) and the CP hypothesis (Stowell 1981; Chomsky 1986a) make it
possible to describe the phenomena more straightforwardly. What is elided are the
NP complement of D in the case of N’-ellipsis and the TP complement of C in sluic-
ing. Both are maximal projections. Further, the genitive phrases in (6) are specifiers
of D whereas the articles in (8) are D heads. Similarly, the wh-phrases in (7) are
specifiers of C whereas if and that in (9) occupy the C position. Then, N’-ellipsis and
sluicing can be characterized as the ellipsis of the complements of D and C in the
presence of a specifier. If VP-ellipsis applies to the VP (or vP) complement of T,
the three elliptic phenomena receive a unified description. (10) shows the version
of the generalization proposed in Richards (2003).4

4 Both Saito and Murasugi (1990) and Lobeck (1990) state that there must be a Spec-head agree-
ment relation between XP and F. However, Richards (2003) argues that this is not only redundant
but also incorrect.
 Ellipsis 705

(10) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C, or T) can be elided

only when F has a specifier, as illustrated below.

The simplicity of this description provides support for the DP and CP hypotheses.
Having proposed (10), Saito and Murasugi (1990) go on to examine N’-ellipsis in
Japanese. It was known that there are examples that superficially look like instances
of N’-ellipsis. Thus, (11a) looks very similar to its English counterpart in (11b).

(11) a. Taroo no hon wa [Hanako no __] yori omosiroi.

Taroo GEN book TOP Hanako no than interesting

b. John’s book is more interesting than [Mary’s __].

Okutsu (1974), however, presents an alternative analysis for examples of this kind.
He first notes that Japanese has a pronoun that corresponds roughly to one in
English and is homophonous with the genitive Case marker. It is exemplified in (12).

(12) Akai no o mittu kudasai.

red one ACC three give.me
‘Please give me three of the red ones.’

Then, he proposes that Hanako no in (11a) is derived as in (13) with the deletion of
the genitive no.

(13) [Hanako no no]

Hanako GEN one

If (11a) can indeed be derived this way, it does not show that there is N’-ellipsis in
Japanese.
Saito and Murasugi try to avoid the interference of the pronoun no just illustrated.
Kamio (1983), for example, shows that the pronoun no is employed only when the
noun phrase refers to a concrete (and probably specific) object and can never be
used as a pro-form of an abstract noun. One of his examples is shown in (14b).

(14) a. Taroo wa yakyuuboo o kabutte ita. Ziroo mo aoi

Taroo TOP baseball.cap ACC wearing.was Ziroo also blue
no o kabutte ita.
one ACC wearing.was
‘Taroo was wearing a baseball cap. Ziroo also was wearing a blue one.’
706 Mamoru Saito

b. Taroo mo Ziroo mo sinnen o motte iru.

Taroo also Ziroo also belief ACC have
*Tokuni Taroo wa katai no o motte iru.
particularly Taroo TOP firm one ACC have
‘Both Taroo and Ziroo have beliefs. In particular, Taroo has a firm one.’

(14a) is fine as no stands for a concrete noun yakyuuboo ‘baseball cap’ and the DP
headed by no refers to a specific object. On the other hand, (14b) shows that the
pronoun cannot be employed for the abstract noun sinnen ‘belief, conviction’. The
examples in (15) confirm Kamio’s generalization.

(15) a. *Taroo no kenkyuu ni taisuru taido wa totemo

Taroo GEN research toward attitude TOP very
yoi no datta.
good one was
‘Taroo’s attitude toward research was a very good one.’

b. *Hanako no supootu ni taisuru zyoonetu wa totemo

Hanako GEN sports toward enthusiasm TOP very
hagesii no datta.
passionate one was
‘Hanako’s enthusiasm toward sports was a very passionate one.’

c. *Yamada-sensei no yasasisa wa totemo mi ni simiru no datta.

Yamada-teacher GEN kindness TOP very touching one was
‘Prof. Yamada’s kindness was a touching one (touched my heart).’

These examples indicate that the pronoun no cannot stand for nouns such as taido
‘attitude’, zyoonetu ‘enthusiasm’, and yasasisa ‘kindness’.
Given this, Saito and Murasugi present examples of the following kind as evi-
dence for N’-ellipsis in Japanese:

(16) a. Taroo no sinnen wa [Ziroo no __] yorimo katai.

Taroo GEN belief TOP Ziroo GEN than firm
‘Taroo’s belief is firmer than Ziroo’s.’

b. Taroo no kenkyuu ni taisuru taido wa [Hanako no __]

Taroo GEN research toward attitude TOP Hanako GEN
ni kurabe-reba totemo yoi.
to compare-if very good
‘Taroo’s attitude toward research is very good if we compare it with
Hanako’s.’
 Ellipsis 707

c. Hanako no supootu ni taisuru zyoonetu wa [Taroo no __] izyoo da.

Hanako GEN sports toward enthusiasm TOP Taroo GEN above is
‘Hanako’s enthusiasm toward sports is above Taroo’s.’

d. Yamada-sensei no yasasisa mo [Tanaka-sensei no __] mo

Yamada-teacher GEN kindness also Tanaka-teacher GEN also
totemo mi ni simiru.
very touching
‘Prof. Yamada’s kindness as well as Prof. Tanaka’s touched my heart.’

These examples are expected to be ungrammatical if the underlined no is a pronoun,

because the pronoun no cannot be employed in place of abstract nouns. Yet, they are
perfectly grammatical. This suggests that no in these examples is the genitive Case
followed by an elided NP. The structure of the bracketed DP in (16b), for example,
is as in (17).

(17) [DP Hanako no [NP kenkyuu ni taisuru taido]]

Hanako GEN research toward attitude

In Japanese nominal projections, the genitive Case marker follows any DP or PP,
as shown in (18).

(18) a. Hanako no Tookyoo de no kabu no torihiki

Hanako GEN Tokyo in GEN stock GEN dealing
‘Hanako’s dealing of stocks in Tokyo’

b. Taroo no san-kai no muitimon de no Yooroppa

Taroo GEN three-time GEN no.penny with GEN Europe
e no ryokoo
to GEN trip
‘Taroo’s three trips to Europe with no money’

However, it is not the case that any genitive phrase can be the remnant in N’-ellipsis.
Thus, there is a clear contrast between (19a, b) and (19c, d).

(19) a. Taroo no taido wa [Hanako no __] yorimo yoi.

Taroo GEN attitude TOP Hanako GEN than good
‘Taroo’s attitude is better than Hanako’s.’

b. Rooma no hakai wa [Kyooto no __] yorimo hisan datta.

Rome GEN destruction TOP Kyoto GEN than misery was
‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’
708 Mamoru Saito

c. *Saikin wa kumori no hi ga [ame no __] yorimo ooi.

nowadays TOP cloud GEN day NOM rain GEN than plentiful
‘Nowadays, there are more cloudy days than rainy days.’

d. *Taroo wa issyuukan ni san-satu no hon o

Taroo TOP one.week in three-volume GEN book ACC
yomu ga, Hanako wa [go-satu no __] o yomu.
read though Hanako TOP five-volume GEN ACC read
‘Though Taroo reads three books per week, Hanako reads five.’

This contrast provides further evidence for N’-ellipsis in Japanese. The remnant
genitive phrase is the subject in (19a) and the object in (19b). On the other hand,
those in (19c, d) are adjuncts. Recall that N’-ellipsis applies as in (20), that is, the
complement of D is elided in the presence of a specifier.

(20)

Then, N’-ellipsis is legitimate only when the remnant genitive phrase is in Spec, DP.
And there is independent evidence that arguments but not adjuncts can move to this
position. For example, (21) shows that the external and internal arguments can raise
to Spec, DP but an adjunct then cannot.

(21) a. [DP the barbarians’i [NP ti [N’ destruction of the city then]]]

b. [DP the city’si [NP [N’ destruction ti then]]]

c. *[DP then’si [NP [N’ destruction of the city ti]]]

Thus, the N’-ellipsis analysis correctly predicts the contrast in (19).

Saito and Murasugi (1990) point out two consequences of the proposed analysis.
As an overt D is not observed in Japanese, it was unclear whether the language has
this category. Fukui (1988), for example, proposes that languages are parameterized
with respect to the presence vs. absence of functional categories and Japanese belongs
to the latter group. The analysis above implies that D is present in Japanese and
suggests the universality of the category. Secondly, genitive Case in Japanese, unlike
genitive in English, can be assigned (or valued) within NP. (18c), for example, is
ungrammatical because ame no ‘rain GEN’ cannot move to Spec, DP. Yet, (22) is
perfectly grammatical without ellipsis.
 Ellipsis 709

(22) [ame no hi]

rain GEN day
‘a rainy day’

Then, the genitive on ame ‘rain’ must be licensed within the projection of N. (23)
points to the same conclusion.

(23) Amerika-gun no Iraku no bakugeki wa [DP Igirisu-gun no

U.S.-force GEN Iraq GEN bombing TOP U.K.-force GEN
[NP Iraku no bakugeki]] yorimo nagaku tuzuita.
Iraq GEN bombing than long continued
‘The U.S. force’s bombing of Iraq lasted longer than the British force’s.’

In this example, the elided NP includes the object iraku no ‘Iraq GEN’ as well as the
head noun. Then, Saito and Murasugi, building on Bedell (1972) and Kitagawa and
Ross (1982), propose that genitive in Japanese is a contextual Case that is inserted
as in (24).

(24) [α DP/PP β] → [α DP/PP no β], where α and β are projections of N or D.

2.2 VP-Ellipsis and Sluicing

Otani and Whitman (1991) and Takahashi (1994) argued for VP-ellipsis and sluicing
in Japanese respectively. I will briefly go over these works in this subsection.
The arguments of Otani and Whitman (1991) start with an observation on the
interpretation of null objects.

(25) Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo [e] aratta.

Taroo TOP self GEN car ACC washed Hanako also washed
‘Taroo washed his car. Hanako also washed his/her car.’

The null object in the second sentence allows both the strict interpretation (Hanako
also washed his (= Taroo’s) car) and the sloppy interpretation (Hanako also washed
her (= Hanako’s) car). The sloppy interpretation is unexpected if the null object is
pro as was widely assumed since Kuroda (1965). The following examples indicate
that sloppy interpretation obtains with ellipsis but not with pronouns:

(26) a. John loves his mother, and Mary does, too. (Mary loves his/her mother)

b. John loves his mother, and Mary loves her, too. (Mary loves his mother)
710 Mamoru Saito

In fact, only the strict interpretation is possible if an overt pronoun occurs in the
position of the null object in (25).

(27) Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta. Hanako mo sore o aratta.

Taroo TOP self GEN car ACC washed Hanako also it ACC washed
‘Taroo washed his car. Hanako also washed it (= his car).’

Huang (1987) discusses Chinese examples similar to (25), and presents an analysis
in terms of V-stranding VP-ellipsis. Otani and Whitman (1991), then, argue that the
analysis is applicable to Japanese as well. The idea is that (25) is derived with V-to-T
raising followed by VP-ellipsis, as illustrated in (28).

(28) [TP DP [T’ [VP DP tV] V+T]]

|__↑

This analysis implies, contrary to what Kuno (1978) assumed, that V-T merger is
achieved by V-raising in Japanese.
As mentioned at the outset of this chapter, Inoue (1978) noted that examples of
the following kind may instantiate sluicing:

(29) Kare wa dokoka e itta ga, boku-wa [CP doko e ka] siranai.
he TOP somewhere to went though I-TOP where to Q know.not
‘He went somewhere, but I don’t know where.’

Takahashi (1994) presents an argument for this based on the possibility of sloppy
interpretation, just as Otani and Whitman (1991) did for VP-ellipsis. One of his
examples is shown in (30).

(30) Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai

Taroo TOP why self NOM scold.PASS.PST Q understand.not
ga, Hanako wa [CP naze ka] wakatte iru.
though Hanako TOP why Q understand
‘Though Taroo doesn’t understand why he was scolded, Hanako understands
why he/she was scolded.’

As indicated, the example allows both strict and sloppy interpretations. Takahashi
takes this as evidence that (30) is derived by ellipsis, and as confirmation of the
sluicing analysis suggested in Inoue (1978). According to this analysis, the embedded
CP in (29) has the structure in (31).

(31) [CP [doko e]i [C’ [TP kare ga ti itta] ka]]

where to he NOM went Q
 Ellipsis 711

Takahashi (1994) draws a number of consequences from this analysis. Among

them is that Japanese has optional wh-movement, as argued in Kuroda (1988).
Recall that sluicing elides TP when Spec, CP is filled. The wh-phrase doko e ‘where
to’ in (30) serves as a proper remnant in Spec, CP. As predicted, sluicing is illicit
when Spec, CP is absent, as shown in (32).

(32) *Hanako wa [CP [TP pro soko ni itta] to] itte iru ga,
Hanako TOP there to went COMP saying.is though
boku wa [CP [TP pro soko ni itta] ka(dooka)] siranai.
I TOP there to went whether know.not
Lit. ‘Though Hanako says that she went there, I don’t know if.’

Takahashi also points out some potential problems with his analysis. One is that
the copula da ‘is’ can appear in the CP that sluicing applies to. Thus, (30), for exam-
ple, remains grammatical and ambiguous between strict and sloppy readings with
da, as shown in (33).

(33) Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai

Taroo TOP why self NOM scold.PASS.PST Q understand.not
ga, Hanako wa [CP naze da ka] wakatte iru.
though Hanako TOP why is Q understand
‘Though Taroo doesn’t understand why he was scolded, Hanako understands
why he/she was scolded.’

There is no position for this copula under the sluicing analysis. Given this, Takahashi
considers an alternative analysis with a pro subject instead of sluicing, as in (34).

(34) . . . , Hanako wa [CP [TP pro naze (da) ka]] wakatte iru.
Hanako TOP why is Q understand
‘. . . , Hanako understands why it is.’

In this context, da is optional. Hence, the analysis in (34) correctly accounts for its
absence in (30) and its occurrence in (33).
However, Takahashi rejects this analysis on the ground that it fails to account
for the sloppy interpretation. Recall that pronouns only allow strict interpretation.
(34) with an overt pronoun in fact does not allow sloppy interpretation, as shown
in (35).

(35) . . . , Hanako wa [CP [TP sore ga naze (da) ka]] wakatte iru.
Hanako TOP it NOM why is Q understand
‘. . . , Hanako understands why it is (= why Taroo was scolded).’
712 Mamoru Saito

The structure in (34), then, does not seem to be consistent with the sloppy interpre-
tation of (33). Given this, Takahashi maintains the sluicing analysis and leaves the
optional occurrence of da as a problem. I will come back to this issue in the follow-
ing subsection.

2.3 Argument Ellipsis

The works introduced so far argued that Japanese has some of the elliptic construc-
tions that are observed in English. This trend takes a sharp turn with the proposal of
argument ellipsis by Oku (1998) and Kim (1999). They both show that there are
examples with elided arguments that cannot be analyzed as instances of V-stranding
VP-ellipsis. I will briefly introduce their arguments and then discuss the supporting
evidence presented in Saito (2004), Shinohara (2004), and Takahashi (2008).
Oku (1998) first shows that not only null objects but also null subjects allow
sloppy interpretation. One of his examples is given in (36).

(36) a. Hanako wa [CP [TP zibun no teian ga saiyoosareru]

Hanako TOP self GEN proposal NOM adopt.PASS.PRS
to] omotte iru.
COMP think
‘Hanako thinks that her proposal will be adopted.’

b. Taroo-mo [CP [TP [e] saiyoosareru] to] omotte iru.

Taroo-also adopt.PASS.PRS COMP think
‘Taroo also thinks that her/his proposal will be adopted.’

As a subject cannot be elided with VP-ellipsis, Oku concludes that Japanese allows
subjects to be directly elided.
He then argues that null objects can be generated in the same way, that is, that
any argument can be directly elided. A relevant example is shown in (37).

(37) Hanako wa teinei ni zibun no genkoo o minaosita.

Hanako TOP carefully self GEN manuscript ACC look.over.PST
Demo Taroo wa minaosanakatta.
but Taroo TOP look.over.not.PST
‘Hanako looked over her manuscript carefully. But Taroo didn’t look over
her/his manuscript.’

The second sentence is missing the object. If the object is elided by VP-ellipsis, the
sentence should have the interpretation that Taroo did not go over his manuscript
 Ellipsis 713

carefully because the VP-internal adverb teinei ni ‘carefully’ occurs in the first
sentence. The English example in (38) illustrates this.

(38) Mary looked over her manuscript carefully, but John didn’t.

But the second sentence in (37) only has the sloppy reading that Taroo did not look
over his manuscript at all. This raises doubts concerning the VP-ellipsis analysis.
Oku then proposes that the sloppy interpretation derives not from VP-ellipsis but
from the ellipsis of the object.
Kim (1999) reaches the same conclusion for Korean and Japanese on indepen-
dent grounds. One of his arguments is based on the double-accusative construction
in Korean, illustrated in (39).

(39) a. Mike nun James lul tali lul ketechassta.

Mike TOP James ACC leg ACC kicked
‘Mike kicked James on the leg.’

b. *Mike nun tali lul James lul ketechassta.

Mike TOP leg ACC James ACC kicked

As shown in (39b), the accusative phrase that expresses a body part cannot precede
the accusative phrase that refers to a person. Given this, Kim observes that the first
accusative phrase can be elided and receive sloppy interpretation as in (40b).

(40) a. Jerry nun caki uy ai lul phal ul ttayliessta.

Jerry TOP self GEN child ACC arm ACC hit
‘Jerry hit his child on the arm.’

b. Kulena Sally nun [e] tali lul ttayliessta.

but Sally TOP leg ACC hit
‘But Sally hit his/her child on the leg.’

If VP-ellipsis is applied in (40b), tali lul ‘leg ACC’ should also be elided as it cannot
precede the elided DP. Hence, the example cannot be derived by VP-ellipsis. Kim,
like Oku (1998), concludes that arguments can be elided directly.5

5 The Japanese counterpart of (39a) is degraded as the language does not allow two accusative
phrases in a single clause. (See, for example, Harada 1973 and Kuroda 1988 for detailed discussion
on this point.) However, the relevant contrast and interpretation obtain in the language as well. The
Japanese counterpart of (39b) is hopeless and that of (40b) allows sloppy interpretation. Hence,
Kim’s (1999) argument carries over to Japanese.
714 Mamoru Saito

Saito (2004) points out that the argument ellipsis hypothesis provides a straight-
forward solution to the problem with Japanese sluicing noted at the end of the
preceding subsection. Recall that, as Takahashi (1994) acknowledges, the sluicing
analysis fails to account for the optional occurrence of the copula da ‘is’ in (33),
repeated below as (41).

(41) Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai

Taroo TOP why self NOM scold.PASS.PST Q understand.not
ga, Hanako wa [CP naze da ka] wakatte iru.
though Hanako TOP why is Q understand
‘Though Taroo doesn’t understand why he was scolded, Hanako understands
why he/she was scolded.’

If the second embedded CP has the structure in (42), there is no position for the
copula.

(42) [CP nazei [C’ [TP zibun-ga ti sikarareta] ka]]

It was noted in subsequent works such as Nishiyama, Whitman and Yi (1996) that
the optional presence of the copula suggests that the elliptic structure derives from
a cleft sentence. Then, the second clause in (41), with sloppy interpretation, will be
as in (43) when it is fully spelled out.

(43) Hanako wa [CP [TP [CP Opi [C’ [TP zibun ga ti sikarareta] no]]
Hanako TOP self NOM scold.PASS.PST COMP
ga nazei (da)] ka] wakatte iru.
NOM why is Q understand
Lit. ‘Hanako understands why it is that self was scolded.’

As indicated, the copula is indeed optional in cleft sentences.6

Nishiyama, Whitman and Yi (1996) present independent evidence for this ap-
proach. They point out that the remnant need not be a wh-phrase, as shown in (44b).

(44) a. Taroo ga dareka kara tegami o uketotta ga,

Taroo NOM someone from letter ACC received though
boku wa [CP dare kara ka] wakaranai.
I TOP who from Q know.not
‘Taroo received a letter from someone, but I don’t know from whom.’

6 See Hoji (1990) and Murasugi (1991) for detailed discussion of clefts in Japanese.
 Ellipsis 715

b. Taroo ga dareka kara tegami o uketotta ga,

Taroo NOM someone from letter ACC received though
boku wa [CP Hanako kara ka] wakaranai.
I TOP Hanako from Q know.not
Lit. ‘Taroo received a letter from someone, but I don’t know whether
from Hanako.’

Examples like (44b) cannot be analyzed as instances of sluicing, but have corre-
sponding cleft sentences. The embedded CP in (44b) can be an elliptic form of the
cleft sentence in (45).7

(45) [CP [C’ [TP [CP Opi [C’ [TP Taroo ga ti tegami o uketotta]
Taroo NOM letter ACC received
no]] ga [Hanako kara]i (da)] ka]]
COMP NOM Hanako from is Q
‘whether it is from Hanako that Taroo received a letter’

Although the cleft analysis looks plausible, it does not provide a solution to the
problem Takahashi (1994) raised. Nishiyama, Whitman and Yi (1996) propose that
(41) has sloppy interpretation because the second clause is exactly like (43) except
that the embedded subject is pro, standing for the embedded CP subject in (43) that
expresses the presupposition in the cleft structure. But it was noted in Takahashi
(1994) that there is no sloppy interpretation with a pronominal subject. The relevant
example in (35) is repeated below as (46).

(46) . . . , Hanako wa [CP [TP sore ga naze (da) ka]] wakatte iru.
Hanako TOP it NOM why is Q understand
‘. . . , Hanako understands why it is (= why Taroo was scolded).’

Nishiyama, Whitman and Yi, then, suggests that null pronouns, unlike overt pronouns,
allow sloppy interpretation, but this begs the question.
What Saito (2004) points out is that argument ellipsis provides a solution to
this problem. Given that subjects as well as objects can be directly elided, (41) can
be derived from (43) by applying argument ellipsis to the embedded CP subject as
in (47).

7 Fukaya and Hoji (1999) and Fukaya (2012) discuss more similarities between Japanese cleft and
sluicing. This constitutes further evidence for the cleft analysis of Japanese “sluicing.”
716 Mamoru Saito

(47) Hanako wa [CP [TP [CP Opi [C’ [TP zibun ga ti sikarareta] no]] ga
Hanako TOP self NOM scold.PASS.PST COMP NOM
nazei (da)] ka] wakatte iru.
why is Q understand
Lit. ‘Hanako understands why it is that self was scolded.’

As there is no pro subject and the example is derived by ellipsis, sloppy interpreta-
tion is expected. The “sluicing” phenomenon, then, provides additional evidence for
argument ellipsis.
Another piece of supporting evidence for argument ellipsis is presented in
Shinohara (2004) and Takahashi (2008). One of Takahashi’s examples is given in (48)
with slight modification.

(48) a. Zyosi no dareka ga hotondo no sensei o sonkeisite iru.

female GEN someone NOM almost.all GEN teacher ACC respect
‘Some girl has respect for most of the teachers.’

b. Dansi no dareka mo [e] sonkeisite iru.

male GEN someone also respect
‘Some boy also has respect for them/most of the teachers.’

The null object in (48b) can be interpreted as a pronoun, that is, as those teachers
that a girl has respect for. If the object is an overt pronoun, karera o ‘they ACC’,
this is the only possible interpretation. Takahashi points out that (48b) has another
reading. The sentence can mean that a boy has respect for most of the teachers, and
in this case, the teachers need not coincide with those that a girl respects. This,
Takahashi argues, is expected if (48b) can be derived with argument ellipsis as
in (49).

(49) Dansi no dareka mo hotondo no sensei o sonkeisite iru.

male GEN someone also almost.all GEN teacher ACC respect
‘Some boy also has respect for most of the teachers.’

A similar example with a null subject is shown in (50).

(50) a. San-nin-izyoo no gakusei ga Taiwan e itta.

three-person-more.than GEN student NOM Taiwan to went
‘More than three students went to Taiwan.’

b. [e] Oranda e mo itta.

Holland to also went
‘They/more than three students also went to Holland.’
 Ellipsis 717

(50b) has the interpretation that more than three students went to Holland, in addi-
tion to the reading that those students who went to Taiwan also went to Holland.
As discussed in this subsection, argument ellipsis was initially proposed by Oku
(1998) and Kim (1999) as an alternative to V-stranding VP-ellipsis. If the proposal in
Saito (2004) is correct, it accounts for Takahashi’s (1994) “sluicing” examples as
well. Hence, there is no clear evidence at this point that Japanese has VP-ellipsis or
sluicing. At the same time, the discussion in this section does not show that Japanese
does not have sluicing. I will introduce Takita’s (2012) new argument for sluicing in
the following section.

3 Descriptive Issues
Interesting issues have been raised by several papers, some sympathetic and others
critical to the proposals introduced in the preceding section. I will consider some of
them in this section. Hoji (1998) presents evidence against Otani and Whitman’s
(1991) proposal on VP-ellipsis, and argues that the relevant examples can be analyzed
with pro. I will discuss this in Section 3.1, where I point out a similarity in distribution
between elided arguments and pro. In Section 3.2, I will consider Funakoshi’s (2012)
evidence against argument ellipsis and for V-stranding VP-ellipsis. The issue to be
taken up there is whether elements that form operator-variable chains are subject
to argument ellipsis. Finally, in Section 3.3, I will briefly discuss Takita’s (2012)
argument for sluicing and Watanabe’s (2010) argument for N’-ellipsis that strands
classifier phrases.

3.1 Argument Ellipsis and pro

Hoji (1998) presents an argument against VP-ellipsis, which applies to argument
ellipsis as well. Among his crucial examples is (51).

(51) a. Subete no nihonzinhuuhu ga betubetu no gakusei

all GEN Japanese.couple NOM separate GEN student
‘Every Japanese couple recommended different students.’
o suisensita.
ACC recommended
‘Every Japanese couple recommended different students.’

b. Subete no amerikazinhuuhu mo [e] suisensita.

all GEN American.couple also recommended
‘Every American couple also recommended them.’
718 Mamoru Saito

(51a) is many-ways ambiguous, and one possible reading is that for each Japanese
couple, the wife and the husband recommended different students. What Hoji points
out is that (51b) with a null object lacks the parallel interpretation. That is, (51b)
cannot mean that for each American couple, the wife and the husband recom-
mended different students. This is unexpected if (51b) can be derived with VP-ellipsis.
The English counterpart of (51b) with VP-ellipsis indeed has this reading, as shown
in (52b).

(52) a. Every Japanese couple recommended different students.

b. Every American couple did, too.

(51b) raises an interesting question for argument ellipsis as well. If the example can
be derived with an elided object as in (53), we would expect it to have the missing
interpretation.

(53) Subete no amerikazinhuuhu mo betubetu no gakusei o

all GEN American.couple also separate GEN student ACC
suisensita.
recommended

Having argued against VP-ellipsis, Hoji (1998) goes on to consider why examples
like (54b) can have sloppy interpretation.

(54) a. Subete no itinensei ga zibun no booru o ketta.

all GEN freshman NOM self GEN ball ACC kicked
‘Every freshman kicked her/his own ball.’

b. Subete no ninensei mo [e] ketta.

all GEN sophomore also kicked
‘Every sophomore also kicked her/his own ball.’

Here, Hoji suggests that the sloppy reading of (54b) is only apparent. More specifi-
cally, he suggests that the null object is pro that stands for the indefinite booru
‘a ball’. Then, the precise meaning of (54b) is that every sophomore kicked a ball.
This is consistent with and can depict a situation where every sophomore kicked
her/his own ball. Hoji argues that the preceding discourse provides the appropriate
context to make it plausible that the ball that each sophomore kicked is her/his own.
It is argued in Saito (2003, 2007) that Hoji’s (1998) analysis of (54) cannot be
maintained as such. For example, the analysis faces a problem when the second
sentence contains negation. Let us consider the simpler example in (55).
 Ellipsis 719

(55) a. Taroo wa zibun no kuruma o aratta.

Taroo TOP self GEN car ACC washed
‘Taroo washed his car.

b. Demo Hanako wa [e] arawanakatta.

but Hanako TOP wash.not.PST
‘But Hanako didn’t wash it/her car.’

(55b) clearly allows sloppy reading in addition to strict reading; it can mean that
Hanako did not wash her car. Thus, the sentence can be true when Hanako washed
Taroo’s car but not her own. The indefinite pro analysis fails to account for this
because the following example only means that Hanako did not wash any car at all:

(56) Hanako wa kuruma o arawanakatta.

Hanako TOP car ACC wash.not.PST
‘Hanako didn’t wash a car.’

Thus, (55) shows that the indefinite pro analysis, at least in the form proposed in
Hoji (1998), is not a viable alternative to argument ellipsis.
Yet, the relation between pro and argument ellipsis is an important topic that
needs to be pursued further. First, it is clear from examples like (57) that pro occurs
in Japanese independently of argument ellipsis.

(57) Context: Hanako is looking for her stapler.

Taroo: [e] soko ni aru yo.
there at is PART
‘It is there!’

Further, the distributions of pro and elided arguments seem to be identical. Let us
first consider the distribution of pro by looking at its occurrence in relative clauses.
In response to Kuno’s (1973) observation that Japanese relatives do not exhibit island
effects, Perlmutter (1972) argued that this is because a relative gap in Japanese need
not be produced by movement but can be a pro. According to this analysis, Kuno’s
example in (58) is analyzed with a pro in the most deeply embedded subject position
bound by the relative head, sinsi ‘gentleman’.

(58) [DP [TP [DP [TP proi kite iru] yoohuku] ga yogorete iru] sinsii]
wearing.is clothes NOM dirty.is gentleman
Lit. ‘the gentleman who the clothes that he is wearing is dirty’
720 Mamoru Saito

Murasugi (1991) examines the distribution of pro, based on Perlmutter’s analysis,

and shows that pro can occur in the positions of locative and temporal phrases, in
addition to argument positions, but not in positions of reason and manner phrases.8
Some relevant examples are shown in (59).

(59) a. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP (sorei o) motte iru] hito] o
Hanako NOM it ACC have person ACC
sagasite iru] kisyooboni]
looking.for.is rare.book
Lit. ‘the rare book that Hanako is looking for a person who has it’

b. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP (sokoi ni) sunde iru] hito] o
Hanako NOM there in live person ACC
sitte iru] matii]
know town
Lit. ‘the town that Hanako knows a person who lives there’

c. [DP [TP Hanako ga [DP [TP *(sorei de) kubi-ni natta] hito]
Hanako NOM it for fired.was person
o sitte iru] riyuui]
ACC know reason
Lit. ‘the reason that Hanako knows a person who was fired for it’

These examples are all grammatical with an overt resumptive pronoun. In (59a–b),
pro can be substituted for the overt pronoun, but not in (59c).
It was already shown that subjects and objects can be elided with argument
ellipsis. (60) shows that argument ellipsis applies to locative phrases as well.

(60) a. Taroo wa [zibun no oya no ie ni] sunde iru.

Taroo TOP self GEN parent GEN house in live
‘Taroo lives in his parents’ house.’

b. Demo Hanako wa [e] sunde inai.

but Hanako TOP live.not
‘But Hanako doesn’t live there/in her parents’ house.’

8 Given this, Murasugi (1991) concludes that pro occurs only in argument positions in a broad sense,
on the assumption that locative and temporal phrases can be arguments of the event predicate. In
the subsequent sections, I will use the expression ‘argument positions’ for ‘argument positions in a
broad sense’ when there is no possibility of misunderstanding.
 Ellipsis 721

(60b) allows sloppy interpretation, which indicates that the locative phrase, zibun no
oya no ie ni ‘self GEN parent GEN house in’ can be elided. If the pronoun, soko ni
‘there in’, is substituted for the null locative in (60b), the sloppy reading disappears.
On the other hand, (61) indicates that a reason phrase cannot be elided.

(61) a. Watasi wa [CP Taroo ga zibun no sippai de

I TOP Taroo NOM self GEN mistake for
‘I hear that Taroo was fired because of his own mistake.’
kubi-ni natta to] kiite iru.
fired.was COMP hear
‘I hear that Taroo was fired because of his own mistake.’

b. Demo [CP Hanako ga (*[e]) kubi-ni natta to] wa kiite inai.

but Hanako NOM fired.was COMP TOP hear.not
‘But I haven’t heard that Hanako was fired.’

(61b) simply means that I have not heard that Hanako was fired. As the embedded
clause cannot be construed with ‘for Taroo’s mistake’ (strict reading) or with ‘for
Hanako’s mistake’ (sloppy reading), the example shows that a reason phrase cannot
be expressed as pro or be elided.9
The discussion above suggests that the distributions of pro and elided arguments
are identical. If this is indeed the case, it calls for an explanation. One possibility is
that elided arguments are pro, as Hoji (1998) proposed. I will speculate on an alter-
native possibility in the following section. But I will first consider Hoji’s important
example in (51), together with other similar examples, in the following subsection.

3.2 The Non-Applicability of Argument Ellipsis to Operators

and Variables
Funakoshi (2012, 2013) argues against argument ellipsis in favor of V-stranding VP-
ellipsis. As his evidence shares certain similarities with Hoji’s (51), I will discuss his
argument first.
(62) is the example Funakoshi (2012) presents as evidence for V-stranding VP-
ellipsis.

(62) a. Taroo wa Hanako to dake asob-e-ru.

Taroo TOP Hanako with only play-can-PRS
‘Taroo can play only with Hanako.’ (only > can)

9 Examples like (37), discussed by Oku (1998), show that a manner phase cannot be elided or
be pro. This is consistent with the generalization that argument ellipsis and pro exhibit the same
distribution.
722 Mamoru Saito

b. *Ziroo-mo [e] asob-e-ru.

Ziroo-also play-can-PRS
Intended ‘Ziroo also can play only with Hanako.’

In (62a), Hanako to dake ‘only with Hanako’ takes scope over -e ‘can’. (See Shibata
2013 for detailed discussion on the scope properties of dake ‘only’.) (62b) indicates
that the PP cannot be elided in this context. This, Funakoshi argues, follows if null
complements are produced by V-stranding VP-ellipsis. He first hypothesizes that the
PP, Hanako to dake, moves overtly to the specifier position of FocusP above vP, as
in (63).

(63) Ziroo mo [FocusP [Hanako to dake] [vP tPP tV]] asob-e-ru.

Ziroo also Hanako with only play-can-PRS

This accounts for the fact that it takes scope over -e ‘can’. Since the PP moved out of
the vP to be elided, (62b) fails to be generated. If the vP in (63) is elided, only traces
disappear as V also moved out of the vP.
Although Funakoshi (2012) assumes that argument ellipsis should allow Hanako
to dake in (63) to be elided and presents (62) as evidence against it, I think sufficient
evidence has been accumulated in support of argument ellipsis as illustrated in the
preceding section. Then, the question is why argument ellipsis does not apply to the
PP in (63). It is Funakoshi’s insight that the PP forms an operator-variable chain as it
takes scope over -e ‘can’. It seems then that argument ellipsis does not apply to
items that form operator-variable chains.
Funakoshi (2013) presents additional examples as further evidence for V-stranding
VP-ellipsis. One of them is shown in (64).

(64) a. Taroo wa supeingo ka huransugo o hanasanai.

Taroo TOP Spanish or French ACC speak.not
‘Taroo doesn’t speak both Spanish and French.’ (or > not)

b. Hanako wa supeingo ka huransugo o hanasu ga,

Hanako TOP Spanish or French ACC speak though
Taroo wa [e] hanasanai.
Taroo TOP speak.not
‘Though Hanako speaks Spanish or French, Taroo speaks neither.’ (not > or)

As discussed in Goro (2007) in detail, Japanese disjunctive phrases with ka ‘or’ are
positive polarity items and take scope over negation, unlike their English counter-
parts with or. Thus, (64a) is interpreted as in (65).
 Ellipsis 723

(65) [px: x = Spanish or x = French] Taroo does not speak x

Funakoshi (2013) makes an extremely interesting observation that when the disjunc-
tive phrase in (64a) is apparently elided as in (64b), its scope relation with negation
reverses. He goes on to point out that the reading (64b) has is expected when the
null object is pro, roughly meaning ‘those two languages’. Then the remaining ques-
tion is why argument ellipsis does not apply to the disjunctive phrase and yield its
wide scope reading over negation. His analysis is that the disjunctive phrase moves
out of vP to take scope over negation, and hence, cannot be elided by VP-ellipsis. As
the disjunctive phrase is interpreted as in (65), this is another instance that indicates
that an item that forms an operator-variable chain is not subject to argument ellipsis.
There are a number of other cases that lead to the same conclusion. One is the
well-known fact that interrogative wh-phrases resist argument ellipsis. (66) illustrates
this.

(66) a. [CP [TP Dare ga Haiderabaad e itta] ka] sitte imasu ka.
who NOM Hyderabad to went Q know Q
‘Do you know who went to Hyderabad?’

b. Iie. *Demo [CP [TP [e] Siena e itta] ka] nara sitte imasu.
no but Siena to went Q if know
Intended ‘No. But I know the answer if the question is who went to Siena.’

This falls under the generalization if Japanese wh-phrases are interrogative operators
as argued in Lasnik and Saito (1984), for example. Hoji’s (1998) example in (51) also
seems to instantiate the generalization. A simpler example in (67) suffices to illustrate
this point.

(67) a. Taroo to Hanako ga betubetu no gakusei o suisensita.

Taroo and Hanako NOM separate GEN student ACC recommended
‘Taroo and Hanako recommended different students.’

b. *Ziroo to Akiko mo [e] suisensita.

Ziroo and Akiko also recommended
Intended ‘Ziroo and Akiko also recommended different students.’

The LF of (67b) would be roughly as in (68).10

10 See Carlson (1987) for the semantics of same and different. He argues that different, in its internal
reading, implies distinct eventualities. Hence, (68) has two sentences, one with Ziroo and the other
with Akiko as the subject.
724 Mamoru Saito

(68) [px, y: x, y students and x ≠ y] Ziroo recommended x and Akiko

recommended y

If betubetu no gakusei ‘separate GEN student’ forms an operator-variable relation in

this way, it is not surprising that it cannot be elided.
The discussion so far suggests that argument ellipsis does not apply to a phrase
that forms an operator-variable chain.11 In the remainder of this subsection, I will
argue that this follows if elided arguments are interpreted by LF-copying as proposed
in Oku (1998) and Shinohara (2006).
Let me first introduce Shinohara’s argument for the LF-copying analysis. She
first notes that a complement CP can be elided as expected, as shown in (69).

(69) a. Hanako wa [CP [TP zibun no teian ga saiyoosareru]

Hanako TOP self GEN proposal NOM adopt.PASS.PRS
to] omotte iru ga, Taroo wa [CP e] omotte inai.
COMP think though Taroo TOP think.not
‘Though Hanako thinks that her proposal will be accepted, Taroo doesn’t
think that it/his proposal will be.’

b. Taroo ga [CP [TP Hanako ga sono hon o katta] to]

Taroo NOM Hanako NOM that book ACC bought COMP
itta si Ziroo mo [CP e] itta.
said and Ziroo also said
‘Taroo said that Hanako bought the book, and Ziroo also said that she
bought it.’

Then, she points out that scrambling of an element out of the target CP blocks
argument ellipsis. Her examples are given in (70).

(70) a. *[Hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to]

book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP
itta si, [zassi o]j Ziroo wa [CP e] itta.
said and magazine ACC Ziroo TOP said
Intended ‘Taroo said that Hanako bought a book, and Ziroo said that she
bought a magazine.’

11 Takahashi’s (2008) example (48) from Section 2.3 shows that quantified DPs such as hotondo
no sensei ‘most teachers’ can be elided. This indicates that those DPs need not be subject to QR, a
conclusion drawn by Takahashi on independent grounds. See Takahashi (2008) for discussion
on the elidability of quantified DPs as well as important observations on the parallelism constraint
imposed on argument ellipsis.
 Ellipsis 725

b. *[Sono hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta]

that book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought
to] itta si, [sono hon o]j Ziroo mo [CP e] itta.
COMP said and that book ACC Ziroo TOP said
Intended ‘Taroo said that Hanako bought the book, and Ziroo also said that
she bought it.’

This is surprising, Shinohara states, if PF deletion is responsible for argument ellipsis.

(71) shows that nothing blocks PF-deletion to derive the ungrammatical (70b).

(71) [Sono hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to] itta si,
that book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP said and

[sono hon o]j Ziroo mo [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to] itta.
that book ACC Ziroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP said

Another fact Shinohara (2006) observes is that the source of the ungrammaticality
of (70b), for example, is not the scrambling in the first conjunct but that in the second,
which contains the ellipsis site. Thus, (72), with scrambling in the first conjunct, is
perfectly grammatical.

(72) [Sono hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to]
that book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP
itta si, Ziroo mo [CP e] itta.
said and Ziroo TOP said
‘Taroo said that Hanako bought the book, and Ziroo also said that she bought it.’

This is an interesting example because the elided CP is not identical to its ante-
cedent as shown in (73).

(73) [Sono hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to] itta
that book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP said
si, Ziroo-mo [CP [TP Hanako ga sono hon o katta] to] itta.
and Ziroo-TOP Hanako NOM that book ACC bought COMP said

Shinohara (2006), then, argues that (70) and (72) constitute evidence that argu-
ment ellipsis is interpreted by LF-copying. LF-copying is a process that copies an LF
object from the preceding discourse into an ellipsis site. (See Williams 1977 for an LF
copying analysis of VP-ellipsis and Chung, Ladusaw and McCloskey 1995 for an
LF copying analysis of sluicing.) In (70b), for example, the LF of the embedded CP
in the first conjunct is copied into the embedded CP position in the second conjunct.
726 Mamoru Saito

Here, it is argued in Saito (1989) and Oka (1991), among others, that long-distance
scrambling is semantically-vacuous and is subject to total reconstruction at LF.
The contrast between (74b) and (75b) is the evidence Oka (1991) presents for the
hypothesis.

(74) a. Dareka ga daremo o sonkeisite iru.

someone NOM everyone ACC respect
‘Someone respects everyone.’ (someone > everyone)

b. [Daremo o]i dareka ga ti sonkeisite iru.

everyone ACC someone NOM respect
‘Someone respects everyone.’ (everyone > someone OK)

(75) a. Dareka ga [CP [TP Taroo ga daremo o sonkeisite iru]

someone NOM Taroo NOM everyone ACC respect
to] itta.
COMP said
‘Someone said that Taroo respects everyone.’ (someone > everyone)

b. [Daremo o]i dareka ga [CP [TP Taroo ga ti sonkeisite iru]

everyone ACC someone NOM Taroo NOM respect
to] itta.
COMP said
‘Someone said that Taroo respects everyone.’ (someone > everyone)

As Japanese is a scope-rigid language, the strongly preferred reading of (74a) is the

one in which the subject takes wide scope over the object. It was demonstrated by
Kuroda (1971) that clause-internal scrambling of the object as in (74b) allows the
object to take wide scope. What Oka (1991) points out is that long scrambling of the
object as in (75b) lacks this effect on scope relations. Thus, the scrambled object,
daremo o ‘everyone ACC’, cannot take scope over the matrix subject despite the fact
that it is in a position that c-commands the subject. He argues that this follows if the
scrambled object is reconstructed at LF to a position within the CP it originated
from.
Let us now consider the LF-copying analysis of (70b), repeated below as (76),
with this background.

(76) *[Sono hon o]i Taroo wa [CP [TP Hanako ga ti katta] to]
that book ACC Taroo TOP Hanako NOM bought COMP
itta si, [sono hon o]j Ziroo mo [CP e] itta.
said and that book ACC Ziroo TOP said
Intended ‘Taroo said that Hanako bought the book, and Ziroo also said that
she bought it.’
 Ellipsis 727

Sono hon o ‘that book ACC’ in the first conjunct, by hypothesis, is reconstructed to
a position within the embedded CP at LF. If the reconstruction site is the object
position, the LF of the embedded CP will be as in (77).

(77) [CP [TP Hanako ga sono hon o katta] to]

Hanako NOM that book ACC bought COMP
‘that Hanako bought the book’

When this CP is copied into the ellipsis site in the second conjunct, (78) obtains.

(78) [sono hon o]j Ziroo mo [CP [TP Hanako ga sono hon o
that book ACC Ziroo also Hanako NOM that book ACC
katta] to] itta
bought COMP said
Lit. ‘the book, Ziroo said that Hanako bought the book.’

This is illicit as it contains two instances of sono hon o ‘that book ACC’, and the first
fails to receive a theta-role.
Note that if (77) is copied into the ellipsis site of (72), the result is well formed as
shown in (79).

(79) Ziroo mo [CP [TP Hanako ga sono hon o katta] to] itta
Ziroo also Hanako NOM that book ACC bought COMP said
‘Ziroo said that Hanako bought the book.’

Thus, the LF-copy analysis, Shinohara (2006) argues, correctly accounts for the un-
grammaticality of (70) as well as the grammaticality of (72).
Given this LF-copy analysis, it follows that an item that forms an operator-
variable chain is not subject to argument ellipsis. Recall that argument ellipsis
applies only to arguments and locative/temporal phrases. Then, LF-copying can
insert phrases only in those positions. Let us consider how LF-copying applies
to (66), repeated below as (80).

(80) a. [CP [TP Dare ga Haiderabaado e itta] ka] sitte imasu ka.
who NOM Hyderabad to went Q know Q
‘Do you know who went to Hyderabad?’

b. Iie. *Demo [CP [TP [e] Siena e itta] ka] nara sitte imasu.
no but Siena to went Q if know
Intended ‘No. But I know the answer if the question is who went to Siena.’
728 Mamoru Saito

I assumed above that Japanese interrogative wh-phrases are operators. The assump-
tion is more precisely that a wh-phrase is an operator and a variable at the same
time and hence is interpreted at two positions, as illustrated with an English example
in (81).12

(81) a. Who did Mary see? (who = {[for which x: x a person], x}

b. {[for which x: x a person], x} Mary saw {[for which x: x a person], x}

c. {[for which x: x a person], x} Mary saw {[for which x: x a person], x}

The wh-movement in (81a) copies the wh-phrase at Spec, CP as in (81b). The operator
part is interpreted at the landing site and the variable part at the initial site as in (81c).
When this is applied to (80a), the LF of the embedded CP is as in (82).

(82) [for which x: x a person] x went to Hyderabad

If the operator is copied into the ellipsis site in the embedded CP in (80b), (83a)
obtains.

(83) a. [for which x: x a person] went to Hyderabad

b. x went to Hyderabad

This makes no sense as an operator occurs in an argument position. On the other

hand, (83b) is derived if the variable x is copied into the subject position. As x is a
free variable, this cannot be interpreted properly. Thus, LF-copying fails to produce
a legitimate structure in (80b) precisely because the antecedent of ellipsis is an
operator-variable chain.
This analysis extends to Funakoshi’s (2012, 2013) examples in (62) and (64) as
well as to examples like (67) discussed by Hoji (1998). I will illustrate this with (64),
repeated below as (84).

(84) a. Taroo wa supeingo ka huransugo o hanasanai.

Taroo TOP Spanish or French ACC speak.not
‘Taroo doesn’t speak both Spanish and French.’ (or > not)

b. Hanako wa supeingo ka huransugo o hanasu ga,

Hanako TOP Spanish or French ACC speak though
Taroo wa [e] hanasanai.
Taroo TOP speak.not
‘Though Hanako speaks Spanish or French, Taroo speaks neither.’ (not > or)

12 This is for a wh-phrase that moves to Spec, CP. I assume that a wh-phrase that is directly merged
at Spec, CP and binds a resumptive pronoun receives interpretation only as an operator. It is this
kind that serves as a remnant in sluicing under the LF copying analysis.
 Ellipsis 729

As noted above, the disjunctive phrase in (84a) takes scope over negation. Suppose
then that a disjunctive phrase in a negative sentence must move as an operator in
order to escape the scope of negation. In this case, the disjunctive phrase must be
an operator and a variable at the same time just as in the case of wh-movement.
The LF of the first clause in (84b), which does not contain negation, is as in (85a)
or (85b).

(85) a. Hanako speaks [Spanish or French]

b. {[∃;x: x = Spanish or x = French], x}

Hanako speaks {[∃x: x = Spanish or x = French], x}

The object of (85a) cannot be copied into the ellipsis site in (84b) because the dis-
junctive phrase then falls within the scope of negation. Hence, only (85b) needs to
be considered. (86a) obtains when the quantifier is copied into the ellipsis site, and
(86b) when the variable is copied into the position.

(86) a. Taroo does not speak [px: x = Spanish or x = French]

b. Taroo does not speak x

Neither is a proper representation.

3.3 Further Issues with Sluicing and N’-ellipsis

I will discuss two more descriptive issues before I conclude this section, but without
a definite conclusion. One concerns sluicing. It was shown in Section 2 that the
examples that initially motivated VP-ellipsis and sluicing in Japanese can be re-
analyzed as instances of argument ellipsis. This leaves us with no evidence for
VP-ellipsis or sluicing in Japanese. But it does not show that sluicing, for example,
does not exist in the language. Given this, Takita (2012) presents evidence that
Japanese has sluicing in addition to argument ellipsis. I will first introduce his
evidence. The second issue has to do with the position of classifier phrases in a
nominal projection. Saito and Murasugi (1990) hypothesized that they are adjuncts,
but Watanabe (2010) argues that they are specifiers and can be remnants with N’-
ellipsis. I will briefly discuss this proposal in the latter part of this subsection.
Recall Saito’s (2004) proposal to analyze examples like (87a) as instances of
argument ellipsis applied to the subject of cleft sentence as in (87b).

(87) a. Taroo wa [CP naze zibun ga sikarareta ka] wakatte inai

Taroo TOP why self NOM scold.PASS.PST Q understand.not
ga, Hanako wa [CP naze (da) ka] wakatte iru.
though Hanako TOP why is Q understand
‘Though Taroo doesn’t understand why he was scolded, Hanako understands
why he/she was scolded.’
730 Mamoru Saito

b. Hanako wa [CP [TP [CP Opi [C’ [TP zibun ga ti sikarareta]

Hanako TOP self NOM scold.PASS.PST
no]] ga nazei (da)] ka] wakatte iru.
COMP NOM why is Q understand
Lit. ‘Hanako understands why it is that self was scolded.’

If the analysis is correct, (87a) no longer provides evidence for sluicing in Japanese.
However, Takita (2012) presents similar examples that cannot be analyzed this way
and argues that they do constitute evidence for sluicing. I will present his argument
in a slightly modified form.
One of his examples is given in (88).

(88) Taroo wa [CP [ModalP dokoka e ikoo] to] omotte iru

Taroo TOP somewhere to go.will COMP think
ga, [CP doko e (??da) ka] mayotte iru.
though where to is Q cannot.decide
‘Though Taroo thinks that he will go somewhere, he cannot decide where.’

(88) differs from (87a) in one important respect. The first sentence of (88) has a
control structure and the embedded clause lacks tense. Takita states that the copula
da is illicit in (88), and it certainly makes the example degraded in contrast with
(87a). The sentence with da roughly has the same status as (89) with an overt pro-
noun in the subject position.

(89) ??. . . , [CP sore ga doko e (da) ka] mayotte iru.

it NOM where to is Q cannot.decide
‘. . . , he cannot decide where it is.’

Then, (88) with da seems to have a pro subject.

The remaining question is why (88) is perfect without da. It cannot have a cleft
structure as in (87) because da can always occur in a cleft sentence. In addition, the
corresponding cleft sentence in this case is totally ungrammatical as shown in (90).

(90) *. . . , [CP [TP [CP ikoo no] ga doko e (da)] ka] mayotte iru.
will.go COMP NOM where to is Q cannot.decide
‘. . . , he cannot decide where it is that he will go.’

This is because the complementizer no, which heads the CP subject in clefts, only
takes a clausal complement with tense morphology, as shown by Matsumoto (2010),
and ikoo ‘will go’ lacks tense. Takita (2012) concludes then that (88) without da should
be analyzed as an example of sluicing as in (91).
 Ellipsis 731

(91) . . . , [CP [doko e]i [ModalP pro ti ikoo] ka] mayotte iru.
where to will.go Q cannot.decide
‘. . . , he cannot decide where (he will go).’

Takita (2012) provides an additional piece of evidence for his sluicing analysis. It
was noted in the preceding section that for examples like (87), the remnant need not
be a wh-phrase. Thus, (92) is perfectly grammatical.

(92) Taroo wa dokoka e itta ga, boku

Taroo TOP somewhere to went though I
wa [CP Tookyoo e ka(dooka)] siranai.
TOP Tokyo to whether know.not
‘Taroo went somewhere, but I don’t know whether it is to Tokyo that he went.’

On the other hand, examples like (88) requires a wh-phrase as the remnant, as (93)
shows.

(93) ??Taroo wa [CP [ModalP dokoka e ikoo] to] omotte iru ga,
Taroo TOP somewhere to go.will COMP think though
[CP Tookyoo e ka(dooka)] mayotte iru.
Tokyo to whether cannot.decide
‘Though Taroo thinks that he will go somewhere, he cannot decide whether
it is to Tokyo that he will go.

This is precisely what is expected if (88) is an example of sluicing. As was discussed

in Section 2, sluicing requires a wh-phrase in Spec, CP.
Based on this discussion, Takita (2012) concludes that the theoretical consequences
that Takahashi (1994) draws can be maintained as such. In particular, Japanese must
have optional wh-movement, that is, scrambling of a wh-phrase to its scope position
in the language must count as wh-movement. Although further investigation is
necessary to confirm Takita’s sluicing analysis, there is indirect evidence for it. It
was argued in the preceding subsection that a wh-phrase cannot be elided by argu-
ment ellipsis because it is an interrogative operator. This analysis, if correct, reinforces
the conclusion of Takahashi (1994) and Takita (2012). If a wh-phrase is an interroga-
tive operator, its movement to the scope position should establish an operator-variable
chain and count as wh-movement. And if Japanese has optional wh-movement, it is
not surprising at all that it has sluicing.
Let us now turn to Watanabe’s (2010) proposal that classifier phrases occupy
a specifier position in a nominal projection. As discussed in Section 2.1, Saito and
Murasugi (1990) argued that classifier phrases are adjuncts because examples like
(19d), repeated below as (94), are ungrammatical.
732 Mamoru Saito

(94) *Taroo wa issyuukan ni san-satu no hon o yomu

Taroo TOP one.week in three-volume GEN book ACC read
ga, Hanako wa [go-satu no __] o yomu.
though Hanako TOP five-volume GEN ACC read
‘Though Taroo reads three books per week, Hanako reads five.’

If go-satu no ‘five-volume GEN’ is an adjunct, it cannot move to Spec, DP to create

a legitimate configuration for N’-ellipsis. Watanabe points out that examples of this
kind are grammatical without the genitive Case on the remnant, as exemplified in (95).

(95) Taroo wa [san-satu no hon] o kai, Hanako

Taroo TOP three-volume GEN book ACC buy.and, Hanako
wa [go-satu __] o katta.
TOP five-volume ACC bought
‘Taroo bought three books, and Hanako bought five.’

He argues then that the classifier phrase, go-satu ‘five-volume’, is in the specifier
position of the Q(uantifier) head, as proposed in Watanabe (2006), and hence,
licenses the ellipsis of the complement of Q.
Watanabe’s proposal is that the structure of Japanese nominal phrases is richer
than assumed in Saito and Murasugi (1990), and clearly has a number of important
implications. At the same time, there seem to be a few issues that need to be
addressed to confirm his conclusion. The first is whether the object of the second
clause in (95) refers to books of certain quantity or to the quantity of books. It is
known that the object refers to an amount in examples like (96).

(96) John weighs 150 lbs.

If the object of the second clause in (95) simply refers to a quantity, then there is a
possibility that nothing is elided. As far as I can see, it is not easy to tease apart
those two readings. But examples of the following kind with mass nouns may provide
some information:

(97) a. Taroo wa go-rittoru no biiru no soko o motte

Taroo TOP five-liter GEN beer GEN bottom ACC holding
hakobi, Hanako wa roku-rittoru ??(no biiru) no soko
carry.and Hanako TOP six-liter GEN beer GEN bottom
o motte hakonda.
ACC holding carried
‘Taroo held the bottom of five liters of beer and carried it, and Hanako held
the bottom of six liters of beer and carried it.’
 Ellipsis 733

b. Taroo wa ni-rittoru no gyuunyuu no huta o ake,

Taroo TOP two-liter GEN milk GEN cap ACC open.and
Hanako wa san-rittoru ??(no gyuunyuu) no huta o aketa.
Hanako TOP three-liter GEN milk GEN cap ACC opened
‘Taroo took off the cap of two liters of milk, and Hanako took off the cap
of three liters of milk.’

(97a) and (97b) are marginal at best with the omission of biiru ‘beer’ and gyuunyuu
‘milk’ respectively. It seems that this is because a quantity does not have a bottom
or a cap. If this is the case, further investigation is necessary to establish that a
classifier phrase can serve as a remnant for ellipsis.
The second issue has to do with the analysis of the genitive no. In the examples
of N’-ellipsis considered in Saito and Murasugi (1990), the remnant in Spec, DP
occurs with no as in (18b), repeated below as (98).

(98) Rooma no hakai wa [Kyooto no __] yorimo hisan datta.

Rome GEN destruction TOP Kyoto GEN than misery was
‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’

On the other hand, according to Watanabe’s (2010) analysis, a classifier phrase in

Spec, QP does not carry no when the complement of Q is elided, as can be seen in
(95). This implies that no on arguments is different from that on classifier phrases.
Watanabe addresses this point and argues that no on arguments is Case whereas
that on classifier phrases is a linker that is inserted only when an overt nominal
projection follows. This accounts for the presence of no in the first clause and its
absence in the second clause of (95). Watanabe presents a conceptual argument
and a piece of empirical evidence for this proposal. First, according to the traditional
Case theory, Case is required only for DP arguments. Hence, it is only natural to
suppose that no on classifier phrases is something else. Secondly, there are examples
like (99) where it is difficult to analyze no as Case.

(99) Taroo ga syuzinkoo no monogatari

Taroo NOM hero Linker story
‘a story in which Taroo is the hero’

One way to analyze this example is that the copula after syuzinkoo ‘hero’ is omitted
and as a result, the noun happens to be directly followed by monogatari ‘story’.
Watanabe argues that no as a linker is inserted in this case.
Although a uniform analysis of the prenominal no is pursued in Bedell (1972),
Kitagawa and Ross (1982), and Murasugi (1991), among others, proposals have been
made to distinguish its two types. For example, Okutsu (1974) discusses examples
734 Mamoru Saito

similar to Watanabe’s (99) and proposes that no in this case is the prenominal form
of the copula da ‘be, is’. His analysis is based on examples like those in (100).

(100) a. [TP Taroo ga kaityoo de aru] gakkai

Taroo NOM president be be.PRS academic society
‘an academic society of which Taroo is the president’

b. *[TP Taroo ga kaityoo da] gakkai

Taroo NOM president be academic society
Intended ‘an academic society of which Taroo is the president’

c. [TP Taroo ga kaityoo no] gakkai

Taroo NOM president be academic society
‘an academic society of which Taroo is the president’

Okutsu first notes that the copula da cannot occur prenominally as shown in (100b).
Since no is employed in this context as in (100c), he proposes that da is the conclu-
sive form of the copula and its prenominal form is no. (100c) can be paraphrased as
in (100a), which employs the preverbal form of the copula de. As the main predicate
of the relative clause is not the copula but aru ‘be/exist.PRS’, no problem arises in
this case.
Whether one pursues Okutsu’s analysis or Watanabe’s, a remaining issue is
where the line should be drawn between genitive Case and the copula/linker. Let
me illustrate the problem with PP arguments. The examples in (101) seem to be in-
stances of N’-ellipsis with PP remnants.

(101) a. [Oya e no izon] wa yoi ga,

parent on GEN dependence TOP good though
[sensei e no __] wa yokunai.
teacher on GEN TOP good.not
‘Dependence on parents is permissible, but dependence on teachers is not.’

b. [Taroo kara no sien] mo [Hanako kara no __]

Taroo from GEN support also Hanako from GEN
mo kokorozuyokatta.
also encouraging.PST
‘Support from Taroo and support from Hanako were both encouraging.’

If these are indeed examples of N’-ellipsis, they show that PP arguments can move
to Spec, DP and serve as remnants for N’-ellipsis. This implies that the no on those
PPs is not the prenominal copula. If it were, those PPs should be relative clauses and
should be unable to move to Spec, DP. Further, it is not a linker either because if it
 Ellipsis 735

were, it should not appear on the PP remnants. On the contrary, no is required on

these PP remnants. Then, the no on PP arguments should be genitive Case. Thus,
the distribution of genitive no is wider than the simple version of the Case Filter, for
example, predicts. The precise distribution of the genitive no needs to be examined
and its explanation must be pursued further.
Although I will leave the questions raised in this subsection open, it should
be clear that Takita’s (2012) argument for sluicing and Watanabe’s (2010) proposal
on classifier phrases both may have important consequences. As noted above, if
Japanese indeed has sluicing, then it must have wh-movement. Watanabe’s proposal
may lead to further understanding of the Japanese nominal structure and conse-
quently of ellipsis within nominal projections.

4 Toward an Explanation
The discussion so far suggests that Japanese has argument ellipsis, N’-ellipsis, and
also sluicing if Takita (2012) is correct. Explanation for these phenomena must be
sought and the theoretical consequences must be investigated. In this section, I will
first suggest an analysis for argument ellipsis and try to explain why it is observed in
Japanese and Korean, but not, for example, in English. In the second part, I will
raise the possibility to derive the generalization in (10), repeated below as (102),
from Chomsky’s (2013, 2014) labeling algorithm.

(102) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C, or T) can be elided

only when F has a specifier, as illustrated below.

The discussion in this section, like that in the preceding section, is exploratory.
It raises more questions than it solves, but I hope it serves to clarify the kinds of
theoretical issues that arise in the investigation of ellipsis in Japanese.

4.1 Argument Ellipsis and the (Absence of) ɸ-feature Agreement

Argument ellipsis is observed in Japanese and Korean but not in English, as the
contrast between (103) and (104) shows.
736 Mamoru Saito

(103) a. Taroo wa [DP zibun no tomodati] o turete kita.

Taroo TOP self GEN friend ACC brought
‘Taroo brought his friend.’

b. Demo, Hanako wa [DP e] turete konakatta.

but Hanako TOP bring.not.PST
‘But Hanako didn’t bring her friend.’

(104) a. John brought [DP his friend].

b. *But Mary didn’t bring [DP e].

It is proposed in Saito (2007) that this difference is related to the presence/absence

of ɸ-feature agreement in those languages. In this subsection, I will briefly present
this analysis as well as further issues it raises. As the analysis crucially assumes
Chomsky’s (2000) proposal on ɸ-feature and Case valuation, I will first briefly go
over this proposal.
Chomsky (2000) maintains that Case is closely tied with ɸ-feature agreement.
For example, the subject provides the ɸ-features of T (subject-verb agreement) and
T specifies the Case of the subject as nominative. ɸ-feature agreement is nothing
but the occurrence of the ɸ-features of a particular DP on a functional head. Then,
it is necessary to specify how a functional head acquires ɸ-features from a DP.
Chomsky proposes that this is accomplished by Agree as illustrated in (105b) for
the v in (105a).

(105) a. Mary saw him.

b.

v comes with ɸ-features that need to be valued. It searches its domain for a value
provider, and enters into Agree relation with the DP it finds as shown in the tree on
the right hand. The Agree relation enables v to acquire the values for ɸ-features, and
as a reflection of this, the Case feature of the DP is valued as accusative. One condi-
tion that Chomsky imposes on the Agree relation is the activation condition, which
states that both the probe (v in (105b)) and the goal (DP in (105b)) must have unvalued
features. Then, a DP can supply ɸ-feature values to functional heads until its Case
feature is valued but not afterwards.
 Ellipsis 737

Shinohara’s (2006) argument for the LF copying analysis of argument ellipsis

was presented in the preceding section. Let us now consider how the analysis would
apply to the English (104b), given Chomsky’s (2000) proposal on ɸ-feature agree-
ment and Case. The DP his friend from the LF of (104a) is copied into the object posi-
tion of (104b), as shown in (106).

(106)

As the DP is copied from the LF of (104a), its Case feature is already valued.13 Then,
v fails to enter into Agree relation with the copied DP because of the activation
condition. Consequently, the ɸ-features of v cannot be valued and the derivation
crashes. This accounts for why argument ellipsis is impossible in English.
Then, how is it possible in Japanese and Korean? It has long been observed that
there is no visible ɸ-feature agreement in these languages, and there has been much
work trying to deduce the properties of these languages on the premise that they
lack ɸ-feature agreement. Notably, Kuroda (1988) proposed that the main properties
of Japanese such as multiple occurrences of Case, free word order, and the lack of
obligatory wh-movement follow from the absence of obligatory agreement. Let us
then try to extend this approach. If Japanese and Korean indeed lack (obligatory)
ɸ-feature agreement, then functional categories such as T and v do not (or need
not) carry ɸ-features that require valuation. To take a concrete example, the Japanese/
Korean counterparts of (106) have (or can have) v without ɸ-features. And in this
case, nothing goes wrong with the insertion of an object whose Case feature is
already valued. As v need not enter into Agree relation with the DP, the activation
condition is irrelevant. Thus, Saito (2007) argues that Japanese and Korean allow
argument ellipsis precisely because these languages lack ɸ-feature agreement.14
This analysis, if correct, implies that there is a general correlation between argu-
ment ellipsis and the absence of ɸ-feature agreement. This prediction has been
examined by Daiko Takahashi and his colleagues, and an interim report is made in

13 Case feature is uninterpretable. Hence, it is more likely that it is absent in LF and realized only
in PF.
14 Saito (2007) presents this as a consequence of the LF copying analysis of argument ellipsis.
Takahashi (2014a), however, proposes a way to derive the same conclusion on the basis of the PF
deletion analysis.
738 Mamoru Saito

Takahashi (2014b). Here, I will briefly discuss the case study with Turkish first pre-
sented in Şener and Takahashi (2010).
Turkish allows null arguments in both subject and object positions, but exhibits
only subject agreement. Sloppy interpretation is possible with null objects, as shown
in (107).

(107) a. Can [pro anne-si] ni eleştir-di.

John mother-3SG ACC criticize-PST
‘John criticized his mother’

b. Mete-yse ___ öv-dü.

Mete-however praise-PST
‘Mete, however, praised her/his mother’ (sloppy interpretation possible)

This indicates that argument ellipsis is possible for objects. On the other hand, (108)
shows that a null subject of a finite clause resists sloppy interpretation.

(108) a. Can [[pro öneri-si] nin kabul ed-il-eceğ-i] ni düşün-üyor.

John proposal-3SG GEN accept do-PASS-NM-3SG ACC think-PRS
‘John thinks that his proposal will be accepted’

b. Aylin-se [__ redded-il-eceğ-i] ni düşün-üyor.

Eileen-however reject-PASS-NM-3SG ACC think-PRS
‘Eileen, however, thinks that it will be rejected’ (sloppy interpretation not
possible)

Then, a null argument in this context must be pro.

Şener and Takahashi argue further that the contrast is not a subject-object asym-
metry, but the presence/absence of ɸ-feature agreement is the crucial factor. In order
to show this, they examine subjects that do not participate in ɸ-feature agreement.
The ECM subject in (109) is an example of this.

(109) a. Pelin [[pro yeğen-i] ni lise ye başla-yacak] san-ıyor.

Pelin niece-3SG ACC high.school DAT start-FUT think-PRS
‘Pelin thinks her niece will start high school’

b. Suzan-sa [__ ilkokul a başla-yacak] san-ıyor.

Susan-however grade.school DAT start-FUT think-PRS
‘Susan, however, thinks she/her niece will start grade school’
(sloppy interpretation possible)
 Ellipsis 739

As sloppy interpretation is possible in (109b), the example shows that argument

ellipsis applies to ECM subjects as predicted. As discussed in Takahashi (2014), it is
not always possible to check the prediction straightforwardly. But the basic facts
in Turkish support the correlation between argument ellipsis and the absence of
ɸ-feature agreement.
At the same time, it should be noted that the analysis of Saito (2007) is by no
means complete. Aside from the fact that it relies crucially on the activation condi-
tion, whose status can be questioned, there are two issues that need to be resolved.
The first has to do with the distributional similarity of argument ellipsis and pro,
discussed in Section 3.1. The second concerns the ellipsis of PP and CP arguments. I
will briefly discuss them before I close this subsection.
As noted in Section 3.1, argument ellipsis applies to arguments and locative/
temporal phrases and hence shows the same distribution as pro. Given this, a uni-
fied analysis of the two phenomena would be desirable. One possibility is that there
is no argument ellipsis after all and the null arguments are uniformly pro, as pro-
posed in Hoji (1998). A different possibility is suggested in Saito (2007). The LF copy-
ing analysis of argument ellipsis implies that material from the preceding discourse
is available in the derivation of a sentence. Thus, in (103), repeated below as (110),
zibun no tomotati ‘self GEN friend’ is copied from (110a) into the object position
of (110b).

(110) a. Taroo wa [DP zibun no tomodati] o turete kita.

Taroo TOP self GEN friend ACC brought
‘Taroo brought his friend.’

b. Demo, Hanako wa [DP e] turete konakatta.

but Hanako TOP bring.not.PST
‘But Hanako didn’t bring her friend.’

What Saito (2007) suggests is that pro as an LF object can always be copied into a
sentence in the same way. The idea is that there is a set of discourse entities that
can be used in a derivation, in addition to the LIs in the numeration, and the set
includes LF objects from the prior discourse as well as pro. The same mechanism of
LF copying, then, will be responsible for argument ellipsis and pro.
Although this unification of argument ellipsis and pro is merely a speculation
at this point, it has one advantage. It has been noted that pro occurs in two totally
different environments: it is licensed by rich agreement in languages such as Italian
and Spanish and it appears freely in languages without ɸ-feature agreement such as
Japanese and Korean. The former environment makes sense as rich agreement pro-
vides the information that is conveyed by a pronoun. But it has been a mystery why
the total absence of ɸ-feature agreement makes the occurrence of pro possible. The
approach suggested above provides an answer for this. Pro, as an LF object, must
740 Mamoru Saito

lack unvalued features, and hence, cannot be copied into a position that serves
as the target of Agree. Hence, it can only appear in the context where there is no
ɸ-feature agreement.
The second issue has to do with the ellipsis of PPs and CPs. (60), repeated below
as (111), and (69a), repeated as (112), show that complement CPs and locative PPs
can be elided respectively.

(111) a. Taroo wa [zibun no oya no ie ni] sunde iru.

Taroo TOP self GEN parent GEN house in live
‘Taroo lives in his parents’ house.’

b. Demo Hanako wa [e] sunde inai.

but Hanako TOP live.not
‘But Hanako doesn’t live there/in her parents’ house.’

(112) Hanako wa [CP [TP zibun no teian ga saiyoosareru]

Hanako TOP self GEN proposal NOM adopt.PASS.PRS
to] omotte iru ga, Taroo wa [CP e] omotte inai.
COMP think though Taroo TOP think.not
‘Though Hanako thinks that her proposal will be accepted, Taroo doesn’t
think that it/his proposal will be.’

English contrasts with Japanese and Korean with respect to examples of this kind
as well. Thus, the English counterpart of (112) is totally ungrammatical as shown
in (113).

(113) *Mary thinks [CP that [TP her proposal will be accepted]], but John doesn’t
think [CP e].

The ungrammaticality of (113) poses a problem for the analysis presented above, as
long as CPs do not participate in ɸ-feature agreement. If a CP is not a target of any
Agree relation, nothing should prevent its insertion in the ellipsis site of (113). It is
conceivable that LF copying of an argument is a marked operation that becomes part
of a grammar only with positive evidence. If the ellipsis of argument DPs serves as
the positive evidence, a Japanese-speaking child will acquire argument ellipsis. On
the other hand, an English-speaking child will never encounter the crucial data and
argument ellipsis will not be part of her/his grammar. Although this is a possibility,
a more principled account is desirable.
 Ellipsis 741

4.2 Deriving the Licensing Condition on N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis

and Sluicing
The preceding subsection was concerned with why argument ellipsis is possible in
Japanese and Korean but not, for example, in English. The theory of ellipsis aims to
explain in more general terms why only constituents of specified types can be elided
and why ellipsis is possible only in specific configurations. For the former question,
it seems that any maximal projection can in principle be elided. Argument ellipsis
applies to DPs, CPs, and PPs. And if the approach outlined in the preceding sub-
section is on the right track, it is observed only in positions that do not participate
in ɸ-feature agreement for an independent reason. N’-ellipsis applies to the NP com-
plement of D, VP-ellipsis to the vP complement of T, and sluicing to the TP comple-
ment of C. The targets of ellipsis in these cases are non-argument maximal projections.
Then, under the LF copying analysis of ellipsis, it appears that maximal projections
constitute coherent LF objects that can be used in a derivation of a sentence. One
of the remaining questions is why adjuncts, like the reason phrase in (61), repeated
below as (114), cannot be elided.

(114) a. Watasi wa [CP Taroo ga zibun no sippai de

I TOP Taroo NOM self GEN mistake for
kubi-ni natta to] kiite iru.
fired.was COMP hear
‘I hear that Taroo was fired because of his own mistake.’

b. Demo [CP Hanako ga (*[e]) kubi-ni natta to] wa kiite inai.

but Hanako NOM fired.was COMP TOP hear.not
‘But I haven’t heard that Hanako was fired.’

I will leave this question, together with many others, for future research.
Outstanding with the second question is the generalization in (10) on N’-ellipsis,
VP-ellipsis, and sluicing, which is repeated again in (115).

(115) Ellipsis: The complement of a functional category F (D, C, or T) can be elided

only when F has a specifier, as illustrated below.

This generalization, if correct, must be explained. As far as I know, Richards (2003)

is the only work that attempts this. He proposes a modification of Kayne’s (1994)
Linear Correspondence Axiom and argues that the generalization follows from the
742 Mamoru Saito

theory of linearization. In this subsection, I will speculate on an alternative approach,

building on his insights. More specifically, I will consider the possibility of deriving
(115) from the theory of labeling proposed in Chomsky (2014).
Richards (2003) assimilates (115) with the EPP. This makes sense as both demand
that Spec positions be filled. On the other hand, Chomsky (2014) proposes to derive
the EPP from the theory of labeling. It seems then only reasonable to try to extend
this analysis to (115). But before getting into this discussion, I will briefly go over
Chomsky’s (2013) proposals on labeling.
Phrase structure is built with the basic and minimum operation Merge, which
combines two elements into a constituent. Formally, Merge takes two elements, α
and β, and forms their set, γ = {α, β}. Required for interpretation is the information
on what sort of object γ is, that is, on γ’s label. For example, γ = {verb, noun} would
be interpreted differently depending on whether γ is a verb phrase or a noun phrase.
The way in which the label of the object formed by Merge is determined is called
the labeling algorithm. Chomsky (2013) lists the three cases in (116) as the possible
outcomes of Merge.

(116) a. γ = {H, βP}

b. γ = {αP, βP}

c. γ = {H, H}

In (116a), Merge applies to a head and a phrase. This case is straightforward: As

the search into γ directly yields the unique head H, H provides the label for γ. On
the other hand, (116b) and (116c) are problematic because there is no asymmetric
relation between the elements of γ.
Chomsky considers the derivation of TP in order to examine how the label is
determined when Merge applies to two phrases as in (116b).

(117)

The derivation proceeds in a bottom-up fashion, and the structure in (116b) arises
first when the external argument DP merges with vP. In this case, the DP eventually
moves out of XP. Consequently, vP is the only element that XP properly contains,
 Ellipsis 743

and Chomsky proposes that vP provides the label of XP for this reason. Although
the movement of the external argument DP enables XP to be labeled, it creates
the structure of (116b) at the landing site when the DP internally merges with TP.
Chomsky notes that this is a special configuration because the DP and (the label of)
TP share the same set of ɸ-features due to ɸ-feature agreement. He proposes then
that the label of YP is determined as <ɸ, ɸ> on the basis of this feature sharing.
Another instance of labeling by feature sharing is observed when a wh-phrase
merges with a CP to assume its scope position. The wh-phrase and (the label of)
the CP share a question feature, say, Q, and hence, the newly created constituent is
labeled as <Q, Q>.15
Chomsky (2014) extends this analysis to explain the EPP and the ECP effects.
Here, I will go over his explanation for the EPP, which requires that T have a specifier.
Chomsky assumes that the EPP does not hold in null subject languages like Italian
and Spanish. This implies that the structure in (118a) is allowed in those languages
but not in EPP languages, including English.

(118) a. b.

The labeling algorithm discussed so far allows this structure: T is the unique head in
XP and hence determines the label of XP. The fact that (118a) is illicit in EPP lan-
guages suggests that T is defective in those languages. That is, T is weak so that it
cannot provide a label as a head. Then, T must have a feature-sharing specifier as
in (118b) so that the whole structure can be labeled. In this case, YP is labeled
as <ɸ, ɸ> due to the ɸ-feature sharing. As far as I can see, the status of XP in
(118b) is somewhat unclear. It is possible that it need not have a label because it is
an “intermediate projection.” But Chomsky suggests that the feature sharing makes a
defective (weak) T in EPP languages non-defective (strong). Then, T provides the
label for XP. The main part of Chomsky’s (2013, 2014) proposal can be summarized
as in (119).

(119) a. In γ = {H, βP}, H provides the label for γ if H is strong.

b. In γ = {αP, βP}, if search into αP and βP yields heads that share the feature
f, then the label of γ is <f, f>.

15 Labeling by feature sharing provides an answer for why ɸ-feature agreement exists in languages.
That is, ɸ-feature agreement is necessary so that a TP, for example, can be properly labeled. Then, a
question arises with respect to labeling in languages like Japanese, which lack ɸ-feature agreement.
This problem is discussed with a possible solution in Saito (2014).
744 Mamoru Saito

Let us now consider the generalization in (115) with this background. It states that a
functional head requires a specifier when its complement is elided. Then, Chomsky’s
(2014) analysis of the EPP can be extended to these cases on the assumption that a
functional head fails to provide a label without a specifier in the context of ellipsis.
In the remainder of this section, I will suggest two approaches to pursue this.
The first relies on another idea of Richards (2003). He proposes that the internal
structure of an elided constituent is invisible and hence the constituent counts as
a head for the purpose of linearization. Translating this idea into the LF copying
analysis of ellipsis, it can be hypothesized that a constituent that enters the structure
by LF copying counts as a head for the purpose of labeling. Then, the illicit case of
sluicing in (9b), repeated in (120), is accounted for.

(120) *John denied that he cheated, but I believe [CP that [TP he cheated]].

The CP with ellipsis has the structure {C, H} and hence fails to be labeled. The gram-
matical (7b), repeated in (121), also receives an account with a slight adjustment.

(121) John knows [CP which girl [TP Mary likes]], but he doesn’t know [CP which boy
[TP she likes]].

The CP with ellipsis has the structure in (122).

(122)

The search into XP yields two heads, C and H. On the assumption that both heads
are visible in this situation, the feature sharing of C and (the label of) DP provides
the label <Q, Q> for YP. I assume that XP need not be labeled, being an “intermediate
projection,” or feature sharing picks out C as the provider of label for XP. This
analysis extends to N’-ellipsis if there is an appropriate feature sharing between the
genitive DP and the head D, possibly the feature [genitive].
There is another possibility that follows Chomsky’s (2014) analysis of the EPP
more closely. Chomsky’s proposal was that T requires a specifier in EPP languages
because T is weak and cannot provide a label by itself. Then, as functional heads
require a specifier in the context of ellipsis, let us assume that all functional heads
are weak except T in null subject languages. This yields the generalization in (115).
Let us consider the sluicing examples in (120) and (121) again for illustration. (120) is
ungrammatical because the CP with ellipsis has the structure in (123a) and XP fails
to be labeled, C being weak.
 Ellipsis 745

(123) a. b.

On the other hand, the CP in (121) is successfully labeled as illustrated in (123b). As

there is a feature sharing of Q between the wh and C, YP is labeled as <Q, Q>.
This analysis necessitates a reconsideration of simple examples like (124) without
ellipsis.

(124) John thinks [CP that [TP Mary solved the problem]].

The embedded CP in this example has the structure in (123a). The example then
must be distinguished from (120) with ellipsis. This can be achieved under the LF
copying analysis of ellipsis if the embedded CP in (124) is labeled through feature
sharing between C and T in the configuration in (125).

(125)

There are many possibilities for the relevant feature shared by C and T. For example,
Chomsky (2008) proposes that unvalued features originate in phase heads, and T’s
ɸ-features are inherited from C. Then, C and T may share ɸ-features. For languages
without ɸ-feature agreement, it is possible that T inherits the ability to value nomi-
native Case from C. It is also known that C and T have a close selectional relation.
The C that selects for a finite TP whereas for selects for a non-finite TP. This may
mean that C values the [±finite] feature of T. Here, I assume without choosing among
these possibilities that C and T share the relevant feature f because it originates in C
and T obtains it.
The next question to be addressed is how this feature sharing leads to the label-
ing of YP in (125). This becomes possible if the labeling algorithm is stated in the
slightly different form in (126), which I believe is still consistent with the proposals
in Chomsky (2014).

(126) a. In γ = {α, β}, if there is a unique head α and α is strong, α provides the label
for γ.

b. Otherwise, search into α and β in order to locate heads. If the yielded heads
a and b share a feature f of a specified type, then the label of γ is <f, f>.16

16 Here I assume crucially that (126b) applies to cases where one of α and β is a weak head and that
a and b’s depth of embedding within α and β need not be identical.
746 Mamoru Saito

Given that C is weak, (126a) is inapplicable to YP in (125). Then, heads must be

searched in C and XP, according to (126b). Search into C immediately yields C. Tacit
in the discussion above is that when search encounters {α, β} where α and β are both
phrases, it proceeds to look into both α and β. Then, search into XP yields D and T. If
either of D and T can count in this case, as assumed above, then YP can be labeled
<f, f> on the premise that C and T share this feature. Note that in the context of sluic-
ing, XP is copied into the structure from the prior discourse. Hence, its T does not
obtain the feature f from the C in the structure XP is copied into. As a result, there
is no sharing of f between C and T, and YP fails to be labeled.
This line of analysis can be applied to the contrast in (127) with N’-ellipsis if D
values a feature of N.

(127) a. [DP the [NP destruction of the city]]

b. *[DP the [NP destruction of the city]]

It is proposed in Chomsky (1986b) that N assigns inherent genitive Case to its com-
plements. Let us assume for concreteness that N inherits the genitive feature from D.
Then, the structure of (127a) is as in (128).

(128)

(126b) applies for the labeling of XP because D, by hypothesis, is weak. The search
into D and NP yields the heads D and N, and XP is labeled as <genitive, genitive>. In
the context of N’-ellipsis, NP is copied from the prior discourse. Consequently, the
genitive feature of its head N is not inherited from the D, and feature sharing fails
to obtain. In this case, labeling is possible only through the feature sharing of
D and its specifier. And the desired feature sharing obtains if the [genitive] of the
specifier is valued by D.
N’-ellipsis in Japanese can be analyzed in basically the same way. Recall that
DPs and PPs within projections of N and D appear with genitive Case in the lan-
guage. The relevant examples in (18) are repeated in (129) below.

(129) a. Hanako no Tookyoo de no kabu no torihiki

Hanako GEN Tokyo in GEN stock GEN dealing
‘Hanako’s dealing of stocks in Tokyo’
b. Taroo no san-kai no muitimon de no Yooroppa
Taroo GEN three-time GEN no.penny with GEN Europe
e no ryokoo
to GEN trip
‘Taroo’s three trips to Europe with no money’
 Ellipsis 747

It was entertained in Section 2 that genitive in Japanese is a contextual Case that is

inserted as in (130).

(130) [α DP/PP β] → [α DP/PP no β], where α and β are projections of N or D.

Here, it can be assumed that D has the feature to trigger genitive Case insertion and
it is inherited by N. Then, there is a feature sharing between D and N. In the case of
N’-ellipsis, the NP is copied from prior discourse and the head N already inherited
the feature from a distinct D. Hence, there is no feature-sharing between D and N in
this case.
The analysis just outlined predicts correctly that a weak T requires a specifier
with or without the ellipsis of its complement. According to this analysis, C and D
can appear without a specifier when and only when they are in feature sharing rela-
tion with the heads of their complements. Further, the feature sharing arises because
C and D are phase heads that value the features of their complements or transfer fea-
tures to them. This situation never arises with T as T is not a phase head. It follows
then that T must always have a specifier so that “its projection” can be labeled
through feature sharing between T and its specifier.

5 Conclusion
In this chapter, I first surveyed the arguments for N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, sluicing,
and argument ellipsis in Japanese. Argument ellipsis was proposed in place of VP-
ellipsis in Oku (1998) and Kim (1999), and a supporting argument for it in Saito
(2004) raised doubts on sluicing. Further descriptive issues on ellipsis in Japanese
were discussed in Section 3. I introduced Hoji (1998) and Funakoshi’s (2012, 2013)
evidence against argument ellipsis and argued that it supports the LF copying
analysis of argument ellipsis instead. Takita’s (2012) new evidence for sluicing and
Watanabe’s (2010) extension of the N’-ellipsis analysis were also briefly discussed. I
hope that further research that builds on these works will make the overall picture
of elliptic phenomena in Japanese clearer.
Descriptive research and the effort to explain its results should proceed in parallel.
In Section 4, I considered possible approaches to explain argument ellipsis and the
descriptive condition on N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, and sluicing. It is hypothesized in
Minimalist research that there is a single structure-building operation, Merge, which
freely combines two elements into a constituent. This operation is accompanied by
the labeling algorithm, and ɸ-feature agreement serves to make labeling possible
in some cases. The hypotheses entertained here are that the distribution of argument
ellipsis follows from the mechanism of ɸ-feature agreement and that the condition
on N’-ellipsis, VP-ellipsis, and sluicing is closely related to the labeling algorithm. As
these ideas are still preliminary, I hope they will be developed, possibly into radi-
cally different proposals.
748 Mamoru Saito

References
Abe, Jun. 1999. On directionality of movement: A case of Japanese right dislocation. Unpublished
ms., Nagoya University.
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Syntax at the PF interface. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Bedell, George. 1972. On no. UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian syntax. 1–20.
Carlson, Greg. 1987. Same and different: Some consequences for syntax and semantics. Linguistics
and Philosophy 10. 531–565.
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum
(eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–
166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann,
and Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana
Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural
Language Semantics 3. 239–282.
Fukaya, Teruhiko and Hajime Hoji. 1999. Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications.
Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18. 145–158.
Fukaya, Teruhiko. 2012. Island-sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and some implications. In Jason
Merchant and Andrew Simpson (eds.), Sluicing: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 123–163. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1988. Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in para-
metric syntax. English Linguistics 5. 249–270.
Fukui, Naoki and Margarett Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projections. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
8. 128–172. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 519–562.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2013. Disjunction and object drop in Japanese. Tampa Papers in Linguistics 4,
11–20.
Goro, Takuya. 2007. Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisi-
tion. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of
Logopedics and Phoniatrics 7. 113–147.
Hinds, John. 1973. On the status of the VP node in Japanese. Language Research 9(2). 44–57.
Hoji, Hajime. 1990. Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Unpublished ms., Univer-
sity of Southern California.
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null objects and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 127–152.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 321–337.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1978. Nihongo no bunpō kisoku [Grammatical rules of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kamio, Akio. 1983. Meishiku no kōzō [The structure of noun phrases]. In Kazuko Inoue (ed.),
Nihongo no kihon kōzō [Basic structure of Japanese], 77–126. Tokyo: Sanseido.
 Ellipsis 749

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, Soowon. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 8. 255–284.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia Ross. 1982. Prenominal modification in Chinese and Japanese.
Linguistic Analysis 9. 19–53.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1978. Japanese: A characteristic OV language. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic
typology, 57–138. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1971. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even or only:
Part II. Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 4. 127–152.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Lasnik, Howard. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study. In Norbert Hornstein
and David Lightfoot (eds.), Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisi-
tion, 152–173. New York: Longman.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15.
235–289.
Lobeck, Ann. 1990. Functional heads as proper governors. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic
Society 20. 348–362.
Matsumoto, Eri. 2010. Nihongo no in’yōhyōgen to hobun no seishitsu ni tsuite [On quotative expres-
sions and clausal complements in Japanese]. BA thesis, Nanzan University.
Mukai, Emi. 2003. On verbless conjunction in Japanese. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic
Society 33. 205–224.
Murasugi, Keiko. 1991. Noun phrases in Japanese and English: A study in syntax, learnability and
acquisition. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Nishiyama, Kunio, John Whitman and Eun-Young Yi. 1996. Syntactic movement of overt wh-phrases
in Japanese and Korean. In Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/
Korean Linguistics 5. 337–351.
Oka, Toshifusa. 1991. On the spec of IP. Unpublished ms., MIT.
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. Storrs,
CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
Okutsu, Keiichiro. 1974. Seisei nihon bunpō ron [A generative Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Otani, Kazuyo and John Whitman. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 345–358.
Perlmutter, David. 1972. Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In Paul M. Peranteau,
Judith N. Levi and Gloria C. Phares (eds.), Chicago which hunt: Papers from the relative clause
festival, 73–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Richards, Norvin. 2003. Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 123. 221–256.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark R. Baltin and
Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. Notes on discourse-based null arguments. Paper presented at Japanese/
Korean Linguistics Conference 13, Michigan State University.
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Ellipsis and pronominal reference in Japanese clefts. Nanzan Linguistics 1.
21–50.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43. 203–227.
Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without ɸ-feature agreement. In Anna
Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque and Yoshio Endo (eds.), On peripheries, 269–297. Tokyo: Hituzi
Syobo.
750 Mamoru Saito

Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi. 1990. N’-deletion in Japanese: A preliminary study. In Hajime
Hoji (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1. 285–301.
Şener, Serkan and Daiko Takahashi. 2010. Argument ellipsis in Japanese and Turkish. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 61. 325–339. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shibata, Yoshiyuki. 2013. Negative structure and object movement in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 24. 217–269.
Shinohara, Michie. 2004. Nihongo no sakujo genshō ni tsuite [On the ellipsis phenomena in
Japanese]. BA thesis, Nanzan University.
Shinohara, Michie. 2006. Nihongo no kōsakujo ni kansuru kōsatu [Investigation into argument
ellipsis in Japanese]. MA thesis, Nanzan University.
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3. 265–300.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 39.
307–326.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2014a. Shugo/mokutekigo shōryaku no hikaku tōgoron [A comparative syntax of
subject and object ellipsis]. In Keiko Murasugi (ed.), Research report II: Linguistic variations
within the confines of language faculty, 31–52. Nanzan University and National Institute for
Japanese Language and Linguistics.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2014b. Argument ellipsis, anti-agreement, and scrambling. In Mamoru Saito (ed.),
Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, 88–116. New York: Oxford University Press.
Takita, Kensuke. 2012. ‘Genuine’ sluicing in Japanese. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society 45(1). 577–592.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2001. Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37. 551–579.
Watanabe, Akira. 2006. Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 24. 241–306.
Watanabe, Akira. 2010. Notes on nominal ellipsis and the nature of no and classifiers in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19. 61–74.
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 101–139.
Natsuko Tsujimura
20 Syntax and argument structure

1 Introduction
Contrasted with adjuncts, arguments serve as obligatory and integral elements of
predicates. Their analysis has raised a number of typological and theoretical issues
in the linguistics literature, encompassing morphology, semantics, and syntax as
well as their interface areas. Although nouns, verbs, adjectives, and pre- and post-
positions can all take arguments, the literature on a predicate’s arguments and argu-
ment structure has focused primarily on arguments of verbs. As important as they
are, arguments of a predicate are not always straightforwardly identified in a given
language since the degree of obligatoriness of linguistic expressions varies across
languages. Particularly in languages like Japanese that allow an extensive use of
contextually recoverable zero pronouns (or noun ellipsis), a predicate’s arguments
are semantically present for interpretations but are not necessarily realized syntacti-
cally as overt noun phrases. In these languages, the identification of a predicate’s
arguments cannot rely solely on the obligatory presence of noun phrases in a surface
string of words. This challenge, to some degree, applies to English, which allows no,
or at least extremely limited use of, zero pronouns. Examples like I’ve already eaten
(lunch), Have you been drinking (alcoholic beverages) again?, and even This tiger
kills (people) when he is hungry illustrate the point. The definition of a predicate’s
arguments for languages like Japanese may well rely more on semantic measures,
such as Comrie’s (1993: 907): “Thus our overall definition of argument would be:
a phrase that is either obligatory given the choice of predicate, or whose meaning
is a function of that of the predicate, or whose behavior is parallel to argument so
defined” (emphasis added).
While a variety of assumptions have been made in organizing arguments of
predicates, what seems to be of general agreement is that argument structure specifies
the number and semantic types (or thematic roles) of the arguments with which a
verb has a strong association, syntactically or semantically, given Comrie’s definition
above. In some approaches, furthermore, structured ordering or hierarchical organi-
zation among the arguments has been claimed to explain various syntactic behavior.
(Bresnan and Kanerva 1989; Grimshaw 1990) The argument structures provided in
(1), indicated within parentheses, display some of the standard representations of
intransitive verbs (both unergative and unaccusative types), transitive verbs, and
ditransitive verbs, as well as ‘psych verbs’ that pattern similar to transitive verbs in
the number of arguments but differ from them in their semantic types.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-021
752 Natsuko Tsujimura

(1) a. intransitive – unergative: warau ‘laugh’ (agent)

Akanboo ga hazimete waratta.
<agent>
baby NOM for.the.first.time laughed
‘A baby laughed for the first time.’

b. intransitive – unaccusative: kowareru ‘break’ (theme)

Hurui tokei ga kowareta.
<theme>
old clock NOM broke
‘An old clock broke.’

c. transitive: kaku ‘write’ (agent, theme)

Gakusei ga ii ronbun o kaita.
<agent> <theme>
student NOM good article ACC wrote
‘A student wrote a good article.’

d. ditransitive: ageru ‘give’ (agent, goal, theme)

Hahaoya ga musume ni seetaa o ageta.
<agent> <goal> <theme>
mother NOM daughter DAT sweater ACC gave
‘A mother gave her daughter a sweater.’

e. “psych verb”: odoroku ‘be surprised’ (experiencer, theme/stimulus)

Ryokoosya ga natu no atusa ni odoroita.
<experiencer> <theme>
travelers NOM summer GEN heat at surprised
‘Travelers were surprised at the heat of the summer.’

The organization of argument structure, as exemplified in (1), is further motivated by

the crosslinguistic generalization that a verb’s arguments are systematically mapped
onto grammatical functions in syntactic configurations, and that the mapping is
mediated by linking rules. A linking rule connects each member of argument structure
and a syntactic position with regularity. In languages of the nominative-accusative
case pattern, typically agent is projected onto the subject position, theme onto the
object position, and so on; and they generally have their morphological correspon-
dence of Case. The systematic nature of the linking between thematic roles and
grammatical functions effectively accounts for the typological differences between
the nominative-type and the ergative-type across the world’s languages. It further
captures the differences within a single language between the two types of intransi-
tive sentences – one with unergative verbs and the other with unaccusative verbs –
while explaining the similar syntactic behavior of the sole argument of unaccusative
sentences and the object argument of transitive sentences. The generalization over
 Syntax and argument structure 753

the systematic linking patterns has been dealt with in various syntactic theories –
ranging from the Universal Alignment Hypothesis in Relational Grammar (Perlmutter
and Postal 1984), the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis in Government
and Binding Theory (Baker 1988), to the Lexical Mapping Principles in Lexical Func-
tional Grammar (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989) – although the specific mechanism of
linking rules may vary.
In describing the relationship between semantic representations of arguments
and their syntactic realization, thematic roles alone are often considered to be insuf-
ficient to account for the complexity of the relationship. Instead, it is discussed in
terms of a more elaborate structure that represents a verb’s lexical meaning through
lexical decomposition. In such cases, argument structure is understood to be linked
to a lexically decomposed structure that is known under terms like lexical conceptual
structure, lexical semantic structure, and event structure. (Hale and Keyser 1986a,
1986b, 1988; Jackendoff 1983, 1987, 1990; Kageyama 1996; Rappaport and Levin 1988)
Examples of lexical conceptual structures of the verbs in (1) are given in (2).

(2) a. conceptual structure: [x ACT]

|
argument structure: (agent)

b. conceptual structure: [BECOME [x <state>]]

|
argument structure: (theme)

c. conceptual structure: [[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y <state>]]]

argument structure: (agent, theme)

d. conceptual structure: [[x ACT] CAUSE [BECOME [y HAVE z]]]

argument structure: (agent, goal, theme)

e. conceptual structure: [BECOME [x BE AT [PSYCH-STATE ABOUT y]]]1

argument structure: (experiencer, theme)

A number of issues have been addressed that directly and indirectly pertain to argu-
ment structure from descriptive, typological, and theoretical points of view (Alsina
2006; Bresnan and Kanerva 1989; Butt 2006; Comrie 1993; Duguine, Huidobro, and
Madariaga 2010; Goldberg 1995; Grimshaw 1990; Harley 2010; Levin and Rappaport
Hovav 1998, 2005; Sadler and Spencer 1998); and Japanese has contributed to the

1 I follow Kageyama’s (2007) notation of psych verbs.

754 Natsuko Tsujimura

exploration as is demonstrated by many published works. Touching on only a few of

those issues here obviously does not do justice to the breadth and depth of this in-
triguing topic that a wide gamut of investigations have brought to light particularly
over the past thirty-five years. Instead, the goal of this chapter is rather modest. In
section 2 I will briefly discuss past and ongoing studies by focusing on two areas of
argument structure research in which Japanese data have had significant bearing
and have contributed to our general understanding of argument structure and its
relation to syntax. The first of these deals with the process of Argument Transfer.
The phenomenon has been observed with the light verb construction in Japanese,
and a representative analysis outlined here supports a hierarchical organization
of argument structure. The second case involves different types of double object
verbs in Japanese that exhibit non-uniform patterns of syntactic realization of their
arguments. This line of research suggests that various patterns of linking between
argument structure and syntax, as observed within Japanese and in their cross-
linguistic differences, can be explained by lexical semantic properties of the predicate
as well as morphosyntax of the arguments. In section 3 we will turn our attention to
theoretical approaches to argument structure, and examine to what extent Japanese
data can serve as a testing ground for them. To this end I will discuss projectionist
and constructionist approaches as two prevalent ways of viewing argument structure.
They differ in answering the question of where in the grammar argument structure
should be captured. I consider potential advantages and challenges these contrastive
views posit vis-à-vis the Japanese data drawn from language acquisition and mimetic
verbs.

2 Past and ongoing contribution

To illustrate the relevance that Japanese data have brought to the research on argu-
ment structure and related matters, this section singles out two previous and ongoing
investigations: (i) the process of Argument Transfer and hierarchical organization of
argument structure; and (ii) double object verbs and an analogy to dative alternation.

2.1 Argument Transfer and hierarchical organization of

argument structure
In their work on the light verb construction, Grimshaw and Mester (1988) propose
a process they termed Argument Transfer that operates over two sets of argument
structures. This work spurred a series of subsequent investigations on argument
structure within the context of the light verb construction and beyond. (Miyagawa
1989; Tsujimura 1990; Uchida and Nakayama 1993) The term “light verb” is not
unique to Japanese, as is evidenced by discussions on the topic that precede or
 Syntax and argument structure 755

coincide with Grimshaw and Mester’s analysis of the Japanese construction (e.g.
Jespersen 1954; Cattell 1984; Kearns 1998; to name a few). For instance, English
examples of light verbs appear in phrases like make a decision, take a break, give a
hug, do a trick, and have a drink, where the verbs make, take, give, do, and have are
considered “light” in their semantic contribution while the accompanying nouns
carry weight in interpreting what the phrases mean. In Japanese, the verb suru,
which is most customarily translated as ‘do’ in isolation, can form complex predicates
with lexemes of varying strata: (i) torihiki-suru (‘business’ [Yamato compound]-suru)
‘trade’, (ii) kikoku-suru (‘return to the home country’ [Sino-Japanese compound]-suru)
‘return to the home country’, (iii) deeto-suru (‘dating’ [English loanword]-suru) ‘(to)
date’, and (iv) tin-suru (‘sound of bell’ [mimetic]-suru) ‘(to) microwave’. These complex
predicates are similar to the English examples above in that their interpretations
primarily rely on the meaning of the lexeme to which suru is suffixed. Furthermore,
at least in the first three types of Japanese complex predicates with suru, the accom-
panying nouns with Accusative Case on them may be morphologically separated
from suru and serve as the verb’s complement. (3a) and (3b) are minimally different
in this respect without any significant difference in meaning.

(3) a. Musume ga dookyuusei to deeto-siteiru.

my.daughter NOM classmate with dating-suru
‘My daughter has been dating with her classmate.’

b. Musume ga dookyuusei to deeto o siteiru.

my.daughter NOM classmate with dating ACC suru

The difference between (3a) and (3b) does not merely mean that (3a) is a noun-
incorporation alternant of (3b). An interesting set of properties that is relevant to
argument structure is associated with the pattern in (3b), and it is more notably
demonstrated when more than one non-agent argument is involved (i.e. parallel to
a ditransitive predicate). (4a) presents such a case.

(4) a. Sityoo ga yuusyoosya ni hanataba o zootei-sita.

mayor NOM winner DAT bouquet ACC gift-suru.PST
‘The mayor gave the winner a bouquet of flowers.’

b. *Sityoo ga yuusyoosya ni hanataba o zootei o sita.

mayor NOM winner DAT bouquet ACC gift ACC suru.PST

b’. (Sono) hanataba wa sityoo ga yuusyoosya ni zootei o sita.

(that) bouquet TOP mayor NOM winner DAT gift ACC suru.PAST

c. Sityoo ga yuusyoosya ni hanataba no zootei o sita.

mayor NOM winner DAT bouquet GEN gift ACC suru.PST
756 Natsuko Tsujimura

d. *Yuusyoosya ni hanataba o sityoo no zootei o sita.

winner DAT bouquet ACC mayor GEN gift ACC suru.PST

e. *Sityoo ga yuusyoosya e no hanataba no zootei o sita.

mayor NOM winner to GEN bouquet GEN gift ACC suru.PST

f. *Sityoo ga hanataba o yuusyoosya e no zootei o sita.

mayor NOM bouquet ACC winner to GEN gift ACC suru.PST

Unlike the complex predicate in (4a), the verb in (4b) is the free-standing suru, but
the three event participants – sityoo ‘mayor’, yuusyoosya ‘winner’, and hanataba ‘a
bouquet of flowers’ – are entities required by the Sino-Japanese noun, zootei ‘gift’.
That is, the mayor is the agent, the winner is the recipient, and a bouquet of flowers
is the theme of the event of giving. In contrast, suru does not have any semantic or
thematic contribution, hence “light”. Grimshaw and Mester’s (1988) proposal attempts
to explain this difference between the predicative noun and the light verb by claiming
that the noun has an argument structure that consists of three arguments: agent, goal,
and theme. In contrast, the light verb suru has an empty argument structure, and the
arguments belonging to the noun can be moved to the light verb’s empty argument
structure by the process of Argument Transfer. The light verb, however, has the ability
to assign Accusative Case on its own, ensuring the case assignment on the predicative
noun, as in (3b) and (4b). The interaction of the two sets of argument structure in-
volved in (4b) mediated by Argument Transfer is illustrated in (5), following Grimshaw
and Mester’s notation.

(5) a. zootei (agent, goal, theme)

b. suru ( ) <acc>
c. zootei ( ) + suru (agent, goal, theme) <acc>

Once all the members of zootei’s argument structure are transferred to the argument
structure of suru, they are projected onto the syntax and each of the arguments
receives case assignment as verbal arguments: the agent argument, sityoo ‘mayor’
with Nominative, the goal argument, yuusyoosya ‘winner’ with Dative, and the theme
argument hanataba ‘bouquet’ with Accusative. At the same time, the light verb
assigns Accusative Case to the noun zootei ‘gift’. The ungrammatical status of (4b),
however, is attributed to an independent reason, i.e. the Double O Constraint
(Harada 1973; Poser 1981), which blocks two occurrences of Accusative Case –o
within a single clause. The effect of the Double O Constraint is shown by the contrast
between (4b) and (4b’). In (4b’) the theme argument, (sono) hanataba ‘(that) bouquet’
 Syntax and argument structure 757

is topicalized with the Topic marker, –wa. Since there are no longer two NPs that are
both marked with –o, the sentence is acceptable (Sells 1989).2
Argument Transfer does not require that the predicative noun’s argument struc-
ture be emptied, with all the arguments transferred to the argument structure of the
light verb. (4c), for example, demonstrates a partial transfer in which the agent and
goal arguments, but not the theme argument, are transferred. The theme argument
remains in the argument structure of zootei ‘gift’, and it also remains within the
noun in its syntactic projection, as is reflected by the Genitive Case –no on hanataba
‘bouquet’. The schematic representations are given in (6).

(6) a. zootei (agent, goal, theme)

b. suru ( ) <acc>

c. zootei (theme) + suru (agent, goal) <acc>

Argument Transfer, however, imposes constraints on how many and which argu-
ments can and should be transferred. The agent argument is always required to
be transferred, as is illustrated in the ungrammatical (4d), where the agent, sityoo
‘mayor’, remains in the argument structure of zootei ‘gift’ and its syntactic projection
is marked with the Genitive Case –no. Furthermore, at least one more argument in
addition to the agent role must be transferred. (4e) is ungrammatical because only
the agent argument participates in Argument Transfer, resulting in the goal and
theme arguments being left in the argument structure of the predicative noun and
marked with the Genitive Case.3 (4b’) and (4c), on the other hand, follow the con-
straint: in (4b’) all of the noun’s arguments are completely transferred to the argu-
ment structure of the light verb; and in (4c) the agent and goal arguments stay in
the noun’s argument structure while the theme argument is transferred to suru’s
argument structure.
Finally, the ungrammaticality of (4f) addresses the issue of prominence among
the members of argument structure. (4f) follows the constraint that the agent and
one additional argument (theme) be transferred, but nevertheless the process yields

2 Sells (1989) demonstrates in an example similar to (4b’) that in addition to the topicalization of the
theme argument, placing the theme argument in a position that is not adjacent to the predicative
noun would also derive an acceptable sentence even though it would end up with two NPs with –
o. The example in (i) – a slightly modified sentence of (4b’) – indeed seems to be more acceptable
although it still violates the Double O Constraint.
(i) Hanataba o sityoo ga yuusyoosya ni zootei o sita.
bouquet ACC mayor NOM winner DAT gift ACC suru.PST
3 In (4e) the goal argument, yuusyoosya ‘winner’, is expected to appear as yuusyoosya-ni-no ‘winner-
DAT-GEN’, but the juxtaposition of –ni–no is independently excluded on morphological grounds.
Whenever the sequence of –ni–no is expected, it is invariably replaced by –e–no.
758 Natsuko Tsujimura

an ungrammatical outcome. The situation in (4f) contrasts with that in (4c) regarding
the condition on the number of arguments to be transferred. The contrast between (4c)
and (4f) led Grimshaw and Mester to argue that argument structure is hierarchically
organized, and Argument Transfer takes place in the order of prominence among
thematic roles. The hierarchical structure they propose is (Agent/Source (Goal
(Theme))), where the outermost – Agent/Source – is the highest in prominence, and
Argument Transfer is applied in the order of prominence.4 (4c) follows this order. On
the other hand, in (4f) the least prominent theme argument is transferred without
the goal argument also being transferred. Since goal is higher in prominence than
theme, the Argument Transfer in this sentence violates the hierarchical order among
the arguments.
The discussion of Argument Transfer in the light verb construction sheds impor-
tant light on research regarding the general architecture of argument structure as it
is relevant to the way in which a predicate’s arguments are projected onto syntax.
The arguments that belong to the predicative nouns in the light verb construc-
tion can have various syntactic realizations in a non-arbitrary manner, and the
systematic pattern reflects the degree of prominence among the arguments. The
hierarchical organization of arguments that encodes relative prominence among
them and the formal machinery of Argument Transfer together provide a mechanism
that accounts for which syntactic patterns of argument realization are possible and
which are not. The data drawn from the light verb construction account for the
specific phenomenon internal to Japanese. At the same time, they further confirm
that the hierarchically organized argument structure, rather than a linearly ordered
list of thematic roles, makes it possible for arguments to be projected onto syntax in
a systematic and predictable fashion.5

2.2 Double object verbs and analogy of the dative alternation

Double object verbs have crosslinguistically ignited a great deal of active discussion
on the way in which their arguments are realized in syntax. Double object verbs in
English, for one, are the subject of a rich body of literature from a variety of different
theoretical perspectives particularly in relation to the dative alternation (or dative
shift) as in (7).

4 In addition to the Argument Transfer phenomenon in the light verb construction in Japanese,
Grimshaw (1990) further supports the hierarchical organization of argument structure by drawing
on data from English compounds. The contrast between gift-giving to children and *child-giving of
gifts is claimed to follow the same hierarchy in that the theme is internal to the compound while
the goal is outside in gift-giving to children; and the reverse pattern in *child-giving of gifts leads to
an ungrammatical status.
5 A discussion of hierarchical organization of argument structure is also found in Ito (2007) in rela-
tion to ditransitive verbs in Japanese.
 Syntax and argument structure 759

(7) a. John gave Mary an expensive box of chocolates on her birthday.

b. John gave an expensive box of chocolates to Mary on her birthday.

The verb give has agent, goal, and theme arguments, and the last two can appear
either in the double object construction in (7a) or in the PP dative construction as
in (7b). Some view the two constructions as being independently generated, bearing
a unique semantic property specific to each (e.g. Oehrle 1976), while others adopt a
derivational view in which one construction is derived from the other (e.g. Chomsky
1955; Bowers 1981; Dryer 1987).6 While Japanese apparently lacks a dative alterna-
tion of the same sort, straightforward translation equivalents of English double object
verbs like give seem to correspond to the two variants in (8a) and (8b), which appear
to be merely different in the order of the two NPs.

(8) a. Roozin ga kodomo ni omotya o ageta.

old man NOM child DAT toy ACC gave
‘An old man gave a child a toy.’

b. Roozin ga omotya o kodomo ni ageta.

old man NOM toy ACC child DAT gave

Hoji (1985), however, argues that (8a) – [subject-indirect object-direct object] – reflects
the basic word order, from which (8b) is derived by scrambling the direct object,
and that the indirect object (goal argument) and the direct object (theme argument)
are hierarchically asymmetrical in syntax. To this end he uses quantifier scope to
demonstrate the asymmetrical relations in (9a) and (9b).

(9) a. Roozin ga dareka ni dono omotya mo ageta.

old man NOM someone DAT every toy also gave
‘An old man gave someone every toy.’
some > every, *every > some

b. Roozin ga dono omotyai mo dareka ni ti ageta.

some > every, every > some

The quantifier scope data like those in (9) have contributed to the now standard
view that in the syntactic configuration, goal and theme arguments of double object
verbs are hierarchically ordered in such a way that the goal NP (indirect object)

6 Drawing on data that contain idioms, Larson (1988) demonstrates that some sentences in the
PP dative construction are not derived from the double object construction, while Bruening (2001),
Harley (1995, 2002), and Richards (2001) argue that some sentences in the double-object construc-
tion are not generated from the PP-dative construction.
760 Natsuko Tsujimura

asymmetrically c-commands the theme NP (direct object).7 (cf. Harada and Larson
2009)
A question has been asked more directly regarding whether two alternating
constructions parallel to those in (7) can be found in Japanese beyond the word
order variation, from both language specific and crosslinguistic perspectives (e.g.
Miyagawa 1994, 1997; Kishimoto 2001; Matsuoka 2003; Miyagawa and Tsujioka 2004;
Ito 2007; Miyagawa 2012). In considering this question, it is important to note that
not all the verbs that appear in the double object construction as in (7a) can allow
for the PP dative construction as in (7b), and vice versa, as has been extensively
surveyed in English (Levin 1993). A more fundamental question is to ask whether
Japanese equivalents of double object verbs employ a structural dichotomy similar
to the one in (7) that showcases an interesting array of characteristics concerning
the way in which argument structure is mapped onto syntax. To this end, detailed
examinations have been undertaken of the lexical semantic properties of individual
verbs and fine-grained semantic analyses of the “goal” argument that is accom-
panied by –ni in its syntactic realization. Due to space limitation, I will summarize
Kishimoto’s (2001) discussion, as his analysis provides arguably the most compre-
hensive investigation to illustrate how the lexical-semantic and syntactic properties
of a verb’s arguments interact in relation to double object verbs in Japanese.
Kishimoto (2001) shows that there are two patterns in which argument structure
of double object verbs can be mapped onto syntax. He further demonstrates that
the two patterns emerge from the difference in the core meaning of the verb and the
semantic nature of the arguments. The two patterns, taken from Kishimoto (2001: 51),
are schematized in (10) and (11): (10) can be analogized to the double object con-
struction and (11) to the PP dative construction in (7).

(10) lexical representation: [x causes y to possess z]

| | |
argument structure: causer recipient theme
| | |
grammatical category: subject indirect object direct object
| | |
case marking: nominative dative accusative

(11) lexical representation: [x causes y to move toward z]

|
argument structure: causer goal theme
| | |
grammatical category: subject to-dative direct object
| | |
case marking: nominative dative accusative

7 Subsequent discussion has been taken up regarding the syntactic structure and the nature of
scrambling that connects the direct object construction and the PP dative construction in Japanese.
See Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004), Kishimoto (2008), and Tsujioka (2011) for details.
 Syntax and argument structure 761

Verbs of change of possession such as ageru ‘give’, ataeru ‘give’, watasu “hand’, and
wariateru ‘assign’ take the pattern in (10), while verbs of transfer whose members
include okuru ‘send’, nageru ‘throw’, and hakobu ‘carry’ take the pattern in (11). Each
pattern of mapping is associated with a cluster of semantic, morphological, and
syntactic characteristics, distinguishing the ways in which arguments are realized
in syntax.8
First, the fundamental lexical difference between these two classes of verbs is
“change of possession” vs. “change of location” (for verbs of transfer) as is described
in the lexical representations of (10) and (11). This distinction leads to the more
precise identification of the argument that corresponds to NP-ni as “recipient”9 for
change of possession verbs and “goal” for change of location verbs, rather than
both uniformly subsumed under goal. This difference is reflected in the following
entailments.

(12) a. #John wa Mary ni hon o ataeta ga, Mary wa

John TOP Mary DAT book ACC give.PST but Mary TOP
mada moratteinai.
yet receive.NEG
‘John gave Mary a book, but Mary has not gotten it yet.’
(Kishimoto 2001:40)

b. John wa Mary ni tegami o okutta ga, Mary wa

John TOP Mary DAT letter ACC send.PST but Mary TOP
mada uketotteinai.
yet receive.NEG
‘John sent a letter to Mary, but Mary has not received it yet.’
(Kishimoto 2001:39)

Second, the change in location, which is the core lexical meaning of verbs of trans-
fer, suggests not only that the marking of –ni with the goal argument in (12b) is the
directional postposition, but also that it can be replaced by another directional post-
position like –e or –made. The substitution indeed derives the grammatical sentence
in (12b) (John wa Mary(no uti) e/made tegami o okutta ‘John sent Mary(’s home) a
letter’). However, the same outcome is not obtained in (12a) (*John wa Mary e/made

8 In addition to verbs of change of possession and verbs of transfer, Kishimoto further discusses a
third class of verbs, i.e. verbs of transaction such as uru ‘sell’, kasu ‘rent’, and harau ‘pay’. He dem-
onstrates that these verbs represent a “hybrid” type in that they denote both change of possession
and change of location, sharing the properties of change of possession verbs and those of transfer
verbs.
9 The recipient argument is further constrained such that it has to be animate.
762 Natsuko Tsujimura

hon o ataeta ‘John gave Mary a book’). This difference means that –ni in (12a) repre-
sents the structural Dative case rather than a directional postposition. Third, the two
non-subject arguments that are realized as Dative NP (Mary) and Accusative NP
(book) in the syntactic configuration of (12a) can both be passivized, while only the
argument that is projected as Accusative NP (letter) in (12b) can be passivized. This
contrast confirms that the two seemingly identical occurrences of –ni in (12) should
not be uniformly analyzed: it is the Dative case in (12a) and a postposition in (12b).
Furthermore, it suggests that in Japanese, verbs of change of possession take the
analogue of the double object construction on par with (7a), and verbs of transfer
are projected to a structure parallel to the PP dative construction, analogous to (7b).
The close examination of verbs such as those in (10–11) makes it clear that double
object verbs in Japanese cannot simply be put together as a uniform group. These
verbs demonstrate that the general linking rule mentioned in the introductory
section must be enriched far more than a single way of mapping thematic roles to
grammatical functions and to syntactic positions. Double object verbs in Japanese
are divided into at least two (and possibly more) types, and in order to elucidate
the specific nature of the linking, analyses must refer to a variety of factors. Included
in those factors are the contrast between the two lexical-semantic notions of change
of possession and change of location, fine-grained semantic characterizations of
broadly conceived goal arguments, and their morphological and syntactic repercus-
sions. All of these factors jointly play significant roles in systematically projecting
a predicate’s arguments onto syntax, as is demonstrated by double object verbs in
Japanese, English, and beyond.10 (Levin 2008, 2010; Rappaport Hovav and Levin
2008)

3 Projectionist vs. constructionist views of

argument structure
Much of the discussion on argument structure in the early generative literature was
built upon the core premise that lexical semantic properties of a verb play an impor-
tant role in the syntactic structure. Under this premise, it has been understood that
the relationship between the verb’s argument structure and the syntactic realization
of the verb’s arguments are constrained by principles like the Universal Theta Assign-
ment Hypothesis (Baker 1988). The emphasis on the relevance of verb meaning to

10 A series of discussions is found in Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004), Kishimoto (2008), and Tsujioka
(2011), among others, in relation to the dative alternation counterpart in Japanese and its implications
to the debate over base-generation vs. scrambling. Drawing on a different set of ditransitive verbs,
Matsuoka (2003) discusses PASS-type verbs and SHOW-type verbs in Japanese and demonstrates
that they exhibit non-uniform semantic and syntactic properties regarding the dative argument.
 Syntax and argument structure 763

the syntactic realization of arguments remains as an assumption underlying what

has come to be known as the lexicalist or projectionist view of argument structure.
(Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998; Beavers 2010) In this approach, multiple syntactic
patterns in which a verb appears (e.g. the English verb sweep appearing in the intran-
sitive frame, in the transitive frame, in the caused change of location pattern with a
direct object and a PP complement, and in the resultative construction) are attributed
to multiple meanings of the verb itself, each of which receives a unique lexical repre-
sentation. The projectionist view is a predominant approach taken by researchers
who have examined various aspects of argument structure and its relation to syntax
in Japanese.
An alternative approach claims that multiple meanings do not emerge from the
lexical properties of the verb but that syntactic structures in which a verb and its
arguments appear take substantial responsibility for them.11 (Borer 2005a, b) This
view has been extensively elaborated on by those who argue that argument structure
should be considered a construction, which is taken as a form-meaning(-function)
pairing. (Goldberg 1995, 2006, 2013) According to the constructionists, specific syn-
tactic realizations of arguments are taken to be part of argument structure con-
structions. For instance, the double object construction in (7a) constitutes one of
such argument structure constructions that is represented by a pairing of the form,
{Subjx, V, Obj1y, Obj2z}, with the meaning of “actual or potential transfer,” more spe-
cifically “x intends to cause y to receive z” (Goldberg 1992, 2013).12
The projectionist and constructionist views have provided analytical tools by
which Japanese data are examined internal to the language and are interpreted for
their crosslinguistic and typological implications. There seem to be several areas of
investigations related to argument structure in Japanese that may offer a testing

11 To illustrate the relevance of syntactic structure, rather than the lexical properties of a verb, to
interpretation, Borer (2005a) claims that native speakers can assign flexible but reasonable interpre-
tations to seemingly uninterpretable sentences like (i) below such that the red under is the subject
that corresponds to the agent of an action and lunch is the direct object that refers to an entity that
is acted upon; and both are somehow relevant to the verb five even if the meaning of the verb is not
identified.
(i) The red under fived lunch.
There are experimental works that illustrate the same point, in support of the constructionist view
(e.g. Kaschak and Glenberg 2000; Kako 2006; Goldwater and Markman 2009).
12 We focus on the two approaches to argument structure, the projectionist view and the construc-
tionist view, but I might add another approach, the one from a functional point of view: Preferred
Argument Structure, as proposed by Du Bois (2003). Preferred Argument Structure seems to contribute
to our understanding of the architecture of argument structure, broadly conceived, by way of its rela-
tion to information structure. Preferred Argument Structure hypothesizes that “. . . in spontaneous
discourse, certain configurations of arguments are systematically preferred over other grammatically
possible alternatives” (Du Bois 2003:33). This functional approach has been adopted to analyze typo-
logical and language-specific patterns in which arguments are distributed or surface in discourse.
(Du Bois, Kumpf, and Ashby (eds.) 2003)
764 Natsuko Tsujimura

ground for these approaches. In this section I will focus on two such topics, which
may be interpreted to posit some challenges to each of the two views of argument
structure.

3.1 Acquisition research

One of the research areas to which the projectionist and constructionist approaches
to argument structure have significant implications is children’s acquisition of verbs.
The projectionist view is closely connected to the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis
while the constructionist approach underlies the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis.
Semantic bootstrapping hypothesizes that the basic information children use in verb
learning is a verb’s semantic representation while syntactic bootstrapping claims
that such information comes from syntactic structure. Thus, the basic premises of
the semantic and syntactic bootstrapping hypotheses are respectively in line with
the projectionist and constructionist views of argument structure. A number of
experimental studies have been reported for English in support of each approach to
verb acquisition (e.g. Pinker 1987; Gropen et al. 1991; Fisher et al. 1994; Niagles
1990), and they are in turn used to argue for or against the two approaches to argu-
ment structure. The contrast between the projectionist-based semantic bootstrapping
and the constructionist-based syntactic bootstrapping has interesting implications
for Japanese.
An example of experiments that supports the semantic bootstrapping hypothesis
can be cited from Gropen et al. (1991). In English it has been noted that the verb pour
as in pour water in the glass and fill as in fill the glass with water have different
patterns in the syntactic realization of the verb’s argument: with pour the direct
object is “figure” while with fill, the direct object corresponds to “ground”. Gropen
et al. demonstrate that the two seemingly contrastive patterns of argument realiza-
tions in syntax that these verbs show can be explained by the uniform linking rule
in (13).

(13) Link the argument that is specified as “caused to change” in the main event of
a verb’s semantic representation to the grammatical object.
(Gropen et al. 1991: 159)

The argument identified as “caused to change” is an “affected” entity, and Gropen

et al. claim that the semantic notion of “affectedness” plays an important role in
determining the way in which the verb’s arguments are realized in syntax. In pour
water in the glass and fill the glass with water, water and the glass in the respective
phrases correspond to “caused to change”, and are singled out as the affected argu-
ment. By associating figure-object (water) and ground-object (the glass) with the
semantic notion of affectedness, two apparently different projection patterns are
 Syntax and argument structure 765

accounted for by a unique linking rule. Experiments with adults and children that
Gropen et al. conducted using nonsense verbs report that (i) the goal of motion is
picked as the direct object when the goal undergoes change of state regardless of
whether the change is of shape, color, or fullness, and (ii) when change of state (as
an end result) and manner (as a means) jointly describe an event, the affected entity
is realized as the direct object. This result is consistent with the linking rule of (13)
and substantiates the view that syntactic realization of a verb’s arguments is guided
by its lexical properties. Note that this is consistent with the way in which the pro-
jectionists understand a verb’s arguments to be realized in syntax.
Fisher et al. (1994) test the validity of the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis by
using a pairing of a transitive sentence and an intransitive sentence with nonsense
verbs. Under the construction-based acquisition view, it is predicted that sentences
in the transitive frame – e.g. The rabbit is zilking the duck – would be interpreted as
causative events while those in the intransitive frame – e.g. The duck is zilking –
would refer to non-causative events because the running assumption is that the
meaning of causation is encoded in the form of transitivity. Fisher et al. tested this
hypothesis with 3- and 4-year-old children. The subjects were shown several scenes
that are relevant to nonsense verbs, and the scenes were presented with intransitive
sentences – e.g. The rabbit is pilking – for one group of subjects and transitive
sentences – e.g. The rabbit is pilking the elephant – for another group. Both groups
then heard Look, pilking, followed by the question, What does pilking mean? The first
group of subjects interpreted pilk as similar to eat while the second group guessed
its meaning to be like feed. This suggests that the transitive frame is strongly correlated
with causative events while the intransitive syntactic pattern is tied to non-causative
events. The results of the experiment, thus, support the syntactic bootstrapping
hypothesis that syntax provides information crucial to the verb’s meaning. This
conclusion is further in line with the constructionist view that the surface form of
the verb’s arguments (and other constituents) is directly linked to the way in which
the verb is interpreted.
Acquisition data in Japanese shed an interesting light on the two bootstrapping
hypotheses and in turn on the two approaches to argument structure. (Tsujimura
2007) The construction-based syntactic bootstrapping assumes that the syntax of
the sentences that children hear from their caregivers, from which they deduce the
verbs’ meanings, provides complete information about the verbs’ arguments. This
assumption presents a challenge to languages like Japanese that are rich in noun
ellipsis. Based on his earlier work on child-directed caregivers’ sentences of the
transitive pattern [NP-ga NP-o V] (Rispoli 1991), Rispoli (1995) cites that out of 226
such transitive sentences, those with both arguments present in them along with
corresponding Case particles (i.e. the sentence type of (14i) below) amount to only
1%. A more comprehensive picture of the caregivers’ transitive sentences is given
in (14).
766 Natsuko Tsujimura

(14) sentence type frequency percentage of total

a. V 73 32
b. NP V 103 46
c. NP-o V 15 7
d. NP-ga V 8 4
e. NP-ga V (passive) 2 1
f. NP NP V 18 8
g. NP-ga NP 3 1
h. NP NP-o V 2 1
i. NP-ga NP-o V 2 1
(Rispoli 1995: 342)

The range of the syntactic patterns in which transitive verbs appear summarized in
(14) indicates that the two most frequent patterns in (14a–b) give the least amount of
formal information about the verb with respect to the number of its arguments. Note
also that these most ubiquitous patterns lack morphological Case marking on the
verb’s arguments, although the morphological information provides important cues
for relevant grammatical functions of the arguments. Interestingly, Rispoli notes that
children do not make errors in the number of NPs that are required by verbs despite
the syntactic indeterminacy of their input sentence patterns in (14), to which they are
exposed during the acquisition process. On the one hand, Japanese input sentences
with pervasive noun ellipsis and Case drop do not serve as a rich source for figuring
out the nature of argument structure and semantic relations among arguments. On
the other hand, despite the low degree of syntactic information, children seem to
understand the verb’s meaning correctly. These observations point to the conclusion
that Japanese children cannot resort to the structural properties for the acquisition
of verb meaning, and that the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis and the construc-
tionist view of argument structure are problematic in explaining Japanese children’s
verb acquisition.
This conclusion, however, may not directly lend support to the semantic boot-
strapping hypothesis that shares with the projectionist view its premise on the
lexical properties of a verb as the guiding principle for the syntactic realization
of its arguments. Japanese appears to present a more intricate situation than what
experimental data in English demonstrate to argue for the semantic bootstrapping
hypothesis and the projectionist view. Recall that the projectionist approach to argu-
ment structure invokes the systematic mapping rule to account for the way in which
a verb’s arguments are projected onto syntax. An example illustrating such a linking
mechanism has been given in (10–11) for Japanese. As these two schemata show,
Case marking constitutes an important means to ensure that the thematic roles of
the verb’s arguments correspond to the appropriate grammatical functions. This is
because unlike English, the word order among arguments does not register gram-
matical functions, nor does every argument associated with the verb necessarily
 Syntax and argument structure 767

appear overtly due to noun ellipsis. Researchers who have examined longitudinal
data of Japanese children’s verb acquisition often report children’s errors in Case
particles, but they explicitly and implicitly state that the errors do not immediately
suggest their lack of acquisition of the transitive vs. intransitive distinction of verbs.
(Clancy 1985; Rispoli 1987; Morikawa 1997) Examples that illustrate errors with Case
marking are given in (15–17); the correct Case is indicated in square brackets.

(15) Omizu *ga[o] ireta noni

water *NOM[ACC] put.in.PST but
‘she put in water, but. . .’
(Clancy 1985: 389)

(16) Akatyan *ga[o] turete iku.

baby *NOM[ACC] take.GER go
‘(We will) take the baby along.’
(Morikawa 1997: 56)

(17) Otootyan ga o *ga[o] kitta.

Dad NOM thong *NOM[ACC] cut.PST
‘Dad cut the thong.’
(Morikawa 1997: 57)

The verbs in these examples are transitive: in (15) and (16), the sole overt NPs, omizu
‘water’ and akatyan ‘baby’, are direct objects and are expected to be marked with
Accusative Case, –o, in adult language; in (17) otootyan ‘Dad’ is the subject and
correctly marked with Nominative Case, –ga, but the direct object o ‘thong’ is
incorrectly marked with Nominative Case, –ga. Given the expected linking of [agent-
subject-Nominative] and [theme-direct object-Accusative] for a transitive verb, the
type of errors demonstrated in (15–17) seems to indicate that the theme argument is
not properly projected onto syntax. That is, the linking problem that children have is
not with ALL of the verb’s arguments, but rather it appears to be centered on the
linking of theme, direct object, and the Accusative Case –o. If the semantic boot-
strapping hypothesis and the projectionist view of argument structure are at play,
children’s acquisition data would be only partly explained while remaining issues
would have yet to be accounted for. Japanese acquisition data of the sort discussed
above, thus, challenges both of the bootstrapping hypotheses and also both approaches
to argument structure.
Drawing on longitudinal data of two Japanese children, Rispoli (1987) observed
that the children rarely Case marked theme arguments of transitive verbs. Based on
this and also referring to Clancy’s example in (15), he suggests that these children
have not yet learned that direct objects are marked with –o as a morphological
768 Natsuko Tsujimura

reflection of syntactic projection because input data are not informative enough, as
(14) shows. Furthermore, Rispoli goes on to claim that the children nevertheless
know how to figure out the transitivity of verbs based not on morphosyntactic cues
of Case particles but on semantic and contextual information that includes animacy
of theme arguments and the planned nature of an action. For example, the two
children’s transitive sentences in his study are strongly tied to the presence of
inanimate theme arguments while their intransitive sentences tend to have their
sole arguments that refer to animates, animate surrogates, or vehicles. Of the total
of 40 transitive sentences that one child produced, 63% can be characterized by having
inanimate theme arguments in them. In contrast, of the total of 59 intransitive
sentences, 78% have the sole argument referring to an animate, animate surrogate,
or vehicle. Similarly, the other child produced 43 transitive sentences, of which 81%
had inanimate theme arguments; and out of his 85 intransitive sentences, 59% were
ones whose sole arguments were animate, animate surrogate, or vehicle. Rispoli’s
claim, supported also by Morikawa (1997), is that children are able to distinguish
between transitive and intransitive sentences and that they do so according to the
(inherent) semantic nature of the nouns, such as animacy, when they have not yet
acquired how to pair them up morphosyntactically with appropriate Case markers.
These discussions of acquisition data in Japanese make it clear that a comprehen-
sive account of Japanese children’s verb acquisition and issues related to argument
structure needs to take into consideration language-specific properties that may
interact directly or indirectly with lexical, morphological, and syntactic characteristics.
(Slobin 2001; Fausey, Long, and Boroditsky 2009) And, such an account may have to
incorporate additional (or alternative) factors that are needed to address language-
specific acquisition patterns. As illustrated earlier, research on children’s verb acqui-
sition, such as in English and many other languages, offers not only testing grounds
for acquisition theories like the bootstrapping hypotheses but also evaluative mea-
sures for the two approaches to argument structure under discussion. Japanese
acquisition data contribute to the current theoretical debate on argument structure
by adding a level of complexity to the range of phenomena being considered, result-
ing in a better understanding of the relation between argument structure and syntax.

3.2 Mimetic verbs

The projectionist approach to argument structure has been extensively adopted in
the large literature on argument realization and related issues as they pertain to the
Japanese data. One of the core assumptions that is prevalent is that a verb’s meaning
comprises two types, which Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1998) refer to as “struc-
tural” and “idiosyncratic”. They distinguish between the two meaning types as
follows: “The structural part of a verb’s meaning is that part which is relevant to
 Syntax and argument structure 769

determining the semantic classes of verbs that are grammatically relevant, while the
idiosyncratic part of a verb’s meaning distinguishes that verb from other members of
the same class” (p. 106). The structural aspect is considered to be the properties over
which regularities and generalizations relevant to the architecture of argument
structure and to syntax are stated. Although approaches along these lines have
been effectively adopted for analyses of lexical verbs in Japanese, as I will discuss
below, these analyses may be challenged by verbs that are built around mimetic
lexemes.
Mimetics are ubiquitous in Japanese, and there has been an enormous amount
of literature that investigates them in virtually every sub-area of linguistics. (Kita
1997; Hamano 1998; Tamori and Schourup 1999; Nasu 2002; Akita 2009; to name
only a few) While investigations of the mimetic word class across languages have
often been restricted to language-specific descriptions, similarities to and differences
from other word strata in a given language have been increasingly re-evaluated in
recent years particularly with respect to their relevance to linguistic theories and
language typology. Focusing on the elusive nature in meaning and argument struc-
ture properties of mimetic verbs, Tsujimura (2005, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017) claims that
mimetic verbs are different from non-mimetic verbs or prosaic verbs on several
grounds, and argues for the construction approach in analyzing mimetic verbs. I
will elaborate on the flexibility in meaning and in argument structure that mimetic
verbs exhibit, showing that the degree of flexibility that mimetic verbs demonstrate
is precisely the reason why they should be better approached from the construction
view.
What I refer to as mimetic verbs are verbs formed by combining mimetic bases
(or lexemes) with the light verb suru. There are countless such mimetic verbs.
Examples include tin-suru ‘(to) microwave’, sappari-suru ‘be refreshed’, bikkuri-suru
‘be surprised’, and burabura-suru ‘(to) stroll’. I have given what seems to be the most
typical and conventionalized “definitions” of these mimetic verbs. It is widely believed
that mimetic verbs have specific and fixed meanings assigned to them, and this asser-
tion is probably true to the extent that the “definitions” reflect the conventionalized
interpretations of given mimetic verbs. In what follows, however, I wish to demon-
strate that mimetic verbs are remarkably flexible in what they “mean” and in the
argument structure patterns in which they can appear, often far beyond what their
conventionalized uses allude to.
Let us take batabata-suru for our first example. Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup
(1996: 46) give its “definition” as “to make a flapping or rattling noise”, although
the exact instantiations of a flapping or rattling noise can vary widely as long as
the image that is connected to such noise is somehow reflected in what is being
depicted, as (18–22) demonstrate. For our purpose, attention should be paid to the
range of argument structure patterns in these examples; relevant aspects of argu-
ments are annotated under each example.
770 Natsuko Tsujimura

(18) Ami ni haitta yatu [anago] wa[ga] . . . batabata-suru kara

net in enter.PST conger.eel TOP because
azi ga otimasu yo.
taste NOM decrease SFP
‘Conger eels in the net move in the bata-bata way, so they get less tasty.’
e intransitive frame
e subject-NOM: agent (=fish)
(Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup 1996: 46)

(19) Mayakutyuudokusya ga kusuri ga kireruto

drug.addict NOM drug NOM run.out.when
batabata-suru no to onazi. . .
that as same
‘In the same way as a drug addict moves in the bata-bata way when
he runs out of the drug. . .’
e intransitive frame
e subject-NOM: agent (theme?) (=incognizant human being)
(Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup 1996: 47)

(20) Naya no to wa[ga] . . . batabata-site, mimizawari da.

Barn NOM door TOP irritating COP
‘The barn door is moving noisily in the bata-bata way and is making
a rough (irritating) noise.’
e intransitive frame
e subject-NOM: theme (=door)
(Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup 1996: 47)

(21) Musume wa teasi o ima made izyooni

daughter TOP arms.legs ACC now until more
batabata-suru yooni.narimasita.
has come to do come.to.PST
‘My daughter has been moving her arms and legs in the bata-bata way
more than ever.’
e transitive frame
e subject-NOM: agent (=human being)
e object-ACC: theme (=body parts)
 Syntax and argument structure 771

(22) Rooka o batabata-suru.

hallway along
‘(He) moves along the hallway in the bata-bata way.’
e intransitive frame
e subject-NOM: agent (=human being)
e adjunct: path (=hallway)

(18–20) and (22) all take the intransitive frame with the subject marked with the
Nominative Case although the subject argument does not have to be overtly present
in syntax. The mimetic verbs in these sentences describe a manner of motion whose
image relates to a “flapping” or “rattling” noise in one way or another. The subject
arguments, however, are not uniform in their corresponding thematic roles. The
arguments that are realized as the subjects in (18) and (22) are agents. The same
may be said of (19) although the agent of the motion is not cognizant of the action.
The mimetic verb in these three sentences is arguably an intransitive verb of the
unergative type. (20) also takes the intransitive frame, but the sole argument realized
as the subject bears the theme role. The mimetic verb in (20) then is an unaccusative
verb. The unergative mimetic verb in (22), furthermore, is slightly different from
those in (18–19) in that the motion described in (22) assumes intended change of
location, as expressed by an adjunct referring to a path along which the motion
takes place. The mimetic verb in (21) appears in the transitive frame, describing a
caused motion. (18–22) show that a single mimetic verb can appear in the two types
of intransitive patterns – unergative and unaccusative – as well as in the transitive
frame. Batabata-suru is one of numerous mimetic verbs that are highly recognized
and widely used, and even with relatively conventionalized meaning as is demon-
strated in (18–22), the patterns in which arguments are realized in syntax take
different frames. Importantly, the extent to which the mimetic verb batabata-suru
flexibly appears in different argument realization patterns is not paralleled by prosaic
verbs. (Tsujimura 2017)
A similar observation can be made with mimetic verbs whose “meanings” are
often distant from their conventionalized ones and are innovatively assigned. This
is shown by a series of unconventional “meanings” for gatyagatya-suru in (23–26).
These examples and others akin to them have been found on the Internet and in
daily conversation. Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup (1996: 353) do not independently
list the mimetic verb form of gatyagatya-suru but give the entry of the mimetic base
gatyagatya as “[t]he clattering or rattling sound made by relatively thin metallic or
ceramic objects knocking together repeatedly; the sound of an adding machine or
similar mechanical device”.

(23) Doanobu o gatyagatya-suru nante mottenohoka

door.knob ACC like out of question
‘It is out of the question to move a door knob in a gachagacha way.’
772 Natsuko Tsujimura

(24) XX-sensei to hutaride gatyagatya-siteitandesu kedo. . .

XX.prof. with two but
‘I was gachagacha-ing with Prof. XX, but. . .’

(25) Hai o otosu rebaa ga tuiteite, haiotosi no koto

ashes ACC drop lever NOM attached ash.dropping GEN that
o “gatyagatya-suru” tte ittemasita. Kodomo ni wa
ACC quotative is.called children to TOP
kekkoo gatyagatya-suru no ga omosirokattandesu.
very that NOM was.fun
‘It accompanies a lever with which you can let the ashes fall, and dropping the
ashes is called “doing gachagacha”. Doing gachagacha was fun for children.’

(26) Heya de gatyagatya no kapuseru o niyaniyasinagara

room in GEN capsule ACC grinning.while
aketeitara, haha ni “anata sono tosi de gatyagatya-suru
was.opening mother by you that age at
no” to akireraremasita.
Q QUOT was.amazed
‘With a smile on my face, I was opening the capsule of gacha-gacha in my
room, and then my mother was amazed, saying “you do gacha-gacha at
your age!”.’

In the set of examples above, only the instance of gatyagatya-suru in (23) appears in
the transitive frame, in which an unexpressed subject corresponds to the agent role
and the theme argument doanobu ‘door knob’ is realized as the object marked with
the Accusative Case –o. The mimetic verb in this example directly reflects Kakehi,
Tamori, and Schourup’s dictionary definition of the mimetic base: Somebody makes
a noise by repeatedly rattling the door knob, which is generally metallic. The same
mimetic verb in (24–26) takes the intransitive frame with the sole argument – agent –
interpreted as the subject (i.e. implicit in these examples). While these sentences
seem to be uniform in the argument realization pattern, the mimetic verb, which is
the common denominator among them, refers to distinct actions and states in each
case. (24) was uttered by my colleague in a daily conversation, describing a situation
in which she and her colleague, Professor XX, were taking care of odds-and-ends in
a somewhat disorganized manner and without following a planned course of action.
Some commonly used dictionaries such as Kōjien lists a disorganized state of affairs
as one of the descriptors of the mimetic base, gatyagatya. Such a description, how-
ever, is generally applied to inanimate objects, unlike (24) in which a somewhat
chaotic nature of the action by volitional and sentient human beings is referred to.
 Syntax and argument structure 773

What the mimetic verb depicts in (25) is related to the conventionalized descrip-
tion given by Kakehi, Tamori, and Schourup but is extended innovatively to fit a
specific situation. As the example itself defines, the mimetic verb gatyagatya-suru
in (25) means to remove ashes from a coal stove by maneuvering the lever attached
to it. Given the conventional “definition”, we might expect the lever to be the theme,
or the ashes to be the theme while the lever to be the instrument. The uniqueness of
the meaning definition in (25) is that the potential arguments of the mimetic verb
based on our conventional knowledge of the mimetic verb are actually lexicalized
in such a way that they do not form independent memberships of its argument struc-
ture, except for the agent argument. In order to fully understand what the mimetic
verb refers to, including the membership of its argument structure, contextually rich
information needs to be invoked in these particular cases. Sensitivity to contextual
information and cultural knowledge that is relevant to the context is further illus-
trated by (26). The mimetic verb gatyagatya-suru in (26) can be considered a denominal
verb: It is connected to the mimetic base gatyagatya, which, as a noun, refers to a
type of small toy contained in transparent plastic capsules. These toys are generally
sold in vending machines for purchase, and they are removed from a vending
machine by maneuvering its handle, which makes a noise that is described as
gatyagatya. The mimetic verb in (26) means playing with these small toys called
gatyagatya or related activities that involve them. This example is similar to (25) in
that what would generally be conceived of as the theme argument is lexicalized in
the mimetic verb. The semantic contents of these two instances of the identical verb
are entirely different although the only thread that distantly connects the two is
the sound and image that the mimetic base gatyagatha invokes. These examples
are particularly instrumental in recognizing that the lexical content of a verb that is
relevant to the meaning is not always inherently determined but is governed by con-
texts that may call for knowledge of social background.13 Going back to the earlier
examples, the interpretations of the sentences in (18–22) that would correspond to
the projectionist’s structural meaning are determined not by the lexical semantic
properties that the mimetic verb batabata-suru inherently has (precisely because it
does not have any, beyond its idiosyncratic meaning) but by the constructions in
which batabata-suru appears. In (21), the transitive construction of the form {Subjx,
Objy, V} is linked to the interpretation of “x acts on y”, while in (22) the intransi-
tive motion construction of the form {Subjx, Obly, V} gives rise to the construal of
“x moves y”.
It seems that the situation illustrated by examples of mimetic verbs above raises
the fundamental question that Fillmore (1977a, b) discusses, namely, what Du Bois
(2003: 24) terms the question of “participant inclusion”: Which participant roles of
an event are selected to be regarded as arguments? Fillmore (1977a) explains that

13 This type of contextually determined semantic content is discussed in Tsujimura and Davis (2011)
for innovative verbs in Japanese, and applies to denominal verbs in general. (Clark and Clark 1979)
774 Natsuko Tsujimura

the four English verbs, buy, sell, spend, and cost all describe a commercial event, but
specific participants or a particular combination of participants are included in lin-
guistically relevant representations depending on which of them are in perspective.
For instance, when the seller and the goods are in perspective, sell is used, while
when the perspective of the goods and the money is taken, cost is used. This is why
Fillmore (1977b: 72) refers to meanings as being “relativized by scenes”. Contextually
determined semantic frames that include the information regarding which partici-
pant roles achieve the argument and co-argument status demonstrated in all the
examples of mimetic verbs above seem to cast a particular challenge to the projec-
tionist approach to argument structure. The lexical properties of mimetic verbs are
essentially different from those of prosaic verbs, and they provide the construction
view of argument structure (e.g. Tsujimura 2005, 2010, 2014, 2017) reasonable grounds
to serve as an alternative approach.
Kageyama (2007), however, argues against the construction treatment of mimetic
verbs and demonstrates that mimetic verbs and prosaic verbs should take a uniform
approach that follows the projectionist-based templatic analysis to explain a variety
of meanings that mimetic verbs can have. Following the lead of Rappaport Hovav
and Levin (1998), who present an architecture of lexical representation for multiple
meanings by using the mechanism called Template Augmentation, Kageyama claims
that a mimetic base and the light verb suru are each associated with independent
Lexical Conceptual Structures (LCSs), as in (27) and (28), and that the meaning of
a mimetic verb is generated by way of augmenting, or incorporating, the two sets
of LCSs, as in (29). An example of the process is illustrated by the derivation of
the mimetic verb, akuseku-suru ‘work hard’. The mimetic base akuseku ‘busily’ is
represented by the Type 1 LCS content in (27), and it is combined with the Type 1
LCS template in (28). The desired meaning representation is obtained with the argu-
ment projection pattern as an intransitive pattern of the unergative type, as in (30).

(27) Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) contents for mimetic base

Type 1: Manner α of action
Type 2: ON<Manner α> y
Type 3: x MOVE<Manner α> [Route]
Type 4: [EVENT BECOME [STATE x BE AT-[PSYCH.STATE<Manner α> ABOUT-z]]]
Type 5: [EVENT x’s BODY-PART MOVE<Manner α>]

Type 6: [EVENT y MOVE<Manner α>]

Type 7: [EVENT BECOME [y BE AT-[STATE<Manner α>]]]

(28) Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) templates for suru

Type 1: [EVENT x ACT]
Type 2: [EVENT x ACT]
 Syntax and argument structure 775

Type 3: [EVENT x CONTROL[. . .]]

Type 4: [EVENT x EXPERIENCE[. . .]]
Type 5: [STATE x COGNIZE[EVENT. . .]]
Type 6: [STATE x COGNIZE[EVENT . . .]]
Type 7: [STATE x COGNIZE[EVENT . . .]]

(29) suru’s LCS template: [EVENT x ACT]

↑________ <Manner α>: LCS content of a mimetic
word

(30) a. LCS template of suru: [EVENT x ACT]

b. LCS content of akuseku: <Manner: BUSILY>
c. → Semantic incorporation akuseku-suru: [EVENT x ACT<BUSILY>]

The foundation of listing seven types of LCSs for mimetic bases and another seven
types of LCSs for suru results from his thorough survey of existing mimetic verbs and
their conventionalized meanings, as in (31).

(31) a. Group A (Agent/Experiencer subjects)

Type 1: [activity] (e.g. akuseku-suru ‘work hard’)
Type 2: [impact] (e.g. dondon-suru ‘bang (the wall)’)
Type 3: [manner-of-motion] (e.g. urouro-suru ‘wander aimlessly’)
Type 4: [psychological] (e.g. gakkari-suru ‘be surprised’)

b. Group B (Theme subjects)

Type 5: [physiological] (e.g. zukizuki-suru ‘throb (with pain)’)
Type 6: [physical perception] (e.g. guragura-suru ‘wobble’)
Type 7: [characterizing predication] (e.g. assari-suru ‘(taste) simple
and light’)

This is a very brief and somewhat abbreviated perusal of Kageyama’s projectionist-

based analysis, but it seems clear that the core of his argument is that the nature of
the semantic characterization and the representation does not motivate a mechanism
specific for mimetic verbs that is independent of the mechanism necessary for prosaic
verbs. Kageyama’s LCS-based analysis results from a meticulous examination of
so-called “meaning” of mimetic verbs as in (31), but it seems that central to his
characterization is a largely conventionalized or fossilized meaning of mimetic verbs
which corresponds to primary meanings listed in mimetic dictionaries and general
dictionaries. As the examples of mimetic verbs above demonstrate, there are mimetic
verbs (e.g. 18–23) whose meanings are well defined and are conventionalized, and
yet they can exhibit an innovative range of argument structure properties. There
776 Natsuko Tsujimura

are also mimetic verbs (e.g. 25–26) whose meaning definitions and structure of
core arguments may be understood by only a restricted part of the speech com-
munity but nevertheless achieve a remarkable degree of expressiveness without
hindering communication.
As long as the LCS templates and the mechanism of template augmentation are
used as descriptive tools, they may serve their purpose equally for prosaic verbs and
for mimetic verbs. However, the machinery of building verb meaning that is advanced
by some of the proponents of the projectionist view, such as Rappaport Hovav and
Levin (1998), has the intent of capturing much broader generalizations. As Rapparpot
Hovav and Levin argue, one such generalization is regular polysemy (Apresjan 1973):
A variety of syntactic patterns in which a verb can appear, as in (32), is observed
across the members of the same semantic class.

(32) a. Terry swept.

b. Terry swept the floor.
c. Terry swept the crumbs into the corner.
d. Terry swept the leaves off the sidewalk.
e. Terry swept the floor clean.
(Rappaport Hovav and Levin 1998: 97)

The verb sweep belongs to verbs of surface contact through motion, and this semantic
class includes wipe, scrape, dust, and rub as other members. The range of syntactic
patterns in (32) in which the verb sweep appears is available to other members of
the same verb class. As I have argued elsewhere (Tsujimura 2010, 2014, 2017), regular
polysemy is one of the major characteristics that significantly separates mimetic verbs
from prosaic verbs. The nature of polysemy that mimetic verbs exhibit, in fact, should
be better characterized as “irregular polysemy”. That is, the range of meaning exten-
sions and syntactic patterns of arguments that one member of a semantically (seem-
ingly) coherent class of mimetic verbs exhibit is not systematically available to other
members of the same class of mimetic verbs (Tsujimura 2014, 2017). Instead, multi-
ple “meanings” and argument structure properties that are associated with a
mimetic verb are specific to that particular mimetic verb. And there seem to be no
systematic patterns beyond individual mimetic verb that would lead to generaliza-
tions over the nature of the relationship between verb meaning and argument struc-
ture patterns. Thus, the type of regularities for which the projectionist approach is
motivated is lacking or meager in mimetic verbs. At the very least, the regularities
are not consistently observed with mimetic verbs to the same extent that prosaic
verbs demonstrate. On the one hand, the projectionist view has been influential in
analyzing prosaic verbs in Japanese. On the other, the degree of flexibility in argument
structure patterns of mimetic verbs and what could constitute their “meanings” may
 Syntax and argument structure 777

shed interesting light on what argument structure really means for mimetic verbs.
Mimetic lexemes form an important member of the Japanese lexical strata, and verbs
that are built around them may well offer us a deeper insight into investigations of
argument structure in general.

4 Conclusion
The topic of argument structure appears in a wide range of linguistics literature, out
of which a number of important issues emerge with respect to its nature, both con-
tent and structure. The topic has been discussed both independently and in terms of
its relation to morphology and syntax. There have already been a number of interest-
ing observations made for Japanese from theoretical and comparative perspectives.
Obviously this chapter touches on only a very small part of this research topic.
Nevertheless, I hope to have shown through a brief sketch of argument structure
and related matters in Japanese that language specific characteristics, far beyond
translation equivalents, can contribute to the elucidation of some central factors
that need to be included in approaching general and broad issues revolving around
argument structure.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Shigeru Miyagawa and Stuart Davis for reading earlier versions
of this chapter and offering me helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like
to thank John Haig and Hideki Kishimoto whose editing has made the chapter more
readable. All remaining issues are my responsibility.

References
Akita, Kimi. 2009. A grammar of sound-symbolic words in Japanese: Theoretical approaches to
iconic and lexical properties of mimetics. Kobe: Kobe University dissertation.
Alsina, Alex. 2006. Argument structure. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics.
2nd edition, 461–468. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1973. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142. 5–32.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beavers, John. 2010. The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language 86.
821–864.
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In name only: Structuring sense, volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer. Hagit. 2005b. The normal course of events: Structuring sense, volume II. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
778 Natsuko Tsujimura

Bowers, John. 1981. The theory of grammatical relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization
in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys Superiority: frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 233–
273.
Butt, Miriam. 2006. Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, Ray. 1984. Composite predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum.
Clancy, Patricia. 1985. The acquisition of Japanese. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clark, Eve and Herbert Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 767–811.
Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Argument structure. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang
Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary
research, volume 1, 903–914. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Dryer, Matthew. 1987. On primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62. 808–
845.
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Argument structure: Grammar in use. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf
and William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function,
11–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds). 2003. Preferred argument structure:
Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Duguine, Maia, Susana Huidobro and Nerea Madariaga (eds.). 2010. Argument structure and syntactic
relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fausey, Caitlin M., Bria L. Long and Lera Boroditsky. 2009. The role of language in eye-witness
memory: Remembering who did it in English and Japanese. Proceedings of the 31st Annual
Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2426–2431.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977a. Topics in lexical semantics. In Peter Cole (ed.), Current issues in linguistics
theory, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977b. The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 8:
Grammatical relations, 59–81. New York: Academic Press.
Fisher, Cynthia, Geoffrey Hall, Susan Rakowitz and Lila Gleitman. 1994. When it is better to receive
than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua 92. 333–375.
Goldberg, Adele. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English
ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3. 37–74.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Construction at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb
templates. Mind & Language 28. 435–465.
Goldwater, Micah B. and Arthur B. Markman. 2009. Constructional sources of implicit agents in
sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 675–702.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. 1988. Light verbs and ɵ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 205–232.
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander and Richard Goldberg. 1991. Affectedness and
direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. In
Beth Levin and Steven Pinker (eds.), Lexical conceptual semantics, 153–195. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1986a. Some transitivity alternations in English. Lexicon Project
Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
 Syntax and argument structure 779

Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1986b. A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10.
Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1988. Explaining and constraining the English middle. Lexicon
Project Working Papers 24. Cambridge, MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Harada, Naomi and Richard Larson. 2009. Datives in Japanese. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on
Altaic Formal Linguistics: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 54, 3–17. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Harada, S. I. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and
Phoniatrics 7. 113–147. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and
licensing. Cambridge; MA: MIT dissertation.
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double-object construction. In Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck
(eds.) Linguistic variation yearbook 2, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harley, Heidi. 2010. A minimalist approach to argument structure. In Cedric Boecks (ed.), The Oxford
handbook of linguistic minimalism, 427–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington dissertation.
Ito, Atsushi. 2007. Argument structure of Japanese ditransitives. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3.
127–150.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.
369–411.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A modern English grammar on historical principles. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Kageyama, Taro. 1996. Dōshi imiron [Verbal semantics]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kageyama, Taro. 2007. Explorations in the conceptual semantics of mimetic verbs. In Bjarke Frellesvig,
Masayoshi Shibatani and John Smith (eds.), Current issues in the history and structure of
Japanese, 27–82. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kakehi, Hisao, Ikuhiro Tamori and Lawrence Schourup. 1996. Dictionary of iconic expressions in
Japanese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kako, Edward. 2006. Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition 101. 1–42.
Kaschak, Michael P. and Arthur M. Glenberg. 2000. Constructing meaning: The role of affordances
and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language
43. 508–529.
Kearns, Kate. 1998. Extraction from make the claim constructions. Journal of Linguistics 34. 53–72.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. The role of lexical meanings in argument encoding: Double object verbs in
Japanese. Gengo Kenkyu 120. 35–65.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2008. Ditransitive idioms and argument structure. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
17. 141–179.
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35. 379–
415.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–391.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative verbs: A crosslinguistic perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 31. 285–
312.
Levin, Beth. 2010. The semantic bases of Japanese and Korean ditransitives. Handout from the 20th
Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference.
780 Natsuko Tsujimura

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1998. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Andrew
Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 249–271. Oxford: Blackwell.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2003. Two types of ditransitive constructions in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 12. 171–203.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Light verbs and the ergative hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 659–668.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1994. Scrambling as an obligatory movement. Proceedings of Nanzan University
International Symposium on Japanese Language Education and Japanese Language Studies,
81–92. Nagoya: Nanzan University.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 1–26.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Case, argument structure, and word order. London: Routledge.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Takae Tsujioka. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 1–38.
Morikawa, Hiromi. 1997. Acquisition of case marking and argument structures in Japanese. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Nasu, Akio. 2002. Nihongo onomatope no gokeisei to inritsu-kōzō [Word formation and prosodic
structure of Japanese onomatopoeia]. Ibaraki: University of Tsukuba dissertation.
Niagles, Letitia. 1990. Children use syntax to learn verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 17. 357–
374.
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Perlmutter, David, and Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In David Perlmutter
and Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in relational grammar 2, 81–125. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1987. The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinny (ed.),
Mechanisms of language acquisition, 399–441. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Poser, William. 1981. The “double-o constraint”: Evidence for a direct object relation in Japanese.
Unpublished ms., MIT.
Rappaport, Malka and Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with ɵ-roles. In Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Syntax and
semantics 21: Thematic relations, 147–165. New York: Academic Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Miriam Butt and Wilhelm
Geuder (eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, 97–134. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb
sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44. 129–167.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 183–
192.
Rispoli, Matthew. 1987. The acquisition of transitive and intransitive action verb categories in
Japanese. First Language 7. 183–200.
Rispoli, Matthew. 1991. The acquisition of verb subcategorization in a functionalist framework. First
Language 11. 41–63.
Rispoli, Matthew. 1995. Missing argument and the acquisition of predicate meaning. In Michael
Tomasello and William E. Merriman (eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisi-
tion of verbs, 331–352. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer. 1998. Morphology and argument structure. In Andrew Spencer
and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 206–236. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sells, Peter. 1989. More on light verbs and theta-marking. Unpublished ms., Stanford University.
 Syntax and argument structure 781

Slobin, Dan I. 2001. Form-function relations: How do children find out what they are? In Melissa
Bowerman and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development,
406–449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tamori, Ikuhiro and Lawrence Schourup. 1999. Onomatope: Keitai to imi [Onomatopoeia: Form and
meaning]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Tsujioka, Takae. 2011. Idioms, mixed marking in nominalization, and the base-generation hypothesis
for ditransitives in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20. 117–143.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 1990. Ergativity of nouns and case assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 277–287.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2005. A constructional approach to mimetic verbs. In Mirjam Fried and Hans C.
Boas (eds.), Grammatical construction: Back to the roots, 137–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsujiura, Natsuko. 2007. An introduction to Japanese linguistics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2010. Onomatope dōshi no imi, kōkōzō no ichikōsatsu [On the meaning and
argument structure of mimetic verbs]. Proceedings of the Kansai Linguistic Society 29. 334–
343.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2014. Mimetic verbs and meaning. In Franz Rainer, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans
Christian Luschützky, and Francesco Gardani (eds.), Morphology and meaning, 303–314.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2017. How flexible should the grammar of mimetics be? A view from Japanese
poetry. In Noriko Iwasaki, Peter Sells, and Kimi Akita (eds.), The grammar of Japanese mimetics:
Perspectives from structure, acquisition, and translation, 103–128. Oxford: Routledge.
Tsujimura, Natsuko and Stuart Davis. 2011. A construction approach to innovative verbs in Japanese.
Cognitive Linguistics 22. 797–823.
Uchida, Yoshiko and Mineharu Nakayama. 1993. Japanese verbal noun constructions. Linguistics 31.
623–666.
Akira Watanabe
21 Attributive modification

1 Introduction
How attributive modification works in Japanese is becoming a hot topic in recent
years. The basic issue has been whether Japanese has the kind of adnominal modifi-
cation structure found in languages like English and Italian. The answer to this
question inevitably depends on our theoretical conception of adnominal modifica-
tion. We need to identify properties that characterize modification structure as the
basis for discussion. One very significant point in the analysis of adnominal modifi-
cation is that different semantically-defined classes of adjectives are recruited for
particular purposes of modification. Thus, a more fundamental question of identify-
ing subclasses of adjectives must be addressed before we can obtain meaningful
results for adnominal modification in general. This is not an easy task from a cross-
linguistic perspective, due to the fact that some basic classes can be recognized in
Japanese, but certain classes are absent. We should also keep in mind that lexicali-
zation patterns may differ from one language to another. The source, and the extent,
of variation are not known yet. We therefore need to proceed cautiously when com-
paring Japanese with other languages.
Attributive modification interacts with other areas of syntax as well, especially
those involving degree variable binding. Here again, a careful assessment of data
patterns is called for before jumping at conclusions in haste. The relevance of degree
variable binding in this connection is not surprising, given that adnominal modifica-
tion relates to one aspect of adjectival syntax, and that gradable adjectives come
with a degree argument. Combination of these two facets provides a new research
topic that is expected to illuminate the nature of adjectives from a UG point of view.

2 Initial observations
Sproat and Shih (1991) distinguish between direct and indirect modification on the
basis of rigidity of adjectival ordering: ordering is rigid in direct modification while
it is free in indirect modification. According to this criterion, prenominal adjectives
in English exemplify direct modification (1), whereas Japanese uses adjectives for
indirect modification (2)

(1) a. small square table

b. *square small table (Sproat and Shih 1991: 565)

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-022
784 Akira Watanabe

(2) a. tiisana sikakui ie

small square house

b. sikakui tiisana ie
square small house
‘small square house’ (Sproat and Shih 1991: 582)

Ordering is linked to semantic classes of adjectives. One relatively recent proposal

concerning such a classification is given below.

(3) Hierarchy of Attributive Adjectives (Scott 2002: 114)

subjective comment > ?evidential > size > length > height > speed >
?depth > width > weight > temperature > ?wetness > age > shape >
color > nationality/origin > material

In (1), the size adjective small must precede the shape adjective square. No such
ordering restriction is found in the case of the Japanese counterparts in (2).
Cinque (1994) proposes that the adjectival ordering in direct modification should
be encoded in the hierarchical organization of functional heads that host an attribu-
tive adjective in a structure of the kind illustrated in (4).

(4) [F1P AP F1 [F2P AP F2 NP]]

F1 and F2 are functional heads that select a designated type of adjective in their
Spec. The hierarchical ordering of these functional heads itself is a stipulation under
this proposal. Cinque (2010) further suggests that the structure for indirect modifica-
tion comes on top of the structure for direct modification, as schematized in (5),
where indirect modifiers are represented as RC, hosted in Spec of HP.

(5) [HP RC H [HP RC H [FP AP F [FP AP F NP]]]]

indirect modification direct modification

To capture the free ordering of indirect modifiers, it is necessary to assume that HPs
are not subject to an ordering constraint, unlike FPs in the case of direct modification.
Cinque’s (2010) proposal summarized in (5) is supported by a straightforward
piece of evidence concerning the relative height of direct and indirect modification
presented in Sproat and Shih (1991), who observe that direct modifiers are closer to
the head noun than indirect modifiers in Mandarin, where adjectives modify a noun
in two ways: with and without de. Direct modifiers are illustrated in (6).

(6) a. xiao lü huaping

small green vase
‘small green vase’
 Attributive modification 785

b. *lü xiao huaping

green small vase (Sproat and Shih 1991: 566)

Note that a size adjective must be higher than a color adjective. In (7), on the other
hand, the same pair of adjectives can be freely ordered, indicating that de-marked
phrases are indirect modifiers.

(7) a. xiao-de lü-de huaping

small-DE green-DE vase

b. lü-de xiao-de huaping

green-DE small-DE vase
‘small green vase’ (Sproat and Shih 1991: 565)

When a direct modifier and an indirect modifier co-occur, the former must follow the
latter, as shown in (8).

(8) a. hei-de xiao shu

black-DE small book
‘small black book’

b. *xiao hei-de shu

small black-DE book (Sproat and Shih 1991: 571)

Significantly, the Japanese adjectives in (2) behave like those in (7), pointing to their
indirect modifier status.
Incidentally, though Cinque uses RC in (5) as shorthand for relative clauses and
Sproat and Shih (1991) treat indirect modifiers in Mandarin as relative clauses, indi-
rect modifiers need not be full relative clauses. In fact, as will be shown in §3.3, what
looks like an ordinary adjective can act as an indirect modifier under certain con-
ditions. See also Paul (2005) for arguments against the relative clause analysis of
modifiers with de in Mandarin.
Baker (2003) presents an additional argument for the absence of direct modifica-
tion in Japanese that focuses on interpretative properties of attributive adjectives.
The crucial case is ambiguity found in examples like (9).

(9) Olga is a beautiful dancer.

The reading that is claimed to be subject to parametric variation is the one under
which Olga dances beautifully. Larson (1998) analyzes this reading as arising from
event modification by the adjective, following Bolinger’s (1967) seminal work. In
other words, the attributive adjective works as an adverbial under this interpretation,
which is called non-intersective in the literature. (9) can also have an intersective
786 Akira Watanabe

reading under which Olga is a dancer who is beautiful. The direct modification nature
of the non-intersective reading can be seen from the contrast in (10).

(10) a. Olga is a blonde beautiful dancer.

b. Olga is a beautiful blonde dancer. (Larson and Takahashi 2007: 113)

Larson and Takahashi (2007) point out that the non-intersective reading is possible
only in (10a), which means that the position of the adjective for event modification is
lower than the color adjective in the hierarchy of direct modification given in (3).
Now, Baker observes that Japanese does not allow ambiguity of this sort. (11)
allows only the intersective reading.

(11) utukusii utaite

beautiful singer
‘singer who is beautiful’ *‘someone who sings beautifully’ (Baker 2003: 3)

Baker concludes from this observation that Japanese relies on the relative clause
strategy when an adjective modifies a noun, direct modification of the kind found
in English being forbidden.
The conclusion is premature, however, in view of examples like (12).

(12) migotona utaite

beautiful singer
‘someone who sings beautifully’ *‘singer who is beautiful’

This example is also unambiguous, but in the opposite way, allowing only the non-
intersective reading. The point is that migotona is specialized for event modification,
as shown in (13).

(13) a. migotona daburu puree

beautiful double play
‘beautiful/wonderful double play’

b. migotona odori
beautiful dancing
‘beautiful/wonderful dancing’

c. *migotona hito
beautiful person
‘beautiful/wonderful person’

(13c) is interpretable only when event-related information is imported from the

context of discourse. We are thus led to the conclusion that direct modification exists
 Attributive modification 787

in Japanese, contra Baker, if the non-intersective interpretation is associated with

direct modification. The error comes from regarding the Japanese adjective utukusii
as semantically equivalent to beautiful in English in every respect.
An important lesson from this discussion is that simple-minded translation is
not a reliable tool for investigation. See also Cinque’s (2010: 115) comments concern-
ing Italian and German. Careful choice of appropriate adjectives is a prerequisite for
meaningful results in this domain. Another significant point is that the hierarchy
for direct modification in (3) is not complete. (3) does not provide a place for event
modification within nominals. Further work is needed to shed more light on the
structure of direct modification.

3 Properties of the attributive modification structure

We have seen that semantic aspects of attributive modification are intimately linked
to its syntax, resulting in the hierarchical structural organization of direct and indirect
modification. Note that the hierarchical organization is found both within direct
modification and in the relation between direct and indirect modification. We have
also seen that careful examination reveals that Japanese employs direct modification
at least in one instance, on the assumption that non-intersective event-related inter-
pretation cannot arise from indirect modification. This section starts by presenting
more evidence for direct modification in Japanese.

3.1 More evidence for the existence of direct modification in

Japanese
Yamakido (2000, 2005) points to other cases of non-intersective interpretation such
as (14), picking up the major theme of Bolinger’s (1967) discussion concerning adno-
minal adjectives in English.

(14) a. Omoigakenai kyaku ga kita.

unexpected guest NOM came
‘An unexpected guest came.’

b. Max wa kanzenna baka da.

Max TOP complete fool be
‘Max is a complete fool.’ (Yamakido 2000: 593)

(14a) is another instance of event modification similar to (12), though there is a

difference. (12) is a case of manner modification, while (14a) is not. (14a) corresponds
to the adnominal version of speaker-oriented adverbials.
788 Akira Watanabe

(14b), on the other hand, is not an example of event modification. It is an

instance of degree modification, as Morzycki (2009, 2012) argues for its English
counterpart. Adnominal degree modification is also possible with size adjectives in
English, as illustrated in (15).

(15) a. big/huge/major idiot

b. big/huge/major basketball fan (Morzycki 2012: 192)

Morzycki (2012) shows that size adjectives should be distinguished from the class
exemplified by complete on the basis of the contrast between (15b) and (16b).

(16) a. utter/complete/absolute/outright idiot

b. #utter/complete/absolute/outright basketball fan (Morzycki 2012: 194)

# indicates that the relevant degree reading is not available. The contrast between
(15b) and (16b) also reminds us that for adnominal modification, noun classes matter.
It should be added further that noun classes make a difference for adnominal degree
modification in Japanese, too, as shown by the unavailability of the degree reading
in (17).

(17) #kanzenna basukettobooru fan

complete basketball fan

Like English, Japanese distinguishes between the two classes of adjectives in ad-
nominal degree modification. Interestingly, only the root portion of size adjectives
can be used as a degree modifier, as demonstrated in (18), where baka must be
suffixed with -yaroo for a mysterious reason.

(18) a. oo baka*(-yaroo)
big fool-bastard
‘big idiot’

b. #oo-kii baka(-yaroo)
big fool-bastard

c. #oo-kina baka(-yaroo)
big fool-bastard

As a result, expressions such as (18a) and (19) look like compounds.

(19) oo zake-nomi
big sake-drinker
‘heavy drinker’
 Attributive modification 789

Note that the sequential voicing occurs on the initial consonant of sake in (19). It is
an interesting open question for future research to address whether these compound-
looking expressions should be dealt with in phrasal syntax or not.
The same question about proper treatment arises for the Sino-Japanese version
dai in (20), regarded as a prefix in Kageyama (1982).

(20) basukettobooru no dai-fan

basketball GEN big-fan
‘big fan of basketball’

The Sino-Japanese version differs from the native version in its ability to serve for
phrasal modification with the help of the linker -no, as shown in (21).

(21) a. dai no basukettobooru fan

big LINK basketball fan
‘big basketball fan’

b. dai no wain aikooka

big LINK wine enthusiast
‘big wine enthusiast’

c. *oo no baka-yaroo
big LINK fool-bastard
‘big idiot’

See Watanabe (2010) for discussion of the linker -no and Takahashi (2011) for details
in relation to ellipsis. For the purposes of this chapter, it may suffice to note that
the linker in (21) should be distinguished from the homophonous genitive marker
in (20). And see Nishiyama (2005) on adjectival roots.
Ayano (2010) strengthens the direct modification status of (14b) by observing
that kanzenna is subject to an ordering restriction, as demonstrated in (22).

(22) a. monomidakai kanzenna baka

burningly.curious complete fool
‘burningly curious complete fool’

b. *?kanzenna monomidakai baka

complete burningly.curious fool
‘complete burningly curious fool’ (Ayano 2010: 105)

He also adds that kanzenna must be lower than a numeral, as shown in (23).

(23) a. huta-ri no kanzenna baka

two-CLF LINK complete fool
‘two complete fools’
790 Akira Watanabe

b. *?kanzenna huta-ri no baka

complete two-CLF LINK fool (Ayano 2010: 107)

An ordering restriction is also found in the case of size modifiers, as illustrated in

(24), confirming their direct modification status.

(24) a. zyoonetutekina dai no sakkaa fan

passionate big LINK football fan
‘passionate big basketball fan’

b. *?dai no zyoonetutekina sakkaa fan

big LINK passionate football fan
‘big passionate basketball fan’

In contrast to adnominal degree modifiers, omoigakenai in (14a) can appear in front

of a numeral, as in (25).

(25) Omoigakenai huta-ri no kyaku ga soko ni ita.

unexpected two-CLF LINK guest NOM there LOC was
‘Two unexpected guests were there.’

In view of the fact that speaker-oriented adverbs are located in a relatively higher
region of clausal structure (Cinque 1999), it is not so surprising to find that the place
of their adnominal version can be higher than a numeral. At the same time, the
observation warns us that the non-intersective semantics is not a perfect litmus test
for the direct modification status. It is therefore necessary to revisit the example of
adnominal event modification discussed in §2. Though the contrast may not be as
sharp as we want, (26a) sounds better than (26b).

(26) a. utukusii migotona utaite

beautiful wonderful singer
‘beautiful person who sings beautifully’

b. ??migotona utukusii utaite

wonderful beautiful singer

This ordering effect confirms that adnominal manner modification in Japanese is an

instance of direct modification.

3.2 Non-adjectival direct modifiers

So far, evidence for direct modification in Japanese has been limited to those modi-
fiers not covered by the hierarchy in (3). Though listed in (3), size adjectives recruited
for degree modification are not used as ordinary adjectives, both morphologically
 Attributive modification 791

and semantically. Only the bound root portion acts as an adnominal degree modifier.
Furthermore, what matters is not a physical size. This section turns to the lowest two
classes in (3), which display the direct modification behavior. Curiously, we witness a
similar twist here.
Watanabe (2012) observes that a nationality/origin modifier must be higher than
a material modifier, as dictated by the hierarchy in (3), pointing to the contrast in
(27) and (28).

(27) a. hokuoo no ki no isu

North.Europe LINK wood LINK chair
‘North European wooden chair’

b. *ki no hokuoo no isu

wood LINK North.Europe LINK chair (Watanabe 2012: 508)

(28) a. tiri no kin no kubikazari

Chile LINK gold LINK necklace
‘Chilean gold necklace’

b. *kin no tiri no kubikazari

gold LINK Chile LINK necklace (Watanabe 2012: 508)

The twist mentioned above is that Japanese does not have adjectives that express
nationality/origin or material. Note that the linker -no appears in (27) and (28), as
in (21), allowing nominal expressions to modify the head noun directly.
Watanabe points out that the nominal character of these modifiers has an inter-
esting consequence of justifying the existence of functional heads that host modifi-
ers in their Spec in (4). The meaning of origin, for example, does not arise from com-
bining a place/country/region name with the head noun. There are many imaginable
relations between such a name and the head noun (ex. destination), out of which
the origin interpretation must be picked out. In the case of adjectives derived from
such a name, one may attribute the meaning of origin to the derivational affix. The
only possible source of the origin interpretation for modifier nouns, however, is the
F head posited in (4). In other words, the F head plays a role in semantic interpre-
tation. It should also be emphasized that attributive direct modifiers need not be
limited to adjectives. Nominal expressions can be hosted in Spec of FP in (4). Thus,
questions about the categorial status of dai in (21) do not preclude it from being a
direct modifier.
Watanabe (2012) further observes that a size adjective is higher than nationality/
origin and material modifiers, as shown in (29).
792 Akira Watanabe

(29) a. tiisana ki no hasi

small wood LINK bridge
‘small wooden bridge’

b. ??ki no tiisana hasi

wood LINK small bridge (Watanabe 2012: 507)

(30) a. tiisana tyuugoku no kabin

small China LINK vase
‘small Chinese vase’

b. ??tyuugoku no tiisana kabin

China LINK small vase (Watanabe 2012: 507)

The contrast here does not necessarily mean that size adjectives belong to direct
modification. As indicated by free ordering in (2), they have an option of making
use of indirect modification structure. Since indirect modifiers are located above the
structure for direct modification, the ordering in (29) and (30) follows, regardless of
whether tiisana is a direct or indirect modifier.
Watanabe (2012) also notes that focusing of modifiers can lead to reordering, as
in the case of English (Scott 2002), observing that inserting a pause after the first
modifier rescues word orders that are judged to be impossible. This may not be a
simple matter of whether or not there is a pause, but is probably linked to phrasal
phonology, in which case we expect to find tonal correlates of differences in phono-
logical phrasing (Pierrehumbert and Beckman 1988). A pause may be inserted when
there is not enough segmental material to fill a larger phrase. Ken Hiraiwa (personal
communication) points out that when the material modifier is long, no pause is
needed for an acceptable example with the order corresponding to that in (29b), as
illustrated in (31).

(31) a. tiisana konkuriito no hasi

small concrete LINK bridge
‘small wooden bridge’

b. konkuriito no tiisana hasi

concrete LINK small bridge

An initial impression is that in (31b), tiisana does not seem to undergo downstep, a
lowering of pitch within a domain called the Major Phrase in the literature, suggest-
ing that konkuriito-no is followed by a Major Phrase boundary. In (31a), on the other
hand, konkuriito-no seems to be downstepped just like the second adjective of a
sequence of adjectives modifying a noun such as umai nigai nori ‘tasty bitter seaweed’
discussed by Selkirk and Tateishi (1991). Of course, these naïve impressions need to
 Attributive modification 793

be confirmed (or disconfirmed) by experiment. The result also has to be compared

with phonological effects of focusing at the sentential level, where Major Phrases
are claimed to be unaffected by focus (Ishihara 2007). In fact, Pierrehumbert and
Beckman (1988) argue that a phonological boundary is placed before, but not after
the focused element in the case of an adjective-noun combination. But then, the
effect on tone and phonological phrasing in (31b) cannot be due to focusing alone,
since a pause after the first modifier does not result in focusing of the second modifier
there. Interestingly, Sproat and Shih (1991) observe for English that parallel modifica-
tion, which results in independent, parallel modification of the head noun by each
adjective, ignoring the hierarchical ordering, leads to separate phrasing of each adjec-
tive, citing examples like those Oriental, orange, wonderful ivories. Cases like (31b) in
Japanese, then, may also be instances of parallel modification.
The point of this discussion is that potentially relevant data is not limited to
acceptability judgments and the presence or absence of a pause if we want to examine
possible orders of adnominal modifiers. Short modifiers, however, can sidestep com-
plications concerning tone and phonological phrasing to provide relatively straight-
forward evidence that direct modification exists in Japanese.

3.3 Non-finite indirect modifiers

Having established the existence of direct modification in Japanese, let us now turn
to indirect modification. The existence of direct modification provides us with a new
perspective from which to approach indirect modification.
Discussing cases like (14), Yamakido (2000) correctly points out that if the ad-
nominal modifiers in these examples belong to direct modification, they should not
contain tense, since full relative clauses cannot be direct modifiers. Yamakido (2005,
2007, 2013) takes up dialectal variation in the morphological shape of adjectives to
support the claim, but Ayano (2010) presents a fairly simple piece of evidence that
prenominal adjectives can appear without tense, pointing to the ill-formedness
of (32), as compared with (14b).

(32) *kanzen de aru baka

complete PRED is fool (Ayano 2010: 108)

The crucial fact is that (32) contains the present tense form of the copula, which is
used in an independent clause as in (33a).

(33) a. Sono hito wa totemo sinsetu de aru.

that person TOP very kind PRED is
‘That person is very kind.’
794 Akira Watanabe

b. totemo sinsetu-na hito

very kind-NA person
‘very kind person’

Adnominally, the form with -na is used as in (33b). This is a characteristic morpho-
logical property of so-called adjectival nouns, whose adjectival status will be discussed
in detail in §4. Note also that (12) behaves in the same way, as can be seen from the
unacceptability of (34).

(34) *migoto de aru utaite

beautiful PRED is singer

The contrast between (14b) and (32) or between (12) and (34) leads us to conclude
that the form with -na is tenseless, contrary to the traditional assumption found in
works such as Nishiyama (1999).
Now, the indirect modifier tiisana in (2) contains -na, which suggests that indirect
modifiers can also be tenseless. In fact, this is the sense in which Cinque (2010) uses
the term “reduced relative clauses”. Interestingly, a superlative adjective acting as an
indirect modifier provides striking evidence that indirect modification in Japanese
does not have to take the form of finite relative clauses. The argument comes from
Shimoyama’s (2011, 2014) observation about possible semantic interpretations of
superlative adjectives.
The starting point for discussion is the fact that a superlative adjective allows
two types of reading, called absolute and comparative readings (Farkas and É Kiss
2000; Szabolcsi 1986). On the absolute reading, (35) means something like ‘who
climbed Mt. Everest?’.

(35) Who climbed the highest mountain? (Farkas and É Kiss 2000: 417)

The comparative reading can be paraphrased as ‘who climbed a higher mountain

than anybody else did?’. The same ambiguity exists in Japanese, as discussed in
detail by Aihara (2009). (36), for example, behaves in the same way as (35).

(36) John ga itiban takai yama ni nobotta.

John NOM most high mountain LOC climbed
‘John climbed the highest mountain.’ (Aihara 2009: 347)

Shimoyama (2011, 2014) points out that when the adnominal modifier is put in the
past tense, the comparative reading becomes unavailable. (37b) and (38b) below,
for example, only have the absolute reading, in contrast to (37a) and (38a), which
are ambiguous.
 Attributive modification 795

(37) a. Taroo ga itiban omosiroi hito o syuzaisita.

Taro NOM most funny person ACC interviewed
‘Taro interviewed the funniest person.’

b. Taroo ga itiban omosirok-atta hito o syuzaisita.

Taro NOM most funny-was person ACC interviewed
‘Taro interviewed the person who was/had been the funniest.’
(Shimoyama 2011: 363)

(38) a. Ken ga itiban sinsen-na sakana o hurumatta.

Ken NOM most fresh-NA fish ACC treated
‘Ken treated (the guests) to the freshest fish.’

b. Ken ga itiban sinsen datta sakana o hurumatta.

Ken NOM most fresh-NA was fish ACC treated
‘Ken treated (the guests) to the fish that had been the freshest.’
(Shimoyama 2011: 363–364)

She argues that it is not just past tense, but tense in general that blocks the com-
parative reading. Thus, the comparative reading of (37a) and (38a) is shown to come
from a tenseless adnominal modifier. (37) involves an ordinary adjective. Since the
form in (37a) is also used in a present tense independent clause as in (39), one cannot
tell from (37) alone whether the absolute reading is also due to a tenseless adnominal
modifier.

(39) Sono hito wa totemo omosiroi.

that person TOP very funny
‘That person is very funny.’

In (38a), on the other hand, an adjectival noun with -na is used. So, we can safely
conclude that the absolute reading is possible for a tenseless adnominal modifier,
as long as it is assumed that relative clauses allow no present-tense null copula
to be combined with the -na form. We also need to assume that (39) involves a null
copula, to allow the adjective in (37a) to remain tenseless.
The critical question now is whether the comparative reading belongs to direct
or indirect modification. Cinque (2010) argues that it is an instance of indirect modi-
fication, based on the observation about Italian that the prenominal placement of a
superlative adjective (40a) disallows the comparative reading, while the postnominal
placement (40b) leads to ambiguity.

(40) a. Chi ha scalato la più alta montagna innevata?

who has climbed the most high mountain snowy
‘Who climbed the highest snowy mountain?’
796 Akira Watanabe

b. Chi ha scalato la montagna innevata più alta?

who has climbed the mountain snowy most high
(Cinque 2010: 12)

The claim is embedded in an elaborate analysis of roll-up movement to derive post-

nominal adjectives from the structure schematized in (5), for which the reader is
referred to his monograph. The linkage of the comparative reading with indirect
modification seems easier to demonstrate in the case of Japanese, where all adnominal
modifiers precede the head noun, with no interfering roll-up movement. Consider
the following examples:

(41) a. Ken ga itiban ooki-na marui isi o mottekita.

Ken NOM most big-NA round stone ACC brought
‘Ken brought the biggest round stone.’

b. Ken ga marui itiban ooki-na isi o mottekita.

Ken NOM round most big-NA stone ACC brought

The comparative reading, available for (41a), is impossible in the case of (41b). Since
both size adjectives like ooki-na and shape adjectives such as marui can act as
indirect modifiers, as evidenced by free ordering illustrated in (42), the contrast in
(41) shows that the superlative under the comparative reading cannot be a direct
modifier.

(42) a. Ken ga ooki-na marui isi o hirotta.

Ken NOM big-NA round stone ACC picked.up
‘Ken picked up a big round stone.’

b. Ken ga marui ooki-na isi o hirotta.

Ken NOM round big-NA stone ACC picked.up

Actually, it should be even higher than ordinary indirect modifiers, for the absence
of the comparative reading in (41b) could not be explained otherwise. We are led
anyway to conclude that the comparative reading of superlatives involves non-finite
indirect modification.
Shimoyama (2014) claims that the comparative reading is an instance of direct
modification, but presents no Japanese data that support the claim. The unavailability
of the comparative reading in (41b) is straightforward evidence that the superlative of
the comparative reading cannot be placed in a position lower than indirect modifiers,
which rules out the direct modifier analysis. In fact, Shimoyama (2014) discusses a
relevant example, given in (43), without drawing a proper conclusion.
 Attributive modification 797

(43) Ken ga itiban siroi marui ookii onigiri o tukuru daroo.

Ken NOM most white round big rice.ball ACC make EVID
‘It’s likely that Ken will make the whitest round large rice ball.’
(Shimoyama 2014: 322)

(43) contains three adjectives, with the lower two of them in the order that violates
the hierarchical placement characteristic of direct modification. The shape adjective
marui in the middle can only function as an indirect modifier, since it comes in front
of a size adjective. It then follows that the superlative adjective is also an indirect
modifier. Shimoyama’s observation is that the comparative reading is possible in
(43). We are then led to conclude that the superlative of the comparative reading in-
volves indirect modification, not direct modification, contrary to Shimoyama’s claim.
As for the absolute reading, Cinque claims that it belongs to direct modification.
If that position is tenable, the availability of an absolute reading in (41a) provides
another piece of evidence that non-superlative adjectives in Japanese can be used
in direct modification. Is there Japanese-internal evidence that supports Cinque’s
claim? The configuration in (43) is relevant again. A different type of verb needs to
be substituted, however, because a creation verb in the future tense is biased against
the absolute reading. Consider (44).

(44) Ken wa itiban siroi marui ookii onigiri o mottekita.

Ken TOP most white round big rice.ball ACC brought
‘Ken brought make the whitest round large rice ball.’

The absolute reading is possible. Since the superlative adjective in the configuration
of (44) cannot be a direct modifier, we are driven to the conclusion that the superla-
tive of the absolute reading also belongs to indirect modification in Japanese. At the
same time, the contrast in (41) shows that the absolute reading and the comparative
reading come from different structural positions, suggesting that a more fine-grained
distinction may have to be recognized within indirect modification. Italian data need
to be revisited, too.
Incidentally, no comparative reading is possible for (44). I have deliberately
used the topicalized subject in (44) to suppress the comparative reading. To simplify
things a little bit, Szabolcsi (1986) and Farkas and É Kiss (2000) point out that a
comparison set for the comparative reading requires a focused constituent that is
put in contrast with alternatives. Shimoyama (2011, 2014) observes that the same
restriction holds in Japanese as well. In (43), the non-topicalized subject serves this
purpose. In (44), on the other hand, the subject is topicalized, with no focused con-
stituent that provides a comparison set. Hence the impossibility of the comparative
reading.
798 Akira Watanabe

Let us turn to another class of non-finite modifiers whose nature the compara-
tive reading of superlatives clarifies.
Kusumoto (2001) takes up the well-known observation that the -ta suffix, which
otherwise functions as the past tense morpheme, does not express tense when it
forms an adnominal modifier in cases like (45).

(45) magat-ta miti

wind-TA road
‘winding road’

The basic descriptive point is that there does not have to be any previous event that
has led to the current state of the road in (45). Kusumoto proposes that this non-past
morpheme -ta is a participle-forming suffix. In that case, (45) is also an instance of
non-finite adnominal modification. In other words, (45) does not involve a full relative
clause. Shimoyama (2011) confirms the non-finite status of this type of modifier by
pointing out that a comparative reading is available for the superlative version, as
in (46).

(46) Haruko ga itiban magat-ta miti o hasitta.

Haruko NOM most wind-TA road ACC ran
‘Haruko ran the most winding road.’ (Shimoyama 2011: 365)

We have another type of non-finite indirect modifier here.

3.4 Degree variable binding

The structure for adnominal modification, where gradable adjectives occupy a central
place, interacts with another aspect of syntax. One issue concerning gradable adjec-
tives in Japanese is the proper treatment of comparatives. Beck, Oda, and Sugisaki
(2004) argue that the Japanese construction does not involve degree variable binding
derived from wh-movement, unlike the English comparative structure. Shimoyama
(2012), however, shows that the evidence for degree variable binding is compelling.
One question left open in this debate has to do with the variable acceptability of
clausal comparatives illustrated in (47), an observation originally due to Ishii (1991).

(47) a. ?(?)Taroo wa Hanako ga katta yori nagai

Taro TOP Hanako NOM bought than long
kasa o katta.
umbrella ACC bought
‘Taro bought a longer umbrella than Hanako did.’
 Attributive modification 799

b. Taroo wa Hanako ga katta yori takai

Taro TOP Hanako NOM bought than expensive
kasa o katta.
umbrella ACC bought
‘Taro bought a more expensive umbrella than Hanako did.’
(Beck, Oda and Sugisaki 2004: 300, 302)

Beck et al. take this variability as one of the main reasons for assuming that Japanese
does not make use of wh-movement in clausal comparatives unlike English, where
no such variability is found. Shimoyama, on the other hand, tentatively suggests
that a word order difference may be responsible for the contrast between English
and Japanese. Specifically, she claims that the deleted constituent within the yori
clause, indicated in (48), needs to be matched with its antecedent in the matrix
clause.

(48) Hanako ga takai kasa o katta yori

The difference between English and Japanese is that this antecedent precedes the
deleted part in English, whereas that is not the case in Japanese. The marginality of
(47a) is attributed to the difficulty of anticipating the antecedent in on-line process-
ing at the point where it is not yet encountered.
This section explores an alternative approach to the phenomenon in (47) that
has not been pursued before. The reader is referred to Bhat and Takahashi (2011),
Hayashishita (2009), and Kennedy (2007), in addition to the works cited, for various
other problems surrounding the analysis of comparatives in Japanese.
Let it be clear at the outset that the unacceptability of (47a) is not so strong.
Beck et al. report it to be at most questionable. Shimoyama says that judgments are
subtle. So we are dealing with delicate data. The strategy of this section, therefore, is
to try to find an analogous case of subtle acceptability fluctuation.
The point of departure is the recognition that the treatment of adnominal struc-
ture is clearly relevant here. Assuming with Shimoyama (2012) that the Japanese
comparative construction has essentially the same syntax as the English counterpart
leads us to ascribe the marginality of (47a) to the difficulty of associating it with a
well-formed wh-extraction structure. In this connection, the contrast illustrated in
(49) becomes relevant.

(49) a. John wants to find a better solution than Christine did.

b. *John wants to find a solution better than Christine did. (Bresnan 1973: 320)

It is fairly uncontroversial that postnominal adjectives in English are reduced relatives

(Sadler and Arnold 1994). Cinque (2010) derives the postnominal positioning of these
800 Akira Watanabe

indirect modifiers by raising a projection containing the head noun from the structure
schematized in (5), with an indirect modifier left behind. The ill-formedness of (49b)
indicates that attributive comparatives are ruled out in the case of indirect modifica-
tion in general when the than clause is parallel to the matrix clause in structure.
The reason is that only adjectives are targeted for comparison in the case of reduced
relatives. One can then treat the marginality of (47a) in the same way as the ungram-
maticality of (49b), under the hypothesis that a relative clause parse of nagai kasa is
the preferred structural option in (47a). In fact, a full finite relative clause is involved
in (47a), as will be shown shortly. The less than fully unacceptable status of (47a) is
a reflection of the fact that the relative clause parse is not so strongly forced. In
(47b), on the other hand, a direct modification structure is easily available, allowing
the structural option found in (49a). Thus, well-formed comparatives like (47b) con-
stitute evidence that adjectives in Japanese can be used for direct modification.
Now, this alternative approach appears to simply shift the problem from the
comparative construction to adnominal modification. Under the new alternative just
indicated, the fact remains that adnominal modification in Japanese is subject to a
constraint that is not operative in English, and we need to ask why. Nevertheless, to
what extent English and Japanese differ in attributive modification is a major theme
of this chapter. If a difference is found, that has to be recognized as such. Further-
more, the acceptability of quantity comparison in (50) is straightforwardly explained,
since no relative clause parse is conceivable here.

(50) Taroo wa Hanako ga katta yori takusan (no)

Taro TOP Hanako NOM bought than many LINK
kasa o katta.
umbrella ACC bought
‘Taro bought more umbrellas than Hanako did.’
(Beck, Oda and Sugisaki 2004: 290)

Importantly, whether a full relative clause parse is forced or not can be detected in-
dependently. Recall that the comparative reading of superlatives becomes unavailable
when the adnominal adjective is placed in a finite clause. We can test the same pair
of object-verb combinations on superlatives, as in (51).

(51) a. Hanako ga itiban nagai kasa o katta.

Hanako NOM most long umbrella ACC bought
‘Hanako bought the longest umbrella.’

b. Hanako ga itiban takai kasa o katta.

Hanako NOM most expensive umbrella ACC bought
‘Hanako bought the most expensive umbrella.’
 Attributive modification 801

Though the contrast is subtle again, it seems to go in the predicted direction, the
comparative reading more difficult to get in (51a) than in (51b). The correlation of
acceptable adnominal comparatives with the availability of the comparative reading
of superlatives can be seen in (52) as well.

(52) a. Taroo wa Hanako ga kaita yori nagai ronbun o kaita.

Taro TOP Hanako NOM wrote than long paper ACC wrote
‘Taro wrote a longer paper than Hanako did.’ (Ishii 1991: 134)

b. Hanako ga itiban nagai ronbun o kaita.

Hanako NOM most long paper ACC wrote
‘Hanako wrote the longest paper.’

It should also be mentioned that the behavior of comparatives and that of super-
latives are not completely parallel. In the case of comparatives, what matters is the
distinction between direct and indirect modifiers. The comparative reading of super-
latives, on the other hand, only requires non-finiteness. Recall that superlatives
under the comparative reading are indirect modifiers in the first place. The point of
discussion, however, is that once a finite full relative clause parse is forced, both
clausal comparatives and the comparative reading of superlatives become impossible.
It is an important empirical task for future research to figure out what kind of
adjective-noun sequence prefers a full relative clause parse in relation to the matrix
predicate.

4 Adjectival classes
The discussion in this chapter has revealed that adjectival classes are key elements
in the syntax of adnominal modifiers. The hierarchy in (3) for direct modification is
stated in such terms in the first place, Japanese lacks certain classes of adjectives
(nationality/origin and material), and size adjectives are recruited for degree modifi-
cation both in English and in Japanese. It should also be mentioned that Dixon
(2004) stresses the importance of adjectival classes in typological studies. We do
not yet have an exhaustive classification, but that does not diminish the significance
of adjectival classes. On the contrary, an effort to discover various roles of adjectival
classes should be put on the long-term research agenda. This section looks at the
relation of adjectival classes to morphological profiles of subtypes of adjectives.
Let us begin with the well-known fact that Japanese has so-called adjectival
nouns in addition to ordinary adjectives. Kageyama (1982) and Miyagawa (1987) treat
the two morphological classes as distinct categories, providing an analysis in terms
of categorial features. Backhouse (1984) and Ohkado (1991), on the other hand,
802 Akira Watanabe

argue that adjectival nouns are adjectives after all. See also Nishiyama (1999) for a
morphological analysis of adjectival nouns as a subclass of adjectives. This chapter
has so far assumed that adjectival nouns should be subsumed under the larger
category of adjectives, following Backhouse and Ohkado. To pick up one argument
from Ohkado’s list, superlative formation is common to adjectival nouns and ordinary
adjectives, as we have already seen in (37) and (38). Does consideration of semantic
classes shed new light on the issue?
What should be highlighted in the context of adjectival classes is a very simple
fact, discussed briefly by Backhouse (1984), that an ordinary adjective and an adjec-
tival noun sometimes form an antonym pair, as in (53).

(53) a. kirei-na ‘clean’ / kitanai ‘dirty’

b. sizuka-na ‘quiet’ / yakamasii ‘noisy’

c. oroka-na ‘stupid’ / kasikoi ‘clever’

There are not many pairs like these, but their very existence would not be possible if
adjectival nouns and ordinary adjectives were not categorially identical. Note that
the positive and negative members of an antonym pair make use of the same scale
structure, differing only in the ordering of degrees (Kennedy 2001, Kennedy and
McNally 2005, Sassoon 2010). They are therefore members of the same particular
semantic class. It would be very surprising if such semantic twins belonged to distinct
syntactic categories.
Furthermore, size adjectives allow the -na suffix, characteristic of adjectival
nouns, as an option in the case of adnominal modification, as shown in (54), despite
the fact that the i-ending, characteristic of ordinary adjectives, is the only option for
predicative use in present tense, as shown in (55).

(54) a. ooki-na / ooki-i ie

big-NA / big-I house
‘big house’

b. tiisa-na / tiisa-i ie
small-NA / small-I house
‘big house’

(55) a. Hanako no ie wa {*ooki de aru / okooki-i}.

Hanako GEN house TOP big PRED is big-I
‘Hanako’s house is big.’

b. Hanako no ie wa {*tiisa de aru / oktiisa-i}.

Hanako GEN house TOP small PRED is small-I
‘Hanako’s house is small.’
 Attributive modification 803

This fact, noted again by Backhouse, indicates that the -na suffix should be treated
just as a morphological choice for adnominal modification available within a larger
category of adjectives. That means that the distinction between adjectival nouns and
ordinary adjectives is nothing but morphological. Note incidentally that the behavior
of -na with size adjectives reinforces the idea that it should be dissociated from
tense.
Likewise, the fact that deverbal modifier magat-ta ‘winding, bent’ in (43) forms
an antonym pair with massugu-na ‘straight’, an adjectival noun, gives support to
the idea that deverbal forms suffixed with ta are also adjectives when the past tense
interpretation is absent. See Kusumoto (2001) as well as Ogihara (2004) for semantic
analysis of this subtype of adjectives.
In connection with antonym pairs, a peculiar polarity-sensitive item roku-na is
worth mentioning. This expression requires negation, as shown below.

(56) Saikin roku-na sakka ga syoo o tora nai /*toru.

recently good-NA writer NOM award ACC get NEG get
‘Recently, no good writers receive an award.’ (Kataoka 2006: 222)

But the significance of this item is not limited to its polarity-sensitivity. It is paired
with a negative version roku-de-mo-nai ‘terrible’. Although one might consider the
possibility that the final nai is sentential negation, there is a similar item that cannot
be analyzed that way, namely, ton-de-mo-nai ‘awful’, for which there is no indepen-
dent use of the morpheme ton. It is safe to conclude that -nai in roku-de-mo-nai is
a negative affix, comparable to in- and un- in English. Notice that roku-de-mo-nai
can be nominalized as roku-de-mo-na-sa. Now, given the negative version roku-de-
mo-nai, it may not be appropriate to gloss roku-na as ‘good’ as Kataoka does. I
would suggest ‘not bad’ in its stead.
Going back to the question of the status of adjectival nouns, it should be noted
that the antonym pair roku-na and roku-de-mo-nai is another case where an adjec-
tival noun and an ordinary adjective are coupled, lending further support to the
idea that adjectival nouns are a subclass of adjectives.
One more thing to note about roku-na is that it is an adnominal modifier that
resists placement in tensed clauses, as demonstrated in (57).

(57) *Saikin roku de aru sakka ga syoo o tora nai.

recently not.bad PRED is writer NOM award ACC get NEG

Though the source of the ill-formedness of (57) is debatable, the contrast between
(56) and (57) is another piece of evidence that non-finite adnominal modification
exists in Japanese.
Turning to the semantic classification of adjectives in (3) itself, its significance
vis-à-vis morphological subtypes of adjectives can be seen from the observation
804 Akira Watanabe

reported in Morita (2013), who echoes Backhouse’s (1984) earlier discussion, that
classes of length (nagai, mizikai), height (takai, hikui), speed (hayai, osoi), depth
(hukai, asai), width (hiroi, semai), weight (omoi, karui), and temperature (atui,
samui) are occupied by ordinary adjectives. These are all dimensional adjectives
associated with a standard system of numerical measurement. Morita goes on to
suggest that the semantic properties of scale structure discussed in detail by Kennedy
and McNally (2005) in relation to degree modifiers in English are also relevant for
the distribution of ordinary adjectives, adjectival nouns, and deverbal forms with ta
in Japanese, at least as a tendency. Thus, the morphological choice among the three
subtypes is not arbitrary but is affected by semantics. Though it may not be realistic
to try to remove arbitrariness completely in this domain, we should not exclude the
possibility that morphological choice is telling us something about semantic details
of adjectival classes.

5 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have put together various threads of research bearing on the nature
of attributive modification in Japanese. In order to elucidate the structural basis
of this construction, we need to pay close attention to the diversity of modification
relations, classification of adjectival and non-adjectival modifiers involved, and
properties of degree modification. I hope to have shown that attributive modification
lies at a crossroads of a multitude of research areas.
A particularly noteworthy point to reiterate at the end of our discussion is the
existence of non-finite adjectival modifiers. The conclusion is not surprising once
direct modification is shown to be available. But the fact that Japanese can use
non-finite indirect adjectival modifiers of a reduced relative type leads us to believe
that Japanese and languages like English do not differ much in the structural resources
that can be recruited for attributive modification.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for useful comments. The work reported
here is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 22520492 and (C) 15K02591
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

References
Aihara, Masahiko. 2009. The scope of -est: Evidence from Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 17.
341–367.
Ayano, Seiki. 2010. Revisiting beautiful dancers and complete fools in Japanese. Proceedings of the
6th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, 97–111. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
 Attributive modification 805

Backhouse, A. E. 1984. Have all the adjectives gone? Lingua 62. 169–186.
Baker, Mark. 2003. “Verbal adjectives” as adjectives without phi-features. Proceedings of the Fourth
Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–22.
Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of com-
parison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 289–344.
Bhatt, Rajesh and Shoichi Takahashi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 581–620.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18. 1–34.
Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry
4. 275–343.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1994. On the evidence of partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Guglielmo
Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi and Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards
universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, 85–110. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In Robert M. W. Dixon and
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Farkas, Donka F. and Katalin É Kiss. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18. 417–455.
Hayashishita, J.-R. 2009. Yori-comparatives: A reply to Beck et al. (2004). Journal of East Asian Lin-
guistics 18. 65–100.
Ishihara, Shin. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24.
137–167.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1991. Operators and empty categories in Japanese. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut
dissertation.
Kageyama, Taro. 1982. Word formation in Japanese. Lingua 57. 215–258.
Kataoka, Kiyoko. 2006. “Neg-sensitive” elements, neg-c-command, and scrambling in Japanese. In
Timothy J. Vance and Kimberly Jones (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 221–233. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy
24. 33–70.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Modes of comparison. Chicago Linguistic Society 43: The Main Session,
141–165.
Kennedy, Chris and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics
of gradable predicates. Language 81. 345–381.
Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 2001. The semantics of non-past -ta in Japanese. Proceedings of the Third Formal
Approaches to Japanese Linguistics, 163–180. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Larson, Richard. 1998. Events and modification in nominals. Proceedings of SALT VIII, 145–168.
Larson, Richard and Naoko Takahashi. 2007. Order & interpretation in prenominal relative clauses.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II, 101–119. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Lexical categories in Japanese. Lingua 73. 29–51.
Morita, Chigusa. 2013. The morphology and interpretations of gradable adjectives in Japanese.
English Linguistics 30. 243–268.
Morzycki, Marcin. 2009. Degree modification of gradable nouns: Size adjectives and adnominal
degree morpheme. Natural Language Semantics 17. 175–203.
806 Akira Watanabe

Morzycki, Marcin. 2012. The several faces of adnominal degree modification. Proceedings of the
29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 187–195.
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1999. Adjectives and the copulas in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.
183–222.
Nishiyama, Kunio. 2005. Morphological boundaries of Japanese adjectives: Reply to Namai. Linguistic
Inquiry 36. 134–143.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 2004. Adjectival relatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 557–608.
Ohkado, Masayuki. 1991. On the status of adjectival nouns in Japanese. Lingua 83. 67–82.
Paul, Waltraud. 2005. Adjectival modification in Mandarin Chinese and related issues. Linguistics
43. 757–893.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. and Mary E. Beckman 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Sadler, Louisa and Douglas J. Arnold. 1994. Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinc-
tion. Journal of Linguistics 30. 187–226.
Sassoon, Galit Weidman. 2010. The degree functions of negative adjectives. Natural Language
Semantics 18. 141–181.
Scott, Gary-John. 2002. Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In
Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional structure in DP and IP, 91–120. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth and Koichi Tateishi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In Carol Georgopoulos
and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y.
Kuroda, 519–543. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2011. Degree quantification and the size of noun modifiers. In William McClure
and Marcel den Dikken (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18, 356–367. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2012. Reassessing crosslinguistic variation in clausal comparatives. Natural
Language Semantics 20. 83–113.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2014. The size of noun modifiers and degree quantifier movement. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 23. 307–331.
Sproat, Richard and Chilin Shih. 1991. The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restric-
tions. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to lan-
guage: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 565–593. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. In Naoki Fukui, Tova R. Rapoport and Elizabeth
Sagey (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 245–265. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2011. Some theoretical consequences of case-marking in Japanese. Storrs, CT:
University of Connecticut dissertation.
Watanabe, Akira. 2010. Notes on nominal ellipsis and the nature of no and classifiers in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19. 61–74.
Watanabe, Akira. 2012. Direct modification in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 504–513.
Yamakido, Hiroko. 2000. Japanese attributive adjectives are not (all) relative clauses. Proceedings of
the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 588–602.
Yamakido, Hiroko. 2005. The nature of adjectival inflection in Japanese. Stony Brook, NY: Stony
Brook University dissertation.
Yamakido, Hiroko. 2007. The nature of adjectival inflection in Japanese. Proceedings of the Work-
shop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II, 365–377. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Yamakido, Hiroko. 2013. Nihongo ni okeru keiyōshi katsuyō-gobi no honshitsu ni tsuite [On the real
nature of adjectival inflection in Japanese]. In Yoshio Endō (ed.), Sekai ni muketa nihongo
kenkyū [Studies on Japanese directed to the whole world], 219–255. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Noriko Yoshimura
22 Scrambling

1 Introduction
Word order is flexible in Japanese. While the verb must appear at the end of the
sentence, phrases including DP, PP, and CP can move to a clause-initial position
without affecting the original proposition. The following examples exhibit typical
cases of this movement: from the canonical word order in (1a), the object DP hon o
‘a book’ is scrambled in (1b), the PP tukue no ue ni ‘on the desk’ in (1c), and both the
DP and the PP together in (1d).1

(1) a. Taroo ga tukue no ue-ni hon o oita koto

Taro NOM desk GEN top on book ACC put fact
‘Taro put a book on the desk.’

b. Hon oi [TP Taroo ga tukue no ue ni ti oita] koto

book ACC Taro NOM desk GEN top on put fact
‘A book, Taro put on the desk.’

c. Tukue no ue nij [TP Taroo ga tj hon o oita] koto

desk GEN top on Taro NOM book ACC put fact
‘On the desk, Taro put a book.’

d. Hon oi tukue no ue nij [TP Taroo ga tj ti oita] koto

book ACC desk GEN top on Taro NOM put fact
‘A book, on the desk, Taro put.’

This free word order phenomenon derives from what is called ‘scrambling’ (Ross
1967). As in (1), it is scrambling that is responsible for the syntactic reordering of
constituents in the structure (Kuroda 1965; Muraki 1974; Inoue 1976; Harada 1977;
Shibatani 1978; Haig 1980; Miyara 1982; Saito and Hoji 1983; Takano 1998; among
others).2 To be more precise, the movement in (1) is termed short-distance (SD)
scrambling because it occurs within the same clause or tense phrase (TP).

1 It is common practice to add a morphological item such as koto ‘the fact that’ or the sentence-final
particle (SFP) yo to the end of some sentences in order to make them sound more natural. These
additions are ignored in the translations.
2 The example in (1d) exhibits a typical case of multiple scrambling. Note also that an entire CP may
undergo scrambling in Japanese: For example, (ib) is derived by scrambling the embedded object CP,
Hanako ga uso o tuita to ‘that Hanako told a lie’ in (ia) to the sentence-initial position.

DOI 10.1515/9781614516613-023
808 Noriko Yoshimura

Japanese also allows a phrase such as DP and PP to move out of the clause
where it is generated, landing in the initial position of a higher clause. This out-of-
the-clause movement is called long-distance (LD) scrambling (Haig 1976; Harada
1977; Kuroda 1980; Hoji 1985; Saito 1985). Examples in (2b) and (2c) represent typical
occurrences of LD in Japanese.

(2) a. Taroo ga [CP [TP Mary ga Ken kara yubiwa o

Taro NOM Mary NOM Ken from ring ACC
moratta] to] kiita koto
received that heard fact
‘Taro heard that Mary received a ring from Ken.’

b. Yubiwa oi [TP Taroo ga [CP [TP Mary ga Ken kara ti

ring ACC Taro Nom Mary NOM Ken from
moratta] to] kiita] koto
received that heard fact
‘A ring, Taro heard that Mary received from Ken.’

c. Ken karai [TP Taroo ga [CP [TP Mary ga ti yubiwa o

Ken from Taro NOM Mary NOM ring ACC
moratta] to] kiita] koto
received that heard fact
‘From Ken, Taro heard that Mary received a ring.’

In (2b), the DP yubiwa o ‘ring’ moved from the embedded object position to the
matrix clause-initial position; in (2c), the PP Ken kara ‘from Ken’ moved from the
embedded locative argument position to the matrix clause-initial position. Both
sentences are grammatical without their original meanings being affected.
Since Saito and Hoji (1983) proposed that Japanese is a configurational language
with a VP node, contrary to Hale’s (1980) flat structure hypothesis, scrambling has
attracted considerable attention from researchers working in Japanese linguistics.
Particularly, what it is that motivates this movement has been such an intriguing

(i) a. Taroo ga sensei ni [CP [TP Hanako ga uso o tuita] to] itta
Taro NOM teacher to Hanako NOM lie ACC told COMP said
‘Taro said to the teacher that Hanako told a lie.’

b. [CP [TP Hanako ga uso o tuita] to]i Taroo ga sensei ni ti itta

Hanako NOM lie ACC told that Taro NOM teacher to said
‘That Hanako told a lie, Taro said to the teacher.’
 Scrambling 809

question in Japanese syntax that many theoretical analyses and conceptual views
have been proposed in the literature (Miyagawa and Saito, 2008: Introduction). It is
beyond the scope of this chapter to discuss every aspect of scrambling together with
all of these analyses, hypotheses, and proposals particular to the phenomenon. We
will limit our discussion to the investigation of several important issues pertinent to
the ‘optionality’ of scrambling, as seen in (1) and (2) above.3 In so doing, section 2
will present the empirical core data and review how optional scrambling is mani-
fested in Japanese, thereby laying out some crucial issues for our discussion in this
chapter. Section 3 will consider the presence vs. absence of weak crossover effects
in relation to A- vs. A’-movement. Section 4 will focus on the semantic aspects
of vacuous movement related to radical reconstruction. Section 5 will discuss two
recent focus-topic proposals for scrambling from the perspective of left periphery
effects. Section 6 will contain concluding remarks on what motivates scrambling in
Japanese.

2 Core Data
2.1 Optional Movement
It has long been acknowledged in the literature that scrambling is optional (Saito
1985; Hoji 1985; Kuroda 1988; Miyagawa 2003, 2011; to name a few). That is, unlike
wh-movement in English, a wh-phrase may stay in situ in Japanese. As an illustra-
tion, compare the following pairs of sentences.

(3) a. *John bought what at the store?

b. What did John buy at the store?

(4) a. Taroo ga sono mise de nani o katta no

Taro NOM the store at what ACC bought Q
‘Taro bought what at the store.’

b. Nani oi Taroo ga sono mise de ti katta no

what ACC Taro NOM the store at bought Q
‘What did Taro buy at the store?’

3 This chapter does not intend to investigate the properties of VP-internal scrambling due to the limi-
tations of space. See Saito (1985) and Nemoto (1999) for detailed discussions of issues and problems
involved in this unique scrambling.
810 Noriko Yoshimura

The contrast in grammaticality in (3) shows that in English a wh-phrase (what in this
case) must move to the clause-initial position. However, such contrast does not
emerge in Japanese regardless of whether a wh-phrase (nani ‘what’ in this case)
stays in-situ in (4a) or moves to the clause-initial position in (4b). This difference
thus confirms that scrambling is optional whereas wh-movement is obligatory.
A similar contrast can also be observed between wh-movement and scrambling
with respect to LD movement.

(5) a. *John thinks that Mary bought what at the store.

b. What does John think that Mary bought at the store?

(6) a. Taroo wa [CP [TP Mary ga sono mise de nani o

Taro TOP Mary NOM the store at what ACC
katta] to] omotte iru no
bought that thinking is Q
(Lit.) ‘Taro thinks that Mary bought what at the store.’

b. Nani oi [Taroo wa [CP [TP Mary ga sono mise de ti

what ACC Taro TOP Mary NOM the store at
katta] to] omotte iru] no
bought that thinking is Q
‘What does Taro think that Mary bought at the store?’

Unlike the contrast in (5), grammaticality results in both sentences in (6) without
respect to whether nani ‘what’ stays in-situ in the embedded object position or
undergoes LD scrambling from the embedded object position to the matrix clause-
initial position. This confirms that optionality is also relevant to LD scrambling in
Japanese.
Particular to the optional scrambling vs. obligatory wh-movement is the fact
that in addition to wh-phrases, non-wh phrases such as lexical DP and PP may also
undergo scrambling, as already seen in (1)–(2) above. This point is confirmed in (7).

(7) a. Hanako ga syuppansya ni genkoo o okutta yo

Hanako NOM publisher to manuscript ACC sent SFP
‘Hanako sent a manuscript to the publisher.’

b. Genkoo oi Hanako ga syuppansya ni ti okutta yo

manuscript ACC Hanako NOM publisher to sent SFP
‘A manuscript, Hanako sent to the publisher.’

c. Syuppansya nii Hanako ga ti genkoo o okutta yo

publisher to Hanako NOM manuscript ACC sent SFP
‘To the publisher, Hanako sent a manuscript.’
 Scrambling 811

The sentence in (7a) exhibits the basic word order. The object DP genkoo o ‘manu-
script’ and the locative PP syuppansya ni ‘to the publisher’ in (7) are not wh-phrases,
but move to the initial position of the clause via scrambling, as in (7b) and (7c),
respectively. This property is presumably relevant to the optionality of scrambling.

2.2 Multiple Movement

Another unique property of scrambling in Japanese is that more than one phrase
may be moved clause-initially at once in SD scrambling (Saito 1985). For example,
the following derivations exhibit scrambling of both the DP and the PP within the
same clause in (8).

(8) a. Genkoo oi syuppansya nij [Hanako ga tj ti okutta] fact

manuscript ACC publisher to Hanako NOM sent koto
‘A manuscript, to the publisher, Hanako sent.’

b. Syuppansya nij genkoo oi [Hanako ga tj ti okutta] fact

publisher to manuscript ACC Hanako NOM sent koto
‘To the publisher, a manuscript, Hanako sent.’

The order of multiple SD scrambling does not induce any significant difference with
respect to the basic sentence meaning: In (8a) the PP syuppansya ni ‘to the publisher’
moves first and then the object DP genkoo o ‘manuscript’ whereas in (8b) the order
was reversed. No particular semantic distinction arises between these two scrambled
constructions.
Note that wh-movement cannot move more than one phrase in English due to
the “attract one phrase” principle. On the contrary, Japanese does not put such a
restriction on the scrambling of wh-phrases. Compare (9) with (10), for example.

(9) a. Whati did John send ti to who?

b. *Whati whoj did John send ti to tj?

(10) a. Nani o dare ni Taroo ga okutta no

What ACC who to Taro NOM sent Q
‘What to who did Taro sent?’

b. Dare ni nani o Taroo ga okutta no

who to what ACC Taro NOM sent Q
‘To whom, what did Taro sent?’
812 Noriko Yoshimura

The ungrammaticality of (9b) confirms that more than one wh-phrase cannot undergo
movement at once. On the contrary, the grammaticality of (10) indicates that the object
DP nani o ‘what’ and the dative DP dare ni ‘to whom’ can be scrambled simultane-
ously, without reference to which wh-phrase moves first.4 This asymmetry between
the two languages points to the issue of the landing site of each movement, which
will be discussed later.
However, the situation is different for long-distance scrambling. According to
Koizumi (2000), multiple scrambling is barred in LD movement in Japanese. As an
illustration, consider examples in (11). (11a) is an LD example of (8b), and (11b) is
taken from Koizumi (2000).

(11) a. ?*Syuppansya nij genkoo oi [Taroo ga [Hanako ga

publisher to manuscript ACC Taro NOM Hanako NOM
tj ti okutta to] itta] koto
sent that said fact
‘To the publisher, a manuscript, Taro said that Hanako sent.’

b. ?*Masaminij Hawai dei [John ga [Kiyomi ga

Masami DAT Hawaii in John NOM Kiyomi NOM
ti tj purezento o katta to] omotte iru] koto
present ACC bought that believing is fact
‘For Masami, in Hawaii, John believes that Kiyomi bought a present.’

Both sentences in (11) are ungrammatical because the LD scrambling of both DP and
PP out of the embedded clause to the matrix clause-initial position is assumed to
violate Subjacency (Chomsky 1986; Lasnik and Saito 1992).5
Nevertheless, multiple LD scrambling can improve if the two scrambled phrases
are bundled together in such a way that they form an intonation phrase, as first

4 With the grammaticality of sentences like (10), Japanese scrambling seems to be immune to
Radford’s (2004) Attract Closest Principle, unlike English wh-movement.
5 Note, however, that Saito (1989) accepts the following examples of LD multiple scrambling.
(i) a. Sono hon oi Bill nij [Mary ga [John ga tj ti watasita to] omotte iru]
that book ACC Bill to Mary NOM John Nom handed that thinking is
‘Mary thinks that John handed that book to Bill.’
b. Bill nij sono hon oi [Mary ga [John ga tj ti watasita to] omotte iru]
Bill to that book ACC Mary NOM John NOM handed that thinking is
Saito (1989: footnote 15) further mentions that multiple LD scrambling results in some awkwardness
for some native speakers of Japanese. He attributes such unnaturalness to the two occurrences
of focus because the two phrases (sono hon ‘that book’ and Bill ni ‘to Bill’), which underwent LD
scrambling, often receive focus interpretation.
 Scrambling 813

noted in Koizumi (1991, 2000). That is, if a prosodic boundary (/) occurs after the
two scrambled phrases or before the matrix subject DP, as illustrated in (12), then
(11a), for example, becomes acceptable on the intended reading.

(12) Syuppansya nij genkoo oi / [Taroo ga [Hanako ga tj ti

publisher to manuscript ACC Taro NOM Hanako NOM
okutta to] itta] koto
sent that said fact
‘Taro said that Hanako sent a manuscript to the publisher.’

A crucial factor responsible for the acceptability in this case seems to be that, with
the appropriate prosodic boundary (/), the two scrambled object DPs are phonologi-
cally treated as if they were a single constituent in the clause-initial position. In an
attempt to explain this apparent improvement in multiple LD scrambling, Koizumi
(2000) proposes a syntactic vacuous verb raising on the assumption that the scrambled
phrase is a VP headed by the trace of a raised verb.
However, Takano (2002) presents several pieces of empirical evidence against
the verb raising hypothesis, arguing for his oblique movement as a plausible account
of the phenomenon in question. In contrast, Fukui and Sakai (2003) claim that this
improvement obtains as a result of morphological merger (Marantz 1988) on the
view that scrambling applies to a single constituent resulting from morphological
merger and reanalysis of the relevant multiple phrases in the PF component.6 In
short, the grammatical upgrading particular to multiple LD scrambling has increas-
ingly attracted attention in the recent literature as an interesting topic in Japanese
syntax. See Koizumi (2000), Takano (2002), and Fukui and Sakai (2003) for their
individual proposals in more detail.

2.3 Subject Movement

An exception to this optionality is the impossibility of subject scrambling. Since
Saito’s (1985) observation, it has generally been assumed in the literature that sub-
jects cannot undergo scrambling in Japanese.

6 A PF reanalysis or a prosodic scrambling seems to me to be an interesting hypothesis. However,

what motivates such PF merger or movement is still unclear. Further, a question remains with
respect to whether the PF application of Move α is available only in multiple LD scrambling or it is
also possible in SD scrambling.
814 Noriko Yoshimura

(13) a. Sakana wa Taroo ga [tai ga umai to] itta koto

fish TOP Taro NOM red snapper NOM delicious that said fact
‘As for fish, Taro said that red snapper is delicious.’

b. *Sakana wa taii ga Taroo ga [ti umai to] itta koto

fish TOP red snapper NOM Taro NOM delicious that said fact

(14) a. Hanako ga [kyoo dare ga tanzyoobikai ni kuru to]

Hanako NOM today who NOM birthday party to come that
‘Who does Hanako think is coming to today’s birthday party?’
omotte iru no
thinking is Q
‘Who does Hanako think is coming to today’s birthday party?’

b. *Darei ga Hanako ga [kyoo ti tanzyoobikai ni kuru to]

who NOM Hanako NOM today birthday party to come that
omotte iru no
thinking is Q

The subjects (tai ‘red snapper’ and dare ‘who’) undergo scrambling to the matrix
clause from within the embedded clause, thereby inducing ungrammaticality in
both sentences. This ban is only imposed on the scrambling of subject DPs, not the
scrambling of object DPs and PPs, as seen in our previous examples.
According to Saito (1985), in examples like (13b)–(14b), the ungrammaticality
is due to Case. That is, in order for a subject DP to receive nominative Case, it must
stay where it is base-generated, i.e. a [TP, Spec] position in the structure because
nominative Case assignment is “inherent” in Japanese. However, if we follow
Takezawa’s (1987) hypothesis that T plays an important role in assigning nominative
ga to the subject (see also Watanabe 1993; Ura 1994; Miyagawa 1997), the Case
approach would lose its appeal. Conversely, if we assume, with Fukui (1986) and
Kuroda (1988), that the subject is generated and can stay in an VP-internal position
([VP, Spec] or [vP, Spec]) in Japanese, T has nothing to do with nominative Case
assignment in the language. Therefore, there must be something else that bars the
subject from undergoing scrambling.7
Relevant to this point is Agbayani, Golston, and Ishii’s (2015) recent observation
that a nominative subject can scramble long distantly if it moves together with
another phrase. Examples in (15) are taken from Agbayani, Golston, and Ishii (2015).

7 We will present a further discussion relevant to this issue later in the discussion.
 Scrambling 815

(15) a. Sono ressyai ga Tokyo nij [John ga [ti tj tuita to] omotte iru]
that train NOM Tokyo in John NOM arrived that thinking is
‘John thinks that the train has arrived in Tokyo.’

b. Syatyoo no hoosini ga syain no uramij o

president GEN policy NOM employee GEN hostility ACC
[John ga [ti tj katte iru to] omotte iru
John NOM earning is that thinking is
‘John thinks that the president’s policy is making an enemy of the
employees.’

Together with the subject DP, the locative PP (Tokyo ni ‘in Tokyo’) and the object DP
(syain no urami ‘employees’ hostility’) are scrambled to the matrix clause-initial
position from within the embedded clause. Agbayani, Golston, and Ishii note that
although the scrambling of the subject DP (sono ressya ‘the train’ and syatyoo no
hoosin ‘president’s policy’) alone results in ungrammaticality, these sentences are
readily acceptable. Their explanation for this acceptability is prosodic scrambling,
claiming that a ban on subject scrambling is relevant in the syntax, not in the
phonology. In short, this scrambling takes place in the PF component, not in the
narrow syntax.
Although this is an interesting observation, it is unclear what motives such
prosodic scrambling in Japanese.8 Further, it is worth pointing out that the ungram-
matical sentences involve a linear order of -ni/o -ga -ga, as in (13)–(14), whereas the
acceptable sentences contain a linear order of -ga -ni/o -ga, as in (15). One might
wonder if this different constituent order leads to the difference in grammaticality
between the two sentence pairs at hand. In these examples in particular, by break-
ing up the sequence of two ga-marked DPs, the ni/o-marked DP may allow the
sentence to escape a violation of the constraint on subject scrambling.9 In short,

8 Sentences in (15) are the only examples that Agbayani, Golston, and Ishii (2015) presented in rela-
tion to the scrambling of subjects.
9 Relevant examples are given in (i). ((ia) = a reversed order of the two DPs in (14a)).
(i) a. *?Tokyo nij sono ressyai ga [John ga [moo ti tj tuita to] omotte iru]
Tokyo in that train NOM John NOM already arrived that thinking is
‘John thinks that the train has already arrived in Tokyo.’
b. *Tokyo nij tomodatii ga [John ga [moo ti tj tuita to] omotteiru]
Tokyo in Mary NOM John NOM already arrived that thinking is
‘John thinks that (his) friend has already arrived in Tokyo.’
The resulting example sentence in (ia) sounds degraded relative to (14a) even though it is slightly
better than (ib). That is, it is relatively easier for John to take the embedded predicate tuita ‘arrived’
even though sono ressya ‘the train’ cannot do the thinking.
816 Noriko Yoshimura

whether the subject proves possible or impossible to move syntactically or prosodi-

cally in Japanese continues to remain open for future research.
Given these unique properties of optionality, scrambling is often referred to as
a purely stylistic movement.10 According to this view, nothing linguistically triggers
the movement. However, if we follow the core idea of the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1991, 1993, 1995, 2000) that movement needs to be computationally effi-
cient, such stylistic optionality would be called into question. With this in mind, we
will start our next discussion with an examination of the presence vs. absence of
weak crossover effects in relation to A-movement nature of scrambling in Japanese.

3 Weak Crossover and A-Scrambling

In this section, we will first take a look at weak crossover (henceforth WCO) facts and
then consider their implications for the A- vs. A’-movement problem in Japanese.11

3.1 Weak Crossover

WCO is a constraint on possible binding and coreference between a pronoun and a
quantified DP (henceforth QP) (Postal 1993). Consider, for example, the following
sentence pairs.

(16) a. Everyonei loves hisi mother.

b. *?His mother loves everyonei.

i

(17) a. Whoi loves hisi mother?

b. *?Who does hisi mother love?

i

The pronoun his can be construed as a variable bound by the QP everyone and by
who in the (a) sentences of (16) and (17) whereas it cannot be interpreted as a bound
variable in the (b) sentences. We are assuming that the WCO constraint, as formu-
lated in (18) (Jaeggli 1984), applies at LF after QP raising.

(18) A pronoun cannot be locally A-bar bound.

10 Put differently, the stylistic view proposes that scrambling does not seem to be a feature-driven
movement (Chomsky 1995).
11 This subsection deals with WCO effects only in SD scrambling. We postpone our investigation of
similar effects in LD scrambling until they become relevant in the discussion.
 Scrambling 817

At LF, the trace of everyone can A-bind his in (16a) whereas the operator everyone
must function as an A’-binder for the pronoun in (16b); similarly, the trace of who
can A-bind his in (17a) whereas the operator who A’-bind the pronoun in (17b).
Consequently, (18) is met in the (a) examples, and on the contrary, it is violated in
the (b) examples, with a WCO effect appearing.
Since Saito and Hoji (1983), it has been acknowledged that a WCO phenomenon
also exists in Japanese.12

(19) a. Subete no kunii ga sokoi no noosanbutu o hogositeiru

every GEN country NOM there GEN agricultural product ACC protect
‘Every country protects its own agricultural products.’

b.*?Soko noi noosanbutu ga subete no kunii ni

there GEN agricultural product NOM every GEN country for
‘For every country, its own agricultural products are valuable.’
totte taisetu da
valuable is
‘For every country, its own agricultural products are valuable.’

The pronoun soko ‘there’ can be construed as a bound variable being coreferential
with the QP subete no kuni ‘every country’ in (19a) whereas it cannot yield such
interpretation in (19b) due to a WCO effect because the QP does not c-command the
pronoun in the structure.
More significantly for the present discussion, it has been observed in Yoshimura
(1989, 1992) and Saito (1992) that WCO effects can be neutralized by means of scram-
bling. Examples in (20) illustrate this point.13

(20) a. *[DP [proi hitome proj atta] hitoi] ga darej o sukini-natta no

pro one glance pro met person NOM who ACC like-became Q
(Lit.) ‘The person who had a glance at (himj) fell in love with whoj?’

b. Darej o [[DP [proi hitome proj atta] hitoi] ga tj sukini-natta]] no

who ACC pro one glance pro met person NOM like-became Q
*‘Whoj did the person who had a glance at (himj) fall in love with?’

12 Note in passing that in these WCO examples, we are unable to use either kare ‘he’, because it
cannot become a bound variable (Hoji 1991), or zibun ‘self’, because it must take a subject DP as its
antecedent (subject orientation) (Kuno 1973).
13 Although (20b) is a “parasitic variable” example Hoji (1985) considered among others, it is re-
analyzed as a “parasitic pronoun” in Yoshimura (1989). Throughout this discussion, we are assuming
that the null category at hand can be a pro in Japanese.
818 Noriko Yoshimura

(20a) yields a WCO effect because, being in the object position, the trace of dare
‘who’ cannot bind the object pro within the relative clause in the subject position,
thereby inducing a WCO effect as a violation of (18). However, the grammaticality of
(20b) suggests that the scrambling of dare ‘who’ to the clause-initial position can
help the pro in question avoid the WCO effect, which would otherwise violate the
constraint.
A similar WCO cancellation also emerges in the interpretation of overt pronouns.
Examples in (21) are from Yoshimura (1992).

(21) a. *?[[pro sorej o tukutta] hitoi] ga paatii ni

i
pro it ACC made person NOM party to
[susi ka tenpura]j o mottekita
sushi or tempura ACC brought
‘The person who made itj brought [sushi or tempura]j to the party’

b. [Susi ka tenpura]j o [[proi sorej o tukutta] hitoi]

sushi or tempura ACC pro it ACC made person
ga paatii ni tj mottekita
NOM party to brought
‘[Sushi or tenpura]j, the person who made itj brought tj to the party.’

The overt pronoun sore ‘it’ cannot be construed as a bound variable in (21a) because
susi ka tenpura ‘sushi or tempura’ does not c-command it. Note that the QP occurs in
the object position within the subject relative clause. On the contrary, the grammati-
cality of (21b) indicates that sore can take the QP as its antecedent in this case.
Again, the scrambling leads to the cancellation of a potential WCO in the latter case.

3.2 Scrambling as A-Movement

This WCO cancellation phenomenon has attracted much attention in recent litera-
ture, and a widely adopted view is that clause-internal scrambling (like those in
(20)–(21)) can be A-movement in Japanese.14 As a point of departure, our discussion
is based on Kuroda’s (1988) insights of Japanese as a non-agreement language.

14 This proposal departs from the traditional view that scrambling is an A’- adjunction to IP (or TP)
(Saito 1985; Hoji 1985). In particular, Saito (1992) assumes, following Mahajan (1990) for scrambling
in Hindi, that SD scrambling can be A-movement whereas LD scrambling must be A’-movement
in Japanese. His arguments are based on lexical anaphor binding in addition to WCO. The present
discussion uses WCO facts because there is not a solid agreement among native speakers of Japanese
as to whether otagai ‘each other’ is a true anaphor in Japanese, like each other in English (Hoji 1991).
See Abe (1994) for arguments against A/A’ distinction in scrambling.
 Scrambling 819

(22) a. The subject can stay in the vP-internal position in Japanese.

b. Scrambling can land in the [TP, Spec] position.

c. The [TP, Spec] position is an A-position.

By extending the vP internal subject hypothesis (Koopman and Sportich 1991) to

Japanese phrase-structure, Kuroda hypothesizes that since Japanese is not an agree-
ment language, the subject DP can stay inside vP, without moving to TP, Spec, as
in (22a). Kuroda also assumes, as in (22b), that nothing prevents scrambling from
taking place in the [TP, Spec] position when it is available in the structure. (22c) is
not a far-fetched hypothesis given that a subject DP is raised to that position in an
agreement language like English in narrow syntax.
Based on (22), (21b) is schematically represented as in (23).

(23) [TP [Spec Susi ka tenpura] o]j [T’ [vP [Spec [VP sorej o V] hito] ga [VP tj V]
sushi or tempura ACC it ACC person NOM

Here we assume that the subject relative clause stays in [vP, Spec]. Being in the [TP,
Spec] position, the QP can be an A-binder for the pronoun sore, thereby canceling a
potential WCO effect. Thus, the variable interpretation of sore being bound by susi ka
tenpura can be accounted for straightforwardly. If this line of analysis is on the right
track, we can posit that the optionality of scrambling is closely related to the unique-
ness of [TP, Spec] in Japanese.

3.3 What Triggers Optional A-Movement?

Two subsequent questions that arise: how unique [TP, Spec] is in Japanese and how
this uniqueness can be related to the occurrence of optional A-scrambling. Relevant
to the first question is the widely acknowledged fact that Japanese permits a multi-
ple subject construction (Kuno 1973; Inoue 1976; Shibatani 1978; to name a few).
Examples in (24) are those from Kuno (1973).

(24) a. Kono kurasu ga dansei ga dekiru

this class NOM men NOM do well
‘In this class, male students do well.’

b. Yama ga ki ga kirei desu

mountain NOM tree NOM beautiful are
‘In the mountain, trees are beautiful.’

There are two nominative ga-marked DPs in each sentence. The sentence-initial ga-
marked DPs (kono kurasu ‘this class’ in (24a) and yama ‘mountain’ in (24b)) induce
a so-called “exhaustive listing” subject reading while the other ga-marked DPs
(dansei ‘men’ in (24a) and ki ‘tree’ in (24b)) have a neutral subject reading. Kuno
820 Noriko Yoshimura

(1973) considers the exhaustive listing subject to be as a result of subjectivization

(but see Shibatani 1978) whereas Kuroda (1980, 1988) regards it as being a “major
subject” or “broad subject” (Heycock and Doron 2003; Heycock 2008). On either
view, it is empirically confirmed that Japanese permits multiple subjects. Further, if
we assume, following Stowell (1989), that subjects are specifiers, it is theoretically
possible to have multiple Specs in the structure. Given these, it then follows that
[TP, Spec] is for scrambling as [vP, Spec] is for the regular subject in Japanese.
As for the second question, we first assume that the [TP, Spec] position is an A
position in the structure (Kuroda 1988; Yoshimura 1989; Saito 1992; to name a few).
As seen in (24), this suggestion is supported by the fact that a major subject can be
generated in that position in addition to the regular subject in [vP, Spec] in Japanese.
Suppose, then, that we basically adopt the following ideas of Miyagawa (2001, 2003)
for scrambling.15

(25) a. Scrambling is triggered by the EPP feature on T.16

b. A-scrambling is EPP-driven.

More specifically, we maintain that when nothing occupies the [TP, Spec] position, a
phrase can move into that position according to the EPP. As an illustration, consider
the derivation of our previous example (7b).

(26) a. Genkoo oi Hanako ga syuppansya ni ti okutta (=(7b))

Manuscript ACC Hanako NOM publisher to sent
‘A manuscript, Hanako sent to the publisher.’

b.

15 Miyagawa (2001) assumes that EPP-driven A scrambling is made possible via V-raising to T, and
Miyagawa (2003) further assumes that V-raising to T is required for Case marking reason because
Accusative Case on the scrambled object in (25), for example, should be licensed by T. However, we
do not intend to adopt the raising hypothesis and continue to assume that Accusative Case is
assigned by the verb.
16 The EPP (extended projection principle) stipulates that every clause must have a subject (Chomsky
1981, 1982, 1995).
 Scrambling 821

As seen in (26b), as the subject stays in [vP, Spec], the scrambled object can land in
[TP, Spec], thereby meeting the requirement of the EPP on T.
On the other hand, suppose that scrambling does not take place. In such a case,
it is not possible to check the EPP-feature if we continue to assume that it is on T.
Yet, on the vP-internal subject hypothesis coupled with Kuroda’s (1988) agreement
vs. non-agreement proposal, it is plausible to assume that the EPP-feature can be
on v in Japanese (Saito 2006). Although it is an open question whether an EPP-
feature can indeed be assigned to more than one head in the structure, nothing
prevents Japanese from having the feature on T as well as v because it is a non-
agreement language and permits a multiple subject construction. On this view, (24b)
is represented as in (27b).

(27) a. Yama ga ki ga kirei desu (=(24b))

‘In the mountain, trees are beautiful.’

b.

The major subject yama ‘mountain’ satisfies the EPP-feature on T whereas the regular
subject ki ‘tree’ meets the EPP-feature on v. If this analysis is on the right track, the
optionality of scrambling in Japanese is closely related to the presence or absence of
the [+EPP] feature on T relative to the obligatory appearance of it on v in the language.
A few remarks are in order with respect to Saito’s (2006) arguments against the
EPP-feature driven analysis of scrambling. He examines examples like (28) as counter-
evidence to Miyagawa’s (2001, 2003) EPP-based proposal for A-scrambling.

(28) a. Hanakoi ga Tarooj o zibuni/*j no ie de sikatta koto

Hanako NOM Taro ACC self GEN house at scolded fact
‘Hanakoi scolded Taroj at heri/*hisj house.’

b. Taroo oj [Hanakoi ga tj zibuni/*j no ie de sikatta] koto

Taro ACC Hanako NOM self GEN house at scolded fact
(Lit.) ‘Taroi, Hanakoj scolded himi at herj/*hisi house.’

In (28a), zibun ‘self’ must have Hanako as its antecedent, not Taroo, due to its unique
subject-orientation property (see Kuroda 1965; Kuno 1973; Inoue 1976; among others).
822 Noriko Yoshimura

This antecedent asymmetry does not change in (28b) when the o-marked Taroo is
scrambled clause-initially. This fact indicates that accusative o-marked Taroo cannot
function as an antecedent for zibun. According to Saito’s analysis, this impossibility
would indicate that the scrambled phrase cannot be a subject. More particularly,
his discussion proceeds to mention that the object DP would not land in [TP, Spec]
to meet the [+EPP] feature on T, so scrambling would not be EPP-driven movement.17
Particularly significant for this observation is whether a phrase generated in the
position above [vP, Spec] can be an antecedent for zibun ‘self’ in Japanese. Consider
relevant examples in (29).

(29) a. Tarooj wa [Hanakoi ga zibuni/*j no ie de proj sikatta] koto

Taro TOP Hanako NOM self GEN house at scolded fact
‘Speaking of Taro, Hanako scolded him at her house.’

b. Tarooj wa [Hanakoi ga zibuni/*j no kuruma de eki

Hanako TOP Taro NOM self GEN car in station
made proj okutta] yo
to sent SFP
‘Speaking of Taro, Hanako gave him a ride to the station.’

Crucially, zibun cannot have the wa-marked topic DP (Taroo) as its antecedent even
though it is generated in the position above the [vP, Spec] position; the antecedent
must be the ga-marked subject DP (Hanako), as in the translation. This shows a
locality effect (Minimal Distance Principle (Rosenbaum 1967) or Relativized Minimality
(Rizzi 1990)), namely, the subject-orientation property of zibun induces a blocking or
intervention effect for the link between the topic DP and the anaphor zibun.18
If we assume that this is exactly what happens in (28b), the impossibility of the
scrambled o-marked DP being an antecedent of zibun can be attributed to the
subject-orientation nature of the anaphor. That is to say, it is not the scrambling of
the DP into [TP, Spec], but the presence of an intervening ga-marked DP that is
responsible for the ungrammaticality of the sentence. Further, the following paradigm
is interesting (Miyagawa 2003).

17 Instead, Saito (2009) posits a functional head Th (for ‘theme’) above TP, thereby assuming that
the first constituent is attracted to its Spec position. He does not explicitly identify the landing site,
but according to his tree diagram, it seems that scrambling first takes place in a TP adjoined position
and is then attracted to Th, Spec. He assumes that if scrambling does not occur, the subject is moved
to that position. As such, his view of scrambling does not appeal to the EPP feature at all, but what
motivates this attraction seems to be left open for future research.
18 See Nishigauchi (2012, 2014) for detailed discussion of other instances of blocking effects relative
to the point-of-view or logophoric aspects of zibun ‘self’ in Japanese.
 Scrambling 823

(30) a. Zen’in ga sono tesuto o uke-na-katta (yo)

all NOM that test ACC take-not-PST SFP
‘All did not take that exam.’
(All > Not, *Not > All)

b. Sono tesuto oi zen’in ga ti uke-na-katta (yo)

that test ACC all NOM take-not-PST SFP
‘That exam, all did not take.’
(All > Not, Not > All)

The structural difference is that in (30b) sono tesuto ‘that test’ is scrambled clause-
initially from the object position in (30a), inducing a crucial semantic distinction
between the two sentences. In the former case, the QP zen’in ‘all’ takes wide scope
over negation whereas in the latter case it produces narrow scope as well. This ambi-
guity between total negation and partial negation can be accounted for on the
assumption that [TP, Spec] is in the position c-commanding the [+Neg] feature, as
schematically represented in (31) (Miyagawa 2003).19

(31)

Based on the hypothesis that a subject is not raised to [TP, Spec] and remains in
[vP, Spec] together with the availability of multiple subjects, scrambling into [TP,
Spec] is made possible in Japanese. Put differently, it is plausible to postulate that
the optionality of scrambling is due to the optionality of the [+EPP] feature on T in
the language.20

19 See Saito (2009) for a different view of the wide vs. narrow scope of the QP in (29).
20 Miyagawa (2003) attributes the option of the OSV order, as in (26), to the availability of morpho-
logical Case marking (Kuroda 1988) relative to T in Japanese. But a different suggestion is presented
in Miyagawa (2005a) with regard to the nature of [TP, Spec]. We will return to this issue in section 5.
824 Noriko Yoshimura

4 Vacuous Movement
Saito (1989) explores an interesting discovery with respect to the semantic aspect of
scrambling in Japanese, which is commonly referred to as the “semantically vacuous
movement” proposal. This finding has been influential in advancing the investiga-
tion of the nature of scrambling in Japanese linguistics. In this section, we will con-
sider what his important proposal says about the optionality of scrambling operation
by reviewing the core data and arguments for and against this hypothesis.

4.1 Saito’s Discovery (1989)

Saito (1989) is the first researcher to note that scrambling in Japanese may be
undone when the semantic interpretation is at stake. His exploration starts with the
following paradigm in (32) pertinent to the Proper Binding Condition (PBC), which
requires that traces be bound (Fiengo 1977).

(32) a. [TP1 John ga [CP [TP2 dare ga sono hon o katta] ka]
John NOM who NOM that book ACC bought Q
siritagatteiru] koto
want to know fact
‘John wants to know who bought that book.’

b. *[TP1 Dare ga [CP [TP2 John ga sono hon o katta] ka]

who NOM John NOM that book ACC bought Q
‘Who wants to know John bought that book?’
siritagatteiru] koto
want to know fact
‘Who wants to know John bought that book?’

By assuming that the PBC applies at LF, we now consider the LF representation of
each sentence, as given in (33).21

(33) a. [John ga [[ti sono hon o katta] darei ga] siritagatteiru] koto

b. *[ti ga [[John ga sono hon o katta] darei ga] siritagatteiru] koto

21 With the following and other pieces of evidence, Saito (1989) argues that radical reconstruction is
not permitted in English.
(i) a. ??Who do you wonder [which picture of ti]j John likes tj?
i

b. *[Which picture of ti]j do you wonder whoi John likes tj?

 Scrambling 825

The ga-marked wh-phrase dare ‘who’ is moved to the C position of the embedded CP
in each case. As such, the LF trace of dare (ti) is properly bound in (33a), satisfying
the PBC, whereas it is free in (33b), violating the constraint. With the PBC account for
asymmetry such as that in (32), Saito confirms that the PBC applies to scrambling in
Japanese in the same way as wh-movement in English.
More importantly for the present discussion, Saito points out that an expected
PBC violation does not emerge in examples like (34).

(34) a. ?[Dono hon oi [TP1 Mary ga [CP [TP2 John ga ti

which book ACC Mary NOM John NOM
tosyokan kara karidasita] ka] siritagatteiru]] koto
library from checked.out Q want to know fact
‘Which book, Mary wants to know John checked out from the library.’

b. ??[[
CP2 [TP3 John ga dono hon o tosyokan kara
John NOM which book ACC library from
karidasita] to]i [TP1 Mary ga [CP1 [TP2 minna
checked out that Mary NOM everyone
ga ti omotteiru] ka] siritagatteiru]] koto
NOM think Q want to know fact
(Lit.) ‘That John checked out which book from the library, Mary wants to
know everyone thinks.’

The sentence in (34a) should be excluded because Japanese requires a wh to be

licensed within the scope of ka, the Q-marker in the language: In this case, dono
hon ‘which library’ is assumed to move twice: first within the embedded CP, and
then to the sentence-initial position, which is outside the scope of ka. That is, the
second movement should result in ungrammaticality because the wh at hand is
unable to be licensed by ka.22 Nevertheless, the sentence is grammatical. Similarly,
the sentence in (34b) shows that the entire CP is scrambled from the object position
of the embedded clause (TP2) to the initial position of the matrix sentence (TP1).
Again, ungrammaticality should appear in this case as well because dono hon is
outside the scope of ka. But the sentence is accepted as being marginal.

22 On this point, Saito (1989) assumes that chain binding (Barss 1986) is irrelevant. On the other
hand, Saito (2010) proposes a different view with respect to chain interpretation as follows: With
Huang (1982), the wh moves into [CP, Spec] within the embedded clause, and it is at this position
that the wh is interpreted before it moves into the embedded sentence-initial position. He mentions
that this analysis can provide a unified account for such reconstruction effects of long-distance
scrambling. If the matrix sentence-initial position is on par with that of topicalization, it would
have to be an A’-position because movement into the embedded [CP, Spec] position must be A’-
movement, hence not scrambling, to be exact.
826 Noriko Yoshimura

Saito (1989) proposes a “radical reconstruction” operation at LF as an account

for the avoidance of a PBC effect. That is to say, the scrambled phrase, either wh
or non-wh, can radically move back to the base-generated position at LF. On this
assumption, the LF structure of (34a) after reconstruction is exactly the same one as
that before scrambling, as shown in (35).

(35) ?[ Mary ga [CP [TP2 John ga dono hon oi tosyokan

TP1
Mary NOM John NOM which book ACC library
kara karidasita] ka] siritagatteiru]] koto
from checked out Q want to know fact

As seen in (35), the wh moves back to the position of its trace. Based on these LF
effects, Saito (1989) posits that scrambling can be viewed as a semantically vacuous
movement in Japanese. On his view, radical reconstruction effects are limited to
LD A’- scrambling such as those in (32) and (34) because it is A’-adjoined to the
matrix TP.23

4.2 Miyagawa’s Proposal (2003, 2005b)

Miyagawa (2005b) explores the issue of semantically vacuous scrambling based on
his EPP-driven scrambling hypothesis. According to his analysis, the following pair
of examples constitute evidence against Saito’s (1989) view that scrambling is undone,
thereby escaping from a PCB violation.

(36) a. John ga [Mary ga nani o katta ka]] siritagatteiru koto

John NOM Mary NOM what ACC bought Q want to know fact
‘John wants to know what Mary bought.’

b. ?Nani oi [John ga [Mary ga ti katta ka] siritagatteiru] koto

what ACC John NOM Mary NOM bought Q want to know fact
‘What, John wants to know Q Mary bought.’

In (36a) the wh nani ‘what’ stays in situ within the embedded clause whereas in
(36b) it is scrambled long-distance out of the embedded clause to the matrix
clause-initial position. Miyagawa (2005b) points out that the scrambling of nani in
(36b) may undergo radical reconstruction through [CP, Spec] inside the embedded

23 Saito (1989) assumed that a major subject (kono kurasu ‘this class’ and yama ‘mountain’ in (24))
is generated in a TP adjoined position, and this position is an A’-position because it is not a base-
generated position. On this A’ view, he argues that radical reconstruction is made possible only
to A’-movement. On the other hand, Saito (1992, 2009) claims that SD scrambling is A-movement
whereas LD scrambling is A’-movement, thereby permitting only the latter movement to be recon-
structed at LF. We will deal with this issue in more detail in Section 5.
 Scrambling 827

clause (Takahashi 1993), like wh-movement in English. This moving-back operation

is not triggered to avoid a PCB violation because the principle is irrelevant in (36b).
Nevertheless, the wh in question is reconstructed in the base-generated position (ti)
within the embedded clause, inducing an indirect question. Again, this shows
that scrambling is undone at LF, a semantically vacuous movement, although the
‘undoing’ is not motivated by the PBC in this case (see also Bošković 2004).
Although Miyagawa (2005b) mentions that Saito’s (2004) reconstruction dis-
covery can provide support for Kuroda’s (1988) view of Japanese as a “non-forced
agreement” language, he argues that radical reconstruction occurs only if a quanti-
fier is moved by illicit optional movement. A crucial example is given in (37).24 Given
that quantifier raising is clause-bound, the scrambling of daremo ‘everyone’ from the
embedded object position to the matrix clause-initial position is deemed illicit.

(37) Daremoi o dareka ga [Tanaka ga ti aisite iru to] itta koto

everyone ACC someone NOM Tanaka NOM loving is that said fact
‘Everyone, someone thinks that Tanaka loves.’
(someone > everyone, *everyone > someone)

For this reason, the QP must be reconstructed to the trace position (ti). Miyagawa
maintains that an example like (37) is a true case of radical reconstruction in
Japanese.25

4.3 Reconstruction and Scrambling

We now reexamine empirical evidence that reconstruction is barred in the case of SD
scrambling. Consider again examples in (30), as repeated in (38).

(38) a. Zen’in ga sono tesuto o uke na katta (yo)

all NOM that test ACC take.not.PST SFP
‘All did not take that exam.’
(All > Not, *Not > All)

b. Sono tesuto oi zen’in ga ti uke na katta (yo)

that test ACC all NOM take.not.PST SFP
‘That exam, all did not take.’
(All > Not, Not > All)

This interesting paradigm (Miyagawa 2001, 2003, 2005a, 2005b) demonstrates that,
if the SD scrambled sono tesuto ‘that test’ were reconstructed to the position of its

24 (37a) is one of the sentences discussed in Oka (1989) and Tada (1993).
25 Miyagawa questions whether radical reconstruction can be PF scrambling, contra Saito’s (1989)
LF approach to the operation.
828 Noriko Yoshimura

trace (ti), the resulting structure would be parallel to that of (38a), which should
result in the cancellation of the scope ambiguity, contrary to fact. That (38b) can
also induce total negation (all > not) confirms that reconstruction does not take
place in SD scrambling.
This ban on reconstruction is also supported by the long-acknowledged asym-
metry relative to the QP scrambling in the literature (Kuroda 1971; Kuno 1973).

(39) a. Dareka ga daremo o aisite iru

someone NOM everyone ACC loving is
‘Someone loves everyone.’
(some > every, *every > some)

b. Daremoi o dareka ga ti aisite iru

everyone ACC someone NOM loving is
‘Everyone, someone loves.’
(some > every, every > some)

Again, the scrambled object QP daremo ‘everyone’ can induce a wide scope over
the subject QP dareka ‘someone’ in (39b). This scope ambiguity is on par with that
in (38), thereby providing supporting evidence for the ban on reconstruction in SD
scrambling.
A question arises concerning how we can account for the impossibility of recon-
struction in SD scrambling, unlike LD scrambling, as in (33) and (34). We saw in
Section 3 that SD scrambling can be A-movement in Japanese. Several suggestions
have been made in the literature. One proposal is Saito’s (1992) view that LD scram-
bling is A’-movement to a position adjoined to the [TP, Spec] position (Mahajan
1990). On this TP-adjunction account, the structure of the relevant part of (37) will
be as in (40).

(40)
 Scrambling 829

At LF the scrambled daremo ‘everyone’ radically moves back to the trace position (ti)
within the CP in the matrix object position, resulting in the canonical word order.26
Furthermore, Saito (2006) suggests that SD scrambling can also be A’-movement.
According to his analysis, a sentence like (41) constitutes crucial evidence.27

(41) a. Taroo ga zibunzisin o semeta koto

Taro NOM self ACC blamed fact
‘Taro blamed himself.’

b. Zibunzisin oi Taroo ga ti semeta koto

self ACC Taro NOM blamed fact
‘Himself, Taro blamed.’

The bound interpretation of zibunzisin ‘self’ by Taroo is possible in (41b) as well as

in (41a). This indicates that the reflexive must move back to the trace position (ti),
thereby inducing the bound variable interpretation in (41b) as well. Therefore, SD
scrambling can be A’-movement on the assumption that reconstruction cannot be
available for A-movement.28
Turning to the previous examples in (38), repeated in (42), we reconsider Miya-
gawa’s (2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2006) options-without-optionality approach to scrambling.

(42) a. Zen’in ga sono tesuto o uke-na-katta (yo)

all NOM that test ACC take-not-PST SFP
‘All did not take that exam.’
(All > Not, *Not > All)

26 In this derivation, the subject moves to the [TP, Spec] position due to the EPP.
27 It has been a standard practice in the literature to use otagai ‘each other’ binding as a linguistic
tool to see whether scrambling can be reconstructed at LF. However, there is a view that otagai is not
an anaphor on par with each other in English (Hoji 2006). We therefore focus upon zibun/zibunzisin
‘self’ binding in this discussion.
28 However, one wonders whether May’s (1977) Quantifier Lowering can apply to A-movement
across the board. Fox (1999) considers the following pair of sentences to illustrate that the subject-
to-subject raising structure can be reconstructed.
(i) a. ??[His father] wrote to every boyi [PROi to be a genius].
i

b. [Hisi father]j seems to every boyi [tj to be a genius].

The general assumption is that the matrix subject his father in (ib) is raised from the embedded
subject position to receive a Case. The sentence is grammatical on the interpretation that the pronoun
his can be construed as being bound to every boy. This points to the possibility that the raised subject
his father is reconstructed in the trace position within the embedded infinitive clause. See Bošković
and Takahashi (1998) and Bošković (2004) for arguments in support of the LF lowering analysis of
scrambling and also Miyagawa (2006) for arguments agains their LF lowering approach to scrambling.
830 Noriko Yoshimura

b. Sono tesuto oi zen’in ga ti uke-na-katta (yo)

that test ACC all NOM take-not-PST SFP
‘That exam, all did not take.’
(All > Not, Not > All)

As seen in the above, one of the crucial facts here is that total negation emerges
in (42b) with the scrambled object DP sono tesuto in the clause-initial position. Put
differently, Miyagawa claims that the two relevant word orders, i.e. SOV in (42a) and
OSV in (42b), are permitted in Japanese. He supports this core idea based on the two
properties of the language, namely: (a) The EPP feature on T attracts SD scrambling,
regardless of the structural role of the relevant DP in the sentence, subject, object, or
dative, and (b) morphological Case markings are licensed by Tense, regardless of the
Case type, nominative, accusative, or dative in the language. To be more specific, as
noted in (31), the object DP agrees with the EPP feature on T, whereas the subject DP
agrees with the EPP feature on v in (42b).29 Thus, EPP-driven A-scrambling is not
reconstructed on the assumption that the trace of sono tesuto (ti) is “invisible” for
LF interpretation.
As for LD scrambling, Miyagawa (2001, 2003, 2005a, 2005b) postulates that it
must only be A’-movement because it cannot be EPP-driven, like in Hindi (Mahajan
1990). A crucial example is given in (43) (Miyagawa 2003).

(43) Syukudai oi zen’in ga [sensei ga ti dasu to] omowanakatta

homework ACC all NOM teacher NOM assign that thought not
‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher will assign.’
(all > not, *not > all)

Unlike the SD scrambling case in (38b), the sentence does not yield a scope ambiguity;
only total negation is available in this case. Miyagawa takes this (and other) evidence
to show that the object DP is reconstructed in the original position (ti) at LF. Again,
on the assumption that A-movement cannot be reconstructed, his proposal is that
LD scrambling occurs into a position above TP (Miyagawa 1997),30 so it cannot be
A-movement.

4.4 Summary
To wrap up this section, several important proposals have been suggested to deal
with the core facts pertinent to scrambling as a semantically vacuous phenomenon
in Japanese. One common view in the literature is that unlike SD scrambling, LD

29 As for the structure of (42a), Miyagawa assumes that the subject DP moves to TP, Spec in order to
meet the EPP requirement on T.
30 In the next section, we will consider in which structural position “above TP” LD scrambling takes
place in Japanese.
 Scrambling 831

scrambling yields a semantically vacuous movement because it is A’-movement and

can be reconstructed at LF. In dealing with this semantically vacuous operation, at
least two analyses have been presented from the viewpoint of its landing site. In one
analysis, the landing site for LD scrambling is a position adjoined to TP. Given that
this position is a newly created position, not a base-generated one, it must be
deleted, thereby forcing scrambling to be undone at LF. In the other analysis, the
landing site is [TP, Spec] because the movement is trigged by the EPP feature on T
under the vP-internal subject hypothesis. This view claims that quantifier movement
must be local, and as such, LD scrambling must be subject to radical reconstruction,
neutralizing an illicit long distance movement at LF.
As for SD scrambling, there are two distinct hypotheses for its derivation. One
idea is that SD scrambling can be either A- or A’-movement, and the other is that it
is A-movement. Again, the choice of one over the other proposal depends upon
whether this type of movement involves an adjunction operation or an EPP-driven
operation. The former induces an optional operation, whereas the latter induces an
obligatory operation. Although both proposals assume that SD scrambling occurs
within the relevant TP, they differ with respect to what position the phrase lands in
within the relevant TP. The A-movement hypothesis maintains that the landing site
is a [TP, Spec] position whereas the A’-movement hypothesis insists that it is a TP-
adjunction site.

5 Left Peripheral Effects

Recent advances in the study of scrambling have significantly shifted the research
focus from what effects scrambling can or cannot induce on interpretations to how
scrambling can interact with semantics, discourse, and prosody in arriving at inter-
pretations.31 This body of work has paid particular attention to the left peripherality
of scrambling, thereby raising important issues at the interface between syntax and
discourse (e.g. Neeleman and Reinhart 1998; Saito 2004; Hiraiwa 2010; Miyagawa
2010; Neelman and Vermeulen 2012). A general consensus of the literature seems
to be that scrambling in Japanese reflects the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
derivations in an integrated way. In this section, we further advance our understand-
ing of the nature of scrambling by considering left periphery effects at the syntax-
discourse interface.

5.1 Saito (2010): Scrambling as Topicalization

A look at the discourse-semantics effects of scrambling reveals that two similar but
distinct hypotheses have been made with respect to the syntactic position on the left

31 See Lasnik and Saito (1984) for a detailed discussion of the effects of Move α (e.g. wh-movement
and scrambling) in the traditional terms of Government and Binding (Chomsky 1973, 1981).
832 Noriko Yoshimura

periphery: one proposal is that scrambling is on par with topicalization, whereas

the other is that it behaves like focalization. We will first consider Saito’s (2010)
topicalization approach. Although a detailed description of this complex approach
is beyond the scope of this subsection, we will focus on his basic idea in relation to
the left periphery effects of scrambling.32 We saw in the previous section that scram-
bling is semantically vacuous movement. Nevertheless, Saito mentions that the
operation affects the thematic interpretation of the sentence. Regarding this point,
consider first (44), which shows that a PP can become a topic by moving into the
clause-initial position.

(44) a. Taroo ga Hanako to Hokkaidoo e itta koto

Taro NOM Hanako with Hokkaido to went fact
‘Taro went to Hokkaido with Hanako.’

b. Hanako toi wa Taroo ga ti Hokkaidoo e itta koto

Hanako with TOP Taro NOM Hokkaido to went fact
‘Speaking of Hanako, Taro went to Hokkaido with her.’

c. Hokkaidoo ej wa Taroo ga Hanako to tj itta koto

Hokkaido to TOP Taro NOM Hanako with went fact
‘Speaking of Hokkaido, Taro went there with Hanako.’

It is generally acknowledged in the literature (Kuroda 1965; Kuno 1973; Heycock 2008)
that the case particle wa can make a phrase a thematic topic in Japanese. Interest-
ingly, Saito (1985) shows that the wa-marked PP must undergo scrambling whereas
the wa- marked DP can be base-generated even though both phrases are at the left
edge of the sentence.33 Thus, the topic PP (Hanako to ‘with Hanako’ in (44b) and
Hokkaidoo e ‘to Hokkaido’ in (44c)) is scrambled to the clause-initial position. More
significantly for the present discussion, this scrambling affects the interpretation of
the sentence, thereby inducing a topic interpretation for the PP in question.
A question arises with respect to the landing site of this topic-inducing move-
ment. It is clear from the word order in (44b–c) that the PP topic is above the TP.
According to Saito’s analysis, there is a higher functional projection called PredP
above TP, the left edge of which is dedicated for scrambling.34 On this account, the
relevant structure is schematically represented, as in (45) (based on his (61)).

32 This discussion examines Saito’s (2010) analysis. See Saito (2003, 2004, 2005, 2010) for his
analyses which lead to his topicalization hypothesis of scrambling.
33 This asymmetry is supported based on Subjacency facts. See Saito (1985) for a detailed discus-
sion. Wa can also induce a contrastive topic interpretation (Hoji 1985).
34 Saito (2010: footnote 8) mentions that Pred is higher than TP so that it can capture the theme-
rheme relation in traditional terms.
 Scrambling 833

(45) [PredP Hokkaidoo e wai [Pred’ [TP [Taroo ga [T’ [vP . . . ti . . . ] T]]] Pred]]

The crucial assumption here is that scrambling can occur in the left edge of PredP,
thereby assigning the [top] feature to the scrambled PP. Note that the subject
remains in [TP, Spec] in the structure.
As such, Saito (2010) continues to assume that scrambling is not EPP-triggered
movement. To support his claim, Saito examines the sentence pair in (46).

(46) a. Sono hon wa Taroo ga (kyonen) katta

that book TOP Taro NOM (last year) bought
‘Speaking of that book, Taro bought it (last year).’

b. Sono hon o Taroo wa (kyonen) katta

that book ACC Taro TOP last year bought
‘Taro bought that book last year, but I don’t know about other books.’
*‘Speaking of that book, Taro bought it (last year).’

According to his analysis, when the topic sono hon ‘that book’ remains thematic with
the feature [top] in (46a), it is in [PredP, Spec]. However, when the object sono hon
‘that book’ is scrambled sentence-initially, it must move to the left edge of PredP
with the feature [arg] because the [PredP, Spec] is filled with the wa-marked subject.
His analysis concludes that the EPP feature has nothing to do with scrambling,
contrary to Miyagawa (2001). It is the [arg] feature on the edge of CP or PredP that
triggers scrambling.

5.2 Miyagawa (2012): Scrambling as Focalization

Based on Kuroda’s (1988) agreement parameter, Miyagawa (2006) proposes that
Japanese is a focus prominent language whereas English is an agreement prominent
language. More specifically, Miyagawa (2012) claims that focus movement is triggered
by the EPP feature (Chomsky 1981) on the left edge of TP or CP. Structural details
aside, his focus analysis works as follows: When a topic appears on the left edge of
TP, it remains with the [-focus] feature, thereby filling its Spec position to meet the
EPP. Yet, when a scrambled constituent fills the position, the [-focus] feature changes
to [+focus] on the left edge. Put differently, topic and focus share the same feature,
with either value of + or -: Topicalization occurs when the feature has its default
value, and scrambling occurs when it is marked (Miyagawa 2012).
On his [+/-focus] approach, Miyagawa assumes the following two sentences to
have similar representations, thereby inducing a topic interpretation.
834 Noriko Yoshimura

(47) a. Taroo wa susi o tabeta (yo)

Taro TOP sushi ACC ate SFP
‘As for Taro, he ate sushi.’

b. Susi oi Taroo ga ti tabeta (yo)

sushi ACC Taro NOM ate SFP
‘Sushi, Taro ate.’

That is, the topic Taroo in (47a) and the scrambled sushi-o in (47b) occur on the left
edge, and for Miyagawa (2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2010), the EPP feature is [-focus] in
both sentences. Therefore, both are the two instances of topicalization. His analysis
claims that when a DP-mo object is shifted, focalization results, as in the following
sentence:

c. Susi moi Taroo ga ti tabeta

sushi also Taro NOM ate
(Lit.) ‘Sushi also, Taro ate.’

Given that mo lexically induces a marked meaning for the given DP (Kuroda 1971),
this scrambling leads to focalization.
Miyagawa (2010) further explores his view by proposing that a scrambled con-
stituent may be focalized if it is associated with an identificational (“narrow”) focus
intonation, but it must be interpreted as a topic when it receives a default or neutral
intonation. As such, a sentence like (48) may be a double focus construction if a
narrow focus intonation is assigned to the scrambled object DP even if it is moved
to the sentence second position of the clause.

(48) John ni moi Taroo to Hanako oj otagaij no

John DAT also Taro and Hanako ACC each other GEN
tomodati ga ti tj syookaisita.
friend NOM introduced
‘To John also, Taro and Hanako, each other’s friends introduced.’

Importantly, if the object DP at hand is given a neutral intonation, the sentence

becomes a one focus and one topic construction. This difference implies that focal-
ization does not refer to syntax; topicalization vs. focalization is a lexically or pro-
sodically driven phenomenon.35

35 Within Miyagawa’s (2010) framework, we need to assume that in multiple subject constructions
like (24), ga attached to the exhaustive subject is a lexical focus morpheme like mo ‘also’ in (48).
 Scrambling 835

Miyagawa (2011) extends his “focalization” analysis of scrambling. Although

he continues to assume that scrambling is triggered by the EPP feature on T, he
additionally claims that this EPP can only be satisfied in conjunction with focus.
Based on É Kiss’s (1998) distinction between identificational focus and information
focus,36 Miyagawa proposes that the mo object DP in (47c) and (48) receives an
identificational focus interpretation. As argued for in Miyagawa’s previous analysis,
regular scrambling is a manifestation of information focus.37 Consider, for example,
the following yes/no question and answer dialog from Miyagawa (2011).

(49) a. Taroo ga hon o kaimasita ka

Taro NOM book ACC bought Q
‘Did Taro buy a book?’

b. Hai, Taroo ga kono hon o kaimasita

yes Taro NOM this book ACC bought
‘Yes, Taro bought this book.’

c. Hon oi Taroo ga ti kaimasita

book ACC Taro NOM bought
(Lit.) ‘A/The book, Taro bought.’

According to his analysis, in (49b), Taroo is a topic, and the entire predicate provides
new information. In (49c), when the scrambled object DP does not carry a “focus”
feature, the rest of the sentence conveys new information because, according to the
nuclear stress rule (Cinque 1993), the main stress falls on Taroo.
In short, if nothing is able to meet the EPP feature of T, scrambling raises a con-
stituent to this left edge position, [TP, Spec]. This view is contrary to Saito (2010), as
seen in the preceding subsection. For Miyagawa, this scrambling induces a topic/
focus interpretation if it does not carry identificational focus. It is thus claimed that
syntax simply feeds its output to the information structure at the relevant interface
in order for the sentence to be interpreted, with no direct link being established
between syntax and information structure (Chomsky 2008).

5.3 Some Implications

We agree to some extent with the two alternate views that scrambling behaves like
topicalization or focalization as they occur on the left periphery, providing a sense
of “being thematic” or “being focused” for the relevant constituent. Irrespective of

36 This distinction is often referred to as contrastive focus vs. information focus (Heycock 2008;
É Kiss 1988; Neeleman and Vermeulen 2012).
37 We will return to the issue concerning information focus vs. identificational focus shortly in the
following section.
836 Noriko Yoshimura

which position we would adopt on the issue, it seems to be the case that Japanese
permits two derivations for topicalization/focalization: either base-generation or move-
ment. As seen in the above, scrambling is a syntactic operation, either A- or A’-
movement, whereas topicalization with wa or focalization with ga has been considered
as a base-generated phenomenon in the traditional grammar. Subsequently, an issue
would be how the nature of scrambling can be distinct from that of topicalization/
focalization in the language? Another issue pertains to the old vs. new information,
that is, topicalization always carries old information, unlike scrambling. More impor-
tantly, previous discussions have been pursued comparing scrambling with wh-
movement as an instance of Move α. A further issue is to reinvestigate whether
scrambling in Japanese plays a more functional role than we expected at the syntax-
discourse interface. To conclude, we will take a look at a few of these issues.
Recall Saito’s topicalization approach to scrambling. He assumes that topicaliza-
tion and scrambling take place in the same structural position, the left edge of
PredP, and that topicalization occurs in accordance with the [top] feature at the left
periphery while scrambling is triggered by the [arg] feature on the left periphery.38
However, under a discourse notion, topicalization always carries old information,
unlike scrambling (see Mikami 1960; Noda 1996 for the wa vs. ga distinction). For
example, a wh or quantified phrase (QP) cannot be topicalized, but can be scrambled.

(50) a. Nanii o Taroo ga ti katta no

What ACC Taro NOM bought Q
‘What did Taro buy?’

b. Nanii wa Taroo ga ti katta no

what TOP Taro NOM bought Q
‘What is it that Taro bought?’

(51) a. Daremoi o dareka ga ti aisite iru koto

everyone-ACC someone-NOM loving is fact
‘Everyonei, someone loves himi.’

b. *Daremoi wa dareka ga ti aisite iru koto

everyone TOP someone NOM loving is fact
‘Speaking of everyonei, someone loves himi.’

In (50a), the object wh phrase nani ‘what’ is scrambled, and the sentence is gram-
matical. In contrast, the wa-marked nani cannot be thematic, but must be contrastive,

38 Saito’s (2010) analysis permits multiple Specs for Pred if they are all topics. By analogy, there
would be no reason to assume that multiple Specs, PredP are impossible if they are all for scram-
bling, although he does not explicitly mention this possibility.
 Scrambling 837

as shown in the translation of (50b). Similarly, in (51a) the scrambling of the QP

daremo ‘everyone’ results in grammaticality whereas in (51b), the topicalization of it
with wa-marking results in ungrammaticality. In other words, scrambling does not
behave like topicalization in this respect.
Another issue concerns the impossibility of topicalization within the relative clause
in Japanese (Yoshimura and Nishina 2010).

(52) a. Taroo ga [[Hanako ga/*wa proi tukutta] susii] o tabetesimatta

Taro NOM Hanako NOM/TOP made sushi ACC have.eaten
‘Taro has eaten the susi Hanako made.’

b. Taroo wa [[Hanako ga/*wa kekkonsita] koto] o kiite, gakkarisita

Taro TOP Hanako NOM/TOP married fact ACC hear disappointed
‘Taro was disappointed to hear that Hanako got married.’

Each sentence in (52) demonstrates that within the relative clause, ga-marking is
possible for the subject, but wa-marking is impossible for the topic. It is thus clear
that topicalization is not permitted inside a relative clause.
On the contrary, scrambling is possible within a relative clause in the language.

(53) a. Taroo ga [[Ziroo nii Hanako ga ti proj okutta]

Taro NOM Jiro DAT Hanako NOM sent
tyokoreetoj] o tabetesimatta
chocolate ACC have.eaten
‘Taro has eaten the chocolate that to Jiro, Hanako sent.’

b. Taroo wa [[sensyu Ziroo toi Hanako ga ti kekkonsita]

Taro TOP last week Jiro with Hanako NOM married
koto] o kiite, gakkarisita
fact ACC hear disappointed
‘Taro was disappointed to hear that last week, with Jiro, Hanako got married.’

Scrambling occurred from the position of ti by moving Ziroo ni, the dative DP of the
verb okutta ‘sent’ in (53a), and Ziroo to, the PP of the verb kekkonsita ‘married’ in
(53b), to the initial position of the relative clause, respectively. Both sentences are
grammatical. Again, scrambling shows different behavior from topicalization.
There are also empirical issues for Miyagawa’s focalization approach yet to be
clarified in further research. As generally acknowledged, focus is a discourse notion
for prominence in the information structure whereas scrambling is a syntactic opera-
tion for change in the word order. Furthermore, given that a narrow focus can be
implemented by means of ga-marking in Japanese (Kuno 1973; Heycock 2008), we
838 Noriko Yoshimura

would like to know how focus induced by scrambling differs from focus produced by
ga-marking. It is also interesting to see how ga-marking can interact with scrambling
in the sentence. One problem relevant to this question is Tomioka’s (2010) interest-
ing observation concerning an apparent interpretative difference between the follow-
ing sentence pair in (54).

(54) a. Kono torakku ni atarasii enzin ga aru

this truck in new engine NOM exist
Locative meaning: ‘There is a new engine in this truck.’
Part-whole meaning: ‘This truck has a new engine.’

b. Atarasii enzin ga kono torakku ni aru

new engine NOM this truck in exist
Locative meaning: ‘There is a new engine in this truck.’
???Part-whole meaning: ‘This truck has a new engine.’

An interpretive ambiguity emerges in the ni-ga order in (54a) whereas it disappears

in the ga-ni order in (54b). Important for the present discussion, kono torakku ni
‘in this truck’ in (54a) can be interpreted as a topic, but does not have to have a
focus reading (Heycock 2008). If it is indeed a topic, the PP in question must not be
scrambled to the clause-initial position on the focalization hypothesis. Recall that PP
scrambling must be induced via scrambling if we follow the common view (Saito
1985; Kuroda 1986). However, given that the topic marker wa is not attached to it,
can we still entertain the possibility of the scrambled PP in (54a)? Such a conflicting
problem needs to be reexamined.39

39 Intuitively speaking, the focalization approach to scrambling seems to be more promising usage-
wise than the topicalization approach because the topic marker wa is more productive than the focus
marker ga in communication. For example, ga is only available for the raising of a possessive or
locative DP, as noted in Kuno (1976).
(i) a. Yamada sensei no musuko ga daigaku ni haitta
Yamada teacher GEN son NOM college in entered
‘Mr. Yamada’s son entered the college.’
b. Yamada sensei ga musuko ga daigaku ni haitta
Yamada teacher FOC son NOM college in entered
‘MR. YAMADA, his son entered the college.’
(ii) a. Taroo no sensei ga kodomo o sikatta
Taro GEN teacher NOM child ACC scolded
‘Taro’s teacher scolded the child.’
b. *Taroo ga sensei ga kodomo o sikatta
Taro FOC teacher NOM child ACC scolded
‘Taro, his teacher scolded the child.’
 Scrambling 839

6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we reviewed major works on scrambling in Japanese to identify such
important issues as optionality, the A/A’ distinction, semantically vacuous move-
ment, and radical reconstruction. We also provided a brief review of the left periph-
eral effects in the recent advances in the theory of scrambling. Our investigation of
scrambling in Japanese first started based on the research findings relative to wh-
movement in English. Then, our efforts examined the properties unique to Japanese
scrambling. Nevertheless, we still have some further issues and questions yet to
be clarified in future research. One such issue that emerged throughout this discus-
sion is what really distinguishes scrambling from wh-movement. Particularly, in
the scrambling-as-topicalization/focalization approach, it is suggested that the A/A’-
movement analysis of scrambling be reexamined in future research.40 This explora-
tion will no doubt lead to a better understanding of Japanese grammar.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Masatoshi Koizumi, Shigeru Miyagawa, Hideki Kishimoto,
Mineharu Nakayama, and Atsushi Fujimori for their helpful comments and discus-
sions on earlier versions of this chapter. I am also grateful to John Haig for checking
and commenting on this manuscript. Thanks are due to Wiener Seth and Evan M.
Jaffe for their editorial suggestions. Remaining errors and omissions are, of course,
the sole responsibility of the author.

In the case of (ib), a possessor relation does not obtain between Taroo and sensei, thereby excluding
the subject raising in this case. On the contrary, wa can appear together with a non-nominal as well
as a nominal constituent in the sentence.
(iii) a. Yuusyoku madeni wa kaette kimasu
dinner not later than TOP return come
‘By dinner (time), (I) will be home.’
b. Sonna riyuu de wa nattoku dekimasen
such reason for TOP agree cannot
‘For such a reason, (I/We) cannot agree.’
The PP with wa refers to the time in (iiia) and the reason in (iiib), respectively.
40 A commonly adopted assumption is that A-movement is possible for SD scrambling, but impos-
sible for LD scrambling mainly based on anaphor (like zibun ‘self’ and otagai ‘each other’) binding
facts. However, why this should be the case needs to be further explored on theoretical as well as
empirical grounds. See Yoshimura (1992) and Ueyama (1998) for the cancellation of WCO effects by
LD scrambling as well as SD scrambling.
840 Noriko Yoshimura

References
Abe, Jun. 1994. Scrambling without A/A’ distinction. In Noriko Akatsuka (ed.), Japanese/Korean Lin-
guistics 4, 277–293. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston, and Toru Ishii. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33. 47–77.
Barss, Andy. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistics
Inquiry 35. 613–638.
Bošković, Željko and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 347–
366.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky
(eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Robert Freidin
(ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser
(eds.), The view from Building 20. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The Framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and
Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik,
89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta
(eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–
166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 239–
297.
É Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.
Fiengo, Robert W. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 35–61.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Focus, Parallelism and Accommodation. SALT 9. 70–90.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT disser-
tation.
Fukui, Naoki and Hiromu Sakai. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising
in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113. 321–375.
Haig, John H. 1976. Shadow pronoun deletion in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 363–371.
Haig, John H. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics 18. 1065–1083.
Hale, Ken. 1980. Remarks on Japanese phrase structure: Comments on the papers in Japanese
syntax. In Yukio Otsu and Ann Farmer (eds.), Theoretical issues in Japanese linguistics, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 185–203. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Harada, Shi-Ichi. 1977. Nihongo ni henkei wa hitsuyō da [Transformations are needed in Japanese].
Gengo 6. 88–103.
Heycock, Caroline. 2008. Japanese wa, ga, and information structure. In Shigeru Miyagawa and
Mamoru Saito (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 54–83. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Heycock, Caroline, and Edit Doron. 2003. Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyu 123. 95–135.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2010. Scrambling to the edge. Syntax 13. 133–164.
 Scrambling 841

Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington dissertation.
Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Kare. In Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary
approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hoji, Hajime. 2006. Otagai. In Ayumi Ueyama (ed.), Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Reference
and Anaphora: Toward the Establishment of Generative Grammar as an Empirical Science.
Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), 126–138. Hakata: Kyushu University.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT dissertation.
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Heikei bunpō to nihongo [Transformational grammar and Japanese]. Tokyo:
Taishukan.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1984. Subject extraction and the null subject parameter. Proceedings of Fourteenth
Annual Meeting of NELS, 132–153.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1991. Modal phrase and adjuncts. In Patricia M. Clancy (ed.), Japanese/Korean
Linguistics 2, 409–428. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9.
227–285.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani (Ed.) Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese
generative grammar, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
dissertation.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1971. Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, and only,
Part II. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 4. 127–152. Tokyo:
University of Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1980. Bunpō no hikaku [Comparative grammar]. In Tetsuya Kunihiro (ed.). Nichieigo
hikaku kōza 2: Bunpō [Series of Japanese-English comparative linguistics 2: Grammar], 23–62.
Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguis-
ticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1986. Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In Imai, Takashi and Mamoru Saito
(eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics, 229–271. Dordrecht: Foris.
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subject. Lingua. 85. 211–258.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15.
235–289.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mahajan, Anoop K. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT dis-
sertation.
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In
Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern
linguistics, 253–270. San Diego: Academic Press.
May, Robert. 1977. Logical form and conditions on rules. Proceedings of NELS VII. 189–207.
Mikami, Akira. 1960. Zō wa hana ga nagai [Elephants have long trunks]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against Optional Scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 1–25.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. The EPP, Scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Simin Karimi
(ed.), Word order and scrambling, 177–200. Oxford: Blackwell.
842 Noriko Yoshimura

Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005a. On the EPP. In Martha McGinnis and Norvin Richards (eds.), Perspectives
on Phases: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, 201–236. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2005b. EPP and semantically vacuous movement, In Joachim Sabel and Mamoru
Saito (eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, 181–220.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2006. Moving to the edge, Proceedings of the 2006 KALS-KASELL International
Conference on English and Linguistics, 3–18. Busan, Korea: Pusan National University.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-config-
urational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Optionality, In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic
minimalism, 354–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Case, argument structure, and word order. New York: Routledge.
Miyagawa, Shigeru and Mamoru Saito. 2008. In Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito (eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 3–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miyara, Shinsho. 1982. Reordering in Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 9. 307–340.
Muraki, Masatake. 1974. Presupposition and thematization. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Neeleman, Ad and Tanya Reinhart. 1998. Scrambling and the PF interface. In Miriam Butt and
Wilhelm Gueder (eds.), The projection of arguments, 309–353. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Neeleman, Ad and Reiko Vermeulen (eds.). 2012. The syntax of topic, focus, and contrast: An interface-
based approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Nemoto, Naoko. 1999. Scrambling. In Natsuko Tsujimura (ed.), The handbook of Japanese linguistics,
121–153. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2012. The reflexive in Japanese and the blocking effect. Theoretical and
Applied Linguistics at Kobe Shoin 15. 103–117.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2014. Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of
view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23. 157–206.
Noda, Hisashi. 1996. Wa to ga. [Wa and ga]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 539–556.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Mark R. Baltin and
Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 182–200. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 69–
118.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A Derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua
113. 481–518.
Saito, Mamoru. 2004. Japanese scrambling in a comparative perspective. In David Adger, Cécile
de Cat and George Tsoulas (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, 143–163.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Saito, Mamoru. 2005. Further notes on the interpretation of scrambling chains. In David Sabel and
Mamoru Saito (eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity,
335–376. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 Scrambling 843

Saito, Mamoru. 2009. Optional A-scrambling. In Yukinori Takubo, Tomohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak
and Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16, 44–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Saito, Mamoru. 2010. Semantic and discourse interpretation of the Japanese left periphery. In Nomi
Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman (eds.), The sound patterns of syntax, 140–173. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Saito, Mamoru and Hajime Hoji. 1983. Weak crossover and move alpha in Japanese. Natural Lan-
guage & Linguistic Theory 1(2). 245–259.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki [Analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishyūkan.
Stowell, Tim. 1989. Subject, specifiers, and X-bar theory. In Mark R. Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch
(eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 232–262. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A’ partition in derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
11. 655–678.
Takano, Yuji. 1998. Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 817–889.
Takano, Yuji. 2002. Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11. 243–301.
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Seattle, WA: Uni-
versity of Washington dissertation.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. A scope theory of contrastive topic. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics 2. 113–130.
Ueyama, Ayumi. 1998. Two types of dependency, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California
dissertation.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. MIT
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. AGR-based case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Yoshimura, Noriko. 1989. Parasitic pronouns. Paper presented at Southern California Conference on
Japanese-Korean Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Yoshimura, Noriko. 1992. Scrambling and anaphora. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California
dissertation.
Yoshimura, Noriko and Akira Nishina. 2010. Ga/no no kōtai gensyōkūhantyū kōzō to meisisei [Back-
ground behind ga/no conversion phenomenon: Structures of empty categories and their noun-
hood properties]. In Masahiko Minami (ed.), Linguistics and Japanese language education VI:
New directions in applied linguistics of Japanese, 9–27. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Subject index

actor/observer 38, 204, 211, 218–219, 222– 544, 560, 577, 591, 599, 608, 631–632,
228, 230 634, 656, 660, 662, 627, 673–674, 698–
additional-wh effects 509, 550 699, 703–704, 735–741, 743, 745, 747,
addressee xxvi, xxvii, 23, 146–148, 151–152, 749–751, 818–819, 821, 827, 833, 842
374, 381, 384–386, 388, 390, 398, 424, animacy 414–416, 420, 439, 442, 472, 768
427–428, 430, 440 anti-superiority effects 517
adjective xii–xiii, xx–xxi, xli, 22–23, 25, 40, accusative case marking 55, 58–60, 64, 450,
42, 65, 103, 112, 118, 125, 145–146, 172, 464, 480
266, 279–281, 283, 287, 291, 293, 295, acquisition of verbs 764, 780,
320, 325, 328–329, 338, 372–373, 457, argument xix–xx, xxv–xxvi, xxix, xxxix, 9–10,
479, 480, 751, 783–788, 790–798, 799– 16–19, 38, 55–57, 59–62, 64–67, 69–70,
806 74, 81–86, 90–93, 99, 107–108, 110, 112–
adjectival sentence 4, 27 115, 120, 159–160, 172, 193, 232, 236,
adjunct xx, xxxviii–xxxix, xli, 13, 21, 67, 90, 238–239, 255, 257, 269, 272–273, 281,
107, 192–193, 309, 315, 378, 412, 424– 284, 286–296, 298, 309, 315, 318, 327,
427, 429, 447–448, 452, 457, 461–462, 344–345, 348, 372, 377–379, 381–382,
469, 489, 514, 516–517, 519–522, 550, 387, 403–404, 406–407, 409–410, 412,
553–554, 574–575, 577, 583, 612–614, 414–416, 418, 420, 422–426, 429–431,
621, 626–627, 633, 654–656, 658, 666– 433, 437, 439–442, 445, 447–461, 463–
668, 671, 677, 679–680, 688, 708, 729, 465, 467–477, 480, 482–489, 491, 493,
731–732, 741, 751, 771, 818, 828, 831, 495, 521, 541, 544–545, 547, 559–560,
841, 562–563, 565, 567, 569, 571–572, 589,
adverb xix–xx, xxii, xxiv, xxix, xxxix, 6, 18, 25, 592–594, 597–598, 600–601, 605–606,
52, 124–131, 142, 144–147, 152–156, 160, 608–609, 612–615, 622–623, 627, 633,
189, 279, 281, 291, 293, 328, 342, 351– 636–637, 645–646, 649, 654–656, 658,
353, 361, 363, 372, 377–378, 390–391, 664, 669, 670, 677–678, 684, 686, 687,
393–397, 399, 408, 422, 438, 444, 447, 695, 698, 701–703, 708–710, 712–725,
449, 465–466, 475, 549, 554–564, 566– 727–731, 733–735, 737–743, 747, 749–
567, 569, 570–571, 575–579, 587–589, 769, 771–781, 785, 802, 808, 821, 824,
592, 594, 598, 600, 602–603, 609, 633, 829, 842
635, 659, 665–666, 669–670, 678–679, – realization 112, 608, 758, 764, 768, 771–
692, 697, 699, 713, 785, 787, 790, 805 772, 780
adverbial clause 342, 391, 396, 678–679, 699 – transfer 754, 756, 757–758
agree xxxix, xl–xli, 12, 24, 113, 116, 121, 275, aspect ix, xi, xiii–xiv, xxii, xxxix, 2, 6, 10, 31–
293, 329, 380–382, 387, 399, 400, 406, 32, 37–39, 50, 52, 78, 94, 97, 100, 103,
411, 426, 444, 454, 469, 488, 491–492, 117, 119–120, 129, 146–149, 159, 161, 177,
529–530, 548, 577, 581, 587, 599, 608, 181–184, 186, 203, 212, 232–234, 242,
643–645, 647–652, 655–656, 658, 660, 269, 321, 327, 331, 334, 336–338, 340,
667–668, 674, 690–691, 694–695, 698, 342, 347–348, 356, 366–367, 371–373,
736–737, 740, 749, 830, 835, 839, 841– 377–378, 399, 401, 490, 493, 497, 528,
842 531, 533–534, 536, 538, 555, 594, 596–
– upward 650–651, 656 598, 600–602, 604–606, 609, 668, 671,
agreement xxxix–xli, 12, 15–16, 20, 23, 103, 674, 685, 697, 748, 763, 769, 782, 787,
115, 329, 371, 380–385, 388–391, 397– 798, 809, 822, 824
401, 447, 485, 491, 493, 495, 530, 535–
bondedness 336–338, 354
846 Subject index

C-system 381, 383–384, 388, 389, 391, 395– 113, 159, 190, 254–255, 266, 279, 282,
397, 674, 686–687, 691–692 287, 299, 328, 334–340, 352, 354, 361,
cartography xl, 7, 182–183, 185, 371, 399, 490, 375, 383, 385, 388, 390–391, 396, 447–
639 448, 453–454, 459, 462, 478, 493, 656–
case x, xiii, xix–xx, xxiii, xxxix–xl, xli, 6, 8–11, 657, 695, 698, 752, 755, 757, 761, 766,
14, 16–20, 24–25, 30–32, 34–35, 37–38, 767–768, 790, 793–794, 801–804, 806–
40, 42, 44, 50–51, 55–70, 72, 77, 79–81, 807, 813, 823, 830, 841
83–93, 103–104, 106, 108–110, 112, 114, – nominative xxiii, 16–17, 19–20, 30, 57–59,
121, 124, 126, 128–129, 131–133, 136–138, 62, 64, 66, 69, 103, 108, 114–115, 121,
140, 143–144, 146–148, 150, 153, 157, 160, 165–166, 182, 296, 377, 383, 433, 448–
162, 165–166, 169, 171–172, 174, 176–177, 457, 460, 463, 466–470, 474–477, 479–
180, 182–183, 194–195, 211, 218–219, 480, 483–489, 491–492, 494–495, 546,
223, 228–229, 231–233, 235, 237, 254, 553–554, 564, 570–571, 573–579, 585,
258, 262, 268–269, 275–277, 279, 282, 634, 638–639, 661, 663, 669–672, 674,
286–287, 291, 294, 296–298, 303–304, 676, 683, 690–692, 694–695, 698–699,
312, 314, 316, 318–320, 322, 325–331, 736, 745, 752, 756, 760, 767, 771, 814,
334–338, 340, 342–343, 348, 349–352, 819, 830
355–358, 361, 366, 368–369, 371, 373, – structural 3, 6–7, 10, 18, 20, 40, 42, 44, 48,
376, 378, 381–384, 386–388, 394, 396– 91, 101–103, 114–115, 121, 271, 309–310,
397, 399, 400, 406, 408–409, 420, 422– 318, 334–337, 341, 348, 354, 367, 378–
423, 430–433, 436, 439, 441–443, 445, 379, 381, 390, 396, 406, 424, 427, 453–
447–451–469, 471–, 475, 476, 479–481, 454, 478, 488, 490, 525, 575, 598–599,
483–494, 497, 504, 507, 509, 511, 513, 633, 635, 637, 672–673, 681, 683–684,
515–517, 525–526, 534, 542–457, 459, 551, 695, 697, 760, 762, 766, 768–769, 773,
555–556, 570, 573, 575, 577–579, 581– 787, 797, 800, 804, 823, 830, 833,
583, 585, 588, 592, 598, 601, 604–606, 836
608–609, 611, 614, 619, 621–623, 627, – valuation 448, 453–454, 459, 485, 487, 736
630, 632, 634–635, 637–639, 644, 647, case-marked element 30–32, 34, 160, 182
649, 651, 654–658, 664, 666–668, 670– causativization 85, 87, 94–95, 471, 473, 494,
672, 674, 676, 677, 678, 680, 682–683, 578
687–690, 692, 694–695, 697–699, 705, Classical Japanese xvi, 1, 271, 282, 295–296,
707–709, 716, 721, 723, 729–730, 732– 299, 305, 321, 323, 325, 328, 338–339
738, 741–749, 752–757, 760, 762, 766– clause-mate condition 640–643, 650
768, 772–773, 778, 780–781, 784–785, comparative xiv, 24, 47, 121, 124, 131, 154–156,
787, 790–793, 796, 798–803, 806–807, 369, 400, 422, 443–444, 492, 577–578,
810, 813–814, 818, 820–821, 823, 825, 607–608, 633–634, 636, 659–660,
827, 829–830, 832, 836, 839, 842– 662, 672, 674, 676, 697, 699, 749–
843 750, 777, 794–801, 805–806, 840, 841–
– dative xxv, 4, 19, 30–31, 56, 62–63, 66–69, 842
81, 92, 103, 108, 114–115, 200, 404–405, complementizer xxii, xli, 342, 383, 400, 465,
410, 412, 414, 423–424, 426–429, 431, 467–468, 499, 504, 531, 536, 550, 554,
435, 440–442, 445, 448, 450–452, 454– 611, 612–613, 673, 687, 730
459, 460–461, 470–472, 483–484, 486– conceptual level 171, 175
490, 493, 495, 694–695, 754, 756, 758– conceptual structure 76, 78–79, 214, 238, 753,
760, 762, 778–780, 812, 830, 837 774
– feature 453–454, 458–459, 465, 469, 475, Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) 667
485–488, 542, 656, 695, 736–737 conditional constructions 342, 350, 352
– morphological 4, 6, 9, 10, 36, 42, 50, 56–57, configurational language 400, 608, 655, 660,
59, 60–64, 65, 67, 70, 73–74, 82, 91, 93, 691, 698, 808, 842
 Subject index 847

Construction Grammar 8, 231, 249, 287, 341 156, 166, 168–170, 182, 189, 190, 192–
co-occurrence 6, 59, 128, 130, 146, 391, 397, 193, 224, 226, 228, 241, 249, 258, 275–
669 276, 295, 328, 335, 339, 341, 343, 356,
correlation between subordinate clause and 369, 371, 383, 397, 401, 409, 473–474,
grammatical category 177 476–477, 482, 498–501, 503–505, 509,
‘cover’ semantics 240, 242–243, 246, 257– 511, 525, 527, 530, 532–540, 542, 548–551,
259, 262–264, 268 555, 591, 631, 638, 645, 647–648, 651–
652, 655–659, 680–682, 691–692, 701,
decategorialization 337, 339–341, 343, 345– 751, 754, 763–764, 785, 792–793, 805,
348 809, 812, 829, 831, 833–835, 837–838,
de-variant 8, 235, 260 840
differentiation between entities 4–5, 63, 65, 93 focus prosody (FPd) 499–500, 503, 505, 532–
double object verbs 754, 759–760, 762 533, 537–538, 549
force xxvii, 14, 16, 18, 66, 80–81, 92, 200, 274,
ellipsis xiii, 10, 20–21, 62, 85, 187, 351, 361, 278, 333, 384–385, 397, 400, 431–432,
621–622, 646–649, 656, 660, 701–704, 486, 488, 503, 507–508, 526, 603, 648,
708–710, 713, 716, 725, 727–729, 731– 650, 666, 671, 695, 709, 731, 800, 803,
733, 735, 740, 741, 744, 747–748, 750– 827
751, 766, 789, 806 functional head 22, 399, 529, 576, 606, 637,
– argument 646, 703, 712, 714–725, 727, 735, 659, 668, 697, 703, 736, 744, 784, 791,
737–741, 747, 749–750 805, 822
– N’- 21, 634, 701–708, 717, 729, 732–735, future v–vi, ix, 8, 11, 15, 42, 80, 91, 93, 154–
741, 744, 746–747 155, 175, 184–185, 188, 210–212, 221–223,
– NP- xxxix, 21, 621–622, 633, 749 228–229, 230–231, 327, 354, 356–357,
– VP- 701–704, 709–710, 712–713, 717–718, 366, 398, 429, 497, 540, 546, 623, 636,
721–723, 725, 729, 741, 747, 749 679, 703, 741, 789, 797, 801, 816, 822,
empathy 187, 195–198, 200–202, 229, 233, 839
842
Empty Category Principle (ECP) 515 genitive subject 304, 306, 573–575, 665–668,
EPP 17, 24, 399, 430, 432, 451, 488, 529–530, 670–671, 674, 676–677, 681–682, 688,
542, 565, 570, 574, 578, 590, 592, 601, 692–694, 699
608, 659–660, 670, 682, 684, 691, 698, grammaticalization xii, 10–11, 212, 330, 333–
742–744, 749, 820–823, 826–827, 830– 351, 354–356, 361, 366–370, 448
834, 835, 841–842 – parameters of 336–337, 349, 354
exceptional case marking (ECM) 464, 491, 667 Gricean Cooperative Principle 290
extremes 127, 135–137, 141–143, 147–148, 155
– anti-extremes 6, 127, 131–133, 135, 137–138, head-raising 12–13, 620
141–142 hierarchical organization 6, 751, 754, 758, 784,
ergativity 233, 607 787
evidentiality 7, 49, 219, 371 higher wh-effects 524
holistic interpretation 235, 242, 246
feature-checking 445, 642–644, 656, 661 honorification 114–115, 187, 352, 450–451,
feature-copying 645, 656 456–457, 460–461, 477–479, 492, 553,
feature-sharing 648–649, 656, 743, 747 573
Flow of Information Principle 190
‘fill’ semantics 244–246, 258, 268 idiomatic interpretation 615–619
focalization 832, 834–840 imperative 4, 46, 49, 69, 70–72, 74, 77, 163–
focus x–xi, xiv, xxxviii–xli, 1, 3–7, 12, 14, 18, 164, 294, 362, 374–375, 380–381, 383–
60, 63, 66, 106, 117, 121, 123, 127, 153, 392, 572
848 Subject index

inflection xi–xii, xv, xx, 6, 25, 157, 159, 329, metonymy 3, 274–275, 287, 289, 312, 320,
336, 338–339, 356–358, 361, 368, 376, 322, 347, 349
447, 536, 604, 606, 636, 673, 806 mimetic verbs 754, 769, 771, 773–774, 776–
information structure 97, 106, 116, 119, 121, 777, 779, 781
399, 698, 763, 835, 837, 840 Minami model 157, 160, 165, 171, 177, 182,
indeterminate pronoun 466, 487, 491, 562, 185–186
577, 593–594, 607, 635, 683, 698 minimality 401, 439, 441, 667, 672–673, 693–
intentional actions 221–226 694, 842
intentionality 69–70, 73–74, 76–77, 80, 92– modality xiii, xxxvi, xxxix, 6, 20, 23–24, 45,
93, 365 48–49, 50–53, 121, 128, 144, 157–164,
island viii, x, 13, 16, 309, 412, 498, 502–505, 171–174, 180–181, 185–186, 342, 356–357,
507–510, 513–516, 519–523, 546, 612– 371–374, 376–379, 381, 384–385, 389–
614, 616, 623, 625–628, 630–631, 667– 391, 397, 400–402, 556, 699
668, 673, 719 – discourse 374–376, 378–381, 384, 387, 390,
397, 398
labeling 703–704, 742–747, 749 – epistemic 158, 179–180, 374–376, 390, 397
landing site 15, 672, 728, 743, 812, 822, 831– – speech act 374
832 modifying element 31–35
layered structure 34, 36, 48, 125, 146–147, 157, modification xiii, xli, 9–10, 20, 22, 33, 226,
160, 182, 184–185, 369 272–273, 280, 291–293, 296, 299, 301,
left periphery 382–384, 401, 525, 539, 542, 309–310, 312–319, 322–323, 325–326,
550, 661, 809, 831–832, 835–836, 843 328–329, 356, 466, 599, 606, 634, 655,
lexico-grammatical category 37 667, 716, 741, 749, 783, 787, 789–790,
LF copying 703, 724–728, 737, 739–741, 744– 793, 798, 801–806
745, 747 – event 602, 785–788, 790
linking rules 752–753 – direct 22–23, 783–787, 789–793, 797, 800–
locality 18, 184, 437, 442, 502, 507–508, 548, 801, 804, 806
559–560, 565, 582, 584–592, 594, 596, – indirect 22–23, 783–784, 787, 792–797, 800
598, 601, 605, 640, 641, 643–644, 650, motion verbs 11, 74, 95, 343, 345, 349, 369
668, 822 movement xiii, xl, 1, 10, 12, 14–17, 24, 60, 78,
location 8, 62, 64, 77, 116, 120, 166, 168–170, 83, 93, 184, 187, 232, 241, 252, 257–258,
213–214, 218–219, 230, 235, 237, 239– 277, 356, 366, 383, 399, 401, 403–404,
240, 242–243, 247–248, 251–252, 257– 406, 408–410, 414, 424–426, 429, 431–
258, 260–264, 275–277, 287, 448, 457– 432, 434, 436–437, 441–442, 444–445,
459, 462–464, 540, 635, 670–701, 748, 451, 463, 482–483, 492–494, 502, 515,
750, 761–763, 771 524, 526–527, 529–531, 539–541, 543,
locative alternation 8, 235–240, 242, 244, 545, 547–548, 550–551, 561, 565, 567,
246, 248, 251, 254, 256, 264, 267–269, 574, 578, 583–586, 590, 592–593, 604–
462–464 605, 608, 612–620, 622–626, 629–634,
locatum 235–239, 247–248, 251–253, 255, 257, 639, 641–642, 644–656, 658, 660–661,
263 665–669, 671–673, 711, 719, 728–729,
look-across 498, 533, 535, 538, 541–544, 546– 731, 735, 737, 743, 748–750, 780, 796,
547 798–799, 805–806, 809–813, 816, 818–
look-ahead 498, 529–531, 534, 538, 540, 542, 819, 822, 824–833, 836, 839, 841–843
546–547 multiple nominative construction 433, 474

Markedness Principle for Discourse Rule negative concord items (NCIs) 637, 640
Violations 193, 197–201 negative polarity items (NPIs) 372–373, 635,
maxims of conversation 274 640, 660–662
 Subject index 849

negativity sensitive items (NSIs) 636, 640 – gapless 404–407, 409, 415, 420–421, 426–
ni-variant 8, 235, 458 427, 435, 442
nominal sentence 4, 27, 29, 34, 35 – indirect 15–16, 37, 404–405, 407, 409–412,
nominalization x, xii–xiv, xxii, xxvii, 9–10, 271– 415–417, 420, 422, 424–427, 429, 432,
276, 278–284, 286–305, 310, 312–313, 434, 439, 441–442, 469–470, 585
315–317, 319–321, 323–331, 748, 781 – ni-yotte 405, 407–408
– lexical 271–272, 274–279, 284, 287, 293, – possessive 404–407, 411–413, 417–422,
297 426, 428–429, 433–436, 478
– grammatical 9–10, 271–272, 274, 276, 278– passivization 85–86, 233, 431–432, 442–443,
284, 288, 291, 293, 295–298, 310, 316, 448, 456, 458–459, 465, 470, 482,
318, 322–323, 327–328 491
– argument 9–10, 272–273, 287, 289–292, Pecking Order of Deletion Principle 189–193
295–296, 315, 327 phase 15, 23, 490, 493–494, 530–531, 533,
– event 9, 272–273, 284, 287, 292–293, 295– 543, 548, 550, 578, 643, 659, 662, 670,
296, 312, 318 689–691, 694, 697–698, 721, 745, 747–
– V-based 273, 302, 310, 324, 328 748, 840, 842
– verbal-based 9, 272, 275–277, 281–283, 287, phonological phrasing 792–793
297–299, 302–303, 323–325, 392 Physical Form (φF) 541–542, 547
– N-based 273, 301–304, 324, 326, 328 Physical/logical legibility (P-legibility/
– nominal-based 9–10, 273, 275–276, 292, L-legibility) 536–542, 545
296–304, 319, 328 Physical/logical feature complex
– particle xxii, 273, 290, 295 (PL-complex) 534–536, 540–544, 547
nominalizer 166, 273, 275, 280, 295–299, 305, Physical/Logical syntax (P-syntax/
320, 322–323, 330, 676 L-syntax) 547
nominative-genitive conversion 468–469, 491, possessor-raising 412, 427, 432–435
495, 579, 634, 698, 699 predication xii, xix, xxvi–xxvii, 5, 9, 65, 99–
non-restrictive 169–170, 184, 286, 316–319, 104, 107, 109–110, 118–121, 266, 274,
328–329, 377, 434 280, 294–295, 320–321, 328, 401, 443,
null argument 669, 738–739 545, 609, 615, 775, 805
numeral quantifier xiii, 15–16, 18, 424–426, – property 5, 101, 109–113, 115, 118–120
445, 489, 559, 578, 581, 606–608, 695 – event 5, 101–102, 104, 107–113, 118–120
projectionist vs, constructionist approach 754,
Old Japanese ix–x, 129, 271–272, 280, 305, 764
355–357, 360, 368, 690, 699 prototype 67, 69, 72–73, 75, 77, 79, 92–93,
optionality 578, 608, 667–669, 671–672, 689, 104, 112–113, 116, 122, 445
809–811, 813, 816, 819, 821, 823–824, pure grammatical category 37
839, 841–842
quantifier xiii, 15–16, 18, 205, 207, 424–426,
passive xii, 3–5, 14–15, 24, 57, 60, 79, 82, 90– 436–438, 445, 563, 566, 578, 581, 586,
92, 95, 108, 198, 199, 203, 212, 224, 226, 592, 599, 602, 604, 606–609, 618, 671,
228, 233, 279, 403–410, 412–424, 427, 695, 729, 806, 827, 829, 831
429–430, 432–436, 440–446, 453, 465, – raising 604, 827
470, 482, 489, 491–492, 494–495, 536, – floated 25, 193, 494, 559, 576, 578, 599,
538, 577, 584–585, 607, 766 602, 606–609, 654, 659, 695, 840
– adversative 205, 416–420, 422, 442, 445– – scope xli, 187, 585, 603, 605, 759
446, 469
reconstruction x, xl, 13–14, 343, 367, 437–438,
– direct 15–16, 37–39, 84–85, 212, 404–407,
443, 482, 490, 541, 607, 615–616, 619,
439, 442, 469, 470, 482–483, 584–585,
631–632, 666–668, 726–727, 749, 809,
589
824–829, 831, 839
850 Subject index

reflexive 65, 78, 202, 408, 450, 457, 460, 470– Shūshikei 129, 271–272, 287, 294
471, 553, 570, 573, 615–616, 829, 842 similarity 6, 118, 125, 127–129, 131–133, 138–
relative clauses xiii–xiv, xxii, 9–10, 12–13, 24, 142, 327, 360, 655, 717, 739
272–273, 286, 292–293, 316, 325, 327– – anti-similarity 6, 127, 131–133, 140–142, 144,
328, 330, 468, 548, 573, 611–613, 619, 148–149
621, 623, 626, 633–634, 665–668, 672, situational element 32–33
674, 697, 719, 734, 793, 795, 805–806, sluicing 21, 25, 400, 701–704, 709–712, 714,
– headless 9, 327 717, 725, 728–731, 735, 741, 744, 746–
– internally-headed 273, 286 748, 750
– reduced 434, 794 sound-meaning synchronization 530, 534, 547
– restrictive 292, 313, 316, 444 subjacency effects 498, 501–503, 505
Rentaikei 271–282, 287, 323 subject xii–xiii, xix, xxii–xxvii, 5, 10, 12, 14–20,
restriction 6, 23, 25, 88, 114, 125, 127–134, 23–24, 31, 34–35, 39, 42, 47, 51, 53, 58–
141–144, 148–150, 152, 159, 239, 255, 257, 59, 62–65, 69–71, 73–74, 76, 78–81, 83–
263, 269, 371, 379–380, 384, 392–395, 84, 86–87, 93, 97–122, 138, 160, 172, 185,
397, 399, 402, 413, 420, 434, 483, 502, 190–191, 195–202, 205, 207, 209, 212,
507–509, 514, 519, 529, 656, 658, 664, 214, 224–225, 226–227, 232, 274, 279,
671–672, 681, 691, 693, 699, 784, 789– 283, 287, 289, 293–294, 304–306, 309–
790, 797, 806, 811 310, 312, 314, 320, 325, 335, 342–343,
– anti-restriction 6, 127, 131–135, 141–142, 350, 357–361, 369, 371–372, 379–382,
148, 151–152 384–391, 394–429, 431–435, 437–442,
restrictive 130, 135, 156, 169, 170, 184, 221, 444, 447, 449–471, 474–495, 527, 545–
272–273, 282, 286, 291, 313, 317–319, 547, 553–556, 559–579, 582, 584–599,
322–323, 325–326, 328–329, 377, 433– 601, 603–605, 607, 624–626, 628–629,
444 632, 637–640, 642–644, 652, 654, 661,
663–674, 676–678, 681–689, 691–695,
scope v, xii, 13–14, 17, 44, 50, 154, 166, 176– 697–700, 711–712, 715–717, 719, 723–724,
177, 179, 187, 274–275, 336–337, 344, 726–730, 736, 738–739, 743, 749–750,
346–347, 349, 354, 371, 386–387, 396, 758–760, 762–763, 765, 767, 770–772,
398, 400–401, 437, 438, 444, 455, 488, 775, 779, 784–785, 789, 797, 800, 812–
498–499, 502–505, 508–511, 513–515, 823, 828–831, 833–834, 837, 840–841,
517, 524–528, 532–533, 536–541, 543, 843
549, 553, 562, 565, 579, 585, 592–593, – genitive 304–306, 493, 573–576, 578, 665–
598, 603–605, 635, 660–661, 663, 665– 671, 674, 676–677, 681–682, 688–689,
669, 671, 676–677, 680, 686, 694, 722– 692–694, 698–699
723, 726, 731, 743, 748, 759, 778, 804, – major 450, 474–478, 624–626, 628–629,
809, 823, 825, 828, 830, 832, 843 820–821, 826
– of negation 16–17, 186, 346, 386, 566, 592– – preference 200, 338, 525, 608, 680, 696
593, 605, 635–640, 644, 657–658, 661, – prototype 67, 69, 72–73, 75, 77, 79, 92–93,
722–723, 729, 823 104, 112–113, 116, 122, 445
scrambling xiii, 15–17, 24, 192–193, 443, 447, subject-prominent language 5, 104, 105, 111–
467–468, 492–494, 524–527, 550, 556, 113, 116, 120
560–561, 564, 566–567, 569–570, 577– subordinate clause 6, 13, 35, 43, 45, 47, 111,
578, 582, 584–586, 590, 604, 607–608, 127–128, 142, 144–147, 160–165, 169,
620, 634, 638, 659–661, 668, 682, 694, 171–173, 175, 177–178, 181–185, 293, 327,
698, 724–726, 731, 749, 750, 759–760, 377, 383, 396, 400, 465–466, 503, 507,
762, 780, 805, 807–843 509, 511, 513–514, 524–525, 639, 679,
sentence formation 27, 50, 124–125, 157, 160, 687
171, 185–186 suffixation 281, 338, 340, 452
 Subject index 851

superiority effects 517, 526–527 transitivity xii, xli, 4–5, 55–57, 59, 60, 62–63,
superlative 794–798, 800–802, 805–806 65, 68, 74–76, 83, 91–95, 195–197, 199,
232, 469, 482, 664, 671, 693, 699, 765,
T‘-te aru’ construction 187, 211–214, 217–224, 768, 778
226–230 – morphological 4, 59–65, 67, 70, 74, 82, 91,
telicity 210, 234, 594–599, 604–606 93
tense xxii–xxiv, 6, 112, 133, 137, 139–148, 50, – syntactic 4, 5, 57, 62–63, 65, 68, 72, 74, 76,
52, 103, 108, 124, 128–129, 146, 156, 158, 99
161, 165, 171–173, 178, 181–184, 232, 279, – semantic 4, 56, 79, 91
367, 372–373, 375–380, 382–386, 396, tukusu-compounding 254–255, 257–260, 268
448, 451, 484–485, 488, 544–556, 671, typology xiv, xl, 4–5, 10, 24, 28, 56, 98–99,
678–679, 687–688, 699, 701, 730, 793– 102, 104–105, 107, 111, 120–122, 177, 330,
795, 797–798, 802–803, 807, 830 344, 367, 368, 442, 444, 530, 539, 749,
thematic roles 493, 579, 751–753, 758, 762, 769, 805
766, 771
topic x–xv, xix–xx, xxiii–xxv, xxvii, xxix, 3–6, unaccusative 7, 16–18, 73, 187, 202–208, 211,
10–11, 13–14, 16, 20–22, 27, 35, 66, 69, 229–230, 233, 421, 430, 433, 584–586,
97–107, 109–122, 129, 140, 154, 156, 160, 589, 595–597, 600, 608–609, 677–678,
162–163, 190, 195–198, 271–272, 274– 686–688, 751–752, 771
275, 281, 307, 335, 338, 366, 373, 377, – hypothesis 7, 17, 24, 94–95, 205, 208, 232–
383, 394, 399, 401, 417, 434, 491, 517, 233
525–526, 530, 546, 550, 560, 606–607,
634, 638–639, 644, 655–656, 691, 699, valency 4, 11, 55, 59, 79, 82, 84–87, 89–90,
719, 754, 757, 764, 777–778, 783, 797, 92, 94, 344, 348, 469, 470, 492
809, 813, 822, 825, 831–838, 840, 842– verbal sentence xxiii, 4, 27, 29, 34, 36
843 verb-class-specific construction 249
– prototype 112, 116 ‘V-kake-no N’ Construction 187, 202, 208–211,
topic-prominent language 5, 104, 111–113, 116, 229
120–121 VP-internal subject position 16, 571, 577–558,
topicalization 101, 110–111, 183, 434, 550, 757, 607
825, 831–840,
toritate 6, 123–131, 134–135, 137–138, 140– weak crossover 14, 578, 612, 615, 618–619,
141, 152–156, 401 809, 816, 842–843
particle 6, 123, 125–155 WCO cancellation 818, 839