1€¦ · web viewis there "raising" in japanese? 1. introduction:

Yukiko Tsuboi Draft of Qual Paper

Is there "Raising" in Japanese?

1. Introduction: Raising

English is known to have an operation called raising, which moves John in the embedded

subject position in (a) to the matrix subject position as in (b), and Mary in the embedded subject

position in (a), the matrix object position (b).

() a. It seems that John is a genius.

b. John seems to be a genius.

() a. John believes that Mary is a genius.

b. John believes Mary to be a genius.

(b) is said to correspond to (b) in Japanese, in which John with the nominative case in (a) is marked

with the accusative case.

() a. Mary-ga [John-ga bakada-to] omotteiru (koto)Mary-NOM [John-NOM stupid:be-that] think (that)

'(that) Mary thinks that John is stupid'

b. Mary-ga John-o bakada-to omotteiru (koto)Mary-NOM John-ACC stupid:be-that think (that)

'(that) Mary thinks of John that he is stupid'

The schematic structure of (a) and (b) are given in ().

() a. ...NP1-NOM...[NP2- NOM...V2-to]...V1 (that)

b. ...NP1- NOM...NP2-ACC...V2-to...V1 (that)

1


where (i) V1 takes the embedded clause headed by the "complementizer", -to 'that', and (ii) V1

does not take the accusative marked NP as its object under the same interpretation of V1 in (). In a

sentence of the form in (a), an NP occurs as the embedded subject, that is, NP2 in (), can optionally

be marked with the accusative marker as shown in (b). Let us call a sentence whose schematic

structure corresponds to (b) Raising-to-Object sentence (RTO), and NP2-o in (b), NPAcc. In this

paper, we will restrict V1 in () to a verb which "generally" does not take the accusative marked NP

as its direct object to help us to see the existence of an extra NP in (b)1. For example, the verb

occurs as V1 in (), omotteiru, does not take an accusative marked NP as its direct object under the

interpretation of 'think'. When it does, it is interpreted as 'to care about somebody, to have feelings

for somebody' as in () and ().

() a. John-ga Mary-o omotteiru (koto) John-NOM Mary-ACC think (that)

'John has feelings for Mary.' / 'John cares about Mary.'

b. [Oya-ga kodomo-o omou kimoti]-wa umi-yori fukai.Parent-NOM child-ACC think feelings-TOP sea:from deep

Lit. 'The feelings that the parent care about the child is deeper than the depth of the sea.'

() a. John-wa Mary-no kenkoo-o omotte, diet-o susumeta. John-TOP Mary-GEN health-ACC think:and, diet-ACC suggest

'Since he cares about her health, John suggested that Mary be on a diet

b. [musume-no syoorai-o omotte] John-wa singaku-o susumeta.daughter-GEN future-ACC think:and John-TOP higher:education-ACC gave:up

'John recommended his daughter that she pursue a higher education because he cares

about her future'

omotteiru 'to think' cannot be interpreted as 'to think about somebody to be something' as in the case

of () when it takes an accusative marked NP only.

1 It is not impossible for a verb which takes the accusative marked direct object to have a configuration in (b).

2


2. "Raising to Object" in Japanese

Four types of analyses have been proposed for RTO constructions in Japanese: (a) Raising

analysis (proposed in Kuno 1976, and further defended in Sakai 1998, Yoon 2004), (b) Major

Object analysis (hinted in Saito 1983, explicitly proposed in Hong 1990 and Hoji 1991, and further

defended in Takano 2003), (c) ECM analysis (proposed in J.E.Yoon 1989) and (d) Combination

analysis (Hiraiwa 2002, Bruening 2001). Under the raising analysis, NPAcc is analyzed as being

generated in the embedded clause and raising to the matrix clause. Major Object approach argues

that NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix clause and it is never be a part of the embedded clause.

ECM analysis considers that NPAcc is base-generated in the embedded clause and receives

accusative marking while it is being the embedded clause. The combined analysis proposes that

there are two types of RTO in Japanese; in one type, NPAcc is argued to undergo raising and in the

other, it is considered to stay in the embedded clause throughout the derivation.

In this paper, I will defend the base-generation analysis of RTO by showing invalidity of the

arguments provided in support of the raising or the ECM analyses.

3. Raising Analysis and Major Object Analysis

3.1 Raising AnalysisKuno 1976 first claims that RTO construction in Japanese involves subject raising which can

be stated as in ().

() NPAcc is generated in the embedded CP and gets raised to the matrix clause.

Under the raising analysis, two types of structures have been proposed; (i) NPAcc is generated as

the subject of the embedded clause proposed in Kuno 1976, further defended in Sakai 1998, and (ii)

NPAcc is generated as Major Subject proposed in Yoon 2004, 2005 and to appear.

() is an illustration of the structure proposed by the former analysis. Under this analysis, the

NPAcc is base-generated in a position where the embedded subject is generally assumed to be

generated, and it gets raised to the position of the matrix object.

3


() ...NP1- NOM...NP2-ACC...V2-to...V1 (that)

TP

wovP T

wo NP1-NOM v'

ty VP

ty NP2 i- ACC V'

(=NPAcc) ty CP V1

ty TP -to

ty vP

wo ti. v'

5 ...V2

Under the analysis pursued in Yoon 2004, 2005 and to appear, it is proposed that NPAcc is

base-generated in the position of Major Subject of the embedded clause. Major Subject are

assumed to occupy higher Specifier(s) of TP as proposed by Heycock 1993, Doron & Heycock

1999, Yoon 1987, 2001.

4



TP

wovP T

wo NP1-NOM v'

ty VP

ty [NP2-Acc]i V'

(=NPAcc) ty CP V1

ty TP -to

ty

[Major Subject ti.] T'

ty vP T

5 ...V2

The arguments provided in support of the raising analysis can be divided into two types; the

observations which are meant to show that NPAcc behaves as if it is an element of the matrix

clause, and PBC (Proper Binding Condition Effects), which is intended to show that NPAcc

originates in the embedded clause. We will show the detail of each argument in Section 3.3 and

3.5.

3.2 Major Object AnalysisMajor Object Analysis, which is explicitly proposed in Hoji 1991 in the framework of the

5


Generative Grammar, and further defended in Takano 2003, claims that NPAcc is base-generated in

the matrix clause. () illustrates the proposed structure.


TP

wovP T

wo NP1-NOM v'

ty VP

ty NP2 i- ACC V'

(=NPAcc) ty CP V1

ty TP -to

ty vP

wo proi / ec v'

5 ...V2

Hoji 1991 further claims that NPAcc is an adjunct corresponding to of NP in English, the essence of

which is followed by Takano 2003. Their analyses differ in optionally of existence of pro inside the

embedded clause being co-indexed with NP-Acc. We will not discuss this issue in this paper2 since

2 The acceptable sentence in (i) seems to suggest that pro in the embedded clause is not obligatory.(i) Mary-ga John-o a-itu-wa sekaiiti-no baka da to omotteiru (koto)

Mary-NOM John-ACC that:guy-TOP workd:#1-GEN stupid be-C is:thinking (that)

'Mary is thinking about John that that guy is the most stupid guy in the world.'

6


the distinction does not affect the discussion here.

3.3 Invalid Arguments for NPAcc being in Matrix ClauseIn this sub-section, we will re-evaluate four empirical observations listed in () which are

provided to show that NPAcc behaves like an element of the matrix clause.

() a. Case Marker

b. Adverb Placement

c. Word Order Inversion

d. Quantifier Scope

We will show that all of the observations above do not convincingly show that NPAcc is in the

matrix clause.

3.3.1Case MarkerKuno 1976 states that the accusative marker on NPAcc shows that the NP does not occupy the

subject position of the embedded clause. However, this fact merely suggests that the case on

NPAcc is assigned in the matrix clause under the assumption that accusative case cannot be

assigned in the embedded clause and does not show that NPAcc (Tanaka in (b))originates in the

embedded clause.

() Kuno 1976: 23: (17a)

a. Yamada-wa [Tanaka-ga baka da]-to omotte ita.fool is that thinking was

'Yamada though that Tanaka was a fool.'

b. Yamada-wa Tanaka-o baka da-to omotte ita.

'Yamada though that Tanaka to be a fool.'

Although he does not discuss how the accusative case is assigned in the matrix clause, let us

suppose that the accusative case is assigned to NPAcc in the same way as it is assigned to a regular

direct object. Once such mechanism is allowed, it should be possible for an accusative marked NP

to be base-generated in the matrix clause unless he makes an ad-hoc stipulation such that an NP

7


moved from the embedded clause can only be assigned the accusative case in the matrix clause.

3.3.2Adverb Placement Kuno 1976 observes that adverbs that modify the matrix verbs cannot be preceded by the

embedded subject as in (a) while it can be preceded by NPAcc as in (b).

() Kuno 1976 25: (21d), (22d)

a. *Yamada wa [Tanaka-ga, orokanimo, tensaida ]to omotte itaYamada-TOP [Tanaka-NOM, foolishly, genius:be]C think past

Intended: Yamada foolishly thought that Tanaka is a genius.'

b. Yamada wa Tanaka-o, orokanimo, tensaida to omotte itaYamada-TOP Tanaka-ACC, foolishly, genius:be C think past

In (a), Tanaka, which is the embedded subject, precedes the matrix adverb, orokanimo, and the

sentence is reported to be unacceptable in Kuno 1976. (b) is an acceptable RTO sentence, in which

Tanaka is NPAcc preceding the matrix adverb. The generalization put forth can be stated as in ().

() (i) The matrix adverb cannot be preceded by the embedded subject.

(ii) NPAcc can be preceded by the matrix adverb.

The reported contrast in () can be taken as evidence that Tanaka-o in (b) is in the matrix clause

under the assumptions that () are both correct.

() a. Adverbs cannot move downward, or

b. Subject NPs cannot be scrambled.

Let us assume that an adverb is adjoined to VP as is generally assumed, the structure of which

is illustrated in (). In Example (a), orokanimo is adjoined to the matrix VP preceding the embedded

clause. If the embedded subject in (a) moves out of the embedded clause crossing over the matrix

adverb, we will get (b);

() a. Yamada wa [VPorokanimo [VP [S Tanaka-ga tensaida to] omotte ita]

8


b. Yamada wa Tanakai-ga orokanimo ti tensaida to omotte ita

Notice that (b) and (b) are phonetically identical. If the reported contrast in () is correct, Kuno 1976

will have to disallow scrambling of the subject NP, which is argued to be possible in Ko 2004.

Ko 2004 reported that the following Korean sentence is acceptable unless parsing difficulty

arises. () is a corresponding Japanese example which is also acceptable under the intended reading.

() Ko 2004: 2: (7)

John-ii [na-nun [ti Mary-lul cohahanta-ko] sayngkakhanta] John-NOM I-TOP Mary-ACC like-C think

'John thinks that I like Mary.'

() John-ga [watasi-wa [ti Mary-o sukida] to omotteiru. John-NOM I-TOP Mary-ACC like C think

The observation above shows that one of the assumptions in () is not correct, which cast doubt on

validity of the generalization in (i), repeated below.

() (i) The matrix adverb cannot be preceded by the embedded subject.

Let us look at () again, the schematic structures of which are given in ().

() a. NP1-NOM...NP2-NOM...Adv...{NP-be / Adjective}-to...V2

(predicted to be out by Kuno 1976)

b. NP1-NOM...NPAcc...Adv...{NP-be / Adjective}-to...V2

The sentences of the form in (b) are, in fact, not unacceptable to many of the native speakers. E.

Mukai conducted an experiment (Fall 2004) to check the generalization in () and the result shows

that there is not sharp contrast between sentences of the forms in (a) and (b) although (a) is

somewhat degraded to some speakers.

It is note that the degraded status of (a) does not support Kuno's claim because (b) should not

9


be generated under the grammar he proposes. If he were to maintain the generalization in () with

the observation that the subject can scramble, he will have to make an ad hoc stipulation, for

example, the embedded subject NP cannot scramble crossing a matrix adverb but the matrix subject

NP can scramble crossing a topic phrase in the matrix clause.

In summary, the generalization in (i) is not valid, and it cannot be a support for Kuno's claim

that NPAcc is in the matrix clause.

3.3.3Word Order InversionAnother observation provided by Kuno in support for NPAcc being in the matrix clause is that

NPAcc behaves different from the embedded subject with respect to availability of scrambling. () a

simplex sentence in which three NPs, a topic NP, the dative NP and the accusative NP are ordered

canonically. The accusative NP can scramble over the topic as in (b).

() Kuno 1976: 26:(26)

a. Yamada-wa Morita-ni Tanaka-o syookaisita.Yamada-TOP Morita-DAT Tanaka-ACC introduced

'Yamada introduced Tanaka to Morita.'

b. Tanaka-o Yamada-wa Morita-ni syookaisita.Tanaka-ACC Yamada-TOP Morita-DAT introduced

In the case of (), a sentence is embedded inside the object phrase and the embedded subject cannot

be dislocated to sentence-initial position as shown in (b).

() Kuno 1976: 26:(27)

a. Yamada-wa [Tanaka-ga tensai dearu]koto-o siranakatta.Yamada-TOP Tanaka-NOM genius be fact-ACC know:not:past

'Yamada did not know that Tanaka was genius.'

b. *Tanaka-ga, Yamada-wa tensaidearu koto-o siranakatta.

Based on the observation above, the following generalization is made;

() The element in the embedded clause cannot be dislocated to the matrix clause.

10


Given (), Kuno observes the contrast between () and (), the both of which are complex sentences. In

(a), Tanaka is the embedded subject and it can be dislocated to sentence initial position as in (b).

() Kuno 1976: 26:(28)

a. Yamada-wa Tanaka-ga tensaida to omotteita.Yamada-TOP Tanaka-Nom genius be C thought

'Yamada thought that Tanaka was genius.'

b. *Tanaka-ga Yamda-wa tensaidato omotteita.

In the case of RTO construction in (), on the other hand, NPAcc, Tanaka, can be dislocated without

affecting acceptability of the sentence as in (b) contra to (b).

() Kuno 1976: 26:(29)

a. Yamada-wa Tanaka-o tensaida to omotteita.Yamada-TOP Tanaka-ACC genius be C thought

b. Tanaka-o, Yamada-wa tensaida to omotteita.

The acceptable status of (b) is taken as evidence that Tanaka-o is not a constituent of the embedded

clause but a constituent of the matrix clause.

This observation cannot be correct because scrambling of subject NPs is allowed in grammar

as we have seen in the previous section. One may wonder what the source of the unacceptable

status of (b) is. As noted in Ko 2004, availablity / unavaliability of scrambling of subject NPs is

affected largely by parsing difficulty. If we supply enough contexts to parse sentences, (b) can

easily be accepted;

() Michiko de-ha nakute, Tanaka-ga, Yamda-wa tensaida to omotteita.Michiko be-TOP not:and, Tanaka-NOM Yamada-TOP genius be C think

'Yamada thinks that Tanaka, not Michiko, is genius."

In (), Michiko deha nakute 'not Michiko' is added to the sentence in (b) by making Tanaka-ga

"contrastive", and the sentence is fairly acceptable and the generalization in () is not valid. Thus,

11


the word-order observation cannot show constitute evidence for the position of NPAcc.

3.3.4Parallelism between the accusative object in the matrix clause and NPAcc The fourth argument for the location of NPAcc is provided based on scope interaction between

NPAcc and the matrix subject. Kuno reports that NPAcc in RTO behaves in the same way as the

accusative NP in a simplex clause as illustrated in () and ().

() Kuno 1976: 28: (35) & 27: (32)

a. [NP1Dareka-ga] [[NP2 minnna-ga] sinda]koto-o siranakatta. NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

someone-NOM everyone-NOM died fact-ACC know:not:past

'Someone did knot know everyone died.'

b. [NP1Dareka-ga] [NP2 minnna-o] aisiteiru. NP1 >NP2, NP2>NP1

someone-NOM everyone-ACC loves

'Someone loves everone.'

In the complex sentence in (), the embedded subject cannot take a wide scope with respect to the

matrix subject while in the simplex sentence in (b), the object can take scope over the subject. The

same contrast is said to exhibit in (), where both (a) and (b) are complex sentences, and the latter

one is an example of RTO.

() Kuno 1976: 29: (37) & (38)

a. [NP1Dareka-ga] [[NP2 minnna-ga] baka da] to omotteiru. NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

someone-NOM everyone-NOM stupid be C think

'Someone thinkis that eveyone is stupid.'

b. [NP1Dareka-ga] [NP2 minnna-o] baka da-to omotteiru. NP1 >NP2, NP2>NP1

Someone-NOM everyone-ACC stupid be-C thinks

'Someone thinks of everyone to be stupid.'

In (), the embedded subject cannot but NPAcc can take a wide scope with respect to the matrix

subject.

Ueyama 1998 first argues and Hayashisita 1999, 2004 extensively discuss that when a QP1

12


takes a wide scope with respect to a QP2, the former must c-command the latter. Hayasisita 1999,

2004 further argues that inverse scope yields not through Grammar but through "predication". In

order to avoid scope interpretation based on "predication", a certain type of QPs must be used.

() Ueyama 1998: 124: (12)

A-type QPs

ex. NP-sae 'even NP'

kanarinokazu-no NP 'most of the NPs'

10 izyoo-no NP' 'ten or more NPs'

55%-no NP '55% of the NPs'

NP1 to NP2 (to) 'NP1 and NP2'

NP1 ka NP2 (ka) 'either NP1 or NP2'

Observe (), sentences with A-type QPs

() a. [NP1 sanninizyoo-no sensei-ga] [[NP2 futariizyoo-no gakusei-ga] ryuugakusita to more:than:three-GEN teacher-NOM more:than:two-GEN student-NOM study:abroad:past C

siranakatta (koto)know:neg:past (fact)

'More than three teaches did not know that more than two students went to study abroad.'

NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

b. [NP1 sanninizyoo-no sensei-ga] [NP2 futariizyoo-no gakusei]-o ryuugakusita to more:than:three-GEN teacher-NOM more:than:two-GEN student-ACC study:abroad:past C

siranakatta (koto)know:neg:past (fact)

NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

The scope ambiguity no longer observes between NP1 and NP2, and the same is true of ().

() a. [NP1 sanninizyoo-no sensei-ga] [[NP2futariizyoo-no gakusei]-ga yuusyuuda]to omotteiru more:than:three-GEN teacher-NOM more:than:two-GEN student-NOM smart:be C think

13


'More than three teaches thinks that more than two students are smart.'

(koto) NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

(fact)

b. [NP1sanninizyoo-no sensei-ga] [NP2 futariizyoo-no gakusei]-o yuusyuuda to omotteiru more:than:three-GEN teacher-NOM more:than:two-GEN student-ACC smart:be C think

(koto) NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

(fact)

Based on the observation above, we can conclude that NPAcc as well as the embedded subject

cannot take scope over the matrix subject which merely suggests that NPAcc cannot be in the

position which c-commands the matrix subject. It does not show whether NPAcc is in the matrix

clause or the embedded clause.

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

() Kuno 1976: 29: (37) & (38)

a. [NP1Dareka-ga] [[NP2 minnna-ga] baka da] to omotteiru. NP1 >NP2, *NP2>NP1

someone-NOM everyone-NOM stupid be C think

'Someone thinkis that eveyone is stupid.'

b. [NP1Dareka-ga] [NP2 minnna-o] baka da-to omotteiru. NP1 >NP2, NP2>NP1

Someone-NOM everyone-ACC stupid be-C thinks

'Someone thinks of everyone to be stupid.'

2 人以上の学生が、この 3 人の男が馬鹿だと思っている。

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

3.3.5 SummaryIn this sub-section, we discussed four empirical observations, Case Marker, Adverb

Placement, Word Order Inversion, and Quantifier Scope provided as arguments for NPAcc is in the

matrix clause. Our examination reveals that all of the arguments do not convincingly show that

14


NPAcc behaves as an element of the matrix clause. In the next subsection, we examine two

arguments which indicate the position of NPAcc.

3.4 Valid Argument for NPAcc being in Matrix ClauseWe have seen in Section 3.3 that many of the arguments provided as a support for NPAcc in

the matrix clause are invalid. In this sub-section, we consider two arguments involving idiom

expressions and scope, both of which show that NPAcc is an element of the matrix clause.

3.4.2Idiom ExpressionsTakano 2003 reports that idiom expressions cannot be laid across NPAcc and the embedded

clause in Japanese whereas they can in English, suggesting that RTO in Japanese and that in

English have distinct properties and should not be analyzed in the same way.

Idiomatic expressions in English have been known to tolerate raising operation preserving

their idiomatic meaning;

() Davies and Dubinsky 2004:8:(23a) & (24a)

a. The cat seemed to be out of the bag.

b. Tina believed the cat to be out of the bag by now.

(a) is a case of Raising to Subject, and (b) is a case of Raising to Object, both of sentences can be

interpreted idiomatically. In Japanese, however, idiom interpretation cannot be preserved when

idiom expressions extend across NPAcc and the embedded clause in RTO as illustrated in ().

() Takano 2003:822:(79a)

a. John-wa so-ko-made te-ga mawar-anai to omotta. John-TOP that-place-to hand-NOM get:around-not that thought

'John thought that he couldn't take good take care of that.'

b. John-wa te-ga so-ko-made mawar-anai to omotta.John-TOP hand-NOM that-place-to get:around-not that thought

c. *John-wa te-o so-ko-made mawar-anai to omotta.John-TOP hand-ACC that-place-to get:around-not that thought

15


In (a), te-ga mawaranai 'cannot take care of something' appears as the embedded complement

and the idiom interpretation is available there. In (b), te-ga 'hand-NOM' is dislocated preceding the

adjunct, so-ko-made, 'till there'. (c) is an RTO sentence in which te 'hand' is NPAcc, and the

sentence is judged as unacceptable.

Bruening 2001 reports contradicting judgments in regard to availability of idiomatic

interpretation when idiom expressions are laid across NPAcc and the embedded CP;

() Bruening 2001: 21: (61)

a. Taroo-ga so-no seejika-no kao-o (orokanimo) hiroi to omotta.Taroo-NOM that-GEN politician-GEN face-ACC (stupidly) wide that thought

'Taroo (stupidly) thought that that politician was well-known.'

b. Taroo-ga John-no ashi-o chi-ni tuiteinai to omotta.Taroo-NOM John-GEN leg-ACC ground-to reach:not C thought

'Taroo thought that John was restless.'

c. Taroo-ga John-no ketsu-o aoi to omotta (koto).Taroo-NOM John-GEN hip-ACC blue-C thought

'Taroo thinks that John is inexperienced.'

It is very doubtful if this judgment can be shared with native speakers of Japanese3. Notice that all

of the NPAcc in () are preceded by a genitive phrase, so-no seizika-no, John-no and John-no

respectively. Adding such modifications make acceptability of sentences degraded irrespective of

whether a sentence is RTO construction or not. () illustrates such point.

() a. ??Taroo-ga so-no seejika-no kao-ga hiroi to omotta (koto)Taroo-NOM that-GEN politician-GEN circle:of:aquaintance wide C thought (that)

b. ?*Taroo-ga John-no ashi-ga ti-ni tuiteinai to omotta (koto)Taroo-NOM John-GEN leg-NOM ground-to reach:not C thought

c. ?*Taroo-ga John-no ketsu-ga aoi-to omotta (koto).Taroo-NOM John-GEN hip-NOM blue-C thought

3 Yoon 2005 also reports that three of his informants did not agree on the judgments presented in Bruening 2001. For further discussion, see Yoon 2005: 18: (28).

16


(a) sounds better compared to (b) or (c) because the literal interpretation of the idiom is not readily

available because kao 'face' can generally be not hiroi 'wide' or semai 'narrow' but big or small, and

hiroi 'wide' forces us to interpret kao 'face' idiomatically. It is should also be noted that the

expression, kao-ga hiroi may not be interpreted as an idiomatic expression but kao itself is. kao in

kao-ga hiroi expresses that 'acuqanitance' or 'circle of friends', which can be used in a sentence

without hiroi 'wide' preserving idiomatic interpretations as evidenced by ().

() a. ima-no uti-ni kao-o hirogeteoku to, business-ga raku-ni narudaroo.now-GEN inside-in circle:of:friends widen that, business-NOM easy-to become:will

'If you try to widen a circle of friends now, your business would go well later.'

b. zimitina doryoku-no okage-de, John-wa kao-ga dan dan hirogattekita.constant efforts-GEN due:to John-top acquanitances-also bit:by:byt became:to:be:wider

'Due to the constant efforts, John's circle of friends has become wider bit by bit.

c. ?Tanaka san -wa kao-ga semai node, eigyoo-ni-wa muk-anai.Tanaka MR-TOP circle:of:friends narrow because sales-for-TOP appropriate-NEG

'As for Mr Tanaka, his circle of friends is very narrow, and he is not suitable for sales.'

Instead of hiroi, the transitive verb, hirogeru 'widen' is used in (a), the intransitive verb, hirogaru

'become to be wider' is used in (b), and semai 'narrow' is used in (c). Although the acceptability of

(c) is somewhat lower, it is far from being unacceptable. ashi-ga ti-ni tuku used in (b) cannot

readily retain its idiomatic reading when a part of the idiom is modified by genitive phrases despite

the fact that the intended meaning is pragmatically natural;

() a. */*?John-no asi-ga ti-ni tuiteinai (koto)John-GEN leg-TOP ground-at reach:neg (the fact that))

Intended: '(the fact that) John is not stable yet'

b. */*?John-no ashi-ga ti-ni tuku made-wa nakanaka ansin dekinai naa.John-GEN leg-NOM ground-at reach till-TOP yet relieved cannot SFP

Intended: 'We will not be able to feel relieved till John becomes secure.'

17


It is also note that kao can form a number of idiomatic expressions, and such wide variety of usage

may suggest that the idiomatic use of kao is less restricted than other idiomatic expressions.

() a. kao-ga kiku 'well-known'face-NOM work

b. kao-o tubusu 'make one's face lose'face-ACC crush

c. kao-ni doro-o nuru 'make one's reputation lower'face-to dirt-mud spread

d. kao-to naru 'become to be a representative of'face-to become

k. kao-o awaseru 'meet'

face-acc put:together

f. kao-o dasu 'show up'face-ACC show

g. kao-o naraberu 'members show up'face-ACC line:up

h. kao-ga ureru 'become to be well-known'face-Nom sell

i. kao-o kasu 'see someone for somebody'face-ACC lend

j. kao-o tateru 'keep reputation'face-ACC stand

To conduct more refined experiment, we need to avoid using idiom chunks which contain

idiomatic use of an NP. Instead, we should use an idiomatic expression which can have a special

meaning only when it is combined as "idiom". (a)-(c) are such examples; bati, tujituma and do do

not seem to have idiomatic meaning by themselves.

() a. bati-ga ataru

18


'to get punished, to be attacked as revenge'

b. tujituma-ga awanai

'not consistent'

c. do-ga sugiru

'overdo, go too far'

Such idiom chucks do not tolerate to extend over NPAcc and the embedded clause as in ()-().

() (John's company went out of business because he has been making a profit by deceiving

a number of customers. Recalling what he has done, John thought;)

a. John-wa bati-ga atatta to omotta.

'John thought that it was a payback.'

b. *John-wa bati-o atatta to omotta.

() (John heard about the crime from a victim but the story didn't match with what he saw in

the crime scene.)

a. John-wa tujituma-ga awanai to omotta.

'John thought that it doesn't match.'

b. *?John-wa tujituma-o awanai to omotta.

() (Bill likes joking but he always goes too far and ends up hurting people by his jokes.

Regarding Bill's joke, John thinks:)

a. 'John-wa do-ga sugiru-to omotteiru.

'John thinks that Bill goes too far.'

b. *John-wa do-o sugiru-to omotteiru.

In every example, the idiomatic expressions lose their meanings when they are laid across NPAcc

and the embedded clause. This situation is similar not to RTO in English but to "proleptic

construction" as Takano 2003 suggested. () are examples of RTO in English, and () is "proleptic

construction".

() Takano 2003: 823: FN 24 (i)

a. John believes the shoe to be on the other foot.

19


b. John believes advantage to have been taken of the workers.

() Takano 2003: 822: (81)

a. *John believes of the shoe that it's on the other foot.

b. *John believes of advantage that it was taken of the workers.

The idiom expressions in () preserve their idiomatic interpretations whereas they do not in

"proleptic constructions" in ().

Hoji 1991 claims that NPAcc corresponds to of NP in English with which Takano's suggestion

is in harmony with. If this line of analysis is on the right track, it is plausible to assume that NPAcc

in Japanese RTO constructions occupies the same position, a position in the matrix clause, as the

shoe or advantage in ().

3.4.1Neg in the embedded clause cannot scope over NPAcc.It is generally agreed that both QPs and a negation are scope bearing element which show

scope interactions. As such, a QP and a negation in a sentence of the form in () have two

interpretations; (i) QP takes scope over negation and (ii) negation takes scope over QP.

() [IP [sub QP]...V-neg.]

Such scope ambiguity can be observed in Japanese (Kuno 1980, Hasegawa 1991, 1993, Imani

1993). Observe ();

() [sanzyuunin-izyoo-no gakusei]-ga sensyuu-no kaigi-ni syussekisinakatta.thirty:CL-more:than-GEN student-NOM last:week-GEN conference-at attend:not:past

'More than thirty studens did not attend the conference held last week.'OKmore than 30 students > NegOKNeg > more than 30 students

The QP in the subject position can take scope over Neg, and Neg can take scope over the subject

QP. The ambiguity remains even when the sentence in () is embedded in another sentence as in ().

20


() John-wa [CP [sanzyuunin-izyoo-no gakusei]-ga sensyuu-no kaigi-ni syussekisinakatta]-to John-TOP thirty:CL-more:than-GEN student-NOM last:week-GEN conference-at attend:not:past-C

omotteita.

thought

'John thought that more than thirty studens did not attend the conference held last week'OKmore than 30 students > NegOKNeg > more than 30 students

However, when Neg is in the embedded clause, it cannot take a wide scope with respect to a QP in

the matrix clause.

() [[5ninizyoo-no sensei]-ga [CP John-ga sensyuu-no kaigi-ni syussekisinakatta to] omotteita.]5CL:more:than-GEN teacher-NOM John-NOM last:week-GEN conference-at attend:neg:past C thought

'More than five teacher thought that John did not attend the conference held last week.'

more than five students > Neg

*Neg > more than five students

In (), Neg

It is suggested in Klima 1964, Takubo 1985, explicitly formulated in Kataoka 2004 that a QP must

be in the scope of Neg in order to take a scope under Neg. Following the standard assumption, I

also assume that the scope interaction between Neg and a QP is regulated based upon their c-

command relation as in (), cited from Kataoka 2004.

() Kataoka 2004:27 (5)

The scope of a negation is its c-command domain at LF.

Given (), the condition in () can be deducted on wide-scope reading of Neg with respect to QP.

() Neg can take a wide scope with respect to a QP only if a QP is in the c-command domain of

Neg at LF.

Under the hypothesis that NPAcc is in the matrix clause at LF, the following prediction can be

21


made;

() Neg in the embedded clause cannot take a wide scope with respect to NPAcc.

The prediction is born out. As shown in (), the negation attached to the embedded verb can take

scope over the embedded subject in the case of non-RTO sentence in (a) whereas it cannot take a

wide scope with respect to NPAcc in the case of RTO sentence in (b).

() a. John-ga 30ninizyoo-no gakusei-ga meeting-ni konakatta to omotteia (koto)John-NOM thirty:CL:more:than-GEN student-NOM meeting-at come:neg:past C thought (fact)

'John thought that more than thirty students did not come to the meeting.'

30 ninizyoo> NEG, NEG> 30ninizyoo

b. John-ga 30 ninizyoo-no gakusei-o meeting-ni konakatta to omotteia (koto)John-NOM thirty:CL:more:than-GEN student-ACC meeting-at come:neg:past C thought (fact)

'John thought about more than thirty students not to have come to the meeting.'

30 ninizyoo> NEG, *NEG> 30ninizyoo

Based on this fact, we can conclude that NPAcc is an element in the matrix clause at LF. There are

two possibilities with regard to the position of NPAcc; (i) NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix

clause and is not a part of the embedded clause at any point of derivation, or (ii) NPAcc originates

in the embedded clause and undergoes "A-movement" which does not exhibit reconstruction

effects.

3.4.3ConclusionIn this sub-section, we have considered two arguments, idiom expressions and scope

interactions. The former fact suggests that NPAcc occupies the position in the matrix clause

because it behaves very much like a "proleptic" object in English. The latter fact forces us to say

that that NPAcc is (ends up being) an element in the matrix clause at some point of derivation.

Having said that, we will consider the issue whether or not NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix

clause or raise from the embedded clause in the next sub-section.

22


3.5 Arguments for Raising of NPAccWe have observed that NPAcc behaves like an element in the matrix clause in the previos

sections. We are now in a position to investigate if NPAcc is base-generated in the matrix clause or

raise from the embedded clause. The only argument provided in the literature which distinguishes

two positions is Proper Binding Condition (PBC) violation effects.

3.5.1 Proper Binding ConditionKuno 1976 first observes that the complement clause of RTO cannot be dislocated to the

position preceding NPAcc. (a) is a canonical order of RTO, and the embedded CP, baka da 'stipid'

precedes NPAcc, Tanaka-o in (b), which results in unacceptability of the sentence.

() Kuno 1976: 24 (17b), 35: (66)

a. Yamda-wa Tanaka-o [baka da to] omotteita.Yamada-TOP Tanaka-ACC [stupid be C] thought

b. *Yamada-wa bakada to Tanaka-o omotteita.Yamada-TOP [stupid be C] Tanaka-ACC thought

The observation can be generalized as in ().

() The embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be preceded by NPAcc.

Sakai 1998, Bruening 2001, Hiraiwa 2003, Yoon 2004, among others analyzed such examples as

violation of Proper Binding Condition (PBC), the definition of which is given in ().

() Proper Binding Condition

A trace must be bound. (Fiengo 1974)

Under the raising analysis, NPAcc is considered as being raised from the embedded clause, leaving

its trace inside the embedded CP as illustrated in (a).

() The hypothesized structures under the raising analysis

a. NP-TOP..NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V2 that] V1...

23


b. *NP-TOP...[CP...ti...V2 that]j...NPi-ACC tj V1...

When the CP moves across NPAcc, the sentence will have the structure in (b) in which the trace of

NPAcc is not bound. Recall that the observation solely distinguishes the raising analysis from the

major object analysis because other arguments provided by the raising analysis advocates can be

compatible with Major Object Analysis as we saw in Section 3.4. Hence, the validation of the

generalization in () is crucial for the raising analysis. The generalization is, however, challenged by

Hoji 1991, further discussed in Takano 2003, Harada 2003.

Hoji 1991 points out that the RTO sentence in () which are supposed to exhibit PBC violation

is not as bad as a general case of PBC violation in a scrambling construction.

() Hoji 1991: 2: (5c) & (5d)

a. ??[ti hoka-no dare yori-mo baka da to] John-ga Billi-o {danteisi / omoikom} ta koto.

b. [ti hoka-no do-no biiru-yori mo umai to]j Santorii-ga [so-no dorai biiru]i-o tj sendensiteiru

(koto)

(a) is a non-RTO complex sentence with no movement involved, and PP sono mura-ni 'in the

village' is scrambled to the matrix clause leaving its trace inside the CP in (b). In (c), the CP is

dislocated to the position preceding sono mura-ni, and the trace of the PP is no longer bound, hence,

PBC violation.

() Hoji 1991: 2: (6) based on Saito 1987: 309: (20b)

a. John-ga [CP Bill-ga sono mura-ni sundeiru to] {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)

b. John-ga sono murai-ni [CP Bill-ga ti sundeiru to] {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)

c. *[ CP Bill-ga ti sundeiru to] John-ga sono murai-ni {danteisita / omotteiru} (koto)

One might say that this is just judgmental variations among speakers. If that is the case, we would

expect that those who do not find PBC effects in RTO sentences will not find those in scrambling

construction either. Yet, such is not the case as revealed in the next section.

3.5.2 Preliminary Survey on PBC violationAs we saw in the previous section, two contradicting judgments have been reported in the

literature with regard to sentences of the forms in ().

24


() * / ??/ok NP1-TOP...[...V2 that]...NP2-ACC.V1...

The generalization put forth is () repeated below.

() The embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be preceded by NPAcc.

In order to check the validity of (), we asked 18 native speakers of Japanese (7 linguists and 11 non-

linguists) to see how clearly they would find PBC violation as compared to those in scrambling

construction.

Let us go over the structure of the experiment. We gave each informant the total of 18

sentences which can be divided into two sets. Each set includes four non-RTO sentences and four

RTO sentences. Sentences of the form in ()-() are given as examples of non-RTO constructions. ()

is a non-RTO complex sentence, and NP-DAT/TO or the embedded CP can be dislocated as in (a) or

(b) respectively.

() NP-TOP/NOM...[CP NP-NOM...NP-DAT/TO...V that]...V

() a. NPi- DAT/TO ...NP-TOP / NOM... [CP NP-NOM ... ti... V C] ... V

SCRAMBLING

b. [CP NP- NOM ...NP- DAT/TO ... V C]i ...NP-TOP/ NOM ... ti... V1

SCRAMBLING

When the CP containing the trace of NP-DAT/TO is dislocated crossing NP-DAT/TO as in (), such

sentence is regarded as unacceptable (Saito 1987) due to PBC violation.

PBC violation configuration in non-RTO

① SCRAMBLING

() [CP NP2- NOM ... t 3...Verb C]i...NP3- DAT/TO ...NP1- TOP/ NOM... ti... V1

②SCRAMBLING

Sentences of the forms in ()-() are given to the informants as RTO examples. () illustrates a

25


canonical order of a RTO sentence with the analysis assumed under the raising analysis.

() NP-TOP/NOM...NPi- ACC [CP...ti...V2 C] V1

RAISING

NPAcc can be dislocated as in (a), and movement of the CP can be followed by the dislocation of

NPAcc as in (b).

②NP-SCRAMBLING

() a. NPi-ACC...NP- TOP/NOM...t'i [CP ...ti... V2 C]...V1

①RAISING

③NP-SCRAMBLING

②CP-SCRAMBLING

b. NPi- ACC [CP... t i... V that]j...TOP/NOM... t'i. tj... V

①RAISING

() is a case of PBC violation where NP-scrambling is followed by CP-scrambling which creates an

unbound trace, ti

PBC violation configuration in RTO under the raising analysis

②NP-SCRAMBLING

() b [CP .. t i... V2 C]j...NP- ACC ...NP- TOP/NOM.. t'i...tj ... V1

①RAISING

③CP-SCRAMBLING

26


3.5.2.1 Design of Preliminary Survey and Example SentencesThe schematic structures of examples given in the experiment are summarized below.

Schematic Structures of Examplesnon-RTO constructions

() NP-TOP/NOM...[CP NP-NOM...NP-DAT/TO...V that]...V (non-Scrambling)

() a. NPi-DAT/TO...NP-TOP/NOM... [CP NP- NOM...ti ...V that]...V (NP-scrambling)

b. [CP NP-NOM...NP-DAT/TO...V that]j ...NP- TOP/NOM... tj...V (CP-scrambling)

() *[CP NP-NOM...ti...V that]j ...NPi-DAT/TO...NP-TOP/NOM...tj...V (PBC effects)

RTO constructions

() NP-TOP/NOM...NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V that] ...V (non-Scrambling)

() a. NPi-ACC...NP-TOP/NOM...[CP ...ti... V that] ... V(NP-scrambling)

b NPi-ACC [CP...ti... V that]j...NP-TOP/NOM...tj... V (CP-scrambling)

() */??/ok [CP ...ti... V that]j NPi-ACC...NP-TOP/NOM...V (PBC effects)

If examples of the forms in () are unacceptable due to the PBC violation as the raising analysis

advocates claims, such examples should be judged as bad as examples of the form in () which is a

general case of PBC violation. Two sets of examples with different lexical items are given to the

informants corresponding to the above structures. ()-() form the first set, and ()-(), the second set.

1st set: non-RTO constructions

() keisatu-wa [John-ga tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] danteisita.police-TOP [John-NOM China-to escaptedCOMP] determined

Intended: 'The police determined that John escaped to China.'

() a. tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa [John-ga nigeta to] danteisita.

b. [John-ga tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.

() [John-ga nigeta to] tyuugoku-ni keisatu-wa danteisita.

1st set:RTO-constructions

() keisatu-wa John-o tyuugoku-ni nigeta-to danteisita.

27


police-TOP John-ACC escapted COMP determined

Intended: 'The police determined that John escaped.'

() a. John-o keisatu-wa [tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] danteisita.

b. John-o [tyuugoku-ni to nigeta to] keisatu-wa danteisita.

() [tyuugoku-ni nigeta to] John-o keisatu-wa danteisita.

2nd set: non-RTO constructions

() Yamada sensei -ga [John-ga kaisya-ni syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)Prof:Yamada -NOM John-NOM Toyota:at got:a:job COMP believed

Indented: 'Prof. Yamada had believed that John got a job at Toyota.'

() a. Toyota-ni Yamada sensei -ga [John-ga syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)

b. [John-ga Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)

() [John-ga syuusyokusita to] Toyota-ni Yamada sensei-ga omoikondeita(koto)

2nd set: RTO-constructions

() Yamada sensei-ga John-o Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to omoikondeita(koto) Prof. Yamada-NOM John -ACC Toyota:at got:a:job COMP believed

Indented: 'Prof. Yamada had believed that John got a job at Toyota.'

() a. John-o Yamada sensei -ga [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] omoikondeita(koto)

b. John-o [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)

() [Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to] John-o Yamada sensei -ga omoikondeita(koto)

For each sentence, the informants were given a scale illustrated in () and asked to judge them by

selecting one of the five circles. The five circles were then calculated into -2, -1, 0, +1 or +2,

where -2 corresponds to "bad" and +2 corresponds to "good."

() Bad< ======== >Good

o o o o o

3.5.2.2 Results of Survey18 informants (7 linguists and 11 non-linguists) participated in the experiment, and the result

of the experiment is summarized in ().

28


() Result Chart(a) Non-scrambling

(canonical order)

(b) NP-scrambling

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

1. 1st Set: non -RTO () 0 0 0 0 18 (a) 2 3 1 5 7

2. 2nd Set: non-RTO () 0 0 2 4 12 (a) 3 2 2 5 6

3. 1st Set: RTO () 0 4 2 2 10 (a) 0 3 2 3 10

4. 2nd Set: RTO () 4 2 1 2 9 (a) 0 3 2 4 9

(c) CP-scrambling (d) PBC effects

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

1. 1st Set: non -RTO (b) 0 0 0 0 18 () 14 2 0 2 0

2. 2nd Set: non-RTO (b) 0 0 0 1 17 () 15 1 0 2 0

3. 1st Set: RTO (b) 3 2 1 6 6 () 2 4 3 5 4

4. 2nd Set: RTO (b) 2 0 3 6 7 () 0 7 6 4 1

Column (a) shows the result of non-scrambling, Column (b), NP-scrambling, Column (c), CP-

scrambling, and Column (d), PBC effects. Row 1 and Row 2 in each column are the result of non-

RTO sentences, Row 3 and Row 4, RTO sentences. Let us first look at Column (a). In the case of

non-RTO sentences in Row 1 and Row 2, 18 informants in the first set and 12 in the second set

judged examples in () and () +2 respectively, and nobody judged gave them negative numbers. In

contrast, the judgments for the non-scrambling cases of RTO (Row 3 and Row 4 in Column (a))

sentences vary, and four informants in the first set and six informants in the second set even gave ()

29


and () negative numbers. This shows that there are some speakers who do not like RTO sentences

even they are in canonical order. Under Column (b), judgmental variations spread even more

widely but more than half of informants accept NP scrambling cases of RTO and non-RTO. In the

case of CP scrambling in Column (c), all of the non-RTO examples fall into plus range whereas

RTO examples show a great deal of judgmental variations. Column (d), which is a case of PBC

effects, show a significant difference between non-RTO and RTO (See the shaded part in the chart

under Column (d)). Example () and () are non-RTO examples which are generally considered as

exhibiting PBC effects. They are judged as -2 by 14 informants in the first set and 15 informants in

the second set. In sum, of all 18 informants, 16 of them gave negative number to such sentences.

In the case of RTO examples, however, only 2 informants in the first set and nobody in the second

set gave them -2. Even if we add the informants who gave -1, only 6 in the first set and 7 in the

second found the sentence unacceptable, the result of which are not very different from those under

the non-scrambling case of RTO sentences in Column (a), which are not a case of PBC.

Notice that there are two informants who do not find PBC effects even in non-RTO

constructions. We conducted a follow-up experiment on one of them. The result of his judgments

in the first is summarized in ().

() Result Chart(a) Non-scrambling

(canonical order)

(b) NP-scrambling

1. 1st Set: non -RTO () +2 (a) +22. 2nd Set: non-RTO () +2 (a) +1

3. 1st Set: RTO () +2 (a) +24. 2nd Set: RTO () +2 (a) +2

(c) CP-scrambling (d) PBC effects

1. 1st Set: non -RTO (b) +2 () +12. 2nd Set: non-RTO (b) +1 () +2

3. 1st Set: RTO (b) +2 () +14. 2nd Set: RTO (b) +2 () +1

In the first follow-up experiment, the four more sentences are given, which are variants of the PBC

30


examples in the previous experiment. The only difference is that in the first experiment, both the

CP and the NP are dislocated to the sentence-initial position whereas in the follow-up experiment,

only CP is fronted leaving a scrambled NP in non-RTO sentences or an NPAcc in RTO sentences in

the position proceeded by the matrix subject. ()-() are examples given in the experiment.

non-RTO sentences

() [John-ga ti nigeta to]j keisatu-wa tyuugokui-ni tj danteisita.[John-NOM ti escapted COMP] j police-TOP Chinai-to tj determined

() [John-ga ti syuusyokusita to]j Yamada sensei-ga Toyotai-ni tj omoikondeita(koto)[John-NOM ti got:a:job COMP] j Prof:Yamada -NOM Toyota:at tj believed

RTO sentences

() [ti tyuugoku-ni nigeta to]j keisatu-wa Johni-o tj danteisita.[ti China-to escapted COMP]j police-TOP Johni-ACC tj determined

() [ti Toyota-ni syuusyokusita to]j Yamada sensei -ga Johni-o tj omoikondeita(koto) [ti Toyota:at got:a:job COMP j] Prof. Yamada-NOM Johni -ACC tj believed

In non-RTO examples of () and (), ni-marked NPs are scrambled out of the CP to the position

immediately preceding CP, and subsequently, the CP is fronted crossing over the matrix subject and

the NP-ni. In RTO examples of () and (), the CPs are fronted leaving the NPAcc in the position

following the matrix subject. In this follow-up experiment, the informant is able to detect PBC

effects in the non-RTO constructions more clearly as evidenced by the number -1 given to () and ().

In contrast, PBC violation in non-RTO constructions in () and () remains not to be found since he

gave each example +1 and 0 respectively.

This result of the experiments shows that the PBC effects in RTO construction are not as

robust at all as it has been claimed in the literature. Given that the PBC effects have been

considered as the strongest piece of evidence adduced for the raising analysis, the result reported

above seriously undermines it and in turn provides support for the Major Object analysis, under

which the PBC violation of the sort noted above is not predicted in RTO.

31


3.5.2.3 PBC effects in KoreanSimilar experiments are conducted on Korean by three Korean students, and the results are

remarkably similar to those of the experiments in Japanese. One of the experiments conducted by

Y. Cho is designed to compare PBC effects in non-RTO constructions very much in the same way

as the experiments in Japanese discussed above. In this section, we will see the results of his

experiment of PBC effects in Korean. Among other examples, he gave Korean sentences

corresponding to the structures in ()-(), where () and () are non-RTO constructions and () and (),

RTO constructions.

non-RTO constructions

() NP-TOP/NOM...[CP NP-NOM...NP-DAT/TO...V that]...V (non-Scrambling)

() *[CP NP-NOM...ti...V that]j ...NP-TOP/NOM.. NPi-DAT/TO...tj...V (PBC effects)

RTO constructions

() NP-TOP/NOM...NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V that] ...V (non-Scrambling)

() */??/ok [CP ...ti... V that]j...NP- TOP/NOM... NPi- ACC V (PBC effects)

The result of the experiment is summarized in (). The number of the informants participated in the

experiment is 16 for non-RTO constructions and 21 for RTO constructions respectively.

() Result Chart 2(a) Non-scrambling

(canonical order)

(b) PBC effects

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

-2 -1 0 +1

+2

A1:1stSet:nonRTO () 1 0 0 1 14 (a) 14 1 0 0 1

B2:2ndSet:nonRTO () 0 0 1 0 15 (a) 14 0 1 1 0

C3:1st Set: RTO () 0 0 0 2 19 () 6 4 9 1 1

D4:2nd Set:RTO () 0 0 3 7 11 () 3 7 3 5 3

E5:3rd SetRTO () 0 0 6 6 9 () 5 7 5 1 3

F6:4th Set:RTO () 3 6 4 3 5 () 5 8 3 4 1

32


As shown in Column (a), 14 informants in the first set and 15 in the second set found non-

scrambling examples of non-RTO perfectly acceptable, and almost the same numbers of informants

found PBC effects as in Column (b). In contrast, the judgments for the RTO constructions vary a

great deal as you can see Row 3-6 in Column (a) and (b). Since about half of the informants

marked the examples of the form in () with a negative numbers, one may say that there is a contrast

between non-RTO constructions and RTO constructions paying attentions only to the numbers in

the shaded part of the chart. What is significant, however, is the degradation of acceptability from

non-scrambling examples to PBC examples because the RTO examples are not found perfectly

acceptable even when they are in canonical order as shown in Column (a). The average score of

each example is calculated in ().

() Average Scores of each example(a) Non-scrambling

(canonical order)

(b) PBC effects (c) Degradation

A:1stSet:nonRTO () +1.68 (a) -1.68 -3.36

B:2ndSet:nonRTO () +1.87 (a) -1.68 -3.55

C:1st Set: RTO () +1.90 () +0.61 -1.29

D:2nd Set:RTO () +1.38 () +0.09 -1.29

E:3rd SetRTO () +1.14 () +0.41 -0.71

F:4th Set:RTO () +0.04 () +0.57 +0.53

We need to pay attention to how much degradation is observed examples of PBC effects in Column

(b) as compared to those of non-scrambling in Column (b) in each non-RTO and RTO

constructions. The degradation is calculated Under Column (c). In the case of non-RTO, the

degradation is -3.36 and -3.55 while in RTO, it is only -1.29, -1.29, -0.71, and +0.53. The result

shows that the PBC violation in RTO is not as strong as those in non-RTO even in Korean.

3.5.2.4 PBC effects and Inanimate NPsYoon 2005 observes that there can be more than two NPAccs in an RTO in Korean, one of

which can be base-generated and the other of which undergoes movement from the embedded

clause. He further claims that if NPAcc is an inanimate NP, it must be generated in the embedded

33


clause and gets raised. Under the analysis, structures of RTO sentences with animate NPAcc is

ambiguous between (a) or (b) while RTO with inanimate NPAcc should unambiguously

corresponds to the structure in ().

NPAcc is an animate NP.

() a. NP-TOP/NOM...NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V that]...V

b. NP-TOP/NOM...NP-ACC [CP...V that]...V

NPAcc is an inanimate NP.

() NP-TOP/NOM...NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V that] ...V

In the experiments on the PBC discussed in the previous sections, all the examples contain animate

NPs as NPAcc. Under the Yoon's analysis, such examples can correspond to the structure in ()

where there is no trace inside the CP, and the lack of the PBC effects are not surprising. Given the

hypothesis that RTO examples with an inanimate NP is always derived through movement, the

following prediction can be made;

() If an NPAcc is an inanimate NP, the embedded clause in RTO construction cannot be

preceded by NPAcc.

A. Ueyama conducted an experiment to check the prediction in () in spring 2005. 27 informants

were given one set of example of the form in () and seven sets of examples of the form in (). The

average score of the answers are summarized in ().

non-RTO constructions with an inanimate NP

() a. NP-TOP/NOM...[CP NP-NOM...NP-DAT/TO...V that]...V (non-Scrambling)

b. *[CP NP-NOM...ti...V that]j ... NPi-DAT/TO...NP-TOP/NOM..tj..V (PBC effects)

NPAcc is an inanimate NP.

() a. NP-TOP/NOM...NPi-ACC [CP...ti...V that] ...V

b. [CP...ti...V that] NPi-ACC...NP-TOP/NOM...V (PBC effects)

() Average Scores of each example

34


(a) Non-scrambling

(canonical order)

(b) PBC effects Degradation

non-RTO (a) +1.96 (b) -1.52 -3.481st Set. RTO (a) +2.00 (b) +0.81 -1.192nd Set .RTO +2.00 +0.44 -1.563rd. Set RTO +2.00 +0.67 -1.334th. Set RTO +1.96 +0.89 -1.075th Set. RTO +1.96 +0.52 -1.446th Set. RTO +2.00 +0.78 -1.227th Set. RTO +2.00 +0.22 -1.78

The prediction in () is not borne out. The degradation (shaded column in ()) in RTO cases is not as

great as that in non-RTO cases. Most significantly, examples of the form in (b) were not given

negative numbers by any informants, which strongly suggest that PBC in RTO constructions is not

observed contra to what the raising analysis advocates have lead us to believe regardless of the type

of NPAcc.

3.5.2.5 SummaryThe preliminary surveys discussed in this Section 3.5 show that (i) PBC effects in RTO

constructions do not exhibit as strongly as that in non-RTO constructions (ii) the result does not

change regardless of whether NPAcc is animate or inanimate. Such result cannot be accounted for

under the raising analysis in which NPAcc is claimed to leave its trace inside the embedded clause.

Recall that PBC effects is the only argument which favors the raising analysis over Major Object

analysis. The result of the experiments devastates validity of the raising analysis.

One may wonder what the source of the alleged PBC effects in RTO is. I maintain it is due to breaking "aboutness relation" as suggested in Hoji 1991, followed by Takano 2003 and Harada 2003 (cf. Kuno 1973). Hoji 1991 suggested that NPAcc and CP in RTO constructions is in an" aboutness relation" much as in the case of "aboutness relation" in topic construction as in (a) where 'that movie' is in an "aboutness relation" with the rest of the sentence.

() a. a-no eiga-wa John-ga syutuensita yakusya-o zenin kiratteiru.

35


that-GEN movie-TOP John-NOM played actor-ACC all hate

'As for that move, John hates all the actor who played (in the movie).'

b. ??/?*syutuensita yakusya-o a-no eiga-wa John-ga zenin kiratteiru. (cf. Takano 2003)

(b) sounds a little awkward because a-no eiga-wa cannot easily be in "aboutness relation" with the

rest of the sentence due to the preposed NP, syutuensita yakusya-o, disconnected from John-ga

zenin kiratteiru. Judgments on example ｓ like (b) vary as "aboutness conditon" is understood as a

pragmatic rule much as in the case of the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions. I thus attribute

the alleged PBC effects in RTO to some sort of a pragmatic rule, not to a unbound trace.

4. ECM analysis

We have considered two major analyses, Raising analysis and Major Object analysis, proposed

for RTO constructions in Japanese. In this Section, we will consider the third type of analysis,

ECM analysis, which claims that NPAcc can stay inside the embedded clause throughout the

derivation. ECM analysis proposed in J.E.Yoon 1989, further elaborated in Bruening 2001,

Hiraiwa 2002. J.E. Yoon 1989 does make clear about the position at which NPAcc is generated.

She states that NPAcc can be base-generated in or move from other position inside the embedded

clause to Spec of CP, which is regarded as 'major subject' position in her analysis. Bruening 2001

propose that NPAcc can either be moved to the CP Spec or be base-generated at Spec of CP. Under

the analysis pursued by Hiraiwa 2002, NPAcc undergoes obligatory movement to Spec of CP and it

can optionally raise to the matrix clause. () is an illustration of the structure proposed in Bruening

and Hiraiwa 2002

36


() ...NP1- NOM...[CP NP2-ACC...V2-to]...V1 (that)...

TP

wovP T

wo NP1-NOM v'

ty VP

ty V'

ty CP V1

ty [NP2-Acc]i C'

(=NPAcc) 3

TP -to

6

ti....V2....

37


There are two crucial arguments provided in support of the ECM analysis; one of which is what

Hiraiwa 2002 calls 'indeterminate agreement' and the other of which is occurrence of sentence-final

particles in the embedded clause, both of which are evaluated in the next sections.

4.1. Case-markers and Sentence Final particleKuno 1976 first made an observation that sentence final particles which express speaker's

mode or a question particle -ka can be attached to the embedded V of RTO examples. The sentence

particles, -zo and -naa, indicate that the information provided by the speaker is new to the hearer.

() Kuno 1976: 40: (85a, b) and (86)

a. Yamada-wa Tanaka-o bakada zo to omotta.Yamada-TOP Tanaka-ACC stupid SFP that thought

'Yamada thought that Tanaka is a fool.'

b. Yamada wa Tanaka-o baka da naa to omotta.Yamada-TOP Tanak-ACC stupid SFP that thought

'Yamada thought that Tanaka is a fool.'

c. Yamada-wa Tanaka-o baka ka to omotta.Yamada-TOP Tanak-ACC stupid Q that thought

'Yamada wondered if Tanaka was a fool.'

SFP stands for Sentence Final Particle

Hiraiwa extends the observation and reports that sentence-final particles can appear when the

embedded clause takes a wa-marked NP, which is generally considered as a topic phrase, but not

when it takes a ga-marked NP, as exemplified in ().

() Hiraiwa 2002: 8: (22)

Taro-ga Hanako-wa / o / *ga baka-da-naa to omotta.Taro-NOM Hanako-TOP/ACC/*NOM stupid-be SentenceFinalParticle C think

38


The contrast in () is taken as evidence that NPAcc and a wa-marked NP both occupy Spec of CP

where a topic phrase is generally understood as residing. Hiraiwa's reasoning, however, cannot be

correct since the observation in () is not valid in two respects; (i) NPAcc and a topic phrase can co-

occur in RTO constructions, and (ii) a sentence-final particle can appear with a nominative marked

NP. () is the examples which include both NPAcc and a wa-marked NP (both indicated in bold) in

the embedded CP.

() a. Taroo-ga Hanako-o aitu-wa (gakkoo iti-no) bakada naa to omotta (koto)Taro-NOM Hanak-ACC that:person-TOP (schoo #1-GEN) stupid:be SFP thought (that)

'Taro thought that Mary was the most stupid person in class.'

b. Mary-ga John-o aitu-wa (marenimiru) syuusaida zo to omotta (koto)Mar-NOM John-ACC that:person-TOP (extraordinally) smart C thought (that)

'Mary thought that John was extraordinally smart.'

In (), NPAcc and a topic phrase can both show up in one RTO construction without a problem. If

NPAcc and a topic phrase occupy the same position as Hiraiwa reasoned, this fact cannot be

accounted for unless he makes an ad-hoc stipulation such that there are two slots for CP spec, which

would greatly weaken his reasoning. () are the examples where a ga-marked NP occurs with a

sentence-final particle, contra to what Hiraiwa reported.

() a. Taro-ga Mary de-wa nakute, Hanako-ga kawaii-naa to omotteita (koto)Taro-NOM Mary be-TOP not:and Hanako-NOM pretty-SFP that was thinking (the fact)

'Taro was thinking that not Mary but Hanako is pretty.'

b. Mary-wa tunezune John-yori-mo Bill-ga sutekida-naa to omotteita.Mary-NOM always John-from-Focus Bill-NOM attractive-SFP that thought

'Mary always has thought that Bill is more attractive than John.'

The above observation shows that Hiraiwa's claim that NPAcc occupies the same position as the

topic phrase does not have an empirical basis. In the next sub-section, we will discuss another

argument for the ECM analysis, "indeterminate agreement".

39


4.2 Argument against Major Object analysis: Indeterminate AgreementKuroda 1965 first observes that wh-phrases in Japanese can be interpreted as corresponding to

"any"-words in English4 when a Q-particle -mo is attached to them as illustrated in () and ().

() a. dare-mo 'anybody'

who-Q

b. nani-mo 'anything'

what-Q

c. doko-mo 'anywhere'

where-Q

() Kuroda 1965:93 (80), (81)

a. dare-mo hon-o kaw-anakat-ta.who-Q book-ACC buy-NEG-PAST

'No one bought books.'

b. John-ga nani-mo kaw-anakatta.John-NOM what-Q buy-NEG-PAST

'John did not buy anything.'

A wh-phrase and a Q-particle can appear separately, and they can still be interpreted as

"related" to each other.

() Kuroda 1965:93 (82) & 94 (83)

a. [kore-made dare-ga kangae-mo si-nakat-ta] aidia

4 Hiraiwa 2002 refers to the sequence of a wh-phrase...-mo appearing with negation as NPI. It is misleading to call them because they can occur in affirmative sentences as evidenced by the following example provided by Nisigauchi 1990.(i) Nishigauchi 1990: 126 (17)

[NP [S Dare-ga kaita] tegami]-ni mo onazi koto-ga kaiteatta. who-NOM wrote letter -in Q the:same thing-NOM written-be

Lit. 'In a letter which anybody wrote, the same thing was written.''No matter who wrote a letter, the same thing was written in it.'

40


this-till who-NOM think-Q do-NEG-PAST idea

'the idea which no one has ever thought of'

b. John-wa nani-o ka-oo-to-mo si-na-i.John-TOP what-ACC buy-will-that-Q do-not

'John will not buy anything.'

In (a), the wh-phrase, dare, is the subject of the relative clause, and a Q-particle is attached to vP

inside of it. In (b), the wh-phrase, nani is in the embedded object position and the Q-particle is

attached to the embedded clause. () illustrates the same point that a Q-particle does not have to be

directly attached to a Q-particle.

() Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(7)

a. Taro-ga [DP dare-no hon]-mo yoma-nakat-ta.Taro-NOM Indet.-GEN book-Q read-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't read anyone's book.'

b. Taro-ga [vP dare-wo seme]-mo si-nakat-ta.Taro-NOM Indet.-ACC blame-INF-Q do-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't blame anyone.'

c. Taro-ga [NP [CP dare-ga kai-ta] ronbun]-mo yoma-nakat-ta.Taro-NOM Indet.-NOM write-PST paper-Q read-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't read any paper that anyone wrote.'

It is generally agreed that the occurrence of a wh-phrase is restricted in relation to the position of a

Q-particle. Such condition can be stated as in ().

() An indefinite wh-pronoun must be in the c-command domain of Q.

(Sakai 1998:498, cf. Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(8)5)

5 Hiraiwa's formulation of the condition is slightly different. He claims that an indefinite wh-phrase cannot be licensed by reconstruction.(i) Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(8)

An indeterminate NP must be in the c-command domain of cd(Q) in overt syntax.

41


With () in mind, let us look at examples in () and () provided by Sakai 1998 and Hiraiwa 2002

respectively , where NPAcc is a wh-phrase and the Q-morpheme is attached to the embedded CP in

RTO construction.

() (Sakai 1998: 489: (21))

Masao-ga dare-o [S ti baka-da]-to-mo omot-te-inai. -NOM anyone-ACC a fool-COMP-Q think-STAT-NEG

'For no x, Masao thinks that x is a fool.'

() (Hiraiwa 2002: 4: (11))

Taro-ga dare (-no-koto)-wo baka da to-mo omowa-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM Indet.(-GEN-thing)-ACC stupid-CPL C-Q think-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't consider anyone to be stupid.'

The acceptable status of () and () are taken as evidence that the wh-phrases are in the c-command

domain of a Q-particle -mo, that is, the embedded clause, at some stage of derivation6. If the

observation is correct, it posits a serious problem for Major Object analysis which claims that

NPAcc is never be a part of the embedded clause. The validity of () however, is challenged by

Takano 2002.

() Takano 2002: 803: (ii)

a. ?Watasi-wa dare-ni koi to mo itteinai7.I-TOP who-DAT come (imperative) that Q said:have:not.

'I haven't said to anyone to come.'

6 Sakai regards the observation as evidence for the raising analysis since indefinite wh-phrase is analyzed as being able to be licensed by reconstruction. In contrast, Hiraiwa 2002 claims that it cannot be licensed by reconstruction, hence () is considered as evidence of ECM analysis. We will leave this issue open since availability or unavailability of reconstruction does not affect our discussion here. Recall that our position is that NPAcc is not a part of the embedded clause at any time of derivation.

7 Hiraiwa 2002 reports different judgment on a similar example to this.

42


b. ?Watasi-wa dare-ni sigoto-o suru to mo yakusokusiteinai.I-TOP who-DAT that job0-ACC do that Q promised:have:not

'I haven't promised anyone to do the job.'

() clearly violates the c-command requirement in () since the wh-phrase is a indirect object of the

matrix verb and a Q-particle -mo is attached to the embedded CP. Yet, the sentences are judged as

not totally unacceptable. Yoon 2004 also presents a similar judgment on Korean counterpart of ().

() Yoon 2004: 5: (17a)

?Na-nun nwukwu-eykey [PRO ka-la-ko]-to malha-ci anh-ass-ta. I-TOP who-dat go-imp-comp-Q say-comp not-pst-decl

'I did not tell anyone to go.'

If Takano and Yoon are correct, the validity of the condition in () will seriously be undermined, and

the acceptable status of () and () will no longer be a problem for Major Object analysis. We

conducted a survey to check the validity of (), which will be discussed in the next sub-section.

4.2.1Design of Preliminary Survey and Example SentencesThis survey is conducted to check the validity of the generalization in (), repeated below, put

forth by Sakai (1998) and Hiraiwa (2002).

() An indefinite wh-pronoun must be in the c-command domain of Q-particke, -mo.

(Sakai 1998:498, cf. Hiraiwa 2002: 3:(8))

() can be restated in () so as to make a prediction.

() If an indefinite wh-pronoun is not c-commanded by a Q-particle, it cannot be interpreted as

"any"-words in English.

The schematic structures of examples given in this survey are illustrated below.

() 1st Set

43


a. NP1-NOM...[CP wh- NOM...V2 C]-Q...V1 Neg(that) (c-command)

b. NP1- NOM... wh -ACC...V2 C- Q...V1 Neg(that) (split)

c. *NP1- NOM... wh- ACC...V2 C...V1 Neg(that) (no Q-particle)

(a) is the structure of examples which satisfies the c-command requirement in () because wh-phrase

appears in the subject of the embedded CP and a Q-particle is attached to the CP. (b) is the

structure of Sakai or Hiraiwa's examples, in which a wh-phrase occurs in the position of NPAcc and

a Q-particle is attached to the embedded CP. (c) is the structure of control examples which does not

have a Q-particle anywhere in a sentence. The 2nd set includes examples which does not appear to

satisfy the c-command requirement. See () for the schematic structure of the examples.

() 2nd Set: No apparent c-command

a. NP1-TOP... wh-DAT...NP2-ACC- Q V Neg (no c-command)

b. NP1-TOP... wh -DAT-Q...NP2- ACC V Neg (adjacent)

c. *NP1-TOP... wh -DAT...NP2- ACC V Neg (no Q-particle)

(a) is a structure in which a wh-phrase appears in the position of the dative NP and a Q-particle is

attached to the accusative NP. Given the widely accepted view that the dative object

asymmetrically c-commands the accusative object in Japanese, examples of the form in (a) is

predicted to be unacceptable. In (b), a Q-particle is attached to the wh-phrase in the dative object

position, and in (c), there is no Q-particle in the structure.

In this survey, the informants are given three sets of examples whose schematic structure

corresponds to () and (), and asked to judge them by choosing one of the five circles in the same

way as the survey on the PBC effects. The five circles were then calculated into -2, -1, 0, +1 or

+2, where -2 corresponds to "bad" and +2 corresponds to "good." ()-() corresponds to the

structures in (), and ()-(), ().

1st Set

() a.John-ga dare-ga bakada to-mo omowanakatta(koto)John-NOM wh-NOM stupid-C-Q think:neg:past (fact)

b. John-ga dare-o bakada to-mo omowanakatta(koto)John-NOM wh-ACC stupid-C-Q think:neg:past (fact)

44


c. John-ga dare-o bakada to omowanakatta(koto)John-NOM wh-ACC stupid-C think:neg:past (fact)

Intended: 'John did not consider anyone to be a fool.'

() (sekkaku yuumee restaurant-ni yattekita-to iu-no-ni)

a. Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-ga oisii to-mo kanzinakatta.Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-NOM delicious C-Q feel:neg:past

b. Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-o oisii to-mo kanzinakatta.Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-ACC delicous C-Q feel:neg:past

c. Mary-wa (dasareta) do-no ryoori-ga oisii to kanzinakatta.Mary-TOP (served) which-GEN dish-ACC delicous C feel:neg:past

Intended: (Although she came to eat at a very famous restaurant,) Mary did not think

any dish (served there) were delicious.

() (100-o koeru kazu-no kikaku-ga teiansareta-no-ni)

a. Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-ga omosiroi to-mo omowanakatta.Yamada President-TOP which-NOM interesting C-Q think:not:past

b. Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-o omosiroi to-mo omowanakatta.Yamada President-TOP which-ACC interesting C-Q think:not:past

c. Yamada syatyoo-wa dore-o omosiroi to omowanakatta.Yamada President-TOP which-NOM interesting C think:not:past

Intended: '(Although more than 100 proposals are submitted), President Yamada did not

think anything was interesting.'

2nd Set() (saikin sigoto-ga tatekondeite, John-wa kyoo-de renzoku hatuka-kan, yasumi-mo torazu-ni

kinmusiteiru. sikasi, )

a. John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni guti-mo kobosanakatta.John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT complaint-Q say:neg:past

b. John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni-mo guti-o kobosanakatta.

45


John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT-Q complaint-ACC say:neg:past

c. John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni guti-o kobosanakatta.John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT complaint-ACC say:neg:past

Intended: '(He has been working for the past twenty days without taking any day-off. But

) John didn't say any complaint to his family.'

() (kyoo-no paatii-no tame-ni OC-kara USC-made enro harubaru yattekitan-no-ni)

a. Mary-wa dare-ni koe-mo kake-zuni kaettesimatta.Mary-TOP who-DAT voice-Q say-without go:home:past

b. Mary-wa dare-ni-mo koe-o kakezu-ni kaettesimatta.Mary-TOP who-DAT-Q voice-ACC say-without go:home:past

c. Mary-wa dare-ni koe-o kakezu-ni kaettesimatta.Mary-TOP who-DAT voice-ACC say-without go:home:past

Intended: (She came all the way from OC to USC to attend today's party but) she went

home without talking to anybody.

() (John-wa kaisyade-mo hizyoosikina koto-o suru koto-de yuumee-da. kyoomo, )

a. John-wa dare-ni renraku-mo sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.John-TOP who-DAT contact-Q do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

b. John-wa dare-ni-mo renraku-o sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.John-TOP who-DAT-Q contact do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

c. John-wa dare-ni renraku-o sezu, ikinari kaisya-o yasunda.John-TOP who-DAT contact do:without, suddenly company-ACC missed

Intended: '(He is famous for absurd behavior at work. Today,) John didn't come to work

without informing anybody.'

4.2.2Results of Survey20 native speakers of Japanese (6 linguists and 14 non-linguists) participated in this survey,

and the result of the survey is summarized in ().

46


() The result of Survey

(A) (B) (C)

-2 -1 0 +

1

+

2

-2 -1 0 +

1

+

2

-2 -1 0 +

1

+

2

1.C-comamnd (a) 7 3 2 2 6 (a) 1 4 3 8 4 (a) 2 3 1 8 6

2. Split (b) 0 1 3 3 13 (b) 0 5 3 2 10 (b) 1 7 2 0 11

3.NoQ-particle (c) 10 7 0 2 1 (c) 11 5 2 1 1 (c) 14 3 1 1 1

4. No C-c (a) 4 10 2 2 2 (a) 3 8 2 4 3 (a) 0 6 1 8 5

5. C-command (b) 1 0 0 3 16 (b) 2 0 0 2 16 (b) 1 0 0 2 17

6. No Q-particle (c) 15 4 0 1 0 (c) 12 6 0 2 0 ()c 12 6 1 1 0

As shown in Row 2 (Split), Hiraiwa or Sakai's type of examples, where a wh-phrase is in

NPAcc position and -mo is attached to the embedded clause, are accepted by a large number of the

informants. This result may appear to provide a support for ECM analysis at a glance. If you look

at Row 1 and Row 4, however, it will become clear that it is not the case. In Row 1, the c-command

requirement is satisfied while it is not satisfied in Row 4. If the c-command requirement in () is

valid, we would expect Example (a), (a) and (a) to be totally unacceptable but Row 1 and Row 4

show that acceptability of sentences are not affected with or without c-command. Furthermore,

another survey conducted by M. Irie in Fall 2004 strongly suggests that the c-command requirement

in () is invalid. In the survey, 12 native speakers of Japanese are asked to judge 20 examples. Of

the 20 examples, three sentences in () have the same structure as the examples provided by Takano

and Yoon, which do not satisfy c-command condition. (a) is the very example which Hiraiwa

marks as *?.

() a. Hiraiwa 2002: 6; (15b)

47


Taroo-ga dare-ni MIT-ni iku koto-mo susumenakatta (koto)Taroo-NOM who-DAT MIT-to go C-Q recommend:not:past

'Taro didn't recommend to anyone to go to MIT.'

b. watasi-wa dare-ni koi to-mo itteinai.I-TOP who-dat go C-Q have:said:not

'I haven't said to anyone to come.'

c. watasi-wa dare-ni so-no sigoto-o suru to-mo yakusokusiteinai.I-TOP who-dat go that-GEN work-ACC do C-Q promised:have:not

'I haven't promised anyone to do that work.'

In (a-c), the wh-phrase is in the matrix dative object position which cannot be c-commanded by the

Q-particle -mo attached to the embedded CP. () is the summary of the judgment reported by the

informants.

() The result-2 -1 0 +1 +2

1. (a) 3 4 1 4 0

2. (a) 0 1 0 2 9

3. (a) 0 0 0 3 9

Although (a), the very example which Hiraiwa gave, is not judged as acceptable by a large number

of the informants, the other two examples are given positive numbers by many of them. This result

strongly suggests that mere existence of Example () and () cannot constitute evidence for NPAcc

being in the embedded clause, to say the least.

4.2.3SummaryThe results of the two surveys discussed in this section shows two things; (i) Hiraiwa &

Sakai's type of examples are generally judged as acceptable, and (ii) the examples which do not

satisfy the c-command requirement are not found totally unacceptable by many of the informants.

If we look at the result (i), it seems plausible to conclude that NPAcc can be in the embedded clause

of the RTO constructions at some point of the derivation as Hiraiwa and Sakai argued. However,

48


(ii) crucially shows that validity of the c-command requirement in () is very much questionable.

Hence, (i) cannot be taken as strong supporting evidence for ECM analysis.

4.3 Other Wh...Focus ParticleThe observation in () and () is not restricted to wh...mo, it can be reproduced with other Q-

particles such as -ka.

() Masao-ga dare-o [S ti bakada]-to-ka, (ahoda to-ka) omot-teita. -NOM anyone-ACC fool C-Q stupid C-Q think-STAT-NEG

'Masao had a thought such that someone is fool or someone is stupid.

Kuroda 1965 observes that wh-phrases can be followed by -ka which corresponds to or in English,

and they are interpreted as "some"-words such as someone or something in English.

() Kuroda 1965: 97:(114) and (115)

a. dare-ka-ga hon-o katta.who-Q-NOM book-ACC bought

'Someone bought books.'

b. John-ga nani-ka-o katta.John-NOM what-Q-Acc bought

'John bought something.'

Suggested in Kuroda (1965), further discussed in Nisigauchi(1990), wh-phrase...-ka is subject to the

c-command condition much as in the case of a wh-phrase... -mo as illustrated in ().

() a. Mary-wa dare-no kuruma-ka-o yuzuriuketa.Mary-TOP who-GEN car-Q-ACC inherited

'Mary took over somebody's car'

b. John-wa nan-no siken-ka-o ukeni-itta.John-TOP what-GEN exam-Q-ACC take-went

'John went to take some exam.'

49


The c-command condition on wh...-mo in () can be modified so as to include the wh...-ka case;

() An indefinite wh-pronoun must be in the c-command domain of a Q-particle -mo or -ka.

Observe () in which the wh-phrase is in the embedded subject position and -ka is attached to the CP.

() a. Mary-wa dare-ga bakada to ka, (dare-ga kasikoi to ka) (itumo sonna koto bakari) Mary-TOP who-NOM stupid:be that Q (who-NOM smart C Q) always such thing only

kangaeteita.was:thinking

'Mary was always thinking like someone is stupid or someone is smart.'

b. John-wa nani-ga ii to ka, (nani-ga warui to ka) (issai) iwanakatta.John-TOP what-NOM good C Q (what-NOM bad C Q) (never) say:not:past

'John has never mentioned what is good or what is bad.'

() is minimally different from () in case-marking of the wh-phrases.

() a. Mary-wa dare-o baka da to ka (dare-o kasikoi da to ka) (itumo sonna koto bakari) Mary-TOP who-ACC stupid:be that Q (who-NOM smart C Q) always such thing only

kangaeteita.was:thinking

b. John-wa nani-o iito ka, (nani-o warui-toka) (issai) iwanakatta.John-TOP what-NOM good C Q (what-NOM bad C Q) (never) say:not:past

The wh-phrases in the embedded subject position in () and NPAcc position in RTO construction ()

can be interpreted as "some"-words. Very much in the same way as wh...-mo disucssed in the

previous section, wh...-ka can also occur without apparent c-command as exemplified in ().

() a. John-wa dare-ni Bill-ga nigeta to-ka tugezuni, zutto damatteita.8

8 It is note that -ka and -to, which are generally said to be C, occur simultaneously in one sentence

50


John-TOP who-DAT Bill-NOM run:past C-Q without:telling for:a:long:time kept:silent

'John kept silence, without telling somebody, about Bill that he ran away.'

b. John-wa dare-ni Arizona koozyoo-o heisasiro to-ka meireisuru maeni, so-ko-no John-TOP who-DAT Arizona factory-ACC close:imperative C-Q order before that-place-GEN

tatenaosian-o kangae-yootosita.reconstruction-ACC think-tried

'John tried to think about a reconstruction plan before he orders somebody to close the

factory in Arizona.'

In (), the wh-phrase is in the matrix direct object position is not c-commanded by the Q-particle -ka

attached to the embedded CP. Yet the wh-phrase can be interpreted as "some"-words. The

acceptable status of the sentences under intended reading suggests that the c-command requirement

in () is not valid in the case of wh...ka as well as wh...mo.

4.4 Special Constituent in Kawazoe 2004Given the conclusion reached in the previous section, one would naturally wonder how we

would account for the widely-accepted hypothesis that wh-phrases must be in the c-command

domain of Q. Let us summarize what we have seen till the last section first.

In a sentence of the form in (a), wh-phrases can be understood as "any"-words or "some"-

words in English.

() a. NP1-TOP... wh-DAT...NP2-ACC- Q V Neg (no c-command)

Based on the observations, we concluded that wh-phrases do not have to be in the c-command

domain of Q. In drawing such conclusion, we implicitly assumed that the Q-particle attached to the

accusative marked NP could not c-command the dative-marked wh-phrase in (a) because it is

widely assumed that the dative NP asymmetrically c-command the accusative NP. Kawazoe 2004

challenges the thesis and proposes that [NP-cm...NP-cm] can form a constituent. If such is indeed

the case, a Q-particle attached to the accusative NP can c-command the wh-phrase marked with the

in ()-(). Furthermore, the reverse order of -ka and -to is also possible, and it yields interrogative sentences.

51


dative, and the acceptable status of sentences of the form in (a) is, in fact, subject to the c-command

condition in (). We will summarize Kawazoe 2004's proposal in this sub-section.

Kawazoe 2004 proposes that NP-cm...NP-cm can be base-generated as a constituent. Observe

(), in which the subject NP and the object NP in each conjunct are argued to form a constituent

under Kawazoe's analysis.

() Kawazoe 2004: (1)

[Taroo-ga ringo (-o mittu)]-to [ziroo-ga mikan-o (futatu)] kau.[Taroo-NOM apple (-ACC 3:CL)]-CONJ [Ziroo-NOM orange-ACC (2:CL)] buy

'Taro buys three apples and Ziroo buys two oranges.'

She proposes that the nominative marked NP and the accusative marked NP in each conjunct forms

a constituent headed by an ec as illustrated in ().

() Kawazoe 2004: 82: (37)

VP

pP kau

pP pP

to

Taroo-ga p' Ziroo-ga p'

ringo-o mikan-o

p p

Among other alternative proposals9, Koizumi's proposal is one of the analyses for the conjunctive

9 There are two other major analyses for a sentence of the form of (): one is PF deletion under phonetic identity proposed by Fukui & Sakai 2003, and the other is "Surprising Constituent" analysis proposed by Takano 2002. Kawazoe 2004 challenges both analyses and shows the necessity of [NP-cm...NP-cm] being base-generated. For the detail discussion, readers should be referred to Kawazoe 2004.

52


structures.

A sentence in () is analyzed as involving V-raising by Koizumi 2000, in that a verb in both

conjuncts undergoes across-the-board-raising, as illustrated in ().

() Koizumi 2000

IP

VP kau

VP1 VP2

to

Taroo-ga V' Ziroo-ga V'

ringo-o mikan-o

ti ti

Kawazoe 2004 pointed out that the sentence in (), in which the dative NP moves out of the both

conjuncts in the across-the-board manner preceding V-raising, could not be accounted for under

Koizumi's analysis.

() [Tom-ga ringo-o futatu]-to [Bob-ga banana-o sanbon] Mary-ni ageta (koto).[Tom-NOM apple-ACC two] CONJ [Bob-NOM banana-ACC three:CL] Mary-DAT gave (that)

Under the analysis in Koizumi 2000, Mary-ni should be scrambled out of the both VPs connected

by -to in the across-the-board manner, and subsequently, VP1 undergoes scrambling crossing over

Mary-ni as indicated by an arrow in (). The resultant structure violates Proper Binding Condition

because the traces of Mary-ni is not bound. The offending traces are shaded below:

53


()

IP1

VP1

VP2 VP3

to IP2

Tom-ga V' Bob-ga V'

Mary-nii

ti V' ti V' IP3

ringo-o futatu tv banana-o tv tj

Koizumi 2000 argues that PBC rules out not A-traces but A'-traces which are not bound at LF 10.

Under this view, () can be saved if VP1 reconstructs to the lowest IP3. Koizumi, hence, make the

following prediction:

() When a VP is scrambled crossing over the element that has moved out of the VP, such VP

must be interpreted in the position before the scrambling.

Kawazoe observes that Koizumi wrongly predicts Example () to be acceptable with the bound

10 Under the view that PBC applies derivationally purued in xxx, xxx, a sentence in () is ruled out by PBC.

54


variable reading between Toyota-sae 'even Toyota' and soko1 'that place' and Toyota-sae and soko2

respectively

() cf.Kawazoe 2004: 21: (14d)

[VP so-ko1-no tokuisaki-ga seikyuusyo-o ittuu] to [VP so-ko2-no torihikiginkoo-ga that-place-GEN customerr-NOM bill-ACC one:CL and that-place-GEN main:bank-NOM

fuwatarituuti-o ittuu] [IP Toyota-ni-sae [IP soofusiteita]bounced:check-ACC one:CL Toyota-DAT-even sent

'Its customer sent a bill to even Toyota and its main bank sent a bounced check to even

Toyota.'

The derivation of Example () is illustrated below.

() Kawazoe 2004: 21: (14)

a. [VP so-ko1-no tokuisaki-ga Toyota-ni-sae seikyuusyo-o ittuu soofu-siteita]-to [VP so-ko2-

no torihikiginkoo-ga Toyota-ni sae fuwatarituuti-o ittuu soofu-siteita].

across-the-board V-raising

b. [IP [VP so-ko1-no tokuisaki-ga Toyota-ni-sae seikyuusyo-o ittuu tv]-to [VP so-ko2-no

torihikiginkoo-ga Toyota-ni sae fuwatarituuti-o ittuu tv] soofu-siteita].

across-the-board scrambling of Toyota-ni

c. [IP Toyota-ni-saei [IP[VP so-ko1-no tokuisaki-ga ti seikyuusyo-o ittuu tv]-to [VP

so-ko2-no torihikiginkoo-ga ti fuwatarituuti-o ittuu tv] soofu-siteita].

cross-the-board scrambling of VP

55


d. [IP [VP so-ko1-no tokuisaki-ga ti seikyuusyo-o ittuu tv ] to [VP so-ko2-no torihikiginkoo-ga

ti fuwatarituuti-o ittuu tv soofu-siteita]j [IP Toyota-ni-saei [IP tj soofusiteita]

The resultant structure in (d) violates PBC condition since the trace of Toyota-ni-sae (the shaded

traces) is unbound. However, Koizumi 2000 makes a prediction that the VP is interpreted in the

position before scrambling, as represented in (c), such sentence is not a violation of PBC, hence is

predicted to be acceptable. Yet the prediction is not burned out because () is unacceptable with the

bound variable reading of Toyota-ni-sae and soko1 and Toyota-ni-sae and soko2 respectively.

Koizumi 2000 cannot account for unacceptability of ()11.

4.5 Indeterminate Agreement RevisitedUnder the analysis of Kawazoe 2004, let us again consider the cases in which the c-command

requirement is not satisfied. Observe (a), repeated below.

() a. NP1-TOP... wh-DAT...NP2-ACC- Q V Neg (no c-command)

If [wh-DAT...NP2-ACC] in (a) can be base-generated as a constituent, (a) could have a structure

illustrated in (), in that wh-phrase is c-commanded by a Q-particle.

() NP1-TOP... [wh-DAT...NP2-ACC]-Q V Neg

It is no longer surprising that the wh-phrase in (a) can be interpreted as "some"-words or "any"-

words as it is, in fact, in the c-command domain of a Q as illustrated in ().

Let us go back to RTO construction. If Kawazoe's analysis can be extended to the case of NP-

cm..CP-cm, we expect that it is possible for NPAcc in RTO and the embedded CP to form a

constituent as illustrated in ().

() Mary-ga [John-o bakada-to] omotteiru (koto)Mary-NOM John-ACC stupid:be-that think (that)

11

56


Such being the case, Ex (), (), () and () which appear to violate the c-command requirement do in

fact satisfies it. Observe () again. Under Kawazoe 2004's proposal, dare-o and bakada-to can be

base-generated as a constituent, small P (pP). Assuming that -mo is attached to the small pP, () will

have the structure in ().

() (Hiraiwa 2002: 4: (11))

Taro-ga dare-o baka da to-mo omowa-nakat-ta. Taro-NOM Indet.(-GEN-thing)-ACC stupid-CPL C-Q think-NEG-PST

'Taro didn't consider anyone to be stupid.'

() Taro-ga [dare-o baka da to]-mo omowa-nakat-ta.

TP

wo NegP T

3 -i

vP -na

wo Taro-ga v'

ty VP v

ty pP omottei

ty pP -mo

3 Dare-o p'

3 CP p

ty TP -to

6

57


bakada

In this structure, the wh-phrase is c-commanded by the Q-particle attached to pP satisfying the c-

command requirement. Thus, it is not surprising at all that the wh-phrase can be interpreted as

"any"-words. Recall that we have observed other cases such as (a) or () repeated below, where wh-

phrases can be interpreted as "any" or "some"-words despite the fact that a Q-particle does not

appear to c-command them. They can also be accounted for in the same line of analysis. (a) (a) are

supposed to have the structures in () and () respectively under the analysis.

(a) John-wa kazoku-no dare-ni guti-mo kobosanakatta.John-TOP family-GEN who-DAT complaint-Q say:neg:past

() John-wa [pP kazoku-no dare-ni guti]-mo kobosanakatta.

() a. Hiraiwa 2002: 6; (15b)

Taroo-ga dare-ni MIT-ni iku koto-mo susumenakatta (koto)Taroo-NOM who-DAT MIT-to go C-Q recommend:not:past

'Taro didn't recommend to anyone to go to MIT.'

() Taroo-ga [pP dare-ni MIT-ni iku koto]-mo susumenakatta (koto)

In each case, the Q-particle -mo is attached to pP which contains the wh-phrases in it. Such

configuration satisfies the c-command requirement on wh-phrases.

4.6 wh-interrogativeWe have observed the cases where wh-phrases appearing in the position of NPAcc can be

interpreted as "any"-words or "some"-words, being related to -mo or -ka immediately following the

embedded CP. The same kind of observation can be made with wh...-ka which is interpreted as

indirect wh-questions. In this case, the complementizer, -to, can or cannot co-occur with -ka

depending on the choice of the matrix verb.

() a. John-wa dare-ga hannin-ka (*to) siranai.John-TOP who-NOM criminal-Q (*C) know:not

58


b. John-wa dare-o hannin-ka (*to) siranai.John-TOP who-ACC criminal-Q (*C) know:not

'John doesn't know who is criminal.'

() a. keisatu-wa (tuini) doko-ga azito-ka (*to) tukitometa.police-TOP (finally) where-NOM hideout-Q (*C) find out

'The polce (finally) find out where the hideout is.'

b. keisatu-wa (tuini) doko-o azito-ka (*to) tukitometa.police-TOP (finally) where-ACC hideout-Q (*C) find out

() a. John-wa dare-ga kyoohan (daroo)-ka to kangaeta.John-TOP who-NOM accomplice (probably)-Q C thought

'John wondered who would be an accomplice.'

b. ?John-wa dare-o kyoohandaroo-ka to kangaeta.John-TOP who-ACC accomplice (probably)-Q C thought

() a. John-to Tom-wa dare-ga ziki syatyoo-ni fusawasii-ka to gironsita.John-and Tom-TOP who-NOM next president-for suitable-Q C discussed

'John and Tom discussed who would be suitable for the next President.'

b. ?John-to Tom-wa dare-o ziki syatyoo-ni fusawasii-ka to gironsita.John-and Tom-TOP who-ACC next president-for suitable-Q C discussed

The observation above is consistent with what we have seen earlier with respect to wh..-mo or wh...-

ka. If Grammar allows NPAcc and CP to form a constituent, a wh-phrase in NPAcc can be c-

commanded by -ka appearing immediately after the embedded clause, satisfying the c-command

requirement.

4.7 Summary and ConsequenceWe have reevaluated the two piece of evidence in this section provided as a support of ECM

analyses; the availability of co-occurrence of sentence-final particles with NPAcc and a topic NP

59


and "indeterminate agreement" which are subject to the c-command requirement. We show that the

former observation cannot be correct based on the fact that not only NPAcc or a topic phrase but

also NPAcc together with a topic phrase can co-occur with a sentence final particle, which clearly

shows that NPAcc cannot be located in the same position as a topic phrase. Another piece of

evidence provided for ECM analyais is "indeterminate agreement", our investigation of which

shows that there are cases where wh-phrases do not appear to obey the c-command requirement

which is widely accepted thesis cross-linguistically. We then suggest that the c-command

requirement is valid but the assumption that NPAcc and the embedded CP do not form a constituent

is not correct by extending Kawazoe 2004's analysis on NP-cm...NP-cm to NPAcc and the

embedded CP in RTO. Once Grammar allows a sequence of NP-cm...CP to become a constituent,

Hiraiwa or Sakai types of examples in () and () would no longer posit a problem for Major Object

analysis since the wh-phrase in the matrix clause can be c-commanded by a Q-particle appearing

immediately following the embedded CP. This line of thinking can receive a support from cleft

constructions with two NPs appearing in "focus position, where only one constituent would

generally appear, example of which is given in ().

() a. John-ga ageta-no-wa Mary-ni hana-o da.John-NOM gave-GEN-TOP Mary-DAT flower-ACC be.

Lit. 'It is flowers to Mary that John gave.'

b. Mary-ga katta-no-wa Hanako-ni ringo-o da.Mary-NOM bought-GEN-TOP Hanako-to apple-ACC be

Lit 'It is an apple for Hanako that Mary bought.'

NPAcc and the embedded CP in RTO constructions can also appear in the "focus" position of the

cleft constructions;

() a. John-ga omotta-no-wa Mary-o tensaida-to da.John-NOM thought-GEN-TOP Mary-ACC genius:be-C be

Lit.'It is Mary to be a genius that John thought.'

b. ?keisatu-ga zutto sinziteita-no-wa Bill-o siro-to datta.police-NOM long:time believed-GEN-TOP Bill-ACC innocent-C be

60


Lit. 'It was Bill to be innocent that the police had been believing for a long time.'

It may sound natural when more than two combinations of NPAcc and the embedded CP appear in

the "focus" position:

() a. keisatu-ga (kyoo madeni) danteisita-no-wa John-o haninda-to, kyooki-o naihuda-topolice-NOM (today by) determined-GEN TOP John-ACC criminal-C (weapon-ACC nifebe-C

da.

be.

Lit. 'It is John to be a criminal (and the weapon to be a knife) that the police has

determined.'

b. keisatu-ga happyoosita-no-wa dare-o haninda-to-ka doko-o azitoda-to-ka da.police-NOM announced-GEN-TOP who-ACC criminal:be-C-Q where-ACC hideout:be -C-Q be

Lit. 'It is who to be a criminal and where to be a hideout that the police has determined.'

The acceptability of the cleft sentences above can be naturally accounted for under the hypothesis

that NPAcc and CP forms a constituent as we have suggested in Sec. 4.4.

##############Harada 2002 intonation 話を追加する。#######################

5. Conclusion

In this paper, we defend Major Object Analysis by presenting empirical evidence (i) that

NPAcc behaves as an element in the matrix clause based on the scope interaction NPAcc cand

negation in the embedded clause, and (ii) that idiom expressions cannot extend across NPAcc and

the embedded CP without losing its idiomatic meaning, which pattern with proleptic constructions

in English where a proleptic object is base-generated in the matrix clause. We have also

reevaluated by conducting preliminary surveys the two crucial arguments, the PBC effects and

"indeterminate agreement" provided in support of Raising Analysis and ECM analysis respectively.

The result of the surveys on PBC violation effects, which have been widely accepted to exhibit in

RTO construction, shows that it is not as robust as it has been reported. Especially, examples of

(the alleged) PBC violations in RTO constructions is far more acceptable than "genuine" PBC

61


effects in non-RTO constructions, the result which seriously undermine the hypothesis that NPAcc

undergoes "raising" in RTO constructions in Japanese. ECM analysis provides two pieces of

arguments, sentence-final particles and "indeterminate agreement". The former of which is based

on a false generalization as discussed in Section 4.1, and the other of which involves special

constituency mechanism as proposed in Kawazoe 2004. Following Takano 2002, we point out that

an NP which is clearly outside of the c-command domain of a Q-particle attached to the embedded

CP can behave as if it is c-commanded. We suggest the possibility that an element in the matrix

clause can be in the c-command domain of a Q-particle immediately preceded by the embedded CP

by introducing Kawazoe's analysis that allows NP-cm...NP-cm to form a constituent. Provided that

ECM analysis do not have any other supporting evidence, the fact seriously weakens their claim

that NPAcc can stay inside the embedded clause. Based on the discussion in this paper, we are

forced to conclude that NPAcc is never a part of the embedded clause at any time of derivation.

Lastly, it is note that NPAcc can appear when an adverb instead of CP complement occurs as

in ().

() a. John-ga Bill-no seikaku-o akaruku omotta (koto)John-nom Bill-Gen personality-ACC cheerful thought (that)

'John thought about Bill's personality to be cheerful.'

b. John-ga Mary-no taido-o tumetaku kanzita (koto)John-NOM Mary-GEN attitude-ACC coldly felt (that)

'John felt that Mary's attitude is cold.'

akaruku or tumetaku are generally understood as adverbs which can be supported by examples such

as () where such adverbs occur with the verbs, aisatusuru 'to greet' and attaru 'to treat'. Given the

fact that the verbs in () do not take clauses as their complement, it would implausible to assume

akaruku or tumetaku are clauses equivalent to to-clauses in RTO constructions.

() a. John-wa Mary-ni akaruku aisatusita.John-TOP Mary-DAT cheerfully greeted

'John greeted Mary cheerfully.'

b. John-wa Mary-ni tumetaku atatta.John-TOP Mary-DAT coldly treated

62


'John treated Mary coldly.'

Given the fact that examples in () are acceptable, Grammar should allow omou 'to think' or kanziru

'feel', both of which can be used in the matrix clause in RTO constructions, to co-occur with an

accusative marked NP independently of RTO constructions, which suggests that NP-acc can

optionally show up with the verbs which do not take an accusative marked NP solely.

Incidentally, preposing of the adverbs in () results in degradation of acceptability as in (),

much as in the case of the alleged PBC effects discussed in Section 3.5.

() a. ??/?* akaruku John-ga Bill-no seikaku-o omotta (koto)

b. ??/?* tumetaku John-ga Mary-no taido-o kanzita (koto)

This is not surprising if the alleged PBC effects in RTO constructions are due to "aboutness

condition" as suggested in Section 3.5.2.5 because the adverbs in () express characteristics about

Bill-no seikaku or Mary-no taido respectively, where the adverbs and the accusative phrase can be

understood as being in "aboutness relation very much in the same way as NPAcc and the embedded

CP in RTO constructions.

"Indeterminate agreement" can also be observed if Bill and Mary in () are replaced by dare

'who' and a Q-particle mo is added to the adverbs in ().

() a. ?/?? John-ga (ko-no tiimu-no) dare-no seikaku-o (tokubetu) akaruku-mo John-nom (this-GEN team-GEN) who-GEN personality (specially) cheerful-Q

omowanakatta(koto)

think:not:past (that)

'John thought about personalities of nobody on this team was specially cheerful.'

b. ?/?? John-ga dare-no taido-o tumetaku-mo kanzinakatta (koto)John-NOM who-GEN attitued-ACC coldly-Q feel:not:past (that)

'John felt that nobody's attitude was cold.'

This fact is also compatible with our suggestion in Section 4.4 that Japanese allows NP-cm...CP-cm

to form a constituent if the idea can be extended to the case of NP-cm and an adverb.

63


6. References (to be completed)

Harada, Naomi. (2003) "Raising to Object is NOT an edge phenomenon," Paper presented at the

January 2003 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, unpublished manuscript,

ATR International.

Hiraiwa, Ken. (2002) "Raising and indeterminate agreement," Second Draft (June 2002) (The

document, states "A revised version to appear in the Proceedings of WCCFL 21," but the paper

is not included in the proceedings.).

Hoji, Hajime. (1991). "Raising-to-object, ECM and the major object in Japanese," A talk given at

Japanese Syntax Workshop at University of Rochester.

Hong, Kisun. (1990) "Subject-to-object raising in Korean," in Katarzina Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell,

and Elias Mejias-Bikandi (eds.), Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, 215-

225, Stanford: CSLI.

Kuno, Susumu. (1976) "Subject Raising," in Shibatani, ed., Syntax and Semantics: Japanese

Generative Grammar, Academic Press.

Marantz, Alec. (1983) "Raising and Category Types in Japanese," in Y. Otsu, et al. eds., Studies in

Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, ICU, Tokyo.

Saito, Mamoru. (1983) "Comments on the Papers on Generative Syntax," in Y. Otsu, et al. eds.,

Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, ICU, Tokyo.

Sakai, Hiromu. (1998) "Raising asymmetry and improper movement," in N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S.

Iwasaki, S.-O. Sohn, and S. Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 7, 481-497, CSLI,

Stanford.

Yoon, James. (to appear) "Raising Specifiers. A Macroparametric Account of Subject-to-Object

Raising in Some Altaic Languages," The proceedings of the Formal Altaic Linguistics.

Yoon, James. (2004) "Raising and Prominence," a 48-page handout for the talk given at Language

Education Institute, Seoul National University, 7/26/04.

Yoon, J. E. (1989) "ECM and Multiple Subject Constructions in Korean," in S. Kuno, et. al. eds.,

Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 3.

64

1€¦ · web viewis there "raising" in japanese? 1. introduction:

Documents