Hayashi Shintaro Thesis

ABSTRACT
Title of Document: HEAD MOVEMENT IN AN

AGGLUTINATIVE SOV LANGUAGE
Shintaro Hayashi, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015
Directed By: Tomohiro Fujii, Associate Professor,

Graduate School of Environment and
Information Sciences
The goal of this thesis is to argue for head movement in Japanese, which is
necessarily (and notoriously) ‘string-vacuous’ due to the head-final character of the
language. I show that a couple of discrepancies between complement te-clauses and
adjunct te-clauses cannot be satisfactorily captured unless head movement is resorted
to. It is also demonstrated that (what I refer to as) NJV clauses and VN clauses, which
have been traditionally distinguished from each other in the literature, exhibit
asymmetries under ellipsis phenomena. I argue that the asymmetries are rooted in
predicate raising, commonly referred to as verb movement in the literature.
HEAD MOVEMENT IN AN AGGLUTINATIVE SOV
LANGUAGE
By
Shintaro Hayashi
Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences,

in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2015
Advisory Committee:
Tomohiro Fujii, Associate Professor (Thesis Supervisor)
Tatsunori Mori, Professor
Naoyoshi Tamura, Professor
Roger Martin, Associate Professor
Kenshi Funakoshi, Project Assistant Professor
© Copyright by
Shintaro Hayashi
2015
To Toshinobu, Michiru and Sarasa
iii
Acknowledgements
Time is up. It is time to give up seeking for any further improvement and submit my
dissertation. Writing a dissertation is extremely tough work (as everyone knows), and
I have always been worring whether I could ever finish it. Very fortunately, I am
writing this part of the thesis, which means that I did.
First and foremost, I am grateful to the members of my committee, Tomohiro
Fujii, Tasunori Mori, Naoyoshi Tamura, Roger Martin, and Kenshi Funakoshi, all of
who worked painstakingly to help me improve my dissertation. Especially, three
syntacticians, Tomo, Roger and Kenshi, are owed a deep debt of gratitude. Tomo, my
thesis supervisor, is the person I can never thank enough. At every meeting with him,
I always brought half-baked ideas and presentend them to him in such an
imcomprehensible way (which only means ‘I am confused so I need help’).
Nevetheless, Tomo always listened to me carefully and patiently, and provided me
hundrends of invaluable comments. I am 100% sure that this dissertation would never
have come into existence without his enormous intellectual support. Sincerely, I am
very privileged to have been directed by Tomo. Roger has constantly reminded me of
what syntactician living in the twenty-first century have to be aware of. I am grateful
to him for inviting me to Syntax Reading Group at Keio University as well, which
broadened my sight in so many ways. Chapter 3 of this dissertation would not have
been written without Kenshi, who generously agreed to be a member of my
committee; it is his dissertation that made me want to pursue the topics presentend
iv
there. Ever since we met first in 2014, I have been encouraged by not only his
academic support but also his friendship.
Portions of this dissertation were presented orally at TCP 2013 (Keio
University), Mie University in 2014, CLS 51 (University of Chicago), and Syntax
Reading Group at Meiji Gakuin University in 2015. I would like to express my
gratitude to the audiences on these occasions for their insightful comments on my
study, in particular Hisatsugu Kitahara, Takuya Goro, Caterina Donati, Mineharu
Nakayama, Satoshi Oku, Kensuke Takita, Hideaki Yamashita, Noriko Yoshimura,
Takashi Munakata, Koji Sugisaki, Osamu Sawada, Hisako Takahashi, Kohei Suzuki,
Jason Merchant, Karlos Arregi, Masaya Yoshida, Bum-Sik Park, Sayaka Goto and
Yoshiki Fujiwara.
Last but not least, I thank my parents, Toshinobu and Michiru, and my sister,
Sarasa, for their support, patience and love. I bet they never imagined that a punk in
Sapporo who never showed any interest in academic stuff at all would grow up to
want to get a Ph.D. This dissertation is dedicated to them.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction
Section 1 String-vacuity of head movement in Japanese ................................1
Section 2 Otani and Whitman (1991) ..............................................................4
Section 3 Koizumi (2000)..............................................................................10
Section 4 Oku (1998) .....................................................................................12
Section 5 Fukui and Sakai (2003)..................................................................14
Section 6 Outline of the thesis .......................................................................16
2. Head Movement out of Te-clauses

Section 1 Introduction....................................................................................18
Section 2 Properties of te-clauses and head movement analysis ...................19
Section 3 Potential alternatives......................................................................47
Section 4 A theoretical implication: head movement and morphology.........54
Section 5 Conclusion .....................................................................................60
3. Predicate Raising within a Single Clause in Japanese

Section 1 Introduction....................................................................................61
Section 2 Two classes of verbal predicates: NJVs and VNs .........................62
Section 3 Predicate ellipsis ............................................................................69
Section 4 Null adjuncts .................................................................................73
Section 5 An analysis: predicate raising plus vP-ellipsis ..............................81
Section 6 A potential alternative: Miyagawa (1987a) ...................................88
Section 7 Some consequenses........................................................................94
Section 8 The trigger of predicate raising and the nature of su-insertion....108
Section 9 Japanese as a verb-stranding vP-ellipsis language ......................114
Section 10 Conclusion ...................................................................................128
4. Remaining Issues ................................................................................................129
References .................................................................................................................140
vi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 String-vacuity of head movement in Japanese
One thing about head movement in Japanese that many syntacticians recognize is
probably its string-vacuity; movement of heads in overt syntax, if available in the
grammar, is not expected to bring about any word order permutation. One traditional
way to diagnose movement in overt syntax is to check whether the surface position
that an element occupies in one environment is distinct from the one it appears in
another environment. As an illustration, let us consider subject-auxiliary inversion in
English.
(1) a. John will eat apples.
b. Will John eat apples?
In the declarative clause (1a), the auxiliary will is placed after the subject John, while
in the interrogative clause (1b) it is placed before the subject. Facts like this have led
syntacticians to propose that subject-auxiliary inversion involve head movement.
According to such a head movement analysis, the structure in (2a) is assigned to (1a),
in which the auxiliary is located in T. By contrast, (1b) has the structure in (2b), in
which the auxiliary has moved from T to C (see Adger 2003 for a comprehensive
review).
1
(2) a. [CP C[-Q] [TP John [T will] eat apples]]
b. [CP [will+C[+Q]] [TP John twill eat apples]]
However, head movement in Japanese cannot be diagnosed in a similar way. Suppose
that in the hierarchical structure we have two heads, X and Y, and that Y is
immediately higher than X, as shown in (3). ZP in (3) is a phrase contained in XP.
(3) Syntax
[YP … [XP ZP X] Y]
In PF, these two heads are always linearized next to each other in Japanese, as shown
in (4) (the symbol < means ‘precedes’). ZP, whether an argument or an adjunct, does
not intervene between the two heads, but precedes X.
(4) PF
… ZP<X<Y …
Importantly, the PF representation derived from the structure in (5) below, in which X
undergoes head movement to Y, cannot be differentiated from the one derived from
(3) in which X does not move, due to the head-final character of the language. In
other words, both (3) and (5) are expected to yield the same PF representation in (4).
2
(5) Syntax
[YP … [XP ZP tX] [X+Y]]
Recall that in the case of subject-auxiliary inversion in English in (2), we have John,
which intervenes between the two relevant heads (namely, T and C). This intervening
element can be taken to signal head movement; if the auxiliary precedes John in the
interrogative clause, it is dislocated by virtue of head movement. As for Japanese, by
contrast, nothing intervenes between X and Y in PF when head movement of X to Y
is not involved. Consequently, even if X undergoes head movement in the course of
the derivation, nothing is linearly crossed on its way to Y. For this reason, head
movement in Japanese is called ‘string-vacuous.’
If head movement in Japanese is necessarily string-vacuous and therefore
nothing about word order can help us detect it, then the question is how one can
cogently argue for it (or against it, for that matter). Below, I briefly review arguments
for head movement in Japanese presented by Otani and Whitman (1991) and Koizumi
(2000) in section 1.2 and 1.3. To anticipate a bit, the claim of these authors is that
Japanese has verb movement, a subcase of head movement, in overt syntax.
According to such a verb movement analysis, the sentence in (6), for instance, can be
derived in the way illustrated in (7) with English vocabulary (irrelevant details are
suppressed); the verb tabe ‘eat,’ which is generated as the head of the VP, undergoes
head movement up to T, without giving rise to word order permutation.
3
(6) Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-ta.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Past
‘Taro ate tempura.’
(7) [TP Taro [VP tempura tplay] [T eat+Past]]
After reviewing their ideas, in section 1.3 and 1.4 I also take up Oku’s (1998)
argument against Otani and Whitman and Fukui and Sakai’s (2003) against Koizumi.
1.2 Otani and Whitman (1991)
Central to Otani and Whitman’s (1991) discussion is the null object construction
(henceforth NOC for short) in Japanese like (8b).
(8) a. John-wa [zibun-no tegami-o] sute-ta.
John-Top self-of letter-Acc discard-Past
‘Johni threw out selfi’s letters.’
b. Mary-mo [e] sute-ta.
Mary-also discard-Past
Lit. ‘Mary also threw out [e].’
(Otani and Whitman 1991:346-347)
In (8b), the object of the verb sute ‘discard’ is not pronounced, as indicated by [e].
The important observation they make is that when preceded by (8a), in which the
anaphor zibun ‘self’ is contained in the object, the NOC in (8b) displays ambiguity
4
with respect to the interpretation; it can be taken to mean either (9a) or (9b). The
former reading is referred to as the ‘strict’ reading, and the latter is called the ‘sloppy’
reading.
(9) a. Mary also threw out John’s letters.
b. Mary also threw out her own letters.
They first point out that it is not promising to analyze [e] in (8b) as a variable
bound by a phonetically empty topic. Such an analysis has been independently
proposed by Huang (1987) to account for the properties of empty categories in
Chinese like [e] in (10b).
(10) a. Meigereni piping le zijii.
everyone criticize Perf self
‘Everyonei criticized selfi.’
b. Zhishi Zhangsan mei piping [e].
only Zhangsan not criticize
‘Only Zhangsanj didn’t criticize selfj.’
(Otani and Whitman 1991:345)
As indicated in the translation, (10b) allows the sloppy reading. Huang’s analysis of
this fact is that there is an unpronounced topic in the initial position, and this null
topic binds a variable in the object position. To be more precise, (10b) is comparable
5
to (11) below in the relevant respect. In (11), ziji ‘self’ appears as a topic and binds a
variable [e], which gives rise to the sloppy reading, according to Huang. He further
argues that (10b) has an implicit topic phrase corresponding to ziji, which can be
inferred from the discourse (a ‘discourse topic’ in Huang’s terminology).
(11) Zijij, zhishi Zhangsanj bu piping [ej].
self only Zhangsan not criticize
‘Selfj, only Zhangsanj didn’t criticize.’
At first sight, it might appear that Huang’s null topic analysis of (10) can be
extended to the NOC in Japanese in the following way. (8b) is structurally parallel to
(12) below, in which zibun-no tegami ‘self’s letters’ overtly appears as a topic and
binds a variable. The same binding relation obtains in (8b), but the topic happens to
be inaudible in that case. Since (12) allows the sloppy reading, so does (8b). This is
how the null topic analysis à la Huang captures the sloppy reading in (8b).
(12) [Zibunj-no tegami]k-wa, Maryj-mo [ek] sute-ta.
self-of letter-Top Mary-also discard-Past
‘Self’s letters, Mary also threw out.’
The reason that Otani and Whitman reject the null topic analysis of (8b) is that it
wrongly predicts that the sloppy reading is available in the case of (13).
6
(13) a. [Zibuni-no hatake-no ninzin]-ga Makuguregaa ozisani-no
self-Gen garden-Gen carrots-Nom McGregor Mr.-Gen
daikoubutu desi-ta.
big.favorite be-Past
‘The carrots from selfi’s garden were Mr. McGregori’s big favorite.’
b. Piitaa-mo [e] daisuki desi-ta.
Peter-also very.fond.of be-Past
‘Peter was also very fond of the carrots from Mr. McGregor’s garden.’
Crucially, (13b) does not allow the sloppy reading ‘Peter was also very fond of the
carrots from his own garden,’ which seems unexpected if the null topic strategy is
available to derive the sloppy reading in (8b). As Otani and Whitman demonstrate,
the intended reading does obtain when there is an overt topic zibun-no hatake-no
ninzin ‘carrots from self’s garden’ in the initial position, as in (14b).
(14) a. [Zibuni-no hatake-no ninzin]-ga Makuguregaa ozisani-no
self-Gen garden-Gen carrots-Nom McGregor Mr.-Gen
daikoubutu desi-ta.
big.favorite be-Past
‘The carrots from selfi’s garden were Mr. McGregori’s big favorite.’
7
b. [Zibunj-no hatake-no ninzin]k-wa Piitaaj-mo [ek]
self-Gen garden-Gen carrots-Top Peter-also
daisuki desi-ta.
very.fond.of be-Past
‘The carrots form selfj’s garden, Peterj was also very fond of.’
If the null topic strategy can be employed to derive the sloppy reading in the NOC in
(8b), then it is natural to predict that (13b) allows the sloppy reading by virtue of the
same strategy. However, this prediction is not born out, which leads Otani and
Whitman to reject the null topic analysis of (8b).
Instead, they propose to assimilate the NOC in (8b) to VP-ellipsis in English,
which (15b) exemplifies.
(15) a. John admires his mother.
b. Bill does [VP [V e] [Obj e]], too.
It is widely acknowledged that VP-ellipsis in English gives rise to the strict-sloppy
ambiguity (Sag 1976, Williams 1977); the sentence in (15b) which has a null VP is
ambiguous between the strict reading (16a) and the sloppy one (16b).
(16) a. Bill admires John’s mother.
b. Bill admires his own mother.
8
Otani and Whitman claim that the NOC in (8b) allows the sloppy reading because it
is derived by VP-ellipsis as well. In other words, they contend that the gap in (8b) is
actually a null VP, rather than a null object. The crucial point of their analysis is that
the verb sute ‘discard’ undergoes verb movement out of the VP, as shown in (17),
which makes the VP look similar to the one in the English example (15b) in that no
overt material is dominated by the VP.
(17) [TP Mary-also [VP [Obj e] tdiscard] discard+Past]
For expository purposes, let us interpret their VP-ellipsis analysis as follows. The
structure of (8a) is (18a), and (8b) is derived by deletion of the VP which is identical
to the antecedent VP in (18a), but crucially deletion does not affect the verb because
it is outside the deleted VP due to verb movement, as sketched in (18b) (elided
material is indicated by strikethrough)1.
(18) a. [TP John [VP self’s letter tdiscard] [T discard+Past]]
b. [TP Mary-also [VP self’s letter tdiscard] [T discard+Past]]
1
It should be mentioned that Otani and Whitman adopt the LF-copying analysis of
VP-ellipsis advocated by Williams (1977), and assume that interpretation of null VPs
is achieved by LF interpretive rules such as Derived VP Rule and VP Rule proposed
by Williams. Although in (17) I indicate their VP-ellipsis analysis of the NOC in
Japanese in terms of PF-deletion (Sag 1976, Merchant 2001) rather than LF-copying,
this is just for expository reasons, which does not affect the gist of their proposal.
9
If their analysis that attributes the sloppy reading in (8b) to VP-ellipsis is correct, then
it also accounts for why (13b) above lacks the sloppy reading. They claim that the
intended reading is absent in (13b) because it is not derived by VP-ellipsis, and that
VP-ellipsis is disallowed in (13b) for the same reason it is in the English example
(19b). In both cases, a null VP cannot be licensed since no antecedent VP is available
in the discourse.
(19b) a. [Carrots from his garden] were Mr. McGregor’s favorite.
b. *Peter did [VP e], too.
Thus, Otani and Whitman have argued for string-vacuous verb movement in Japanese
on the basis of the availability of the sloppy reading in the NOC. Their analysis which
incorporates verb movement and VP-ellipsis is empirically superior to the null topic
analysis, as the former is free from the problem of overgeneration the latter faces in
the case of (13b).
1.3 Koizumi (2000)
Overt verb movement in Japanese has also been argued for quite independently by
Koizumi (2000). His proposal can be schematically summarized in (20); verb
movement creates a surface structure constituent that exclusively dominates a direct
object (DO) and an indirect object (IO).
10
(20) [TP Subj [vP [VP IO [VP DO tV] tv] [[V+v]+T]]
Koizumi motivates this structure by examining coordination, (pseudo-)clefts and
scrambling, though I do not review all of his arguments. Rather, I focus on the one
based on coordination, because it is not only particularly revealing but also relatively
easier to introduce without bringing in complicated assumptions.
Koizumi takes up the example in (21), which involves coordination with the
connective particle to ‘and.’
(21) Mary-ga [[John-ni ringo-o futa-tu] to
Mary-Nom John-to apple-Acc two-Cl and
[Bob-ni banana-o san-bon]] age-ta (koto).
Bob-to banana-Acc three-Cl give-Past fact
‘(the fact that) Mary gave two apples to John, and three bananas to Bob.’
(Koizumi 2000:228)
The standard assumption about coordination is that only syntactic constituents can be
conjoined. If we maintain this assumption, then it must be the case that in (21) the
indirect objects John-ni ‘to John’ and Bob-ni ‘to Bob’ form a constituent with the
direct objects ringo-o futa-tu ‘two apples’ and banana-o san-bon ‘three apples,’
respectively. One question that immediately arises is why such unusual coordination
is permitted in (21), since it is not a common view that the structure-building
11
operation in syntax creates a constituent which is exclusively made up of an indirect
object and a direct object.
Koizumi’s answer to this question is that (21) represents a case of VP-
coordination, with the structure in (22).
(22) [TP Mary [vP [VP [VP to John [VP two apples tgive] and
[VP to Bob [VP three bananas tgive]] tv] [[give+v]+Past]]
The crucial point of Koizumi’s analysis is that the verb age ‘give’ raises to v in an
‘across-the-board (ATB)’ manner out of both VP conjuncts, and v subsequently
moves to T. ATB verb movement in (22) thus makes the two VPs look superficially
verbless (‘remnant’ VPs in his terminology), which gives us the impression that the
indirect and direct objects make up a syntactic constituent. On the basis of the well-
formedness of coordination in (21), Koizumi empirically motivates string-vacuous
verb movement in Japanese.
1.4 Oku (1998)
In section 1.2, I have reviewed Otani and Whitman’s (1991) argument for verb
movement in Japanese. The primary motivation for them to propose verb movement
is the fact that the NOC in (8), repeated here as (23) for the sake of convenience,
displays the strict-sloppy ambiguity, which is commonly observed in VP-ellipsis in
English. They attempt to reduce the sloppy reading in (23b) to VP-ellipsis by
12
analyzing the empty category [e] as a null VP, which is created by verb movement in
syntax.
(23) a. John-wa [zibun-no tegami-o] sute-ta.
John-Top self-of letter-Acc discard-Past
‘Johni threw out selfi’s letters.’
b. Mary-mo [e] sute-ta.
Mary-also discard-Past
Lit. ‘Mary also threw out [e].’
However, the validity of their argument has been challenged by Oku (1998),
who discusses examples of the following kind.
(24) a. Mary-wa [zibun-no teian-ga saiyoo-sare-ru to]
Mary-Top self-Gen proposal-Nom accept-Pass-Pres C
omotteiru.
think
‘Maryi thinks that heri proposal will be accepted.’
b. John-mo [[e] saiyoo-sare-ru to] omotteiru.
John-also accept-Pass-Pres C think
Lit. ‘John also thinks that [e] will be accepted.’
(Oku 1998:166)
13
There is a gap [e] in the subject position of the embedded clause in (24b). Oku
correctly points out that (24b) is ambiguous between the strict reading in (25a) and
the sloppy reading in (25b), when preceded by (24a).
(25) a. John also thinks that Mary’s proposal will be accepted.
b. John also thinks that his own proposal will be accepted.
The fact that (24b) allows the sloppy reading indicates that “the sloppy identity
reading is not necessarily contingent on VP-ellipsis,” (Oku 1998:166) because VP-
ellipsis in English, which Otani and Whitman say that the NOC in Japanese is similar
to, does not create subject gaps. Since the sloppy reading does obtain in a context
where we cannot reasonably analyze the empty category to be a null VP, (24b)
considerably weakens Otani and Whitman’s argument for verb movement in
Japanese2.
1.5 Fukui and Sakai (2003)
As quickly reviewed in section 1.3, Koizumi (2000) observes that the indirect and
direct object appear to form a syntactic constituent in (21) (repeated as (26) here),
which is conjoined by the particle to ‘and,’ assuming that only syntactic constituents
can be conjoined.
2
See also Hoji (1998), who independently argues against Otani and Whitman’s
analysis that equates the NOC in Japanese to VP-ellipsis in English.
14
(26) Mary-ga [[John-ni ringo-o futa-tu] to
Mary-Nom John-to apple-Acc two-Cl and
[Bob-ni banana-o san-bon]] age-ta (koto).
Bob-to banana-Acc three-Cl give-Past fact
‘(the fact that) Mary gave two apples to John, and three bananas to Bob.’
He then analyzes (26) as coordination of remnant VPs, and takes its well-formedness
to motivate verb movement in Japanese (in this particular case, ATB verb movement).
However, Koizumi’s argument from coordination has been questioned by
Fukui and Sakai (2003), who study coordination in some more detail and make the
following comment: “it seems premature to draw any definite conclusion from his
argument with respect to the existence of string vacuous V-to-T raising in Japanese”
(Fukui and Sakai 2003: 343)3. They provide the example of coordination in (27).
(27) Hahayoya-ga [Hanako-ni ringo(-o) mit-tu] to
mother-Nom Hanako-Dat apple(-Acc) three-CL and
[Kumiko-ni banana(-o) ni-hon]-no oyatu-o age-ta.
Kumiko-Dat banana(-Acc) two-CL-Gen snack-Acc give-Past
‘Their/someone’s mother gave a snack of three apples to Hanako and (a snack
of) two bananas to Kumiko.’
3
They also examine Koizumi’s arguments for verb movement in Japanese based on
scrambling and (pseudo-)clefts which I have skipped in section 1.3, and conclude that
they are not convincing enough to justify string-vacuous verb movement either. See
Fukui and Sakai (2003) for details. See also Takano (2002), who has questioned the
validity of Koizumi’s argument for verb movement based on (pseudo-)clefts.
15
(Fukui and Sakai 2003:346)
In (27), the connective particle to appears to conjoin the bracketed portions. These
bracketed portions contain arguments of the verb age ‘give’ on the one hand (namely,
Hanako-ni ‘to Hanako’ and Kumiko-ni ‘to Kumiko’) and arguments of the noun oyatu
‘snack’ on the other (namely, ringo(-o) mit-tu ‘three apples’ and banana(-o) ni-hon
‘two bananas’), although it is highly unlikely that an argument of the verb and that of
the noun form a syntactic constituent. Fukui and Sakai point out that even if one can
reasonably assume that the bracketed portions do make up syntactic constituents in
(27), verb movement does not seem responsible for such constituents, because
remnant VPs which result from ATB verb movement should not contain arguments of
nouns.
Based on this observation, Fukui and Sakai conclude that somewhat exotic
coordination in (26) does not directly support string-vacuous verb movement
Koizumi proposes, since equally (or even more) exotic coordination is permitted in
(27), where ATB verb movement is obviously irrelevant.
1.6 Outline of the thesis
As we have seen so far, although head movement (verb movement, in particular) in
Japanese has been extensively discussed in the literature, it seems fair to say that
there is still no agreement as to whether the grammar of Japanese indeed possesses
such string-vacuous movement. The primary goal of this thesis is to provide
16
additional pieces of empirical evidence for the presence of head movement in the
grammar of Japanese.
This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 focuses on te-clauses in
Japanese. After establishing that we need to distinguish two kinds of te-clauses,
complement ones and adjunct ones, I discuss several asymmetries between
complement and adjunct te-clauses. It is argued that such asymmetries motivate
string-vacuous head movement out of complement te-clauses, which crosses a clausal
boundary.
Chapter 3 is concerned with predicate raising (viz. head movement) within a
single clause. I first introduce two kinds of verbal predicates in Japanese, native
Japanese verbs and verbal nouns, and demonstrate that they behave differently in
ellipsis contexts. It is proposed that asymmetries they exhibit under ellipsis are rooted
in predicate raising. I argue that native Japanese verbs undergo predicate raising
whereas verbal nouns do not.
Chapter 4 is concerned with remaining issues, and discusses some potential
problems for the view I maintain.
17
Chapter 2: Head Movement out of Te-clauses
2.1 Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to argue for the presence of string-vacuous head movement
in the grammar of Japanese by examining te-clauses like the one in (1).
(1) Taro-ga [Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te] morat-ta.
Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te get-Past
‘Taro had Ziro cook pizza.’
I argue that in (1) the string of the embedded verb tukut ‘cook’ and the morpheme -te
(hereafter V-te complex, or V-te for short) undergoes head movement to the higher
verb morat ‘get’ (see Nakau 1973: Ch. 7, Inoue 1976, Harada 1977/2000, Shibatani
1978, McCawley and Momoi 1986, and Nakatani 2004: Ch. 7 for relevant discussion
of V-te; see also Kuroda 1965: Ch. 6, Miyagawa 1987b, Terada 1990: Ch. 5,
Kitagawa and Kuroda 1992, Tsujimura 1993, Hoshi 1994: Ch. 4, Matsumoto 1996:
Ch. 3, Takahashi 2012, and Nishigauchi 2013 for structural proposals given to
(certain) te-complement constructions).
The novelty of the study presented in this chapter is twofold. First, I provide
new arguments in favor of the classical head movement analysis of complement V-te,
based on hitherto unnoticed or less acknowledged facts. I also bring adjunct te-
clauses in perspective (see Tamori 1977, Nakatani 2004, Uchimaru 2006, Hayashi
18
2013 for discussion of adjunct V-te), demonstrating that adjunct V-te, unlike
complement V-te, never moves. Second, although the idea that complement V-te
moves has been found in the literature (see the references cited above), a unified
analysis of te-complements and te-adjuncts has not been fully worked out. I attempt
to offer such an analysis.
This chapter is organized as follows: In section 2.2 I examine properties of te-
clauses, and argue that these properties can straightforwardly be accounted for by
head movement, and propose that head movement out of the te-complement takes
place in order to eliminate the uninterpretable tense feature on the higher predicate it
adjoins to. In Section 2.3 I take up some possible alternatives, which do not appeal to
head movement, to the analysis presented here. Section 2.4 explores a theoretical
implication of the proposed analysis for the syntax-morphology interface. It is shown
that the result of head movement involved in te-complements is somewhat exotic in
that it does not feed word formation. It is suggested that this unusual result of head
movement supports Matushansky’s (2006) analysis of head movement, according to
which head movement is actually a combination of two independent operations.
Section 2.5 is a conclusion.
2.2 Properties of te-clauses and head movement analysis
This section introduces properties of te-clauses and shows that an analysis in terms of
head movement captures the data in a principled manner. Alternatives to the head
movement analysis will be discussed in Section 2.3.
19
2.2.1 Cross-clausal head movement out of te-clauses
The purpose of this section is to lay out properties of te-clauses and show that
the properties naturally follow if V-te moves into the next higher clause in the
complement construction but not in its adjunct counterpart. Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3
deal with asymmetries that complement and adjunct te-clauses exhibit. In section
2.2.4 I examine data concerning ellipsis of te-complements.
(2) and (3) below illustrate complement and adjunct te-clauses, respectively.1
(2) a. Taroi-wa [[ei] piza-o tukut-te] kure-ta.
Taro-Top pizza-Acc cook-te give-Past
‘Taro cooked pizza (for me).’
b. Yatto amei-ga [[ei] yan-de] kure-ta.
finally rain-Nom stop-te give-Past
‘Finally the rain stopped.’
c. Taro-wa [Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te] morat-ta.
Taro-Top Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te get-Past
d. [Kono mise-de-wa kankodori-ga nai-te] hosiku-na-i.
this shop-in-Top cuckoo-Nom sing-te want-Neg-Pres
‘(I) do not want this shop to be out of business.’
1
As Matsumoto (1996) discusses, predicates that can take te-complements are
limited; e.g. ar ‘be,’ age ‘give,’ ik ‘go,’ ku ‘come,’ ok ‘put,’ mi ‘see,’ simaw ‘finish,’
etc.
20
(3) Taro-ga [piza-o tukut-te] okane-o morat-ta.
Taro-Nom pizza-Acc cook-te money-Acc get-Past
‘Taro got money by cooking pizza.’
Complement te-clauses may involve various types of complementation. (2a) and (2b)
may be analyzed as involving subject control and subject-to-subject raising,
respectively. The structures of (2c) and of (2d) seem more difficult to identify. (2c),
contrary to what is indicated by the bracketing notation above, could be an object
control construction since it is possible to analyze the dative argument Ziro-ni as a
matrix element.2 The grammaticality of (2d), where a clausal idiom kankodori-ga
naku ‘hardly get any customers’ is embedded under the desiderative adjective hosiku
‘want’, suggests that a te-complement allows its subject to be case-marked by the
matrix predicate that is able to license nominative objects in a ‘cross-clausal’ fashion
(see Harada 1977/2000 for some discussion). To determine which of these
representations is descriptively adequate is important, but it is not directly pertinent to
this study. Rather, what is more important for us is that the properties examined in
2
This possibility is shown in (i) below. The representation in (i) seems plausible
because the verb morat ‘get’ can take a dative or ablative phrase as its source
argument when it does not take a te-complement, as in (ii).
(i) Taro-ga Ziroi-ni/kara [[ei] piza-o tukut-te] morat-ta.

Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat/from pizza-Acc cook-te get-Past
(ii) Taro-ga Ziro-ni/kara okane-o morat-ta.
Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat/from money-Acc get-Past
‘Taro got money from Ziro.’
The choice between (2c) and (i) does not affect the discussion made in the text in any
significant way. See Harada (1977/2000) for discussion on this matter.
21
this section are invariably observed across these te-complements selected by different
main predicates.
The analysis I propose can schematically be summarized in (4), where the V-
te complex moves string-vacuously out of the complement clause in a cross-clausal
fashion, and in (5), where the V-te stays inside the adjunct clause.
(4) Taro [Complement te-clause Ziro pizza t ] [cook-te]+get-Past
(5) Taro [Adjunct te-clause Ziro pizza [cook-te]] money get-Past
Before going on to look at the core data, two points need to be made. First, regarding
the categorical status of -te, I adopt Nakatani’s (2004:129) analysis cited in (6).
(6) T[+past] in Japanese is realized as -ta when governed by C, and as –te
otherwise.
According to (6), the morpheme -te is T, and te-clauses are nothing but TPs that are
not immediately dominated by CPs (see Nakatani 2004 for justification of (6)). So
when I say V-te moves up to the next higher clause, it means that T undergoes head
movement to the higher predicate. As for the question of how the embedded V and -te
are combined, I assume that head movement in syntax (viz. V-to-T movement) is also
responsible. Although discussion of verb movement per se will be postponed to
chapter 3, the proposal concerning head movement of T made in this chapter can be
justified on independent grounds.
22
Next, I would like to demonstrate that the complement/adjunct bifurcation I
proposed in (4)-(5) can be motivated independently. As has been observed in the
literature (see Nakau 1973, Tateishi 1994 and references cited therein), when the VP
proform soo su ‘do so’ is present, complements of verbs must disappear together with
the verbs, while adjuncts may or may not. For instance, (7b) is ungrammatical when
the direct object put inside the parentheses is pronounced, whereas (8b) is
grammatical regardless of whether the adjunct overtly appears or not.3
(7) a. Taro-ga piza-o tukut-ta.
Taro-Nom pizza-Acc cook-Past
‘Taro cooked pizza.’
b. Ziro-mo (*piza-o) soo si-ta.
Ziro-also pizza-Acc so do-Past
‘Ziro did so, too.’
(8) a. Taro-ga [Adjunct razio-o kiki nagara]
Taro-Nom radio-Acc listen while
piza-o tukut-ta.
pizza-Acc cook-Past
‘Taro cooked pizza while listening to the radio.’
3
As pointed out by Tateishi (1994), examples like (7b) become considerably better if
a direct object occurring outside of the proform can be interpreted as a contrastive
focus. This factor must be controlled for, as Tateishi notes, when examining
constituent structures of VPs, and it actually is in the examples in the text.
23
b. Ziro-mo (razio-o kiki nagara) soo si-ta.
Ziro-also radio-Acc listen while so do-Past
‘Ziro did so, too.’
If we apply this VP-replacement test to te-clauses, the following results are obtained:
what I call ‘te-complements’ must disappear under soo su (see (9b)) and what I call
‘te-adjuncts’ can freely remain (see (10b)).
(9) a. Taro-ga [TP Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te]
Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te
morat-ta.
get-Past
b. Ken-mo (*piza-o tukut-te) soo si-ta.
Ken-also pizza-Acc cook-te so do-Past
‘Ken did so, too.’
(10) a. Taro-ga [TP piza-o tukut-te] okane-o
Taro-Nom pizza-Acc cook-te money-Acc
morat-ta.
get-Past
24
b. Ken-mo (piza-o tukut-te) soo si-ta.
Ken-also pizza-Acc cook-te so do-Past
‘Ken did so, too.’
Given that a contrast emerges between (9b) and (10b) when the material inside the
parentheses is overtly expressed, it is reasonable to conclude that the
complement/adjunct bifurcation in te-clauses is not illusory but is a real one.
Now we are ready to examine properties of te-clauses relevant to the presence
or absence of movement of V-te. They concern (i) mobility of te-clauses, (ii) their
behavior in nominalizations, and (iii) elidability of te-complements.
2.2.2 Mobility
Let us begin with mobility of te-clauses. I show that complement and adjunct
te-clauses behave differently with respect to mobility, as stated in (11). This is a first
generalization that I would like to capture. So call it ‘Fact 1.’
(11) Fact 1
Adjunct te-clauses may be freely moved, while complement ones can
never be.
This can be confirmed by the sharp contrast between (12) and (13) below. (12)
represents phrasal movement of te-adjuncts, which yields a well-formed string. On
25
the other hand, (13), which is derived by moving the te-complement across the
subject, is unequivocally unacceptable.
(12) [piza-o tukut-te]i Taro-ga okane-o ti morat-ta.
piza-Acc cook-te Taro-Nom money-Acc get-Past
‘By cooking pizza, Taro got money.’
(13) *[Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te]i Taro-ga ti morat-ta.
Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te Taro-Nom get-Past
‘Taro had Ziro cook pizza.’ (intended reading)
Related observations have been made by McCawley and Momoi (1986), Miyagawa
(1987b), Sells (1990), Terada (1990), Matsumoto (1996), and Nakatani (2004).
However, it should be remarked that none of these authors, as far as I can see,
explicitly states that there is a discrepancy between complement and adjunct te-
clauses, as I do in (11). Rather, they observe that in the case of (what I refer to as) te-
complements, V-te and the main clause predicate must be linearly adjacent to each
other, without drawing the distinction between complement and adjunct te-clauses.
The head movement analysis in (4) and (5) above correctly captures this
asymmetry. In the case of adjunct te-clauses, phrasal movement, or scrambling, of the
te-clause always affects the V-te as well as other elements in the clause because it
stays inside the larger constituent that undergoes fronting, as shown in (14).
(14) Taro [TP PRO [vP[VP pizza tV ] tv] [T [cook-v]-te]] money got
26
As for complement te-clauses, however, the V-te is required to move to the matrix
verb under the present analysis. As a result, the V-te cannot occur inside the moved
TP, as shown in (15), and therefore (13) cannot be derived unless the T head fails to
undergo head movement.
(15) Taro [TP Ziro [vP[VP pizza tV ] tv] tT] [[T [cook-v]-te]+get]-PAST
The account of (11) I have just presented can be extended to the behavior of
te-clauses under a seemingly unrelated phenomenon, namely fragment answer
formation. A preciously unnoticed fact is that te-adjuncts can stand alone as
fragments, whereas te-complements, by contrast, can never be, as demonstrated in
(16b) and (17b), respectively. Similar but completely different observations have
been made by McCawley and Momoi (1986) and Sells (1990), who study gapping (or
Right Node Raising, in McCawley and Momoi’s analysis) in te-complements, but
crucially they do not include te-adjuncts in their discussion.
(16) a. Taro-wa [piza-o tukut-te] okane-o
Taro-Top pizza-Acc cook-te money-Acc
morat-ta no?
get-Past Q
‘Did Taro get money by cooking pizza?’
27
b. Iya, [suupu-o tukut-te] da.
no soup-Acc cook-te Cop
‘No, by cooking soup.’
(17) a. Taro-wa [Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te]
Taro-Top Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te
morat-ta no?
get-Past Q
‘Did Taro have Ziro cook pizza?’
b. *Iya, [(Ziro-ni) suupu-o tukut-te] da.
no Ziro-Dat soup-Acc cook-te Cop
‘No, (Taro had Ziro) cook soup.’ (intended reading)
The syntax of fragment answers has been a topic of great interest (e.g. Merchant
2004). Here, I adopt Nishigauchi’s (2006) proposal that fragment answers (or ‘short
answers,’ in his terminology) in Japanese are derived from so-called no da sentences
through focus movement to the specifier of FocP headed by the copula da, followed
by deletion of FinP headed by no in the phonological component, as indicated in (18)
(see Nishigauchi 2006 for details; see also Hiraiwa and Ishihara 2002 for general
discussion of no da sentences).
(18) [FocP Fragmenti [FinP [TP … ti … V T] no] da]
28
Coupled with this specific analysis of fragments, the head movement analysis pursued
here correctly captures the asymmetry in (16)-(17) above. Since it is no problem to
move an adjunct te-clause as a whole, as we have already seen in (12), it can be
moved to [Spec, FocP], and the moved te-clause can survive deletion, remaining as a
fragment. A complement te-clause, however, cannot move to [Spec, FocP] with the
V-te complex inside. As shown in (19) below, V-te in the complement construction
always ends up being inside the elided FinP as a result of head movement into the
higher clause. Therefore, it is never pronounced in fragment answer formation (17b).
(19) [FocP [TP Ziro soup tT ] i [FinP [TP Taro ti [T [cook-v]-te]+get-Past] no] da]
To recap, if V-te moves only out of complement clauses, the asymmetry
between te-complements and te-adjuncts with regard to mobility is immediately
expected.
2.2.3 No-marking under nominalizations
This subsection discusses no-marking under nominalizations; in particular,
nominalizations headed by the suffix -kata ‘way.’ The subsection has three parts.
First, I present a particular analysis of kata-nominalizations and show that it works
well to account for the distribution of no in simple kata-nominals. Second, I use the
analysis to reveal the representations of complement and adjunct te-clauses. The
behavior of the two kinds of te-clause in nominals suggests that complement V-te
moves to the higher predicate, while adjunct V-te does not. Finally, I compare the
29
analysis of kata-nominals presented here and the fully-developed analysis by
Kishimoto (2006). It is shown that his analysis of kata-nominalizations is, although
successful, not preferable.
Let us start with the three properties of kata-nominalizations in (20), which I
think that any adequate analysis of the phenomenon must capture (see Sugioka 1992,
Kageyama 1993, Hoshi 2002, and Kishimoto 2006 for general properties of kata-
nominals). The examples in (21) are examined to see how these generalizations are
motivated4. (As will be stated below, I assume with Kishimoto 2006 that -kata
requires a clausal complement such as vP.)
(20) a. Dependents of V and v, whether arguments or adjuncts, are no-marked
by the nominal suffix -kata.
b. -Kata cannot no-mark XP if there is YP such that the -kata no-marks it
and that it dominates XP. In other words, YP is a ‘barrier’ for no-
marking of XP.
c. (Extended) projections of the verb combined with -kata are not
barriers for no-marking.
4
The status of the particle no which appears in nominals seems massively ambiguous,
especially if Watanabe (2010) is correct in saying that there are two types of no, a
genitive case particle and a morphological linking element (see also Tsujioka 2011).
Throughout my discussion of kata-nominals, I simply gloss the particle as no, in
order to avoid complications.
30
(21) a. [NP [vP Taro-no [boonasu-o moratta toki]-no
Taro-no bonus-Acc got when-no
mono-no kai(*-no)]-kata]
thing-no buy-no-way
‘the way in which Taro buys things when he gets a bonus payment’
b. *[NP [vP Taro-no [boonasu-no moratta toki]-no mono-no kai]-kata]
(20a) is illustrated by the fact that the subject, the adverbial clause, and the object
associated with the verb kai ‘buy’ are all no-marked in (21a). (20b) maintains that no-
marking is local in a domination-sensitive manner; XP cannot be no-marked if a
phrase that dominates it is no-marked. In (21b), nothing can be no-marked inside the
toki-clause since the clause itself is no-marked. Finally, if (20c), i.e. that neither vP
nor VP is a barrier for no-marking, did not hold, Taro in (21a) for example would not
be able to bear no.
Now I would like to introduce the machinery to account for these properties. I
follow Kishimoto (2006) in assuming that the nominalizing suffix -kata ‘way’ is N,
that it takes a vP complement, as noted above, and that v and V overtly raise up to N
in nominalizations, as shown in (22).5
(22) [NP [vP Taro [VP [Adjunct bonus got when] thing tV] tv] [N [buy-v]-way]]
5
Kishimoto (2006) argues that it is the nominalizing suffix -kata that triggers the
series of head movement, and in clausal domains, where vPs are typically selected by
T in lieu of -kata, no such head movement takes place. I do not agree with him on this
point, although I assume with Kishimoto that verb movement is involved in the
derivation of kata-nominals. In chapter 3, I provide evidence to show that verb
movement out of vPs takes place in clausal domains as well.
31
The structure in (22) where -kata takes a vP complement has been motivated by
Sugioka (1992), who provides compelling evidence. In (23a) we have the VP idiom
asi-o arau, whose literal interpretation is ‘to wash a leg.’ Sugioka’s crucial
observation is that the VP idiom can occur inside the kata-nominal, as in (23b).
(23) a. booryokudan-kara asi-o arau
gang.group-from leg-Acc wash
‘to cut the connection with a gang group’
b. [NP booryokudan-kara-no asi-no arai-kata]
gang.group-from-no leg-no wash-way
‘the way in which one cuts the connection with a gang group’
(Sugioka 1992:59)
If we adopt the standard assumption that idioms correspond to syntactic constituents
(in D-Structure or LF, see Larson 1988, Koopman and Sportiche 1991, Richards 2001,
and references cited therein), then the fact that idiomaticity obtains not only in the
clausal (or verbal) domain (23a) but also in the kata-nominal (23b) strongly suggests
that there is a verbal constituent inside the kata-nominalization. In other words, it is
not plausible to analyze the structure of (23b) as something like (24), in which the
nominalizing suffix is attached to the verb in the lexicon, because in such a structure
the verb wash and the object leg do not make up a syntactic constituent.
32
(24) [NP from gang group [NP leg [N wash-way]]]
As for no-marking, I propose that it takes place under government, as stated in
(25) (see also Kitagawa and Ross 1982, Saito and Murasugi 1990, Watanabe 2010 for
general discussion of no-marking). I assume a standard formulation of government
given in (26), based on Baker (1988, 1996).
(25) α is no-marked iff (a) α is governed by N; (b) α is a maximal category; and
(c) the head of α is not a trace.
(26) a. X governs Y iff (i) X m-commands Y, and (ii) there is no other
maximal category that dominates Y but not X.
b. X m-commands Y iff (i) X and Y are categories; (ii) X excludes Y,
and (iii) every maximal category that dominates X dominates Y.
c. X excludes Y iff no segment of X dominates Y.
d. The Government Transparency Corollary (GTC): A lexical item that
has an item incorporated into it governs everything the incorporated
item governed in its original position.
It should be stressed that this is not a place to discuss how to translate this machinery
into a framework that does not appeal to government. Given my current purpose of
diagnosing the representations of te-clauses, the theory of kata-nominalizations needs
to be explicit enough for us to make clear predictions. (25), capitalizing on standard
formulations in (26), does serve my purpose.
33
This said, let us see how the proposed structure in (22) with the assumptions
in (25)-(26) work to capture the properties listed in (20). First, (20a) follows under the
present system that incorporates the GTC (26d). In (22), -kata only governs vP if
nothing happens. When V-to-v movement takes place, the GTC first allows v to
govern the object NP, in addition to the subject NP (which v already governs without
V-movement). v-to-N movement next allows N to govern whatever v governs. So, the
subject and the object are both governed by N. Virtually the same applies to
government of the adjunct in (22), whichever projection inside vP the adjunct phrase
may be adjoined to. Note that why (20c) holds is already answered. After V-to-v-to-N
movement takes place, N can govern the domain that v and V are originally able to
govern. So vP and VP are not barriers for government by N any more.
Next, how is the locality effect mentioned in (20b) captured? Note fist that the
presence of the maximal projection headed by toki prevents N from governing the NP
boonasu. Notice then the GTC does not appear to make tokiP transparent for
government because there is no evidence that the head of the adjunct, toki, undergoes
head movement to V or v. In fact, such movement should not be possible, given that
an adjunct is an island. So it is very unlikely for N to govern into the adjunct clause.
The locality effect thus is explained.
Finally, ungrammatical examples like (27) below need to be discussed in
order to make the proposed analysis complete. It should be asked why vP and VP,
both headed by a trace in my analysis, cannot be no-marked.
34
(27) *[NP [vP Taro-no [VP … mono-no tV] -no tv] -no kai-kata]
Taro-no -no -no buy-way
Examples like this lead us to add (25c), i.e. that a phrase headed by a trace cannot be
no-marked, to the set of conditions on no-marking. Without this additional condition,
(27) would be predicted to be fine because vP and VP are governed by N. I suspect
that (25c) is perhaps due to the fact that no, being a suffix, needs a phonologically
non-null host and requires the host to be in a strictly local relation to it.
Having laid out my analysis of simple kata-nominals, we can turn to
complement and adjunct te-clauses. We can use the analysis introduced above to
investigate their syntactic representations. Although kata-nominals involving te-
clauses inside have been studied to a certain extent (e.g. Kageyama 1993, Kishimoto
2006), there is an important fact that has eluded attention and a theoretical analysis;
complement and adjunct te-clauses behave differently in the manner described in (28),
which is exemplified by (29)-(30). This is a second generalization about te-clauses I
would like to explain in this chapter. So I dub it ‘Fact 2.’
(28) Fact 2
In nominalizations, adjunct te-clauses are no-marked and elements inside
them cannot be. Complement te-clauses, in contrast, cannot be no-marked and
elements inside them must be no-marked.
35
(29) Distribution of no in kata-nominalizations containing adjunct te-clauses
a. [NP Taro-no [piza-o tukut-te]-no okane-no
Taro-no pizza-Acc cook-te-no money-no
morai-kata]
get-way
‘the way of Taro’s getting money by cooking pizza’
b. *[NP Taro-no [piza-no tukut-te] okane-no morai-kata]
c. *[NP Taro-no [piza-o tukut-te] okane-no morai-kata]
d. *[NP Taro-no [piza-no tukut-te]-no okane-no morai-kata]
In (29a), the te-adjunct is no-marked, but the object piza ‘pizza’ embedded in the te-
clause is not. (29b) represents an opposite pattern; while the adjunct te-clause itself is
not accompanied by no, the object inside it is no-marked. (29c) is minimally different
from (29a) in that the adjunct te-clause lacks no-marking, and (29d) is an instance in
which not only the te-adjunct but also the object inside it receives no-marking.
Among these four possibilities, only (29a) produces a well-formed string. The
following paradigm given in (30), on the other hand, represents four patterns of no-
marking in kata-nominals containing te-complements inside.
36
(30) Distribution of no in kata-nominalizations containing complement te-clauses
a. [NP Taro-no Ziro-kara-no [piza-no tukut-te]
Taro-no Ziro-from-no pizza-no cook-te
morai-kata]
get-way
‘the way of Taro’s having Ziro cook pizza’
b. *[NP Taro-no Ziro-kara-no [piza-o tukut-te]-no morai-kata]
c. *[NP Taro-no Ziro-kara-no [piza-o tukut-te] morai-kata]
d. *[NP Taro-no Ziro-kara-no [piza-no tukut-te]-no morai-kata]
In (30a), the complement te-clause lacks no, whereas the object inside it is no-marked.
In (30b), the te-complement itself, but not the object inside it, is suffixed by no. (30c)
is a case where neither the te-complement nor the object inside it is accompanied by
no, and in (30d) both the te-complement and the object embedded in it is no-marked.
This time, only (30a) qualifies as a grammatical nominal expression among these four.
We can see from this fact that complement te-clauses are an exception to (20a) since
they are arguments of nominalized verbs, but not susceptible to no-marking
nevertheless.
It is easy to see that the government-based analysis of kata-nominals I have
proposed captures Fact 2 if complement V-te undergoes head movement all the way
to -kata and adjunct V-te remains inside the te-clause.
37
(31) a. [NP[vP …[Complement TP … pizza-no tV tv tT ] tV tv ]
[N cook-v-te get-v-way]]
b. [NP [vP …[Adjunct TP … pizza-Acc cook-v-te]-no money-no tV tv]
[N get-v-way]]
If complement V-te moves to the higher V, we predict that the verbal complex further
moves to N, and this series of head movements allows N to no-mark elements internal
to the complement TP, as shown in (31a). If adjunct V-te stays inside TP, we
guarantee that the TP is a target of no-marking, as shown in (31b). Thus, Fact 2
constitutes another argument for my treatment of complement and adjunct te-clauses.
Let me make some additional comments before leaving this subsection. Recall
that a prominent feature of the present analysis of the distribution of no is making use
of head movement to answer the following question: why is it that certain phrases (i.e.
vP, VP and complement te-clauses) neither bear no nor block no-marking into them?
There is an alternative answer to this question. Kishimoto’s (2006) work is one of the
most explicit analyses of kata-nominalizations and argues that no-marked phrases
have a feature (call it F) that must be licensed by the suffix -kata under c-command.
How does the feature-licensing approach answer the question above? As far as I can
tell, the answer seems to be that vP, VP and complement te-clauses do not have F.
This answer raises a next question: how can we determine, on the basis of empirical
data, whether an item has this feature or not, independently of the distribution of no?
The feature-licensing approach, as it stands, provides no answer to the latter question.
In other words, it is rather difficult for this particular feature-licensing approach to
38
make a prediction about the distribution of no without looking at the actual
distribution. So when it comes to Fact 2, the feature-licensing analysis expects that
adjunct te-clauses have an F while complement te-clauses do not, but this prediction
is hard to test against data other than the distribution of no. By contrast, the analysis
proposed here is free from this problem. This is so precisely because the gist of the
present analysis is that Fact 2 is tied to presence or absence of V-te movement, and
whether V-te raises or not in a given context can be checked independently by
looking at the mobility of a te-clause of the relevant kind, for example. Thus, I
conclude that the feature-licensing approach to the distribution of no cannot be an
alternative to my proposal until the problem noted here is fixed.
In sum, I have shown that the analysis of kata-nominals introduced above and
Fact 2 lead us to conclude that complement V-te, unlike adjunct V-te, moves to the
matrix clause.
2.2.4 Argument Ellipsis and V-te remnants
The claim that the T head of a complement te-clause undergoes movement can be
further reinforced by its behavior in Argument Ellipsis (Oku 1998; see also Takahashi
2008 for a state of the art summary). Of importance here is the fact in (32), which can
be confirmed by the sheer unacceptability of (33b) on the one hand and the
unequivocal well-formedness of (34b) on the other.
39
(32) Fact 3
Dependents of V-te, whether arguments or adjuncts, can be left unpronounced
only when V-te is pronounced.
(33) a. Taro-wa [Ziro-ni mayoneezu-de susi-o
Taro-Top Ziro-Dat mayonnaise-with sushi-Acc
tabe-te] morat-ta kedo,
eat-te get-Past but
‘Taro had Ziro eat sushi with mayonnaise, but…’
b. *boku-wa [e] morawa-nakat-ta.
I-Top get-Neg-Past
‘I didn’t have Ziro eat sushi with mayonnaise.’ (intended reading)
eat-te get-Past but
b. boku-wa [e] tabe-te morawa-nakat-ta.
I-Top eat-te get-Neg-Past
‘I didn’t have Ziro eat sushi with mayonnaise.’
The dative argument Ziro-ni, the adjunct mayoneezu-de ‘with mayonnaise,’ and the
accusative argument susi-o, all of which are associated with tabe-te ‘eat-te,’ are
missing in both (33b) and (34b). Such omission is possible only if the V-te remains
40
overt, as in (34b). McCawley and Momoi (1986) make a similar observation based on
question-answer pairs. They point out that V-te cannot be omitted in answers in b-
sentences in (35)-(36).
(35) a. Kimi-wa [Tanaka-san-ni gomi-o sute-te]
you-Top Tanaka-Mr.-Dat garbage-Acc throw.away-te
morai-masi-ta ka?
get-Pol-Past Q
‘Did you get Tanaka to throw out the garbage?’
b. Hai, *(sute-te) morai-masi-ta.
yes throw.away-te get-Pol-Past
‘Yes, I did.’
(36) a. Kimi-wa [sono hon-o yon-de] mi-masi-ta ka?
you-Top that book-Acc read-te see-Pol-Past Q
‘Did you try reading that book?’
b. Hai, *(yon-de) mi-masi-ta.
yes read-te see-Pol-Past
‘Yes, I did.’
(McCawley and Momoi 1986:16)
I propose that b-sentences in (33)-(36) involve Argument Ellipsis of complement te-
clauses. In other words, Argument Ellipsis applies to sister nodes of predicates that
select te-clauses.
41
The apparent ‘unelidability’ of the te-clause in (33b) is exactly what the
present analysis predicts; since the V-te has moved to the next higher clause, it does
not reside in the constituent that can be deleted by Argument Ellipsis any longer. On
the other hand, we predict that Argument Ellipsis of the TP produces an acceptable
output if the V-te remains overt as a remnant. Under my analysis, when Argument
Ellipsis applies to the te-clause, the arguments and adjunct inside the te-clause are
deleted but the V-te is obligatorily stranded, because of head movement to the higher
predicate, as shown in (37).
(37) I [TP Ziro with mayonnaise sushi t ] [T eat-te]+get-Past
The well-formedness of the elliptical clause in (34b), which exhibits what I call V-te
stranding (complement) ellipsis, is compatible with this prediction.6, 7
6
One might argue that the well-formed string in (34b) obtains by eliding the
embedded constituents Ziro, with mayonnaise, and sushi separately, rather than
eliding the TP as a whole. Such a possibility is, however, untenable because it
necessitates ellipsis of the adjunct with mayonnaise: as discussed in some detail in
chapter 3, adjuncts in Japanese cannot be independently targeted by ellipsis. See
sections 3.4 and 3.7 for unpronounced adjuncts.
7
As Tomohiro Fujii has correctly pointed out, one tacit assumption behind my
account of Fact 3 is that TP complements of the predicates in question are susceptible
to Argument Ellipsis. I take this to be the null hypothesis, for Argument Ellipsis
applies to NP complements of these predicates (see footnote 2) without any problem;
having (ia) as its antecedent, not only (ib) but also (ic), in which the object NP ringo-
o ‘apple’ of the verb moraw ‘get’ is left pronounced, is perfectly grammatical.
(i) a. Taro-wa Ziro-ni [NP ringo]-o age-ta kedo,

Taro-Top Ziro-Dat apple-Acc give-Past but
‘Taro gave apples to Ziro, but…’
b. boku-wa Hanako-kara [NP ringo]-o morat-ta.
I-Top Hanako-from apple-Acc get-Past
‘I got apples from Hanako.’
42
Interestingly, if we take the kind of complement clause whose head does not
move to the next higher clause, Argument Ellipsis of the entire clause causes no
problem. As Tanaka (2008) discusses, Argument Ellipsis of yooni-clauses, for
instance, is perfectly acceptable:
(38) a. Hanako-wa Taro-ni [CP fugu-o taberu yooni]
Hanako-Top Taro-Dat blowfish-Acc eat C
meizi-ta kedo,
order-Past but
‘Hanako ordered Taro to eat blowfish, but…’
b. Sachiko-wa Ziro-ni [e] meizi-da.
Sachiko-Top Ziro-Dat order-Past
‘Sachiko ordered Ziro to eat blowfish.’
(Tanaka 2008:14)
c. boku-wa Hanako-kara [e] morat-ta.

I-Top Hanako-from get-Past
‘I got apples from Hanako.’
So long as we can maintain that this assumption is the null hypothesis, it can be
concluded that the set of data concerning Argument Ellipsis in (33)-(34) does not
contradict the prediction of the head movement analysis of V-te at least, whereas the
asymmetry between (33) on the one hand and (i) on the other seems to be unexpected
if V-te of a te-complement does not undergo movement. Other things being equal, the
proposed analysis therefore should be favored over such an alternative analysis which
does not incorporate head movement of V-te on empirical grounds.
43
That no head movement takes place out of yooni-clauses can be confirmed by using
mobility as a diagnostic (see section 2.2.2): as (39) below shows, yooni-clauses,
contrary to te-complements, can be freely moved.
(39) [CP Fugu-o taberu yooni]i Hanako-ga Taro-ni ti
blowfish-Acc eat C Hanako-Nom Taro-Dat
meizi-ta.
order-Past
‘Hanako ordered Taro to eat blowfish.’
This strongly suggests that (im)mobility and (un)elidability of complement clauses
are closely correlated with each other. In this regard, the head movement derivation
of complement te-clauses proposed here seems preferable, as it successfully captures
the correlation between their immobility and unelidability.
2.2.5 The trigger of head movement out of te-clauses
I have so far established that the string vacuous head movement analysis of te-clauses,
repeated below, is well motivated on empirical grounds. In this section, I consider
why head movement of the V-te complex is required in complement cases in (4) but
not possible in adjunct cases in (5), an important question that I have not so far dealt
with.
(4) Taro [Complement te-clause Ziro pizza t ] [cook-te]+get-PAST
44
(5) Taro [Adjunct te-clause Ziro pizza [cook-te]] money get-PAST
I propose that head movement of V-te is triggered by predicates that take te-
complements. To be more precise, I assume that when such predicates select te-
clauses as their internal argument, they enter the derivation with an uninterpretable
tense feature [uT], and this uninterpretable feature has an ‘EPP property’ that triggers
head movement.8 Following Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), I assume that an EPP
property of a feature is a subfeature of that feature. The verb moraw ‘get,’ one of the
predicates that allow te-complements, for example, has the following two lexical
specifications, at least (see also footnote 2).
(40) a. moraw: verb, [TP __], [uT]+EPP
b. moraw: verb, [NP NP __]
What is indicated by (41) is the following: when moraw takes a te-clause (TP) as its
internal argument it is accompanied by the [uT] feature with the EPP property (41a),
whereas when the verb selects a source NP and a theme NP, it is stipulated that the
[uT] feature is simply absent (41b). Head movement of the complex T head from the
te-clause, which has an interpretable tense feature, is required to satisfy the EPP
property of [uT] and eliminate that uninterpretable feature. These features, if not
checked, lead the derivation to a violation of Full Interpretation. The relevant stages
8
For various proposals about the relationship between head movement and the EPP,
see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (1998), Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), and
Roberts (2010).
45
of the derivation of the representative case of te-complements in (42) are sketched in
(43), ignoring irrelevant details.
(43) a. Merge of the te-clause and get
[VP [TP Ziro pizza [T cook-te]] get[uT]]
b. Head movement of the V-te complex
[VP [TP Ziro pizza t ] [T cook-te]+get[uT]]
(43a) illustrates that the verb get enters the derivation with [uT], and the te-clause is
merged with the verb as its internal argument. Next, the EPP property of [uT] triggers
overt head movement of the V-te complex to the higher verb in a cross-clausal
fashion, and consequently [uT] gets erased, as shown in (42b).
As for the absence of head movement out of adjunct te-clauses, the analysis
runs as follows. The first case to consider is the case in which the matrix predicate
does not have the [uT] feature, i.e. (41b). In this case, V-te does not move simply
because nothing triggers the operation, and te-adjuncts attach to the matrix clause
freely. In the ‘complement’ case, i.e. (41a), one might ask why the following does not
happen: the head of the te-adjunct moves to check the EPP property of the matrix
predicate whereas the head of the te-complement stays inside the clause, as in (44).
46
(44) [Adjunct … ti] [Complement … V-te] V-tei+get[uT]
Given this configuration, the impossibility of V-te movement out of the adjunct te-
clause follows if movement obeys the Adjunct Island Condition. Thus, under no
circumstance does head movement apply out of te-adjuncts.
This subsection has been devoted to instantiating the present analysis of the
behavior of the heads of te-complements and te-adjuncts in terms of feature checking
theory.
2.3 Potential Alternatives
In this section I take up three potential alternative accounts of te-clauses which do not
postulate head movement of the V-te complex. It is shown that none of them is
empirically sufficient.
One alternative analysis has to do with the notion of phase, so let us call it the
phase-based analysis. Chomsky (2001) suggests that while CP complements can be
targeted by a transformation rule, TP complements cannot be because the former are
phases and the latter are not. Given that te-adjuncts are mobile but te-complements
are not (see Fact 1 in (11) above), it would be tempting to hypothesize that adjunct te-
clauses are CP phases while te-complements are TP non-phases, giving up Nakatani’s
(2004) idea which maintains that te-clauses are invariably TPs. More concretely, in
this analysis the complement te-clause in (1) and the adjunct one in (3), repeated
below, are analyzed as a non-phase (being a TP) and a phase (being a CP),
respectively,
47
(3) Taro-ga [piza-o tukut-te] okane-o morat-ta.
Taro-Nom pizza-Acc cook-te money-Acc get-Past
In a similar vein, it is also possible to tell a story about why te-complements
apparently resist being elided (see Fact 3 in (32)) if Bošković (2014) is right that only
phases and complements of phase heads can be elided. Arguably, te-complements, if
analyzed as TPs, are neither phases nor complements of phase heads and therefore
unelidable by themselves. If this line of analysis is to be favored, then the
asymmetries between two kinds of te-clauses would boil down to the TP/CP
dichotomy, which would consequently eliminate the need for head movement of V-te
I have argued for.
However, a problem seems to arise when nominalization formation (Fact 2 in
(28) above) is taken into consideration. Recall that te-adjuncts are no-marked in kata-
nominalizations while te-complements cannot be. To accommodate this fact, the
phase-based analysis would have to propose that only phases (including adjunct te-
clauses, under this analysis) serve as barriers for no-marking and receive no for some
reason (whatever it is). This is, however, at odds with the very fact observed in (20c)
that a vP, which is commonly conceived as a phase, is not a barrier for no-marking in
48
nominalizations. While this analysis can be probably rescued by assuming that head
movement of a phase head X may change XP into a non-phase (see den Dikken 2007,
Gallego 2010), such an ‘extended’ phase-based analysis will be virtually no different
than the analysis I have proposed, according to which transparency of vPs and te-
complements for no-marking is closely related to head movement. Therefore, it is at
least unclear whether the phase-based analysis can adequately account for the facts
about nominalizations without making recourse to head movement at all.
Let us turn to the second alternative, which is concerned with the process
called restructuring. According to this restructuring hypothesis, te-complements are
restructuring complements, and this line of analysis in fact has been proposed in the
literature: complement te-clauses, in particular those of motion verbs, fall under the
category of restructuring complements (Miyagawa 1987b, Tsujimura 1993,
Matsumoto 1996, Wurmbrand 2001, Takahashi 2012, Nishigauchi 2013). The
hypothesis that te-complements undergo restructuring looks plausible in the context
of the present work too, for garden-variety restructuring complements exhibit
immobility and unelidabilty (see Rizzi 1978, Cinque 2006:13ff, 36ff, Wurmbrand and
Bobaljik 2005 for relevant discussion of restructuring complements in Romance and
Germanic languages). Facts 1 and 3 thus can be taken to suggest that te-complements
undergo restructuring. Thus, this hypothesis certainly deserves a serious consideration.
Notice that the hypothesis that te-complements undergo restructuring is not
incompatible with our proposal. In fact, restructuring has sometimes been analyzed in
terms of head movement (Kayne 1989). The important question for us is not whether
the te-complements-as-restructuring-complements hypothesis is correct or not, but
49
whether saying that te-complements are ‘reduced’ is sufficient to explain all the
properties seen above. To be more concrete, let us take two major clause-reduction
approaches to restructuring that do not appeal to head movement, i.e., lexical
restructuring (Wurmbrand 2001) and functional restructuring (Cinque 2006); see, in
particular, Wurmbrand (2001) and Takahashi (2012) for attempts to deal with
Japanese data in terms of lexical restructuring. Is the behavior of te-complements and
te-adjuncts accounted for, by saying (i) that te-complements in general are merely vPs
or VPs (as instances of lexical restructuring) or (ii) that te-complements do not
constitute full clauses but are mere complements of functional heads contained in a
single clause (as instances of functional restructuring)? Immobility (i.e. Fact 1) and
unelidability (i.e. Fact 3) may be, as noted above, accounted for under either
hypothesis. However, the data points involving nominalizations (i.e. Fact 2 and the
general properties of the construction given in (20)) seem hard for these approaches
to explain. In particular, it is not clear at all whether the idea of functional
restructuring or that of lexical restructuring helps us capture the basic properties of
kata-nominals of simple clauses, listed in (20), where restructuring is irrelevant since
only one verb is involved. To put it differently, in order to qualify as a strong
alternative to the head movement approach to te-complements, a restructuring
approach that does not appeal to head movement has to offer an adequate analysis of
kata-nominalizations of simple clauses without appealing to head movement: given
that vPs, VPs and te-complements are all transparent for no-marking, assuming head
movement for vP and VP on one hand and restructuring for te-complements on the
other to capture this transparency effect gives rise to redundancy. As long as that has
50
not been done yet, it seems that we have no reason to discard the head movement
analysis of te-complements. On the basis of these considerations, I conclude at least
for now that even if te-complements are syntactically ‘reduced,’ any adequate
analysis of the data has to incorporate head movement. (See also Nakatani 2004:50
for arguments against the idea that te-complements in general are restructuring
complements.)
The final alternative I discuss here is what I refer to as the base-generation
approach to complex predicates (or internally complex heads in general) in Japanese.
According to this line of approach, the causative predicate tabe-sase ‘eat-Cause’ in
(45), for instance, is analyzed as making up a complex head from the beginning,
which is formed either lexically (Kitagawa 1986: Ch. 1, Sells 1995) or syntactically
(Saito and Hoshi 1998, Hoshi 2002, Saito 2012, see also Shimada 2007 and Tonoike
2009), as in (46a). The object piza ‘pizza’ is merged with this complex head, rather
than the verbal stem tabe ‘eat’ alone, as in (46b).
(45) Taro-ga Ziro-ni piza-o tabe-sase-ta.
Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc eat-Caus-Past
‘Taro made Ziro eat pizza.’
(46) a. [[eat]-Caus]
b. [pizza [[eat]-Caus]]
The base-generation approach has been proposed in various forms in the literature,
and it is not clear whether any version of it actually predicts that V-te and a higher
51
predicate are always dominated by a single node in syntax before anything else is
introduced into the derivation, just like causatives. But for the sake of discussion, let
us assume that they are, and see how such an analysis goes. Under this alternative,
tukut-te morat ‘cook-te get’ in (1) above would be analyzed as in (47a), and the
embedded object pizza would be merged with this comlex head, as in (47b).
(47) a. [[cook-te] get]
b. [pizza [[cook-te] get]]
As is obvious, the V-te complex and the embedded object pizza do not form a
syntactic constituent in (47b). So it seems that the base-generation analysis can
accommodate the immobility of te-complements (Fact 1) without necessitating
movement of V-te.
However, this very advantage of accounting for Fact 1 raises a problem for the
analysis of this sort when ellipsis of te-complements (Fact 3) is taken into
consideration. The important fact to be captured is that arguments and adjuncts
associated with V-te can be left unpronounced simultaneously only if V-te is
pronounced; when anteceded by (48a), the elliptical clause in (48b) is ungrammatical,
but the one in (48c) is well-formed.
52
eat-te get-Past but
I-Top get-Neg-Past
c. boku-wa [e] tabe-te morawa-nakat-ta.
I point out that the base-generation analysis seems to have difficulties in legitimately
deriving (48c). Under this analysis, the derivation of (48c) is assumed to proceed in
the steps given in (49). First, we have a complex head made up of tabe-te ‘eat-te’ and
moraw ‘get’ in (49a). The (embedded) object susi ‘sushi’ is merged with this head, as
in (49b). The derivation goes on to merge the adjunct mayoneezu-de ‘with
mayonnaise,’ and the (embedded) subject Ziro, as shown in (49c-d). (Labels of the
constituents formed by merge of these dependents of eat-te are not important in the
following discussion, so they are simply labeled as α, β and γ just for convenience.)
(49) a. [[eat-te] get]
b. [α sushi [[eat-te] get]]
53
c. [β with mayonnaise [α sushi [[eat-te] get]]]
d. [γ Ziro [β with mayonnaise [α sushi [[eat-te] get]]]]
The problem here is that there is no constituent which exclusively dominates the
dependents of eat-te introduced into the derivation in (49b-d). Given the widely held
view that ellipsis applies only to constituents on the one hand and the (partial)
constituent structure in (49d) on the other, it follows that the analysis of this sort fails
to rule in (48c), which is far from satisfactory. (As mentioned in footnote 6, the
elliptical clause in (48c) cannot be analyzed as a result of eliding the three dependents
of eat-te separately.) Of course, such a desired constituent can be arguably formed if
the complex head dominating eat-te and get somehow moves out of γ, but this
appears to be essentially the same as the head movement analysis of V-te, which
makes the base-generation analysis no more successful than the analysis I have
proposed. On the basis of this consideration, I conclude that the base-generation
approach does not qualify as a compelling alternative to the analysis developed in this
chapter either.
2.4 A theoretical implication: head movement and morphology
I have so far justified the head movement analysis of te-clauses on various empirical
grounds. In this section, we turn to a theoretical issue about head movement and its
relevance to morphology. It is shown that the result of head movement of the V-te
complex is somewhat exotic in the sense that it does not feed word formation, and
this peculiarity motivates Matushansky’s (2006) view of head movement.
54
Matushansky proposes that so-called ‘head movement’ is not an atomic
operation, but rather a combination of two independent operations: movement of a
head X to a local domain of another head Y in syntax on the one hand, and a post-
syntactic operation that combines X and Y into a single morphological unit (‘m-
merger’ in her terminology) on the other hand. According to her proposal, ‘head
movement’ of X to another head Y in (50), where X and Y make up one word,
proceeds in the steps illustrated in (51). First, X undergoes movement to a local
domain of Y in syntax, and when the derivation reaches morphology, m-merger
applies to X and Y under adjacency, which collapses the two into one word.
Matushansky thus guarantees the compound-like status of derived heads.
(50) [[X+Y] [WP tX ZP]]
(51) a. [Y [WP X ZP]]
b. Movement of X in syntax
[X Y [WP tX ZP]]
c. M-merger of X and Y in morphology
[X-Y [WP tX ZP]]
What is particularly important about Matushansky’s proposal for the current purposes
is the independence of movement of a head in syntax from m-merger of the mover
and its host in morphology. Since syntactic head movement and m-merger are distinct
operations in this theory, it is predicted that natural languages may, in principle,
display one without the other. Matushansky argues that Danish definiteness marking
55
in (52) below presents an environment in which m-merger of two syntactic heads
takes place without syntactic movement dependency between the heads.
(52) a. hest-en
horse-Def
‘the horse’
b. *den hest
Def horse
c. den *(røde) hest
Def red horse
‘the red horse’
(Matushansky 2006:88)
The examples in (52) demonstrate that in Danish the definite suffix -en appears when
the noun is bare (i.e. it is not modified), and the definite article den is used when the
noun is modified. She argues that what triggers lexical insertion of hest-en is not N-
to-D movement in syntax, but is m-merger of N and D under adjacency in
morphology, and claims that N and D are in-situ in syntax; were N-to-D movement in
syntax relevant, lexical insertion of hest-en would be available in (52c) as well as in
(52a), because røde ‘red,’ being an adjunct, is not predicted to block N-to-D
movement. Matushansky thus concludes that Danish definiteness marking involves
m-merger of independent heads without their movement in syntax.
56
(53) a. No N-to-D movement in syntax
[DP D [NP N ]]
b. M-merger of D and N in morphology followed by lexical insertion of
hest-en into the derived node
[DP [D-N] [NP ]]
hest-en
What I would like to suggest in the remainder of this section is that te-complements
in Japanese display the pattern opposite to definiteness marking in Danish, namely
movement of heads in syntax without subsequent m-merger.
In order to see what m-merger does in Japanese, let us first consider complex
predicates and their wordhood. As (54) demonstrates, an adverbial particle such as -
wa and -sae cannot show up between component predicates tukuri ‘cook’ and hazime
‘begin,’ which make up a V-V compound in Kageyama’s (1993) terminology.
(54) Taro-ga piza-o tukuri (*-wa/*-sae) hazime-ta.
Taro-Nom pizza-Acc cook Particle begin-Past
‘Taro began to cook pizza.’
Let us assume that if two morphemes next to each other allow an adverbial particle to
be inserted in between the two, then there is a morphological word boundary between
the two morphemes, and if they do not, they form a morphologically inseparable unit
(see also Sugioka 1984 and Matsumoto 1996 for the relation between focus particles
57
and wordhood). Given this diagnostic for morphological wordhood, the sequence of
verbs in the complex predicate in (54) makes up a single morphological word. Let us
further assume that m-merger is responsible for this tight connection of the two verbs.
Then, the derivation of the complex predicate in (54) will be (55) below.
(55) a. Syntax
[…[V cook] [V begin]…]
b. M-merger of two verbs in morphology
[…[V cook]-[V begin]…]
With this idea of m-merger and morphological wordhood in Japanese in mind,
let us go back to te-clauses. Recall that the analysis of complement te-clauses I have
so far argued for is (56): the V-te complex undergoes head movement to a higher verb.
(56) …[Complement te-clause … tV-te ] [[V-te] V] …
Importantly, the V-te can be freely separated from the higher predicate by an
adverbial particle, as already studied by Sugioka (1984) and Matsumoto (1996),
which means in the present context that the V-te and the higher verb do not form one
morphological word, according to our diagnostic.9, 10
9
Shibatani (2009) explicitly states that although the V-te complex and the higher verb
make up a ‘phonological word,’ they do not form a morphological word, showing no
morphological integrity, whereas component predicates in V-V compounds (see (54))
make up words in both phonological and morphological senses.
58
(58) Taro-ga [Ziro-ni piza-o tukut-te] {-wa/-sae}
Taro-Nom Ziro-Dat pizza-Acc cook-te Particle
morat-ta.
get-Past
Given our assumption about m-merger in Japanese above, the unambigous
acceptability of (58) suggests that although the V-te complex undergoes head
movement to the higher verb in syntax, the two heads do not get collapsed into one
morphological word via m-merger in morphology.
(59) a. Movement in syntax
…[Comlement te-clause …tV-te] [[V-te] V] …
b. No m-merger in morphology
… [[V-te] V] …
c. [Morphological word V-te] [Morphological word V-…]
10
The correleation between adverbial particles and head movement (verb movement,
in particular) has long been under considerable debate: see chapter 4. As for the
derivation of (58), I tentatively assume that (i) the adverbial particle is adjoined to -te
(viz. T), and (ii) head movement of the V-te pied-pipes the particle on its way to the
higher predicate.
59
Hence, I would like to conclude that the case of te-complements in Japanese displays
the opposite pattern to definiteness marking in Danish discussed by Matushansky:
movement of heads in syntax without m-merger in morphology.
Summarizing this section, I have provided a piece of evidence to indicate that
the V-te complex that has undergone head movement and the higher verb do not
behave as one morphological word, contrary to run-of-the-mill derived heads created
by head movement. This fact lends empirical support to Matushansky’s proposal.
2.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have proposed that complement te-clauses in Japanese are
derived by string-vacuous head movement of the V-te complex. I have argued that the
present analysis is empirically motivated, as it successfully accounts for the properties
that te-clauses display, and have proposed that movement of the V-te complex is
triggered by the uninterpretable tense feature [uT] that the higher predicate bears.
Three possible alternatives to the head movement analysis of te-complements were
examined, and I concluded that none of them is as successful as the proposed analysis.
Also, I have shown that the result of head movement of V-te is more or less exotic in
that the V-te complex and the higher verb do not get spelled out as a single word,
which empirically supports Matushansky’s idea that movement of heads in syntax
and m-merger of heads in morphology are independent operations.
60
Chapter 3: Predicate Raising within a Single Clause in Japanese
3.1 Introduction
In chapter 2, I have empirically motivated the claim that the grammar of Japanese
must be equipped with head movement, albeit string-vacuous and therefore inaudible,
by investigating te-clauses. The analysis proposed and defended there is that in the
case of te-complements, head movement takes place in a manner that crosses a
clausal boundary (i.e. T-to-V movement). In this chapter I turn to head movement
within a single clause, and discuss verb movement in Japanese, a subcase of head
movement which has probably been most intensively disputed in previous works, as
briefly reviewed in chapter 1. It is argued that verb movement is indeed available in
the grammar of Japanese, as researchers such as Otani and Whitman (1991) and
Koizumi (2000) have maintained. I provide empirical support for this position by
examining predicate raising (or PR for short) within a single clause.
This chapter is organized as follows: in section 3.2 I first introduce two kinds
of verbal predicates. In section 3.3 and 3.4 it is demonstrated that they behave
differently under ellipsis phenomena. In section 3.5 I propose that the set of ellipsis
facts in question should be captured by vP-ellipsis plus PR. Section 3.6 discusses
Miyagawa’s (1987a) alternative to my analysis, and section 3.7 investigates some
consequences of the analysis proposed in this chapter. The trigger of PR is discussed
in section 3.8. In section 3.9, I make brief remerks on verb-stranding vP-ellipsis.
61
3.2 Two classes of verbal predicates: NJVs and VNs
Verbal predicates in Japanese can be divided into two classes, at least: native
Japanese verbs (NJVs) on the one hand and what Martin (1975) refers to as verbal
nouns (VNs) on the other hand1. To date, VNs in Japanese have been extensively
studied by a number of scholars in various ways (see Kageyama 1977, 1982, 1993,
Miyagawa 1987a, Iida 1987, Grimshaw and Mester 1988, Poser 1989, Tsujimura
1990, 1992, Terada 1990: Ch. 3, Manning 1993, Matsumoto 1996, Dubinsky 1997,
Saito and Hoshi 1998, 2000, Takahashi 2000, and references cited therein). I first
briefly review some of their descriptive properties that are not shared by NJVs.
In (1), the predicate is an NJV ki ‘come,’ while the one in (2) is a VN kikoku
‘returning.’
(1) Taro-ga Nihon-e ki-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to come-Past
‘Taro came to Japan.’
(2) Taro-ga Nihon-e kikoku si-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to returning do-Past
‘Taro went back to Japan.’
1
Predicates of VN clauses are often referred to as Sino-Japanese verbs as well
(Kuroda 1965, Kageyama 1977). As this term indicates, the great majority of VNs,
including kikoku in (2), are of Chinese origin, but there are VNs that are of English
origin and of Japanese origin as well. See Kageyama (1982), Poser (1989) and
Takahashi (2000).
62
One obvious difference between (1) and (2) is that in the former the past tense suffix -
ta is directly attached to the NJV, whereas in the latter it is carried by su ‘do,’ which
itself is an NJV (and spelled out as si when followed by -ta). As often discussed in the
literature, when they appear as predicates in clausal domains, VNs are unable to
directly support verbal affixes on their own, contrary to NJVs (Kageyama 1977, 1982,
Takahashi 2000). For example, Takahashi (2000) gives (3) as a partial list of verbal
affixes that cannot be picked up by VNs.
(3) -ru ‘present tense marker’
-ta ‘past tense marker’
-na ‘negation’
-(s)ase ‘causative’
-(r)are ‘passive’
-(r)are ‘subject honorification’
-(rar)e ‘potential’
-ta ‘desiderative’
-hazime ‘to begin to V’
-tuzuke ‘to continue to V’
-oe ‘to finish V’
-niku ‘to be difficult to V’
-yasu ‘to be easy to V’
-tei ‘progressive’
(Takahashi 2000:28)
63
This being so, if su in (2) is removed, we get (4), in which the tense suffix happens to
be linearly adjacent to the VN. The resulting string is utterly ungrammatical.
(4) *Taro-ga Nihon-e kikoku-ta.
Likewise, sheer ungrammaticality results in (5) unless there is su on the immediate
left of the negation nakat.
(5) Taro-ga Nihon-e kikoku *(si)-nakat-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to returning do-Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t go back to Japan.’
It should be remarked in this regard that su cannot be employed in NJV clauses in the
same way. If su is inserted in between NJVs and verbal affixes, completely
ungrammatical strings obtain, as shown in (6) and (7) (see Kuroda 1965 and Aoyagi
2006 for related discussion). I will return to this point in section 3.8.
(6) Taro-ga Nihon-e ki-(*si)-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to come-do-Past
64
(7) Taro-ga Nihon-e ko-(*si)-nakat-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to come-do-Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t come to Japan.’
Another well-acknowledged fact about VNs is their ability to form nominals without
the help of nominalizing suffixes (hence the name). For instance, the VN kikoku
heads a noun phrase in (8), which receives the nominative Case -ga.
(8) [Sookyuuna Nihon-e-no kikoku]-ga nozomasi-i.
immediate Japan-to-no returning-Nom desirable-Pres
‘Immediate returning to Japan is recommended.’
NJVs, on the other hand, are clearly unable to create nominals on their own, as the ill-
formedness of (9) shows. They cannot participate in productive nominalization unless
nominalizing suffixes such as -kata ‘way’ are employed, as in (10).2 See section 2.3
of chapter 2 and references cited therein for discussion of -kata.
2
What Poser (1989) refers to as renyoomeisi can be regarded as nominals derived by
NJVs without overt affixation. His description of renyoomeisi is that it “consists
segmentally of the bare verb stem” (Poser 1989:14-15), which is exemplified by the
well-formed nominal (ib), derived from the NJV kari ‘borrow’ in (ia).
(i) a. kari-ru
borrow-Pres
‘to borrow’
b. kari
‘borrowing’
65
(9) *[Nihon-e-no ki](-ga/-o)
Japan-to-no come-Nom/-Acc
(10) Boku-wa Taro-ni [NP kaitekina Nihon-e-no
I-Top Taro-Dat comfortable Japan-to-no
ki-kata]-o osie-ta.
come-way-Acc tell-Past
‘I told Taro how to come to Japan comfortably.’
These observations, I believe, amply demonstrate that the distinction between
NJVs and VNs is robust. I do not attempt to offer an account of the differences
mentioned above, since it is not my primary concern. Rather, in this chapter I show
that another discrepancy between these two classes of predicates emerges in ellipsis
contexts, and then argue that their behaviors in ellipsis phenomena empirically
motivate string-vacuous head movement in Japanese.
Before proceeding, some clarifications about VN clauses are in order here. I
assume, throughout this work, that the predicate in (2) is the VN kikoku, rather than
su following the VN. To be more precise, I am assuming that su placed immediately
after (bare) VNs is a supporting verb (or a dummy verb), which does not participate
in θ-marking (see Grimshaw and Mester 1988 for related discussion). This
assumption can be empirically motivated by (11a-b).
As Poser notes, however, the number of possible renyoomeisi is not infinite, and its
formation is far less productive than nominalization triggered by -kata, which is
100% productive.
66
(11) a. Taro-ga [PP L.A.-kara] kikoku si-ta.
Taro-ga L.A.-from returning do-Past
‘Taro returned from L.A..’
b. Taro-ga (*[PP L.A.-kara]) sentaku si-ta.
Taro-ga L.A.-from washing do-Past
Lit. ‘Taro did washing from L.A..’
The point here is that the source PP L.A.-kara ‘from L.A.’ is permitted in (11a), but
excluded in (11b). This sharp contrast does not seem to be predicted if one analyzes
su as a predicate, because both examples involve su, differing only in the choice of
the VN. Moreover, exactly the same pattern can be observed even in nominal
contexts in (12), in which su is simply absent.
(12) a. [NP Taro-no [PP L.A.-kara]-no kikoku]
Taro-no L.A.-from-no returning
‘Taro’s returning from L.A.’
b. [NP Taro-no (*[PP L.A.-kara]-no) sentaku]
Taro-no L.A.-from-no washing
Lit. ‘Taro’s washing from L.A.’
This strongly indicates that the availability of from L.A. in (11) and that of (12) are
governed by one and the same factor. That factor then cannot be su since it is
67
employed in (11) but not in (12). I thus conclude that the VNs, rather than su, qualify
as predicates in (11), and suggest that the VN sentaku ‘washing' is unable to take the
source PP in question, contrary to kikoku, which is reflected in nominals in (12) as
well.
Another thing to mention is that my discussion of VNs is not concerned with
su-verbs that are characterized as ‘truly lexicalized’ by Poser (1989) like those in (13).
(13) a. ai-su-ru
‘to love’
b. nes-su-ru
‘to heat’
At first blush, they might look more or less similar to what I refer to as VNs here such
as kikoku in (2), in that (i) they have Sino-Japanese nominal part ai ‘love’ and netu
‘heat’ right before su as well (see footnote 1), and (ii) nominal expressions in (14) are
well-formed.
(14) a. [NP haha-no ai]
mother-no love
‘a mother’s love’
b. [NP taiyoo-no netu]
sun-no heat
‘the heat of the sun’
68
However similar they initially look, such predicates do not behave like VNs in a
number of respects, as extensively discussed by Kageyama (1977), Poser (1989) and
Dubinsky (1997). For instance, while su following VNs can be replaced by the
honorific form in the context of subject honorification, as shown in (15a), predicates
in (13) never allow such alternation, as in (15b).
(15) a. Sensei-wa Nihon-e kikoku {si-ta/nasat-ta}.
teacher-Top Japan-to returning do-Past/do.Hon-Past
‘The teacher went back to Japan.’
b. Sensei-wa ongaku-o {ai-si-ta/*ai-nasat-ta}.
teacher-Top music-Acc love-Past
‘The teacher loved music (throughout his life).’
Following the above-mentioned scholars, I do not regard the predicates in (13) as
instances of VN predicates, and their properties will not be discussed here.
3.3 Predicate ellipsis
One difference between NJVs and VNs I would like to discuss has to do with
predicate ellipsis, a descriptive property of which can be stated as Fact 1 in (16) (see
Poser 1989 for a similar observation).
69
(16) Fact 1
A string made up of an object NP and an NJV cannot be omitted, while the
one made up of an object NP and a VN may optionally be.
To see the details of (16), let us first take a look at (17), where the NJV ki is
employed. (17a) is the antecedent clause for the clauses in (17b-c). I refer to elliptical
clauses like (17b) and (17c) as target clauses.
(17) a. Taro-wa Nihon-e ki-ta kedo,
Taro-Top Japan-to come-Past but
‘Taro came to Japan, but…’
b. Ziro-wa [Obj e] ko-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top come-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t come to Japan.’
c. *Ziro-wa [Obj e] [NJV e] nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t come to Japan.’ (intended reading)
Both target clauses contain a gap in the object position (indicated by [Obj e]), and they
minimally differ with respect to the presence of the NJV in the surface string. While
the target clause in (17b) with the NJV pronounced is well-formed, the one in (17c),
which contains another gap in the position where the NJV ko is supposed to appear
(indicated by [NJV e]), is hoplessly bad.
70
Clauses with VN predicates, on the other hand, strikingly contrast with those
with NJVs in the relevant respect. The VN clause (18a) is the antecedent for the target
clauses in (18b-c). Again, there is a gap in the object position in both target clauses,
and the only difference between the two is that the VN kikoku is pronounced in (18b)
but omitted in (18b), as indicated by [VN e]. Omission of the VN in addition to the
object in (18c) results in what I call su-stranding.
(18) a. Taro-wa Nihon-e kikoku si-ta kedo,
Taro-Top Japan-to returning do-Past but
‘Taro went back to Japan, but…’
b. Ziro-wa [Obj e] kikoku si-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top returning do-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t go back to Japan.’
c. Ziro-wa [Obj e] [VN e] si-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top do-Neg-Past
Contrary to what we have seen in (17) with the NJV, the VN may be freely omitted
along with the object; (18c) is equally well-formed as (18b), as discussed by
Kageyama (1982) and Poser (1989). We can thus see from (17) and (18) that
predicate ellipsis is allowed in VN clauses, but not in NJV clauses.
At this point, one might argue that (17c) is bad for the same reason as (19b)
below is. What (19b) shows is that when the adverbial particle -sae ‘even’ is attached
71
to the verb, the negation nakat ends up in the position where it is not linearly adjacent
to the verbal stem, which leads to sheer ungrammaticality. Descriptively speaking,
such an ill-formed string can be ameliorated by inserting su right before the negation,
as in (19c) (see Aoyagi 2006 for detailed discussion of adverbial particles).
(19) a. Taro-wa Nihon-e ko-nakat-ta.
Taro-Top Japan-to come-Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t come to Japan.’
b. *Taro-wa Nihon-e ki-sae nakat-ta.
Taro-Top Japan-to come-even Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t even come to Japan.’ (intended reading)
c. Taro-wa Nihon-e ki-sae si-nakat-ta.
Taro-Top Japan-to come-even do-Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t even come to Japan.’
Similarly, the negation in (17c) has no adjacent verbal stem due to the omission of the
NJV, whereas in (18c) the adjacency requirement of the negation can be satisfied by
su even after the omission of the VN. Hence, if it turns out that what makes (19b) bad
is also responsible for (17c), then the grammatical status of (17c) may not have
anything to bear on the issue of predicate ellipsis per se, since in (19b) the predicate
ki is not omitted.
There is, however, a piece of evidence to suggest that the ill-formedness of
(17c) should not be equated with that of (19b). Importantly, the clause in (20), which
72
is derived from (17c) by adding su before the negation, is still bad as an elliptical
clause anteceded by (17a) (see Takahashi 2000 and Hoshi 2009 for related
observations).
(20) *Ziro-wa [Obj e] [NJV e] si-nakat-ta
This fact shows that (17c) cannot be remedied in the same way as (19b), which seems
somewhat unexpected if (17c) were ill-formed because of a violation of the adjacency
requirement the negation imposes, just like (19b) is. Given this observation, I
conclude that what we have seen in (17) indeed has to do with predicate ellipsis.
3.4 Null adjuncts
As far as I know, it is Funakoshi (2014) who has first established an empirical
generalization of null adjunct phenomena in Japanese:
73
(21) Funakoshi’s generalization (FG)
In Japanese, adjuncts can be null only if the clause-mate object (or other
internal argument) is also null.3, 4
(Funakoshi 2014:302-303)
Although I believe that FG is essentially correct, I show that FG holds for NJV
clauses, but not for VN clauses.
Let us quickly review what has been understood about null adjuncts in the
literature, before examining the core data. One consensus is that adjuncts, contrary to
arguments, can never be independently omitted (Oku 1998, Takita 2011). (22)
represents a case of elision of arguments in NJV clauses; when anteceded by (22), the
target clause (22) can be naturally understood as meaning Ziro didn’t come to Japan,
although the object is superficially missing there.
3
It should be mentioned that this is a preliminary version of his generalization.
Funakoshi provides a more accurate one as the final version on the basis of facts
about intransitive clauses and contrastive focus. See Funakoshi (2014: Ch. 6) for
details. Since neither intransitive clauses nor contrastive focus will be discussed in
this chapter, I take (21) as FG here.
4
Simpson, Choudhury and Menon (2013:111ff) report that a similar generalization
holds for unpronounced adjuncts in Bangla, Hindi and Malayalam. I am grateful to
Kenshi Funakoshi for bringing their work to my attention.
74
Exactly the same holds for VN clauses as well:
On the other hand, it is not possible to interpret (24b) as an elliptical clause in which
the adjunct L.A.-keeyude ‘via L.A.’ is understood though not pronounced; in other
words, (24b) can be interpreted as (25a), but not as (25b).
(24) a. Taro-wa L.A.-keeyude Nihon-e ki-ta kedo,
Taro-Top L.A.-via Japan-to come-Past but
‘Taro came to Japan via L.A., but…’
b. Ziro-wa Nihon-e ko-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top Japan-to come-Neg-Past
75
(25) a. Ziro didn’t come to Japan anyhow.
b. Ziro came to Japan, but not via L.A..
This being so, a contradiction arises if (24b) is followed by (26):
(26) Sonokawari, Ziro-wa Siatoru-keeyude Nihon-e ki-ta.
Instead Ziro-Top Seattle-via Japan-to come-Past
‘Instead, Ziro came to Japan via Seattle.’
(26) entails that Ziro came to Japan, which clearly contradicts the reading in (25a).
With this background in mind, let us turn to FG in (21). Funakoshi’s
observation is that adjuncts can be null if clause-mate objects are also null. Let us
begin with (27) below, where the NJV ki is used; when anteceded by (27a), the target
clause (27b) allows the interpretation (25b), despite the fact the adjunct L.A.-keeyude
is not pronounced there. Thus, (27b) can be followed by (26) with no contradiction.
76
I refer to the interpretation in which the adjunct is implicitly understood (like the one
(27b) has) as the null adjunct reading.
As demonstrated by (27b), in which the object is dropped, FG applies to the
availability of null adjuncts in NJV clauses. However, I would like to point out that
the omission of objects is not a sufficient condition for implicit adjuncts in VN
clauses, which Funakoshi seems to have overlooked. The hitherto unnoticed fact is
given as Fact 2 in (28).
(28) Fact 2
In VN clauses, null adjuncts are possible only when VNs as well as clause-
mate objects are omitted.
In order to see null adjunct phenomena in VN clauses, let us examine (29), where the
VN kikoku is employed. Crucially, when anteceded by (29a), the target clause (29b)
with an object gap does not yield the null adjunct reading Ziro didn’t do returning to
Japan via L.A.. In order to make that reading available, the VN predicate kikoku, in
addition to the object, must be omitted, as in (29c).
(29) a. Taro-wa L.A.-keeyude Nihon-e kikoku
Taro-Top L.A.-via Japan-to returning
si-ta kedo,
do-Past but
‘Taro went back to Japan via L.A., but…’
77
‘Ziro didn’t go back to Japan.’ (*null adjunct reading)
‘Ziro didn’t.’ (null adjunct reading)
This discrepancy between NJVs and VNs concerning the null adjunct reading can be
confirmed by (30) below. A contradiction readily emerges when (29b) is continued
with (30), whereas a perfectly coherent utterance results when (29c) is followed by
(30).
(30) Sonokawari, Ziro-wa Siatoru-keeyude Nihon-e
Instead Ziro-Top Seattle-via Japan-to
kikoku si-ta.
returning do-Past
‘Instead, Ziro went back to Japan via Seattle.’
The same point can be made by the following dialogue. Under the context given in
(31), (31a) is markedly infelicitous as Ziro’s utterance anteceded by Taro’s, whereas
(31b) sounds perfectly natural as such.
78
(31) (Context: Ziro used to live in Japan, but now he lives abroad. He went back to
Japan today, and he is chatting with Taro there.)
Taro: Boku-wa sengetu L.A.-keeyude Nihon-e
I-Top last.month L.A.-via Japan-to
kikoku si-ta yo.
returning do-Past Prt
‘I came back to Japan via L.A. last month.’
Ziro: a. #Hontoo? Boku-wa itidomo [[Obj e]
really I-Top never
kikoku si-ta koto]-ga na-i.
returning do-Past C-Nom absent-Pres
‘Really? I have never come back to Japan.’
b. Hontoo? Boku-wa itidomo [[Obj e]
really I-Top never
[VN e] si-ta koto]-ga na-i.
do-Past C-Nom absent-Pres
‘Really? I have never.’
In order to demonstrate even more clearly that pronunciation (or non-pronunciation)
of the VN dramatically affects the availability of the null adjunct reading, let me add
one more set of examples in (32). In this case, the VN san-oofuku ‘three laps,’ which
is somewhat complex, is used.
79
(32) a. Taro-wa ikitugi-naside [nijuugo-meetoru puuru-o]
Taro-Top breathing-without twenty.five-meter pool-Acc
san-oofuku si-ta kedo,
three-lap do-Past but
‘Taro swam three laps of the 25-meter pool without breathing, but…’
b. Ziro-wa [Obj e] san-oofuku si-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top three-lap do-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t swim three laps of the 25-meter pool.’
‘Ziro didn’t.’
(32a) is the antecedent for the target clauses in (32b-c). Both target clauses contain an
object gap that corresponds to nijuugo-meetoru puuru ’25-meter pool.’ Again, the
crucial point is that the target clause in (32b) with the overt VN unambiguously
receives the interpretation in (33a), whereas the one in (32c) can be readily
understood as meaning (33b). (If you swim three laps in a 25-meter pool, you swim
150 meters in total.) That is to say, only (32c) can be understood as having the
implicit counterpart of the adjunct ikitugi-naside ‘without breathing.’
(33) a. Ziro didn’t swim 150 meters.
b. Ziro did swim 150 meters, but unlike Taro, he took a breath while he
was swimming.
80
The difference regarding the null adjunct reading can be confirmed by the following
situation. A coach ordered both Taro and Ziro to swim three laps of the 25-meter pool
without breathing. While Taro swam 150 meters in the way the coach had told him to
do so, Ziro happened to forget exactly what the coach had ordered. So he did swim
150 meters but he took a breath. In this situation, (32c) can be true but (32b) is false,
which strongly suggests that they are truth-conditionally distinct.
Facts like these tell us that object drop is not sufficient to make the null
adjunct reading available in VN clauses, unlike in NJV clauses. What should be
recalled here is that the omission of VNs is only optional, as we have already seen in
(18) above. The question is, then, why the VN must be omitted along with the object
to derive the intended null adjunct reading in (29), (31) and (32).
3.5 An analysis: predicate raising plus vP-ellipsis
I argue that behaviors of NJVs and VNs under ellipsis should be attributed to their
asymmetry with respect to predicate raising (PR)5. To be more specific, I propose that
while NJVs undergo PR to v in overt syntax on the one hand, VNs are not subject to
5
I eschew the term verb movement here because the categorial status of VNs seems
contentious, due to the ‘mixed’ properties of VNs I have introduced in 3.2. While
Hasegawa (1991) and Takahashi (2000) argue that they are Vs, Miyagawa (1987) and
Terada (1990) propose to analyze them as Ns. If VNs are actually Ns rather than Vs,
then it would make no sense to say ‘verb’ movement applies (or does not apply) to
VNs. Identification of the categorial status of VNs is far beyond the scope of this
study, and I use the term predicate raising in lieu of verb movement, because it
sounds more neutral and therefore can be used without bringing in such complications.
81
PR on the other, as schematically shown in (34) and (35) below6. I assume that v
overtly raises to the next higher head F in both NJV and VN clauses. Therefore, NJVs
are located outside, but VNs remain inside, vPs. Furthermore, I also assume that the
supporting verb su is attached to v in VN clauses, although discussion of why it is so
will be postponed until section 3.8.
(34) Predicate raising of NJVs
… [FP … [vP tSubj [VP Obj tNJV ] tv ] NJV-v-F] …
(35) VNs remain in situ
… [FP … [vP tSubj [VNP Obj VN] tv ] v+su-F] …
Let us first see how Fact 1 can be handled by making reference to PR. The
point was that NJVs cannot, but VNs may, be omitted along with objects; the relevant
examples are repeated below for purposes of convenience.
6
By F in (34) and (35), I mean various heads that take a vP complement, including
(but not limited to) T and Neg.
82
c. *Ziro-wa [Obj e] [NJV e] nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top Neg-Past
This asymmetry with regard to predicate ellipsis can be schematically summarized as
(36)-(37):
(36) *[TP Subj [Obj e] [NJV e] Neg T]
(37) [TP Subj [Obj e] [VN e] su-Neg T]
I propose that predicate ellipsis under discussion involves vP-ellipsis, and the
difference regarding PR sketched in (34)-(35) is responsible for the contrast between
(36) and (37). Under the current analysis, the form (36) simply cannot be derived by
vP-ellipsis. This is so because NJVs do not stay inside vPs due to PR, and therefore
83
they cannot be elided by virtue of vP-ellipsis, as sketched in (38) (elided material is
represented by strikethrough)7.
(38) … [NegP [vP tSubj [VP Obj tNJV ] tv ] NJV-v-Neg] …
By contrast, vP-ellipsis in VN clauses successfully gives rise to the form (37). Since
VNs do not undergo PR and hence remain inside vPs, they can be left unpronounced
together with objects as a result of vP-ellipsis, as indicated by (38).
(38) … [NegP [vP tSubj [VNP Obj VN] tv ] v+su-Neg] …
The vP-ellipsis analysis can be readily extended to Fact 2. The crucial
observation was that NJV and VN clauses differ in how they treat null adjuncts. The
case of NJV clauses is illustrated again by (39); the intended null adjunct reading Ziro
didn’t come to Japan via L.A. is unavailable unless the object is dropped.
7
As far as I am aware, the gist of the proposed analysis is not affected in any
significant way whether ellipsis is conceived as PF-deletion (Sag 1976, Merchant
2001) or as LF-copying (Williams 1977, Fiengo and May 1994). Although I indicate
vP-ellipsis in terms of PF-deletion here, it should be emphasized that this is for
expository reasons only, and that I am not arguing for the PF-deletion approach to
ellipsis.
84
b. Ziro-wa Nihon-e ko-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top Japan-to come-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t come to Japan.’ (*null adjunct reading)
c. Ziro-wa [Obj e] ko-nakat-ta.
‘Ziro didn’t come to Japan.’ (null adjunct reading)
My account of this contrast runs as follows. First of all, (39b) cannot be derived
through vP-ellipsis, because the object is pronounced. It should be recalled here that
adjuncts cannot be dropped by themselves, as we saw in (24). Then, the (partial)
structure of (39b) must be (40) below, in which the adjunct via L.A. is not generated
from the start. If we follow the standard assumption that (meaningful) elements can
be interpreted in LF if and only if they are structurally present (but see Ginzburg and
Sag 2000), then the lack of the null adjunct reading in (39b) straightforwardly follows.
(40) … [NegP [vP tZiro [VP to Japan tcome ] tv ] come-v-Neg] …
On the other hand, (39c) can be assigned the structure in which the adjunct in
question is implicitly present. vP-ellipsis renders the adjunct as well as the object null,
while stranding the NJV located outside the vP due to PR, as depicted in (41). The
adjunct is therefore interpreted in LF without being pronounced in (39c)8.
8
This account is virtually the same as Funakoshi’s (2014) explanation of FG in (11),
although he is not concerned with the distinction between NJV and VN clauses, as I
have already mentioned.
85
(41) … [NegP [vP tZiro via L.A. [VP to Japan tcome ] tv ] come-v-Neg] …
What about null adjuncts in VN clauses? The fact to be accounted for is that
the null adjunct reading ‘Ziro didn’t do return to Japan via L.A.’ is absent in (42b),
although the object is dropped there. For that particular reading to obtain, the VN as
well as the object must be omitted, as in (42c).
(42) a. Taro-wa L.A.-keeyude Nihon-e kikoku
Taro-Top L.A.-via Japan-to returning
si-ta kedo,
do-Past but
‘Taro went back to Japan via L.A., but…’
‘Ziro didn’t go back to Japan.’ (*null adjunct reading)
I argue that (42b), albeit elliptical, is not derived by vP-ellipsis. This argument holds
precisely because the fact that the VN, to which PR does not apply, is pronounced
necessarily entails the absence of vP-ellipsis under the current analysis. Hence, (42b)
86
is unambiguously assigned the structure in (43), in which the adjunct via L.A. is not
generated to begin with (recall the ban on adjunct drop in (24)). Given the structure in
(43), the absence of the null adjunct reading trivially follows9.
(43) … [NegP [vP tZiro [VNP to Japan returning] tv ] v+su-Neg] …
As for (42c), on the other hand, I claim that it allows the intended reading because it
has the structure in which the adjunct is indeed generated. The adjunct is elided by
vP-ellipsis along with the object, just as in the case of the NJV clause (39c). However,
in this case vP-ellipsis obligatorily elides the predicate as well, since the VN, contrary
to the NJV, remains inside the vP, as depicted in (44). We can thus capture the
availability of the null adjunct reading in (43b).
(44) … [NegP [vP tZiro via L.A. [VNP to Japan returning] tv ] v+su-Neg] …
To summarize the discussion so far, I have proposed that the set of data
concerning ellipsis should be analyzed in terms of vP-ellipsis, and the asymmetrical
behaviors of NJV and VN clauses can be attributed to PR.
9
As indicated by strikethrough in (43), the null object in (42b) is analyzed in terms of
Argument Ellipsis in the sense of Oku (1998), though the present analysis is not
affected if we assume that the null object in question is simply the empty pronoun pro.
87
3.6 A potential alternative: Miyagawa (1987a)
I have argued that su-stranding in VN clauses like (45b) involves predicate ellipsis,
and proposed that the empty category [e] in (45b) corresponds to the vP.
b. Ziro-wa [e] si-nakat-ta.
An alternative analysis I am aware of is Miyagawa’s (1987a), which derives su-
stranding by object ellipsis. In this section, I examine his analysis of su-stranding in
some detail.
Miyagawa discusses the example in (46), which is originally due to Kageyama
(1982). Here, the VN hatugen ‘speaking out’ appears before su, and the second clause
contains a gap. It therefore exhibits su-stranding.
88
(46) Gakkai-de, amerikajin-wa yoku hatugen su-ru ga,
conference-at Americans often speaking.out do-Pres but
nihonjin-wa amari [e] si-na-i.
Japanese seldom do-Neg-Pres
‘At academic meetings, Americans always speak out, but the Japanese seldom
do.’
(Kageyama 1982:247)
Miyagawa proposes that the underlying source for the second clause in (46) is (47), in
which the VN is marked with accusative Case -o. As for the status of su, he claims
that it serves as the predicate of the clause, taking the o-marked VN as its object.
(47) nihonjin-wa amari [Obj hatugen-o] si-na-i.
Japanese seldom speaking.out-Acc do-Neg-Past
‘The Japanese seldom speak out.’
From this underlying structure, which is perfectly grammatical, the second clause of
(46) obtains by deleting the o-marked VN in the object position. Therefore, under
Miyagawa’s analysis, the gap in (46) corresponds to the object, as shown in (48).
(48) [TP Japanese seldom [Obj e] do-Neg-Past]
89
His analysis is plausible to the extent that (i) VNs can be Case-marked and function
as arguments and (ii) the lexicon of Japanese seems to possess the verb su which is
associated with its own θ-grid (‘free-occurring suru’ in Miyagawa’s term), apart from
the supporting verb su. As we have already seen in section 3.2, the VN in (8),
repeated below, heads a noun phrase which is Case-marked and serves as an
argument.
(8) [Sookyuuna Nihon-e-no kikoku]-ga nozomasi-i.
immediate Japan-to-no returning-Nom desirable-Pres
‘Immediate returning to Japan is recommended.’
The example in (49) can be taken to illustrate that su acts as the predicate of the
clause here, which more or less resembles to the English main verb do.
(49) Taro-wa itumo Ziro-ni iyana koto-o su-ru.
Taro-Top always Ziro-Dat offensive thing-Acc do-Pres
‘Taro always does something offensive to Ziro.’
Thus, it seems that we have no reason to immediately reject his analysis of su-
stranding.
What should be remarked at this point is that for Miyagawa, su-stranding does
not involve predicate ellipsis at all. This is so precisely because he regards su as the
main predicate in su-stranding contexts, and the empty category followed by su is
90
analyzed as an object gap. Hence, if his object ellipsis analysis of su-stranding is
correct, we can no longer maintain that NJV and VN clauses behave differently with
regard to predicate ellipsis, as I explicitly did above. Consequently, empirical
arguments for predicate raising I have provided will diminish.
In the remainder of this section, I will defend my vP-ellipsis analysis of su-
stranding, and argue that the object ellipsis analysis is empirically inadequate. To be
more specific, I demonstrate that there is a case in which a gap in su-stranding is
highly unlikely to be an object gap.
Sato (2010) shows that some VNs give rise to idiomatic readings when they
appear in the VN su form, which are totally absent in the VN-o su form (see also
Barrie 2012). For instance, let us take (50), where the VN ryoori ‘cooking’ is
employed. (50a) is ambiguous between the idiomatic reading to defeat an opponent
and the literal reading to cook, whereas (50b), in which the VN is o-marked, receives
only the literal one.
(50) a. ryoori su-ru
cooking do-Pres
‘to cook’ (literal reading)
‘to defeat an opponent’ (idiomatic reading)
b. ryoori-o su-ru
cooking-Acc do-Pres
‘to cook’ (literal reading)
*‘to defeat an opponent’ (idiomatic reading)
91
Likewise, Sato observes that in (51), where the VN bekyoo ‘study’ is used, the literal-
idiomatic ambiguity arises in (51a), while in (51b) the literal reading is the only
possibility10.
(51) a. benkyoo su-ru
study do-Pres
‘to study’ (literal reading)
‘to give a discount’ (idiomatic reading)
b. benkyoo-o su-ru
study-Acc do-Pres
‘to study’ (literal reading)
*‘to give a discount’ (idiomatic reading)
With this in mind, let us turn to (52). The point of interest here is that the target clause
(52b), which exemplifies su-stranding, naturally receives the idiomatic reading of
ryoori, just like the antecedent clause (52a); it can be interpreted as Spider-Man
didn’t defeat enemies.
10
That (51a) can be understood as an idiomatic expression may not be recognized by
every native speaker of Japanese. I was not aware of its idiomaticity until recently,
and I have encountered a couple of speakers who are not familiar with its idiomatic
reading. On the other hand, many speakers have informed me that (51b) is not
ambiguous in the way (51a) is, which conforms to Sato’s observation.
92
(52) a. Hulk-wa teki-o ryoori si-ta kedo,
Hulk-Top enemy-Acc cooking do-Past but
‘Hulk defeated enemies, but…’
b. Spider-Man-wa [e] si-nakat-ta.
Spider-Man-Top do-Neg-Past
‘Spider-Man didn’t.’ (idiomatic)
I would like to point out that the object ellipsis analysis Miyagawa advocates has
difficulties in accounting for this fact. Under his analysis, (52b) will be derived from
the underlying source in (53), in which the verb su takes the o-marked VN as its
object. If the VN in the object position is deleted, the surface string in (52b) results.
(53) Spider-Man-wa [Obj ryoori-o] si-nakat-ta.
Spider-Man-Top cooking-Acc do-Neg-Past
‘Spider-Man didn’t cook.’ (literal, *idiomatic)
Crucially, however, (53) obviously lacks the idiomatic reading that (52b) has. The
fact the idiomaticity is retained in (52b) therefore seems to be unexpected, if [e] in
(52b) can only analyzed as an object gap.
By contrast, the vP-ellipsis analysis of su-stranding I am arguing for accounts
for the fact in the following way. The underlying source of (52b) is (54), in which we
have the bare VN ryoori as the predicate, rather than the o-marked one as the object.
93
vP-ellipsis applies in the way illustrated in (55), which gives rise to the surface form
in (52b).
(54) Spider-Man-wa teki-o ryoori si-nakat-ta.
Spider-Man-Top enemy-Acc cooking do-Neg-Past
‘Spider-Man didn’t defeat enemies.’ (idiomatic)
(55) [TP Spider-Man [vP tSpider-Man enemy cooking tv ] v+su-Neg-Past]
In this case, the idiomatic reading in question does obtain in the underlying source in
(54). Hence, its availability in the derived form in (52b) follows without additional
stipulation.
To sum up, I have shown that Miyagawa’s analysis of su-stranding faces the
problem of undergeneration in the case of (52b), being unable to derive the idiomatic
reading in a transparent way. I have also demonstrated that my vP-ellipsis analysis,
on the other hand, can accommodate the relevant fact in a principled way. It should
nevertheness be stressed that the above discussion does not necessarily entail that the
grammar does not resort to object ellipsis at all to derive su-stranding. Rather, it
suggests that the grammar must be able to derive su-stranding at least by vP-ellipsis,
which suffices to lend support to the present analysis.
3.7 Some consequences
The claim I have so far motivated on the basis of facts about predicate ellipsis and
null adjuncts is that NJVs and VNs behave differently than each other regarding
94
predicate raising (PR): NJVs are susceptible to PR on the one hand, whereas VNs are
not on the other. This analysis can be schematically depicted in (34)-(35), repeated
below.
(34) Predicate raising of NJVs
… [FP … [vP tSubj [VP Obj tNJV ] tv ] NJV-v-F] …
(35) VNs remain in situ
… [FP … [vP tSubj [VNP Obj VN] tv ] v+su-F] …
In this section, some consequences of the current analysis will be discussed.
3.7.1 Consequence 1: NJVs and VNs in kata-nominalizations
In section 2.3 of chapter 2, I proposed that the mechanism behind no-marking is (56)-
(57). To be more specific, I argued that in the case of kata-nominalizations, no-
marking takes place under government by the nominalizing suffix -kata ‘way.’
(56) α is no-marked iff (a) α is governed by N; (b) α is a maximal category; and
(c) the head of α is not a trace.
(57) a. X governs Y iff (i) X m-commands Y, and (ii) there is no other
maximal category that dominates Y but not X.
b. X m-commands Y iff (i) X and Y are categories; (ii) X excludes Y,
and (iii) every maximal category that dominates X dominates Y.
c. X excludes Y iff no segment of X dominates Y.
95
d. The Government Transparency Corollary (GTC): A lexical item that
has an item incorporated into it governs everything the incorporated
item governed in its original position.
Armed with this set of assumptions about no-marking, the proposed analysis
illustrated in (34)-(35) predicts that NJVs and VNs exhibit yet another discrepancy in
kata-nominalizations. That is to say, NJVs resist, but VNs must receive, no-marking
when embedded in kata-nominals. Such an asymmetry is expected to be found
because the current analysis should derive the structures of kata-nominals given in
(58) and (59), if we continue to assume that -kata takes a vP as its complement (as
argued by Kishimoto 2006; see also Sugioka 1992) and therefore qualifies as a
member of F in (34)-(35).
(58) kata-nominalizations of NJV clauses
[NP [vP Subj [VP Obj tNJV] tv] [N [v NJV-v]-way]]
(59) kata-nominalizations of VN clauses
[NP [vP Subj [VNP Obj VN] tv] [N v+su-way]]
Given the structure in (58), we predict that in the case of NJV kata-nominals, the
subject and object receive no (thanks to the GTC in (57d)), but the NJV itself is not
subject to no-marking since it is not governed by the suffix, according to the
definition given in (57). On the other hand, we predict from the structure in (59) that
in the case of VN kata-nominals, the VN (as well as the subject) must be no-marked,
96
because the maximal projection VNP is overtly headed by the VN, which, contrary to
the NJV in (58), remains in situ. (I assume that the object in (59) can be no-marked
by the VN, because it is independently able to no-mark its object, as we have already
seen in (8) above.)
This prediction is indeed born out. First of all, the NJV kata-nominal (60) and
the VN counterpart (61) are well-formed:
(60) [NP Taro-no Nihon-e-no ki-kata]
Taro-no Japan-to-no come-way
‘the way in which Taro comes to Japan’
(61) [NP Taro-no Nihon-e-no kikoku-no si-kata]
Taro-no Japan-to-no returning-no do-way
‘the way in which Taro goes back to Japan’
By contrast, the NJV kata-nominal given in (62), in which the NJV ki ‘come’ receives
no-marking, is sheerly ungrammatical. (Notice that (62) is still bad even if the
supporting verb su is added before the suffix -kata to provide it with a lexical support,
which gives *Taro-no Nihon-e-no ki-no si-kata.)
(62) *[NP Taro-no Nihon-e-no ki-no -kata]
97
Similarly, the VN kata-nominal in (63) is bad, where the VN kikoku ‘returning’
happens to lack no11.
(63) *[NP Taro-no Nihon-e-no kikoku si-kata]
The following examples from Poser (1989) and Kageyama (1993) illustrate the same
point: the VNs unten ‘driving’ in (64) and hassei ‘occurrence’ in (65) must be no-
marked:
(64) a. [NP unten-no si-kata]
driving-no do-way
‘the way in which one drives (a car)’
11
In this regard, it is fair to mention that some speakers seem to accept the kata-
nominalization in which the VN is not no-marked like the one in (63). For instance, it
appears that Sugioka (1992) does not reject the following example, in which the VN
yuuwaku ‘temptation’ lacks no-marking.
(i) [NP josei-no yuuwaku si-kata]

woman-no temptation do-way
‘the way in which one tempts a woman’
(Sugioka 1992:58)
Similarly, Matsumoto (1996:42) explicitly mentions that some speakers (including

himself) accept the kata-nominal in (ii), where the VN benkyoo ‘study’ lacks no.
(ii) [NP benkyoo si-kata]

study do-way
‘the way in which one studies’
Contrary to what these authors independently report, both (i) and (ii) sound utterly
unacceptable to my ear, unless the VNs are no-marked. Likewise, all native speakers I
have consulted so far uniformly rejected these examples. At this point, I am unable to
offer a satisfactory account of this variation among speakers, and I will put aside the
grammar of those who accept VN kata-nominals such as these.
98
b. *[NP unten si-kata]
(Poser 1989:15-16)
(65) a. [NP zisin-no hassei-no si-kata]
earthquake-no occurrence-no do-way
‘the way in which an earthquake occurs’
b. *[NP zisin-no hassei si-kata]
(Kageyama 1993:260)
The well-formedness of NJV and VN kata-nominals can be schematically
summarized in (66).
(66) a. [NP … NJV-way]
b. *[NP … NJV-no (su-)way]
c. *[NP …VN su-way]
d. [NP …VN-no su-way]
This paradigm is not, to the extent that the mechanism of no-marking I adopt here can
be maintained, expected to emerge if the grammar of Japanese does not distinguish
NJVs from VNs with respect to PR. If both NJVs and VNs are subject to PR, then it
is predicted that not only NJVs but also VNs are exempt from no-marking. Hence, the
NJV kata-nominal (66a) and the VN counterpart (66c) are predicted to be equally
well-formed, which is disconfirmed by the unacceptability of the latter (see (63)).
Likewise, if neither NJVs nor VNs are susceptible to PR, then the prediction is that
99
they both require no-marking; the NJV kata-nominal (66b) should be as good as the
VN counterpart (66d). This is a false prediction as well, since the former is not an
acceptable form (see (62)).
Given the current analysis, on the other hand, the paradigm in (66) can be
understood as a natural consequence. NJVs and VNs behave differently with respect
to no-marking in kata-nominalizations for exactly the same reason they exhibit
asymmetries regarding predicate ellipsis and null adjuncts: the former are raised by
PR in syntax but the latter remain in situ. Therefore, only the forms in (66a) and (66d)
are obtained as acceptable kata-nominals.
3.7.2 Consequence 2: null adjuncts in V-te stranding ellipsis
The crucial observation made in section 2.4 of the last chapter that te-complements
cannot be omitted as a whole, as demonstrated by (67b).
eat-te get-Past but
I-Top get-Neg-Past
‘I didn’t have Ziro eat sushi with mayonnaise.’ (intended reading)
100
Also, I mentioned that the clause in (68b), in which tebe-te ‘eat-te’ is pronounced, is
impeccable as an elliptical clause anteceded by (68a).
eat-te get-Past but
b. boku-wa [e] tabe-te morawa-nakat-ta.
On the basis of this observation, I argued there that when Argument Ellipsis applies
to a te-complement (e.g. the sister node of a predicate that selects a te-clause), the V-
te is necessarily stranded as a result of head movement into a higer clause, which
results in what I refer to as V-te stranding (complement) ellipsis:
(69) … [TP … t ] [T V-te]+V…
Interestingly, the null adjunct reading discussed in section 3.4 obtains in V-te
stranding ellipsis as well. For instance, the elliptical clause (68b) can be understood
as (70), which is not expected unless the implicit counterpart of mayoneezu-de ‘with
mayonnaise’ is structurally present.
101
(70) I did have Ziro eat sushi, but not with mayonnaise.
The availability of the null adjunct reading in question can be confirmed by the fact
that (68b) can be felicitously followed by (71) with no contradiction.
(71) Sonokawari, (boku-wa) (Ziro-ni) syooyu-de susi-o
instead I-Top Ziro-Dat soy.sauce-with sushi-Acc
tabe-te morat-ta.
eat-te get-Past
‘Instead, I had Ziro eat sushi with soy sauce.’
Notice that the predicate of the te-complement in (68) is an NJV, tabe ‘eat.’ What is
noteworthy here is the way the null adjunct reading arises in V-te stranding ellipsis
when VNs are employed as predicates of te-complements, instead of NJVs. Let us
take a look at (72), where the VN san-oofuku ‘three laps’ is used as the predicate of
the te-complement.12 (72a) serves as the antecedent for target clauses in (72b) and
(72c).
12
In fairness, a near-synonymous NJV counterpart of the discourse in (72) is given in
(i).
(i) a. Taro-wa [Ziro-ni ikitugi-naside nijuugo-meetoru

Taro-Top Ziro-Dat breathing-without twenty.five-meter
puuru-o oyoi-de] morat-ta kedo,
pool-Acc swim-te get-Past but
‘Taro had Ziro swim the 25-meter pool without breathing, but…’
102
(72) a. Taro-wa [Ziro-ni ikitugi-naside nijuugo-meetoru
Taro-Top Ziro-Dat breathing-without twenty.five-meter
puuru-o san-oofuku si-te] morat-ta kedo,
pool-Acc three-lap do-te get-Past but
‘Taro had Ziro to swim three laps of the 25-meter pool without
breathing, but…’
b. Ken-wa san-oofuku si-te morawa-nakat-ta.
Ken-Top three-lap do-te get-Neg-Past
‘Ken didn’t have Ziro swim three laps of the 25-meter pool.’
c. Ken-wa [VN e] si-te morawa-nakat-ta.
Ken-Top do-te get-Neg-Past
‘Ken didn’t.’
The VN is overtly expressed in (72b) but is missing in (72c). Although both of them
are perfectly well-formed target clauses, they radically differ from each other with
respect to the intended null adjunct reading; importantly, while (72b) is interpreted
unambiguously as (73a), (72c) can be easily understood as (73b), which indicates that
b. Ken-wa [e] oyoi-de morawa-nakat-ta.

Ken-Top swim-te get-Neg-Past
‘Ken didn’t.’
When anteceded by (ia), (ib) allows for the null adjunct reading in (ii), and can be
truthfully uttered in a situation where Ken ordered Ziro to breath carefully in
swimming the pool, unlike Taro.
(ii) Ken did have Ziro swim the 25 meter pool, but not without breathing.
103
the null adjunct corresponding to ikitugi-naside ‘without breathing’ is structurally
present in (72c), but not in (72b).
(73) a. Ken didn’t have Ziro swim 150 meters in any way.
b. Ken had Ziro swim 150 meters, but not without breathing.
Suppose the following situation. Both Taro and Ken had Ziro swim three laps of the
25-meter pool. While Taro asked him to swim without breathing, Ken asked him to
take a breath because he wanted to see how smoothly Ziro can breathe when he
swims. In this situation, (72b) is rejected but (73c) can be true. Obviously, this is
somewhat remniscent of null adjunct phenomena in simple VN clauses we saw in 3.4.
I propose that this set of facts about the null adjunct reading in V-te stranding
ellipsis can be reduced to the analysis proposed in this chapter. In chapter 2, it was
assumed that a verb and -te (viz. T) in a te-clause make up a complex head by virtue
of head movement, and therefore when T undergoes movement to a higher predicate,
the verb is carried along as part of the derived head. The data concerning V-te
stranding ellipsis suggests that this is indeed true. I argue that the distinction between
NJVs and VNs regarding PR discussed in this chapter is reflected in te-complements
as well: te-complements whose predicates are NJVs (which I refer to as NJV te-
complements) have the structure in (74), whreas the structure of te-complements
whose predicates are VNs (which I call VN te-complements) looks like (75).
104
(74) NJV te-complements
… [TP … [vP … [VP … tNJV ] tv ] tT ] [T NJV-v-te]+V…
(75) VN te-complements
… [TP … [vP … [VNP … VN] tv ] tT ] [T v+su-te]+V…
In (74), the NJV undergoes PR to v, and v subsequently raises up to T in the same
manner as it does in the case of simple clauses discussed in section 3.5. As a result of
head movement of T out of the te-complement, which I have argued in chapter 2, the
NJV ends up in being outside the TP. On the other hand, the VN in (75) is not subject
to PR; it therefore remains inside the TP until the end of the derivation.
This structural difference with regard to PR enables us account for how null
adjuncts obtain in V-te stranding ellipsis in the following way. In the case of (68b),
which represents an example of NJV te-complements, it has the underlying structure
partially represented in (76), in which the adjunct mayoneezu-de ‘with mayonnaise’ is
structurally present.
(76) I [TP Ziro [vP with mayonnaise [VP sushi teat ] tv ] tT ]
[T eat-v-te]+get-Neg-Past
Argument Ellipsis of the TP in (76) elides the adjunct with mayonnaise (as well as
arguments associated with eat-te), while stranding the NJV eat, which results in the
surface string of (68b). Hence, the null adjunct reading arises in (68b).
105
(77) I [TP Ziro [vP with mayonnaise [VP sushi teat ] tv ] tT ]
[T eat-v-te]+get-Neg-Past
Let us turn to VN te-complements. The asymmetry between (72b) and (72c) in the
null adjunct reading can be accounted for as well. As for (72b), in which the VN san-
oofuku ‘three laps’ is pronounced, it lacks the intended null adjunct reading because
the TP is not elided. This is so because the overt VN automatically entails that the TP,
which dominates the VN, is not elided, given the structure in (75). Besides, we know
independently that adjuncts cannot be dropped (see section 3.4). So I propose that the
structure of (72b) looks like (78) below, in which the adjunct ikitugi-naside ‘without
breathing’ is not structurally present. The arguments Ziro and 25-meter pool are left
unpronounced in (72b) perhaps due to Argument Ellipsis separately applying to these
two (or they may be null pronouns). Then, it comes as no surprise that the null
adjunct reading does not arise in (72b).
(78) Ken [TP Ziro [vP [VP 25-meter pool three laps] tv ] tT ]
[T v+su-te]+get-Neg-Past
As for (72c), its compatibility with the null adjunct reading can be captured as
follows. The structure given in (75) above enables us to analyze (72c) as an elliptical
clause derived by Argument Ellipsis of the whole TP, since the VN is not pronounced
there. Then the representation in (79) can be assigned to (72c), in which the adjunct in
106
question is generated but elided along with the VN and the arguments as a result of
TP-ellipsis. Hence, contrary to (72b), (72c) allows the null adjunct reading.
(79) Ken [TP Ziro [vP without breathing [VP 25-meter pool three laps] tv ] tT ]
[T v+su-te]+get-Neg-Past
As is clear from the observations above, simple VN clauses and VN te-
complements treat null adjuncts in essentially the same way; overt VNs invariably
block the null adjunct reading in both environments. This fact would be considered as
merely accidental if the way PR affects NJVs and VNs in simple clauses did not hold
in te-complements, which is far from satisfactory from an empirical point of view.13
13
As Tomohiro Fujii has critically pointed out, the asymmetry between NJV and VN
te-complements regarding null adjuncts examined here tells us little about the validity
of the head movement analysis of V-te proposed in chapter 2. This is so precisely
because the relevant contrast can be equally captured by vP-ellipsis within te-
complements, coupled with obligatory PR of NJVs (and the assumption that subjects
of te-complements can remain inside vPs). To be precise, we seem to have a way to
analyze (68b) and (72c) as being derived as in (i) and (ii), respectively. Notice that
neither involves head movement to the higher predicate get.
(i) I [TP [vP Ziro with mayonnaise [VP sushi teat ] tv ] [T eat-v-te]] get-Neg-Past
(ii) Ken [TP [vP Ziro without breathing [VP 25-meter pool three laps] tv ]
[T v+su-te]] get-Neg-Past
Embedded vP-ellipsis (indicated in (i) and (ii)) seems indistinguishable from TP-
ellipsis following head movement to get (indicated in (77) and (79)), especially in that
both strategies are expected to equally cover the range of null adjuncts inside te-
complements. The facts in (68) and (72) therefore cannot be taken to support the TP-
ellipsis derivation of (NJ)V-te stranding ellipsis. At the same time, he also mentions
that these facts do not contradict the prediction of the head movement analysis of V-te
either.
107
3.8 The trigger of predicate raising and the nature of su-insertion
Having empirically motivated the presence of PR in the grammar of Japanese, now it
is time to discuss its trigger. Recall that my account of the discrepancies between
NJV and VN clauses is that (i) NJVs must undergo PR to v while VNs are not subject
to PR, and (ii) in both NJV and VN clauses, v constantly raises up to a higher head F
which takes a vP as its complement. If this is indeed the case, then the question that
must be answered is that why only NJVs are susceptible to PR to v. To put differently,
what triggers PR in a rather selective manner so that it applies to NJVs but not to
VNs?
I propose that PR is sensitive to the native vs. non-native distinction in verbal
predicates. To be precise, I make the following set of assumptions about the lexicon
of Japanese:
(80) a. NJVs bear an interpretable feature [iNative], whereas VNs are not
associated with it.
b. v has an uninterpretable feature [uNative] with an EPP property, which
triggers movement of a head with [iNative].
c. Heads that take a vP complement bear an uninterpretable v-feature
[uv] with an EPP property, which triggers head movement of v.
What is meant by (80a) is lexical specifications of NJVs and VNs. As I have briefly
mentioned in section 3.2, NJVs are native vocabularies (hence the name) but VNs are
typically non-native ones (see also footnote 1). The feature [iNative] is intended to
108
formally represent this distinction. The assumption in (80b) is concerned with a
lexical specification of v in Japanese. I assume that v always enters the derivation
with [uNative], and this uninterpretable feature has an EPP property in the sense of
Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), attracting a head with the matching feature [iNative].
Finally, I assume that heads that take a vP complement (e.g. T and Neg) have [uv],
and the EPP property of this feature attracts v, as stated in (80c). Here, the two
uninterpretable features [uNative] and [uv] introduced in (80) are both conceived as
illegitimate PF objects (Chomsky 1993, Lasnik 1999).
Let us first see how derivations of NJV clauses proceed, given the
assumptions in (80a-c). The representative example of NJV clauses is (1), reproduced
here as (81).
(81) Taro-ga Nihon-e ki-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to come-Past
The relevant steps of the derivation of this example are sketched in (82), ignoring
irrelevant details.
(82) a. Merge of the NJV and the object
[VP to Japan come[iNative]]
b. Merge of the VP and v
[vP [VP to Japan come[iNative]] v[uNative]]
109
c. PR of the NJV to v
[vP Taro [VP to Japan t ] [v come[iNative]-v[uNative]]]
d. Merge of the vP and T
[TP [vP Taro [VP to Japan t ] [v come[iNative]-v[uNative]]] T[uv]]
e. Head movement of v to T
[TP [vP Taro [VP to Japan t ] t ] [T [v come[iNative]-v[uNative]]-T[uv]]]
First, the NJV ki ‘come’ is merged with the object Nihon-e ‘to Japan.’ As indicated in
(82a), the NJV enters the derivation with [iNative]. Next, a vP is formed by merging
v, which contains [uNative], with the VP. The crucial step of this derivation is (82c).
The EPP property of [uNative] on v triggers PR (i.e. head movement) of the NJV,
which bears the matching feature [iNative], and consequently [uNative] on v is
deleted. After elimination of [uNative] is done, the derivation proceeds to build a TP
by merging the vP and T, which possesses [uv] (see (82d)). Head movement of v to T
is triggered by the EPP property of this feature, which successfully deletes [uv] that T
bears. As shown in (82e), this instance of movement of v necessarily pied-pipes the
NJV, which has raised to v in the previous stage of the derivation. The derivation
results in the structure in which not only v but also the NJV is located outside the vP.
What about derivations of VN clauses, then? I argue that the derivation of the
VN clause in (2), repeated here as (83), proceeds in the steps given (84).
110
(83) Taro-ga Nihon-e kikoku si-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to returning do-Past
‘Taro went back to Japan.’
(84) a. Merge of the VN and the object
[VNP to Japan returning]
b. Merge of the VNP and v
[vP [VNP to Japan returning] v[uNative]]
c. Merge of the vP and T
[TP [vP Taro [VNP to Japan returning] [v v[uNative]]] T[uv]]
d. Head movement of v to T
[TP [vP Taro [VNP to Japan returning] t ] [T [v v[uNative]]-T[uv]]]
Notice first that in (84a) the VN does not come with the feature [iNative], unlike the
NJV in (82). This is assumed to be a lexical property of VNs, as stated in (80a). In the
next step (84b), v is merged with the VNP. Just as in the case of the NJV clause, v has
[uNative] with the EPP property here, too. However, unlike in (82b), there is no
matching feature for [uNative] in the structure in (84b), since the VN does not bear
[iNative]. PR does not apply to the VN exactly for this reason. As a consequence, the
derivation continues with v carryng that uninterpretable feature. In (84c) T is
introduced into the derivation with the uninterpretable feature [uv], and in (84d) head
movement of v to T is triggered by the EPP property of [uv], eliminating that feature.
111
The result of this derivation is the structure in which v is placed outside the vP, but
the VN remains in its base position.
At this point, notice that the derivation of the VN clause in (84) seems
doomed, because the uninterpretable feature [uNative] on v is still there; if the
structure (minus the VNP, if one assumes cyclic Spell-Out) in (84d) is sent to PF,
[uNative] on v is predicted to cause a crash, being a PF-uninterpretable feature. This
clearly contrasts with the derivation of the NJV clause in (82), in which [uNative] on
v is eliminated by virtue of PR of the NJV containing the matching feature [iNative].
If the VN clause (83) is indeed derived as in (84), as I claim here, then it must be
asked why the remaining uninterpretable feature on v does not cause a PF crash.
I argue that the supporting verb su is responsible for elimination of [uNative]
that v bears in VN clauses. As briefly mentioned in section 3.2, su placed
immediately after VNs is an NJV. So it should make sense to assume that it has the
feature [iNative] as well. My proposal is that su is inserted in PF in order to eliminate
[uNative] on v in a last resort fashion in order to remedy the derivation which
otherwise leads to a PF crash. In the case of the VN clause (83), after the structure in
(84d) is sent to PF, su is adjoined to v and deletes [uNative] that survived the
syntactic derivation, as shown in (85). As a result, a PF crash is avoided.
(85) Insertion of su to v in PF
… [T [v v[uNative]+su[iNative] ]-T[uv]]]
112
It has often been suggested in the literature that a potential PF crash can be bypassed
with the help of a PF operation. For instance, assuming that ellipsis is a PF process,
scholars such as Lasnik (1999) and Merchant (2008) maintain that ellipsis is capable
of eliminating illegitimate PF objects: strong features in Lasnik’s study on the one
hand, and intermediate traces left behind by successive cyclic wh-movement in
Merchant’s on the other. In light of this, the idea that [uNative] on v, an illegitimate
PF object, can be eliminated by inserting the supporting verb in PF should not be
considered to be invalid.
What should be recalled here is the fact that the supporting verb is excluded in
NJV clauses but obligatory in VN clauses, which I have noted in section 3.2. The
NJV clause in (86) leads to ungrammaticality if su is pronounced, whereas the VN
clause in (87) is ill-formed unless su is pronounced.
(86) Taro-ga Nihon-e ki-(*si)-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to come-do-Past
(87) Taro-ga Nihon-e kikoku *(si)-ta.
Taro-Nom Japan-to returning do-Neg-Past
‘Taro didn’t go back to Japan.’
In the present context, this contrast concerning the supporting verb can be understood
as indicating that although [uNative] on v can be eliminated by su-insertion in the VN
clause, the same strategy is somehow unavailable in the NJV clause. I suggest that
113
this is because [uNative] that v bears in the NJV clause can be deleted by virtue of PR
of the NJV to v (see (82c) above), and that su-insertion in PF, which does the same
job as PR, is preempted by PR.
The intuition behind this view is an economy condition suggested in Chomsky
(1991), according to which operations specified as part of UG are less costly than
language-specific operations. For now, let us assume that PR is an operation specified
as part of UG, whereas insertion of su in PF is a language-specific operation. Let us
further assume that in the case of the NJV clause, [uNative] on v can in principle be
eliminated by either PR or su-insertion; in other words, both derivations equally
converge. If so, then we can reduce the obligatory absence of su in (86) to the
economy condition. The derivation which employs PR is preferred over the one
which does su-insertion in PF, since the former operation is less costly than the latter
one. Note in passing that in the case of the VN clause, the economy condition does
not block insertion of su simply because no other derivation is convergent, PR not
being a viable option to eliminate [uNative] on v.
Summarizing this secton, I have proposed that PR applies to NJVs but not to
VNs because only the former bear [iNative], which can eliminate [uNative] on v. I
have also proposed that in VN clauses, [uNative] on v is deleted by inserting the
supporting verb in PF as a ‘last resort’ strategy.
3.9 Japanese as a verb-stranding vP-ellipsis language
There has been much debate over the analysis of elliptical clauses like (88b).
114
b. Ziro-wa [e] ko-nakat-ta.
Two major analyses have been proposed in the literature to date: the Argument
Ellipsis (AE) analysis and the vP-ellipsis analysis. These two approaches crucially
differ from each other in how they treat the gap [e]. According to the former, the gap
in (88b) corresponds to the object Nihon-ni ‘to Japan’ (Oku 1998, Saito 2007,
Takahashi 2008), as (89) illustrates. Hence, (88b) is regarded as an instance of the
null object construction (NOC), under this approach.
(89) [TP Ziro [Obj to Japan] come-v-Neg-Past]
According to the latter, on the other hand, the gap is analyzed as a null vP which
results from vP-ellipsis. The verb is still pronounced there because it is placed outside
of the elided domain, due to PR in overt syntax (Otani & Whitman 1991, Funakoshi
2014), as sketched in (90).
(90) [TP Ziro [vP to Japan tcome tv ] come-v-Neg-Past]
115
As for the current analysis, it has a way to analyze the gap in question as a null vP
derived by vP-ellipsis plus PR, precisely because the NJV come is used as the
predicate in (88), as discussed in section 3.5. It therefore partly belongs to the latter
type of approach.
At this point, recall from section 3.4 that (88b) allows the null adjunct reading
Ziro didn’t come to Japan via L.A., when anteceded by (88a). It therefore can be
followed by (91) without giving rise to a contradiction.
(91) Sonokawari, Ziro-wa Siatoru-keeyude Nihon-e ki-ta.
Instead Ziro-Top Seattle-via Japan-to come-Past
‘Instead, Ziro came to Japan via Seattle.’
Crucially, the AE analysis seems unable to capture this fact, as Funakoshi (2014)
points out. Let us see why this is so.
For that particular reading to arise, the adjunct L.A.-keeyude ‘via L.A.’ must
be structurally present in (88b). The problem is that while the object may be
legitimately rendered null by AE, via L.A. should not be elided in the same way, since
it is not an argument:
(92) [TP Ziro [Adjunct via L.A.] [Obj to Japan] come-v-Neg-Past]
*AE AE
116
Consequently, it would be predicted that (88b) cannot be interpreted as having an
implicit counterpart of via L.A. and therefore lacks the null adjunct reading, which is
strongly disconfirmed.
As a possible way out, one might attempt to overcome this stalemate by
stipulating that the object and the adjunct actually make up a constituent, and AE
applies to this complex object, as roughly sketched in (93). This idea may not be as
exotic as it sounds, for the possibility of such complex object formation has been
suggested by Sohn (1994), quite independently of ellipis discussed here (see also
Takano 2002).
(93) [TP Ziro [Obj [Adj via L.A.] [Obj to Japan]] come-v-Neg-Past]
Unfortunately, this line of analysis is untenable when the discrepancy between NJV
and VN clauses discussed in section 3.4 is taken into consideration. The core
observation was that the null adjunct reading in the VN clause with an object gap is
blocked by pronunciation of the VN. The relevant examples in (32) are repeated here
as (94) for purposes of convenience.
(94) a. Taro-wa ikitugi-naside [nijuugo-meetoru puuru-o]
Taro-Top breathing-without twenty.five-meter pool-Acc
san-oofuku si-ta kedo,
three-lap do-Past but
‘Taro swam three laps of the 25-meter pool without breathing, but…’
117
b. Ziro-wa [Obj e] san-oofuku si-nakat-ta.
Ziro-Top three-lap do-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t swim three laps of the 25-meter pool.’ (*null adjunct
reading)
The point here is that if the null adjunct reading in the elliptical NJV clause (88b)
were derived as in (93), it would remain mysterious why the VN clause (94b), in
which object drop coincides with pronunciation of the VN, cannot receive the null
adjunct reading by virtue of AE of the complex object in the way illustrated in (95).
(95) [TP … [Obj Adjunct Obj] VN su …]
After all, although AE may be independently available in the grammar of
Japanese, no analysis which derives (88b) exclusively by AE seems to satisfactorily
account for the range of null adjunct phenomena. By contrast, the proposed analysis
can adequately handle the facts; as discussed in section 3.5, null adjuncts are derived
by vP-ellipsis, and the asymmetry between NJV and VN clauses regarding null
adjuncts can be reduced to the difference in PR. I therefore conclude that vP-ellipsis
must be available as an option to derive NJV clauses with (apparent) object gaps.
118
If this conclusion is correct, then Japanese should be considered as another
language that instantiates so-called verb-stranding vP-ellipsis, which has been argued
to be found in languages such as Hebrew (Goldberg 2005), Tagalog (Richards 2003)
and Russian (Gribanova 2013). Below, I show that Japanese and Hebrew exhibit
certain similarities.
Goldberg (2005) first shows that although Hebrew allows direct objects (DOs)
to be left unpronounced, they can be legitimately omitted only when they are
inanimate. For instance, in the answer to the question in (96), the DO which refers to
ha-maxbarot ‘the notebooks’ can be dropped with no degradation in grammaticality.
(96) Q: Ha-memšala sipka et ha-maxbarot
The-government supply.Past.3sg.F the-notebooks
la-'universita?
to.the-university
‘Did the government supply the notebooks to the university?’
A: Lo, anaxnu konim [DO e] me-ha-xanut.
no we buy from-the-store
‘No, we buy them from the store.’
(Goldberg 2005:50)
In the answer to the queation in (97), on the other hand, the DO, which is supposed to
refer to Dvora, is missing. In this case, the result is ungrammatical.
119
(97) Q: (Ha-'im) Miryam hisi'a et Dvora
Q Miryam drive.Past.3sg.F Acc Dvora
la-makolet?
to.the-grocery.store
‘Did Miryam drive Dvora to the grocery store?’
A: *Lo, 'aval hi hisi'a [DO e] la-DO'AR.
no but she drive.Past.3sg.F to.the-post.office
‘No, but she drove her to the POST OFFICE.’
(Goldberg 2005:53)
Curiously, she reports that aminate DOs can be omitted if indirect objects (IOs) are
also omitted, as in (98A).
(98) Q: (Ha-'im) Miryam hisi'a et Dvora
Q Miryam drive.Past.3sg.F Acc Dvora
la-makolet?
‘Did Miryam drive Dvora to the grocery store?’
A: Ken, hi hisi'a [DO e] [IO e].
yes she drive.Past.3sg.F
‘Yes, she drove [Dvora to the grocery store].’
(Goldberg 2005:53)
120
Goldberg then proposes that (98A) is derived by verb movement into the inflectional
domain followed by ellipsis of the verbal domain, represented as VP in her own work,
as in (99) (see also Doron 1990 for a similar analysis).
(99) [TP she drive [VP t [Dvora] [to the grocery store]]]
As a result of ellipsis illustrated in (99), the DO and the IO, both of which are
dominated by the VP, are simultaneously omitted.
What should be remarked here is that Japanese is more or less similar to
Hebrew in that both languages permit elision of elements which cannot be dropped by
themselves (adjuncts in Japanese on the one hand and animate DOs in Hebrew on the
other) only if other vP-internal materials are left unpronounced. This similarity is not
surprising at all, since not only null animate DOs in Hebrew but also null adjuncts in
(NJV clauses in) Japanese can be reduced to the verb-stranding vP-ellipsis strategy.
This is the conclusion Funakoshi (2014) reaches on the basis of null adjuncts he
investigates.14 The study presented in this chapter with special attention to the
distinction between NJV and VN clauses should serve to reinforce this conclusion.
14
An interesting condition on verb-stranding vP-ellipsis in Hebrew is what Goldberg
(2005) calls the verbal identity requirement, according to which a verb in an
antecedent vP and the one in an a target vP must be identical to each other (see also
Doron 1990 and Potsdam 1997 for such a requirement). Goldberg (2005: Ch. 4)
empirically motivates this requirement by demonstrating that animate DOs in Hebrew
cannot be dropped if verbs in the antecedent and target vPs are not identical.
Although I have not included discussion of the verbal identity requirement in the
present study of vP-ellipsis in Japanese, see Funakoshi (2014: Ch. 6) where he
observes that null adjuncts in Japanese are sensitive to identity of verbs and concludes
that verb-stranding vP-ellipsis in Japanese obeys the verbal identity requirement as
well.
121
I close this section with some remarks on extraction of phrasal constituents
from vP-ellipsis sites. I have argued above that the null adjunct reading is consistently
absent in NJV clauses with overt objects, because pronunciation of objects entails the
absence of vP-ellipsis. However, a question immediately arises as to NJV clauses
with fronted objects, exemplified by (100b) below.
b. Nihon-e Ziro-wa ko-nakat-ta.
Japan-to Ziro-Top come-Neg-Past
‘Ziro didn’t come to Japan.’ (*null adjunct reading)
Strikingly, (100b) clearly lacks the null adjunct reading. This fact seems problematic
to the proposed analysis, because (100b) may be incorrectly predicted to permit that
reading; as Karlos Arregi has correctly pointed out, so long as it can be derived by
scrambling of the object from the vP followed by vP-ellipsis, as sketched in (101), the
null adjunct reading should obtain even with the overt object.15
(101) [TP [Obj to Japan] Ziro [vP via L.A. tObj tcome tv ] come-v-Neg-Past]
15
Takita (2011) makes a related observation, quite independently of null adjuncts
under discussion here. He shows that elliptical clauses in Japanese that could be
analyzed as being successfully derived by scrambling and verb movement followed
by vP-ellipsis are ill-formed; see Takita (2011) for details.
122
This problem of overgeneration might be avoided by positing a ban on phrasal
movement out of elided vPs in Japanese. Unfortunately, this idea immediately raises
another question; it is known that English, which everyone admits displays vP-ellipsis,
generally (though not always) tolerates such movement. (102)-(103) clearly
demonstrate that topicalization and wh-movement can take place out of vP-ellipsis
sites.
(102) Topicalization out of vP-ellipsis sites
GREEK, you should take; DUTCH, you shouldn’t [vP e].
(Merchant 2008:140)
(103) Wh-movement out of vP-ellipsis sites
Which films did he refuse to see, and which films did he agree to [vP e]?
(Merchant 2013:539)
Then, the fact that the null adjunct reading is not compatible with the scrambled
object in (100b) might be taken to cast serious doubt on my attempt to attribute the
null adjunct phenomena in Japanese to vP-ellipsis, from which phrasal movement is
permitted. One might even say that the set of Japanese data under discussion is more
similar to so-called null complement anaphora (NCA), exemplified by (104) and
(105), than to vP-ellipsis.
(104) *Which films did he refuse to see, and which films did he agree [e]?
(ibid.:539)
123
(105) *Mary wondered which conference talk Tommy refused to attend and Susan
wonders which colloquium talk Anne refused [e].
(Depiatnte 2001:210)
These examples show that phrasal movement out of NCA is entirely prohibited,
which makes sense if NCA is an instance of deep anaphora in the sense of Hankamer
and Sag (1976) and therefore can be assigned no structure at all, as commonly
assumed.
My suggestion here is that the potentially problematic case in (100b) can be
derived by scrambling of the object as far as syntax is concerned, but it still lacks the
relevant reading for some independent reason which I do not fully understand at the
moment16. In other words, I argue that the absence of the null adjunct reading in
(100b) does not necessarily entail that phrasal movement out of [e] in elliptical
clauses like (88b) (repeated below) is forbidden.
b. Ziro-wa [e] ko-nakat-ta.
16
See Funakoshi (2014), who, being aware of the problem associated with clauses
containing scrambled objects like (100b), suggests that they cannot receive the null
adjunct reading due to a violation of a discourse constraint.
124
In the remainder of this section, I provide a piece of evidence that phrasal movement
out of [e] under consideration here is indeed permitted.
Let us consider clefts in (106) below. Here, the Case-marked elements
tenpura-o ‘tempura-Acc’ and tomato-o ‘tomato-Acc’ appear as the focus followed the
copula da in (106a) and (106b), respecticely. The focus element is associated with the
gap inside the presuppositional clause headed by the complementizer no. I refer to
clefts in which a Case-marked element appears in the focus position like these as
Case-marked clefts.
(106) a. [CP Taro-ga sio-de [e] tabe-ta no]-wa
Taro-Nom salt-with eat-Past C-Top
tenpura-o da.
tempura-Acc Cop
‘It is tempura that Taro ate with salt.’
b. [CP pro [e] tabe-nakat-ta no]-wa tomato-o da.
eat-Neg-Past C-Top tomato-Acc Cop
‘It is tomatoes that he didn’t.’ (null adjunct reading)
The key point to observe is that the Case-marked cleft in (106b) allows the null
adjunct reading it is tomatoes that he didn’t eat with salt, when anteceded by (106a).
Therefore, (106a-b) can be true in a situation in which Taro ate both tempura and
tomatoes, but he ate the latter with mayonnaise instead of salt.
125
This fact is relevant in the present context, as it has been independently
proposed that Case-marked clefts involve operator movement. According to Hoji
(1990), an empty operator (represented as Op) is generated inside the
presuppositional clause, and moves to its [Spec, CP], as depicted in (107). See also
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) and Takahashi (2006), where Case-marked clefts are
discussed.
(107) [CP Opi [TP … ti …] no]-Top Focusi-Case Cop
Hoji motivates his operator movement analysis of Case-marked clefts by observing
that (i) they allow long-distance dependency between the gap in the presuppositional
clause and the focus, as shown in (108), and (ii) they exhibit island-sensitivity, as
(109) demonstrates (see Hoji 1990: Ch. 5 for details).
(108) [CP Boku-ga [CP Taro-ga [ei] tabe-ta to] omot-ta
I-Nom Taro-Nom eat-Past C think-Past
no]-wa tenpurai-o da.
C-Top tempura-Acc Cop
‘It is tempura that I thought that Taro ate.’
126
(109) *[CP Taro-ga [NP [CP [ei] tabe-ta] hito]-o home-ta
Taro-Nom eat-Past person-Acc praise-Past
no]-wa fugui-o da.
C-Top blowfish-Acc Cop
Lit. ‘It is blowfish that Taro praise the person who ate.’
Now, the availability of the null adjunct reading tells us that it is very unlikely that
the gap [e] in (106b) is merely a trace left behind by operator movement. Rather, it
should be more plausible to regard it as a null vP containing the adjunct sio-de ‘with
salt’ inside, given the discussion on null adjuncts so far. If so, then the
presuppositional clause in (106b) must be derived in the way illustrated in (110)
(irrelevant details are suppressed).
(110) [CP Opi [TP pro [vP with salt [VP ti teat ] tv ] eat-v-Neg-Past] no]
Here, Op moves from the object position inside the vP. The adjunct with salt is
actually present in the structure, but it ends up being unpronounced due to vP-ellipsis
in the presuppositional clause, which gives rise to the null adjunct reading, as desired.
That the null adjunct reading arises in (106b) seems hard to account for if [e]
in the presuppositional clause can only be analyzed as an instance of NCA, since we
know that extraction of phrasal constituents out of NCA is forbidden (see (104) and
(105)). To the extent that Case-marked clefts are derived by operator movement, as
Hoji (1990) convincingly argues, we can never reasonably say that the gap is NCA.
127
The fact about the Case-marked cleft (106b) thus serves to indicate that not only
English but also Japanese permits phrasal movement out of elided vPs.
3.10 Conclusion
In this chapter, I discussed asymmetries between NJV and VN clauses with respect to
predicate ellipsis and null adjuncts. Although the literature on verb movement, or
predicate raising (PR), in Japanese abounds, no attempt has been made so far to argue
for (or against) PR in the language by making reference to the distinction between
NJVs and VNs, to the best of my knowledge. I proposed that NJVs and VNs crucially
contrast with each other regarding predicate raising (PR), and the asymmetries can be
reduced to the difference in PR; NJVs are subject to PR on the one hand, but VNs are
not on the other. As for the trigger of PR, I proposed that the uninterpretable feature
[uNative] on v is responsible. Since it is assumed that NJVs have the matching
feature [iNative] whereas VNs do not, PR applies only to the former. I showed that
the proposed analysis accounts for a wide range of facts, and argued that NJV clauses
in Japanese exemplify verb-stranding vP-ellipsis.
128
Chapter 4: Remaining Issues
In the preceding chapters, I argued that there are good empirical reasons to believe
that, its string-vacuity notwithstanding, Japanese has overt head movement in syntax.
In this chapter I discuss some remaining issues, especially focusing on potetial
problems with the view I advocated in chapter 3. The proposal I made there is that
prediacte raising (PR) applies to NJVs whereas VNs are not subject to PR. Two
strong arguments against verb movement in Japanese, which I assume to be a subcase
of predicate raising in most cases, will be touched upon.
One convincing argument against verb movement in Japanese has to do with
adverbial particles such as -mo, -sae and -dake, put forward by Sakai (1998, 2000)
and Aoyagi (1998, 2006) (see also Kuroda 1965, Sells 1995 for discussion of these
particles). Both Sakai and Aoyagi argue against verb movement in Japanese on the
basis of examples like (1b), in which the verb tabe ‘eat’ is suffixed with these
particles, and the supporting verb su (spelled out as si here) is obligatorily inserted in
between the adverbial particle and the tense suffix. These authors assume that su is
required in (1b) in order to provide the tense suffix, which is linearly separated from
the verb by the adverbial particle, with a lexical support.1
1
Whether or not su employed in (1b) should be distinguished from su obligatorily
employed in VN clauses discussed in chapter 3 is a highly contentious issue, although
both instances of su seem void of meaning. I will not go into further details of this
topic; see Miyara (1991) where it is argued that they are identical, and Kageyama
(1992) who refutes Miyara’s proposal.
129
(1) a. Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-ta.
b. Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-{mo/sae/dake} *(si)-ta.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Particle do-Past
‘Taro also/even/only ate tempura.’
The gist of their proposals is that adverbial particles immediately after verbs are VP-
adjuncts. To be more precise, these authors argue that the base structure of (1b) looks
like (2), in which the particle is adjoined to VP, rather than (3), in which the particle
takes the VP as its complement and heads its own projection (PartP) (irrelevant
details suppressed).
(2) Particles as VP-adjuncts
[TP Taro [VP [VP tempura eat] Particle] Past]
(3) Particles as projecting heads
[TP Taro [PartP [VP tempura eat] Particle] Past]
Given that the particle in (2) is simply adjoined to the VP, the verb eat should in
principle be allowed to climb up to T by virtue of verb movement, skipping the
particle on its way, since adjuncts are not expected to block head movement. If so,
then it should be possible that the structure in (4) can be derived from (2), if verb
movement is available in the grammar of Japanese.
130
(4) [TP Taro [VP [VP tempura teat] Particle] [eat+Past]]
Notice that in the surface string which is expected to result from (4), the verb and the
past tense suffix would be linearized next to each other, just like they are in (1a).
Sakai and Aoyagi point out that if such a derivation were permitted, the empirical fact
that (1b) requires the supporting verb while (1a) does not would remain mysterious.
They hence conlude that verb movement is not available at all in Japanese.
As is obvious, this line of argument against verb movement is heavily
dependent upon the status of adverbial particles as VP-adjuncts; the particle is not
selected by anything in the structure in (2). Aoyagi and Sakai each motivate this
treatment by observing that these particles are transparent for selection. Aoyagi
demonstrates that the selectional relations between verbs and their complements are
never interrupted by the presence of the adverbial particles. For instance, he shows
that the verb mi ‘see’ is required to take a te-clause when interpreted as meaning try,
as in (5a), while it is completely incompatible with a ni-clause, as (5b) demonstrates.
See chapter 2 and references cited therein for discussion of te-clauses, and Miyagawa
(1987b), Tsujimura (1993), and Takahashi (2012) for discussion of ni-clauses.
(5) a. Taroi-wa [[ei] tenpura-o tabe-te] mi-ta.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-te see-Past
‘He tried eating temputa.’
131
b. *Taroi-wa [[ei] tenpura-o tabe-ni] mi-ta.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-ni see-Past
This contrast continues to show up when particles intervene between the te- and ni-
clauses and the verb, too; (6a) is fine whereas (6b) sounds gibberish. See also Sells
(1995) for similar observations.
(6) a. Taroi-wa [[ei] tenpura-o tabe-te]-{mo/dake/sae}
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-te-Particle
mi-ta.
see-Past
‘He also/only/even tried eating temputa.’
b. *Taroi-wa [[ei] tenpura-o tabe-ni]-{mo/dake/sae}
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-ni-Particle
mi-ta.
see-Past
Aoyagi thus takes this set of facts to indicate that adverbial particles are transparent
for selection.
Sakai discusses the correlation between the insertion of the supporting verb
and the polite negative suffix masen. He shows that whereas verbal predicates as tabe
‘eat’ in (7) can be selected by masen, adjectival predicates like oisi(-ku) ‘delicious’ in
(8) cannot.
132
b. Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-masen.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Neg.Pol
‘Taro doesn’t eat tempura.’
(8) a. Tenpura-wa oisi-i.
tempura-Top delicious-Pres
‘Tempura is delicious.’
b. *Tenpura-wa oisiku-masen.
tempura-Top delicious-Neg.Pol
‘Tempura is not delicious.’
In order to get a well-formed result with an adjective, the supporting verb aru ‘be’
must be inserted right before the negative suffix, as in (9) (aru is spelled out as ari
before masen).
(9) Tenpura-wa oisiku ari-masen.
tempura-Top delicious be-Neg.Pol
‘Tempura is not delicious.’
133
He then shows that masen invariably requires aru when adverbial particles attach to
adjectives as well, as shown in (10). He goes on to argue that it is higly unlikely that
the particles trigger insertion of aru, because in (11), where the verb is suffixed with
the particle, su must be employed as a supporting verb, rather than aru.
(10) a. *Tenpura-wa oisiku-{mo/dake/sae} masen.
tempura-Top delicious-Particle Neg.Pol
‘Tempura is not also/only/even delicious.’
b. Tenpura-wa oisiku-{mo/dake/sae} ari-masen.-
tempura-Top delicious-Particle be-Neg.Pol
‘Tempura is not also/only/even delicious.’
(11) a. *Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-{mo/dake/sae} ari-masen.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Particle be-Neg.Pol
‘Taro doesn’t also/only/even eat tempura.’
b. Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-{mo/dake/sae} si-masen.
Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Particle do-Neg.Pol
‘Taro doesn’t also/only/even eat tempura.’
On the basis of this observation, Sakai also concludes that particles are transparent for
selection; if they headed their own projections and selected verbs or adjectives on
their left, the fact that insertion of aru takes place in the case of adjectives regardless
of the particles would not be accounted for.
134
Although I believe that the core insight that adverbial particles are transparent
for selection per se is correct and far from trivial, it seems rather unclear whether the
transparency in question immediately countenances the validity of the structure
represented in (2) above.
Let us consider determiners in English. They can be regarded as transparent
for selectional relations that hold between verbs and nouns, as Baltin (1989) mentions.
The definite determiner the in (12), for instance, seems transparent in that the verb
gather requires a plural nominal as its object, ignoring the determiner; if it were the
case that the satisfied the selectional requirement of the verb in (12a), (12b) should be
as good as (12a), which is disconfirmed.
(12) a. I gathered the students.
b. *I gathered the student.
Following the logic of Aoyagi and Sakai, one might want to say that determiners are
adjuncts located somewhere inside NP projections, but this obviously runs counter to
the by-now familiar view that NP is dominated by DP (Abney 1987). I am unable to
discuss whether the so-called DP hypothesis should be abandoned or not because it is
far beyond the scope of the present study. But so long as we can keep assuming the
DP hypothesis, the transparency for selectional relations of the adverbial particles
may not oblige us to analyze them as adjuncts, which makes the structure in (2)
135
defended by Aoyagi and Sakai (repeted below for the sake of convenience) look less
plausible.2
(2) Particles as VP-adjuncts
[TP Taro [VP [VP tempura eat] Particle] Past]
Besides, it should be worth pointing out that it is one thing to analyze the
adverbial particles as adjuncts (on the basis of their transparency for selection), but it
is quite another to analyze them as being adjoined to phrases (VPs in the present
context). To put differently, we can think of the structure in which the adverbal
particle is adjoined to the verb itself, rather than the projection of the verb. For
instance, the sentence in (1b), reproduced below, can be assumed to have the base
structure given in (13). Kishimoto (2001) is a proponent of this treatment of the
particles. See also Sells (1995) for a similar (yet slightly different) idea.
b. Taro-wa tenpura-o tabe-{mo/sae/dake} *(si)-ta.
‘Taro also/even/only ate tempura.’
2
But see Bruening (2009) for arguments against the traditional DP hypothesis.
136
(13) Particles adjoined to V
[TP Taro [VP tempura [V [V eat] Particle]] Past]
The particle in (13) does not project either, being adjoined to the verb. Now, suppose
that the comlex verb in (13) undergoes verb movement to T. We predict that the
structure in (14) obtains.
(14) [TP Taro [VP tempura tv ] [V [V eat] Particle]+Past]
In the PF representation derived from (14), the verb and the past tense morpheme will
not be linearized next to each other, because the former will be suffixed with the
particle. Hence, it follows that even if we assume that (i) Japanese has verb
movement and (ii) the particles are adjuncts, the PF representation which requires the
supporting verb su results, as desired. I thus conclude the view that the verb
movement analysis fails to account for why su is obligatory in (1b) held by Aoyagi
and Sakai may not be necessarily correct, being contingent upon the treatment of the
adverbial particles as VP-adjuncts sketched in (2).3
3
It is fair to note here that the structure in (14) seems unsustainable, since there is a
good reason to believe that a verb suffixed with an adverbial particle forms a
constituent with its object; the string made up of the verb suffixed with the particle
tabe-mo ‘eat-Particle’ and the object tenpura-o ‘tempura-Acc’ in (ia) can be
legitimately preposed, as in (ib). See Hoji, Miyagawa and Tada (1989) and Tateishi
(1994) for ‘VP-preposing’ of this sort.
(i) a. Taro-wa [tenpura-o tabe-mo] *(si)-ta.

‘Taro even ate tempura.’
b. [Tenpura-o tabe-mo]i Taro-wa ti *(si)-ta.
137
To sum up the discussion so far, the argument provided by Aoyagi and Sakai
may not imperil the claim that verb movement (or predicate raising of NJVs, in my
own analysis) is available in Japanese at least in a serious way, for the structure in (2)
it rests on is not entirely warranted.
Another potential argument against verb movement in Japanese has been
provided by Takano (2004). He examines examples like (15) with special attention to
the modifiers tigau, kotonaru, and betubetuno, all of which are glossed as ‘different.’
(15) John-ga tigau/kotonaru/betubetuno ronbun-o kopii si
John-Nom different paper-Acc copy do
fairu si-ta.
file do-Past
‘John copied and filed different papers.’
(Takano 2004:175)
On the basis of the observation that the interpretation of the prenominal modifiers in
(15) is similar to that of the English adjective different which Carlson (1987)
discusses, he concludes that (i) the clause in (15) has coordinated verbs connected by
the phonetically unrealized conjunction, and (ii) the tense morpheme is syntactically
The grammaticality of (ib) can be construed as a clear indication that the verb is not
raised to T in (i). The structure in (14) is hence incompatible with this classic
observation. In order to nullify the argument against verb movement offered by
Aoyagi and Sakai, we therefore need to come up with a way to block raising of the
complex verb in (13), which enables us to rule in (ib). Exactly how to implement this
is left for future work.
138
separated from the second verb it morphologically attaches to. His analysis can be
schematically represented in (16) (& stands for the null conjunction).
(16) [TP …[VP … [V V&V]] T]
If this kind of verbal coordination is indeed permitted in Japanese, it raises a potential
problem for the predicate raising analysis I am pursuing here; the interaction between
predicate raising and the coordinate structure constraint must be dealt with.
Regrettably though, I have been unable to include such cases of coordination in the
present work. This is left for future research.
139
References
Abney, Steven Paul (1987) The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Adger, David (2003) Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (1998) Parametrizing AGR: Word
order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 16: 491-539.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (1998) Particles as adjunct clitics. In: Pius Tmanji and Kiyomi
Kusumoto (eds.) NELS 28, 17-31. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi (2006) Nihongo no Joshi to Kinoohanchuu. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Baker, Mark C. (1988) Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. (1996) The polysynthesis parameters. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baltin, Mark (1989) Heads and projections. In: Mark Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch
(eds.) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 1-16. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Barrie, M. 2012. Noun incorporation and the lexicalist hypothesis. Studies in
Generative Grammar 22: 235-261.
Bošković, Željko (2014) Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: on the variability of
phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 27-89.
Bruening, Benjamin (2009) Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that
the DP hypothesis is wrong. In: Laurel MacKenzie (ed.) University of
140
Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics 15: Issue 1, 27-35. University of
Pennsylvania.
Carlson, Greg (1987) Same and different: some consequences for syntax and
semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 531-565.
Chomsky, Noam (1991) Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In:
Robert Freidin (ed.) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 417-
454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1993) A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In: Kenneth Hale
and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.) The views from Building 20: Essays in
linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowics (2001), 1-52.
Cinque, Guglielmo (2006) Restructuring and functional heads. Oxford/New York:
Oxford University Press.
Depiante, Marcela Andrea (2001) On null complement anaphora in Spanish and
Italian. Probus 13: 193-221.
Dikken, Marcel den (2007) Phase extension: contours of a theory of the role of head
movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1-41.
Doron, Edit (1990) V-movement and VP-ellipsis. Ms., The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Dubinsky, Stanley (1997) Syntactic underspecification and light-verb phenomena in
Japanese. Linguistics 35: 627-672.
Fiengo, Robert and Robert May (1994) Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
141
Fukui, Naoki and Hiromu Sakai (2003) The visibility guideline for functional
categories: verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321-375.
Funakoshi, Kenshi (2014) Syntactic head movement and its consequences. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland.
Gallego, Ángel (2010) Phase theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ginzburg, Jonathan and Ivan A. Sag (2000) Interrogative investigations. Stanford:
CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, Lotus (2005) Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: A cross-linguistic study. Doctoral
dissertation, McGill University.
Gribanova, Vera (2013) Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the
Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 91-136.
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester (1988) Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic
Inquiry 19: 205-232
Han, Chung-hye, Jeffrey Lidz and Julien Musolino (2007) V-raising and grammar
competition in Korean: evidence from negation and quantifier scope.
Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1-47.
Hankamer, Jorge and Ivan Sag (1976) Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry
7: 391-426.
Harada, S.-I. (1977/2000) The derivation of unlike-subject desideratives in Japanese.
Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 10: 131-146. Reprinted in: Naoki Fukui (
ed.) Syntax and meaning: S. I. Harada collected works in linguistics, 387-401.
Tokyo: Taishukan. 2000.
142
Hasegawa, Nobuko (1991) On head movement in Japanese: the case of verbal nouns.
Proceedings of Sophia Linguistic Society 6: 8-32. Sophia University.
Hayashi, Shintaro (2013) Sometimes conjuncts, sometimes adjuncts: te-clauses in
Japanese and the C-T relation. In: Enrico Boone, Martin Kohlberger and
Maartje Schulpen (eds.) Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, 89-103. Leiden:
Leiden University.
Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002) Missing links: clefts, sluicing and “no
da” construction in Japanese. In: Tania Ionin, Heejeong Ko and Andrew
Nevins (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 35-54. Cambridge, MA:
MITWPL.
Hoji, Hajime (1990) Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. Ms.,
University of Southern California.
Hoji, Hajime (1998) Null objects and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry
29: 127-152.
Hoji, Hajime, Shigeru Miyagawa and Hiroaki Tada (1989) NP-movement in
Japanese. Ms., University of Sounthern California, Ohio State University and
MIT. http://web.mit.edu/miyagawa/www/pdfs/Hoji%20Miyagawa%20Ta
da%201989.pdf
Hoshi, Hiroto (1994) Passive, causative, and light verbs: A study on theta role
assignment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Hoshi, Hiroto (2002) Domains for theta marking. In: Proceedings of the 2002
Linguistics Society of Korea International Summer Conference, 59–70. Seoul:
Kyung Hee University.
143
Hoshi, Koji (2009) On the lack of VP-ellipsis in Japanese and its remifications in a
cross-linguistic perspective. Language, Culture and Communication 41: 1-29.
Keio University.
Huang, C.-T. James (1987) Remarks on empty categories in Chinese. Linguistic
Inquiry 18: 321-337.
Iida, Masayo (1987) Case-assignment by nominals in Japanese. In: Masayo Iida,
Stephen Wechsler and Draga Zec (eds.) Working papers in grammatical
theory and discourse structure, 93-138. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Inoue, Kazuko (1976) Henkeebunpoo to nihongo [Transformational grammar and the
Japanese language]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kageyama, Taro (1997) Incorporation and Sino-Japanese verbs. Papers in Japanese
Linguistics 5: 117-155.
Kageyama, Taro (1982) Word formation in Japanese. Lingua 57: 215-258.
Kageyama, Taro (1992) Dummy su- and lexical su-: a reply to Miyara. Gengo
Kenkyu 102: 165-174.
Kageyama, Taro (1993) Bunpoo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation]. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Kayne, Richard S. (1989) Null subjects and clitic climbing. In: Osvaldo Jaeggli and
Ken Safir (eds.) The null subject parameter, 239-261. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kenstowics, Michael (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
144
Kishimoto, Hideki (2001) Binding of indeterminate pronounds and clause structure in
Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 597-633.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2006) Japanese syntactic nominalization and VP-internal syntax.
Lingua 116: 771-810.
Kitagawa, Chisato and Claudia N. G. Ross (1982) Prenominal modification in
Chinese and Japanese. Linguistic Analysis 9: 19-53.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa and S.-Y. Kuroda (1992) Passive in Japanese. Ms., Indiana
University and University of California, San Diego.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (2000) String vacuous overt verb-raising. Journal of East Asian
Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche (1991) The position of subjects. Lingua
85: 211-258.
Kuno, Susumu (1976) Subject raising. In: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.) Syntax and
semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, 17-49. New York: Academic
Press.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1965) Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese
language. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Larson, Richard K (1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:
335-391.
Lasnik, Howard (1999) On feature strengh: three minimalist approaches to overt
movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 197-217.
145
Manning, Christopher (1993) Analyzing the verbal noun: internal and external
constraints. In: Soonja Choi (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3, 236-253.
Stanford: CSLI.
Martin, Samuel (1975) A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Matsumoto, Yo (1996) Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic
study of the notion ‘word.’ Stanford and Tokyo: CSLI and Kurosio.
Matushansky, Ora (2006) Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:
69-109.
McCawley, James David and Katsuhiko Momoi (1986) The constituent of -te
complements. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 11: 1–60.
Merchant, Jason (2004) Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661-
738.
Merchant, Jason (2008) Variable island repair under ellipsis. In: Kyle Johnson (ed.)
Topics in Ellipsis, 132-153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Merchant, Jason (2013) Diagnosing ellipsis. In: Lisa Lai-Shen and Norbert Corver
(eds.) Diagnosing syntax, 537-542. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1987a) Lexical categories in Japanese. Lingua 73: 29-51.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1987b) Restructuring in Japanese. In: Takashi Imai and Mamoru
Saito (eds.) Issues in Japanese linguistics, 273-300. Dortrecht: Foris.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (2001) The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In: Kenstowicz
(2001), 293-338.
146
Miyara, Shinsho (1991) On the insertion of /s/-form (suru) in Japanese. Gengo
Kenkyu 99: 1-24.
Nakatani, Kentaro (2004) Predicate concatenation: A study of the V-te-V predicate in
Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Nakau, Minoru (1973) Sentential complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke (2006) Short answers as focus. Theoretical and Applied
Linguistics at Kobe Shoin 9: 1-22.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke (2013) Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a
syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 157-206.
Oku, Satoshi (1998) A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist
perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Otani, Kazuyo and John Whitman (1991) V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic
Inquiry 22: 345-358.
Pesetsky, David and Esher Torrego (2001) T-to-C movement: causes and
consequences. In: Kenstowics (2001), 355-426.
Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989) Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of
IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.
Poser, William (1989) Japanese periphrastic verbs and noun incorporation. Ms.,
Stanford University.
Potsdam, Eric (1997) English verbal morphology and VP ellipsis. In: Kiyomi
Kusumoto (ed.) Proceedings of NELS 27, 353-368. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Richards, Norvin (2001) An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic
Inquiry 32: 183-192.
147
Richards, Norvin (2003) Why there is an EPP. Gengo Kenkyu 123: 221-256
Rizzi, Luigi (1978) A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In: Samuel Jey Keyser (ed.)
Recent transformational studies in European languages, 113-158. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian (2010) Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation, and
defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru (2007) Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43:
203-227.
Saito, Mamoru and Hiroto Hoshi (1998) Control in complex predicates. In: Report of
the Special Research Project for the Typological Investigation of Languages
and Cultures of the East and West, 15-46. University of Tsukuba.
Saito, Mamoru and Hiroto Hoshi (2000) Japanese light verb construction. In: Roger
Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 261-295. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Saito, Mamoru and Keiko Murasugi (1990) N’-deletion in Japanese. In: Hajime Hoji
(ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1, 258-301. Stanford: CSLI.
Sakai, Hiromu (1998) Feature checking and morphological merger. In: David James
Silva (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8, 189-201. Stanford: CSLI.
Sakai, Hiromu (2000) Kotenteki ruikeiron to hikakutougoron [Classical typology and
comparative syntax]. Kyoto Daigaku Gengogaku Kenkyu 19: 117-146. Kyoto
University.
148
Sato, Yosuke (2010) Bare verbal nouns, idiomatization and incorporation in Japanese.
Paper presented at Theoretical East Asian Linguistics 6. Peking University.
Sells, Peter (1990) VP in Japanse: evidence from -te complements. In: Hajime Hoji
(ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 1. 319-334. Stanfoed: CSLI.
Sells, Peter (1995) Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (1978) Nihongo no bunseki: seiseibunpoo no hoohoo [Analysis
of Japanese: the methods of generative grammar]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Shibatani, Masayoshi (2009) On the form of complex predicates: towards
demystifying serial verbs. In: Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min
Shin, Stavros Skopeteas and Elisabeth Verhoeven (eds.) Form and function in
language research: Papers in honour of Christian Lehmann, 309-336. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Shimada, Junri (2007) Head movement, binding theory, and phrase structure. Ms.,
MIT.
Simpson, Andrew, Arunima Choudhury, and Mythili Menon (2013) Argument
ellipsis and the licensing of covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi and Malayalam.
Lingua 134: 103-128.
Sohn, Keun-Won (1994) Adjunction to argument, free ride and a minimalist program.
In: Masatoshi Koizumi and Hiroyuki Ura (eds.) Formal approaches to
Japanese linguistics, 315-334. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Sugioka, Yoko (1984) Interaction of derivational morphology and syntax in Japanese
and English. New York: Garland.
149
Sugioka, Yoko (1992) On the role of argument structure in nominalization. Language,
Culture and Communication 10: 53-81. Keio University.
Takahashi, Daiko (2006) Apparent parasitic gaps and null arguments in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 1-35.
Takahashi, Daiko (2008) Noun phrase ellipsis. In: Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru
Saito (eds.) The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 395-423. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Takahashi, Mari (2000) The syntax and morphology of Japanese verbal nouns.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Takahashi, Masahiko (2012) On restructuring infinitives in Japanese: adjunction,
clausal architecture, and phases. Lingua 122: 1569-1595.
Takano, Yuji (2002) Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11:
243-301.
Takano, Yuji (2004) Coordination of verbs and two types of verbal inflection.
Takita, Kensuke (2011) An argument for argument ellipsis from -sika NPIs. In: Suzi
Lima, Kevin Mullin and Brian Smith (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 39, 771-784.
Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Tamori, Ikuhiro (1976) The semantics and syntax of the Japanese gerundive and
infinitive conjunctions. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 5: 307-360.
Tanaka, Hidekazu (2008) Clausal complement ellipsis. Ms., University of York.
Tateishi, Koichi (1994) The syntax of ‘subjects’. Stanford and Tokyo: CSLI and
Kurosio.
150
Terada, Michiko (1990) Incorporation and argument structure in Japanese. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2009) Minimarisuto Puroguramu [Minimalist program]. In: Heizo
Nakajima (ed.) Gengogaku no ryooiki [Subfields of linguistics] 1, 135-168.
Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1990) Ergativity of nouns and case assignment. Linguistic
Inquiry 21: 277-287.
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1992) Licensing nominal clauses: the case of deverbal nominals
in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 477-522.
Tsujimura, Natsuko (1993) Adjuncts and event argument in restructuring. In: Soonja
Choi (ed.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3, 121-136. Stanford: CSLI.
Tsujioka, Takae (2011) Idioms, mixed marking in nominalization, and the base-
generation hypothesis for ditransitives in Japanese. Journal of East Asian
Uchimaru, Yukako (2006) Dooshi no te-kei o tomonau setsu no toogokoozoo ni
tsuite: fukakoozoo to tooikoozoo to no tairitsu o chuushin ni [On the syntactic
structure of verb-te clauses: the distinction between adjunct structures and
coordinate structures]. Nihongo no kenkyu 2: 1-15.
Watanabe, Akira (2010) Notes on nominal ellipsis and the nature of no and classifiers
in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 61-74.
Williams, Edwin (1977) Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101-139.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
151
Wurmbrand, Susi and Jonathan David Bobaljik (2005) Adjacency, PF, and
extraposition. In: Hans Broekhuls, Nobert Corver and Riny Huybregts (eds.)
Organizing grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 89-
110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
152

Hayashi Shintaro Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hayashi Shintaro Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT

Title of Document: HEAD MOVEMENT IN AN

Shintaro Hayashi, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015

Directed By: Tomohiro Fujii, Associate Professor,

Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences,

writing this part of the thesis, which means that I did.

First and foremost, I am grateful to the members of my committee, Tomohiro

who worked painstakingly to help me improve my dissertation. Especially, three

I always brought half-baked ideas and presentend them to him in such an

imcomprehensible way (which only means ‘I am confused so I need help’).

Nevetheless, Tomo always listened to me carefully and patiently, and provided me

been written without Kenshi, who generously agreed to be a member of my

academic support but also his friendship.

Portions of this dissertation were presented orally at TCP 2013 (Keio

University), Mie University in 2014, CLS 51 (University of Chicago), and Syntax

Reading Group at Meiji Gakuin University in 2015. I would like to express my

gratitude to the audiences on these occasions for their insightful comments on my

study, in particular Hisatsugu Kitahara, Takuya Goro, Caterina Donati, Mineharu

Nakayama, Satoshi Oku, Kensuke Takita, Hideaki Yamashita, Noriko Yoshimura,

want to get a Ph.D. This dissertation is dedicated to them.

2. Head Movement out of Te-clauses

3. Predicate Raising within a Single Clause in Japanese

4. Remaining Issues ................................................................................................129

1.1 String-vacuity of head movement in Japanese

probably its string-vacuity; movement of heads in overt syntax, if available in the

another environment. As an illustration, let us consider subject-auxiliary inversion in

(1) a. John will eat apples.

b. Will John eat apples?

syntacticians to propose that subject-auxiliary inversion involve head movement.

b. [CP [will+C[+Q]] [TP John twill eat apples]]

However, head movement in Japanese cannot be diagnosed in a similar way. Suppose

immediately higher than X, as shown in (3). ZP in (3) is a phrase contained in XP.

not intervene between the two heads, but precedes X.

[YP … [XP ZP tX] [X+Y]]

interrogative clause, it is dislocated by virtue of head movement. As for Japanese, by

contrast, nothing intervenes between X and Y in PF when head movement of X to Y

is not involved. Consequently, even if X undergoes head movement in the course of

movement in Japanese is called ‘string-vacuous.’

If head movement in Japanese is necessarily string-vacuous and therefore

Japanese has verb movement, a subcase of head movement, in overt syntax.

head movement up to T, without giving rise to word order permutation.

Taro-Top tempura-Acc eat-Past

‘Taro ate tempura.’

(7) [TP Taro [VP tempura tplay] [T eat+Past]]

1.2 Otani and Whitman (1991)

(henceforth NOC for short) in Japanese like (8b).

(8) a. John-wa [zibun-no tegami-o] sute-ta.

John-Top self-of letter-Acc discard-Past

‘Johni threw out selfi’s letters.’

b. Mary-mo [e] sute-ta.

Lit. ‘Mary also threw out [e].’

(Otani and Whitman 1991:346-347)

(9) a. Mary also threw out John’s letters.

b. Mary also threw out her own letters.

bound by a phonetically empty topic. Such an analysis has been independently

proposed by Huang (1987) to account for the properties of empty categories in

Chinese like [e] in (10b).

(10) a. Meigereni piping le zijii.

everyone criticize Perf self

‘Everyonei criticized selfi.’

b. Zhishi Zhangsan mei piping [e].

only Zhangsan not criticize

‘Only Zhangsanj didn’t criticize selfj.’

(Otani and Whitman 1991:345)