CASE CHECKING/VALUATION IN JAPANESE: MOVE, AGREE OR MERGE? *Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Case marking in Japanese has been investigated within the generative framework sincethe 1960’s, and various proposals have been made, reflecting the development of syntactic
theory. Over a decade, Chomsky (2000, 2008) has been pursuing an approach to associate
Case with φ-feature agreement. According to this approach, nominative, for example, obtains
as in (1).

(1)

Agree
T {φ : __ } [ … DP {φ, Case: __} …]
Value

T, with unvalued φ-features, probes and enters into Agree relation with a DP with an unvalued
Case feature. As a result of this Agree relation, T obtains the values for its φ-features from the
DP and values the Case of the DP as nominative. This approach, too, has been applied toJapanese with some fruitful results in works such as Ura (1999), Hiraiwa (2001a) and
Takahashi (2010).
Particularly noteworthy in the light of this approach is the fact that PPs are Case marked
extensively in Japanese. For example, (1) is an example of a “tough-sentence” with anominative PP subject.
(2)

Koko-kara-ga
huzi-san-ni
nobori-yasu-i
here-from-NOM Mt. Fuji-DAT climb-easy-Pres‘It is easy to climb Mt. Fuji from here.’

PPs are required to have genitive Case within a projection of N, as the examples in (3) show.

* This is a shortened version of the paper presented at the GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young
Scholars, held on September 7–9, 2011 at Mie University. The material was presented also in seminars
at Keio University, University of Connecticut and University of Maryland, and in a workshop at
Nanzan University. I would like to thank the audiences at these places, especially, Hisatsugu Kitahara,
Hideki Kishimoto, Norbert Hornstein and Željko Bošković, for helpful comments. The research
reported here was supported in part by the Nanzan University Pache Research Grant I-A (2011).
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 109–127©2012 Mamoru Saito

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(3)

a. Taroo-no oya-e-noizon
Taroo-GEN parents-to-GEN dependence‘Taroo’s dependence on his parents’b. ziyuu-kara-no
toohi
freedom-from-GEN escape‘escape from freedom’

As PPs, as opposed to DPs, apparently lack φ-features, it is not obvious how Chomsky’s
approach can be extended to them.
It should be noted that whether the Case markers on PPs are indeed Case in the usual
sense has been controversial. As (4) shows, any DP or PP in a projection of N (and D)
accompanies no whether it is an argument or an adjunct.
(4)

Hanako-no kinoo-no
kaze-de-no
kessekiHanako-GEN yesterday-GEN cold-with-GEN absence‘Hanako’s absence yesterday due to a cold’

Okutsu (1974) proposes that the no attached to PPs and adjunct DPs is the prenominal form of
the copula da as opposed to the genitive no. Watanabe (2010) assumes a similar distinction,
calling the former no a ‘linker’. On the other hand, An (2009) discusses the Koreancounterpart of no, uy, and proposes that it is a kind of a prenominal inflection in all contexts,
and consequently, that Korean does not have genitive Case in the usual sense. The basic idea
is that the uy/no on PPs and adjunct DPs should be accounted for as a prenominal marker, andonce this is done, the account should automatically extend to argument DPs as well.
In this paper, I basically follow An’s (2009) approach, although I continue to call no thegenitive Case since I think the issue is merely terminological. This is after all the traditional
analysis: Bedell (1972) presents an analysis where no is inserted after any prenominal DP and
PP. As this approach does not differentiate no on argument DPs from that on PPs, it implies
that genitive in Japanese is independent of φ-feature agreement. In this paper, I extend An’s
proposal and suggest that Case in Japanese is in general part of the operation, Merge, instead.
Just as Case in English is required for Agree and is valued through Agree, I suggest that Casein Japanese is required for Merge and is valued through Merge. For no, for example, I proposethat Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with a nominal projection, and is valued as
genitive through merger with N-D.
In the following section, I briefly discuss the distribution and interpretation of
nominative objects and show that it is desirable to seek an alternative to the Agree-based
analysis for this case also. In Section 3, I introduce the Merge-based analysis and illustrate itwith some concrete examples. In Section 4, I discuss some consequences of the analysis. I
first show that the analysis allows a rather straightforward account of the distribution of- 110 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

genitive arguments in prenominal sentential modifiers. Then, I argue that it opens up a way toapply Kayne’s (1994) LCA to Japanese and derive the head-finality of its phrase structure.
Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. A Little Historical Background on the Analysis of Nominative Objects
In Japanese, the object is normally in accusative as in (5a), but carries nominative Case
when the predicate is stative. (5b) is a representative example.1(5)

a. Taroo-ga
wani-o/*-gatabe-ta (koto)
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-Past fact‘(the fact that) Taroo ate alligator meat’b. Hanako-ni/-ga
bakudai-na syakkin-ga/*-o ar-u
(koto)
Hanako-DAT/-NOM immense debt-NOM/-ACC have-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako has a huge debt’c. Taroo-ga
wani-o/-gatabe-rare-ru (koto)
Taroo-NOM alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-can-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Taroo can eat alligator meat’

As the predicate in (5c) consists of the non-stative tabe ‘eat’ and the stative verbal suffix(rar)e ‘can’, the object can be in either accusative or nominative. The distribution andinterpretation of nominative objects as in (5b–c) have been a central topic of research inJapanese syntax, especially in the past twenty years. In this section, I first discuss the
movement analysis of Tada (1992) and Koizumi (1999), and then go over Ura’s (1999)
Agree-based analysis. Both approaches have provided much insight into the phenomenon, but
I argue that neither of them is satisfactory.
2.1. Tada and Koizumi’s Overt Movement Analysis
Tada’s (1992) discussion of the contrast in (6), originally observed in Sano (1985), has
renewed interest in Japanese nominative objects among syntacticians.
(6)

a. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-otumur-e-ru (can > only)
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-ACC close-can-Pres‘Kiyomi can wink with her right eye.’1

Some predicates allow the subject to be in dative when the object is in nominative. Ar ‘be, have’ in(5b) is one of them.

- 111 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

b. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-ru (only > can)Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-NOM close-can-Pres‘It is only her right eye that Kiyomi can close.’
It had been assumed that Case on the object has little effect, if any, on interpretation, but theseexamples indicate that nominative objects take wider scope than accusative objects. The
accusative object in (6a) scopes under the higher predicate e ‘can’ but the nominative object
in (6b) scopes over it.2 Tada proposed that this is because accusative is checked within the
projection of the verb tumur ‘close’ while the nominative is licensed within the projection of
the stative verbal affix e ‘can’. According to his analysis, the nominative object in (6b) moves
as in (7) and hence, takes wide scope over e ‘can’.3(7)[TP Kiyomi-wa [T’ [VP [V’ [VP right.eye-only-NOM close]-can]]-Pres.]]

Koizumi (1998), on the other hand, observes that nominative objects take yet higher
scope than predicted by Tada’s analysis. He shows that nominative objects even scope overnegation as in (8).
(8)

Kiyomi-ga
migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-na-i(koto) (only > not > can)Kiyomi-NOM right-eye-only-NOM close-can-Neg-Pres fact‘(the fact that) it is only her right eye that Kiyomi cannot close’

He then proposes that nominative objects are licensed within the projection of T as in (9).
(9)[TP Kiyomi-wa [T’ [T’ [NegP [VP [VP right.eye-only-NOM close]-can]-Neg]-Pres.]]]Koizumi’s analysis is attractive as it implies that nominative is licensed uniformly by T
whether it is on the subject or on the object. However, it shares a problem with Tada’s
analysis, to which I now turn.
The problem is that the movement operation illustrated in (7) and (9) does not observe
the locality expected of NP-movement.4 Let us first consider the example of causative in (10)because the point can be best illustrated with this construction.
2

Nomura (2005) presents some examples in which nominative objects seem to scope under e ‘can’and questions the Sano-Tada generalization. However, as the pattern in (6) is observed quite generally,
I believe it reflects a hierarchical relation in phrase structure as Tada proposed. See Takahashi (2010)
for an analysis based on the assumption that nominative objects can take narrow scope.
3

Tada (1992) assumes the AGR-based Case theory and proposes that the nominative object moves to
the Spec position of AGR projected over e ‘can’. I present a simplified version of his analysis here.
4

For a more detailed discussion on this point, see Saito (1982) and the references cited there.

- 112 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)(10)

Hanakoi-ga [vP Tarooj-ni [VP zibuni,j-no wani-otabe]]-sase-ta (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT self-GEN alligator-ACC eat-make-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako made Taroo eat her/his (pet) alligator’

It has been known since Kuroda (1965) that the causative morpheme sase takes a clausal
complement. (10) confirms this. The causee Taroo can be the antecedent of the subjectoriented reflexive zibun, and hence, it should be the subject of the embedded clause. I assume
that the clausal complement is a vP, following Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004). The
hypothesis is further confirmed by the fact that the object cannot be passivized out of acausative complement as shown in (11).
(11) * wani-gai
Hanako-niyotte [vP Tarooj-ni [VP ti tabe]]-sase-rare-ta(koto)
alligator-NOM Hanako-by
Taroo-DAT
eat-make-Passive-Past fact
‘Lit. (the fact that) the alligator was made by Hanako to be eaten by Taroo’
This is expected as the movement crosses the embedded subject Taroo in violation ofminimality.
Let us return to nominative objects with this background. As shown in (12), the object in
the causative construction can be in nominative when the potential suffix (rar)e ‘can’ isattached to the causative verb.
(12)

Hanako-ga[vP Taroo-ni [VP wani-o/-gatabe]]-sase-rare-ru (koto)
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT alligator-ACC/-NOM eat-make-can-Past fact‘(the fact that) Hanako can make Taroo eat alligator meat’

This is totally unexpected under the movement analysis of nominative objects. According toKoizumi’s (1998) analysis, for example, the nominative object in (12) must move to the innerSpec of T to have its Case licensed. But then, the movement should violate minimality exactly
as in the case of (11). The same problem arises with Tada’s analysis because the nominative
object must move across the embedded subject in order to land within the projection of (rar)e‘can’.
Koizumi (1998), as noted above, demonstrated that nominative objects take scope overnegation and argued that this is because their Case is licensed by T. The discussion above,
however, indicates that they do not move to a Spec position of T. These considerations
naturally lead to the hypothesis that T values nominative through the operation Agree. In thenext subsection, I consider Ura’s (1999) Agree-based analysis.
2.2. Ura’s Analysis with Covert Feature Movement/Agree
To my knowledge, Ura (1999) is one of the first works that propose an analysis of- 113 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

nominative objects in terms of Agree.5 He first argues against Koizumi’s (1998) movement
analysis based on examples of the following kind:(13)

Hanakoi-ni/-ga
Tarooj-ga zibuni,*j-no ie-desikar-e-ru(koto)
Hanako-DAT/-NOM Taroo-NOM self-GEN house-at scold-can-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako can scold Taroo at her/*his house’

This example shows that a nominative object does not qualify as the antecedent for the
subject-oriented zibun ‘self’. However, Koizumi’s analysis predicts that it should if subject isdefined as a phrase in TP Spec. Ura concludes then that nominative objects do not move to a
position within the projection of T.6
Ura, then, goes on to propose that T checks the Case feature of nominative objects
through Agree. This predicts that nominative objects stay in situ, and hence, readily accountsfor (12), where a nominative object appears in the complement of a causative verb. But a
problem remains with the scope property of nominative objects. Koizumi’s crucial example in(8) is repeated below as (14).
(14)

Kiyomi-ga
migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-na-i(koto) (only > not > can)Kiyomi-NOM right-eye-only-NOM close-can-Neg-Pres fact‘(the fact that) it is only her right eye that Kiyomi cannot close’

For this, Ura suggests that the Agree relation yields the wide scope of the object. As T
licenses the nominative Case on the object, the object takes scope at T.
However, it is shown in Lasnik and Saito (1991) that Agree relation does not affectscope. The examples in (15) demonstrate this.
(15)

a. Fewer than five knightsi [VP appeared ti at the gate] every day(fewer than five > every, every > fewer than five)b. There [VP appeared fewer than five knights at the gate] every day(every > fewer than five)In (15a), fewer than five knights moves from the object position to TP Spec. Thus, theexample exhibits a scope ambiguity between this DP and every day. In (15b), on the other
hand, T enters into Agree relation with the DP, but the DP stays in situ. In this case, it cannot
scope over every day. This shows that Agree does not suffice to account for the wide scope
5

His analysis appeals to covert feature movement. But it is equivalent to Agree as covert feature
movement was in effect reanalyzed as Agree in Chomsky (2000).
6Note that examples like (10) indicate that the antecedent of zibun is not limited to phrases in TP Spec.
Hence, it is necessary to reexamine what constitutes “subjects” in the relevant sense to see if thisargument goes through. See Saito (2011) for relevant discussion.

- 114 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

property of Japanese nominative objects.
3. A Preliminary Merge-Based Analysis of Japanese Case
It was argued in the preceding section that neither movement nor Agree successfully
captures the distribution and interpretation of nominative objects. In this section, I suggest analternative Merge-based analysis. In Section 3.1, I motivate the general approach. Then, in
Section 3.2, I present the details of the analysis with some concrete examples.
3.1. What is Japanese Case for?
Chomsky (2000) proposes that Case is a reflex of φ-feature agreement. Case is required
on a DP to participate in agreement and is checked through the agreement. This is embedded
in a system with feature-inheritance in Chomsky (2008). It is proposed there that phase heads
are the locus of unvalued/uninterpretable features. Thus, C, for example, carries φ-features
and the EPP, and transmits them to T as illustrated in (16).
(16)[ C{φ, EPP} [TP DP [ T [vP DP{Case} ….

T, then, probes a DP with unvalued Case feature and enters into Agree relation with the DP.
The φ-features on T are valued by the DP and the Case feature on the DP is valued asnominative by T through this Agree relation. Finally, the EPP on T raises the DP to its Spec.
Thus, Case is required for φ-feature agreement and is valued through φ-feature agreement.
However, as noted at the outset of this paper, Case is observed on PPs extensively inJapanese. The relevant examples in (2) and (3a) are repeated below as (17a–b).
(17)

a. Koko-kara-ga
huzi-san-ni
nobori-yasu-i
here-from-NOM Mt. Fuji-DAT climb-easy-Pres‘It is easy to climb Mt. Fuji from here.’b. Taroo-no oya-e-noizon
Taroo-GEN parents-to-GEN dependence‘Taroo’s dependence on his parents’

The nominative Case in (17a) and the genitive Case on PP in (17b) cannot be a reflex of φfeature agreement as PPs do not carry φ-features. Then, what is Japanese Case for if it is notpart of φ-feature agreement?
Since the only operations in Minimalist syntax are Agree and Merge, Merge is a
plausible candidate. That is, if Case is not a precondition for a phrase to participate in Agree,
it is likely to be required of a phrase to participate in Merge. For genitive Case, this is in fact a
restatement of An’s (2009) idea noted above that genitive is a kind of prenominal inflection.

- 115 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

The initial hypothesis can be stated as in (18).
(18)

a. Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with N and D.
b. Case is required on argument DPs for merger with V and A.
c. Case is required on argument DPs and PPs for merger with v.

(18b–c) stipulate that an argument PP must have a Case in a sentence only when it is a subject
as in (17a).
If Case in Japanese is required for Merge, it seems equally plausible that it is valued bythis operation. Let us then hypothesize that Case is valued through Merge as in (19).
(19)

a. Case is valued as nominative by merger with T-C.
b. Case is valued as accusative by merger with (transitive) V-v.
c. Case is valued as genitive by merger with N-D.

If the locus of nominative is C and it is inherited by T, this yields a more or less standard
derivation for examples like (20a).
(20)

a. Taroo-ga
hasir-uTaroo-NOM run-Pres‘Taroo runs.’b. [CP [TP Taroo-Casei [T’ [vP ti [[VP hasir ] v]] T]] C]As Taroo carries Case, it can be merged at vP Spec for thematic interpretation. The Case,however, is not valued at this position. The DP then must move and merge at TP Spec for theCase to be valued nominative.
If this mechanism is assumed as is, it leads to a notational variant of Koizumi’s (1998)
analysis for nominative objects. They must carry Case to be merged at the object position forthematic interpretation. If the V-v in the relevant cases lacks the ability to value accusative,
they must move to TP Spec to have their Case valued as nominative. But it was shown in thepreceding section that they do not move to TP Spec. It seems then that we have a paradox.
Nominative objects must be merged with T but they do not move to TP Spec. In the following
section, I suggest a way out of this problem, developing Shimada (2007) and Tonoike’s(2009) hypothesis on phrase structure building.
3.2. Phrase Structure Building with Excorporation
Shimada (2007) and Tonoike (2009) propose an original way to derive phrase structure.
For clauses, they assume that the derivation starts with a complex of heads, C-T-v-V. If theverb is transitive, the object merges with this complex as in the first step of (21).

- 116 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)(21)

C-T-v-V {C-T-v-V, DP1} {C-T-v, {V, DP1}} {DP2, {C-T-v, {V, DP1}}}
 {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}} {DP2, {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}}} {C, {DP2, {C-T, {DP2, {v, {V, DP1}}}}}}

Then, C-T-v excorporates as in step 2, creating a vP. This vP merges with the subject DP instep 3, and C-T exporporates in step 4 to create a TP. The subject is internally merged withthis TP in step 5. The final product after the excorporation of C in step 6 is the CP structure.
Both Shimada and Tonoike propose this derivation to maintain the extension condition in
the strict form. Shimada argues that it allows head movement to observe the condition.
Tonoike, on the other hand, points out that the derivation of Chomsky (2008) illustrated in(16) forces a counter-cyclic movement of the subject to TP Spec. This problem does not arisein the derivation in (21).
The Shimada–Tonoike proposal is of particular interest in the present context because it
allows a nominative object to merge with T without moving to TP Spec. Recall the problem
noted in the preceding subsection: nominative is valued through merger with T but
nominative objects do not raise to TP Spec. In step 1 of (21), the object is directly mergedwith a complex that includes T as well as V. In the remainder of this section, I adapt theirmain idea and suggest a way to account for the distributions of Cases in Japanese.
First, I suggest that a head complex is formed initially because a derivation starts with aphase head and proceeds to satisfy selectional requirements. Let us take (22) to illustrate how
this works.
(22)

Hanako-ga
Taroo-osikat-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo.’

As vP is the smallest phase in the example, the derivation starts with v. It first merges with V
as in (23a) because it selects for a V.
(23)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

{V, v} (accusative){DP1-ACC, {V, v}}{{DP1-ACC, V}, v}{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}{T, C} (nominative){{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, {T, C}}{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, {T, C}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-Case, {{DP1-ACC, V}, v}}, T}}, C}

The object DP is merged in (23b) to satisfy the selectional requirement of V. As the merger isto V-v, the Case on the DP is valued as accusative. Then, v excorporates in (23c) to create a
vP as it should have VP as its complement. The subject DP is merged with this vP and- 117 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

satisfies the selectional requirement of v in (23d).
The derivation moves on to the next phase in (23e). The phase head C selects T, andhence the T-C complex is formed. vP is merged with this complex in (23f) because of theselectional property of T. At this stage, the Case on the subject is still unvalued. So the subject
DP internally merges with {vP, {T, C}} as in (23g) so that the Case is valued as nominative.
The assumption here is that the Case on XP is valued if XP is merged with a syntactic object
that contains the value assigner. In the case of (23g), this in effect means that T-C values
nominative on XP in its Spec. Finally, C excorporates to complete the derivation in (23h).
The in-situ property of nominative objects follows with one additional assumption: I
assume, following Takahashi (2010), that v is a phase head if and only if it values accusative.
Let us consider (24) for illustration.
(24)

Hanako-ga
rosiago-ga
wakar-u(koto)
Hanako-NOM Russian-NOM understand-Pres fact‘(the fact that) Hanako understands Russian’As v in this example does not value accusative, it is not a phase head by assumption. Then,the derivation starts with the only phase head C as in (25a).
(25)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

{T, C} (nominative){v, {T, C}}{V, {v, {T, C}}}
{DP1-NOM, {V, {v, {T, C}}}}{{DP1-NOM, V}, {v, {T, C}}}
{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, {v, {T, C}}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, {T, C}}{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, {T, C}}}{{DP2-NOM, {{DP2-NOM, {{DP1-NOM, V}, v}}, T}}, C}

The derivation proceeds as in (25b) and (25c) as T and v select v and V respectively. In (25d),the object is merged with this complex and the Case is valued as nominative simultaneously
because the complex contains T-C. Then, v-T-C excorporates in (25e) to yield a vP. The
external argument is merged with this vP in (25f), and its Case is valued as nominative. T-C
excorporates in (25g), and I assume here that the subject is raised to TP Spec as in (25h) tosatisfy the EPP requirement of T-C.7 Finally, C excorporates to complete the derivation in(25i). Note that the object is merged at the thematic position and its Case is valued asnominative at this position by T-C. Thus, this analysis allows nominative objects to have theirCases valued by T-C without moving to TP Spec, a desirable result.

7

Whether this EPP-triggered raising applies is not important for the proposal made here. See Saito(2011) and the references cited there for discussion on EPP in Japanese.

- 118 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

The analysis readily extends to genitives. I use (26) to demonstrate this.
(26)

Taroo-no yooroppa-e-no ryokoo
Taroo-GEN Europe-to-GEN trip
‘Taroo’s trip to Europe’

The only phase head, I assume, is D. The derivation in (27) starts out with the merger of N
and D as in (27a).
(27)

a.
b.
c.
d.

{N, D} (genitive){PP-GEN, {N, D}}{DP-GEN, {PP-GEN, {N, D}}}{{DP-GEN, {PP-GEN, N}}, D}

Then, the PP and the subject DP are merged as in (27b) and (27c) respectively. Recall thatboth must have Case to be merged in this context as specified in (18a). And their Cases areboth valued as genitive because of the presence of N-D in the syntactic objects they merge
with. The derivation is completed with the excorporation of D in (27d).
The illustrations so far, I believe, made it clear how the proposed Merge-based analysis
works. Instead of going over more examples to demonstrate its empirical coverage, I discuss acouple of consequences of the analysis in the next section.
4. Some Consequences of the Merge-Based Analysis
I first consider the nominative/genitive alternation in prenominal sentential modifiers in
Section 4.1 and demonstrate that the Merge-based analysis allows a straightforward analysis.
Then, in Section 4.2, I return to the wide scope property of nominative objects and show thatits Merge-based analysis opens up a new way to apply Kayne’s (1994) LCA to Japanese.
4.1. The Nominative/Genitive Alternation
An alternation between nominative and genitive is observed in Japanese prenominal
sentential modifiers as in (28).
(28)

Taroo-ga/-no
ongaku-ga/-nokik-e-rubasyoTaroo-NOM/-GEN music-NOM/-GEN listen-can-Pres place‘a place where Taroo can isten to music’As the predicate kik-e-ru ‘listen-can-Pres’ in the relative clause is stative, it is not surprisingthat the subject Taroo and the object ongaku ‘music’ can both appear in nominative. What is
peculiar is that both can appear in genitive as well.
I assume here, following Maki and Uchibori (2008), that genitive is possible in this- 119 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

context because of the presence of the relative head, or more precisely, N-D.8 This implies
that a relative clause does not constitute a phase as it does not block the relevant relation
between the relative head and the genitive phrase(s) within the relative clause. This is
assumed, for example, in Ochi (2001), which proposes that D licenses the genitive(s) throughAgree.9 It is also plausible in the light of Murasugi’s (1991) proposal that Japanese relative
clauses are TPs and not CPs. For example, they never contain relative pronouns orcomplementizers. Given the hypothesis entertained here that nominative is valued by T-C,
Japanese relative clauses must be headed by C. I assume then that the C is “defective,”probably the lowest C, the Subject head, in Rizzi’s (1997) CP hierarchy. It is not a phase headbut participates in the valuation of nominative.
Given these assumptions, the nominative/genitive alternation in (28) follows from theMerge-based analysis outlined in the preceding section. (29) is a slightly simplified derivationof the example that takes kik-e ‘listen-can’ as a simple stative verb.
(29)a. {N, D} (genitive)b. {C, {N, D}}
c. {T, {C, {N, D}}} (nominative)10
d. {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}e. {V, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
f. {DP1-NOM/GEN, {V, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}}
g. {{DP1-NOM/GEN, V}, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
h. {DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP1-NOM/GEN, V}, {v, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}}
i. {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{α, V}, v}}, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}, α = DP1-NOM/GEN
j. {DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{α, V}, v}}, {T, {C, {N, D}}}}}
k. {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{α, V}, v}}, T}}, {C, {N, D}}}l. {{{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{α, V}, v}}, T}}, C}, {N, D}}
m. {{{{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{DP2-NOM/GEN, {{α, V}, v}}, T}}, C}, N}, D}

The head complex V-v-T-C-N-D is formed in (29a–e). The object is merged in (29f), and its
Case can be valued as nominative or genitive as the head complex contains T-C as well as ND. v-T-C-N-D excorporates in (29g) and the subject DP is merged in (29h). Here too, the Caseof the subject can be valued as nominative or genitive for the same reason. (29i) shows the8

See Hiraiwa (2001b) for an alternative and Maki and Uchibori (2008) for discussion of the issues
related to this assumption.
9

Ochi (2001) actually proposes an analysis in terms of covert feature movement. But his analysis canbe readily restated in terms of Agree.
10Here, T and C are not directly merged. The tacit assumption here, informally speaking, is that C is
the head (or label) of α = {C, {N, D}} and hence, {T, α} values nominative. Note that DP and V arethematically related, for example, in {DP, {V, v}}. Then, V must be “visible” to DP in thisconfiguration just as C is visible to T in {T, {C, {N, D}}}. I leave the precise formulation of“visibility” to future research.

- 120 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

excorporation of T-C-N-D. The subject is internally merged to TP as in (29j) if this isrequired by the EPP. Three successive excorporations in (29k–m) complete the derivation.
This derivation demonstrates that once the defectiveness of C is assumed, which seems
necessary under any account, the nominative/genitive alternation follows from the Mergebased analysis of Japanese Case. A desirable consequence of this approach is that it
automatically explains the absence of genitive on PPs and adjunct DPs in prenominal
sentential modifiers. As noted above, genitive is required on adjunct DPs within simple DPs.
Another relevant example is shown in (30a).
(30)a. Hanako-no kinoo-*(no)ikisakiHanako-GEN yesterday-GEN destination‘Hanako’s destination yesterday’
b. Hanako-no kinoo-(*no)
it-tatokoroHanako-GEN yesterday-GEN go-Past place‘the place that Hanako went yesterday’

However, those DPs cannot be in genitive in relative clauses as (30b) shows. This follows
from the hypothesis that Case is required for Merge as in (18), repeated below in (31).
(31)

a. Case is required on DPs and PPs for merger with N/D.
b. Case is required on argument DPs for merger with V and A.
c. Case is required on argument DPs and PPs for merger with v.

The adjunct DP, kinoo ‘yesterday’, is merged with N in (30a) and hence, must carry Case.
The Case is valued as genitive by N-D. That in (30b), on the other hand, is merged with V. As
only argument DPs are required to have Case in this context, no Case shows up on kinoo‘yesterday’ in (30b).
If one adopts the Agree-based analysis, it would probably be necessary to assume thatthe no on Hanako is Case that is valued by Agree while that on kinoo ‘yesterday’ issomething else, a linker or prenominal inflection, that appears only prenominally. There is noneed to make this distinction with the Merge-based analysis proposed here.
4.2. Head-Finality as a Consequence of Covert Excorporation
In this section, I return to the wide scope property of nominative objects and discuss its
consequence for linearization. I argue that the proposals on phrase structure building and Casevaluation outlined above open up a new way to derive the head-finality of Japanese from
Kayne’s (1994) LCA.
Let us consider again the contrast discussed by Tada (1992) in (6), repeated below in(32).

- 121 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(32)

a. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-otumur-e-ru (can > only)
Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-ACC close-can-Pres‘Kiyomi can wink with her right eye.’b. Kiyomi-wa migime-dake-ga
tumur-e-ru (only > can)Kiyomi-TOP right.eye-only-NOM close-can-Pres‘It is only her right eye that Kiyomi can close.’

The narrow scope of the accusative object in (32a) should be attributed the fact that theaccusative is valued by the V-v associated with the non-stative tumur ‘close’. Then, e ‘can’takes a vP complement, and the example should be derived as in (33)–(34).
(33)

a.
b.
c.
d.

{close, v} (accusative){DP only-ACC, {close, v}}, DP = right eye{{DP only-ACC, close}, v}{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, close}, v}}, K = Kiyomi(33) shows the derivation of the embedded vP. The accusative is valued when the object ismerged with V-v in (33c).
(34) is the derivation of the matrix CP phase.
(34)

e. {T, C} (nominative)f. {v, {T, C}}
g. {can, {v, {T, C}}}h. {{K-Case, {{ DP only-ACC , V}, v}}, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}, V = closei. {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, {v, {T, C}}}
j. {K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, {v, {T, C}}}}11
k. {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, {T, C}}
l. {K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, {T, C}}}m. {{K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{K-Case, {{DP only-ACC, V}, v}}, can}, v}}, T}}, C}(34e–g) form the matrix can-v-T-C complex. Then, in (34h), the embedded vP is merged withthis complex. The accusative object is contained within the vP while can is plausibly the head(or label) of the head complex. (See Fn.10 for relevant discussion.) Then, the scope relation,
can > only, can be read off from this structure as illustrated in (35).

11

The subject Kiyomi is the external argument of tumur ‘close’ as well as of e ‘can’. In (34j), I assume
that it moves from the embedded vP Spec to the matrix vP Spec in order to account for this. But analternative with PRO in the embedded vP Spec also serves the purpose.

- 122 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

(35)

can
vP

can
can

… DP only …

v
v

T
T

C

Thus, the narrow scope property of accusative objects seems straightforward. On theother hand, the wide scope property of nominative objects has an interesting implication. Let
us consider the derivation of (32b) in (36).
(36)

a. {T, C} (nominative)b. {v, {T, C}}c. {can, {v, {T, C}}}d. {close, {can, {v, {T, C}}}}12
e. { DP only-NOM, {close, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}}
f. {{ DP only-NOM , close}, { can , {v, {T, C}}}}k. {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, {v, {T, C}}}
l. {K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, {v, {T, C}}}}m. {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, {T, C}}
n. {K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, {T, C}}}o. {{K-NOM, {{K-Case, {{{DP only-NOM, close}, can}}, v}}, T}}, C}

As no Case is valued accusative in this example, the only phase head is C. The derivation,
then, starts with C, and the close-can-v-T-C complex is formed in (36a–d). The object ismerged with this complex in (36e), and the Case is valued nominative because of the T-C in
the complex. At this point, the object c-commands can as in (37).
(37)

close
DP only-NOM

close
close

can
can

v
v

T
T

C

This accounts for the wide scope of the nominative object, but there is one further thingthat must be said. Note that can-v-T-C excorporates in the next step of the derivation, (36f).
The excorporation creates a configuration similar to (35). Then, if the scope relation is
calculated based on this structure, it is predicted incorrectly that nominative objects at least12

I assume, following Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2007), that e ‘can’ selects for a V and takes a VP
complement when the object of the V is in nominative. This is not crucial for the analysis proposedhere.

- 123 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

can have narrow scope. This indicates that excorporation is “invisible” and ignored in thecalculation of the scope relation.
Here, there must be a reason for the “invisibility” of excorporation for scope. And thedesired result is obtained if the excorporation is covert. As is well known, Japanese is alanguage with scope rigidity. Thus, (38) is unambiguous and its interpretation reflects thehierarchical relation of the two quantified phrases.13(38)

dareka-ga
daremo-oaisitei-ru (koto) (∃ > ∀)someone-NOM everyone-ACC love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) someone loves everyone’The scope relations in (32) can be understood as instances of this general phenomenon. As
Kuroda (1971) points out, overt movement affects scope relations. (39a–b) are both
ambiguous.
(39)

a. daremo-oi
dareka-ga
ti aisitei-ru (koto) (∀ > ∃, ∃ > ∀)everyone-ACC someone-NOM love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) someone loves everyone’b. dareka-oi
daremo-ga
ti aisitei-ru (koto) (∃ > ∀, ∀ > ∃)someone-ACC everyone-NOM love-Pres fact‘(the fact that) everyone loves someone’But covert movement should have no effects on scope. If QR, for example, can broaden thescope possibilities, (38) should not be unambiguous to begin with. Hence, the account of(32b) based on (37) can be maintained if excorporation is covert in Japanese.14
Although this may sound like a stipulation to accommodate the wide scope property of
nominative objects, it predicts the head-finality of Japanese in an interesting way. Kayne(1994) proposes that linear order is derived from asymmetric c-command relations (Linear
Correspondence Axiom, LCA). Let us consider the configuration in (40), assuming
Chomsky’s (1994) refinement that only maximal projections and heads count in thecalculation of linear order.

13

There are variations among speakers with this. But as far as I know, the strongly preferred readingof (38) is the one with someone taking scope over everyone for all speakers.
14

Note that this does not alter the derivations illustrated above if all operations, overt and covert, takeplace in a single cycle. I assume with Bobaljik (1995) that overt and covert movements apply in thesame way, the only difference being that the phonetic features are interpreted at the landing site in theformer while they receive interpretation at the initial site in the case of the latter.

- 124 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

Xmax

(40)
Wmax

X
Ymax

X

Zmax

Y
Z

Wmax > X, Wmax > Ymax, Wmax > Y, Wmax > Zmax,….

Wmax > Z, X > Y, X > Zmax, X > Z, Y > Z, …

Stated on the right are the asymmetrical c-command relations observed with this structure.
The linear order, Wmax > X > Y > Z, is derived from these relations.
Kayne’s LCA predicts the head-initial, spec–head–complement order. Hence, heentertains the possibility that the head-final, spec–complement–head order is derived by
movement of the complement to a position that asymmetrically c-commands the head.
However, the head-finality of Japanese automatically follows without further complication if
excorporation is covert in the language. The only additional assumption required is virtually
the definition of overt/covert movement: what enters into the calculation of linear order is thelanding site in the case of overt movement and the initial site in the case of covert movement.
Let us consider the vP structure in (41) for illustration.
vmax

(41)
Subj

v
max

V
Obj

(v)
Subj > Obj, Subj > V, Subj > vmax,

V
V

vmax

Obj > V, Obj > vmax

V and v merge first, and then the object DP merges with V-v. Then, v covertly excorporates
and internally merges with VP. Then, the subject DP is externally merged. Here, since theexcorporation is covert, the initial site of v counts in the calculation of linear order. Then, theasymmetric c-command relations on the right side obtain, yielding the subject–object–verb
order. The linear order of V and v is undetermined, but it can be reasonably assumed that v
cliticizes onto V. Thus, the head-finality of Japanese follows. As far as I can see, a derivation
always yields a head-final order when it starts with a phase head and the excorporation iscovert.
5. Conclusion and Further Issues
The main purpose of this paper was to suggest a Merge-based analysis of Case inJapanese. I first noted that an Agree-based analysis is untenable if a unified analysis is sought
for Cases on argument DPs and PPs/adjunct DPs. Then, I argued that the wide scope property
of nominative objects requires an alternative analysis on independent grounds. Given these
conclusions, I explored the possibility that Case in Japanese is part of Merge: it is required forMerge and valued through Merge. I presented a concrete analysis, extending Shimada (2007)- 125 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

and Tonoike’s (2009) hypothesis on phrase structure building, which involves excorporationof heads out of head complexes. Finally, I pointed out that the wide scope property of
nominative objects leads to the hypothesis that excorporation is covert in Japanese, andshowed that this hypothesis predicts the head-finality of Japanese from Kayne’s (1994) LCA.
In the discussion, I assumed that the proposed mode of phrase structure building applies
universally. If this is correct, the head-initial order should be a consequence of overt
excorporation. A vP in English, for example, would be derived as in (42) under this approach.
vmax

(42)
Subj

vmax
v

Subj
max

v
V
max

(v

head movement 

V
)

v
Vmax

V+v

Obj

V
max

V

(v

)

Obj
V

There are many possible ways to derive the head-initial order here. First, the structure isderived as illustrated on the left side with overt excorporation of v. This may suffice if theinitial site of v is totally invisible in the calculation of linear order. It is also possible that V
undergoes head movement to v as illustrated on the right side. In this case, the asymmetric ccommand relation of V+v and the object DP is clear if the initial site of V, which lacks
phonetic features, enters the calculation unlike the case of excorporation because it is where
the V is interpreted.
If this approach is tenable, then the head-parameter is reduced to whether excorporation
is overt or covert. On the other hand, it may turn out, as Hisa Kitahara suggests, that English
phrase structure is derived with V and the object merging first, as is usually assumed. In thiscase, Japanese employs the specific way of phrase structure building illustrated above because
Merge is Case-dependent in the language. This predicts that head-initial languages have
Agree-based Case systems while head-final languages have Merge-based ones. Although the
exploration of the two approaches undoubtedly raises a number of interesting issues, I mustleave it for another occasion.

References
An, D.-H. (2009) “A Note on Genitive Drop in Korean,” Nanzan Linguistics 5, 1–16.
Bedell, G. (1972) “On No.” In G. Bedell, ed., UCLA Papers in Syntax 3: Studies in East Asian Syntax.
Bobaljik, J. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Bobaljik, J. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect and Anti-Reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 27–42.
Chomsky, N. (1994) “Bare Phrase Structure.” In G. Webelhuth, ed., Government and Binding Theory
and the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, 383–439.

- 126 -

Case Checking/Valuation in Japanese (M. Saito)

Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89–155.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds.,
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 133–166.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001a) “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese.” In O.
Matushansky et al., eds., Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language
Research (HUMIT 2000), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67–80.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001b) “On Nominative-Genitive Conversion.” In E. Guerzoni and O. Matushansky, eds.,
A Few from Building E39: Papers in Syntax, Semantics and Their Interface, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 39, 66–123.
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Koizumi, M. (1998) “Remarks on Nominative Objects,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 16, 39–66.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30–50.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words like Also, Even, orOnly (Part II),” Annual Bulletin 4, Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics,
University of Tokyo, 127–152.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito (1991) “On the Subject of Infinitives,” Chicago Linguistic Society 27, 324–
343.
Maki, H. and A. Uchibori (2008) “Ga/No Conversion.” In S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds., The
Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, New York, 192–216.
Murasugi, K. (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Acquisition, andLearnability, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP Frame,”
Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1–19.
Nomura, M. (2005) Nominative Case and Agree(ment), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ochi, M. (2001) “Move F and Ga/No Conversion in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10,
247–286.
Okutsu, K. (1974) Seisei-Nihon-Bunpoo-Ron [A Generative Grammar of Japanese], Taishukan, Tokyo.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 281–
337.
Saito, M. (1982) “Case Marking in Japanese: A Preliminary Study,” unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Saito, M. (2011) “Two Notes on Feature Inheritance: A Parametric Variation in the Distribution of the
EPP,” Nanzan Linguistics 7, 43–61.
Sano, M. (1985) “LF Movement in Japanese,” Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 18, 245–259.
Shimada, J. (2007) “Head Movement, Binding Theory, and Phrase Structure,” unpublishedmanuscript, MIT.
Tada, H. (1992) “Nominative Objects in Japanese,” Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14, 91–108.
Takahashi, M. (2010) “Case Valuation, Phasehood, and Nominative-Accusative Conversion in
Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 319–355.
Tonoike, S. (2009) “Minimarisuto Puroguramu [Minimalist Program].” In H. Nakajima, ed.,Gengogaku-no Ryooiki [Subfields of Linguistics] 1, Asakura Shoten, Tokyo, 135–168.
Ura, H. (1999) “Checking Theory and Dative Subject Constructions in Japanese and Korean,” Journalof East Asian Linguistics 8, 223–254.
Watanabe, A. (2010) “Notes on Nominal Ellipsis and the Nature of no and Classifiers in Japanese,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, 61–74.

- 127 -