The 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference
October 7-9, 2006
Kyoto University

Optional A-Scrambling*
MAMORU SAITO
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
The non-uniform approach to Japanese scrambling as developed in a series
of works by Shigeru Miyagawa (2001, 2003, 2005) has been quite influential. It admits two distinct kinds of scrambling operations. One is Amovement to TP Spec triggered by the EPP-feature on T and the other isA’-adjunction motivated by focusing. The obvious advantage of this approach is that scrambling is assimilated to other widely attested types of
movements. There is no need to revise the theory to accommodate scrambling, and there is no need in particular to postulate ‘optional movement’.
In this paper, I will develop Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling andexplore its consequences. The discussion will lead to conclusions that contradict the non-uniform approach. More specifically, I will argue that A* The material in this paper was presented in syntax seminars at Nanzan University and the
University of Connecticut, in colloquia at Keio University and Stony Brook University, and at
the 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. I would like to thank the audience, especially Jonathan Bobaljik, Tomoko Kawamura, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Masaki Sano, as well as
Hiroshi Aoyagi, Keiko Murasugi, Masashi Nomura, and Koji Sugisaki for helpful comments
and suggestions.

scrambling is neither movement to TP Spec nor is triggered by the EPPfeature.
In the following section, I will introduce Miyagawa’s core data and hisanalysis. I will also discuss the binding properties of A-scrambled phrases
and present suggestive evidence that their landing site is not TP Spec. In
Section 3, I will try to define ‘subject’ under Miyagawa’s analysis and showthat this leads to the conclusion that A-scrambling is not triggered by the
EPP-feature. Then, in Section 4, I will suggest an alternative analysis for
Miyagawa’s core data. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Miyagawa’s Analysis of A-scrambling
2.1. The Core Data
Miyagawa presents the following extremely interesting paradigm as evidence for his non-uniform approach to scrambling:(1) a. Zen’in-ga
sono tesuto-o
uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)
all-NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘All did not take that exam’(All > Not, *Not > All)b. Sono tesuto-oi
zen’in-ga
ti uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)that test -ACC all-NOM take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘That exam, all did not take’(All > Not, Not > All)
(2)

Syukudai -oi
zen’in-ga[CP sensei -ga ti das -u to]
homework-ACC all -NOM teacher-NOM assign-Pres thatomow-ana -katta (yo)think -Neg-Past Part
‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher would assign’(All > Not, *Not > All)In (1a), the quantified NP in the subject position, zen’in ‘all’, takes wide
scope over negation, and the sentence expresses total negation. (1b) is
derived from (1a) by scrambling the object to the sentence-initial position.
In this case, the subject quantified NP is no longer sentence-initial, and it
can take narrow scope with respect to negation. The example is ambiguous
between total negation and partial negation. This effect is observed onlywith clause-internal scrambling. Thus, in (2) the subject quantified NP takes
scope over negation despite the fact that the embedded object is preposedover it by long-distance scrambling.
Miyagawa argues that (1)-(2) can be readily accounted for under his
non-uniform analysis of scrambling. Let us consider the structure in (3).

(3)

TP
TP

a
b

T’

vP

Neg

NP1

v’
VP

NP2

T [+EPP]v
V(1a), according to Miyagawa, is derived when the subject NP1 moves to TP
Spec (b) in order to check the EPP-feature on T. In this case, the NP
asymmetrically c-commands the negation and hence takes wide scope. (1b)can be derived from (1a) by adjoining the object NP2 to TP (a) by A’scrambling. Then, the subject takes wide scope over negation just as in thecase of (1a). However, given that A-scrambling can be to TP Spec, there isan alternative derivation for (1b). That is, NP2 can move to TP Spec (b)instead of NP1 and satisfy the EPP requirement of T. With this derivation,
NP1 remains in vP Spec and hence takes narrow scope with respect tonegation. The scope fact in (2) follows because movement to TP Spec
cannot take place across a CP boundary, and long-distance scrambling must
involve adjunction. The matrix subject must move to TP Spec in order tocheck the EPP-feature of the matrix T.
The generalization observed with (1)-(2) is not always clear-cut, andthere are some loose ends in Miyagawa’s analysis. First, the clarity of thecontrasts depends on the specific quantified NP, the verb form, and thesentence-ending, as Miyagawa notes. For example, when a sentence of theform in (1a) is embedded in a conditional, a scope ambiguity emerges as (4)shows.
(4)

Zen’in-ga
sono tesuto-o
uke -na -katta-ra, raigetu
mata
all-NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past -if next month again
tesuto-osu -rutest -ACC do-Pres‘If all do not take the exam, (we will) have another exam next month’(All > Not, Not > All)

Miyagawa suggests that tense may be subjunctive in this case, and that thismay be the cause of the availability of the narrow scope reading of the subject. On the other hand, potentially problematic examples are found in othercontexts as well. Thus, (5) seems totally ambiguous when uttered in thecontext where students have a choice of taking an exam or handing in aterm paper to receive credit for a course.
(5)

Zen’in-ga
siken -oerab -ana -i
to omo -u
all-NOM exam-ACC choose-Neg-Pres that think-Pres‘I think that all will not choose an exam (over a term paper)’(All > Not, Not > All)As far as the analysis is concerned, comparison of (1a) with its English
counterpart raises a question. As (6) indicates, a quantified NP in TP Spec
can fall within the scope of negation in English.
(6)

Everyone had not left the party. There were still some people talking
and drinking.

The narrow scope reading of ‘everyone’ may arise due to its reconstruction
to vP Spec or because negation can take TP as its scope. Whichever the reason is, it is puzzling why the same mechanism does not yield ambiguity inthe case of Japanese (1a).1
Nevertheless, I believe that the contrasts in (1)-(2) obtain in a wide variety of contexts and are definitely worth exploring. In the following subsection, I will consider the effect of scrambling in (1b) and show that it isobserved even when the scrambled object clearly does not occupy the TP
Spec position.
2.2. The Binding Properties of A-Scrambled Phrases
It was proposed originally by Mahajan (1990) that scrambling is of two
types, A and A’, because of its effects on the binding relations.2 Let us
consider the following examples:(7) a. *[Otagai-no sensei] -ga
karera-ohihansi -ta (koto)each other-GEN teacher-NOM they -ACC criticize-Past fact
‘Lit. Each other’s teachers criticized them’b. Karera-oi[otagai-no sensei] -ga ti hihansi -ta (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticize-Past fact
‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers criticized’

1 See also Yamashita 2001 and Kawamura 2004 for much relevant discussion. They argue
that A-scrambling does not observe the locality expected of movement to TP Spec.
2 Mahajan’s proposal is based on Hindi data. See Tada 1993 and Nemoto 1993 for detailed
discussion on the Japanese data considered here.

(8) a. *[Otagai-no sensei] -ga [Hanako-ga
karera-oeach other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM they -ACC
hihansi -ta to] it -ta (koto)criticize-Past that say-Past fact
‘Lit. Each other’s teachers said that Hanako criticized them’b. *Karera-oi[otagai-no sensei] -ga [Hanako-ga ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansi -ta to] it -ta (koto)criticize-Past that say-Past fact
‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers said that Hanako criticized’(7a) is out because the anaphor otagai ‘each other’ is not bound by its
antecedent karera ‘they’. As shown in (7b), if karera is scrambled to a
position that c-commands otagai, the sentence becomes grammatical. This
indicates that a scrambled phrase can serve as an A-binder for an anaphor.
This effect, however, is limited to clause-internal scrambling. In (8b),karera is scrambled across a CP boundary to a position that c-commands
otagai, and no improvement is observed. Mahajan concludes then thatclause-internal scrambling can be A-movement while long-distance scrambling is necessarily A’-movement.
If there is scrambling with A’-properties, we would expect it to apply
not only across a CP boundary but clause-internally as well. This prediction
is borne out by examples such as (9).
(9)

Zibun-zisin-oi
Taroo-gati seme -ta (koto)self -self -ACC
-NOM blame-Past fact
‘Himself, Taroo blamed’

If the landing site of zibun-zisin-o ‘self-ACC’ is an A-position in (9), theexample should be in violation of Condition (C) of the binding theory. Thus,
it suggests that clause-internal scrambling can be A’-movement.
Miyagawa follows Mahajan and assumes that there are two types ofscrambling, A and A’. As noted at the outset of this paper, his proposal isthat A-scrambling is movement to TP Spec while A’-scrambling involves
adjunction. Now, if we combine his analysis of the paradigm in (1)-(2) andMahajan’s account of the binding facts in (7)-(9), a clear prediction follows.
I will illustrate this with the concrete examples in (10)-(11).
(10) a. Zen’in-ga
zibun-zisin-ni
toohyoosi-na -katta (to omo -u)
all-NOM self -self -DAT vote
-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Everyone did not vote for herself/himself’(All > Not, *Not > All)b. Zibun-zisin-nii zen’in-ga
ti toohyoosi-na -katta
self -self -DAT all-NOM vote-Neg-Past(to omo -u)that think-Pres‘For herself/himself, everyone did not vote’(All > Not, Not > All)(11) a. Zen’in-ga
zibun-zisin-oseme -na -katta (to omo -u)
all-NOM self -self -ACC blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Everyone did not blame herself/himself’(All > Not, *Not > All)b. Zibun-zisin-oi
zen’in-ga
ti seme -na -katta (to omo -u)
self -self -ACC all -NOM blame-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘Herself/himself, everyone did not blame’(All > Not, Not > All)In (10a), the quantified NP subject zen’in ‘all’ takes wide scope overnegation. This is expected under Miyagawa’s analysis since the subject israised to TP Spec exactly as in the case of (1a). (10b) is ambiguous andparallels (1b). If this example is derived from (1b), the subject is in TP Specand the scrambled phrase is adjoined to TP. In this case, the subject zen’intakes scope over negation. On the other hand, according to Miyagawa, thenarrow scope reading of zen’in obtains when the scrambled phrase is in TP
Spec and check the EPP-feature. Then, zen’in remains in vP Spec and iswithin the c-command domain of the negation. But note that the scrambled
phrase is a reflexive just as in (9). That is, if it is in TP Spec, the example
should be in violation of Condition (C) of the Binding theory. It follows thatzen’in can take narrow scope even when the scrambled phrase is not in TP
Spec but is in an A’-position. The examples in (11) raise the same problem.
The ambiguity of (10b) and (11b) suggests that the narrow scope readingof zen’in is not made possible because the scrambled phrase checks the
EPP-feature on T in its place. It seems then necessary to come up with analternative analysis for the paradigm in (1)-(2). Before I pursue this, I willraise another issue in the following section with the analysis of A-scrambling as movement to TP Spec. It has to do with the definition of ‘subject’.

3. On the Definition of Subject
As is well known, the Japanese reflexives zibun ‘self’ and zibun-zisin ‘selfself’ are subject-oriented. Thus, only Hanako qualifies as the antecedent ofzibun in (12) and (13).

(12) Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
zibun-no hon -ookut -ta-NOM-DAT self -GEN book-ACC send-Past‘Hanako sent her book to Taroo’(13) Hanako-ga Taroo-ozibun-no ie-de sikat -ta-NOM-ACC self -GEN house-at scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’
However, as far as I know, the definition of ‘subject’ in this context is yet to
be made precise. There are two obvious candidates, TP Spec and vP Spec.
This is so since Hanako in (12), for example, is merged at vP Spec and israised to TP Spec, as illustrated in (14).
(14) [TP Hanakoi-ga [vP ti [VP Taroo-ni zibuni-no hon-o okut-]] ta]
Interestingly, Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling as movement to TP
Spec is compatible only with the definition of ‘subject’ as vP Spec. A
scrambled object never qualifies as the antecedent of zibun, as shown in(15), and hence, the analysis makes incorrect predictions if TP Spec is the‘subject’ in the relevant sense.
(15) Taroo-oi
Hanako-ga
ti zibun-no ie-de sikat -ta-ACC-NOM self -GEN house-at scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’
In this section, I will first examine ‘subjecthood’ in examples with complex
predicates and present evidence that phrases in vP Spec are indeed possible
antecedents for zibun. This appears to provide support for Miyagawa’s
analysis. In Section 3.2, however, I will argue that further exploration of thedefinition of ‘subject’ leads us to the conclusion that A-scrambling is not
triggered by the EPP-feature on T.
3.1. Subject as vP Spec
It has been known that what qualifies as a possible antecedent for zibun isthe ‘surface subject’. Thus, zibun can refer to the subjects of passive and unaccusative sentences, as shown in (16)-(17).
(16) Taroo-gai karera-niyotte zibun-no ie-de ti koros-are-ta-NOM they -by
self -GEN house-at kill -Passive-Past(koto)
fact‘Taroo was killed by them at his house’(17) Taroo-gai zibun-no ie -de ti sin -da (koto)-NOM self -GEN house-at die-Past fact
‘Taroo died at his house’If Taroo in (16)-(17) moves directly to TP Spec from the internal argument
position, these examples suggest that TP Spec is the ‘subject position’ in therelevant sense.
On the other hand, the examination of complex predicate constructions
leads us to a different conclusion. Let us consider the following causative
sentence:(18) Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
zibun-no hon -osute -sase -ta-NOM-DAT self -GEN book-ACC discard-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo discard her/his book’
It has been widely assumed since Kuroda 1965 that the causative morpheme-sase takes a sentential complement. (18) confirms this since both the causer
and the causee qualify as the antecedent for zibun. That is, causative sentences contain two ‘subjects’ and hence two sentences.
On the other hand, the embedded “clause” clearly lacks tense and does
not seem to be a full-fledged TP. It is thus assumed to be a vP in more
recent works such as Murasugi and Hashimoto 2004. The structure of (18)
would then be as in (19).3
(19)

TP
NPi

T’

Hanako-ga

vP
ti

T
v’

-ta

VP
NPj

v
V’

Taroo-ni vPtjVv’ -sase

VP
NP

v
V

zibun-no hon-o sute

Here, Taroo, a possible antecedent for zibun, never occupies a TP Spec
3 In (19), the embedded subject Taroo moves and merges with a projection of the causative
verb -sase in order to receive the causee role. (See Saito 2001 for relevant discussion.) But thisis not crucial for the discussion here. The argument is unaffected even if Taroo stays in theembedded vP Spec, or it is merged directly in the matrix VP and controls PRO in the embedded vP Spec.

position. Examples of this kind thus suggest that vP Spec, rather than TP
Spec, is the ‘subject position’ in the relevant sense.
Although we apparently have conflicting data on the definition of ‘subject’, the evidence from the causative construction is more compelling. If‘subject’ is defined as TP Spec, it seems impossible to accommodate examples like (18). On the other hand, (16)-(17) are consistent with the definitionof ‘subject’ as vP Spec if Taroo moves through the vP Spec position on theway to TP Spec, as illustrated in (20).
(20)

TP
NPi

T’

Taroo-ga

vP

ti’

T
v’

VP

v

PP
zibun-no ie-de

-ta

VP
ti

V
sin

And there is indeed evidence that the subjects of passive and unaccusative sentences move through vP Spec. Let us consider the following
causative sentence:(21) Sono isya -wa Taroo-ozibun-no ie-de sin -ase-tethat doctor-TOP-ACC self -GEN house-in die-makesimat-ta
have -Past‘The doctor has let Taroo die in his own house’
This sentence can be appropriately uttered when the doctor failed to noticethe seriousness of Taroo’s illness and has mistakenly let him leave thehospital, indirectly causing him to die at his own house. In this case, Taroo
is the antecedent for zibun.
What is interesting about (21), in comparison with (18), is that the embedded verb sin ‘die’ is unaccusative. This means that Taroo is initiallymerged at the object position of this verb, and then moves to the embedded
vP Spec so that it qualifies as the antecedent for zibun. The derivation isshown in (22).4
4 The final verb simat-ta in (21) adds perfective meaning to the sentence. It is omitted in the
structure in (22).

(22)

TP
NPi

T’

Sono isya-wa

vP

T

ti

v’

-ta

VP

v

NPj
Taroo-o

V’
vP

tj’

V
v’ -sase

VPv

PPzibun-no ie-de

VP
tj

V
sin

(22) indicates that the object of an unaccusative verb can move through vPSpec on the way to a higher position. Then, we would expect this to be thecase in (17) as well. That is, the sentence may be derived as in (20), andthere is no compelling reason to include TP Spec among the ‘subject positions’ to accommodate unaccusative sentences. Precisely the same argument
can be constructed for the passive (16) on the basis of (23), where the causative -sase takes a passive complement:(23) Taroo-wa dai -sensei -ozibun-no gakusei-tati-niyotte-TOP big-teacher-ACC self -GEN student -PL -by
suuhais -are-sase-te oi -ta
worship-Passive-make leave-Past‘Taroo kept letting the big professor be worshiped by his/her students’
The internal argument of the complement verb suuhais ‘worship’ can be theantecedent of zibun in this example.
It was shown in this subsection that vP Spec is a plausible candidate forthe position of the possible antecedents for the subject-oriented reflexive
zibun. As noted at the outset of this section, the definition of ‘subject position’ as TP Spec is incompatible with the EPP analysis of A-scrambling. In
this sense, the discussion here provides indirect support for the analysis.
However, I will show in the following subsection that a closer examinationof the relevant data leads to different conclusions. I will argue in particularthat ‘subjects’ should be defined as those phrases that check the EPP-featureand that A-scrambling is not feature-driven.

3.2. A-Scrambling and the EPP-feature on v
Recall that a scrambled object does not qualify as the antecedent for zibun.
The relevant example (15) is repeated below as (24).
(24) Taroo-oi
Hanako-ga
ti zibun-no ie-de sikat -ta-ACC-NOM self -GEN house-at scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’
If ‘subject’ is defined as vP Spec, this seems to be expected under the hypothesis that the landing site of A-scrambling is TP Spec. But the situation
turns out to be more complex when the precise derivation of (24) is considered.
Note that (24) is a transitive sentence, and hence, its vP should constitute a derivational phase.5 This implies that the scrambling of Taroo should
proceed through the edge of vP. If the final landing site is TP Spec, thederivation should be as in (25).
(25)

TP
NPi

T’

Taroo-oivPti’

T [+EPP]vP-ta

Hanako-ga

v’
VP

v

PP
zibun-no ie-de

VP
ti

V
sikar

Then, after all, the EPP analysis of A-scrambling makes a false prediction
with respect to (24) whether ‘subject’ is defined as TP Spec or vP Spec.
The problem is clearer when we consider, again, the causative construction. As shown below, a causative sentence counts as simplex for the locality of A-scrambling.
(26) Karera-oi[otagai-no sensei -ga Taroo-nitithey -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-DAT
home -sase -ta] (koto)praise-make-Past fact
‘Lit. Each other’s teachers made Taroo praise them’5 I assume, following Chomsky 2000, for example, that C and transitive/unergative v (v* in
Chomsky’s terms) project phases.

This is not surprising because scrambling in this case does not cross a CP
boundary. And a scrambled phrase cannot be the antecedent for zibun in a
causative sentence, as shown in (27).
(27) Hanako-oi[Ziroo-ga
Taroo-nizibun-no ie-de ti-ACC-NOM-DAT self -GEN house-atnagur -ase -ta] (koto)praise-make-Past fact
‘Ziroo made Taroo hit Hanako at his house’
I have been assuming that the causative morpheme -sase takes a vP complement. If this is correct, the scrambling in (27) must proceed via the edgesof two vP’s; the complement vP and the matrix vP. Hence, this example isclearly incompatible with the definition of ‘subject’ as vP Spec.
Although (24) and (27) were discussed as problematic examples for the
EPP analysis of A-scrambling, the issue they raise is a general one. As discussed in the preceding subsection, when an internal argument of a passive
verb or an unaccusative verb moves through vP Spec, it qualifies as theantecedent of zibun. On the other hand, when an argument is scrambled
through vP Spec, it does not count as the ‘subject’. Then, how can these twocases be distinguished?
It seems to me that Lasnik’s (1995) discussion on existential passive
sentences provides a hint toward the solution to this problem. Considering
the English counterparts of the Italian (28), discussed in Belletti 1988, he
presents the contrast in (29).
(28) È stato messo un libro sul tavolo
has been put
a book on the table(29) a. *There has been put a book on the tableb. There has been a book put on the table(29a), which corresponds to (28), is ungrammatical; the object must be preposed in front of the passive verb as in (29b). In order to account for thisshort movement, Lasnik suggests that there is a functional head with an
EPP-like feature right above the passive verb. If the relevant functional headis v and the feature is EPP, the structure of the relevant part of (29b) will be
as in (30).

(30)

vP
there

v’
v

VP
V

vP

be

NPi

v’

v
a book [+EPP]

VP

put ti on the table

If this analysis is correct, and in particular, if passive and unaccusative v
has an EPP-feature, a more precise analysis becomes possible for (21) and(23). It was left unaccounted for why Taroo-o ‘Taroo-ACC’ moves thoughvP Spec in (22). The EPP-feature on the embedded v provides a reason forthis step of the movement. Further, this forces the internal argument tomove through vP Spec on the way to TP Spec in the simple unaccusative
sentence in (17), which is repeated below as (31).
(31) Taroo-gai zibun-no ie-de ti sin -da (koto)-NOM self -GEN house-at die-Past fact
‘Taroo died at his house’
The precise derivation of this example will be as in (32).
(32)

TP
NPi

T’

Taroo-gavP

T [+EPP]

ti’

v’
VP

v [+EPP]PP
zibun-no ie-de

-ta

VP
ti

V
sin

Let us now return to the scrambling example in (24) with this conclusion.
The example is repeated below as (33).
(33) Taroo-oi
Hanako-ga
ti zibun-no ie-de sikat -ta-ACC-NOM self -GEN house-at scold-Past‘Hanako scolded Taroo at her house’As noted above, Taroo-o moves through the edge of vP in this example. If
this movement to vP Spec is driven by the EPP-feature on v, then (33) and(31) will be indistinguishable again. The only way to differentiate these twocases, as far as I can tell, is to say that movement to vP Spec is triggered by
the EPP-feature in (31) but not in (33) and that only those phrases thatsatisfy an EPP requirement counts as the ‘subject’. This correctly accounts
for the fact that the subject of an unaccusative/passive verb qualifies as theantecedent of zibun while a scrambled object does not. But then, we are led
to the conclusion that there is local A-scrambling to the edge of vP that has
nothing to do with the EPP. This amounts to saying that there is optional Ascrambling. And if scrambling can take place to the edge of vP without theaid of an EPP-feature, there does not seem to be reason to suppose that it
cannot move a phrase to the edge of TP in the same way. Thus, the examination of the distribution and the interpretation of zibun, after all, raises
serious doubts for the EPP analysis of A-scrambling.
Given the evidence against the EPP analysis of A-scrambling presented
so far, I will suggest an alternative approach to Miyagawa’s paradigm (1)(2) in the following section. In the remainder of this section, I will point out
a few consequences of the proposed account for the possible anteced-ents ofzibun.
I just argued that possible antecedents for zibun are not those phrases ina specific position such as TP Spec or vP spec, but those that check the
EPP-feature. Thus, phrases in TP Spec and vP Spec qualify as ‘subjects’ aslong as they satisfy an EPP requirement of a head. This has a couple ofobvious implications. First, let us reconsider the simple causative example
in (18), repeated below as (34).
(34) Hanako-ga Taroo-ni
zibun-no hon -osute -sase -ta-NOM-DAT self -GEN book-ACC discard-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo discard her/his book’
Here the embedded verb sute ‘discard’ is transitive and its external argument Taroo is a possible antecedent for zibun. Then, a transitive/unergative
v must also carry an EPP-feature and it must be checked by the externalargument.
Second, the EPP-feature of v cannot play any part in successive-cyclic
operator movement. It is proposed in Chomsky 2000 and 2001, for example,
that an EPP-feature can be assigned freely to a transitive/unergative v andthis makes the initial step of the Wh-movement in (35) possible.
(35) [CP Whati did [TP Johnj [vP ti’ [vP tj [VP buy ti]]]]]
But if an EPP-feature can be assigned freely to a transitive/unergative v, inaddition to the one checked by the external argument, then we lose theaccount for the fact that a scrambled object does not qualify as theantecedent of zibun. This is so because Hanako in (27), for example, shouldbe able to check the additional EPP-feature of v on its way to the sentenceinitial position and be the antecedent for zibun. I tentatively suggest that thefeature that is assigned freely to v is not the EPP-feature but the P-feature,
which Chomsky (2000) postulates for the operator movement to an intermediate CP Spec. The P-feature, then, can be assigned to any phase head andattract an operator to its Spec position, while the EPP-feature is inherent in
T and v.
One example that is still left unaccounted for is the Italian (28), repeatedbelow in (36).
(36) È stato messo un libro sul tavolo
has been put
a book on the table
If the passive v universally has an EPP-feature, it is not clear why un libro‘a book’ need not be preposed to the position in front of messo ‘put’ as in its
English counterpart (29b). Although I do not have a solution to this problem,
I would tentatively assume that the null expletive is initially merged at vPSpec and checks the EPP-feature of v in (36). English and Italian are thenparameterized in the ability of expletives to check the EPP-feature on v.
Since the expletive there is unable to check the EPP-feature of v, it is necessary to raise a book to vP Spec in (29b).6

4. Miyagawa’s Paradigm and the First-Constituent Effects
Let us finally return to Miyagawa’s examples in (1)-(2), repeated below in(37)-(38).
(37) a. Zen’in-ga
sono tesuto-o
uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)
all-NOM that test -ACC take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘All did not take that exam’(All > Not, *Not > All)b. Sono tesuto-oi
zen’in-ga
ti uke -na -katta (yo /to omo -u)that test -ACC all -NOM take-Neg-Past Part that think-Pres‘That exam, all did not take’(All > Not, Not > All)

6 There should be able to check the EPP-feature of unaccusative v in English as the following example is grammatical:(i) There arrived someone
It remains to be seen what property distinguishes English passives on the one hand and Italianpassives and English unaccusatives on the other.

(38) Syukudai -oi
zen’in-ga[CP sensei -ga ti das -u to]
homework-ACC all -NOM teacher-NOM assign-Pres thatomow-ana -katta (yo)think -Neg-Past Part
‘Homework, all did not think that the teacher would assign’(All > Not, *Not > All)
I argued in Section 2 that the narrow scope reading of zen’in-ga ‘all-NOM’
observed in (37b) is possible even when the scrambling exhibits A’ properties. In Section 3, I pointed out that the analysis of A-scrambling as an EPPdriven movement to TP Spec faces a problem with the characterization of
possible antecedents for zibun. I will then suggest an alternative approach to(37)-(38) in this section.
Note first that the effect of scrambling in (37b) is of a familiar kindobserved with many other phenomena. That is, scrambling can but need notaffect the interpretation of a sentence. Let me illustrate this point with theinterpretation of phrases marked by the topic marker -wa. As discussed indetail in Kuno 1973, a wa-marked phrase can be interpreted as a ‘theme’ oras a contrastive topic. Thus, (39) is ambiguous.
(39) Taroo-wa sono hon -oyon -da-TOP that book-ACC read-Pasta. ‘Speaking of Taroo, he read that book’ (thematic)b. ‘Taroo read that book, but the others did not’ (contrastive)
It is also known that although any phrase can be marked by -wa, the thematic interpretation is possible only when the phrase is in the sentence-initial
position. The object in (40), for example, receives only contrastive interpretation.
(40) Taroo-ga
sono hon -wa yon -da-NOM that book-TOP read-Past‘Taroo read that book, but he did not read the others’ (contrastive)
Scrambling interacts with these interpretive properties of wa-marked
phrases in an interesting way. Let us first consider the scrambled version of(39) shown in (41).
(41) Sono hon -oi
Taroo-wa ti yon -dathat book-ACC-TOP read-Past‘Taroo’ - thematic or contrastive as in (40)Here, the interpretation of Taroo-wa remains ambiguous; in particular it canbe interpreted thematically despite the fact that the scrambled object precedes it. This shows that a scrambled phrase need not count in the calcula-tion of the first constituent. At the same time, the following examples indicate that a scrambled phrase can participate in this calculation:(42) a. Taroo-ga
soko -e it -ta-NOM there-to go-Past‘Taroo sent there’
b. Taroo-wa soko -e -wa it -ta-TOP there-to-TOP go-Past‘Taroo’ - thematic or contrastive, ‘soko-e’ - contrastivec. Soko-e -wai Taroo-wa ti it -ta
there-to-TOP-TOP go-Past‘soko-e’ - thematic or contrastive, ‘Taroo’ - contrastive or thematic(42b) exhibits the expected pattern; only the sentence-initial wa-phrase canbe interpreted thematically. (42c) is derived from (42b) by scrambling sokoe-wa ‘there-to-TOP’ to the sentence-initial position, and the phrase can beinterpreted as a theme, which indicates that a scrambled phrase need not but
still can count as the first constituent.
The examples in (37) can be understood in basically the same way. (37a)indicates that a quantified NP in the sentence-initial position takes wide
scope over negation. In (37b), the scrambled object can count as sentenceinitial. In this case, the subject quantified NP can assume narrow scope withrespect to negation. On the other hand, a scrambled phrase need not count in
the calculation of the first constituent. If it does not, the subject quantified
NP remains the first constituent and takes scope over negation. Thus, (37ab) and (42b-c) seem to be two instances of the same general phenomenon.
Then what is the position of the first constituent? The English example
in (6), repeated below as (43), suggests that negation can take scope overthe subject in TP Spec.
(43) Everyone had not left the party. There were still some people talking
and drinking.
If this is true in Japanese as well, then the first constituent position must beoutside TP as a quantified NP is this position necessarily takes scope overnegation. This is in accord with the conclusion drawn from examples like(44) (= (10b)) that the position is an A’-position.
(44) Zibun-zisin-nii zen’in-ga
ti toohyoosi-na -katta (to omo -u)
self -self -DAT all-NOM vote-Neg-Past that think-Pres‘For herself/himself, everyone did not vote’(All > Not, Not > All)
Recall that if zibun-zisin-ni ‘self-self-DAT’ in this example is in an A-

position, the example should be in violation of Condition (C) of the Binding
theory.
Based on these considerations, I would like to propose that there is afunctional head Th above TP and that the first constituent is attracted to its
Spec position. The structure of a Japanese sentence will then be as in (45).
(45)

ThP
Th’
TP
(XPi)

Th
TP

YPj

T’

.. tj .. ti .. Neg ..

YP is the subject (in TP Spec) and XP is a scrambled phrase. Both can bewithin the scope of negation, say, because negation takes TP as its scope.
However, the functional head Th (for ‘theme’) attracts the closest phrase to
its Spec. If there is no scrambling, the subject is raised to this position andtakes scope over negation.
The situation is slightly more complex when scrambling takes place. We
have seen that scrambling may or may not affect interpretation. I assume
here along the lines of Tada 1993 that this is because scrambling can beundone in LF.7 If a scrambled phrase stays at the landing site in LF, it canserve as the antecedent of an anaphor as in (46) (= (7b)).
(46) Karera-oi[otagai-no sensei] -ga ti hihansi -ta (koto)
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM criticize-Past fact
‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers criticized’
On the other hand, if scrambling is undone, there is no violation of Condition (C) in (47) (= (9)).
(47) Zibun-zisin-oi
Taroo-gati seme -ta (koto)self -self -ACC
-NOM blame-Past fact
‘Himself, Taroo blamed’
Finally, the ungrammaticality of (48) (= (8b)) indicates that long-distancescrambling is necessarily undone in LF.

7 This is for ease of exposition. For a more principled interpretive mechanism that has theeffect of ‘LF undoing’, see Saito 2005.

(48) *Karera-oi[otagai-no sensei] -ga [Hanako-ga ti
they -ACC each other-GEN teacher-NOM-NOM
hihansi -ta to] it -ta (koto)criticize-Past that say-Past fact
‘Lit. Them, each other’s teachers said that Hanako criticized’
Given this property of scrambling, the scope facts in (37b) and (38) can
be correctly captured. (37b) involves clause-internal scrambling. If scrambling is not undone, the scrambled phase is attracted to ThP Spec and thesubject zen’in ‘all’ remains in TP Spec. Hence, the narrow scope reading of
the subject is possible. On the other hand, if the scrambled phrase moves
back to its initial position, the subject zen’in moves to ThP Spec and takes
scope over negation. (38) is straightforward because long scrambling isalways undone. The matrix subject must move to ThP Spec and take wide
scope. Note that this account implies that the movement to ThP Spec iscovert as it is fed by the LF undoing of scrambling.8
The thematic interpretation of wa-phrases can be accounted for in thesame way. As only the sentence-initial wa-phrase can be interpreted as thetheme, the following interpretive mechanism can be assumed:(49) A wh-phrase is interpreted as the theme only if it is in ThP Spec.
A clause-internally scrambled phrase may stay at the landing site or moveback to its initial position. Hence, in (42c), repeated below as (50), either
the scrambled phrase or the subject can be interpreted as the theme.
(50) Soko-e -wai Taroo-wa ti it -ta
there-to-TOP-TOP go-Past‘soko-e’ - thematic or contrastive, ‘Taroo’ - contrastive or thematic
Following Heycock 2006, I assume that the thematic interpretation of waphrases is achieved as a matrix sentence is assigned an information structure.
(49), then, should be operative in the mapping from the syntactic structure
to the information structure.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, I examined Miyagawa’s paradigm in (1)-(2) and proposed analternative analysis. I argued in the course of the discussion that contrary to
his proposals, A-scrambling is neither EPP-driven nor is to TP Spec. On theother hand, the proposed analysis adapts his insights; I have postulated afunctional projection above TP and made it play the role Miyagawa at8 The analysis, as formulated here, requires that the undoing of scrambling precede movement to ThP Spec in LF. This stipulation in unnecessary under the more principled mechanism
for LF undoing alluded to in Fn.7.

tributed to TP. A phrase in the Spec position of this functional projection
takes wide scope over negation, and when it is a wa-phrase, it can be interpreted thematically. Thus, the projection plays an important role in semantic/discourse interpretation. Although scrambling seems to lack semantic or
discourse properties of its own, a phrase scrambled to the sentence-initial
position, at least in some cases, qualifies to move to the Spec position ofthis functional projection. Hence, it can be said that the projection provides
a “motivation” for scrambling, allowing it to have semantic and discourse
effects.

References
Belletti, A. 1988. The Case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by Step, eds. R.
Martin, et al., 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heycock, C. 2006. Japanese -wa, -ga, and information structure. Unpublished manuscript. University of Edinburgh.
Kawamura, T. 2004. A feature-checking analysis of Japanese scrambling. Journal of
Linguistics 40: 45-68.
Kuno, S. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Causative forms in Japanese. Foundations of Language 1: 31-50.
Lasnik, H. 1995. Case and expletives revisited: On greed and other human failings.
Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615-633.
Mahajan, A. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Miyagawa, S. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. Ken Hale, ed. M. Kenstowicz,
293-338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, S. 2003. A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. Word
Order and Scrambling, ed. S. Karimi, 177-200. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, S. 2005. EPP and semantically vacuous scrambling. The Free Word Order Phenomenon, eds. J. Sabel and M. Saito, 181-220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto. 2004. Three pieces of acquisition evidence for thev-VP frame. Nanzan Linguistics 1: 1-19. The Nanzan Center for Linguistics.
Nemoto, N. 1993. Chains and Case positions: A study from scrambling in Japanese.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Saito, M. 2001. Movement and q-roles: A case study with resultatives. Proceedingsof the Second Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, ed. Y. Otsu, 35-60. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo.
Saito, M. 2005. Further notes on the interpretation of scrambling chains. The Free
Word Order Phenomenon, eds. J. Sabel and M. Saito, 335-376. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Tada, H. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Yamashita, H. 2001. EPP and the ordering effects on interpretation: A preliminary
study. Nanzan Studies in Japanese Language Education 8: 300-308.