On 'Multiple Scrambling' in Japanese
Brian Agbayani, Chris Golston, and Toru Ishii
California State University, Fresno and Meiji University
It has been observed that if multiple constituents are scrambled out of an embedded clause,
the result is degraded (1a vs. 1b) (Saito 1985; Koizumi 2000):(1) a. Hawai-de1 John-ga [Kiyomi-ga t1 Masami-ni purezento-o katta to] omotteiru
Hawaii-in John-NOM Kiyomi-NOM Masami-DAT present-ACC bought C think(koto)(fact)‘John believes that Kiyomi bought a present for Masami in Hawaii.’b.??Purezento-o3 Masami-ni2 Hawai-de1 John-ga [Kiyomi-ga t1 t2 t3 katta to]present-ACC Masami-DAT Hawaii-in John-NOM Kiyomi-NOM
bought Comotteiru (koto)
think(fact)
But, as Koizumi and Fukui and Sakai (2006; 'F&S') observe, ‘multiple scrambling’ improves
significantly if the scrambled elements form a phonological phrase (2) (where phonologicalphrase is italicized):(2) Purezento-o Masami-ni Hawai-de John-ga [Kiyomi-ga katta to] omotteiru (koto)
Koizumi argues that such cases are derived by scrambling of the remnant VP whose head V has
been overtly raised. F&S argues against Koizumi, showing that it is possible to scramble aportion of an alleged VP as long as it forms a phonological phrase (3):(3) Masami-ni Hawai-de John-ga [Kiyomi-ga purezento-o katta to] omotteiru (koto)F&S propose that the elements are reanalyzed at PF by Phrase-Level Merger, and thenscrambling applies to this PF constituent. However, as F&S themselves admit, the notion ofPhrase-Level Merger is obscure. We explore a different possibility and propose the following: (i)if material can scramble syntactically, it does; (ii) if scrambling targets material that is not a
syntactic constituent, but is a prosodic constituent, then that material moves at PF (we call thismovement prosodic scrambling). We argue that the target prosodic constituent is a major phrase,
whose boundary is often marked by a pause/glottalization. The major phrase is also the domain
for downstep. We adopt Itô and Mester's (2007) idea that major phrases in Japanese arerecursive phonological phrases (ϕ's). In (1a), since Hawai-de 'Hawaii-in', being a syntactic
constituent, can scramble syntactically, it does. (1b) cannot be generated by the narrow syntax
because it does not involve movement of a syntactic constituent; neither can it be moved at PF
because the fronted material is not combined into a single prosodic constituent. (2) cannot bederived syntactically, but it can involve prosodic scrambling because the fronted material forms a
prosodic constituent by recursive embedding of the multiple ϕ's into a single ϕ (a major phase)(4):(4) ((Purezento-o)ϕ (Masami-ni)ϕ (Hawai-de)ϕ )ϕ John-ga [Kiyomi-ga katta to] omotteiru(koto)
Because such prosodic scrambling occurs after syntax (in the PF component), it is not subject tosyntactic conditions, and the scrambled material can only be interpreted in situ at LF.
This analysis is supported by the following facts. First, long-distance scrambling of a ‘true
adjunct’ results in complete ungrammaticality (5), which shows that a ‘true adjunct’ in the matrix
domain can only be associated with the matrix clause at LF:
1

(5)*[Riyuu-mo naku]i Mary-ga [John-ga ti sono setu-o sinziteiru to] omotteiru
reason-even without Mary-NOM John-NOM that theory-ACC believe C think(koto)(fact)‘Mary thinks that John believes that theory without any reason.’
When a ‘true adjunct’ is scrambled with another element with which it forms a major phrase byrecursive embedding of ϕ's, however, the result (6) becomes fine (Sohn 1994; Koizumi 2000):(6) ((Riyuu-mo naku)ϕ (sono setsu-o)ϕ )ϕ Mary-ga [John-ga sinziteiru to] omotteiru
reason-even without that theory-ACC Mary-NOM John-NOM believe C think(koto)(fact)
Since prosodic scrambling has no effect on LF, the scrambled ‘true adjunct’ in (6) can beproperly associated with the embedded clause. Second, Saito (1985) claims that there is a
syntactic constraint which bans scrambling of a nominative subject (7):(7)*?Sono ressya-gai John-ga [ti Tookyoo-ni tuita to] omotteiru (koto)that train-NOM John-NOM Tokyo-in arrived C think(fact)‘John thinks that that train has arrived in Tokyo.’When a nominative subject scrambles with another element and they form a major phrase,
however, the result (8) becomes fine:(8) ((Sono ressya-ga)ϕ (Tookyoo-ni)ϕ )ϕ John-ga [tuita to] omotteiru (koto)that train-NOM
Tokyo-inJohn-N arrived C think(fact)
Since prosodic scrambling takes place after syntax, it is not subject to the syntactic constraint on
scrambling of a nominative phrase. Finally, ‘normal’ long-distance scrambling is sensitive tosyntactic island constraints (9a, 10a) (Saito 1985). When multiple elements forming a majorphrase are fronted (9b, 10b), the acceptability improves significantly, since prosodic scramblingis not subject to syntactic island constraints:(9) a.*?Bill-nii Mary-ga [[ti sono hon-o watasi wasureita] hito]-osagasiteiru (koto)Bill-DAT Mary-NOM that book-ACC give forgot person-ACC look-for (fact)‘Mary is looking for the person who forgot to give that book to Bill.’b.?((Bill-ni)ϕ (sono hon-o)ϕ )ϕ Mary-ga [watasi wasureta] hito]-osagasiteiru (koto)(10) a.*?Bill-nii Mary-ga[John-ga ti sono tokei-oageta kara]okotteiru (koto)Bill-DAT Mary-NOM John-NOM that watch-ACC gave because is-angry (fact)‘Mary is angry because John gave that watch to Bill.’b.?((Bill-ni)ϕ (sono tokei-o)ϕ )ϕ Mary-ga [John-ga ageta kara] okotteiru (koto)2