NOTES ON THE REFERENTIAL TRANSPARENCY OF PERCEPTION
AND FACTIVE VERB COMPLEMENTS*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Referential opacity of the complements of verbs of ‘propositional attitude’ has been amajor research topic since Frege (1892). While (1a) implies the existence of a unicorn,(1b) does not.
(1) a. Mary saw a unicorn
b. John said/thought that Mary saw a unicorn
At the same time, it is known that some clausal complements are referentially transparent.
Higginbotham (1983) discusses small clause complements of perception and causative
verbs, as in (2), and attributes the referential transparency to the interpretation of thosecomplements as indefinite descriptions of events.
(2) a. Mary saw John hit a unicorn
b. Mary made John hit a unicorn
Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) examine the properties of factive verb complements,
including their referential transparency. Representative examples are provided in (3).
(3) a. John regrets that he hit a unicorn
b. Mary forgot that she hit a unicorn
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the referential transparency of perception andfactive verb complements in the light of some relevant Japanese data. Japanese employs
two distinct complementizers, to and no, for what appears to be propositional complements.
As shown in detail in Saito (2012), to heads the CP complements of verbs of saying and＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿* This is a revised version of the paper presented at the International Conference on Generative
Linguistics and Philosophy, held at the University of Frankfurt in honor of Günther Grewendorf
on the occasion of his retirement (June 27-29, 2014). I benefitted from discussions with many
people, including Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Bošković, Jon Gajewski, Günther Grewendorf andLuigi Rizzi. I learned about the death of James Higginbotham, a teacher and a friend since 1980,
just when I was working on the material in Sections 3 and 4. It should be obvious that it was
inspired by his work and teaching. The research reported here was supported in part by the
Nanzan University Pache Research Subsidy I-A-2 (2014).
Nanzan Linguistics 10, 21-42© 2015 Mamoru Saito

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

thinking whereas no heads complements that are interpreted as events, states or actions.
This distinction allows us to draw a number of conclusions on the semantics of clausal
complements and their referential opacity and transparency. For example, although
perception verbs and factive verbs have been analyzed independently with respect to thereferential transparency of their complements, the Japanese counterparts of (2a) and (3)both contain CP complements headed by no. This suggests that they should be analyzed in
the same way. I argue in this paper that Higginbotham’s (1983) individual event analysis
of perception verb complements should be extended to factive verb complements.
In the following section, I survey the complementizer system of Japanese and showthat the distributions of to and no provide direct evidence for Davidson’s (1967, 1968-69)
theory, which assumes ‘events’ and ‘utterances’ to be fundamental concepts in semantic
representation. In Section 3, I go over Higginbotham’s (1983) individual event analysis
of perception verb complements and apply the analysis to the corresponding Japaneseexamples. I show that the Japanese examples provide evidence for the analysis and thatthe analysis should be extended to finite CPs. In Section 4, I turn to factive verb
complements. I first argue that the individual event analysis should be extended to them.
Then, I suggest that the differences between the complements of perception verbs andfactive verbs are due to independent factors. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Types of Clausal Complements in Japanese: Evidence for Davidsonian Semantics
There are three complementizers, no, ka, and to, in Japanese, as shown in (4)-(6).
(4) Taroo-wa [CP Ziroo-ni
atta no]-okookaisiteiru-TOP-DAT met no-ACC regret‘Taroo regrets that he met Ziroo’(5) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
dare-niatta ka] tazuneta-TOP-NOM who-DAT met ka inquired‘Taroo asked who Hanako met’(6) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
Ziroo-niatta to] omotteiru
-TOP
-NOM
-DAT met to think‘Taroo thinks that Hanako met Ziroo’
Ka, as instantiated in (5), is employed for questions. For the other two, I argued in Saito(2012) that CPs headed by no are interpreted as descriptions of events, states or actions
whereas to embeds paraphrases of direct discourse in the sense of Plann (1982). In thissection, I briefly go over the properties of these complementizers and point out the initial
implications for the analysis of clausal complements. I show that the distinction in
distribution between no and to provides clear evidence for Davidson’s (1967, 1968-69)
22

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)

proposal that ‘events’ and ‘utterances’ play important roles in semantic analysis.
Let us start with the examination of to. To can be a marker of direct quotation as in (7)but can also embed indirect discourse as in (8).
(7) Hanako-ga, “Watasi-wa tensai da,” to itta /omotta (koto)-NOM I-TOP
genius be to said/thought fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought, “I’m a genius”’(8) Hanako-ga[zibun-ga tensai da to] itta /omotta (koto)-NOM self-NOM genius be to said/thought fact‘(the fact that) Hanako said/thought that she is an genius’
To as in (8) has been widely considered the Japanese counterpart of the English
complementizer that because it appears in the CP complements of typical bridge verbs
such as iw ‘say’ and omow ‘think’. However, there are many notable differences between
to and that. For example, to can embed questions as in (9).
(9) Taroo-wa Hanako-ni [CP [CP zibun-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita ka] to] tazuneta
-TOP
-DAT
self-GEN sister-NOM there-at was ka to inquired‘Taroo asked Hanako whether his sister was there’
Examples like (9) indicate that to is more similar to the Spanish que, discussed in
Plann (1982) and Rivero (1994). Plann points out that que, unlike that, can embed
questions. Her examples are shown in (10).
(10) a. Te preguntan que para qué quieres
el préstamo
you ask(3pl.) that for what want(2sg.) the loan
‘They ask you what you want the loan for’b. Pensó
que cuáles
seríanadecuados
thought(3sg.) that which ones would be appropriate‘He wondered which ones would be appropriate’c. Sabíaque corría
knew(3sg.) that run(3sg.)‘He knew that he was running’
Questions are embedded under que in (10a-b) whereas que embeds a ‘propositional
complement’ in (10c). Plann goes on to show that the matrix verbs that allow que toembed questions are not those that select questions but instead verbs of saying andthinking, that is, verbs that can co-occur with direct quotation. Thus, que is disallowed23

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

with the matrix verbs in (11).
(11) Yasupieron/entendieron/recordaron(*que) por qué loalready found out(3pl.)/understood(3pl.)/remember(3pl.) that whyit
habíashecho
had(2sg.) done
‘They already found out/understood/remembered why you had done it’
Given this, Plann proposes that que is ambiguous. It embeds paraphrases of direct
discourse in (10a-b) and heads a ‘propositional complement’ in (10c).
If que can embed paraphrases of direct discourse, then it is predicted that it can takevarious kinds of sentences as its complements. Rivero (1994) points out that theprediction is indeed borne out. In her example (12a), an imperative sentence is embedded
under que.
(12) a. Dijo
que a no molestarlesaid (3sg.) que to not bother-him‘He said not to bother him’b. Dijo,“A no molestarme!”
said (3sg.) to not bother-me‘He said, “Don’t bother me!” ’(12b) contains a direct quotation and the embedded object clitic is first person. In (12a),que embeds an imperative sentence with a third person object clitic.
The Japanese to provides explicit evidence for Plann’s dual analysis of que. First, it
embeds various kinds of sentences as shown in (13).
(13) a. Hanako-wa Taroo-ni [CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
iro to] meizita-TOP-DAT she-GEN house-at be to ordered‘Hanako ordered Taroo to be at her house’b. Hanako-wa Taroo-o[CP kanozyo-no ie-ni
ikooto] sasotta-TOP-ACC she-GEN house-to go-let’s to invited‘Hanako invited Taroo to go to her house’
The embedded sentence in (13a) is an imperative and that in (13b) expresses an invitation.
Secondly, while que is ambiguous, to is specialized for embedding paraphrases of direct
discourse. (14) is a partial list of matrix verbs that select to.

24

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)(14) Japanese verbs that select to：omou ‘think’, kangaeru ‘consider’, sinziru ‘believe’,iu ‘say’, sakebu ‘scream’, syutyoosuru ‘claim, insist’, tazuneru ‘inquire’, kitaisuru‘expect, hope’, kakuninsuru ‘confirm’, kanziru ‘feel’ (all in non-past tense)
These are all verbs of saying and thinking, and are compatible with direct quotation. (10c)shows that que can head a ‘propositional complement’. The complementizer no appears in
the Japanese counterpart of the example, as shown in (15).
(15) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
kare-no ie-ni
kuru no]-ositteita-TOP-NOM he-GEN house-to come no-ACC knew
‘Taroo knew that Hanako was coming to his house’
Then, the counterparts of the two que’s are distinguished phonetically in Japanese.
The matrix predicates that select no are listed in (16).
(16) Japanese predicates that select no : wasureru ‘forget’, kookaisuru ‘regret’, miru
‘see’, matu ‘wait’, tamerau ‘hesitate’, kyohisuru ‘refuse’, ukeireru ‘accept’,kitaisuru ‘expect, hope’, kakuninsuru ‘confirm’, kanziru ‘feel’ (all in non-past tense)
akiraka-da ‘clear-is’, kanoo-da ‘possible-is’, kantan-da ‘easy-is’, muzukasii‘difficult-is’, taihen-da ‘big deal-is’ (all in non-past tense)
Those in the last two lines select no-headed CPs as subjects. The list shows that CPs
headed by no are interpreted as descriptions of events, states or actions. For example,
what one forgets is a past event/state or to perform an action. What one regrets is a past
event or action. And what one waits for is a future event or state.
The difference in distribution between to and no indicates that ‘paraphrases of direct
discourse’ and ‘descriptions of events, states and actions’ are clearly distinguished inlanguage. This is not obvious with the English examples in (17) but the distinction can beobserved in the Japanese examples in (18).
(17) a. John thinks [CP that his sister went in London]b. John forgot [CP that his sister went in London](18) a. Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga Rondon-ni itta to] omotteiru-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM London-in went to think‘Taroo thinks that his sister went in London’b. Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga Rondon-ni itta no]-o wasurete ita-TOP he-GEN sister-NOM London-in went no-ACC forgot‘Taroo forgot that his sister went in London’25

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

One semantic analysis that makes this distinction is Davidson’s (1967, 1968-69). First,
he assigns the semantic representation in (19b) to the event sentence in (19a). 1(19) a. Mary opened the door with the keyb. ∃e [opened (Mary, the door, e) & with (e, the key)]
Among the arguments for (19b) is that it enables us to capture the inference from (19a) to‘Mary opened the door.’ On the other hand, it is proposed in Davidson (1968-69) that
sentences with verbs of propositional attitude have semantic representations that include‘utterances’. An example is shown in (20).
(20) a. Galileo said that the Earth moves
b. ∃u [said (Galileo, u) & SS (u, that)]] [The Earth moves](20b) states roughly that Galileo made the utterance u and u has the ‘same-saying relation’with ‘that’, where the content of ‘that’ is that the Earth moves. Thus, events andutterances occur as individuals in semantic representations.
The distinction between no-headed CPs and to-headed CPs in Japanese fits very wellwith Davidson’s proposals. The former are interpreted as descriptions of events as in(19b). I will elaborate on this in the subsequent sections. The latter, on the other hand,
embed sentences that are in the ‘same-saying relation’ with direct quotations. The‘same-saying relation’ in fact seems identical to Plann’s (1982) ‘paraphrase’. It is alreadypointed out in Lahiri (1991) that the distribution of que provides strong support forDavidson’s analysis of sentences with propositional attitude verbs. The analysis readily
accommodates examples where que takes question complements, for example. This is
illustrated with a Japanese example with to in (21).
(21) a. Taroo-wa [CP [CP dare-ga
waratta ka] to] kiita /itta-TOP
who-NOM laughed ka to asked/said‘Lit. Taroo asked/said that who laughed’
b. ∃u [asked/said (Taroo, u) & SS (u, that)]. [Who laughed?]
No-headed CPs and to-headed CPs are not only selected by different matrix verbs but
also occupy different positions in the hierarchy of complementizers. An embedded clausein Japanese can contain all three of the complementizers as shown in (22).

1Tense is ignored in (19b) and subsequent semantic representations in this section. ‘e’ stands foran event in Davidson’s (1967) analysis, but I assume that sentences expressing states have similar
representations. (ia) then is interpreted as in (ib).
(i) a. John is tallb. ∃s [tall (John, s)]26

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)(22) Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (no) ka (to)] tazuneta-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no ka to inquired‘Taroo asked whether his sister was there’
As no and to are optional, there are three possibilities for the complementizer sequence inthe embedded clause; no-ka, ka-to and no-ka-to. These are in fact the only possible
sequences of complementizers. This indicates that no, ka and to are hierarchically ordered
as in (23).
(23) [CP [CP [CP [TP ... ] no] ka] to]
In Saito (2012), I argued that thematic topics are not allowed within no-headed CPs but
can appear recursively within CPs headed by ka or to. Then, adopting the proposal of
Hiraiwa and Ishihara (2002) and Matsumoto (2010) that no is a Finite head, I concluded
that the cartographic structure of the Japanese right periphery is as in (24).
(24) [CP [CP [CP [CP [TP ... ] Finite (no)] Topic*] Force (ka)] Report (to)]This is quite similar to the structure of the left periphery proposed by Rizzi (1997), shownin (25), and hence, suggests the universal nature of the clausal periphery.
(25) [CP Force [CP Topic* [CP Focus [CP Topic* [CP Finite [TP ...]]]]]]The only differences are that (24) lacks the focus head but has the additional Report head.2
But the hierarchy in (23) itself demands an explanation. Further, (23) allows thesequence no-to but it is illicit as shown in (26).
(26) Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita (*no) to]] minna-ni itta
-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no to all-DAT said
‘Taroo said to everyone that his sister was there’
The semantic distinction between to-headed CP and no-headed CPs illustrated above leads
an explanation for the hierarchy and also accounts for the exception in (26). First, thesequence no-ka should be allowed as long as ka forms a question with a sentence that hasa truth value. Karttunen (1977), for example, builds on Hamblin (1973) and proposes thata question refers to the set of true propositions that constitute answers to the question.
This implies that questions are formed on sentences with truth values. Let us take theconcrete example in (27).
(27) a. John laughed ... ∃e [laughed (John, e)]b. Who laughed2‘Report’ is the term Lahiri (1991) uses for the que that embeds paraphrases of direct discourse.

27

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015c. {∃e [laughed (John, e)], ∃e [laughed (Mary, e)]}The semantic representation of ‘John laughed’ is shown in (27a). (27b), according to
Karttunen, refers to a set of true propositions. If John and Mary laughed, then it is the setof propositions expressed by ‘John laughed’ and ‘Mary laughed’. The set will be as in(27c) if Davidsonian semantic representations are substituted for ‘propositions’. Details
aside, it should be clear that a question makes sense only if it is formed on a sentence thathas a truth value (yes/no question) or on a clause that yields a sentence with a truth value
when a referring term is substituted for the wh-phrase (wh-questions). As a description ofan event as in (27a) has a truth value, it should be possible to form questions on no-headedCPs.
The ka-to sequence is more straightforward. It should be possible because to embeds aparaphrase of direct discourse and the paraphrased direct discourse can be a question, as
discussed above. Let us then turn to the illicit sequences, to-ka, to-no, ka-no, and no-to.
To-headed CP express paraphrases of direct discourse, and are not descriptions of states ofaffairs. It is reasonable to assume, then, that they are not assigned truth values.3 Given this,
it follows that the to-ka sequence is disallowed because questions are formed on sentenceswith truth values as just discussed. The to-no and ka-no sequences are ruled out because
paraphrases of direct discourse and questions are not descriptions of events. Finally, theno-to sequence is illicit because no-headed CPs are interpreted as descriptions of eventsand not as paraphrases of direct discourse.
The brief account for the hierarchy in (23) and the illicitness of the no-to sequence justpresented clearly needs to be made more precise. But it should be clear that theco-occurrence restrictions on the Japanese complementizers make sense only if no-headed
CPs and to-headed CPs are semantically distinguished. The desired distinction obtains if
the former are descriptions of events whereas the latter present paraphrases of direct
discourse.
3. No-headed CPs as Perception Verb Complements
The distributions of to and no in Japanese enable us to reexamine some traditional
issues in semantics from a new perspective. For example, let us compare the Japaneseexamples in (29) with the English examples in (28).
(28) a. John thought that a unicorn would appear
b. John feared that a unicorn would appear

3

This does not mean that utterances and their paraphrases lack internal structure. Larson andLudlow (1993), for example, propose that they refer to interpreted logical forms that specify
co-reference and binding relations in addition to quantifier scopes.

28

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)(29) a. Taroo-wa [CP kirin-ga
arawareru to] omotta-TOP kirin-NOM appear
to thought‘Taroo thought that a kirin would appear’b. Taroo-wa [CP kirin-ga
arawareru no]-oosoreta-TOP kirin-NOM appear
no-ACC feared‘Taroo feared that a kirin would appear’
The matrix verbs in these examples are assumed to be verbs of propositional attitude, andtheir CP complements are referentially opaque. Thus, none of them entails the existenceof a unicorn or a kirin, a Chinese mythical animal. The identical syntactic forms of the CP
complements of (28a-b) suggest that these examples are to be analyzed in the same way.
But the CP complements in (29a-b) take different forms. According to the analysis
presented in the preceding section, the CP complement in (29a) expresses a paraphrase of
direct discourse whereas that in (29b) expresses a description of an event. Then, it seems
that their referential opacity demands distinct analysis, and this may well be carried overto the analysis of (28a-b).
A similar point can be made on (30a-b), but in the opposite direction.
(30) a. Mary saw a unicorn kick Billb. Mary regrets that she kicked a unicorn
The complements (30a) and (30b) are both referentially transparent, and the examples
both entail the existence of a unicorn. Yet, as far as I know, their referential transparency
has been treated separately because the perception verb complement in (30a) is a small
clause whereas the factive verb regret in (30b) takes a finite CP complement. However,(31) shows that complements of perception and factive verbs have identical syntactic
forms in Japanese.
(31) a. Hanako-wa [CP kirin-ga
Ziroo-okeru no]-o
mita
-TOP
kirin-NOM-ACC kick no-ACC saw‘Hanako saw a kirin kick Ziroo’
b. Hanako-wa [CP pro kirin-oketta no]-o kookaisite iru-TOPkirin-ACC kicked no-ACC regret‘Hanako regrets that she kicked a unicorn’Then, it is quite possible that the referential transparency of the complement arises in thesame way in (31a-b) as well as in (30a-b).
In this section and the next, I pursue the second point by presenting a preliminary
analysis of perception and factive verb complements in Japanese. In this section, I take29

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

Higginbotham’s (1983) analysis of perception verb complements in English as the starting
point and show that it successfully explains the properties of their Japanese counterparts.
Higginbotham (1983), in reply to Barwise’s (1981) argument for situation semantics,
presents an extensional analysis for perception verb complements. The analysis directly
incorporates Davidson’s (1967) event semantics introduced above and proposes thatperception verb complements are indefinite descriptions of events, as illustrated in (32).
(32) a. John saw Mary hit Billb. John sees [an e: hit (Mary, Bill, e)] (at some time t in the past)c. [∃e: hit (Mary, Bill, e)] John sees e (at some time t in the past)
The small clause complement expresses an indefinite event as in (32b). As see, as opposed
to seek, for example, is an extensional verb as shown in (33), the indefinite object takes
scope over the main sentence as in (32c).
(33) a. John saw a unicorn
b. John seeks a unicorn
The referential transparency of the small clause complement follows as the semantic
representation for (30a) in (34a), for example, entails (34b).
(34) a. [∃e: [∃x: x a unicorn] hit (x, Bill, e)] Mary sees e (at some time t in the past)b. [∃e] [∃x: x a unicorn] hit (x, Bill, e) (at some time t in the past)
Higginbotham goes on to point out that the analysis yields the other properties ofperception verb complements Barwise (1981) lists. A couple of those properties areshown below.
(A) If John sees SC, then S, where SC is quantifier-free and S is the present-tense fullclause corresponding to SC (small clause).
(B) Existential quantifiers taking scope over the small clause are exportable. In
particular, all conditionals of the sort of (i) is true.
(i) If John sees somebody leave, then there is somebody whom John sees leave.
(A) is straightforward because (32c), repeated as (35a), for example, entails (35b).
(35) a. [∃e: hit (Mary, Bill, e)] John sees e (at some time t in the past)b. [∃e] hit (Mary, Bill, e) (at some time t in the past)
Higginbotham points out further that (A) holds even when SC contains a quantifier, as
long as the quantifier is monotone increasing.4 Thus, (36) is true.
4

A quantifier Q is monotone increasing if [Qx: A(x)] B(x)  [Qx: A(x)] C(x), where theextension of B(x) is contained in the extension of C(x).

30Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)(36) If John saw somebody leave, then somebody left
He shows that this also follows from his individual event analysis as (37a) entails (37b).
(37) a. [∃e: [∃x: x a person] leave (x, e)] John sees e (at some time t in the past)b. [∃e] [∃x: x a person] leave (x, e) (at some time t in the past)(B) is straightforward as well for the example because (38) is a logical consequence of(37a).
(38) [∃x: x a person] [∃e: leave (x, e)] John sees e (at some time t in the past)
Perception verb complements in Japanese fit well with Higginbotham’s analysis. They
uniformly take no-headed CPs as complements, as illustrated in (39).
(39) a. Hanako-wa [CP kirin-ga
Ziroo-okeru no]-omita (= (31a))-TOPkirin-NOM-ACC kick no-ACC saw‘Hanako saw a kirin kick Ziroo’
b. *Hanako-wa [CP kirin-ga
Ziroo-okeru to] mita-TOPkirin-NOM-ACC kick to saw
According to the analysis presented in the preceding section, no-headed CPs express
descriptions of events. Then, Japanese provides explicit syntactic evidence for theindividual event analysis. The semantic representation of (39a) is as in (40).
(40) [∃e: [∃x: x a kirin] kick (x, Ziroo, e)] Hanako sees e (at some time t in the past)
As noted above, the CP complement in (39a) is referentially transparent. Thus, thesentence entails that there is a kirin. Examples like (39a) also exhibit the properties in (A)and (B). (39a) entails that a kirin kicked Ziroo and that there is a kirin such that Hanako
saw it kick Ziroo. All these follow from the individual event analysis as Higginbotham
demonstrated for the English examples.
As Higginbotham (1983) notes, one of the key ideas behind the individual event
analysis is that perception verb complements are interpreted as noun phrases (that is, as
indefinite descriptions of events) although they are syntactically small clauses. It is worth
mentioning in relation to this that perception verb complements, and more generally
no-headed CP arguments, in Japanese require Case, as can be seen in (39a). 5 Thus,
perception verb complements in the language pattern with noun phrases in the syntax aswell.
5For this reason, no is often glossed as a “nominalizer.” It is obviously nominal in nature in thiscontext. But I am not concerned here with its precise categorial status, and continue to call it acomplementizer.

31

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

One context in which a no-headed CP does not take Case is when it is embedded underthe question C, ka, as in (42).
(42) Taroo-wa [CP kare-no imooto-ga soko-ni ita no ka] tazuneta (cf. (22))-TOP
he-GEN sister-NOM there-in was no ka inquired‘Taroo asked whether his sister was there’
If the analysis presented in the preceding section is correct, the no-headed CP is asentence with a truth value in this case. I do not have a concrete proposal at this point on
this dual interpretation of no-headed CPs. I tentatively assume that no is interpreted
mainly as an event and takes an event sentence as its restriction as in (43).
(43) [e: ϕ (e)]Then, in sentential context, a no-headed CP is interpreted as a clause with existential
quantification as in (44a), which is equivalent to (44b).
(44) a. [∃e: ϕ (e)] e = eb. [∃e] ϕ (e)I leave it for future research to make this more precise and principled.
Returning to Higginbotham’s analysis, it is also possible to make a small refinementon the basis of Japanese examples. He proposes that perception verb complements are
subject to the individual event analysis precisely because they are small clauses. He points
out in support of this that the small clause complements of causative verbs have the same
properties. A relevant example is shown in (45).
(45) a. John made somebody leaveb. [∃e: [∃x: x a person] leave (x, e)] John causes e (at some time t in the past)
Causative verb complements share all the properties of perception verb complements
discussed above, and this follows from the representation in (41b).
The Japanese causative verb (s)ase also takes small clause complements although it isrealized as a verbal suffix on the surface as (46) shows.
(46) Hanako-ga
Taroo-ozibun-no heya-de benkyoos-ase-ta-NOM-ACC self-GEN room-in study-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo study in her/his room’
Since Kuroda (1965), it is widely accepted that (s)ase takes a clausal complement. In (46),the subject-oriented reflexive zibun can take either Hanako or Taroo as its antecedent.
This shows that the latter is a subject of the embedded clause at the appropriate level of32

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)

representation. The absence of Condition (B) effect in (47) leads to the same conclusion,as Oshima (1979) points out.
(47) Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni
kanozyo-o suisens-ase-ta-NOM-DAT she-ACC recommend-make-Past‘Hanako made Taroo recommend her’
But the embedded clause in (47) is headed by suisens ‘recommend’ and lacks tense. It is
assumed in more recent literature, such as Murasugi and Hashimoto (2004), that (s)ase
takes a vP, that is, a small clause, as its complement. Then, Japanese causative sentences,which share the properties of their English counterparts, are consistent with
Higginbotham’s proposal that the individual event analysis applies to small clauses.
However, perception verb complements in Japanese, examined above, are finite CPs.
An additional example is provided in (48).
(48) Taroo-wa [CP kirin-ga
heya-ni hair-u/hait-ta
no]-o
mita
-TOP
kirin-NOM room-to enter-Pres/enter-Past no-ACC saw‘Taroo saw a kirin enter the room’
In this example, the embedded verb can appear with either the non-past suffix -ru or the
past suffix -ta. There is only a slight difference in meaning. The past suffix is interpreted
more like an aspect in this context and the sentence with -ta is more accurately translated
as ‘Taroo saw a kirin complete its entrance into the room’. If the analysis in the preceding
section is on the right track, the example shows that a finite CP is also subject to theindividual event analysis.
This opens the possibility to apply the analysis to factive verb complements as in(49).
(49) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
Rondon-ni i-runo]-owasurete ita-TOP-NOM London-in be-Pres no-ACC forgot‘Taroo forgot that Hanako was in London’Factive verbs also uniformly take no-headed CP complements. This implies that theircomplements are interpreted as description of events, states or actions. Then, it is only
natural to apply the individual event analysis to them. I will pursue this in the following
section.

33

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

4. An Individual Event Analysis of Factive Verb Complements
Kuno (1973), in his discussion of no and to, states that no-headed CPs, as opposed toto-headed CPs, carry factive presuppositions. The examples in (50) are consistent with
this.
(50) a. Taroo-wa [CP pro soko-ni itta no]-okookaisite iru-TOPthere-to went no-ACC regret‘Taroo regrets that he went there’
b. Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
soko-ni itta to] omotte iru-TOP-NOM there-to went to think‘Taroo thinks that Hanako went there’
Only (50a) presupposes the truth of the complement sentence. However, the list of theverbs that select no-headed CPs in (16), repeated below as (51), shows that thegeneralization cannot be maintained.
(51) Japanese predicates that select no : wasureru ‘forget’, kookaisuru ‘regret’, miru
‘see’, matu ‘wait’, tamerau ‘hesitate’, kyohisuru ‘refuse’, ukeireru ‘accept’,kitaisuru ‘expect, hope’, kakuninsuru ‘confirm’, kanziru ‘feel’ (all in non-past tense)
akiraka-da ‘clear-is’, kanoo-da ‘possible-is’, kantan-da ‘easy-is’, muzukasii‘difficult-is’, taihen-da ‘big deal-is’ (all in non-past tense)
Kitaisuru ‘expect, hope’, for example, is clearly not a factive verb. The generalization,
instead, seems to be that factive verbs, such as wasureru ‘forget’ and kookaisuru ‘regret’,
select no-headed CPs and not to-headed CPs. They cannot select to-headed CPs because
what one regrets, for example, is not an utterance but an event or a state. 6 In this section, I
apply the individual event analysis to factive verb complements, and examine how theirproperties can be explained.
First, it is known that factive verb complements share all the properties of the
6

The fact that factive verbs select no-headed CPs provide support for Haegeman’s (2006)
proposal that factive verb complements are smaller than CP complements of verbs ofpropositional attitude and are FiniteP’s.
It should be noted here that a to-headed CP can co-occur with factive verbs as adverbial clauses
as in (i).
(i) Taroo-wa [CP zibun-ga baka datta to] [CP pro soko-ni itta no]-okookaisite iru-TOP self-NOM fool was tothere-to went no-ACC regret‘Taroo regrets that he went there, (thinking/saying) that he was a fool’
In cases like these, it is still the no-headed CP that the matrix verb selects.

34Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)

perception verb complements discussed above. Let us consider the example in (52).
(52) Hanako-wa [CP pro kirin-oketta no]-okookaisite iru-TOPkirin-ACC kicked no-ACC regret‘Hanako regrets that she kicked a kirin’
The CP complement is referentially transparent: (52) implies that a kirin exists. (52)entails that Hanako kicked a kirin and also that there is a kirin such that Hanako regrets
that she kicked it. These properties follow with the application of the individual event
analysis. The analysis assigns the representation in (53) to (52). 7(53) [∃e: [∃x: x a kirin] kicked (Hanako, x, e)] Hanako regrets e(53) entails (54a-c).
(54) a. [∃x] x is a kirinb. [∃e] [∃x: x a kirin] kick (Hanako, x, e)c. [∃x: x a kirin] [∃e: kick (Hanako, x, e)] Hanako regrets eThus, the individual event analysis can be extended to factive verb complements.
There are however notable differences between the complements of perception verbs
and factive verbs. First, it is widely accepted since Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970) thatfactive verbs accompany factive presuppositions. This was discussed in relation to Kuno’s(1973) analysis of the contrast in (50). Relevant English examples are given in (55).
(55) a. John forgot that Mary bit a unicorn
b. Mary regrets that she bit a unicorn
These sentences presuppose that Mary bit a unicorn. On the other hand, there is no suchpresupposition in the examples in (56) with perception and causative verbs.
(56) a. John saw Mary bite a unicorn
b. John made Mary bite a unicorn
However, it is not clear that this difference is problematic for a uniform semantic
analysis of the complements in (55) and (56). Simons (2007) argues that factive
presupposition does not demand a semantic account but arises with the information
structure. In particular, she points out that there is no such presupposition when a factive
7

The factive verb complements may express definite descriptions, rather than indefinite
descriptions, of events. In this case, (53) should be more accurately as in (i).
(i) [ιe: [∃x: x a kirin] kicked (Hanako, x, e)] Hanako regrets e
This, however, does not affect the discussion that follows, as far as I can see.

35

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015verb functions as a kind of evidential. One of her examples is shown in (57).
(57) A. Where did Louise go last week?
B. a. Henry discovered that she had a job interview at Princeton.
b. Henry learned that she had a job interview at Princeton.
c. Henry found out that she had a job interview at Princeton.
In (57B), the truth of the complement clause is not presupposed. The clause provides new
information while the matrix part specifies the source of the information. On the basis ofdetailed examination of examples of this kind, Simons concludes that presupposition isrelated to information structure rather than semantics. She notes that a factive sentenceentails the truth of the embedded clause even when the matrix verb is used evidentially.
Thus, (58Bb) is quite odd even as a response to (58A).
(58) A. Which course did Louise fail?
B. a. Henry, the idiot, discovered that she failed calculus.
b. #Henry, entirely incorrectly, realized that she failed calculus.
The entailment relation, then, is to be captured in the semantics, and the individual event
analysis achieves this.
The second difference between perception and factive verbs has to do with thegenerality of the entailment relation just discussed. Recall Higginbotham’s analysis of theentailment in (36), repeated below in (59).
(59) If John saw somebody leave, then somebody left
The point was that this kind of entailment holds even when the small clause complementof a perception verb contains a quantifier as long as the quantifier is monotone increasing.
The entailment fails with non-monotone increasing quantifiers as illustrated in (60).
(60) If John saw nobody leave, then nobody left
On the other hand, a sentence with a factive verb implies the truth of its complement
without exception. Thus, (61) hold.
(61) If Mary regrets that nobody went to London, then nobody went to London
This difference cannot be attributed to the small clause status of perception verb
complements. Japanese perception verbs take finite CP complements and yet, theentailment fails with non-monotone increasing quantifiers. This is illustrated in (62) with
the quantifier, ‘exactly 10 students’.

36Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)(62) a. Hanako-wa [CP gakusei-ga
tyoodo zyuu-nin hikooki-ni noru no]-omita-TOP student-NOM exactly ten-person plane-on board no-ACC saw‘Hanako saw exactly ten students board the plane’b. Gakusei-ga tyoodo zyuu-nin hikooki-ni notta
student-NOM exactly ten-person plane-on boarded‘Exactly ten students boarded the plane’(62a) does not entail (62b).
Then, does this difference pose a problem for the unified individual event analysis of
the complements of perception verbs and factive verbs? I would like to suggest that theanswer is negative. I illustrate the point by discussing the difference in the ways the tenseof the embedded clause is interpreted in the two types of sentences. A perception verb
individualizes events more finely along the time dimension. As is briefly discussed below,
it seems to individualize events in other dimensions as well.
First, in a sentence with the perception verb see, for example, the matrix event ofseeing and the event the embedded clause expresses must take place simultaneously. Thisis encoded in the syntax in English. The embedded clause, being a small clause, lacks
tense. Thus, (63a) is interpreted as (63b) with a specific time t in the past.
(63) a. John saw Mary leaveb. [∃e: leave (Mary, e)] John sees e (at some time t in the past)
This is true for Japanese as well although perception verb complements accompany tense.
Let us consider again (48), repeated below in (64).
(64) Taroo-wa [CP kirin-ga
heya-ni hair-u/hait-ta
no]-o
mita
-TOP
kirin-NOM room-to enter-Pres/enter-Past no-ACC saw‘Taroo saw a kirin enter the room’
With the non-past -(r)u, a kirin entering the room and Taroo seeing the event must takeplace simultaneously. And this is true with the past -ta as well. As noted above, -ta, in thiscontext, is interpreted as a perfective aspect, and the sentence roughly means that Taroo
saw a kirin complete its entrance into the room. The event of a kirin completing its action
and Taroo seeing the event are simultaneous.
Then, what (65a) and its Japanese counterpart entail must be (65b).
(65) a. John saw exactly ten students board the planeb. Exactly ten students boarded the plane at the time John saw exactly ten studentsboard the plane37

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

c. Exactly ten students boarded the plane(65b) is not equivalent to the tense-wise more general sentence in (65c). In the case ofJapanese, it is possible to specify the time of the perceived event as in (66).
(66) Hanako-wa [CP gakusei-ga
sono toki tyoodo zyuu-nin hikooki-ni noru
-TOP student-NOM that time exactly ten-person plane-on boardno]-o mita
no-ACC saw‘Lit. Hanako saw [exactly ten students board the plane at that time]’(66) entails that exactly ten students boarded the plane at that time.8
On the other hand, the tense of the embedded clause need not coincide with the tenseof the matrix clause in factive sentences. The point is obvious with the simple examples in(67).
(67) a. John regrets that he boarded the planeb. Taroo-wa [CP pro hikooki-ni nottano]-okookaisite iru-TOPplane-on boarded no-ACC regret‘Taroo regrets that he boarded the plane’
These examples are interpreted as in (68).
(68) [∃e: board (John, the plane, e) (at some t in the past)] John regrets e (at the speech
time)
Similarly, (69a) with the non-monotone increasing only ten and its Japanese counterpart
are interpreted as in (69b).
(69) a. John regrets that only ten students boarded the planeb. [∃e: [only10x: x a student] board (x, the plane, e) (at some t in the past)] John
regrets e (at the speech time)(69b) entails that only ten students boarded the plane. As expected, if at that time is added
to the complement of (69) as in (70a), it only entails (70b) and not (70c).
(70) a. John regrets that only ten students boarded the plane at that time
8

Note that this complication does not affect monotone increasing quantifiers. (ia) entails (ib)when Q is monotone increasing.
(i) a. [Qx: A(x)] B(x) at a specific time t in the past.
b. [Qx: A(x)] B(x) at some time in the past.

38

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)

b. Only ten students boarded the plane at that timec. Only ten students boarded the plane
The analysis of the differences between the complements of perception verbs andfactive verbs need to be made more precise. What the discussion above suggests is that theevent that a perception verb complement expresses is individualized in relation to the timeof the matrix event, whereas the event (or state) that a factive verb complement expresses
is more general in this respect.9 Here, it is possible that the events of perception verb
complements can be individualized in other dimensions as well. For example, one may
raise doubts on the inference from (65a) to (65b) in the following situation. Suppose thatJohn is at the economy class boarding gate, and saw exactly ten students board the plane.
Suppose also that there were five students who boarded the same plane through thebusiness class boarding gate at the same time, and John did not see them board the plane.
In this situation, one may say that (65a) is true and (65b) is false. Then, the description of
the event must be made more specific (for example, by adding through the economy classgate) so that the entailment is maintained. The complexity with the individualization of
events is more evident in with causative sentences. (71a) does not entail (71b) or (71c).
(71) a. Mary made exactly ten students board the planeb. Exactly ten students boarded the planec. Exactly ten students boarded the plane at the time Mary made exactly ten studentsboard the plane
In the case of causatives, events seem to be individualized with respect to cause. Thus,
what (71a) implies, roughly, is that exactly ten students boarded the plane because of
Mary.
Also, the discussion above treated the perception verb complements in Japanese andEnglish in the same way. There are a few differences. For example, the small clausecomplement in English completely lacks tense, and hence, the matrix tense extends to it.
As the matrix event of seeing is instantaneous, (72) is odd unless Mary’s height fluctuates,
as Higginbotham points out.
(72) #John saw Mary tallOn the other hand, the Japanese counterpart of (72) is quite natural as shown in (73).
(73) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
se-ga
takai no]-o
mite, odoriota-TOP-NOM height-NOM tall no-ACC seeing surprised‘Lit. Taroo was surprised to see Hanako tall’9

In this sense, it makes sense to say that factive verb complements are factive whereas
perception verb complements are not. It is also understandable that Higginbotham presented theindividual event analysis for perception verb complements.

39

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

This must be because the embedded clause carries its own tense. All that is required is thatthe event (or state) that the embedded clause expresses occurs (or holds) when matrix
event takes place.
Nevertheless, the general point of the discussion, I hope, was clear. It suggests that
Higginbotham’s (1983) individual event analysis can be extended to finite CPs, inparticular, to factive verb complements. The differences between the complements ofperception verbs and factive verbs are likely to be due to independent factors. The factive
presupposition of the latter should be attributed to the information structure if Simons(2007) is correct. And the truth of a perception verb complement apparently fails to beentailed in some cases because a perception verb forces a finer individualization of theevent its complement expresses with respect to time and other dimensions.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, I discussed the distributions of the Japanese complementizers, no, ka
and to, and argued that the distinction between no and to, in particular, provides direct
evidence for Davidson’s (1967, 1968-69) theory of semantic representation. Then, I
presented an analysis for perception verb complements in Japanese, which are uniformly
finite CPs headed by no. I argued that they provide evidence for Higginbotham’s (1983)
individual event analysis and for the extension of the analysis from small clauses to finite
CPs. Finally, I suggested that the analysis should be applied to factive verb complements
as well, which are also finite CPs headed by no in Japanese.
The discussion in this paper, if it is on the right track, has a number of additional
implications for the analysis of English. I argued that the individual event analysis should
be extended to the finite CP complements of factive verbs in part because the Japanesecounterparts of those CPs are headed by no and express descriptions of events. The same
point can be made for non-finite CP complements as in (74).
(74) John waited for Mary to come
The Japanese counterpart of wait, mat, takes a CP complement headed by no, as shown in(75).
(75) Taroo-wa [CP Hanako-ga
kuru no]-o
matta
-TOP
-NOM come no-ACC waited‘Taroo waited for Hanako to come’Then, the individual event analysis should be extended to non-finite CPs as well. The
complement of wait is referentially opaque simply because wait is an intensional verb.

40

Notes on the Referential Transparency of Perception and Factive Verb Complements (M. Saito)

Also, according to the analysis suggested in this paper, the complements in (76a-b) are
interpreted differently although they look identical syntactically.
(76) a. John says that he went to London
b. John regrets that he went to London
The complement in (76a) expresses a paraphrase of direct discourse whereas that in (76b)expresses an event. Then, that in (76a) must be a Report head just like to in Japanese. This
raises the question why that differs from que in Spanish and to in Japanese, and cannot
embed a question, for example.
(77) *John asked that what Mary bought
There are a number of possibilities for this. For example, that as a Report head may selectFinite. Or it may consist of two features, [+Report] and [+Finite], and consequently, must
originate at Fin and move to Report. In the latter case, (77) may be ruled out as that moves
across a question C. I must leave the pursuit of these implications, as well as therefinement of the arguments presented in this paper, for future research.

References
Barwise, J. (1981) “Scenes and Other Situations,” Journal of Philosophy 78, 369-397.
Davidson, D. (1967) “The Logical Form of Action Sentences,” reprinted in D. Davidson, Essay on
Actions and Events, 1980, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 105-122.
Davidson, D. (1968-69) “On Saying That,” Synthese 19, 130-146.
Frege, G. (1892) “On Sense and Reference,” English translation in P. Geach and M. Black, eds.,
G. Frege, Philosophical Writings, 1952, Philosophical Library, New York, 56-78.
Haegeman, L. (2006) “Conditionals, Factives and the Left Periphery,” Lingua 116, 1651-1669.
Hamblin, C. L. (1973) “Questions in Montague English,” Foundations of Language 10, 41-53.
Higginbotham, J. (1983) “The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to
Situation Semantics,” Journal of Philosophy 80, 100-127.
Hiraiwa, K. and S. Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing and ‘no da’ Construction in
Japanese,” in T. Ionin, H. Ko and A. Nevins, eds., The Proceedings of Humit 2001 (MITWorking Papers in Linguistics 43), Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, 35-54.
Karttunen, L. (1977) “Syntax and Semantics of Questions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3-44.
Kiparsky, P. and C. Kiparsky (1970) “Fact,” in M. Bierwisch and K.E. Heidolph, eds., Progress in
Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, Mouton, The Hague, 143-173.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965) “Causative Forms in Japanese,” Foundations of Language 1, 30-50.
Lahiri, U. (1991) Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates that Embed Them, Ph.D. dissertation,MIT.
Larson, R. and P. Ludlow (1993) “Interpreted Logical Form,” Synthese 95, 305-355.

41

Nanzan Linguistics 10: Research Results and Activities 2013~2015

Matsumoto, E. (2010) “Quotation Expressions and Sentential Complementation in Japanese,” BA
Thesis, Nanzan University.
Murasugi, K. and T. Hashimoto (2004) “Three Pieces of Acquisition Evidence for the v-VP
Frame,” Nanzan Linguistics 1, 1-19.
Oshima, S. (1979) “Conditions on Rules: Anaphora in Japanese,” in G. Bedell, E. Kobayashi and
M. Muraki, eds., Explorations in Lnguistics: Papers in Honor of Kazuko Inoue, Kenkyusha,
Tokyo, 423-448.
Plann, S. (1982) “Indirect Questions in Spanish,” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 297-312.
Rivero, M.-L. (1994) “On Indirect Questions, Commands, and Spanish Quotative Que,”
Linguistic Inquiry 25, 547-554.
Rizzi, L. (1997) “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,” in L. Haegeman, ed., Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 281-337.
Saito, M. (2012) “Sentence Types and the Japanese Right Periphery," in G. Grewendorf and T. E.
Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 147-175.
Simons, M. (2007) “Observations on Embedding Verbs, Evidentiality, and Presupposition,”
Lingua 11, 1034-1056.

42