In Günther Grewendorf, ed., Remnant Movement, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 221-256. (2015)

Remnant Movement, Radical Reconstruction, and Binding Relations*
Mamoru Saito

1. Introduction
Two major properties of Japanese scrambling are listed in (1).
(1) a. A remnant created by scrambling can never move.
b. A phrase preposed by scrambling is subject to radical (total) reconstruction.
(1a) was motivated initially by the fact that remnant movement of the form in (2) is always
illicit.
(2) *[β ... ti ...]j [ ... αi [ ... tj ... ] ... ], where α and β are preposed by scrambling.
In Saito (1985), I proposed to account for this in terms of Fiengo’s (1977) proper binding
condition, which requires that traces be bound. On the other hand, I argued in Saito (1989) for(1b), which implies that scrambling need not be represented at LF. If this is correct, (3a) canhave the LF in (3b) as if scrambling never applied.
(3) a. αi [ ... ti ... ], where α is preposed by scrambling.
b. [ ... α ... ]This raises questions on the proper binding analysis of (2) if the condition applies at LF. With
total reconstruction, the LF of (2) can be as in (4), where there is no trace and hence, clearlyno violation of the proper binding condition.
(4) [ ... [β ... α ... ] ... ]Given this situation, a number of alternative analyses for (2) have been proposed in the*This is a revised version of the paper presented at the Frankfurt Conference on Remnant Movement,
held on June 21-23, 2013. I would like to thank the participants, especially Günther Grewendorf, ErichGroat, Joachim Sabel, Dominique Sportiche, Yuji Takano and Edwin Williams, for helpful comments.
I also benefited from discussions with Koji Sugisaki and Kensuke Takita.

1

literature. Among them is Takita’s (2010) PF analysis. He adopts the theory of linearization
proposed by Fox and Pesetsky (2005) and developed by Ko (2007), and demonstrates that it
explains (1a). He then goes on to argue that the proper binding condition can be totallyeliminated from the syntax.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the issues raised by (1a) and (1b) further. In thefirst part of the paper, I present supporting evidence for Takita’s (2010) PF approach to (1a)and for his claim that there are no syntactic constraints on the movement of remnants createdby Japanese scrambling. I argue in addition that the same piece of evidence, interestingly,
provides strong support for (1b). Then, in the latter part of the paper, I explore some issues
related to (1b). First, I consider the fact that movement creates new binding possibilities as in(5).
(5) John wonders which picture of himself Mary liked
As demonstrated by Dejima (1999) and others, Japanese scrambling exhibits the same effect.
Given total reconstruction of scrambling, this poses a problem for the hypothesis that the
Binding theory applies at LF. I assume Quicoli’s (2008) phase-based Binding theory, andshow that the theory, with a refinement on the interpretive mechanism of chains,accommodates examples of this kind, that is, both (5) and its scrambling counterpart. Then, I
suggest that the theory leads to an explanation for the anti-reconstruction property of English
wh-phrases in situ. (6) illustrates this property.
(6) ??[Which picture of whom]j does John wonder whoi ti bought tj
This example can only be interpreted as a matrix multiple wh-question with whom taking
matrix scope, and does not allow the wh-phrase to have embedded scope. The precise accountfor this is unclear if picture of whom or of whom reconstructs at LF as widely assumed. I
suggest that the phase-based interpretation of chains employed in the analysis of (5) and its
scrambling counterpart leads to a solution for this problem.
In the following section, I briefly review the proposals on (1a), including Saito’s (1985)
in terms of the proper binding condition, Kitahara’s (1997) based on Attract, and Takita’s(2010) in terms of linearization. Then, in Section 3, I present and discuss supporting evidence
for Takita’s approach. Section 4 concerns examples such as (5) and its scrambling counterpart.
There, I suggest a refinement of Quicoli’s (2008) theory with a phase-based interpretation ofchains. In Section 5, I discuss the problem (6) poses in some detail, and suggest that it isresolved by the analysis presented in Section 4. Section 6 concludes the paper.

22. Proper Binding Effects with Japanese Scrambling
In Saito (1985), I argued that Japanese scrambling is nothing but an instance of Move-α(Move anything anywhere). This necessitated the demonstration that the illicit cases ofscrambling are ruled out by independent principles. Examples of the following kind, which
instantiate (2), were considered in this context:(7) *[ [CP Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [TP Taroo-ga
tj omotteiru]]] (koto)
Hanako-NOM be C Seoul-in
Taroo-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako is ti]j, in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’
This example can be derived from (8a) by first scrambling Sooru-ni ‘Seoul-in’ out of theembedded CP as in (8b) and then scrambling the embedded CP itself to the initial position of
the matrix clause.
(8) a. [TP Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga
Sooru-ni iru to] omotteiru] (koto)
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM Seoul-in be C thinkfact‘Taroo thinks that Hanako is in Seoul’b.

[Sooru-nii [TP Taroo-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti iru to] omotteiru]] (koto)
Seoul-inTaroo-NOM Hanako-NOM be C thinkfact‘In Seouli, Taroo thinks that Hanako lives ti’

The derivation should be allowed because (8b) is grammatical and further, CP scrambling andmultiple scrambling are both possible as illustrated in (9a) and (9b) respectively.
(9) a.

b.

[ [CP Hanako-ga
Sooru-ni iru to]i [TP Taroo-ga ti omotteiru]] (koto)
Hanako-NOM Seoul-in be C
Taroo-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako lives in Seoul]i, Taroo thinks ti’[Sono hon-oi[Hanako-nij [TP Taroo-ga [CP Ziroo-ga
tj ti watasita to]that book-ACC Hanako-DAT Taroo-NOM Ziroo-NOM
handed C
omotteiru]]] (koto)
think
fact
‘That booki, to Hanakoj, Taroo thinks that Ziroo handed ti tj’

What I proposed in Saito (1985) is that (7) is ruled out by the proper binding condition, which
prohibits unbound traces (Fiengo 1977). In this example, the trace of Sooru-ni ‘Seoul-in’ is in３

violation of this condition.
The analysis of (7) just mentioned implies that there is a constraint that prohibits remnant
movement, i.e., the proper binding condition. However, as noted above, the radical
reconstruction property of Japanese scrambling raises doubts on this analysis. In this section, I
first illustrate this problem and then introduce the alternative analyses for (7) proposed by
Kitahara (1997) and Takita (2010). I present supporting evidence for the latter in thefollowing section.
Let us first consider the following examples, which provide the necessary background toillustrate the radical reconstruction property:(10) a. [TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP dare-ga
sono hon-okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)
Taroo-NOM
who-NOM that book-ACC bought Q want to know fact‘[Taroo wants to know [Q [who bought that book]]]’b. *[TP Dare-ga [CP [TP Taroo-ga
sono hon-okatta] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)
who-NOM
Taroo-NOM that book-ACC bought Q want to know fact‘[Who wants to know [Q [Taroo bought that book]]]’(10a) is a straightforward example with an embedded wh-question. The wh-phrase dare ‘who’is contained within the question sentence, and the example is grammatical. (10b), on the other
hand, is totally ungrammatical. In this example, dare is not contained within the question
sentence it should be interpreted with. Given this contrast, Harada (1972) proposed thefollowing generalization:(11)

A wh-phrase must be contained within the CP where it takes scope.
This generalization applies to English as well, as shown in (12).

(12) a. Whoi ti wonders [which picture of whom]j Mary bought tj
b. ??[Which picture of whom]i does John wonder whoj tj bought ti
As van Riemsdijk and Williams (1981) point out, (12a) is ambiguous. The wh-elements thatmoved to Spec, CP take scope at their surface positions. Thus, who takes matrix scope andwhich takes embedded scope. But whom, which was only pied-piped to the embedded Spec,CP, can take either embedded or matrix scope. This is consistent with (11) because thewh-phrase is contained within the embedded CP as well as the matrix CP. Although (12b) is a４

Subjacency violation and hence is marginal, its interpretive property is clear. This example is
not ambiguous, in contrast with (12a). Whom, which was pied-piped to the matrix Spec, CP,
can only take matrix scope. This too is consistent with (11) because whom in this example iscontained only in the matrix CP.1
With this background, let us now consider the examples in (13).
(13) a. [TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga
dono hon-oyonda] ka] siritagatteiru]
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM which book-ACC read Q want to know
(koto)
fact‘[Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read which book]]]’b. [Dono hon-oi[TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga ti yonda] ka] siritagatteiru]]
which book-ACC Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM read Q want to know
(koto)
fact‘[Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read ti]]]’(13a), like (10a), is a straightforward example with an embedded wh-question. In (13b), thewh-phrase dono hon ‘which book’ is scrambled out of the embedded question CP. The
example is not only grammatical but also receives the same interpretation as (13a). This is
unexpected because the wh-phrase is not contained within the question CP, just as in the
totally ungrammatical (10b). I proposed then in Saito (1989) that a scrambled phrase can beplaced back to its initial position before it receives interpretation at LF. This came to be called‘radical reconstruction’ so that it is distinguished from ‘partial reconstruction’, which applies
to the pied-piped elements in operator movement. It makes (13b) consistent with (11) if thegeneralization applies at LF. Dono hon in (13b), if it is reconstructed to the embedded object
position, is contained within the embedded question CP at LF.
The same argument for radical construction can be constructed on the basis of (14).

1(12b) raises an interesting question as noted in Section 1. In the present context, if (11) holds at LF
and picture of whom or of whom is reconstructed at this level, it is not obvious why the embedded
scope of whom is disallowed. This question is discussed in Section 5.

５

(14) a. [TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga
dono hon-oyonda to]Taroo-NOM
all-NOM
Hanako-NOM which book-ACC read C
omotteiru] ka] siritagatteiru] (koto)
think
Q want to know fact‘[Taroo wants to know [Q [everyone thinks [that Hanako read which book]]]]’
b. ? [ [CP Hanako-ga
dono hon-oyonda to]i [TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP minna-ga ti
Hanako-NOM which book-ACC read C
Taroo-NOM
all-NOM
omotteiru] ka] siritagatteiru]] (koto)
think
Q want to know fact‘[[That Hanako read which book]i, Taroo wants to know [Q [everyone thinks ti]]]’(14a) is like (13a) but the wh-phrase is further embedded in an additional CP. (14b) is derived
by scrambling the most deeply embedded CP to the matrix initial position. The wh-phrase is
no longer contained within the question CP because of this scrambling, and yet, the example
is only slightly marginal. This too is expected if the scrambled CP is reconstructed to its
initial position at LF.
As I discussed in detail in Saito (1989), the radical reconstruction property of scramblinghas implications for the proper binding account for (7), repeated below as (15).
(15) *[ [CP Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [TP Taroo-ga
tj omotteiru]]] (koto)
Hanako-NOM be C Seoul-in
Taroo-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako is ti]j, in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’
If the scrambled CP in (15) is reconstructed, then there is no unbound trace at LF. And if
Sooru-ni ‘Seoul-in’ is also reconstructed, there is no trace at all at the level. The conclusion of
Saito (1989) was that the proper binding condition applies at S-structure. But this cannot be
maintained under the Minimalist approach, where S-structure is dispensed with as a level ofrepresentation. Thus, an alternative account for (15) becomes necessary.
Kitahara (1997) was the first to suggest an alternative analysis for examples such as (15).
His aim was to propose an explanation for Müller’s (1996) generalization, shown in (16).
(16)

A phrase containing a trace of movement cannot undergo movement of the same type(operator movement, scrambling, NP-movement).

(16) states that remnant movement is illicit if it is of the same type as the movement that６

produced the trace in the remnant. The following English examples illustrate thegeneralization:(17) a. * [Which picture of ti]j does John wonder whoi Mary liked tj
b. [How likely [ti to win]]j is Johni tj(17a) is ungrammatical because the movement of [which picture of ti] and the movement ofwhoi are both operator movement. (17b), on the other hand, is allowed because the remnant[how likely [ti to win]] undergoes operator movement whereas ti is produced by NP
movement.
Kitahara (1997) argues that the generalization follows from the minimal link condition or
Attract. Let us consider the configuration in (18).
(18)

UP
U’
U
[f1]

.

.

XP
X’

X
[f2]

YP
...

ZP …

...

WP …

Remnant movement obtains if f2 attracts WP to Spec, XP and f1 attracts the remnant ZP to
Spec, UP. Suppose that WP and ZP undergo the same type of movement. Then, f1 and f2 are
the same feature, and both WP and ZP qualify as the target for this feature. Consequently, f2
should attract the closest ZP and should never be able to attract WP over ZP. Hence, Müller’s(1996) generalization follows. Nothing prevents the attraction of WP by f2 if WP and ZP
undergo difference types of movement and hence, f1 and f2 are distinct features. Kitahara(1997) then suggests that the ungrammatical (15) may be explained in the same way because
it is derived by two applications of scrambling and falls under Müller’s generalization.
Although Kitahara’s (1997) suggestion is quite attractive, I raised a couple of questions in
Saito (2003). First, the account he suggested for (15) implies that Japanese scrambling is

７feature-driven, but this, I argued, is dubious. Secondly, a similar prohibition on remnant
movement is observed even in cases that do not fall under Müller’s generalization. (19)illustrates this.
(19) * [TP [PRO ti iku koto]-gaj Sooru-madei Taroo-ni
tj meizirareta]go N-NOM Seoul -to
Taroo-DAT ordered-was‘[To go ti]j, to Seouli, was ordered Taroo tj’
This example is derived from (20a) by first scrambling Sooru-made ‘Seoul-to’ out of thecontrol complement to the position following the matrix subject as in (20b).
(20) a. Hanako-ga
Taroo-ni [PRO Sooru-made iku koto]-o meizita
Hanako-NOM Taroo-DAT
Seoul-togo N-ACC ordered‘Hanako ordered Taroo to go to Seoul’b. Hanako-ga
Sooru-madei Taroo-ni[PRO ti iku koto]-o meizita
Hanako-NOM Seoul-to
Taroo-DAT
go N-ACC ordered‘Hanako, to Seouli, ordered Taroo to go ti’c. [PRO Sooru-made iku koto]-gaj Taroo-ni tj meizirareta
Seoul-togo N-NOM Taroo-DAT ordered-was‘[To go to Seoul]j was ordered Taroo ti’
The control complement in (20a, b) is headed by a formal noun koto and is the object of thesentence. Because of this, it can move to the subject position once the sentence is passivized.
(20c) is a passive counterpart of (20a). (19) obtains when (20b) is passivized in the same way.
This example is derived by scrambling and NP-movement, and hence does not fall underMüller’s generalization. Yet, it is completely ungrammatical just like (15). It seems then that
Kitahara’s (1997) suggestion does not quite succeed in accounting for the relevant facts.2
Another proposal to explain the proper binding phenomenon of traces produced byscrambling is made in Takita (2010). His analysis adopts the theory of linearization proposedby Fox and Pesetsky (2005) and developed by Ko (2007). The basic idea is that the linear
order of constituents is fixed at each spell-out domain. Ko (2007), in particular, demonstrates

2

It is desirable to pursue an alternative to Kitahara’s (1997) analysis on conceptual grounds as well
if Chomsky’s (2008, 2013) proposal is adopted to dispense with Attract and assume that internal
Merge, like external Merge, freely applies and simply forms a constituent out of two elements.

８

that the theory provides a solution to an outstanding problem in Japanese/Korean syntax. I
first illustrate the theory by way of presenting Ko’s analysis.
Kuroda (1980) examines the distribution of floating numeral quantifiers in Japanese andpresents an argument for scrambling as a movement operation. In (21a, b), numeral
quantifiers occur adjacent to the noun phrases they modify.
(21) a. Gakusei-ga san-nin sake-o
nonda
student-NOM 3-person sake-ACC drank‘Three students drank sake’b. Gakusei-ga sake-osan-bon nonda
student-NOM sake-ACC 3-bottle drank‘A student drank three bottles of sake’
The marginality of (22) indicates that the adjacency is indeed required of numeral quantifiers.
(22) ??Gakusei-ga sake-o
san-nin nonda
student-NOM sake-ACC 3-person drank‘Three students drank sake’
However, Kuroda notes that (23a) is perfectly grammatical even though the subject intervenes
between sake and san-bon ‘three-bottle’.
(23) a. Sake-ogakusei-ga
san-bon nonda
sake-ACC student-NOM 3-bottle drank‘A student drank three bottles of sake’b. [objecti [TP subject [VP ti 3-bottle drank]]]He then argues that (23a) is derived as in (23b) by scrambling, and the example isgrammatical because the adjacency holds between the trace of the object and the numeral
quantifier.
Kuroda’s argument is persuasive, but one question remains in the analysis. That is, it is
not clear why (22) cannot be derived by multiple scrambling as in (24).
(24) [subjectj [objecti [TP tj 3-person [VP ti drank]]]９

The question is amplified with the VP-internal subject hypothesis. (22) can then be derived bysimply scrambling the object to the edge of vP as in (25).
(25) [TP subjecti [vP objectj [ ti 3-person [VP tj drank]]]]Ko (2007) shows that Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) theory of linearization provides asolution to this problem. The basic idea of the theory, as noted above, is that the relative word
order is fixed once and for all at each spell-out domain, and Ko assumes that vP is a spell-out
domain in Korean and Japanese. Then, in the absence of scrambling, the subject-object-verb
order is established as vP is spelled out. This is illustrated in (26a).
(26) a. [vP subject [VP object V]] ..... subject < object < verb
b. [vP objecti [subject [VP ti V]]] ..... object < subject < verb
If the object is to precede the subject, it must be preposed to the edge of vP before spell-out asin (26b). In either case, the order established at vP must be maintained throughout thederivation. Given this, let us reconsider (25), which must be excluded to account for theungrammaticality of (22). There are two possibilities at the point vP is spelled out.
(27) a. [vP subject 3-person [VP object V]] ..... subject < 3-person < object < verb
b. [vP objecti [subject 3-person [VP ti V]]] ..... object < subject < 3-person < verb
(27a) obtains if the object is not scrambled to the edge of vP, and (27b) if it is. Neither yields
the order subject < object < 3-person < verb. Consequently, if the derivation continues toyield the structure in (24) or (25), a contradiction with linearization arises. Thus, thesestructures are successfully ruled out.3

3This account presupposes that the subject cannot be moved across the object to the outer edge of vP
as in (i).
(i)[vP subjectj [objecti [tj 3-person [VP ti V]]]]In (i), the subject originates in Spec, vP and moves to a higher Spec, vP. Ko (2007) assumes that thistype of movement is impossible because movement is attraction by a head. Spec is not included in the
search domain of a head and as a result, v cannot attract the subject to its Spec position. Takita (2010),
on the other hand, appeals to Abels’ (2003) anti-locality, which excludes movement that merges the
moved item to the same head for the second time. In (i), the subject is merged with (a projection of) v
at the initial site and the movement merges it again with (a projection of) the same v.

１０

What Takita (2010) points out is that Ko’s (2007) analysis outlined above automaticallyrules out the illicit examples of “proper binding violations.” Let us consider again (15) and(19), repeated below as (28a, b).
(28) a. *[ [CP Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [TP Taroo-ga
tj omotteiru]]] (koto)
Hanako-NOM is C Seoul-in
Taroo-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako is ti]j, in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’b. * [TP [PRO ti iku koto]-gaj Sooru-madei Taroo-ni
tj meizirareta]go N-NOM Seoul -to
Taroo-DAT ordered-was‘[To go ti]j, to Seouli, was ordered Taroo tj’
The initial spell-out domain in (28a) may be the vP in the preposed CP or the preposed CP
itself. Whichever it is, the order Sooru-ni < iru is established at that point. The CP, forexample, is as in (29) at the point of spell-out.
(29)[CP Sooru-nii [TP Hanako-gaj [vP [VP ti tj iru]]] to]

The surface order is in contradiction with this order, and hence the example is predicted to beungrammatical. The ungrammaticality of (28b) follows in the same way. The order
Sooru-made < iku is established within the control complement, and the surface ordercontradicts this.
Takita (2010) demonstrates that the theory of linearization developed by Ko (2007)
accounts for a number of other restrictions on Japanese scrambling as well. But even when we
restrict our attention to the “proper binding” phenomenon, the analysis outlined above seems
to be the only viable option at this point. As the analysis appeals to linearization to accountfor (28a, b), it denies that there is a syntactic constraint against unbound traces or remnant
movement. In the following section, I present a piece of supporting empirical evidence forthis approach.

3. Evidence for Takita’s PF Approach and the Generality of Remnant Movement
While the proper binding analysis attributes the ungrammaticality of (28a, b) to unboundtraces, Takita’s (2010) PF approach implies that it is due to a failure of linearization between
the moved constituent and its predicate. These two analyses could make different predictions
with empty operator movement. Constraints on traces should apply in the same way whether

１１the trace is produced by movement of an overt constituent or by movement of an empty
operator. On the other hand, as Takita points out, an empty operator may be exempted fromlinearization requirements as it lacks phonetic content. In this section, I discuss two cases of
empty operator movement, clefts and comparatives, and show that only the PF approach cansuccessfully accommodate the relevant facts.
The empty operator movement analysis of Japanese clefts was first proposed by Hoji
(1990). The contrast in (30) shows that Subjacency effects are observed with thisconstruction.
(30) a. [CP [TP Taroo-ga [CP doroboo-ga ei genkin-o nusunda to] itta] no]-wa
Taroo-NOM thief-NOM
cash-ACC stole
C said C-TOP
sono ginkoo-karai dathat bank-from Cop.
‘It is from that bank that Taroo said that a thief stole cash’
b. *[CP [TP [DP [TP ei genkin-o nusunda] doroboo]-ga kinoo
taihosareta] no]-wa
cash-ACC stole
thief-NOM yesterday arrested-was C-TOP
sono ginkoo-karai dathat bank-from Cop.
‘Lit. It is from that bank that the thief stole cash was arrested yesterday’
The gap is contained within a complex NP in (30b), and the ungrammaticality of the example
already suggests that it is derived by movement. Hoji (1990) points out a further contrast
between (30b) and (31).
(31)[CP [TP [DP [TP ei genkin-o nusunda] doroboo]-ga kinoo
taihosareta] no]-wa
cash-ACC stole
thief-NOM yesterday arrested-was C-TOP
sono ginkooi dathat bank Cop.

The focus is a PP in (30b) whereas it is a DP in the grammatical (31). Hoji then proposes thatthe two examples have the structures in (32a, b) respectively.
(32) a. [CP Opi [TP ... ti ... ] C]-wa PPi-dab. [CP [TP ... proi ... ] C]-wa DPi-da
That is, a cleft sentence is derived by empty operator movement when the focus is a PP, and it

１２

can involve binding of pro when the focus is a DP.4
The analysis is confirmed by another contrast shown in (33).
(33)[CP [TP [DP [TP soko-kara genkin-o nusunda] doroboo]-ga kinoo
taihosareta]
there-from cash-ACC stole
thief-NOM yesterday arrested-wasno]-wa sono ginkoo(*-kara) da
C-TOP that bank-from Cop.

This example shows that an overt resumptive pronoun is allowed only with a DP focus. The
pro in (32b) is then nothing but a covert counterpart of the pronoun in (33). Also, as apronoun is disallowed in PP clefts, the gap in (32a) cannot be pro but must be produced by
movement.
Another Japanese construction that involves empty operator movement is comparatives,
as demonstrated by Kikuchi (1987). This construction too exhibits clear Subjacency effects,
as shown in (34).
(34) a. Taroo-wa [TP minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga ei yonda to] omotteiru] yorimo
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM
Hanako-NOM read C thinkthanooku-nohoni-oyonda
many-GEN book-ACC read
‘Taroo read more books than everyone thinks that Hanako read’

4

More precisely, a bare DP. Hoji (1990) shows that Case-marked DPs pattern with PPs. The
analysis in (32b) is refined by Murasugi (1991). She argues that the no in this case is not a C but apronoun that occurs in examples like (i).
(i) akai no
red one‘a red one’Then, the example is an equative sentence of the form ‘DP = DP’. According to this analysis, the first
DP contains a relative clause headed by no ‘one’. It is known since Perlmutter (1972) that Japaneserelative clauses can have pro as the gap and hence, do not exhibit Subjacency effects. This structure is
excluded when the focus is a PP or a Case-marked DP because an equative sentence of the form ‘DP =PP’ or ‘DP = DP-Case’ does not make sense. The structure must then be as in (32a) in these cases.

１３

b. *Taroo-wa [TP Hanako-ga[DP [TP ei yonda] hito]-ositteiru] yorimo
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
read person-ACC know thanooku-nohoni-oyonda
many-GEN book-ACC read
‘Lit. Taroo read more books than Hanako knows a person who read’
The gap is contained within a complex NP in (34b), and the example is totally ungrammatical.
(35) demonstrates that comparatives do not allow resumptive pronouns, just like PP clefts.
(35) * Taroo-wa [TP Hanako-ga [DP [TP sore-o yonda] hito]-ositteiru] yorimo
Taroo-TOP
Hanako-NOM
it-ACC read person-ACC know thanooku-nohon-oyonda
many-GEN book-ACC read
‘Lit. Taroo read more books than Hanako knows a person who read’
Kikuchi (1987) proposes that the complement of yorimo ‘than’ is a CP with an empty
operator in its Spec. This is illustrated in (36).
(36)[CP Opi [TP ... ti ... ]] yorimo

Given that PP clefts and comparatives are derived by empty operator movement, I next
examine examples with the following configurations:(37) a. [TP ... [CP2 Opi [TP2 ... [CP1 ti’ [TP1 ... ti ... ]]]]]
b. [CP1 ti’ [TP1 ... ti ... ]]j [TP ... [CP2 Opi [TP2 ... tj ... ]]]In (37a), an empty operator is moved out of CP1 to the Spec, CP2 position. Then, in (37b),
the lower CP1 is scrambled out of the higher CP2 so that the trace of the empty operator
becomes unbound. If an unbound trace that results from two applications of scrambling, as in(15), repeated below as (38), is ruled out by the proper binding condition, examples of theform in (37b), which involve operator movement and scrambling, are expected to be illicit aswell.
(38) *[ [CP Hanako-ga
ti iru to]j [Sooru-nii [TP Taroo-ga
tj omotteiru]]] (koto)
Hanako-NOM be C Seoul-in
Taroo-NOM thinkfact‘[That Hanako is ti]j, in Seouli, [Taroo thinks tj]’
On the other hand, if (38) is ruled out because of conflicting linearization requirements, as

１４

Takita (2010) argues, then it would not be surprising if (37b) turns out to be a legitimate
configuration. Suppose that the operator is overt. Then, by the CP1 cycle, linear order is fixed
so that the operator precedes everything within TP1. This order is preserved when theoperator moves to Spec, CP2. But when CP1 is scrambled to the sentence-initial position as in(37b), a contradiction in linearization occurs. On the other hand, it is quite possible that aphonetically null operator does not participate in linearization, as Takita (2010) notes. If thisis the case, no contradiction arises in (37b). CP1 can move successive-cyclically so that it is at
the left edge in each spell-out domain. This would suffice to guarantee consistency inlinearization.
(39b) is a concrete example instantiating (37b), and it is indeed far better than (38).
(39) a. [TP Taroo-wa [CP [CP Opi [TP minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti itta to] omotteiru]
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM
Hanako-NOM went C thinkno]-wa Sooru-ei da to] hookokusita]
C-TOP Seoul-to Cop. C reported‘Taroo reported that it is to Seouli that everyone thinks [CP that Hanako went ti]’b. ?[CP Hanako-ga ti itta to]j [TP Taroo-wa [CP [CP OPi [TP minna-ga tj omotteiru]
Hanako-NOM went C
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM thinkno]-wa Sooru-ei da to] hookokusita]
C-TOP Seoul-to Cop. C reported‘[CP That Hanako went ti]j, Taroo reported that it is to Seouli that everyone thinks tj’
A cleft sentence is embedded in (39a). Then, the most deeply embedded CP, which is aremnant of operator movement, is scrambled to the matrix-initial position in (39b). The
example is slightly off, but is in clear contrast with the totally ungrammatical (38).5 It thenprovides support for Takita’s (2010) PF approach to (38), and at the same time, indicates thatan empty operator is indeed exempted from linearization.
The following examples with an embedded comparative sentence lead to the sameconclusion:

5

The example is slightly off, I suspect, because a CP is scrambled out of a wh-island. It indeed has astatus similar to (14b).

１５

(40) a. Taroo-wa [CP Opi [TP minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga ti yonda to] omotteiru]] yorimo
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM
Hanako-NOM read C thinkthanooku-nohon-oyonda (= (34a))
many-GEN book-ACC read
‘Taroo read more books than everyone thinks that Hanako read’
b. ? [CP Hanako-ga ti yonda to]j [TP Taroo-wa [CP Opi [TP minna-ga tj omotteiru]]
Hanako-NOM read C
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM thinkyorimo ooku-no
hon-o
yonda]
thanmany-GEN book-ACC read‘[CP That Hanako read ti]j, Taroo read more books than everyone thinks tj’
A CP remnant of operator movement is scrambled to the sentence-initial position in (40b). It
is clearly in violation of the proper binding condition however the condition is formulated. On
the other hand, it does not involve contradiction in linearization as long as the empty operator
does not participate in the process. Once the empty operator is ignored, the example can belinearized in the same way as more straightforward examples with long-distance scramblingof CP.
It was argued above that (39b) and (40b) constitute evidence for Takita’s (2010) PF
approach to (38) over the proper binding analysis of Saito (1985). They are consistent with
Müller’s (1996) generalization and Kitahara’s (1997) explanation for it because the remnant
CP is created and preposed by two distinct operations, operator movement and scrambling.
However, as noted in the preceding section, (19), repeated below as (41), does not fall underMüller’s generalization.
(41) * [TP [PRO ti iku koto]-gaj Sooru-madei Taroo-ni
tj meizirareta]go N-NOM Seoul -to
Taroo-DAT ordered-was‘[To go ti]j, to Seouli, was ordered Taroo tj’
The example is produced by scrambling and passive. Hence, Takita’s (2010) analysis in termsof linearization is the only one that can successfully accommodate all the examples in(38)-(41). And the analysis implies that there is no syntactic constraint that prohibits
movement of a remnant created by scrambling.
The examples (39b) and (40b), at the same time, provide additional evidence for theradical reconstruction property of Japanese scrambling. The empty operators in theseexamples clearly must bind their traces at LF for proper interpretation. This is possible only if

１６the scrambled CP is placed back to a position within the domain of the empty operator. In thefollowing section, I discuss implications of radical reconstruction for the formulation of theBinding conditions and the interpretation of movement chains.

4. Radical Reconstruction and Binding
Sufficient evidence, I believe, was presented for the radical reconstruction property ofJapanese scrambling in the preceding sections. Given this, it is somewhat curious thatscrambling extends the binding possibility for anaphors as in (42), cited from Dejima (1999).
(42) a. Taroo-gai [CP Hanako-gaj [CP Ziroo-gak zibunzisin-oi*, j*, k hihansita to]
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM Ziroo-NOM self-ACC
criticized C
itta to] omotteiru (koto)said C thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that Hanakoj said [that Zirook criticized selfi*, j*, k]]’b. Taroo-gai [CP Hanako-gaj [CP zibunzisin-oi*, j, k Ziroo-gak t hihansita to]
Taroo-NOM Hanako-NOM self-ACC
Ziroo-NOM criticized C
itta to] omotteiru (koto)said C thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that Hanakoj said [that selfi*, j, k, Zirook criticized t]]’c. Taroo-gai [CP zibunzisin-oi, j, k Hanako-gaj [CP Ziroo-gak t hihansita to]
Taroo-NOM self-ACC
Hanako-NOM Ziroo-NOM criticized C
itta to] omotteiru (koto)said C thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that selfi, j, k, Hanakoj said [that Zirook criticized t]]’Nakamura (1996) argues that zibun-zisin ‘self-self’, as opposed to the long-distance reflexive
zibun ‘self’, is a (subject-oriented) anaphor that requires a local antecedent. Although theclaim is controversial, it is clear that only the local subject qualifies as its antecedent instandard examples like (42a). But when it is scrambled to the initial position of the mostdeeply embedded CP as in (42b), the middle subject also becomes a possible antecedent. And
further scrambling to the initial position of the middle CP makes the antecedent of zibun-zisin
three-ways ambiguous, including the matrix subject.
If scrambled phrases are reconstructed at LF and the binding conditions apply at this level,

１７

the differences among (42a, b, c) are unexpected. The straightforward prediction is that all
three examples are interpreted as (42a) because this is roughly the LF for those examples.
(42b, c) clearly show that scrambling has effects on interpretation. Given these examples and(43), among others, I argued in Saito (2003) that Condition (A) is an anywhere condition, as
proposed by Belletti and Rizzi (1988).
(43)

Zibunzisin-oi Taroo-gai ti semeta (koto)self-ACC
Taroo-NOM blamed fact
‘Himselfi, Tarooi blamed ti’

The idea was that Condition (A) can be satisfied as the sentence is constructed and thescrambled phrase is preposed. Then, zibunzisin in (43) can satisfy the condition before
scrambling applies. And in (42c), for example, it can satisfy the condition as it is scrambled
and before reconstruction applies. But the conception of Condition (A) as an anywherecondition makes little sense once we accept the reformulation of the binding conditions asinterpretive procedures as proposed in Chomsky (1993) and Chomsky and Lasnik (1993).
Their formulation of Conditions (A), (B), (C) is shown in (44).
(44) a. If α is an anaphor, interpret it as coreferential with a c-commanding phrase in D.
b. If α is a pronominal, interpret it as disjoint from every c-commanding phrase in D.
c. If α is an r-expression, interpret it as disjoint from every c-commanding phrase.
In this section, I suggest an analysis of the scrambling examples in (42) that is in line with(44). I first discuss Chomsky’s (1993) analysis of reconstruction based on the copy anddeletion analysis of movement. Then, I present an analysis for (42), adapting this andQuicoli’s (2008) phase-based application of the binding procedures.6
Chomsky (1993) attempts to show that binding conditions apply at LF. In that process, headopts the copy and deletion analysis of wh-movement, illustrated in (46) for (45a).7(45) a. Which picture of John did Mary buy
6

Reformulations of Binding theory in terms of phase are proposed in Lee-Schoenfeld (2008) andCharnavel and Sportiche (2013) as well. The analysis to be proposed in this paper is incompatible insome respects with the latter, which has many attractive consequences. I leave it for future research to
examine whether these incompatibilities are only superficial or more fundamental in nature.

7

I ignore the intermediate landing site at the edge of vP for the ease of exposition when it does notplay a role in the analysis.

１８b. Whichx did Mary buy [x picture of Mary](46) a. [Which picture of Mary] John bought [which picture of Mary]b. [Which [t picture of Mary]] John bought [which [t picture of Mary]]c. [Which [t picture of Mary]] John bought [which [t picture of Mary]](45a) is interpreted as in (45b). Wh-movement copies the wh-phrase as in (46a) as the firststep toward this interpretation. Then, in each copy, covert raising applies in order to separate
which, which serves as a wh-operator, and t picture of Mary, which is to be interpreted as theobject argument of the verb buy.8 Finally, the argument part is deleted at CP Spec and theoperator part is deleted at the object position as in (46c). He argues that this mechanism
accounts for the well-known reconstruction phenomenon, illustrated by (47a, b).
(47) a. Which picture of himself did John buy
b. * Which picture of Johni did hei buy
These examples have the LFs in (48).
(48) a. [Which [t picture of himself]] John bought [which [t picture of himself]]b. [Which [t picture of Johni]] hei bought [which [t picture of Johni]]
Consequently, (47a) satisfies Condition (A) and (47b) is in violation of Condition (C) at LF.
Chomsky (1993) extends this analysis to examples like (49a), where wh-movement
creates a new binding possibility.
(49) a. Which picture of himself does John think that Mary boughtb. [Which [t picture of himself]] John thinks [CP [which [t picture of himself]] that Marybought [which [t picture of himself]]]
The straightforward application of the copy and deletion analysis yields (49b), which
8This covert movement itself should be analyzed in terms of copy and deletion. A wh-element
contains two parts, one to be interpreted as a wh-operator and the other as a variable. Hence it
occupies two positions by wh-movement. The wh-operator part is interpreted at Spec, CP and thevariable part at the initial site. Then, the movement in (46b) can be construed as copying, followed by
the deletion of the variable part at the landing site and the wh-operator part at the initial site. I continue
to indicate a copy of a wh-element that is to be interpreted as a variable by t, when there is no room for
confusion.

１９

incorrectly predicts the example to be ungrammatical. Chomsky then adopts the anaphor
movement analysis illustrated in (50).
(50) a. [Which picture of himself] John thinks [CP [which picture of himself]that Mary bought [which picture of himself]]b. [Which picture of himself] John-himselfi thinks [CP [which picture of himselfi]that Mary bought [which picture of himself]c. [Which [t picture of himself]] John-himselfi thinks [CP [which [t picture of himselfi]]
that Mary bought [which [t picture of himself]]]
d. [Which [t picture of himself]] John-himselfi thinks [CP [which [t picture of himselfi]]jthat Mary bought tj]
Wh-movement takes place successive-cyclically. Then, the wh-movement in (49a) creates(50a) with copying. When himself takes the DP John as its antecedent, its instance that is in
local relation with John adjoins to the DP as in (50b). The copy of a wh-phrase in anintermediate Spec, CP is normally deleted as it has no contribution to interpretation. But thedeletion is impossible in the case of (50b) because it would make the instance of himselfi
adjoined to John a member of a singleton chain without a theta-position. Consequently, theintermediate copy is retained as in (50c) and then (50d), and the anaphor receives properinterpretation. Based on this analysis, Chomsky proposes that the deletion of intermediate
copies and the pied-piped material in an operator position must apply as long as it does notcreate illicit chains. This guarantees that John in (47b) is deleted at Spec, CP and retained
within the object so that the example is ruled out by Condition (C).
This analysis, interestingly, does not straightforwardly extend to the similar examples
with scrambling in (42). The simpler example in (51) suffices to illustrate this point.
(51)

Taroo-gai[CP zibunzisin-oi, j Hanako-gaj
t hihansita to] itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
self-ACC
Hanako-NOM criticized C said fact
‘Tarooi thinks [that selfi, j Hanakoj criticized t]’

Suppose that zibunzisin ‘self’ is at the edge of the embedded CP just like the intermediate
wh-phrase in (50a). If it adjoins to the antecedent Taroo, the following structure is derived:(52)

Taroo-zibunzisini [CP zibunzisini [TP Hanako-ga zibunzisin-o hihansita] to] itta

Here, the two instances of zibunzisini form an A-chain. But this chain does not contain atheta-position. The deletion of the instance in Spec, CP does not help. Further, if zibunzisin in

２０

the embedded object position is included in the chain so that there is a theta-position, thechain will be an improper chain of the form A-A’-A. Hence, it is unclear how (51) can beanalyzed with anaphor movement.
A more clearly problematic example can be constructed with a quantified DP. Japanese
exhibits scope rigidity as in (53).
(53)

Dareka-ga[ni-satu-nohon]-okaridasita
someone-NOM two-volume-GEN book-ACC checked.out‘Someone checked out two books’ (some > two)At the same time, it is known since Kuroda (1971) that scrambling yields scope ambiguity.
This is shown in (54).
(54) a. [Ni-satu-nohon]-oi
dareka-ga
ti karidasita
two-volume-GEN book-ACC someone-NOM checked.out‘Two books, someone checked out t’ (some > two, two > some)b. Nanika-oi[hutari-nohito]-ga
ti katta
something-ACC two-person-GEN person-NOM bought‘Something, two people bought t’ (two > some, some > two)
However, Oka (1990) points out that this effect is confined to clause-internal scrambling. In(55b), for example, ni-satu-no hon ‘two books’ cannot take wide scope over dareka‘someone’ though it is scrambled to the matrix-initial position out of the embedded CP.
(55) a. Dareka-ga[CP Hanako-ga [ni-satu-nohon]-okaridasita to]someone-NOM Hanako-NOM two-volume-GEN book-ACC checked.out C
itta
said
‘Someone said [that Hanako checked out two books]’ (some > two)b. [Ni-satu-nohon]-oi
dareka-ga[CP Hanako-ga ti karidasita to]
two-volume-GEN book-ACC someone-NOM Hanako-NOM checked.out C
itta
said
‘Two booksi, someone said [that Hanako checked out ti]’ (some > two)

２１

This indicates that ni-satu-no hon ‘two books’ in (55b) takes embedded scope even though it
is scrambled into the matrix clause.
Given this background, let us now consider the crucial example in (56).
(56)

Taroo-gai [CP [zibunzisin-noi ni-satu-no
hon-o]jdareka-ga
Taroo-NOM self-GEN
two-volume-GEN book-ACC someone-NOM[CP Hanako-ga tj karidasita to] itta to] omotteiru (koto)
Hanako-NOM checked.out C said C thinkfact‘Tarooi thinks [that [self’si two books]j, someone said [that Hanako checked out tj]]’(some > two)

The configuration of the example is shown in (57).
(57)

Tarooi said [CP [self’si two books]j that [TP someone thinks [CP that Hanako checked outtj]]]]

Zibunzisin-no ni-satu-no hon ‘self’s two books’ is scrambled so that Taroo qualifies as theantecedent of zibunzisin. At the same time, nisatu-no hon ‘two books’ takes embedded scope,and hence narrow scope with respect to dareka ‘someone’, just as in (55b). This state ofaffairs is not predicted by Chomsky’s (1993) analysis because the scope of ‘self’s two books’
implies that it is deleted at the landing site as in (58).
(58)

Tarooi-selfi said [CP [self’si two books] that [TP ... [self’s two books] ...

This deletion should result in a failure for ‘selfi’ to be assigned a theta-role. Then, analternative analysis should be pursued for examples like (51) and (56).
An analysis of (49a), repeated below as (59), that is in line with Chomsky’s more recent
works (2000, 2008) is proposed by Quicoli (2008).
(59)

Which picture of himself does John think that Mary bought

He proposes that the Binding theory applies cyclically at each phase. In the remainder of thissection, I first outline his theory and then show that it successfully accommodates theexamples of scrambling discussed above.
Let us first consider the simple examples in (60).

２２

(60) a. Johni recommended himselfi
b. * Johni recommended himi
The vP phases of these examples are as in (61a, b) respectively.
(61) a. [vP Johni [VP recommend himselfi]]
b. [vP Johni [VP recommend himi]]
Both himself and him are bound internal to the phase. Hence, these examples can be
accounted for if Condition (A) requires anaphors to be bound and Condition (B) prohibits
pronouns from being bound within a phase. The analysis can be stated more precisely interms of transfer operation to the C-I interface. When VP is transferred to the C-I interface
upon the completion of the vP phase, an anaphor within the VP must be transferred with its
reference specified and a pronoun within the VP is transferred with the information that it is
disjoint from any c-commanding DP in the phase.9, 10

9I followed Ko (2007) and Takita (2010) above and assumed that when a vP phase is completed, allelements within the vP is linearized. On the other hand, I assume here as in Chomsky (2000, 2008)
that only the complement VP is transferred to the C-I interface. This discrepancy makes sense because
fixation of the relative order among the elements in vP has no grave consequences whereas phrases atthe edge of vP can move on and receive interpretation at a position in a higher transfer domain.

10Here, I do not discuss Condition (C) in any detail. But I suspect that it can most plausibly
formulated as in (i), departing from Quicoli (2008).
(i) Condition (C): Interpret a DP α as disjoint from an R-expression β if α c-commands every instanceof β in the amalgamated transfer domain of α.
(the amalgamated transfer domain of α = the amalgamation of all transfer domains up to the onethat includes α.)This formulation successfully distinguishes between (ii) and (iii). (See Lebeaux 1988 and Chomsky
1993 for discussion of these examples.)(ii) *Which picture of Johni did [TP hei like (which picture of Johni)](iii) [TP The picture of Johni seemed to himi [TP (the picture of Johni) to be attractive]]
The amalgamated transfer domain that includes he in (ii) is the TP. As he c-commands every instanceof John in this domain, it is disjoint from John. On the other hand, the relevant transfer domain is thematrix TP in (iii). Him does not c-command every instance of John in this domain and hence, there is
no Condition (C) effect in the example.

２３

Quicoli (2008) extends this analysis to (59). The embedded vP phase of the example
looks like (62a).
(62) a. [vP [which picture of himself] [Mary [VP buy [which picture of himself]]]]b. [vP [which picture of himself] [Johni [VP think [CP [which picture of himselfi] [TP ...
VP is transferred at this point.11 But if the relevant requirement on himself is that its reference
must be determined by the end of the derivation, it can be left pending because its copy
appears in a higher transfer domain. At the matrix vP phase, himself within the embedded
Spec, CP is bound by John. Thus, the information on the reference of himself can be sent to
the C-I interface as the matrix VP is transferred.
Before applying this analysis to the scrambling examples, let us make it a little more
precise by adding Chomsky’s (1993) theory of chain interpretation to it. I assume, following
Chomsky (1993) that which in which picture of himself is raised covertly as in (63) so that theoperator which is separated from t picture of himself, which serves as an argument.
(63)[which [t picture of himself]]

Then, the configuration in (64a) obtains when the wh-phrase moves to the edge of theembedded vP.12(64) a. [vP [which [t picture of himself]] [Mary [VP buy [which [t picture of himself]]]]]
b. [vP [which [t picture of himself]] [Mary [VP buy [which [t picture of himself]]]]]At this point, the VP is transferred to the C-I interface with the reference of himself pending,as Quicoli (2008) proposes. But one more thing needs to be said to make this transfer
successful as illustrated in (64b). That is, it is necessary to make sure that t picture of himself
is interpreted as the object whereas which receives no interpretation in the VP. I simply statethis as the interpretive procedure in (65).
(65) a. An argument is interpreted only in a θ-position.
11

In (62a) and subsequent examples, the shaded part indicates the domain that is transferred to theC-I interface.

12Here, I assume the single cycle model of Bobaljik (1995), where covert movement applies
concurrently with overt movement as structures are constructed. Thus, the covert raising of whichapplies prior to the overt movement of the wh-phrase to the edge of vP in (64).

２４

b. An operator is interpreted only in a criterial operator position.
Given this, which receives no interpretation in the VP in (64) because it is not in a criterial
position for a wh-operator in the sense of Rizzi (2010). On the other hand, t picture of himself
is interpreted as the object of the verb buy.
The wh-phrase which picture of himself moves on to the edge of the embedded CP as in
(66).
(66)

[CP [which [t picture of himself]] [TP Mary [vP [which [t picture of himself]] [Mary [v’ v[VP ...

The embedded TP is transferred to the C-I interface at this point. The wh-phrase at the edge
of vP receives no interpretation because which is not in a wh-operator position and t picture ofhimself is not in a θ-position. (67) obtains after the wh-phrase moves to the edge of the matrix
vP.
(67)

[vP [which [t picture of himself]] [Johni [VP think [CP [which [t picture of himselfi]] [TP ...

As the VP is transferred to the C-I interface, himself picks up its reference from John as
Quicoli (2008) proposes. At the same time, neither which nor t picture of himself receives aninterpretation at the edge of the embedded CP because of (65). Finally, the wh-phrase moves
to the edge of the matrix CP as in (68).
(68)[CP [which [t picture of himself]] [TP John [vP [which [t picture of himself]] [John [v’ v[VP ...

The wh-phrase at the edge of vP receives no interpretation for reasons that should be clear by
now. At the edge of the matrix CP, t picture of himself again receives no interpretation
because it is not in a θ-position, but which is interpreted as a wh-operator according to (65b).
It is in a criterial position for an interrogative operator. Thus, an operator-variable chain is
successfully formed as illustrated in (69).
(69)[CP [which [t picture of himself]] [TP .. [CP .. [TP .. [VP buy [which [t picture ofhimself]]]]]]]

The analysis for (59) just illustrated is basically Quicoli’s (2008). But the added (65)makes it possible to account for the scrambling example (51), repeated below as (70), in a

２５

way that is consistent with the radical reconstruction property of scrambling.
(70) Taroo-gai[CP zibunzisin-oi, j Hanako-gaj
t hihansita to] itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
self-ACC
Hanako-NOM criticized C said fact
‘Tarooi thinks [that selfi, j Hanakoj criticized t]’
The embedded vP is formed as in (71).
(71)[vP zibunzisin-o [Hanako-ga [v’ [VP zibunzisin-o hihansita] v]]]

The VP is transferred to the C-I interface at this point. Zibunzisin ‘self’ receives interpretation
as the object of hihansita ‘criticized’ because it is an argument in a θ-position. It can pick up
reference from Hanako at the same time, but can also leave the reference pending because acopy appears in a higher transfer domain. Next, zibunzisin moves to the edge of the embedded
CP as in (72a) and then the matrix vP is formed as in (72b).
(72) a. [CP zibunzisin-o [TP Hanako-ga [vP zibunzisin [Hanako-ga [v’ [VP ... ] v] ...
b. [vP Taroo-ga [v’ [VP [CP zibunzisin-o [TP ... ]] itta] v]]
Zibunzisin at the edge of vP in (72a) receives no interpretation when the shaded TP istransferred to the C-I interface, as it is neither in a θ-position nor in a criterial operator
position. It does not receive an interpretation when the VP in (72b) is transferred, for the same
reason. But it can pick up its reference from Taroo as part of the transfer. Thus, the ambiguityof zibunzisin in (70) follows.
The analysis of (70) outlined above is consistent with the radical reconstruction propertyof scrambling because zibunzisin can pick up its reference from Taroo and yet it is interpreted
only at the initial site. Before concluding this section, I apply the mechanism to (13b), theoriginal example that motivated radical reconstruction, in order to confirm this. (13b) is
repeated below as (73).
(73)[Dono hon-oi[TP Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga ti yonda] ka] siritagatteiru]]
which book-ACC Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM read Q want to know
(koto)
fact‘[Which booki, Taroo wants to know [Q [Hanako read ti]]]’

The derivation is illustrated phase by phase in (74).

２６(74) a. [vP [dono [t hon]]-o [Hanako-ga [v’ [VP [dono [t hon]]-o yonda] v]]]b. [CP [dono [t hon]]-o [C’ [TP Hanako-ga [vP [dono [t hon]]-o [Hanako-ga [v’ [VP ...] v]]]ka]]c. [vP [dono [t hon]]-o [Taroo-ga [v’ [VP [CP [dono [t hon]]-o [C’ [TP ...] ka] siritagatteiru]v]]]d. [CP [dono [t hon]]-o [TP Taroo-ga [vP [dono [t hon]]-o [Taroo-ga [v’ [VP ...] v]]]]]In (74a), dono hon-o ‘which book-ACC’ moves to the edge of the embedded vP. Only theargument part, [t hon-o], is interpreted as the object of the verb yonda ‘read’. In (74b), thewh-phrase moves to the edge of the embedded CP. The copy receives no interpretation at theedge of the embedded vP as it is neither a θ-position nor a criterial operator position. The
wh-phrase moves on to the edge of the matrix vP in (74c). At this point, dono ‘which’ isinterpreted as a wh-operator at the edge of the embedded CP as it is in a criterial interrogative
operator position.13 Finally, the wh-phrase reaches the final landing site, the edge of thematrix CP, in (74d). Neither the operator part dono nor the argument part t hon-o receives
interpretation at the edges of the matrix CP and vP because these positions are not θ-positions
or criterial interrogative operator positions. Thus, the scrambling from the edge of theembedded CP to the matrix initial position is semantically vacuous.
In this section, it was shown that Quicoli’s (2008) phase based binding theory, augmented
by a mechanism of chain interpretation, successfully accounts for the fact that scrambling
extends the binding possibility of local reflexives in a way that is consistent with its radical
reconstruction property. In the following section, I suggest that the same mechanism provides
an account for an outstanding problem with the scope of pied-piped wh-phrases in English.

5. The Anti-Reconstruction Phenomenon of Pied-Pied Wh-Phrases
In Sections 1 and 2, I touched on the apparent proper binding effects observed withEnglish wh-movement. The relevant examples, (6) and (12b), are repeated below as (75a, b)
respectively.
(75) a. *[Which picture of ti]j does John wonder whoi Mary liked tjb.??[Which picture of whom]i does John wonder whoj tj bought ti
13This assumes, following Huang (1982), Lasnik and Saito (1984), Richards (2001), among others,
that Japanese wh’s are interrogative operators. The analysis is in accord with the claim of Kuroda(1988) and Takahashi (1994) that scrambling of a wh-phrase to its scope position counts as
wh-movement.

２７

Although who fails to bind its trace in (75a), the example is interpreted as in (76) withreconstruction.
(76)

Whichj John wonders whoi Mary liked [tj picture of ti]

As the operator-variable relations in (76) are legitimate, it is not obvious why (75a) should be
totally ungrammatical. (75b) is a covert counterpart of (75a). The example is a Subjacency
violation but it still allows the interpretation with whom taking matrix scope. What it resists is
the reading in which whom takes embedded scope. This fact, too, is puzzling because pictureof whom should reconstruct as in (77).
(77)

Whichi John wonders whoj tj bought [ti picture of whom]

Both (75a) and (75b) appear to be illicit examples of remnant movement. A remnant [which
picture of t] moves in (75a), and [which picture of whom] in (75b) is also a remnant of covert
movement, if whom moves covertly to the edge of the embedded CP when it takes scope atthat position. Thus, the examples pose a potential problem for the hypothesis that there are no
constraints that specifically ban unbound traces or remnant movement. In this section, I
suggest a solution to this problem. I argue that the ungrammaticality of (75a) as well as thescope property of (75b) can be analyzed on the basis of the chain interpretation mechanism
considered in the preceding section.14
Let us first take a closer look at the derivation of (75b). The embedded vP phase isformed as in (78).
(78)[vP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [who [v [VP bought [whomi [whichj [tj picture ofti]]]]]]]

14

The ungrammaticality of (75a) may follow from the linearization mechanism discussed in Section
2 under the plausible assumption that DP is a spell-out domain. As who is extracted out of [which
picture of who], it first has to move to the edge of the DP as in (i).
(i) [DP whoi [which [NP picture of ti]]]If linearization applies at this point, the order ‘who < which’ is established. As (75a) contradicts this,the example is ruled out exactly as the apparent proper binding violations with scrambling. However, I
do not pursue this analysis because it does not extend to (75b). In this example, whom remains in situ
and the order ‘which < whom’ is preserved throughout the derivation.

２８

Whom and which are raised covertly so that the wh-operators and [t picture of t], which isinterpreted as the object, are separated in the wh-phrase. Then, the wh-phrase moves to theedge of the embedded vP. As the VP is transferred to the C-I interface, only the argument, [tjpicture of ti], is interpreted in the object position. The wh-phrase then moves to the edge ofthe matrix vP and on to the edge of the matrix CP. This yields the configuration in (79).
(79)[CP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [TP John [vP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [John[v [VP ...

Here, note the interpretation that the wh-phrase receives at the edge of the CP. Since it is acriterial interrogative operator position, both whom and which should be interpreted as
wh-operators whereas the argument, tj picture of ti, receives no interpretation. Thus, the chaininterpretation mechanism entertained in the preceding section predicts correctly that whomtakes matrix scope in (75b).
It should be noted that a slightly more complex analysis is required if covert movement isassumed for wh-phrases in situ. Under this assumption, the initial whom in (78) covertly
moves to the edge of the embedded CP when it takes embedded scope. Then, the following
configuration obtains:15
overt movement(80)[CP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [TP ... [CP whomi [whok [TP ... [vP [whomi [whichj [tjpicture of ti]]]covert movement

This configuration may be ruled out on the basis that whom receives interpretation as a
wh-operator in two distinct positions, the edges of the matrix and embedded CPs. But a
complication arises when the example is compared with van Riemsdijk and William’s (1981)(12a), repeated below as (81).
(81)

Whoi ti wonders [which picture of whom]j Mary bought tj

In this example, whom can take matrix scope as well as embedded scope. This indicates thatthe following configuration is legitimate:
15

More precisely, the wh-phrase moves overtly to the edge of the matrix CP through the edge of thematrix vP. I ignored the intermediate landing site in (80) because it is not important for the discussion.

２９

covert movement(82)

overt movement[CP whomi [whok [TP ... [CP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [TP ... [vP [whomi [whichj [tjpicture of ti]]]That is, whom at the edge of the embedded CP can covertly move to the edge of the matrix
CP and be interpreted only at the final landing site.
What distinguishes (80) and (82) is that the two instances of whom at the edges of thematrix and embedded CPs are parts of a single chain in the latter whereas they head theirrespective chains in the former. Then, (83) allows us to permit (82) and at the same time, tomake the account for the illicit (80) precise.
(83) An operator must be interpreted in a criterial operator position if it heads a chain.
In (80), the two instances of whom head chains, and hence must both be interpreted as
wh-operators. On the other hand, only whom at the edge of the matrix CP heads a chain in(82). The one at the edge of the embedded CP, then, need not receive interpretation.
Although (83) is a stipulation, it seems to be in line with the phase theory. Let us
consider the two configurations in (84), where the edge of CP is a criterial interrogative
operator position.
(84) a. [vP whi ... [VP ... [CP whi [TP ...
b. [vP ......... [VP ... [CP whi [TP ...
In both cases, VP is transferred to the C-I interface. In the case of (84a), there is a copy of thewh in the higher transfer domain. Hence, the interpretation of the wh can wait and need nottake place at the edge of the CP. On the other hand, there is no such option in the case of(84b). If the wh does not receive interpretation at the edge of the CP, it never will. Thus, it isplausible that (83) is part of the phase-based interpretive mechanism. The situation is in factsomewhat similar to that of anaphor interpretation discussed above.
(85) a. [vP ... [... self ...]i ... [VP ... [... self ...]i ...
b. [vP ......................... [VP ... [... self ...]i ...
In the case of (85a), the reference of the anaphor can be left pending when the VP istransferred to the C-I interface because there is a copy in the higher transfer domain. On the

３０other hand, it must be determined in the case of (85b) as the anaphor will not be able to pickup its reference later in the derivation.
The analysis just outlined for (75b) also accounts for the ungrammaticality of (75a),
repeated below as (86).
(86) *[Which picture of ti]j does John wonder whoi Mary liked tj
The example is derived as in (87).
overt movement(87)[CP [whomi [whichj [tj picture of ti]]] [TP ... [CP whomi [TP ... [vP [whomi [whichj [tjpicture of ti]]]overt movement

The only notable difference between (80), the derivation of (75b) for whom taking embedded
scope, and (87) is that the movement of whom to the edge of the embedded CP is covert in theformer whereas it is overt in the latter. But this difference does not affect the interpretation ofwhom. Just as in (80), whom receives interpretation as an interrogative operator at the edgesof both the matrix and embedded CPs in (87). The example is excluded because a wh cannot
take scope at two distinct positions. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (86) and the scope
property of whom in (75b) receive a uniform analysis.

6. Conclusion
As reviewed in Section 2, there are abundant cases of illicit remnant movement that
preposes a remnant created by scrambling. In Section 3, I presented a new piece of evidence
for their analysis by Takita (2010) in terms of linearization. One of the crucial examples,(40b), is repeated below as (88).
(88) ? [CP Hanako-ga ti yonda to]j [TP Taroo-wa [CP Opi [TP minna-ga tj omotteiru]]
Hanako-NOM read C
Taroo-TOP
all-NOM thinkyorimo ooku-no
hon-o
yonda]
thanmany-GEN book-ACC read‘[CP That Hanako read ti]j, Taroo read more books than everyone thinks tj’

３１

I argued that examples of this kind can be accommodated under Takita’s PF approach but notunder the proper binding analysis. This supports his claim that there are no syntactic
constraints, such as the proper binding condition, against remnant movement.
Examples like (88) provide additional evidence for the radical reconstruction property ofJapanese scrambling. The preposed CP in (88) must reconstruct so that Op binds it trace. In
Section 4, I presented an analysis for examples such as (51), repeated below as (89), wherescrambling extends the binding possibility of a local reflexive.
(89)

Taroo-gai[CP zibunzisin-oi, j Hanako-gaj
t hihansita to] itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
self-ACC
Hanako-NOM criticized C said fact
‘Tarooi thinks [that selfi, j Hanakoj criticized t]’

This is unexpected if zibunzisin ‘self’ reconstructs and the Binding theory applies at LF. I
argued that Quicoli’s (2008) phase-based Binding theory, augmented by a chain interpretation
mechanism, allows the explanation of (89) in a way that is consistent with the radical
reconstruction property of scrambling.
Finally, in Section 5, I considered the scope property of wh-in-situ in examples such as(75b), repeated below as (90).
(90) ??[Which picture of whom]i does John wonder whoj tj bought ti
As discussed in detail, whom can only take matrix scope and cannot have embedded scope inthis example. This may be regarded as a “proper binding effect” because if whom covertly
moves to the edge of the embedded CP, it fails to bind its trace. But the analysis is untenable
if picture of whom is reconstructed as widely assumed. It appears then that a stipulation must
be made to ban the movement of a remnant created by covert wh-movement. I suggested thatthe phase-based interpretive mechanism of chains, proposed in Section 4, makes it possible toprovide an alternative account for the example without making this stipulation.
As noted at the outset of this paper, the apparent proper binding effects and the radical
reconstruction property have been considered major characteristics of Japanese scramblingand have been discussed extensively in the literature. If the proposals in this paper are on theright track, the former provides important data for the examination of linearization as Takita(2010) argues, and the latter can be employed to investigate the precise formulation of theBinding theory and the chain interpretation mechanism.

３２

References
Abels, Klaus (2003) Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition Stranding, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (1988) “Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 6: 291-352.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Charnavel, Isabelle and Dominique Sportiche (2013) “Anaphor Binding Domain,” Unpublishedmanuscript, Harvard University and UCLA.
Chomsky, Noam (1993) “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,” in Kenneth Hale andSamuel Jay Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger, 1-52, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework,” in Roger Martin, Juan Uriagereka,
and David Michaels, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of HowardLasnik, 89-155, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam (2008) “On Phases,” in Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa
Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger
Vergnaud, 133-166, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (1993) “The Theory of Principles and Parameters,” inJoachim Jacobs, et al., eds., Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research,
506-569, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Dejima, Mayumi (1999) A Study on Remnant-Scrambled Sentences in Japanese and their LF
Representations, M.A. thesis, Nanzan University.
Fiengo, Robert (1977) “On Trace Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 35-61.
Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky (2005) “Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure,” Theoretical
Linguistics 31: 1-45.
Harada, Kazuko (1972) “Constraints on WH-Q Binding,” Studies in Descriptive and Applied
Linguistics 5: 180-206.
Hoji, Hajime (1990) Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax, Unpublishedmanuscript, USC.
Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Kikuchi, Akira (1986) “Comparative Deletion in Japanese,” Unpublished manuscript, Yamagata
University.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu (1997) Elementary Operations and Optiomal Derivations, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.

３３

Ko, Hee-Jeong (2007) “Asymmetries in Scrambling and Cyclic Linearization,” Linguistic Inquiry
38: 49-83.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971) “Remarks on the Notion of Subject with Reference to Words like also, evenand only (Part 2),” Annual Bulletin 4: 127-152, The Research Institute of Logopedics andPhoniatrics, University of Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1980) “Bun-Koozoo-no Hikaku [Comparison of Sentential Structures],” in
Tetsuya Kunihiro, ed., Niti-Ei Hikaku Kooza [Lectures on Comparison of Japanese andEnglish] 2: Bunpoo [Grammar], 23-61, Taishukan, Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English andJapanese,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1984) “On the Nature of Proper Government,” Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 235-289.
Lebeaux, David (1988) Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera (2008) “Binding, Phases, and Locality,” Syntax 11: 281-298.
Müller, Gereon (1996) “A Constraint on Remnant Movement,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 14: 355-407.
Murasugi, Keiko (1991) Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Acquisition
and Learnability, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nakamura, Masaru (1996) Sokubaku-Kankei [Binding Relations], Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Oka, Toshifusa (1990) “On the Spec of IP,” Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Perlmutter, David (1972) “Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French Relativization,” in Paul M.
Peranteau, et al., eds., The Chicago Witch Hunt, 73-105, Chicago Linguistic Society,
University of Chicago.
Quicoli, A. Carlos (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11: 299-329.
Richards, Norvin (2001) Movement in Language, Oxford University Press, New York.
Riemsdijk, Henk van and Edwin Williams (1981) “NP-Structure,” The Linguistic Review 1:
171-217.
Rizzi, Luigi (2010) “On Some Properties of Criterial Freezing,” in E. Phoevos Panagiotidis, ed.,The Complementizer Phrase, 17-32, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Saito, Mamoru (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, Mamoru (1989) “Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A’-Movement,” in Mark R. Baltin
and Anthony S. Kroch, eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 182-200,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Saito, Mamoru (2003) “A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains,”
Lingua 113: 481-518.
Takahashi, Daiko (1994) “Sluicing in Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 265-300.

３４

Takita, Kensuke (2010) Cyclic Linearization and Constraints on Movement and Ellipsis, Ph.D.
dissertation, Nanzan University.

３５