Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 47.2, 383-405. (2017)
Labeling and Argument Doubling in Japanese*
Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
Chomsky’s (2013) labeling algorithm aims to explain, among other things, why internal
merge is restricted the way it is and why language includes f-feature agreement. In this paper,
I suggest that it explains, in addition, the effects of the q-criterion to a large extent. If thesuggestion is correct, the q-criterion, as it is currently formulated, should be dispensed with.
The argument is based on the analysis of Japanese, a language that lacks f-feature agreement.
In the following section, I briefly go over Chomsky’s (2013) labeling algorithm and theanalysis of Japanese in Saito (2014). There, I note that the former excludes typical cases ofq-criterion violations in English whereas the latter predicts that Japanese allows argument
doubling in the absence of the q-criterion. Then, in Section 3, I examine Japanese examples inviolation of the q-criterion. I first consider examples with multiple themes, originallyobserved by Kuroda (1988), and then show that argument doubling is a general phenomenon
in the language, presenting examples with multiple external arguments and multiple source
and goal PPs. Section 4 contains a preliminary discussion on the restrictions on argument
doubling. I suggest that two arguments with the same thematic role must contribute to thesemantic form in distinct ways. In the cases taken up, one is interpreted as focus and the otherspecifies the set of alternatives for the focus in the sense of Rooth (1992).

2. Labeling in Japanese
The minimal operation, Merge, applies to two objects a and b, and forms a new object g ={a, b}. Chomsky (2013) hypothesizes that it must accompany an algorithm to determine thenature (or label) of the newly formed object. When a verb and a nominal element are merged,
the interpretation requires information on whether the formed object is verbal (VP) or nominal(DP), for example. He considers the three cases listed in (1).
(1) a. g = {H, aP}
b. g = {aP, bP}
c. g = {H1, H2}*

I am happy to be able to contribute this paper to a volume in celebration of the 30th anniversary of
the Tsing Hua Institute of Linguistics, which has been a leading center for linguistic research in Asia.

2(1a) is straightforward as search into g immediately yields a unique head, H. In this case, it canbe assumed that H determines the label of g. On the other hand, (1b-c) are problematic because
the label of g cannot be determined straightforwardly.
Given this, Chomsky makes two concrete proposals to accommodate instances of (1b) thatarise in actual derivations. Let us consider the structure in (2).
YP à <f, f>

(2)
DP
[f]

TP
T
[f]

XP à vP
DP
[f]

vP
v

VP
V

DP

Merge applies first to yield {V, DP} and then {v, {V, DP}}. These cases are instances of theunproblematic (1a). But then, the configuration in (1b) arises when the subject DP and vP
merge. In this case, the DP internally merges with TP later in the derivation after T is
introduced into the structure. Chomsky proposes that vP determines the label of XP at thispoint because it is the unique element that XP properly contains. The internal merge of DP
with TP again creates an instance of (1b). Here, the DP and (the label of) TP share the same
f-features due to f-feature agreement. Chomsky suggests that this feature sharing makes it
possible to label YP as <f, f>.
Chomsky (2013) points out that this analysis extends to structures created by
wh-movement. Let us consider (3):1(3) [YP Which book [CP do [TP you think [XP _ [CP that [TP John bought _ ]]]]]]

There are two instances of internal merge of a wh-phrase with a CP. In the embedded clause,a wh-phrase merges with a non-question CP. This is allowed because the wh-phrase moves
further, and as a result, CP provides the label of XP as the only element properly contained
within XP. The one in the matrix is legitimate as the C heads a question with the feature Q, andthe formed object (YP) can be labeled as <Q, Q> with feature sharing.

1

The movement proceeds through the edges of vP as well. I ignore this for ease of exposition.

3This analysis predicts that internal merge always terminates in a configuration of feature
sharing. This is illustrated below.
(4) a. Operator movementb. NP-movement
YP <f, f>

XP <Q, Q>
wh
[Q]

C’
C
[Q]

DP
[f]
TP

T’
T
[f]

vP

In particular, it excludes internal merge at TP and CP without feature sharing unless themerged phrase “moves on.” Then, internal merge, as an instance of Merge, is free but isseverely restricted by the labeling algorithm. The “last resort” nature of internal merge is thus
captured.
Chomsky’s (2013) proposals on labeling raise interesting research questions withlanguages like Japanese. First, Japanese lacks f-feature agreement altogether, at least on thesurface. So, it is not obvious how sentences are labeled. Secondly, it is well known that thelanguage allows sentences with multiple nominative subjects. The following example is from
Kuno (1973).2(5) [TP Bunmeikoku-ga[TP dansei-ga [TP heikin-zyumyoo-ga
mizika-i]]]civilized.country-NOM male-NOM average-life.span-NOM short-Pres.
‘It is in civilized countries that the male population has a short life-span.’This is ruled out straightforwardly in English. As illustrated in (6), the merger of the higher
subject results in failure of labeling because only the lower thematic subject shares f-featureswith T.
YP à ?

(6)
DP
[f1]

2

XP à <f2, f2>
DP
[f2]

T’
T

vP

When the matrix predicate is individual-level, the sentence-initial nominative phrase is interpreted
as the focus, as shown in the translation of (5). This holds also for the subsequent examples although
I do not always indicate this in the translations. See Kuno (1973) and Heycock (2008) for detailed
discussion on this interpretive property of matrix sentences with individual-level predicates.

4[f2]
But then, why is (5) grammatical in Japanese?
Finally, Japanese has scrambling, which is argued to be neither operator movement nor
A-movement. (7b) is a typical example.
(7) a. Minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga
dono hon-oeran-daka] sir-ita-gat-te i-ru
all-NOM
Hanako-NOM which book-ACC choose-Past Q want.to.know-Pres.
‘Everyone wants to know which book Hanako chose.’b. Dono hon-o minna-ga [CP Hanako-ga _ eran-da ka] sir-ita-gat-te i-ru

A wh-question is embedded in (7a). In (7b), the wh-phrase, dono hon-o ‘which book-ACC’, isscrambled out of the embedded CP, where it takes scope. Yet, the example is perfectly
grammatical and is interpreted exactly as (7a) without scrambling. The movement cannot be
A-movement because it is clearly in violation of the locality imposed on A-movement. It
cannot be operator movement either because if it were, the scrambled phrase should takescope at the final landing site.3 Again, scrambling is ruled out in English, for example, by thelabeling requirement. If a non-operator object is internally merged with CP or TP, then theformed object fails to be labeled as shown in (8).
YP à ?

(8) a.
aP

aP

CP
C

XP à ?

b.

TP (<f, f>)

TP (<f, f>)DP

T’

The characteristic properties of Japanese illustrated above suggest that the language
employs a labeling mechanism that is not observed in languages with f-feature agreement.
The purpose of Saito (2014) was to look into this mechanism. The main part of the hypothesispresented there is that suffixal Case markers make phrases invisible for search and as a result,serve as anti-labeling devices. Let us consider (9) for a concrete illustration.
(9) g = {aP-Case, bP}
The idea is that aP with Case is invisible when the label for g is calculated, and hence, bP
determines the label for g.

3

See Saito (1989, 2003) and Webelhuth (1989) for the non-operator, non-A nature of scrambling.

5This not only allows Japanese sentences to be labeled without f-feature sharing but also
accommodates examples with multiple nominative subjects, as shown in (10).
(10)

TP
DP-NOMTP

DP-NOM

T’vP

TWhen the lower DP merges with T’, T’ determines the label of the formed object because theDP with suffixal Case is invisible. The same mechanism allows the merger of the higher DP,
referred to as a ‘major subject’ in the literature. Since it accompanies suffixal Case, the lower
TP determines the label of {DP-NOM, TP}. Thus, sentences with multiple nominative
subjects are predicted to be grammatical.
The hypothesis also accounts for why scrambling is possible in Japanese. Scrambling in(11a) creates the configuration in (11b).

(11) a. Sono hon-oTaroo-ga_ kat-tathat book-ACC Taroo-NOM
buy-Past‘Taroo bought that book.’b.

TP
DP-ACCTP... DP-ACC ...

The object formed by this internal merge is successfully labeled. As DP-ACC is invisible forlabeling, the lower TP provides the label for the newly formed TP.
The analysis for Japanese outlined above, if correct, makes it possible to examine theq-criterion in an interesting way. Suppose, for example, that two theme objects appear in an
English VP as in (12).

6XP à ?

(12)
VP
V

DP
<theme>DP<theme>This structure has been ruled out by the q-criterion as the verb assigns the theme role to two
distinct DPs. However, note that labeling fails in this structure as well. When the VP and thehigher DP merge, the formed object XP fails to receive a label. The situation is different in theJapanese counterpart shown in (13).
(13)

XP
DP-ACC
VP<theme>DP-ACC V<theme>

The two DP objects accompany suffixal accusative Case. Hence, by hypothesis, VP provides
the label for XP, and there should be no problem with labeling. If the structure is illicit inJapanese, it suggests that the q-criterion is indeed operative. On the other hand, if the structureis allowed, it raises doubts on the q-criterion. In the following section, I build on theobservations reported in Kuroda (1988) and argue that argument doubling of this kind is
widely attested in Japanese.

3. Argument Doubling as a General Phenomenon
Let us consider again the example of multiple nominative subjects in (5), repeated below
in (14), before discussing examples of argument doubling.
(14) [TP Bunmeikoku-ga[TP dansei-ga [TP heikin-zyumyoo-ga
mizika-i]]]civilized.country-NOM male-NOM average-life.span-NOM short-Pres.
‘It is in civilized countries that the male population has a short life-span.’In this type of examples, the lowest nominative phrase is interpreted as the subject of thepredicate. What is short is the average life span, and not civilized countries or their malepopulation. The higher subjects are in some sort of predication relation with their sister TPs.
Hence, examples of this kind are consistent with the q-criterion.
The same point holds for multiple accusative sentences like (15), which have also been

7widely discussed in the literature since Harada (1973) and Kuroda (1978).
(15) ?? Hanako-ga
gakusei-osan-nin hamabe-o hasir-ase-ta
Hanako-NOM student-ACC three-CL beach-ACC run-make-Past‘Hanako made three students run on the beach.’This example is marginal because there is a somewhat mysterious surface constraint inJapanese against multiple accusative phrases in a single clause. However, as Harada
demonstrates, the example becomes perfect when one of the accusative phrases is dislocated.
The cleft sentences in (16) illustrate this.
(16) a. [CP Hanako-ga
gakusei-osan-nin hasir-ase-tano]-wahamabe-o da
Hanako-NOM student-ACC three-CL run-make-Past COMP-TOP beach-ACC is‘It is on the beach that Hanako made three students run.’b.

[CP Hanako-ga
hamabe-o hasir-ase-tano]-wagakusei-osan-nin da
Hanako-NOM beach-ACC run-make-Past COMP-TOP student-ACC three-CL is‘It is three students that Hanako made run on the beach.’

The grammaticality of these examples indicates that multiple accusatives are allowed aside
from the effects of the weak surface constraint. (15), like (14), is consistent with theq-criterion because gakusei-o ‘student-ACC’ is the causee argument whereas hamabe-o‘beach-ACC’ expresses a location or a path.
However, the situation is different with (17) from Kuroda (1988).
(17) a. ?? Masao-ga
Hanako-ohoho-obut-taMasao-NOM Hanako-ACC cheek-ACC hit-Past‘Masao hit Hanako on the cheek.’b.

[CP Masao-ga
Hanako-obut-ta no]-wahoho(-o) da
Masao-NOM Hanako-ACC hit-Past COMP-TOP cheek-ACC is‘It is on the cheek that Masao hit Hanako.’

Kuroda argues that the two accusative phrases in (17) receive the same q-role from the verb.
The example says that Masao hit Hanako, and more specifically, her cheek. Kuroda confirms
this with the ungrammaticality of (18).

8(18) a. *Masao-ga
Hanako-oyubi-oni-hon ot-ta
Masao-NOM Hanako-ACC finger-ACC two-CL break-Past‘Masao broke two of Hanako’s fingers.’b. *[CP Masao-ga
Hanako-oot-tano]-wayubi-oni-hon da
Masao-NOM Hanako-ACC break-Past COMP-TOP finger-ACC two-CL is‘Lit. It is two fingers that Masao broke Hanako.’This example is ungrammatical because one can break fingers but not a person, as (19a, b)
illustrate.4(19) a. Masao-ga
Hanako-no yubi-o
ni-hon ot-ta
Masao-NOM Hanako-GEN finger-ACC two-CL break-Past‘Masao broke two of Hanako’s fingers.’b. *Masao-ga
Hanako-oot-ta
Masao-NOM Hanako-ACC break-Past‘Masao broke Hanako.’Then, the verb but ‘hit’ in (17) assigns the theme role to both Hanako and hoho ‘cheek’ inviolation of the q-criterion.
Argument doubling of this kind, which Kuroda (1988) notes rather casually, is observed
extensively in Japanese. He already presents an example similar to (17) with two dativearguments. It is shown in (20).
(20) a. ?? Masao-ga
Hanako-nihoho-nikisusi-ta
Masao-NOM Hanako-DAT cheek-DAT kiss-Past‘Masao kissed Hanako on the cheek.’b.

[CP Masao-ga
Hanako-ni
kisusi-ta no]-wa
hoho-nida
Masao-NOM Hanako-DAT kiss-Past COMP-TOP cheek-DAT is‘It is on the cheek that Masao kissed Hanako.’

In this example, Hanako and hoho ‘cheek’ are both thematic arguments of kisus ‘kiss’. Thiscan be confirmed with the following contrast:
4

Note that the contrast between (17a) and (18a) indicates that the former is not derived by possessor
raising into a non-thematic position. If it were, the latter cannot be ruled out as (19a) is grammatical.

9(21) a. [TP Taroo-ga [TP musume-ga
totemo kasiko-i]]
Taroo-NOM daughter-NOM very wise-Pres.
‘Taroo is such that his daughter is very wise.’b. *Masao-ga
Taroo-nimusume-ni
kisusi-ta
Masao-NOM Taroo-DAT daughter-DAT kiss-Past‘Lit. Masao kissed Taroo on his daughter.’c. *[CP Masao-ga
Taroo-nikisusi-ta no]-wa
musume-nidaMasao-NOM Taroo-DAT kiss-Past COMP-TOP daughter-DAT is‘Lit. It is on his daughter that Masao kissed Taroo.’(21a) is a typical example of the major subject construction. It says that Taroo is such that his
daughter is wise, but does not imply that Taroo is wise. The discourse can continue with theutterance “But Taroo himself isn’t wise at all” without any contradiction. On the other hand,(21b, c) make sense only if kissing Taroo’s daughter automatically means kissing Taroo,
which is not true.
Argument doubling is not limited to accusative and dative arguments. In (22), the PP
expressing the source is doubled.
(22) a. ? ?Nihon-kara Hirosima-kara(-dake) sankasya-ga
at-ta
Japan-from Hiroshima-from-only participant-NOM be-Past‘Lit. There were participants only from Hiroshima from Japan.’b.

[CP Nihon-kara sankasya-ga
at-ta no]-wa
Hirosima-kara(-dake) da
Japan-from participant-NOM be-Past COMP-TOP Hiroshima-from-only is‘Lit. It is (only) from Hiroshima that there were participants from Japan.’(22b) is perfectly fine although there are two source PPs, Nihon-kara ‘from Japan’ andHiroshima-kara ‘from Hiroshima’.5 The examples in (23) point to the same conclusion.
(23) a. ?? Hanako-ga
Yooroppa-e Doitu-e
san-kai-dake it-ta
Hanako-NOM Europe-to Germany-to three-CL-only go-Past‘Lit. Hanako went only three times to Germany to Europe.’
5

The degraded status of (23a) indicates that there is a constraint against multiple occurrences of a
postposition in a simple sentence, similar to the ban on multiple accusative (and dative) phrases. I
return to this in the following section.

10b.

[CP Hanako-ga
Yooroppa-e it-tano]-waDoitu-esan-kai(-dake) da
Hanako-NOM Europe-to go-Past COMP-TOP Germany-to three-CL-only is‘Lit. It is (only) three times to Germany that Hanako went to Europe.’

In (23b), the goal argument is doubled, but the sentence is perfectly grammatical.
In addition, there is evidence that an external agent argument can also be doubled. Let us
first consider the following examples with major subjects:(24) a.

[TP Taroo-ga [TP musume-ga
hito-ri(-dake) totemo kasiko-i]]
Taroo-NOM daughter-NOM one-CL-only very wise-Pres.
‘Taroo is such that (only) one of his daughters is very wise.’b. ?? [TP Taroo-ga [TP musume-ga
hito-ri(-dake) sono kaigi-de hatugensi-ta]]
Taroo-NOM daughter-NOM one-CL-only that meeting-in speak.up-Past‘Taroo is such that (only) one of his daughters spoke up in the meeting.’
As Kuno (1973) observes, the major subject construction is most natural with anindividual-level predicate as the inner TP describes a property attributed to the major subject.
Thus, (24b) is degraded compared with (24a). Further, a lower subject cannot be dislocated toa position above a higher subject in this construction. (25) is totally ungrammatical.
(25) *[CP Taroo-ga
totemo kasiko-i no]-wa
musume-ga
hito-ri(-dake) da
Taroo-NOM very wise-Pres. COMP-TOP daughter-NOM one-CL-only is‘Lit. It is (only) one of his daughers that Taroo is very wise.’ (cf. (24a))
Let us consider (26) with this background.
(26) a. ? *Gakusei-ga itinensei-ga
san-nin(-dake) sono kaigi-de hatugensi-ta
student-NOM freshman-NOM three-CL-only that meeting-in speak.up-Past‘Lit. The students are such that (only) three freshmen spoke up in the meeting.’b.

[CP Gakusei-ga sono kaigi-de hatugensi-ta no]-wa
itinensei-ga
student-NOM that meeting-in speak.up-Past COMP-TOP freshman-NOM
san-nin(-dake) da
three-CL-only is‘Lit. It is (only) three freshmen that students spoke up in the meeting.’

11(26a) is degraded. When interpretation is forced, it sounds like a major subject sentence witha wrong kind of predicate. On the other hand, (26b) is fine. This cleft example cannot bederived from a major subject sentence by placing itinensei-ga san-nin(-dake)‘freshman-NOM three-CL(-only)’ in the focus position. (25) shows that it would result incomplete ungrammaticality. Then, why is (26b) grammatical?
There is one outstanding difference between (24a) and (26a). The former does not saythat Taroo is smart, as mentioned. On the other hand, (26a) implies that students spoke up in
the meeting. Thus, (26a) need not be a regular major subject sentence but can be an instance ofthematic subject doubling. The example is degraded even under this reading because it is a
simple sentence containing two thematic nominative arguments. But this surface effect isavoided when one of the nominative arguments is displaced as in (26b). If this analysis iscorrect, then (26b) shows that an agentive subject can also be doubled in Japanese.
In this section, I argued, building on Kuroda’s (1988) lead, that any thematic argument
can be doubled in Japanese. This demonstrates that the q-criterion should be eliminated as averb can assign the same q-role to more than one argument quite generally. One question thatremains is why (24a), for example, cannot be construed as an example of thematic subject
doubling. If it could be, (25) should be grammatical. I simply stated above that the example
does not convey that Taroo is very smart, and hence, must be an instance of the major subject
construction. But the fact indicates that there is a restriction on argument doubling that forces
the major subject interpretation of (24a). I turn to this in the following section.

4. Argument Doubling as a Focus Construction
The following simple examples show that argument doubling is not quite free:(27) a. *Hanako-ga
Taroo-ogakusei-osan-nin sikat-ta
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC student-ACC three-CL scold-Past‘Intended. Hanako scolded Taroo and three students.’
b. *[CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-osikat-ta no]-wa
gakusei-osan-nin da
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC scold-Past COMP-TOP student-ACC three-CL is‘Lit. It is three students that Hanako scolded Taroo.’
Then, what makes the grammatical examples of argument doubling possible? I consider thisquestion in this section.

12

Kuroda’s (1988) examples in (17) and (20), repeated below as (28a) and (28b), suggestthat the doubled arguments should have a whole-part relation with body parts.
(28) a. [CP Masao-ga
Hanako-obut-ta no]-wahoho(-o) da
Masao-NOM Hanako-ACC hit-Past COMP-TOP cheek-ACC is‘It is on the cheek that Masao hit Hanako.’b. [CP Masao-ga
Hanako-ni
kisusi-ta no]-wa
hoho-nida
Masao-NOM Hanako-DAT kiss-Past COMP-TOP cheek-DAT is‘It is on the cheek that Masao kissed Hanako.’
However, the other examples discussed above show that the requirement is not so specific.
(22b), repeated below as (29), has nothing to do with body parts.
(29) [CP Nihon-kara sankasya-ga
at-ta no]-wa
Hirosima-kara(-dake) da
Japan-from participant-NOM be-Past COMP-TOP Hiroshima-from-only is‘Lit. It is (only) from Hiroshima that there were participants from Japan.’
Another relevant example is shown in (30).
(30) a. ?* Hanako-ga
kudamono-o ringo-o
hito-tu tabe-ta
Hanako-NOM fruit-ACC apple-ACC one-CL eat-Past‘Hanako ate fruits, and it was an apple.’b.

[CP Hanako-ga
kudamono-o tabe-ta no]-wa
ringo-ohito-tu(-dake) da
Hanako-NOM fruit-ACC eat-Past COMP-TOP apple-ACC one-CL-only is‘Lit. It is only one apple that Hanako ate fruits.’

Let us first look into the properties of (30) to see what sort of relation is required between
the two accusative theme objects. First, the example clearly implies that Hanako ate a fruit andthat Hanako ate an apple. This is expected if the two accusative arguments both receive thetheme role from the verb tabe ‘eat’ as Kuroda observed. Furthermore, Hanako eating a fruitand her eating an apple is the same event. It seems then that for (31a) to be legitimate, (31b)must hold.
(31) a. [TP ... DP-ACC1 DP-ACC2 ...]
b. [TP ... DP-ACC1 ...] and [TP ... DP-ACC2 ...] depict the same event/state.

13This distinguishes the grammatical cases from (27). In the latter, Hanako scolding Taroo andher scolding three students cannot be considered the same event even if Taroo is one of thethree students.
Secondly, (30a) improves as focus is placed on the second accusative argument. (32)with the focus particle -dake ‘only’ on this argument is already better than (30a).
(32) ? Hanako-ga
kudamono-o ringo-o
hito-tu-dake tabe-ta
Hanako-NOM fruit-ACC apple-ACC one-CL-only eat-Past‘Hanako ate fruits, and what she ate was only one apple.’
And when the argument is placed in the focus position of a cleft sentence, the example
becomes perfect as (30b) shows.
A similar effect can be achieved by making the first argument a topic. Thus, (33b) is far
better than (33a).6(33) a. ?* Hanako-ga
Yooroppa-e Doitu-e
san-kai it-ta
Hanako-NOM Europe-to Germany-to three-CL go-Past‘Lit. Hanako went to Germany three times to Europe.’b. ? Yooroppa-e-wa Hanako-ga
Doitu-esan-kai it-ta
Europe-to-TOP Hanako-NOM Germany-to three-CL go-Past‘Lit. To Europe, Hanako went to Germany three times.’
Then, argument doubling seems to require that the second argument be a focus. This
descriptive conclusion is confirmed further by the fact that the first argument cannot be placedin focus. (34a) is totally ungrammatical in clear contrast with (23b), repeated in (34b).
(34) a. *[CP Hanako-ga
Doitu-esan-kai(-dake) it-tano]-waYooroppa-e da
Hanako-NOM Germany-to three-CL-only go-Past COMP-TOP Europe-to is‘Lit. It is to Europe that Hanako went (only) three times to Germany.’

6

An example of PP doubling is employed here because a DP topic may be licensed by the “aboutness”
relation as Kuno (1973) demonstrates and hence it is not clear that it participates in argument
doubling.

14b. [CP Hanako-ga
Yooroppa-e it-tano]-waDoitu-esan-kai(-dake) da
Hanako-NOM Europe-to go-Past COMP-TOP Germany-to three-CL-only is‘Lit. It is (only) three times to Germany that Hanako went to Europe.’
Given this, I suggest in the remainder of this section that the first argument in argument
doubling must serve to specify the set of alternatives for the focus, in the sense of Rooth(1992). Rooth proposes that a focus generates a set of alternatives. Let us consider (35) for an
illustration.
(35) a. John saw MARY.
b. {Bill, Susan, Mary, ...}
c. {John saw Bill, John saw Susan, John saw Mary, ...}
Focus is placed on Mary in (35a). (35b) is the set of alternatives for Mary, that is, the set ofpeople that John could see. Then, roughly speaking, (35a) asserts that ‘John saw Mary’ is thetrue sentence among those in the set (23c). Consequently, it is interpreted as ‘It is Mary thatJohn saw’. Rooth assumes that the set of alternatives that a focus generates is determined by
the context.
This analysis of focus provides an insight into the interpretation of (30b), repeated in(36a).
(36) a. [CP Hanako-ga
kudamono-o tabe-ta no]-wa
ringo-ohito-tu(-dake) da
Hanako-NOM fruit-ACC eat-Past COMP-TOP apple-ACC one-CL-only is‘Lit. It is only one apple that Hanako ate fruits.’
b. [CP Hanako-ga
tabe-ta no]-wa
ringo-ohito-tu(-dake) da
Hanako-NOM eat-Past COMP-TOP apple-ACC one-CL-only is‘It is only one apple that Hanako ate.’
This example states that an apple is the only fruit that Hanako ate. In particular, it does notmean that an apple is the only thing that Hanako ate. She could have eaten some vegetables
and meat in addition. The interpretation absent with (36a) obtains when the first accusativeargument kudamono-o ‘fruit-ACC’ is missing as in (36b). Then, this accusative argument
serves in (36a) to restrict the set of alternatives to fruits as in (37).
(37) {one orange, two bananas, five peaches, one banana, one apple, ...}

15(36a) indeed means that it is only one apple among the members of the set in (37) that Hanako
ate.
Recall that kudamono-o ‘fruit-ACC’ in (36a) is interpreted as a theme. So, the sentence
implies (38).
(38) Hanako-ga
kudamono-o tabe-ta
Hanako-NOM fruit-ACC eat-Past‘Hanako ate fruits.’
At the same time, this accusative argument specifies the set of alternatives for the second
accusative object. Then, it is only natural that it is indefinite. If it were ‘all fruits’, for example,
it could still specify the set of alternatives, but would lead to a contradiction because thesentence implies that Hanako ate all fruits, not just an apple.
This analysis is still at an informal stage, but extends to the other examples discussed sofar. Let us consider again Kuroda’s (28b), repeated in (39).
(39) [CP Masao-ga
Hanako-ni
kisusi-ta no]-wa
hoho-nida
Masao-NOM Hanako-DAT kiss-Past COMP-TOP cheek-DAT is‘It is on the cheek that Masao kissed Hanako.’
Hanako here can be construed as ‘Hanako’s body part’. Then, it specifies the set ofalternatives in (40).
(40) {Hanako’s hand, Hanako’s head, Hanako’s cheek, ...}The example states that it is Hanako’s cheek among the members of the set in (40) that Masao
kissed. The ungrammaticality of (27b), repeated below as (41), is also expected under the
analysis.
(41) *[CP Hanako-ga
Taroo-osikat-ta no]-wa
gakusei-osan-nin da
Hanako-NOM Taroo-ACC scold-Past COMP-TOP student-ACC three-CL is‘Lit. It is three students that Hanako scolded Taroo.’
Taroo-o ‘Taroo-ACC’ simply fails to specify the set of alternatives for gakusei-o sann-nin‘three students’.

16
I suggested in this section that in argument doubling, the second argument must be afocus and the first must serve to specify its set of alternatives. This provides a partial answer
for why the good examples of argument doubling involve dislocation of one of them. The
dislocation must help establish the required relation between the two arguments by putting thesecond in focus or making the first the topic. Before I close this section, I would like to briefly
speculate on why this specific relation obtains between doubled arguments.
The main conclusion of Section 3 was that a verb can assign a single q-role to twoarguments. This implies that an argument need not have a unique role in the predicate
argument structure. When it is interpreted as the theme, for example, there may be anothertheme argument in the sentence. However, the informal analysis in this section suggests thateach argument must have a unique role in the wider semantic interpretation. In (39), hoho-ni‘cheek-DAT’ shares the q-role with Hanako-ni, but is unique as a focus. Hanako-ni, on theother hand, has the unique role of specifying the set of alternatives for the focus. Although thisis merely a speculation at this point, a version of the q-criterion that is generalized beyond
thematic roles may be at work as part of Full Interpretation.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, I first noted that typical examples of q-criterion violations in English
receive an independent account as cases of failure in labeling. Then, I pointed out that thelabeling mechanism for Japanese I proposed in Saito (2014) allows argument doubling in thelanguage. This implies that if argument doubling is indeed permitted in Japanese, it
constitutes evidence that the q-criterion should be dispensed with. Given this, I examinedargument doubling in Japanese, extending Kuroda’s (1988) observations. I argued that thephenomenon obtains quite generally and provides solid evidence against the q-criterion. At
the same time, I arrived at the conclusion that argument doubling requires one of thearguments to be a focus and the other to specify the set of alternatives for the focus. I
speculated at the end that although the q-criterion seems untenable, there may be a moregeneral requirement that each argument play a unique role in semantic interpretation.

References
Chomsky, Noam (2013) “Problems of Projection,” Lingua 130: 33-49.
Harada, Shin-Ichi (1973) “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin 7: 113-147,
Research Laboratory of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo.

17
Heycock, Caroline (2008) “Japanese -wa, -ga and Information Structure,” in Shigeru
Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,
New York: Oxford University Press, 54-83.
Kuno, Susumu (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1978) “Case-marking, Canonical Sentence Patterns and Counter Equi inJapanese,” in John Hinds and Irwin Howard, eds., Problems in Japanese Syntax and
Semantics, Tokyo: Kaitakusha, 30-51.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) “Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English andJapanese,” Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Rooth, Mats (1992) “A Theory of Focus Interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1:
75-116.
Saito, Mamoru (1989) “Scrambling as Semantically Vacuous A’-movement,” in Mark R.
Baltin and Anthony S. Kroch, eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 182-200.
Saito, Mamoru (2003) “A Derivational Approach to the Interpretation of Scrambling Chains,”
Lingua 113: 481-518.
Saito, Mamoru (2014) “Case and Labeling in a Language without f-feature Agreement,” inAnna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque and Yoshio Endo, eds., On Peripheries, Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo, 269-297.
Webelhuth, Gert (1989) Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic
Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.