Nanzan Linguistics 12: 61-69. (2017)

A NOTE ON TRANSFER DOMAINS*Mamoru Saito
Nanzan University

1. Introduction
This is a brief follow-up on Saito (2016). There, I tried to extend Quicoli’s (2008)
phase-based account of the locality of anaphor binding. Crucial in the discussion wasChomsky’s (1981) generalization that the NIC effect obtains when Tense agrees with thesubject. Thus, as Yang (1983) pointed out, the effect is not observed in tensed clauses inJapanese and Korean, which lack f-feature agreement. (1b) is the Japanese counterpart of(1a).
(1) a. *Mary insisted that herself saw itb.

Hanako-wa [CP [TP zibunzisin-ga sore-o mita] to]syutyoosita
Hanako-TOP
self-self-NOM it-ACC saw COMP insisted‘Hanako insisted that she (= Hanako) saw it.’

I argued on the basis of this that the complement TP is transferred to the interfaces upon thecompletion of CP phase only when the C head accompanies f-features. In the absence off-feature agreement, the v*P/vP is instead transferred.
In this squib, I suggest a way to define phases and transfer domains that yields this result.
Although it has become a standard assumption since Chomsky (2008) that the complementof a phase head is transferred when the phase is completed, Bošković (2016), for example,resurrects the idea that a phase itself constitutes the transfer domain. I entertain thehypothesis that a phase is transferred upon the completion of the next phase up. I show that
this not only leads to a possible explanation for the contrast in (1) but also enables us tomaintain that v as well as v* is a phase head, as argued, for example, by Legate (2003), andto account for additional binding facts.
I present the main proposal in the following section after briefly going over Quicoli’s
phase-based analysis. Then, in Section 3, I discuss the implications and show that the*The material in this paper was presented at the January 2017 syntax lecture at the University ofConnecticut. I would like to thank the audience there, especially Željko Bošković, for helpfulcomments. This research was supported in part by the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research(C) #16K02647 and the Nanzan University Pache Research Subsidy I-A-2 (2016).

Nanzan Linguistics 12: Research Results and Activities 2016proposal has desirable consequences for the analysis of vPs while it has little effect on thestandard analysis of v*P phases and CP phases with f-feature agreement. Section 4
concludes the squib.
2. Phase and f-feature Agreement
I first briefly go over Quicoli’s (2008) analysis of the locality of anaphor binding andthen extend it to accommodate the lack of NIC effects in languages without f-featureagreement. In the course of the discussion, I make two proposals. One is that Transfer
applies to phases, not phase complements, upon the completion of the next phase up. The
second is that when T inherits unvalued f-features from C, it inherits phasehood as well.
Quicoli’s proposal on the locality of anaphor binding can be summarized as in (2).
(2)

Information on the reference of an anaphor is sent to the C-I interface along with thetransfer domain that contains the anaphor.

Let us see how this accounts for the contrast in (3).
(3) a. John recommended himself
b. *John thinks that Mary recommended himself
It is standardly assumed that CP and v*P are phases and as mentioned above, that theircomplement TPs and VPs are transferred to the interfaces when they are completed. Given
this, the reflexive himself in (3a) is transferred when the v*P phase is built as in (4).
(4)[v*P John [v* [VP recommend himself]]]

As the antecedent John is already part of the structure, the information that himself coreferswith John can be sent to the C-I interface along with the shaded VP. The situation isdifferent in the case of (3b). The reflexive himself is transferred when the embedded v*Pphase is built as in (5).
(5)[v*P Mary [v* [VP recommend himself]]]

In this case, the reference of himself cannot be specified when it is sent to the C-I interface.
Hence, the reflexive fails to receive an interpretation.
The phase-based account of the locality of anaphor binding is quite promising. Yet, it
still requires refinements to achieve the empirical coverage of, say, Chomsky’s (1981)
condition (A).1 One of the phenomena to be considered in this respect is the lack of NIC
effects in languages without f-feature agreement. Yang (1983) pointed out in support of1This statement, as far as I can see, holds also for more recent phase-based approaches such asCharnavel and Sportiche (2016).

A Note on Transfer Domains (M. Saito)

condition (A) that local anaphors in Korean and Japanese can occur in the subject positionof an embedded tensed clause. The following Japanese examples contain the subjectoriented local reflexive zibunzisin ‘self-self’:(6) a.

Taroo-gazibunzisin-o suisensita (koto)
Taroo-NOM self-self-ACC nominated fact
‘Taroo nominated himself.’b.

Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga
zibunzisin-o suisensita] to]itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM self-self-ACC nominated COMP said fact
‘Taroo said that Hanako nominated herself/*himself.’c.

Taroo-ga [CP [TP zibunzisin-ga Hanako-osuisensita] to]itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
self-self-NOM Hanako-ACC nominated COMP said fact
‘Taroo said that he himself nominated Hanako.’(6b) indicates that zibunzisin is a local anaphor as it can only take Hanako as its antecedentin this example. But (6c) is perfectly fine although the anaphor and its antecedent isseparated by a CP boundary. It, like (1b), shows that NIC effects are not observed in theabsence of f-feature agreement.2
If CP is a phase and Transfer always applies to its complement TP, the grammaticalityof (6c) is not predicted. The anaphor zibunzisin could not be interpreted in this example as it
would be transferred upon the completion of the embedded CP, that is, before theantecedent Taroo is introduced into the structure. This is illustrated in (7).
(7)[CP [TP zibunzisin-ga [[v*P zibunzisin-ga [ [VP ...] v*]] T]] COMP]

Given this problem, I suggested in Saito (2016) that only v*P/vP is transferred when
f-feature agreement is absent in CP. Then, Transfer applies in the embedded CP of (6c) asin (8a).
(8) a.
b.

[CP [TP zibunzisin-ga [ [v*P zibunzisin-ga [ [VP ...] v*]] T]] COMP][v*P Taroo-ga [ [VP [CP [TP zibunzisin-ga [ [v*P ... ] T]] COMP] ] say] v*]]

When the matrix v*P is completed as in (8b), the shaded part, which includes the higher
copy of zibunzisin, is transferred to the C-I interface. The information that the reflexive
corefers with Taroo can also be sent to the interface at this point because the latter is already2See Nakamura (1986) for detailed discussion on the distribution of zibunzisin. There are examples
in which it seems to allow “long-distance binding” rather freely. Kato (2016), however, argues thatit exhibits the pattern in (6) strictly when it takes an inanimate antecedent and cannot be construed
as a logophor. This technique to distinguish anaphors from logophors was first proposed byCharnavel and Sportiche (2016).Nanzan Linguistics 12: Research Results and Activities 2016

merged into the structure. The grammaticality of (6c) is thus accounted for.3
The analysis just outlined raises an obvious question that I left unanswered in Saito(2016). Why is it that v*P/vP is the transfer domain when the CP phase lacks f-featureagreement? TP should be the transfer domain when T carries f-features, as (1a), repeated in(9), indicates.
(9) *Mary insisted that herself saw it
The example is ungrammatical because the embedded TP, containing herself, is transferred
upon the completion of the embedded CP phase, as illustrated in (10).
(10)[CP that [TP herself ...]]

Then, what needs to be accounted for is the asymmetry in transfer domains shown in (11).
(11) a.
b.

[CP [C [TP subject [T[+AGR] [v*P/vP ... ]]]]][CP [C [TP subject [T[-AGR] [v*P/vP ... ]]]]] (order irrelevant)

The transfer domain is TP with f-feature agreement but is v*P/vP without.
Here, I would like to suggest that the core case is the transfer of v*P in (11b). As v*P isa phase, this leads to the following hypothesis:4(12)A phase is transferred upon the completion of the next phase up.

This hypothesis raises two questions. The first is whether vP is indeed transferred as in(11b), and if so, why it is. I will come back to this in the following section. The second,which I now turn to, is why TP is transferred when T carries f-features as in (11a)?
It is proposed in Chomsky (2008) that phase heads are locus of unvalued features.
Unvalued f-features then originate in C and v*, and are inherited by T and V. Given this,
suppose that what T inherits from C is not only unvalued f-features but also phasehood. Oralternatively, one can assume that unvalued features on a head make it a phase head. Then,(12) predicts that TP is transferred when T inherits f-features from C as illustrated in (13).

3The reader is referred to Kato (2016) for an alternative analysis of examples like (6c).
Unfortunately, I cannot discuss it here as it would take us too far afield.
(ia-b) probably instantiate the same pattern as (6b-c) although their precise structure is not asclear.
(i) a. * They want very much [for John to nominate each other]b. They want very much [for each other to succeed]4This is in line with the proposal in Bošković (2016), mentioned above, that phases, and not phasecomplements, constitute transfer domains.

A Note on Transfer Domains (M. Saito)

(13)

CP
C
[f]

TP à TransferDPTPT[f]v*PDPv*P

CP and v*P are phases. Hence, when there is no feature inheritance, v*P is transferred upon
the completion of the CP phase. This is what happens in (11b). However, when T inherits
f-features from C, TP becomes a phase. Hence, it is transferred when the CP phase iscompleted. If this is correct, the pattern in (11a) is a special case that obtains because off-feature agreement.
3. v as a Phase HeadIn this section, I argue, following Legate (2003) and Bošković (2007), among others,
that vP constitutes a phase just like v*P. Given this conclusion, (12) implies that vP istransferred upon the completion of CP, as indicated in (11b). I first point out that (12) itself
removes the main obstacle for the assumption that vP is a phase. Then, I present evidence
from anaphor binding that vP is indeed a phase.
Legate (2003), for example, argues on the basis of reconstruction phenomenon withwh-movement that vP constitutes a phase. The proposal makes much sense on conceptual
grounds as well. If v*P is considered a phase because it contains a verb with all its
arguments, vP should also be a phase for the same reason. However, this has not been
widely assumed mainly because of examples like (14).
(14)

Mary says that there arrived a man (on horseback)The structure of the embedded clause is roughly as in (15a).
(15) a.
b.

[CP [TP there [T [vP v [VP arrive a man ...]]]]][vP v [VP arrive a man ...]]

Suppose that vP is a phase. Then, if the complement is transferred upon the completion of aphase, VP is sent to the interfaces when Merge yields the structure in (15b). But the Case of
the internal argument a man is not valued at this point, and this should cause a clash at leastat the A-P interface.5 This problem is avoided if vP, as opposed to v*P, is not a phase.

5The argument here assumes that T values the Case of the DP, as proposed, for example, inChomsky (1995).

Nanzan Linguistics 12: Research Results and Activities 2016

On the other hand, the problem with (14) does not arise to begin with if (12) is correct.
Suppose vP is a phase. According to (12), a phase is transferred upon the completion of thenext phase up. Thus, vP is sent to the interfaces when the CP phase is built, as illustrated in(16).
(16)[CP [TP there [T [vP v [VP arrive a man ...]]]]]The DP, a man, is already valued for Case when vP is transferred. So, (12) makes it possible
to treat v*P and vP uniformly as phases. In the remainder of this section, I present empiricalevidence for the phasehood of vP.
Although (12) seems to depart radically from the standard assumption that phasecomplement is transferred upon the completion of a phase, it does not make different
predictions for CPs with f-feature agreement and v*Ps. This is so because of the proposalthat T inherits phasehood from C along with f-features. Once this inheritance takes place,
TP is a phase and is transferred when CP is completed, as illustrated in (17a).
(17) a.

CPCb.
TPDP

TransferTPT
feature inheritancev*PDPv*Pv*vPVPVTransferDPfeature inheritance

The same process should apply to v*Ps, as shown in (17b). V inherits f-features from v*,and hence should inherit phasehood as well. Then, VP is transferred upon the completion ofv*P. Thus, CPs with f-feature agreement and v*P trigger the Transfer of their complementseven under (12).
Where the proposal in this squib departs from the standard hypothesis is with CPs
without f-feature agreement and vPs. Cases where TPs are not transferred upon thecompletion of CP were discussed in the preceding section. A relevant example (6c) isrepeated below in (18).
(18)

Taroo-ga [CP [TP zibunzisin-ga Hanako-osuisensita] to]itta (koto)
Taroo-NOM
self-self-NOM Hanako-ACC nominated COMP said fact
‘Taroo said that he himself nominated Hanako.’

As there is no feature inheritance from C to T, the embedded TP in this example is not aphase. Hence, Transfer applies to the embedded v*P as in (11b), and zibunzisin in thesubject position can have an antecedent in the matrix clause.
Further, if vP is a phase, as argued above, it is predicted that anaphors are illicit in theA Note on Transfer Domains (M. Saito)

following configuration:(19)... antecedent ... [CP [C [TP subject [T[-AGR] [vP ... anaphor ... ]]]]] (order irrelevant)This is so because vP, containing the anaphor, is transferred when the embedded CP is built.
And the prediction is borne out by examples like (20).
(20)

Taroo-ga [CP [TP Hanako-ga
zibunzisin-no kaban-ni tumazuita] to]itta
Taroo-NOM
Hanako-NOM self-self-GEN bag-over stumbled COMP said(koto)fact‘Taroo said that Hanako stumbled over her own/*his own bag.’

The embedded clause in this example has vP, and not v*P, because the verb is unaccusative.
Yet, the anaphor zibunzisin cannot take the matrix subject as its antecedent. The example,
then, constitutes evidence for the phasehood of vP.
A similar argument can be constructed on the basis of ECM examples in English. First,
as noted in Saito (2016), the generalization that TPs are transferred only in CPs withf-feature agreement opens up a way to maintain the CP analysis of ECM complements.6
Suppose that ECM complements are CPs and consider the structure in (21).
(21)

John expects [CP [TP her [to [v*P her [v [VP win the election]]]]]]

If the TP complement is transferred upon the completion of the embedded CP, her would
fail to participate in Agree relation with the matrix verb and have its Case valued. It has
been assumed that ECM complements are TPs for this reason. However, given (12), there isno problem with (21) because what is transferred upon the completion of the embedded CPis not TP but v*P. Thus, (12) makes it possible to assume that clausal complements with T
are uniformly CPs.7
Let us now consider (22) with this background.
(22) a. *John expects [the guests to be introduced to himself]b. *Mary believes [the speakers to have been introduced to herself]
These are typical examples of the SSC effect on anaphor binding. However, if only CPs andv*Ps are phases and ECM complements are TPs, then it is not clear how they can be ruledout. The very first phase in these examples would then be the marix v*P, which contains
both the reflexive and its antecedent. Thus, the examples are incorrectly predicted to be6

This analysis has repeatedly been suggested over the years. See Bošković (2007) for a recent
proposal to this effect and the relevant references.
7

It is also noted in Saito (2016) that the generalization in (11) (and hence (12)) serves to makeHornstein’s (1999) movement analysis of control consistent with the phase theory.

Nanzan Linguistics 12: Research Results and Activities 2016

grammatical. However, if vPs are also phases and ECM complements are CPs, (12)straightforwardly rules out these examples. The structure of the embedded CP of (22a) isshown in (23).
(23)[CP C [TP the guests [to [vP be introduced the guests to himself]]]]When this CP is built, the shaded vP is transferred to the interfaces. As the reference of thereflexive himself cannot be specified at this point, it fails to receive an interpretation. (12),thus, accommodates the examples in (22) with the assumption that vP is a phase.
4. Conclusion
In this squib, I took the lack of NIC effects in languages without f-feature agreement asa core fact, and proposed (12), repeated below in (24).
(24)

A phase is transferred upon the completion of the next phase up.

I suggested in Section 2 that NIC effects arise when T inherits f-features from C andbecomes a phase head. Section 3 was concerned with the hypothesis that vP constitutes aphase. I first showed that (24) removes the main obstacle for this hypothesis. Then, I
discussed data that instantiate SSC and require vPs to be phases. Although (24) needs to be
examined against other types of locality phenomena, I argued that it has some desirable
consequences and broadens the empirical coverage of the phase-based analysis of thelocality of anaphor binding.

References
Bošković, Ž. (2007) “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More
Minimalist Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.
Bošković, Ž. (2016) “What is Sent to Spell-out is Phases, Not Phase Complements,” unpublishedms., University of Connecticut.
Charnavel, I. and D. Sportiche (2016) “Anaphor Binding: What French Inanimate Anaphors
Show,” Linguistic Inquiry 47, 35-87.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2008) “On Phases.” In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta, eds.,
Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, MITPress, Cambridge, Mass., 291-321.
Hornstein, N. (1999) “Movement and Control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69-96.
Kato, S. (2016) “Condition (A) and Complex Predicates,” Nanzan Linguistics 11, 15-34.
Legate, J. A. (2003) “Some Interface Properties of the Phase,” Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506-515.
Nakamura, M. (1986) Sokubaku-Kankei [Binding Relations], Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Quicoli, A. C. (2008) “Anaphora by Phase,” Syntax 11, 299-329.

A Note on Transfer Domains (M. Saito)

Saito, M. (2016) “Notes on the Locality of Anaphor Binding and A-movement,” unpublished ms.,
Nanzan University, to appear in English Linguistics.
Yang, D.-W. (1983) “The Extended Binding Theory of Anaphors,” Language Research 19.2,169-192.