P r o c e e d i n g s of the

WESTERN CONFERENCEO N Ll N G U I S T I C S

V o l u m e FiveW E C O L 92

Edited b yJoel A s h m o r e Nevis
Vida SamiianD e p a r t m e n t o f Li nguistics
Califomia State University，
FresnoCalifomia 93740・0092
Fresno，251

250
Perlmutter ，D. 1972. "Evidence for Shado 官 Pronouns in French
Relativization." 1n 1he Chica j(o 日hich hunt ，Parabteau ，P. 間.
et al. (eds.) Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Pinker ，S. 1989. kearnin j( and Cognition: The AC9Uisition ofArj( u四ent Structure. Cambridge ，MA. MIT Press.
Rumelhart ，D.E. and J.L. McClelland. 1986. "On Learning the past
Distributed
tenses of English verbs." In
Processing: Explorations in the 刊icrostructure of Cognition.
Vol. 2. Rumelhart ，D.E. ，J.L. McClelland and PDP ResearchGroup. (eds.) Ca田bridge ，MA. Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Saito ，M. 1982. "Case Marking in Japanese: A Preli 目inary Study ・"s. 開IT.

目

1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical

ImPl ications. Ph.D. dissertation. M1T.
Stowell ，T. 1981. Qri j( ins of Phrase Structure.
時IT.

Ph.D. dissertation.

QUASI‑ADJUNCTS AS SENTENTIAL ARGUTffiNTS
Keiko Hurasugi and Hamoru Saito
Kinjo Gakuin University and University of Connecticut
1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with the exact nature of the typica1 ECP‑
type asymmetry illustrated in (1)ー (2). (See Huang 1982 for detai1ed
discussion.)(l)a. whoi 1i bo世 ght whatb. *whoi 1i bought the book why / *whoi 年 solved the prob1em howbought 1i l(2)a. ?whati does John wonder [whether
b. *whYi does John wonder [whetherbought the book む]
As shown in (1) ，an object wh 出 品 can be 1eft in situ ，but adjunctsuchcannot be. Further ，as shown in (2) ，an object wh can margina11y be extracted out of an is1and ，but such
extraction of an adjunct wh resu1ts in tota1 ungrammatica1ity. As far
as we know ，there are two major approaches to this asy阻 etry that areproposed in the 1iterature. Th告 first one ，proposed by Huang 1982 ，
hypothesizes that it is an argument/non‑argument asy畑 etry. (See a1so
Lasnik and Saito 1984 ，and Chomsky 1986.) The second ，proposed by
Aoun 1985 and Aoun ，et a1. 1987 ，attributes the contrast to thereferentia1/non‑referentia1 distinction. (See a1so Rizzi 1990 andCinque 1990.)
These t".o approaches 1ead us to different accounts for theexamp1es in (3).
柏 市 phrases

(3)a.
b.

whoi む bought the book ，，'here
the book
工叩斗The first
say that (3a‑L) are a 1 1 mぽ d because 主主主工三 and 主主主.!}̲，1ike 出主主 in (la) ，have argument status. A specific version of thishypothesis can be foun 日 in Huang 1982. He assumes that 10cative/
tempora1 phrases in examp1es such as (3) are adjuncts. But noting thefollo叫 ng contrast ，he a1so assum巴s that 出区立仕出立， as opposed toare KPs:(4)a. from where / since whenb. 恭 for why /長 by how(4a) shows that 出旦主/ 出旦 can be the object of P ，and thus ，indicatesthat they are NPs. Then ，given this categoria1 distinction between
出立三/ 泊三五 and 出エ/ 民主， Huang suggests that 也旦立/ 出血 in (3) are
objects (and hence ，arguments) of an empty P. According to thisana1ysis ，the more prec 工se structure of (3a) is as in (5).
( 町 内 oi 1i bought the bookwherelThe ex四 p1es in (l b) cannot have a simi1ar structure because w弘 /ho'"are not NPs ，and hence ，cannot be an object of P. This ana1ysis is
司uite attractive since it accounts for (3) 邑nd (6) in exact1y the same，，'av.

252
(6)a.
b.

253

，
，'hoi 主i bought the book for what reason

whoi む solved the prob1em by which method(3) and (6) are a110wed because the 油 田phrases in these examp1es are
objects of P.
The approach to (1) 2) bas 芭d on referentia1ity ，on the other
hand ，wi11 say that (3a‑b) are a110wed because 出区主/ 出血， 1ike 虫主主and un1ike 虫工/!盟主， are referentia1. One motivation for this ana1ysis
主主/is given by the fact that there are pronouns corresponding to w h主忠盟， i.e." 主主主主主/虫旦， but 虫ヱ/ 単主 do not have any pronomina1 form.
1n this paper ，w e wi11 pursue the first approach ，and present
supporting arguments for Huang's argument/non‑argument distinction.
At the sa羽 e time ，however ，w e wi11 argue against the empty P ana1ysis.
1nstead ，w 告 wi11 entertain the hypothesis ，suggested by 豆izzi 1990
and Murasugi 1991 ，間ong others ，that 単 語 / 出 血 in (3) 邑re argumentsof 1おF L or the event predicate. 1n the fo110wing section ，we wi11
discuss some facts of re1ativization in Japanese as evidence against
the empty P ana1ysis. 1n Section 3 ，w e wi11 consider extraction out
of KPs in Eng1ish ，and argue that the re1evant facts indicate that
出主主/ 油虫 in (3) in fact ar 巴 arguments of 1NFL/event predicate.
This conc1usion ，w e argue ，provides support for Huang's 1ヲ82 overa11
approach to exp1ain (1) ー (3) in terms of the argument/non‑argument
distinction. Then ，in Section 4 ，we wil1 consider the exar. p1es ofamount quantification discussed in detai1 in Rizzi 1990 and Cin司ue
1990 ，and propose an account based on the argument/non‑argument
distinction. The appenaix dea1s ，，'ith some issues re1ated to theana1ysis suggested ュn Section 4.

ベ

Pronouns in Japanese
2. Re1ative C1auses andA s is we11 known ，Japanese re1ativization aoes not exh 工bit's
Subjacency effects. く1> τbe fo110wing examp1e from 五uno 1973 sho'，that re1ativization out of a re1ative c1ause is possi し1e:
(7)

k 工teiru]
y?ohukuj]‑ga yogoreteiru]
is "'earing c10thes ‑ ‑nom is‑dirty
gent1ema 日(the gent1emani :hoi [[ the sui t tha t hei is :eari 昭 j is dirty J)、
四、A n exp1anation for this absence of Subjacency effects is offered inPer1mutter 1972. He points out that Japanese a110ws pro in anyin (7) ，for exa回 p1e ，need not beargument position ，and hence ，thata trace but can be a pro. Then ，the re1ative c1ause in (7) need not
invo1ve movement ，and conse司uent1y ，no Subjacency effects are
expected.
However ，re1ativization in Japanese is not tota11y free. Assho，，'n in (8)‑(9) ，re1ativization of reason/manner adjuncts out of an
is1and resu1ts in tota1 ungrammatica1ity.
(8)[1P[liP[1P勾 引 sorei de) kubi ni natta] hitoj]‑ga 叫 nna
itfor was‑fired
person‑nom a11
okotteiru) riyuui
ls‑angryreason(the reasoni that [[a11 the peop1e who are fired for iti] areangry])(9)it
ni otiruJ hoohooi
in fai1
method句

fail the exam])de)‑0
toita] hitoj]‑ga minna siken
by prob1em‑acc solved person nom a11
ex叩
田[[a11 the peop1e who solve prob1ems by iti]

(8)ベ9) are fine with overt resumptive pronouns ，but are tota11y out
without them. This resu1t is expected if pro is a110wed on1y inargument positions エn Japanese. Then ，pro cannot appear in thepositionin (8 ト(9) ，and hence ，cannot save the examp1es
from Subjacency effects.
Let us now consider the examp1es in (10) ー(1 1) .
(1 0)

siken‑oexam ‑acc took

minna ukatta]
student‑ ‑nom a11
passedkyoosituic1assroom(the c1assroomi that [[a11 the students who took the exam
therei] passed])) [呈ヰ mensetuo叫u ket邑 ](11りintervi 巴、Vイ‑acc had
student‑ ‑nom a11
pass 巴dhii
day(the daYi that [[a11 the st 凶 ents ，，'ho took the ora1 exalil th巴町}
passed])由These examp1es invo1ve re1ativization of 10cative/tempora1 phrases outof an is1ana. Sinc 巴 they are perfect1y fine ，they indicate that pro
is a110w巴d in the 10cative/tempora1 pos ヱtions. And given our
genera1ization that pro is a110wed on1y in argument positions ，this
imp1 ユes that 10cative/te r. pora1 phrases have argum邑 nt sta 七
日 s.
H 邑re ，
ュ t may be thought that the re1evant genera1ization on the
distribution of pro in Japanese is not that it can app 巴ar on1y inargument positions ，as we argued above ，but rather that it c 邑n occur
on1y in N P positions. This ，however ，seems to be incorrect. 1n
Japanese ，tempora1 phrases can in fact occur as bare NPs ，but 10cative
phrases ，1ike reason/manner phrases ，cannot.<2> This is sho，，
'TI b e 1 m'，
in (12) ー(13).
(1 2)a.

b.
(13)a.
b.

Taroo ga sono hi (ni) mensetu ‑0
山 eta‑nom that day on interview‑acc had(Taroo had the ora1 exam that day)uketa
Taroo ga soko 恭 (de) siken o‑nom there in exam ‑acc took
(Taroo took the exam there)
Taroo‑ga sore 汽 de) kubi ni natta
四日 om itfor was‑fired(Taroo was fired for it)
Taroo‑ga sore 汽 de) sono m o n d a i ωotoita
山口 om itby that prob1em acc solved(Taroo solved the prob1em by it)
叩

四

四

司

254

255

in (10) must be of the category PP.
Hence ，the locative phrase
it isthat this empty P P has the interna1
structure in (14) with an empty P.
(14)(1 8) 均 herei do y∞ 1ike [the food む](cf. wherei do you 1ike [the food] 与)[pp pro [pe]]This structure wou1d enab1e one to maintain the g 邑nera1ization thatpro is a110wed on1y in NP positions in Japanese. But once we assume
that an empty P is possib1e in Jap呂 nese 10cative phrases ，it is notclear w h y i t i s not a l l w e d i n examples like (12b 〉. w e ，therefore ，conc1ude' thatin (10) is pro of the category P P ，and is 1icensed
because of its argurnenthood.
w e argued above that locative/temporal phrases ，by themse17es ，have argument status in sentences . T h i s conclusion makes E1lang S 1982
empty P hypothesis for the examples i n ( 3 ) r e d u a d S I l t ‑ G i v e n thisconclusion ，his argument vs.nonEarsuRent approach predicts thoseexamp1es to be gramrnatica1 without the postu1ation of empty P.
j

3. Novement of Locative/Tempora1 Phrases out of NPs
A s noted in Section 1 ，the basic pre血 ise that 1ed Huang 1982 tothe empty P hypothesis is that 10cative/te町 ora1 phrases are adjuncts.
W e argued against this basic assumption in the preceding s e c t i o n . B u t
Huang 1982 ，not surpr ユsing1y ，does present some evidence for his
a s s u m p t l o n . F o r examP1e ，h e discusses the following paradigm:(1 5)a. of
cit Yi did you ¥¥itne手s [the des 七
月 ction !i lb.
n ，
¥ hich ta b1ei did you buy [the books !i J
c. 器 from ¥¥hich citYi did you meet [the men む i。
張(15a) invo1ves extraction of a口 object out of an l¥P. On the other
hand ，in (l 5b) ，a 10cative P P is moved out of an NP. The 1atterexamp1e is even worse than the Cιυ(Subjacency) vio1ation in (16L) ，and has the status of an 1CP violation.
(16)a. whoi did you see [a picture of !i]b . 7 M o ; ωy o u destroy [a book [about む II

(Chorns同 19 7i)

And as Huang points out ，the ungramrnatica1ity of (15b) can be
attributed to' the ECP only if the extracted 10cative phrase is an
adjunct. く3>
Huang's argument based on (15b) ，it seems to 立s ，is quite
convincing. But at the s叩 e time ，it seems to pose a prob1em for his
Let us first consider the examples in (1 7) ・(17)a. 作 which basketi do you like [th: food!i J
. 詩・ in which basket; do yo 臼 like [the food 主iJ(cf. in which
do you like [the foodl !i)h甘守's a na1 y s‑S ‑ R ムnc e 1 nvca 1ve
T ' ‑s p o n iwr aSt 1・s nice ムV p re G c te G U0 v 口uan p
‑
U
o
1
1
︐・
d
n
a
・
‑
a
a
x
O f a H a‑ 4・‑‑ U司n t︐︐a・n︑q
p ‑ ra s ls ur eua d 3u n cts・ 6 4や7 aJ &rvl n vo ‑ V S e tr vct‑D n. ou tτ
日 /
JD ノ
1
︐
n
︑
1
C
ω
e
P
d
v
し
己
υ
J
u
1 M r ‑ム邑d o t b y f h e u υof H L1J M c 'nc r F・
‑ n the4Gtner 4naJ ' S也 ‑ ︐hhc e' '‑ ・' tt
e n・u υv ' ↑L e μ
U P o s nc e a n a λ1Ju n nt 命
ム n︐
5 e e 口 wo r se
1〆8cu ‑u t
'
r
e
w'
v
x
‑
n
c
u
h Pb
p
s
f
l
守
C
4
E
‑ B t I‑et us o un CM‑‑ d cer t 1 ︑
+
よt
n ︐
z
u
a c Ll y a M ‑ n k コu c1ノ
mo V eG o 立L o 工 E 日 E ‑
︑
﹂

十

苛

︑
円

や

苛

可
南
・
可
︑

駒

︑

内

v

弘

︑

J

十

l
w
m

晶

品

戸
﹂
・
可

︑
白
血
司

I

司

会

l
J

This examp1e ，it seems to us ，has the s 担 e status as (17b) ，and hence ，
shou1d be considered an ECP vio1ation. But given the empty P
hypothesis ，it shou1d mere1y be a CED (S凶 jacency) vio1ation. 1f
三 can be a complement of an empty P ，this examp1e shou1d be ab1e
whe玉
to have the fo11owing structure:
(19)

!i]]

wherei do you 1ike [the food，
(1 9) ，like (17a) ，vio1ates the CED (Subjacency) since a w h phrase isrnoved out of an adjunct. But ，again ，like (17a) ，it is not an ECP
vio1ation ，because the trace is in the object position of P. On theother hand ，if there is no e盟 pty P ，we correct1y predict (18) to havethe s四 e status as (17b) ，since then ，both examples involve extractionof an adjunct out of an NP.
A sエmilar arg四 ent against the empty P hypothesis can be con‑structed with wh in situ. Let us consider the fo1lowing exarnp1es: く4>
四

︐
︐

n ︑

ノ
︑ uも
a‑
e
e

内
ノ
伽

b‑
c‑

wh 0
0 1
w'
h 0 1‑
wh
喧

後
発

・
可
占
・

・
ム

1 C'
' 1 ム]
む r e 呂 riLr ↑いら hue UL D nu ‑K S O n v ' ・n T M snE
お re
υO n ' S W 噌
iL L・
品
n
v
K
n
e
目
e
r
e
じ a
J n w‑e企V
一 r em m υρre d r‑ +L ‑b E 小sh O R n n
J
U
J
U
O

﹄

‑

弘

L

ム

唱

﹄

ヂ

1
3
J

W 巴 expect (20a) to be gramrnatica1 ，because ，as in (1 a) ，the wh in situ ，
which shel[ ，is in the object pos ユtion. ¥vhat is crucial here is theungramrnaticality of (20b‑c). If an ernpty P is possible ，nothing seems
to prevent (20b) ，for example ，from having the structure in (21).
(21)

whoi !i read [the books

1n thエs structure ，山広三 is in the object pos エtion of P. Ke ，th 日，
predict fa1sely that (2Gb) should be perfect exactly 1ike (20a).
Examples such as (20b‑c) seem to provide strong evidence against
the empty P hypothesis. At the same time ，they provide strong supportfor Huang's 1982 conclusion ，based on examples such as (15b) ，that
locative/temporal phrasεs are adjuncts in NPs. These two conclusions ，together with the we1l‑forrnedness of (3a‑b) ，repeated below ，indicatethat locative/ternporal phrases can have arg四 ent status in sentences
but not in NPs.
(3)a.
b.

whoi む bought the book where
whOi !i bought the book when

We conclude ，then ，that 也 ere/辿 思 in (3) are arguments of 1NFL or the
event predicate associated with V. Note also that the contrast
between (3a‑b) and (20ト c) suggests that the gramrnaticality of theformer cannot be attributed simply to the referentiality of thewh‑phrases. If (3a‑b) are al10wed because 出広三/ 出盟 are referentia1 ，then (20b‑c) should be allowed for the same reason. く5 > τh u s ，thiscontrast ，we be1ieve ，provides support for Huang's 1982 basic approach
to explain (1) ー(3) in terms of the argument/non‑argurnent dist 工nction.

256

257

4. A mount Quantificatiqn and the Argurnent/Non‑Argument Distinction
80 far ，w e presented evidence against Huang's 1982 ernpty P
hypothesis ，and at the s四 e time ，argued for his overa11 approach to(1) ー(3) based on the ar呂田ent/non argument distinction. 1f this
distinction indeed p1ays a f祖 ndamenta1 ro1e in the account of thedata discussed above ，then a question shou1d be raised as to whether
other distinctions are needed at a11 to account for the ECPωtype
phenomena. 1n this section ，w e wi11 consider theof 四 ountquantification discussed by Rizzi 1990 and Cinque 1990 to motivate thereferentia1/non referentia1 distinction. W e wi11 show that they ，too ，
can be ana1yzed quite natura11y in terms of the argument/non‑argument
distinction.

quantified NP c‑commands the wh‑phrase at D‑structure. But the
expected ambiguity does not obtain ，and how manv book2. necessarily
takes wide scope over
Here ，Cinque arg立es that how m ゑ忍1.
並些三 can be non‑司uantificationa1 ，and hence referentia1. 1n thiscase ，the w h phrase does not scopa11y interact with 主主主ryon旦， andas a resu1t ，w e obtain the interpretation equiva1ent to th巴 wide scope
reading of the wh‑phrase. On the other hand ，the wh‑phrase rnust be
interpreted quantificationa11y if it is to scopa11y interact with
主工
呈玉工one and have narrow scope with respect to this quantified NP.
But when the w h phrase is interpreted as a quantifier ，it is non‑referentia1. And when it is non‑referentia1 ，it ，1ike 主主エエn (2b) ，cannot be moved out of an is1and. Thus ，the 1ack of the narrow
scope reading of how lnanv
in (23b) fo110ws.
The phenomenon instantiated by (23) seems to be quite genera1.
For examp1e ，the same contrast obtains even when the w h phrase is
出且， as shown in (25).

四四4.1. Quantificationa1 WhωPhrases
Let 祖 s first consider the fo110wing contrast:(22)a. つwhati does John wonder [whether Hary bought .ti] ( = ( 勾) )b. 地 o w niuchi does John wonder [whether the book costs む j
Rizzi< 1990 notes first that contrasts 1ike this are quite similar tothe one between (2a) and (2b). (2b) is repeated be10w.
(2)b. *w旬'i does John wonder [wheth巴r I'Iary bought the book .ti J
Then ，he points out that contrasts of this <kind cannot b 邑 exp1ained
straightforward1y in terms of the argument/non‑argurnent distinction ，since the wh‑phrases orlginBte in t h E O b j e c t position ，for example ，inboth (22a) and (22b). He proposes that the ungrammatica1ity ofexamp1es 1ike (22b) sho 己 lo be attributed to the non‑referentia1 nature; m 正 il" 工日of the wh‑phrase ・ r ffiore precise1y ，h 巴 hypothesizes that ho，(22b) as we11 as 出土 in (2b) fai1 to receive a "referentia1 8‑ro1e ，"and for this reason ，cannot b 邑 extr 己cteo out of an is1and.
Cinque 1990 (Chapter 1) ，on the other hand ，sho"'s that there1ated to the q 四 ntificationa1 nature of
unacce p iabi1ity of
the wh‑phrase. く6> He discussεs examp1es such as the fo11o¥dng ，attributed to Longobardi (1987):。

(23)a. how many booksi does John think that everyone bought .ti
b.??how many booksi does John wonder whether everyone bought .ti(23a) is arnbiguous in the same way that (24a) is.
(24)a.
b.

whati did everyone buy .ti
whoi 与 saw everyone

A s discussed in detai1 in Hay 1985 ，(24a) seems to exhibit scop 巴
arnbiguity between w h弘 and 豆並立盟主， but in (24b) on1y the ，，'ide scope
reading of the .'h‑phrase is possib1e. The ambigui ty ，seems tothe
NP' c‑comrnands the wh‑phrase atarise
8ince 旦 息 日 思 c‑cornmands how manv books at D‑structure in (23a) ，this examp1e is expected to be arnbiguous.
The fnteresting case is (23b). 1n this examp1e a1so ，the

田

同

巴

(25)a. whati does John think that everyone bought む
b. ?whati does John wonder whether everyone bought お
主 立 旦 旦 can take wide scope over the wh‑phrase 出主主 in (25a) but notin (25b). A simi1ar contrast obtains in Japanes 巴， as the exarnp1es in(26) show.
nani‑o ュ kimiωwa [[John to Hary]‑ga .ti katta to] ornotteru no
you ‑topand‑nombought COト;P think(what do yo臼 think that John and Hary bought)
b. ?nani‑oi kimi‑.<3 [[ John to Hary]‑ga .ti katta kadooka J
what‑acc you ‑topand‑nombought whether
siritaino'want‑to‑kno ，(弘・hat do you ，:己 nt to kno'" whether John ana hary bought)(26)a.

，，'hat‑acc

The p1ura1 K P ;!ohn and N a r L can take wide scope over the wh‑phrase
出互主 in (26a) ，but not in (26b). Thus ，if Cinque's account ，which iscertain1y e1egant ，is correct ，the referentia1/non‑referent ユa1
distinction see叩 s to be we11 motivated.
1n the fo110wing subsection ，w e wi11 present an a1ternative
account ，based on the argument/non‑argument distinction ，for thecontrast in (23). ¥¥'e wi11 re1ate the contrast to the properties of
QR ，fo110wing the suggestions in Kroch 1989 and Frampton 1991 ，and
extend the ana1ysis of (24) proposed in Lasnik and 8aito 1992 to thiscontras t.く 7>
4.2. Scope Rigiditv
It is argued in Hoji 1986 ，and Lasnik and 8aito 1992 thatexarnp1es such as (24a) ，repeated be10w ，are not actua11y scopa11y
ambig祖 ous.
(24)a.

whati did everyone buy .ti

According to them ，豆工
三
工工.2!!三 necessari1y takes wide scope ，and the

259

258

apparent narrow scope reading of this quantified NP is due to the"group interpretation" of this NP. Examp1es such as the fo110wing
provide supporting evidence for this conc1usion:
whati did everyonej buy 年 for Max with hisj bonus money

(27)

When
binds the singu1ar pronoun his ，the on1y avai1ab1e
interpretation is the wide scope reading むf this q立antified 軒P. This
interpreted quantificationa11y ，itindicates that whennecessari1y takes wide scope over 出邑・Then ，bui1ding o n the works by Kuroda 1971 ，Huang 1982 ，and Hoji
1985 ，四 ong others ，Lasnik and Saito 1ヲ
ヲ 2 propose the fo110wing
rigidity condition to account for this fact:(28)

Rigiditv Condition on Quantifier 豆aising (QR)(a) Suppose that Q1 and Q2 are Operators. Then ，Q1 cannot takewide scope over Q2 if(whereandarevariab1es).
(b) QR adjoins a 司uantified N P to a minima1 node to satisfy (a).

According to their ana1ysis ，(24b) ，repeated in (29a) ，must have the
L F representation in (29b).
(

勺
︐
ム

B
Q︑
J SJ

a ‑ w‑no 1・ u sa vP ever vJnon E‑b‑ w‑‑ VV PA aw 勾]]
no l h rtv Ae vervd vne τJ

一This is so since
一 th V P node is the rninima1 node that evervone canadjoin to ，satisfying (28a). (24a) ，on the other hand ，must have the
司

F
D

巴

L F in (30).
(30)¥'hati [did[cpeveryonej [c p，lVpbu)・!.i] llll

If 豆
ヱ
怠
工
工
.Q.!!三 adjoins to IP ，for examp1e ，the resu1ting repr 邑sentation. vio1ates (28a). Thus ，it must adjoin to C P ，and take scope over 忠弘・(23a) ，，'i11 be ana1yzed ェn the sam巴 way. In order to satisfy (28a) ，
三
之
主
工
工
.Q.!!三 must adjoin to the rnatr 工x C P in LF ，and take scope over how
阻 止 占 盟 出 . The L F representation of this examp1e is then as in (31).
(31)

主
ユ II

[CPhow rnany booksi does John think that 勾 bought

The "narrow scope" reading of everyon三 is attributed to its "groupinterpretation."
Here ，w e wou1d 1ike to suggest a slight1y rnodified account for(23a). Note that the account in Lasnik and Saito 1992 assumes thath0'" rnanv book2 as a quatifier takes scope at the sarne position it
takes scope as a whωphrase. Since this phrase c1ear1y ，contains arnanv book2 and a w h part how ，this assumption
quantificationa1 part
is not necessary. W e may assume that this phrase ，as a quantifier ，takes scope within its o，，'n c1ause and scopa11y interact within the ernbedded c1ause. According to this ana1ysis ，the L F of (23a)wi11 be as in (32). く8>( 3 2 ) [ c p h w k [ d o e s John think that [IpeveryonejIIP勾 [vp[ 主k many
books]i [Vpbought む llllll
enab1es us to maintain that QR is in genera1 "c1呂 田ebound." Further ，it s:ems tomuch sense under‑the copy theory of型ovement suggested in Chomsky 1992. In order to account"reconstruction effects ，" Chomsky propos 告s that movement actua11y
invo1ves copying ，as i11ustrated in (:33a).
司(33) 邑・[Iphe [Vp[whosebr?ther] [vpsee [whose brother]]]]]]]
ふ[Cpwho i [did [Iphe [vpsee

After the de1etion of the appropriate parts of the chain ，the desired
operator‑variable rElation is derived a s i n ( 3 3 b ) . A n d accordlrlg tothis theory ，n o extra mechanism is needed t o c o n s t r u c t the howmtk andtk many
re1ations in (32). W e can simp1y de1ete
bO oksin the matrix C P SPEC ，訟と in the 四 bedded VP‑adjoined positおn ，and
now many book2 in the embedded object position. Note that according
to this ana1ysis ，the initia1 movement of how many books to theernbedded VP‑adjoined position is Q R ，and the w h rnovement originates
frorn.this position.
Let us now app1y th 工s ana1ysis to (23b) ，repeated be1 0¥¥'.
同(23)b. ??h O¥¥' many booksi does John wonder whether everyone bought 己

If how manv book2 is to scopa11y interact with 三工三玉工2 旦
乏， it rnust firstundergo Q R and adjoin to the ernhedded VP. Then ，it
wh‑rnovernent from this position to the matrix CP SPEC.
the刊
山
E釘 ゴ 悶1
wh‑moveme 叫 ユs from 己 non‑argument position. Since this m 口V
invo1ves 己
巴 xtraction out of a 口 is1 呂nd ，いw e predict ，on the basis of the∞
口 ‑ar 呂u毘問E 口t distinctio 口，that it is i11 工cit exact1y as theargu血 ent/no，，'h‑movement in (2b). Hence ，the 1ack of scope interaction
ho¥¥'
忠弘主盟主主 a 吋 忠 広 辺 思 in (23b) is expected sole1y on the basis o f ‑the argument/non‑・
argument distinction. This account for (23b) can bereadi1y extended to (25b) ，if w e assume that 出 品 contains a wh part
part (wh + sornthing) ，a10ng the 1ines suggested
andin Kuroda 1968. Then ，w hゑt in this exarnp1e ，1ike h0'" manv books into the embedded V P by Q R ，'before rnoving to the matrix
C P SPEC by ，，'h‑movernent.
The u時 rammatica1ity of (22b) ，repeated be10w ，can be accounted
for in the sarne way.
(22)b. *how rnuchi does John wcnder [whether the book costs む]
Since 知L 型 些 in this examp1e is interpreted 司uantificationa11y ，itmust first adjoin to the embedded V P by Q R ，and then ，wh‑move to thematrix C P S P E C . τh e resulting L F representation ，afte'r the L F
deletion of the appropriate parts of the chain ;i11 be as fo11o，，'s:

、
，

(34)

ho刊 does John wonder "hether the book [VP[tk m u c h h [Vpcosts

年 JJ

260

Since the whωmovement is from a non‑ argument position ，and inv01ves
extraction out of an is1and ，w e expect it to be i11icit. Thus ，theungra阻 atica1ity of this examp1e is a1so accounted for on the basis of
the argument/non‑argument distinction. This account for (22b) ，it
shou1d be noted ，is virtua11y identica1 to the account for (35b)proposed in Lasnik and Saito 1992.
働

does
whoj 匂 bought 与b. 匂 hat the he11i does John wonder who j 勾 bought む

As discussed in detai1 in Pesetsky 1987 ，the extraction of wh‑phrases
1ike what the he11 out of an is1and resu1ts in a severe vi01ation. 1norder to account for this fact ，Lasnik and Saito 1992 propose thatthose wh‑phrases must undergo focus movement and adjoin to theembedded V P before moving on to the CP SPEC position. Thus ，according
to their ana1ysis ，the wh‑movement in (35b) originates in a no日間
argument position ，and this is why this examp1e has the same status as(2b). Given Chomsky's 1992 copying + de1etion ana1ysis ，w e may assume
that (35b) has the following L F representation:(36)

whatk does John wonder whoj 勾 [VP[主k the he11li [Vpbought !i ll

The account for (22b) and (23b) presented above is based on
Cin 司ue's 1990 insight in that it appea1s to the 吐uantificationa1，，‑ m旦 h and h o w manv books. At the same time ，however ，properties of 単
it does not refer to the notion of referentia1ity ，and is bas邑d s01e1yon the argument/non‑argument distinction. Hence ，if it is successfu1 ，it raises doubt as to ，，'hether the referentia1/nonωreferentia1
distinction p1ays any rol を in the ana1ysis of the ECP‑type phenomenon.
5. Conc1us 工on
1n this paper ，we first discuss 巴d 出巴阜/ 辿盟 and argued that they
can have argument status in sentences ，though not in NPs. lie argued
against Huang's 1982 empty P hypothesis ，but at the same time ，argued
for his overa11 approach to account for the ECPωtype phenomenon on thebasis of the argument/nonωargument distinction. Then ，we discussed
examp1es of amount quantification ，and argued that they can be
accounted for on the basis of this distinction. Our ana1ysis suggeststhat this distinction p1ays a fundamenta1 r01e a1so in the ana1ysisof the facts that motivated the notion of referentia1ity.
Aooendix: Some Re1ated Issues
1n this appendix ，w e wil1 briefly discuss two issues re1ated toth告 account we proposed in Section 4 for the examp1es of amountquantification. The first has to do with the rigidity condition onquantifier scope. W e wi11 show that this condition 1eads 立s to an
additiona1 argument for Mahajan's 1989 hypothesis that c1ause‑interna1
scramb1ing ，but not 10ng‑distance scramb1ing ，can be A‑movement. The
second issue has to do with the exact derivations of examp1es such as(22b) and (23b). lie w 工11 suggest that those examp1es provide us withadditiona1 e¥'idence for Chomsky' s 1989 Economy Princip1e on deri vation.
The account of (22b) and (23b) suggested above re1ies crucia11y

261

on th巴 rigidity condition on quantifier scope. As noted in Lasnik andSaito 1992 ，this condition seems to app1y strict1y to ex釦 np1es suchas (37a) ，but to impose on1y preference to others 1ike (37b).
(37)a.
b.

some woman 10ves everyone
someone 10ves everyone

A s discussed in detai1 in Kuroda 1971 and Hoji 1ヲ85 ，this condition
seems to app1y rather strict1y in Japanese. Thus ，卑語迫 takes wide
scope over 邑 思 虫 in (38). く9>
dareka ‑ga daremooaisite エru
someone‑nom everyone‑acc 10ve
(someone 10ves everyone)

(38)

同

However ，Kuroda and Hoji note one potentia1 prob1em in Japanese forthis condition. When the object NP is scramb1ed over the subject N P ，either 封P can take scope over the other. For examp1e ，(39a‑b) areboth comp1ete1y ambiguous.
(39)a.
b.

dareka ‑oi daremo ‑ga !i aisiteiru
someone‑acc everyone‑nom
10ve(everyone 10ves someone)
daremo ‑oi dareka ‑ga !i aisiteiru
everyone‑acc someone nom
10ve(someone 10ves everyone)但

1f scramb1ing is A'‑movement ，then these ex邑悶 p1es wi11 constitutec1ear co臼nterexamp1es to the rigidity condition. Since the variablein the subject position asymmetrically c‑commands that in the object
position in L F ，the cond ユtion predicts fa1se1y that the subject
quantified iiP must take "ioe scope.
But it is argued in トiahajan 1989 that c1ause‑internal scramb1 工ng
can be either A ‑ or A'‑movement ，whi1e 10ng‑distance scramb1ing isnecessari1y A'‑movement. And this hypoth 巴sis ，together with therigidity condition ，predicts correct1y that the examp1es' in (39) arescopa11y ambiguous. 1f the scramb1ed object N P is in A‑position ，thenit takes wide scope over the subject NP. On the other hand ，if it isin A'‑position ，the subject 軒P takes wider scope. Hahajan's
hypothesis ，with the rigid ユty condition ，predicts that 官hen an NP is
scramb1ed over a subject N P by 10ngイエ stance scr四 b1ing ，the 1attertakes wide scope. This is so since according to his hypothesis ，10ng
distance scramb1ing is necessari1y A'‑movement. The pred 工ction is infact borne out as noted by Hiroaki Tada (p.c.) and Oka (1 989). The
strong1y prefered reading of (40) is the one in which 血 巴 単 takes
は de scope over 卑工盟♀・叩(40)

daremo叫 i dareka ‑ga[John‑ga !i atta to] omotteirulP think
everyone to someone‑nom‑nom
met COト(someone thinks that John met everyone)

Thus ，the rigidity condition and the scope facts in Japanese provide

262

1989 hypothe‑
us with a n additiona1 supporting ar呂 田ent forsis on scr剖 b1ing.
The second issue to be discussed in this appendix has to do withthe exact derivations of (22b) and (23b). く10> (23b) is repeated be10w.
(23)b.??how many booksi does John wonder whether everyone bought li
1t was hypothesized above that h0¥" manv
adjoins to the embedded
V P by Q R ，and then ，wh‑moves from this position to the matrix C P SPEC.
More precise1y ，the syntactic movement creates the representation in(41) ，and then ，after L F de1etion ，the representation in (42) resu1ts.
(41)[how many books] [... [Vp[how many books] [VPbought [how many
books]]]](42) [how]k [............. [VP[ 弘 many books]i [VPbought li]]]

Thus ，according to this hypothesis ，the movement creates a sing1eA'‑chain ，and the two operator variab1e pairs are created by de1etion.
However ，there is an a1ternative derivation of (42). 1t was
simp1y assumed a るove that the initia1 movement of how manv books to
the V P adjoined position counts as QR. B u七 suppose that it does not ，and the Q R takes place in LF. Then ，since the wh‑movement originatesin the object position ，it becomes unc1ear why how many books cannotin (23b). Hence ，our ana1ysis of
scopally interact with(23b) imp1ies that this a1ternative derivation is b10cked on
independent gr 仇 m d s .
Let u s consider the prob1ematic derivation in more det呂 i 1. Frol7l(41) ，w e first app1y de1etion to derive (43).
早

四

(43)

[ho"']k [............. ，¥[ pbought [1k many books) lJ

Then ，we app1y Q R to the embedded object and adjoin ュt to ¥'P to derive(42). This deri va tion ，un1ike the one v;e assu問 d in S 邑ction 4 ，
inv01ves two independent A'‑movements to create th 巴 operator‑variab1e
re1ations in (42). Thus ，the Economy of Derivation wou1d be thenatura1 candidate to ru1e out this d 巴rivation. This princip1e b10cks
this derivation since there is another derivation that inv01ves on1y
one instance of "form chain." く11> Thus ，the ana1ysis of (22b) and(23b) suggested in Section 4 ，if correct ，provides additiona1 support
for Chomsky's 1989 Economy Princip1e.
FOOTNOTES* The materia1 in this paper was presented at 阻 COL 22 ，and a1so in

c0110司ロエ a at U C 1rvine ，University of De1aware ，昌nd Harvard University.
¥¥e have benefited from discussions wi th many peop1e; w e wou1d 1ike tothank in particu1ar Chris C011ins ，Jim Huang ，Howard Lasnik ，Roger
Nartin ，τi m Stowell ，Hiroaki Tada ，and Daiko Takahashi.

1. See Hurasugi 1991 ，1992 for more detai1ed discussion of thematerユa1 in this section.
2. Hore precise1y ，a 10cative phrase can be a bare }iP ，but on1y ，¥ 'hen
it is a 10cative goa1 as in (i).

263soke (ni) ikitai]
hitoi]‑wa ，...]( t h e r e to want to‑go personぺ op
those who wish to go there ...)
3. For a n ECP account of examp1es such as (15b) under the D P
hypothesis ，see Stowe11 1989 and the references cited there. Rizzi
1ヲ90 and Cinque 1990 discuss simi1ar examp1es and attribute theirungrammatica1ity to the head government requirement on traces. (Theiraccount crucia11y assumes that N ，as opposed to V and A ，is not a
proper head governor.) A1though their ana1ysis has many attractive
features ，w e wi11 not pursue it in this paper.
4. W e thank Tim Stowell for (20c).
5. Rizzi 1990 and Cinque 1990 discuss examp1es such as (15b) in thiscontext. Since they consider 10cative phrases referentia1 ，theyconc1ude that those examp1es cannot be ru1ed out on the basis of thenon‑referentia1ity of the wh‑phrase ，and propose an a1ternative
account. See Fn.3 above for re1evant discussion.
6. He argues that quantificationa1 wh‑phrases are non referentia1 ，and u1timate1y appea1s to the referentia1/non‑referentia1 distinction.
Kroch 1989 and Frampton 1991 ，on the other hand ，suggest that thequantificat.ional nature of the w h phrase itse1f ，rather than its
referentia1ity ，shou1d be the re1evant property. See a1so 1shii 1990
for re1evant discussion.
7. Our approach to (23) is quite simi1ar to the one pursued in
Frampton 1991 ，a1though the actua1 ana1ysis is different from his insome crucia1 respects.
8. See Frampton 1991 for a similar proposa1.
9. This a1so may b告 a matter of very strong preference. A1though
the wide scope reading of 卑 阜 県 is virtua11y impossib1e in (38) ，it
is sti11 easier in th エs exa江 ple tha 口工口 (i).
(工)dareka ‑ga (John‑ga daremo ‑0
ais ユteiru to] omotteiru
CU!，;P think
someone‑nom‑no r. everrone‑acc love(someone thinks that John loves everyone)( i).
1nterestingly ，such reading is even more difficult in エ(ii) dareka ‑ga (daremo ‑ga John‑oaisiteiru to] omotteiru
someoneωnom everyone‑nom‑acc 10ve
C Q;.1P think(someone thinks that everyone 10ves John)
See Kayne 1981 for re1evant discussion.
10. We wou1d 1ike to thank Hiroaki Tada and Chris Co11ins for he1pfu1
discussion on this issue.
11. See C011ins 1992 for much relevant discussion. Note that thisana1ysis assumes that the creation of'operator‑variable re1ation byde1etion ，as opposed to that by movement (+ de1etion) ，is "cost1ess."
(i)

四

四

山

REFERENCES
Aoun ，J. (1985) Genera1ized Bind 工n K ，Foris Pub1ications ，Dordrecht.
Aoun ，J. ，N. Hornstein ，D. Lightfoot and A.
(1987) "T ;0 Typesof Loca1ity ，" :1inguistic 1nQuirv 18.
" in P. Cu1icover ，T. Wasow and A.
Chomsky ，N. (1977) "On Wh‑Hovement ，̲(J Academic Press ，New York.
Akmajian ，eds. ，Eorma1 Synta，Chomsky ，N. (1986) 註立話時，トi1T Press ，Cambridge ，Mass.
Chomsky ，1¥. (1 989) "Some Kotes on Economy of Derivation and
Representation ，" i:!1T Working Papers in Linguistics 10.

、

265

264
Minirna1ist Prograrn for Linguistic Theory ，MIT
Cho狙 sky ，N. (1992)
Occasiona1 Papers in Linguistics 1.
MIT Press ，Carnbridge ，Cinque ，G. (1990) Ivpes of
Mass.
Collins ，C. (1 992) "Econorny of Derivation and the Generalized Proper" rns. MIT.
Binding Condition ，
Frarnpton ，J. (1991) "Re1ativized Hinirna1ity ，A Review ，" rns.
Northeastern University.
Hoji ，お. (1985) 1ogica1 Forrn Constraints and Configurat 工ona1
Ph.D. dissertation ，University ofStructures in
Washington.
Hoji ，H. (1986) "Scope Interpretation in Japanese and its Theoretica1
Irnp1ications ，" 思旦1 5 .
Huang ，C.‑T. J. (1982) 1ogica1 Re1ations in Chinese and the Theorv of
Grarnrnar ，Ph.D. dissertation ，MIT.
Ishii ，Y. (1990) 勺ia1f‑Re1atives in Japanese and 丑e1ated Issues ，"匹エWorking Papers in Linguistics 12.
" 1inguistic Inquirv 12.
Kayne ，R. (1981) "ECP Extensions ，Kroch ，A. (1 989) "Arnount Quantification ，Referentiality ，and Long" rns. University of Pennsy1vania.
Wh‑Movernent ，
MIT Press ，Kuno ，S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese
Cambridge ，Nass.
Kuroda ，S.‑Y. (1 968) "English Re1ativization and Certain Re1ated"
Prob1ems ，Kuroda ，S.‑Y. (1 971) "R 町 arks on the Notion of Subject ，" reprinted in
11 (1 986).
Journa1 of Japanese"Lasnik ，日. and H. Saito (1 984) "On the l¥ ature of Proper Government ，Linguistic Inquirv 15.
L 呂 田 ik ，h. and M. Saito (1992) 出ととム与主主，ト:1'r Press ，Cambridge ，j'Iass.
Longobardi ，G. (1 987) "Extraction from i¥ P and the Proper τ
reatrnent of" ms. Scuo1a 1¥ ormale Superiore ，Pisa.
Head Government ，:匂 hajan ，A. (1 9己9) "On the A/ λ，Distinction: Scrambling andCrossover in Hind 工，" ms. NIT.
ト
iay ，R. (1 985) 1ogical
Press ，Cambridge ，Mass.
K. (19ヲ1) 1¥ oun Phrases in Japanese anci Eng1ish: A S̲tuaI̲ ̲i̲l1
Svntax ，Learnabi1itv and Acquisitior" Ph.D. dissertation ，University of Connecticut.
Murasugi ，K. (1 992) "Locative/Ternpora1 vs. Ma nner/Reason Phrases ，"Papers in En 虫1ish Linguistics andKinjo Gakuin
University.
" rns. MI1.
Oka ，T. (1 989) "On the SPEC of IP ，
Per1rnutter ，D. (1 972) "Evidence for Shadow Pronouns in French" in Chicago Which Hun):: ，CLS ，Chェcago.
Re1ativization ，" inPesetsky ，D. (1987) "ViH‑in Situ: Novernent and Unse1ective Binding ，
E. Reu1and and A. ter Meuren ，eds. ，Ihe Representation of
HIT Press ，Carnbridge ，Mass.
トlIT Press ，Carnbridge ，Hass.
Rizzi ，L. (1990) Relativizea Minima1ity ，" in
Stowell ，1. (1 9 8 9 ) " Sl.IlJJects‑，Specifiers ，and X‑Bar Theory ，
M. Baltin and A. Kroch ，eds. ，A1ternative Conceptions of Phrasε註2 旦広三， University of Chicago Press ，Chicago.

A N o t e o n C a s e Positions in J a p a n e s e
Naoko Nemoto
University of Connecticut
1. Introduction
The possibility that scrambling can be A‑movement has been raisedin the literature (Kuroda 1986 ，Mahajan 1989 ，Webelhuth 1989 ，Tada 1990 ，Saito 1992 ，a m o n g m a n y others). In this paper ，1 will be concerned with thecharacteristics of scrambling to the position between the subject and the in‑direct object，and sf13W that the hypothesis that this position is an A‑position(see Mahajan 1989 ，Tada 1990 ，and Miyagawa 1991) accounts for a recon‑
struction issue which s e e m s to be otherwise mysterious.
Mahajan (1989) argues that clause‑internal scrambling can be A‑
as he s h o w s ，for example ，that the scrambled phrases
m o v e m e n t in Hindi1 ，can bind a reflexiv告. T h e relevant examples are cited in (1).
(1)
a. ? mohanl ・'ko apne
baccoN‑netlghar 5enikaa1 divan
Mohan(DO) se1f'5 children(SUB)
house from
(Mohanl ，5e1fl'S chi1dren threw o u τf r o m the house)b.

raaml‑ne serz
apnel/z baccoN 斗， 0 tz dikhaayaa
Ram(SGB) tiger(DO) se1f's children
showed(Raml showed a tigerz to selfll z '5 children)

Saito (class lecture 1989 ，1992) observes that this is the case in Japanes 邑
too. 2
In (1 a) ，scrambiing is to a sentence initiai position ，crossing the sub‑ject. in (1 b) ，scrambling is to a position between the subject and the indirectt Let us call the former position the pre subject position and the la tT er
objec.
position the post subject position for ease of exposition.
A s noted in Mahajan (1990:46) (see also Saito (1992)) ， thegrammaticality of the following example indicates that scrambling to the presubject position can be A'‑movement.
(2)

apne aapl‑ko raaml pasand kartaa hEhimself(DO)Ram(SUB)
likes(Himself ，Ram likes)