To appear in Proceedings of the Ninth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Y. Otsu (ed.),Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.

String-Vacuous Scrambling and Cyclic
Linearization∗
Kensuke Takita
NANZAN UNIVERSITY

1. Introduction
One of the central issues in current syntactic theory is how syntactic
structure is mapped onto LF and PF. Chomsky (1995) proposes that at certain
points of a derivation the operation Spell-out applies to the structure constructedso far, sending the relevant information to LF and to PF, respectively. Moreover,recent works (see, e.g. Uriagereka 1999, Chomsky 2000, 2001) put forward theidea that Spell-out cyclically applies within a single derivation. Assuming such aframework, Fox and Pesetsky (2003, 2005; henthforth F&P) develop a theory of
the mapping between syntax and phonology, called Cyclic Linearization. In thistheory, the notion of Linearization Preservation (LP) in (1) plays a crucial role.

(1)

The linear order of syntactic units is affected by Merge and Move within aSpell-out Domain, but is fixed once and for all at the end of each Spell-out
Domain.

(Fox and Pesetsky 2003:2)

Put simply, LP demands that the outputs of Spell-out within a derivation beconsistent with each other; otherwise the phonological component fails toconvert them into a linear string, leading the derivation to a PF-crash.
The aim of this paper is to extend F&P’s idea so as to include not only

phonological relations (i.e. linear ordering), but also semantic relations, focusing
on scope relations among quantifiers. Especially, I argue that Spelled-out
Relation Preservation (SRP) in (2) holds, which is an extension of LP.

(2)

The semantic and phonological relations among syntactic units are fixed at
the end of a Spell-out Domain, and once established, they must bepreserved at the end of each later Spell-out Domain.

The idea is that if phonological relations are preserved in the way proposed by
F&P, semantic relations are also expected to be preserved in a similar way,
because Spell-out also includes the mapping between syntax and semantics. I
argue that this expectation is fulfilled, by showing that SRP provides a solution
to a problem regarding string-vacuous scrambling in Japanese.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, I clarify the problem to beaddressed. Section 3 briefly reviews F&P’s Cyclic Linearization and Ko’s
(2007) analysis based on it. Then, I point out that their analysis provides a newperspective to the problem, though it is not enough to solve the problem. In
Section 4, I argue that the problem can be solved by extending LP to SRP.
Section 5 explores some implications of the proposal. Section 6 is a conclusion.

2. The Problem
Hoji (1985) discusses the two types of string-vacuous scrambling in (3).1(3)

a. * [… Xi …

… ti …], whereb. * [… Xi … Yj … ti … tj …]
2= phonologically nullIn (3a), X has been scrambled across a phonologically null element Y, while in(3b), overt elements X and Y have undergone scrambling, resulting in a crossing
dependency. Both types of scrambling are string-vacuous in the sense that theresultant overt lexical string is identical to the original one.
Since Hoji (1985), it has been assumed that they are blocked somehow. For
instance, Hoji (1985) posits the Ban on String-Vacuous Scrambling (BSVS):(4)

A syntactic adjunction operation cannot apply if it does not change theorder of the overt lexical string.

(Hoji 1985:352)

The intuition behind BSVS is clear because it prohibits the application ofscrambling which does not affect the ultimate surface word order. Below, I
review some empirical motivations for BSVS that Hoji (1985) provides.
Let us start with the first type. The relevant examples are given in (5).2(5)

a. * Kare-gai
he-NomTaroo-noi

hahaoya-osemetaTaroo-Gen mother-Acc

blamed(koto)‘Hei blamed Taroo’si mother’b. Taroo-noi

hahaoya-oj

kare-gaiTaroo-Gen mother-Acc

he-Nomtj

semeta(koto)

blamed‘Taroo’si motherj, hei blamed tj ’c. *proiTaroo-noi

hahaoya-osemetaTaroo-Gen mother-Acc

blamed(koto)‘proi blamed Taroo’si mother’(5a) exhibits a Condition C violation. As shown in (5b), however, scrambling3

remedies a Condition C violation. Then, the ungrammaticality of (5c), where pro
replaces the overt subject kare-ga ‘he’, suggests that an object cannot be
scrambled over the null subject. This is because if such a scrambling werepossible, (5c) should be grammatical on a par with (5b), contrary to fact.
Let us turn to the second type in (3b). Although Japanese is a scope-rigid
language, clause-internal scrambling changes scope interpretations, as originallypointed out by Kuroda (1971). The relevant examples are given in (6).3(6)

a. Dareka-ga
someone-Nom

daremo-ohihansita

everyone-Acc

criticized(koto)‘Someone criticized everyone (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Daremo-oi
everyone-Acc

dareka-gatisomeone-Nom

hihansita(koto)

criticized‘Everyonei, criticized loves ti (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’In (6a) the subject unambiguously takes wide scope, whereas (6b), in which theobject has been scrambled, is ambiguous. Thus, the generalization seems to bethat a sentence becomes ambiguous once an object undergoes scrambling. Notethat this implies that the structure in (7) is not available for a sentence like (6a).

(7)* [… Subji … Objj … ti … tj …]

The object has been scrambled in (7), although it follows the subject at thesurface structure. If the structure in (7) is available, it remains mysterious why(6a) is not ambiguous. Hence, the scope rigidity of SOV sentences like (6a)constitutes evidence for the idea that the second type of string-vacuous
4

scrambling is not possible.4
Although it is intuitively clear and empirically motivated, there is aproblem regarding BSVS: Even if the first type of string-vacuous scrambling in(3a) can be restricted in a local manner, the second type in (3b) requires us toappeal to global economy (cf. Collins 1997). That is, we can restrict the first
type of string-vacuous scrambling in a local way, given that the information that
Y is non-overt is available at the point where X undergoes scrambling. On theother hand, in the second type of string-vacuous scrambling, each application ofscrambling crosses an overt expression, as schematically shown in (8).

(8)

a. Step 1: [Yi … X … ti …]

b. Step 2: [Xj … Yi …tj … ti …]

Thus, it is hard to exclude (8) by BSVS without look-ahead or backtracking.
Note, however, that if we can capture the contrast in (6) even though thederivation depicted in (8) is indeed available, the problem disappears. That is, if
some independent mechanism accounts for the scope rigidity in SOV sentences
and the scope ambiguity in OSV sentences without invoking global economy,
BSVS does not have to be concerned with the second type of string-vacuous
scrambling; what BSVS should do is to restrict the first type of string-vacuous
scrambling in a local manner. In what follows, I explore this possibility,
extending F&P’s idea.

3. A Key to the Problem from Cyclic Linearization
In this section, I first review F&P’s Cyclic Linearization and Ko’s (2007)
analysis based on it. Then, I point out that their theory provides a key to solving
the problem, though further elaboration seems to be necessary for a full solution.
5

3.1. Cyclic Linearization
Adopting the idea of multiple Spell-out, F&P propose that each applicationof Spell-out establishes an ordering statement about relative orderings ofsyntactic units, adding it to an Ordering Table. The domain to which Spell-out
applies is called the Spell-out Domain, roughly corresponding to Chomsky’s(2000, 2001) phase. Since Spell-out applies multiple times, an Ordering Table ofa particular derivation cumulatively receives ordering statements, which are
eventually interpreted by PF. For instance, when Spell-out applies to the XP in(9), which consists of A, B, and C, an ordering statement A«B«C (where “«”means “precede”) is added to an Ordering Table:5(9)[XP A B C]

Ordering Table: A«B«C

Note that under F&P’s conception, all the elements within a Spell-out Domain,
including the edge elements, are relevant to the ordering establishment.
Moreover, F&P assume that movement out of a Spelled-out domain is possible.
With this in mind, let us consider the following two cases that are possible
subsequent steps of (10).

(10) a. [YP … Ai … [XP ti B C]]

Ordering Table: A«B«C A«B«C

b. [YP … Bi … [XP A ti C]]

Ordering Table: A«B«C B«A«C

In (10a) the edge element of the XP, i.e. A, undergoes movement to the higher
domain YP, while in (10b) the non-edge element, i.e. B, does so. When the YP
gets Spelled-out, the Ordering Table of each derivation receives an ordering
statement A«B«C and B«A«C, respectively.6 Note that the ordering information
6

stored on the Ordering Table of (10a) is consistent, whereas that of (10b) is not.
Claiming that established ordering information cannot be deleted in the courseof a derivation, F&P argue that the step in (10b) leads the derivation to crash at
PF: It fails to satisfy the contradicting requirements at the same time, because A
cannot precede and follow B simultaneously. In effect, F&P’s system forces theoutputs of Spell-out within a derivation to be consistent; if not, the derivationcrashes because of an ordering contradiction. Thus, F&P claim that LP in (1)follows as a consequence of their system.
Furthermore, F&P argue that their system explains why movement must
proceed successive-cyclically. As we have seen in (10b) above, movement of anon-edge element induces an ordering contradiction. The contradiction, however,can be avoided if such an element moves to the edge of the XP before Spell-out,
as in (11).

(11) a. [XP Bi A ti C]

Ordering Table: B«A«C

b. [YP … Bi … [XP t’i A ti C]]

Ordering Table: B«A«C B«A«C

Since B comes to precede A at the Spell-out of the XP via successive-cyclic
movement, it is allowed to move further without inducing an ordering
contradiction.
Based on their account of Holmberg’s Generalization effect (cf. Holmberg
1999), F&P suggest that Spell-out Domains include CP and VP. Adopting theirsystem, Ko (2007) argues that in languages like Korean and Japanese, vPconstitutes a Spell-out Domain, based on the analysis of the well-known
subject/object asymmetry in Numeral Quantifier (NQ) Floating, exemplified by
the Korean examples in (12) and (13) (NQs and their host NPs are underlined).
7(12) a. John-i
John-Nom

maykcwl-lul

sey-pyengmasiessta

beer-Acc

3-Clbottle

drank‘John drank three bottles of beer’b. Maykcwl-lul
beer-Acc(13) a. Haksayngtul-i
students-Nom

John-isey-pyengmasiessta

John-Nom

3-Clbottledrank

sey-myengmaykcwu-lul

masietta

3-Clperson

beer-Acc

drank‘Three students drank beer’b. *Haksayngtul-i
students-Nom

maykcwu-lul

sey-myengmasietta

beer-Acc

3-Clperson

drank

As shown in (12), an object and an object-related NQ can be separated by asubject, while the contrast in (13) indicates that an object cannot appear between
a subject and a subject-related NQ (see, e.g. Kuroda 1980, Saito 1985, andMiyagawa 1989 for the same pattern in Japanese).
The grammaticality of (12b) can be accounted for if we assume that an NQ
and its host NP form a constituent (see, e.g. Kuroda 1983, Sportiche 1988), andthat scrambling can strand an NQ, as in (14a) below. Then, the puzzle is why(14b) is not allowed, where scrambling of a subject over the scrambled object
strands an NQ. Note that (14b) gives rise to the surface order of (13b).7(14) a. [Obji Subj [ti NQObj] …]
b. [Subji Objj [ti NQSubj] tj …](= (12b))(= (13b))

Ko (2007) argues that this puzzle can be solved if we assume that vP is aSpell-out Domain. Suppose that an object undergoes scrambling to the edge of
8

vP, and then Spell-out applies to the vP, as in (15a) below. Ko (2007) notes thatthe landing site of the object cannot be the position between the subject and theNQ, since they form a constituent. Furthermore, she claims that since the subject
has already been on the edge of vP, it cannot be moved again to the edge. Hence,
once the object is scrambled, the only available linear order is Obj«Subj«NQSubj.
In order to derive the surface order of (13b), however, it is necessary to movethe subject across the object in a later step, as in (15b).

(15) a. [vP Obji [NP Subj NQSubj] [VP ti …]] Ordering Table: Obj«Subj«NQsubj
b. [CP … Subjj … [vP Obji [NP tj NQSubj] [VP ti …]]]
Ordering Table: Obj«Subj«NQSubj Subj«Obj«NQSubj

Thus, an ordering contradiction arises, inducing a PF-crash (the contradicting
parts are put in boxes). That is, a sentence like (13b) results in a violation of LP.
In this way, Ko’s (2007) analysis solves the puzzle regarding the NQ
Floating, combining the hypothesis that vP constitutes a Spell-out Domain with
F&P’s Cyclic Linearization.8 In the rest of this section, I point out that thisanalysis provides a hint to the problem regarding string-vacuous scrambling.

3.2. A Key to the Problem of String-vacuous Scrambling
One of the interesting consequences of Ko’s (2007) analysis is that becauseof LP, we can tell from the surface relative order of a subject and an object
whether the object has been scrambled across the subject before Spell-out of vP.
That is, if an object has been scrambled before Spell-out, it must precede asubject at the surface structure, and if the object has not, it must follow thesubject; other possibilities necessarily results in an ordering contradiction.
9

Therefore, given Ko’s (2007) system, the following structure is immediately
ruled out, where an object has been moved before Spell-out of vP:(16) *[CP … Subji … [vP Objj ti [VP tj …]]]Note that (16) instantiates one case of the second type of string-vacuous
scrambling. Hence, the paradigm in (6), repeated as (17), seems to be captured:(17) a. Dareka-ga
someone-Nom

daremo-ohihansita

everyone-Acc

criticized(koto)‘Someone criticized everyone (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Daremo-oi
everyone-Acc

dareka-gatisomeone-Nom

hihansita(koto)

criticized‘Everyonei, someone criticized ti (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’

The fact that (17a) has an SOV order implies that the object has not been moved
to the edge of vP before Spell-out. On the other hand, in (17b) the object
precedes the subject. This in turn indicates that the object has been scrambled
over the subject before Spell-out of vP. That is, surface relative order of a subject
and an object corresponds to the presence/absence of object scrambling to the vPedge, given Ko’s (2007) analysis. This seems to be a welcome result, because
the generalization is that the scope ambiguity arises only if object scrambling
takes place. That is, the ambiguity of OSV sentences can be captured.
This is not enough to account for the scope rigidity of sentences like (17a),
however. Let us consider the following schematic derivation:10(18) a. [vP SubjQP [VP ObjQP …]]Ordering Table: SubjQP«ObjQP

b. [CP …SubjQPi …ObjQPj … [vP ti [VP tj …]]]
Ordering Table: SubjQP«ObjQP SubjQP«ObjQP

Suppose that an object stays in situ when Spell-out applies to vP, as illustrated in(18a). Thus, an ordering statement SubjQP«ObjQP is established. Then, suppose
further that the object undergoes scrambling to the higher domain, followed by
the scrambling of the subject over the scrambled object, as in (18b). When the
CP in (18b) is Spelled-out, an ordering statement SubjQP«ObjQP is added to theOrdering Table. Since the linear orderings established so far are consistent, thederivation can converge, resulting in a SOV order. In (18b), however, the object
has indeed undergone scrambling. Hence, nothing seems to prevent the SOV
sentence from having the object wide scope interpretation, contrary to fact. The
problem is that the system allows scrambling of an object after Spell-out of vP,
as long as the ordering established at the Spell-out of vP can be retrieved, andnothing blocks the scrambled object in (18b) from taking wide scope.9
To sum up, I first reviewed F&P’s Cyclic Linearization, from which LP
follows, and Ko’s (2007) hypothesis that vP is a Spell-out Domain. Then, I
pointed out that although their system can restrict a sub case of the second typeof string-vacuous scrambling, it cannot capture the scope rigidity of SOV
sentences. In the next section, I propose a modification of their analysis, andillustrate how the modified system captures the scope rigidity of SOV sentences
and the scope ambiguity of OSV sentences.

4. Proposal and Analysis
As we have seen above, the analysis which assumes LP solves only the half11

of the problem; it fails to capture the scope rigidity of SOV sentences. In thissection, I propose that a derivation is constrained by SRP in (2), repeated as (19)below, and provide an analysis of the scope facts based on it.

(19) The semantic and phonological relations among syntactic units are fixed at
the end of a Spell-out Domain, and once established, they must bepreserved at the end of each later Spell-out Domain.

SRP is an extension of LP in the sense that not only do phonological relations
like linear ordering, but semantic ones are also subject to preservation, once
established by an application of Spell-out.
Concentrating on scope relations among quantifiers, I propose that if aSpell-out Domain contains more than two quantifiers, a statement about theirrelative scope relations is uniquely established by Spell-out of the domain, andthen it is added to a Scope Relation Table. As with much of an Ordering Table, a
Scope Relation Table of a derivation cumulatively receives the results of themultiple application of Spell-out, which are eventually interpreted by LF. For
illustration, let us consider the following configurations in (20).

(20) a. [XP … Q1 … Q2 …]
b. [XP … Q2i … Q1 … ti …]

Scope Relation: Q1>Q2
Scope Relation: Q1>Q2 or Q2>Q1

I assume, in line with Aoun and Li (1993), among others, that if a quantifier Q1
c-commands another quantifier Q2 or its trace, Q1 can take scope over Q2. Then,in (20a), where Q2 has not been moved over Q1, only the scope relation
statement Q1>Q2 (“>” means “take wide scope”) is established at the Spell-out
12

of XP.10 On the other hand, in (20b), where Q2 has been moved across Q1,
Spell-out of XP may establish either Q1>Q2 or Q2> Q1, but not both. In otherwords, in configurations like (20b), the system must decide which copies of Q2
to use for scope relation establishment.11
Recall here that LP is not an independent principle, but a consequence ofthe system where the results of the multiple application of Spell-out cannot bedeleted in the course of a derivation. I claim that SRP, as an extension of LP,
also follows from this system, additionally assuming that established scope
relations cannot be deleted, and that a derivation crashes at LF if a scope
contradiction arises. A scope contradiction arises if a scope relation statement
Q1>Q2 has been established at a Spell-out point and then another one Q2>Q1 isestablished at a later point; LF fails to interpret them properly because Q1 cannot
have wide and narrow scope with respective to Q2 at the same time.
With this much as background, let us consider how the proposed system
captures the scope facts. The relevant examples in (6) are repeated as (21).

(21) a. Dareka-ga
someone-Nom

daremo-ohihansita

everyone-Acc

criticized(koto)‘Someone criticized everyone (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Daremo-oi
everyone-Acc

dareka-gatisomeone-Nom

hihansita(koto)

criticized‘Everyonei, someone criticized ti (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’Let us start with the case of (21b), where an OSV sentence is ambiguous.
Recall that in order to have the surface OSV order, an object has to be scrambled
to the edge of vP before Spell-out under the system advocated here. Then, when13

Spell-out applies to the vP, we have the following two possibilities, as in (22).

(22) a. [vP ObjQP SubjQP [VP ti …]]

Ordering Table: ObjQP«SubjQP
Scope Relation: ObjQP>SubjQP

b. [vP ObjQP SubjQP [VP ti …]]

Ordering Table: ObjQP«SubjQP
Scope Relation: SubjQP>ObjQP

In both cases, an ordering statement where the object precedes the subject isestablished, because traces are invisible for linear order establishment. On theother hand, by assumption they are visible for scope relation establishment. Thus,
either ObjQP>SubjQP or SubjQP>ObjQP can be established at this point. That is, aderivation of an OSV sentence is allowed to choose one of the two pairs ofrelations, which are shown in (22a) and (22b). Given SPR, then, the derivation
which has chosen (22a) can converge only in an OSV order with object wide
scope. Likewise, the derivation with the choice in (22b) converges only in an
OSV order with subject wide scope. In this way, the proposed system captures
the scope ambiguity of OSV sentences.
Meanwhile, the object must stay in situ when Spell-out applies to vP to
derive the surface SOV order in (21a). Then, the derivation can have only one
combination of ordering statements and scope relation statements, as in (23).

(23) [vP SubjQP [VP ObjQP …]]Ordering Table: SubjQP«ObjQP
Scope Relation: SubjQP>ObjQP

Crucially, in the combination where a subject precedes an object, taking wide
scope is the only possibility. Then, this ensures the scope rigidity of SOV
14

sentences, even if the following structure in (24) is derived in the later step.

(24) [CP … SubjQPi … ObjQPj … [vP ti [VP tj …]]]Note that the structure in (24) instantiates the problematic step in (18b)discussed in the previous section. That is, in (24) both the subject and the object
undergo scrambling to the higher domain after the Spell-out of vP.
Then, at the Spell-out of CP in (24), we have two choices, as shown in (25).

(25) a. Ordering Table: SubjQP«ObjQP

b. Ordering Table: SubjQP«ObjQP

SubjQP«ObjQP

SubjQP«ObjQP

Scope Relation: SubjQP>ObjQP* Scope Relation: SubjQP>ObjQP

SubjQP>ObjQP

ObjQP>SubjQP

In the case of (25a), an ordering statement SubjQP«ObjQP and a scope relation
statement SubjQP>ObjQP are established at this point. They are consistent withthose established at the step in (23). Hence, the derivation can converge, giving
rise to the SOV order with subject wide scope. On the other hand, nothing
blocks a scope relation statement ObjQP>SubjQP from being established at theSpell-out of CP as in (25b), since the object in (24) c-commands the trace of thesubject. This choice, however, leads the derivation to crash at LF, because the
Scope Relation Table of (25b) contains a scope contradiction. Therefore, thederivation of an SOV sentence cannot converge with object wide scope.
To sum up, I proposed to extend LP to SRP, and illustrated that the scope
rigidity of SOV sentences and the scope ambiguity of OSV sentences can be
explained by the system which assumes SRP and the hypothesis that vP15

constitutes a Spell-out Domain. In a nutshell, in order to derive an SOV sentence,an object must not be scrambled across a subject before Spell-out of vP, and as aresult, only the scope relation where the subject takes wide scope can be fixed at
this point. Meanwhile, an object must be scrambled across a subject before
Spell-out of vP to derive an OSV sentence; then, either scope relation becomes
available. What is crucial is that not only linear ordering but also scope relations
are subject to preservation, and this cannot be achieved without SRP.
Note that though a derivation is allowed to establish various combinationsof ordering and scope relation statements, it can converge only if its outputs aretotally consistent; otherwise it eventually crashes either at PF or LF because of acontradiction. Hence, we do not have to appeal to global economy to rule out
undesirable derivations. Note further that the proposed analysis does not exclude
the string-vacuous scrambling in question. Even if such a scrambling is possible,
the scope facts can be explained. Therefore, the analysis enables us to makeHoji’s (1985) BSVS free from the problem discussed in Section 2.

5. Implications
This section explores some implications of the proposed analysis for
Double Object Constructions (DOCs), exemplified in (26).

(26) a. Taroo-ga
Taroo-Nomdareka-ni

daremo-osyookaisita

someone-Dat

everyone-Acc

introduced(koto)‘Taroo introduced everyone to someone (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Taroo-ga
Taroo-Nom

daremo-oi

dareka-ni

everyone-Acc

someone-Dattisyookaisita (koto)introduced‘Taroo introduced everyone to someone (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’
16

Hoji (1985) claims that the order in (26a), where the indirect object (IO)
precedes the direct object (DO), is the basic one, and the DO-IO order in (26b)
is derived by so called Short-scrambling (cf. Tada 1993) of the DO. Note thatthe examples in (26) indicate two important facts: (i) The basic IO-DO orderexhibits scope rigidity while the scrambled DO-IO order has scope ambiguity,and (ii) DO can follow a subject in DOCs even if it undergoes scrambling. In
what follows, I make the two claims in (27) to accommodate these facts:12(27) a. There is a functional projection FP between vP and VP in DOCs.
b. The FP constitutes a Spell-out Domain.

Let us start with the discussion of the structure of DOCs. Suppose that the
IO and DO are generated within the same projection, which is a complement of
the head v, as in (28a) below (cf. Hoji 1985, Larson 1988, among others).

(28) a. [vP Subj [VP IO [V’ DO V]] v]
b. [vP DOi Subj [VP IO [V’ ti V]] v]

In order to derive a linear order where the DO precedes IO, the DO must be
scrambled to the edge of vP before Spell-out, as in (28b); otherwise an ordering
statement in which IO precedes DO is established, making the surface DO-IO
order impossible.13 The Spell-out of vP in (28b), then, establishes only theordering statement DO«Subj«IO. Consequently, the surface order of (26b)cannot be derived, because it necessarily induces an ordering contradiction
between a subject and DO. That is, the availability of Short-scrambling itself
argues against the structure in (28a) under the proposed system.
17

The problem discussed above is that there is no licit landing site for thescrambled DO to derive the required surface order. This problem can be solved
if we assume the presence of an FP between vP and VP, as in (29a).

(29) a. [vP Subj [FP IO [VP DO V] F] v]
b. [vP Subj [FP DOi IO [VP ti V] F] v]

As shown in (29b), FP provides a licit landing site. As a result, an ordering
statement Subj«DO«IO becomes available at the Spell-out of vP. Hence, thederivation can converge with the surface order of (26b).
Let us turn to the claim in (27b). As we have seen above, sentences with the
IO-DO order exhibit the scope rigidity while those with the DO-IO order do not.
This generalization is further confirmed by the following examples:(30) a. Dareka-nii
someone-Dat

Taroo-gatiTaroo-Nom

daremo-osyookaisita (koto)everyone-Acc

introduced‘To someonei, Taroo introduced everyone ti (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Daremo-oi
everyone-Acc

Taroo-gadareka-nitiTaroo-Nom

someone-Dat

syookaisita (koto)introduced‘Everyonei, Taroo introduced ti to someone (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’(31) a. Dareka-nii

daremo-oj

Taroo-gatitj

someone-Dat everyone-Acc Taroo-Nom

syookaisita (koto)introduced‘To someonei, everyonej, Taroo introduced tj ti (ok∃>∀, *∀>∃)’
b. Daremo-oi

dareka-nij

Taroo-gaeveryone-Acc someone-Dat Taroo-Nomtjtisyookaisita (koto)introduced‘Everyonei, to someonej, Taroo introduced ti tj (ok∃>∀, ok∀>∃)’
18

The a-examples, where IO precedes DO, exhibit scope rigidity, whereas scope
ambiguity arises in the b-examples, where DO precedes IO. 14 This
generalization fails to be captured if vP is the sole Spell-out Domain within theverbal projections. To see the problem, let us consider the structures in (32).

(32) a. [vP IOi Subj [FP DOj ti [VP tj V] F] v]
b. [vP IOi DOj Subj [FP ti [VP tj V] F] v](32a) gives rise to the surface order of (30a) and (32b) to that of (31a). Note thatthe DO c-commands the trace of the IO in both cases. Hence, nothing blocks ascope relation statement DO>IO from being established at the Spell-out of vP.
Then, (30a) and (31a) are predicted to be ambiguous, contrary to fact.
If the FP is also a Spell-out Domain, as claimed in (27b) above, theproblem can be solved. Let us consider the two configurations depicted in (33).

(33) a. [FP IO [VP DO …]]Ordering Table: IO«DO
Scope Relation: IO>DOb. [FP DOi IO [VP ti …]]

Ordering Table: DO«IO
Scope Relation: DO>IO or IO>DOThe DO must stay in situ to derive the surface IO-DO order, as in (33a). Then,
Spell-out of FP unambiguously establishes a scope relation statement where IO
takes wide scope. On the other hand, if DO has been scrambled, as in (33b),
Spell-out of FP can establish either DO>IO or IO>DO under the proposedmechanism. Therefore, a derivation which eventually has the IO-DO order neverconverges with the DO wide scope interpretation, given SRP.
19

Summarizing this section, I explored the implications of the proposed
analysis. I argued (i) that there is a functional projection FP between vP and VP,
based on the availability of Short-scrambling, and (ii) that the FP constitutes aSpell-out Domain, based on the fact that the IO-DO orders exhibit the scope
rigidity whereas the DO-IO orders do not.

6. Conclusion
In this paper, I proposed to extend Fox and Pesetsky’s (2003, 2005)
Linearization Preservation to Spelled-out Relation Preservation; the former
requires the linear ordering established by an application of Spell-out to bepreserved at later Spell-out points, and the latter requires not only linear
ordering but also semantic relations to be preserved. Crucially assuming SRP, I
provided an analysis that explains the difference between SOV and OSV
sentences with respect to scope interactions. I also argued that the proposed
analysis makes Hoji’s (1985) Ban on String-Vacuous Scrambling free from the
problem of global economy. Finally, I explored the implications of the analysis,
claiming that in Double Object Constructions, there is a functional projection
between vP and VP, which constitutes a Spell-out Domain.
Notes∗

I would like to thank to Mamoru Saito for his detailed suggestions andcomments. I am also grateful to Cedric Boeckx, Chisato Fuji, Tomo Fujii,
Masakazu Kuno, Takeo Kurafuji, Masashi Nomura, Koji Sugisaki, Akira
Watanabe, and the audience at the TCP 2008 for valuable comments. Special
thanks go to Jean Crawford and Jeff Miller, who kindly proofread the earlier
version of this paper. All remaining errors are of course mine.
20

1

For other types of string-vacuous scrambling, see, e.g. Saito (1994) andTakano (1996), among others.
2

The sentence-final koto ‘the fact that’ is added to make the examples morenatural. English translations provided for the examples are intended to show
their rough structure, and the sentence final koto is excluded from them.
3

Unlike clause-internal scrambling, long-distance scrambling does not affectthe scope interpretation (see Tada 1993, among others). In this paper, I
concentrate on clause-internal scrambling.
4

One may suspect that the problem disappears if subject scrambling is

impossible (Saito 1985, see also footnote 7), as Hoji (1985) assumes. The
problem, however, still arises if the movement of a subject can be A-movement
to Spec, TP from a vP-internal position. Through out this paper, however, I
assume that subjects can be scrambled at least clause-internally, and use terms
like “subject scrambling” or “scrambling of a subject” for ease of exposition.
5

The notations used in this paper are rather simplified for the purpose ofpresentation. An ordering statement that is established at the current step will be
indicated by boldface, and irrelevant elements will be omitted.
6

Following F&P, I assume that traces are invisible to linear order establishment.

7

To exclude structures like (13b), Saito (1985) claims that subjects cannot be

scrambled. Ko (2007), however, argues against this hypothesis, providing
evidence for the presence of subject scrambling.
8

In Takita (in press), I provided an additional argument for the hypothesis thatvP constitutes a Spell-out Domain, based on the account of Proper Binding
Condition effect (Fiengo 1977) on scrambling (see Saito 1989, among others).
9

In the NQ Floating cases which Ko (2007) originally discusses, this21

scrambling-after-Spell-out problem does not arise. This is because if an object
has not been moved to the vP-edge, an ordering statement Subj«NQSubj«Obj isestablished, while the Spell-out of CP with scrambling of the object after
Spell-out of vP may establishes either Subj«Obj«NQSubj or Obj«Subj«NQSubj,
inducing an ordering contradiction between the object and the subject related
NQ. Hence, the problem I discuss in the text is specific to the string-vacuous
scrambling. I would like to thank Mamoru Saito (p.c.) for bringing up this point.
10

I indicate scope relation statements established at the relevant Spell-out by

boldface, as in the case of ordering statements.
11

Although I cannot address in this paper the question of whether Japanese has

Quantifier Raising (QR, May 1977), I assume that even if the language has QR,
it applies after Spell-out, and that the results of the application of QR must be
consistent with those established by Spell-out, due to SRP.
12

See Marantz (1993), Ura (1996), Takano (1998), McGinnis (2001), Pylkkänen(2002), Yatsushiro (2003), and references cited therein for similar proposals. I
leave further examinations of the nature of the FP for future works.
13

I assume that scrambling is not a tucking-in operation in the sense of

Richards (2001), so that DO cannot be moved to the inner Spec of vP (see Takita
2008 for an argument for this assumption). I also assume an anti-locality
constraint like (i) (see Saito and Murasugi 1999, Abels 2003, and Bošković 2005,
among others), which restricts ‘too local’ movement (cited from Bošković
2005:16).
(i)Each chain link must be at least length 1, where a chain link from A to
B is of length n if there are n XPs that dominate B but not A.

Given (i), the DO cannot be moved to the edge of VP because it crosses no XP.
22

14

Hoji (1985) judges sentences like (31a) as ambiguous, though my informants

find them unambiguous. I leave this judgment variation for future research.

References
Abels, K. (2003) Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Aoun, J. and A. Li. (1993) Syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bošković, Ž. (2005) On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of
NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1-45.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D.
Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax
in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-151). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: Alife in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Collins, C. (1997) Local economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fiengo, R. (1977) On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 35-61.
Fox, D. and D. Pesetsky. (2003) Cyclic Linearization and the typology of
movement. Ms., MIT.
Fox, D. and D. Pesetsky. (2005) Cyclic Linearization of syntactic structure.
Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 1-45.
Hoji, H. (1985) Logical Form constraints and configurational structures inJapanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.
Holmberg, A. (1999) Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica,
53, 1-39.
23

Ko, H. (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, even and only (Part 2). Annual Bulletin 4 (pp. 127-152). The
Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1980) Bunkoozoo-no hikaku. In T. Kunihiro (Ed.), Nichi-eigo
hikaku-kooza 2: Bunpoo (pp. 23-61). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983) What can Japanese say about government and binding?
Proceeding of WCCFL 2, 153-164.
Larson, R. (1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19,335-391.
Marantz, A. (1993) Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions.
In S. A. Mchombo (Ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1 (pp.
113-151). Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
May, R. (1977) The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
McGinnis, M. (2001) Variation in the phrase structure of applicatives. Linguistic
Variation Yearbook, 1, 105-146.
Miyagawa, S. (1989) Structure and case-marking in Japanese (Syntax and
Semantics 22). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pylkkänen, L. (2002) Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Richards, N. (2001) Movement in language: Interaction and architecture.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saito, M. (1985) Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical
implications. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Saito, M. (1989) Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In M.
Baltin & A. Kroch (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure (pp.
24

182-200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saito, M. (1994) Improper adjunction. In M. Koizumi & H. Ura (Eds.), Formal
approaches to Japanese linguistics 1 (pp. 263-293). Cambridge, Mass.:
MITWPL.
Saito, M. and K. Murasugi. (1999) Subject predication within IP and DP. In K.
Johnson & I. Roberts (Eds.), Beyond principles and parameters (pp.
167-188). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sportiche, D. (1988) A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries forconstituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 425-449.
Tada, H. (1993) A/A-bar partition in derivation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Takano, Y. (1996) Movement and parametric variation in syntax. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Takano, Y. (1998) Object shift and scrambling. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 16, 817-889.
Takita, K. (2008) Remarks on the Proper Binding effects on overt and covert
Merge. Ms., Nanzan University.
Takita, K. (in press). The Proper Binding Condition effect as a consequence of
Cyclic Linearization. Proceedings of NELS 38.
Ura, H. (1996) Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function
splitting. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Uriagereka, J. (1999) Multiple spell out. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.),
Working Minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Yatsushiro, K. (2003) VP internal scrambling. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,
12, 141-170.

(d06hl007@nanzan-u.ac.jp)25