言語研究（Gengo Kenkyu）155: 159–172（2019）

doi: 10.11435/gengo.155.0_159【Forum】

Differentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts:
A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs
Xin MuShanghai University of
Finance and Economics

Masatoshi Koizumi
Tohoku University

Katsuo Tamaoka
Nagoya University

Abstract: Previous studies (e.g., Cho 1995, Inoue 2002, Ito 2001, Kishimoto2012) suggest that some NP-kara phrases in Japanese can be considered as
sentence subjects. Like NP-ga, some NP-kara phrases can trigger subject honorification and can be the antecedent of the reflexive pronoun zibun ‘self ’. Additionally, Ueda (2003) and Kishimoto (2012), among others, argue that a karamarked subject may stay in its thematic position, Spec-vP, rather than moving toa derived Spec-TP position. However, it is also possible to analyze kara-marked
NPs as VP-adjuncts, based on the fact that -kara is a postposition typically usedas the head of an adjunct. To differentiate between these possibilities, the present study conducted an experiment centered on sentences whose subjects aremarked with either -ga or -kara. The results showed that scrambling effects (i.e.,a significant difference in processing speed between sentences with two alternative word orders) were observed in sentences where subjects were marked by -ga,but not in sentences in which the corresponding NPs were marked by -kara. An
experimental study by Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) indicates that VP-adverbs
have two canonical positions, one before the canonical object position and one
after that position (i.e., AdvOV and OAdvV; Adv refers to an adverb). Given
this observation, the lack of scrambling effects with NP-kara suggests that native
Japanese speakers may understand NP-kara as a VP-adjunct, generated either
before or after an object inside the VP.
Key words: ga- and kara-marked subjects, VP-internal subject hypothesis,
scrambling effects, sentence processing, VP-adjunct1. Introduction
In modern Japanese, a grammatical subject is usually marked by the nominative
case -ga (NP-ga hereafter), as exemplified in (1a).1 However, some descriptive
studies (e.g., Cho 1995, Ito 2001) suggest that in some cases, as shown in (1b), thegrammatical subject can be marked with the ablative case (ABL) -kara (NP-kara
hereafter).

1 The following abbreviations are used in the glosses of examples: ABL (ablative), ACC(accusative), CL (classifier), CAUS (causative), DAT (dative), GEN (genitive), NOM(nominative), SH (subject honorification), TOP (topic).

160   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka(1)		a.		Kootyoo ga		syoomeisyo o			watasi-ta.
				principal NOM certificate		 ACC hand.over-PAST				‘The principal handed over the certificate.’		b.		Kootyoo kara		syoomeisyo o			watasi-ta.
				principal ABL certificate		 ACC hand.over-PAST				‘The principal handed over the certificate.’  In (1b), kootyoo-kara can be understood as the subject, because superficiallyat least, it appears in the same position as kootyoo-ga, the subject of (1a). Moresimply, we can consider the subject marker -ga to be replaced by the morpheme-kara. This phenomenon is called the ga-kara ‘NOM-From’ alternation in Ueda
(2003). However, we should note that from the perspective of generative Japanese
linguistics, -ga is a case marker, while -kara is a postposition. Therefore, as a postposition, -kara can play roles that are usually reserved for prepositions in English,
such as indicating the “source” (indicated by the preposition from in English) or“cause” (indicated by because in English) of an event. Although the ga-kara alternation makes a kara-marked NP appear to be a subject, its status as a postpositional
phrase (PP) muddies the waters. It is also possible to analyze kara-marked NPs
as VP-adjuncts. Thus, it is unclear whether a kara-marked NP displays signs oftrue subjecthood.2 The present study investigated the processing of sentences withkara-marked NPs by native Japanese speakers to clarify whether a kara-marked
NP is a subject or not.
2. Previous Studies: Kara-marked NPs as Subjects
Previous studies (e.g., Cho 1995, Inoue 2002, Ito 2001) point out that the ga-karaalternation must satisfy two conditions. First, the head verb of the sentence must
represent an action that provides something or conveys something to someone. For
instance, these could be two-argument verbs such as sikar-u ‘scold’ and home-ru‘praise,’ or three-argument verbs such as okur-u ‘send’ and yuzur-u ‘pass ... on (to).’Second, kara-marked NPs must have an agent thematic role. When these two
conditions are satisfied, the subject of a sentence can be marked either with thenominative case marker -ga or with the ablative postposition -kara.
If the ga-kara alternation is allowed, kara-marked NPs will have a syntactic
function similar to that of ga-marked NPs. This provides key evidence in supportof the claim that kara-marked NPs can be treated as subjects. First, as shown in(2), both NP-ga and NP-kara can be the antecedents of the reflexive pronoun
zibun ‘oneself.’ In addition, as illustrated in (3), both NP-ga and NP-kara can trigger subject honorification. It therefore seems reasonable to treat a kara-marked NPof this kind as a subject.

2 English also allows what appears to be an appositional (prepositional) phrase subject (e.g.,‘After four would suit me fine.’)Differentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   161

(2)		
a.		
Taroo ga			 Hanako		ni			zibun		no		himitu		o				Taroo NOM	 Hanako		DAT oneself		GEN secret		ACC				hanasi-ta.
				tell-PAST				‘Taroo told Hanako his secret.’		b.		
Taroo kara		Hanako ni			zibun		no		himitu		o				Taroo ABL Hanako DAT oneself		GEN secret		ACC				hanasi-ta.
				tell-PAST				‘Taroo told Hanako his secret.’
(3)		
a.		
Tanaka-sensei ga			Taroo ni			sono		koto		o				Prof. Tanaka		NOM Taroo DAT that		thing ACC
				o-hanasi-ni nat-ta.
				SH-tell-SH-PAST				‘Professor Tanaka told Taroo that thing.’		b.		
Tanaka-sensei kara		Taroo ni			sono		koto		o				Prof. Tanaka		ABL Taroo DAT that		thing ACC
				o-hanasi-ni nat-ta.
				SH-tell-SH-PAST				‘Professor Tanaka told Taroo that thing.’

Although NP-ga and NP-kara function similarly, it has been argued that they
are generated in different syntactic positions (e.g., Inoue 2002, Kishimoto 2012,
Ueda 2003). As -ga is a structural case, ga-marked subjects are often assumed tomove to a derived position (Spec-TP) from their thematic position (Spec-vP).
Considering kara-marked NPs as subjects raises the question of whether karamarked NPs also move to Spec-TP, that is, whether sentences with NP-ga andthose with NP-kara have parallel structures and are comparable in terms of syntactic derivation. Inoue (2002), Ueda (2003), and Kishimoto (2012) suggest thatkara-marked subjects remain in the vP-internal subject position. One piece ofevidence for this comes from causative sentences. In Japanese causative sentences
like those in (4), a VP-adverb, but not a TP-adverb or CP-adverb, can occur inthe embedded clause denoting the caused event (Koizumi 1991). In (4b, c), theadverbs may only be associated with the matrix causative verb.
(4)		a.		VP-adverb
				Minori ga			[Megumi		ni			yukkuri hon		o				Minori NOM		 Megumi		DAT slowly		book ACC
				yom]-ase-ta.
				read-CAUS-PAST				‘Minori made [Megumi read a book slowly].’		b.		TP-adverb
				Minori ga			Megumi ni			kinoo		hon		o						Minori NOM		 Megumi DAT yesterday book ACC
				yom-ase-ta.
				read-CAUS-PAST

162   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka

				*‘Minori made [Megumi read a book yesterday].’				‘Minori made [Megumi read a book] yesterday.’		c.		CP-adverb
				Minori ga			Megumi ni			saiwai			hon		o							Minori NOM Megumi DAT fortunately book ACC
				yom-ase-ta.
				read-CAUS-PAST				*‘Minori made [Megumi read a book fortunately].’				‘Minori made [Megumi read a book] fortunately.’This suggests that the embedded clause of causative sentences of this kind is
not a TP or CP, but rather a vP (Harley 2008, Koizumi 1991). Not surprisingly,
the embedded subject cannot be marked with the nominative -ga, which needs tobe licensed by T. More interestingly, it may be marked with -kara, as shown in (5)(Ueda 2003).
(5)		
Taroo		wa		[watasi		kara		Mary ni			kanozyo no		yoozyoo		Taro		TOP	 I				ABL Mary DAT her			GEN condition
		o				 setumei-s]-ase-ta.
		ACC		 explain-do-CAUS-PAST		‘Taro made me explain her condition to Mary.’
Ueda (2003) considers this to be evidence that kara-subjects may occur vP-internally at the point of Spell-Out.
3. Scrambling Effects and Two Hypotheses
Although Japanese is a head-final language with a canonical SOV order, scrambling operations provide the language with a flexible word order. In canonicalsentences, the subject is followed by an object, with the head verb appearing at theend. Those with other word orders (e.g., OSV) are considered to be scrambled. In
several psycholinguistic studies, native Japanese speakers took longer to processsentences with a scrambled OSV order than those with a canonical SOV order.
This is known as the scrambling effect (e.g., Tamaoka et al. 2005). Furthermore,
Tamaoka et al. (2005) used five different types of Japanese sentences, including
passive sentences, potential sentences, and causative sentences, to investigate thepriority information for canonical phrase order. They arrived at the conclusion thatneither case particles nor thematic roles, but grammatical functions provide fully
satisfactory information for canonical order. What is interesting in this study isthat even when subjects were marked by -ni, native speakers still understood themas subjects of sentences and scrambling effects were observed. This provides a crucial clue concerning constructions with NP-kara.
In an active sentence with a transitive verb, the ga-marked subject is generated in Spec-vP as an external argument and then moves to Spec-TP, while
the object is generated as the complement of the head verb (e.g., Fukui 1986,
Kitagawa 1986, Kuroda 1988). The structure of (1a) ‘The principal handed over theDifferentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   163

certificate’ can be described as in (6a). Scrambled OSV orders are considered to be
derived from the canonical order by moving a constituent from its canonical position to a derived position (e.g., a position in the left periphery). In the case of (6b),the OSV order can be generated by moving the object syoomeisyo-o ‘certificateACC’ from its canonical position inside the VP to its derived position in TP. As aresult, the scrambled structure in (6b) contains more TP layers than the canonicalstructure in (6a).
(6)		a.		[TP Kootyoo-gai [T′ [vP ti [v′ [ VP syoomeisyo-o watasi-] ] ] ta] ].
		b.		[TP Syoomeisyo-oj [TP kootyoo-gai [T′[vP (tj) ti [v′ [ VP tj watasi-] ] ] ta] ] ].
Gap-filling parsing (e.g., Frazier and Clifton 1989 for English; Sakamoto
2001, Tamaoka et al. 2005, 2013 for Japanese) has been used to explain scrambling
effects between sentences with canonical and scrambled word orders. When native
speakers encounter a scrambled sentence, they construct a filler-gap dependency,
establishing a relationship between a constituent’s canonical position and its
derived position. For instance, when an object such as syoomeisyo-o ‘certificateACC’ appears sentence-initially in a Japanese sentence, native Japanese speakers
are likely to initially treat the sentence as one without a subject (i.e., an instanceof subject dropping), such as syoomeisyo-o watasi-ta ‘(Someone) handed over thecertificate.’ Native Japanese speakers then predict that a head verb will follow theobject. However, when they see a subject such as kootyoo-ga ‘the principal’ after
the object, they recognize that the object in the sentence-initial position is a filler
and that there is a gap before the head verb. Based on the canonical word orderof Japanese, they understand that the object has been moved from this gap site,
and they build a relationship between the filler and the gap. Moreover, using eyetracking movement studies, Tamaoka et al. (2013) observed an extra load at thethird phrase (ga-marked subject) in sentences with double-scrambled O1O2SV
order (Tom-ni hon-o Mary-ga kaesi-ta ‘Mary returned the book to Tom’) comparedto those with the canonical order (Mary-ga Tom-ni hon-o kaesi-ta). This indicatesthe possibility that native speakers may use the subject information to predict theconstruction of the whole sentence according to canonical order before seeing thehead verb. Although Tamaoka et al. (2013) suggest a heavy re-reading to the object
NP after seeing the sentence-final verb, they also indicate that the subject in thescrambled order triggers gap-filling parsing prior to the verb.
According to the processing mechanisms of canonical order and scrambled
order, we test two hypotheses in this study. The first is called the subject hypothesis. It assumes that native Japanese speakers regard NP-kara as a subject. As mentioned above, when the two conditions are satisfied, -ga can be replaced with -kara.
Theoretically, a kara-marked subject is a vP-internal subject that can trigger subject
honorification and can be the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun, just like a gamarked subject. Therefore, we might suppose that the sentences in which subjects
are marked with -kara in canonical SOV order such as (7a) and scrambled OSVorder such as (7b) have the following structures.

164   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka(7)		a.		[TP [T′ [vP Kootyoo-kara [v′ [ VP syoomeisyo-o watasi-]]] ta]].
		b.		[TP [T′ [vP Syoomeisyo-oi [vP kootyoo-kara [v′ [ VP ti watasi-]]]] ta]].
Work on scrambling effects can provide insight into the structure of sentences with kara-marked NPs. Because the object syoomeisyo-o ‘certificate-ACC’
has moved from its canonical position inside VP to the outer Spec of vP, when
native speakers see the object first, they initially believe that (7b) is a sentence
without an overt subject. However, they will then see kootyoo-kara ‘the principal.’ If
a native speaker regards NP-kara as a subject like NP-ga, gap-filling parsing willbe triggered to construct a fill-gap dependency. As a result, the scrambling effect ispredicted between canonical SOV and scrambled OSV orders.
On the other hand, we still cannot completely ignore the possibility thatnative speakers simply process an NP-kara as a VP-adjunct standing for the“source,” in which case the issues of subject honorification and the anaphoric interpretation should be given an alternative account. Thus, the second hypothesis is the
VP-adjunct hypothesis. It assumes that native Japanese speakers regard NP-kara
as a VP-adjunct. We might then suppose that the sentences with an NP-kara as a
VP-adjunct have the structures schematically shown in (8).
(8)		a.		[TP [T′ [ VP Kootyoo-kara syoomeisyo-o watasi-] ta]].
		b.		[TP [T′ [ VP Syoomeisyo-o kootyoo-kara watasi-] ta]].
Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) conducted a psycholinguistic experiment
to investigate the canonical positions of three types of adverbs (CP-adverbs,
TP-adverbs, and VP-adverbs) with different word orders. They reported null
effects of scrambling between VP-adverbs that precede objects (SAdvOV order)
and VP-adverbs that follow objects (SOAdvV order). Thus, Koizumi and Tamaoka(2006) claim that the positions both before and after the object are canonicalpositions for VP-adverbs. Since VP-adjuncts have two canonical positions, both
NP-karaOV and ONP-karaV are considered canonical orders if NP-kara is a
VP-adjunct. Null effects of scrambling should then be observed between the twoorders.
4. Experiment4.1. Participants
Thirty native Japanese speakers who were either undergraduate or graduate students at Nagoya University in Japan participated in the present experiment. Twoparticipants were removed from the analysis due to issues with the response box.
This left a total of 28 participants (15 females and 13 males). Their ages ranged
from 17 years and 11 months to 27 years and 11 months, with a mean age of 19
years and 3 months and a standard deviation of 23 months on the day of testing.
4.2. Materials
To directly compare sentences with -ga and -kara marked NPs, two types of markers (-ga and -kara) and two types of orders (SOV and OSV) were used for theDifferentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   165

present experiment. Active sentences with two arguments (i.e., transitive verbs)
or three arguments (i.e., ditransitive verbs) were used. In the case of ditransitive
verbs, noun phrases with dative case markers were omitted. For ga-marked NPs,the following types of sentences were created: (i) canonically ordered sentenceswith S-gaOV and (ii) their scrambled ordered counterparts with OS-gaV. For the
kara-marked NPs, the following types of sentences were created: (iii) S-karaOV
sentences and (iv) OS-karaV sentences. Verbs were kept the same throughout (i)–(iv). Noun phrases in (i)–(iv) were also kept the same and only altered to create thescrambled order (i.e., minimal pairs were created). This ensured that the difficultylevel of each sentence and individual word frequency would not influence the processing of any of the conditions.
A total of 32 canonical sentences with ga-marked subjects were created (e.g.,
Kootyoo-ga syoomeisyo-o watasi-ta ‘The principal handed over the certificate’).
Based on these 32 sentences, we created 32 corresponding scrambled sentenceswith ga-marked subjects (e.g., Syoomeisyo-o kootyoo-ga watasi-ta). We also created
32 canonical kara-marked subject sentences, minimal pairs with the ga-marked
sentences (e.g., Kootyoo-kara syoomeisyoo-o watasi-ta). Finally, we created 32 corresponding scrambled sentences (e.g., Syoomeisyo-o kootyoo-kara watasi-ta). In
total, 64 canonical and 64 scrambled sentences were created. Given that this was asentence correctness decision task, we called this group of 128 sentences the correct sentences, as they were semantically plausible (“correct”). To avoid presenting
the same sentence to the same participant more than once, the four conditions
created by 32 original sentences (32 original sentences × 4 conditions = 128 sentences) were distributed among four lists containing eight sentences from eachcategory (i)–(iv) (8 sentences × 4 conditions × 4 lists = 128 sentences), and werethen assigned to four groups of participants following a Latin square design. Eachof the four lists consisted of eight canonical and eight scrambled sentences with
ga-marked NPs, as well as eight canonical and eight scrambled sentences withkara-marked NPs.
We also created a corresponding class of incorrect sentences, including 32
semantically incorrect sentences with canonical word order (e.g., Syooboodan-ga
kasai-o settoku-sita ‘Fire brigades convinced the fire’) and 32 semantically incorrect sentences with scrambled word order. In addition, as dummy sentences, we
also included 20 commonly used correct sentences (e.g., Nihon-no momizi-wa
yuumei-da ‘Japanese maple trees are famous’) and 20 incorrect sentences (e.g.,
Iriguti-de kimono-ga odotteiru ‘A kimono is dancing at the entrance’). Following a
Latin square design, 32 incorrect sentences and 40 dummy sentences were added
to each of the four lists. As a result, each participant saw one of four lists consistingof 104 sentences, namely, 32 correct sentences (YES responses), 32 incorrect sentences (NO responses), and 40 dummy sentences (20 YES and 20 NO responses).
All target stimuli are available as a PDF file at the website of http://tamaoka.org/
scholarly/index.html under the title of this article (#171).

166   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka

4.3. Procedure
The experiment employed a whole-sentence correctness decision task showing one
sentence at a time on a computer screen. Stimuli with both YES and NO correct
responses were presented to participants in random order in the center of a computer screen 600 milliseconds after the appearance of plus marks (‘++++++++++’)
indicating an eye fixation point. Participants were instructed to make a sentence
correctness decision as quickly and as accurately as possible, deciding whether or
not the sentences made sense. Responses were registered by pressing a YES or NO
button. 20 practice trials were given to the participants prior to the commencement of the actual testing.
5. Analysis and Results
Reaction times outside of 2.5 standard deviations at both the high and low range
for each participant were trimmed. Only the stimulus sentences that evoked correct responses were used in the analyses of reaction time. The mean reaction timeand accuracy rates for correct sentences are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Reaction times and accuracies for canonical (SOV) and scrambled(OSV) sentences with ga- and kara-marked subjects (S)Subject
marker
-ga
-kara

Word
order

Reaction time (ms)Accuracy (%)

M

SD

M

SD

SOV

1,353

385

98.2

13.3

OSV

1,495

424

93.1

25.3

SOV

1,542

476

88.0

32.5

OSV

1,557

441

89.3

31.0

Note: M = mean. SD = standard deviation.

5.1. Reaction time
For correct sentences (YES responses), a linear mixed-effects model (LME model;
see Baayen, 2008) was used, with stimulus items and participants as random effects(random intercepts and slopes), and subject marker (-ga or -kara) and word order(canonical or scrambled) as fixed effects. LME analysis was conducted using R
Studio (version 0.98.1091). The lmer function in the lme4 package was used tomodel reaction time data. While the models were analyzed with full varianceand co-variance for the main effects and random effects, the models were chosenon the basis of the first model successfully output. The reaction time model was“model <- lmer (reaction time ~ subject marker * word order + (1 + subject marker* word order | subject) + (1 + subject marker * word order | item), data).” The
results based on this model are presented in Table 2.

Differentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   167

Table 2. LME results of reaction times on correct canonical (SOV) and scrambled (OSV)
sentences with ga- and kara-marked subjects(Intercept)
Subject marker: - ga or - kara
Word order: canonical or scrambled
Subject marker × word order

EstimateSEt valuep value (>|t|)

846
373
290
-153

111
78
71
47

7.64
4.76
4.09
-3.25

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002

***
***
***
**

Note: SE = standard error. df = degree of freedom. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The probability was determined by a t-distribution with function lmer. The LME
results of the experiment revealed that both main effects of subject marker [t(800)= 4.76, p < .001] and word order [t(800) = 4.09, p < .001] were significant forreaction time. Thus, ga-marked sentences were processed faster than corresponding kara-marked sentences, while the sentences with canonical word order werealso processed faster than their corresponding sentences with scrambled word
order. The interaction between subject marker and word order was also significant[t(800) = −3.25, p < .01], suggesting different patterns depending upon the combination of the two variables. Reaction times for canonical ga-marked sentences(M = 1,353 ms) were significantly faster than their corresponding scrambled gamarked sentences (M = 1,495 ms). On the other hand, no scrambling effect wasobserved between canonical (M = 1,542 ms) and scrambled kara-marked sentences(M = 1,557 ms). This contrasting result regarding the scrambling effect between
the ga-marked and kara-marked sentences supports the VP-adjunct hypothesis
but not the kara-marked subject hypothesis.
5.2. Accuracy
For accuracy, correct responses (accuracy) were recorded as 1 and incorrect
responses as 0; thus, the binomial option in the R glmer package was used. For thisanalysis, the same procedure was used as for reaction times, resulting in the following model: “model <- glmer (accuracy ~ subject marker * word order + (1 + word
order | subject) + (1|item), data, family = binomial).” The results are presented inTable 3. The probability was determined by the z distribution with function glmer.
The experiment also revealed that both fixed effects subject marker [z(867) =−3.11, p < .01] and word order [z(867) = −2.41, p < .05] were significant for accuracy. Their interaction was also significant [z(867) = 2.37, p < .05].

168   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka

Table 3. LME results of accuracies on canonical (SOV) and scrambled (OSV) sentenceswith ga- and kara-marked subjects(Intercept)
Subject marker: -ga or -kara
Word order: canonical or scrambled
Subject marker × word order

EstimateSEz valuep value (>|z|)

9.21
-3.63
-2.92
1.56

2.19
1.17
1.21
0.66

4.20
-3.11
-2.41
2.37

0.000
0.002
0.016
0.018

***
**
*
*

Note: SE = standard error.

As shown in Table 1, canonical ga-marked sentences (M = 98.2%) were processed more accurately than their corresponding scrambled ga-marked sentences(M = 93.1%). Similar to what was seen in the reaction time results, no difference inaccuracy was observed between canonical (M = 88.0%) and scrambled kara-marked
sentences (M = 89.3%). Here, accuracy and reaction data showed parallel patterns.
6. Discussion
In order to investigate whether the so-called kara-subject is syntactically a subject[(7)] or an adjunct [(8)], the present study conducted an experiment comparing
the processing time of sentences with NP-ga and NP-kara in two different orders.
The results showed that canonical sentences with ga-marked subjects had shorter
reaction times and higher accuracy rates than the corresponding scrambled sentences. This result is consistent with the standard view that native Japanese speakers regard the nominative -ga as a subject marker, and thus, interpret NP-ga as a
subject. This involves applying gap-filling parsing to process scrambled sentences(e.g., Frazier and Clifton 1989 for English; Sakamoto 2001, Tamaoka et al. 2005,
2013 for Japanese). In contrast, no scrambling effect was observed between thetwo orders when what appears to be the subject is marked with -kara. A similar
result was obtained by Koizumi and Tamaoka (2006) regarding VP-adverbs, indicating that both the positions before the object (SAdvOV) and after the object(SOAdvV) can be canonical positions for VP-adverbs. When applied to thepresent study, the result can be understood to show that native Japanese speakers
process kara-marked NPs as VP-adjuncts, having both [NP-kara O V] and [ONP-kara V] as canonical orders. Thus, the present study supports the hypothesisthat a kara-marked NP is a VP-adjunct.
A question then naturally arises as to why kara-marked NPs corresponding to
ga-marked subjects exhibit a dual nature: they are subjects in the sense that they
can trigger subject honorification and can be the antecedent of zibun; at the sametime, they are adjuncts in that they do not show scrambling effects with respect tothe accusative object. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to present afull-fledged analysis, we discuss two possible avenues toward such an examination.
One possibility is concerned with the rarity of kara-subject sentences. Since
kara-phrases are used more often as non-subjects, they tend to be processed as
adjuncts (after all, even though an NP-kara has an agent thematic role, it can stillDifferentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   169

be processed as the “source” of an action, which conveys something to someone).
Therefore, it is possible that kara-marked NPs in our experimental materials are
initially processed as adjuncts, and only after encountering the verb are they reanalyzed as subjects. Kara-marked NPs do not show scrambling effects because they
are processed as adjuncts at least initially, and they do exhibit subjecthood because
they are ultimately analyzed as subjects. Although this is certainly a possibility, it
does not seem to be probable for the following reasons. If an NP-kara is initiallyprocessed as an adjunct and is later reanalyzed as a subject in sentences withthe [NP-kara O V] order, the NP-kara – but not the object – is affected by thereanalysis processes after encountering the verb, as schematically shown in (9a). In
contrast, in sentences with the [O NP-kara V] order, both the NP-kara and theobject are pulled out of the VP in the reanalysis, as shown in (9b).
(9)		a.		… [ VP NP-kara object + V → … [vP NP-kara [ VP object V]]
		b.		… [ VP object NP-kara + V → …objecti [vP NP-kara [ VP ti V]]

Thus, the cost of reanalysis should be higher in (9b) than in (9a). In addition, theresultant structure is much more complex in (9b) than (9a). For these reasons, the[O NP-kara V] order should be harder to process than the [NP-kara O V] ordereven in this scenario, contrary to the fact.
To further pursue this line of reasoning, sentence processing experiments
probing the time course of processing load (e.g., with eye-tracking) may be necessary. According to pre-head incremental processing (e.g., Kamide and Mitchell1999), an extra load should be observed with NP-kara since native speakers need
the subject to predict the construction before seeing the verb. Furthermore, it isconceivable that native speakers will re-read the sentences once the head verb has
become known (i.e., post-head processing), as the syntax and semantics will bematched with the head verb (e.g., Tamaoka et al. 2013). In the case of kara-marked
subjects, the information of the head verb is necessary to judge whether NP-kara
is a subject. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that an extra load and high frequency of regression-out gaze movements at the phrase of the head verb andregression-in gaze movements at the phrase of NP-kara would be observed using
eye tracking.
The second possibility we will consider involves the null subject. If NP-karais indeed an adjunct rather than a subject, as suggested by the experimental results
reported here, and yet sentences such as (2b) and (3b) show that they must containa subject, we are led to conclude that the subject is phonetically empty. We would
therefore like to suggest that the type of sentence in question involves a phonetically empty subject in Spec-vP that is associated with an NP-kara. The silent subject functions as a trigger of subject honorification and the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun, yielding the illusion that the kara-NP is a subject.
A piece of supporting evidence for this null subject hypothesis comes fromvariable binding. Ueda (2003) observes that the bound variable interpretation withovert personal pronouns is impossible with the ga-subject, but it is possible withthe kara-subject, as shown in (10).

170   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka(10)		a. *Daremoi ga			[karerai		ga				Taroo o			sikaru to]				everyone NOM	 they		NOM		Taro		ACC scold that				it-ta.
				say-PAST				*‘Everyonei said that theyi will scold Taro.’
		b.		Daremoi ga			[karerai		kara		Taroo o			sikaru to]				everyone NOM	 they		ABL Taro		ACC scold that				it-ta.
				say-PAST				‘Everyonei said that theyi will scold Taro.’
In these examples, the overt pronoun karera ‘they’ in the embedded clause isintended to be bound by the matrix quantified subject daremo ‘everyone’. The
ungrammaticality of (10a) is as expected, given the well-known fact that beingreferential, overt pronouns in Japanese cannot be bound variables (Hoji 1991).
What is surprising is the acceptable status of (10b), which should be ungrammatical for the same reason as (10a). Why should (10b) be grammatical despitethat the overt pronoun is bound by the quantifier phrase? This conundrum can bereadily resolved under the null subject hypothesis as follows: The embedded clausein (10b) involves a null pronoun as a part of the null subject, and it is this null pronoun, rather than the overt pronoun, that is bound by daremo.
The category of the null subject seems to be PP rather than NP, because it
cannot host a floating numeral quantifier (NQ). In Japanese, a floating NQ must
be locally associated with a noun phrase (Miyagawa 1989). Thus, an NP with acase marker can host an adjacent floating NQ. In contrast, an NP with a postposition cannot host a floating NP, because the NP and the NQ are not in a local relation due to the intervening PP node. This is exemplified in (11).
(11)		a.		
Sensei		ga				3-nin		syorui			o			watasi-ta.
				teacher		NOM		3-CL		documents ACC hand.over-PAST				‘Three teachers handed over documents.’		b. *John		ga			[PP [NP sensei]	 kara] 3-nin purezento 	o						John		NOM				teacher	 ABL 3-CL present		 	ACC				morat-ta.
				receive-PAST				‘John received presents from three teachers.’
Now, consider the kara-subject sentence in (12). The NQ 3-nin ‘3-CL’ in this sentence cannot be associated with the NP sensei ‘teacher’ in the PP headed by -karafor the same reason as in (11b). However, the NQ should be able to be associatedwith the null subject in Spec-vP if the null subject is an NP. The unacceptabilityof (12) therefore suggests that the null subject in a kara-subject sentence is not an
NP. If it is not an NP, the most plausible candidate is a PP because it is associatedwith an NP-kara, which is a PP.

Differentiating Subjects from VP-adjuncts: A Psycholinguistic Case Study of kara-marked NPs   171(12) *Sensei		kara		3-nin		syorui			o			watasi-ta.
		teacher ABL 3-CL		 documents ACC hand.over-PAST		‘Three teachers handed over documents.’
7. Conclusion
Although some kara-marked NPs have been regarded as subjects in several theoretical studies (e.g., Cho 1995, Inoue 2002, Ito 2001, Kishimoto 2012), the resultsof the psycholinguistic experiment reported here indicate that these kara-marked
NPs are in fact VP-adjuncts. We tentatively suggest that kara-phrases of this kindappear to be subjects because they are associated with a phonetically empty subject
in Spec-vP.
References

Baayen, R. Harald (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cho, Lin-Sei (1995) Ga to kara [Ga and kara]. In: Tatsuo Miyajima and Yoshio Nitta (eds.)
Nihongo ruigihyoogen-no bunpoo (joo) [The grammar of synonyms in Japanese, Vol. 1],
43–52. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Frazier, Lyn and Charles Jr. Clifton (1989) Identifying gaps in English sentences. Language
and Cognitive Processes 4: 93–126.
Fukui, Naoki (1986) A theory of category projection and its applications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Harley, Heidi (2008) On the causative construction. In: Susumu Miyagawa and Mamoru
Saito (eds.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 20–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoji, Hajime (1991) Raising-to-object, ECM and the major object in Japanese. A handout
presented at Japanese Syntax Workshop at University of Rochester.
Inoue, Kazuko (2002) Noodoobun, judoobun, nijuumokutekigo koobun-to kara-kaku[Active sentences, passive sentences, sentences with ditransitive verb, and case kara].
Scientific Approaches to Language (Kanda University of International Studies) 1: 49–76.
Ito, Taketo (2001) Shugo meishiku-ni okeru ga to kara-no kootai-ni tsuite [The ga-karaalternation of the noun phrases of subjects]. Meikai Japanese Language Journal 6: 45–63.
Kamide, Yuki and Don C. Mitchell (1999) Incremental pre-head attachment in Japaneseparsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(5-6): 631–662.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2012) Subject honorification and the position of subjects in Japanese.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21: 1–41.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa (1986) Subjects in Japanese and English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1991) Syntax of adjuncts and the phrase structure of Japanese.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Ohio State University.
Koizumi, Masatoshi and Katsuo Tamaoka (2006) Bunkaiseki-ni yoru Nihongo-fukushiruino kihongojun-no hantei [A study of the canonical positions of four types of verbs inJapanese by a sentence parsing experiment]. Ninchi Kagaku [Cognitive Studies] 13(3):392–403.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1988) Whether we agree or not. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12(1): 1–47.
Miyagawa, Shigeru (1989) Structure and case marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.
Sakamoto, Tsutomu (2001) Bun-no rikai: Kakimaze bun [Understanding of sentences:172   Xin Mu, Masatoshi Koizumi and Katsuo Tamaoka

Scrambling]. Gengo [Language] 30(10): 106–111.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Hiromu Sakai, Junichiro Kawahara, Yayoi Miyaoka, Hyunjung Lim, andMasatoshi Koizumi (2005) Priority information used for the processing of Japanese
sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(3): 281–332.
Tamaoka, Katsuo, Michiko Asano, Yayoi Miyaoka, and Kazuhiko Yokosawa (2013) Preand post-head processing for single- and double-scrambled sentences of a head-final
language as measured by the eye tracking method. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
43(2): 167–185.
Ueda, Yukiko (2003) Subject positions and derivational scope calculation in minimalist
syntax: A phase-based approach. Scientific Approach to Language (Kanda University ofInternational Studies) 2: 189–215.
Authors’ contact information:[Received 6 October 2016;
XIN MU
Accepted 16 June 2018]
School of Foreign Studies,
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics,
No.777 Guoding Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, P. R. China
e-mail: hypnos0902@gmail.com

【要 旨】

主語とVP付加詞を区別する――心理言語学からみるカラ格名詞句――
穆欣

上海財経大学

小泉

政利

東北大学

玉岡賀津雄
名古屋大学

多くの先行研究ではカラ格名詞句を主語として扱うことができると指摘している（張1995，井上 2002，伊藤 2001，Kishimoto 2012 など）。カラ格名詞句は尊敬語化を引き起こしたり，「自分」の先行詞となったりする場合がある。Ueda（2003）や Kishimoto（2012）など
ではカラ格名詞句は TP の指定部に移動せず，vP の指定部に留まる可能性に言及している。
一方，後置詞であるカラ格は動詞の付加詞としての理解も考えられる。この 2 つの可能性を検討するために，本研究ではカラ格主語文とガ格主語文の文処理実験を行った。その結果，異なる語順のガ格主語文にはかき混ぜ効果が観察されたが，異なる語順のカラ格主語文にはかき混ぜ効果が観察されなかった。小泉・玉岡（2006）では，
VP 副詞には 2 つの正順語順（目的語の前と後）があると指摘している。この指摘を踏まえて考えると，日本語母語話者はカラ格名詞句を VP 付加詞として理解する可能性があり，結果としてカラ格名詞句も目的語の前または目的語の後に生成されることが示唆される。