2018/5/19

the 90th ELSJ Annual General Meeting

On the Syntactic Position of the Accusative Subject in the ECM Construction
Masahiko Takahashi
Yamagata University
mstakahashi@human.kj.yamagata-u.ac.jp
1 Introduction► Japanese has the exceptional Case-marking (ECM) construction, where an embedded subject
receives accusative Case from a matrix predicate (cf. Kuno 1976):(1) a.
b.

l

(2)

►
(3)

l
l
(4)

l

Mary-ga[ReportP Hanako-ga
Mary-NOM [ReportP Hanako-NOM
Mary-ga[
Hanako-oMary-NOM [Hanako-ACC‘Mary thinks that Hanako is smart.’kasiko-i
smart-PRS
kasiko-i
smart-PRS

to]Report]to]Report]omottei-ru.
think-PRS
omottei-ru.
think-PRS

The accusative subject can raise into the matrix vP/VP (but see Hoji 1991, 2005 and Takano 2003
for an alternative analysis):Mary-ga[vP
Hanakoi-otuyoku [Report ti kasiko-ito]omottei]-ru.
Mary-NOM [vP
Hanako-ACC strongly [Report smart-PRS Report] think]-PRS‘Mary strongly believes that Hanako is smart.’
It has been debated whether the raising of the accusative subject is obligatory.
Obligatory Raising Analysis (Kuno 1976, 2007, Sakai 1998, Tanaka 2002)[vP Hanakoi [ReportP ti[]] Report]v]
obligatory
The accusative subject obligatorily moves into the matrix vP/VP (see Postal 1974, Lasnik andSaito 1991, Koizumi 1995, Bošković 2007, Chomsky 2013, 2015, to appear).
Optional Raising Analysis (Hiraiwa 2001, 2005)[vP[ReportP Hanako[iφ] [CASE] []]Report]V[uφ]] v]

optional
Agree
The accusative subject Hanako in (4) can stay within the ReportP complement (and receive Case
via long-distance Agree). Raising of the accusative subject is optional (cf. Lasnik 1999).

►I examine two arguments for the optionality of raising (cf. (4)) and show that they can be analyzed
under (a particular version of) the obligatory raising analysis (cf. (3)).

(5)

Argument for Optional Raising 1: Indeterminate Accusative Subject
Mary-ga[Report dare-okasiko-ito]-moomottei-na-i.
Mary-NOM [Report who-ACC smart-PRS Report]-MO
think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one is smart.’l

The accusative subject dare ‘who’ in (5) is an indeterminate pronoun (Sakai 1998), which is
supposed to work as an NPI (i.e. no one) when c-commanded by the particle –mo. (see Hiraiwa2005). Negation is in the matrix clause.

lGiven that –mo in (5) is attached to the Report head to, (5) shows that the indeterminate accusative
subject must be in the ReportP complement.

(6)

Argument for Optional Raising 2: Embedded AdjunctMary-ga[Report [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-omazime dato]Mary-NOM [Report [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACC earnest COP Report]omottei-ru.
think-PRS‘Mary thinks that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’(based on Kobayashi and Maki 2002: 218)l

The accusative subject Hanako in (6) is preceded by an embedded adjunct gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘asa class representative’. If the embedded adjunct must be in the ReportP complement, theaccusative subject Hanako in (6) must also be in the ReportP complement.

►

If the accusative subjects in (5) and (6) stay within the ReportP complement, (5) and (6) provide
evidence for the optionality of raising in the Japanese ECM construction.

(7) Claims of This Presentationa.
(5) and (6) can be accounted for under the obligatory raising analysis.
b.
(5) is analyzed in terms of a condition on indeterminate pronouns defined on Transfer
domains (Section 2) and (6) is analyzed in terms of a “free ride” effect in A-movement(Section 3).
22 Indeterminate Pronoun Licensing and Transfer Domains
2.1 Indeterminate Pronouns and the Japanese ECM Constructionl Indeterminate pronouns such as dare ‘who’ or nani ‘what’ behave as NPIs when they areaccompanied by the particle –mo (Kuroda 1965; McGloin 1976; Nishigauchi 1990; Kishimoto
2001; D. Takahashi 2002; Hiraiwa 2005, among others):(8) a.

b.

Hanako-ga
dare-mo
Hanako-NOM who-MO‘Hanako praised no one.’
Dare-mo Hanako-o
who-MO Hanako-ACC‘No one praised Hanako.’home-nakat-ta.
praise-NEG-PST
home-nakat-ta.
praise-NEG-PSTl(8a): the object indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’ accompanied by -mo behaves as an NPI. (8b):the subject indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’ accompanied by –mo behaves as an NPI.

l

The particle -mo can be displaced from indeterminate pronouns (Kuroda 1965). However, thedisplacement is not free and obeys a syntactic condition (Kishimoto 2001, Hiraiwa 2005). We
thus observe the following subject/object asymmetry:(9) a.

Hanako-ga
dare-oHanako-NOM who-ACC‘Hanako praised no one.’b. * Dare-ga
Hanako-o
who-NOM Hanako-ACC‘No one praised Hanako.’home-mo-si-nakat-ta.
praise-MO-do-NEG-PST
home-mo-si-nakat-ta.
praise-MO-do-NEG-PSTl–Mo in (9) is attached to the verb home ‘praise’ and followed by the dummy verb -si ‘do’, whichis inserted to morphologically support negation and Tense. The object dare ‘who’ in (9a) behaves
as an NPI while the subject dare ‘who’ in (9b) fails to behave as an NPI.

l

Hiraiwa (2005) proposes the following condition on the licensing of indeterminate pronouns:(10)

The head of the chain of the indeterminate must be in the c-command domain of –mo
at Transfer (based on Hiraiwa 2005: 164).
3l

The subject/object asymmetry in (9):(11) a.
[TP Hanakoi-NOM [vP
b. * [TP whoi-NOM
[vP

ti
ti

[VP who-ACC
V] v-mo][VP Hanako-ACC V] v-mo]

Neg T]
Neg T](= (9a))(= (9b))l

Hiraiwa (2005) assumes –mo is adjoined to v (cf. Kishimoto 2001). (11a)/(9a): the indeterminate
pronoun, which is the accusative object, is c-commanded by –mo. (11b)/(9b): the indeterminate
pronoun, which is the nominative subject, fails to be c-commanded by –mo.

►

The licensing condition in (10) has an important implication for the analysis of the Japanese ECM
construction:1(12)

Argument for Optional Raising 1: Indeterminate Accusative Subject
Mary-ga[Report dare-okasiko-ito]-moomottei-na-i.
Mary-NOM [Report who-ACC smart-PRS Report]-MO
think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one is smart.’(= (5))l

The indeterminate accusative subject dare ‘who’ in (12) is associated with –mo attached to theReport head to (Sakai 1998). As indeterminate pronouns must be c-commanded by –mo, theacceptability of (12) shows that the accusative subject can stay within the ReportP complement.

lWhen the indeterminate accusative subject is located above –mo, the former fails to be licensed:(13)

Movement of the Accusative Subject across the Matrix Subjecta.
Mary-ga[ReportP dare-okasiko-ito]-moomottei-na-i.
Mary-NOM [ReportP who-ACC smart-PRS Report]-MO think-NEG-PRS
b. * Dare i-oMary-ga[ReportP ti kasiko-ito]-moomottei-na-i.
who-ACC Mary-NOM [ReportP
smart-PRS Report]-MO think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one is smart.’((13a) = (12))

lWhen the indeterminate accusative subject moves to the sentence-initial position (cf. (13b)), theformer fails to be c-commanded by –mo. (13b) is thus unacceptable.

1

See Kuno (1976, 2007), Saito (1983, 1985), Kitagawa (1986), Kaneko (1988), Tanaka (1992, 2002), Oka (1988), Hoji
(1991, 2005), Ura (1994, 2007), Sakai (1998), Bruening (2001), Hiraiwa (2001, 2005), Kobayashi and Maki (2002),
Takano (2003), Harada (2005), Taguchi (2009, 2015), Ogawa (2007), Takeuchi (2010), Akaso (2015), Abe (2016), Goto
(2016), and Nakajima (2018), among others.
4

►

(14)

While Hiraiwa’s (2005) analysis is quite insightful, there are reasons to reconsider his analysis.
Indeterminate pronouns can be licensed without satisfying the c-command condition (see Takano
2003 and Takahashi 2018).
Dative Argument above ReportP
Mary-ga[VP Taroo-ni [ReportP Hanako-ga
kasiko-iMary-NOM [VP Taro-DAT [ReportP Hanako-NOM smart-PRS
it]-ta.
say]-PST‘Mary told Taro that Hanako was smart.’

to]Report]l

The matrix verb iw- ‘say’ in (14) takes the dative argument as well as the ReportP complement.

lWhen the dative argument is an indeterminate pronoun, the former can be associated with –mo
attached to the Report head to (see Takano 2003 and Takahashi 2018).

(15)

Indeterminate Matrix Dative Argument
a. ? Mary-ga[VP dare-ni[ReportP Hanako-ga
kasiko-ito]-moMary-NOM [VP who-DAT [ReportP Hanako-NOM smart-PRS Report]-MO
iw]-anakat-ta.
say]-NEG-PST
b. * Dare i-ni
Mary-ga[VP ti [ReportP Hanako-ga
kasiko-ito]-mowho-DAT Mary-NOM [VP[ReportP Hanako-NOM smart-PRS Report]-MO
iw]-anakat-ta.
say]-NEG-PST‘Mary told no one that Hanako was smart.’l(15a): the indeterminate dative argument dare ‘who’ is associated with -mo attached to the Reporthead to. (15b): dare ‘who’ in the sentence-initial position fails to be associated with –mo.
The contrast in (15) regarding the indeterminate dative argument seems to be analyzed on a parwith the contrast in (13) regarding the indeterminate accusative subject.

l

►
(16)

The acceptability of (15a) casts doubts on the c-command condition (cf. (10)):
Indeterminate Dative Argument (cf. (15a)[vP [VP [NP who ][ReportP
5

Report]-mo

V]v]

l

As the dative argument fail to be c-commanded by –mo, the c-command condition predicts(16)/(15a) to be unacceptable, contrary to fact.

(17)
a.
b.

Summary of the Observations
Indeterminate accusative subjects can be associated with –mo attached to the Report headto (cf. (12)).
Matrix indeterminate dative arguments can also be associated with –mo attached to theReport head to (cf. (15).

2.2 A New Analysis
l The c-command condition on indeterminate pronouns face some empirical problems (cf. (17b).
However, it is true that there is some kind of locality imposed on indeterminate pronouns.
Otherwise, we would not expect the subject/object asymmetry in (9):(18) a.

Hanako-ga
dare-oHanako-NOM who-ACC‘Hanako praised no one.’b. * Dare-ga
Hanako-o
who-NOM Hanako-ACC‘No one praised Hanako.’home-mo-si-nakat-ta.
praise-MO-do-NEG-PST(= (9a))home-mo-si-nakat-ta.
praise-MO-do-NEG-PST(= (9b))l

The object dare ‘who’ in (18a) behaves as an NPI while the subject dare ‘who’ in (18b) fails to
behave as an NPI.
(19)
Proposal:
The head of the chain of the indeterminate and –mo must be in the same Transfer domain.

l The subject/object asymmetry in (9)/(18) revisited:(20) a.
[TP Hanakoi-NOM[vP ti [VP who-ACC
V-mo]b. * [TP whoi-NOM[vP ti [VP Hanako-ACC V-mo]

v]
v]

T]
T]

(=(18a))(=(18b))l

I assume that –mo in (20a) and (20b) is adjoined to V and V does not overtly move to v. (20a):the object indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’ and –mo are in the same Transfer domain (i.e. VP).

l(20b): the subject indeterminate pronoun dare ‘who’ and -mo are not in the same Transfer domain:–mo is transferred within VP, while dare ‘who’ is not transferred until the higher phase (i.e. CP)
is completed.
6l

The matrix dative argument revisited:(21)

Matrix Dative Argument? Mary-ga[VP dare-ni[ReportP Hanako-ga
kasiko-iMary-NOM [VP who-DAT [ReportP Hanako-NOM smart-PRS
iw]-anakat-ta.
say]-NEG-PST‘Mary told no one that Hanako is smart.’to]-moReport]-MO(= (15))l The indeterminate dative argument in (21) is located above –mo attached to the Report head to.
(21) is hard to accommodate if the indeterminate pronouns must be c-commanded by –mo (cf.
(10)).
(22)
a.
b.
c.
d.

Matrix Dative Argument (cf. (21))
Step 1: Construction of the ReportP phase:[ReportP []Step 2: Merger of the matrix V and the dative argument/:[VP
who[ReportP []Step 3: Merger of the matrix v and the matrix subject:[vP Subject [VPwho[ReportP []Step 4: Transfer of VP:[vP Subject [VPwho[ReportP []Report]-mo
Report]-moV]Report]-mo

V]v]

Report]-moV]v]l (22a): the Report head to is a phase head (cf. Takeuchi 2010), which means that when theReportP complement is constructed, only the complement of the Report head to undergoes
Transfer: to and –mo escape Transfer (cf. Chomsky 2000).
l (22b): the matrix V and the indeterminate dative argument are introduced into the derivation.
l (22c): the matrix v and the matrix subject are introduced into the derivation.
l (22d): the matrix VP is transferred.
l The dative argument and –mo are in the same Transfer domain. The proposed condition (19) is
met here.
l The analysis correctly predicts that when the indeterminate dative argument is moved above thesubject, the former fails to be licensed:
7

(23)

(24)

l
l
l

Movement of the Dative Argument / VP-Adjunct across the Matrix Subject* Darei -ni
Mary-ga[VP ti [ReportP Hanako-ga
kasiko-ito]-mowho-DAT Mary-NOM [VP[ReportP Hanako-NOM smart-PRS Report]-MO
iw]-anakat-ta.
say]-NEG-PST‘Mary told no one that Hanako is smart.’(= (15b))
Indeterminate Dative Argument (irrelevant parts are omitted)a.
Step 3: Merger of the matrix v and the matrix subject (= (22c)):[vP
Subject [VP who[ReportP [] Report]-mob.
Step 4: Movement of the dative argument/:[vP
whoi
Subject [VP ti[ReportP [] Report]-moc.
Step 5: Transfer of VP:
* [vP
whoi
Subject [VP ti[ReportP [] Report]-mo

V]v]
V]v]
V]v]

(24a): the matrix v and the matrix subject are introduced into the derivation.
(24b): the dative argument moves to the vP edge.
(24c): -mo is transferred within the matrix VP while the dative argument escapes Transfer. The
proposed condition (19) is not met here.

2.3 Back to the ECM Constructionl The proposed analysis has an implication for the analysis of the ECM construction:(25)

Indeterminate Accusative Subjecta.
Mary-ga[dare-okasiko-ito]-moomottei]-na-i.
Mary-NOM [who-ACC smart-PRS Report]-MO think-NEG-PRS
b. * Dare i-oMary-ga[ReportP ti kasiko-ito]-moomottei]-na-i.
who-ACC Mary-NOM [ReportP
smart-PRS Report]-MO think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one is smart.’(= (13))l(25a): the indeterminate accusative subject dare ‘who’ is associated with –mo attached to theReport head to. (25b): dare ‘who’ in the sentence-initial position fails to be associated with –mo.

►On the proposed analysis of indeterminate pronouns, the above contrast is accounted for even if
the accusative subject obligatorily moves into the matrix VP.
8

(26)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

l
l
l
l
l

Movement of the Indeterminate Accusative Subject into the Matrix VP (cf. (25a))
Step 1: Movement to the ReportP edge and Transfer:[ReportP whoi [ ti] Report]-mo
Step 2: Merger of the matrix V and movement into the matrix VP:[VP whoi[ReportP ti[ ti] Report]-mo V]
Step 3: Merger of the matrix v and the matrix subject:[vP Subject [VP whoi
[ReportP ti[ ti] Report]-mo V] v[uφ]]Step 4: Accusative Case assignment:[vP Subject [VP whoi -ACC [ReportP ti[ ti] Report]-mo V[uφ]] v]
Step 5: Transfer of the matrix VP:[vP Subject [VP whoi-ACC [ReportP ti[ ti] Report]-mo V[uφ]] v](26a): the embedded subject moves to the edge of the ReportP phase. The complement of theReport head to undergoes Transfer: to and -mo escape Transfer.
(26b): the matrix V is introduced and the embedded subject moves into the matrix VP (cf.
Chomsky 2015, to appear).
(26c): the matrix v and the matrix subject are introduced.
(26d): the embedded subject receives accusative Case from the matrix v/V(26e): the accusative subject and –mo are transferred together. The proposed condition (19) is met.

l

The analysis correctly predicts that when the indeterminate accusative subject precedes the matrix
subject, the former fails to be associated with –mo attached to the Report head to (cf. (25b)).

(27)

Movement of the Indeterminate Accusative Subject into the Matrix vP (cf. (25b))a.
Step 4: Accusative Case assignment (= (26d)):[vP
Subject [VP whoi-ACC [ReportP ti[ ti ] Report]-mo V[uφ]] v]b.
Step 5: Movement into the matrix vP:[vP whoi-ACC Subject [VP ti[ReportP ti[ ti ] Report]-mo V[uφ]] v]c.
Step 6: Transfer of the matrix VP:* [vP whoi-ACC Subject [VP ti[ReportP ti[ ti ] Report]-mo V[uφ]] v]lll(27a): the embedded subject receives accusative Case.
(27b): the embedded subject moves to the matrix vP edge.
(27c): the matrix VP is transferred. While -mo is transferred here, the accusative subject escapes
Transfer. The proposed condition (19) is not met here.
9

(28)
a.
b.

Summary
The availability of indeterminate accusative subjects can be made consistent with aparticular version of the obligatory raising analysis.
Indeterminate pronouns are subject to the condition defined on Transfer domains.

3 Embedded Adjuncts: ‘Free Ride’ Effect in A-movement
3.1 Embedded Adjuncts and the Japanese ECM Constructionl Another set of facts that motivated the optional raising analysis of the Japanese ECM construction
concerns the distribution of embedded adjuncts (Hiraiwa 2001, Kobayashi and Maki 2002):(29)

Argument for Optional Raising 2: Embedded AdjunctMary-ga[Report [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-omazime dato]Mary-NOM [Report [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACC earnest COP Report]omottei-ru.
think-PRS‘Mary thinks that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’(= (6))l

The adjunct gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ in (29) precedes the accusative subject.
The accusative subject is claimed to stay within the ReportP complement.

lThis analysis (tacitly) assumes that the embedded adjunct cannot be in the matrix clause, theassumption that I examine below.

l

The embedded adjunct gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ and the accusative subject canfollow a matrix VP adverb:(30)

Mary-ga[VP tuyoku [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-oMary-NOM [VP strongly [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACCdatoomottei]-ru.
COP Report think]-PRS‘Mary strongly believes that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’10

mazimeearnestl

The embedded adjunct gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ can precede the matrix VP
adverb tuyoku ‘strongly’ only when the accusative subject Hanako also precedes tuyoku ‘strongly’.

(31)

Embedded Adjunct and Accusative Subject across the Matrix VP Adverb
a. * Mary-ga[VP [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] tuyoku Hanako-omazimeMary-NOM [VP [class-representative as]strongly Hanako-ACC earnestdatoomottei]-ru.
COP Report think]-PRS
b. (?)Mary-ga[VP [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-otuyoku mazime
Mary-NOM [VP [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACC strongly earnestdatoomottei]-ru.
COP Report think]-PRS‘Mary strongly believes that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’l(31a): gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ alone precedes tuyoku ‘strongly’. (31b): bothgakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ and the accusative subject Hanako precedes tuyoku‘strongly’.

(32)
a.
b.

Summary of the Observations
Embedded adjuncts can precede accusative subjects (cf. (29)).
Embedded adjuncts can precede matrix adverbs when accompanied by accusative subjects(cf. (31)).

3.2 A New Analysis
l Adjuncts can undergo otherwise illicit long-distance A’-movement when moved together witharguments (i.e., A’-movement of arguments allows a “free ride” of adjuncts) (see Saito 1994,
Sohn 1994, Kitahara 1997, Boeckx and Sugisaki 1999, and Koizumi 2000, among others).
.
(33)
Proposal: A-movement also allows a free ride of adjuncts.
(34)

Movement of the Adjunct across the Matrix VP Adverb* Mary-ga[VP [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] tuyoku Hanako-omazimeMary-NOM [VP [class-representative as]strongly Hanako-ACC earnestdatoomottei]-ru.
COP Report think]-PRS‘Mary strongly believes that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’ (= (31a))11

(35) a.

Step 1: Constructing the embedded TP:[TP NPHanako Adjunct ]b.

Step 2: Movement of the subject and the adjunct to the edge of the ReportP phase:[ReportP NPiHanako Adjunctj [TP

c.

ti

tj

]]

Step 3: Merger of the matrix V and Movement of the accusative subject:[VPd.

NPiHanako[ReportPti

Adjunctj [TP

ti

tj

]] V]

ti

Adjunctj [TP

ti

tj

]] V]

ti

tj

]] V]

Step 4: Merger of the matrix VP adverb:[VPe.

AdverbNPiHanako[ReportP

Step 5: Movement of the embedded adjunct into the matrix VP:*[VP Adjunctj Adverb

NPiHanako[ReportP

ti

tj

[TP

l
l
l
l
l

(35a): the adjunct and the embedded subject are introduced into the derivation.
(35b): they both move to the edge of the ReportP phase.
(35c): the matrix V is introduced and the embedded subject moves into the matrix VP.
(35d): the matrix VP adverb tuyoku ‘strongly’ is introduced.
(35e): the embedded adjunct moves across the matrix VP adverb tuyoku ‘strongly’.

l

The embedded adjunct and the embedded subject move into the matrix clause independently. I
assume that the unacceptability of (34)/(31a) is subsumed under the ban on long-distancemovement of adjuncts (cf. Saito 1985, Bošković and Takahashi 1998).

12

(36)

Movement of the Adjunct and the Accusative Subject across the Matrix VP Adverb(?)Mary-ga[VP [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-otuyoku mazime
Mary-NOM [VP [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACC strongly earnestdatoomottei]-ru.
COP Report think]-PRS‘Mary strongly believes that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’ (= (31b))(37) a.

Step 1: Constructing the embedded TP:[TPb.

NPHanako Adjunct ]Step 2: Merger of the adjunct and the embedded subject (i.e. free ride):[TP [NP Adjuncti NPHanako ] tic.

Step 3: Movement of the embedded subject to the edge of the ReportP phase[ReportPd.

[NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]jAdverb [ReportP[NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]j

l
l
l

tj

ti

]]

[TP

tj

ti

]] V]

tj

ti

]] V]

Step 5: Movement of the embedded subject into the matrix VP:[VP [NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]j Adverb [ReportP

l
l

[TP

Step 4: Merger of the matrix V and the matrix VP adverb:[VP [NP Adjuncti

e.

]

tj

[TP

(37a): the embedded adjunct and the embedded subject are introduced into the derivation.
(37b): the adjunct is merged with the subject (i.e. free ride. cf. Sohn 1994, Takano 2002, 2017). I
assume that the resulting syntactic object is an NP (i.e. the adjunct is invisible).
(37c): the embedded subject with the adjunct moves to the edge of the ReportP phase.
(37d): the matrix V and the matrix VP adverb tuyoku ‘strongly’ are introduced.
(37e): the embedded subject with the adjunct moves across the matrix VP adverb tuyoku‘strongly’.

l

The embedded adjunct can move into the matrix VP without long-distance movement of adjuncts.

►

The above analysis therefore shows that the embedded adjunct can move into the matrix VP,
contrary to the (tacit) assumption adopted in the optional raising analysis.

133.3 Back to the Argument for the Optional Raising Analysis► The above analysis leads us to reconsider the example that motivated the optional raising analysis:
(38)

l
l

Argument for Optional Raising 2: Embedded AdjunctMary-ga[Report [gakkyuu-iin
kurai] Hanako-omazime dato]Mary-NOM [Report [class-representative as]
Hanako-ACC earnest COP Report]omottei-ru.
think-PRS‘Mary thinks that Hanako is as earnest as a class representative.’(= (29))If the adjunct gakkyuu-iin kurai ‘as a class representative’ must be within the ReportP complement,
the accusative subject must also be within the ReportP complement.
The adjunct and the accusative subject are adjacent. (38) can be analyzed under the obligatory
raising analysis once we assume that A-movement allows a free ride of adjuncts:

(39)
a.

Reanalyzing (38) under the Obligatory Raising Analysis
Step 1: Constructing the embedded TP:[TPb.

NPHanako Adjunct ]Step 2: Merger of the adjunct and the embedded subject (i.e. “free ride”):[TP [NP Adjuncti NPHanako]

c.

tj

ti

]]

ti

]]V]

ti

]]V]

Step 4: Merger of the matrix V:
[VP

e.

]

Step 3: Movement of the embedded subject to the edge of the ReportP phase:[ReportP [NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]j [TPd.

ti[ReportP [NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]j [TPtjStep 5: Movement of the embedded subject into the matrix VP:[VP[NP Adjuncti NPHanako ]j[ReportP

tj

[TP

tj

l
l
l
l

(39a): the embedded adjunct and the embedded subject are introduced into the derivation.
(39b): the embedded adjunct is merged with the embedded subject (i.e. free ride).
(39c): the embedded subject with the adjunct moves to the edge of the ReportP phase.
(39d)/(39e): the matrix V is introduced and the embedded subject with the adjunct moves into thematrix VP.

►

The distribution of embedded adjuncts is consistent with the obligatory raising analysis.
14

4 Conclusion and Remaining Issues(40) Summarya.
The two observations that are claimed to support the optionality of raising in the Japanese
ECM construction can be accounted for under the obligatory raising analysis.
b.
The distribution of indeterminate pronouns is analyzed in terms of a condition
defined on Transfer domains and the distribution of embedded adjuncts is analyzed interms of a free ride effect in A-movement.

►

(41)

l
l

►

(42)
l

One remaining question concerns the status of Agree in Japanese. The optional raising analysis
crucially relies on long-distance Agree for Case-licensing of the accusative subjects.
Case-licensing via Agree[vP[VP[ReportP

Hanako[ACC]

]

Vφ]v]

Agree
When the accusative subject stays within the ReportP complement, the former must receive
accusative Case via long-distance Agree (but see Taguchi 2015 and Abe 2016a).
As (two of the) major arguments for the optional raising analysis/long-distance Agree can bereanalyzed without assuming the optionality of raising/long-distance Agree, it is worth
considering if (long-distance) Agree is really operative for Case-licensing in Japanese (cf. Fuki
1986, 2017, Kuroda 1988, Hiraiwa 2001, 2005, Nomura 2005, Ura 2007, Abe 2016b, Saito 2016,
Zushi 2016, Takahashi 2011, 2017, 2018, Kitahara 2017).
Another question concerns the distribution of embedded indeterminate pronouns. The proposed
analysis of indeterminate pronouns based on transfer domains requires –mo and indeterminate
pronouns to be ‘close enough’:[vP*who [VPwho[ReportP

who [TP *who ]Report]-mo

V]v]-Mo in (42) is attached to the Report head to. The indeterminate pronoun must be either in thematrix VP or on the edge of the ReportP complement so that -mo and the indeterminate aretransferred together. Indeterminate pronouns within the embedded TP cannot be associated with-mo here. However, this prediction does not seem to be borne out:
15

(43)

Embedded Indeterminate Nominative Subject (cf. Kishimoto 2001)
Mary-ga[Report [TP dare-ga
sigoto-o yame-ru] to]-mo
omottei-na-i.
Mary-NOM [Report [TP who-NOM job-ACC quit-PRS] Report]-MO think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one will quit the job.’l

The indeterminate pronoun in (43) is the embedded nominative subject, which is often assumed
to be in TP Spec. I tentatively suggest that the embedded subject in (43) moves to the edge of theReportP complement (cf. Saito 2011, Kato 2016):(44)

Embedded Indeterminate Nominative Subject (cf. Kishimoto 2001)
Mary-ga[Report darei -ga[TP ti sigoto-o yame-ru] to]-moMary-NOM [Report who-NOM [TPjob-ACC quit-PRS] Report]-MOomottei-na-i.
think-NEG-PRS‘Mary thinks that no one will quit the job.’l

It remains to be seen if this string-vacuous movement is justified on independent grounds.

►

Yet another question concerns the status of “free ride” (see also Takano 2017). Details of ‘free
ride’ (how clausal adjuncts merged with NPs become ‘invisible’ etc.) need to be worked out.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Koji Hoshi, Satoshi Oku, and Hisako Takahashi for very
helpful discussion and suggestions. I am also grateful to participants of the 2nd Workshop of the
NINJAL Collaborative Research Project (Generative Perspectives on the Syntax and Acquisition ofJapanese). I am solely responsible for any errors. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant
Number 18K12358.
References
Abe, Jun. 2016a. String-vacuity and LF interpretation in A-Chains: Cases of ECM and nominativegenitive conversion. The Linguistic Review 33: 199-238.
Abe, Jun. 2016b. Dynamic antisymmetry for labeling. Lingua 174: 1–15.
Akaso, Naoyuki. 2015. Indeterminate pronoun binding and bound pronouns in Japanese raising-toobject construction: Agree-based construal. English Linguistics 32: 261-292.
Boeckx, Cedric and Koji Sugisaki. 1999. How to get a free ride: Additional scrambling effect and thePrinciple of Minimal Compliance. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, ed.,Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 43-54. Somerville, Mass.:
16

Cascadilla Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal
theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589-644.
Bošković, Željko, and Daiko Takahashi. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29:347–
366.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax ofPassamaquoddy. Ph.D diss., MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka,
89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33-49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, eds. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona
Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam. to appear. Puzzles about phases. In Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation.
A festschrift in honour of M. Rita Manzini. eds. Ludovico Franco and Paolo Lorusso, Berlin:
De Gruyter/.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of projection in syntax. PhD diss., MIT.
Fukui, Naoki. 2017. Merge in the mind-brain: Essays on theoretical linguistics and the neuroscienceof language. New York: Routledge.
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2009. Theta-marking via Agree. English Linguistics 26: 1-32.
Goto, Sayaka. 2016. Two types of accusative subjects in Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23.
eds. Michael Kenstowicz, Ted Levin and Ryo Masuda. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/ja-kocontents/JK23/25Goto.pdf
Harada, Naomi. 2005. Raising-to-object: From a different plane. Handout of a presentation to the JSPS
Project Meeting, Kyoto University, February 21-22.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In
Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT student conference in language research, eds. Nathan Lance,
Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Ora Matushansky, and Adam Szczegielniak, 67-80.
Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Ph.D
diss., MIT.
Hoji, Hajime. 1991. Raising-to-Object, ECM, and the major object in Japanese. paper presented at
Japanese Syntax Workshop at University of Rochester.
Hoji, Hajime. 2005. A major object analysis of the so-called raising-to-object construction in Japanese17(and Korean). paper presented at Korean and Japanese Syntax and Semantics Workshop,
Kyoto University.
Kaneko, Yoshiaki. 1988. On exceptional case-marking in Japanese. English Linguistics 5, 271–289.
Kato, Shizuka. 2016. Condition (A) and complex predicates. Nanzan Linguistics 11: 15-34.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2001. Binding of indeterminate pronouns and clause structure in Japanese.
Linguistic Inquiry 32: 597-633.
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Barriers to government. In Proceedings of the north east linguistic society
16, eds. Steve Berman, Jae-Woong Choe, and Joyce McDonough, 249–273. Amherst: GLSA,
University of Massachusetts,
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 2017. Maximizing syntactic minimization: Five preliminary studies. Reports of
the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 48: 239‒265.
Kobayashi, Keiichiro and Hideki Maki. 2002. A non-exceptional approach to exceptional Casemarking in Japanese. English Linguistics 19: 211-238.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Ph.D diss., MIT.
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2000. String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9:227285.
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. In Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed.
Masayoshi Shibatani, 17-49. New York: Academic Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 2007. Revisiting subject raising in Japanese. In Current issues in the history andstructure of Japanese, eds. Bjarke Frellesvig, Masayoshi Shibatani, and John Charles Smith,
83-105. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese Language. PhD diss.,MIT.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese.
Linguisticae Investigationes 12: 1-47.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Working minimalism, eds. Samuel David Epstein andNorbert Hornstein, 189-215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from tlle 27th
Regional Meetiizg of tlze Chicago Linguistic Society, Part I: The general session, eds. Lise
M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, 324-343. Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety, University of Chicago.
McGloin, Naomi. 1976. Negation. In Syntax and semantics 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed.
Masayoshi Shibatani, 371- 419. New York: Academic Press.
Nakajima, Ai. 2018. Gendainihongo ni okeru “no-koto” no bunpu to sono kiketsu [The distribution of18

“no koto” in comtemporary Japanse and its consequences]. Master’s thesis, Nanzan
University.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative Case and AGREE(ment). PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
Ogawa, Yoshiki. 2007. C-to-V incorporation and subject raising across CP-boundary. English
Linguistics 24: 33-66.
Oka, Toshifusa. 1988. Abstract Case and empty pronouns. In Tsukuba English Studies vol. 7, ed
Toshifusa Oka, 187-227. University of Tsukuba.
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Comments on the papers on generative syntax. In Studies in generativegrammarand language acquisition: A report on recent trends in linguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu,
Hans van Riemsdijk, Kazuko Inoue, Akio Kamio, and Noriko Kawasaki, 79–89. Tokyo:
International Christian University.
Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Additional-wh effects and the adjunction site theory. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 3: 195-240.
Saito, Mamoru. 2010. On the nature of the complementizer to. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 26: 85100.
Saito, Mamoru. 2011. Two notes on feature inheritance: A parametric variation in the distribution of
the EPP. Nanzan Linguistics 7: 43-61.
Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) Case for labeling: labeling in languages without ɸ-feature agreement. The
Linguistic Review 33: 129-175.
Sakai, Hiromu. 1998. Raising asymmetries and improper movement. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics
7, eds. Noriko Akatsuka, Hajime Hoji, Shoichi Iwasaki, Sung-Ock Sohn, and Susan Strauss,481-497. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sells, Peter. 1990. Is there subject-to-object raising in Japanese? In Grammatical relations: A crosstheoretical perspective, eds. Patrick Farrell, Katarzyna Dziwirek, Errapel Meijas-Bikandi,
445-57. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Sohn, Keun-Won. 1994. Adjunction to argument, free ride and a minimalist program. In Proceedingsof the first formal approaches to Japanese linguistics, eds. Masatoshi Koizumi and Hiroyuki
Ura, 315-334. Cambridge, MA.: MITWPL.
Taguchi, Shigeki. 2009. Japanese ECM as embedded bare topicalization. In Proceedings of the northeast linguistic society 38, eds. Anisa Schardl, Martin Walkow, and Muhammad Abdurrahman,19415-426. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Taguchi, Shigeki. 2015. Syntactic operations on heads and their theoretical implications. Ph.D diss.,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Takahashi, Daiko. 2002. Determiner raising and scope shift. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 575-615.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2011. Some theoretical consequences of Case-marking in Japanese. Ph.D diss.,
University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2017. On the pseudo-small clause construction in Japanese: New evidence for
A-movement out of a CP and its theoretical implications. Glossa 2 (1), p.
44. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.92
Takahashi, Masahiko. 2018. On the optionality of raising in the Japanese ECM construction. Nanzan
Linguistics 13: 59-80.
Takano, Yuji. 2003. Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis
analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 779-834.
Takano, Yuji. 2002. Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 243-301.
Takano, Yuji. 2017. A new form of sideward movement. In A schrit to fest Kyle Johnson, eds. Nicholas
LaCara, Keir Moulton, and Anne-Michelle Tessier, 353-359. Linguistics Open AccessPublications. 1. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_oapubs/1
Takeuchi, Hajime. 2010. Exceptional case marking in Japanese and optional feature transmission.
Nanzan Linguistics 6: 101-128.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 1992. Raising to object in English, French, and Japanese. English Linguistics 9:3960.
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2002. Raising to Object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 637-652.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2007. Long-distance Case-assignment in Japanese and its dialectal variation. Gengo
Kenkyu 131: 1-43.
Zushi, Mihoko. 2016. Case and predicate-argument relations. In Advances in biolinguistics: The
human language faculty and its biological basis, eds. Koji Fujita and Cedric Boeckx, 46-66,
London/New York: Routledge20