Keio Linguistic Colloquium
April 23rd, 2022 (Online)

Functional Parametrization Hypothesisin the Minimalist Program*
Ryoichiro Kobayashi
Tokyo University of Agriculture (rk207433@nodai.ac.jp)

1 Introduction• Recently, many studies in the current Minimalist Program have adopted the Externalization
Hypothesis (EH) (Chomsky, 2010; Berwick and Chomsky, 2011, 2016; Boeckx, 2016, among
others), which states that the cross-linguistic variation stems only at the PF-branch.
• I argue that the presence/absence of agreement features on functional categories in the lexicon
yields certain parametric variation, which is part of the Functional Parametrization Hypothesis(FPH) (Fukui, 1988, 1990, 1995b, among others).
• I demonstrate that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon with the support of several case studies
and discussions from a comparative perspective.

1.1 Outline• Section 1: I first review how the FPH emerged in the theory of language. Thereafter, I examine
the literature on diﬀerent approaches to the study of human language: Language Acquisition
and Language Disorder. I argue that it is reasonable to claim that functional categories, unlike
lexical categories, are subject to variation. Furthermore, I maintain that agreement features offunctional categories may also be subject to variation, which is incompatible with the EH.
• Section 2: I propose an analysis of how several seemingly unlabelable constructions in Japaneseare labeled in the framework of Chomsky (2013). The proposal is based on the argumentthat Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon. I show that canonical sentences, multiple nominative/genitive constructions, and (multiple) scrambling constructions in Japanese can all be derived without labeling failure by solving the {XP, YP} problem.
• Section 3: I propose an exploratory generalization that languages with object-verb φ-agreement
cannot have productive lexical VV-compounds. Then, I provide a morphosyntactic analysisof why these compounds are absent in English and some other languages with object-verb φagreement. Furthermore, I discuss how Case is licensed in Japanese.
• Section 4: This section consists of extensive discussions on previous studies that argue forthe presence of φ-agreement in Japanese. I carefully review five diﬀerent arguments for φagreement in Japanese and oﬀer rebuttals to each of them. Showing that there is little substantive evidence for φ-agreement in Japanese, Section 4 further supports the argument thatJapanese lacks [uφ].
* This talk is based on my dissertation (Kobayashi, 2022), which was submitted to Sophia University in early 2022. I

thank the members of my doctoral dissertation committee, Naoki Fukui, Takaomi Kato, Toru Ishii, and Hiroki Narita. This
project was partially supported by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for JSPS
Fellows JP16J00637, Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists JP19K13228, and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)JP21K00574, for which I am grateful.

1• Section 5: Overall, I argue that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon, and that the presence/absenceof agreement features in the lexicon yields certain parametric variation. This study provides acounterargument to the EH.

1.2 Lexical vs. Functional Categories• I aim to contextualize the proposal made in this talk in the larger framework of linguistic theory,
namely in the debate on the locus of linguistic variation.
– This section provides conceptual and empirical support of the claim that some functional
categories, unlike lexical categories, are subject to variation (Fukui, 1988, 1995b, among
others).
– I argue for the following statement, which is part of the FPH in (1) proposed by Fukui(1988, 1990, 1995b); Chomsky (1995):(1)

Agreement Parametrization Hypothesis:
The presence/absence of agreement features of functional categories in the lexicon
yields certain parametric variation.

• Specifically, I argue that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon (Fukui, 1986, 1988; Saito, 2007,2016, among many others) and demonstrate that adopting this argument explains certain diﬀerences between Japanese and other languages, especially English.
1.2.1

The Lexical Parametrization Hypothesis• Under the Principles and Parameters (P&P) approach, Language Acquisition comprises fixing
a limited number of parameter values associated with the principles in UG. The early P&P
theory assumed that all parameters were about the principles of Universal Grammar. Thus, they
were attributed to the innate properties of the Faculty of Language.
– This view has changed significantly since then. Early P&P did not answer the question
about the kinds of parameters that were possible or impossible.
– Apart from stating that all parameters were grammatical parameters, no formal property
was provided to delineate the range of possible parameters. Therefore, the question of
how to delimit the class of available parameters arose.
• In this context, Borer (1984) proposes that parametric variation is limited to the inflectional
properties of languages. Wexler and Manzini (1987) (see also Manzini and Wexler, 1987)
refine Borer’s idea to propose that the parameter setting should be linked with the acquisitionof lexical items in each language.
– This is called the Lexical Parametrization Hypothesis (LPH) (Yang, 1983; Vikner, 1985;
Manzini and Wexler, 1987; Wexler and Manzini, 1987; Baker, 1988, 2003, among others),
as stated in (2) below:(2)

Lexical Parametrization Hypothesis:
Values of a parameter are associated not with particular languages, but with particular
lexical items in a language.
(Wexler and Manzini, 1987, p.55)

2

– Through observations of binding in English and Icelandic, Wexler and Manzini (1987)
attempt to provide an answer to what the learnable (hence, possible) parameters in humanlanguages are.
• A novelty and the moot point of the approach is the assumption that parameters are set for eachlexical item (Naoki Fukui p.c.). In an extreme case, this should allow for more parametersthan the number of lexical items in a language. As Safir (1987, pp.79-80) indicates, parameters
as defined by Wexler and Manzini (1987) are incompatible with minimizing the number ofcrosslinguistic parameters.
1.2.2

The Functional Parametrization Hypothesis• Around the same time, another dominant view appeared in the theory that attempted to limit
the class of possible parameters. Fukui (1988) proposes that the locus of cross-linguistic parametric diﬀerences is restricted to functional categories. This is the Functional Parametrization
Hypothesis (FPH) (Fukui, 1986, 1988, 1995a,b, 2006, among others), as described in (3):1(3)

Functional Parametrization Hypothesis:
Values of a parameter are associated not with particular languages, but with functional
elements in the lexicon.
(adapted from Fukui, 1988, pp.266-269)• The FPH is conceptually preferable to the LPH in that only the former strictly restricts the setof possible parameters in the theory of language.

1.3 Language Acquisition and Language Disorder• It is possible to conceptually distinguish functional categories from lexical categories. A question that arises is whether functional categories can be empirically distinguished from lexical
categories.
• By reviewing the literature on diﬀerent approaches to the study of language, we find that functional categories are empirically distinguishable from lexical categories in the lexicon since
they are acquired later (Language Acquisition) and are subject to loss (Language Disorder:
agrammatism).
1.3.1

Language Acquisition and Functional Categories• It has been observed that in a developmental stage of children’s language ability, their utteranceslack functional categories (Radford, 1988, 1990; Lebeaux, 1988, 2000; Platzack, 1990; Poeppel
and Wexler, 1993; Wexler, 1998; Crain and Lillo-Martin, 1999; Thornton and Tesan, 2007,
among many others).
– Categories such as D, T (originally, I), and C are acquired later in what Radford (1988,
1990) calls the functional stage.
1

Fukui (1988, 1995a) implies that the Head Parameter is the only independent Macro-parameter that exists in UG. His
original statements regarding a restrictive theory of parametric variation are as follows:
(i)

a.
b.
c.

Parametric variation outside of the lexicon must be limited to ordering restrictions (‘linearity’).
Inside the lexicon, only functional elements are subject to parametric variation.
Among the functional elements, only those that do not play any role in LF can be absent in the lexicon of aparticular language.
(Fukui, 1988, pp.266-269)

3

(4)

Some characteristic traits of early child grammar:
a. Child clauses lack complementizers
b. Child clauses have no subject auxiliary inversion.
c. Child clauses have no preposed wh-phrases.
d. Child clauses lack infinitival to.
e. Child clauses lack modal auxiliaries.
f. Child clauses have negation by particles (no/not), not by auxiliaries.
g. Child clauses lack verbs marked for Tense.
h. Child clauses lack verbs marked for agreement.
i. Child clauses lack mastery of nominative case assignment.
(Radford, 1988, pp.27-28)– The early-stage language of children lacks agreement features, since these features are
related to the functional heads that are acquired in the later functional stage.
– The fact that functional categories and agreement features are acquired later than lexical
categories during Language Acquisition indicates that lexical categories should be empirically distinguished from functional categories.
• Lebeaux (2000, p.155), among others, mentions that one might object to the above conclusion
since a functional explanation could be provided.
– Children have limited (working) memory in their early language development stages. Syntactic structures are created in a bottom-up manner.
– Therefore, one might say that given such performative limitations, functional categories
are not produced by young children since they are structurally higher than lexical categories:– Young children, with limited working memory, can have functional categories in theirinventory but cannot construct the complete syntactic structures with them because ofprocessing failure.
• I call this explanation a functionalist approach and will demonstrate that this counterargument
cannot hold using the following two observations.
• First, Lillo-Martin (1994, pp.310-312) argues against such a functionalist approach. She conducted a longitudinal study of the acquisition of American Sign Language (ASL) by deaf children of diﬀerent ages.
– She observes two groups of deaf children: a group of younger deaf children of about two
years old and a group of the older deaf children of around five to nine years old.
– Lillo-Martin (1994, p.311) primarily studies the use of null arguments in ASL, but also observes that the latter group of children underwent stages without functional elements/inflectional properties.
– The parents of the deaf children in the latter group are not native signers, and their children acquired ASL from native signers at a later age. Therefore, their general languageindependent cognitive abilities were more developed when they went through the earlystages of Language Acquisition than the former group of children.
– Since the cognitive capacities of the older deaf children are likely to be far more maturethan those of the younger children of around two years old, the fact that they underwent
pre-functional stages before entering the functional stage strongly indicates that working
4memory or processing ability is irrelevant to the lack of functional categories in early childgrammar.
• Second, Jordens (2002) argues against the functionalist approach to the lack of functional categories in early child grammar.
– He notes that young children do not use complementizers in the pre-functional stages. He
argues that this is not because of a limited working memory or processing capacity.
– It has been widely observed that young children in the pre-functional stages produce embedded clauses in Dutch (Jordens, 2002, p.690). However, these clauses systematicallylack complementizers, which cannot be omitted in adult Dutch grammar, as illustrated in
(5).
(5)

The lack of null complementizers in adult Dutch grammar:
a. Vroeg je nou of die plaats vrij is (of dat ie bezet is).
asked you now if that seat free is or that it taken islit. ‘Did you ask if that the seat is free (or that the seat is taken)?’b. *Vroeg je nou of Ø plaats vrij is (of Ø ie bezet is).
asked you now if that seat free is or that it taken isc. Hij zei [dat/*Ø Jan Komt] het feest welzal opluisteren.
he said thatJohn comes the party no-doubt will enhance‘He said that John’s coming will certainly enhance the party.’(Neeleman and van de Koot, 2006, pp.697-698)– The fact that early child grammar in Dutch produces embedded clauses without functional categories suggests that their exclusion is a principled one, not just a functional one
concerning working memory or processing ability.2• In summary, there are several counterarguments to the functionalist approach. Therefore, it isreasonable to claim that early child grammar lacks functional categories in the lexicon.
• The findings of Language Acquisition studies indicate that lexical categories must be empirically distinguished from functional categories.
1.3.2

Language Disorder (Agrammatism) and Functional Categories• Language Disorder studies in the 1980s claimed that agrammatic speech lacked any functional
categories (Grodzinsky, 1984). Grodzinsky (1984, p.106) claims that agrammatic patients omit
free grammatical morphemes, such as determiners and auxiliaries.
– Later, researchers found that agrammatism is a matter of degree: certain functional elements and agreement features are lost in agrammatic patients’ speech according to theseverity of the symptoms (Friedmann and Grodzinsky, 1997).
– In principle, functional categories disappear from the speech of agrammatic patients whilelexical categories do not. Based on these observations, it is natural to conclude that functional categories need to be empirically distinguished from lexical categories in the lexicon
since only the former are subject to disappearance.
• Similar to the case of Language Acquisition, a functionalist approach to the lack of functional
categories seems compatible with the observations of agrammatism.
2

Note that V2 movement is absent in early child Dutch (Jordens, 2002, p.689).

5• That is, due to deficits in working memory, agrammatic patients cannot produce functional categories, as they are structurally higher than lexical categories. I argue against such functionalist
approaches by reviewing two diﬀerent observations of agrammatism.
• First, Thompson et al. (2002) conducted qualitative research on an agrammatic patient. The
patient was diagnosed as having no problem with working memory (Thompson et al., 2002,
p.193).
– They found that their patient produced complex structures with embedding, such as relative clauses with a relative pronoun who, such as boy who stalk her.3– Significantly, the patient’s speech completely lacked the properties of T (i.e., Tense, Aspect, auxiliaries, and agreement features). The patient’s knowledge of lexical categories
remained intact throughout the study.
– Since the patient had no working memory deficit, the complete lack of properties of T in
the patient’s production indicates that working memory deficits may not be crucial for theabsence of functional categories.
• Second, Wenzlaﬀ and Clahsen (2005), among others, report that the verb-second (V2) order ispreserved in their German-speaking patients, who were diagnosed as agrammatic.
– They conducted production tasks in German with their seven agrammatic patients, who
are likely to have memory deficits (see Fiebach et al., 2005).
– In German, V2 movement occurs only in the matrix clause. It is widely accepted that German V2 movement is an instance of verb movement to the functional C-domain (Wurmbrand, 2000, among others).
– Placing an adverb sentence-initially, these patients produced complex sentences with correct V2 movement in German. They observe that the speech of their patients lacked T
properties (i.e., Tense, Aspect, auxiliaries, and agreement features), but six out of theseven patients had high overall accuracy scores for V2 movement.4• Since the German V2 movement is to the C-domain (Wurmbrand, 2000, among others), thatV2 order is maintained in the agrammatic patients’ speech indicates that they have C but lackproperties of T.
– Since syntactic structure is created in a bottom-up fashion, this fact is unexpected under
the functionalist approach. Such an approach predicts that the agrammatic language lacks
only (i) C or (ii) C and T together, but not (iii) lacking only T.
– Such systematic absence, only of T, in the agrammatic patients’ speech can serve as another counterargument to the functionalist approach.
– Thus, it is reasonable to argue that the agrammatic language lacks functional categories.
Observations of Language Disorder (agrammatism) studies imply that lexical categories
must be empirically distinguished from functional categories.
3

One may wonder where the relative pronoun who is in the structure. Although the patient’s speech lacks the properties
of T, I assume that there is C in the structure and that who remains in [Spec, CP]. In other words, I assume that C is mergedwith v/VP without T in the patient’s grammar.
4
The other patient’s accuracy score for V2 movement was significantly higher than the chance level.

61.3.3

Interim Conclusion• Discussions on Language Acquisition and Language Disorder indicate that functional categories are empirically distinct from lexical categories.
– In the next section, I assert that they diﬀer essentially in their functions in the design ofhuman language:– Lexical categories are the basic units to express human thought (Fukui, 1988), as such,they are invariant across languages, while functional categories are secondary in the designof human language, and thus they are subject to variation.
– This argument is supported by an analogy from a case of general biology (genetic variation).

1.4 Lexical Categories and Language as a System of Thought• Fukui (1988) states that lexical categories are the basic units for expression of thought (Fukui,
1988, p.267).
– The functions of functional categories are diﬀerent from those of lexical categories.5 Theirbasic role is to introduce agreement features and induce syntactic agreement.
– Moreover, some of them, such as C and T, contribute to the duality of semantics.
• Agreement features are LF-uninterpretable and irrelevant to LF or human thought. In this study,
I focus on unvalued φ-features and argue that Japanese lacks them in its lexicon.
1.4.1

Functions of Functional Categories• I focus on two functions of functional categories in human languages: (i) contribution to theduality of semantics, and (ii) introduction of agreement features.
– First, some functional categories, such as C and T, contribute to the duality of semantics.
External Merge yields the argument structure, while internal Merge yields the discourserelated structure, such as new/old information, focus, and interrogatives (Chomsky, 2014).
– The C and T heads create the C-T domain, in which discourse-related information isexpressed. This function seems to be necessary for all languages since the duality ofsemantics is observed universally.
– Thus, I assume that functional features that contribute to the duality of semantics (i.e.,
operator-variable/topic-comment features) are highly likely to be universal across languages.
• Second, functional categories are the loci of agreement features (Fukui, 1986, 1988, 1995a,b;
Muysken, 2008, among others).
5

One obvious question concerns the categorial status of small v in the theory. This head introduces an external argument (a lexical property) but has no substantive semantic content (a functional property). Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2008,
inter alia) leaves it open whether v is a functional or lexical head. I assume with Travis (2014), among others, that small v
is neither functional nor lexical, but is semi-functional. The discussions in Section 3 may imply that the small v is perhaps
functional in that it introduces φ-features to the derivation, which are inherited by V. In this study, I leave it open whether
small v is lexical or functional in nature.

7

– Functional categories introduce unvalued features to syntactic derivations. I argue that thisfunction is not universally attested and that certain unvalued features need not be present
in a language.
– Specifically, I focus on [uφ] and argue that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon. In this talk,I aim to demonstrate several empirical consequences of this proposal.
1.4.2

Primary vs. Secondary Categories and Variation in a Biological System• Fukui and Sakai (2003, p.324) argue that lexical categories have substantive content, which
eventually leads to the construction of a predicate-argument structure at LF.6
– Functional categories, on the other hand, do not have such substantive content. Fukui(1988) claims that “[i]t is quite inconceivable that a language without lexical categories,
the basic units of expression, can serve as a free instrument of thought and self-expression,
an oft-cited function of human language” (Fukui, 1988, p.267).
– Functional categories do not have their own semantic meaning parallel to that of lexical
categories; hence, it is possible to form a basic unit of thought (i.e., predicate-argument
structure) without functional categories (Fukui and Sakai, 2003, p.324).
– Since it is understood that human language is optimally designed primarily as an instrument of thought (Chomsky, 2007b), I argue that in this respect lexical categories are primary within the design of human language.
• Furthermore, I argue that it is reasonable that functional categories are subject to variation incontrast to lexical categories.
– Let us consider how being primary/secondary to the biological system/design relates to(in)variation.
– Characters that are not crucial for life-maintenance are secondary in the whole system/design and subject to genetic variation (Lewontin, 1985; Biasetti, 2020, among others).
These characters include skin and eye colors and types of hair (Otsuka, 2007; Walsh,
2003; Nakao, 2012, 2013, among others).
– On the other hand, traits that are crucial for life-maintenance, for instance, traits of theheart and lungs, are in principle not subject to genetic variation among humans.
– Through this analogy, I maintain that it is reasonable to assume that crucial/primary partsin a system of living creatures are not subject to variation, while the secondary parts are
subject to variation.
• It is undeniable that there are variations in human languages. Moreover, human language is anorgan (Chomsky, 1980). Therefore, it is not unnatural to attribute these variations to functional
categories, which are secondary in the system of human language.
• In summary, I argue that the analogy from the general biology suggests that the primary lexical
categories are not subject to variation, while there are variations in functional categories, which
are secondary in the human thought system.
• Among the functional elements, some play a role in the human thought system (Naoki Fukuip.c.). For instance, Tense (taking an event) may play substantive roles in the human thoughtsystem beyond the predicate-argument structure. This functional element, whether or not it
appears as a syntactic head in the computation of narrow syntax, can be universal and might not
be susceptible to variation in human languages.
6

I assume that modification by (attributive) adjectives is also a part of the basic unit of human thought.

8• Even if a language has some functional features in its lexicon, it is unclear whether that element
crystallizes as a syntactic head in the computation of narrow syntax.
– There could be variation among languages regarding whether a functional feature, such as
Tense and Q-related features, realizes as a syntactic head (Naoki Fukui p.c.).
– For instance, a Q-feature realizes as a syntactic head -ka/no ‘Q’ in Japanese, whereas there
is no such particle in English.
• Among the functional elements, unvalued φ-features are LF-uninterpretable and do not play
any role in the human thought system. Therefore, I focus on unvalued φ-features in this study.7
1.4.3

Proposal• As agreement features relate to functional categories, it is reasonable to assume that there isvariation among them.
– It is widely assumed that LF is uniform across languages (Chomsky and Lasnik, 1993).
Certain agreement features (e.g., [uφ]) are LF-uninterpretable; hence, it is natural to seek
cross-linguistic variation in them (Fukui, 1988, pp.268-269).
– Assuming this is correct, it is natural to claim that a language may lack [uφ] in the lexicon.
• I situate the proposal in this study within the larger framework of linguistic theory to explain
certain cross-linguistic diﬀerences and support the claim that there is variation in agreement
features in the lexicon.
– Therefore, this thesis presents a counterargument to the EH described in (6) (Chomsky,
2010; Berwick and Chomsky, 2011, 2016; Boeckx, 2011, 2014, 2016, among others).
(6)

Externalization Hypothesis (EH):
Cross-linguistic diﬀerences only arise in the PF-branch.

(Boeckx, 2016)– Boeckx (2016) argues that the theory of the lexicon is undeveloped; hence, it is not desirable to relegate explanations of language variations to the lexicon.8– Boeckx (2014) criticizes the LPH and the FPH as lexiconcentric. Assuming that narrowsyntax is uniform, he proposes the Strong Uniformity Thesis (SUT), presented in (7),which consists of two parts.
(7)

Strong Uniformity Thesis (SUT):
Principles of narrow syntax are not subject to parametrization; nor are they aﬀected bylexical parameters.
(Boeckx, 2011, 2014, 2016, p.73)• In this section, I argued that there can be variation in agreement features of functional categories.
– By reviewing the literature on Language Acquisition and Language Disorder, I concluded
that functional categories are empirically diﬀerent from lexical categories.
7

Like [uφ], [uCase] is LF-uninterpretable and irrelevant to the human thought system. Therefore, languages may also
vary in the presence/absence of [uCase] in narrow syntax (Naoki Fukui and Toru Ishii p.c.). As this issue is beyond thescope of this study, which focuses on [uφ], I leave this for future research.
8
I deem the theory of externalization un/under-developed. Hence, it is unclear whether it is preferable to relegate theexplanations of language variation to externalization than to the lexicon without a concrete discussion.

9

– Furthermore, I contended that functional categories are secondary in the design of humanlanguage by carefully reviewing diﬀerences in their functions in language.
– As functional categories are secondary, it is natural to claim that they and their agreement
features are subject to variation, unlike lexical categories.

1.5 Review of Previous Studies on the FPH (Fukui, 1986, 1988, 1995a,b)• See Kobayashi (2022, Section 1.5) for details.

1.6 Review of a Previous Study on the Lack of [uφ] in Japanese (Saito, 2007,
among others)• See Kobayashi (2022, Section 1.6) for details.

1.7 Summary• In summary, the discussions in this section strongly indicate variation in agreement features offunctional categories, although many researchers have pursued the possibilities of the EH and
the SUT in the current Minimalist program.
• Considering this, and based on the FPH (Fukui, 1990, 2013; Chomsky, 2015a, among others),
I argue for the following statement in (8):(8)

Agreement Parametrization Hypothesis: (=(1))
The presence/absence of agreement features of functional categories in the lexicon
yields certain parametric variation.

• Specifically, I argue that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon (Fukui, 1986, 1988, 1995a,b; Saito,
2007, 2016, among many others) by examining a couple of diﬀerences between Japanese andother languages, particularly English, in the following sections.

2 Labeling the Unlabelable in Japanese
2.1 Introduction• This section presents the argument that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon based on labeling inJapanese.9– Chomsky (2013, 2015b) has claimed that every Syntactic Object (SO) must be labeled forinterpretation at the interfaces, as in (9).
– The label is determined by applying the Labeling Algorithm (LA) to an SO at the timingof Transfer phase by phase. There are two ways to label such a symmetric {XP, YP}
constituent, as illustrated in (10).

9(9)

All SOs that reach the interfaces must be labeled for interpretation.
(Chomsky, 2013, p.44)(10)

Chomsky’s (2013) Labeling Algorithm (LA):This section is a radically revised and extended version of Kobayashi (2018b).

10

a.
b.

In {H, XP}, LA selects the label H(ead).
In {XP, YP} ...,
imovement of either XP or YP enables the lower copy to be invisible fromLA, and the structure is labeled as the visible H(ead), X or Y; orii
the structure is labeled by the most prominent shared feature F on X and Y
as <F, F>.
(adapted from Chomsky, 2013, p.46)– In (11), the label of α = {DP, vP} is determined because the DP internally merges withTP, rendering the lower copy invisible from LA, as in (10bi); hence, α is unambiguously
labeled as vP.
– Another {XP, YP} problem arises with the merger of DP and TP in (11). The label of β
is determined through labeling via feature-sharing in (10bii). D and T share φ-features,
which undergo Agree, and β is labeled as <φ, φ>, as in (11).
(11)
β
DP

TP
T

α
DP vP

• If Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon, then a canonical sentence cannot be labeled via featuresharing in (10) without the {XP, YP} problem with Chomsky’s (2013; 2015b) original LA.
– This raises the question of what the labels of α and β in languages such as Japanese would
look like. I propose an analysis to overcome this problem regarding labeling in a language
without [uφ].10– By doing so, I aim to demonstrate that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon.

2.2 Timing Differences of Transfer• In this section, I propose that Japanese makes extensive use of Transfer to determine the labelsof SOs due to its lack of [uφ].
– The analysis incorporates the insight of Fukui and Kasai (2004) that the absence of uninterpretable features in Japanese makes the timing and domain of Spell-Out more flexible
than in English.
– Following Takita et al.’s (2016) claim that Spell-Out contributes to determining the labelsof SOs, I propose a novel analysis of why multiple subject constructions and scrambling
are possible in Japanese in light of labeling (Chomsky, 2013).
2.2.1

Labeling via Transfer (Narita, 2014; Takita et al., 2016)• Let us briefly review Takita et al.’s (2016) argument below. They claim that Transfer (or SpellOut, in their terms) determines the label of an otherwise unlabelable structure.
10

See Saito (2014, 2016) and Narita and Fukui (2022) for alternative analyses.

11

– In (12), the label of the embedded clause α is not determined by LA since <which book>and C[−Q] do not share [+Q] or [-Q] features.
– Takita et al. (2016) suggest that Transfer applies to TP, which enables LA to detect C[−Q]
as the label of α, as presented in (13a) and (13a).
(12)

a.
b.

(13)

a.

I wonder [ α which book Bob thinks John bought].
[ α <which book> [ XP C[−Q] [ TP ...]]].
b.

α<which book>CPC<which book> C(adapted from Takita et al., 2016, p.9)

C TP

• What Transfer does in (13a) is that it makes TP invisible from Search in {C, TP} (cf. Shim andEpstein, 2015).
– Following Narita (2014), Takita et al. (2016) assume that a head in an SO becomes acandidate of the label again when the complement is transferred.
– This is compatible with Chomsky’s assumption that a singleton set is equivalent to its
member in syntax in (14) (Chomsky, 2012, p.66).11(14){X} = X

• Since Transfer “recycles” phasal C in CP as a lexical item again in (12), LA correctly determines the label of {{which book}, C} as C. This is the essence of their analysis that Transfer
contributes to labeling an SO.12
2.2.2

On the Timing of Transfer (Fukui and Kasai, 2004)• Chomsky (1995) suggests that Spell-Out may apply at any point through the derivation, but theexistence of uninterpretable features restricts the range of timing (Fukui and Kasai, 2004).
– Based on this, Fukui and Kasai (2004) claim that Spell-Out can apply far more freely inJapanese than in English, since the lack of uninterpretable features poses no constraint on
the timing of the application of Spell-Out.
– Although their assumptions might be incompatible with the current theory of labeling,
I follow Fukui and Kasai’s (2004) insightful proposal regarding the timing of SpellOut, which states that the timing of Transfer is not restricted by unvalued φ-features inJapanese, as it lacks them.
– Below, I combine the labeling via Transfer (Takita et al., 2016) and the insight of Fukui
and Kasai (2004) and propose that Japanese makes extensive use of labeling via Transfer
since the timing of Transfer is far less restricted than in English due to its lack of [uφ].13
11

Naoki Fukui (p.c.) points out that this is mathematically incorrect, as {Ø} is not equivalent to its member Ø. However,I follow Chomsky (2012) and assume that a singleton set is equivalent to its member as far as syntactic structure isconcerned (Nagamori, 2020, p.16).
12
Chomsky et al. (2019) claim that Transfer (TRANSFER) does not eliminate structure from the workspace but only
makes the transferred domain inaccessible to subsequent manipulation (Chomsky et al., 2019, p.241).
13
Regarding Case in Japanese, I argue that it is licensed with no recourse to φ-agreement. In this study, I follow Zushi’s(2014; 2016) analysis of Case valuation via merger. Her original Case valuation rules presume that Case is valued when12

2.2.3

Proposal• I propose that the timing of Transfer is systematically conditioned by the presence/absence of[uφ].
– As Richards (2007) indicates, valuation of the uninterpretable features and Transfer must
apply simultaneously; otherwise, they would become indistinguishable from the inherently valued features.
– Chomsky (2015b), among others, claims that memory regarding syntactic derivations isphase-based. I assume that memory of syntactic derivation is based on the Transfer domain. In other words, derivational memory is maintained only in the single transferreddomain; hence, the inherently and derivationally valued features can be distinguished only
if they are transferred simultaneously.
• This study focuses on φ-features. The abovementioned Richards’ (2007) problem does not arise
concerning φ-features in Japanese, as its lexicon lacks [uφ].
– Here, I assume that Transfer can, in principle, apply at any point in derivation, but it must
apply when [uφ] is valued; otherwise, the problem pointed out by Richards (2007) arises.
– Although the timing of Transfer itself is free, [uφ] in English leads derivations to crash at
the interfaces unless Transfer applies simultaneously with the feature valuation. On theother hand, Transfer may apply at any point in the derivation in Japanese, as demonstratedin (15).14– Therefore, it follows that in Japanese, the timing of Transfer is not restricted by the timingof φ-feature valuation.
(15)

Proposal: The timing diﬀerences of Transfer in Japanese and in English
a. Japanese: Transfer may apply at any point, due to its lack of [uφ].
b. English: Transfer must apply at the valuation of [uφ].

2.3 Consequences• I argue that the current analysis, which is based on the assumption that Japanese lacks [uφ],resolves the labeling problem of {XP, YP} structures in Japanese.
– First, I demonstrate how the {XP, YP} problem between External Argument (EA) and vP
is solved in simple transitive sentences in Japanese.
– Thereafter, we observe that the proposal in (15) accurately captures why multiple subject
constructions in (16) and scrambling in (17) are available in Japanese.
a nominal phrase merges with a head (lexical or phasal). I slightly modify Zushi’s rules below. How Case is licensed inJapanese is discussed in Section 3.
(i)

The revised Case valuation rules in Japanese:a.
When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of V, its Case feature is valued as accusative.
b.
When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of v or n, its Case feature is valued as nominative or genitive.
c.
Otherwise (i.e., when a nominal phrase becomes the sister of other heads), the Case feature of a nominal
phrase is valued as dative.
(cf. Zushi, 2016)14

I assume that Japanese has [uCase] though it lacks [uφ] in the lexicon. For Case valuation in Japanese, see Section
3 for details. I claim that Richards’ problem does not occur when [uCase] is valued in Japanese, since there is nocorresponding [vCase] in the lexicon. Therefore, there is no need to distinguish derivationally valued features frominherently valued features as for Case features.

13

– Both create {XP, YP} structures, as schematically illustrated in (18).
(16)

Harvard-ga seisuuron-ga
daigakuinsei-ga sono-gakkai-ni
ki-ta.
Harvard-nom number.theory-nom grad.students-nom that-conference-to come-past‘As for Harvard, the graduate students of the number theory came to the conference.’(adapted from Fukui, 2011, p.89)

(17)

a.

(18)

2.3.1

b.

Taro-ga Ziro-ni Hanako-o shookaisi-ta.
Taro-nom Ziro-dat Hanako-acc introduce-past‘Taro introduced Hanako to Ziro.’
Hanakoi -o Taro-ga Ziro-ni ti shookaisi-ta.

a.
b.

[ α NP1 -ga, [ β NP2 -ga, [ γ NP3 -ga, ... [ vP ... v] ... ]]][ α NPi -o, [ β NP-ga, [ ... NPi -o ... ]]]α, β, and γ = {XP, YP}
α and β = {XP, YP}

Labeling of a Canonical Sentence in Japanese• Let us examine how a sentence with a transitive verb is derived in Japanese under the proposalin (15).
– First, the Internal Argument (IA) and V merge to create a set, which is followed by themerger of v in (19a).
– The EA is introduced in (19b), and Transfer applies to the complement of v.
– The Transfer in (19c) makes VP invisible from Search; hence, what is accessible to Searchis {EA, {v}} (= {EA, v}), which is labeled as vP.
(19)

a.

b.

?

vP
VP

EA

v

vP
VP

IA V

v

IA V
c.
vP
EA v
• I assume with Fukui (1986, 1995b) and many others that the subject in Japanese does not raiseto the T-domain. After C and T are introduced, the SOs are labeled as TP and CP.
2.3.2

Labeling of Multiple Subject Constructions• The proposal in (15) correctly explains why the multiple subject constructions are possible inJapanese (cf. Fujita, 2010).
– Since Merge is free (Chomsky, 2004), multiple nominals may externally merge with theedge of the structure, as in (20a) through (20c).

14

(20)

a.

c.

?

?
NP1

NP3

vP

?
NP2

VP v
b.

NP1

?
NP2

?

VP v

?
NP1

vP

vP
VP v

– After the Transfer of VP in (21a), Search can only see v in {VP, v}. A singleton set is
identical to its member; thus, {v} = v (Chomsky, 2012, p.66).
– At this point, Search views NP1 as the closest complement of v in {NP1 , {VP, v}} since
VP is no longer visible. I assume that Transfer of NP1 may apply, as Search detects {NP1 ,v} in {NP1 , {VP, v}} (i.e., {NP1 , {VP, v}} = {NP1 , {v}} = {NP1 , v}).
– Transfer then applies to NP1 in (21b), which results in {NP1 , {VP, v}}, rendering NP1
invisible from Search. The same is true for NP2 .
– If Transfer does not further apply in (21c), then {NP3 , {NP2 , {NP1 , {VP, v}}}} is labeled
as vP when transferred.
(21)

b.

a.

?

?
NP3

?

NP3
NP2

vP
NP2 v

vP
c.

NP1 v

vP
NP3 v

• The proposal predicts that multiple nominative constructions are available in Japanese.
– I assume that nominative Case is valued when a nominal becomes the sister of v (cf. Zushi,
2014, 2016). As multiple nominals derivationally become sisters of v in (21a) through(21c), each nominal receives nominative Case.
– Note that the multiple genitive construction can be derived via the same mechanism if we
replace V and v with N and n (see Section 3 for details).
– The analysis captures Fukui’s (2011, p.90) insight that the unbounded merge is in fullforce in Japanese.
• Some may wonder what happens when NP1 is transferred after the VP is transferred in English. Transfer itself is applicable. However, since NP1 is not convergent due to the existence15

of [uCase] on nominals, such application of Transfer at this point does not satisfy Full Interpretation at the interfaces.
• In summary, this section has provided a multiple-Transfer analysis of the labeling of multiple
subject constructions in Japanese.
– The labels of each node are determined via LA (Minimal Search) when Transfer applies(Chomsky, 2013, 2015b).
– The analysis predicts that α, β, and γ in {α NP3 , {β NP2 , {γ NP1 , {VP, v}}}} (irrelevant details are omitted) are all interpreted as vP at the interfaces without any {XP, YP}
problems.15
2.3.3

Labeling of Scrambling Constructions• Let us observe the derivation of (17) in (22a) through (22c).
– In (22a), the IA internally merges with the edge of the structure. If Transfer of {IA, V}
applies, the structure will be like (22b).
– Subsequently, Transfer of the EA applies. If Transfer does not apply further, the label ofthe SO will be vP since Search unambiguously detects v in (22c).
(22)

b.

a.

?

?
IA

IA

?
EA

EA v

vP
VP

vP

c.

v

vP

IA V

IA v

• A simple case of scrambling does not pose any problem following the proposal in (15) thatthe timing of Transfer is not restricted in Japanese.16 Scrambling in Japanese is not limited toclause-internal ones. The proposal in (15) predicts that {XP, YP} structures created by longdistance scrambling are also labelable. The data dealt with here are sentences like (23).
(23)

Ringoi -o Taro-ga [Hanako-ga ti tabe-ta to] omow-ta.
apple-acc Taro-nom Hanako-nom eat-past that think-past‘Taro thought that Hanako ate an apple.’

15

One may question as to whether the multiple accusative construction is available in this mechanism. The analysis
predicts that multiple accusative assignment is generally unavailable, as V is not a phasal head and so it cannot (multiply)
Transfer its complement. This is compatible with the general ban on multiple occurrences of accusative -o marked
nominals in Japanese (Harada, 1973; Shibatani, 1978b; Kuroda, 1988).
16
The analysis predicts that scrambling to TP results in labeling failure since T is not a phase head. One may then consider whether it is compatible with the assumption that some scrambling targets TP (or IP) in Japanese. The only evidence
for the TP-scrambling comes from the mixed A/A’-property of sentence-internal scrambling. It has been observed that
sentence-internal scrambling shows somewhat mixed properties of A/A’-movement in the literature (Saito, 1992, 2003;
Tada, 1993, among others). Nemoto (1999) notes that Saito (1989) suggests that such scrambling targets the adjoined
position of IP. Under the current analysis, when scrambling shows A-property, then it is scrambling to vP. On the other
hand, when it exhibits some A’-property, its landing site is CP. In summary, although the current analysis does not allow
scrambling to TP, it is compatible with the peculiar property of middle-distance scrambling.

16• Let us examine the derivation of such long-distance scrambling step-by-step. The tree-diagrammatic representations are given in (24a) through (27b).
– After v has completed its argument structure in (24a), IA raises up to the edge of thestructure, as in (24b). Transfer of {ringo, V} applies in (24c).
– Then, T and C are introduced into the derivation, as illustrated in (24d).
(24)

c.

a.

?

?
Hanako

ringo

vP
VP

vP
Hanako vv

ringo V
b.

d.

?

CP

?

ringo

C

TP

VP

T

?

vP

Hanako

v

ringo

vP

ringo V

Hanako v• Subsequently, IA (ringo) raises up to the edge of the embedded clause in (25a). Next, Transfer
of TP applies, as in (25b). Thus, α is labeled as vP.
(25)

a.

b.
?

ringo C

CP

ringo

C

TP
T

α
ringo

CP

vP
Hanako v• In (26a), the matrix verb omow- ‘think’ and v together with its subject Taro are introduced via
external Merge. Another internal Merge applies to the scrambled IA (ringo) in (26b). Transfer
then applies to the complement of v, as presented in (26c).

17

(26)

b.

a.

?

?
Taro
VP

?

ringo

vP

Taro

v

vP
VP

V

CP

CP

ringo Cv
V

ringo C
c.

?
ringo

vP
Taro v• After introducing the matrix T and C in (27a), ringo undergoes internal Merge to the edge ofthe structure.
– Subsequently, the complement of C is transferred, as in (27b). The label of β is determined
as vP, as ringo is an invisible lower copy.
– Thanks to multiple applications of Transfer, γ and δ are labeled as TP and CP respectively
when LA (or Minimal Search) applies to them.
(27)

a.

b.
δ

δ

ringo C

CP

ringo

C

γ
T

β
ringo

vP
Taro v• The current proposal does not predict that scrambling is also possible in English. Since a DP
bears [uCase], it must be valued before Transfer.
– I assume with Chomsky (2000, 2008), among others, that Case is valued as a reflex of
φ-agreement in English. The IA in English receives the accusative Case via φ-agreementwith V.
– After scrambling of the IA, φ-agreement cannot occur, as the goal IA is no longer ccommanded by the probe. The [uCase] on the IA remains unvalued; therefore, the derivation crashes at the interfaces.

18• The problem does not arise in Japanese, as [uCase] is valued via sister relations created byMerge in Japanese (Zushi, 2014, 2016; Nagamori, 2020). I argue that the IA receives theaccusative Case when it becomes a sister with V in the base-generated position. Therefore, theIA can undergo scrambling in Japanese.17• One may question whether the analysis is compatible with A’-movement, such as topicalization
and wh-movement in English, as in (28) and (29). These data are perfectly grammatical in
English.
(28)

a.
b.

That booki , John bought ti .
That booki , Mary thinks that John bought ti .

(29)

a.
b.

Whoi did you see ti ?
Whati did you think that Mary bought ti ?

• I assume that the objects enter Agree with V simultaneously with an internal merger to the edge
of vP at the phase level (cf. Chomsky, 2007a, 2008). This option is only available with elementswith features related to A’-movement, such as Q-related and Topic/Focus features.
• I speculate on a reason to underpin this exceptional assumption: only operators with Q-related
features and elements with Topic/Focus features can undergo internal merge simultaneouslywith Transfer and [uφ] valuation.
– If this option is not available, the derivation will crash due to the existence of unvalued
features that should be valued later in the C-domain.
– The above option (i.e., simultaneous valuation, Transfer, and internal merger) cannot beapplied to canonical arguments, as they do not bear any features regarding A’-movementthat must be valued through Agree with the C head later in the derivation.

2.4 Summary• In this section, I proposed that the absence of [uφ] in Japanese allows it to apply Transfer in a
far less restricted form in its timing (Fukui and Kasai, 2004), as in (30) (=(15)).
– Following the insight of Fukui and Kasai (2004) and the idea of Narita (2014), Takita
et al. (2016) and others that Transfer contributes to labeling, I have demonstrated that the
proposal in (30) successfully provides explanations for the labeling of {XP, YP} structures
created in (i) canonical sentences, (ii) multiple subject constructions, and (iii) scrambling
constructions in Japanese.
(30)

Proposal: The timing diﬀerences of Transfer in Japanese and English (=(15))
a. Japanese: Transfer may apply at any point, due to its lack of [uφ].
b. English: Transfer must apply at the valuation of [uφ].

– Chomsky’s LA (Chomsky, 2013, 2015b) cannot label canonical sentences or several otherconstructions in Japanese based on the assumption that it lacks [uφ] in the lexicon.
– I proposed a syntactic analysis to overcome the {XP, YP} problems that Chomsky’s LA
faces in labeling in a language without φ-agreement (see Saito, 2014, 2016; Narita andFukui, 2022, for diﬀerent approaches to this problem).
17

See Section 3 for an extensive discussions of Case valuation in Japanese based on Zushi’s Case valuation rules via
merger (Zushi, 2014, 2016)19• If the proposed analysis is on the right track, it lends credence to the claim that Japanese lacks[uφ] and the presence/absence of agreement features yields certain linguistic variations. In
summary, the case study in this section supports the proposal of this study.
• See Kobayashi (to appear) for an analysis of how the proposal in (15) works in the CP-domain.

3 φ-agreement and Lexical VV-compounds
3.1 Introduction• In this section, I highlight a correlation between the absence of productive lexical VV-compounds
and the presence of object-verb φ-agreement from a comparative perspective.18– Thereafter, I propose how the derivation of lexical VV-compounds is blocked in languages
with object-verb φ-agreement.
– Following this, I discuss how Case is valued in Japanese. This section provides further
support for the claim that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon.
• VV-compounds in Japanese are divided into two groups: lexical and syntactic VV-compounds.
– It has long been assumed that the lexical VV-compounds are created in the lexicon,
whereas syntactic VV-compounds are derived in syntax, as their names indicate (Kageyama,1993).
– Japanese abounds in lexical VV-compounds, as demonstrated in (31) (Fukushima, 2005),
in which the second heads are neither functional nor auxiliarized unlike syntactic compounds. I focus on such lexical VV-compounds in this talk.
(31)

Examples of lexical VV-compounds in Japanese:a. tobi-ori
jump-drop‘jump oﬀ’
b. nomi-aruk
drink-walk‘go barhopping’c. naguri-koros
hit-kill‘beat to death’d. tare-nagas
drip-pour‘drain’e. koroge-oti
roll-fall‘roll down’

3.2 VV-compounds in Languages without Object φ-agreement• I first observe data from Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Malayalam, Turkish, and Bangla. They
all lack object-verb φ-agreement.
18

This section is a radically revised and extended version of Kobayashi (2018a).

20

– Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, and Malayalam lack φ-agreement altogether, while Turkish
and Bangla only have subject-predicate φ-agreement and lack object-verb φ-agreement.
– The canonical sentences showing that they all lack object-verb φ-agreement are illustratedin (32) through (36).
(32)

John-iMary/Nay/Ai-lul kkwulh-e anc-hi-ess-ta.
John-nom Mary/I/children-acc kneel-lk sit-caus-past-decl‘John made Mary/I/children kneel down.’ (Korean: adapted from Ko and Sohn, 2015)(33)

Bat-Ø nama-ig/chama-ig/ter-ig/bid-nig/tanar-ig/ted-nig har-san.
Bat-nom me/you/him/us/you/them-acc
see-perf‘Bat saw me/you/him/us/you/them.’(Mongolian: Sakamoto, 2011, p.33)(34)

Siita eni/namu/niŋŋal/raaman-e sneehiḱḱunnnu.
Sita I/we/you/Raman-acc
love‘Sita loves me/us/you/Raman.’(Malayalam: adapted from Jayaseelan, 1999, pp.30-44)(35)Can üç hırsız/ben/biz yakala-dı.
John three burglar/I/we catch-past.3sg‘John caught three burglars/me/us.’(Turkish: adapted from Şener and Takahashi, 2010, p.88)(36)

Ami æk-t, a/du-To/tin-Ta
boi/tumi dekhechi.
1.sg one-cl/two-cl/three-cl book/you seen-1.sg‘I have seen one/two/three book(s)/you.’(Bangla: adapted from Bhattacharya, 1999, p.12)• In addition to Japanese, productive lexical VV-compounds are attested in all these languages,
including Korean, Mongolian, Malayalam, Turkish, and Bangla, as illustrated in (37) through
(41).
(37)

(38)

(39)

Korean:a. ara-tut
know-hear‘understand’
b. kulm-tcuri
hunger-starve‘starve’(Paschen, 2014)

Mongolian:a. dza:j-ögöx
teach-give‘show’
b. avc-irex
take-bring‘bring’(Khurelbat, 1992)

Malayalam:a. pookuwaan-anuwadicc
go-permit‘permit leave’
21

b.

(40)

(41)

ār-āybecome.full-search‘investigate’(Krishnamurti, 2003)

Turkish:a. gelince-şaşır
come-surprise‘come to surprise’b. geçip-git
pass-go‘leave through’(Kuribayashi, 2006)

Bangla:a. uRe-gE
fly-go‘fly away’
b. ghumiye-poR
sleep-fall‘fall asleep’(Paul, 2003)

3.3 The Lack of Lexical VV-compounds in Languages with Object φ-agreement• In this section, I examine languages with overt object-verb φ-agreement and show that they lackproductive lexical VV-compounds.
– Welsh and Swahili, for instance, do not allow any combination of productive endocentricverb-verb compounds.
– In these languages, the object undergoes overt φ-agreement with the verb, as illustrated in(42) and (43).
(42)

(43)

Mae
Steﬀan yn dy garu
di.
be.pres.3.sg Steﬀan prog 2.sg love.inf you.2sg‘Steﬀan loves you.’
Juma a-li-mw-u-a
fisi.
Juma 1.sg-past-3.sg-kill hyena‘Juma killed a hyena.’(Welsh: Borsley et al., 2007, p.27)(Swahili: adapted from Vitale, 1981, p.17)• Based on the observations in the two types of languages, (i) Japanese, Korean, Mongolian,
Malayalam, Turkish, and Bangla, and (ii) Welsh and Swahili, I propose an exploratory generalization regarding the presence of lexical VV-compounds and the absence of the object-verb
φ-agreement, as in (44).
(44)

An exploratory generalization:
If a language has object-verb φ-agreement, then it cannot have productive lexical VVcompounds.

3.4 Blocking of Lexical VV-compounds by φ-features• To formalize the descriptive generalization in (44), I propose a morphosyntactic analysis thatblocks the derivation of lexical VV-compounds in languages with object-verb φ-agreement. As
22for the structure of lexical VV-compounds, I follow a version of Nishiyama (1998, 2008) andNishiyama and Ogawa (2014), in which they are base-generated via direct merger.
• Why is VV-compounding blocked in languages with object-verb φ-agreement? The verbal
stems of VV-compounds must, by definition, be adjacent to each other in languages with productive lexical VV-compounds (Kageyama, 2016).
– In languages with φ-features, I concur with Harbour (2016), among others, that φ-nodes
exist adjacent to the verbal stems at the syntax-morphology interface.
– φ-nodes are proposed as the locus of φ-inflection such as number morphology (Thornton,
2019, among others).
• The derivation of lexical VV-compounds in languages with φ-features proceeds as follows.
– First, Vs inherit φ-features from v via feature inheritance (Chomsky, 2008).19– After Transfer, φ-features realize as φ-nodes, which are adjacent to verbal stems. As aresult, a φ-node on the first V intervenes between the verbal stems, which breaks the
structural adjacency of the verbal stems.
– The structure in which a φ-node follows the corresponding verbal stem is illustrated in(45).20
(45)
V1

V2

Stem φ Stem φ• Languages with object-verb φ-agreement cannot form productive lexical VV-compounds because the following two requirements contradict each other:
(46)

a.
b.

Two verbal stems must be adjacent to each other; andφ-nodes must attach to the verbal stems.

– The structure results in the contradiction of two requirements in (46) at the syntax-morphology interface after Transfer. Therefore, languages with object-verb φ-agreement lacks
productive lexical VV-compounds.
– If only the second V in VV-compounds inherits [uφ] from v, then the above problem does
not occur. I argue that the derivation crashes even under the assumption that only one of
the Vs undergoes feature inheritance.
– Note that [uφ] on V cannot probe into the internal argument, which is not c-commandedby either the first or second V. Therefore, φ-feature agreement fails and the derivationcrashes at the interfaces.
19

See Richards (2007) and Epstein et al. (2012) for diﬀerent reasoning/arguments for the need of feature inheritance.
As for verbs without unvalued φ-features, such as unaccusatives, I assume that they have φ-features with some values,
though defective (Chomsky, 2001; Fukui and Narita, 2017).
20
Even if one assumes that the φ-node on the stem precedes the corresponding stem, the φ-node on the second stem
intervenes between the two verbal stems.

23

3.5 Covert Object φ-agreement in English and Case Valuation in Japanese• In this section, I claim that English has covert object-verb φ-agreement. Then, I discuss
Case valuation in Japanese, which lacks φ-agreement. English does not show any overt φmorphology on verbs for the object-verb φ-agreement, as demonstrated in (47). Initially, there
is no evidence of object-verb φ-agreement in English.
(47)

a.
b.

The teacher scolded John/Mary/him/her/me/you/them/us.
The student loves John/Mary/him/her/me/you/them/us.

• However, I argue that the verb has φ-features and undergoes Agree with an object in English.
Along the line of Chomsky (2000, 2008), I assume that Case features in languages like English
and German are licensed as a reflex of φ-feature agreement. That is, the verb licenses accusative
Case, entering into φ-feature agreement with the Internal Argument (IA).21• Although there is no direct morphological evidence of the object-verb φ-agreement in English,
I maintain that there is φ-agreement between V and the IA.
– That IAs show pronominal Case inflections in (47) is evidence for the existence of objectverb φ-agreement in English, as Case is valued as a reflex of φ-agreement in English.
– Indeed, English lacks productive VV-compounds, as revealed in (48).22(48)

Productive lexical VV-compounds are unavailable in English:
a. *Jump-drop
b. *drink-walkc. *hit-killd. *strike-smashe. *drip-pourf. *roll-fall• A question that arises here is how Case is licensed in languages without φ-agreement. I assume
that there are two types of languages (Kuroda, 1988, p.40), in which Case is valued via φagreement (Chomsky, 2000, 2001) or via Merge (Zushi, 2014, 2016) (see also Saito, 2012).
– I argue that Case valuation in Japanese is not tied to φ-agreement. In this study, I follow
Zushi’s analysis of Case valuation via merger (Zushi, 2014, 2016).
21

German is like English in that it values Case via φ-agreement. In German, expressions such as kennen lernen ‘get toknow’ and spazieren gehen ‘take a walk’ exist. Initially, they seem to be the lexical VV-compounds. Neef (2009), among
others, classifies them as VV-compounds. However, I argue that they are not genuine lexical VV-compounds. They arecalled partikelverben, which are separable verbs, as illustrated below.
(i)

Ich lerne keinen Mann kennen.
I learn no
man know‘I get to know nobody.’(Peter Erdmann and Haider Hubert p.c.)

They are separated in the verb-second construction. It violates the principle of lexical integrity in the definition of theendocentric VV-compounds. Therefore, I conclude that German lacks productive genuine lexical VV-compounds.
22
VV-compounds in English are not productive, and certain compounds, such as stir-fry, sleep-walk and slam-dunk,
are frozen/idiosyncratic expressions (Lieber, 2005, p.378). Compounds such as drink-drive are exocentric nominal compounds. Other apparent verb-verb compounds in English, such as type-write and trickle-irrigate, which are scarce andlimited in the inventory, are analyzed as derived via morphological processes, such as back-formation from nominal
compounds (i.e., type-writer and trickle-irrigation) (Yosuke Sato p.c.).

24

– Her original Case valuation rules are given in (49). Zushi’s rules presume that Case isvalued when a nominal phrase merges with a head.
(49)

Zushi’s Case valuation rules:
a. When a nominal is merged with a lexical head, its case feature is valued as accusative.
b. When a nominal is merged with a phase head (v or n), its case feature is valued asnominative or genitive.
c. Otherwise, the case feature of a nominal is valued as dative. (Zushi, 2016, p.48)• I slightly modify Zushi’s rules, as in (50) below, so that they become compatible with theproposals in Section 2.23
(50)

The revised Case valuation rules:
a. When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of V, its Case feature is valued as
accusative.
b. When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of v or n, its Case feature is valued asnominative or genitive.
c. Otherwise (i.e., when a nominal phrase becomes the sister of other heads), theCase feature of a nominal phrase is valued as dative.

• We now explore how the Case valuation rules in (50) work. Data with canonical case patterns
in Japanese that this study deals with are illustrated in (51) below.
(51)

Canonical Case patterns in Japanese:a. Taro-ga arui-ta.
Taro-nom walk-past‘Taro walked.’b. Hanako-ga ronbun-o kai-ta.
Hanako-nom paper-acc write-past‘Hanako wrote a paper.’c. Hanako-no ane
Hanako-gen sister‘Hanako’s sister’d. Taro-ga Hanako-ni okane-o moraw-ta.
Taro-nom Hanako-dat money-acc receive-past‘Taro received money from Hanako.’• The -ga pattern in (51a) can be easily derived. The subject Taro is merged to the edge of vP,and the complement of v is transferred. Thereafter, Taro derivationally becomes the sister of v,
as in (52), whose Case is valued as nominative according to the rule in (50b).
(52)vP
Taro v√
I do not assume Roots, lexical items that have no categorial information. They are assumed in the framework ofDistributed Morphology (see Siddiqi, 2010, and the references cited therein). In this study, I assume that lexical heads
contain categorial information in the first place. N, V, A, and P create shell structures with n, v, a, and p.
23

25

• We move on to the -ga -o pattern in (51b). The object ronbun ‘paper’ merges with V, receiving
the accusative Case value according to the rule in (50a).
– Then, v and the subject Hanako merge with the structure, as in (53a). Thereafter, thecomplement of v is transferred, and thus Hanako derivationally becomes the sister of v in(53b), as the complement VP becomes invisible after Transfer.
– The subject Hanako receives the nominative Case according to the rule in (50b).
(53)

a.

b.
?

vP

HanakoHanako vvP
VPv

ronbun V• Next, we deal with the -no pattern in (51c). First, N (ane ‘elder sister’) merges with a small n,creating a nominal phrase.
– The locus of [uCase] is n; therefore, ane (N) does not receive genitive Case. Next, anothernP, Hanako, merges to the structure, as in (54a).
– Then, ane is transferred, which derivationally makes the nominal phrase Hanako the sisterof n, as in (54b). Hanako receives the genitive Case according to the rule in (50b).24
(54)

b.

a.

nP

?
HanakoHanako nnP
ane n• Finally, we turn to the -ga -ni -o pattern in (51d). I assume with Zushi (2014) and Nagamori(2020) that the indirect object in the ditransitive construction is introduced with an applicative
head, which is a phase head (McGinnis, 2001, among others).
– The applicative head merges with the VP, okane-o moraw- ‘receive money’. Then, theindirect object Hanako merges to the edge of the structure, as in (55a). The VP is transferred, which results in (55b).
– According to the rule in (50c), the indirect object Hanako receives the dative Case. Next,
v and the subject Taro are introduced via merger, as presented in (55c).
– Subsequently, the complement of v is transferred. It creates the structure in (55d), in which
the subject Taro receives the nominative Case following the rule in (50b).
24

Takaomi Kato (p.c.) pointed out that the Case valuation rules may predict that the nP in {{nP, N}, n} (e.g., tosi-no
hakai ‘the city’s destruction’) wrongly receives dative Case, as it is the sister of N. The above structure presupposes thatthe nP (tosi ‘a city’) receives a θ-role from the N (hakai ‘destruction’). It is unclear whether the nP, tosi ‘a city’, receivesits θ-role from the N, hakai ‘destruction’, in the structure assumed above. Therefore, I leave this issue for future research.

26

(55)

a.

c.

?

?
ApplP

Hanako

VP

Taro

vP
ApplP

Appl

v

Hanako Applokane V
b.

d.
ApplP

vP

Hanako ApplTaro v• Thus far, I have shown a way to value Case features in Japanese with no recourse to φagreement. I argued that Case in Japanese is not valued as a reflex of φ-agreement but is valued
via sister relations created by merger.

3.6 Summary• In this section, I highlighted a correlation between the absence of productive lexical VVcompounds and the presence of object-verb φ-agreement from a comparative perspective. Basedon the observations, I proposed the generalization presented in (56).
(56)

An exploratory generalization:(=(44))
If a language has object-verb φ-agreement, then it cannot have productive lexical VVcompounds.

• Following this, I proposed a morphosyntactic analysis of how lexical VV-compounds are blocked
in languages with object-verb φ-agreement.
– Furthermore, I extensively discussed how Case is valued in Japanese with no recourse toφ-agreement.
– The observations that the presence of object-verb φ-agreement blocks productive lexical
VV-compounds and that languages without such agreements abound in productive lexical
VV-compounds support the argument that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon.

4 Arguments against φ-agreement in Japanese
4.1 Introduction• In this section, I scrutinize five kinds of arguments for φ-agreement in Japanese. Although there
is no conceptual necessity in unvalued φ-features, as they are LF-uninterpretable, they are often
assumed even for Japanese with no overt realization.
– Such an assumption takes a free ride on the Strong Uniformity Thesis (SUT: Boeckx,
2011, 2014, 2016, p.73) in that it accepts the universal presence of [uφ].
– However, SUT should not oﬀer free rides. Rather, researchers must provide strong empirical evidence to demonstrate that SUT holds in the first place.

27

• I argue against such approaches in the study of Japanese syntax in this chapter. The five arguments for φ-agreement in Japanese that I examine in this section are as follows:
(57)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Case valuation (Ura, 2000; Hiraiwa, 2005; Obata, 2010)
Nominative/genitive conversion (Hiraiwa, 2001, 2005)
Person restriction (Miyagawa, 2010; Obata and Sugimura, 2014, 2019)
Honorification (Toribio, 1990; Ura, 2000; Boeckx and Niinuma, 2004)
The so-called allocutive agreement (Miyagawa, 2017)• I oﬀer rebuttals to each. Given that there is little evidence for φ-agreement in Japanese, theresults of this chapter support the argument that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon.

4.2 Case Valuation (Ura, 2000; Hiraiwa, 2005; Obata, 2010)• Ura (1996, 2000) and Hiraiwa (2005), among many others, assume that Case valuation results
as a reflex of φ-agreement in Japanese just as in English, along with Chomsky (2001), whose
idea dates back to George and Kornfilt (1981).
– Recently, Obata (2010, p.79) claims that the nominative Case (of the subject) is valued
via φ-agreement with T, and the accusative Case (of the object) is valued via φ-agreementwith V in Japanese.
– This line of studies also claims that the genitive Case is valued via φ-agreement with D(Ochi, 2001; Hiraiwa, 2005). To the best of my knowledge, they disregard how the dative
Case is valued via φ-agreement.
• I point out that this line of analysis faces a problem with multiple nominative/genitive constructions.
– Those who advocate the φ-agreement analysis of Case valuation in Japanese assume the[+multiple] feature concerning Agree (Ura, 2000; Hiraiwa, 2005). The [+multiple] featureenables a head to probe multiple goals.
– In multiple nominative constructions, such as (58), [uφ] on T has multiple agreement with[vφ] on nominals. This is schematically illustrated in (59).
– Consequently, [uCase] on the nominals receive the nominative Case value. However, thepostulation of such features is merely an ad hoc stipulation. I demonstrated that we needno such features to derive multiple subject constructions in Section 2.
(58)

Bummeikoku-ga
dansei-ga heikinjumyoo-ga
mijika-i.
developed.countries-nom men-nom average.longevity-nom short-preslit. ‘Developed countries, men, average longevity is short.’(Kuno, 1973, p.34)(59)[NP1[vφ,nom] NP2[vφ,nom] NP3[vφ,nom] ... [ ... V]-T[uφ] ... ] ...
(adapted from Hiraiwa, 2005)• I argue that Case valuation is not tied to φ-agreement in Japanese. In this study, I follow Zushi’s(2014; 2016) analysis of Case valuation via merger. Zushi’s rules presume that Case is valued
when a nominal phrase merges with a head. I modified Zushi’s rules slightly in Section 3 tomake them compatible with the proposals in Section 2.

28

• I have already indicated that all canonical Case patterns in Japanese are derived via the rules
Section 3. I have demonstrated that Case valuation in Japanese does not require φ-agreement.
In summary, I argued that Case in Japanese is not valued as a reflex of φ-agreement but is valued
via sister relations created by merger and Transfer.

4.3 Nominative/Genitive Conversion (NGC) (Hiraiwa, 2001, 2005)• NGC is a phenomenon in which a nominative subject optionally alternates with a genitive subject in nominal complements and relative clauses in Japanese.
– The data are presented in (60). Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) proposes that genitive assignment in
NGC is achieved by φ-agreement.
– He argues that rentai-kei ‘adnominal form (ADN)’ of the predicate is a key to specifying
the structural Case on a DP as genitive (Hiraiwa, 2001, p.71).
(60)

Nominative/Genitive Conversion (NGC):a. John-no/ga suki-na ongaku-wa blues da.
John-gen/nom like-adn music-top blues cop‘The music that John likes is the Blues.’
b. John-no/ga onkoo-na koto-wa yuumeida.
John-gen/nom gentle-adn fact-top well.known cop‘It is well-known that John is gentle.’c. John-wa Mary-no/ga yom-u-yori takusan-no-hon-o yon-da.
John-top Mary-gen/nom read-adn-than many-gen-book-acc read-past‘John read more books than Mary did.’d. John-wa ame-no/ga yam-u-made ofisu-ni i-ta.
John-top rain-gen/nom stop-adn-till oﬃce-at be-past‘John was at the oﬃce until the rain stopped.’(adapted from Watanabe, 1996; Hiraiwa, 2001)• Specifically, he claims that the V-(v-)T-C amalgam realizes as the adnominal form, in which
φ-features are copied from T onto C.
– Hiraiwa (2001, 2005) proposes that the φ-agreement between C and the subject DP specifies the structural Case as genitive.
– He assumes that nominative Case is assigned to nominals via φ-agreement with T. As theamalgamation is not obligatory, the NGC is optional in Hiraiwa’s (2001; 2005) account.
• I argue that Hiraiwa’s (2001; 2005) proposal does not support the claim that φ-agreement exists
in Japanese. I propose an alternative analysis of NGC, and argue that it is not φ-agreement thatvalues nominative/genitive Case in NGC.
– Maki and Uchibori (2008, p.203) indicate that examples of Hiraiwa (2001) that appear
head-nounless such as (60c) and (60d) are instances of NGC where the head noun is
implicit.
– Their data are presented in (61), where -no ‘nm (nominal(izer))’ in the boldface is either anoun itself (as it is interchangeable with teido ‘degree’ in (61a)) or a nominalizer, whichmakes the entire clause nominal (Maki and Uchibori, 2008, p.203).

29

– Most of the sentences in (61) contain -no ‘nm’. It seems that only -no and some othernominals can be implicit in certain environments.25(61)

NGC data containing covert nominals:
a. John-wa [Mary-ga/no yonda(-teido/no) yori] takusan-no hon-oyon-da.
John-top Mary-nom/gen read-degree/nm than many-gen book-acc read-past‘John read more books than Mary did.’b. John-wa ame-ga/no yamu(-toki/zikan) made ofisu-ni i-ta.
John-top rain-nom/gen stop-time/time
until oﬃce-at be-past‘John was at the oﬃce until the rain stopped.’c. [Boku-ga/no omow(-no)-ni], John-wa Mary-ga sukini chigaina-i.
I-nom/gen think-nm-dat John-top Mary-nom like must-past‘I think that John likes Mary.’d. Kono atari-wa [hi-ga/nokureru(-no) ni-ture]hiekondeku-ru.
this around-top sun-nom/gen go.down-nm dat-go.together become.colder-pres‘It gets chillier around here as the sun goes down.’
Mary-no koto-oe. John-wa [toki-ga/no tatsu(-no)-to tomo-ni]
John-top time-nom/gen pass-nm-and together-dat Mary-gen thing-acc
wasurete-ik-ta.
forget-go-past‘Mary slipped out of John’s memory as the time went by.’f. [John-ga/no ku-ru(-no)-to ko-nai(-no)-to] de-wa ootigaida.
John-nom/gen come-nm-and come-neg-nm-and at-top greatly.diﬀerent cop.pres‘It makes a great diﬀerence whether John comes or not.’(adapted from Maki and Uchibori, 2008, p.203, cf. Harada (2002))• I argue that the distribution of NGC can be accounted for with no recourse to φ-agreement.
– I assume with Maki and Uchibori (2008) that the data set of NGCs provided by Hiraiwa(2001, 2005), presented in (60), includes silent nominals, as exemplified in (61).
– Here, I concur with Zushi (2016) that Case is valued in the sister relations created by the25

Silent TIME is found in other constructions as well. Kayne (2003, 2016) claims that the silent TIME exists in (ia).
This TIME can be overtly spelled out, as shown in (ib). The same applies to (ic) and (id).
(i)

Sentences with silent TIME:a.
They’ll be there in two hours (TIME).
b.
They’ll be there in two hours’ time.
c.
They’ll leave (AT A) soon (TIME).
d. ?They’ll leave at the soonest time possible.

(Kayne, 2016, p.14)

Similarly, Takahashi (2015) claims that silent TOKI ‘time’ exists in some gapless relative clauses in Japanese. The set ofdata below (iia-c) implies that silent TOKI can be found in constructions other than those involving NGC in (61).
(ii)

Data with silent TOKI ‘TIME’ in Japanese:a.
Sakana-ga koge-ru (toki-no) nioi
fish-nom burn-pres time-gen smell‘The smell of fish getting burnt’b.
Hoochoo-de kit-ta (toki-no) kizuato
cut-past time-gen scarknife-by‘A scar from a knife cut’c.
Juusu-o kat-ta (toki-no) otsuri
juice-acc buy-past time-gen change‘Change for buying juice’(Takahashi, 2015, p.404)30

merger in Japanese, as demonstrated in (62). The structure of the NGC constructions isshown in (63).
(62)

The revised Case valuation rules: (=(50))
a. When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of V, its Case feature is valued as
accusative.
b. When a nominal phrase becomes the sister of v or n, its Case feature is valued asnominative or genitive.
c. Otherwise (i.e., when a nominal phrase becomes the sister of other heads), theCase feature of a nominal phrase is valued as dative.

(63)[nP [[...nP...V v...] N] n]• Here, I extend Nagamori’s (2020) suggestion. When the nP receives genitive Case, Nagamori(2020, p.126) notes that it raises to [Spec, n] first, and then the multiple Transfer (see myproposal in Section 2) subsequently creates a configuration {nP, n}, as in (64).
– According to the Case valuation rule in (62b), the Case of nP is valued as genitive.
– Nagamori (2020) claims that when the nP receives nominative Case, it remains in theverbal domain. As he notes, the optionality of NGC is captured by the free application ofinternal Merge (cf. Fukui and Nishigauchi, 1992).
(64)

a.
b.
c.
cf.

[nP [[...nP...V v...] N] n][nP [[...nP...V v...] N] n] (transferred domain)[nP n][[[...nP...V v...] N] n]• The analysis precludes unwanted results such as o-no conversion and ni-no conversion. O-no
conversion and ni-no conversion are not possible in Japanese, as illustrated in (65) and (66).
– The Case feature on a nominal phrase is immediately valued when the phrase becomes thesister of a head, according to the rules in (62).
– O-no conversion does not occur because an nP receives accusative Case in the base position. Once Case is valued, its value is fixed (contra Nagamori, 2020).
– Therefore, even if the relevant nP is scrambled to the edge of n, it does not receive genitive
Case from n.
(65)

a.
b.

(66)

a.
b.

Taro-ga ringo-o tabe-ta.
Taro-nom apple-acc eat-past‘Taro ate an apple.’
Ringo-o/*no tabe-ta Taroapple-acc/gen eat-past Taro
‘Taro, who ate an apple.’
Hanako-ga daigaku-ni
shorui-o okur-ta.
Hanako-nom university-dat paper-acc send-past‘Hanako sent a paper to the university.’
Daigaku-ni/*no (Hanako-ga) okur-ta shorui
university-dat/gen Hanako-nom send-past paper‘A paper that Hanako sent to the university’31• The same applies to ni-no conversion. Since Transfer applies to {nP1 -o, V} (the complementof Appl) in (67a), nP2 derivationally becomes the sister of Appl, as in (67b). As the Case valueof nP2 is fixed as dative, ni-no conversion does not occur.
(67)

b.

a.

ApplP

?
nP2

nP2 Appl

ApplP
VP

Appl

nP1 V
• In sum, Hiraiwa’s (2001) proposal on NGC does not support the claim that Japanese has
φ-agreement, as there is an alternative analysis of NGC in Japanese with no recourse to φagreement.

4.4 Person Restriction (Miyagawa, 2010; Obata and Sugimura, 2014, 2019)• Miyagawa (2010) and Obata and Sugimura (2014, 2019) argue that there is φ-agreement inJapanese based on the observations of data such as (68) (cf. Nitta, 1991).
(68)

a. *Boku/Kimi/*Taro-wa sonna-koto kinisu-ru-na.
I/You/Taro-top
such-fact mind-pres-prohibition‘I/You/Taro must not mind such a thing.’b. Boku/*Kimi/*Kare-ga sugu ik-oo.
I/You/He-nom
now go-intention‘I/You/He will go now.’(Ueda, 2008, p.134)• In (68a), the modal head -na ‘prohibition’ is incompatible with the first- and third-person subjects. In (68b), the modal head -(y)oo ‘intention’ is only compatible with the first-person subject. They consider these observations evidence to claim that Japanese has φ-agreement.
– Obata and Sugimura (2019) propose that the Person features of the modal heads are specified as [2nd] in (69a) and as [1st] in (69b), while the Number features are unvalued.
– The [uNumber] on the C/Modal probes down into the structure and φ-agreement occurs
with the subject, whose Person feature matches that of the C/Modal.
– In order for the Number agreement to occur, Obata and Sugimura (2019) assume that the
Person features of the subject and modal head must be identical.
(69)

a.
b.

[...[DP[Num][2nd] T [...]] Mod/C[uNum][2nd] ][...[DP[Num][1st] T [...]] Mod/C[uNum][1st] ](Prohibition: -na)
(Intention: -(y)oo)• Obata and Sugimura (2014, 2019) further claim that the Person restriction is also triggered by
the give-type verbs (age- and kure- ‘give’). The data are presented in (70a) and (70b).
– In (70a), kure- imposes a restriction on the subject as either [2nd person] or [3rd person],while in (70b), age- only allows the indirect object with [2nd person] or [3rd person].
(70)

a. *Watashi/Anata/Hanako-ga Taro-ni hon-okure-ta.
I/You/Hanako-nom
Taro-dat book-acc give-past
32

b.

‘I/You/Hanako gave Taro the book.’
Hanako-ga *watashi/anata/Taro-ni hon-oage-ta.
Hanako-nom I/You/Taro-dat
book-acc give-past‘Hanako gave me/you/Taro the book.’(Obata and Sugimura, 2014, p.114)– Obata and Sugimura (2014, 2019) propose that the give-type verbs are unspecified for
Person features as [2nd] or [3rd], and their Number features have no value. They undergoverb-movement to T, and then the unvalued features on V probe for the agree-mates.
– Finally, φ-agreement occurs between the verbal amalgam with -kure ‘give’ and the subject
in (71a) as well as the verbal amalgam with -age ‘give’ and the object in (71b).
(71)

a.

[SUBJ[Num][2nd/3rd] ...OBJ...[ V[uNum][2ndor3rd] -v-T ]] (=(70a))b.

[SUBJ...OBJ[Num][2nd/3rd] ...[ V[uNum][2ndor3rd] -v-T ]] (=(70b))• I argue that the abovementioned observations of Obata and Sugimura (2014, 2019) do not support the claim that Japanese has φ-agreement.
– First, I argue against the analysis of modal agreement. The prohibition in (68a) is a typeof imperatives. Imperatives are used for the addressee; hence, it semantically or pragmatically cannot have a first-person subject.
– An intentional modal in (68b), on the other hand, requires the first-person subject since
it shows the addresser’s intention; hence, it semantically or pragmatically requires the
speaker, the first person, as its subject.
– That said, the unacceptability of (68) may not be due to ungrammaticality (i.e., existenceof [uF]), but may be caused by semantic ill-formedness at the C-I interface.26– Therefore, Obata and Sugimura’s (2014; 2019) evidence for the claim that Japanese has
φ-agreement is inconclusive.
• Moreover, Obata and Sugimura’s (2014; 2019) account has conceptual and empirical problems.
I emphasize that it is just a stipulation to assume that the probe X and the goal Y Agree regarding
a certain feature only if the values of the other features of X and Y match.
– Let us call this the feature-matching condition on Agree. Obata and Sugimura limit thescope of this condition to a set of φ-features (e.g., [uNumber] and [vNumber] Agree only
if the values of [vPerson] match between X and Y), but there is no principled reason to
restrict the scope of their feature-matching condition to a set of φ-features.
– Once they posit such a condition on Agree, features such as Case and other semantic
features such as [+animate] would also need to match between the probe and the goal.
This leads to a significant under-generation problem.
– A canonical sentence, such as John ate an apple cannot be derived, as features such as
Case and [+animate] do not match between John and T (only John has both [uCase] and[+animate]).
• Next, I argue against the analysis of give-type verbs. I maintain that Kuno and Kaburaki’s(1977) theory of Empathy summarized in (72) can also explain the contrasts in (70).27
26
27

I thank Takaomi Kato (p.c.) for bringing this possibility to my attention.
I would like to thank Takaomi Kato (p.c.) for referring me to Kuno and Kaburaki (1977).

33

– The sentences in (73) are diﬀerent in meaning: the speaker’s point of view (Empathy in(72a)) diﬀers according to the verb form. In (73a), the speaker’s point of view is focusedon the agent Hanako, while in (73b), it is focused on the recipient Taro.
– When age- is used in (70b), the speaker’s empathy is focused on the subject; hence, thefirst person cannot appear in the object position, violating the requirement of Speech-Act
Empathy Hierarchy in (72b), which states that the empathy focus is always on the speakerthemselves if the speaker is in the sentence.
– When it turns to kure- in (70a), the speaker’s empathy is focused on the object. Therefore, the use of the first-person subject obtains an unacceptable result in violation of therequirement in (72b).
(72)

a.

b.

(73)

a.
b.

Empathy:
Empathy is the speaker’s identification, with varying degrees (ranging from 0 to1), with a person who participates in the event that they describe in a sentence.
Speech-Act Empathy Hierarchy:
It is not possible for the speaker to empathize more with someone else than withhim/herself.
(adapted from Kuno and Kaburaki, 1977, p628, 631)
Hanako-ga Taro-ni hon-oage-ta.
Hanako-nom Taro-dat book-acc give-past‘Hanako gave a book to Taro.’
Hanako-ga Taro-ni hon-okure-ta.
Hanako-nom Taro-dat book-acc give-past‘Hanako gave a book to Taro.’• To summarize, Obata and Sugimura’s (2014; 2019) observations or analysis do not support theirclaim that φ-agreement exists in Japanese, as the Person restriction can be explained with norecourse to syntactic agreement.

4.5 Honorification as φ-agreement (Toribio, 1990; Ura, 2000)• Ura (2000), citing Toribio (1990), claims that honorific aﬃxation is an instance of φ-agreementin Japanese. The relevant data are presented in (74). To be more precise, they assume that
subject-honorification is induced by the Spec-Head agreement of φ-features (Ura, 2000, p.100).
(74)

a.
b.

Yamada-sensei-ga o-warai-ni nar-ta.
Yamada-prof.-nom hon-laugh-to become-past‘Prof. Yamada laughed.’
Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-o o-tasuke-ni nar-ta.
Yamada-prof.-nom student-acc hon-help-to become-past‘Prof. Yamada helped the student.’(adapted from Shibatani, 1978a; Ura, 2000, p.100)• Although honorific agreement in Toribio’s (1990) and Ura’s (2000) analysis is achieved via
Spec-Head feature checking in the GB era, it can be reinterpreted as the agreement between[uφ] and [vφ] that the current study is investigating.
– Suppose that [uφ] resides in T, and the corresponding [vφ] is on the subject nP. The [uφ]on T probes into the complement vP, and then finds the corresponding [vφ] on the subject.
– Thereafter, Agree occurs between the [uφ] and the [vφ], which morphologically realizes
as an honorific aﬃx on the predicate, as in (74).
34• I argue that honorification is irrelevant to φ-agreement in Japanese. First, it is evident that
honorification phenomena are distinct from φ-agreement in English and other Indo-European
languages (cf. Niinuma, 2003, p.60).
– The φ-agreement involves features such as [Person] and [Number] (and sometimes [Gender]) in these languages. However, the honorific morphology is completely diﬀerent fromthat of φ-agreement. Honorific morphemes indicate the social status of the referents.
– Fukui (1995a) points out that it is highly questionable whether such morphology should betreated as instances of φ-morphology, which indicates Person and Number (and sometimes
Gender) information of the referents.
• Second, the honorific morphology need not appear in the conversational situation where thesubject has a high social status.28– The sentences in (74) are never ungrammatical without the honorific morphology, as in(75). If φ-agreement occurs in honorific constructions, then it is expected that the data in(75) would be totally ungrammatical like the data in (76).
– Because the nature of honorific morphology is completely diﬀerent from that of φ-agreement
morphology, the data in (74) do not serve as evidence for φ-agreement in Japanese.
(75)

a.
b.

(76)

Yamada-sensei-ga waraw-ta.
Yamada-prof.-nom laugh-past‘Prof. Yamada laughed.’
Yamada-sensei-ga gakusei-o tasuke-ta.
Yamada-prof.-nom student-acc help-past‘Prof. Yamada helped the student.’a. *John laugh. (cf. John laughs/laughed.)b. *Mary help her students. (cf. Mary helps/helped her students.)• Before commencing with the next section, a note on Boeckx and Niinuma (2004) is required.
– They claim that object-honorification, as depicted in (77), in Japanese is an instance of
φ-agreement. Since the same counterarguments as above apply, I do not discuss theirobservations or analysis in detail here.
– Furthermore, Bobaljik and Yatsushiro (2006) present extensive arguments against Boeckx
and Niinuma (2004) (cf. Boeckx, 2006).
(77)

a.
b.

Taro-ga Tanaka-sensei-o o-tasuke-si-ta.
Taro-nom Tanaka-prof.-acc hon-help-do-past‘Taro helped Prof. Tanaka.’
Hanako-ga Tanaka-sensei-ni Mary-o go-syookaisi-ta.
Hanako-nom Tanaka-prof.-dat Mary-acc hon-introduce-past‘Hanako introduced Mary to Prof. Tanaka.’ (Boeckx and Niinuma, 2004, p.456)

4.6 Allocutive Agreement (Miyagawa, 2017)• Miyagawa (2017) argues that Japanese shows allocutive agreement like Basque and other languages.
28

I thank Takaomi Kato (p.c.) for pointing this out to me, crediting the observations and the insights to Naoki Fukui.

35

– Assuming that C-to-T feature-inheritance occurs in English, but significantly not in Japanese, Miyagawa proposes that C with φ-features raises to the domain of SpeechActP (SAP),
more precisely to the small sa-head and consequently to the SA-head.
– The φ-features then serve as an allocutive probe. The φ-features of the SA-head probe for
the HEARER, a null nominal (interlocutor) with a second-person feature, in [Spec, saP].
– Then they undergo φ-agreement, which realizes as a polite form -des/mas ‘pol’ in Japanese.
The derivation is illustrated in (78) and the data are in (79).
• Miyagawa (2017) states that when the hearer is present (in conversational situation/Speech Act),-des/mas must be present, as in (79b).
(78)

a.
b.
c.

[ CP ... TP C[φ] ][ SAP SPEAKER [ saP HEARER [ CP ... TP C[φ] ] sa] SA][ SAP SPEAKER [ saP HEARER [ CP ... TP C[φ] ] C[φ] -sa] C[φ] -sa-SA](adapted from Miyagawa, 2017, pp.26-29)

(79)

a.
b.

Watashi-wa piza-otabe-ru.
I-top
pizza-acc eat-pres‘I eat pizza.’
Watashi-wa piza-otabe-mas-u.
I-top
pizza-acc eat-pol-pres‘I eat pizza.’(Miyagawa, 2017, p.19)• I argue that Miyagawa’s (2017) proposal does not provide evidence for φ-agreement in Japanese.
The polite form need not appear in the conversational situation where the hearer is someone who
the speaker should show respect to.
– It is true that the lack of -des/mas may make the sentence (i.e., (79a)) sound a little rude,
but never ungrammatical.
– If φ-agreement needs to occur in (79a) but does not, then it is expected that the data
become ungrammatical like the English example in (80a)29– Given that (79a) is grammatical, the data in (79b) should not be construed as evidence for
φ-agreement in Japanese.
(80)

a. *John like cats.
b. John likes cats.

4.7 Summary• In this section, I reviewed five diﬀerent arguments for φ-agreement in Japanese: (i) Case valuation, (ii) nominative/genitive conversion, (iii) Person restriction, (iv) honorification, and (v)apparent allocutive agreement.
• I oﬀered rebuttals to each. By demonstrating that none of them is persuasive enough, thissection supports the argument that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon.
• Unvalued φ-features are, by definition, uninterpretable at the interfaces, and are, therefore,
irrelevant to LF and the human thought system (Fukui, 1990).
29

I thank Takaomi Kato (p.c.) for pointing these out to me, crediting these insights to Naoki Fukui.

36

– As such, they have no conceptual necessity (Chomsky, 2007a, p.5). The particular approach reviewed in this section assumes that languages in general, even those without
overt evidence, have unvalued φ-features and agreement.
– Considering that there is no persuasive evidence for φ-features in Japanese, I conclude
that it is not desirable to postulate them in Japanese.

5 Conclusion
5.1 Summary of this Talk
• In this study, I argued for the following statement, which is part of the FPH:
(81)

Agreement Parametrization Hypothesis (=(1)):
The presence/absence of agreement features of functional categories in the lexicon
yields certain parametric variation.

• Throughout this study, I have shown that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon, supported by a few
case studies and discussions in Sections 2, 3, and 4 from a comparative perspective.
• In Section 1, I reviewed how the FPH (Fukui, 1988, 1990, 1995a, among others) emerged in
the theory of language.
– Thereafter, I examined the literature on diﬀerent approaches to the study of human language: Language Acquisition and Language Disorder.
– I argued that it is reasonable that functional categories are subject to variation in contrast
to lexical categories.
• Furthermore, I demonstrated that it is not unnatural that agreement features of functional categories are also subject to variation.
– This argument is incompatible with the EH (Chomsky, 2010; Berwick and Chomsky,
2011, 2016; Boeckx, 2016, among others), which states that cross-linguistic variation
stems only at the PF-branch.
• Section 2 proposed an analysis of how several apparently unlabelable constructions in Japaneseare labeled under the assumption that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon.
– I revealed that canonical sentences, multiple subject constructions, and (multiple) scrambling constructions in Japanese can all be derived without labeling failure by solving the{XP, YP} problem of Chomsky (2013).
• In Section 3, I proposed the generalization that languages with object-verb φ-agreement cannot
have productive lexical VV-compounds.
– Thereafter, I provided a morphosyntactic analysis of why productive lexical VV-compounds
are absent in English and other languages with object-verb φ-agreement.
– Importantly, I discussed how Case is licensed in Japanese, which lacks φ-agreement.
• Section 4 consists of extensive discussions on previous studies that argue for the presence of
φ-agreement in Japanese.
37

– I carefully reviewed five diﬀerent arguments for φ-agreement in Japanese, and then oﬀered
rebuttals to each of them.
– Showing that there is little substantive evidence for φ-agreement in Japanese, Section 4further supports the argument that Japanese lacks [uφ] in its lexicon.
• Overall, I argued that Japanese lacks [uφ] in the lexicon, and the presence/absence of agreement
features in the lexicon yields certain parametric variation. This study provides a counterargument to the EH.

5.2 On Discourse Orientation and φ-agreement• See Kobayashi (2022, Chapter 5) for details.

5.3 Final Remarks• Naoki Fukui (p.c.) notes that Language Change regarding φ-features occurs in one way: they
disappear and do not emerge from scratch or become more complex during Language Change.
– In the same vein, Roberts (2019) and Roberts and Roussou (2003, p.17) claim that Language Change occurs unidirectionally from the complex to the simple.
– More precisely, the agreement features disappear, but do not emerge in functional categories.
• Agreement features are LF-uninterpretable and are, therefore, irrelevant to LF or the humanthought system (Fukui, 1990).
– Since they are not crucial for the design of human language as an instrument of thought(Fukui and Sakai, 2003), it is natural to conclude that they are ultimately unnecessary forhuman language.
– Being unnecessary, it is reasonable to claim that [uφ] and other unvalued features are
subject to disappearance in some languages, which yields certain language variations.
– This is exactly what I have argued for in this study.
• If this argument is correct, it raises the question of why such unnecessary features were introduced to human language.
– Kobayashi (2022) presumes that functional categories and agreement features emerged
later than lexical categories during Language Evolution (Progovac, 2015).
– The reason they were introduced into human language is not obvious. It might be an
instance of contingency, which often occurs in evolution in general.
– I currently do not have an exact answer. Therefore, I leave this issue open for future
research.
• This study leaves a number of issues open for future research. However, I hope that the arguments and discussions presented in this study contribute to gaining a better understanding ofJapanese syntax, and ultimately, human language.

38

References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Berwick, Robert, and Noam Chomsky. 2011. The biolinguistic program: the current state of its
development. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise, ed. Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx,
19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berwick, Robert, and Noam Chomsky. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 1999. Specificity in the Bangla DP. In Yearbook on South Asian Languages
and Linguistics, ed. Rajendra Singh, volume 2, 71–99. New Delhi/London: SAGE Publications.
Biasetti, Pierfrancesco. 2020. Dialectical thinking and science: the case of Richard Lewontin, Dialectical Biologist. In Natural Born Monads: On the Metaphysics of Organisms and Human Individuals, ed. Andrea Altobrando and Pierfrancesco Biasetti, 265–292. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter
GmbH.
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Kazuko Yatsushiro. 2006. Problems with honorification-as-agreement inJapanese: a reply to Boeckx and Niinuma. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24:355–384.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2006. Honorification as agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
24:385–398.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New
Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, ed. Anna Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx, 205–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2014. Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-free Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2016. Considerations pertaining to the nature of logodiversity. In Rethinking Parameters, ed. Luis Eguren, Olga Fernandez-Soriano, and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 64–104. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Fumikazu Niinuma. 2004. Conditions on agreement in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:453–480.
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax, Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht:
Foris Publications.
Borsley, Robert, Maggie Tallerman, and David Willis. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Discussion. In Language and Learning. The Debate between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, 73–83. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

39Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist
Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–
155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures,Vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 103–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007a. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?
Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin
Gärtner, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 2007b. Biolinguistic explorations: design, development, evolution. International
Journal of Philosophical Studies 15:1–21.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor
of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 291–321.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2010. Some simple evo-devo theses: how true might they be for language? In The
Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, ed. Richard Larson, Viviane Déprez,and Hiroko Yamakido, 45–62. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2012. Poverty of the stimulus: willingness to be puzzled. In Rich Languages
from Poor Inputs, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and Robert Berwick, 61–67. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130:33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2014. Minimal recursion: exploring the prospects. In Recursion: Complexity in
Cognition, ed. Tom Roeper and Margaret Speas, 1–15. Berlin: Springer.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015a. A discussion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi (March 4, 2014). In
The Sophia Lectures (Sophia Linguistica 64), 69–97. Tokyo: Sophia Linguistic Institute for International Communication, Sophia University.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015b. Problems of projection: extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond– Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, and Simona
Matteini, 3–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam, Ángel Gallego, and Dennis Ott. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty oflanguage: insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue 2019229–261.
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax:
An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Armin von Stechow,
Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann, volume 1, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Crain, Stephen, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 1999. An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Epstein, Samuel, Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Daniel Seely. 2012. Structure building that can’t be. In
Ways of Structure Building, ed. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala, 253–270. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
40

Fiebach, Christian, Matthias Schlesewsky, Gabriele Lohmann, Yves von Cramon, and Angela
Friederici. 2005. Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: syntactic integration
versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping 24:79–91.
Friedmann, Na’ama, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 1997. Tense and agreement in agrammatic production:pruning the syntactic tree. Brain and Language 56:397–425.
Fujita, Gen. 2010. Transfer it from syntax!: a multiple Transfer analysis of the multiple nominative
construction in Japanese. Master’s thesis, Sophia University.
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A theory of category projection and its applications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Fukui, Naoki. 1988. Deriving the diﬀerences between English and Japanese: a case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics 5:249–270.
Fukui, Naoki. 1990. Problems of the phrase structure of Japanese: a historical survey. In Proceedingsof the International Symposium on Japanese Teaching, ed. Masashi Sakamoto and Yasuaki Abe,
261–272. Nagoya: Nanzan University.
Fukui, Naoki. 1995a. The principles-and-parameters approach: a comparative syntax of English andJapanese. In Approaches to Language Typology, ed. Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon,
327–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 1995b. Theory of Projection in Syntax. Stanford: Kurosio Publishers and CSLI Publications.
Fukui, Naoki. 2006. Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Fukui, Naoki. 2011. Merge and bare phrase structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 73–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fukui, Naoki. 2013. Seiseibumpoo to ningengengo-no “tayoosei” [Generative Grammar and the“diversity” of human language]. Nihon Edward Sapir Kyookai Kenkyuu Nempoo 27:1–24.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hironobu Kasai. 2004. Spelling-out scrambling. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook,ed. Pierre Pica, Johan Rooryck, and Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, volume 4, 109–141. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hiroki Narita. 2017. Merge and (a)symmetry. In Merge in the Mind-Brain: Essayson Theoretical Linguistics and the Neuroscience of Language, 35–74. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fukui, Naoki, and Taisuke Nishigauchi. 1992. Head movement and case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 14:1–36.
Fukui, Naoki, and Hiromu Sakai. 2003. The visibility guideline for functional categories: verb raisingin Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113:321–375.
Fukushima, Kazuhiko. 2005. Lexical VV compounds in Japanese: lexicon vs. syntax. Language
81:1–36.
George, Leland, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding andFiltering, ed. Frank Heny, 105–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1984. The syntactic characterization of agrammatism. Cognition 16:99–120.
41

Harada, Naomi. 2002. Licensing PF-visible formal features: a linear algorithm and case-related
phenomena in PF. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Harada, Shin-Ichi. 1973. Counter equi NP deletion. Annual Bulletin, Research Institute of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics, University of Tokyo 7:113–147.
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible Persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. On nominative-genitive conversion. In A Few from Building E39, MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 39, ed. Elena Guerzoni and Ora Matushansky, 65–123. Cambridge, MA:
MITWPL.
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1999. Parametric Studies in Malayalam Syntax. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Jordens, Peter. 2002. Finiteness in early child Dutch. Linguistics 40:687–765.
Kageyama, Taro. 1993. Bunpoo to Gokeesei [Grammar and Word Formation]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo
Publishing.
Kageyama, Taro. 2016. Verb-compounding and verb-incorporation. In Handbook of Japanese Lexicon and Word Formation, ed. Taro Kageyama and Hideki Kishimoto, 273–310. Berlin: Walter deGruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Kayne, Richard. 2003. Silent years, silent hours. In Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer
Platzack, ed. Lars-Olof Delsing, Gunlög Josefsson, Halldor Armann Sigurðsson, and Cecilia Falk,
209–226. Lund: Wallin and Dalholm.
Kayne, Richard. 2016. The silence of heads. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 37:1–37.
Khurelbat, Bandzragchin. 1992. Word formation in Mongolian language. Doctoral dissertation,
Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Ko, Heejeong, and Daeyoung Sohn. 2015. Decomposing complex serialization: the role of v. Korean
Linguistics 17:78–125.
Kobayashi, Ryoichiro. 2018a. Feature inheritance and the syntax of lexical VV compounds. In
Proceedings of ConSOLE XXV, ed. Kate Bellamy, Anastasiia Ionova, and George Saad, 250–267.
Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
Kobayashi, Ryoichiro. 2018b. Parametrizing the timing of Transfer in Japanese and English and its
consequences. In Proceedings of the 13th Edition of the Workshop of Altaic Formal Linguistics, ed.
Céleste Guillemot, Tomoyuki Yoshida, and Seunghun J. Lee, 371–379. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Kobayashi, Ryoichiro. 2022. Functional Parametrization Hypothesis in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, Sophia University.
Kobayashi, Ryoichiro. to appear. Labeling the unlabelable in the CP domain. In Proceedings ofWestern Conference on Linguistics 2020, xx–xx. Fresno: California State University.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42

Kuno, Susumu, and Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8:627–672.
Kuribayashi, Yu. 2006. Torukogo-no hukugoodooshi to bumpooka. [Compound verbs and their grammaticalization in Turkish]. Azia, Ahurika-no Gengo to Gengogaku 1:25–44.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese.
Lingvisticae Investigationes 12:1–47.
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts.
Lebeaux, David. 2000. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lewontin, Richard. 1985. Adaptation. In The Dialectical Biologist, ed. Richard Levins and Richard
Lewontin, 65–84. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes. In Handbook of Word-formation, ed.
Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1994. Setting the null argument parameters: evidence from American Sign Language and other languages. In Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross-linguistic
Perspectives Vol. 2: Binding, Dependencies, and Learnability, ed. Barbara Lust, Gabriella Hermon,
and Jaklin Kornfilt, 301–318. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maki, Hideki, and Asako Uchibori. 2008. Ga/no conversion. In Handbook of Japanese Linguistics,
ed. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 192–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manzini, Rita, and Kenneth Wexler. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic
Inquiry 18:413–444.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Proceedings of the 31st Meeting of
the North East Linguistic Society, ed. Minjoo Kim and Uri Strauss, 333–349. Amherst: Universityof Massachusetts, GLSA.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Agreement beyond Phi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nagamori, Takakazu. 2020. Multiple case valuation via agree/merge. Doctoral dissertation, Sophia
University.
Nakao, Hisashi. 2012. Seibutsu shinka-to bunka shinka-ni okeru mojuurusei [Modularity in biologicaland cultural evolution]. Kagaku Kisoron Kenkyu 40:1–8.
Nakao, Hisashi. 2013. Shinkashinrigaku-no yoogo – Hihan-no hanbaku-o tsuujite [Defending evolutionary psychology through rebutting the criticisms]. Kagaku Tetsugaku 46:1–16.
Narita, Hiroki. 2014. Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax: Phasing in Full Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Narita, Hiroki, and Naoki Fukui. 2022. Symmetrizing Syntax: Merge, Minimality, and Equilibria.
Abingdon: Routledge.

43

Neef, Martin. 2009. IE, Germanic: German. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. Rochelle
Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 386–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neeleman, Ad, and Hans van de Koot. 2006. Syntactic haplology. In The Blackwell Companion
to Syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, volume 4, 685–710. London: WileyBlackwell, 1 edition.
Nemoto, Naoko. 1999. Scrambling. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, ed. Natsuko Tsujimura, 121–153. Oxford: Blackwell.
Niinuma, Fumikazu. 2003. The syntax of honorification. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998. V-V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:175–
217.
Nishiyama, Kunio. 2008. V-V compounds. In Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, ed. Shigeru Miyagawa and Mamoru Saito, 320–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nishiyama, Kunio, and Yoshiki Ogawa. 2014. Auxiliation, atransitivity, and transitivity harmony inJapanese VV compounds. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 20:71–101.
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo-no Modaritii-to Ninsyoo. [Modality and Person in Japanese.]. Tokyo:
Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
Obata, Miki. 2010. Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting internal merge: implications forfeature-inheritance and transfer. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Obata, Miki, and Mina Sugimura. 2014. Phi-agreement in Japanese: on the person restriction ofCase valuation. In Proceedings of the 40th Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2013), ed.
Claire Renaud, Carla Ghanem, Verónica González López, and Kathryn Pruitt, 111–119. Fresno:
California State University.
Obata, Miki, and Mina Sugimura. 2019. Phi-agreement by C in Japanese: evidence from person
restriction on the subject. In Proceedings of the 33rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, ed. Ryo Otoguro, Mamoru Komachi, and Tomoko Ohkuma, 191–195.
Tokyo: Waseda Institute for the Study of Language and Information.
Ochi, Masao. 2001. Move F and ga/no conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
10:248–286.
Otsuka, Jun. 2007. Kekkyoku, kinoo-to-wa nan-datta-no-ka [Reconciling two concepts of function].
Kagaku Tetsugaku 40:29–40.
Paschen, Ludger. 2014. Opacity in the lexicon: a generative lexicon approach to Korean VV compounds. In Topics at Infl, ed. Anke Assmann, Sebastian Bank, Doreen Georgi, Timo Klein, Philipp
Weisser, and Eric Zimmermann, 197–234. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
Paul, Soma. 2003. Composition of compound verbs in Bangla. In Proceedings of the Workshop on
Multi-verb Constructions, ed. Dotothee Beermann and Lars Hellan, 1–18. Trondheim: Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
Platzack, Christer. 1990. A Grammar without functional categories: a syntactic study of early Swedish
child language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 13:107–126.

44

Poeppel, David, and Kenneth Wexler. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in
early German. Language 69:1–33.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2015. Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Small children’s small clauses. Transactions of the Philological Society
86:1–43.
Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early
Child Grammars of English. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Richards, Marc. 2007. On feature inheritance: an argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition.
Linguistic Inquiry 38:563–572.
Roberts, Ian. 2019. Diachronic and Comparative Syntax. New York and London: Routledge.
Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Safir, Ken. 1987. Comments on Wexler and Manzini. In Parameter Setting, ed. Tom Roeper and
Edwin Williams, 77–89. Dordrecht: Springer.
Saito, Mamoru. 1989. Scrambling as semantically vacuous A’-movement. In Alternative Conceptionsof Phrase Structure, ed. Mark Baltin and Anthony Kroch, 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
1:69–118.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua
113:481–518.
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43:203–227.
Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Case checking/valuation in Japanese: move, agree, or merge. Nanzan Linguistics 8:109–127.
Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, ed. Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo
Cinque, and Yoshio Endo, 269–297. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) Case for labeling: labeling in languages without φ-feature agreement. The
Linguistic Review 33:129–175.
Sakamoto, Yuta. 2011. A study of sluicing and cleft in Mongolian: a comparison with Japanese.
Master’s thesis, Tohoku University.
Şener, Serkan, and Daiko Takahashi. 2010. Ellipsis of arguments in Japanese and Turkish. Nanzan
Linguistics 6:79–99.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978a. Mikami Akira and the notion of ‘subject’ in Japanese grammar. In
Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, ed. John Hinds and Irwin Howards, 52–67. Tokyo:
Kaitakusha.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978b. Nihongo-no Bunseki [An Analysis of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taisyuukan.

45

Shim, Jae-Young, and Samuel Epstein. 2015. Two notes on possible approaches to the unification oftheta relations. Linguistic Analysis 40:1–18.
Siddiqi, Daniel. 2010. Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistic Compass 4:524–542.
Tada, Hiroaki. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Takahashi, Yohei. 2015. Kuusyo ketsuraku kankeisetsu-no idoo bunseki. [The movement analysis ofgapless relative clauses]. In Yori Yoki Daian-o Taezu Motomete [In Untiring Pursuit of Better Alternatives], ed. Hiroki Egashira, Hisatsugu Kitahara, Kazuo Nakazawa, Tadao Nomura, Masayuki
Oishi, Akira Saizen, and Motoko Suzuki, 404–412. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Takita, Kensuke, Nobu Goto, and Yoshiyuki Shibata. 2016. Labeling through Spell-Out. The Linguistic Review 33:177–198.
Thompson, Cynthia, Stephen Fix, and Darren Gitelman. 2002. Selective impairment of morphosyntactic production in a neurological patient. Journal of Neurolinguistics 15:189–207.
Thornton, Abigail. 2019. Agreeing in number: verbal plural suppletion and reduplication. The Linguistic Review 36:531–552.
Thornton, Rosalind, and Graciela Tesan. 2007. Categorical acquisition: parameter-setting in Universal Grammar. Biolinguistics 1:49–98.
Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline. 1990. Specifier-head agreement in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 9thWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Aaron Halpern, 535–548. Stanford: CSLI.
Travis, Lisa. 2014. The integration, proliferation, and expansion of functional categories. In The
Routledge Handbook of Syntax, ed. Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato, and Daniel Siddiqi, 42–64. New
York and London: Routledge.
Ueda, Yukiko. 2008. Person restriction and syntactic structure of Japanese modals. Scientific Approaches to Language 7:123–150.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: a theory of grammatical function splitting. Doctoral
dissertation, MIT.
Ura, Hiroyuki. 2000. Checking Theory and Grammatical Functions in Universal Grammar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Vikner, Sten. 1985. Parameters of binder and of binding category in Danish. Working Papers in
Scandinavian Syntax 23:1–61.
Vitale, Anthony. 1981. Swahili Syntax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Walsh, Denis. 2003. Fit and diversity: explaining adaptive evolution. Philosophy of Science 70:280–
301.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Nominative-genitive conversion and agreement in Japanese: a cross-linguistic
perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5:373–410.
Wenzlaﬀ, Michaela, and Harald Clahsen. 2005. Finiteness and verb-second in German agrammatism.
Brain and Language 92:33–44.
Wexler, Kenneth. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new
explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106:23–79.
46

Wexler, Kenneth, and Rita Manzini. 1987. Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Parameter
Setting, 41–76. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2000. The structure(s) of particle verbs.
Yang, Dong-Whee. 1983. The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research 19:169–192.
Zushi, Mihoko. 2014. Kaku to heigoo. [Case and merge]. In Gengo-no Sekkei, Hattatsu, Shinka. [TheDesign, Development and Evolution of Language: Explorations in Biolinguistics], ed. Koji Fujita,
Naoki Fukui, Noriaki Yusa, and Masayuki Ike-Uchi, 66–96. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Zushi, Mihoko. 2016. Case and predicate-argument relations. In Advances in Biolinguistics: The
Human Language Faculty and its Biological Basis, ed. Koji Fujita and Cedric Boeckx, 46–66. New
York: Routledge.

47