Inducing and Blocking Labeling
To appear, Glossa
Shigeru Miyagawa (MIT)
Danfeng Wu (MIT)
Masatoshi Koizumi (Tohoku University)
October 2019

Introduction
Case markers ga ‘NOM” and o ‘ACC’
The topic marker wa
Complementizer to, no, …
The Q-particle ka/no
Each has its function.
At the same time, they have a uniform syntactic function of contributing to thelabeling of structures.
(1) The labeling function of particles(i) Attaches to a non-projectable element => induces projection(ii) Attaches to a projectable element => blocks projection

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20192

Problems Of Projection (POP)(2) Merge
Merge applies to two objects α and β, and forms a new object γ = {α, β}.
(3) a.
b.
c.

(4a)γ = {H, αP}
γ = {αP, βP} Problem of Projection
γ = {H1, H2} Problem of Projection(4b)

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20193

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi (to appear):
An issue with (4a): the offending DP that would trigger a POP still exists in
Spec,vP.
Solution:
There is a general understanding that the lower copy is not identical to thehead copy; the lower copy, for example, would contain just enoughinformation for interpreting as a copy/trace (Fox 1999, 2000, 2002). One way
to concretely think of this is to go back to Pesetsky’s (1982) distinction of cvs. s-selection. C-selection is for category while s-selection is for semantics.
Once the DP vacates its original position, we could imagine that only featuresassociated with s-selection would remain, excluding features related to cselection from occurring, and it is these c-selection features that otherwise
would lead to a POP. In this way elements of the lower copy does not impedelabeling.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20194

Inducing labeling
Wh-questions(5) Which dog does Mary like?
Chomsky (2015)(6a)( (6b)

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20195

Old Japanese
Wh-movement (Nomura 1993, Watanabe 2002)
Man’yooshuu, 8th C(7) Idukuni-ka kimi-ga
funefate kutsa
which-KA you-NOM
ship stop grass‘Where did you anchor your ship?’mutsubi-kemu.
tie-PAST(1169)

Wh-movement began to disappear when the Q/focus particle (ka) began to occur
at C (Miyagawa 2010)(8) Study of this phenomenon in the 10th C Tale of Genji (Isobe 1990)
1/3: wh-movement
1/3: wh-in-situ with ka at the end
1/3: wh-in-situ with another focus particle (zo) at the end

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20196

(9) Kono nisi-naruie-ha
nani-bito-no
this west-be house-TOP what-person-NOM‘What person lives in this house to the west?’

sumu-zo?
live-Q(10) Q-particle meets the EPP requirement on C (Miyagawa 2001)
Reinterpreted within the theory of labeling:(11) The function of the Q-particle
The Q-particle attaches to C to induce labeling by giving C independent
categorical status.
The C-Q combination in Japanese is an independent category: the C-Q
combination occur as a morphosyntactically independent item that does not affectthe accentuation of the preceding element.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20197

The tense is part of the metrical phrase with the stem (McCawley 1968)(12) a. ta’be‘eat’
b. tabe’-ru ‘eat-PRES’c. tabe-rare’-ru ‘eat-can-PRES’d. tabe-sase-rare’-ru ‘eat-cause-PASSIVE-PRES’In contrast, attaching the Q-particle ka, which is an enclitic, does not affectaccentuation.
(13) tabe’ru ka ‘eat-PRES Q’
Q-particle gives C independent categorical status, which induces labeling of C
without the need for a specifier.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20198

Classic non-EPP effect: pro-drop in Romance
Parallel with C: pro-drop is possible in Romance because T has independent
categorical status.

Oltra-Massuet (1999, 2000) for Catalan verbs, Guerzoni (2000) for Italian and
by Oltra-Massuet and Arregi (2005) for Spanish: in Romance, stress typicallyoccurs on the vowel that precedes the tense morpheme. This is shown for
Spanish below (the data is drawn from Richards 2016).
(14) a.

cantá-ba-is
sing-IMP.IND-2PL‘you (pl.) sang (imperfective)’b. cantá-stessing-PREF.2PL‘you (pl.) have sung’c. canta-rí-a-issing-FUT-PAST-2PL‘you (pl.) would sing (conditional)’
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 20199

There is a word-internal boundary for assigning metrical stress that immediately
precedes the tense, as illustrated for cantá -ba-is ‘sing-IMP.IND 2PL.
(15) cantá)-ba-is
The formalism that these linguists use is adopted from Idsardi (1992).
The agreement morpheme in Romance behaves like the Q-particle in Japanese: it gives
independent categorical status to T, so labeling is induced without the need for a
specifier.

Contrary to these Romance languages, French does not allow pro-drop. French does nothave a reliable stress preceding tense, but instead it occurs on the final syllable (seeRichards 2016).
(16) a. chant-i-ézsing-IMP.IND-2PL‘you (pl.) sang (imperfective)’b. chant-é
sing-PREF.2PL‘you (pl.) have sung’c. chant-er-ézsing-FUT-2PL‘you (pl.) will sing’Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201910

Contiguity (Richards 2016)
Operates over stress and prosodic patterns to predict a number of syntactic
operations.
(17) T-Support
If T is a suffix, it must follow a metrical boundary.
In English/French, where there is no reliable metrical boundary preceding tense,a DP, which has a metrical boundary at the end, must be moved up. This is the
EPP movement.

(18) [TP XP )METRICAL BOUNDARY [ Tφ ...

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201911

Why did the wh-phrase move in Old Japanese?
(19) Idukuni-ka kimi-ga
funefate kutsa mutsubi-kemu.
which-KA you-NOM
ship stop grasstie-PAST‘Where did you anchor your ship?’(1169)The C does not have independent categorical status, thus the wh-phrase mustmove to its specifier, and C projects by feature sharing.
(20)

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201912

Expletive construction
Chomsky (2013)

Inducing labeling predicts that such Spec-Head agreement isn’t necessary.
(23) There are many people in the room.
(24) Henni
leiddust
strákarnir.
her.3SG.DAT
bored.3PL the boys.3PL.NOM‘She found the boys boring.’

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201913

Root clause and labeling
Q-particle drop (Yoshida and Yoshida 1997)(25) Dare-ga kuru (no)?
who-NOM come Q‘Who will come?’
The Q-particle can never be omitted in embedded contexts.
(26) Hanako-wa [dare-ga
kuru *(ka)] sitteiru.
Hanako-TOP who-NOM come Q know
‘Hanako knows who will come.’
Why is the omission of the Q-particle possible in the root, but not in an
embedded clause?
(27) Root and labeling
The root clause need not be labeled.
Labeling and C:(28) Hanako-wa [Taroo-ga iku *(to)] omotta.
Hanako-TOP Taro-NOM go C thought‘Hanako thought that Taro will go.’Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201914

Labeling and C:(29) Hanako-ga
iku.
Hanako-NOM go‘Hanako will go.’(30) Hanako-wa [Taroo-ga iku *(to)] omotta.
Hanako-TOP Taro-NOM go C thought‘Hanako thought that Taro will go.’(31) Taroo-ga iku yo.
Taro-NOM go EXPL
‘Taro will go!’Complementizer drop (Saito 1986)(32) John-wa [Mary-ga
ki-ta(tte)]
yuu-ta/omoo-ta.
John-TOP Mary-NOM
come-PAST that
say-PAST/think-PAST‘John said/thought (that) Mary came.’
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201915

Only possible with ‘say’ and ‘think’ (Kishimoto 2006).
These verbs typically allow root-clause phenomena in their subordinate clause.
(Hooper and Thompson 1973, Miyagawa 2017)
Negative Constituent Preposing (Emonds 1969, 1976)(33) John said/thought that never in his life would he win the lottery.

Complementizer-less clause cannot scramble (Kishimoto 2006)(34) [Mary-ga
ki-ta*(tte)]i John-ga ti yuu-ta.
Mary-NOM come-PAST
that John-NOM say-PAST‘*(That) Mary came John said.’
Topicalization(35) Watakusi-(wa) iku.
I-TOP
go(36) Hanako-wa [watakusi-*(wa) iku to] omotteiru.
Hanako-TOP I-TOP
go C think‘Hanako thinks that I will go.’Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201916

Case-marker Drop
In informal speech in Japanese, the accusative case marking can optionally beleft out; this so-called “case drop” is most common if the object is adjacent tothe verb (Saito 1985, Fujii and Ono 2000).
(37) a. Mariko-ga nani(-o)
katta no?
Mariko-NOM what(-ACC) bought Q‘What did Mariko buy?’b. Nani*(-o) Mariko-ga katta no?
what(-ACC) Mariko-NOM bought Q‘What did Mariko buy?’
Similar to DOM: with the case marker –o, the object tends to be referential,
specific, or somehow salient in discourse, while such presuppositional
interpretation is not found with the bare object (Fujii and Ono 2000).

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201917

The nominative case marker cannot be omitted (Kuno 1973, Saito 1985).
(38) Dare*(-ga) hon-okatta no?
who(-NOM) book-ACC bought Q‘Who bought a book?’
There is one position in which the nominative –ga may be omitted — if thepredicate is unaccusative (Fujii and Ono 2000).
(39) Kesanani(-ga) todoita no?
this.morning what(-NOM) arrived Q‘What arrived this morning?’
Same in acquisition: Miyamoto, Wexler, Aikawa, Miyagawa (1999)
Aki (2;3 – 3;00) left out –o 94% of the time.

For –ga, it was omitted for unaccusative/existential verbs anywhere
between 63% and 95% depending on the verb, but only 23% of thetime with unergative/transitive verbs.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201918

Blocking projection
Case marking blocks projection (Saito 2016)
Case marking marks the node as “weak” (Saito 2018)
Case marking as projection blocker: Kumamoto Japanese (Kato 2007)
Two nominatives, ga (vP external) and no (vP internal; glossed as GEN).
(40) a.

b.

Taroo-ga/*noson syoosetu-ba koota bai.
Taro-NOM/GEN the novel-ACC bought FP‘Taro bought the novel.’
Son syoosetu-ba Taroo-ga/nokoota bai.
the novel-ACC Taroo-NOM/GENbought FP

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201919

Case marking does not block Q-float (Shibatani 1977, Miyagawa 1989)(41) a. Gakusei-ga
kinoo
san-nin hasitta.
student-NOM
yesterday 3-CL ran‘Three students ran yesterday.’b. Hanako-ga
hon-o
ni-satuyonda.
Hanako-NOM book-ACC 2-CL
read
‘Hanako read two books.’
P does.
(42) *Hito-ga[pp [DP mura] kara]
futa-tu kita.
People-NOM
village from
2-CL came
Intended: ‘People came from two villages.’

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201920

(43) Miyagawa (1989)(44) Proposal for the “weak” nature of case marking
Case marking is a head that is inert for the purpose of labeling.

(45) Nature of projection blocking: [DP HCASE MARKER]
Search picks H as the closest candidate for labeling, but the H cannot
furnish labeling, and the search picks the sister node.
(46)
DP-case marking

XP (TP, vP, etc.)

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201921

Movement and Case marking: equivalent for labeling
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi (to appear)
Movement (Chomsky 2013) and Case marking (Saito 2018) are equivalent forthe purposes of labeling.
The offending DP in Spec,vP is made inert for the
purposes of labeling because it only has s-selection
features, and not c-selection features, because it isa copy.

This DP is made inert for labeling because thehead, Case Marker, cannot project.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201922

Differential Object Marking(47) a. Hasan bir kitap aldı.
(Turkish)
Hasan a book bought‘Hasan bought a book’
b. Hasan bir kitab-ıaldı.
Hasan one book-ACC bought‘Hasan bought one book’
The bare object is interpreted as indefinite (or nonspecific); the case-marked
object as definite (or specific) (e.g., von Heusinger and Kornfilt 2005).
Bare objects cannot occur away from the verb.
(48) a. * Bir kitap Hasan aldı.
a book Hasan bought‘Hasan bought a book’
b. Bir kitab-ı
Hasan aldı.
one book-ACC Hasan bought
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201923

Even in the base SOV order, the two objects occupy different positions; the casemarked object occurs higher, outside the VP (e.g., Kennelly 1994, Zidani-Eroğlu
1997, Kelepir 2001). Test using VP adverb ‘completely’.
(49) a. Hasan kitab-ı
tamamen okudu.
Hasan book-ACC completely read
‘Hasan read the book completely.’b. *Hasan tamamen kitab-ı
okudu.
Hasan completely book-ACC read(50) Hasan tamamen kitap okudu.
Hasan completely book read
‘Hasan read a book.’
Kelepir (2001): case-marked objects “move above the VP to check their casefeatures” and get a presuppositional reading (Diesing 1992, Kennelly 1994,
Zidani-Eroğlu 1997). Same in other DOM languages (Aissen 2003).

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201924

BantuBantu languages are said to show no case effect (Harford Perez 1985,
Ndayiragije 1999, Alsina 2001, Baker 2003, Carstens and Diercks 2009,
Diercks 2012).
Halpert (2012)(51) Raising out of a finite clausea. ku-bonakala [ukuthi uSiphou-pheka iqanda].
17S-seems
that AUG.1Sipho 1S-cook AUG.5egg‘It seems that Sipho is cooking an egg.’ Zulu
b. uSipho u-bonakala [ukuthi u-pheka iqanda].
AUG.1Sipho 1S- seems that 1S-cook AUG.5egg‘Sipho seems to be cooking an egg.’ Zulu

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201925

(52) Inversion
a. olukwi si-lu-li-seny-abakaliOVS
11wood NEG-11S-PRES-chop-FV 2 women‘WOMEN do not chop wood.’ (Baker 2003) Kinandeb. omo-mulongo mw-a-hik-a
mukaliLOC V S
18LOC-3village 18S-T-arrive-FV 1woman‘At the village arrived a woman.’ (Baker 2003) Kinande
Projection licensor: agreement under movement for noun class
A prominent property of Bantu is that nominals, regardless of where they occur,
tend to be overtly marked for its noun class. Thus, mu-rúmé ‘man’ is Class 1, as
indicated by mu, something which we also see with Class 1 mu-kali ‘woman’.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201926

Table 1: Noun classes in Lubukusu (Diercks 2010)

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201927

The subject, the object, or the locative moving to Spec,TP, and the verbal
element agrees with what has moved.
(53) a. Omukali mo-a-seny-ire
olukwi (lw’-omo-mbasa). (SVO)
woman.1 AFF-1.S/T-chop-EXT wood.11 LK11-LOC.18-axe.9‘The woman chopped wood (with an axe).’
Kinandeb. Olukwi si-lu-li-seny-abakali (omo-mbasa). (OVS)
wood.11 NEG-11.S-PRES-chop-FV women.2 LOC.18-axe.9‘Women do not chop wood (with an axe).’
Kinandec. ?Omo-mulongo mw-a-hik-aomukali.
(LocVS)
LOC.18-village.3 18.S-T-arrive-FV woman‘At the village arrived a woman.’
KinandeMiyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201928

Bantu has augment vowels, which attach as a prefix to DPs. Halpert (2012)
argues that the augment vowel has the function of case marking, thereby
showing that Bantu in fact has case marking despite its traditionally “caseless”
characterization.
(54) a. Yohani si-a-nzire
mu-kali.
John
NEG-1.S/T-like CL1-woman‘John does not like a(ny) woman.’b. Omukali
mo-a-teta-gul-a
ki-ndu.
AUG-CL.1-woman AFF-1.S-NEG/PAST-buy-FV
CL7-thing‘The woman didn’t buy anything.’c. *Mu-kali
mo-a-teta-gul-a
eritunda.
C L 1-woman AFF-1.S/T-NEG/PAST-buy-FV fruit.5‘No woman bought a fruit.’

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201929

Selected References
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. Structures, Strategies andBeyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. by Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia
Hamann, and Simona Matteini, 3-16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with Subjects in Lubukusu. Doctoral dissertation,
Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Diercks, Michael. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15:253-286.
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains.
Linguistic Inquiry 30:157–197.
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement.
Linguistic Inquiry 33:63–96.
Fujii, Noriko and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2000. The occurrence and non-occurrence of the Japanese
direct object marker o in conversation. Studies in Language 24:1–39.
Guerzoni, Elena. 2000. Stress and morphology in the Italian verb system. Ms. MIT.

Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201930

Haig, John H. 1980. Some observations on quantifier floating in Japanese. Linguistics
18:1065-1083.
Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument Licensing and Agreement in Zulu. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Isobe, Yoshihiro. 1990. Chuko wabun-no yosetsumei gimonhyogen [Question expressions
in Mid-Old Japanese]. Nihon Bungaku Kenkyu 26. 165-176. Baiko Jogakuin
University.
Kato, Sachiko. 2007. Scrambling and EPP: From the viewpoint of Kumamoto dialect ofJapanese. In Yoichi Miyamoto and Masao Ochi (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
55: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceedings of FAJL 4, 113–124.
Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Kelepir, Meltem. 2001. Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.
Kishimoto, H. 2006. On the existence of null complementizers in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry
37, 39–345.
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2006. The (unique and local) syntactic and morphological licenser ofsubject Case. In João Costa and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.), Studies onagreement, 141–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201931

Kural, Murat. 1993. V-TO(-I-TO)-C in Turkish. In Filippo Beghelli and Murat Kural (eds.),
UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11: Papers in Syntax, Semantics andComputational Linguistics, 17–54. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In German Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and HeeRahk
Chae (eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics ’91, 234–
253. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Eric J. Reuland (ed.), Arguments and case:
Explaining Burzio’s generalization, 11–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
McCawley, James, D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The
Hague: Mouton.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.),Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 293–338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Topicalization. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Societyof Japan) 152. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo.152.0_1.
Miyamoto, Edson T., Kenneth Wexler, Takako Aikawa, and Shigeru Miyagawa. 1999.
Case-dropping and unaccusatives in Japanese acquisition. In Annabel Greenhill,
Heather Littlefield, and Cheryl Tano (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual
Boston University Conference on Language Development, 443–452. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Press.
Miyagawa, Wu, Koizumi 201932

Nomura, Takashi. 1993. Joudaigo no no to ga nitsuite [No and ga in Old Japanese].
Kokugo-Kokubun 62(2):1-17, 62(3):30-49.
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2000. On the notion of theme vowel: A new approach to Catalanverbal morphology. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19. Cambridge, MA:
MITWPL.
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel, and Karlos Arregi. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic
Inquiry 36. 43-84.
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Path and categories. Doctoral disseration, MIT.
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saito, Mamoru. 1986. Three notes on syntactic movement in Japanese. In T. Imai and M.
Saito (eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris, 301–350.
Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) Case for labeling: Labeling in languages without phi-featureagreement. The Linguistic Review 33:129-175.
Saito, Mamoru. 2018. Kase as a weak head. Ms. Nanzan University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1977. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53. 789809.
Watanabe, Akira. 2002. Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In David W.
Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 179–195. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zidani-Eroğlu, Leyla. 1997. Indefinite Noun Phrases in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation,
Miyagawa,
Wu, Koizumi
33
University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison,
WI.2019