Zoom with a Minimalist View: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020[November 14, 2020]

13:30-14:00（30 分）
14:00-14:10（10 分）
14:10-14:50（40 分）
14:50-15:00（10 分）
15:00-15:10（10 分）
15:10-15:40（30 分）
15:40-15:50（10 分）
15:50-16:00（10 分）
16:00-17:00（60 分）

セッション[1]話題提供

担当講師
林取り上げる論文Japanese Wh-Phrases as Operators with
Unspecified Quantificational Force[1]（簡単な）質疑応答 （質問受付係：中島）中尾小畑(1) Notes on the Locality of Anaphor
Binding and A-Movement(2) A Note on Transfer Domains[2]（簡単な）質疑応答 （質問受付係：中島）[2]話題提供休憩
中島

Labeling and Argument Doubling inJapanese[3]（簡単な）質疑応答 （質問受付係：林）[3]話題提供

休憩
全体討論 （質問受付係：林）

各トーク直後の質疑セッションでは、簡単なやり取りで済む内容に絞りましょう。

1

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)

Saito (2017): Japanese wh-phrases as operators with unspecified quantificational force*
林 愼将 (九州大学大学院/日本学術振興会)
主な先行研究Nishigauchi (1990): 日 本語 の wh expression が indefinite で あ り 、 unselective binding を受 ける 。 “thequantificational force of a wh-expression” is determined by “a quantificational particle.”と述べる。
Tsai (1999): 中国語の wh expression が variable である証拠を出す。
Takahashi (2002): 日本語の wh expression が unselective binding を受けることに対する批判を行う。wh
expression と particle は選択関係があると主張する。
Kuroda (1965): 日本語の wh expression は variable であるという点で、Nishigauchi、Tsai、Takahashi の親玉。
wh expression

wh expression と particle の関係

Nishigauchi

variable

移動+unselective binding

Tsaivariable

unselective binding (中国語)、移動+unselective binding (日本語)Takahashi

variable

選択+particle の移動

Saito

operator

非顕在的移動+Agree

日本語 wh expression の中心的な特徴(1) wh expression の解釈その 1: interrogative
太郎は[[誰がそれを食べた]か]知っている。
(2) wh expression の解釈その 2: universal quantification の一部[[[誰が書いた]本]も]面白い。
☺ここから分かること: wh expression の quantificational force は particle に由来する。
(3) 日本語 wh の localitya. [[花子がその時[[太郎が来る]と]言った]か]教えてください。
b. [[花子がその時[[誰が来る]と]言った]か]教えてください。
☺ここから分かること: clause boundary にかかる locality は無い。
c. [[花子がその時[[誰が来る]か]尋ねた]か]教えてください。
解釈 A:「誰」が最も深く埋め込まれている「か」と関連付けられ、外側の「か」は yes/no 疑問の解釈。
解釈 B: 最も埋め込まれている「か」を yes/no 疑問とし、「誰」を外側の「か」と関連付けた解釈は容認
度が下がる。??Please tell me who Hanako asked then if she/he is coming.
☺ここから分かること: wh island effect が存在し、日本語の wh 疑問文は移動により派生される。

*

発表及びハンドアウト作成に際し、九州大学大学院での西岡宣明先生の授業でこの論文を取り上げていただいた際の授業内のディスカッションが大変助けになりました。感謝いたします。

2

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)
2. Nishigauchi (1990)(7) a. [[誰が来る]か]教えてください。
b. [誰もが読む]本
c. [誰かが捨てた]本
d. [誰でも持っている]本
e. [誰も読まない]本(8)[[[誰が書いた]本]も]面白い。

Kuroda (1965): 日本語の wh は indeterminate pronoun であり、variable として機能する。
Nishigauchi (1990): Heim (1982) の unselective binding を用いて分析する。
Unselective binding(9) a. Everyone is smart
b. [Everyx] [x is a person] [x is smart]c. [Every x: x is a person] [x is smart]
operator restriction

core sentence (nuclear scope)(10) Donkey anaphora
a. Everyone who bought a painting was satisfied with itb. [Everyx] [x is a person and x bought a painting] [x was satisfied with it]c. [Everyx, y] [x is a person, y is a painting, and x bought y] [x was satisfied with y](11) a. If a man sees a panda, he chases it.
b. [Everyx, y] [x is a man, y is a panda and x sees y] [x chases y](12) a. John saw a cat.
b. [Somex] [x is a cat] [John saw x](13) Diesing (1992)
a. Firemen are available
b. [Somex] [x is a fireman] [x is available](14) a. Cats are wise.
b. [Genericx] [x is a cat] [x is wise](15) a. 太郎は[[花子が何を食べた]か]知っている。
b. [Qx] [x is a thing] [Hanako ate x]→wh expression は variable(16) a. [[[誰が書いた]本]も]面白い。
b. [Everyx] [x is a book and dare wrote x] [x is interesting]c. [Everyx, y] [x is a book, y is a person, and y wrote x] [x is interesting]→「誰」が unselective binding を受ける

3

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)(17) a. 太郎は[[花子が来ると]聞いて]も行かないだろう
b. 太郎は[[誰が来ると]聞いて]も行かないだろう
c. 太郎は[[誰が来るか]聞いて]も行かないだろう
解釈 A: 「誰」が「か」と関連付けられて解釈解釈 B: 「誰」が「も」と関連付けられ、「か」は yes-no 疑問とする解釈はできない。
*For every x, x a person, Taroo won’t go even if he hears if x is coming.
☺ここから分かること: wh expression は associated particle の近くに covert に移動する。
→Nishigauchi (1990): unselective binding のために government 関係が必要であり、そのために移動が起こる。
疑問点、問題点: unselective binding と covert movement を両方取ることは little puzzling(18) 移動では、operator と variable は同一の要素 (Chomsky (1993))
a. Who did John see?
b. [[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x]c. [[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x]
対して、unselective binding では、quantifier と variable は違う要素→何故移動の関係が必要なのかが不明。
☺Kuroda の indeterminate pronoun 分析を発展させた Nishigauchi は、wh 自体が quantificational force を持つと考え、“the quantificational force of a wh expression” is determined by “a quantificational particle”と述べる。
3.1 Tsai (1999)
(19)

Shei

xian

lai,

shei

jiu

keyi

xian

chi

ne

who

first

come

who

then

can

first

eat

Qwh

‘For which x, x a person, if x comes first, then x is allowed to eat first.’☺ここから分かること: 中国語の wh expression は indefinite であり、unselective binding を受ける。
(20)[CP Op[Q]x [TP … sheix …… sheix … ]](21)

[誰が最初に来たら、誰が最初に食べられるか] (教えてください)

(22)

Shei

xian

lai,

shei

jiu

keyi

xian

chi

who

first

come

who

then

can

first

eat

‘For every x, x a person, if x comes first, then x eats first.’☺ここから分かること: conditional には universal operator が含まれ、unselective binding により wh expression
は universal の解釈を得る。
(23) a. 学生が来れば、僕は pro 会う
b. *誰が来れば、僕は pro 会う
(24)

Akiu

bu

xiang

chi

shenme

Akiu

not

want

eat

what

A. ‘Akiu doesn’t want to eat anything.’ (= ¬ [Somex] [x is a thing] [Akiu wants to eat x])
B. ‘What does Akiu not want to eat?’4

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)
(25)

a.

Ni

xiang-zhidao[Akiu

mai-bu-mai

shenme](ne)you

wonderAkiu

buy-not-buy

what

Qwh

‘What is the thing x such that you wonder whether Akiu will buy x.’b.

Nixiang-zhidao[shei

mai-bu-mai

shenme]you

wonderwho

buy-Asp

what

A. ‘What is the thing x such that you wonder who bought x.’
B. ‘Who is the person x such that you wonder what x bought.’☺ここから分かること: 中国語では wh expression が variable で unselective binding を受ける。
(26) 日本語と中国語の違い
a. 日本語: [CP Op[Q] x [C′ [TP ... [DP Op[Q] x [whx]] ... ] C]]b. 中国語: [CP Op[Q] x [C′ [TP ... [DP [whx]] ... ] C]]→日本語では operator は wh expression と生起し、移動する一方、中国語では scope 位置に生起する。
☺ i. 両言語で wh expression は variable であり、ii. 日本語では移動により wh island effect が生じる。
(27)

Akiu

shei

dou

xiangxin

Akiu

who

all

trust

‘Akiu trusts everyone.’(28)[[誰が書いた本]も]面白い疑問点、問題点: 1. 何故日本語では DP と PP に null interrogative operator が merge するのか。wh expressionと operator とが local な関係になければならないというわけではない。2. 日本語の wh island の問題。3. 日
本語の wh expression は variable ではない。
(29)

太郎は[[誰が来るか]聞いて]も行かないだろう

(30)

Shei

xian

lai,

shei

jiu

keyi

xian

chi

who

first

come

who

then

can

first

eat

‘For every x, x a person, if x comes first, then x eats first.’(31)*誰が来れば、僕は誰に会う(32) a. 太郎は人に会っていた
b. *太郎は誰に会っていた(33) a. 太郎は人に会わなかった
b. *太郎は誰に会わなかった
3.2 Takahashi (2002)(36) a. 太郎はどの本も読んだ。
b. 太郎は本も読んだ。
☺ここから分かること:「も」だけでは universal quantifier にはならない。
(37)[[誰が書いた本]も]図書館にある。

(38)[Every x: x is a person] [Some y: y is a book and x wrote y] [y is in the library]☺ここから分かること:「本」は universal の解釈にはならない。

5

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)
Takahashi (2002) の主張: 「も」は wh expression と一緒の場合のみ universal quantifier として解釈される。
(39)[[誰もが書いた本]も]図書館にある(40) a. Who did John see?
b. [[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x]c. [[which x: x is a person], x] did John see [[which x: x is a person], x](41) a. [[誰-も-が書いた本] ]b. [[[x: x is a person]-[every x]-が書いた本] ]c. [[[x: x is a person]-[every x]-が書いた本] [every x]]
疑問点、問題点: 1. wh island。2. wh expression を variable としている。3. particle と wh expression の関係
i. particle が wh expression を選択するのではなく、wh expression の方が particle を必要としているように思われる。ii. 「も」に universal quantifier と also/even を表すものの二種類を想定しなければならない。
(42)*誰が来れば、僕は pro 会う(43) a. 太郎は[[花子が何を食べた]か]知っている (こと)b. 太郎は[[花子がわにを食べた]か]知っている (こと)c. *太郎は[[花子が何を食べた]と]思っている (こと)(44) a. [[誰が書いた本]も]図書館にある (こと)b. [[懐疑論者が書いた本]も]図書館にある (こと)c. *[[誰が書いた本]が]図書館にある (こと)(45) 提案
a. [wh + variable [[ ..... wh + variable ..... ] particle]](covert movement)b. [wh + variable [[ ..... wh + variable ..... ] particle]](quantificational force)

4．提案(49) a. 太郎は[[花子が何を食べた]か]知っている
b.

CP
TP
...何...
[Op: ]か[Q(uestion)]CP
何[Op: Q(uestion)]

C´
TP

.....

か
[Q(uestion)].....

(50) a. 誰が[[書いた本]も]図書館にある
b.

CP
TP
...誰...
[Op: ]

も[Conjunctive]CP誰[Op: Conjunctive](51)

花子も太郎も次郎もそこにいた(52)

Everyone was there = [a and b and c and …] were there

C´
TP

.....

も
[Conjunctive].....

(53) a. 誰からか手紙が届いた
b. [花子か太郎か次郎か]がそこにいた(54)

Someone was there = [a or b or c or …] was there6慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)(55) a. [[太郎が来て]も]僕は会う
b. [[誰が来て]も]僕は会う→二つの mo があると想定する必要はない(56) a. [[花子がその時[[誰が来る]か]尋ねた]か]教えてくださいfeature valuation
b. [CP [TP ... [CP wh [Op: Q] [C′ [TP ... wh ... ] か [Q]] ... ] か[Q] ]covert movement(57) a. 太郎は[[誰が来るか]聞いて]も]行かないだろう
feature valuation
b. [CP [TP ... [CP wh [Op: Q] [C′ [TP ... wh ... ] か [Q]] ... ] も[Conj] ]covert movement
Discussion
1. 以下の対比に関して、(32b) は日本語の wh expression が variable ではない証拠の一つとされるが、(24)の中国語の例から、否定を取り除いても‘Akiu wants to eat something.’の読みは出てこない。この場合中国語で existential closure が使えないのは何故か。
(32) b. 「*太郎は誰に会っていた」
(24)

Akiu

bu

xiang

chi

shenme

Akiu

not

want

eat

what

A. ‘Akiu doesn’t want to eat anything.’ (= ¬ [Somex] [x is a thing] [Akiu wants to eat x])
B. ‘What does Akiu not want to eat?’
関連して、日本語では wh expression が variable ではないとする証拠として挙げられている以下の例において、日本語では Tsai (1999) に従い null operator movement があると考え、negative island や conditional(universal) operator movement により疑問の null operator movement が block されるとすることで以下の例を排除し、Tsai の分析を擁護することは可能か。
(31)*誰が来れば、僕は誰に会う(33) b. *太郎は誰に会わなかった
2. Takahashi (1993) では以下の文に曖昧性があることが述べられている。
(i)

ジョンはメアリーが何を食べたか知りたがっているの?

(Takahashi (1993: 657))‘Does John want to know what Mary ate?’‘What does John want to know whether Mary ate?’

wh island と covert movement を考えた場合にこの例をどのように分析するのか。更に、 overt
movement を考えると、Takahashi (1993) は (ii) に曖昧性は無いと述べる。

(ii)

何を i ジョンはメアリーが ti 食べたか知りたがっているの?

(ibid.)

7

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)
しかし、Ishihara (2002) や Kitagawa (2005) で述べられているように、ここで wh island 違反となるような解釈 (内側の「か」を yes/no 疑問として、「何」は「の」と関連付けられた解釈) も適切な prosodyの下では得られるように思われる。これをどのように捉えるのか。また、適切な prosody を与えても、以下の例において、「誰」を「も」と関連付ける解釈は依然として容認されないように思われるが、これは何故なのか。
(17) c. 太郎は[[誰が来るか]聞いて]も行かないだろう
3. 他言語にどこまで応用可能か。英語の wh expression も、疑問文の他に関係節、感嘆文等にも使われる
ため、例えば Chomsky (2015) で言われているように、wh expression が unvalued question feature を持つと考えるのは事実に即していないように思われる。しかし、英語の wh expression は日本語の wh
expression と異なり、quantifier によっては普通は解釈を与えられない1。従って、英語の wh expression
も[uF]を持つ operator だとすると、その[uF]とは何なのか。

4. 中国語の (19)、(20) において、二つの独立した wh expression が一つの operator に bind されることは Bijection Principle の違反にならないのか。その場合、Chomsky (2020) が ATB に適用した方策を取り、二つの wh expression に同一の解釈を与えるとその違反を避けられる可能性があるか。
(19)

Shei

xian

lai,

shei

jiu

keyi

xian

chi

ne

who

first

come

who

then

can

first

eat

Qwh

‘For which x, x a person, if x comes first, then x is allowed to eat first.’(20)[CP Op[Q] x [TP … sheix …… sheix … ]]5. Case がラベルにならない枠組みにおいて、「何か」の「か」はラベルになれるのか。また、それが C として機能した場合はラベルになれるのか。

(49) a. 太郎は[[花子が何を食べた]か]知っている
b.

CP
TP
...何...
[Op: ]か[Q(uestion)]CP
何[Op: Q(uestion)]

C´
TP

.....

か
[Q(uestion)].....

6. Chomsky (2000) 等に反し、[uF]は uninterpretable ではない。

1

英語でも自由関係節に用いられる whatever のような wh expression では、every に由来する接辞により解釈が与えられる。

8

慶應言語学コロキアム Zoom with a Minimalist View #3: Mamoru Saito’s Work 2017-2020(2020/11/14)
参考文献
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax inhonor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies, and beyond: Studies inhonour of Adriana Belletti, ed. E. Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini, 3–16. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. 2020. The UCLA Lectures. Lingbuzz. Available at https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.
Ishihara, S. 2002. Invisible but audible wh-scope marking: Wh-constructions and deaccenting in Japanese.
In WCCFL 21 proceedings, ed. L. Mikkelsen & C. Potts, 180-193. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kitagawa, Y. 2005. Prosody, syntax and pragmatics of wh-questions in Japanese. English Linguistics 22,
302-346.

Takahashi, D. 1993. Movement of wh-phrases in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 655678.

92020/11/14 Zoom with a Minimalist View #3

Saito (2017a) “Notes on the Locality of Anaphor Binding and A-Movement”
Section 2: Anaphor Binding and Derivational Phase(Saito (2017b) “A Note on Transfer Domains”の補足)
中尾千鶴（東京大学大学院・人文社会系研究科）
2.1. Quicoli’s (2008) Proposals
Chomsky (2008): Phase by phase derivation(3a) Embedded vP built → complement VP transferred(3b) Embedded CP phase built → complement TP transferred
Quicoli (2008): Phase-based analysis of anaphor binding(4) Information on the reference of an anaphor is sent to the C-I interface along with atransfer domain that includes the anaphor.
(5) a. John recommended himself.
(6) a. [vP John [v [VP recommended himself]]]- When VP is transferred, John has already been introduced.
→ The information “himself = John” is sent to the C-I interfaces.
(7) a. *John thinks that Mary recommended himself.
b. [vP Mary [v [VP recommended himself]]]- When VP is transferred, John is not in the structure.
→ No information on the antecedent of himself.
・Reconstruction effects(8) a. Which picture of himself did John buy?
b. [vP [which picture of himself] [John [v [VP buy [which picture of himself]]]]]- Copy of [which picture of himself] in the object position- “Himself = John” can be determined.
(9) Bill wonders which picture of himself John bought.
(10) a. [vP [which picture of himself] [John [v [VP buy [which picture of himself]]]]]- Transferred with the information “himself = John” OR pending
The option available because of the “Bypass Principle”.

110

(i) Bypass Principle (Quicoli 2008: 314)
In a phase containing chain-related anaphors, condition A may target either an anaphor
inside the local domain or an anaphor outside the local domain.
(10)b. [CP [which picture of himself] [C [TP John [T [vP [which picture of himself] [John [v[VP …]]]]]]]]
c. [vP [which picture of himself] Bill [v [VP wonders [CP [which picture of himself] [C[TP ...]]]]]]]- Transferred with the information “himself = Bill”

・Japanese Scrambling (cf. Dejima 1999)
Scrambling of the anaphor makes coreference with an upper subject possible.
(11) a. 太郎が i [CP 花子が j [CP 次郎が k 自分自身を i*,j*,k 批判したと] 言ったと]思っている（こと）
b. 太郎が i [CP 花子が j [CP 自分自身を i*,j, k 次郎が k 批判したと] 言ったと]思っている（こと）
c. 太郎が i [CP 自分自身を i, j, k 花子が j [CP 次郎が k 批判したと] 言ったと]思っている（こと）(12) [vP 次郎が [[VP 自分自身を批判 s] v]]- No scrambling → “自分自身＝次郎” only(13) [vP 花子が [[VP [CP [自分自身を] [[TP 次郎が自分自身を批判した] と]] 言 w]v]]- Scrambling → “pending” option available
2.2. The Absence of NIC Effects in Languages without φ-feature Agreement
Chomsky’s (1981) Binding Theory:
Based on Specified Subject Condition (SSC) and Nominative Island Condition (NIC)(α = anaphor, δ = the binding domain for α)(14) a. [δ subject [ … α …]] (SSC)b. [δ α [ T[+AGR] [ … ]]] (NIC)(15)

SSC violating examples
a. *John expects [TP the guests to be introduced himself].
b. *Mary believes [TP the speakers to have been introduced to herself].

→ problematic under the phase-based approach, if passive v is not a phase(16) [vP John [v [VP expect [TP [the guests] to be introduced [the guests] to himself]]]]- “himself = John” should be possible
2
11

(17)

NIC violating example*John thinks [CP that [TP himself will be nominated]]

No NIC effect when T lacks φ-features(languages without φ-feature agreement (e.g. Japanese (18)) (cf. Yang 1983);
nonfinite clause (19))(18) a. 太郎は [CP [TP 自分自身が 推薦される] と] 思っている
b. 花子は [CP [TP 自分自身が それを見た] と] 主張した
(19) John believes [TP himself to be the best candidate]→ problematic under the phase-based approach, if TP is always transferred upon completionof CP(20) [CP [[TP 自分自身が [[vP 自分自身が [[VP それを 見] v]] T[+Past]] と]](“自分自身 = 花子” is not available.)
Proposal: If T lacks φ-features, vP (instead of TP) is transferred when CP is completed.
(21) a. [CP [C [TP subject [T[+AGR] [vP … ]]]]]
b. [CP [C [TP subject [T[-AGR] [vP … ]]]]](order irrelevant)(22) [vP 花子が [[VP [CP [[TP 自分自身が [[vP …] T[+Past]]] C]] 主張 s] v]]- “自分自身 = 花子” available upon completion of the matrix vP
Why are the transfer domains different?
(23) a. T with φ-features → independently merged
b. T without φ-features → C+T merged first, followed by excorporation(24) α excludes β =def α does not dominate any instance of β.
If the transfer domain is the “maximal phrase that excludes the phase head,”
it is TP in (23a) and vP in (23b).
Implication on ECM(25) a. John believes [TP Mary to be a genius].
b. Mary is believed [TP Mary to be a genius].

(ECM complement as TP)

If ECM complements are CP: movement to the edge causes improper movement (A-A’-A)(26) b. [CP Mary [C [TP Mary to be a genius]

3
12Under the phase-based analysis: No need for movement to the edge; only vP is transferred(28) Mary … [CP [TP Mary [to [vP be a genius]]]]Merit: Allows clausal complements to uniformly be CPs.
Explanations for (15) (= (29))(30) [CP C [TP the guests [to [vP be introduced the guests to himself]]]]- only vP is transferred → “himself = the guests” unavailable, as desired.
Remaining problem: how to avoid movement out of control complements(31) a. Mary decided [CP [TP PRO to go to college]].
b. *Mary was decided [CP [TP Mary to go to college]].
- Movement should be possible if only vP is transferred
2.3. Phases and the Movement Theory of Control(32) θ-criterion (Chomsky 1981)
Each θ-role is assigned to exactly one argument andeach argument is assigned exactly one θ-role.
Hornstein (1999): Movement theory of control(33) a. John tried [CP [TP PRO to win the race]].
b. John tried [CP [TP John to win the race]].

(movement into another θ-position)

cf. (34) Mary is believed [TP Mary to be a genius].

(movement into a non θ-position)- Eliminates D-structure as a “pure representation of thematic relations”- Eliminates PRO
If only vP is transferred:(35) b. [CP C [TP John [to [vP win the race]]]]- John is free to move after the completion of CP

4
13

The ungrammaticality of (31b) (= (36))?: Tense interpretation (cf. Stowell 1982)(37) a. John believes [CP [TP Mary to be a genius]].
(ECM complement lacks Tense)b. Mary decided [CP [TP Mary to go to college]].
(Control complement: possible future tense)
Suggestion: DP receives one θ-role per Tense domain(38) [TP … tense … [CP [TP … tense … ]]domain 2
domain 1- Control: movement into another domain → second θ-role required
Locality of A-scrambling (Mahajan 1990, Tada 1993, Saito 1992, Miyagawa 2001)
Clause internal scrambling = A-movement(39) a. [彼らが [VP [お互いの先生]を 批判した]]（こと）
b. ?*[[お互いの先生]が [VP 彼らを 批判した]]（こと）
c. [彼らを [[お互いの 先生]が [VP 批判した]]] （こと）
(The scrambled phrase can be the binder)
Long-distance scrambling = A’-movement(40)

a. *[[お互いの 先生]が [VP [CP [田中が 彼らを 批判した] と] 言った]]（こと）
b. *[彼らを [[お互いの先生]が [VP [CP [田中が批判した] と] 言った]]（こと）(The scrambled phrase cannot be the binder)- Long distance A-scrambling is excluded because of improper movement, if the movement is
via [Spec, CP] (41)
- If only vP is transferred, it can move out directly.
(42) [ … DP … [CP [TP DP [TP subject [vP … ]]]]]
Problem of this derivation: movement across two tense domains, but only one θ-role

For further discussion:
Treatment of long-distance anaphora(i) 太郎 i は[自分 i が推薦されると]思っている。
(ii) 太郎 i は[花子 j が自分 i/j を推薦すると]思っている。
- no need to find an antecedent inside a phase?
- LF(covert) movement analysis? (cf. Pica (1987), Katada (1991), a.o.)- difference from non-subject-oriented anaphors (e.g. 彼自身)
514

2020/11/14 Zoom with a Minimalist View #3
Saito (2017) A Note on Transfer Domain
小畑美貴（法政大学）
Two main proposals in Saito (2017):[i] Transfer applies to phases, not phase complements, upon the completion of the next phase up.
[ii] When T inherits unvalued φ-features from C, it inherits phasehood as well.
Transfer Domain
Saito (2016): NIC effects are not observed in the absence of ø-feature agreement.
(1) a. *Mary insisted [that herself saw it]b. 花子は[CP[TP 自分自身がそれを見た]と]主張した(11) a. [CP [C [TP SUBJ [T[+AGR] [v*P/vP … ]]]]] (1a)
The referent of herself cannot be specified when it is sent to the CI interface.
Condition A violation
b. [CP [C [TP SUBJ [T[-AGR] [v*P/vP … ]]]]] (1b)v*P/vP is transferred when ø-feature agreement is absent in CP.
The information that zibunzisin corefers with Hanako can be sent to the CI interface.:
Question:
Why is it that v*P/vP is the transfer domain when the CP phase lacks ø-feature agreement?
(On the other hand, TP is transferred when T carries ø-features.)(12) A phase is transferred upon completion of the next phase up.
(Transfer applies to a phase, not a phase head complement.)
Under (12), (11b) is the core case. Why is TP transferred in (11a)?
(12) raises two questions:(discussed later)a. Q1: Is vP indeed transferred as in (11b)?
b. Q2: Why is TP transferred in (11a) when T carries φ-features?
JPN (for (11b))

ENG (for (11a)) (=(13) in Saito (2017))(1)

JPN in (11b)
CP and v*P are phases. Hence, when there is no feature inheritance, v*P is transferred upon the completionof the CP phase. [core case]

15

ENG in (11a)/(13)When T inherits ø-features from C, it also inherits phasehood from C and TP becomes a phase. Under (12),when the CP phase is completed, TP is transferred. If this is correct, the pattern in (11a) is a special casethat obtains because of ø-feature agreement.
v as a Phase HeadvP constitutes a phase just like v*P, following Legate (2003) and Bošković (2007).
[Argument against vP as a phase](14) Mary says that there arrived a man (on horseback).
(15) a. [CP [TP there [T [vP v [VP arrive a man …]]]]]
b. [vP v [VP arrive a man …]]
Transfer
Under the assumption that vP is a phase, VP, the shaded part in (15b), undergoes Transfer.
Case of the internal argument a man is not valued yet, which causes a clash at the SM interface.
If vP is not a phase, this problem can be avoided.
However, this problem does not arise to begin with if (12) is correct:
Under (12), VP is not transferred until the CP phase is completed, which means the internal argument a
man can be valued by T before Transfer. No obstacle for the assumption that vP is a phase.
[Empirical support 1: anaphor binding in unaccusative vP](20) 太郎が[花子が自分自身の鞄につまずいたと]言った。（自分自身＝花子・自分自身≠太郎）
The embedded verb is unaccusative.  vP, not v*P
If vP is a phase, the anaphor zibunzisin is transferred when the embedded CP phase is completed.
 The information that zibunzisin corefers with Hanako, but not with Taro, can be sent to the CI interface,which makes a right prediction.
If vP is not a phase, the anaphor zibunzisin is transferred when the matrix v*P phase is completed.
 The information that zibunzisin corefers with Taro as well as with Hanako, can be sent to the CI interface,which causes overgeneration.
[Empirical support 2: ECM]
(21) John expects [CP [TP her [to [v*P <her> [v [VP win the election]]]]]]
Under (12), when the embedded CP phase is completed, embedded v*P, not TP, undergoes Transfer, so thatthe matrix verb can value Case of her.
It can be assumed that clausal complements with T are uniformly CPs.
Consider (22) with this background.
(22) a. *John expects [the guests to be introduced to himself]b. *Mary believes [the speakers to have been introduced to herself]
How can SSC effects in (22) be explained?
The embedded clause in (22) contains passive vP, not v*P. If vP is not a phase, the first phase in (22) ismatrix v*P, which wrongly predicts that John and Mary can bind himself and herself, respectively. If vP isa phase, embedded vP, undergoes Transfer when the embedded CP phase is completed:16

(23) [CP C [TP the guests [to [vP be introduced the guests to himself]]]]
The reference of the anaphor himself cannot be specified in (23), which explains why (22) is ungrammatical.
Summary(i) A phase, not a phase complement, is transferred upon the completion of the next phase up.
(ii) When T inherits ø-features from C, it inherits phasehood as well.
(iii) vP is also a phase.

Discussion Topics①フェイズの定義について
Saito (2017)では、phi-feature が T へ継承された場合、phasehood も T へ継承されるとされているが、C はそのまま phase としてのステイタスを維持している。
２つの可能性(1) C に unvalued feature は残らないがフェイズのままである。
⇒フェイズの定義は特定のカテゴリーを指定する必要がある。
(2) C に unvalued feature のコピーが残るので、フェイズのままである。
⇒フェイズの定義は unvalued feature の有無によって可能で、カテゴリーを指定する必要はない（かもしれない）。
ただし、C に残った unvalued phi-feature のコピーがどう value されるかを考える必要あり。
②C による phi-agreement の可能性
例えば、Miyagawa (2017)では、日本語の場合は、unvalued phi-feature は T に継承されず、C に残って C-Agreement をすると主張している。T に継承されないのであれば、Saito (2017)の主張と両立する可能性がある？

17

Nov. 14, 2020
Zoom with a Minimalist View #3

Saito, Mamoru (2017)“Labeling and Argument Doubling in Japanese”
Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 47, 383-405.
Reporter: Takanori Nakashima (Tohoku University)

1. Introduction•

This paper suggests that the labeling algorithm by Chomsky (2013) explains the effects of thetheta-criterion.
Ø

If the suggestion is correct, the theta-criterion should be dispensed with.

2. Labeling in Japanese•Merge applies to two objects α and β, and forms a new object γ = {α, β}.
ØIt must accompany an algorithm to determine the label of the newly formed object(Chomsky (2013)).

(1)

(2)

•

γ = {H, αP}b.

γ = {αP, βP}c.

γ = {H1, H2}

YP à <φ, φ>
2
DP
TP
[φ]
2
T
XP à vP
[φ] 2
DP vP
[φ] 2
v
VP
2
V
DP

This analysis extends to structures created by wh-movement.
(3)

•

a.

[YP Which book [CP do [TP you think [XP _ [CP that [TP John bought _ ]]]]]]

This analysis predicts that internal merge always terminates in a configuration of feature sharing.

18

(4)

•

a. Operator movement
XP à <Q, Q>
2
wh
C'
[Q]
2
C
TP
[Q]

b. NP-movement
YP à <φ, φ>
2
DP
T'
[φ] 2
T
TP
[φ]

Chomsky’s (2013) proposals on labeling raise interesting research questions with languages like
Japanese.

•① How sentences are labeled in Japanese, a language that lacks phi-feature agreement?

•② Why the multiple nominative subjects are grammatical in Japanese?
Ø•They are straightforwardly ruled out in English.

(5)[TP ⽂明国が [TP 男性が [TP 平均寿命が短い]]](6)

YP à ?
2DPXP à <φ, φ>
[φ1]
2
DP
T'
[φ2] 2TvP[φ]③ How do we generate sentences with scrambling, which is argued to be neither operator
movement nor A-movement (Saito (1989, 2003), Webelhuth (1989))?
Ø

Scrambling is ruled out in English by the labeling requirement.

(7)

(8)

•

a.

みんなが [CP 花⼦がどの本を選んだか]知りたがっているb.

どの本を みんなが [CP 花⼦が _ 選んだか] 知りたがっている

a.

b.

YP à?
2
αP
CP
2
C
TP (<φ, φ>)XP à ?
2αPTP (<φ, φ>)2
DP
T'

Saito (2014): Suffixal Case markers make phrases invisible for search and as a result, serving as
anti-labeling devices.
(9)γ = {αP-Case, βP}

2

19

(10)

TP
2
DP-NOMTP
2
DP-NOM
T'
2
vP
T

(11)

•

a.
b.

その本を 太郎が _ 買ったTP
2
DP-ACCTP
6… DP-ACC …

This analysis makes it possible to examine the theta-criterion in an interesting way.
Ø(12) has been ruled out by the theta-criterion as the verb assigns the theme role to two distinct
DPs.

Ø

Labeling fails in this structure as well: When the VP and the higher DP merge, the formed
object XP fails to receive a label.

(12)

•

XP à ?
2
VP DP
2<theme>VDP<theme>The situation is different in the Japanese counterpart in (13).
Ø

By hypothesis, VP provides the label for XP, and there should be no problem with labeling.

Ø

If the structure is illicit in Japanese, it suggests that the the-criterion is indeed operative. On
the other hand, if the structure is allowed, it raises doubts on the theta-criterion.

(13)

XP
2
DP-ACC VP<theme> 2
DP-ACCV<theme>320

3. Argument Doubling as a General Phenomenon•

Multiple nominative subjects like (14) are consistent with the theta-criterion.
(14)•[TP ⽂明国が [TP 男性が [TP 平均寿命が短い]]] (=(5))

The same point holds for multiple accusative sentences like (15).
ØThis example is marginal because there is a somewhat mysterious surface constraint inJapanese against multiple accusative phrases in a single clause.

ØThe example becomes perfect when one of the accusative phrases is dislocated (Harada(1973)).

Ø(15) is consistent with the theta-criterion: gakusei-o ‘student-ACC’ is the causee argument
whereas hamabe-o ‘beach-ACC’ expresses a location or a path.

(15)
(16)

•

??花⼦が学⽣を三⼈浜辺を⾛らせたa.

[CP 花⼦が学⽣を三⼈⾛らせたの]は浜辺をだb.

[CP 花⼦が浜辺を⾛らせたの]は学⽣を三⼈だ(17) receive the same theta-role from the verb (Kuroda (1988)).
Ø

Kuroda confirms this with the ungrammaticality of (18): This example is ungrammaticalbecause one can break fingers but not a person. Cf. (19)

(17)

(18)

a. ?? 正雄が花⼦を頬をぶったb.

[CP 正雄が花⼦をぶったの]は頬をだa.

* 正雄が花⼦を指を⼆本折った

b. * [CP 正雄が花⼦を折ったの]は指を⼆本だ
(19)

a.

正雄が花⼦の指を⼆本折った

b. * 正雄が花⼦を折った•

Dative argument doubling is observed in Japanese (Kuroda (1988)).
Ø

Hanako and hoho ‘cheek’ are both thematic arguments of kisus ‘kiss’.

ØThis is confirmed with (21): (21b, c) make sense only if kissing Taroo’s daughter
automatically means kissing Taroo, which is not true.

4

21

(20)

(21)

a. ?? 正雄が花⼦に頬にキスしたb.

[CP 正雄が花⼦にキスしたの]は頬にだa.

[TP 太郎が [TP 娘がとても賢い]]b. * 正雄が太郎に娘にキスしたc.
•* [CP 正雄が太郎にキスしたの]は娘にだ

The PPs expressing the source/goal can also be doubled in Japenese.
(22)a. ?? ⽇本から広島から(だけ)参加者があった
b.

(23)

[CP ⽇本から参加者があったの]は広島から(だけ)だ

a. ?? 花⼦がヨーロッパへドイツへ三回だけ⾏ったb.

[CP 花⼦がヨーロッパへ⾏ったの]はドイツへ三回(だけ)だ•Can external arguments be doubled in Japanese?

•

Major subject constructions like (24a)ØThe major subject construction is most natural with an individual-level predicate as the inner
TP describes a property attributed to the major subject (Kuno (1973)).

Ø
(24)

A lower subject cannot be dislocated to a position above a higher subject.
a.

[TP 太郎が [TP 娘が⼀⼈(だけ)とても賢い]]

b. ?? [TP 太郎が [TP 娘が⼀⼈(だけ)その会議で発⾔した]](25)•*[CP 太郎がとても賢いの]は娘が⼀⼈(だけ)だConsider (26) with this background.
Ø(26a) is not a regular major subject sentence but an instance of thematic subject doubling:(24a) does not say that Taroo is smart. On the other hand, (26a) implies that students spoke
up in the meeting.

ØThe surface effect is avoided when one of the nominative arguments is displaced as in (26b)ØAn agentive subject can also be doubled in Japanese.

(26)

a. ?* 学⽣が⼀年⽣が三⼈(だけ)その会議で発⾔した
b.

[CP 学⽣がその会議で発⾔したの]は⼀年⽣が三⼈(だけ)だ

5

22

•

This demonstrates that the theta-criterion should be eliminated as a verb can assign the sametheta-role to more than one argument quite generally.

•

One question that remains is why (24a) cannot be construed as an example of thematic subject
doubling.
Ø

If it could be, (25) should be grammatical.

Ø

The fact indicates that there is a restriction on argument doubling that forces the major
subject interpretation of (24a).

4. Argument Doubling as a Focus Construction•

Argument doubling is not quite free.
Ø(27)

What makes the grammatical examples of argument doubling possible?
a.

* 花⼦が太郎を学⽣を三⼈叱った

b. * [CP 花⼦が太郎を叱ったの]は学⽣を三⼈だ•(28) suggests that the doubled arguments should have a whole-part relation with body parts.
Ø(28)

The requirement is not so specific. (29) and (30) have nothing to do with body parts.
a.

[CP 正雄が花⼦をぶったの]は頬をだ (= (17b))b.

[CP 正雄が花⼦にキスしたの]は頬にだ (= (20b))(29)[CP ⽇本から参加者があったの]は広島から(だけ)だ (= (22b))(30)

a. ?* 花⼦が果物をりんごを⼀つ⾷べたb.

•[CP 花⼦が果物を⾷べた]のはりんごを⼀つ(だけ)だ(30) clearly implies that (i) Hanako ate a fruit and that Hanako ate an apple, and that (ii) Hanako
eating a fruit and her eating an apple is the same event.
ØFor (31a) to be legitimate, (31b) must hold.

Ø

In (27), Hanako scolding Taroo and her scolding three students cannot be considered thesame event even if Taroo is one of the three students.

(31)

a.

[TP … DP-ACC1 DP-ACC2 …]b.

[TP … DP-ACC1 …] and [TP … DP-ACC2 …] depict the same event/state.

6

23

•

(30a) improves as focus is placed on the second accusative argument.
(32)•?花⼦が果物をりんごを⼀つだけ⾷べた

A similar effect can be achieved by making the first argument a topic.
(33)

a. ?* 花⼦がヨーロッパへドイツへ三回⾏った
b. ? ヨーロッパへは花⼦がドイツへ三回⾏った•

Argument doubling requires that the second argument be a focus.
Ø
(34)

•

The first argument cannot be placed in focus.
a.

* [CP 花⼦がドイツへ三回(だけ)⾏ったの]はヨーロッパへだb.

[CP 花⼦がヨーロッパへ⾏ったの]はドイツへ三回(だけ)だ

The first argument in argument doubling must serve to specify the set of alternatives for the focus,
in the sense of Rooth (1992).
Ø
(35)

•

(35a) asserts that ‘John saw Mary’ is the true sentence among those in the set (35c).
a.

John saw MARY.

b.

{Bill, Susan, Mary, …}

c.

{John saw Bill, John saw Susan, John saw Mary}

This analysis of focus provides an insight into the interpretation of (36a).
Ø(36a) does not mean that an apple is the only thing that Hanako ate. She could have eatensome vegetables and meat in addition (Cf. (36b)).

Ø

The accusative argument kudamono-o ʻfruit-ACC’ serves to restrict the set of alternatives
to fruits as in (37).

Ø(36)

kudamono-o ‘fruit-ACC’ in (36a) is interpreted as a theme. So, the sentence implies (38).
a.

[CP 花⼦が果物を⾷べたの]はりんごを⼀つ(だけ)だ (= (30b))b.

[CP 花⼦が⾷べたの]はりんごを⼀つ(だけ)だ(37){one orange, two bananas, five peaches, one banana, one apple, …}(38)

花⼦が果物を⾷べた

7

24

•

This analysis extends to sentences like (39).
ØHanako here can be construed as ‘Hanako’s body part’. Then, it specifies the set ofalternatives in (40).

•

(39)

[CP 正雄が花⼦にキスしたの]は頬にだ (= (28b))(40){Hanako’s hand, Hanako’s head, Hanako’s cheek, …}

The ungrammaticality of (41) is also expected under the analysis.
Ø

Taroo-o ‘Taroo-ACC’ simply fails to specify the set of alternatives for gakusei-o sann-nin‘three students’.

(41)•*[CP 花⼦が太郎を叱ったの]は学⽣を三⼈だ (= (27b))

In argument doubling, the second argument must be a focus and the first must serve to specify its
set of alternatives.

•

The informal analysis in this section suggests that each argument must have a unique role in thewider semantic interpretation.
ØIn (39), hoho-ni ‘cheek-DAT’ shares the theta-role with Hanako-ni, but is unique as a focus.
Hanako-ni, on the other hand, has the unique role of specifying the set of alternatives forthe focus.

Ø

It is speculated that a version of the theta-criterion that is generalized beyond thematic roles
may be at work as part of Full Interpretation.

5. Conclusion•

Theta-criterion violations in English receive an independent account as cases of failure in labeling.

•

Labeling mechanism for Japanese proposed in Saito (2014) allows argument doubling in thelanguage.
Ø•

It constitutes evidence that the theta-criterion should be dispensed with.

Argument doubling requires one of the arguments to be a focus and the other to specify the set ofalternatives for the focus.
Ø

Although the theta-criterion seems untenable, there may be a more general requirement thateach argument play a unique role in semantic interpretation.

825

Comments and Discussion(i)[…… DP1-Case DP2-Case …….]Alt. Setn

Focus

Can DP2 be an indefinite pronoun?
(ii)

a.

太郎は誰か(*だけ)を批判したb.

[CP 太郎が批判したの]は誰か(*だけ)だc.

A: 太郎は誰を批判したの？
B:#太郎は誰かを批判した。

(iii)

a. ?* 花⼦が果物を何かを⼀つ⾷べた
b. ? 果物を花⼦が何かを⼀つ⾷べた
c.

(iv)

? 花⼦が果物を⼀時間かけて何かを⼀つ⾷べた

a. ?* 花⼦がヨーロッパへどこかへ三回⾏った
b. ?? ヨーロッパへ花⼦がどこかへ三回⾏ったc.

n? 花⼦がヨーロッパへこの⼀年以内にどこかへ三回⾏った

How does DP1 specify the set of alternatives for focus?
(30)

(v)

a. ?* 花⼦が果物をりんごを⼀つ⾷べたb.

[CP 花⼦が果物を⾷べた]のはりんごを⼀つ(だけ)だa.

正雄はリンゴだけを⾷べたb.

{リンゴ, ミカン, バナナ, …} = a set of fruits = DP1c.

{正雄はリンゴを⾷べた, 正雄はミカンを⾷べた, 正雄はバナナを⾷べ
た, …}

(17)

(vi)

a.

??正雄が花⼦を頬をぶったb.

[CP 正雄が花⼦をぶったの]は頬をだa.

正雄は頬にだけキスしたb.

{頬, 額, 指, …} = a set of body parts ≠ DP1c.

{正雄は頬にキスした, 正雄は額にキスした, 正雄は指にキスした}926

(vii)[…… 果物
Alt. Set[リンゴ/ミカン/バナナ] …….]
Focus

(viii)[…… 花⼦ i [proi’s 頬/額/指] …….]|_______↑

(ix)

a.

[…… 花⼦[頬/額/指] …….]↓b.

[…… 花⼦’s body part
Alt. Set[頬/額/指] …….]
Focus

(cf. “Hanako here can be construed as ‘Hanako’s body part’.” (p. 15))nArgument Tripling(x)a. ?? 正雄が花⼦に頬に右側にキスした
b. ? [CP 正雄が花⼦にそっと頬にキスしたの]は右側にだ

1027