On the syntax of causative constructions with the accusative path in Japanese
University of Edinburgh
Kaori Miura
An issue: It is widely known that the V_intrans+sase construction in Japanese takes either adative or accusative causee ((1a,b)), whereas the V_trans+sase construction never allows anaccusative causee ((2b)) but requires a dative one ((2a)). However, an accusative causee isallowed when an accusative path follows it in the V_intrans+sase construction as in (3). One
might attribute the ungrammaticality of (2b) to the famous “Double-o Constraint” (DoC)([1]). Recently, [2] argues that (2b) does not have the DoC effect. As evidence, [2] shows thata multiple accusative cleft is disallowed with (2b) as in (4a), which contrasts withDoC-sensitive verbs such as the object possessor raising construction (see (4b)). As shown in(5), a multiple accusative cleft can be formed with (3). Thus we have two puzzles: (i) (3) may
involve a double accusative structure and (ii) (3) may pass the DoC filter for some reason.
This paper tries to solve these puzzles by proposing that (3) involves two vs and each v heads
a strong phase. Thus, the derived structure never violates the phase-bound DoC that bans
multiple occurrences of the structural accusative value within a phase ([2]).
The syntax of the path: The accusative of path is not an inherent case but a structural case.
First, it licenses an NQF (numeral quantifier floating) ([3]) (see (6)). Second, the accusative
path of transitive clauses can be passivized (see (7)). Next, the accusative path is a sister tothe lexical V because soo-su can take VP [Noriko climb a ladder] as an antecedent (see (8)).
The syntax of the causee: It is well-known that the causee of the V_trans+sase construction
shows the subjecthood properties, for example controlling PRO in adverbial phrases andbinding zibun ‘self’ in the same sentence. The same holds true with the causee of theV_intrans+sase with the accusative path (see (9a)). Second, the causee of the same
construction can be passivized, which means that it receives the structural case ([3]). The
causee of the V_intrans+sase with the accusative path is on a par with this, as in (9b).
The base structure for the V_intrans+sase with the accusative path: [4] proposes that thecausee of V_trans+sase causatives merges as the specifier of the lower v of a three-layered vP(v-v-√(root)) and that each v is a phase head, by reinterpreting the bi-clausal analysis ofproductive causatives ([5]). The causee is assigned dative case by the higher v. I follow [4]with respect to the base structure for (2a). One might wonder if this structure can be extended
to (3), since from the discussion so far (2a) and (3) seem to share the same syntax. However,this causes a problem since the higher v would assign structural dative to the causee of (3).
Under this analysis, the difference between (10a) and (10b) would not be expected.
Proposals: I claim that the causee of (3) is valued accusative by the higher v and the path isalso valued accusative by the lower v. Thus, (3) involves the combination of two accusative
heads as in (11). This allows two types of v to exist in Japanese lexicon: vdat and vacc. I
suggest that this is an extension of [3]’s proposal of dative case marking in Japanese. Hence,
there are four potential combinations of the vs: (i) vdat-vacc, (ii) vdat-vdat, (iii) vacc-vdat and (iv)vacc-vacc. I argue that (i) underlies (2a) and (iv), (3). (iv) cannot be the base for (2b), because(4a) cannot be derived. (ii) and (iii) can be excluded under the assumption of the generally
recognized hierarchy of Japanese ditransitive structure ([6]). Now, consider the fact that thepassive of the accusative path of the V_intrans+sase construction is banned (see (12)). I
propose that this can be explained if we assume that the lower vacc is another strong phase([4]). The passive morpheme –rare cannot absorb the structural case of the lower vP, after
Spell-Out has sent it to the interface. This is also supported by (3), where an adjacentrealization of the accusative phrase is allowed. This follows the phase-bound DoC that claims
its application domain is a phase ([2]).
Conclusions/Implications: I have shown that evidence from causatives with path accusatives
support the existence of two distinct accusative-valuing phase heads.
1

Examples:(1) Taro-ga Hanako-{a. ni, b. o}hashigo-enobor-ase-ta (V_intrans+sase)Taro-NOM Hanako-{a. DAT, b. ACC} ladder-toward climb-CAUSE-PAST‘Taro made Hanako climb toward a ladder’(2) Taro-ga
Hanako-{a. ni, b. *o}hashigo-osyuuris-ase-ta (V_trans+sase)Taro-NOM
Hanako-{a. DAT, b. ACC} ladder-ACC
repair-CAUSE-PAST‘Taro made Hanako repair a ladder’(3) Taro-ga Hanako-ohamabe-o aruk-ase-ta (the path-ACC + [V_intrans+sase])
Taro-NOM Hanako-ACC beach-ACC
walk-CAUSE-PAST‘Taro made Hanako walk on a beach’([7]: 262, (73))(4) a. [Ken-ga ti sono-hon-o yom-ase-tano]-wa Naomi-ni/*oidaKen-NOM
that book-ACC read-CAUSE-PAST C-TOP
Naomi-DAT/ACC COPULA‘It was Naomi that Ken made read the book’([2]: 727, (9b))
b. [Ken-ga ti atama-o tatai-ta no]-wa Naomi-oi
daKen-NOM
head-ACC hit-PASTC-TOP Naomi-ACC COPULA‘It was Naomi that Ken hit on the head’([2]: 738, (43))(5) [Taro-ga ti hashigo-o nobor-ase-tano]-wa Hanako-oi
daTaro-NOM
ladder-ACC climb-CAUSE-PAST C-TOP Hanako-ACC COPULA‘It was Hanako that Taro made climb the ladder’(6) Taro-wa Kenji-o[hashigo-o fu-tasu] nobor-ase-ta (üNQF)
Taro-TOP
Kenji-ACC
ladder-ACC
two-CL
climb-CAUSE-PAST‘Taro made Kenji climb two ladders’(7) Sono takai hashigo-ga Hanako-niyotte nobor-are-ta(koto) (üPassive: path)thehigh ladder-NOM
Hanako-byclimb-PASS-PAST(fact)‘(The fact that) the tall ladder was climbed by Hanako’(8) Taro-ga Hanako-ohashigo-o nobor-ase,
Noriko-moso-si-ta
Taro-NOM Hanako-ACC ladder-ACC climb-CAUSE Noriko-alsoso-do-PAST‘Taro made Hanako climb a ladder, Noriko did so, too’(üSoo-su substitution)(9) a. Taro-gaiKenji-oj[PRO{i/j} utai-nagara]hashigo-o nobor-ase-ta
Taro-NOM Kenji-ACC
singing-while ladder-ACC climb-CAUSE-PAST‘Taroi made Kenjij climb a ladder while singing{i/j}’(üControl PRO)b. Hanako-ga
Taro-niyotte hashigo-o nobor-ase-rare-ta
Hanako-NOM Taro-byladder-ACC climb-CAUSE-PASS-PAST‘Hanako was made to climb the ladder by Taro’(üPassive: causee)(10) Hanako-to Taro-ga [vP hitori-de kodomo-{a. o / b. *ni }[vP hashigo-o nobor]-ase]-ta
Hanako-and Taro-NOM alone child-{a. ACC / b. DAT}
ladder-ACC climb-CAUSE-PAST‘Hanako and Taro made a child climb alone the ladder’(11) [vP Causer{CASE: } [vP Causee{CASE: ACC} [VP Path{CASE: ACC} V] v{CASE} ] v{CASE}-sase](12) *Sono takai hashigo-ga Taro-niyotte Hanako-o nobor-ase-rare-ta (koto) (*Passive: path)the high ladder-NOM Taro-by
Hanako-ACC climb-CAUSE-PASS-PAST (fact)‘Literally; (The fact that) the tall ladder was made Hanako to climb by Taro’
References: [1] Harada, S-I. (1973) Counter equi NP deletion. In Annual Bulletin 7, 113-147.
Research institute of logopedics and phoniatrics, Tokyo: University of Tokyo. [2] Hiraiwa, K.
(2010) Spelling out the Double-o Constraint. NLLT 28,723-770. [3] Miyagawa, S. (1989)
Structure and case marking in Japanese. [4] Harley, H. (2008) On the causative construction.
In Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 20-53. [5] Marantz, A. (1984) On the nature ofgrammatical relations. [6] Hoji, H. (2003) Falsifiability and repeatability in generativegrammar: a case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113, 377–446.
[7] Miyagawa, S. (1999) Causatives. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 236-268.
2