Goal-driven Movement in Japanese: Verb-Verb Compounds
Chihiro Fujimori
Hirosaki University
In this paper, I will reexamine the syntactic structure and its derivation of Verb-Verbcompounds (VVCs) in Japanese argued by Fujimori (2000), following Boskovic's (2007) analysis
and proposals.
Fujimori (2000) argues that, in VVCs, both V1 and V2 are projected to vP respectively, andthat arguments in the V1 projection move into the argument positions in the V2 projection,
following Hornstein (1999). Assuming this movement, the scope interaction between quantifiers insubject and in object can be accounted for: in the course of the derivation, the moved quantifier(object) c-commands the base-generated quantifier (subject), inducing the scope interaction.
(1)[vP SUBJi [VP OBJj [vP ti [VP tj V1 ] v ] V2 ] v ]

(2)

a.
b.

Dareka-ga daremo-o korosi-ta (unambiguous)
Dareka-ga daremo-o yaki-korosi-ta (ambiguous)

However, there is a crucial problem in Fujimori's (2000) analysis: when object in the V1
projection moves into the V2 projection, it skips subject, which is the more local candidate formovement, violating the locality requirement of movement.
(3)[VP daremo-oj [vP dareka-ga [VP tj V1 ] v ] V2 ]Therefore, Fujimori's (2000) argument should be reanalyzed not to violate the locality of movement,
retaining the idea that object c-commands subject in the course of the derivation.
Crucially, in (1), arguments in the V1 projection move across the vP boundary, of whichhead, v, is assumed to be a strong phase in Chomsky (2000). Chomsky (2000) argues that once
derivation reaches the phase boundary, no more operations can be applied into the phase from thehigher elements except for Head of the phase and its edge, which is called Phase Impenetrability
Condition (PIC). Due to PIC, when an element XP needs to move out of a phase, in order for XP tobe "visible" from outside of the phase, it must first move to Spec of the phase. Chomsky (2000)
assumes that this movement is implemented by giving the head of the phase the EPP property([EPP]), which is satisfied by filling the Spec position. Therefore, for Chomsky, [EPP] is thedriving force for the movement to Spec of the phase.
However, Boskovic (2007) convincingly argues against Chomsky's proposals.
(4)a.
b.

Whati does he think [CP ti [C' that Mary bought ti]]?
[EPP]
You think [CP that Mary bought a car]no [EPP]The embedded C in (4b), in contrast (4a), does not have [EPP], so no movement occurs. If so, there
must be two Cs, one with [EPP], and the other without [EPP]. Boskovic crucially points out thatthe "dual" existence of Cs as to [EPP] leads to the problem of look ahead.
As to VVCs, in order for object to move into the V2 projection, it must first move to SpecvP
to avoid the PIC effects. Under the [EPP]-driven movement analysis, [EPP] has to be assigned to v.
However, in the simple transitive cases like (2a), v does not have [EPP], inducing no movement toSpecvP. This is another case of look ahead, which is parallel to what Boskovic (2007) points out.
1

(5)

a.
b.

[vP dareka-ga [VP daremo-o V1 ] v ]no [EPP][vP daremo-oj [vP dareka-ga [VP tj V1 ] v ]][EPP]

(simple transitives)(VVCs)

To account for the movement into the Spec of a phase, Boskovic (2007) proposes that theuninterpretable feature on the moving element, not on the target, motivates the movement of aphrase containing it.
(6)[XP ... X ... Y] (XP = phase)iFuK

In (6), the uK of Y, which cannot be checked within XP, motivates the movement of Y to SpecXP.
If this proposal is correct, there is no need to assign [EPP] on intermediate Cs.
Following Boskovic's (2007) proposals, I will argue that arguments in V1 move into V2 dueto the requirement of feature checking of uninterpretable features, more specifically, [uCase]s.
It is well-known that, in VVCs, the realization of Case is determined by the property of V2,
not that of V1.
(7)

a.
b.
c.
d.

Taroo-ga Hanako-o ot-ta
Taroo-ga Hanako-ni tui-ta
Taroo-ga Hanako-ni oi-tui-ta* Taroo-ga Hanako-o oi-tui-ta

This means that arguments in the V1 projection have not had their [uCase]s checked, therefore theymust move into the V2 projection to have their [uCase]s checked. Due to PIC, elements in the V1projection have to first move to SpecvP. Subject has already been in SpecvP, but object has to moveto SpecvP to avoid the PIC effect.
(8)[vP OBJj [vP SUBJ [VP tj V1 ] v ]]In this configuration, object c-commands subject, inducing the scope interaction, as desired.
Furthermore, the fact that arguments in the V1 projection move into the V2 projection
implies that no feature checking occurs in the V1 configuration. Boskovic (2007) argues that once[uF] is checked in some position, the element bearing the checked [uF] cannot move further, which
Boskovic calls 'freezing effect.' If so, to move into the V2 projection, arguments in the V1projection should not have their [uCase]s checked in the V1 projection, also as desired. In thisrespect, Hornstein's (1999) proposal that θ-roles be features cannot hold, because if arguments inthe V1 projection had their θ-roles (or θ-features) checked, they could not move further, contrary tothe fact.
References
Boskovic, Z. 2007. "On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal
theory," Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589-644.
Chomsky, N. 2000. "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework," in R. Martin et al. (eds.), Step by Step:
Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. MIT Press, Cambridge,Mass.
Fujimori, C. 2000. "Verb-verb compounds and scope interaction," presented at 72nd Japan
English Literature Society annual meeting, held at Rikkyo University.
Hornstein, N. 1999. "Movement and control," Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
2