Japanese Reciprocal Anaphor Otagai with Split Antecedents in Disguise andMultiMulti-Dominant Syntactic Structure
Tomoya Kosuge
Tohoku University
1. Introduction This paper concerns some peculiar facts about Japanese reciprocal
anaphor otagai ‘each other’, and argues for a multi-dominant structure analysis of Right
Node Raising (RNR) construction proposed by Wilder (1999) and Citko (2011).
(1) a. John to Bill gaotagaionagut-ta.
AndNom each otherAcc hit-past
b. *John ga Bill to otagai o nagut-ta.
‘John and Bill hit each other.’(2) a. John to Bill ga otagai {(i) o/ (ii) ni} naguri-aw-ta.
AccDatb. John ga Bill to otagai {(i) o / (ii) *ni} naguri-aw-ta.
‘John and Mary hit each other.’(3) John ga
kyositude, Bill ga
syoko de otagai o nagut-ta.
classroom inlibrary in‘lit. John in the classroom, Bill in the library hit each other.’As the contrast in (1) shows, otagai normally does not allow split antecedents.
However, when otagai occurs in the so called aw-construction, it allows split
antecedents if it is marked with accusative case whereas it doesn’t if it is marked withdative case. Furthermore, otagai allows split antecedents when it occurs in the RNRconstruction.
For the contrast in (2a, b), I propose that (i) aw selects vP as its complement, (ii) pro
resides in the Spec of that vP, and that (iii) otagai must be licensed in an argument
position of aw or the embedded verb (V1). As for (3), I explain its well-formedness byadopting Citko’s multi-dominant structure analysis of RNR construction.
2. Otagai in Aw-construction Ishii (1989) and Nishigauchi (1992) explain otagai in theaw-construction in different ways. According to Ishii, aw absorbs an argument positionof V1. Since otagai occurs in a non-argument position, it loses its syntactic role as ananaphor and therefore allows split antecedents. On the other hand, Nishigauchi claims
that (2b) is derived by extraposing [Bill to]i from [[Bill to]i Johnj], so otagai is bound by
the subject NP which contains the trace of [Bill to]i namely [ti Johnj]. In his analysis, theantecedents of otagai are not split. I will argue that both analyses are defective since
they cannot explain why there is a contrast in (2a, b) nor why (3) is grammatical.

To account for this fact, I propose that aw selects vP whose Spec is filled with pro asits complement.
(4) [vP [NP John to Bill ga]i+j [v’ [VP [NP (a) otagai-nii+j] [V’ [vP [proi+j] [v’ [VP [NP (b)otagai-oi+j] [V naguri]] v]] [V aw]]] v]](5) [vP [NP John ga]i [v’ [VP [NP {Bill-toj / (a) *otagai-ni}] [V’ [vP [NP proi+j ] [v’ [VP [NP{(b) otagai-oi+j / (c) *otagai-ni}] [V naguri]] v]] [V aw]]] v]](4a, b) are grammatical since the antecedents of otagai are not split. As for the case ofsplit antecedents, (5b) is acceptable because pro, which unifies the split indices into one,resides in Spec-VP1 and binds otagai-o in the same way as pro in (6) (Hornstein 1999).
(6) Johni told Maryj [that [[proi+j washing each other] would be fun]]On the other hand, ogagai-ni cannot occur in (5a) since this argument position isalready filled with the PP Bill to. It cannot occur in (5c) either since naguru cannot
license dative case on an NP in its argument position.
3. Otagai in RNR construction RNR construction like (7) has been analyzed in twoways as in (8-9).
(7) John bought and Mary read the book.
(8) [John bought ti] and [Mary read ti] [the book]i (ATB movement)(9) [John bought the book] and [Mary read the book] (Ellipsis)
In (8) the identical elements ‘the book’ move out of the two conjuncts in an ATB fashion,and in (9) ‘the book’ in the first conjunct is simply deleted. However, (8-9) are defective
in predicting that (3) is a coordination of two ungrammatical sentences. Note that (10) isungrammatical in isolation.
(10) *John ga otagai o nagut-ta.
‘lit. John hit each other.’
Therefore, I pursue Citko’s multi-dominant structure analysis, where the object NP ‘thebook’ is shared between ‘bought’ and ‘read’ and makes two VPs. Each VP projects to TPand they are coordinated by ‘and’ to project &P.
As for (3), given the multi-dominant structure, I propose a structure where a VP
consisting of otagai and naguru ‘hit’ is shared between the two conjuncts to avoid theproblem in (8-9). I further assume that pro is adjoined to the embedded VP to unify thesplit indices into one, whereby otagai satisfies Binding Condition (A).
4. Conclusion This paper discusses the binding nature of the Japanese reciprocal
anaphor otagai and provides some pieces of evidence for the phonetically empty
pronominal in the embedded subject position of the aw-construction and in a certain
RNR construction and for the multi-dominant structure analysis of the latter
construction.